Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:26 AM - Re: xxx Re: Re: 701 amphibious floats (John Bolding)
2. 05:23 AM - Re: Re: 701 amphibous floats (Jeff)
3. 06:52 AM - Re: Re: Any News on the CH-750? (rick tedford)
4. 07:11 AM - Re: 701 amphibous floats (David X)
5. 07:24 AM - fuel pressure gauge (videoflyer@aol.com)
6. 07:40 AM - Bonnets (Bill Naumuk)
7. 09:36 AM - Re: fuel pressure gauge (Craig Payne)
8. 09:44 AM - Re:Adhesives (MaxNr@aol.com)
9. 10:17 AM - Re: xxx Re: Re: 701 amphibious floats (raymondj)
10. 10:44 AM - Re: Bonnets (LarryMcFarland)
11. 11:17 AM - Re: Bonnets (Bill Naumuk)
12. 12:35 PM - Re: fuel pressure gauge (Noel Loveys)
13. 12:52 PM - Re: fuel pressure gauge (Craig Payne)
14. 02:14 PM - Re: Re: fuel pressure gauge (Dave Austin)
15. 02:22 PM - Re: fuel pressure gauge (Jim Hoak)
16. 02:30 PM - Re: Re: fuel pressure gauge (Craig Payne)
17. 02:44 PM - Van's RV-12 LSA first flights (Craig Payne)
18. 03:08 PM - Re: fuel pressure gauge (Big Gee)
19. 03:16 PM - NTSB preliminary report on XL crash in Yuba City, California on Nov 4th (Craig Payne)
20. 03:33 PM - Re: Re: fuel pressure gauge (Jim Hoak)
21. 04:05 PM - Re: Fuel pump - gascolator With ignorant Question (4rcsimmons@comcast.net (Rich Simmons))
22. 04:41 PM - Re: Van's RV-12 LSA first flights (PatrickW)
23. 04:46 PM - Re: Fuel pump - gascolator With ignorant Question (Paul Mulwitz)
24. 05:16 PM - Re: Fuel pump - gascolator With ignorant Question (Craig Payne)
25. 06:56 PM - Re: Re: Van's RV-12 LSA first flights (Bill Naumuk)
26. 07:06 PM - Re: Bonnets (Tim & Diane Shankland)
27. 08:17 PM - Re: fuel pressure gauge (Noel Loveys)
28. 08:27 PM - Re: Re: 701 amphibious floats (MElrod3732@aol.com)
29. 08:30 PM - Re: fuel pressure gauge (Noel Loveys)
30. 08:36 PM - Re: Re: fuel pressure gauge (Noel Loveys)
31. 08:37 PM - Re: fuel pressure gauge (N5SL)
32. 09:12 PM - Re: fuel pressure gauge (Gary Gower)
33. 09:15 PM - Re: fuel pressure gauge (Gary Gower)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 amphibious floats |
You're having trouble with some of Zenith's math??? The next thing
you're gonna say is some of the numbers on the drawings don't add up!!
Seriously,
For what it's worth, Zenith allows you to increase the gross weight of
the airplane on floats by the difference of what the airplane weighs on
wheels. i.e. if the increase in empty weight is 150# in putting on
amphibs you get to up the gross weight by 150#, keeping the payload the
same as on wheels.
I couldn't get my arms all the way around that concept so I asked
Sebastian, he said the floats carry their own weight aerodynamically(
it's either the curved top surface or magic, take your pick) so no
payload penalty if using ZENITH floats. Being the somewhat abrasive
skeptic that I am, I wrote Chris a letter and asked him too, they are
reading from the same script as I got the same answer, this time in
writing. I still don't buy into it totally but there are a LOT of 701/
float operations going on at gross weights that are WAY above 1100# so
who am I to argue.
Someone accused me of being less than truthful about Proseal being "fun
to put on" you caught me, that is the nastiest stuff on the planet,
after a session using it you might find some of it on your sox. the
stuff migrates EVERYWHERE.
LOW&SLOW John Bolding
raymondj
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 9:55 PM
Subject: xxx RE: Zenith-List: Re: 701 amphibious floats
To both gentlemen who flew the 701 with floats. I am having trouble
getting the math to work out on the configurations you are describing.
Gross WT 1100
-1150 lb amphib floats 136
-1/2 fuel 65
-empty WT 580
--------
remaining capacity 319
I think the numbers above are optimistic. What am I missing?
Ray J.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 amphibous floats |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of billmileski
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:59 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 701 amphibous floats
A couple years ago I flew a 701 at Skyshops in Fla, that had Czech
four-wheel amphib floats on it. This was from a grass field. Landing,
takeoff, and handling on water, with two people, was impressive. The
installation had been redesigned to be more like a traditional float plane,
and the looks and performance were teriffic. I'm pretty sure this package
is still available and I think still in the 8K range. They would be my first
choice.
Bill M
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=75367#75367
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Any News on the CH-750? |
Good Mark & David : Right on , I wonder if many know how danderous these
people are ? I know of one in my neighborhood .
Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zodie Rocket" <zodierocket@hsfx.ca>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:45 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Any News on the CH-750?
