Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:42 AM - Re: vg's (Joe and Joan)
2. 05:05 AM - Re: 912 Oil Leak[Norton AntiSpam] 912 Oil Leak (4rcsimmons@comcast.net (Rich Simmons))
3. 05:07 AM - Re: vg's (Joe and Joan)
4. 05:19 AM - Fatal Accident; Rans S-6S; Taylorsville, NC (Ken Arnold)
5. 06:04 AM - Re: propellors (Eldo Hildebrand)
6. 06:16 AM - Re: 912 Oil Leak[Norton AntiSpam] 912 Oil Leak (Juan Vega)
7. 06:37 AM - emery/scotchbrite polisher (Michael Hilderbrand)
8. 06:53 AM - VG's (rhartwig11@juno.com)
9. 07:06 AM - Re: emery/scotchbrite polisher (Chris Lewis)
10. 07:07 AM - Re: emery/scotchbrite polisher ()
11. 08:55 AM - Re: vg's (John Bolding)
12. 09:02 AM - Re: Upholstry (T. Graziano)
13. 09:02 AM - Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (Dr. Andrew Elliott)
14. 09:13 AM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (Gig Giacona)
15. 09:24 AM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
16. 09:25 AM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (billbutlergps@aim.com)
17. 09:30 AM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
18. 09:38 AM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (Bryan Martin)
19. 09:44 AM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (Gig Giacona)
20. 10:00 AM - Re: VG's (Gary Gower)
21. 10:04 AM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (TYA2)
22. 11:10 AM - Re: emery/scotchbrite polisher (TxDave)
23. 12:32 PM - auto engine liquid cooling (Terry Turnquist)
24. 12:35 PM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (Ron Butterfield)
25. 12:36 PM - Re: auto engine liquid cooling (Gig Giacona)
26. 01:30 PM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (Trainnut01@aol.com)
27. 02:05 PM - Re: VG's (NYTerminat@aol.com)
28. 02:20 PM - Re: Re: auto engine liquid cooling (Terry Turnquist)
29. 02:32 PM - For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Jon Croke)
30. 02:49 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Craig Payne)
31. 03:16 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Zodie Rocket)
32. 03:29 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (MacDonald Doug)
33. 04:06 PM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (Juan Vega)
34. 05:57 PM - Pitot Tube length (Dave Ruddiman)
35. 06:20 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Rick R)
36. 06:25 PM - Re: vg's (Avidmagnum)
37. 06:29 PM - Re: VG's on 701 Amphibian....First impression! (Avidmagnum)
38. 07:07 PM - Re: Re: auto engine liquid cooling (Tim & Diane Shankland)
39. 08:32 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! ()
40. 09:35 PM - Re: baggage locker (David X)
41. 10:26 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Jon Croke)
42. 11:13 PM - Re: Re: vg's (Les Goldner)
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 |
|
----- Original Message -----
From: JohnDRead@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Hi Mil:
Build it like the plans. The 701 is a well thought out
design and the VGs will not improve the plane. The folk messing with
slat removal have not the faintest idea of what they are doing from an
aerodynamic sense! The removal of the slats compromises the airfoil
significantly. The slat is NOT an addition to the airfoil rather the
slot is a "tunnel" through the airfoil that improves the lift
coefficient of the airfoil. The increase in drag is minimal because when
the plane is not at a high angle of attack there is little or no flow
through the slot. Theory of Wing Sections by Abbot and Von Doenhoff
describes how a slot improves the lift coefficient. VGs do not improve
lift coefficient what they do do is to make a poor airfoil work a little
better by making the boundary layer stick to the airfoil a little
further back on the wing.
The gents in Australia who stared this mess should make a call to
Martin Simons who is an Aeronautical Prof. at the University of Aukland
he will help them understand.
Regards, John Read
CH701 in Colorado
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: 912 Oil Leak[Norton AntiSpam] 912 Oil Leak |
In regards to identifying an oil leak:
Some freinds in at a Motorcycle shop spry foot powder on joints on engines just
reassembled. If there is a slightest leak, the powder will soak the oil and turn
brown.
I have never tried this myself, but it may be worth a try.
This is also a multi million dollar Motorcycle shop so I have some faith in what
was said.
Don not archive.
