Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:35 AM - Re: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? (Michael Hilderbrand)
2. 03:16 AM - Re: Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets (David Downey)
3. 03:20 AM - Re: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? (David Downey)
4. 03:38 AM - Re: Flying into Canada (Paul Mulwitz)
5. 04:03 AM - Re: Flying into Canada (MacDonald Doug)
6. 04:52 AM - Hangar Doors (Tommy Walker)
7. 05:14 AM - Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? (ashontz)
8. 05:16 AM - Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets (ashontz)
9. 05:36 AM - Re: xxx Hangar Doors (John Bolding)
10. 05:44 AM - Re: Hangar Doors (wade jones)
11. 05:47 AM - Re: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? (Aaron Gustafson)
12. 05:48 AM - Re: Hangar Door (cheap version) (Zed Smith)
13. 05:49 AM - Re: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? (Ryan Vechinski)
14. 06:03 AM - Re: Hangar Doors (Aaron Gustafson)
15. 06:22 AM - Re: Hangar Doors (George Race)
16. 06:30 AM - Re: Re: Engines (Juan Vega)
17. 07:56 AM - Re: Hangar Doors (Randy L. Thwing)
18. 07:57 AM - aileron trim system (robert stone)
19. 08:02 AM - Re: Engines (ashontz)
20. 08:12 AM - Re: Engines (ronlee)
21. 08:25 AM - Re: Engines (ashontz)
22. 08:48 AM - Re: Flying into Canada (Michael Valentine)
23. 08:53 AM - Re: aileron trim system (Michael Valentine)
24. 09:10 AM - Re: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? (David Downey)
25. 09:21 AM - Interesting airplane history - off topic (ashontz)
26. 09:27 AM - Re: Re: Engines (David Downey)
27. 09:50 AM - Re: Engines (ashontz)
28. 10:06 AM - Re: Flying into Canada (Noel Loveys)
29. 10:07 AM - Re: Flying into Canada (Noel Loveys)
30. 10:26 AM - Re: Flying into Canada (Noel Loveys)
31. 10:39 AM - Re: Interesting airplane history - off topic (Craig Payne)
32. 10:43 AM - Re: Interesting airplane history - off topic (ashontz)
33. 10:47 AM - Re: Interesting airplane history - off topic (ihab.awad@gmail.com)
34. 10:53 AM - LRI versus Stall warning (LarryMcFarland)
35. 10:56 AM - Re: Interesting airplane history - off topic (ashontz)
36. 11:02 AM - Re:Hangar doors (MaxNr@aol.com)
37. 11:12 AM - Re: Re: Interesting airplane history - off topic (ihab.awad@gmail.com)
38. 11:49 AM - Re: LRI versus Stall warning ()
39. 11:50 AM - Re: Flying into Canada (Terry Phillips)
40. 12:16 PM - Re: aileron trim system (Charles Wacker)
41. 12:24 PM - Re: Re: Engines (bryanmmartin@comcast.net)
42. 12:29 PM - Re: Engines (ashontz)
43. 12:52 PM - Re: What does it mean? (Gig Giacona)
44. 12:53 PM - Re: aileron trim system (robert stone)
45. 12:56 PM - Re: aileron trim system (Gig Giacona)
46. 12:57 PM - Re: aileron trim system (robert stone)
47. 01:22 PM - Re: LRI versus Stall warning (Craig Payne)
48. 01:26 PM - Re: Flying into Canada (raymondj)
49. 01:27 PM - Re: aileron trim system (Juan Vega)
50. 01:30 PM - Re: Re: What does it mean? (Juan Vega)
51. 01:35 PM - Re: Zenair News (Juan Vega)
52. 01:38 PM - Re: aileron trim system (Craig Payne)
53. 02:23 PM - Fuel Taxes (Trainnut01@aol.com)
54. 02:30 PM - Re: LRI versus Stall warning (Paul Mulwitz)
55. 02:54 PM - Re: Fuel Taxes (Gig Giacona)
56. 03:06 PM - Re: aileron trim system (Klaus Truemper)
57. 03:26 PM - Re: Fuel Taxes (Paul Mulwitz)
58. 03:52 PM - Re: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? (Bill Naumuk)
59. 03:58 PM - Re: LRI versus Stall warning (n801bh@netzero.com)
60. 04:14 PM - Re: Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets (Bill Naumuk)
61. 04:21 PM - Re: LRI versus Stall warning (Tim Juhl)
62. 04:27 PM - Re: aileron trim system (Tim Juhl)
63. 04:36 PM - Re: Re: Engines (n801bh@netzero.com)
64. 04:41 PM - Re: LRI versus Stall warning (Edward Moody II)
65. 04:43 PM - Re: Re: LRI versus Stall warning (Juan Vega)
66. 04:52 PM - Re: LRI versus Stall warning (Craig Payne)
67. 04:57 PM - Re: aileron trim system (Juan Vega)
68. 04:58 PM - Re: LRI versus Stall warning (Big Gee)
69. 05:14 PM - Re: Re: Engines (David Downey)
70. 05:33 PM - Re: LRI versus Stall warning (LarryMcFarland)
71. 05:41 PM - Re: Re: Engines (n801bh@netzero.com)
72. 05:46 PM - Re: LRI versus Stall warning (JOHN STARN)
73. 06:01 PM - Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets (ashontz)
74. 06:29 PM - Re: LRI versus Stall warning (Paul Mulwitz)
75. 06:38 PM - Re: Re: What does it mean? (Steve Hulland)
76. 07:09 PM - Re: Flying into Canada (Noel Loveys)
77. 08:36 PM - Re: Flying into Canada (Terry Phillips)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
Looks like a potential store for 6061 aluminum. It does not say anything ab
out being -T6. Is this part just assumed?=0Athanks!=0A =0AMichael =0A=0A
=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: "NYTerminat@aol.com" <NYTerminat@aol
.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:
16:30 PM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...?=0A=0A=0A
Thanks for the "heads up". They have a store the next town over from me, ne
ver knew they existed, looks like a good find. =0A =0ABob Spudis=0ADo not a
rchive=0A =0A =0A =0AIn a message dated 2/27/2007 2:47:38 P.M. Eastern Stan
shontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>=0A=0AThese guys carry 6061-T6. There's a store 5
00 feet down the street from me that just opened up.=0A=0Ahttp://www.fasten
al.com/web/locations.ex?action=search&zip=&state=NJ=0A=0A--------=0AC
H601XL - Corvair=0Awww.mykitlog.com/ashontz=0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AAOL now
offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
<57x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom" target
========
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
if it is a wood frame floor it likely will do no good - still will recoil in the time frame of the rivet gun blow. The reccomended minimum weights for bucking bars related to the rivet diamet chart that I sent earlier deals directly withthis cause/effect and this is why in todays world you can buy tungsten bucking bars (if you are of the unlimited pocket sort!). http://www.johnston-tool.com/index.htm When you drive rivets in the conventional way with the gun in one hand and the bar in the other (or with a partner on the other side of the panel) you are exerting a counter force that is a supplement to the mass of the bar and allows the recoil to be managed to a greated degree.
[quote="Flydog1966(at)aol.com"]In a message dated 2/26/2007 9:29:37 P.M. Eastern
Standard Time, naumuk@alltel.net writes:
> In fact
>
> > , they're just not going any further. The shape is
> > nice, just not expanding anymore, nor are they compressing anymore.
> >
>
>
do not archive
No matter how work hardened your rivets are,(or what size bucking bar your using)
you should be able to flatten them puppies flatter than a pancake !
Do you have a regulator on your compressor? Turn it up more.
Same if there is a regulator on your gun.
Watch the regulator gauge as you drive a test rivet.Does the pressure drop to low?
Or just fer shins-n-grigles, take the gun,and test piece, to your local garage
where they have a real compressor,and ask them if you can try it there. That is
if your using one of those small tank "home" compressors. I'm not saying they
wont work,I have used them just fine,but maybe your model will not.
I just can not believe that a good rivet gun,with adequate air pressure ,and flow
rate, will not pound the
crap out of them.
Phil Day
701 scrap builder
> [b]
Thanks for the tips. My compressor goes up to 150 psi and has about a 10 gallon
tank. Not sure about the rating on the riveter, but it's a reall one, not some
Home Depot cheapy. I thought about trying the bucking bar on the floor rather
than the table. May make a difference.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97760#97760
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
I will be looking up the ASTMs that their 6061 is listed against and post the results.
Michael Hilderbrand <m_hilderbrand@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Looks like a potential store for 6061 aluminum. It does not say anything about
being -T6. Is this part just assumed?
thanks!
Michael
----- Original Message ----
From: "NYTerminat@aol.com" <NYTerminat@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:16:30 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...?
Thanks for the "heads up". They have a store the next town over from me, never
knew they existed, looks like a good find.
Bob Spudis
Do not archive
In a message dated 2/27/2007 2:47:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ashontz@nbme.org
writes:
These guys carry 6061-T6. There's a store 500 feet down the street from me that
just opened up.
http://www.fastenal.com/web/locations.ex?action=search&zip=&state=NJ
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
---------------------------------
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL
at <57x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom" target="_blank">AOL.com.
http://www.ma======================== orums.matronics.com/" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://forums.matronic===============
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
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: | Flying into Canada |
Hi Mark,
I appreciate your "Sales" effort for flying to Canada. Alas, even
though I live about an hour by Zodiac from Vancouver, BC and all the
beautiful islands and other attractions in that area I will not go to
all the trouble necessary to make that trip. Besides all the issues
with flying my plane in Canada with a driver's license instead of a
3rd class medical I also face all the paranoia at the border when
attempting to reenter the USA. I don't even have a passport, but
that is a requirement to fly into the USA now from Canada. For me,
it just isn't worth all the bureaucratic pain.
Maybe in my next life it will be easier to cross the border (just
like it was when I was younger).
