---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 11/01/06: 37 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:23:00 AM PST US From: "Dave Johnson" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: composite landing gear installation --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Johnson" 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" Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:59 AM Subject: Zenith-List: composite landing gear installation > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "leinad" > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:31:52 AM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Who's going to the Rudder Workshop next week? --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega Yes, Build the rudder straight and take a demo flight! Juan -----Original Message----- >From: PatrickW >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" > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:51:36 AM PST US From: "Dick" Subject: 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 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:15:31 AM PST US From: "Jim Hoak" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:17:41 AM PST US From: Zed Smith Subject: Zenith-List: Re: bungee --> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:19:52 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Ray Allen flap switch From: "Geoff Heap" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Geoff Heap" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:32:10 AM PST US From: Big Gee Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 =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" =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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:37:39 AM PST US From: "T. Graziano" Subject: Zenith-List: 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" Tony, just to be specific - is the straight edge on the front or back of your main gear? -- Craig ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 05:39:14 AM PST US From: "John Bolding" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:48:51 AM PST US From: N5SL Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Who's going to the Rudder Workshop next week? --> Zenith-List message posted by: N5SL 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:49:50 AM PST US From: Kevin Kinney Subject: Zenith-List: Rudder workshop thoughts --> Zenith-List message posted by: Kevin Kinney 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:59:20 AM PST US From: Robert Schoenberger Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Who's going to the Rudder Workshop next week? --> Zenith-List message posted by: Robert Schoenberger 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:59:21 AM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.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 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 wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega 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 >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" > >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 > > ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== ===========

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..

do not archive


Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair .com

-- Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net> ; wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted b y: Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>


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?
Txspr antennae just behind&nb sp;firewall on bottom.
Juan

-----Original Messa ge-----
>From: billmileski <mileski@sonalysts.com>
>Sent: Oct 31, 2006 9:32 PM
>To:&n bsp;zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re:  701 no slats again
>
>--> Zenit h-List message posted by: "billmileski" <mil eski@sonalysts.com>
>
>One more thing, Joe ,
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>Read  this topic online here:
>
>http://forum s.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=71450#71450
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 06:14:49 AM PST US From: "Charles Wacker" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: More basic battery explosion --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Charles Wacker" 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" >To: >Subject: RE: Zenith-List: More basic battery explosion >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:55:51 -0330 > >--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Noel Loveys" > >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 > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:14:43 AM PST US From: Big Gee Subject: Zenith-List: 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 =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" =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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:19:43 AM PST US From: "Harrison-Hutcheson" 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 17 ____________________________________ Time: 07:41:46 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 701 no slats again From: "billmileski" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:53:13 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? From: "billmileski" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:33:19 AM PST US From: "Joe and Joan" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Joe and Joan" 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" Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Ruddiman" > > > Just curious, but why don't you want the slats? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joe and Joan" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:37 PM > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again > > >> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Joe and Joan" >> >> >> 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" >> To: >> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 2:13 PM >> Subject: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again >> >> >>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" >>> >>> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:38:38 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Antenna(s) 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:02:54 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 =0A To: zenith-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" >=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=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A ======================= ======================= ======================= ======================= ====================== ======================= ======================= ======================= ======================= =0A=0A=0A=0A ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 10:19:29 AM PST US From: Subject: RE: Zenith-List: More basic battery explosion --> Zenith-List message posted by: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:41:47 AM PST US From: MacDonald Doug Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs no slats --> Zenith-List message posted by: MacDonald Doug 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:12:15 PM PST US From: "Dave Ruddiman" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Ruddiman" 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" Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 4:25 AM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Joe and Joan" > > 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" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:13 PM > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again > > >> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Ruddiman" >> >> >> Just curious, but why don't you want the slats? >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Joe and Joan" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:37 PM >> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again >> >> >>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Joe and Joan" >>> >>> >>> 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" >>> To: >>> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 2:13 PM >>> Subject: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again >>> >>> >>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:49:55 PM PST US From: Tim Verthein Subject: Zenith-List: Temperature & Rudder Workshop --> Zenith-List message posted by: Tim Verthein 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:31:11 PM PST US From: Big Gee 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 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 =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" =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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:48:03 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega 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 >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 >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" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:52:52 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega 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 >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" > >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" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:13 PM >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again > > >> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Dave Ruddiman" >> >> >> Just curious, but why don't you want the slats? >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Joe and Joan" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:37 PM >> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again >> >> >>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Joe and Joan" >>> >>> >>> 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" >>> To: >>> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 2:13 PM >>> Subject: Zenith-List: 701 no slats again >>> >>> >>>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" >>>> >>>> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:54:42 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 701 no slats again --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega thanx, Juan DO NOT ARCHIVE -----Original Message----- >From: "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 wrote: >--> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega > > >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 >>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" >> >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:13:55 PM PST US From: "LRM" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:56:57 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs no slats + insrance problems ?? From: "billmileski" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:59:21 PM PST US From: Big Gee Subject: Zenith-List: 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 =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 =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" =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#71549http://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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:36:05 PM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: Zenith-List: Matronics Email List Fund Raiser - November! --> Zenith-List message posted by: Matt Dralle 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:29:32 PM PST US From: NYTerminat@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:46:19 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: slats vs no slats From: "billmileski" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "billmileski" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:55:46 PM PST US From: NYTerminat@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:34:01 PM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Antenna(s) 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.