Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:06 AM - Re: Seat Belts (LHusky@aol.com)
2. 02:28 AM - Re: Nav antenna location? (Noel Loveys)
3. 03:01 AM - Re: Nav antenna location? (Bolding)
4. 04:47 AM - Re: Nav antenna location? (Dino Bortolin)
5. 07:00 AM - Re: vg's (Robert N. Eli)
6. 07:21 AM - Tips (Bill Naumuk)
7. 07:49 AM - odd and ends (john butterfield)
8. 07:51 AM - Re: Nav antenna location? (Bryan Martin)
9. 08:15 AM - Re: vg's (LRM)
10. 08:17 AM - Re: odd and ends (LRM)
11. 08:45 AM - Re: odd and ends (Bryan Martin)
12. 08:57 AM - Re: odd and ends (Paul Mulwitz)
13. 09:07 AM - Re: vg's (Paul Mulwitz)
14. 09:40 AM - Re: vg's (Robert N. Eli)
15. 09:43 AM - Re: vg's (Dave Ruddiman)
16. 09:56 AM - Re: vg's (Bryan Martin)
17. 10:09 AM - Re: Re: CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested (David Plozay)
18. 10:48 AM - Re: odd and ends (Edward Moody II)
19. 11:19 AM - Re: odd and ends (Craig Payne)
20. 11:38 AM - Re: odd and ends (Edward Moody II)
21. 11:49 AM - Re: odd and ends (Robin Bellach)
22. 11:49 AM - Re: odd and ends (Terry Phillips)
23. 12:08 PM - Re: vg's (Carl Bertrand)
24. 12:18 PM - Re: odd and ends (Edward Moody II)
25. 12:21 PM - Re: odd and ends (Edward Moody II)
26. 12:37 PM - Re: odd and ends (Paul Mulwitz)
27. 12:40 PM - Re: odd and ends (Craig Payne)
28. 12:54 PM - Re: odd and ends (Robin Bellach)
29. 01:38 PM - Re: Tips (Phil Maxson)
30. 02:37 PM - Re: Tips (Aaron Gustafson)
31. 02:43 PM - Re: odd and ends (Terry Phillips)
32. 03:18 PM - More Gas Tanks (Terry Turnquist)
33. 03:31 PM - Re: odd and ends (george may)
34. 03:36 PM - Re: More Gas Tanks (Craig Payne)
35. 04:45 PM - Re: odd and ends (Juan Vega)
36. 04:45 PM - Re: odd and ends (Edward Moody II)
37. 04:50 PM - Re: odd and ends (Edward Moody II)
38. 04:59 PM - Re: odd and ends (Craig Payne)
39. 05:10 PM - Re: odd and ends (Edward Moody II)
40. 05:23 PM - Re: vg's (n801bh@netzero.com)
41. 09:02 PM - Re: More Gas Tanks (Bryan Martin)
42. 09:14 PM - Re: odd and ends (Bryan Martin)
43. 10:18 PM - Re: odd and ends (nyterminat@aol.com)
44. 10:36 PM - Re: odd and ends (nyterminat@aol.com)
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 |
|
I'm sorry, I should have stated that. I am building an XL. I usually have
that in my signature, but for some reason it is not there.
Larry Husky
601XL
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: | Nav antenna location? |
The turning of our rudder will not affect the direction your VOR will
give
you. Wind resistance is minimal... the biggest problem, which is no
problem, is routing the coaxial cable.
Merry Christmas
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Andrew
Elliott
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Nav antenna location?
I am building a 601XL taildragger and have been mulling over where to
put
the still-hypothetical NAV antenna. You know, the two-rods-in-a-V
thing.
Since the 601 doesn't have a fixed vertical fin, I am thinking that atop
the
rudder, while possible, may not be such a good idea. Maybe on the
bottom of
the fuselage just forward or aft of the access door? I am worried that
such
a position will lend itself to continuous damage from flying pebbles in
the
propwash, etc. Any other ideas or proffered existing solutions?
Thanks,
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE (reserved)
601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building...
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: | Nav antenna location? |
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
>The turning of our rudder will not affect the direction your VOR will give
>you. Wind resistance is minimal... the biggest problem, which is no
>problem, is routing the coaxial cable.
>
>Merry Christmas
>
>Noel
I think you will find the BIGGEST problem to be the increased potential for flutter
that is introduced when you change the dynamic balance of the rudder by this
much. I would be surprised (I CERTAINLY have been before)if Zenith would sign
off on this mod. LOW&SLOW John Bolding
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Nav antenna location? |
Andy,
As Noel said, the direction on the VOR won't change as the rudder moves. The
VOR reading depends on the position of the plane relative to the VOR
station, but not on the plane's heading. I remember my instructor having me
do a 360 while watching the needle to prove this out.
Dino
On 12/22/06, Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> The turning of our rudder will not affect the direction your VOR will
> give you. Wind resistance is minimal... the biggest problem, which is no
> problem, is routing the coaxial cable.
>
> Merry Christmas
>
> Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Dr. Andrew Elliott
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:50 PM
> *To:* Zenith-List Digest Server
> *Subject:* Zenith-List: Nav antenna location?
>
> I am building a 601XL taildragger and have been mulling over where to put
> the still-hypothetical NAV antenna. You know, the two-rods-in-a-V thing.
> Since the 601 doesn't have a fixed vertical fin, I am thinking that atop the
> rudder, while possible, may not be such a good idea. Maybe on the bottom of
> the fuselage just forward or aft of the access door? I am worried that such
> a position will lend itself to continuous damage from flying pebbles in the
> propwash, etc. Any other ideas or proffered existing solutions?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
> N601GE (reserved)
> 601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building...
>
> *
> *
>
>
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 |
|
Carl,
Thanks for the clarification and all of the great info with regard to
the flying qualities of a slat-equipped 701. I had restricted my
thinking to take offs and landings, where it seemed that the slats had
little to offer over the no-slat with vg's (based on what our friends
down-under had to say), especially since you save significantly with the
increased cruise fuel efficiency. What I had not been aware of is what
the slats can do for you in tight low speed turns. This latter feature
would seem to be a benefit to seriously consider, since I live in
mountainous terrain. I will be starting on the wing construction soon,
and have been having second thoughts about building the slats. It has
been a tough decision for me that is still not final. I will probably go
ahead and build as per plans, but I have no problem in giving the
no-slats approach a shot since I have no problem with being an
experimentalist (part of my lengthy past was a stint as an aerospace
engineer).
Best wishes to one and all for the holidays
Bob Eli
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Bertrand
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Robert,
I do not intend removing my slats as my wing profile is different. My
slats are cut from the airfoil and move forward 4 inches when they open
at 10-12' A of A, When they retract they fit perfectly to the leading
edge of the wing. Removing them would leave a very sharp leading edge
and a stall with unknown caracteristics.
A friend that has the original ZAC wings is seriously considering
removing the slats. If he does, I am sure he will share the results with
the list. My interest was only in getting a second opinion to confirm
the Australian findings. At least two members of the list from N.A have
encouraging results.I tip my hat to the gent(s) that first tried
removing the slats as I would have expected some serious negative
results.
Most of my experience with the 701 is on floats. Slats are of little
use on a float plane until you get airborn because you cannot attain
sufficient A of A while on the water for the slats to generate lift. The
heel of the floats dig-in and reduce or stop acceleration if I rotate
above 10-12' A off A. The exception in when in the plow before getting
on the step where they probably generate some lift and help get on the
step. The best lift devices during T.O. from water are the flaps. I just
about always use 30'. The exception is strong variable winds.
Where I find the slats improve handling is in tight turns when going
into or out off small lakes surrounded by high hills. I reduce flaps to
20' as soon as it is safe to do so after T.O., and increase A of A to
20'. With 1000# gross I can safely turn at 40 kts inside a 300 foot
circle. I practice these turns at altitude on many of my flights, they
improve handling and are real confidence builder for getting out of
tight spots.
For normal flying, I lift-off at 35 kts and I immediately start to
retract flaps and accelerate to 50 kts in surface effect. I then raise
the nose to maintain 50 kts in the climb and reduce power to 5200-5300.
At 1000-1100 gross the slats are at least half in and the A of A is
8-10'. That is one area when I would like to have a manual override to
lock the slats in as they are not required for lift and are producing a
bit of drag. Another area that an override would be nice is when flying
at reduced speed in rough air. In the auto mode they cycle needlessly.
It's an easy mod but I just never gave it the priority to get it done.
Now for the question: Slats or no slats with VGs. Clearly, if you can
get the same slow speed handling without the slats and get increased
cruise speed to boot, I would choose the no slats with VGs. You save
weight and complexity, and get increased cruise speed or reduced fuel
consumption. If you don't care about slow speed handling then the
decision is even easier.
For those who are not interested in experimenting the decision is easy
also.
Those are the recommendations I will make to my friends.
Hibernating for the winter,
Carl
701/912
Do not archive
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 |
|
Mike-
I agree with you, but given the variation inherent with each
project, the only solution I can come up with is a factory template that
would go OVER the top skins and locate off the inboard end of the spar.
Once the template is located, trace around the template edges, then cut
the tip skins.
