Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:09 AM - Re: Re: VGs (Joe and Joan)
2. 04:50 AM - Zenith 601H Brakes Plate (Clive Richards)
3. 04:51 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (steveadams)
4. 06:11 AM - : Re: vg's (John Bolding)
5. 06:26 AM - REPEATS (rhartwig11@juno.com)
6. 06:28 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (LRM)
7. 07:04 AM - Re: Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (NYTerminat)
8. 07:15 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (NYTerminat)
9. 08:11 AM - : Re: vg's (billmileski)
10. 08:28 AM - Ok, my new project is........ (David Mikesell)
11. 09:02 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Big Gee)
12. 09:05 AM - Re: REPEATS ()
13. 09:11 AM - Re: : Re: vg's (NYTerminat)
14. 09:26 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
15. 10:35 AM - Re:Re: VG's (MaxNr@aol.com)
16. 11:00 AM - Re: propellors ()
17. 11:00 AM - Re: Culver Props- gap between rear of wood prop and crankshaft f... (LINLARMAYES@aol.com)
18. 11:23 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (steveadams)
19. 11:23 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Big Gee)
20. 11:34 AM - Re: propellors (Gary Gower)
21. 11:48 AM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (ihab.awad@gmail.com)
22. 12:06 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
23. 05:31 PM - Re: VGs (Avidmagnum)
24. 06:15 PM - POR 15 (Eddie G.)
25. 06:42 PM - Re: Re: vg's (John Gilpin)
26. 06:52 PM - Re: Re:Re: VG's (John Gilpin)
27. 06:55 PM - Re: Re: vg's (NYTerminat)
28. 07:02 PM - Re: : Re: vg's (John Gilpin)
29. 07:05 PM - Re: Re: vg's (John Gilpin)
30. 07:33 PM - Re: Re: vg's (John Gilpin)
31. 07:58 PM - Cool flight today (Brandon Tucker)
32. 08:40 PM - Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! (LRM)
33. 11:11 PM - Re: propellors (Bryan Martin)
34. 11:14 PM - Re: Re:Re: VG's (Bryan Martin)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Tom Great Idea. I used the aluminum from some cans and it worked great. No
attachments so completely committed. What part of FL? I am close to Stuart.
Would like to look at your floats. Joe from FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Avidmagnum" <classpix@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 9:54 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: VGs
>
> hi John
>
> My friend sugested that I bend some thin aluminum strips and tape them on
> each side of the old slat attachments as I cut and then ground them down.
> Sure helped me. Tom in Florida
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81255#81255
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Zenith 601H Brakes Plate |
Hi list
I attach picture of plate we have added to brake pedals with
is this we find we can hold the plane to run up with the continental
o-200.
Without we could only hold at 1500 rpm with difficulty
Clive
You have been sent 1 picture.
PB270149.JPG
These pictures were sent with Picasa, from Google.
Try it out here: http://picasa.google.com/
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
O.K. Since everybody else got their 2 cents in, I'll throw in mine. Whichever part
you start on, whether you prime or not, whether you put on slats or VG's,
whichever color of scotchbrite you use; always drill the holes before you try
to rivet.
Steve Adams
CH640
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81461#81461
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
This simple picture provides some important information to those who are
actually seeking substantiated data on this mod.
If one looks at the height of the wheels off the ground compared to the
height of the tail off the ground it is perceived(by me anyway) that the
AOA is slightly less than what is achievable with slats.
I know, I know, camera angle will also come into play here but it IS a
good picture to start with.
This can be from two reasons I THINK.
One : that's all the AOA you can get with VG's on this aircraft and the
STOL performance will be reduced by some unknown value over slats.
Two : the picture was snapped at an instant in the flare where full AOA
had not yet been achieved and there is more to come.
AOA is not all encompassing either.
If the same lift can be had at a shallower AOA you could see better on
approach and the float guys would love you as you can't get max.
performance from the slatted wing unless you have the floats rigged nose
low causing a LOT of cruise drag.
I try not to tell people how to run their business BUT if I wanted to
sell to this tough crowd I'd have more pictures and several clips on
YouTube, maybe a couple 701's (or Savannah's) side by side, one with
slats the other with VG's doing a drag race T.O. Many folks are visual
learners, SOME are from Missouri. :)
I UNDERSTAND that other issues (handling, structural,weight,etc) are
involved here, I'm just discussing the STOL performance aspect.
To those who have made up their mind on this issue I can only say
"Congratulations" . MANY have not and this thread ain't going away
anytime soon.
Beats the hell out of talking about scotchbrite or insurance.
LOW&SLOW John Bolding
----- Original Message -----
From: John Gilpin
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:28 PM
Subject: xxx Re: Zenith-List: Re: vg's
For a photo have a look at www.stolspeed.com , "Benefits of VGs"
page......
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh@netzero.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:44 AM
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. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
Waits over !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I LOVE TO READ THE OPINIONS, BUT PLEASE TRIM OFF THE OLD MESSAGES BEFORE
YOU HIT THE SEND BUTTON. Scrolling through all of those messages that
are repeated again....and....again.....redundantly....time after time
(Get the idea?) is causing my scroll finger to lock up. Have to leave
now--have a doctor appointment--consultation for "CARPAL MOUSE SYNDROME"
surgery.
Rich Hartwig
Waunakee, WI
rhartwig11@juno.com
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
The subject matter states "For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look
away!" You could be right about a 640, I don't know, we weren't talking
about 640s and I know nothing about them.
All in all I don't think it really matters what you build first on a
701, it should all fit together. But for Chris or anyone to say the
wings should or must be built first, I take exception to. My opinion is
that one should start with the center and build out. And I stick by my
statement, "It makes absolutely no logical sense to build the wings
first." That applies to a 701 only. Now if you or someone can give me
a good logical reason why the wings should be built first, I will
certainly think about it and admit it if I am wrong. However, having
built four aircraft, one being a 701 and currently advising three other
local 701 builders as an EAA Technical Advisor, I don't see that
rationale of building the wings first forth coming. Two of the my
builders have their fuselages built and are working on wings, they are
scratch builders. The third is building his wings first from the kit.
Larry, N1345L, www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Tremblay
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:42 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look
away!
Hi,
I disagree with you when you say "It makes absolutely no logical sense
to build the wings first."
Depending on model, it could make more sense to build wing first than
fuselage. The CH640 is an example. If you do fuselage before wings, it
could be more difficult, if not feasible, due to restricted access when
the fuselage is completed, to fit wing spars to center fuselage spar.
Specially if your project is from plan, you don't have any hole
pre-drilled like many kit plane have.
But I agree with you, build fuselage before wings could be more fun.
and give perception plane more tangible. Depending on model and also
builder, opinion and situation vary. The world is never white or black.
Christian Tremblay
A guy who build a CH640 aircraft from plan
http://www.zodiac640.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
De : owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de Big Gee
Envoy=E9 : Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:04 PM
=C0 : zenith-list@matronics.com
Objet : Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look
away!