>
> Hopefully we will see the 750 come to life at some point in time, but it
> all depends on how it fly's. I don't imagine we will see it anytime
> soon. But Chris is right, with all the copies of the 701 (now counting
> 8) we may never see another plans available plane again. It is truly a
> shame but a fact of reality, there have been people on this list even
> say it is good and flattering to see so called improvements of Heintz's
> designs being sold as competition. (this reply is not for the anger, and
> contempt I hold for such reprehensible practices, keep in mind that none
> of Heintz's 701 can exchange parts with any previous designs, but almost
> all designs after will interchange with the CH701, developing idea's is
> one thing, stealing from a mans plans is completely different). I only
> hope that we will see a kit version of the CH750 and not just a ready to
> fly LSA, which is a very real possibility, plans, not likely in the
> first ten years! It's a shame but a reality brought on by the lowest
> type of people on this earth. You should all be upset at the copy cats
> as they are just screwing you the builder from another great affordable
> Heintz Design.
>
>
> Mark Townsend
> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
> president@can-zacaviation.com
> www.can-zacaviation.com
> do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Lewis
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 8:13 PM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Any News on the CH-750?
>
> <christopherlewis@earthlink.net>
>
> I spoke with Mathieu Heintz earlier this year and it appears that it
> will be "kit only" at this point if it happens. Things may change, but
> there's not much of a business case to create plans at this point. The
> development costs are just easier to recoup with the profit margin of a
> kit. You can't really blame them.
>
> Besides, there are too many pirates as it is and handing them a new SP
> design for a few hundred $$ is not too attractive.
>
> Chris in Seattle
>
> --------
> 701 Scratch Builder
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=74387#74387
>
>
> --
> 11/11/2006
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> 11/11/2006
>
>
> --
>
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: 701 amphibous floats |
http://www.skyshops.org/FLOATSHOME/floatshome.htm
--------
Zodiac 601 XL - CZAW Built - Rotax 912S
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=75421#75421
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | fuel pressure gauge |
I was looking at fuel pressure gauges for my plane. The price difference between
electrical and mechanical gauges is significant. Does anyone feel uncomfortable
with a mechanical fuel pressure gauge mounted on their instrument panel?
Dave Harms
601XL//Corvair
________________________________________________________________________
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 |
|
Polishers-
I'm having no luck using my rotary polisher- bonnet life is
nonexistant. All I have to do is go over a rivet and I'm done for.
Bonnet shreds in no time. God help you if you catch a sheet metal edge-
bonnet shreds immediately.
Rivets are set well within Zenith "Can't get a fingernail under it"
tolerance, and I'm using no more than the "Weight of the polisher"
pressure suggested by Nuvite. (Think about that sentence, we really are
rocket scientists!) I have no problem with my orbital polishers, but
they take forever.
Believe it or not, my $18.95 HF polisher is speed adjustable from
0-2500 RPM. Of course, I self destruct quicker at high RPM than low, but
it's still just a matter of time.
1. Am I supposed to avoid going over rivets until I reach the
orbital stage?
2. My HF polisher came with velcro over the backing plate. I removed
the velcro, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. Anyone out there
that bought the Wen rotary polisher from Nuvite- is the face velcro or
smooth?
HELP!
I think we ought to archive this one.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
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: | fuel pressure gauge |
In the car world they flatly state that fuel pressure gauges should be
mounted outside the passenger compartment (like on the hood where you can
see it). There is enough concern about this that VDO sells a thing called a
fuel pressure isolator. This is basically a diaphragm that goes between the
fuel line and the gauge and mounts forward of the firewall. The fuel lives
on one side of the diaphragm while the other side is filled with water and
antifreeze. The VDO part number is 240830
<http://www.egauges.com/pdf/vdo/0-515-010-554.pdf>
www.egauges.com/pdf/vdo/0-515-010-554.pdf
Auto Meter also sells one. Search Summit Racing's web site for "isolator".
But these sell for between $80 and $100. So an electric gauge with sender
may end up being just as cheap. If you go with an electronic engine monitor
all you will need is the sender. Plus an engine monitor will watch the
pressure for you (along with the engine's other vital signs) and generate an
alarm if it drops too low.
-- Craig
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 |
|
I'm good with bonded structures, but don't know as much about them as rivets.
I had a 68' Beech Musketeer that was bonded from the main spar forward. It
held up fine until 2004 when it was destroyed in its hangar by a hurricane.
Bonded area was fine. Also, this plane had "wet wings" in this area. Old friend
(who was a Beech test pilot at one time) told me of a load test on this wing. It
was mounted about 2/3 span 4' off the floor. Weight was applied until the
belly touched the floor. Weight removed and wing checked with straight edges with
zero deformation.
I just retired from 25 years flying helicopters over the Gulf of Mexico. Most
experience was with the Sikorsky 76. The only aluminum semi monocoque
structure was aft of the engine exhaust. The rest is bonded nomex honeycomb with
some
fiberglass. Unbelievably robust. I have couple thou hours in serial number
"Two" built in 1976 or 77. It was traded in 2004 for a batch of new 76C "plus"
models. Structure was as good as new except for the never ending battle
against aluminum corrosion. These aircraft spend their life outdoors in a hot,
humid, salt enviornment with no structual issues. Electical is a whole other story.