Paul
XL fuselage
At 08:49 PM 2/27/2007, you wrote:
>Terry your right, I will contact Transport tomorrow. I believe that
>the plane is able to enter into Canada but the pilot needs to have a
>private or better license. Our Recreational permit in Canada is not
>allowed to fly in the U.S. and your LSA permit will not allow you to
>cross into Canada. Our Ultralight pilots may cross into the U.S.
>authorization but the U.S. Ultralights may not cross into Canada due
>to the fact that U.S. ultralight pilots don't have any license. I
>answered Tim's enquiry knowing that he holds a private license and
>did not consider the LSA permit.
>
>Now having said all that and I will check into it for everyone, I
>know that harmonization between the two countries is under serious
>consideration and we may see something come into effect by years end
>which would allow LSA and Recreational permits to cross the border
>either way. ( but not U.S. Recreational permit, that is a different
>animal altogether.) Both planes Gross and pilots permits are being
>discussed at Transport Canada's CARAC meetings.
>
>Mark Townsend
>Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
><mailto:president@can-zacaviation.com>president@can-zacaviation.com
>www.can-zacaviation.com
>
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
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 |
|
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
Terry, that situation is easy. Sorry but no class
three medical with you PPL, no being PIC in Canada.
As I mentioned in my last post, Transport says they
will "never" allow the driver's license medical.
Never is a long time. Maybe we should just call it
"forseeable Future" instead.
Doug MacDonald
NW Ontario, Canada
Thanks, Mark
In my case, I would be looking at flying with a PPL,
but flying light sport without a class 3 medical,
i.e., with a driver's license. As long as you're
asking, try to find out about that situation. Thank
you for looking into this for us. It would be great if
our respective governments would get together and
develop rules with reasonable reciprocity for each
other's pilots.
Terry
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 |
|
List,
My buddy and I are going to put doors on our hangar down at our little
country airport (25A). I think I saw somewhere a picture of some doors that
were divided into 3 or 4 foot sections and slid along a track. Our problem
is two-fold: 1. we spent all our money building this plane and, 2. we
don't think we can build a barn door type opening that would be strong
enough.
Maybe someone can offer a solution?
Thanks,
Tommy Walker in Alabama
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
mhilderbrand wrote:
> Looks like a potential store for 6061 aluminum. It does not say anything about
being -T6. Is this part just assumed?
> thanks!
>
> Michael
>
> ---
I believe the guy there said it was T6. Not sure if it matters to be honest. If
anyone gets any info on that please share. I think it designates heat treatable.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97827#97827
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: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
[quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]if it is a wood frame floor it likely will do no good - still will recoil in the time frame of the rivet gun blow. The reccomended minimum weights for bucking bars related to the rivet diamet chart that I sent earlier deals directly withthis cause/effect and this is why in todays world you can buy tungsten bucking bars (if you are of the unlimited pocket sort!). http://www.johnston-tool.com/index.htm (http://www.johnston-tool.com/index.htm) When you drive rivets in the conventional way with the gun in one hand and the bar in the other (or with a partner on the other side of the panel) you are exerting a counter force that is a supplement to the mass of the bar and allows the recoil to be managed to a greated degree.
[quote="Flydog1966(at)aol.com"]In a message dated 2/26/2007 9:29:37 P.M. Eastern
Standard Time, naumuk@alltel.net writes:
> In fact
>
> > , they're just not going any further. The shape is
> > nice, just not expanding anymore, nor are they compressing anymore.
> >
>
>
>
>
do not archive
No matter how work hardened your rivets are,(or what size bucking bar your using)
you should be able to flatten them puppies flatter than a pancake !
Do you have a regulator on your compressor? Turn it up more.
Same if there is a regulator on your gun.
Watch the regulator gauge as you drive a test rivet.Does the pressure drop to low?
Or just fer shins-n-grigles, take the gun,and test piece, to your local garage
where they have a real compressor,and ask them if you can try it there. That is
if your using one of those small tank "home" compressors. I'm not saying they
wont work,I have Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
> [b]
The floor is concrete. My table is wood. I had no problem setting the AN5 on the
table. The wood table may be the problem with the AN6s.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97829#97829
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Hangar Doors |
Tommy, If you have a concrete floor , or are willing to pour a footing
for the doors to roll on , rolling doors are hard to beat in the cost
department.
When I built my hangar (60'wide-40'deep) I made 3 doors from 2 1/2" sq.
tubing to span a 40' opening (had a Seabee at the time) bought the
V-rollers from either Grangier or McMaster-Carr. Tracks on the bottom
were 1" angle welded side by side, spaced so the doors would clear by an
inch. (Don't forget the siding when figuring this dimension :) )Top
tracks were 1" angle as well that nestled into side by side spacers
welded to the top of the door. Covered with matching siding. If I recall
I had less than $1000 in 40' of doors. Have fun! JB
List,
My buddy and I are going to put doors on our hangar down at our little
country airport (25A). I think I saw somewhere a picture of some doors
that were divided into 3 or 4 foot sections and slid along a track. Our
problem is two-fold: 1. we spent all our money building this plane
and, 2. we don't think we can build a barn door type opening that
would be strong enough.
Maybe someone can offer a solution?
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: Hangar Doors |
Hi Tommy ,I designed the doors for my hanger .If you will send your
email to me I will send some pictures .wjones@brazoriainet.com . Wade
Wade Jones South Texas
601XL plans building
Cont. 0200
----- Original Message -----
From: Tommy Walker
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Hangar Doors
List,
My buddy and I are going to put doors on our hangar down at our little
country airport (25A). I think I saw somewhere a picture of some doors
that were divided into 3 or 4 foot sections and slid along a track. Our
problem is two-fold: 1. we spent all our money building this plane
and, 2. we don't think we can build a barn door type opening that
would be strong enough.
Maybe someone can offer a solution?
Thanks,
Tommy Walker in Alabama
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: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
I think www.onlinemetals.com might be near you. They have metals and
sizes that I've found nowhere else.
Aaro do not archive
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: Hangar Door (cheap version) |
Tommy,
Some years ago I needed to enclose a lean-to which was built onto another building.
Since vertical bi-fold was out of the question because of limited overhead
clearance and there was no way to accomodate sliding doors regardless of the
number of sections, I stretched a 3/8" cable the entire forty feet width just
under of the eave and put up a "curtain" for a door.
The netting used by truckers to cover loads of gravel, sand, garbage, etc, is really
tough. A firm which makes these truck covers made one to my needed size,
with 2" nylon webbing/strap around the perimeter and the same reinforcement
sewn vertically where the six-foot-wide netting was spliced. They put 3/4" ID
gromets about 18" apart along the top, 24" apart along the sides, and 36" apart
across the bottom.
Heavy-duty rings (not cheap shower curtain rings) will support the top; ties of
your chioce at the sides. I borrowed a hammer drill and put down six tie-down
rings in the concrete across the bottom.
Untying one side and the bottom allowed me to slide the curtain open (like a giant
shower curtain) and roll the plane out.
I did make a few mistakes: (1) The curtain should have been shorter in the vertical
dimension to keep it from dragging on the concrete. (2) The thing should
have been two pieces.....slide one left, one to the right. Not nearly as much
pulling & tugging required. (3) I should have used smooth steel guy cable instead
of the very flexible winch cable.....there is a LOT of drag on the cable
I used whereas the guy cable (see the cable used to steady a power pole) is
nicely smooth.....the rings slide much better on smooth cable.
Put a turnbuckle at one end to tension the cable. Put a couple of "j-bolts" along
the top in line with the cable. You leave the cable hanging on these and,
using a stick of appropriate length, you can un-hook the cable from the j-bolts
to slide the curtain open. Design of the stick is left to the builder.
The netting material survives on dump trucks, so it'll do just fine for a see-through
door....comes in various colors, and best of all, I spent only about $200
total.
Only problem I ever had was that it is difficult to heat the hangar.....but there
is good ventilation.
Regards,
Zed
do not archive
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
If what you are asking is "does the temper (T4 or T6) make a
difference", then the answer is YES.
T6 is aluminum that has been solution heat treated AND artificially
aged. IIRC, the 6061-T4 aluminum has just a little more than half the
yield strength of the 6061-T6.
Zenith has posted both in the construction hand book and the new
constructions standards book that you cannot use T4. They do list other
alternatives however.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:14 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...?
mhilderbrand wrote:
> Looks like a potential store for 6061 aluminum. It does not say
anything about being -T6. Is this part just assumed?
> thanks!
>
> Michael
>
> ---
I believe the guy there said it was T6. Not sure if it matters to be
honest. If anyone gets any info on that please share. I think it
designates heat treatable.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97827#97827
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Hangar Doors |
The overhead bifold doors are realy quite simple and cheap to build and
can be operated w/ a boat winch if you keep it light.
Aaron New hanger in spring for new 601 do not archive
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Hangar Doors |
Hi Tommy:
I faced the exact same problem when I built my hangar a couple of years ago.
Check out www.cool-airinc.com
That is the web site of David Coolman, a pilot and door company owner. He
has a booth at Oshkosh every year and brings along his sliding door sample.
You can see it there in action.
I purchased his sliding door from the SAV-2.5 series. It slides inside of
the hangar and is a very neat and simple arrangement. I have a 30 X 40
Hangar/Shop and it has a door opening of 29 X 9.5 feet. With the doors
open, I get a 28' 6" clearance between the doors. Just enough room for the
27' wings span of the 701. It also provide a four foot "man" door at each
side. The first and last panel are hinged at the corner post. The balance
of the door, which consists two sections of three panels hinged together,
then rolls around a curved corner track and along the side of the hangar.
It is a very nice working system. Once the end doors are hinged open, you
can slide the three panels on each side open with one hand. And you never
have to did snow out of the way before you open your doors!
The system consists of steel frames that hang from a track on rollers. The
door skins are the 4' steel sections that are the same as the steel siding
on the pole barn. They just slip into place inside of the frame. The
finish product looks very nice.
As I recall, the price two years ago was below 2K for the complete door
system. That was minus the cost of the steel barn siding that I got from my
pole barn company. Not a bad price as compared to the many other types of
aircraft hangar doors.