YOU GUYS DRIVE ME UP THE WALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----- Original Message ----
From: LRM <lrm@skyhawg.com>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:38:42 PM
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" <robert.eli@adelphia.net>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:58:48 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else -
look away!
Jon,
Thanks for the advice. I had not thought about doing the fuselage
next, just because I thought that the wings were the usual next step. I
will strongly consider doing the fuselage next since I need all of the
motivational help I can get. On the "remove the slats and VG issue",
Mark Townsend has convinced me to build my CH701 Kit "per plans", with
the slats. The only reason the "slat removal and VG approach" seemed
attractive was that I don't plan to push the envelop and "hang the plane
on the prop" at high angles of attack at low altitude because it is
obviously the most risky position to be in if you have a engine-out.
Thanks for the input and best wishes for the Holidays.
Bob Eli
---- Jon Croke <Jon@joncroke.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I am honored that you would ask my opinion about this, however I
am the
> LEAST qualified to express an opinion about this topic. I have no
formal
> aerodynamics education... and you may recall I am sometimes
challenged at
> keeping the plane in the air for more than a few hours!
>
> If you have not built the fuselage yet, consider building that
before
> building the wings. Obviously they both (wings and fuse) have to
be
> completed before flying, but I have found it makes a lot more
emotional
> sense to have the body of the plane done and sitting there whilst
you embark
> on the wings. (Something to sit in, and hangar fly in around the
yard,
> maybe even start the engine) I have done it both ways... building
the fuse
> first is much more rewarding, in my opinion!
>
> Jon
>
>
>
> >
> > Hey Jon Croke,
> >
> > I've been reading about all of this flight experience with the
slats
> > removed and vortex generators in their place. I'm finally
finishing up
> > the tail and thinking about the wings (yes, I know I'm as slow
as you know
> > what). But, I am actually thinking about building my wings
minus the
> > slats. Since you are on your third CH701, and obviously know
the thing
> > inside out, what is your take on this no-slats approach?
> >
> > Bob Eli
> >
> >
>
>
&This Month = * AeroElectric
="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/" target=_blank>www.homebuilthelp.com
http://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.
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.comhref="http://w
ww.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.comhref="http://www.kitlog.com"
>www.kitlog.comhref="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.co
mhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matro
nDate: 12/7/2006
www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.kitlog.comwww.homebuilthelp.
comhttp://www.matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigato
r?Zenith-List
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
12/13/2006
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Steve,
I don't drill my holes, I punch them out. :) just kidding
Bob Spudis
In a message dated 12/14/06 07:52:56 Eastern Standard Time, dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com
writes:
O.K. Since everybody else got their 2 cents in, I'll throw in mine. Whichever part
you start on, whether you prime or not, whether you put on slats or VG's,
whichever color of scotchbrite you use; always drill the holes before you try
to rivet.
Steve Adams
CH640
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81461#81461
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Larry,
The only thing that I can think of is it would be a lot easier adjusting the cage
of the fuselage to meet the spars of the wings, then the other way around.
I have two questions for you, Have you got her up in the air yet? How is your
GroundHawg coming?
Bob Spudis
N701ZX CH701/912S/91hrs
do not archive
In a message dated 12/14/06 09:31:55 Eastern Standard Time, lrm@skyhawg.com writes:
All in all I don't think it really matters what you build first on a 701, it should
all fit together. But for Chris or anyone to say the wings should or must
be built first, I take exception to. My opinion is that one should start with
the center and build out. And I stick by my statement, It makes absolutely
no logical sense to build the wings first. That applies to a 701 only. Now
if you or someone can give me a good logical reason why the wings should be built
first, I will certainly think about it and admit it if I am wrong.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
John,
I have the same kinds of questions. I am wondering if without slats, the max angle
of attack may be slightly less, and with a little reduced drag too, the landing
distance may suffer a bit. Testing ought to include takeoff and landing
distance estimates (hard to do without help, consistent conditions, etc.).
It also occurred to me that some of us have limited our max flap angles to only
15 degrees. If I remember correctly, the factory cautioned use of the original
30 degree option, because the overall drag was so high that max STOL landings
required great timing, or one risked a pretty hard landing. I know my 15 degree
setting seems to reduce stall speed, but not add much drag at all (going
by indicated sink rates). So now I wonder how the VG-only configuration could
do if the 30 degree notch was reintroduced. Or upped to 35 or 40 degrees (a possible
pandora's box, admittedly, as airflow over the tail, stability, etc.,
all would have to be revisited). Guess this train of thought may add to the confusion.
Bill Mileski
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81506#81506
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Ok, my new project is........ |
RW5 Heath Replica. I am trying to do the truely legal ultralight. I sold
my single place quicksilver a couple of months ago. Right now I am
flying a single place Coyote , two place quicksilver and in the process
of finishing up my Rans S12 with a Rotax 583 (90hp @125 lbs complete
with radiator) my helicopter is still in progress and another KB2
gyrocopter is still in progress. I have been pretty busy this year with
repairs to our fleet. The boss ground looped the P51, it was a bad one
taking out the gear on the left side and the left wing, prop and engine.
I finished it and it ran for the first time a month ago. Then he landed
our Beech 99 airliner with the brakes locked and took the gear out on
it. I just got back from Ogden Ut (where it is really cold) from tearing
down another Beech 99 to get the wings, flight control surfaces and
drilling all the rivets out of the nacelles to get the parts needed to
fix out 99....well that project should be a few months to complete but
the RW5 is as a time allowed. I should have it done for spring flying
though.
David Mikesell
Acampo, CA
skyguynca@skyguynca.com
www.skyguynca.com
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Larry, I would say that your post "proves" that EAA Technical aren't always
right. Nor should folks think that just because an individual is an EAA T
ech. that he is right all the time.. Especially when recommending things w
hich contradict the designer. Isn't following the procedures as layed out
in the Construction Manual logical reason enough ???=0A=0AWhat does it tak
e to be an "authority" on this site anyways ?????=0AFritz=0A=0A=0A----- Ori
ginal Message ----=0AFrom: LRM <lrm@skyhawg.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronic
s.com=0ASent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:26:24 AM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-
List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away!=0A=0A=0AThe subjec
t matter states "For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away!" You c
ould be right about a 640, I don't know, we weren't talking about 640s and
I know nothing about them.=0AAll in all I don't think it really matters wha
t you build first on a 701, it should all fit together. But for Chris or a
nyone to say the wings should or must be built first, I take exception to.