--
Thanks,
Rich Simmons
<html><body>
<DIV>In regards to identifying an oil leak:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Some freinds in at a Motorcycle shop spry foot powder on joints on engines
just reassembled. If there is a slightest leak, the powder will soak the oil
and turn brown.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have never tried this myself, but it may be worth a try.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This is also a multi million dollar Motorcycle shop so I have some faith in
what was said.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Don not archive.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV class=signature id=signature>--<BR>Thanks, <BR>Rich Simmons</DIV>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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 |
|
John, I know you don't know me, but I just reported positively on how
the VG's actually worked.
I did talk to an aeronautical engineer that did a lot of testing in the
early years of the VG idea and yes, your description of their properties
agree with his, except that he didn't think the airfoil Chris chose for
the 701 was a poor one, but a good one for STOL. At least 6 people who
have done this change have noted increased cruise speed, so it is hard
to believe that the slats don't increase drag a bit more than minimal.
You must have some reason, other than what you stated to make such a
strong recommendation "build it like the plans", the ?VG's will not
improve the plane" right after reading reports that they do.
I have over 5000 Hrs. in small aircraft, over two thousand hrs.
instructing is aircraft that weighed less than 900 lbs empty, so feel
that I am qualified to say. "The 701 take off and landing are as short
as they were before". It has been to windy to do accurate testing, but
what I have said, including that the cruise speed is faster, stands.
I will not get in a heated debate about this, but feel Mil needs more
than your opinion on how to build his airplane. It is an experimental
plane. That's all folks. Joe from FL
----- Original Message -----
From: JohnDRead@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Hi Mil:
Build it like the plans. The 701 is a well thought out
design and the VGs will not improve the plane. The folk messing with
slat removal have not the faintest idea of what they are doing from an
aerodynamic sense! The removal of the slats compromises the airfoil
significantly. The slat is NOT an addition to the airfoil rather the
slot is a "tunnel" through the airfoil that improves the lift
coefficient of the airfoil. The increase in drag is minimal because when
the plane is not at a high angle of attack there is little or no flow
through the slot. Theory of Wing Sections by Abbot and Von Doenhoff
describes how a slot improves the lift coefficient. VGs do not improve
lift coefficient what they do do is to make a poor airfoil work a little
better by making the boundary layer stick to the airfoil a little
further back on the wing.
The gents in Australia who stared this mess should make a call to
Martin Simons who is an Aeronautical Prof. at the University of Aukland
he will help them understand.
Regards, John Read
CH701 in Colorado
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: | Fatal Accident; Rans S-6S; Taylorsville, NC |
List,
There was fatal accident outside of Taylorsville, NC yesterday. 2
fatalities. Charlotte Observer has some info. Owner and passenger
died. Taylorsville Airport is private strip.
Ken Arnold
Pikeville, NC
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 |
|
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
I thought I'd add a little to the propeller comment. In considering diameter,
some thought
needs to go into rpm and blade tip speed as the tip approaches the speed of sound,
in
general the efficiency falls off. This means that higher speed engines (most conversions)
need to either be geared down or the prop must be of a smaller diameter to keep
the tip
speed down. Of course a smaller diameter means less blade area and the prop will
be
unable to use available power... thus the need to add more blades to make use of
the
horsepower when the diameter is reduced.
I am sure there are more specific guide-lines on the web with more equations and
theory
than this simple Civil Engineer wants to look at but this is a general view of
the compromise
of diameter-rpm-number of blades.
Eldo Hildebrand, PhD., P.Eng.
Assistant Dean, Faculty of Engineering
University of New Brunswick
P.O Box 4400
Fredericton, NB
E3B 5A3
tel 506-453-4521
fax 506-453-3568
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 912 Oil Leak[Norton AntiSpam] 912 Oil Leak |
when my grandpa worked on planes, he used to put talc. it is a good lube for the
joints and woul stain indicating grease present. he died with 15,000 hours.
alot of those tricks still work today.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Rich Simmons <4rcsimmons@comcast.net>
>Sent: Dec 11, 2006 8:05 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 912 Oil Leak[Norton AntiSpam] 912 Oil Leak
>
>In regards to identifying an oil leak:
>
>Some freinds in at a Motorcycle shop spry foot powder on joints on engines just
reassembled. If there is a slightest leak, the powder will soak the oil and
turn brown.
