Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:10 AM - Re: vg's (secatur)
2. 04:00 AM - Re: vg's (noel anderson)
3. 04:23 AM - Re: Re: vg's (Roger Roy)
4. 05:06 AM - Re: Re: vg's/ green scotchbrite (Big Gee)
5. 05:38 AM - Re: vg's (ZodieRocket)
6. 05:38 AM - For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (ZodieRocket)
7. 05:42 AM - Re: vg's (MacDonald Doug)
8. 05:53 AM - Cabin heat box (vwknott)
9. 05:59 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! ()
10. 06:06 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! ()
11. 06:20 AM - Re: Pitot Tube length (n801bh@netzero.com)
12. 06:22 AM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (Aaron Gustafson)
13. 06:22 AM - Re: Cabin heat box (Trevor Page)
14. 06:25 AM - Re: Re: auto engine liquid cooling (n801bh@netzero.com)
15. 06:47 AM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (Gig Giacona)
16. 06:47 AM - Re: Re: vg's (n801bh@netzero.com)
17. 06:53 AM - Re: Re: vg's (n801bh@netzero.com)
18. 06:55 AM - Re: Zenith-List Digest: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (John M. Goodings)
19. 06:58 AM - Re: Re: auto engine liquid cooling (BELTEDAIR@aol.com)
20. 07:05 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Jon Croke)
21. 07:15 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Big Gee)
22. 07:18 AM - Re: Re: auto engine liquid cooling (MacDonald Doug)
23. 07:44 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! ()
24. 07:50 AM - Landing Lights (Brad DeMeo)
25. 07:56 AM - Re: Cabin heat box (LarryMcFarland)
26. 08:42 AM - Re: Landing Lights (Bryan Martin)
27. 09:03 AM - Re: Re: vg's (Frank Stutzman)
28. 09:06 AM - Anyone want to trade Gasolators? (Gig Giacona)
29. 09:11 AM - Homebuilts & Insurance (TYA2)
30. 10:19 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Keith Ashcraft)
31. 10:20 AM - Re: Homebuilts & Insurance (Big Gee)
32. 10:36 AM - LSA and night (Timothy D. Perkins)
33. 10:37 AM - Re: Homebuilts & Insurance (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
34. 11:03 AM - Re: Re: vg's (JohnDRead@aol.com)
35. 11:11 AM - Re: vg's (billmileski)
36. 11:20 AM - Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? (Tim Juhl)
37. 11:48 AM - Re: vg's (Milburn Reed)
38. 11:56 AM - Re: Re: vg's/ green scotchbrite (Noel Loveys)
39. 12:28 PM - Re: Homebuilts & Insurance (Big Gee)
40. 12:39 PM - Re: Homebuilts & Insurance (NYTerminat)
41. 12:51 PM - Re: Pitot Tube length (Dave Ruddiman)
42. 02:19 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Gig Giacona)
43. 02:24 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (ZodieRocket)
44. 02:32 PM - Re: propellors ()
45. 02:41 PM - Re: Re: vg's (Flydog1966@aol.com)
46. 02:43 PM - Re: Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! ()
47. 02:52 PM - Re: propellors ()
48. 03:11 PM - Re: propellors (billbutlergps@aim.com)
49. 03:29 PM - Re: propellors ()
50. 03:57 PM - Re: propellors (afterfxllc@aol.com)
51. 04:01 PM - Re: propellors (Dino Bortolin)
52. 04:11 PM - Re: vg's (Avidmagnum)
53. 04:16 PM - Re: propellors (Craig Payne)
54. 04:22 PM - Re: propellors (Craig Payne)
55. 04:24 PM - Re: Landing Lights (Bill Naumuk)
56. 04:32 PM - Re: propellors ()
57. 05:02 PM - Re: Landing Lights (Craig Payne)
58. 05:07 PM - Re: auto engine liquid cooling (roy vickski)
59. 05:29 PM - Re: Re: vg's (Noel Loveys)
60. 05:33 PM - Re: propellors (billbutlergps@aim.com)
61. 06:40 PM - Re: VGs (John Gilpin)
62. 07:21 PM - Wing Panel weight (David Mikesell)
63. 07:38 PM - Re: Re: VGs (Noel Loveys)
64. 07:39 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (LRM)
65. 08:04 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Big Gee)
66. 08:41 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (George Harris)
67. 10:42 PM - Re: VGs (Eddie G.)
68. 11:32 PM - Re: Re: VGs (John Gilpin)
69. 11:40 PM - Re: Wing Panel weight (John Gilpin)
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 |
|
Well, I guess I'll just have to change my mind and build the slats and throw these
VG's away !
1700+ hours of independant, documented testing WITHOUT 1 negative report ain't
gonna convince me!
And when my 701 is finished I will park it right next to my Wright Flyer, and my
Model T ford (Black of course!) right under the big sign that says "EXPERIMENTAL..do
not change or alter ever...or else!!"
ps: Can somebody please post some BAD results with VG's instead of Slats .... so
I can feel justified??
Wowie Zowie !
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p961#80961
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 |
|
Hi John.
I note your comments on VG's and slats/slots, how do you
explain the apparent improvements in Vc. and stall?? Is it that, Zenith
had an already good STOL wing, and to increase the angle of attack stuck
a slat/slot on the leading edge???? As a matter of interest, I live
10mins drive from Auckland University, I'll have a chat with Martin
Simons, it may be of some interrst to our local flyers!!
Kind Regards, Fly Safe Noel
----- Original Message -----
From: JohnDRead@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 7:08 PM
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
9/12/2006
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 |
|
Yes there is a bad thing about the VG's and that would be having to wait 10
days for the mail shipment to arrive, sorry that's all I can think of at the
moment
RJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "secatur" <appraise1@bigpond.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:08 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vg's
>
> Well, I guess I'll just have to change my mind and build the slats and
> throw these VG's away !
> 1700+ hours of independant, documented testing WITHOUT 1 negative report
> ain't gonna convince me!
> And when my 701 is finished I will park it right next to my Wright Flyer,
> and my Model T ford (Black of course!) right under the big sign that says
> "EXPERIMENTAL..do not change or alter ever...or else!!"
>
> ps: Can somebody please post some BAD results with VG's instead of Slats
> .... so I can feel justified??
>
> Wowie Zowie !
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p961#80961
>
>
>
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: vg's/ green scotchbrite |
I agree with Tom--- I don't want to argue with anyone either. This slat/
vg talk is starting to join the "green scotchbrite" thread. It was all dis
cused several weeks ago. Apparently it was started by someone flying witho
ut slats. (they already had the answers to the questions they posted) Eve
ryone gave their inputs and than the subject finally died down. Now it wa
s brought up again by the same persons post explaining how he made "fools o
ut of everyone" (paraphased).=0A=0ABottom line is, there are performance ch
anges to the aircraft when taking the slats off. This has been well documen
ted by those who hae done it. The question is: Do you fly without slats, i
nstall vg's or leave the slats on ?? We'll never agree on this topic, all a
spects have been covered, so why not drop the subject. I suspect those try
ing to keep it alive are the ones trying to promote their VG business.=0A
=0AI do feel that all those folks flying a CH 701 designed by Chris Heintz
without the slats (major modification) post their name, aircraft serial num
ber, and aircraft registration number to this site so that the insurance co
mpanies can be aware of what is going on. Maybe one of you CH-701 drivers
could call your insurance company, get the facts and than post them here.
(I understand some folks fly without insurance--- that's their business)=0A
=0AYes we are flying Experimental aircraft and I respect that, but, it is n
o longer a "CH 701" once you take the slats off and you shouldn't be tellin
g your insurance company that it is.=0A=0AFritz=0A=0A=0A----- Original Mess
age ----=0AFrom: Avidmagnum <classpix@sbcglobal.net>=0ATo: zenith-list@matr
onics.com=0ASent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:25:07 PM=0ASubject: Zenith-Li
pix@sbcglobal.net>=0A=0AHi Joe=0A=0AI also removed the slats from my 701 Am
phib and put on the feathers VGs. I've been flying the wings off it the las
t 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, engi
ne , 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. =0A=0AI also do not want to arg
ue with anyone. So if you like your slats.......please keep them......and f
or anyone still building I will be glad to sell you a nice set. Smile and
have a nice day! Tom=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp
://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p918#80918=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
===0A=0A=0A =0A________________________________________________________
____________________________=0ANeed a quick answer? Get one in minutes from
people who know.=0AAsk your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
OK, will do! It doesn't matter if the plane fly's better with the slats
or without. But in America and Canada lets just see how fast the
insurance companies bail on your ass for removing a flying surface that
the designer says should be there. Regardless of any situation that may
involve the NTSB removal of the slats called forth by the designer would
be written in as a contributing factor( likely even if you ran out of
gas), in which the builder removed before flight and once again have fun
with AVEMCO or any other insurance dealer. Also since you have
experimented and removed the slats the designer called for then you have
made a structural change and can no longer call it a 701, once again
enjoy your insurance company when you tell them this is a one off. If
you're Canadian, I doubt your 701 would pass an inspection for the MD-RA
to get it's flight authority and if you register as an AULA you are not
allowed to remove anything from the plans.
I can't comment on the pro's of VG's, I know a lot of people have made
money selling them. I also know that until the designer states that the
design requires VG's they will never see my plane.
As for reported testing having been done. I don't dispute there figures
but I do caution most to consider this. I have a 701 close to me that
cruises at 85mph, and another with the same engine that cruises at 105
at the same power setting. Difference is that the builder of the second
701 streamlined the struts, cleaned up the cowling, adjusted so that the
stabilizer is on correctly with flight checks. There were no major
modifications just common sense clean up and he is cruising his 701 at 5
MPH below the Vne! The Recreational Flyer magazine article that shows
this comparison is on the Zenith website.
Personal outlook only. You can add whatever you want to your 701, remove
what you want from your 701, and believe in anything you want! But I
will not be removing my slats! I do not plan on cruising ANY plane at or
near Vne. I'm quite happy with a 701 that can cruise at 95mph with a
Rotax 912S I believe that this is well within reach of anyone who has
built a straight 701 and will now spend the time to clean it up. You
want an instant 5mph in your 701? Call Zenith and order the new FWF. As
a bonus your fuselage will be quieter from the less vibration passed on
by the new engine mount. Another 5mph can be gained by taking a piece of
.016 and wrapping your struts into a streamline airfoil. I'm not going
to risk an insurance company telling me that I don't have coverage after
I hit a deer on the runway when the NTSB states that I have removed a
portion of flying surface!
You folks that have gone through all the hassle of removing the slats
and adding Vg's good for you, your courage deserves applause. But when
it comes to the 701 if the owner is not getting over 75mph cruise with a
912, then they need to spend time fixing what they have wrong, not throw
parts away! ( well maybe the prop) For those who have a 701 flying at
100mph cruise or higher, why would you want to be that close to Vne all
the time?
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of secatur
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:09 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vg's
Well, I guess I'll just have to change my mind and build the slats and
throw these VG's away !
1700+ hours of independant, documented testing WITHOUT 1 negative report
ain't gonna convince me!
And when my 701 is finished I will park it right next to my Wright
Flyer, and my Model T ford (Black of course!) right under the big sign
that says "EXPERIMENTAL..do not change or alter ever...or else!!"
ps: Can somebody please post some BAD results with VG's instead of Slats
.... so I can feel justified??
Wowie Zowie !
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p961#80961
--
12/11/2006
--
12/11/2006
--
12/11/2006
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: | For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
I agree that the fuselage is nice to have built first, but remember that
this is not Jon's first plane. Unless you buy Jon's DVD ( which I always
recommend as a guide to help) then you will not learn things that
building the wings will teach you to apply to the fuselage's
construction. Also Wings can hang from the ceiling or in a wing cradle
and be pushed to the side of the shop. Jon has an incredible amount of
room in his shop and fit 4 fuselages and still have room for making his
wings. Most of us don't have that room and the fuselage will just get
damaged from hanger rash trying to build around it. IF you want to build
your fuselage first, please do no one will stop you. But be aware first
timers that there may be added difficulties in doing so.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon Croke
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:26 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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
>
>
--
12/11/2006
--
12/11/2006
--
12/11/2006
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Firstly, let me say that this VG instead of slats is
an interesting idea, sounds like some good results. A
little careful experimentation is not a bad thing.