You can see pictures of my door on my web site.
http://www.mrrace.com/mykitairplane/MyHanger/index.htm
Yes, I have been going to change the spelling of "Hanger" to "Hangar" for
the past year! One of these days!
George
Zenith CH-701 N73EX (reserved)
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 |
|
you can have 2 engines out on teh field and you still need to have ADs. Reason
there are so many ADs is becuase the manufacturer has identified a potential
situation that requires preventative maintenance. EX; there is an AD on rotax
on the Magnetic metal collector, and details how to remove the peice and replace.
If there were one engine out in the field, you would need an AD. Rotax
is a great engine, if you like water cooled engines. I prefer a auto fuel running
air cooled engine. Jabirus have only 20 amp alt out put, you can ad an
Alt. Corviar is a good engine, if you want to build an engine. Lycomings and
Contis are tryed and true as well. but 60 year technology. Rotec, nice. Franklin
is a GREAT engine, smoot as butter when running, just tough to find parts
due to selling of company. Look at what you want to burn, look at what you
want to spend, look at what you want to maintain. and read the ADs. tells
how many potential problems there are.
JUan
-----Original Message-----
>From: N601RT <N601RT@comcast.net>
>Sent: Feb 24, 2007 1:27 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Engines
>
>
>Robert,
>
>Don't make your choice based on opinions from people that may not have real facts.
Be careful to understand what are facts and what is rumor, possibly fear
of the unknown.
>
>We all make significant investments (time and/or money) in our engines and therefore
tend to think we have made the best choice. I think this can color our
opinions.
>
>I agree the reason there are "lots of ADs" on Rotax 9xx engines is because there
are LOTs of Rotax engines in service. I was told that there are more than 20,000
9xx engines in service a year ago. I just read that Rotax is currently producing
5,000 9xx family engines per year. (Both figures from Eric Tucker who
teaches a GREAT Rotax maintenance class and who is THE technical guru for Kodiak
[North America Rotax distributor]. Lockwood is an example of a dealer who
gets their engines from Kodiak.)
>
>All engines have their pluses and minuses. My perspective on Rotax +/-
>
>Minuses:
>Expensive (compared to Corvair and Subaru conversion, I believe similar price
to Jabaru)
>Parts are relative expensive
>18a alternator (which I think this is relatively low output)
>
>Positive:
>Reliable
>Light overall installed weight for the horsepower
>Quiet
>Water cooled heads. (Different than water cooled engine, simpler)
>Mine basically does not use oil. I assume this is typical
>Nicasil plated cylinders, close tolerance pistons
>Shock cooling is not a concern
>Broad dealer network. (But your local A&P may not be familiar with it.)
>Large corporation stands behind and supports the engine
>LOTs of engines in service. Many examples of these have gone to TBO more than
once.
>Optional 2nd alternator available. (Corvair and Subaru conversions have option
for a variety of alternators. Jabaru has relatively low output alternator as
does 9xx series.)
>Service and installation manuals available on line for download.
>Service Bulletins (ADs) available on line. These ARE NOT required for engines
that are not certified. Recommend that you carefully understand what and why they
are published.
>
>
>My local EAA chapter has done some noise testing. Richard VanGrunsven, his brothers
and lots of other RV owner's are in the chapter. My plane was the quietest
tested during climb out at the end of the runway and tied for quietest with
the factory RV-10 for 1000 foot over flight at 90kts. The tests also include
production planes.
>
>
>Paul's post to this thread has some misleading statements.
>
>There is no need to guess the history of the Rotax 912, 914 engine series. The
Rotax 912, 914 series of engines are clean sheet, modern design aircraft engines.
Yes Bombardier (parent company Rotax) makes snowmobile engines, but the 9xx
series IS NOT related to the snowmobile engines. Before Bombardier created
the separate Recreational Products division, the company who owned Rotax also
owned Learjet. Maybe the 9xx was derived from a Learjet. [Wink]
>
>Propeller tips that are supersonic lose efficiency. They can be destroyed, but
there are many propellers that go supersonic regularly. Not saying this is recommended,
just not a certain disaster.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roy
>
>N601RT: CH601HDS, nose gear, Rotax 912ULS, All electric, IFR equipped, 681hrs,
802 landings
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97013#97013
>
>
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: Hangar Doors |
Tommy:
If you don't want to build your own, take a look at the Horton Stack
doors:
http://www.hortonstolcraft.com/horton_stack_door.htm
They are small panels which run on bottom rollers so you don't need a
massive header to support the door weight. The tracks for the rollers
are recessed in the slab so they are easy to push a plane over. The
panels are small and nest at each end for good clearance. Also
available insulated.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas do not archive
List,
My buddy and I are going to put doors on our hangar down at our little
country airport (25A). I think I saw somewhere a picture of some doors
that were divided into 3 or 4 foot sections and slid along a track. Our
problem is two-fold: 1. we spent all our money building this plane
and, 2. we don't think we can build a barn door type opening that
would be strong enough.
Maybe someone can offer a solution?
Thanks,
Tommy Walker in Alabama
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: | aileron trim system |
Members
Can any of you who have built the ZodiacXL with aileron trim tell
me how long in hours it took you to install the trim system complete
ready for use.
Tracy Stone
ZodiacXL
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 |
|
p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att wrote:
> Hi Brandon,
>
> No, I don't have a specific reference on the supersonic prop tips. I
> wonder if your Texan tips are actually going supersonic or if they
> are just transonic. Do you get a sonic boom?
>
> There is a nice prop tip speed calculator on the Culver prop web
> site. You can plug in the RPM and prop diameter to get an estimate
> of the mach number for the tips. Of course, mach number varies a
> great deal with air conditions, but it still might be interesting to see.
>
> I am amused by the responses I am getting to a post I didn't think
> would be at all controversial. I was merely trying to help Robert
> understand the answer to his question of why some engines run at such
> high RPM. Your question about tips going over mach 1 was also
> mentioned by Roy while he strongly defended the ancestry of the Rotax
> engine design. I guess I am just an irritating guy . . .
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> At 09:00 AM 2/24/2007, you wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >> As RPM increases, the speed of the propeller tip
> > also increases >>according to simple geometry.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > >> As the propeller tip approaches the speed of sound
> >
> > >>it becomes inefficient,
> >
> > True.
> >
> > >>and if allowed to hit the speed of sound it can be
> > destroyed.
> >
> > I would love to see your reference on this one. The
> > Texan I fly on weekends has the tips go supersonic
> > just about every flight. I haven't done the math, and
> > don't care to, but you can hear the difference when it
> > takes off. When I take off, I pull back the prop as
> > soon as I get the gear up, and it purrs by. Most of
> > our pilots leave the prop up until at altitude. The
> > sound is a high pitched whine. The difference in RPM
> > is only 100 - 200. You can often hear the same thing
> > on Bonanzas and others if the prop is left up.
> >
> > R/
> >
> > Brandon
> > 601 HDS / TD / Corvair
> > 70 hours
> >
> >
> >
> > Never miss an email again!
> > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
> > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Paul Mulwitz
> 32013 NE Dial Road
> Camas, WA 98607
> ---------------------------------------------
Just working the numbers, a 72" prop spinning 2750 rpm will give a tip speed of
590mph. about 160mph short of the speed of sound. Quick thinking may lead someone
to think that if the plane is moving at 160mph that the tip speed will reach
supersonic. I'm not sure this is the case though. Consider the prop has about
a 15 degree pitch on it at the tip which would result in a relative pitch
when moving through the air at design speed of say 2 degrees (and if constructed
correctly that 2 degree relative pitch should be constant through to the hub).
That being the case the prop tip would see only a quarter (sin 15 degrees
= .258) of the 160 mph forward component, or about 41 mph. To get the full 160mph
component the plane would need to be moving about 621mph. I don't think the
relative prop tip speed on a Bananza or T-6 Texan ever breaks the sound barrier,
and may not even be hitting transonic. That 621 mph figure would explain
why 1940s propeller fighter design and prop efficiency topped out at about 495mph
(about 130mph short of supersonic tip speed). Hold that 130 mph difference
for the bizarre transonic region where things start to become hairy, including
whatevers happening at the prop tip. Apparently 90% of the work is done by the
outside 10% of the prop. That being the case, as soon as it starts to go transonic
you're going to see a major loss of efficiency.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97876#97876
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 |
|
There is one thing no one has addressd yet is the surface speeds of large and small
displacement engines. Small engines have shorter strokes and smaller crankshaft
journals. An engine with a two inch stroke will have to turn twice as fast
to get the same piston surface speed as a large engine with a four inch stroke.
The same holds for crankshaft journals etc. Also the centrifugal force increases
as rotating parts increase in size as they swing a larger arc. In essence,
smaller engines do not encounter that much if any increase in stress over
large engines. A high RPM engine with a reduction for final output RPM such
as a propeller can have a much smaller crankshaft, as much less torque is being
transfered to the business end of the crankshaft. The end torque is increased
through the gearbox. With a direct drive engine all the final torque must be
carried by the crank, so it must be much heavier.
Ron L.
--------
Ron Lee
Tucson, Arizona
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97880#97880
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 |
|
ronlee wrote:
> There is one thing no one has addressd yet is the surface speeds of large and
small displacement engines. Small engines have shorter strokes and smaller crankshaft
journals. An engine with a two inch stroke will have to turn twice as
fast to get the same piston surface speed as a large engine with a four inch
stroke. The same holds for crankshaft journals etc. Also the centrifugal force
increases as rotating parts increase in size as they swing a larger arc. In essence,
smaller engines do not encounter that much if any increase in stress
over large engines. A high RPM engine with a reduction for final output RPM such
as a propeller can have a much smaller crankshaft, as much less torque is being
transfered to the business end of the crankshaft. The end torque is increased
through the gearbox. With a direct drive engine all the final torque must
be carried by the crank, so it must be much heavier.
> Ron L.