I recall that composit/bonded areas never needed repair, only the aluminum.
Bob Dingley
Pace, Florida
601XL/Lyc
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 amphibious floats |
Can anyone guide me to the documentation for the increased GW allowed with
floats? I'm not sure "Everybody is doing it." would carry much weight in
the U.S. courts, if it came to that.
Anyone operating a 701 on floats care to comment?
Thanks in advance.
Ray J.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Bolding
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 6:23 AM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: xxx RE: Zenith-List: Re: 701 amphibious floats
You're having trouble with some of Zenith's math??? The next thing you're
gonna say is some of the numbers on the drawings don't add up!!
Seriously,
For what it's worth, Zenith allows you to increase the gross weight of the
airplane on floats by the difference of what the airplane weighs on wheels.
i.e. if the increase in empty weight is 150# in putting on amphibs you get
to up the gross weight by 150#, keeping the payload the same as on wheels.
I couldn't get my arms all the way around that concept so I asked
Sebastian, he said the floats carry their own weight aerodynamically( it's
either the curved top surface or magic, take your pick) so no payload
penalty if using ZENITH floats. Being the somewhat abrasive skeptic that I
am, I wrote Chris a letter and asked him too, they are reading from the same
script as I got the same answer, this time in writing. I still don't buy
into it totally but there are a LOT of 701/ float operations going on at
gross weights that are WAY above 1100# so who am I to argue.
Someone accused me of being less than truthful about Proseal being "fun to
put on" you caught me, that is the nastiest stuff on the planet, after a
session using it you might find some of it on your sox. the stuff migrates
EVERYWHERE.
LOW&SLOW John Bolding
raymondj
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 9:55 PM
Subject: xxx RE: Zenith-List: Re: 701 amphibious floats
To both gentlemen who flew the 701 with floats. I am having trouble
getting the math to work out on the configurations you are describing.
Gross WT 1100
-1150 lb amphib floats 136
-1/2 fuel 65
-empty WT 580
--------
remaining capacity 319
I think the numbers above are optimistic. What am I missing?
Ray J.
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 |
|
Hi Bill,
Polishing is hard work, given the amount of time needed to keep it
looking good. You might rethink paint. I had no idea how durable and
tough urethanes were until I was getting rid of nearly 20 painted sample
panels. They wouldn't fit the garbage container, so I folded them and
jumped on each one until they would fit in the box. Wife Lee noticed
the paint wasn't cracked or affected by the abrasion or the direct 180
degree bend on its own thickness. It was still shiny. Even if you
painted only a base color and trimmed it out in vinyl, you'd probably be
saving a lot of work.
On polishing rivets, I'd avoid high speed buffing on them as they will
shine with the least effort. On thin sheet of .016 to .020, I'd go
lightly or you'll find distortion in the surface.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
Bill Naumuk wrote:
> Polishers-
> I'm having no luck using my rotary polisher- bonnet life is
> nonexistant. All I have to do is go over a rivet and I'm done for.
> Bonnet shreds in no time. God help you if you catch a sheet metal
> edge- bonnet shreds immediately.
> Rivets are set well within Zenith "Can't get a fingernail under
> it" tolerance, and I'm using no more than the "Weight of the polisher"
> pressure suggested by Nuvite. (Think about that sentence, we really
> are rocket scientists!) I have no problem with my orbital polishers,
> but they take forever.
> Believe it or not, my $18.95 HF polisher is speed adjustable from
> 0-2500 RPM. Of course, I self destruct quicker at high RPM than low,
> but it's still just a matter of time.
> 1. Am I supposed to avoid going over rivets until I reach the
> orbital stage?
> 2. My HF polisher came with velcro over the backing plate. I
> removed the velcro, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. Anyone
> out there that bought the Wen rotary polisher from Nuvite- is the face
> velcro or smooth?
> HELP!
> I think we ought to archive this one.
> Bill Naumuk
> HDS Fuselage
> Townville, Pa
> *
> =======================================
>
> *
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 |
|
Larry-
I'm committed now. Or, to be more precise, should be committed! You've
known me since the REALLY bad old days and know this is just another bump in
a washboard road. I'll figure it out sooner or later.
Although everything was trued up when I clecoed the C section, I removed
it from the cruciform jig and flopped it upside down on my workbench to
polish the underside. In order to get rid of potential snags, I set some
temporary rivets, then removed the clecos. I think I should lay the
C-section on my bench after polishing and check for trueness. If not true,
drill the temp rivets and realign.
re: Distortion- I've been careful to keep the problem to a minumum. I
have one area 2" square that might qualify.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryMcFarland" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Bonnets
>
> Hi Bill,
> Polishing is hard work, given the amount of time needed to keep it looking
> good. You might rethink paint. I had no idea how durable and tough
> urethanes were until I was getting rid of nearly 20 painted sample panels.
> They wouldn't fit the garbage container, so I folded them and jumped on
> each one until they would fit in the box. Wife Lee noticed the paint
> wasn't cracked or affected by the abrasion or the direct 180 degree bend
> on its own thickness. It was still shiny. Even if you painted only a
> base color and trimmed it out in vinyl, you'd probably be saving a lot of
> work.