My opinion is that one should start with the center and build out. And I
stick by my statement, =93It makes absolutely no logical sense to build the
wings first.=94 That applies to a 701 only. Now if you or someone can gi
ve me a good logical reason why the wings should be built first, I will cer
tainly think about it and admit it if I am wrong. However, having built fo
ur aircraft, one being a 701 and currently advising three other local 701 b
uilders as an EAA Technical Advisor, I don't see that rationale of building
the wings first forth coming. Two of the my builders have their fuselage
s built and are working on wings, they are scratch builders. The third is
building his wings first from the kit. =0A =0ALarry, N1345L, www.skyhawg.c
om=0A =0A =0A =0A =0A----- Original Message ----- =0AFrom: Christian Trembl
ay =0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1
1:42 PM=0ASubject: RE: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else -
look away!=0A=0A=0AHi,=0A =0AI disagree with you when you say =93It makes
absolutely no logical sense to build the wings first.=94=0A =0ADepending on
model, it could make more sense to build wing first than fuselage. The CH6
40 is an example. If you do fuselage before wings, it could be more difficu
lt, if not feasible, due to restricted access when the fuselage is complet
ed, to fit wing spars to center fuselage spar. Specially if your project is
from plan, you don=92t have any hole pre-drilled like many kit plane have.
=0A =0ABut I agree with you, build fuselage before wings could be more fun
=85 and give perception plane more tangible. Depending on model and also bu
ilder, opinion and situation vary. The world is never white or black.=0A
=0A =0AChristian Tremblay=0AA guy who build a CH640 aircraft from plan=0Aht
tp://www.zodiac640.com/=0A =0A=0A=0A=0ADe : owner-zenith-list-server@matron
ics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de Big G
ee=0AEnvoy=E9 : Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:04 PM=0A=C0 : zenith-list@mat
ronics.com=0AObjet : Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else
- look away!=0A =0AYOU GUYS DRIVE ME UP THE WALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!=0A-----
Original Message ----=0AFrom: LRM <lrm@skyhawg.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@matro
nics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:38:42 PM=0ASubject: Re: Zeni
th-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away!=0AIt makes abso
lutely 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 t
o build the fuselage to fit the wings, than to try and build the wings to f
it 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 pa
rt is done. I built my fuselage first and my wings (PegaStol) bolted righ
t 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. =0A =0AJust me 2 cents worth for what it's wo
rth, Larry N1345L www.skyhawg.com=0A =0A =0A =0A---- Original Message -----
=0AFrom: Big Gee =0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Tuesday, Decemb
er 12, 2006 9:14 AM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - eve
ryone else - look away!=0A =0ABob, my vote is with Mark T. Do the wings fi
rst, 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 easi
er 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----- O
riginal Message ----=0AFrom: "robert.eli@adelphia.net" <robert.eli@adelphia
.net>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:
58:48 AM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else
=0A=0AJon,=0A=0AThanks for the advice. I had not thought about doing the f
uselage next, just because I thought that the wings were the usual next ste
p. I will strongly consider doing the fuselage next since I need all of th
e motivational help I can get. On the "remove the slats and VG issue", Mar
k Townsend has convinced me to build my CH701 Kit "per plans", with the sla
ts. The only reason the "slat removal and VG approach" seemed attractive w
as that I don't plan to push the envelop and "hang the plane on the prop" a
t high angles of attack at low altitude because it is obviously the most ri
sky position to be in if you have a engine-out. Thanks for the input and b
est wishes for the Holidays.=0A=0ABob Eli=0A=0A=0A---- Jon Croke <Jon@joncr
ncroke.com>=0A> =0A> Hi Bob,=0A> =0A> I am honored that you would ask my op
inion about this, however I am the =0A> LEAST qualified to express an opini
on about this topic. I have no formal =0A> aerodynamics education... and y
ou may recall I am sometimes challenged at =0A> keeping the plane in the ai
r for more than a few hours!=0A> =0A> If you have not built the fuselage ye
t, consider building that before =0A> building the wings. Obviously they bo
th (wings and fuse) have to be =0A> completed before flying, but I have fou
nd it makes a lot more emotional =0A> sense to have the body of the plane d
one and sitting there whilst you embark =0A> on the wings. (Something 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 more rew
arding, in my opinion!=0A> =0A> Jon=0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> > --> Zenith-List me
ssage posted by: <robert.eli@adelphia.net>=0A> >=0A> > Hey Jon Croke,=0A> >
=0A> > I've been reading about all of this flight experience with the slats
=0A> > removed and vortex generators in their place. I'm finally finishin
g 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 wi
ngs minus the =0A> > slats. Since you are on your third CH701, and obvious
ly know the thing =0A> > inside out, what is your take on this no-slats app
roach?=0A> >=0A> > Bob Eli=0A> >=0A> > =0A> =0A> =0A&This Month = * A
eroElectric ="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/" target=_blank>www.homebuil
thelp.com http://www.bsp; -Matt Dralle, sp; - T
he Zenith-List Email .com/Navigator?Zenith-List" ========
===0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AHave a burning question? Go to Yahoo! A
nswers and get answers from real people who know. =0A =0A =0Ahref="http
://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com=0Ahref="http://www.builders
books.com">www.buildersbooks.com=0Ahref="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlo
g.com=0Ahref="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com=0Ahref
="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matron=0ADat
e: 12/7/2006=0Awww.aeroelectric.com=0Awww.buildersbooks.com=0Awww.kitlog.co
m=0Awww.homebuilthelp.com=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/contribution=0Ahttp://
www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List=0A =0A=0A=0ADate: 12/13/2006=0A=0A
======================0A=0A=0A
=0A________________________________________________________________________
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Actually I prefer when the questions and previous comments are left at least somewhat
intact. I often see messages on the list now that have no frame of reference
if I can't remember and associate the original question or comment.
I only scroll down through whatever I need to or feel like reading, thereby limiting
the wear and tear on my fingers and the mouse.
Ed Moody II
Do Not Archive
(You forgot to add that)
---- rhartwig11@juno.com wrote:
>
> I LOVE TO READ THE OPINIONS, BUT PLEASE TRIM OFF THE OLD MESSAGES BEFORE
> YOU HIT THE SEND BUTTON. Scrolling through all of those messages that
> are repeated again....and....again.....redundantly....time after time
> (Get the idea?) is causing my scroll finger to lock up. Have to leave
> now--have a doctor appointment--consultation for "CARPAL MOUSE SYNDROME"
> surgery.
> Rich Hartwig
> Waunakee, WI
> rhartwig11@juno.com
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Bill,
That is a very valid point and it would be great to have someone with vg's experiment
with 40 degrees of flaps.
Bob Spudis
In a message dated 12/14/06 11:12:58 Eastern Standard Time, mileski@sonalysts.com
writes:
So now I wonder how the VG-only configuration could do if the 30 degree notch was
reintroduced. Or upped to 35 or 40 degrees (a possible pandora's box, admittedly,
as airflow over the tail, stability, etc., all would have to be revisited).