It's not the surface speed as much as the stress from reversal of strokes. Higher
revving engines will generally have a shorter stroke and a larger bore to displace
the same amount of expanding gas. There's still plenty of stress in the
reversal of strokes and would probably be equal. The smaller cranks and bearings
is probably more due to the fact that the higher revving engine is creating
more HP per pound, but not as much torque, therefore no need for a heavy crank.
The torque gets developed in the PSRU.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97887#97887
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: Flying into Canada |
While even I (at 33) recall it being easier to cross the border in the past,
getting a passport is easier these days than getting a driver's license
(been to a DMV recently?). While in your case the medical is an issue, I
foresee no hassle other than fear of the unknown (and despite our best
rumors, most of these guys are pretty helpful).
This is the world we live in - we can either give up and sit here on our
growing arses or we can educate ourselves, be prepared, and take some great
adventures. I vote for not letting perceived bureaurcratic pain derail a
great trip.
Michael in NH
p.s. Funny border crossing story going into BC from Eastern Washington a
couple years ago. Friends and I going skiing fly out, borrow friend's mom's
car. Border guard going into B.C. asks if we have note from his mom that we
could borrow the car! Seriously, wouldn't it be weirder to have such a
note? No major hassle, though, just a good laugh.
do not archive
On 2/28/07, Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
For me, it just isn't worth all the bureaucratic pain.
>
> Maybe in my next life it will be easier to cross the border (just like it
> was when I was younger).
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: aileron trim system |
I don' t know if you mean a retrofit on an already finished plane - but
building it as part of the kit (after aileron perviously finished),
definitely took less than 10 hours. Probably less than 5. (I had nylon
conduit to run the wire through so I had nothing to do inside the wing.)
Michael in NH
do not archive
On 2/28/07, robert stone <rstone4@hot.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Members
> Can any of you who have built the ZodiacXL with aileron trim tell me
> how long in hours it took you to install the trim system complete ready for
> use.
> Tracy Stone
> ZodiacXL
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
hey guys - please be careful here. It does designate the heat treat - and the heat
treat is VERY important. T3, T4, T6, and others are alll specific heat treats
and have very specific differences in material properties (the loads that
can be handled by identical shapes of differing heat treats). Pay very close attention
to this detail - your very life may depend on it.
mhilderbrand wrote:
> Looks like a potential store for 6061 aluminum. It does not say anything about
being -T6. Is this part just assumed?
> thanks!
>
> Michael
>
> ---
I believe the guy there said it was T6. Not sure if it matters to be honest. If
anyone gets any info on that please share. I think it designates heat treatable.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97827#97827
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question
on Yahoo! Answers.
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: | Interesting airplane history - off topic |
I remember reading about this in an old EAA experimenter magazine before they went
gloss and all advertizememts.
Single Blade propeller
http://notplanejane.com/everel.htm#everel7
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97895#97895
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 |
|
do not archive
I've always heard that the limiting factor are the piston reversal loads at the
top of the exhaust stroke.
ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
ronlee wrote:
> There is one thing no one has addressd yet is the surface speeds of large and
small displacement engines. Small engines have shorter strokes and smaller crankshaft
journals. An engine with a two inch stroke will have to turn twice as
fast to get the same piston surface speed as a large engine with a four inch
stroke. The same holds for crankshaft journals etc. Also the centrifugal force
increases as rotating parts increase in size as they swing a larger arc. In essence,
smaller engines do not encounter that much if any increase in stress over
large engines. A high RPM engine with a reduction for final output RPM such
as a propeller can have a much smaller crankshaft, as much less torque is being
transfered to the business end of the crankshaft. The end torque is increased
through the gearbox. With a direct drive engine all the final torque must
be carried by the crank, so it must be much heavier.
> Ron L.
It's not the surface speed as much as the stress from reversal of strokes. Higher
revving engines will generally have a shorter stroke and a larger bore to displace
the same amount of expanding gas. There's still plenty of stress in the
reversal of strokes and would probably be equal. The smaller cranks and bearings
is probably more due to the fact that the higher revving engine is creating
more HP per pound, but not as much torque, therefore no need for a heavy crank.
The torque gets developed in the PSRU.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97887#97887
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
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 |
|
[quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]do not archive
I've always heard that the limiting factor are the piston reversal loads at the
top of the exhaust stroke.
ashontz wrote:
ronlee wrote:
> There is one thing no one has addressd yet is the surface speeds of large and
small displacement engines. Small engines have shorter strokes and smaller crankshaft
journals. An engine with a two inch stroke will have to turn twice as
fast to get the same piston surface speed as a large engine with a four inch
stroke. The same holds for crankshaft journals etc. Also the centrifugal force
increases as rotating parts increase in size as they swing a larger arc. In
essence, smaller engines do not encounter that much if any increase in stress
over large engines. A high RPM engine with a reduction for final output RPM such
as a propeller can have a much smaller crankshaft, as much less torque is
being transfered to the business end of the crankshaft. The end torque is increased
through the gearbox. With a direct drive engine all the final torque must
be carried by the crank, so it must be much heavier.
> Ron L.
>
>
It's not the surface speed as much as the stress from reversal of strokes. Higher
revving engines will generally have a shorter stroke and a larger bore to displace
the same amount of expanding gas. There's still plenty of stress in the
reversal of strokes and would probably be equal. The smaller cranks and bearings
is probably more due to the fact that the higher revving engine is creating
more HP per pound, but not as much torque, therefore no need for a heavy crank.
The torque gets developed in the PSRU.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick ( http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/?fr=oni_on_mail&#news) in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. ( http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/?fr=oni_on_mail&#news)
> [b]
I don't know. Seems like they're all pretty drastic really. You figure an engine
turning 6000 rpms with a stroke of 2 inches will accellerate the piston from
zero to X (halfway between top and bottom of the stroke it will experience it's
maximum velocity) in .0025 seconds, and then back to zero again in the same
timeframe. With a two inch stroke the moment arm would be 1 inch which would
translate to 52.35 feet per second or about 35 miles mph. from zero to 35mph in
.0025 seconds is, hhmmm, a lot of Gs. acceleraton=velocity change/elapsed time
= 52.35ft per second/.0025 sec = 20,800 ft per second per second! Is that possible.
Is my math right? Divided by 32ft per second per second (1G)= 650Gs.
Is that possible? Is my math right. So a two pound piston would feel like a 1300
lbd weight at that speed as far as the crank is concerned.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97902#97902
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: | Flying into Canada |
I think I read somewhere that U.S. LSA pilots can fly into Canada,
daytime
VFR, as long as they obtain a Class 4 medical declaration. the from can
be
downloaded form the Transport Canada site and any doctor can sign the
EKG
part for pilots over 40 yr. Pilots under 40 can sign it themselves and
mail
it to T.C.
The only part that I didn't like is there is a processing fee of around
$55.00 CDN. Leave it to the Feds to squeeze every last buck they can
out of
us.
If the designated people on both sides of the border could get together
I'm
sure it could be rectified in very short order. They say there are more
important things to do first...
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ZodieRocket
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 1:20 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
Terry your right, I will contact Transport tomorrow. I believe that the
plane is able to enter into Canada but the pilot needs to have a private
or
better license. Our Recreational permit in Canada is not allowed to fly
in
the U.S. and your LSA permit will not allow you to cross into Canada.
Our
Ultralight pilots may cross into the U.S. authorization but the U.S.
Ultralights may not cross into Canada due to the fact that U.S.
ultralight
pilots don't have any license. I answered Tim's enquiry knowing that he
holds a private license and did not consider the LSA permit.
Now having said all that and I will check into it for everyone, I know
that
harmonization between the two countries is under serious consideration
and
we may see something come into effect by years end which would allow LSA
and
Recreational permits to cross the border either way. ( but not U.S.
Recreational permit, that is a different animal altogether.) Both planes
Gross and pilots permits are being discussed at Transport Canada's CARAC
meetings.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com <http://www.can-zacaviation.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Phillips
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
Mark
Thanks for the excellent summary. You did not address Tim's query about
E-LSA's. I asked the EAA the same question, but they never replyed.
Specifically, do you know whether Transport Canada has ever authorized
entry
by pilots flying an Experimental-Light Sport Aircraft, or an
Experimental-Amatuer Built Aircraft, under US light sport rules, i.e.,
without a current class 3 medical?
Terry Phillips
At 07:36 AM 2/27/2007 -0500, you wrote:
Canada is a great choice destination for aviators from the United
States. We
are just different enough to make your trip interesting, but not so
different that you would be uncomfortable. Our country is renowned for
its
thousands of square miles of pristine wilderness, ideal for all outdoor
pursuits. We invite you to also experience our cities; they represent a
unique and pleasant experience of their own. There's something for
everyone.
In order to help with your plans for a trip to Canada, we've prepared
the
following summary of information. Remember, it's not that different.
We have developed our own aviation system and our own procedures in
response
to our climate and geography, which differ slightly from what you are
used
to, but they will not make flying unmanageable.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com <http://www.can-zacaviation.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Juhl
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 10:23 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Newbie Questions
Just out of curiosity what is the official position on flying a Exp.
Amateur Built vs Exp. Light sport into Canada from the US? Do our
northern
cousins recognize the E-SLA Category?
Tim
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Terry Phillips
ttp44@rkymtn.net
- The Zenith-List Email Forum -
--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
- NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
--> http://forums.matronics.com
--
2/27/2007 3:24 PM
--
2/27/2007 3:24 PM
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
Don't you have a class 3 for your PPL?
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Phillips
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:45 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
Thanks, Mark
In my case, I would be looking at flying with a PPL, but flying light
sport
without a class 3 medical, i.e., with a driver's license. As long as
you're
asking, try to find out about that situation. Thank you for looking into
this for us. It would be great if our respective governments would get
together and develop rules with reasonable reciprocity for each other's
pilots.
Terry
At 11:49 PM 2/27/2007 -0500, you wrote:
Terry your right, I will contact Transport tomorrow. I believe that the
plane is able to enter into Canada but the pilot needs to have a private
or
better license. Our Recreational permit in Canada is not allowed to fly
in
the U.S. and your LSA permit will not allow you to cross into Canada.