>
>I have never tried this myself, but it may be worth a try.
>
>This is also a multi million dollar Motorcycle shop so I have some faith in what
was said.
>
>Don not archive.
>
>
>--
>Thanks,
>Rich Simmons
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: | emery/scotchbrite polisher |
After watching the scratchbuilding DVD by Homebuilt.com, I noticed they had
a polishing wheel on their drill press made form Emery and scotchbrite. Do
es anyone have a part number for this item. It seems like it takes the shar
p edges off nice and fast. =0AThanks!=0A =0AMichael Hilderbrand
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 |
|
John,
How do you explain the success that owners of many 701's with many hours
in the air are having with slats removed? Their data (not speculation)
seems to suggest that slat removal works. Hundreds of hours of
successful flight seems to be more than luck. The "clone company" also
seems to believe it works.
Rich Hartwig
Waunakee, WI
rhartwig11@juno.com
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: emery/scotchbrite polisher |
Michael - It's called a Combi-wheel (see attached photo). It comes in 80 grit and
120 grit with ALUMINUM oxide abrasives, lest we start down that rabbit hole
again... :P
Enjoy.
Chris in Seattle
--------
701 Scratch Builder
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p749#80749
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/comb_wheel_149.jpg
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: emery/scotchbrite polisher |
Check Aircraft Spruce catalog or online.
Part numbers are:
12-00875
12-00876
12-00948
Ed Moody II
Rayne, LA
601XL/Jabiru/Cabin area
---- Michael Hilderbrand <m_hilderbrand@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> After watching the scratchbuilding DVD by Homebuilt.com, I noticed they had a
polishing wheel on their drill press made form Emery and scotchbrite. Does anyone
have a part number for this item. It seems like it takes the sharp edges
off nice and fast.
Thanks!
Michael Hilderbrand
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 |
|
John, you make a lot of blanket statements, the older I get the less of
those I make 'cause generally they don't hold water. I'll show you a
little of what I mean.
----- Original Message -----
From: JohnDRead@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
((Hi Mil:
Build it like the plans. ))
Yeah , right. The plans have had several HUNDRED corrections in the
last few yrs so where do you propose we start?
((The 701 is a well thought out design and the VGs will not improve
the plane. The folk messing with slat removal have not the faintest idea
of what they are doing from an aerodynamic sense! ))
The actual FLIGHT TESTING seems to indicate otherwise. Do you offer
flight testing to substantiate your statement?? How do you KNOW that the
people doing this are not qualified? If they AREN'T "Qualified" the
NAME of this activity is Experimental Aircraft, they do not need
permission to try something different.
((The removal of the slats compromises the airfoil significantly. ))
CHANGES might be a better word. Or maybe not , you choose.
((The slat is NOT an addition to the airfoil rather the slot is a
"tunnel" through the airfoil that improves the lift coefficient of the
airfoil. ))
Everyone I've talked to so far seems to understand that concept, no
arguement.
((The increase in drag is minimal because when the plane is not at a
high angle of attack there is little or no flow through the slot. Theory
of Wing Sections by Abbot and Von Doenhoff describes how a slot improves
the lift coefficient.))
SOME of the papers on this subject indicate that slats work best
(give the most improvement) on airfoils of 15% thick or LESS. The 65018
is 18% . The testing done in Australia on flights over long distances
comparing fuel burn with and without slats goes a LOT farther than
opinion.
((VGs do not improve lift coefficient what they do do is to make a
poor airfoil work a little better by making the boundary layer stick to
the airfoil a little further back on the wing.
The gents in Australia who stared this mess should make a call
to Martin Simons who is an Aeronautical Prof. at the University of
Aukland he will help them understand.))
You are surely unaware of the MANY Twin engine airplanes that have
become MUCH safer because of the added performance that VG's provide.
Singles too. The FAA would NOT have certified those installations if
they changed the flight characteristics for the negative.
Actually I think it's the other way around.
Quite possibly Professor Simons would be anxious to see the FLIGHT
TEST DATA already procurred to compare to either other flight data or
someone's THEORY, maybe HE should call them.