>
> On polishing rivets, I'd avoid high speed buffing on them as they will
> shine with the least effort. On thin sheet of .016 to .020, I'd go
> lightly or you'll find distortion in the surface.
> Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> do not archive
>
> Bill Naumuk wrote:
>> Polishers-
>> I'm having no luck using my rotary polisher- bonnet life is
>> nonexistant. All I have to do is go over a rivet and I'm done for. Bonnet
>> shreds in no time. God help you if you catch a sheet metal edge- bonnet
>> shreds immediately.
>> Rivets are set well within Zenith "Can't get a fingernail under it"
>> tolerance, and I'm using no more than the "Weight of the polisher"
>> pressure suggested by Nuvite. (Think about that sentence, we really are
>> rocket scientists!) I have no problem with my orbital polishers, but they
>> take forever.
>> Believe it or not, my $18.95 HF polisher is speed adjustable from
>> 0-2500 RPM. Of course, I self destruct quicker at high RPM than low, but
>> it's still just a matter of time.
>> 1. Am I supposed to avoid going over rivets until I reach the orbital
>> stage?
>> 2. My HF polisher came with velcro over the backing plate. I removed
>> the velcro, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. Anyone out there
>> that bought the Wen rotary polisher from Nuvite- is the face velcro or
>> smooth?
>> HELP!
>> I think we ought to archive this one.
>> Bill Naumuk
>> HDS Fuselage
>> Townville, Pa
>> *
>> =======================================
>>
>> *
>
>
>
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: | fuel pressure gauge |
Racing cars don't have fuel lines passing through the passenger
compartment.... Several certified aircraft do.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: fuel pressure gauge
In the car world they flatly state that fuel pressure gauges should be
mounted outside the passenger compartment (like on the hood where you
can
see it). There is enough concern about this that VDO sells a thing
called a
fuel pressure isolator. This is basically a diaphragm that goes between
the
fuel line and the gauge and mounts forward of the firewall. The fuel
lives
on one side of the diaphragm while the other side is filled with water
and
antifreeze. The VDO part number is 240830
<http://www.egauges.com/pdf/vdo/0-515-010-554.pdf>
www.egauges.com/pdf/vdo/0-515-010-554.pdf
Auto Meter also sells one. Search Summit Racing's web site for
"isolator".
But these sell for between $80 and $100. So an electric gauge with
sender
may end up being just as cheap. If you go with an electronic engine
monitor
all you will need is the sender. Plus an engine monitor will watch the
pressure for you (along with the engine's other vital signs) and
generate an
alarm if it drops too low.
-- Craig
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: | fuel pressure gauge |
>> Racing cars don't have fuel lines passing through the passenger
compartment.... Several certified aircraft do.
Are they pressurized? Do you think it is a good idea if it can be avoided?
What did you do in your plane?
-- Craig
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: | Re: fuel pressure gauge |
All previous msgs understood, but what about all the spam cans with
primers in the cockpit?
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912, Spitfire Mk VIII
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: | Re: fuel pressure gauge |
Dave & Listers,
My ZAC 601HD Instrument Kit came with VDO gagaes. ( 1996 ) The VDO Fuel
Pressure gage has a line ( plastic )into the cockpit going to the gage.
( Fuel Pressure in the cockpit ). Due to not getting the fitting at the
gage tight enough with the initial installation I had a leak . The fuel
caused the gage housing ( and the VDO gage just below it ) to come
apart. Being the hard head that I am ( dumb too some times ) I replaced
the VDO gages with the same type gages, but at least got the fitting
tight. I have continued to operate this set up for 10 years and 534
hours with no further problems. I do think about it though!
If I were building now I would use one of those Isolaters someone
mentioned. Either that or an electric sender set up. It's just the smart
and safe thing to do.
do not archive
Jim Hoak
----- Original Message -----
From: videoflyer@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 10:23 AM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Zenith-List: fuel pressure gauge
I was looking at fuel pressure gauges for my plane. The price
difference between electrical and mechanical gauges is significant.
Does anyone feel uncomfortable with a mechanical fuel pressure gauge
mounted on their instrument panel?
Dave Harms
601XL//Corvair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | fuel pressure gauge |
The primers I have seen come in two form: a manual primer pump on the panel
or an electric solenoid FWF. Neither puts pressurized fuel in the cockpit.
Is there a third kind?
-- Craig
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: | Van's RV-12 LSA first flights |
www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int3.htm
Does the tail look big to others?
www.vansaircraft.com/images/RV-12/12runup2_lg.jpg
The RV-12 has one interesting feature although it may just be for the test
aircraft: a canopy jettison lever. Look below the Dynon in this photo:
www.vansaircraft.com/images/RV-12/12_full_panel_lg.jpg
Note the brake levers on the sticks: no differential braking - at least in
the prototype.
Note the N-number: N912VA. I still like my XL especially since I get to
choose what engine I put in it.