That being said, I don't think I'll be going that way
myself. I'll probably stick with the slats.
Now for my personal "nay sayer" reasoning. The point
that several of the posters have made here that
apparently is not being acknowledged is: According the
Chris Heintz, the slat is NOT an add on component to
maximize the angle of lift. The shape of the slat is
actually part of the designed airfoil. The shape of
the wing minus the slat is a totally different airfoil
than what Chris chose when he designed the CH-701.
The fact that this different airfoil works as well as
it is reported too has convinced me of just how
exceptional VGs really are in controlling separation
of the boundary layer. That and a testament to how
well the CH-701 is designed that you can make a major
change like removing the slats and adding VGs and
still get excellent STOL performance.
Another interesting test might be to maintain Chris'
chosen airfoil by blocking off the gap (as has been
suggested) and trying VGs. I would be very interested
in the results of that trial. I personally would
prefer to go this route if I was going to eliminate
the slats.
For those posters who have tried the slat elimination,
keep letting us in on your test flying results, it
sounds like you are getting some good ones.
do not archive
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch Builder
NW Ontario, Canada
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
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 |
|
Anyone know were to get the plans to build a cabin heat box???
Vern Knott
701 in R I
vwknott@cox.net
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: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Jon,
Thanks for the advice. I had not thought about doing the fuselage next, just because
I thought that the wings were the usual next step. I will strongly consider
doing the fuselage next since I need all of the motivational help I can
get. On the "remove the slats and VG issue", Mark Townsend has convinced me to
build my CH701 Kit "per plans", with the slats. The only reason the "slat removal
and VG approach" seemed attractive was that I don't plan to push the envelop
and "hang the plane on the prop" at high angles of attack at low altitude
because it is obviously the most risky position to be in if you have a engine-out.
Thanks for the input and best wishes for the Holidays.
Bob Eli
---- Jon Croke <Jon@joncroke.com> wrote:
>
> 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 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: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Mark,
Thanks for the advice. I also appreciate your thoughts regarding the "slat removal
- VG" issues, and it has convinced me to build my 701 without modifications.
I do need to order a copy of Jon's DVD. I will do that as soon as I get
back home from my trip here in San Francisco.
Bob Eli
---- ZodieRocket <zodierocket@hsfx.ca> wrote:
>
>
> I agree that the fuselage is nice to have built first, but remember that
> this is not Jon's first plane. Unless you buy Jon's DVD ( which I always
> recommend as a guide to help) then you will not learn things that
> building the wings will teach you to apply to the fuselage's
> construction. Also Wings can hang from the ceiling or in a wing cradle
> and be pushed to the side of the shop. Jon has an incredible amount of
> room in his shop and fit 4 fuselages and still have room for making his
> wings. Most of us don't have that room and the fuselage will just get
> damaged from hanger rash trying to build around it. IF you want to build
> your fuselage first, please do no one will stop you. But be aware first
> timers that there may be added difficulties in doing so.
>
> Mark Townsend
> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
> president@can-zacaviation.com
> www.can-zacaviation.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon Croke
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:26 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> 12/11/2006
>
>
> --
> 12/11/2006
>
>
> --
> 12/11/2006
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pitot Tube length |
Haiko Eishler in Colorado got his 801 flying a few months before mine an
d noticed that the indicated airspeed was unusual. The placement of the
opening was a little far aft and it apparently was getting some dirty ai
r off the slats. I made an extension for mine with some thin wall tubing
. Mine is about 2 inches in front of the slat and gets clean air and sho
ws very accurate numbers.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting@comcast.net> wrote:
A question for you all. Is there a specific length or I.D. the pitot tub
e is supposed to be. I thought I would use the one supplied for my 801 a
nd make it replaceable. I've never had one broken, but it would be nice
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
===========
<html><P>Haiko Eishler in Colorado got his 801 flying a few months befor
e mine and noticed that the indicated airspeed was unusual. The placemen
t of the opening was a little far aft and it apparently was getting some
dirty air off the slats. I made an extension for mine with some thin wa
ll tubing. Mine is about 2 inches in front of the slat and gets clean ai
r and shows very accurate numbers.</P>
<P>do not archive<BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.haaspowerair
.com<BR><BR>-- "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting@comcas
t.net> wrote:<BR></P>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A question for you all. Is there a spec
ific 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dave in Salem</FONT></DIV><PRE><B><FONT
face="courier new,courier" color=#000000 size=2>
========================
===========
roelectric.com</A>
com/">www.buildersbooks.com</A>
kitlog.com</A>
homebuilthelp.com</A>
www.matronics.com/contribution</A>
========================
===========
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List</A>
========================
===========
</B></FONT></PRE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
>>> LSA allows for one hour after sunset.
Respectful Clarification: Sport Pilot rule states flying is legal during
"civil twilight" which is technically "when the sun is les than 10 below
the horizon". This amounts to about 25 minutes in my location.
Your location may vary as might the seasonal differences.
A Private Pilot, with night flying endorsement, may fly a LSA (Light Sport
Aircraft) at night provided that aircraft is properly equipped.
do not archive
Aaron Gustafson
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cabin heat box |
Not really but I made my own and it works quite well. It's on the
ch601.org site under "cheap heat box" or something.
This unit is very nice as well:
http://www.upac.ca/classifieds/showproduct.php?
product=162&sort=1&cat=5&page=1
Trevor Page
UPAC Webmaster
www.upac.ca
On Dec 12, 2006, at 8:44 AM, vwknott wrote:
> Anyone know were to get the plans to build a cabin heat box???
>
> Vern Knott
> 701 in R I
> vwknott@cox.net
> ============================================================ _-
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List_-
> ===========================================================
>
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: auto engine liquid cooling |
Tim is correct there, also on a cooling system you need to move the cool
ant through the whole system quickly, the small tubes in the AC exchange
r restricts that too much. I had great results with a company down in Ki
ngman Az called Alumarad. The guy is the best on building custom sized r
adiators and at a reasonable price..
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- Tim & Diane Shankland <tshank@core.com> wrote:
Terry,
When I was designing the cooling system for my Stratus Suburu several ye
ars ago I tested an AC evaporator and several heater cores to find the r
ight combination for my installation. In general I found that the AC uni
ts 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 hundre
ds pounds of pressure or so, while the auto heat exchanger only has to h
old 14 psi. Consequently if you look at the AC heat exchanger it is much
heavier and has thicker passages. Heater cores and auto radiators appea
r 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 thi
s. Aside from being heavy, what's the downside of using an automobile AC
condenser rather than AC evaporators or regular radiator for aircraft c
onvesion? Thanks. Do Not Archive. Terry Turnquist601XL-PlansSt. Peters,
MO
Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@cox.net> wrote:--> Zenith-List message posted by
: "Gig Giacona"
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
========================
========================
========================
===============
<html>Tim is correct there, also on a cooling system you need to move th
e coolant through the whole system quickly, the small tubes in the AC ex
changer restricts that too much. I had great results with a company down
in Kingman Az called Alumarad. The guy is the best on building custom s
ized radiators and at a reasonable price..<BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N
801BH<BR>www.haaspowerair.com<BR><BR>-- Tim & Diane&n
bsp;Shankland <tshank@core.com> wrote:<BR>Terry,<BR>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 w
ere 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 hundr
eds 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 muc
h heavier and has thicker passages. Heater cores and auto radiators appe
ar to be almost paper thin and transfer the heat more effectively.<BR><B
R>Tim Shankland<BR><BR>Terry Turnquist wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid153233.70992.qm@web55507.mail.re4.yahoo.com type=
"cite">
<DIV>Hi, a question for the gearheads among you is this.
Aside from being heavy, what's the downside of using an automobile AC co
ndenser rather than AC evaporators or regular radiator for aircraft conv
esion? Thanks. </DIV>
<DIV>Do Not Archive.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Terry Turnquist</DIV>
<DIV>601XL-Plans</DIV>
<DIV>St. Peters, MO<BR><BR><B><I>Gig Giacona <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc
2396E href="mailto:wr.giacona@cox.net"><wr.giacona@cox.net></A><
/I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid">--> Zenith-List message poste
d by: "Gig Giacona" <WR.GIACONA @cox.net=""><BR><BR>The message above
doesn't show in the Forum Interface.<BR><BR>--------<BR>W.R. "Gig" Giaco
na<BR>601XL Under Construction<BR>See my progress at <A class=moz-txt-
link-abbreviated href="http://www.peoamerica.net/N601WR">www.peoameric
a.net/N601WR</A><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Read this topic online </WR.GIACONA>
<PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" color=#000000 size=2>
</FONT></B></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><PRE><B><FONT face="cou
rier new,courier" color=#000000 size=2>
========================
===========
roelectric.com</A>
com/">www.buildersbooks.com</A>
kitlog.com</A>
homebuilthelp.com</A>
www.matronics.com/contribution</A>
========================
===========
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List</A>
========================
===========
</B></FONT></PRE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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? |
Since we are talking about US FARs here I'd like add that there is no "Night Flying
Endorsement" for private pilots
A private pilot operating as a private pilot may fly any aircraft that he is legal
to fly during the day at night as well as long as it is properly equipped.
A private pilot operating as a LSA pilot (using drivers license as medical) may
not operate and LSA aircraft at night.
Here is a great FAQ for rated pilots and operating as a LSA pilot.
http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmfaqs.asp?topicid=8
agustafson(at)chartermi.n wrote:
> Respectful Clarification: Sport Pilot rule states flying is legal during
> "civil twilight" which is technically "when the sun is les than 10 below
> the horizon". This amounts to about 25 minutes in my location.
> Your location may vary as might the seasonal differences.
>
> A Private Pilot, with night flying endorsement, may fly a LSA (Light Sport
> Aircraft) at night provided that aircraft is properly equipped.
> do not archive
>
> Aaron Gustafson
--------
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?p=81012#81012
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 |
|
With 1700 hours of testing you surely have at least ONE picture of a 701
actually flying in the air with the slats removed.
I am still waiting to see it. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "secatur" <appraise1@bigpond.com> wrote:
Well, I guess I'll just have to change my mind and build the slats and t
hrow these VG's away !
1700+ hours of independant, documented testing WITHOUT 1 negative report
ain't gonna convince me!
And when my 701 is finished I will park it right next to my Wright Flyer
, and my Model T ford (Black of course!) right under the big sign that s
ays "EXPERIMENTAL..do not change or alter ever...or else!!"
ps: Can somebody please post some BAD results with VG's instead of Slats
.... so I can feel justified??
Wowie Zowie !
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p961#80961
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
<html><P>With 1700 hours of testing you surely have at least ONE picture
of a 701 actually flying in the air with the slats removed.</P>
<P> I am still waiting to see it. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!</P>
<P>do not archive<BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.haaspowerair
.com<BR><BR>-- "secatur" <appraise1@bigpond.com> wr
ote:<BR>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "
secatur" <appraise1@bigpond.com><BR><BR>Well, I gue
ss I'll just have to change my mind&n
bsp;and build the slats and throw these&nb
sp;VG's away !<BR>1700+ hours of independant,&n
bsp;documented testing WITHOUT 1 negative repor
t ain't gonna convince me!<BR>And when my&
nbsp;701 is finished I will park it r
ight next to my Wright Flyer, and my&
nbsp;Model T ford (Black of course!) right
under the big sign that says "EXPERI
MENTAL..do not change or alter ever...or e
lse!!"<BR><BR>ps: Can somebody please post some
BAD results with VG's instead of Sla
ts .... so I can feel justified??<BR><BR>W
owie Zowie !<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Read this topic 
;online here:<BR><BR>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=
========================
========================
nbsp;Please Support Your Lists This Month
nbsp;the Contribution link below to find o
nbsp; * Aeroware Enterprises www.k
= &nb
sp; &nb
sp; -Matt Dralle, List 
========================
- The Ze
atronics List Features Navigator to browse<BR>_
-= the many List utilities such as
sp; --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Lis
========================
==============<BR></P>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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 |
|
Can I have an AMEN ..................................