MANY years ago a partner and I undertook to build a composite
version of Dave Thurston's Trojan/Seafire 4 place amphib. Had Dave in
our place for several days, picking his brain as fast as we could think
of questions. We had asked Harry Riblett ( he UNDERSTANDS airfoils) to
provide us with a different airfoil as the original one had a LOT of
pitch drag to overcome. After chewing over Harry's foil for a few days
Dave blessed it as better than what he originally used (and certified).
What a statement coming from him. EVERYTHING can be improved.
I have a buddy that has just completed testing of his 701 with VG's
instead of slats, he is going to cut off the brackets as all testing
CONFIRMED the claims. He is NOT a "test pilot" but has tens of
thousands of hrs in B-52's, Airbuses, homebuilts and ultralights and has
done before and after tests of VG's on other aircraft. He knows what a
test card is and how to use it.
LOW&SLOW John Bolding
((Regards, John Read
CH701 in Colorado))
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 |
|
I used foam posterboard covered with auto trunk liner material, and 3M
spray adhesive to attach the cloth, all purchased at Wal-Mart. I also
used a piece of Velcro in each "bay" to attach the pieces. I easily
remove all upolhostry for inspection.
I also used the cloth and foam covered pieces for my floor, although I
did install Aluminum skid plates for my feet in front of the rudder
pedals.. The skid plats are fastened on top of the material with panhead
screws in the corners picking up loctited rivnuts ("Red" thread locker
type 262 with attach holes made with a unibit, vice a drill. I have
never had, to date, any rivnuts spin on me)
The pieces are light weight.
The material I used is not FAA certified for fire resistance.
Tony Graziano
601XL/Jab3300 181 hrs.
Time: 03:44:34 PM PST US
From: Jaybannist@cs.com
Subject: Zenith-List: Upholstry
Sorry 'bout that! I neglected to give my post a subject line. I still
want to
know what you builders are using for the interior side panels.
Jay in Dallas, 601XL
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: | Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
Folks:
I am a new builder (601XL/TD/QBK/Corvair, kit delivery this week!) and
would like to get some feedback on landing and taxi light requirements.
I tend to do a lot of night flying, but am not planning on installing
the standard 2 x 4509 leading edge kit from Zenith, mainly because of
the high power drain and low light/power ratio. Also, I don't really
like the installation.
I am thinking either 55W automotive driving lights (~ same light as
4509's - very low cost) or 35W HID driving lights (~about 2-3 times the
light of 4509's, much higher cost). I have never owned an airplane that
has such low landing speeds and am not really sure how much light is
needed.
I am also not decided yet where to install the lights - under fuselage,
attached to gear legs or in the leading edge.
Anyway, any experience or opinions from other 601XL flyers would be
appreciated. Here is a link to the info about the Xenarc X1010 HID
lights: (Note that you can remove the fog filter in these lamps to get
full driving light power.)
www.suvlights.com
Thanks,
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE (601XL/TD, Corvair, building...)
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: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
I don't think you'll have any problem with using the auto lights though I'd be
interested in knowing what you don't like about the leading edge installation.
Putting them any where else is going to add drag without a whole bunch of fairing.
And adding them to the gear would put the wires having to run out like the
brake lines and I hate the brake lines.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p803#80803
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: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
A good alternative is to use the van's rv landing lights set up .... they
use off the shelf lights from autozone and they work great.
Jeff
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: | Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
Are you planning to fly under "light sport" license?
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: a.s.elliott@cox.net
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:58 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL?
Folks: I am a new builder (601XL/TD/QBK/Corvair, kit delivery this week!) and
would like to get some feedback on landing and taxi light requirements.
I tend to do a lot of night flying, but am not planning on installing the standard
2 x 4509 leading edge kit from Zenith, mainly because of the high power drain
and low light/power ratio. Also, I don't really like the installation.
I am thinking either 55W automotive driving lights (~ same light as 4509's - very
low cost) or 35W HID driving lights (~about 2-3 times the light of 4509's,
much higher cost). I have never owned an airplane that has such low landing speeds
and am not really sure how much light is needed. I am also not decided
yet where to install the lights - under fuselage, attached to gear legs or in
the leading edge. Anyway, any experience or opinions from other 601XL flyers
would be appreciated. Here is a link to the info about the Xenarc X1010 HID
lights: (Note that you can remove the fog filter in
these lamps to get full driving light power.) www.suvlights.com Thanks, Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam
and email virus protection.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
That was not part of his question. I'm sure he knows he can't night fly
under light sport but he may want to drive around on the ground a few hours after
dark though huh?
do not archive
In a message dated 12/11/2006 12:26:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
billbutlergps@aim.com writes:
Are you planning to fly under "light sport" license?