Then, have fiberglass tips that have extra long flanges and a molded
in reference line. Locate the tip to the inboard end of the spar using
the reference lines and drill your rivet holes. Then, trim the excess
flange.
Anyone have a better idea? Let's face it, this is a major PIA that
has never been satisfactorily addressed.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
If anyone wants to suggest that that a CH design cannot be improved
(vgs anyone?), you have obviously either not done, or you have
forgotten, the half-assed wingtip design.
Michael in NH
Guess what I part I'm working on!
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 |
|
hi list.
a few questions.
what is the best method in getting the sharpie marks
off surfaces in prep for painting
best way to seal (if necessary) the fuel connections
to the fuel selector. tape or proseal
does anyone have plans or dementions or a good picture
of a glove box for the XL.
john butterfield
601XL corvair
torrance, CA
__________________________________________________
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: Nav antenna location? |
I have a home-made VOR antenna mounted on top of the rudder on my XL.
I have test flown the plane to 200MPH and have seen no hint of
flutter. The antenna is mounted just forward of the rudder spar, so
the balance change in the rudder is minimal.
On Dec 23, 2006, at 6:00 AM, Bolding wrote:
>
> I think you will find the BIGGEST problem to be the increased
> potential for flutter that is introduced when you change the
> dynamic balance of the rudder by this much. I would be surprised (I
> CERTAINLY have been before)if Zenith would sign off on this mod.
> LOW&SLOW John Bolding
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
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 |
|
Here are some thoughts or interesting questions. If slats really don't
serve much purpose as some of you have claimed, then why do all
airliners have retractable leading edge slats? Why do many fighters
such as an F16 or even WWII fighters such as the ME-109 have leading
edge slats? How about the a Storch or Helio Courier?
So I guess all of these manufacturers could have save millions/billions
of dollars of R&D and manufacturing costs and just stuck a few cheap VGs
on top of the wings and gotten better performance. Someone needs to
inform the airline manufacturers of the errors of their ways.
The 701 is normally an ugly airplane, the Savanna isn't as bad. But why
would one want to ugly up their plane more than it already is by
removing the slats and sticking a few VGs on the wings for such "little"
performance gain, if it's true? If it were 20%, I'd say "go for it",
but 2 or 3%? Could it be that most of the alleged performance gain is
because 14 lbs is being removed from the wings?
All of us like to experiment, especially me, but all in all I think this
one is without much merit.
Another of my fine 2 cents worth, Larry, N1345L, www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert N. Eli
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Carl,
Thanks for the clarification and all of the great info with regard to
the flying qualities of a slat-equipped 701. I had restricted my
thinking to take offs and landings, where it seemed that the slats had
little to offer over the no-slat with vg's (based on what our friends
down-under had to say), especially since you save significantly with the
increased cruise fuel efficiency. What I had not been aware of is what
the slats can do for you in tight low speed turns. This latter feature
would seem to be a benefit to seriously consider, since I live in
mountainous terrain. I will be starting on the wing construction soon,
and have been having second thoughts about building the slats. It has
been a tough decision for me that is still not final. I will probably go
ahead and build as per plans, but I have no problem in giving the
no-slats approach a shot since I have no problem with being an
experimentalist (part of my lengthy past was a stint as an aerospace
engineer).
Best wishes to one and all for the holidays
Bob Eli
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Bertrand
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Robert,
I do not intend removing my slats as my wing profile is different.
My slats are cut from the airfoil and move forward 4 inches when they
open at 10-12' A of A, When they retract they fit perfectly to the
leading edge of the wing. Removing them would leave a very sharp leading
edge and a stall with unknown caracteristics.
A friend that has the original ZAC wings is seriously considering
removing the slats. If he does, I am sure he will share the results with
the list. My interest was only in getting a second opinion to confirm
the Australian findings. At least two members of the list from N.A have
encouraging results.I tip my hat to the gent(s) that first tried
removing the slats as I would have expected some serious negative
results.
Most of my experience with the 701 is on floats. Slats are of little
use on a float plane until you get airborn because you cannot attain
sufficient A of A while on the water for the slats to generate lift. The
heel of the floats dig-in and reduce or stop acceleration if I rotate
above 10-12' A off A. The exception in when in the plow before getting
on the step where they probably generate some lift and help get on the
step. The best lift devices during T.O. from water are the flaps. I just
about always use 30'. The exception is strong variable winds.
Where I find the slats improve handling is in tight turns when going
into or out off small lakes surrounded by high hills. I reduce flaps to
20' as soon as it is safe to do so after T.O., and increase A of A to
20'. With 1000# gross I can safely turn at 40 kts inside a 300 foot
circle. I practice these turns at altitude on many of my flights, they
improve handling and are real confidence builder for getting out of
tight spots.
For normal flying, I lift-off at 35 kts and I immediately start to
retract flaps and accelerate to 50 kts in surface effect. I then raise
the nose to maintain 50 kts in the climb and reduce power to 5200-5300.
At 1000-1100 gross the slats are at least half in and the A of A is
8-10'. That is one area when I would like to have a manual override to
lock the slats in as they are not required for lift and are producing a
bit of drag. Another area that an override would be nice is when flying
at reduced speed in rough air. In the auto mode they cycle needlessly.
It's an easy mod but I just never gave it the priority to get it done.
Now for the question: Slats or no slats with VGs. Clearly, if you
can get the same slow speed handling without the slats and get increased
cruise speed to boot, I would choose the no slats with VGs. You save
weight and complexity, and get increased cruise speed or reduced fuel
consumption. If you don't care about slow speed handling then the
decision is even easier.
For those who are not interested in experimenting the decision is
easy also.
Those are the recommendations I will make to my friends.
Hibernating for the winter,
Carl
701/912
Do not archive
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
12/18/2006
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
Ass-a-tone. Larry, N1345L, www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "john butterfield" <jdbutterfield@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 9:48 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: odd and ends
> <jdbutterfield@yahoo.com>
>
> hi list.
> a few questions.
>
> what is the best method in getting the sharpie marks
> off surfaces in prep for painting
>
> best way to seal (if necessary) the fuel connections
> to the fuel selector. tape or proseal
>
> does anyone have plans or dementions or a good picture
> of a glove box for the XL.
>
> john butterfield
> 601XL corvair
> torrance, CA
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
> --
> 12/18/2006
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
On Dec 23, 2006, at 10:48 AM, john butterfield wrote:
> what is the best method in getting the sharpie marks
> off surfaces in prep for painting
>
I used lacquer thinner.
> best way to seal (if necessary) the fuel connections
> to the fuel selector. tape or proseal
>
Teflon tape is not recommended for this. If you ever have to remove a
fitting and replace it, the tiny slivers of teflon tape left behind
in the female threads tend to come loose and find there way into the
fuel lines and possibly cause problems. These slivers of teflon are
nearly impossible to clean out of the female threads.
I used a white teflon based paste for sealing fittings. Even this
should be applied sparingly to make sure globs of it don't squeeze
out in the lines. I bought it at the local hardware stored. It comes
in a small plastic jar with a brush built into the lid. It doesn't
harden so the fittings can be removed again later if needed. ACS
sells similar products: Sealube, Bakerseal, Fuelube.
Auto parts stores sell products for this purpose as well. Any fuel
resistant paste type product will do the job.
Proseal is a two part fuel tank sealer coumpound and not really
designed for sealing pipe fittings.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
Hi John,
Any organic solvent will remove Sharpie marks from aluminum. Mineral
Sprirts (low end paint thinner) will work if you apply some time and
patience. Lacquer thinner works instantly, but presents a problem or
two since it evaporates quickly from your cleaning rag and might be
harmful to breathe. Hotter solvents like Xylene will work but are
definitely hazardous to your health.
Teflon tape is a no-no for plumbing connections in fuel systems. I
use hardware store Teflon paste. Proseal is awful stuff meant to
seal fuel tanks and the like. You shouldn't have any need for it
when making fuel line connections. If you use the kit approach to
ZAC planes there are barb connectors that hoses fit over. In this
case all you need are hose clamps with no goup applied to either material.
I'm afraid I can't help with the glove box design. The XL does have
a huge baggage compartment, so maybe you could mark a little area
with a Sharpie in the baggage compartment for your gloves.
Have fun,
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 07:48 AM 12/23/2006, you wrote:
>
>hi list.
>a few questions.
>
>what is the best method in getting the sharpie marks
>off surfaces in prep for painting
>
>best way to seal (if necessary) the fuel connections
>to the fuel selector. tape or proseal
>
>does anyone have plans or dementions or a good picture
>of a glove box for the XL.
>
>john butterfield
>601XL corvair
>torrance, CA
>
>_
-
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 |
|
Hi Larry,
I have noticed many airliners (probably from Boeing) with both
retractable slats and dozens (hundreds) of fixed VGs on each
wing. Also, every heavy plane I have ever seen has fully retractable
flaps. I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I must assume the
airline designers go to great lengths to improve the landing and
takeoff performance of their aluminum clouds to allow them to operate
on shorter runways and improve airplane sales.