Guess this train of thought may add to the confusion.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Fritz:
I have sat here and read your posts and all I can think is your head is so
far up Chris's azz that you can't take a breath and you are not thinking
clearly due to lack of o2. One example of not having to follow the designer
is
this: When we build a Van's RV we build the fuselage upside down and I inten
d to
build my 2nd 601 that way, so is this right or wrong? Is Van's or Chris
right or do we as builders have the right to do what ever the hell we want.
It
sounds to me like you need to get out of the experimental stuff and move ov
er
to certified then you can truly be happy and after all that is what we all
want for you here.
do not archive
In a message dated 12/14/2006 12:09:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
taffy0687@yahoo.com writes:
Larry, I would say that your post "proves" that EAA Technical aren't always
right. Nor should folks think that just because an individual is an EAA
Tech. that he is right all the time.. Especially when recommending things
which
contradict the designer. Isn't following the procedures as layed out in th
e
Construction Manual logical reason enough ???
What does it take to be an "authority" on this site anyways ?????
Fritz
----- Original Message ----
From: LRM <lrm@skyhawg.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:26:24 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away
!
The subject matter states "For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look
away!" You could be right about a 640, I don't know, we weren't talking ab
out
640s and I know nothing about them.
All in all I don't think it really matters what you build first on a 701, i
t
should all fit together. But for Chris or anyone to say the wings should o
r
must be built first, I take exception to. My opinion is that one should
start with the center and build out. And I stick by my statement,
=9CIt makes
absolutely no logical sense to build the wings first.=9D That applie
s to a 701
only. Now if you or someone can give me a good logical reason why the wing
s
should be built first, I will certainly think about it and admit it if I am
wrong. However, having built four aircraft, one being a 701 and currently
advising three other local 701 builders as an EAA Technical Advisor, I don'
t see
that rationale of building the wings first forth coming. Two of the my
builders have their fuselages built and are working on wings, they are scra
tch
builders. The third is building his wings first from the kit.
Larry, N1345L, _www.skyhawg.com_ (http://www.skyhawg.com/)
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Question: Would VG's make the plane more resistant to spins?
Bob D
601XL rudder/eng mt
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Bill, my original thinking was as follows: There are some neat engine
s out there, but they run at high RPM. High RPM could push the prop ti
p speed close to Mach 1, thereby reducing efficiency a great deal. A s
horter blade lets the tip move slower, keeping it in the efficiency ra
nge, but you lose lift (thrust) with smaller wing (blade) area. To com
pensate, then, why not have more blades, with wider chord, sort of the
reason some very mean acro ships are biplanes, with tremendous lift.
(The AN-2 springs to mind.) However, more blades mean more weight, so
you would have to compensate by making them very light, possibly hollo
w. I suggest it could be done, but it likely isn't coming out of someo
ne's garage. A high-tech prop manufacturer might have the answer. I do
n't. But it makes my brain itch.=0A=0APaul Rodriguez=0A601XL/
Corvair=0A(and probably with WW's two-bladed prop)=0A ----- Ori
ginal Message ----- =0A From: billbutlergps@aim.com<mailto:billbut
lergps@aim.com> =0A To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-li
st@matronics.com> =0A Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 5:10 PM
=0A Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellors=0A=0A=0A http://ww
w.warpdriveprops.com/<http://www.warpdriveprops.com/>=0A I have se
en 5 bladed props on trikes and on a 701 w/ floats. I would be interes
ted in seeing some reasoning for going with a 3, 4 or 5 bladed prop ov
er a 2 blade. I notice that most are running the 3 bladed prop. What i
s your take on having more blades?=0A Bill=0A=0A=0A
=0A -----Original Message-----=0A From: dredmoody@cox.net=0A
=0A Subject: Re: Zenith-List: propellors=0A=0A=0A--> Zenith-
List message posted by: <dredmoody@cox.net<mailto:dredmoody@cox.net>>
=0A=0AIt doesn't help us Zenith builders at all but the last two
airplanes with five =0Abladed props that I saw in person were (A)
a turbo-shaft powered Lancair Legacy =0A(very highly modified airfr
ame) that boasted a max straight-and-level speed of =0A313mph, and
(B) a huge turbo-shaft Air Tractor ag-plane that was working in the
=0Aforestry industry.=0A=0AI don't recall ever seeing an engi
ne light enough for us to use that could spin =0Aa five bladed prop
Would it not be cool if that existed though? Imagine the =0Arate
of climb....=0A=0AEd Moody II=0ADo Not Archive=0A=0A---
- paulrod36@msn.com<mailto:paulrod36@msn.com> wrote: =0A> An intere
sting comment. Your rough explanation being the case, it suggests
=0Athat a smaller diameter, wider-bladed, five blade prop might well b
e worth =0Alooking at. Can't remember where, or what, but I do reca
ll seing photos of =0Asomething that had a five-bladed prop. Anybod
y remember what it was? Maybe we =0Areally can use some of those h
igh RPM motorcycle and sport car engines????=0A> =0A> Paul Rodri
guez=0A> 601XL/Corvair=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A---------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================
=======================
://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributio
=======================
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List<http://www.matro
=======================
=======================
=====0A=0A
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Culver Props- gap between rear of wood prop and crankshaft |
f...
this is not a problem for the list. you need to talk to the guys at culver
props-valley engineering about this,
Larry
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
lrm(at)skyhawg.com wrote:
> The subject matter states "For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away!"
You could be right about a 640, I don't know, we weren't talking about 640s
and I know nothing about them.
>
> ---
Whoa. Sorry to rustle your feathers. I thought recommending drilling before riveting
would be about the least controversial thing I could say. :?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81547#81547
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
Afterfxllc, As I said before, anyone can build their airplane the way they
want. Both Larry and you read part of a post, then act like an "Authorit
y" and can't wait to jump on someone else.=0ASeeing that Chris Heintz and W
illiam Wynne aren't considered "Authorities" by some on this site, =0AI'll
ask you the same question I asked Larry.---- What does it take to be an "
Authority" ?=0A=0A Happy Building,=0AFritz=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Original Mes
sage ----=0AFrom: "Afterfxllc@aol.com" <Afterfxllc@aol.com>=0ATo: zenith-li
st@matronics.com=0ASent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:24:56 PM=0ASubject:
Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away!=0A=0A
=0AFritz:=0A I have sat here and read your posts and all I can think is you
r head is so far up Chris's azz that you can't take a breath and you are no
t thinking clearly due to lack of o2. One example of not having to follow t
he designer is this: When we build a Van's RV we build the fuselage upside
down and I intend to build my 2nd 601 that way, so is this right or wrong?
Is Van's or Chris right or do we as builders have the right to do what ever
the hell we want. It sounds to me like you need to get out of the experime
ntal stuff and move over to certified then you can truly be happy and after
all that is what we all want for you here.=0A =0Ado not archive=0A =0A =0A
=0AIn a message dated 12/14/2006 12:09:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, taffy0
687@yahoo.com writes:=0ALarry, I would say that your post "proves" that EAA
Technical aren't always right. Nor should folks think that just because a
n individual is an EAA Tech. that he is right all the time.. Especially wh
en recommending things which contradict the designer. Isn't following the
procedures as layed out in the Construction Manual logical reason enough ?
