---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 12/12/06: 69 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:10:23 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vg's From: "secatur" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:00:34 AM PST US From: "noel anderson" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:23:15 AM PST US From: "Roger Roy" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: vg's 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:06:14 AM PST US From: Big Gee 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 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 =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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:38:09 AM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:38:10 AM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" Subject: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:42:40 AM PST US From: MacDonald Doug Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:53:45 AM PST US From: "vwknott" Subject: Zenith-List: Cabin heat box Anyone know were to get the plans to build a cabin heat box??? Vern Knott 701 in R I vwknott@cox.net ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 05:59:12 AM PST US From: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:06:10 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:20:08 AM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ===========

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.

do not archive


Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair .com

-- "Dave Ruddiman" <pacificpainting@comcas t.net> wrote:

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.
 
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 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:22:27 AM PST US From: "Aaron Gustafson" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:22:43 AM PST US From: Trevor Page Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:25:24 AM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 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 ======================== ======================== ======================== =============== 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..


Ben Haas
N 801BH
www.haaspowerair.com

-- Tim & Diane&n bsp;Shankland <tshank@core.com> wrote:
Terry,
When I was designing the cooling system for my Stratus Suburu several years ago I tested an AC evaporator and several heater cores to find the right combination for my installation. In general I found that the AC units 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.
Tim Shankland

Terry Turnquist wrote:
Hi, a question for the gearheads among you is this. Aside from being heavy, what's the downside of using an automobile AC co ndenser rather than AC evaporators or regular radiator for aircraft conv esion? Thanks.
Do Not Archive.
 
Terry Turnquist
601XL-Plans
St. Peters, MO

Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@cox.net>< /I> wrote:
--> Zenith-List message poste d by: "Gig Giacona"

The message above doesn't show in the Forum Interface.

--------
W.R. "Gig" Giaco na
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoameric a.net/N601WR




Read this topic online 







========================
===========
roelectric.com
com/">www.buildersbooks.com
kitlog.com
homebuilthelp.com
www.matronics.com/contribution
========================
===========
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
========================
===========
________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 06:47:06 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:47:48 AM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: vg's 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" 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 ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== ===========

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> wr ote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: " secatur" <appraise1@bigpond.com>

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 !
1700+ hours of independant,&n bsp;documented testing WITHOUT 1 negative repor t ain't gonna convince me!
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!!"

ps: Can somebody please post some  BAD results with VG's instead of Sla ts .... so I can feel justified??

W owie Zowie !




Read this topic  ;online here:

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
_ -= the many List utilities such as  sp;  --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Lis ======================== ==============
________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 06:53:22 AM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: vg's Can I have an AMEN .................................. do not archive Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com -- "ZodieRocket" 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 ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== ===========

Can I have an AMEN ..................................

do not archive


Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair .com

-- "ZodieRocket" <zodierocket@hsfx.ca>  wrote:
--> Zenith-List message posted by:  ;"ZodieRocket" <zodierocket@hsfx.ca>


OK, will  do! It doesn't matter if the plane&n bsp;fly's better with the slats
or without.& nbsp;But in America and Canada lets just&n bsp;see how fast the
insurance companies bai l on your ass for removing a flying&n bsp;surface that
the designer says should be  there. Regardless of any situation that&n bsp;may
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
gas ), in which the builder removed before&nbs p;flight and once again have fun
with A VEMCO or any other insurance dealer. Also& nbsp;since you have
experimented and removed  ;the slats the designer called for then&nb sp;you have
made a structural change and&nbs p;can no longer call it a 701, once&n bsp;again
enjoy your insurance company when  you tell them this is a one off.  ;If
you're Canadian, I doubt your 701 w ould pass an inspection for the MD-RA
t o get it's flight authority and if yo u 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 k now that until the designer states that&nb sp;the
design requires VG's they will never& nbsp;see my plane.

As for reported testi ng having been done. I don't dispute  there figures
but I do caution most to& nbsp;consider this. I have a 701 close&nbs p;to me that
cruises at 85mph, and anot her with the same engine that cruises  ;at 105
at the same power setting. Diff erence is that the builder of the sec ond
701 streamlined the struts, cleaned up&n bsp;the cowling, adjusted so that the
stabil izer is on correctly with flight checks.&n bsp;There were no major
modifications just c ommon sense clean up and he is cruisi ng his 701 at 5
MPH below the Vne!  The Recreational Flyer magazine article t hat shows
this comparison is on the Zen ith website.

Personal outlook only. You  can add whatever you want to your 701 , remove
what you want from your 701,&n bsp;and believe in anything you want! But& nbsp;I
will not be removing my slats! I  do not plan on cruising ANY plane&nb sp;at or
near Vne. I'm quite happy with  a 701 that can cruise at 95mph  with a
Rotax 912S I believe that this&n bsp;is well within reach of anyone who&nbs p;has
built a straight 701 and will now  spend the time to clean it up.  You
want an instant 5mph in your 701?&n bsp;Call Zenith and order the new FWF.&nbs p;As
a bonus your fuselage will be quie ter from the less vibration passed on
b y 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&n bsp;an insurance company telling me that I  don't have coverage after
I hit a  ;deer on the runway when the NTSB sta tes that I have removed a
portion of&nb sp;flying surface! 