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "ZodieRocket" <zodierocket@hsfx.ca> wrote:
OK, will do! It doesn't matter if the plane fly's better with the slats
or without. But in America and Canada lets just see how fast the
insurance companies bail on your ass for removing a flying surface that
the designer says should be there. Regardless of any situation that may
involve the NTSB removal of the slats called forth by the designer would
be written in as a contributing factor( likely even if you ran out of
gas), in which the builder removed before flight and once again have fun
with AVEMCO or any other insurance dealer. Also since you have
experimented and removed the slats the designer called for then you have
made a structural change and can no longer call it a 701, once again
enjoy your insurance company when you tell them this is a one off. If
you're Canadian, I doubt your 701 would pass an inspection for the MD-RA
to get it's flight authority and if you register as an AULA you are not
allowed to remove anything from the plans.
I can't comment on the pro's of VG's, I know a lot of people have made
money selling them. I also know that until the designer states that the
design requires VG's they will never see my plane.
As for reported testing having been done. I don't dispute there figures
but I do caution most to consider this. I have a 701 close to me that
cruises at 85mph, and another with the same engine that cruises at 105
at the same power setting. Difference is that the builder of the second
701 streamlined the struts, cleaned up the cowling, adjusted so that the
stabilizer is on correctly with flight checks. There were no major
modifications just common sense clean up and he is cruising his 701 at 5
MPH below the Vne! The Recreational Flyer magazine article that shows
this comparison is on the Zenith website.
Personal outlook only. You can add whatever you want to your 701, remove
what you want from your 701, and believe in anything you want! But I
will not be removing my slats! I do not plan on cruising ANY plane at or
near Vne. I'm quite happy with a 701 that can cruise at 95mph with a
Rotax 912S I believe that this is well within reach of anyone who has
built a straight 701 and will now spend the time to clean it up. You
want an instant 5mph in your 701? Call Zenith and order the new FWF. As
a bonus your fuselage will be quieter from the less vibration passed on
by the new engine mount. Another 5mph can be gained by taking a piece of
=2E016 and wrapping your struts into a streamline airfoil. I'm not going
to risk an insurance company telling me that I don't have coverage after
I hit a deer on the runway when the NTSB states that I have removed a
portion of flying surface!
You folks that have gone through all the hassle of removing the slats
and adding Vg's good for you, your courage deserves applause. But when
it comes to the 701 if the owner is not getting over 75mph cruise with a
912, then they need to spend time fixing what they have wrong, not throw
parts away! ( well maybe the prop) For those who have a 701 flying at
100mph cruise or higher, why would you want to be that close to Vne all
the time?
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of secatur
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:09 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vg's
Well, I guess I'll just have to change my mind and build the slats and
throw these VG's away !
1700+ hours of independant, documented testing WITHOUT 1 negative report
ain't gonna convince me!
And when my 701 is finished I will park it right next to my Wright
Flyer, and my Model T ford (Black of course!) right under the big sign
that says "EXPERIMENTAL..do not change or alter ever...or else!!"
ps: Can somebody please post some BAD results with VG's instead of Slats
=2E... so I can feel justified??
Wowie Zowie !
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p961#80961
--
12/11/2006
--
12/11/2006
--
12/11/2006
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
<html><P>Can I have an AMEN ..................................</P>
<P>do not archive<BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.haaspowerair
.com<BR><BR>-- "ZodieRocket" <zodierocket@hsfx.ca>
wrote:<BR>--> Zenith-List message posted by: 
;"ZodieRocket" <zodierocket@hsfx.ca><BR><BR><BR>OK, will
do! It doesn't matter if the plane&n
bsp;fly's better with the slats<BR>or without.&
nbsp;But in America and Canada lets just&n
bsp;see how fast the<BR>insurance companies bai
l on your ass for removing a flying&n
bsp;surface that<BR>the designer says should be
there. Regardless of any situation that&n
bsp;may<BR>involve the NTSB removal of the 
;slats called forth by the designer would<
BR>be written in as a contributing factor(
likely even if you ran out of<BR>gas
), in which the builder removed before&nbs
p;flight and once again have fun<BR>with A
VEMCO or any other insurance dealer. Also&
nbsp;since you have<BR>experimented and removed 
;the slats the designer called for then&nb
sp;you have<BR>made a structural change and&nbs
p;can no longer call it a 701, once&n
bsp;again<BR>enjoy your insurance company when
you tell them this is a one off. 
;If<BR>you're Canadian, I doubt your 701 w
ould pass an inspection for the MD-RA<BR>t
o get it's flight authority and if yo
u register as an AULA you are not<BR>
allowed to remove anything from the plans.
<BR><BR>I can't comment on the pro's 
;of VG's, I know a lot of people 
;have made<BR>money selling them. I also k
now that until the designer states that&nb
sp;the<BR>design requires VG's they will never&
nbsp;see my plane.<BR><BR>As for reported testi
ng having been done. I don't dispute
there figures<BR>but I do caution most to&
nbsp;consider this. I have a 701 close&nbs
p;to me that<BR>cruises at 85mph, and anot
her with the same engine that cruises 
;at 105<BR>at the same power setting. Diff
erence is that the builder of the sec
ond<BR>701 streamlined the struts, cleaned up&n
bsp;the cowling, adjusted so that the<BR>stabil
izer is on correctly with flight checks.&n
bsp;There were no major<BR>modifications just c
ommon sense clean up and he is cruisi
ng his 701 at 5<BR>MPH below the Vne!
The Recreational Flyer magazine article t
hat shows<BR>this comparison is on the Zen
ith website.<BR><BR>Personal outlook only. You
can add whatever you want to your 701
, remove<BR>what you want from your 701,&n
bsp;and believe in anything you want! But&
nbsp;I<BR>will not be removing my slats! I
do not plan on cruising ANY plane&nb
sp;at or<BR>near Vne. I'm quite happy with
a 701 that can cruise at 95mph
with a<BR>Rotax 912S I believe that this&n
bsp;is well within reach of anyone who&nbs
p;has<BR>built a straight 701 and will now
spend the time to clean it up.
You<BR>want an instant 5mph in your 701?&n
bsp;Call Zenith and order the new FWF.&nbs
p;As<BR>a bonus your fuselage will be quie
ter from the less vibration passed on<BR>b
y the new engine mount. Another 5mph
can be gained by taking a piece of<BR
>.016 and wrapping your struts into a 
;streamline airfoil. I'm not going<BR>to risk&n
bsp;an insurance company telling me that I
don't have coverage after<BR>I hit a 
;deer on the runway when the NTSB sta
tes that I have removed a<BR>portion of&nb
sp;flying surface! <BR><BR>You folks that have&
nbsp;gone through all the hassle of removi
ng the slats<BR>and adding Vg's good for&n
bsp;you, your courage deserves applause. But&nb
sp;when<BR>it comes to the 701 if the 
;owner is not getting over 75mph cruise&nb
sp;with a<BR>912, then they need to spend&
nbsp;time fixing what they have wrong, not
throw<BR>parts away! ( well maybe the&nbs
p;prop) For those who have a 701 flyi
ng at<BR>100mph cruise or higher, why woul
d you want to be that close to V
ne all<BR>the time? <BR><BR>Mark Townsend  
;Alma, Ontario<BR>Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 ju
st started<BR>www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / w
ww.Osprey2.com<BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: owner-ze
nith-list-server@matronics.com<BR>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matro
nics.com] On Behalf Of secatur<BR>Sent: Tuesday
, December 12, 2006 6:09 AM<BR>To: zenith-
list@matronics.com<BR>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vg's<BR><
BR>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "secat
ur" <appraise1@bigpond.com><BR><BR>Well, I guess&nb
sp;I'll just have to change my mind a
nd build the slats and<BR>throw these VG's
away !<BR>1700+ hours of independant, doc
umented testing WITHOUT 1 negative report<BR>ai
n't gonna convince me!<BR>And when my 701&
nbsp;is finished I will park it right 
;next to my Wright<BR>Flyer, and my Model&
nbsp;T ford (Black of course!) right under
the big sign<BR>that says "EXPERIMENTAL..do&nb
sp;not change or alter ever...or else!!"<BR><BR
>ps: Can somebody please post some BAD&nbs
p;results with VG's instead of Slats<BR>....&nb
sp;so I can feel justified??<BR><BR>Wowie Zowie
!<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Read this topic online he
re:<BR><BR>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p961#80961<BR>
<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>12/11/2006<BR> <BR>
<BR>-- <BR>12/11/2006<BR> <BR><BR>-- <BR>12/11/2006<BR>&n
========================
-- Please Support&nb
p; (And Get Som
;November is the Annual List Fund Raiser.&
link below to find out more about<BR
nbsp; * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.c
bsp; * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com<BR
;  
;  
========================
========================
sp; - The Zenith-List Email F
p;List utilities such as the Subscriptions 
========================
========================
=====<BR></P>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Zenith-List Digest: Landing/taxi light requirements for |
601XL?
We put a 55 W automotive head lamp in each wingtip, one set for 50 feet in
front of our 601HD, the other for 100 feet, shining through a curved
polycarbonate rectangle (with rounded corners) in the leading edge.
First, they were a LOT OF WORK to make (certainly more than 50 hours); the
spring-loaded mechanism to adjust their angle was complicated, as was the
holder to have the polycarbonate conform tightly to the leading edge
curve. They have individual switches. Two things on their use. A 25,000
hour airline pilot friend (who also built a 601HD) insists that one of the
lamps be on whenever we fly in the daytime. He says that birds see them.
I'm almost certain I heard Chris Heintz make the same comment some years
ago. Certainly the light is very visible from the ground. From the
aircraft seats, you wouldn't know the light was on. BUT, the other day,
for the first time, we arrived back at our home airport rather late; it
was not dark, but getting so. It was great (and helpful) to see two discs
of light roughly 50 feet and 100 feet ahead of the aircraft on the runway!
John Goodings, C-FGPJ, CH601HD with R912S, Toronto/Ottawa/Waterloo.
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: auto engine liquid cooling |
Fellows years ago when we were using evaporators for our projects we found
the following, The Harrison's built for GM had larger water passages than the
ones built for Ford. Even though they are thick they cool excellant. The real
secret is to direct air into them without leakage and have a good "draw" at the
cowling outlet. If you test your cowls in various angles of attack and at
different speeds (tufting, smoke) you will be amazed at what you see. 1" "U"
bends were available from Johnstone supply and can be welded to the units. We
even sawed them to the length and welded parts on. Again this was in the very
early days. But again beware of the passages in the units, one the GM will flow
water the other won't and they look the same externally.
Belted Air Power
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: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
This is good advice!
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
>
> I agree that the fuselage is nice to have built first, but remember that
> this is not Jon's first plane. Unless you buy Jon's DVD ( which I always
> recommend as a guide to help) then you will not learn things that
> building the wings will teach you to apply to the fuselage's
> construction. Also Wings can hang from the ceiling or in a wing cradle
> and be pushed to the side of the shop. Jon has an incredible amount of
> room in his shop and fit 4 fuselages and still have room for making his
> wings. Most of us don't have that room and the fuselage will just get
> damaged from hanger rash trying to build around it. IF you want to build
> your fuselage first, please do no one will stop you. But be aware first
> timers that there may be added difficulties in doing so.