??=0A =0AWhat does it take to be an "authority" on this site anyways ?????
=0AFritz=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: LRM <lrm@skyhawg.com>
=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:26:2
4 AM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - lo
ok away!=0A=0A=0AThe subject matter states "For 701 builders ONLY - everyon
e else - look away!" You could be right about a 640, I don't know, we were
n't talking about 640s and I know nothing about them.=0AAll in all I don't
think it really matters what you build first on a 701, it should all fit to
gether. But for Chris or anyone to say the wings should or must be built f
irst, I take exception to. My opinion is that one should start with the ce
nter and build out. And I stick by my statement, =93It makes absolutely no
logical sense to build the wings first.=94 That applies to a 701 only. N
ow if you or someone can give me a good logical reason why the wings should
be built first, I will certainly think about it and admit it if I am wrong
. However, having built four aircraft, one being a 701 and currently advis
ing three other local 701 builders as an EAA Technical Advisor, I don't see
that rationale of building the wings first forth coming. Two of the my b
uilders have their fuselages built and are working on wings, they are scrat
ch builders. The third is building his wings first from the kit. =0A =0AL
===============0A=0A=0A =0A____________________
________________________________________________________________=0AHave a b
urning question? =0AGo to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real
people who know.
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hello Bill,
The reason od the five blades is noise... In Europe are very carefull with the
noise in airplanes, Here we had two trikes that came from France with 5 blade
props, later were changed for 3 bladed ones for 3 main reasons: One, the noise
(very liitle in a 912 engine) is no legal problem here. Two, There was a
penalty in performance, messured against another similar trike. and 3 I
dont remember the brand or model of the propeller, but was a advise from Rotax
to change that prop, because was too "inercia" heavy for the engine/transmission
A well chosen 2 or 3 blade in a 912 or 912S can be very effective, in either climb
and/or cruise...
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala, Mexico.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
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
-----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
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
I can't believe you folks have missed *the* most important part of
this discussion --
On 12/11/06, Jon Croke <Jon@joncroke.com> wrote:
> ... they both (wings and fuse) have to be completed before flying, ...
What Jon is trying to tell you all is that, in his videos, he explains
not just the ORDER in which the parts need to be completed, but also
WHICH ones need to be completed. He's gone on record saying you need
wings, fuse and (in a different thread) slats. But buy his video and
you may find out you can skip the noisy, dirty, superfluous engine,
and replace it with some easy glue-on "slipstream generators". Imagine
the cost savings! Or maybe the wheels -- could *they* be eliminated
and replaced by some simple plastic "runway guides"? Well, you'll just
have to buy Jon's video, now won't you? So do yourselves a favor, put
your time to good use, and order that video. You won't regret it.
Ihab
DO NOT ARCHIVE
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
I guess you have to self proclaimed.... We are all Authorities when it comes
to our own aircraft and it's guys like you that hinder aviation not help it.
the Van's aircraft is IMHO is far better than the zenith but they are both
good aircraft and I'm sure others will develop different designs in the future.
That is the beauty of Experimental. Another example is the barbed hose
fittings Chris uses for his kits I think they are junk and won't use them, am
I
wrong? 90% of aircraft built use aluminum tubing. But you just keep preaching
against people wanting to improve their airplane as they see fit we will
listen but for most on this list I'm sure we wanted to get rid of your type
attitude when we sold our cessna's.
In a message dated 12/14/2006 2:26:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
taffy0687@yahoo.com writes:
Afterfxllc, As I said before, anyone can build their airplane the way they
want. Both Larry and you read part of a post, then act like an "Authority"
and can't wait to jump on someone else.
Seeing that Chris Heintz and William Wynne aren't considered "Authorities"
by some on this site,
I'll ask you the same question I asked Larry.---- What does it take to be
an "Authority" ?
Happy Building,
Fritz
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Joe
I'm up near Ocala. FA38 I'll be gone north for a bit but I'll let you know when
I get back to Florida. Tried to send you a email but I must have goofed someting
up. Merry Christmass from Tom in FL .....heading north. (Just wish
I was taking my 701 with me!)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81621#81621
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Has anybody used POR 15 as a primer sealer or tested it against other corrosion
proofings?
Thanx..
Eddie
(Trying to build a 601XL)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81630#81630
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Two : the picture was snapped at an instant in the flare where full AOA
had not yet been achieved and there is more to come.
Hey, good analysis of the photo John.
I don't know if that was the maximum aoa acheivable, but I note that the
elevator is well up. Now this is an idle power flare, and we've had
problems with lack of elevator authority in this condition - with a
trickle of power sending an airstream over the tail, the aoa can be
increased considerably.
With the darn delay in these low end digital still cameras I'm lucky to
get any of the action at all - usually just get the tail going out of
the picture! I know about holding the button halfway so that focus is
already set, so then the delay is only 0.2sec, but the button is so
sensitive that I often just get the prop coming into the frame...... I
want to get a camera that can shoot a whole sequence in rapid fire, then
go thro them frame at a time - that would be really interesting to
analyse.
I try not to tell people how to run their business BUT if I wanted to
sell to this tough crowd I'd have more pictures and several clips on
YouTube, maybe a couple 701's (or Savannah's) side by side, one with
slats the other with VG's doing a drag race T.O. Many folks are visual
learners, SOME are from Missouri. :)
Yeh, I'd just love to do that! These take-offs that I can get now with
the Savannah with VGs are incredible - I'd really like to show them off.
Need to get a new video camera. My old Hi-8 can't seem to focus it's
eyes properly any more these days - a problem with many of us at this
stage of life..... I also want to do a bunch of tuft testing with
remote video - flying close enough with another aircraft is just too
risky for my liking, especially at stall speeds.... I'll start another
thread seeking advice on video cameras for such use. And, yeh, I'm as
much a sceptic as anyone, but I am open to new developements so long as
they are backed by experience.
Now back to techincal facts. I haven't done real outside aoa
measurements, but i did mount an inclinometer in the cabin to do
comparisons slats/no slats, flying level at different speeds. The
results from that are really consistent and interesting when plotted up
on graph paper - wish I knew how to present that graph on this forum.
But to summarize:
Knots. Slats w/o slats 15*flaps
30 14 15 12
35 12 13 9
40 9.5 10 7
45 6.5 7.5 4
50 5 5.5 2
55 4 4
60 3.5 3
65 2 2
70 2 1
75 1 0
80 0 -1
If you plot these out they are so consistent that you would think they
were fudged - it's unusual in flight testing to get such consistency!
So, at the low end it needs 1* more aoa without slats and at the high
end 1* less without slats, and the cross-over point is 55kts, which
incidentally is also the best rate of climb speed.....