Our
Ultralight pilots may cross into the U.S. authorization but the U.S.
Ultralights may not cross into Canada due to the fact that U.S.
ultralight
pilots don't have any license. I answered Tim's enquiry knowing that he
holds a private license and did not consider the LSA permit.
Now having said all that and I will check into it for everyone, I know
that
harmonization between the two countries is under serious consideration
and
we may see something come into effect by years end which would allow LSA
and
Recreational permits to cross the border either way. ( but not U.S.
Recreational permit, that is a different animal altogether.) Both planes
Gross and pilots permits are being discussed at Transport Canada's CARAC
meetings.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
Terry Phillips
ttp44@rkymtn.net
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
Apparently a passport is required for every person on any plane that
enters
American airspace...Even if the plane isn't going to land! I don't know
how
they check small aircraft to see if the pilot actually has a passport on
his
person. No doubt I wouldn't want to be the one doing a forced approach
without a passport.
To show how silly this can be, a Canadian plane leaving Toronto for
Vancouver requires all passengers and crew to have passports because the
plane "may" enter U.S. airspace. I guess that would be in the landing
pattern for Vancouver airport.
I wonder if planes leaving, say, Minnesota headed to Maine require all
their
passengers and crew to have passports to re-enter U.S. airspace after
flying
most of the trip, non-stop, through Canadian airspace.
On the other hand it's probably time that we all started taking security
a
bit more seriously. here's a very scary world out there.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Mulwitz
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:06 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
Hi Mark,
I appreciate your "Sales" effort for flying to Canada. Alas, even
though I
live about an hour by Zodiac from Vancouver, BC and all the beautiful
islands and other attractions in that area I will not go to all the
trouble
necessary to make that trip. Besides all the issues with flying my
plane in
Canada with a driver's license instead of a 3rd class medical I also
face
all the paranoia at the border when attempting to reenter the USA. I
don't
even have a passport, but that is a requirement to fly into the USA now
from
Canada. For me, it just isn't worth all the bureaucratic pain.
Maybe in my next life it will be easier to cross the border (just like
it
was when I was younger).
Paul
XL fuselage
At 08:49 PM 2/27/2007, you wrote:
Terry your right, I will contact Transport tomorrow. I believe that the
plane is able to enter into Canada but the pilot needs to have a private
or
better license. Our Recreational permit in Canada is not allowed to fly
in
the U.S. and your LSA permit will not allow you to cross into Canada.
Our
Ultralight pilots may cross into the U.S. authorization but the U.S.
Ultralights may not cross into Canada due to the fact that U.S.
ultralight
pilots don't have any license. I answered Tim's enquiry knowing that he
holds a private license and did not consider the LSA permit.
Now having said all that and I will check into it for everyone, I know
that
harmonization between the two countries is under serious consideration
and
we may see something come into effect by years end which would allow LSA
and
Recreational permits to cross the border either way. ( but not U.S.
Recreational permit, that is a different animal altogether.) Both planes
Gross and pilots permits are being discussed at Transport Canada's CARAC
meetings.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com <http://www.can-zacaviation.com/>
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
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: | Interesting airplane history - off topic |
>> Single Blade propeller
I looked around and couldn't see why they stopped making the Everel single
blade prop after about 1945. The only negative things I could find were that
they were expensive and needed frequent readjustment of the counterweight.
But I did have fun reading about the US WWII cruise missiles:
www.stagone.org/ns.html
-- Craig
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interesting airplane history - off topic |
craig(at)craigandjean.com wrote:
>
> > > Single Blade propeller
> >
> >
>
> I looked around and couldn't see why they stopped making the Everel single
> blade prop after about 1945. The only negative things I could find were that
> they were expensive and needed frequent readjustment of the counterweight.
>
> But I did have fun reading about the US WWII cruise missiles:
> www.stagone.org/ns.html
>
> -- Craig
Probably needed frequent adjustments because it was made of wood and humidity and
expansion caused the out of balance conditions. Betcha an aluminum prop would
rarely if ever need adjusting.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97923#97923
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: Interesting airplane history - off topic |
On 2/28/07, Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com> wrote:
> >> Single Blade propeller
> I looked around and couldn't see why they stopped making the Everel single
> blade prop after about 1945. The only negative things I could find were that
> they were expensive and needed frequent readjustment of the counterweight.
It seems that the "single blade" and "flapping" issues are
independent. A single blade prop is used on at least one motorglider
I'm aware of in order to make it more stowable. But the real
innovation here seems to be allowing the blade to "flap", similar to a
helicopter rotor, thus reducing or eliminating various propeller
asymmetries due to an off-axis airstream. This could easily be
accomplished with a 2- or n-blade propeller by giving each blade a
flapping hinge.
Ihab
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | LRI versus Stall warning |
Hi guys,
Ive been reading about the Lift Reserve Indicator and stall warning
indicators and wondering how much
advantage there is to having a gage with the sensitivity of LRI range
compared to a sound stall warning indicator
that provides only a preliminary warning in advance of a stall.
My panel is full and theres little room for anything more than a string
of small lights. The stall-warning indicator
seems to do the same thing for about the same effort. Any
recommendations or opinions on these devices?
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
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: Interesting airplane history - off topic |
ihab.awad(at)gmail.com wrote:
> On 2/28/07, Craig Payne wrote:
>
> > >> Single Blade propeller
> > I looked around and couldn't see why they stopped making the Everel single
> > blade prop after about 1945. The only negative things I could find were that
> > they were expensive and needed frequent readjustment of the counterweight.
> >
> >
>
> It seems that the "single blade" and "flapping" issues are
> independent. A single blade prop is used on at least one motorglider
> I'm aware of in order to make it more stowable. But the real
> innovation here seems to be allowing the blade to "flap", similar to a
> helicopter rotor, thus reducing or eliminating various propeller
> asymmetries due to an off-axis airstream. This could easily be
> accomplished with a 2- or n-blade propeller by giving each blade a
> flapping hinge.
>
> Ihab
>
> --
> Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
It wasn't mean to flap, but it does move back and forth a few degrees depending
on engine RPM and airspeed. The movement is designed to change the pitch of the
prop, not eliminate asymetries. The hinge it pivots on is on a slight angle
to perpendicular, so that when it moves forward or back the pitch of the prop
changes. It moves forward or back depending on air pressure on the blade and
balanced against the counterweight on the other side which is also dependent on
rotational speed. A two blded prop could be built with opposable weights like
this, but there's actually an advantage to one blade, namely more time for dissapation
of the wake, so the blade isn't trying to cut into turbulent air. So
effectively one blade in clean air is actually more effiecient than two blades
cutting into each others turbulent air.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97932#97932
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 |
|
Tommy, If you live in south Alabama, you may have hurricane concerns. Randy
Thwing's post re: HORTEN STACK DOORS show doors that look just like the doors
used by my employer in several locations along the Gulf coast LA to TX. May be
the same. 2 "X2" alum framed bifold sections with 4' wide translucent lexan.
The steel hangar at Venice, Louisianna had a 15'X50" opening and faced east.
These doors withstood countless hurricane direct hits over 10 years. Strongest
winds are easterly. Katrina erased all of Venice (including hangar) in 2005.
Venice is at the end of Hwy 23 along the Mississippi river and is 8' below the
river, 300' away. All other locations are still standing up to hurricanes
with no problems. Good doors. Easy to handle.
Do not archive
Bob Dingley, Pace,FL
Lyc XL
**************************************
AOL now offers free email to
everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
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: Interesting airplane history - off topic |
On 2/28/07, ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
> It wasn't mean to flap, but it does move back and forth a few degrees
> depending on engine RPM and airspeed.
Ah I see ... thanks for clarifying! -- I
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LRI versus Stall warning |
Take a look at the AOA Sport system here:
http://www.advanced-control-systems.com/Products/AOA/aoa.html
This system doesn't take much panel space and gives an incremental display of your
relative AOA which is better info than just a threshold warning alone. With
the AFS systems, you can also pipe and audible threshold warning into your speaker
or intercom system to make sure you don't ignore a critical LED display
indication.
The upper and lower wing surface ports can easily be retrofit into removable access
hatches if you have already rivetted the wing closed. Just make certain to
use flush dimpled flat head screws to avoid significantly disturbing the airflow
over the ports. The ports will need to be about 5 - 6 inches aft of the upper
spar rivet line and about 2 - 3 inches aft of the lower one.
Dred
---- LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Ive been reading about the Lift Reserve Indicator and stall warning
> indicators and wondering how much
> advantage there is to having a gage with the sensitivity of LRI range
> compared to a sound stall warning indicator
> that provides only a preliminary warning in advance of a stall.
>
> My panel is full and theres little room for anything more than a string
> of small lights. The stall-warning indicator
> seems to do the same thing for about the same effort. Any
> recommendations or opinions on these devices?
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
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: | Flying into Canada |
I do right now, but I do not plan to renew it. I plan to fly under sport
pilot rules from here on out. It's a long story.
Terry
do not archive
At 02:36 PM 2/28/2007 -0330, you wrote:
>Don't you have a class 3 for your PPL?
>
>
>Noel
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Phillips
>Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:45 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
>
>Thanks, Mark
>In my case, I would be looking at flying with a PPL, but flying light
>sport without a class 3 medical, i.e., with a driver's license. As long as
>you're asking, try to find out about that situation. Thank you for looking
>into this for us. It would be great if our respective governments would
>get together and develop rules with reasonable reciprocity for each
>other's pilots.
>Terry
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
Just starting a 601 kit
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | aileron trim system |
About 5 hours.
Chuck Wacker
N601CW Quick Build
>From: "robert stone" <rstone4@hot.rr.com>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:56:55 -0600
>
>Members
> Can any of you who have built the ZodiacXL with aileron trim tell me
>how long in hours it took you to install the trim system complete ready for
>use.
>
>Tracy Stone
>ZodiacXL
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month.