I tend to agree with you that these issues are not so apparent with a
701 that barely needs a runway to start with. However, anyone who
wants to spend their lives second guessing Chris Heintz on the best
way to design a small airplane for inexperienced pilots and first
time home builders can have my share of that activity. I'll just
stick with his judgement and proven track record.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 08:14 AM 12/23/2006, you wrote:
>Here are some thoughts or interesting questions. If slats really
>don't serve much purpose as some of you have claimed, then why do
>all airliners have retractable leading edge slats? Why do many
>fighters such as an F16 or even WWII fighters such as the ME-109
>have leading edge slats? How about the a Storch or Helio Courier?
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 |
|
Larry,
The following is not intended as a "lecture" (although as a college
prof., I have a tendency to head in that direction); but it is serving
as a vehicle to get my own thoughts straight about these matters.
It's been awhile since I studied my airfoil theory, but as I recall, the
airfoils on all of the high speed aircraft are optimized for the higher
speeds, and are characterized by a much longer chord length as compared
to their thickness (thin airfoils). Also, they are often more
symmetrical (the stagnation point (zero velocity point) is designed to
be at the nose of the airfoil in the cruise configuration). All of
these features result in an airfoil that tends to stall abruptly at
higher angles of attack. The movable slat, when activated, allows high
pressure air to escape from the lower side of the nose of the airfoil to
the upper side when the stagnation point moves to the underside of the
airfoil nose at higher angles of attack. Ideally, the stagnation point
moves into the lower slat opening when airfoil is at the higher angle of
attack in the takeoff and landing configuration. The stagnation point is
the highest pressure location on the entire airfoil, and the slat
opening converts this energy into a high velocity jet. The slat is
shaped to direct this high velocity air into the upper airfoil boundary
layer (the air moving against the airfoil skin) to introduce more energy
into the boundary layer as it moves rearward along the upper airfoil
surface. The extra energy keeps the boundary layer from separating
(preventing stall) at higher angles of attack, which is by the way, the
same purpose of the vortex generators.
I am pretty sure that the slat is more effective in preventing stall at
high angles of attack, as compared to VG's. Therefore, for serious low
speed, high angle of attack flying, slats are the gold standard. I
think that the reason the VG's have been found to work well for the 701
airfoil (without the slat) is that it is already a big FAT airfoil that
is naturally a good performer for relatively high angles of attack. The
701 airfoil (without the slat) is highly asymmetric, with the noise of
the airfoil in a low position, therefore, at higher angles of attack the
stagnation point remains near the noise of the airfoil, which is the
optimal place to be to help prevent stall. Since the slat is gone, the
airfoil will stall fairly abruptly when the airfoil reaches a high
enough angle of attack (as reported here by some of the Aussie guys - as
I recall). The VG's, when added to slatless airfoil, introduce some
additional energy to the upper boundary layer that delays the stall a
little more, and then when stall occurs, they make it occur in a less
abrupt manner (a lot more friendly than would be the case without them).
The bottom line, in my mind, is that the fixed slats in the 701 (Chris's
original design) is about as good as it gets when it comes to low speed
high angle attack flying on the cheap. However, in the cruise
configuration, the stagnation point moves to the nose of the slat, and
(ideally) very little air goes through the slat opening. The downside
is that the slat adds significant drag during cruise due to most of the
air trying to bypass the slat opening, which results in wasteful
turbulence in the slat openings (as opposed to useful turbulence as
produced by the VG's). If you have a movable slat that can close the
gap during cruise, then you have the best of all worlds. I may be wrong,
but I suspect that a careful wind tunnel study would verify that the
original design, with the fixed slat, performs more effectively at low
speeds and high angle of attack than compared to no slat, but with VG's.
Bob Eli
----- Original Message -----
From: LRM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Here are some thoughts or interesting questions. If slats really
don't serve much purpose as some of you have claimed, then why do all
airliners have retractable leading edge slats? Why do many fighters
such as an F16 or even WWII fighters such as the ME-109 have leading
edge slats? How about the a Storch or Helio Courier?
So I guess all of these manufacturers could have save
millions/billions of dollars of R&D and manufacturing costs and just
stuck a few cheap VGs on top of the wings and gotten better performance.
Someone needs to inform the airline manufacturers of the errors of
their ways.
The 701 is normally an ugly airplane, the Savanna isn't as bad. But
why would one want to ugly up their plane more than it already is by
removing the slats and sticking a few VGs on the wings for such "little"
performance gain, if it's true? If it were 20%, I'd say "go for it",
but 2 or 3%? Could it be that most of the alleged performance gain is
because 14 lbs is being removed from the wings?
All of us like to experiment, especially me, but all in all I think
this one is without much merit.
Another of my fine 2 cents worth, Larry, N1345L, www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert N. Eli
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Carl,
Thanks for the clarification and all of the great info with regard
to the flying qualities of a slat-equipped 701. I had restricted my
thinking to take offs and landings, where it seemed that the slats had
little to offer over the no-slat with vg's (based on what our friends
down-under had to say), especially since you save significantly with the
increased cruise fuel efficiency. What I had not been aware of is what
the slats can do for you in tight low speed turns. This latter feature
would seem to be a benefit to seriously consider, since I live in
mountainous terrain. I will be starting on the wing construction soon,
and have been having second thoughts about building the slats. It has
been a tough decision for me that is still not final. I will probably go
ahead and build as per plans, but I have no problem in giving the
no-slats approach a shot since I have no problem with being an
experimentalist (part of my lengthy past was a stint as an aerospace
engineer).
Best wishes to one and all for the holidays
Bob Eli
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Bertrand
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Robert,
I do not intend removing my slats as my wing profile is different.
My slats are cut from the airfoil and move forward 4 inches when they
open at 10-12' A of A, When they retract they fit perfectly to the
leading edge of the wing. Removing them would leave a very sharp leading
edge and a stall with unknown caracteristics.
A friend that has the original ZAC wings is seriously considering
removing the slats. If he does, I am sure he will share the results with
the list. My interest was only in getting a second opinion to confirm
the Australian findings. At least two members of the list from N.A have
encouraging results.I tip my hat to the gent(s) that first tried
removing the slats as I would have expected some serious negative
results.
Most of my experience with the 701 is on floats. Slats are of
little use on a float plane until you get airborn because you cannot
attain sufficient A of A while on the water for the slats to generate
lift. The heel of the floats dig-in and reduce or stop acceleration if I
rotate above 10-12' A off A. The exception in when in the plow before
getting on the step where they probably generate some lift and help get
on the step. The best lift devices during T.O. from water are the flaps.
I just about always use 30'. The exception is strong variable winds.
Where I find the slats improve handling is in tight turns when
going into or out off small lakes surrounded by high hills. I reduce
flaps to 20' as soon as it is safe to do so after T.O., and increase A
of A to 20'. With 1000# gross I can safely turn at 40 kts inside a 300
foot circle. I practice these turns at altitude on many of my flights,
they improve handling and are real confidence builder for getting out of
tight spots.
For normal flying, I lift-off at 35 kts and I immediately start to
retract flaps and accelerate to 50 kts in surface effect. I then raise
the nose to maintain 50 kts in the climb and reduce power to 5200-5300.
At 1000-1100 gross the slats are at least half in and the A of A is
8-10'. That is one area when I would like to have a manual override to
lock the slats in as they are not required for lift and are producing a
bit of drag. Another area that an override would be nice is when flying
at reduced speed in rough air. In the auto mode they cycle needlessly.
It's an easy mod but I just never gave it the priority to get it done.
Now for the question: Slats or no slats with VGs. Clearly, if you
can get the same slow speed handling without the slats and get increased
cruise speed to boot, I would choose the no slats with VGs. You save
weight and complexity, and get increased cruise speed or reduced fuel
consumption. If you don't care about slow speed handling then the
decision is even easier.
For those who are not interested in experimenting the decision is
easy also.
Those are the recommendations I will make to my friends.
Hibernating for the winter,
Carl
701/912
Do not archive
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Date: 12/18/2006
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 |
|
Larry,
I disagree. I believe that your post is worth at least 2 1/2 cents.
Possibly as much as .03.
MERRY YOU KNOW WHAT TO EVERYONE.
DAVE IN SALEM
----- Original Message -----
From: LRM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Here are some thoughts or interesting questions. If slats really
don't serve much purpose as some of you have claimed, then why do all
airliners have retractable leading edge slats? Why do many fighters
such as an F16 or even WWII fighters such as the ME-109 have leading
edge slats? How about the a Storch or Helio Courier?
So I guess all of these manufacturers could have save
millions/billions of dollars of R&D and manufacturing costs and just
stuck a few cheap VGs on top of the wings and gotten better performance.
Someone needs to inform the airline manufacturers of the errors of
their ways.
The 701 is normally an ugly airplane, the Savanna isn't as bad. But
why would one want to ugly up their plane more than it already is by
removing the slats and sticking a few VGs on the wings for such "little"
performance gain, if it's true? If it were 20%, I'd say "go for it",
but 2 or 3%? Could it be that most of the alleged performance gain is
because 14 lbs is being removed from the wings?
All of us like to experiment, especially me, but all in all I think
this one is without much merit.