Bill
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: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
I installed off-road hid lights in my wing-tips. These give a narrow
beam that really reaches out a long way. I would have preferred to
have one of these and the other a wider beam light for better side
visibility for taxiing but they come in pairs and I wasn't about to
buy two sets. The X1010 lights you mentioned might be better as a
taxi light than a landing light because of the wide beam. If you had
someone else to go in with, you might consider buying a set of X1010s
and another set of off-road lights and split them up so each of you
could install one as a landing light and the other as a taxi light.
My lights have worked out pretty well for both purposes since they
have to be angled downward to view the runway on final approach they
hit the taxi-way about 20 yards ahead of the plane while on the
ground and the back scatter does a decent job of lighting up the area.
On Dec 11, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Dr. Andrew Elliott wrote:
> I am a new builder (601XL/TD/QBK/Corvair, kit delivery this week!)
> and would like to get some feedback on landing and taxi light
> requirements.
>
> www.suvlights.com
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
He also never says ANYTHING about flying as LSA.
[quote="Afterfxllc(at)aol.com"]That was not part of his question. I'm sure he knows
he can't night fly under light sport but he may want to drive around on
the ground a few hours after dark though huh?
do not archive
In a message dated 12/11/2006 12:26:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, billbutlergps@aim.com
writes:
> Are you planning to fly under "light sport" license?
> Bill
>
>
> [b]
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p817#80817
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 |
|
My personal point of view:
For now, and dont know how long, I will not experiment this "novelty".
There are so much flying scenarios possibles when flying... Weather, crosswind
landings, windshear, etc. that could affect the airplane (and pilot) by surprise,
that I will not take that chance for a couple of mph either side of the
speeds. Is a Mayor Mod, Not just like wheel pants and strut cleaning. Now
we cross (93) very near VNE,
For more speed is why we are building the 601 XL, (also as is) and will try to
keep both.
Once I see data from a wind tunnel or from ZAC, then I will probably think about
it. I enjoy my 701 so much "as is" that just sill be reading about this mod
for a while. I chosed this plane (701), I like it, I ejnoy it, why mess with
it?
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala, Mexico.
701 912S With Slats and Slots :-)
John,
How do you explain the success that owners of many 701's with many hours
in the air are having with slats removed? Their data (not speculation)
seems to suggest that slat removal works. Hundreds of hours of
successful flight seems to be more than luck. The "clone company" also
seems to believe it works.
Rich Hartwig
Waunakee, WI
rhartwig11@juno.com
---------------------------------
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: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
Dear Andy Elliot,
Are you the guy from the grumman gang? Maybe the real reason for
not installing GE4509s is the high price, low life span when installed in
cowling. The key thing about lights whether aircraft or automotive is
what do they illuminate and where are they located and how can you adjust
them to see what you need... Landing lights may be a see and be seen
item for the tower, or other aircraft in low viz, they may illuminate other
obstacles on the ground when taxiing, and they may show you critters or
debris on the runway or taxiway in the dark. If you can't adjust the
pattern of illumination, it doesn't matter what you install they are more
show than go...
Reg
ex AA-1, AA-5, BD-4 and whole bunch of other planes, currently own 1995
Zenith CH2000 with dual 4509s in the left wing.
At 09:58 AM 12/11/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>Folks:
>
>I am a new builder (601XL/TD/QBK/Corvair, kit delivery this week!) and
>would like to get some feedback on landing and taxi light requirements.
>
>I tend to do a lot of night flying, but am not planning on installing the
>standard 2 x 4509 leading edge kit from Zenith, mainly because of the high
>power drain and low light/power ratio. Also, I don't really like the
>installation.
>
>I am thinking either 55W automotive driving lights (~ same light as 4509's
>- very low cost) or 35W HID driving lights (~about 2-3 times the light of
>4509's, much higher cost). I have never owned an airplane that has such
>low landing speeds and am not really sure how much light is needed.
>
>I am also not decided yet where to install the lights - under fuselage,
>attached to gear legs or in the leading edge.