Intro*Terms
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
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 |
|
The pitch angle of the blades is irrelevant. The tip speed of the
propeller is just the vector sum of the rotational velocity and the
forward velocity. The speed of sound at standard sea level conditions is
770 mph. This speed would be the hypotenuse of the right triangle
formed by the two velocity vectors so: sqrt(770^2 - 590^2)=495 mph. So
for this example, a forward speed of 495 mph would result in the tips
just reaching Mach 1. A 160 mph forward speed would give a tip speed of
611 mph, sqrt(590^2 + 160^2)=611.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
>
>
> Just working the numbers, a 72" prop spinning 2750 rpm will give a tip speed
of
> 590mph. about 160mph short of the speed of sound. Quick thinking may lead
> someone to think that if the plane is moving at 160mph that the tip speed will
> reach supersonic. I'm not sure this is the case though. Consider the prop has
> about a 15 degree pitch on it at the tip which would result in a relative pitch
> when moving through the air at design speed of say 2 degrees (and if constructed
> correctly that 2 degree relative pitch should be constant through to the hub).
> That being the case the prop tip would see only a quarter (sin 15 degrees =
> .258) of the 160 mph forward component, or about 41 mph. To get the full 160mph
> component the plane would need to be moving about 621mph. I don't think the
> relative prop tip speed on a Bananza or T-6 Texan ever breaks the sound barrier,
> and may not even be hitting transonic. That 621 mph figure would explain why
> 1940s propeller fighter design and prop efficien!
> cy topped out at about 495mph (about 130mph short of supersonic tip speed).
> Hold that 130 mph difference for the bizarre transonic region where things start
> to become hairy, including whatevers happening at the prop tip. Apparently 90%
> of the work is done by the outside 10% of the prop. That being the case, as soon
> as it starts to go transonic you're going to see a major loss of efficiency.
>
--
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 |
|
bryanmmartin wrote:
> The pitch angle of the blades is irrelevant. The tip speed of the
> propeller is just the vector sum of the rotational velocity and the
> forward velocity. The speed of sound at standard sea level conditions is
> 770 mph. This speed would be the hypotenuse of the right triangle
> formed by the two velocity vectors so: sqrt(770^2 - 590^2)=495 mph. So
> for this example, a forward speed of 495 mph would result in the tips
> just reaching Mach 1. A 160 mph forward speed would give a tip speed of
> 611 mph, sqrt(590^2 + 160^2)=611.
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "ashontz"
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Just working the numbers, a 72" prop spinning 2750 rpm will give a tip speed
of
> > 590mph. about 160mph short of the speed of sound. Quick thinking may lead
> > someone to think that if the plane is moving at 160mph that the tip speed
will
> > reach supersonic. I'm not sure this is the case though. Consider the prop
has
> > about a 15 degree pitch on it at the tip which would result in a relative
pitch
> > when moving through the air at design speed of say 2 degrees (and if constructed
> > correctly that 2 degree relative pitch should be constant through to the hub).
> > That being the case the prop tip would see only a quarter (sin 15 degrees
=
> > .258) of the 160 mph forward component, or about 41 mph. To get the full 160mph
> > component the plane would need to be moving about 621mph. I don't think the
> > relative prop tip speed on a Bananza or T-6 Texan ever breaks the sound barrier,
> > and may not even be hitting transonic. That 621 mph figure would explain why
> > 1940s propeller fighter design and prop efficien!
> > cy topped out at about 495mph (about 130mph short of supersonic tip speed).
> > Hold that 130 mph difference for the bizarre transonic region where things
start
> > to become hairy, including whatevers happening at the prop tip. Apparently
90%
> > of the work is done by the outside 10% of the prop. That being the case, as
soon
> > as it starts to go transonic you're going to see a major loss of efficiency.
> >
> > --
> >
>
> Bryan Martin
> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive
> do not archive
Actually, that sounds right. The math still explains why the 500mph marks was about
it for propellers.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97966#97966
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: What does it mean? |
Steven,
Please reread my post. I was hardly supportive of the FAA plan. What I said was
it wasn't as bad as it could have been. It well could have had fees any service
used. While the increase in the tax is a fairly hefty bump in many cases it
can be completely avoided by burning Mogas.
Most of the airports where there will be a fee already have landing fees that push
them out of the average LSA flight plan.
I will repeat though that TAXES ARE BAD and I really don't think this one will
pass as is.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97973#97973
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: aileron trim system |
Hi Chuck,
Thanks much for the response. Thats just about what I had it figured
at.
Tracy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wacker" <ccwacker@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>
> About 5 hours.
>
> Chuck Wacker
> N601CW Quick Build
>
>
>>From: "robert stone" <rstone4@hot.rr.com>
>>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>>Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:56:55 -0600
>>
>>Members
>> Can any of you who have built the ZodiacXL with aileron trim tell me
>> how long in hours it took you to install the trim system complete ready
>> for use.
>>
>>Tracy Stone
>>ZodiacXL
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a
> month. Intro*Terms
> https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f6&disc=y&vers=743&s=4056&p=5117
>
>
>
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: aileron trim system |
If I remember correctly about an afternoon. This was on an aileron that was not
mounted to the plane and the wing had not yet been built.
[quote="rstone4(at)hot.rr.com"]Members
Can any of you who have built the ZodiacXL with aileron trim tell me how
long in hours it took you to install the trim system complete ready for use.
Tracy Stone
ZodiacXL
> [b]
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97975#97975
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: aileron trim system |
He Michael,
Thanks much for the responce. I had it figured at just about 5
hours also. Chuck Wacker also responded and his estimate was 5 hours so
I think that must be just about right. It's on an aircraft currently
under construction.
Tracy
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Valentine
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
I don' t know if you mean a retrofit on an already finished plane -
but building it as part of the kit (after aileron perviously finished),
definitely took less than 10 hours. Probably less than 5. (I had nylon
conduit to run the wire through so I had nothing to do inside the wing.)
Michael in NH
do not archive
On 2/28/07, robert stone <rstone4@hot.rr.com> wrote:
Members
Can any of you who have built the ZodiacXL with aileron trim
tell me how long in hours it took you to install the trim system
complete ready for use.
Tracy Stone
ZodiacXL
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | LRI versus Stall warning |
Not cheap though. The Sport model is about $900 while the Pro model (which I
have) is almost $1500. The system is a better deal if (like Ed) you get it
built-in with the EFS glass panels.
I haven't installed mine and will be using the AOA built into the MGL Enigma
instead. But you can build the same flush-mount ports by buying flush static
port fittings from Spruce. The valve to drain the port on the top of the
wing is just a fuel tank testing valve. If your wing tips are still open
then the numbers from AFS indicate that installing the ports through the
tips will place the probes sufficiently far enough from the wing tips for an
accurate reading and at the correct spots on the chord.
-- Craig
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flying into Canada |
MessageFound these pages on Transport Canada site.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part4/Standards/t4240
2.htm
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp185/4-06/Medical.htm
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Noel Loveys
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:07 PM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
Don't you have a class 3 for your PPL?
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Phillips
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:45 AM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
Thanks, Mark
In my case, I would be looking at flying with a PPL, but flying light
sport without a class 3 medical, i.e., with a driver's license. As long as
you're asking, try to find out about that situation. Thank you for looking
into this for us. It would be great if our respective governments would get
together and develop rules with reasonable reciprocity for each other's
pilots.
Terry
At 11:49 PM 2/27/2007 -0500, you wrote:
Terry your right, I will contact Transport tomorrow. I believe that
the plane is able to enter into Canada but the pilot needs to have a private
or better license. Our Recreational permit in Canada is not allowed to fly
in the U.S. and your LSA permit will not allow you to cross into Canada. Our
Ultralight pilots may cross into the U.S. authorization but the U.S.
Ultralights may not cross into Canada due to the fact that U.S. ultralight
pilots don't have any license. I answered Tim's enquiry knowing that he
holds a private license and did not consider the LSA permit.
Now having said all that and I will check into it for everyone, I know
that harmonization between the two countries is under serious consideration
and we may see something come into effect by years end which would allow LSA
and Recreational permits to cross the border either way. ( but not U.S.
Recreational permit, that is a different animal altogether.) Both planes
Gross and pilots permits are being discussed at Transport Canada's CARAC
meetings.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
Terry Phillips
ttp44@rkymtn.net
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: aileron trim system |
remember when connecting the trims that they move opposite to the direction you
need to go, they are designed to move the main aileron and elevator up and down.
so down trim pushes aileron up, for left turn. etc...
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: robert stone <rstone4@hot.rr.com>
>Sent: Feb 28, 2007 3:58 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>
>He Michael,
> Thanks much for the responce. I had it figured at just about 5 hours also.
Chuck Wacker also responded and his estimate was 5 hours so I think that must
be just about right. It's on an aircraft currently under construction.
>
>Tracy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Valentine
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>
>
> I don' t know if you mean a retrofit on an already finished plane - but building
it as part of the kit (after aileron perviously finished), definitely took
less than 10 hours. Probably less than 5. (I had nylon conduit to run the
wire through so I had nothing to do inside the wing.)
>
> Michael in NH
>
> do not archive
>
>
> On 2/28/07, robert stone <rstone4@hot.rr.com> wrote:
> Members
> Can any of you who have built the ZodiacXL with aileron trim tell me
how long in hours it took you to install the trim system complete ready for use.
>
> Tracy Stone
> ZodiacXL
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
>http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What does it mean? |
i agree that it may nbot pass as is, becuase the GAO has a report that says the
FAA is a terrible revenue collector. this would make FAA a revenue collector.
and off /on peak? this is not a high way, and it looks to privatise the air
usage like a private Hwy.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@cox.net>
>Sent: Feb 28, 2007 3:51 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: What does it mean?
>
>
>Steven,
>
>Please reread my post. I was hardly supportive of the FAA plan. What I said was
it wasn't as bad as it could have been. It well could have had fees any service
used. While the increase in the tax is a fairly hefty bump in many cases it
can be completely avoided by burning Mogas.