Another of my fine 2 cents worth, Larry, N1345L, www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert N. Eli
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Carl,
Thanks for the clarification and all of the great info with regard
to the flying qualities of a slat-equipped 701. I had restricted my
thinking to take offs and landings, where it seemed that the slats had
little to offer over the no-slat with vg's (based on what our friends
down-under had to say), especially since you save significantly with the
increased cruise fuel efficiency. What I had not been aware of is what
the slats can do for you in tight low speed turns. This latter feature
would seem to be a benefit to seriously consider, since I live in
mountainous terrain. I will be starting on the wing construction soon,
and have been having second thoughts about building the slats. It has
been a tough decision for me that is still not final. I will probably go
ahead and build as per plans, but I have no problem in giving the
no-slats approach a shot since I have no problem with being an
experimentalist (part of my lengthy past was a stint as an aerospace
engineer).
Best wishes to one and all for the holidays
Bob Eli
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Bertrand
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Robert,
I do not intend removing my slats as my wing profile is different.
My slats are cut from the airfoil and move forward 4 inches when they
open at 10-12' A of A, When they retract they fit perfectly to the
leading edge of the wing. Removing them would leave a very sharp leading
edge and a stall with unknown caracteristics.
A friend that has the original ZAC wings is seriously considering
removing the slats. If he does, I am sure he will share the results with
the list. My interest was only in getting a second opinion to confirm
the Australian findings. At least two members of the list from N.A have
encouraging results.I tip my hat to the gent(s) that first tried
removing the slats as I would have expected some serious negative
results.
Most of my experience with the 701 is on floats. Slats are of
little use on a float plane until you get airborn because you cannot
attain sufficient A of A while on the water for the slats to generate
lift. The heel of the floats dig-in and reduce or stop acceleration if I
rotate above 10-12' A off A. The exception in when in the plow before
getting on the step where they probably generate some lift and help get
on the step. The best lift devices during T.O. from water are the flaps.
I just about always use 30'. The exception is strong variable winds.
Where I find the slats improve handling is in tight turns when
going into or out off small lakes surrounded by high hills. I reduce
flaps to 20' as soon as it is safe to do so after T.O., and increase A
of A to 20'. With 1000# gross I can safely turn at 40 kts inside a 300
foot circle. I practice these turns at altitude on many of my flights,
they improve handling and are real confidence builder for getting out of
tight spots.
For normal flying, I lift-off at 35 kts and I immediately start to
retract flaps and accelerate to 50 kts in surface effect. I then raise
the nose to maintain 50 kts in the climb and reduce power to 5200-5300.
At 1000-1100 gross the slats are at least half in and the A of A is
8-10'. That is one area when I would like to have a manual override to
lock the slats in as they are not required for lift and are producing a
bit of drag. Another area that an override would be nice is when flying
at reduced speed in rough air. In the auto mode they cycle needlessly.
It's an easy mod but I just never gave it the priority to get it done.
Now for the question: Slats or no slats with VGs. Clearly, if you
can get the same slow speed handling without the slats and get increased
cruise speed to boot, I would choose the no slats with VGs. You save
weight and complexity, and get increased cruise speed or reduced fuel
consumption. If you don't care about slow speed handling then the
decision is even easier.
For those who are not interested in experimenting the decision is
easy also.
Those are the recommendations I will make to my friends.
Hibernating for the winter,
Carl
701/912
Do not archive
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Date: 12/18/2006
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 |
|
Fixed slats and VGs perform a similar function on an aircraft wing,
they help keep the airflow attached to the wing at higher angles of
attack to delay the stall and allow the plane to fly at a slower
speed. Slats have been around for decades and are a well known
quantity while VGs are a relatively new device. VGs were probably not
a very well known quantity when the 701 and many other aircraft were
first designed but slats were, which may help explain why the 701 was
designed with slats and not VGs. If Chris were designing it today,
would he do it differently? The 701 was also designed around an
engine with significantly less power than the ones typically used on
it today. At high angles of attack, the engine thrust provides a fair
amount of lift all by itself. And how many people really push the
airplane to its performance limits on landing? Probably, the only way
to get a definitive, objective measurement of the difference between
slats and VGs on the 701 is to put both versions in a wind tunnel.
Apparently, on the 701, the performance difference between the two
devices at the low end are small (at least in the somewhat subjective
flight tests that have been done). But you have to remember, the 701
already uses a high lift airfoil designed for low speed flight. Many
of the aircraft mentioned below used an airfoil designed for high
speed flight. I doubt that VGs alone would give them the kind of low
speed performance they require. The retractible slats used on these
aircraft provide an additional effect not produced by fixed slats. As
they are extended, they not only extend outward from the wing, they
extend downward from the leading edge, effectively increasing the
camber of the wing. This along with the slotted flaps also used by
these aircraft change the wing shape from a thin, high speed airfoil
to a much thicker, higher camber, low speed airfoil.
VGs are appearing more and more on modern airliners, which shows that
even with all of the high lift devices in use on them, it's possible
to squeeze out some additional benefit.
On Dec 23, 2006, at 11:14 AM, LRM wrote:
> Here are some thoughts or interesting questions. If slats really
> don't serve much purpose as some of you have claimed, then why do
> all airliners have retractable leading edge slats? Why do many
> fighters such as an F16 or even WWII fighters such as the ME-109
> have leading edge slats? How about the a Storch or Helio Courier?
> So I guess all of these manufacturers could have save millions/
> billions of dollars of R&D and manufacturing costs and just stuck a
> few cheap VGs on top of the wings and gotten better performance.
> Someone needs to inform the airline manufacturers of the errors of
> their ways.
>
> The 701 is normally an ugly airplane, the Savanna isn't as bad.
> But why would one want to ugly up their plane more than it already
> is by removing the slats and sticking a few VGs on the wings for
> such "little" performance gain, if it's true? If it were 20%, I'd
> say "go for it", but 2 or 3%? Could it be that most of the
> alleged performance gain is because 14 lbs is being removed from
> the wings?
>
> All of us like to experiment, especially me, but all in all I think
> this one is without much merit.
>
> Another of my fine 2 cents worth, Larry, N1345L, www.skyhawg.com
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info requested |
Just a note of clarification. You really can't have a valid percentage
calculation with less than 100 observations. Calculating the
accident/fatality rate as 28% with only twenty-some observations does
not give an accurate prediction of what others may experience.
I applaude the effort it took to compile this spreadsheet and I think
the raw data is valuable. I also don't want people to get the idea that
they have a 28% chance of dying if they have an accident in the CH701.
Respectfully,
Omaha Dave
CH701/912S builder
----- Original Message -----
From: MrBizi
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: CH601 and CH701 safety, accident info
requested
All:
Here is a spreadsheet that was put together so I could get a better
idea of their safety record. It's all NTSB information except for the
number of planes flying... that was from the Zenith website if available
(not sure the 801 list is correct).
thanks.
PS This information is provided at your own risk you need to do your
own research and not depend on this research. The best source is
directly from the NTSB and other such organizations. EAA and AOPA can
help.
Bob <dswaim1119@comcast.net> wrote:
Not a complete list by any stretch, but go to:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp
Check the amateur-built box and put "601" in the block for
make/model,
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: odd and ends |
Laquer thinner dissolves sharpie ink really fast.
Use a PTFE fuel line sealant. The Black Death is too permanent.
Haven't decided on a map box yet.
Ed Moody II
Rayne, LA
601XL/Jabiru/flap motor
----- Original Message -----
From: john butterfield
To: Zenith-List Digest Server
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 9:48 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: odd and ends
<jdbutterfield@yahoo.com>
hi list.
a few questions.
what is the best method in getting the sharpie marks
off surfaces in prep for painting
best way to seal (if necessary) the fuel connections
to the fuel selector. tape or proseal
does anyone have plans or dementions or a good picture
of a glove box for the XL.
john butterfield
601XL corvair
torrance, CA
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 |
|
Well everybody else has answered your other points so I'll chime in on the
glove box.
Van's sells a nice glove/map box for a mere $35:
www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1166901109-78-363&browse=airf
rame&product=mbox
<quote>
This map box can be installed in either a completed aircraft or in an
aircraft under construction. Designed for the RV-6/6A, 7/7A, 8/8A, 9/9A.
7 3/8" x 4 3/4" of open panel space is required.
Box dimensions 6 1/4" x 3 7/16" x 12". The 6 1/4" is also the width of most
avionics, which can be handy. Installed weight is 0.80 lbs. The kit comes
with all the necessary hardware, and an accurate template for cutting the
hole in the panel.
<end quote>
-- Craig
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
Let me emphasize something important here. First the background..... I
am putting in TWO of Advanced Flight Systems' smaller EFIS/EIS screens
which are 6.25" diagonal. I am putting in MINIMAL backup steam
gauges..... a 2.25" ASI, 2.25" whiskey compass, Becker radio and
transponder (both have 2.25" faces and 2, 7/16" square chassis), a Tiny
Tach, a Hobbs, PSE 501 intercom, Ameriking ELT, and an EXP Buss 2V tray
system power panel. That has to leave room for a single throttle, carb
heat, cabin heat, and flap switch. The GPS and fuel selector will be on
the console. I hope to still have room in the panel's corners for the
eyeball vents. So far that looks likley.
The moral? Don't buy a glove box kit until you are sure you have room
for one. Ours is a rather small panel and it fills up quickly.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Payne
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 1:18 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: odd and ends
<craig@craigandjean.com>
Well everybody else has answered your other points so I'll chime in on
the
glove box.