You folks that have& nbsp;gone through all the hassle of removi ng the slats
and adding Vg's good for&n bsp;you, your courage deserves applause. But&nb sp;when
it comes to the 701 if the  ;owner is not getting over 75mph cruise&nb sp;with a
912, then they need to spend& nbsp;time fixing what they have wrong, not  throw
parts away! ( well maybe the&nbs p;prop) For those who have a 701 flyi ng at
100mph cruise or higher, why woul d you want to be that close to V ne all
the time? 

Mark Townsend   ;Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 ju st started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / w ww.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ze nith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matro nics.com] On Behalf Of secatur
Sent: Tuesday , December 12, 2006 6:09 AM
To: zenith- list@matronics.com
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vg's
< BR>--> Zenith-List message posted by: "secat ur" <appraise1@bigpond.com>

Well, I guess&nb sp;I'll just have to change my mind a nd build the slats and
throw these VG's  away !
1700+ hours of independant, doc umented testing WITHOUT 1 negative report
ai n't gonna convince me!
And when my 701& nbsp;is finished I will park it right  ;next to my Wright
Flyer, and my Model& nbsp;T ford (Black of course!) right under  the big sign
that says "EXPERIMENTAL..do&nb sp;not change or alter ever...or else!!"

ps: Can somebody please post some BAD&nbs p;results with VG's instead of Slats
....&nb sp;so I can feel justified??

Wowie Zowie  !




Read this topic online he re:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p961#80961









-- 
12/11/2006
 

-- 
12/11/2006
 

-- 
12/11/2006
&n ========================        -- Please Support&nb p;        (And Get Som ;November is the Annual List Fund Raiser.&  link below to find out more about
________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 06:55:47 AM PST US From: "John M. Goodings" Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:58:25 AM PST US From: BELTEDAIR@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:05:53 AM PST US From: "Jon Croke" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:15:22 AM PST US From: Big Gee 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 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" =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: =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 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 =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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:18:23 AM PST US From: MacDonald Doug Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:44:59 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:50:21 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Landing Lights From: Brad DeMeo 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:56:10 AM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 08:42:56 AM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:03:36 AM PST US From: Frank Stutzman Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: vg's 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:06:36 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Anyone want to trade Gasolators? From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:11:26 AM PST US From: TYA2 Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:19:01 AM PST US From: Keith Ashcraft Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:20:06 AM PST US From: Big Gee Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 =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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:36:23 AM PST US From: "Timothy D. Perkins" Subject: Zenith-List: LSA and night > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:37:56 AM PST US From: Afterfxllc@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:03:07 AM PST US From: JohnDRead@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: vg's How about flush riveting a 701 that should make it exceed Vne easily? This is such fun! John Read CH701 in Colorado ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 11:11:43 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vg's From: "billmileski" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:20:25 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Landing/taxi light requirements for 601XL? From: "Tim Juhl" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:48:08 AM PST US From: "Milburn Reed" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:56:28 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 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.homebuilthelp.com/" target=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.matroni====== ================ _____ Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know. ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 12:28:58 PM PST US From: Big Gee Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Homebuilts & Insurance Afterfxllc----- what's your point ?????????????????????//=0A=0A=0A----- Ori ginal Message ----=0AFrom: "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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:39:42 PM PST US From: NYTerminat Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:51:16 PM PST US From: "Dave Ruddiman" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:19:43 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:24:29 PM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:32:36 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellors 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 =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" >=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 Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:52:06 PM PST US From: 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 ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 03:11:11 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellors From: billbutlergps@aim.com 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:29:26 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellors 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:57:33 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellors From: afterfxllc@aol.com 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:01:40 PM PST US From: "Dino Bortolin" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellors 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 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 > To: zenith-list@matronics.com > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:03 AM > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellors > > > > > > 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 > ________________________________ Message 52 ____________________________________ Time: 04:11:01 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: vg's From: "Avidmagnum" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:16:53 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: propellors >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:22:05 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: propellors >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:24:49 PM PST US From: "Bill Naumuk" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:32:36 PM PST US From: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:02:06 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Landing Lights 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:07:27 PM PST US From: roy vickski Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:29:15 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: vg's 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:33:00 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellors From: billbutlergps@aim.com 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:40:34 PM PST US From: "John Gilpin" 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 62 ____________________________________ Time: 07:21:58 PM PST US From: "David Mikesell" 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 ________________________________ Message 63 ____________________________________ Time: 07:38:04 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: VGs 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:39:37 PM PST US From: "LRM" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:04:29 PM PST US From: Big Gee Subject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! YOU GUYS DRIVE ME UP THE WALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!=0A=0A=0A----- Original Messa ge ----=0AFrom: LRM =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" =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 =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: =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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:41:57 PM PST US From: "George Harris" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! ________________________________ Message 67 ____________________________________ Time: 10:42:50 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: VGs From: "Eddie G." 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:32:44 PM PST US From: "John Gilpin" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: VGs 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." 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:40:46 PM PST US From: "John Gilpin" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.