-- Craig
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: fuel pressure gauge |
Jim---- please listen to those voices which are talking to you, so we don'
t have to read about you on the NTSB. This issue will not go away--- half
the list will say, "no problem !" and the other half will say, "you do wha
t?". This is one of those "green skotch-brite" discussions: William W
. lived thru his "fire" . He makes his recommendations for a reason.=0A=0A
Fritz=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Jim Hoak <planejim@bel
lsouth.net>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Saturday, November 18,
2006 4:55:31 PM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: fuel pressure gauge=0A=0A=0ADav
e & Listers,=0A =0AMy ZAC 601HD Instrument Kit came with VDO gagaes. ( 1996
) The VDO Fuel Pressure gage has a line ( plastic )into the cockpit going
to the gage. ( Fuel Pressure in the cockpit ). Due to not getting the fitti
ng at the gage tight enough with the initial installation I had a leak . T
he fuel caused the gage housing ( and the VDO gage just below it ) to come
apart. Being the hard head that I am ( dumb too some times ) I replaced th
e VDO gages with the same type gages, but at least got the fitting tight. I
have continued to operate this set up for 10 years and 534 hours with no f
urther problems. I do think about it though!=0A =0AIf I were building now I
would use one of those Isolaters someone mentioned. Either that or an elec
tric sender set up. It's just the smart and safe thing to do.=0A =0Ado not
archive=0A =0AJim Hoak =0A----- Original Message ----- =0AFrom: videoflye
r@aol.com =0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Saturday, November 18,
2006 10:23 AM=0ASubject: [Norton AntiSpam] Zenith-List: fuel pressure gauge
=0A=0A=0AI was looking at fuel pressure gauges for my plane. The price dif
ference between electrical and mechanical gauges is significant. Does anyo
ne feel uncomfortable with a mechanical fuel pressure gauge mounted on thei
r instrument panel?=0A =0A =0ADave Harms=0A601XL//Corvair=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com=0Ahref="http://
www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com=0Ahref="http://www.kitlog.co
m">www.kitlog.com=0Ahref="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp
.com=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.
com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.mat
=======0A=0A__________________________________________________
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: | NTSB preliminary report on XL crash in Yuba City, California |
on Nov 4th
(Nothing on the NTSB web site yet about Jim's fatal crash)
http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 061115X01677&key=1
NTSB Identification: LAX07FA026
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, November 04, 2006 in Yuba City, CA
Aircraft: Aircraft Mfg & Dev. Co. (AMD) CH601XL SLSA, registration: N158MD
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed.
On November 4, 2006, about 1139 Pacific standard time, an Aircraft
Manufacturing & Development Co., CH601XL SLSA, N158MD, experienced an
in-flight breakup while cruising approximately 8 nautical miles south of
Yuba City, California. The airplane was destroyed. The private pilot, who
was a co-owner of the airplane, and a passenger were fatally injured. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed. The
flight was performed under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91, and it
originated from Lincoln, California, about 1129.
A ground-based witness reported hearing the airplane as it approached his
location. The witness stated that the airplane's engine was "missing" and
its power was "on and off." Seconds later the witness heard the sound of an
explosion and observed the center section of the airplane falling straight
down.
All of the airplane's structural components were located in adjacent open
fields during the National Transportation Safety Board's on-scene
investigation. The wreckage consisted of the following components, which
were separated from each other: left wing (without aileron); right wing
(with aileron); main landing gear assembly; cockpit, engine with attached
propeller blades; aileron (left wing); and empennage. There was no evidence
of oil spray on any of the components, and there was no evidence of fire.
The wreckage has been recovered and detailed airframe and engine
examinations are ongoing.
<end>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: fuel pressure gauge |
Fritz & Listers,
Another thought about the fuel pressure in the cockpit on my 601HD. This
was the system provided by ZAC!
I wonder if it has resulted in any catostrofic failures/problems? Also,
I wonder if this is the current system as provided in ZAC Instrument
Kits?
do not archive
Jim Hoak
----- Original Message -----
From: Big Gee
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 6:07 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Zenith-List: fuel pressure gauge
Jim---- please listen to those voices which are talking to you, so we
don't have to read about you on the NTSB. This issue will not go
away--- half the list will say, "no problem !" and the other half will
say, "you do what?". This is one of those "green skotch-brite"
discussions: William W. lived thru his "fire" . He makes his
recommendations for a reason.
Fritz
----- Original Message ----
From: Jim Hoak <planejim@bellsouth.net>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 4:55:31 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: fuel pressure gauge
Dave & Listers,
My ZAC 601HD Instrument Kit came with VDO gagaes. ( 1996 ) The VDO
Fuel Pressure gage has a line ( plastic )into the cockpit going to the
gage. ( Fuel Pressure in the cockpit ). Due to not getting the fitting
at the gage tight enough with the initial installation I had a leak .
The fuel caused the gage housing ( and the VDO gage just below it ) to
come apart. Being the hard head that I am ( dumb too some times ) I
replaced the VDO gages with the same type gages, but at least got the
fitting tight. I have continued to operate this set up for 10 years and
534 hours with no further problems. I do think about it though!