>
> Mark Townsend
> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
> president@can-zacaviation.com
> www.can-zacaviation.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: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Bob, my vote is with Mark T. Do the wings first, hang them up out of the w
ay, than do the fuselage. I don't know about Jon's video, I have never seen
it. I am sure he has some good points in it. I do know in the "old days"
Chris said do the wings first as it was easier to build the fuselage to fi
t the wings, than to try and build the wings to fit the fuselage. Good lu
ck in what ever you decide.=0AFritz=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AF
rom: "robert.eli@adelphia.net" <robert.eli@adelphia.net>=0ATo: zenith-list@
matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:58:48 AM=0ASubject: Re:
Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away!=0A=0A=0A-->
Zenith-List message posted by: <robert.eli@adelphia.net>=0A=0AJon,=0A=0ATh
anks for the advice. I had not thought about doing the fuselage next, just
because I thought that the wings were the usual next step. I will strongl
y consider doing the fuselage next since I need all of the motivational hel
p I can get. On the "remove the slats and VG issue", Mark Townsend has con
vinced me to build my CH701 Kit "per plans", with the slats. The only reas
on the "slat removal and VG approach" seemed attractive was that I don't pl
an to push the envelop and "hang the plane on the prop" at high angles of a
ttack at low altitude because it is obviously the most risky position to be
in if you have a engine-out. Thanks for the input and best wishes for the
Holidays.=0A=0ABob Eli=0A=0A=0A---- Jon Croke <Jon@joncroke.com> wrote:
=0A> Hi Bob,=0A> =0A> I am honored that you would ask my opinion about this
, however I am the =0A> LEAST qualified to express an opinion about this to
pic. I have no formal =0A> aerodynamics education... and you may recall I
am sometimes challenged at =0A> keeping the plane in the air for more than
a few hours!=0A> =0A> If you have not built the fuselage yet, consider buil
ding that before =0A> building the wings. Obviously they both (wings and fu
se) have to be =0A> completed before flying, but I have found it makes a lo
t more emotional =0A> sense to have the body of the plane done and sitting
there whilst you embark =0A> on the wings. (Something to sit in, and hang
ar fly in around the yard, =0A> maybe even start the engine) I have done it
both ways... building the fuse =0A> first is much more rewarding, in my op
<robert.eli@adelphia.net>=0A> >=0A> > Hey Jon Croke,=0A> >=0A> > I've been
reading about all of this flight experience with the slats =0A> > removed
and vortex generators in their place. I'm finally finishing up =0A> > the
tail and thinking about the wings (yes, I know I'm as slow as you know =0A>
> what). But, I am actually thinking about building my wings minus the
=0A> > slats. Since you are on your third CH701, and obviously know the th
ing =0A> > inside out, what is your take on this no-slats approach?=0A> >
======================0A=0A=0A
=0A________________________________________________________________________
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: auto engine liquid cooling |
A good friend of mine has a Subaru EA-81 on a
Bushcaddy R-80 using the A/C Evaporator for cooling.
During initial ground running and taxi testing he was
having serious overheating problems. His cooling
system was as recommended on the Subaru newsgroups
except for one major flaw. He had used a Ford AC
evaporator. The one that has been used successfully
is a GM Van evaporator. Once he switched to the GM
one, his cooling issues were solved.
He was quite surprised by this development. How can
two evaporators perform so differently. He went to
the automotive AC shop that he purchased his
evaporators from and they ran a scraped GM and a
scrapped Ford evaporator through the band-saw to get a
cross section of the two brands. The GM evaporator
tubing was about twice the size of the Ford.
No, I'm not knocking Fords, just in this application,
the GM unit works better.
Do not archive
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch builder
Rotax 912 UL
NW Ontario, Canada
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: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Fritz and crew...
I'm working in my basement, so space is hard to find. I greatly appreciate the
discussion of the issues that need to be considered. I'm just happy to put the
issue of slats versus no slats to bed in my own mind. I will do the wings
first as is recommended. I am all "jacked-up" and ready to make a lot of progress
over these winter months. Hopefully I will have at least one wing finished
by the time we all meet at the Zenith dinner at Oshkosh next summer. I'm shooting
for having both done.
Bob Eli
---- Big Gee <taffy0687@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bob, my vote is with Mark T. Do the wings first, hang them up out of the way,
than do the fuselage. I don't know about Jon's video, I have never seen it.
I am sure he has some good points in it. I do know in the "old days" Chris said
do the wings first as it was easier to build the fuselage to fit the wings,
than to try and build the wings to fit the fuselage. Good luck in what ever
you decide.
Fritz
----- Original Message ----
From: "robert.eli@adelphia.net" <robert.eli@adelphia.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:58:48 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away!
Jon,
Thanks for the advice. I had not thought about doing the fuselage next, just because
I thought that the wings were the usual next step. I will strongly consider
doing the fuselage next since I need all of the motivational help I can
get. On the "remove the slats and VG issue", Mark Townsend has convinced me to
build my CH701 Kit "per plans", with the slats. The only reason the "slat removal
and VG approach" seemed attractive was that I don't plan to push the envelop
and "hang the plane on the prop" at high angles of attack at low altitude
because it is obviously the most risky position to be in if you have a engine-out.
Thanks for the input and best wishes for the Holidays.
Bob Eli
---- Jon Croke <Jon@joncroke.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
> >====================
________________________________________________________________________
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 |
|
One tip and one comment:
Tip: Be sure to install the lights with the light filament vertical.
Several builders have had to replace lights after hard landings because
of horizontal filament position.
Comment: I am color blind and have that limitation on my medical.
Therefore I cannot fly at night. There is no night endorsement.
Anyone with a private pilot rating who is not color blind can fly at
night so long as current for night flying. I installed lights for
resale value, though I don't plan to resell. But, if something happens
to me, my wife can sell for better value. Pretty fancy estate
planning, huh?
do not archive
Bradford J. DeMeo
565 West College Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401
(707) 545-3232
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: Cabin heat box |
Vern,
Try the Bingilis set of aircraft construction books. I believe there
are 4 of them now and you can get them
at the EAA bookstore on line.
http://www.homebuilt.org/vendors/info/bookstore/elsewhere/elsewhere.html
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
vwknott wrote:
> Anyone know were to get the plans to build a cabin heat box???
>
> Vern Knott
> 701 in R I
> vwknott@cox.net <mailto:vwknott@cox.net>
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 Lights |
To be more specific: anyone with a private pilot certificate or
higher with a valid FAA medical certificate and a current BFR can fly
at night in any aircraft he is rated to fly that is equipped for
night flight. He does not need to be night current to fly at night
but if he isn't night current he can't carry passengers until he is
night current in that category and class. It doesn't matter what
category the airplane is certificated under as long as it is properly
equipped for night flight and has no specific restrictions against
night flight. A sport pilot or anyone operating under sport pilot
rules (without a medical certificate) may not fly at night. The FAA
defines night as "the time between the end of evening civil twilight
to the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the
American Air Almanac, converted to local time".
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
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 |
|
OK, let me preface this by saying that I am not a 701 builder (yet) nor
have I even flown one. I have however owned, flown and insured several
experimental aircraft, including one which was a 'one of a kind'
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, ZodieRocket wrote:
>
> But in America and Canada lets just see how fast the
> insurance companies bail on your ass for removing a flying surface that
> the designer says should be there.
Has anyone attempted this conversation with their insurance company? I
doubt the insurance companies would even blink (well, ok, they might use
it as an excuse to squeeze you for a higher premium).
Every experimental plane is differnt as far as the insurance compaines are
concerned. Just consider the variations in engine installations and fuel
systems that we have talked about here on this list. Are the folks who
are installing the corvair, subaru, or harley-davidson engines in their
planes having problems getting insurance? They may get stuck with higher
premiums, but I wager they CAN get insurance.
> For those who have a 701 flying at 100mph cruise or higher, why would
> you want to be that close to Vne all the time?
Just because you can cruise at that close to Vne doesn't mean you have to.
Cleaning up a plane such that 100mph cruise is possible has all sorts of
benefits, the most obvious of which is a much more effecient fuel burn at,
say, 85 mph.
I'm a loooong way from having to think about making this slat/vg decision.
Its just that I don't buy many of the arguements made here. The most
compelling arguement I've seen here is the one person who mentioned the
potential reduction in structural strength of the wing by the removal of
the slats. Thats a topic I'd like to see the VG proponets address.
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR
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: | Anyone want to trade Gasolators? |
I have the Gasolator as shipped from Zenith with the tabs welded on. I'm not going
to be placing mine as specified in the plans and don't need the tabs.
So some lucky plans builder who needs the tabs can trade with me and not have to
weld it.
Send me an e-mail.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
--------
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?p=81045#81045
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: | Homebuilts & Insurance |
All home builts are by definition experimental. The experimental category
gives us the rights in North America to build what we want and how we want
and to modify or copy various features of other aircraft. Your insurance
company does not care??? It only wants your premiums, whether it is a
Zenair, a Watson special, or a Jones Ultra. Relax about design changes
unless you live in places which insist on over regulation e.g. UK or
Europe. Insurance companies exist to collect premiums, actually getting
claims paid is like winning the Irish Sweepstakes, it happens, but it isn't
likely to happen to you. I speak as someone an insurance company stole
a half a million dollars from because it would not stick up for our rights
against another insurance company and actually go to court.!!!
Chris Heinz designs UGLY, FUNCTIONAL, and CHEAP to build aircraft
but they aren't perfect. They fly safely for the most part, but all could
go faster, and cost more or take longer to build. Be generous to your
fellow builders let them make changes, and modifications. I have flown
experimental aircraft for over 2000 hours and of many different builders,
designs, and designers. I have the scars to prove that not everything
works all of the time. Many times I told those who wanted other than
lycomings in their aircraft it would cost more in the long run, and if they
spent the money on a lycoming that they were on their ford conversions they
could have a lycoming and a constant speed prop too. But they went with
ford conversions until they could not justify their pet project any
longer. There were exceptions. Ray Ward built BD-4 with big block fords
and made them fly FAST....
Good luck, to the slats, slots, VG, players among the group.
I am happy with my certified CH2000, but left to play with it on my own, I
would change the canopy to a slider, take the baggage shelf out and have a
baggage compartment, and add a baggage door, I would have a real fin and
rudder, and a proper trim wheel instead of mickey mouse switch, but I have
a certified aircraft and that is the why I can't improve on the
design. You can change, modify, or improve the design on your
homebuilt zeniths, celebrate the fact!!!
Fritz wrote :
>I do feel that all those folks flying a CH 701 designed by Chris Heintz
>without the slats (major modification) post their name, aircraft serial
>number, and aircraft registration number to this site so that the
>insurance companies can be aware of what is going on. Maybe one of you
>CH-701 drivers could call your insurance company, get the facts and than
>post them here. (I understand some folks fly without insurance--- that's
>their business)
>
>Yes we are flying Experimental aircraft and I respect that, but, it is no
>longer a "CH 701" once you take the slats off and you shouldn't be telling
>your insurance company that it is.
>
>Fritz
>
>-
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Hello all,
I have read in my "Assembly manual" that even they show having the wings
done before the fuselage, but I was wanting to do the fuselage first
myself. It shows that the mating of the front to the rear fuselage, you
set everything in accordance to your front and rear spar spacing from
your existing wings. I suppose that you can set your spar spacing from
your existing fuselage. I just never have been this far in the
construction, little lone, here John is farther on his third plane than
I have ever been on my first, but I like the idea of having something
substantial to show for your efforts, that friends and family can see,
and actually "sit in" while I make the engine noises. They can't make
noises, because I don't have a "Multi-engine rating" yet.
I will just keep making parts and see where it takes me.
(p.s. I wish I would have known about the DVD a little bit earlier, that
way it would have been included in my "Wish List" to my better half, and
she might have gotten it for Christmas.)