Van's sells a nice glove/map box for a mere $35:
www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1166901109-78-363&browse
=airf
rame&product=mbox
<quote>
This map box can be installed in either a completed aircraft or in an
aircraft under construction. Designed for the RV-6/6A, 7/7A, 8/8A,
9/9A.
7 3/8" x 4 3/4" of open panel space is required.
Box dimensions 6 1/4" x 3 7/16" x 12". The 6 1/4" is also the width of
most
avionics, which can be handy. Installed weight is 0.80 lbs. The kit
comes
with all the necessary hardware, and an accurate template for cutting
the
hole in the panel.
<end quote>
-- Craig
--
12/22/2006 3:22 PM
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: odd and ends |
I've found carburetor cleaner in 99-cent spray can to be very effective
and the most convenient. If there are any drawbacks, what might they be?
Do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: Edward Moody II
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: odd and ends
Laquer thinner dissolves sharpie ink really fast.
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: odd and ends |
John
I haven't started building yet, in fact, I'm awaiting delivery of my 601
plans. However, consider the drawing 6-B-18 that is available on ZAC's
website. It looks to me like there is a vacant space measuring about 15"
long x 5" deep x ~5" wide located in the center console, above the joystick
linkage. If, as appears from the drawing, this space is truly vacant, I
would think that one could build in a storage compartment by putting in a
bottom just above the joystick linkage, extending from the front to the
rear of the console. Then hinge the cover (arm rest) at the rear and
install a latch at the front to allow access to the compartment.
We have just such a compartment in our VW Golf, and it is really handy. It
would, obviously, take a bit of design work for the cover and bottom, with
special care to eliminate any sharp edges and/or crevices.
Has anyone used that space for storage?
Meanwhile, if you have space in your panel, Van's offers a map box kit:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1166902596-496-561&browse=airframe&product=mbox
that is sized to fit into the radio stack. It costs only $35.
Terry
At 07:48 AM 12/23/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>hi list.
>a few questions.
>
>what is the best method in getting the sharpie marks
>off surfaces in prep for painting
>
>best way to seal (if necessary) the fuel connections
>to the fuel selector. tape or proseal
>
>does anyone have plans or dementions or a good picture
>of a glove box for the XL.
>
>john butterfield
>601XL corvair
>torrance, CA
Terry Phillips
ttp44~~at~~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
Just starting a 601 kit
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 Bob
I am not using pegastol. It is similar but with modified GA airfoil. I
made a presentation to my eaa chapter, if you need further check their
web site at eaa245.dhs.org/
Carl/701/912
Do not archive
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
Not sure, Robin. Carburetors aren't ever painted after cleaning so small
nonvolatile residues aren't critical there. A minute film of residue
could totally screw up a paint job. Not sure what's left over if
anything after crab cleaner.
As for the laquer thinner, there isn't any liver cancer Hx in my family
and we've been prepping trucks for body and paint work using laquer
thinner for many years. I've heard others on the list tell of how lethal
it is but with decent ventilation, I've seen no problems. I'm 53 and my
dad (the truckline operator) is 79. We've been out of the truckline
business for 20+ years now but have contiued to use the stuff in hobby
work. Use your own best judgment. I'll tell you this much... laquer
thinner will dissolve almost everything except glass and stainless
steel.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Robin Bellach
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: odd and ends
I've found carburetor cleaner in 99-cent spray can to be very
effective and the most convenient. If there are any drawbacks, what
might they be?
Do not archive.
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
I believe the elevator cables leave only about 1.5 - 2.0 inches
vertically under that armrest. I've been working in that area the past
few days.
Ed Moody II
601XL
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Phillips
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: odd and ends
John
I haven't started building yet, in fact, I'm awaiting delivery of my
601
plans. However, consider the drawing 6-B-18 that is available on ZAC's
website. It looks to me like there is a vacant space measuring about
15"
long x 5" deep x ~5" wide located in the center console, above the
joystick
linkage. If, as appears from the drawing, this space is truly vacant,
I
would think that one could build in a storage compartment by putting
in a
bottom just above the joystick linkage,
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
Hi Terry,
One little problem with your idea for a storage compartment in the
center console/arm rest. You would have to decide how much you want
to limit the stick travel before determining what size compartment to make.
If you put the box all the way to the stick linkage area then you
would only be able to pitch the nose down but never up.
I still think the baggage compartment is fertile territory for map storage.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 11:47 AM 12/23/2006, you wrote:
>haven't started building yet, in fact, I'm awaiting delivery of my
>601 plans. However, consider the drawing 6-B-18 that is available on
>ZAC's website. It looks to me like there is a vacant space measuring
>about 15" long x 5" deep x ~5" wide located in the center console,
>above the joystick linkage. If, as appears from the drawing, this
>space is truly vacant, I would think that one could build in a
>storage compartment by putting in a bottom just above the joystick
>linkage, extending from the front to the rear of the console. Then
>hinge the cover (arm rest) at the rear and install a latch at the
>front to allow access to the compartment.
--
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 |
|
Why the Tiny tach and Hobbs? Don't the AFS boxes provide that?
-- Craig
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
I've thought of doing that, but to provide clearance for the upper elevator
cable, it seems it would be less an one inch deep, so hardly worth the
effort.
Do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Phillips" <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: odd and ends
>
> John
>
> I haven't started building yet, in fact, I'm awaiting delivery of my 601
> plans. However, consider the drawing 6-B-18 that is available on ZAC's
> website. It looks to me like there is a vacant space measuring about 15"
> long x 5" deep x ~5" wide located in the center console, above the
> joystick linkage. If, as appears from the drawing, this space is truly
> vacant, I would think that one could build in a storage compartment by
> putting in a bottom just above the joystick linkage, extending from the
> front to the rear of the console. Then hinge the cover (arm rest) at the
> rear and install a latch at the front to allow access to the compartment.
>
> We have just such a compartment in our VW Golf, and it is really handy. It
> would, obviously, take a bit of design work for the cover and bottom, with
> special care to eliminate any sharp edges and/or crevices.
>
> Has anyone used that space for storage?
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 |
|
I made a template out of Christmas wrapping paper, based on the factory dim
ensions. I then laid it out on the top of the wing (and bottom) and cut it
about 20 mm too long, and tested the fit of the leading edge fiberglass pi
ece. It needed a little help, so I hit it with a heat gun for a while and
reformed it slightly. Once I was OK with it, I made the final cut. the al
uminum piece at back is nothing difficult.
I know this seems like a pain, and it did to me too when I was doing it. H
owever, when it's behind you, it's not as bad as it seems at the time.
All this is based on the XL, assuming the HDS is a similar design. If it i
s not, please delete now.Phil Maxson601XL/CorvairNorthwest New Jersey
From: naumuk@alltel.netTo: zenith-list@matronics.comSubject: Zenith-List: T
ipsDate: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:21:25 -0500
Mike-
I agree with you, but given the variation inherent with each project, t
he only solution I can come up with is a factory template that would go OVE
R the top skins and locate off the inboard end of the spar. Once the templa
te is located, trace around the template edges, then cut the tip skins.
Then, have fiberglass tips that have extra long flanges and a molded in
reference line. Locate the tip to the inboard end of the spar using the re
ference lines and drill your rivet holes. Then, trim the excess flange.
Anyone have a better idea? Let's face it, this is a major PIA that has
never been satisfactorily addressed.
Bill NaumukHDS FuselageTownville, Pa
If anyone wants to suggest that that a CH design cannot be improved (vgs an
yone?), you have obviously either not done, or you have forgotten, the half
-assed wingtip design. Michael in NHGuess what I part I'm working on!
_________________________________________________________________
Get into the holiday spirit, chat with Santa on Messenger.
us
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 |
|
Just chiming in here for what it's worth (not much). Being a plans
builder and having purchased nothing from Zenith since the plans, I
decided that it was easier to build metal forward tip skins rather than
lay up fiberglass, mold etc. They came out great and weren't that hard
to do. I think the second one was about 4 hours from start to riveting.
Made the Whelan light mount separate out of pine with 2 coats of epoxy
and paint.
Aaron Gustafson do not archive
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
Alas, the rudder cable did not appear on the 6-B-18 dwg from the website. I
see that the cable does appear on the 6-B-23 Dwg. What a shame to waste
that beautiful (almost) vacant space.
It looks like that between the cable and the aileron control tube there is
not enough space left in the center console to worry about. Oh well.
About the only way I can see to utilize that space for storage would be to
redirect the top rudder control cable under the storage area with pulleys.
But that would eat into the storage space, complicate the control system,
and increase drag on the rudder control (probably not a major issue, given
the present asymmetry between the aileron and elevator control forces).
do not archive
Terry
At 02:54 PM 12/23/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>I've thought of doing that, but to provide clearance for the upper
>elevator cable, it seems it would be less an one inch deep, so hardly
>worth the effort.
>
>Do not archive.