>
>Anyway, any experience or opinions from other 601XL flyers would be
>appreciated. Here is a link to the info about the Xenarc X1010 HID
>lights: (Note that you can remove the fog filter in these lamps to get
>full driving light power.)
>
><http://www.suvlights.com>www.suvlights.com
>
>Thanks,
>Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
>N601GE (601XL/TD, Corvair, building...)
>
>www.aeroelectric.com
><http://www.buildersbooks.com>www.buildersbooks.com
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
>
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: emery/scotchbrite polisher |
Hey Michael,
I found the wheels at my local Ace Hardware.
do not archive
Dave Clay
Temple TX
http://www.daves601xl.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p835#80835
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: | auto engine liquid cooling |
All right you gearheads...aside from the weight penalty what is the argument against
using an automotive AC condenser rather than evaporators or actual radiator?
DO Not Archive
Terry Turnquist
601XL-Plans
St. Peters, MO
---------------------------------
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
On 12/11/06, Dr. Andrew Elliott <a.s.elliott@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I tend to do a lot of night flying, but am not planning on installing the
> standard 2 x 4509 leading edge kit from Zenith, mainly because of the high
> power drain and low light/power ratio.
If your only objection to the 4509 was the power drain, I would
recommend the 50W H7604 instead.
> I am thinking either 55W automotive driving lights (~ same light as 4509's -
> very low cost)
I personally would be very skeptical of this claim; I tried a pair of
(admittedly cheap) driving lights on my motorcycle and could still see
my shadow from my buddy's stock halogen headlight.
Automotive lights generally put out a spread-out beam, quite unlike
the very bright spot of an aircraft landing light bulb.
--
Regards,
RonB
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: auto engine liquid cooling |
The message above doesn't show in the Forum Interface.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p853#80853
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
Andy
T will be flying my 601 as an LSA. I will be installing a 55w automotive
"Taxi" light in the wing. Not because I intend to fly or even taxi at night but
because many times in my almost 40 years of flying (next March) I have had
tower operators at smaller tower controlled airports as me to "show a light" It
would embarrass me to tell them that I don't have any lights.
Carroll Jernigan
XL Corvair working on the wings (still)
do not archive
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 |
|
Gary,
There is always room for improvement. If the vg's give you the same stol
performance and allows you to go faster and uses less fuel, I don't see too many
downsides.
Bob Spudis
N701ZX CH701/912S 92hrs
In a message dated 12/11/2006 1:02:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ggower_99@yahoo.com writes:
Once I see data from a wind tunnel or from ZAC, then I will probably think
about it. I enjoy my 701 so much "as is" that just sill be reading about
this mod for a while. I chosed this plane (701), I like it, I ejnoy it, why
mess with it?
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala, Mexico.
701 912S With Slats and
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: auto engine liquid cooling |
Hi, a question for the gearheads among you is this. Aside from being heavy, what's
the downside of using an automobile AC condenser rather than AC evaporators
or regular radiator for aircraft convesion? Thanks.
Do Not Archive.
Terry Turnquist
601XL-Plans
St. Peters, MO
Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@cox.net> wrote:
The message above doesn't show in the Forum Interface.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p853#80853
---------------------------------
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: | For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
If you are not a 701 builder then send this to the trash can...
For those of you that are now just entering the wonderful world of 701
construction, HomebuiltHELP has a video for you! This will be the
first in a series of volumes dedicated to assisting in constructing this
plane, slats and all!
http://homebuilthelp.com/Rear_Fuselage.htm
Released this morning, just in time for holiday shopping!
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: | For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Does this mean your own 701 is coming along?
-- 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: | For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Now we have an official way of tracking Jon=92s progress! There are few
of us that have as much construction experience on one type of aircraft.
You know this guy loves a 701 when he is willing to build a 3rd one.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
HYPERLINK "http://www.ch601.org"www.ch601.org / HYPERLINK
"http://www.ch701.com"www.ch701.com/ HYPERLINK
"http://www.Osprey2.com"www.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 5:49 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look
away!
Does this mean your own 701 is coming along?