Keith
N 38.9947
W 105.1305
Alt. 9,100'
CH701 -- 8% scratch
Sidewinder -- 8% scratch
Teenie Two -- wooden forms
Do Not Archive
**************************************************************************************************************
ZodieRocket wrote:
>
>
>I agree that the fuselage is nice to have built first, but remember that
>this is not Jon's first plane. Unless you buy Jon's DVD ( which I always
>recommend as a guide to help) then you will not learn things that
>building the wings will teach you to apply to the fuselage's
>construction. Also Wings can hang from the ceiling or in a wing cradle
>and be pushed to the side of the shop. Jon has an incredible amount of
>room in his shop and fit 4 fuselages and still have room for making his
>wings. Most of us don't have that room and the fuselage will just get
>damaged from hanger rash trying to build around it. IF you want to build
>your fuselage first, please do no one will stop you. But be aware first
>timers that there may be added difficulties in doing so.
>
>Mark Townsend
>Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
>president@can-zacaviation.com
>www.can-zacaviation.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jon Croke
>Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:26 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
*************************************
*Keith Ashcraft*
ITT Industries
Advanced Engineering & Sciences
5009 Centennial Blvd.
Colorado Springs, CO
80919
(719) 599-1787 -- work
(719) 332-4364 -- cell
keith.ashcraft@itt.com
************************************
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are proprietary and intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
received this e-mail in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views
or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of ITT, Inc. The recipient should check
this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT accepts
no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
************************************
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: Homebuilts & Insurance |
I am in no way saying you can't get insurance--- only to be honest to what
you are building, tell the truth to the insurnace company and expect to pa
y the appropriate premiums. It stands to reason that a one of kind airplan
e will cost more to insure than one with a proven track record.=0A=0AI sti
ll don't see any of these folks providing names, tail numbers, insurance co
mpany names, rates etc.=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: TYA2 <t
ya2@4-fly.net>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0A=0ASent: Tuesday, December
12, 2006 12:11:12 PM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: Homebuilts & Insurance=0A=0A
uilts are by definition experimental. The experimental category =0Agives
us the rights in North America to build what we want and how we want =0Aand
to modify or copy various features of other aircraft. Your insurance =0A
company does not care??? It only wants your premiums, whether it is a
=0AZenair, a Watson special, or a Jones Ultra. Relax about design changes
=0Aunless you live in places which insist on over regulation e.g. UK or
=0AEurope. Insurance companies exist to collect premiums, actually gettin
g =0Aclaims paid is like winning the Irish Sweepstakes, it happens, but it
isn't =0Alikely to happen to you. I speak as someone an insurance company
stole=0Aa half a million dollars from because it would not stick up for ou
r rights =0Aagainst another insurance company and actually go to court.!!!
=0A=0A Chris Heinz designs UGLY, FUNCTIONAL, and CHEAP to build air
craft =0Abut they aren't perfect. They fly safely for the most part, but
all could =0Ago faster, and cost more or take longer to build. Be generou
s to your =0Afellow builders let them make changes, and modifications. I
have flown =0Aexperimental aircraft for over 2000 hours and of many differe
nt builders, =0Adesigns, and designers. I have the scars to prove that no
t everything =0Aworks all of the time. Many times I told those who wanted
other than =0Alycomings in their aircraft it would cost more in the long r
un, and if they =0Aspent the money on a lycoming that they were on their fo
rd conversions they =0Acould have a lycoming and a constant speed prop too.
But they went with =0Aford conversions until they could not justify thei
r pet project any =0Alonger. There were exceptions. Ray Ward built BD-4
with big block fords =0Aand made them fly FAST....=0A=0AGood luck, to the
slats, slots, VG, players among the group.=0A=0AI am happy with my certifie
d CH2000, but left to play with it on my own, I =0Awould change the canopy
to a slider, take the baggage shelf out and have a =0Abaggage compartment,
and add a baggage door, I would have a real fin and =0Arudder, and a prop
er trim wheel instead of mickey mouse switch, but I have =0Aa certified ai
rcraft and that is the why I can't improve on the =0Adesign. You can chan
ge, modify, or improve the design on your =0Ahomebuilt zeniths, celebrate
the fact!!!=0A=0AFritz wrote :=0A=0A>I do feel that all those folks flying
a CH 701 designed by Chris Heintz =0A>without the slats (major modification
) post their name, aircraft serial =0A>number, and aircraft registration nu
mber to this site so that the =0A>insurance companies can be aware of what
is going on. Maybe one of you =0A>CH-701 drivers could call your insurance
company, get the facts and than =0A>post them here. (I understand some fo
lks fly without insurance--- that's =0A>their business)=0A>=0A>Yes we are f
lying Experimental aircraft and I respect that, but, it is no =0A>longer a
"CH 701" once you take the slats off and you shouldn't be telling =0A>your
========================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 |
|
> the plus side is LSA allows for one hour after sunset.
Not quite right....but close.
According to FAR 61.315, a sport pilot may not act as PIC of a light-sport
aircraft "at night."
Per FAR 1.1, night is defined as follows: "Night means the time between the
end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight,
as published in the American Air Almanac, converted to local time." In much
of the US this is about 25/30 min.
To know the actual time in your location, you need to consult a
Sunrise/Sunset Table or calculator that lists civil twilight (and know your
Lat/Long and day you intend to fly).
So, although you can watch the sun set in your LSA, but you'd better plan on
landing very shortly afterward.
Tim Perkins
(who obviously took the SP written not too long ago)
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: Homebuilts & Insurance |
I think Fritz has to be one of those by the book kinda guys that can't read
between the lines. Fritz go ahead and let the insurance company know
everything and while your at it go ahead and let them know about every rivet that
doesn't have the proper edge distance and that you used green scotch brite pads
when you know better. The point is that the insurance companies know their
risks and rate you accordingly. They will also tie your claim up for years if
you lie and they catch you. I think the insurance companies can take care of
themselves.
do not archive
Fritz wrote :
>I do feel that all those folks flying a CH 701 designed by Chris Heintz
>without the slats (major modification) post their name, aircraft serial
>number, and aircraft registration number to this site so that the
>insurance companies can be aware of what is going on. Maybe one of you
>CH-701 drivers could call your insurance company, get the facts and than
>post them here. (I understand some folks fly without insurance--- that's
>their business)
>
>Yes we are flying Experimental aircraft and I respect that, but, it is no
>longer a "CH 701" once you take the slats off and you shouldn't be telling
>your insurance company that it is.
>
>Fritz
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 |
|
How about flush riveting a 701 that should make it exceed Vne easily?
This is such fun!
John Read
CH701 in Colorado
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 |
|
Reading all this, I can't help shaking my head, and conclude a few things.
This month in Sport Pilot (or Sport Aviation), a perfect example. A compelling
article about the KR community -- led by a wonderful guy who has transformed
the plane over time, through innovation supported by definitive testing. The
article discusses the phenomenon of hand-wavers versus those who want to really
find out, through objective testing. Long winded theory about what would happen
in a low altitude engine-out landing was replaced by a test with data gathering.
This list sounds to me like people who want a turn-key airplane, and speak mostly
of what expensive avionics they plan to put in their panels. With some very
notable exceptions, of course. However, it's funny how people on this list will
cry foul and expound their great knowledge of aerodynamic theory, as soon as
someone wants to breach the topic of experimenting. Ironic, because those so
eager to speak theory seemingly have no interest in experiencing it first hand.
And there is a lot of misinformation in the midst.
In almost every post, there is evidence that the poster hasn't read this from the
beginning, or read the other web sites, and is lacking some pertinent knowledge
(e.g. "the slat is part of the airfoil, we should try blocking the gaps and
see what happens" -- experimental results are available on exactly this test,
and also stability, but no one bothered to read far enough).
So we are left with a community of builders largely sticking to the stock parts,
and heralding the designer as a god who should not be questioned. That's fine,
but some people are still experimenters, and they should not be crucified,
just because they are vulnerable, once they open the topic of modifying CH's
designs. Guess what, all complicated mechanical systems are a work in progress
(take a look at the 912 service bulletin history). I have heard people say that
Chris Heintz always thought that the 80hp 912 was overkill for the 701, but
we don't feel bad about strapping 100hp on this airframe now, do we, since we
are comfortable with the success of this market-pressured upgrade.
Crying about insurance seems silly, none of our planes are a bargain to begin with,
and supposedly there is some liability risk after sale of the aircraft, and
god knows depreciation hits us harder than the certified crowd. If you want
to cry that loud, go ask your insurance company and report us the results, and
help add actual information (and quality) to this list.
Those who react nearly violently to the notion of experimenting with the design,
sound like they are feeling threatened, and are looking for support to validate
their own choices. We are all free to make the choices that we are comfortable
with, it's just a shame that sometimes this list sounds like a gradeschool
yard, with people forming little packs to help make themselves feel better.
Now where do I stand on the slat issue (if you care)? I think any modification
that reduces drag on the airframe at my desired cruise speed (85mph is fine with
me), is reducing strain on the airframe, and that seems like a good thing.
It sounds like efficiency gain includes a better climb rate, and improved glide,
which seem nice. If you're worried about Vne, just enjoy the extra economy
at smart cruise speeds, and by the way you could have exceeded Vne by pushing
the stick forward before, and you chose not to do so. I wonder if landing
distance is increased at all, since speed may not bleed quite as quickly in the
flare, and if there is a net loss of strength in the wing structure. However,
I don't know if I will remove my slats ever, I enjoy the aircraft, with its
pluses and minuses. It definitely has a personality, and it would likely have
a different one with VGs instead. I kind of like the appearance too. I feel
like I ought to try it, though, in the spirit of experimenting, which is what
the EAA was founded upon.
In sum, it would be terrific if we could quantify with actual data, or at least
a classic test flight approach like CAFE, how the whole package behaves in the
VG/no slat configuration. And it would be great if Chris Heintz would comment
on the structural (and other) issues. And it would be great if we all tried
to keep this list friendly, and based on a sharing of knowledge, without fear
of posting questions, or trying new things.
All the best,
Bill Mileski
701 65hrs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81077#81077
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? |
RE: GE4509 - They use them on tractors too. I used to buy them for my Cessna
at the local auto parts store... sometimes they had to order them but they were
half the price compared to aviation sources.
Tim
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81078#81078
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 |
|
Hi
Want to thank John, and Joe and Joan for the feed back. My intent is to
build exactly to the plans of the CH 701. Was reading "C.H. Design
College" and found very interesting. The differences in opinion is what
science is all about. Will see how this plays out with the data. Please
send more empirical information.
Mil
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: vg's/ green scotchbrite |
I only have one question for those who have removed the slats. Has
there
been any change in the way the plane glides? The 701 has been notorious
for
steep rate of glide... at least in this neck of the woods.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Big Gee
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: vg's/ green scotchbrite
I agree with Tom--- I don't want to argue with anyone either. This
slat/
vg talk is starting to join the "green scotchbrite" thread. It was all
discused several weeks ago. Apparently it was started by someone flying
without slats. (they already had the answers to the questions they
posted)
Everyone gave their inputs and than the subject finally died down. Now
it
was brought up again by the same persons post explaining how he made
"fools
out of everyone" (paraphased).
Bottom line is, there are performance changes to the aircraft when
taking
the slats off. This has been well documented by those who hae done it.
The
question is: Do you fly without slats, install vg's or leave the slats
on ??
We'll never agree on this topic, all aspects have been covered, so why
not
drop the subject. I suspect those trying to keep it alive are the ones
trying to promote their VG business.
I do feel that all those folks flying a CH 701 designed by Chris Heintz
without the slats (major modification) post their name, aircraft serial
number, and aircraft registration number to this site so that the
insurance
companies can be aware of what is going on. Maybe one of you CH-701
drivers
could call your insurance company, get the facts and than post them
here.
(I understand some folks fly without insurance--- that's their business)
Yes we are flying Experimental aircraft and I respect that, but, it is
no
longer a "CH 701" once you take the slats off and you shouldn't be
telling
your insurance company that it is.
Fritz
----- Original Message ----
From: Avidmagnum <classpix@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:25:07 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vg's
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
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/> ="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/"
target=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.matroni======
================
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
_____
Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo!
<http://answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFvbGNhMGE3BF9TAzM5NjU0NTEwOARfcwM
zOTY1
NDUxMDMEc2VjA21haWxfdGFnbGluZQRzbGsDbWFpbF90YWcx> Answers and get
answers
from real people who know.