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Phillips" <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 1:47 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: odd and ends
>
>
>>
>>John
>>
>>I haven't started building yet, in fact, I'm awaiting delivery of my 601
>>plans. However, consider the drawing 6-B-18 that is available on ZAC's
>>website. It looks to me like there is a vacant space measuring about 15"
>>long x 5" deep x ~5" wide located in the center console, above the
>>joystick linkage. If, as appears from the drawing, this space is truly
>>vacant, I would think that one could build in a storage compartment by
>>putting in a bottom just above the joystick linkage, extending from the
>>front to the rear of the console. Then hinge the cover (arm rest) at the
>>rear and install a latch at the front to allow access to the compartment.
>>
>>We have just such a compartment in our VW Golf, and it is really handy.
>>It would, obviously, take a bit of design work for the cover and bottom,
>>with special care to eliminate any sharp edges and/or crevices.
>>
>>Has anyone used that space for storage?
>
>Terry Phillips
>ttp44@rkymtn.net
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 |
|
I couldn't find anything specific in the archives so here's the setup. I found
a good deal on some smaller (6 gal) very nice aluminum fuel tanks, two of which
would fit nicely in each wing. Now, I would like to plum both tanks together
and link the inboard tank vent to the outboard tank (higher) and install the
regular vent and fuel cap in the outboard tank. This way I eliminate plumbing
and expensive 5 way fuel selector etc. Anyone see a problem with this? Thanks.
Work and fly safely in the new year!
Terry Turnquist
601XL-Plans
St. Peters, MO
__________________________________________________
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
Another possible option that I used for a storage console was to leave the
original design in tact but build an addition onto the top of the original
cover. I made mine about 2 inches deep and had it open along the passenger
side. It doesn't quite fit maps but its good for just about everything else.
I also used a Vans "glove box" but with limited space on the panel I
mounted it behind the passenger seat
George May
601XL 912s--30 hours
_________________________________________________________________
Dave vs. Carl: The Insignificant Championship Series. Who will win?
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 |
|
Can you state that as a question? ;-)
Your message appears blank: both in the individual e-mail and the list's web
interface.
-- Craig
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Turnquist
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 4:17 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: More Gas Tanks
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
we use denatured alcohol. takes it off just fine.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>Sent: Dec 23, 2006 11:45 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: odd and ends
>
>
>
>On Dec 23, 2006, at 10:48 AM, john butterfield wrote:
>> what is the best method in getting the sharpie marks
>> off surfaces in prep for painting
>>
>
>I used lacquer thinner.
>
>> best way to seal (if necessary) the fuel connections
>> to the fuel selector. tape or proseal
>>
>
>Teflon tape is not recommended for this. If you ever have to remove a
>fitting and replace it, the tiny slivers of teflon tape left behind
>in the female threads tend to come loose and find there way into the
>fuel lines and possibly cause problems. These slivers of teflon are
>nearly impossible to clean out of the female threads.
>
>I used a white teflon based paste for sealing fittings. Even this
>should be applied sparingly to make sure globs of it don't squeeze
>out in the lines. I bought it at the local hardware stored. It comes
>in a small plastic jar with a brush built into the lid. It doesn't
>harden so the fittings can be removed again later if needed. ACS
>sells similar products: Sealube, Bakerseal, Fuelube.
>
>Auto parts stores sell products for this purpose as well. Any fuel
>resistant paste type product will do the job.
>
>Proseal is a two part fuel tank sealer coumpound and not really
>designed for sealing pipe fittings.
>
>--
>Bryan Martin
>N61BM, CH 601 XL,
>RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
First I should thank you for the confidence you place in my ability to
choose an EFIS/EIS that can never fail (my attempt at aircraft
construction humor). I believe that anyone who uses a glass panel as
primary instrumentation and does not give himself a few critical backups
is whistling past the graveyard. My opinion is that I need a whiskey
compass if the electrical system is shut down (my gps eats batteries
like a dog eats bacon), an ASI to fly a safe approach, a tach to manage
the engine safely, and my GPS can give me ALT if that's critical (if the
electrical power is off, I'm screwed on that one). The EIS does include
an engine hour meter but the Hobbs is a backup incase the memory in the
unit gets fried. I know, I know, next you'll ask if I wear a belt and
suspenders (I only wear a belt.... I don't care who gets mooned).
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Payne
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: odd and ends
Why the Tiny tach and Hobbs? Don't the AFS boxes provide that?
-- Craig
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
Terry, it's the upper elevator cable tha's in the way. The rudder cables
are farther down and would allow you some space if not for the elevator
cable. Make the armrest removable with platenuts anyway because that is
a good access for inspection and turnbuckle adjustment.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Phillips
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: odd and ends
Alas, the rudder cable did not appear on the 6-B-18 dwg from the
website. I
see that the cable does appear on the 6-B-23 Dwg. What a shame to
waste
that beautiful (almost) vacant space.
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
But you have *two* of the AF-3400- are you expecting both to fail? And
(correct me if I'm wrong) the Tiny Tach needs power. So if you loose power
you will have no RPM indication. As to the Hobbs - I presume you will be
logging your hours in your log book. So if both of your 3400's fail you
would enter the accumulated hours in the replacement(s).
I'm all for back-up. I'm backing up my Stratomaster Enigma with an ASI. But
my GPS-296 will run for 11 hours on batteries if you turn the backlight
down.
-- Craig
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
Does the elecrtrical system have to fail to have the EFIS fail on its
own? The pair of 3400 units are interfaced with an ethernet card so they
offer backup to each other but the tiny tach can operate off the battery
if that's in good shape even if the AFS units are shut down. If you
think the Hobbs is too redundant I'm okay with that. I'll still install
it.
Ed
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Payne
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 6:59 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: odd and ends
But you have *two* of the AF-3400- are you expecting both to fail? And
(correct me if I'm wrong) the Tiny Tach needs power. So if you loose
power you will have no RPM indication. As to the Hobbs - I presume you
will be logging your hours in your log book. So if both of your 3400's
fail you would enter the accumulated hours in the replacement(s).
I'm all for back-up. I'm backing up my Stratomaster Enigma with an
ASI. But my GPS-296 will run for 11 hours on batteries if you turn the
backlight down.
-- Craig
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
This is the BEST explanation of slats I have read yet. Thanks Mr Eli..
. You all have to keep in mind the main guy who is claiming VG's are be
tter then slats is the same guy selling them.....
happy holidays and do not archive...
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Robert N. Eli" <robert.eli@adelphia.net> wrote:
Larry, The following is not intended as a "lecture" (although as a colle
ge prof., I have a tendency to head in that direction); but it is servin
g as a vehicle to get my own thoughts straight about these matters. It's
been awhile since I studied my airfoil theory, but as I recall, the air
foils on all of the high speed aircraft are optimized for the higher spe
eds, and are characterized by a much longer chord length as compared to
their thickness (thin airfoils). Also, they are often more symmetrical
(the stagnation point (zero velocity point) is designed to be at the nos
e of the airfoil in the cruise configuration). All of these features re
sult in an airfoil that tends to stall abruptly at higher angles of atta
ck. The movable slat, when activated, allows high pressure air to escap
e from the lower side of the nose of the airfoil to the upper side when
the stagnation point moves to the underside of the airfoil nose at highe
r angles of attack. Ideally, the stagnation point moves into the lower s
lat opening when airfoil is at the higher angle of attack in the takeoff
and landing configuration. The stagnation point is the highest pressure
location on the entire airfoil, and the slat opening converts this ener
gy into a high velocity jet. The slat is shaped to direct this high vel
ocity air into the upper airfoil boundary layer (the air moving against
the airfoil skin) to introduce more energy into the boundary layer as it
moves rearward along the upper airfoil surface. The extra energy keeps
the boundary layer from separating (preventing stall) at higher angles o
f attack, which is by the way, the same purpose of the vortex generators
. I am pretty sure that the slat is more effective in preventing stall a
t high angles of attack, as compared to VG's. Therefore, for serious lo
w speed, high angle of attack flying, slats are the gold standard. I th
ink that the reason the VG's have been found to work well for the 701 ai
rfoil (without the slat) is that it is already a big FAT airfoil that is
naturally a good performer for relatively high angles of attack. The 7
01 airfoil (without the slat) is highly asymmetric, with the noise of th
e airfoil in a low position, therefore, at higher angles of attack the s
tagnation point remains near the noise of the airfoil, which is the opti
mal place to be to help prevent stall. Since the slat is gone, the airf
oil will stall fairly abruptly when the airfoil reaches a high enough an
gle of attack (as reported here by some of the Aussie guys - as I recall
). The VG's, when added to slatless airfoil, introduce some additional
energy to the upper boundary layer that delays the stall a little more,
and then when stall occurs, they make it occur in a less abrupt manner (
a lot more friendly than would be the case without them). The bottom lin
e, in my mind, is that the fixed slats in the 701 (Chris's original desi
gn) is about as good as it gets when it comes to low speed high angle at
tack flying on the cheap. However, in the cruise configuration, the stag
nation point moves to the nose of the slat, and (ideally) very little ai
r goes through the slat opening. The downside is that the slat adds sig
nificant drag during cruise due to most of the air trying to bypass the
slat opening, which results in wasteful turbulence in the slat openings
(as opposed to useful turbulence as produced by the VG's). If you have
a movable slat that can close the gap during cruise, then you have the b
est of all worlds. I may be wrong, but I suspect that a careful wind tun
nel study would verify that the original design, with the fixed slat, pe
rforms more effectively at low speeds and high angle of attack than comp
ared to no slat, but with VG's. Bob Eli----- Original Message ----- From
: LRM To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 11
:14 AMSubject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Here are some thoughts or interesting questions. If slats really don't
serve much purpose as some of you have claimed, then why do all airline
rs have retractable leading edge slats? Why do many fighters such as a
n F16 or even WWII fighters such as the ME-109 have leading edge slats?