If I were building now I would use one of those Isolaters someone
mentioned. Either that or an electric sender set up. It's just the smart
and safe thing to do.
do not archive
Jim Hoak
----- Original Message -----
From: videoflyer@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 10:23 AM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Zenith-List: fuel pressure gauge
I was looking at fuel pressure gauges for my plane. The price
difference between electrical and mechanical gauges is significant.
Does anyone feel uncomfortable with a mechanical fuel pressure gauge
mounted on their instrument panel?
Dave Harms
601XL//Corvair
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matron
www.homebuilthelp.comref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution"
target=_blank rel=nofolloonics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List"
target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.
_____________/body>
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: Fuel pump - gascolator With ignorant Question |
OK List,
I spend more time reading than chiming in.
I have noted the responses on the electric fuel pumps and the Colators.
I have 2 questions with Comments.
The Cherokees I have been flying have a 3rd place to check for fuel contamination
located in front of the firewall at the lower cowl. It ensures no fuel conmination
in the actual lines from last run.
One
Is this not a safe place to place the Colator? With the Jabiru engine is the Colator
exposed to exsesive heat to create the dreaded Vapor Lock? Redundant but
Wise??
Two
Is the Electric Fuel pump not "just" backup? I am not sure of the fuel line routing
but they should share feeding with the Mechanical pump. This measn the pump
"always" unless under adverse situatins (Which shoud cause a no fligth with
a check list) does not draw by istself the distance from the tank to the pump.
(I think pump cooling is the biggest reason. That is why car mfg,s place them
in the tank and that pump is the single/primary pump)
Is it neccesary for the 2 pumps in the wings as have been discussed in recent listings?
Just some thoughts would be appreciated.
--
Thanks,
Rich Simmons
601 XL Last wing 60%
Ordering fuselage components shortley
<html><body>
<DIV>OK List,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I spend more time reading than chiming in.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have noted the responses on the electric fuel pumps and the Colators.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have 2 questions with Comments.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Cherokees I have been flying have a 3rd place to check for fuel contamination
located in front of the firewall at the lower cowl. It ensures no fuel
conmination in the actual lines from last run.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><U>One</U></DIV>
<DIV>Is this not a safe place to place the Colator? With the Jabiru engine is the
Colator exposed to exsesive heat to create the dreaded Vapor Lock? Redundant
but Wise??</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><U>Two</U></DIV>
<DIV>Is the Electric Fuel pump not "just" backup? I am not sure of the fuel
line routing but they should share feeding with the Mechanical pump. This measn
the pump "always" unless under adverse situatins (Which shoud cause a no
fligth with a check list) does not draw by istself the distance from the
tank to the pump. (I think pump cooling is the biggest reason. That is why car
mfg,s place them in the tank and that pump is the single/primary pump)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Is it neccesary for the 2 pumps in the wings as have been discussed in recent
listings?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just some thoughts would be appreciated.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=signature id=signature>--<BR>Thanks, <BR>Rich Simmons</DIV>
<DIV class=signature>601 XL Last wing 60%</DIV>
<DIV class=signature>Ordering fuselage components shortley</DIV>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: | Re: Van's RV-12 LSA first flights |
Yes, I was strongly considering the R-12, but two things swayed me away from it
in favor of the 601XL.
1) as you said, the choice of engine.
2) 601 is a proven design. Not many RV-12's flying, and I don't care how good
the other RV designs are.
- PatrickW
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=75493#75493
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: Fuel pump - gascolator With ignorant Question |
Hi Rich,
I also have flown Piper aircraft and others with low wing
configuration. They always had an electric fuel boost pump, but
since I was just a dumb pilot I never figured out where the pump was located.
I think the electric pump is needed on these planes to make starting
easier. The practice of starving the engine of fuel (with mixture
cutoff) may leave a lot of work for the mechanical, engine driven,
pump to do to get fuel flowing to the engine again. It is standard
procedure on all those planes to turn on the electric boost pump
prior to starting the engine. The boost pump is also started for
takeoff and landing. I guess it is optional for normal cruise.
I have seen similar arrangements on high wing airplanes with fuel
injection. In that case, the electric pump makes starting possible
by pressurizing the fuel system before engine cranking.
I have never flown a plane with multiple electric pumps. I have read
many comments on this list suggesting they are needed to prevent
vaporization of the fuel in the fuel lines. However, it seems that
only on this list is there concern about this issue.
One question which might relate to the vapor question involves choice
of fuel. Avgas has additives to reduce its vapor pressure so it
doesn't all evaporate at high altitude (during cruise). Perhaps this
is a more critical issue when using auto gas in your plane.
Best regards,
Paul
XL fuselage
At 04:04 PM 11/18/2006, you wrote:
>OK List,
>
>I spend more time reading than chiming in.
>
>I have noted the responses on the electric fuel pumps and the Colators.
>
>I have 2 questions with Comments.
>
>The Cherokees I have been flying have a 3rd place to check for fuel
>contamination located in front of the firewall at the lower cowl. It
>ensures no fuel conmination in the actual lines from last run.
>
>One
>Is this not a safe place to place the Colator? With the Jabiru
>engine is the Colator exposed to exsesive heat to create the dreaded
>Vapor Lock? Redundant but Wise??