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: Homebuilts & Insurance |
Afterfxllc----- what's your point ?????????????????????//=0A=0A=0A----- Ori
ginal Message ----=0AFrom: "Afterfxllc@aol.com" <Afterfxllc@aol.com>=0ATo:
zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:37:09 PM=0AS
ubject: Re: Zenith-List: Homebuilts & Insurance=0A=0A=0A =0AI think Fritz h
as to be one of those by the book kinda guys that can't read between the li
nes. Fritz go ahead and let the insurance company know everything and while
your at it go ahead and let them know about every rivet that doesn't have
the proper edge distance and that you used green scotch brite pads when you
know better. The point is that the insurance companies know their risks an
d rate you accordingly. They will also tie your claim up for years if you l
ie and they catch you. I think the insurance companies can take care of the
mselves.=0A =0Ado not archive=0A =0AFritz wrote :=0A=0A>I do feel that all
those folks flying a CH 701 designed by Chris Heintz =0A>without the slats
(major modification) post their name, aircraft serial =0A>number, and aircr
aft registration number to this site so that the =0A>insurance companies ca
n be aware of what is going on. Maybe one of you =0A>CH-701 drivers could
call your insurance company, get the facts and than =0A>post them here. (I
understand some folks fly without insurance--- that's =0A>their business)
=0A>=0A>Yes we are flying Experimental aircraft and I respect that, but, it
is no =0A>longer a "CH 701" once you take the slats off and you shouldn't
be telling =0A>your insurance company that it is.=0A>=0A>Fritz=0A=0A=0A=0A_
-========================
=0A=0A=0A =0A______________________________________________________________
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: Homebuilts & Insurance |
Amen and Amen
In a message dated 12/12/06 13:39:21 Eastern Standard Time, Afterfxllc writes:
I think Fritz has to be one of those by the book kinda guys that can't read between
the lines. Fritz go ahead and let the insurance company know everything and
while your at it go ahead and let them know about every rivet that doesn't
have the proper edge distance and that you used green scotch brite pads when you
know better. The point is that the insurance companies know their risks and
rate you accordingly. They will also tie your claim up for years if you lie and
they catch you. I think the insurance companies can take care of themselves.
do not archive
Fritz wrote :
>I do feel that all those folks flying a CH 701 designed by Chris Heintz
>without the slats (major modification) post their name, aircraft serial
>number, and aircraft registration number to this site so that the
>insurance companies can be aware of what is going on. Maybe one of you
>CH-701 drivers could call your insurance company, get the facts and than
>post them here. (I understand some folks fly without insurance--- that's
>their business)
>
>Yes we are flying Experimental aircraft and I respect that, but, it is no
>longer a "CH 701" once you take the slats off and you shouldn't be telling
>your insurance company that it is.
>
>Fritz
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: Pitot Tube length |
Makes sense to me. I'll make sure mine is a little longer.
Thanks Ben
Dave in Salem
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh@netzero.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Pitot Tube length
Haiko Eishler in Colorado got his 801 flying a few months before mine
and noticed that the indicated airspeed was unusual. The placement of
the opening was a little far aft and it apparently was getting some
dirty air off the slats. I made an extension for mine with some thin
wall tubing. Mine is about 2 inches in front of the slat and gets clean
air and shows very accurate numbers.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting@comcast.net> wrote:
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
roelectric.com
com/">www.buildersbooks.com
kitlog.com
homebuilthelp.com
www.matronics.com/contribution
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
I don't know about the 701 but as far as the 601 is concerned the manual makes
some assumptions that you have learned a particular task that was shown in the
wings section of the manual when you get to the fuselage.
In my case I had learned some of those tasks and then had a real hard time transferring
that knowledge to the fuselage.
ch701builder wrote:
> Hello all,
> I have read in my "Assembly manual" that even they show having the wings done
before the fuselage, but I was wanting to do the fuselage first myself. It shows
that the mating of the front to the rear fuselage, you set everything in
accordance to your front and rear spar spacing from your existing wings. I suppose
that you can set your spar spacing from your existing fuselage. I just never
have been this far in the construction, little lone, here John is farther
on his third plane than I have ever been on my first, but I like the idea of having
something substantial to show for your efforts, that friends and family
can see, and actually "sit in" while I make the engine noises. They can't make
noises, because I don't have a "Multi-engine rating" yet.
>
> --
--------
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?p=81107#81107
Message 43
| 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! |
Keith, send me your wife=92s E-Mail address and I will quietly let her
know, it=92s not to late for her to order!
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
HYPERLINK
"mailto:president@can-zacaviation.com"president@can-zacaviation.com
HYPERLINK "http://www.can-zacaviation.com/"www.can-zacaviation.com
do not archive
--
12/11/2006
--
12/11/2006
Message 44
| 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 |
|
An interesting comment. Your rough explanation being the case, it sugg
ests that a smaller diameter, wider-bladed, five blade prop might well
be worth looking at. Can't remember where, or what, but I do recall s
eing photos of something that had a five-bladed prop. Anybody remember
what it was? Maybe we really can use some of those high RPM motorcyc
le and sport car engines????=0A=0APaul Rodriguez=0A601XL/Corv
air=0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A From: Eldo Hildebrand<
mailto:Eldo@unb.ca> =0A To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenit
h-list@matronics.com> =0A Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:03 AM
=0A Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellors=0A=0A=0A --> Ze
nith-List message posted by: "Eldo Hildebrand" <Eldo@unb.ca<mailto:Eld
o@unb.ca>>=0A=0A I thought I'd add a little to the propeller co
mment. In considering diameter, some thought =0A needs to go into
rpm and blade tip speed as the tip approaches the speed of sound, in
=0A general the efficiency falls off. This means that higher spee
d engines (most conversions) =0A need to either be geared down or
the prop must be of a smaller diameter to keep the tip =0A speed d
own. Of course a smaller diameter means less blade area and the prop
will be =0A unable to use available power... thus the need to add
more blades to make use of the =0A horsepower when the diameter is
reduced. =0A=0A I am sure there are more specific guide-lines
on the web with more equations and theory =0A than this simple Ci
vil Engineer wants to look at but this is a general view of the compro
mise =0A of diameter-rpm-number of blades. =0A=0A Eldo Hil
debrand, PhD., P.Eng.=0A Assistant Dean, Faculty of Engineering
=0A University of New Brunswick=0A P.O Box 4400=0A Fredericto
n, NB=0A E3B 5A3=0A tel 506-453-4521=0A fax 506-453-3568
=======================
======================0A
= * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp
=======================
=======================
tronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Z
=======================
======================0A
=0A=0A=0A
Message 45
| 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 |
|
In a message dated 12/12/2006 2:14:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mileski@sonalysts.com writes:
This month in Sport Pilot (or Sport Aviation), a perfect example. A
compelling article about the KR community -- led by a wonderful guy who has
transformed the plane over time, through innovation supported by definitive testing.
The article discusses the phenomenon of hand-wavers versus those who want
to really find out, through objective testing. Long winded theory about what
would happen in a low altitude engine-out landing was replaced by a test with
data gathering.
This list sounds to me like people who want a turn-key airplane, and speak
mostly of what expensive avionics they plan to put in their panels. With some
very notable exceptions, of course. However, it's funny how people on this
list will cry foul and expound their great knowledge of aerodynamic theory, as
soon as someone wants to breach the topic of experimenting. Ironic, because
those so eager to speak theory seemingly have no interest in experiencing it
first hand. And there is a lot of misinformation in the midst.
In almost every post, there is evidence that the poster hasn't read this
from the beginning, or read the other web sites, and is lacking some pertinent
knowledge (e.g. "the slat is part of the airfoil, we should try blocking the
gaps and see what happens" -- experimental results are available on exactly
this test, and also stability, but no one bothered to read far enough).
So we are left with a community of builders largely sticking to the stock
parts, and heralding the designer as a god who should not be questioned.
That's fine, but some people are still experimenters, and they should not be
crucified, just because they are vulnerable, once they open the topic of modifying
CH's designs. Guess what, all complicated mechanical systems are a work in
progress (take a look at the 912 service bulletin history). I have heard
people say that Chris Heintz always thought that the 80hp 912 was overkill for
the 701, but we don't feel bad about strapping 100hp on this airframe now, do
we, since we are comfortable with the success of this market-pressured upgrade.
Crying about insurance seems silly, none of our planes are a bargain to
begin with, and supposedly there is some liability risk after sale of the
aircraft, and god knows depreciation hits us harder than the certified crowd.
If
you want to cry that loud, go ask your insurance company and report us the
results, and help add actual information (and quality) to this list.
Those who react nearly violently to the notion of experimenting with the
design, sound like they are feeling threatened, and are looking for support to
validate their own choices. We are all free to make the choices that we are
comfortable with, it's just a shame that sometimes this list sounds like a
gradeschool yard, with people forming little packs to help make themselves feel
better.
Now where do I stand on the slat issue (if you care)? I think any
modification that reduces drag on the airframe at my desired cruise speed (85mph
is
fine with me), is reducing strain on the airframe, and that seems like a good
thing. It sounds like efficiency gain includes a better climb rate, and
improved glide, which seem nice. If you're worried about Vne, just enjoy the
extra economy at smart cruise speeds, and by the way you could have exceeded Vne
by pushing the stick forward before, and you chose not to do so. I wonder if
landing distance is increased at all, since speed may not bleed quite as
quickly in the flare, and if there is a net loss of strength in the wing
structure. However, I don't know if I will remove my slats ever, I enjoy the
aircraft, with its pluses and minuses. It definitely has a personality, and it
would likely have a different one with VGs instead. I kind of like the
appearance too. I feel like I ought to try it, though, in the spirit of e!
xperimenting, which is what the EAA was founded upon.
In sum, it would be terrific if we could quantify with actual data, or at
least a classic test flight approach like CAFE, how the whole package behaves
in the VG/no slat configuration. And it would be great if Chris Heintz would
comment on the structural (and other) issues. And it would be great if we all
tried to keep this list friendly, and based on a sharing of knowledge,
without fear of posting questions, or trying new things.
All the best,
Bill Mileski
701 65hrs
Bill. Well said !
do not archive
flydog
701
Message 46
| 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! |
Likewise with my 601XL, I found that as I progress, the photo assembly guide is
less detail intensive and seems to make the assumption that since I have finished
the empenage and the wings, I require less step-by-step, hold-my-hand instructions.
The tail was very simple and progressed rapidly. The wings were more demanding
but still fairly straight forward and allowed things to be rivetted together and
continue to progress rapidly. With the fuselage, the progress seems much slower
and the process is more demanding and complex. As an example, I have been
working in the cabin area of the fuselage for several weeks now and I am not
close to finishing that area yet.
I suspect that is the reason for building the kit in tail, wings, then fuselage
order and I recomend doing it that way.
Ed Moody II
Rayne, LA
601XL/Jabiru/cabin area
---- Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@cox.net> wrote:
>
> I don't know about the 701 but as far as the 601 is concerned the manual makes
some assumptions that you have learned a particular task that was shown in the
wings section of the manual when you get to the fuselage.
>
> In my case I had learned some of those tasks and then had a real hard time transferring
that knowledge to the fuselage.
>
>
>
> ch701builder wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > I have read in my "Assembly manual" that even they show having the wings done
before the fuselage, but I was wanting to do the fuselage first myself. It
shows that the mating of the front to the rear fuselage, you set everything in
accordance to your front and rear spar spacing from your existing wings. I suppose
that you can set your spar spacing from your existing fuselage. I just
never have been this far in the construction, little lone, here John is farther
on his third plane than I have ever been on my first, but I like the idea of
having something substantial to show for your efforts, that friends and family
can see, and actually "sit in" while I make the engine noises. They can't make
noises, because I don't have a "Multi-engine rating" yet.