With 15* flaps, the aoa was the same with slats or no slats, right thro
the range!!
Yeh, this is just getting really interesting now, with good technical
inquiries and suggestions. I sure as hell don't know everything, and
really looking forward to the analysis of others to expand all of our
knowledge. I'm an experimenter thro and thro, and NOT a careless
risk-taker, but eager to push the envelope to see what can be achieved.
JG
----- Original Message -----
From: John Bolding
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:05 AM
Subject: : Zenith-List: Re: vg's
This simple picture provides some important information to those who
are actually seeking substantiated data on this mod.
If one looks at the height of the wheels off the ground compared to
the height of the tail off the ground it is perceived(by me anyway) that
the AOA is slightly less than what is achievable with slats.
I know, I know, camera angle will also come into play here but it IS
a good picture to start with.
This can be from two reasons I THINK.
One : that's all the AOA you can get with VG's on this aircraft and
the STOL performance will be reduced by some unknown value over slats.
Two : the picture was snapped at an instant in the flare where full
AOA had not yet been achieved and there is more to come.
AOA is not all encompassing either.
If the same lift can be had at a shallower AOA you could see better on
approach and the float guys would love you as you can't get max.
performance from the slatted wing unless you have the floats rigged nose
low causing a LOT of cruise drag.
I try not to tell people how to run their business BUT if I wanted to
sell to this tough crowd I'd have more pictures and several clips on
YouTube, maybe a couple 701's (or Savannah's) side by side, one with
slats the other with VG's doing a drag race T.O. Many folks are visual
learners, SOME are from Missouri. :)
I UNDERSTAND that other issues (handling, structural,weight,etc) are
involved here, I'm just discussing the STOL performance aspect.
To those who have made up their mind on this issue I can only say
"Congratulations" . MANY have not and this thread ain't going away
anytime soon.
Beats the hell out of talking about scotchbrite or insurance.
LOW&SLOW John Bolding
----- Original Message -----
From: John Gilpin
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:28 PM
Subject: xxx Re: Zenith-List: Re: vg's
For a photo have a look at www.stolspeed.com , "Benefits of VGs"
page......
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh@netzero.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:44 AM
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. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
Waits over !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I don't know an answer to that Bob. I see no reason at all to get into
a spin situation, or even a full stall, at least in these ZAC machines -
they're so docile and give so much warning if you practice 'tickling'
the stall and learn the feeling.
But I do note that CCI, a long time supplier of vortex generators, tells
of equiping a Pitts with them - the landings improved muchly, but he
couldn't do snap rolls any more! I don't know if that relates to
spins....
JG
----- Original Message -----
From: MaxNr@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 5:33 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re:Re: VG's
Question: Would VG's make the plane more resistant to spins?
Bob D
601XL rudder/eng mt
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
John,
Your buddy with the 701, has he considered using 40 degrees of flaps? Apparently
this is what Zenith used to allow the 701 to use before they changed to 30 degrees.
It would be interesting to see what the stall speed does at 40 degrees.
Bob Spudis
N701ZX CH701/912S
do not archive
In a message dated 12/14/06 21:44:56 Eastern Standard Time, vgstol@bigpond.net.au
writes:
Two : the picture was snapped at an instant in the flare where full AOA had not
yet been achieved and there is more to come.
Hey, good analysis of the photo John.
I don't know if that was the maximum aoa acheivable, but I note that the elevator
is well up. Now this is an idle power flare, and we've had problems with lack
of elevator authority in this condition - with a trickle of power sending
an airstream over the tail, the aoa can be increased considerably.
With the darn delay in these low end digital still cameras I'm lucky to get any
of the action at all - usually just get the tail going out of the picture! I
know about holding the button halfway so that focus is already set, so then the
delay is only 0.2sec, but the button is so sensitive that I often just get
the prop coming into the frame...... I want to get a camera that can shoot a
whole sequence in rapid fire, then go thro them frame at a time - that would be
really interesting to analyse.
I try not to tell people how to run their business BUT if I wanted to sell to this
tough crowd I'd have more pictures and several clips on YouTube, maybe a
couple 701's (or Savannah's) side by side, one with slats the other with VG's
doing a drag race T.O. Many folks are visual learners, SOME are from Missouri.
:)
Yeh, I'd just love to do that! These take-offs that I can get now with the Savannah
with VGs are incredible - I'd really like to show them off. Need to get
a new video camera. My old Hi-8 can't seem to focus it's eyes properly any more
these days - a problem with many of us at this stage of life..... I also
want to do a bunch of tuft testing with remote video - flying close enough with
another aircraft is just too risky for my liking, especially at stall speeds....
I'll start another thread seeking advice on video cameras for such use.
And, yeh, I'm as much a sceptic as anyone, but I am open to new developements
so long as they are backed by experience.
Now back to techincal facts. I haven't done real outside aoa measurements, but
i did mount an inclinometer in the cabin to do comparisons slats/no slats, flying
level at different speeds. The results from that are really consistent and
interesting when plotted up on graph paper - wish I knew how to present that
graph on this forum. But to summarize:
Knots. Slats w/o slats 15*flaps
30 14 15 12
35 12 13 9
40 9.5 10 7
45 6.5 7.5 4
50 5 5.5 2
55 4 4
60 3.5 3
65 2 2
70 2 1
75 1 0
80 0 -1
If you plot these out they are so consistent that you would think they were fudged
- it's unusual in flight testing to get such consistency!
So, at the low end it needs 1* more aoa without slats and at the high end 1* less
without slats, and the cross-over point is 55kts, which incidentally is also
the best rate of climb speed.....
With 15* flaps, the aoa was the same with slats or no slats, right thro the range!!
Yeh, this is just getting really interesting now, with good technical inquiries
and suggestions. I sure as hell don't know everything, and really looking forward
to the analysis of others to expand all of our knowledge. I'm an experimenter
thro and thro, and NOT a careless risk-taker, but eager to push the envelope
to see what can be achieved.
JG
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Yeh, Bill, good point. The flaps on my Savannah without slats now give
almost no drag at all, even at full flap.. I wish I had more, cause it
tends to float and float in ground effect - more like a glider than a
701...... Someday I want to experiment with much higher angle flaps that
have no detent and I can pull on only in the last stage of hold-off to
bring in drag and dump lift, to get it to sit down.....
JG
----- Original Message -----
From: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:10 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: : Re: vg's
>
> John,
> I have the same kinds of questions. I am wondering if without slats, the
> max angle of attack may be slightly less, and with a little reduced drag
> too, the landing distance may suffer a bit. Testing ought to include
> takeoff and landing distance estimates (hard to do without help,
> consistent conditions, etc.).
> It also occurred to me that some of us have limited our max flap angles to
> only 15 degrees. If I remember correctly, the factory cautioned use of the
> original 30 degree option, because the overall drag was so high that max
> STOL landings required great timing, or one risked a pretty hard landing.