>
>Two
>Is the Electric Fuel pump not "just" backup? I am not sure of the
>fuel line routing but they should share feeding with the Mechanical
>pump. This measn the pump "always" unless under adverse situatins
>(Which shoud cause a no fligth with a check list) does not draw by
>istself the distance from the tank to the pump. (I think pump
>cooling is the biggest reason. That is why car mfg,s place them in
>the tank and that pump is the single/primary pump)
>
>Is it neccesary for the 2 pumps in the wings as have been discussed
>in recent listings?
>
>Just some thoughts would be appreciated.
>
>
>--
>Thanks,
>Rich Simmons
>601 XL Last wing 60%
>Ordering fuselage components shortley
>
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: | Fuel pump - gascolator With ignorant Question |
Re: gascolator FWF:
In the typical William Wynne 601/Corvair installation the gascolator goes at
the base of the firewall on the engine side. See
<http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar0605.html>
www.flycorvair.com/hangar0605.html, about 3/4s of the way down the page.
William thinks that in a crash the gascolator is less vulnerable here that
in the standard position ahead of the main spar. He says to think of the
gascolator as a sink trap - it doesn't have to be the lowest point in the
entire system, just a "local minimum".
Most 601/Corvair builders don't think this configuration is vulnerable to
heat and vapor-lock. But if you are worried then build a box around it and
pipe cool air down through it. Look for a picture of Dave's Wagabond at
<http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar1005.html>
www.flycorvair.com/hangar1005.html, about a 1/5th of the way down under
"October 6, 2005"
-- Craig
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Van's RV-12 LSA first flights |
>From the previous postings, sounds like there might be a little Zenith owner
loyalty at work.
>From a Van's engineering standpoint, if the fuel tank gunk is so good, why
didn't they glue it together?
NOTICE- THIS IS A TONGUE IN CHEEK
POSTING. FLAMING NOT NECESSARY.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 7:41 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Van's RV-12 LSA first flights
>
> Yes, I was strongly considering the R-12, but two things swayed me away
> from it in favor of the 601XL.
>
> 1) as you said, the choice of engine.
> 2) 601 is a proven design. Not many RV-12's flying, and I don't care how
> good the other RV designs are.
>
> - PatrickW
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=75493#75493
>
>
>
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 |
|
Bill,
I not sure what is causing your problem, I have yet to damage any
bonnets. I have two for each grade of polish and after polishing my
entire plane still have and use them all. The compounding bonnet I
bought at a local auto finishing store and the rest form a local
hardware/general store.
Tim Shankland
Bill Naumuk wrote:
> Polishers-
> I'm having no luck using my rotary polisher- bonnet life is
> nonexistant. All I have to do is go over a rivet and I'm done for.
> Bonnet shreds in no time. God help you if you catch a sheet metal
> edge- bonnet shreds immediately.
> Rivets are set well within Zenith "Can't get a fingernail under
> it" tolerance, and I'm using no more than the "Weight of the polisher"
> pressure suggested by Nuvite. (Think about that sentence, we really
> are rocket scientists!) I have no problem with my orbital polishers,
> but they take forever.
> Believe it or not, my $18.95 HF polisher is speed adjustable from
> 0-2500 RPM. Of course, I self destruct quicker at high RPM than low,
> but it's still just a matter of time.
> 1. Am I supposed to avoid going over rivets until I reach the
> orbital stage?
> 2. My HF polisher came with velcro over the backing plate. I
> removed the velcro, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. Anyone
> out there that bought the Wen rotary polisher from Nuvite- is the face
> velcro or smooth?
> HELP!
> I think we ought to archive this one.
> Bill Naumuk
> HDS Fuselage
> Townville, Pa
>
>
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: | fuel pressure gauge |
By pressurized I assume you mean the 40 plus PSI required to deliver
fuel to
an EFI. and the answer to that is none that I know of. Possibly the
Lake
or new Seawind.... Fuel in those may be controlled with remote solenoid
valves. Personally I like to see pressurized line kept as short as
possible. Properly installed, fuel lines pass through the passenger
compartment is a risk calculated to be minimal by the designers. When
you
have a single engine plane you have a few decisions to make... You can
put
the tanks in the wings and have tubes pass through the fuselage to the
engine or have the tank and fuel lines in the fuselage... either way
you
end up with gas passing through the passenger compartment ( probably
under
the floor ).
WW I planes used to have problems with the oil pressure lines leaking
all
over the pilot... Of course they had to put up with the occasional
bullet
hole. 78 years later we still have wet gauges in some small certified
AC.
Talk about going full circle... The first and the latest planes both
have
canard wings and they both have their propulsion in the back ( turbine
nozzles vs pusher props). Wil and Orv. would be proud.
I think back to the singer who crashed his plane, in California, because
the
original builder didn't want gas lines or valves in the cockpit. Was it
really safer???? Is added complexity really always better??
Getting back, off topic a bit to auto design why does GM and some other
designers put their high pressure 40+ PSI line right by the drivers
door
where a leak could be lit by a discarded cigarette?? Is this good
design???
note: The electrical lines to the back of the car are right next to the
fuel
lines.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 5:22 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: fuel pressure gauge
>> Racing cars don't have fuel lines passing through the passenger
compartment.... Several certified aircraft do.