> >
> > --
>
>
> --------
> 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?p=81107#81107
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 47
| 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 |
|
It doesn't help us Zenith builders at all but the last two airplanes with five
bladed props that I saw in person were (A) a turbo-shaft powered Lancair Legacy
(very highly modified airframe) that boasted a max straight-and-level speed
of 313mph, and (B) a huge turbo-shaft Air Tractor ag-plane that was working in
the forestry industry.
I don't recall ever seeing an engine light enough for us to use that could spin
a five bladed prop. Would it not be cool if that existed though? Imagine the
rate of climb....
Ed Moody II
Do Not Archive
---- paulrod36@msn.com wrote:
> An interesting comment. Your rough explanation being the case, it suggests that
a smaller diameter, wider-bladed, five blade prop might well be worth looking
at. Can't remember where, or what, but I do recall seing photos of something
that had a five-bladed prop. Anybody remember what it was? Maybe we really
can use some of those high RPM motorcycle and sport car engines????
>
> Paul Rodriguez
> 601XL/Corvair
Message 48
| 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 |
|
http://www.warpdriveprops.com/
I have seen 5 bladed props on trikes and on a 701 w/ floats. I would be interested
in seeing some reasoning for going with a 3, 4 or 5 bladed prop over a 2
blade. I notice that most are running the 3 bladed prop. What is your take on
having more blades?
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: dredmoody@cox.net
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellors
It doesn't help us Zenith builders at all but the last two airplanes with five
bladed props that I saw in person were (A) a turbo-shaft powered Lancair Legacy
(very highly modified airframe) that boasted a max straight-and-level speed of
313mph, and (B) a huge turbo-shaft Air Tractor ag-plane that was working in the
forestry industry.
I don't recall ever seeing an engine light enough for us to use that could spin
a five bladed prop. Would it not be cool if that existed though? Imagine the
rate of climb....
Ed Moody II
Do Not Archive
---- paulrod36@msn.com wrote:
> An interesting comment. Your rough explanation being the case, it suggests
that a smaller diameter, wider-bladed, five blade prop might well be worth
looking at. Can't remember where, or what, but I do recall seing photos of
something that had a five-bladed prop. Anybody remember what it was? Maybe we
really can use some of those high RPM motorcycle and sport car engines????
>
> Paul Rodriguez
> 601XL/Corvair
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam
and email virus protection.
Message 49
| 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 |
|
First, a disclaimer.... this is not authoritative.... it's basically just heresay
because I have no direct first-hand experience.
What I've been told is that if you have the clearance and the torque to do it,
swinging a long 2 bladed prop at lower rpm will give you the most climb performance
for a given engine. A shorter 3 or four bladed prop at higher rpm is supposed
to give you less climb performance but higher cruise speed and/or better
fuel efficiency. Also, using more blades which are shorter helps with fuselage
clearance on a pusher and ground clearance on a tractor arrangement.
I personally had not seen any prop with more than 3 blades that could be used on
the Rotax 912S or Jabiru 3300, or similar lightweight engines.
Ed
Do Not Archive
---- billbutlergps@aim.com wrote:
> http://www.warpdriveprops.com/
> I have seen 5 bladed props on trikes and on a 701 w/ floats. I would be interested
in seeing some reasoning for going with a 3, 4 or 5 bladed prop over a
2 blade. I notice that most are running the 3 bladed prop. What is your take on
having more blades?
> Bill
Message 50
| 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 |
|
It would look cool but it is the least effecient prop you can use. The prop with
one blade and counter balance weight was very effecient believe it or not.
-----Original Message-----
From: dredmoody@cox.net
Sent: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellers
It doesn't help us Zenith builders at all but the last two airplanes with five
bladed props that I saw in person were (A) a turbo-shaft powered Lancair Legacy
(very highly modified airframe) that boasted a max straight-and-level speed of
313mph, and (B) a huge turbo-shaft Air Tractor ag-plane that was working in the
forestry industry.
I don't recall ever seeing an engine light enough for us to use that could spin
a five bladed prop. Would it not be cool if that existed though? Imagine the
rate of climb....
Ed Moody II
Do Not Archive
---- paulrod36@msn.com wrote:
> An interesting comment. Your rough explanation being the case, it suggests
that a smaller diameter, wider-bladed, five blade prop might well be worth
looking at. Can't remember where, or what, but I do recall seing photos of
something that had a five-bladed prop. Anybody remember what it was? Maybe we
really can use some of those high RPM motorcycle and sport car engines????
>
> Paul Rodriguez
> 601XL/Corvair
________________________________________________________________________
Message 51
| 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 |
|
There was a light plane in the hangar next to William Wynne's with a
five blade prop. I can't remember the name of it. Maybe somebody else
that was at the Corvair College last month will remember. Weirdest
construction I ever saw - aluminum wing spar with wooden ribs and
fiberglass skin. Little bit of everything... Anyway, the engine was
an auto conversion (Subaru if I remember right) with the largest belt
reduction I've ever seen. The driven pulley was at least 12 inches in
diameter.
Personally I'm going to keep mine simple - direct drive Corvair with
two (2) blades.
Dino Bortolin
La Salle, Ontario
XL/Corvair
On 12/12/06, paulrod36@msn.com <paulrod36@msn.com> wrote:
> An interesting comment. Your rough explanation being the case, it suggests
> that a smaller diameter, wider-bladed, five blade prop might well be worth
> looking at. Can't remember where, or what, but I do recall seing photos of
> something that had a five-bladed prop. Anybody remember what it was? Maybe
> we really can use some of those high RPM motorcycle and sport car
> engines????
>
> Paul Rodriguez
> 601XL/Corvair
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eldo Hildebrand<mailto:Eldo@unb.ca>
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellors
>
>
> <Eldo@unb.ca<mailto:Eldo@unb.ca>>
>
> 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===========================================
> = * HomebuiltHELP
> www.homebuilthelp.com<http://www.homebuilthelp==============================================tronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Z===========================================
>
>
Message 52
| 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 Les
I will only sell my slat's to someone who wants to pick them up local. Too much
trouble to wrap and ship. So it would have to be Florida or Wisconsin as I spend
time in both locations. Have fun with your 701 it's going to be a great
aircraft. Life is short......FLY! Tom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81144#81144
Message 53
| 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 |
|
>> swinging a long 2 bladed prop at lower rpm will give you the most climb
performance for a given engine.
Sounds like the backyard flyer: www.culverprops.com/back-yard-flyerA.htm
-- Craig
Message 54
| 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 |
|
>> There was a light plane in the hangar next to William Wynne's with a five
blade prop.
I think this is what you are thinking of: www.flycorvair.com/32297.jpg
Read about it here: www.flycorvair.com/hangar1206c.html
-- Craig
Message 55
| 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 Lights |
Brad-
Good tip.
I don't fly at night much but figured, as many other builders have, that
having my project night capable would increase the resale value. Custom
built the installation in my HDS (Following Jeff Small's recommendation to
try and counteract the left turning tendancy) by putting as much dead weight
in the RIGHT wing. I'm not the first to do this.
Just dug out the receipts for my bulbs. $12.54 each at Car Care. Add the
hardware and everything else and I might have $50.00 in my installation.
'Course you could buy a C-152 for what it cost if you count my time (Even at
minimum wage) but the personal satisfaction is priceless!!!
Do not archive
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad DeMeo" <demeo@sonic.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:49 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Landing Lights
>
> One tip and one comment:
>
> Tip: Be sure to install the lights with the light filament vertical.
Message 56
| 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 God! That's a long prop! I think that the longest 2 bladed prop that the engine
can swing is probably the best bet but that one looks like a prop strike waiting
to happen.
While we're on the prop subject, there have been speculations about the blade tips
going transonic at full throttle with the Jabiru 3300 and its (relatively)
short prop (64"). Even if we could wind the engine up to the redline of 3300
rpm (which is doubtful) the tips would still only approach .85 mach. That doesn't
sound like much cause for concern does it?
Ed Moody II
---- Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com> wrote:
>
> >> swinging a long 2 bladed prop at lower rpm will give you the most climb
> performance for a given engine.
>
> Sounds like the backyard flyer: www.culverprops.com/back-yard-flyerA.htm
>
> -- Craig
>
>
>
>
>
Message 57
| 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 |
|
Way off the original question but as a Sport Pilot I'll be using my lights
with a wig-wag to make me more visible in the daytime. That's why I'm glad
to have a light in each wing instead of the factory design with two lights
in one wing.
-- Craig
Message 58
| 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 reason against AC condensers (located in front of
the radiator)is that they don't have side tanks, it is
one tube, so flow and efficiency would be the issue.
Roy, 701, plans, slat pondering
do not archive
Cheap talk?
Message 59
| 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 |
|
Mark:
I don't' think you would have problems removing the slats to get the
plane
passed the MD-RA I've seen greater design changes made to aircraft that
passed. Remember the paper work on W&B needs to reflect the airplane
without the slats. The configuration is almost considered normal in
other
countries with no known problems and some of those countries have a
relatively similar level of legislation controlling aircraft authority
for
flight. Now if the 701's with the slats off were falling like flies in
the
Raid factory you would no doubt have problems.
You are dead right on one point and that has to do with anyone wanting
to
register their plane AULA. No changes from the letter of conformity are
allowed. If the plans call for a placard against chewing gum it better
be
there. I'll bet you are right on the insurance issue of calling it a
CH701
too but there wouldn't be anything wrong with a JD701 (John Doe 701)
On the use of VGs These little devices are used on all kinds of
certified
aircraft. Their placement is usually determined by wind tunnel testing.
Their effectiveness when properly installed is proven. The operative
words
are, "properly installed". Considering that no one here will be hitting
mach 1 I would think that if someone installed the VGs and did the
appropriate envelope testing at altitude their use should be safe. A
word of
caution, the handy man's secret weapon will probably shoot down your
plane.
My question still stands: the CH701 is noted for poor glide ratio. does
removing the slats improve the glide ratio.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> ZodieRocket
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:07 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vg's
>
>
>
>
> OK, will do! It doesn't matter if the plane fly's better with
> the slats
> or without. But in America and Canada lets just see how fast the
> insurance companies bail on your ass for removing a flying
> surface that
> the designer says should be there. Regardless of any
> situation that may
> involve the NTSB removal of the slats called forth by the
> designer would
> be written in as a contributing factor( likely even if you ran out of
> gas), in which the builder removed before flight and once
> again have fun
> with AVEMCO or any other insurance dealer. Also since you have
> experimented and removed the slats the designer called for
> then you have
> made a structural change and can no longer call it a 701, once again
> enjoy your insurance company when you tell them this is a one off. If
> you're Canadian, I doubt your 701 would pass an inspection
> for the MD-RA
> to get it's flight authority and if you register as an AULA
> you are not
> allowed to remove anything from the plans.
>
> I can't comment on the pro's of VG's, I know a lot of people have made
> money selling them. I also know that until the designer
> states that the
> design requires VG's they will never see my plane.
>
> As for reported testing having been done. I don't dispute
> there figures
> but I do caution most to consider this. I have a 701 close to me that
> cruises at 85mph, and another with the same engine that cruises at 105
> at the same power setting. Difference is that the builder of
> the second
> 701 streamlined the struts, cleaned up the cowling, adjusted
> so that the
> stabilizer is on correctly with flight checks. There were no major
> modifications just common sense clean up and he is cruising
> his 701 at 5
> MPH below the Vne! The Recreational Flyer magazine article that shows
> this comparison is on the Zenith website.
>
> Personal outlook only. You can add whatever you want to your
> 701, remove
> what you want from your 701, and believe in anything you want! But I
> will not be removing my slats! I do not plan on cruising ANY
> plane at or
> near Vne. I'm quite happy with a 701 that can cruise at 95mph with a
> Rotax 912S I believe that this is well within reach of anyone who has
> built a straight 701 and will now spend the time to clean it up. You
> want an instant 5mph in your 701? Call Zenith and order the
> new FWF. As
> a bonus your fuselage will be quieter from the less vibration
> passed on
> by the new engine mount. Another 5mph can be gained by taking
> a piece of
> .016 and wrapping your struts into a streamline airfoil. I'm not going
> to risk an insurance company telling me that I don't have
> coverage after
> I hit a deer on the runway when the NTSB states that I have removed a
> portion of flying surface!