> I know my 15 degree setting seems to reduce stall speed, but not add much
> drag at all (going by indicated sink rates). So now I wonder how the
> VG-only configuration could do if the 30 degree notch was reintroduced.
> Or upped to 35 or 40 degrees (a possible pandora's box, admittedly, as
> airflow over the tail, stability, etc., all would have to be revisited).
> Guess this train of thought may add to the confusion.
>
> Bill Mileski
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81506#81506
>
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Sorry, forgot to delete all the previous messages - must make a habit of
that......
----- Original Message -----
From: John Gilpin
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: vg's
Two : the picture was snapped at an instant in the flare where full
AOA had not yet been achieved and there is more to come.
Hey, good analysis of the photo John.
I don't know if that was the maximum aoa acheivable, but I note that
the elevator is well up. Now this is an idle power flare, and we've had
problems with lack of elevator authority in this condition - with a
trickle of power sending an airstream over the tail, the aoa can be
increased considerably.
With the darn delay in these low end digital still cameras I'm lucky
to get any of the action at all - usually just get the tail going out of
the picture! I know about holding the button halfway so that focus is
already set, so then the delay is only 0.2sec, but the button is so
sensitive that I often just get the prop coming into the frame...... I
want to get a camera that can shoot a whole sequence in rapid fire, then
go thro them frame at a time - that would be really interesting to
analyse.
I try not to tell people how to run their business BUT if I wanted to
sell to this tough crowd I'd have more pictures and several clips on
YouTube, maybe a couple 701's (or Savannah's) side by side, one with
slats the other with VG's doing a drag race T.O. Many folks are visual
learners, SOME are from Missouri. :)
Yeh, I'd just love to do that! These take-offs that I can get now
with the Savannah with VGs are incredible - I'd really like to show them
off. Need to get a new video camera. My old Hi-8 can't seem to focus
it's eyes properly any more these days - a problem with many of us at
this stage of life..... I also want to do a bunch of tuft testing with
remote video - flying close enough with another aircraft is just too
risky for my liking, especially at stall speeds.... I'll start another
thread seeking advice on video cameras for such use. And, yeh, I'm as
much a sceptic as anyone, but I am open to new developements so long as
they are backed by experience.
Now back to techincal facts. I haven't done real outside aoa
measurements, but i did mount an inclinometer in the cabin to do
comparisons slats/no slats, flying level at different speeds. The
results from that are really consistent and interesting when plotted up
on graph paper - wish I knew how to present that graph on this forum.
But to summarize:
Knots. Slats w/o slats 15*flaps
30 14 15 12
35 12 13 9
40 9.5 10 7
45 6.5 7.5 4
50 5 5.5 2
55 4 4
60 3.5 3
65 2 2
70 2 1
75 1 0
80 0 -1
If you plot these out they are so consistent that you would think they
were fudged - it's unusual in flight testing to get such consistency!
So, at the low end it needs 1* more aoa without slats and at the high
end 1* less without slats, and the cross-over point is 55kts, which
incidentally is also the best rate of climb speed.....
With 15* flaps, the aoa was the same with slats or no slats, right
thro the range!!
Yeh, this is just getting really interesting now, with good technical
inquiries and suggestions. I sure as hell don't know everything, and
really looking forward to the analysis of others to expand all of our
knowledge. I'm an experimenter thro and thro, and NOT a careless
risk-taker, but eager to push the envelope to see what can be achieved.
JG
----- Original Message -----
From: John Bolding
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:05 AM
Subject: : Zenith-List: Re: vg's
This simple picture provides some important information to those who
are actually seeking substantiated data on this mod.
If one looks at the height of the wheels off the ground compared to
the height of the tail off the ground it is perceived(by me anyway) that
the AOA is slightly less than what is achievable with slats.
I know, I know, camera angle will also come into play here but it
IS a good picture to start with.
This can be from two reasons I THINK.
One : that's all the AOA you can get with VG's on this aircraft and
the STOL performance will be reduced by some unknown value over slats.
Two : the picture was snapped at an instant in the flare where full
AOA had not yet been achieved and there is more to come.
AOA is not all encompassing either.
If the same lift can be had at a shallower AOA you could see better
on approach and the float guys would love you as you can't get max.
performance from the slatted wing unless you have the floats rigged nose
low causing a LOT of cruise drag.
I try not to tell people how to run their business BUT if I wanted
to sell to this tough crowd I'd have more pictures and several clips on
YouTube, maybe a couple 701's (or Savannah's) side by side, one with
slats the other with VG's doing a drag race T.O. Many folks are visual
learners, SOME are from Missouri. :)
I UNDERSTAND that other issues (handling, structural,weight,etc) are
involved here, I'm just discussing the STOL performance aspect.
To those who have made up their mind on this issue I can only say
"Congratulations" . MANY have not and this thread ain't going away
anytime soon.
Beats the hell out of talking about scotchbrite or insurance.
LOW&SLOW John Bolding
----- Original Message -----
From: John Gilpin
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:28 PM
Subject: xxx Re: Zenith-List: Re: vg's
For a photo have a look at www.stolspeed.com , "Benefits of VGs"
page......
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh@netzero.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:44 AM
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.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
Waits over !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matron
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Darn, just did it again....sorry.....
JG
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matron
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matron
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cool flight today |
Gents,
I flew my 601 HDS over the hills to the Salton Sea today. It is a salt
water lake south of Palm Springs that is below sea level. I did a run just offshore
at 0 feet MSL for a airspeed check. The altimeter setting for the area
was 30.06, and my ambient pressure showed 30.12 while flying at -90 feet. The
nerd side of me thought it would be cool to fly under sea level...
The Corvair is running strong - with a small oil leak that I will fix if
the weather ever gets bad... I can't justify removing the cowling while we are
in the low 70's and SKC...
The Hobbs hit 37 hours today. Not too shabby for 2 weeks of being unemployed!
I am going to need another logbook if I don't find a job soon!
I should get my VG's next week, so I can chime in on the horrible VG debate.
I used green scotch bright pads too, so I'll write a long post on that as well...
Happy Holidays,
Brandon
---------------------------------
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look away! |
I don't like to toot my own horn, but since you put me on the spot, I
guess I need to answer the questions. I don't want you or anyone to
label me as a blowhard who doesn't know what he's talking about. Please
don't take this as being pompous, I don't mean it that way.
I have built 4 aircraft, one of which was a grand champion, a second
would have been but I didn't get to enter it. There is also a good
possibility my current 701 will stand a good chance of being a grand
champion at the next Sun N Fun. If everything goes right I will be
there and enter it. I have built around 15+ frame up show cars, one of
which one was on the cover of Hot Rod Magazine. I have enough trophies
to start my on trophy shop. I am an inventor, I hold one U.S. Patent
and have another one pending. I designed and marketed the "Bad Stab"
and "Ultimate Stab". Those are horizontal stabilizers for RAF 2000
gyroplanes. I sold well over 100 in almost every state and all over the
world, Russia, Japan, Germany and more. I have been building things all
my life. I do every little bit of my own building except the sewing,
including the complete paint jobs. Yes, some might consider me an
"authority". It doesn't really matter to me. I just try and pass on my
experience. And, I am certainly not always right, but neither is Chris.