Are they pressurized? Do you think it is a good idea if it can be
avoided?
What did you do in your plane?
-- Craig
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 amphibious floats |
I am operating a 701 on 4 wheel Czech Air (Skyshops.org) amphib floats with
a Rotax 912 ULS. I would agree that if you intend to operate on a soft
surface, the 3 wheel version is the way to go. The castering front wheels make
taxing a real pain on a hard surface. Just taxing straight can be challenging
and turns involve a lot of fancy footwork.
My 701 weighted in at 780 lbs. so I increased the gross weight to 1320 lbs
resulting in a useful load of 540 lbs. I just limit my max G load to 5 Gs (no
problem there). Even at 1320 lbs take off weight the performance is still
impressive.
I you would like more info, contact me at _melrod3732@aol.com_
(mailto:melrod3732@aol.com) .
Good luck, Mike Elrod
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: | fuel pressure gauge |
In this case we are talking about a pressurized line that terminates in
the
cockpit. That is slightly different than fuel lines passing through and
a
lot less safe. With the volatility of 100LL I would go with the
electronic
sender outside the fire wall and gauge. It is safer no doubt than the
termination in the cockpit, It may be lighter, It may integrate with a
new
FADEC or EIS.
Primers are not generally used with fuel injection.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Hoak
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: fuel pressure gauge
Dave & Listers,
My ZAC 601HD Instrument Kit came with VDO gagaes. ( 1996 ) The VDO Fuel
Pressure gage has a line ( plastic )into the cockpit going to the gage.
(
Fuel Pressure in the cockpit ). Due to not getting the fitting at the
gage
tight enough with the initial installation I had a leak . The fuel
caused
the gage housing ( and the VDO gage just below it ) to come apart. Being
the
hard head that I am ( dumb too some times ) I replaced the VDO gages
with
the same type gages, but at least got the fitting tight. I have
continued to
operate this set up for 10 years and 534 hours with no further problems.
I
do think about it though!
If I were building now I would use one of those Isolaters someone
mentioned.
Either that or an electric sender set up. It's just the smart and safe
thing to do.
do not archive
Jim Hoak
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: | fuel pressure gauge |
If you want to have a little fun with a friend. Unlock the dash primer
before trying to shut the engine down by pulling the mix. Fuel will
bypass
the float bowl and keep the engine running. A good reason for pilots
with
those items to check they are locked before moving the plane after start
up.
I have seen one old Indian class twin that required about ten pumps on
the
dash primer to start each engine... I guess the primer lines were
better
than twenty feet long.... each!
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 7:00 PM
Subject: RE: RE: Zenith-List: fuel pressure gauge
The primers I have seen come in two form: a manual primer pump on the
panel
or an electric solenoid FWF. Neither puts pressurized fuel in the
cockpit.
Is there a third kind?
-- Craig
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: fuel pressure gauge |
Dave:=0A=0AI use one with a sender mounted on top of the gascolater so no f
uel in the cockpit. (Gascolator is on the firewall). It's made by Mitchel
l and is seen here under the tachometer on the right side of my panel:=0Aht
tp://www.cooknwithgas.com/6_5_06_Panel.JPG=0A=0AI'd recommend it if you hav
en't found one yet. =0A=0AScott Laughlin=0Awww.cooknwithgas.com=0A=0A=0A
=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: "videoflyer@aol.com" <videoflyer@aol
.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 9
:23:52 AM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: fuel pressure gauge=0A=0A=0AI was looking
at fuel pressure gauges for my plane. The price difference between electr
ical and mechanical gauges is significant. Does anyone feel uncomfortable
with a mechanical fuel pressure gauge mounted on their instrument panel?=0A
=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0ADave Harms=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A =0A_____
___________________________________________________________________________
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: | Re: fuel pressure gauge |
Hello Dave,
I will not have in my airplane a broken oil or gasoline gauge tube getting hot
oil or sprayed gasoline in my cabin at any altitude over a terrain to land....
Any price paid for that type of safety margin, is inexpensive.
Saludos
Gary Gower
videoflyer@aol.com wrote: I was looking at fuel pressure gauges for my plane.
The price difference between electrical and mechanical gauges is significant.
Does anyone feel uncomfortable with a mechanical fuel pressure gauge mounted
on their instrument panel?
Dave Harms
601XL//Corvair
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr - MBA, Bachelor's, Master's, Associate - Click
now to apply
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: | Re: fuel pressure gauge |
Hello Dave,
I will not have in my airplane a broken oil or gasoline gauge tube getting hot
oil or sprayed gasoline in my cabin at any altitude over a terrain to land....
Any price paid for that type of safety margin, is inexpensive.
Saludos
Gary Gower
videoflyer@aol.com wrote: I was looking at fuel pressure gauges for my plane.
The price difference between electrical and mechanical gauges is significant.
Does anyone feel uncomfortable with a mechanical fuel pressure gauge mounted
on their instrument panel?
Dave Harms
601XL//Corvair
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
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! --
|