How about the a Storch or Helio Courier?So I guess all of these manufac
turers could have save millions/billions of dollars of R&D and manufactu
ring costs and just stuck a few cheap VGs on top of the wings and gotten
better performance. Someone needs to inform the airline manufacturers
of the errors of their ways. The 701 is normally an ugly airplane, the S
avanna isn't as bad. But why would one want to ugly up their plane more
than it already is by removing the slats and sticking a few VGs on the
wings for such "little" performance gain, if it's true? If it were 20%,
I'd say "go for it", but 2 or 3%? Could it be that most of the allege
d performance gain is because 14 lbs is being removed from the wings? Al
l of us like to experiment, especially me, but all in all I think this o
ne is without much merit. Another of my fine 2 cents worth, Larry, N1345
L, www.skyhawg.com----- Original Message ----- From: Robert N. Eli To: z
enith-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 8:59 AMSubjec
t: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Carl, Thanks for the clarification and all of the great info with regard
to the flying qualities of a slat-equipped 701. I had restricted my th
inking to take offs and landings, where it seemed that the slats had lit
tle to offer over the no-slat with vg's (based on what our friends down-
under had to say), especially since you save significantly with the incr
eased cruise fuel efficiency. What I had not been aware of is what the
slats can do for you in tight low speed turns. This latter feature woul
d seem to be a benefit to seriously consider, since I live in mountainou
s terrain. I will be starting on the wing construction soon, and have b
een having second thoughts about building the slats. It has been a toug
h decision for me that is still not final. I will probably go ahead and
build as per plans, but I have no problem in giving the no-slats approac
h a shot since I have no problem with being an experimentalist (part of
my lengthy past was a stint as an aerospace engineer). Best wishes to on
e and all for the holidays Bob Eli----- Original Message ----- From: Car
l Bertrand To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2
006 8:23 AMSubject: Re: Zenith-List: vg's
Robert,I do not intend removing my slats as my wing profile is different
. My slats are cut from the airfoil and move forward 4 inches when they
open at 10-12' A of A, When they retract they fit perfectly to the leadi
ng edge of the wing. Removing them would leave a very sharp leading edge
and a stall with unknown caracteristics. A friend that has the original
ZAC wings is seriously considering removing the slats. If he does, I am
sure he will share the results with the list. My interest was only in g
etting a second opinion to confirm the Australian findings. At least two
members of the list from N.A have encouraging results.I tip my hat to t
he gent(s) that first tried removing the slats as I would have expected
some serious negative results. Most of my experience with the 701 is on
floats. Slats are of little use on a float plane until you get airborn b
ecause you cannot attain sufficient A of A while on the water for the sl
ats to generate lift. The heel of the floats dig-in and reduce or stop a
cceleration if I rotate above 10-12' A off A. The exception in when in t
he plow before getting on the step where they probably generate some lif
t and help get on the step. The best lift devices during T.O. from water
are the flaps. I just about always use 30'. The exception is strong var
iable winds.Where I find the slats improve handling is in tight turns wh
en going into or out off small lakes surrounded by high hills. I reduce
flaps to 20' as soon as it is safe to do so after T.O., and increase A o
f A to 20'. With 1000# gross I can safely turn at 40 kts inside a 300 fo
ot circle. I practice these turns at altitude on many of my flights, the
y improve handling and are real confidence builder for getting out of ti
ght spots.For normal flying, I lift-off at 35 kts and I immediately star
t to retract flaps and accelerate to 50 kts in surface effect. I then ra
ise the nose to maintain 50 kts in the climb and reduce power to 5200-53
00. At 1000-1100 gross the slats are at least half in and the A of A is
8-10'. That is one area when I would like to have a manual override to l
ock the slats in as they are not required for lift and are producing a b
it of drag. Another area that an override would be nice is when flying a
t reduced speed in rough air. In the auto mode they cycle needlessly. It
's an easy mod but I just never gave it the priority to get it done.Now
for the question: Slats or no slats with VGs. Clearly, if you can get th
e same slow speed handling without the slats and get increased cruise sp
eed to boot, I would choose the no slats with VGs. You save weight and c
omplexity, and get increased cruise speed or reduced fuel consumption. I
f you don't care about slow speed handling then the decision is even eas
ier. For those who are not interested in experimenting the decision is e
asy also.Those are the recommendations I will make to my friends. Hibern
ating for the winter,Carl701/912Do not archive href="http://www.a
eroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.comhref="http://www.buildersbooks.co
m">www.buildersbooks.comhref="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.comhre
f="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.comhref="http://w
ww.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://
www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref="http:/
/www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.comhref="http://www.buildersbo
oks.com">www.buildersbooks.comhref="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.
comhref="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.comhref="ht
tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="h
ttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronDate: 12
/18/2006
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.comhref="http://
www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.comhref="http://www.kitlog.co
m">www.kitlog.comhref="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp
.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.
com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.
========================
========================
========================
=================
<html><P>This is the BEST explanation of slats I have read yet.&nbs
p; Thanks Mr Eli... You all have to keep in mind the main gu
y who is claiming VG's are better then slats is the same guy selling the
m..... </P>
<P>happy holidays and do not archive...<BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801
BH<BR>www.haaspowerair.com<BR><BR>-- "Robert N. Eli" 
;<robert.eli@adelphia.net> wrote:<BR></P>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Larry,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The following is not intended as a "lec
ture" (although as a college prof., I have a tendency to head in th
at direction); but it is serving as a vehicle to get my own thoughts str
aight about these matters.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It's been awhile since I studied my air
foil theory, but as I recall, the airfoils on all of the high speed airc
raft are optimized for the higher speeds, and are characterized by a muc
h longer chord length as compared to their thickness (thin airfoils).&nb
sp; Also, they are often more symmetrical (the stagnation point (zero ve
locity point) is designed to be at the nose of the airfoil in the cruise
configuration). All of these features result in an airfoil that t
ends to stall abruptly at higher angles of attack. The movable sla
t, when activated, allows high pressure air to escape from the lower sid
e of the nose of the airfoil to the upper side when the stagnation point
moves to the underside of the airfoil nose at higher angles of attack.
Ideally, the stagnation point moves into the lower slat opening whe
n airfoil is at the higher angle of attack in the takeoff and landing co
nfiguration. The stagnation point is the highest pressure location on th
e entire airfoil, and the slat opening converts this energy into a high
velocity jet. The slat is shaped to direct this high vel
ocity air into the upper airfoil boundary layer (the air moving against
the airfoil skin) to introduce more energy into the boundary layer
as it moves rearward along the upper airfoil surface. The extra ene
rgy keeps the boundary layer from separating (preventing stall) at highe
r angles of attack, which is by the way, the same purpose of the vortex
generators.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I am pretty sure that the slat is more
effective in preventing stall at high angles of attack, as compared to V
G's. Therefore, for serious low speed, high angle of attack flying
, slats are the gold standard. I think that the reason the VG's ha
ve been found to work well for the 701 airfoil (without the slat) is tha
t it is already a big FAT airfoil that is naturally a good performe
r for relatively high angles of attack. The 701 airfoil (without t
he slat) is highly asymmetric, with the noise of the airfoil in a&n
bsp;low position, therefore, at higher angles of attack the stagnation p
oint remains near the noise of the airfoil, which is the optimal place t
o be to help prevent stall. Since the slat is gone, the airfoil wi
ll stall fairly abruptly when the airfoil reaches a high enough angle of
attack (as reported here by some of the Aussie guys - as I recall).&nbs
p; The VG's, when added to slatless airfoil, introduce some additional e
nergy to the upper boundary layer that delays the stall a little more, a
nd then when stall occurs, they make it occur in a less abrupt manner (a
lot more friendly than would be the case without them).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The bottom line, in my mind, is that th
e fixed slats in the 701 (Chris's original design) is about as good as i
t gets when it comes to low speed high angle attack flying on the cheap.