-- Craig
"http://www.aeroelectric.com"www.aeroelectric.com
"http://www.buildersbooks.com"www.buildersbooks.com
"http://www.kitlog.com"www.kitlog.com
"http://www.homebuilthelp.com"www.homebuilthelp.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List"http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?Zenith-List
--
12/11/2006
--
12/11/2006
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: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Hey Jon, a little late for me, I'm almost ready to
join the front and rear halves on mine. Didn't stop
me from sending in an order for another DVD for my
Homebuilthelp collection though.
Looks like a good subject for a video to me.
Do not archive
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch Builder
NW Ontario, Canada
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: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
Trainnut,
the plus side is LSA allows for one hour after sunset. Cannot hurt resell value
either.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Trainnut01@aol.com
>Sent: Dec 11, 2006 4:29 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL?
>
>Andy
>T will be flying my 601 as an LSA. I will be installing a 55w automotive
>"Taxi" light in the wing. Not because I intend to fly or even taxi at night but
>because many times in my almost 40 years of flying (next March) I have had
>tower operators at smaller tower controlled airports as me to "show a light"
It
>would embarrass me to tell them that I don't have any lights.
>Carroll Jernigan
>XL Corvair working on the wings (still)
>
>do not archive
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pitot Tube length |
A question for you all. Is there a specific length or I.D. the pitot
tube is supposed to be. I thought I would use the one supplied for my
801 and make it replaceable. I've never had one broken, but it would be
nice to just screw in another one if it did happen.
Dave in Salem
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
COUNT ME IN ! ! !
do not archive
Jon Croke <Jon@joncroke.com> wrote:
If you are not a 701 builder then send this to the trash can...
For those of you that are now just entering the wonderful world of 701 construction,
HomebuiltHELP has a video for you! This will be the first in a series
of volumes dedicated to assisting in constructing this plane, slats and all!
http://homebuilthelp.com/Rear_Fuselage.htm
Released this morning, just in time for holiday shopping!
Rick
Sharpsburg, GA. USA
http://www.n701rr.com
---------------------------------
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Joe
I also removed the slats from my 701 Amphib and put on the feathers VGs. I've been
flying the wings off it the last few days. I left the brackets on till I was
sure that I would not change my mind. Today I cut off the slat brackets...I'm
that convinced that the vg's (FOR ME) are the way to go. I liked my 701 Amphib
but 85 mph at 5500 was not doing it for me. My buddy with the Rans s-7 with
the same floats, engine , warp prop and heavier does 105 mph. With vg's and
no slats I can now do 92 mph or even beter fly at 85 with less rpm. I also find
the aircraft "nicer" to fly...not that it was ever bad.
I also do not want to argue with anyone. So if you like your slats.......please
keep them......and for anyone still building I will be glad to sell you a nice
set. Smile and have a nice day! Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p918#80918
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VG's on 701 Amphibian....First impression! |
I have only time with VG's on the floats but go to www.speedstol.com and they talk about speed on wheels....happy flying ......tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p919#80919
Message 38
| 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: auto engine liquid cooling |
Terry,
When I was designing the cooling system for my Stratus Suburu several
years ago I tested an AC evaporator and several heater cores to find the
right combination for my installation. In general I found that the AC
units were less effective in heat exchange than the heater cores. I
believe the reason is that the AC system has to be capable of holding a
hundreds pounds of pressure or so, while the auto heat exchanger only
has to hold 14 psi. Consequently if you look at the AC heat exchanger it
is much heavier and has thicker passages. Heater cores and auto
radiators appear to be almost paper thin and transfer the heat more
effectively.
Tim Shankland
Terry Turnquist wrote:
> Hi, a question for the gearheads among you is this. Aside from being
> heavy, what's the downside of using an automobile AC condenser rather
> than AC evaporators or regular radiator for aircraft convesion? Thanks.
> Do Not Archive.
>
> Terry Turnquist
> 601XL-Plans
> St. Peters, MO
>
> Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> The message above doesn't show in the Forum Interface.
>
> --------
> W.R. "Gig" Giacona
> 601XL Under Construction
> See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>
>
> Read this topic online
>
>
Message 39
| 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: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Hey Jon Croke,
I've been reading about all of this flight experience with the slats removed and
vortex generators in their place. I'm finally finishing up the tail and thinking
about the wings (yes, I know I'm as slow as you know what). But, I am actually
thinking about building my wings minus the slats. Since you are on your
third CH701, and obviously know the thing inside out, what is your take on
this no-slats approach?