>
>Most of the airports where there will be a fee already have landing fees that
push them out of the average LSA flight plan.
>
>I will repeat though that TAXES ARE BAD and I really don't think this one will
pass as is.
>
>--------
>W.R. "Gig" Giacona
>601XL Under Construction
>See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97973#97973
>
>
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
i subscribe. i bought the entire list of all, going back 1984. the older ones
I find quite informative, the newer ones less so. great stuff on the older ones
about MODs to the 601, how tos, tips and tricks, the newer ones I have recieved
are mostly testimonials (ho-hum)and ADs on Rotax engines, also for sale
estate sales. I think its worth buying the entire set and reading some of the
opld tips, they are still very applicable.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian McClelland <macstar@raider.co.nz>
>Sent: Feb 24, 2007 2:30 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Zenair News
>
>
>Do any list members subscribe to the Zenair Newsletters?
>If so any comments as to the quality/usefulness of the publication?
>On the face of it to me it appears to be necessary to ensure you have the
>latest recommendations and safety information from Zenith. I have some
>reservations about having to pay money for safety related and technical
>information that should be readily available to anyone who has purchased a
>set of plans or a kit.
>An E-mail service would be a low cost option.
>Are there any opinions out there?
>
>Ian McClelland
>New Zealand
>Plans builder of 601XL. Tail and flight controls done. Wings started.
>
>
>
>
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | aileron trim system |
Isn't the position of the large control surfaces actually unchanged by the
trim (dictated by the control cables or tubes). I thought the trim tabs just
deflect small amounts of air on their own.
-- Craig
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Once the FAA realizes that some people are using mo gas and flying without
paying aviation fuel taxes they will be back before congress wanted to get the
funds some other way. At the current time I can buy gas for my tractor
without paying tax on it, but if I put it in my car I am required to report how
much I used and send in the bucks. I have also been hearing rumors for the last
several years that 100LL is on its way out. Should it be discontinued even
the FAA will realize we're burning something else and what ever it is needs to
be taxed. I think that if the FAA gets their fuel tax, we mo gas burners are
only safe for a short time.
I am a member of both the EAA and AOPA and like others I will write letters
and make phone calls as these two groups suggest. I don't have a problem with
paying my fair share, I just don't like the ATA deciding what my fair share
is.
CJ
do not archive
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LRI versus Stall warning |
Hi Larry,
It is my understanding that the LRI and related
Angle of Attack instruments actually do a lot
more for you than a stall warning device does.
All the stall warning device does is give you a
warning that you may be near a stall.
AOA devices and the LRI actually help you to fly
your plane near the stall without risk of
actually stalling. They work to let you approach
the edge of your envelope no matter how your
plane is loaded or what the weather conditions
are. Using one of these devices you can safely
land and take off at minimum air speeds and
achieve ultimate performance with regard to
landing and takeoff distance as well as obstacle clearance.
I have never flown with one of these devices, but
all the jet pilots swear by them. I actually
built an LRI and will install it on my panel before my first flight.
Good luck,
Paul
XL fuselage
At 10:52 AM 2/28/2007, you wrote:
>
>Hi guys,
>
>Ive been reading about the Lift Reserve
>Indicator and stall warning indicators and wondering how much
>advantage there is to having a gage with the
>sensitivity of LRI range compared to a sound stall warning indicator
>that provides only a preliminary warning in advance of a stall.
>
>My panel is full and theres little room for
>anything more than a string of small lights. The stall-warning indicator
>seems to do the same thing for about the same
>effort. Any recommendations or opinions on these devices?
>
>Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
>
--
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
You do realize there is already a 19.x cent tax on 100LL now? This plan increases
the tax to 70 cents.
[quote="Trainnut01(at)aol.com"]Once the FAA realizes that some people are using
mo gas and flying without paying aviation fuel taxes they will be back before
congress wanted to get the funds some other way. At the current time I can
buy gas for my tractor without paying tax on it, but if I put it in my car I
am required to report how much I used and send in the bucks. I have also been
hearing rumors for the last several years that 100LL is on its way out. Should
it be discontinued even the FAA will realize we're burning something else
and what ever it is needs to be taxed. I think that if the FAA gets their fuel
tax, we mo gas burners are only safe for a short time.
I am a member of both the EAA and AOPA and like others I will write letters and
make phone calls as these two groups suggest. I don't have a problem with
paying my fair share, I just don't like the ATA deciding what my fair share is.
CJ
do not archive
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL
a26657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom" target="_blank">AOL.com.
> [b]
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97999#97999
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: aileron trim system |
Hi Charles,
You may want to take a look of an alternate, much simpler, trim tab
installation
that does not involve any electric motor and requires no trim tab on the
aileron.
Just go to
http://www.utdallas.edu/~klaus/Airplane/aileron_trim.html
for details.
Best wishes,
Klaus Truemper
--
Klaus Truemper
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
University of Texas at Dallas
Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and
Computer Science EC31
P.O. Box 830688
Richardson, TX 75083-0688
(972) 883-2712
klaus@utdallas.edu
www.utdallas.edu/~klaus
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Wow, this is getting way off topic - but I can't resist a few
comments on the politics and economics of FAA funding.
First, I disagree that the FAA will change their position if they
learn we are putting mogas into our little putt-putt airplanes. We
just don't use that much gas. I think the target of the gas tax
increase is the jet operators - both current biz-jets and the
expected hoard of new very light jets. Those aircraft burn so much
more fuel than our little recreational aircraft that they are the
ones facing real money cost with the gas (and Jet fuel) tax increase.
Second, I think the real motive behind the FAA proposal is to divorce
the FAA managers from congressional oversight. They don't like the
idea that mere congressmen and senators can tell the ALMIGHTY FAA
what they can and can't do. They hope by generating their own income
in a business-like fashion with the higher fuel taxes and service
fees they can become independent of all interference in their
UNLIMITED POWER. That is always what politics is about - exercise of power.
While we feel threatened by the FAA move, I am confident the business
aviation folks and members of congress will feel even more
threatened. I don't expect this whole proposal to be adopted by
congress. Still, I encourage everyone to write and call their
representatives to express their horror over this rogue agency trying
to take over the world and eliminate our freedom to fly. I actually
wrote my representatives before the push by AOPA and EAA.
I'm afraid the only hope we all (all citizens) have for free and open
use of America's skies is a brutal house cleaning of the FAA
management. If I were Emperor of the Earth I would fire them all and
start over from scratch. They never recovered any humility after
Ronald Reagan fired the ATC controllers some 20 years ago.
(End of Rant and Rage)
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive or tell the Gestapo about my opinions.
At 02:21 PM 2/28/2007, you wrote:
>Once the FAA realizes that some people are using mo gas and flying
>without paying aviation fuel taxes they will be back before congress
>wanted to get the funds some other way. At the current time I can
>buy gas for my tractor without paying tax on it, but if I put it in
>my car I am required to report how much I used and send in the
>bucks. I have also been hearing rumors for the last several years
>that 100LL is on its way out. Should it be discontinued even the FAA
>will realize we're burning something else and what ever it is needs
>to be taxed. I think that if the FAA gets their fuel tax, we mo gas
>burners are only safe for a short time.
>I am a member of both the EAA and AOPA and like others I will write
>letters and make phone calls as these two groups suggest. I don't
>have a problem with paying my fair share, I just don't like the ATA
>deciding what my fair share is.
>
>CJ
>
>do not archive
>
>
-
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...? |
You almost gave me a heart attack. Unfortunately, no sheet stock less than
.032.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 6:45 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: ID'ing Aluminum Stock...?
>
> [quote="NYTerminat(at)aol.com"]Thanks for the "heads up". They have a
> store the next town over from me, never knew they existed, looks like a
> good find.
>
> Bob Spudis
> Do not archive
>
>
> In a message dated 2/27/2007 2:47:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> ashontz@nbme.org writes:
>
>> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "ashontz"
>>
>> These guys carry 6061-T6. There's a store 500 feet down the street
>> from me that just opened up.
>>
>> http://www.fastenal.com/web/locations.ex?action=search&zip=&state=NJ
>>
>> --------
>> CH601XL - Corvair
>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>>
>
>
> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
> from AOL at AOL.com.
>> [b]
>
>
> I just went in the one near me for the first time yesterday. They seem to
> have a lot of locations. The guy working there is looking into
> availability of sheet. They can order a lot of stuff. May not even get
> charged for shipping seeing as how these places get a lot of shipments
> anyway. They wound up having the 1/2 x 1/4 x 12 foot 6061-T6 bar I needed
> for the spars, right on the shelf. And here I was driving 170 miles
> roundtrip to N. Jersey for the same thing that was literally 500 feet down
> the street. Well, ok, maybe 850 feet.
>
> --------
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97722#97722
>
>
>
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LRI versus Stall warning |
I have been following this thread for a few years and I guess it is time
for me to chime in on my thoughts. A plane flys because of the pressure
differential between the top wing surface and the bottom wing surface.
This differential is based on the airspeed, too slow and the wing cannot
support the weight of the plane and down you go, increasing airspeed a
nd the air passing over the wing will create more lift and the plane sta
ys in the air, The airspeed indicator gives this information. Suppose y
ou fly into a gust of wind that results in a tailwind componant during l
anding, The airspeed indicator will instantly show that. Ok, here is the
scenerio, someone builds a wizbang 2000 kitplane, they install a airspe
ed indicator, a Lift Reserve Indicator and a Angle Of Attach indicator.
They take off thinking they are bulletproof because of all the gizmos mo
unted in the panel. Now there are THREE things to look at during a landi
ng event instead of one. They think they can land "safely" at minimum ai
rspeeds and at the flying envelope. You fly into that gust of wind that'
s atailwind on short final and airspeed drops instantly. My question is,
,, which gauge or indicator do you trust and bet your life on ??????
do not archive
rning that you may be near a stall.
AOA devices and the LRI actually help you to fly
your plane near the stall without risk of
actually stalling. They work to let you approach
the edge of your envelope no matter how your
plane is loaded or what the weather conditions
are. Using one of these devices you can safely
land and take off at minimum air speeds and
achieve ultimate performance with regard to
landing and takeoff distance as well as obstacle clearance.