>
> You folks that have gone through all the hassle of removing the slats
> and adding Vg's good for you, your courage deserves applause. But when
> it comes to the 701 if the owner is not getting over 75mph
> cruise with a
> 912, then they need to spend time fixing what they have
> wrong, not throw
> parts away! ( well maybe the prop) For those who have a 701 flying at
> 100mph cruise or higher, why would you want to be that close
> to Vne all
> the time?
>
> Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
> Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
> www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of secatur
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:09 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vg's
>
>
> Well, I guess I'll just have to change my mind and build the slats and
> throw these VG's away !
> 1700+ hours of independant, documented testing WITHOUT 1
> negative report
> ain't gonna convince me!
> And when my 701 is finished I will park it right next to my Wright
> Flyer, and my Model T ford (Black of course!) right under the big sign
> that says "EXPERIMENTAL..do not change or alter ever...or else!!"
>
> ps: Can somebody please post some BAD results with VG's
> instead of Slats
> .... so I can feel justified??
>
> Wowie Zowie !
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p961#80961
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 12/11/2006
>
>
> --
> 12/11/2006
>
>
> --
> 12/11/2006
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 60
| 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 |
|
Here is a neat prop calculator that helps answer those questions.
http://www.hoverhawk.com/propspd.html
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: dredmoody@cox.net
Sent: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: propellors
MY God! That's a long prop! I think that the longest 2 bladed prop that the
engine can swing is probably the best bet but that one looks like a prop strike
waiting to happen.
While we're on the prop subject, there have been speculations about the blade
tips going transonic at full throttle with the Jabiru 3300 and its (relatively)
short prop (64"). Even if we could wind the engine up to the redline of 3300 rpm
(which is doubtful) the tips would still only approach .85 mach. That doesn't
sound like much cause for concern does it?
Ed Moody II
---- Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com> wrote:
>
> >> swinging a long 2 bladed prop at lower rpm will give you the most climb
> performance for a given engine.
>
> Sounds like the backyard flyer: www.culverprops.com/back-yard-flyerA.htm
>
> -- Craig
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam
and email virus protection.
Message 61
| 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 |
|
Yes, removing the slats does improve the glide ratio.
The following figures are for a 701.
Speed is in Knots. Slats On / Slats Off
40 5.1 / 6.7
45 5.7 / 7.6
50 6.3 / 7.8
55 7.0 / 7.9
60 6.4 / 7.6
65 6.0 / 6.4
70 5.5 / 6.4
Cheers
JG
Savannah 19-4296
Message 62
| 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: | Wing Panel weight |
Ok guys, since we are on the subject of wings and vg's and
slats......Someone with their wings off or just incase you have already
weighed them. How much does a wing panel weigh????
Thanks in Advance.
David Mikesell
Acampo, CA
Message 63
| 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 |
|
Those figures are significant. Especially for such a thick short wing.
Could be the difference in making a good forced approach and just flying to
the crash site.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gilpin
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:08 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: VGs
Yes, removing the slats does improve the glide ratio.
The following figures are for a 701.
Speed is in Knots. Slats On / Slats Off
40 5.1 / 6.7
45 5.7 / 7.6
50 6.3 / 7.8
55 7.0 / 7.9
60 6.4 / 7.6
65 6.0 / 6.4
70 5.5 / 6.4
Cheers
JG
Savannah 19-4296
Message 64
| 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! |
It makes absolutely no logical sense to build the wings first. However,
it really doesn't matter which one you build first, if you follow the
plans all parts will fit together. If Chris really said "do the wings
first as it was easier to build the fuselage to fit the wings, than to
try and build the wings to fit the fuselage.", then there is a problem
with his plans. Jon's rationale for building the fuselage first is
simply a matter of self encouragement. If you have a fuselage sitting
there on landing gear so you can sit in it, roll it around, it gives you
more incentive to keep building. The hard part is done. I built my
fuselage first and my wings (PegaStol) bolted right up, zero problem.
No matter what you build, you normally build the core first. Seems to
me that one would want to build parts to fit the frame not the frame to
fit the parts.
Just me 2 cents worth for what it's worth, Larry N1345L www.skyhawg.com
---- Original Message -----
From: Big Gee
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look
away!
Bob, my vote is with Mark T. Do the wings first, hang them up out of
the way, than do the fuselage. I don't know about Jon's video, I have
never seen it. I am sure he has some good points in it. I do know in
the "old days" Chris said do the wings first as it was easier to build
the fuselage to fit the wings, than to try and build the wings to fit
the fuselage. Good luck in what ever you decide.
Fritz
----- Original Message ----
From: "robert.eli@adelphia.net" <robert.eli@adelphia.net>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:58:48 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look
away!
Jon,
Thanks for the advice. I had not thought about doing the fuselage
next, just because I thought that the wings were the usual next step. I
will strongly consider doing the fuselage next since I need all of the
motivational help I can get. On the "remove the slats and VG issue",
Mark Townsend has convinced me to build my CH701 Kit "per plans", with
the slats. The only reason the "slat removal and VG approach" seemed
attractive was that I don't plan to push the envelop and "hang the plane
on the prop" at high angles of attack at low altitude because it is
obviously the most risky position to be in if you have a engine-out.
Thanks for the input and best wishes for the Holidays.
Bob Eli
---- Jon Croke <Jon@joncroke.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
&This Month = * AeroElectric ="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/"
target=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.bsp;
-Matt Dralle, sp; - The Zenith-List Email
.com/Navigator?Zenith-List" =========
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from
real people who know.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
12/7/2006
Message 65
| 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! |
YOU GUYS DRIVE ME UP THE WALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!=0A=0A=0A----- Original Messa
ge ----=0AFrom: LRM <lrm@skyhawg.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASen
t: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:38:42 PM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: For 7
01 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away!=0A=0A=0AIt makes absolutely n
o logical sense to build the wings first. However, it really doesn't matte
r which one you build first, if you follow the plans all parts will fit tog
ether. If Chris really said "do the wings first as it was easier to build
the fuselage to fit the wings, than to try and build the wings to fit the f
uselage.", then there is a problem with his plans. Jon's rationale for bui
lding the fuselage first is simply a matter of self encouragement. If you
have a fuselage sitting there on landing gear so you can sit in it, roll it
around, it gives you more incentive to keep building. The hard part is do
ne. I built my fuselage first and my wings (PegaStol) bolted right up, ze
ro problem. No matter what you build, you normally build the core first.
Seems to me that one would want to build parts to fit the frame not the fra
me to fit the parts. =0A =0AJust me 2 cents worth for what it's worth, Lar
ry N1345L www.skyhawg.com=0A =0A =0A =0A---- Original Message ----- =0AFrom
: Big Gee =0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Tuesday, December 12, 2
006 9:14 AM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone el
se - look away!=0A=0A=0ABob, my vote is with Mark T. Do the wings first, h
ang them up out of the way, than do the fuselage. I don't know about Jon's
video, I have never seen it. I am sure he has some good points in it. I d
o know in the "old days" Chris said do the wings first as it was easier to
build the fuselage to fit the wings, than to try and build the wings to fit
the fuselage. Good luck in what ever you decide.=0AFritz=0A=0A=0A----- O
riginal Message ----=0AFrom: "robert.eli@adelphia.net" <robert.eli@adelphia
.net>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:
58:48 AM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else
a.net>=0A=0AJon,=0A=0AThanks for the advice. I had not thought about doing
the fuselage next, just because I thought that the wings were the usual ne
xt step. I will strongly consider doing the fuselage next since I need all
of the motivational help I can get. On the "remove the slats and VG issue
", Mark Townsend has convinced me to build my CH701 Kit "per plans", with t
he slats. The only reason the "slat removal and VG approach" seemed attrac
tive was that I don't plan to push the envelop and "hang the plane on the p
rop" at high angles of attack at low altitude because it is obviously the m
ost risky position to be in if you have a engine-out. Thanks for the input
and best wishes for the Holidays.=0A=0ABob Eli=0A=0A=0A---- Jon Croke <Jon
Jon@joncroke.com>=0A> =0A> Hi Bob,=0A> =0A> I am honored that you would ask
my opinion about this, however I am the =0A> LEAST qualified to express an
opinion about this topic. I have no formal =0A> aerodynamics education...
and you may recall I am sometimes challenged at =0A> keeping the plane in
the air for more than a few hours!=0A> =0A> If you have not built the fusel
age yet, consider building that before =0A> building the wings. Obviously t
hey both (wings and fuse) have to be =0A> completed before flying, but I ha
ve found it makes a lot more emotional =0A> sense to have the body of the p
lane done and sitting there whilst you embark =0A> on the wings. (Somethi
ng to sit in, and hangar fly in around the yard, =0A> maybe even start the
engine) I have done it both ways... building the fuse =0A> first is much mo
re rewarding, in my opinion!=0A> =0A> Jon=0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> > --> Zenith-L
ist message posted by: <robert.eli@adelphia.net>=0A> >=0A> > Hey Jon Croke,
=0A> >=0A> > I've been reading about all of this flight experience with the
slats =0A> > removed and vortex generators in their place. I'm finally fi
nishing up =0A> > the tail and thinking about the wings (yes, I know I'm as
slow as you know =0A> > what). But, I am actually thinking about building
my wings minus the =0A> > slats. Since you are on your third CH701, and o
bviously know the thing =0A> > inside out, what is your take on this no-sla
ts approach?=0A> >=0A> > Bob Eli=0A> >=0A> > =0A> =0A> =0A&This Month =
* AeroElectric ="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/" target=_blank>www.ho
mebuilthelp.com http://www.bsp; -Matt Dralle, sp;
- The Zenith-List Email .com/Navigator?Zenith-List" ======
=====0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AHave a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers
and get answers from real people who know. =0A=0A=0Ahref="http://www.aer
oelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com=0Ahref="http://www.buildersbooks.com"
>www.buildersbooks.com=0Ahref="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com=0Ahr
ef="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com=0Ahref="http://
www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://ww
w.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matron=0A=0A=0A=0ADate: 1
=========0A=0A=0A =0A______________________________________
______________________________________________=0AAny questions? Get answers
on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.
Message 66
| 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! |
Message 67
| 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 |
|
Question: When you remove the slats, you're decreasing the empty weight by X amount.
So when you're doing these comparisons, do you need to add X amount of dead
weight to the plane so that you're not comparing apples and oranges? I assume
the weight has some effect on performance of the plane since for more weight
you need more lift, which means more drag. At least it should affect the rate
of climb and service ceiling, if nothing else.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81214#81214
Message 68
| 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 |
|
Good point Eddie. No I didn't take that weight difference into account. It
amounts to about 7 kg (15 lbs) for the two slats. That's about 10 litres of
fuel (less than 2 USgal). The standard onboard flight instruments wouldn't
be able to measure the effect of such a weight change.
JG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eddie G." <silentlight@verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 5:41 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: VGs
>
> Question: When you remove the slats, you're decreasing the empty weight by
> X amount. So when you're doing these comparisons, do you need to add X
> amount of dead weight to the plane so that you're not comparing apples and
> oranges? I assume the weight has some effect on performance of the plane
> since for more weight you need more lift, which means more drag. At least
> it should affect the rate of climb and service ceiling, if nothing else.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81214#81214
>
>
>
Message 69
| 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: Wing Panel weight |
The 701 wing that we weighed came in at 33 kg (73 lb), including slat
and aileron. The slats weigh approx 3.5 kg (7.7 lb) each side. Of
course the amount of paint can make quite a difference....
JG
Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: David Mikesell
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:21 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Wing Panel weight
Ok guys, since we are on the subject of wings and vg's and
slats......Someone with their wings off or just incase you have already
weighed them. How much does a wing panel weigh????
Thanks in Advance.
David Mikesell
Acampo, CA
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! --
|