However, in the cruise configuration, the stagnation point moves to the
nose of the slat, and (ideally) very little air goes through the slat o
pening. The downside is that the slat adds significant drag during
cruise due to most of the air trying to bypass the slat opening, which
results in wasteful turbulence in the slat openings (as opposed to usefu
l turbulence as produced by the VG's). If you have a movable slat
that can close the gap during cruise, then you have the best of all worl
ds. I may be wrong, but I suspect that a careful wind tunnel study
would verify that the original design, with the fixed slat, performs mor
e effectively at low speeds and high angle of attack than compared to no
slat, but with VG's.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Eli</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MA
RGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">
<B>From:</B> <A title=lrm@skyhawg.com href="mailto:lrm@skyhawg.com">
LRM</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=zenith-list@matron
ics.com href="mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com">zenith-list@matronics.
com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, December 23, 2006
11:14 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Zenith-List: vg's</D
IV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Here are some thoughts or interes
ting questions. If slats really don't serve much purpose as some o
f you have claimed, then why do all airliners have retractable leading e
dge slats? Why do many fighters such as an F16 or even WWII
fighters such as the ME-109 have leading edge slats? How about the
a Storch or Helio Courier?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So I guess all of these manufactur
ers could have save millions/billions of dollars of R&D and manufact
uring costs and just stuck a few cheap VGs on top of the wings and gotte
n better performance. Someone needs to inform the airline man
ufacturers of the errors of their ways.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The 701 is normally an ugly airplane, t
he Savanna isn't as bad. But why would one want to ugly up their p
lane more than it already is by removing the slats and sticking a f
ew VGs on the wings for such "little" performance gain, if it's true?&nb
sp; If it were 20%, I'd say "go for it", but 2 or 3%? Could
it be that most of the alleged performance gain is because 14 lbs is bei
ng removed from the wings?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>All of us like to experiment, especiall
y me, but all in all I think this one is without much merit.</FONT>
</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Another of my fine 2 cents worth, Larry
, N1345L, <A href="http://www.skyhawg.com/">www.skyhawg.com</A></FONT>
</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT:
5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">
<B>From:</B> <A title=robert.eli@adelphia.net href="mailto:robert.el
i@adelphia.net">Robert N. Eli</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=zenith-list@matron
ics.com href="mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com">zenith-list@matronics.
com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, December 23, 2006
8:59 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Zenith-List: vg's</D
IV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Carl,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thanks for the clarification and all of
the great info with regard to the flying qualities of a slat-equipped 7
01. I had restricted my thinking to take offs and landings, where
it seemed that the slats had little to offer over the no-slat with vg's
(based on what our friends down-under had to say), especially since you
save significantly with the increased cruise fuel efficiency.
What I had not been aware of is what the slats can do for you in tight
low speed turns. This latter feature would seem to be a benefit to
seriously consider, since I live in mountainous terrain. I will b
e starting on the wing construction soon, and have been having second th
oughts about building the slats. It has been a tough decision for
me that is still not final. I will probably go ahead and build as p
er plans, but I have no problem in giving the no-slats approach a shot s
ince I have no problem with being an experimentalist (part of my le
ngthy past was a stint as an aerospace engineer).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Best wishes to one and all for the holi
days</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bob Eli</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MA
RGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">
<B>From:</B> <A title=cgbrt@mondenet.com href="mailto:cgbrt@mondenet
.com">Carl Bertrand</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=zenith-list@matron
ics.com href="mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com">zenith-list@matronics.
com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, December 20, 200
6 8:23 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Zenith-List: vg's</D
IV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Robert,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I do not intend removing my slats
as my wing profile is different. My slats are cut from the airfoil and m
ove forward 4 inches when they open at 10-12' A of A, When they ret
ract they fit perfectly to the leading edge of the wing.</FONT><FONT fac
e=Arial size=2> Removing them would leave a very sharp leading
edge and a stall with unknown caracteristics. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A friend that has the original ZAC wing
s is seriously considering removing the slats. If he does, I am sure he
will share the results with the list. My interest was only in getting a
second opinion to confirm the Australian findings. At least two members
of the list from N.A have encouraging results.I tip my hat to the g
ent(s) that first tried removing the slats as I would have expected some
serious negative results.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Most of my experience with the 701 is o
n floats. Slats are of little use on a float plane until you get airborn
because you cannot attain sufficient A of A while on the water for the
slats to generate lift. The heel of the floats dig-in and reduce or stop
acceleration if I rotate above 10-12' A off A. The exception in wh
en in the plow before getting on the step where they probably gener
ate some lift and help get on the step. The best lift devices during T.O
. from water are the flaps. I just about always use 30'. The exception i
s strong variable winds.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Where I find the slats improve han
dling is in tight turns when going into or out off small lakes surrounde
d by high hills. I reduce flaps to 20' as soon as it is safe to do so af
ter T.O., and increase A of A to 20'. With 1000# gross I can safely turn
at 40 kts inside a 300 foot circle. I practice these turns at altitude
on many of my flights, they improve handling and are real confidenc
e builder for getting out of tight spots.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For normal flying, I lift-off at&n
bsp;35 kts and I immediately start to retract flaps and accelerate
to 50 kts in surface effect. I then raise the nose to maintain 50 k
ts in the climb and reduce power to 5200-5300. At 1000-1100 gross the sl
ats are at least half in and the A of A is 8-10'. That is one area
when I would like to have a manual override to lock the slats in as they
are not required for lift and are producing a bit of drag. An
other area that an override would be nice is when flying at reduced spee
d in rough air. In the auto mode they cycle needlessly. It's an easy mod
but I just never gave it the priority to get it done.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now for the question: <STRONG>Slats or
no slats with VGs</STRONG>. Clearly, if you can get the same slow speed
handling without the slats and get increased cruise speed to boot, I wou
ld choose the no slats with VGs. You save weight and complexity, and get
increased cruise speed or reduced fuel consumption. If you don't care a
bout slow speed handling then the decision is even easier.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For those who are not interested in exp
erimenting the decision is easy also.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Those are the recommendations I will ma
ke to my friends.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hibernating for the winter,</FONT></DIV
>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Carl</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>701/912</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Do not archive &
nbsp; </FONT></DIV><PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" color
=#000000 size=2>
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com</A>
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com</A>
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com</A>
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com</A>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.c
om/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://ww
w.matron
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier"
color=#000000 size=2>
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com</A>
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com</A>
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com</A>
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com</A>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.c
om/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://ww
w.matron
</B></FONT></PRE>
<P>
<HR>
er" color=#000000 size=2>
href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com</A>
href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com</A>
href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com</A>
href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com</A>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.c
om/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://ww
w.matron
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier"
color=#000000 size=2>
========================
===========
roelectric.com</A>
com/">www.buildersbooks.com</A>
kitlog.com</A>
homebuilthelp.com</A>
www.matronics.com/contribution</A>
========================
===========
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List</A>
========================
===========
</B></FONT></PRE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: More Gas Tanks |
The message only shows up on my computer when viewed in raw source
mode. Somethings messed up in the Yahoo mail settings.
On Dec 23, 2006, at 6:35 PM, Craig Payne wrote:
> Can you state that as a question? ;-)
>
> Your message appears blank: both in the individual e-mail and the
> list's web interface.
>
> -- Craig
>
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-
> list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Turnquist
> Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 4:17 PM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: More Gas Tanks
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://
> www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://
> forums.matronics.com
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
Much of that space is used by the upper elevator cable and I have
wiring harnesses passing though there. You might be able to build in
a small storage compartment in the panel above and behind the arm
rest under the baggage shelf. Or you can make the arm rest a few
inches deeper and put a storage space in the extra depth.
On Dec 23, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Terry Phillips wrote:
>
> John
>
> I haven't started building yet, in fact, I'm awaiting delivery of
> my 601 plans. However, consider the drawing 6-B-18 that is
> available on ZAC's website. It looks to me like there is a vacant
> space measuring about 15" long x 5" deep x ~5" wide located in the
> center console, above the joystick linkage.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
Ed,
Save yourself the installation of the hobbs, the Tinytach has an hour meter built
in.
Bob Spudis
N701ZX/95hrs
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: dredmoody@cox.net
Sent: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: odd and ends
First I should thank you for the confidence you place in my ability to choose an
EFIS/EIS that can never fail (my attempt at aircraft construction humor). I
believe that anyone who uses a glass panel as primary instrumentation and does
not give himself a few critical backups is whistling past the graveyard. My opinion
is that I need a whiskey compass if the electrical system is shut down
(my gps eats batteries like a dog eats bacon), an ASI to fly a safe approach,
a tach to manage the engine safely, and my GPS can give me ALT if that's critical
(if the electrical power is off, I'm screwed on that one). The EIS does include
an engine hour meter but the Hobbs is a backup incase the memory in the
unit gets fried. I know, I know, next you'll ask if I wear a belt and suspenders
(I only wear a belt.... I don't care who gets mooned).
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Payne
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: odd and ends
Why the Tiny tach and Hobbs? Don't the AFS boxes provide that?
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: odd and ends |
Craig
The TinyTach is self powered and requires no connections to the battery. It is
a neat little unit, I installed one in my 701 because I was getting wrong tach
readings from my Stratomaster E-1. The software was incorrect in the E-1 and
has since been rectified, both register within 5-10 rpm. Without the engine running
you will see the hobbs part and as soon as the enginge starts, the tach
shows on the display. I probably watch the TinyTach more than the E-1 for RPM.
Bob Spudis
N701ZX/912S/95hrs
-----Original Message-----
From: craig@craigandjean.com
Sent: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: odd and ends
But you have *two* of the AF-3400- are you expecting both to fail? And (correct
me if I'm wrong) the Tiny Tach needs power. So if you loose power you will have
no RPM indication. As to the Hobbs - I presume you will be logging your hours
in your log book. So if both of your 3400's fail you would enter the accumulated
hours in the replacement(s).
I'm all for back-up. I'm backing up my Stratomaster Enigma with an ASI. But my
GPS-296 will run for 11 hours on batteries if you turn the backlight down.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________
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! --
|