Anyone who thinks he or anyone is always right is misguided. There is
nothing in it for me being a Technical Advisor other than self
satisfaction of helping fellow builders.
If you want to or have to follow the instructions to the letter, have at
it. There are some people who can't think out of the box, and that's
ok, it takes all kinds to make this old world go around. You asked, "
Isn't following the procedures as laid out in the Construction Manual
logical reason enough ???". No it certainly is not. I did not/do not
agree with the progression of building components in the Zenith manual,
that's why I didn't follow it. That manual is/was full of errors and
omissions. Maybe it's improved by now, but mine certainly needed help.
Of course I can't fuss too much, I wouldn't want to try and write one.
Producing an instruction manual is really a difficult thing to do. At
one point in my professional career I wrote technical manuals for IBM.
On that subject I am definitely an authority. Overall, even with it's
errors and omissions, the Zenith instruction manual is the best one I
have used. Some of them are really sorry. The PegaStol manual was the
worst one I have ever seen. The new owner is using a lot of information
on my site and rewriting it.
One last thought and I've said this before, "There is nothing,
absolutely nothing that cannot be improved".
End of discussion!!!!!!!!!!
Larry N1345L, www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Big Gee
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look
away!
Larry, I would say that your post "proves" that EAA Technical aren't
always right. Nor should folks think that just because an individual is
an EAA Tech. that he is right all the time.. Especially when
recommending things which contradict the designer. Isn't following the
procedures as layed out in the Construction Manual logical reason
enough ???
What does it take to be an "authority" on this site anyways ?????
Fritz
----- Original Message ----
From: LRM <lrm@skyhawg.com>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 9:26:24 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else - look
away!
The subject matter states "For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else -
look away!" You could be right about a 640, I don't know, we weren't
talking about 640s and I know nothing about them.
All in all I don't think it really matters what you build first on a
701, it should all fit together. But for Chris or anyone to say the
wings should or must be built first, I take exception to. My opinion is
that one should start with the center and build out. And I stick by my
statement, =93It makes absolutely no logical sense to build the wings
first.=94 That applies to a 701 only. Now if you or someone can give
me a good logical reason why the wings should be built first, I will
certainly think about it and admit it if I am wrong. However, having
built four aircraft, one being a 701 and currently advising three other
local 701 builders as an EAA Technical Advisor, I don't see that
rationale of building the wings first forth coming. Two of the my
builders have their fuselages built and are working on wings, they are
scratch builders. The third is building his wings first from the kit.
Larry, N1345L, www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Tremblay
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:42 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else -
look away!
Hi,
I disagree with you when you say =93It makes absolutely no logical
sense to build the wings first.=94
Depending on model, it could make more sense to build wing first
than fuselage. The CH640 is an example. If you do fuselage before wings,
it could be more difficult, if not feasible, due to restricted access
when the fuselage is completed, to fit wing spars to center fuselage
spar. Specially if your project is from plan, you don=92t have any hole
pre-drilled like many kit plane have.
But I agree with you, build fuselage before wings could be more
fun=85 and give perception plane more tangible. Depending on model and
also builder, opinion and situation vary. The world is never white or
black.
Christian Tremblay
A guy who build a CH640 aircraft from plan
http://www.zodiac640.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
De : owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de Big Gee
Envoy=E9 : Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:04 PM
=C0 : zenith-list@matronics.com
Objet : Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else -
look away!
YOU GUYS DRIVE ME UP THE WALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----- Original Message ----
From: LRM <lrm@skyhawg.com>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:38:42 PM
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" <robert.eli@adelphia.net>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:58:48 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: For 701 builders ONLY - everyone else -
look away!
Jon,
Thanks for the advice. I had not thought about doing the fuselage
next, just because I thought that the wings were the usual next step. I
will strongly consider doing the fuselage next since I need all of the
motivational help I can get. On the "remove the slats and VG issue",
Mark Townsend has convinced me to build my CH701 Kit "per plans", with
the slats. The only reason the "slat removal and VG approach" seemed
attractive was that I don't plan to push the envelop and "hang the plane
on the prop" at high angles of attack at low altitude because it is
obviously the most risky position to be in if you have a engine-out.
Thanks for the input and best wishes for the Holidays.
Bob Eli
---- Jon Croke <Jon@joncroke.com> wrote:
<Jon@joncroke.com>
>
> 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.com
http://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.
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.comhref="http://w
ww.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.comhref="http://www.kitlog.com"
>www.kitlog.comhref="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.co
mhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matro
nDate: 12/7/2006
www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.kitlog.comwww.homebuilthelp.
comhttp://www.matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigato
r?Zenith-List Date: 12/13/2006
www.aeroelectric.comAeroware Enterprises www.homebuilthelp.c -->
http://w=
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
12/13/2006
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The more blades you have the less the overall efficiency of the prop
becomes. Each blade sees a bit of flow disruption from the blade
leading it. The biggest reason for going with more blades is to allow
the allow more power to be converted to thrust by the prop. That's
why you often see high powered turbofans turning props with as many
as seven blades. With all that power available, the lower efficiency
is acceptable. If you don't have a lot of power available, the loss
of efficiency of multiple bladed props can become a big deal.
The most efficient propellor is one with a single blade with a mass
counter balance. There are a few motor gliders that use this
configuration to squeeze every bit of thrust they can from a small,
light-weight engine.
Another reason to go with more blades is that the more blades you
have the higher the frequency of the noise generated by the
propellor. Higher frequencies tend to dissipate more quickly over
distance, resulting in a quieter airplane.
If you are running a direct drive engine at a relatively high RPM,
you have to use a small diameter prop to avoid excessively tip
speeds and you may need more blades to get acceptable thrust, but you
will pay a penalty in propellor efficiency.
On Dec 14, 2006, at 1:59 PM, <paulrod36@msn.com> <paulrod36@msn.com>
wrote:
> Bill, my original thinking was as follows: There are some neat
> engines out there, but they run at high RPM. High RPM could push
> the prop tip speed close to Mach 1, thereby reducing efficiency a
> great deal. A shorter blade lets the tip move slower, keeping it in
> the efficiency range, but you lose lift (thrust) with smaller wing
> (blade) area. To compensate, then, why not have more blades, with
> wider chord, sort of the reason some ...
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
In order to spin an airplane at least one wing must be stalled. VGs
tend to make a wing more stall resistant so they should also make an
airplane more spin resistant.
On Dec 14, 2006, at 1:33 PM, MaxNr@aol.com wrote:
> Question: Would VG's make the plane more resistant to spins?
>
> Bob D
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|