Bob Eli
---- Rick R <n701rr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> COUNT ME IN ! ! !
>
> do not archive
>
> Jon Croke <Jon@joncroke.com> wrote:
>
> If you are not a 701 builder then send this to the trash can...
>
> For those of you that are now just entering the wonderful world of 701 construction,
HomebuiltHELP has a video for you! This will be the first in a series
of volumes dedicated to assisting in constructing this plane, slats and all!
>
> http://homebuilthelp.com/Rear_Fuselage.htm
>
> Released this morning, just in time for holiday shopping!
>
>
>
>
> Rick
> Sharpsburg, GA. USA
> http://www.n701rr.com
>
> ---------------------------------
Message 40
| 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: baggage locker |
KISS
--------
Zodiac 601 XL - CZAW Built - Rotax 912S
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p947#80947
Message 41
| 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: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Hi Bob,
I am honored that you would ask my opinion about this, however I am the
LEAST qualified to express an opinion about this topic. I have no formal
aerodynamics education... and you may recall I am sometimes challenged at
keeping the plane in the air for more than a few hours!
If you have not built the fuselage yet, consider building that before
building the wings. Obviously they both (wings and fuse) have to be
completed before flying, but I have found it makes a lot more emotional
sense to have the body of the plane done and sitting there whilst you embark
on the wings. (Something to sit in, and hangar fly in around the yard,
maybe even start the engine) I have done it both ways... building the fuse
first is much more rewarding, in my opinion!
Jon
>
> Hey Jon Croke,
>
> I've been reading about all of this flight experience with the slats
> removed and vortex generators in their place. I'm finally finishing up
> the tail and thinking about the wings (yes, I know I'm as slow as you know
> what). But, I am actually thinking about building my wings minus the
> slats. Since you are on your third CH701, and obviously know the thing
> inside out, what is your take on this no-slats approach?
>
> Bob Eli
>
>
Message 42
| 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 |
|
Avidmagnum (?)
I'm ready to start building my slats. What condition are yours slats in, and
how much do you want for them (include shipping to the San Francisco Area)?
Anything to speed up the work!
With all this VG talk, I spoke with Michael Heintz last week. Michael, one
of Chris Heintz's sons, has a shop north of here in Cloverdale Ca where he
builds 601's and 701s. I respect and trust his opinion regarding the 701.
Michael cautioned against substituting leading Edge slats with VGs, saying
that even design changes may lead to a domino effect, and removing the slats
is NOT a "small" change! He asked why would you even entertain the idea of
becoming a guinea pig for some unknown armchair designer or the manufacturer
of a gadget who, while they may "make a good case", have little CH 701
experience?
He qualified his opinion saying that personally he as no experience with VGs
on the 701. He also said that there are hundreds of 701 successfully flying
with slats; their owners don't complain that the stall speed of the aircraft
is too fast or the take-off run is too long... again strongly recommending
that I stick with the plans!
I am a graduate engineer. Although I have not done any analysis on the wing
strength with or without slats, it is obvious that slats do add some
strength to the wings. I would want to see wing stress test data with VGs
before succumbing to the glitter of a few more knots. While the promise of a
few knots is appealing, I am more concerned that the wings stay put in
unforeseen marginal weather or when I'm forced to make tight maneuvers.
Regards,
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Avidmagnum
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 6:25 PM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vg's
>
> <classpix@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Hi Joe
>
> I also removed the slats from my 701 Amphib and put on the
> feathers VGs. I've been flying the wings off it the last few
> days. I left the brackets on till I was sure that I would not
> change my mind. Today I cut off the slat brackets...I'm that
> convinced that the vg's (FOR ME) are the way to go. I liked
> my 701 Amphib but 85 mph at 5500 was not doing it for me. My
> buddy with the Rans s-7 with the same floats, engine , warp
> prop and heavier does 105 mph. With vg's and no slats I can
> now do 92 mph or even beter fly at 85 with less rpm. I also
> find the aircraft "nicer" to fly...not that it was ever bad.
>
> I also do not want to argue with anyone. So if you like your
> slats.......please keep them......and for anyone still
> building I will be glad to sell you a nice set. Smile and
> have a nice day! Tom
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p918#80918
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
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! --
|