I have never flown with one of these devices, but
all the jet pilots swear by them. I actually
built an LRI and will install it on my panel before my first flight.
Good luck,
Paul
XL fuselage
At 10:52 AM 2/28/2007, you wrote:
m>
>
>Hi guys,
>
>I=92ve been reading about the Lift Reserve
>Indicator and stall warning indicators and wondering how much
>advantage there is to having a gage with the
>sensitivity of LRI range compared to a sound stall warning indicator
>that provides only a preliminary warning in advance of a stall.
>
>My panel is full and there=92s little room for
>anything more than a string of small lights. The stall-warning indicato
r
>seems to do the same thing for about the same
>effort. Any recommendations or opinions on these devices?
>
>Larry McFarland ­ 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
>
--
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
<html><P>I have been following this thread for a few years and I guess i
t is time for me to chime in on my thoughts. A plane flys because of the
pressure differential between the top wing surface and the bottom wing
surface. This differential is based on the airspeed, too slow and t
he wing cannot support the weight of the plane and down you go, inc
reasing airspeed and the air passing over the wing will create mor
e lift and the plane stays in the air, The airspeed indicator give
s this information. Suppose you fly into a gust of wind that results in
a tailwind componant during landing, The airspeed indicator will instant
ly show that. Ok, here is the scenerio, someone builds a wizbang 2000 ki
tplane, they install a airspeed indicator, a Lift Reserve Indicator and
a Angle Of Attach indicator. They take off thinking they are bullet
proof because of all the gizmos mounted in the panel. Now there are THRE
E things to look at during a landing event instead of one. They think th
ey can land "safely" at minimum airspeeds and at the flying envelope. Yo
u fly into that gust of wind that's atailwind on short final and airspee
d drops instantly. My question is,,, which gauge or indicator do you tru
st and bet your life on ??????</P>
<P>do not archive<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR
><BR><BR><BR>rning that you may be near a&
nbsp;stall.<BR><BR>AOA devices and the LRI actu
ally help you to fly <BR>your plane n
ear the stall without risk of <BR>actually
stalling. They work to let you 
;approach <BR>the edge of your envelope no
matter how your <BR>plane is loaded
or what the weather conditions <BR>are. &n
bsp;Using one of these devices you can&nbs
p;safely <BR>land and take off at minimum&
nbsp;air speeds and <BR>achieve ultimate perfor
mance with regard to <BR>landing and takeo
ff distance as well as obstacle clearance.
<BR><BR>I have never flown with one of&nbs
p;these devices, but <BR>all the jet pilot
s swear by them. I actually <BR>buil
t an LRI and will install it on
my panel before my first flight.<BR><BR>Good&nb
sp;luck,<BR><BR>Paul<BR>XL fuselage<BR><BR><BR>At 10:52 A
M 2/28/2007, you wrote:<BR>>--> Zenith-List&nb
sp;message posted by: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsm
achine.com><BR>><BR>>Hi guys,<BR>><BR>>I=92ve b
een reading about the Lift Reserve <BR>>
;Indicator and stall warning indicators and&nbs
p;wondering how much<BR>>advantage there is
to having a gage with the <BR>>sensitiv
ity of LRI range compared to a sound&
nbsp;stall warning indicator<BR>>that provides on
ly a preliminary warning in advance of&nbs
p;a stall.<BR>><BR>>My panel is full and&
nbsp;there=92s little room for <BR>>anything 
;more than a string of small lights.
The stall-warning indicator<BR>>seems to do
the same thing for about the same <BR
>>effort. Any recommendations or opinions on
these devices?<BR>><BR>>Larry McFarland ­
601HDS at www.macsmachine.com<BR>><BR>><BR><BR>--&
========================
- The Ze
atronics List Features Navigator to browse<BR>_
-= the many List utilities such as
sp; --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Lis
========================
sp; - NE
at content now also available via the 
========================
=================</P>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
Hey, guys-
Go back to the start of the string, I didn't say this!! I'm the one
who originally figured the rivet was too short. When the poster said it
was the correct length rivet, the only thing I could think of was the
bucking bar wasn't stout enough.
I tried setting mine by hand using a wimpy piece of metal for
backing and had the same problem until I went with a chunk of steel big
enough to be an anvil.
I have enough stupid observations in the archives. I don't need help
to become a legend- I can do it myself!!
do not archive
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: Flydog1966@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6
rivets
In a message dated 2/26/2007 9:29:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
naumuk@alltel.net writes:
In fact
>, they're just not going any further. The shape is
> nice, just not expanding anymore, nor are they compressing
anymore.
do not archive
No matter how work hardened your rivets are,(or what size bucking
bar your using) you should be able to flatten them puppies flatter than
a pancake !
Do you have a regulator on your compressor? Turn it up more.
Same if there is a regulator on your gun.
Watch the regulator gauge as you drive a test rivet.Does the
pressure drop to low?
Or just fer shins-n-grigles, take the gun,and test piece, to your
local garage where they have a real compressor,and ask them if you can
try it there. That is if your using one of those small tank "home"
compressors. I'm not saying they wont work,I have used them just
fine,but maybe your model will not.
I just can not believe that a good rivet gun,with adequate air
pressure ,and flow rate, will not pound the
crap out of them.
Phil Day
701 scrap builder
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more
326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=http://www.aol.com"
l?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom" target="_blank">AOL.com.
Message 61
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LRI versus Stall warning |
I'd like to hear from someone out there who has first hand knowledge of the stall
characteristics of the XL. I suspect that it's stalls are gentle and give
you plenty of warning, but would like to know if that is not the case.
Truthfully, I have never paid much attention to stall warning devices in my flying
career. In fact, the Champ I fly now has no such device and I don't miss
it.
One of the first things I do when checking out in a new aircraft is take it up
and stall it at different attitudes and airspeeds. I also check out it's behavior
in "slow flight" and other regimes of flight. Back in the pattern I trim
for an approach speed at around 1.3-1.4 times the stall speed in the landing configuration
and go from there. I suspect that the XL gives plenty of warning
when approaching the stall and that once a person has familiarized themselves
with the aircraft they should be able to avoid trouble quite easily. The decision
as to whether to install an AOA indicator, stall warning or the like depends
on what you need to feel comfortable in the aircraft.
Tim
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98019#98019
Message 62
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: aileron trim system |
Craig,
The trim actually exerts a force that will move the aileron slightly. When the
trim tab deflects up, the effect is to push the trailing edge of the aileron
down. Very tiny deflections of the aileron are all that are needed in most cases.
Tim
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98020#98020
Message 63
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
That is accurate. Would you like the short or long answer on why this is
?
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- David Downey <planecrazydld@yahoo.com> wrote:
do not archive I've always heard that the limiting factor are the piston
reversal loads at the top of the exhaust stroke.
ontz"
ronlee wrote:
> There is one thing no one has addressd yet is the surface speeds of la
rge and small displacement engines. Small engines have shorter strokes a
nd smaller crankshaft journals. An engine with a two inch stroke will ha
ve to turn twice as fast to get the same piston surface speed as a large
engine with a four inch stroke. The same holds for crankshaft journals
etc. Also the centrifugal force increases as rotating parts increase in
size as they swing a larger arc. In essence, smaller engines do not enco
unter that much if any increase in stress over large engines. A high RPM
engine with a reduction for final output RPM such as a propeller can ha
ve a much smaller crankshaft, as much less torque is being transfered to
the business end of the crankshaft. The end torque is increased through
the gearbox. With a direct drive engine all the final torque must be ca
rried by the crank, so it must be much heavier.
> Ron L.
It's not the surface speed as much as the stress from reversal of stroke
s. Higher revving engines will generally have a shorter stroke and a lar
ger bore to displace the same amount of expanding gas. There's still ple
nty of stress in the reversal of strokes and would probably be equal. Th
e smaller cranks and bearings is probably more due to the fact that the
higher revving engine is creating more HP per pound, but not as much tor
que, therefore no need for a heavy crank. The torque gets developed in t
he PSRU.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
===============
<html><P>That is accurate. Would you like the short or long answer on wh
y this is?</P>
<P>do not archive<BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.haaspowerair
.com<BR><BR>-- David Downey <planecrazydld@yahoo.com&g
t; wrote:<BR></P>
<DIV>do not archive</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I've always heard that the limiting factor are the piston reversal
loads at the top of the exhaust stroke.<BR><BR><B><I>ashontz <ashontz
@nbme.org></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--> Zenith-List message posted by: "
ashontz" <ASHONTZ@NBME.ORG><BR><BR><BR>ronlee wrote:<BR>> There is on
e thing no one has addressd yet is the surface speeds of large and small
displacement engines. Small engines have shorter strokes and smaller cr
ankshaft journals. An engine with a two inch stroke will have to turn tw
ice as fast to get the same piston surface speed as a large engine with
a four inch stroke. The same holds for crankshaft journals etc. Also the
centrifugal force increases as rotating parts increase in size as they
swing a larger arc. In essence, smaller engines do not encounter that mu
ch if any increase in stress over large engines. A high RPM engine with
a reduction for final output RPM such as a propeller can have a much sma
ller crankshaft, as much less torque is being transfered to the business
end of the crankshaft. The end torque is increased through the gearbox.
With a direct drive engine all the final torque must be carried by the
crank, so it must be much heavier.<BR>> Ron L.<BR><BR><BR>It's not th
e surface speed as much as the stress from reversal of strokes. Higher r
evving engines will generally have a shorter stroke and a larger bore to
displace the same amount of expanding gas. There's still plenty of stre
ss in the reversal of strokes and would probably be equal. The smaller c
ranks and bearings is probably more due to the fact that the higher revv
ing engine is creating more HP per pound, but not as much torque, theref
ore no need for a heavy crank. The torque gets developed in the PSRU.<BR
><BR>--------<BR>CH601XL - Corvair<BR>www.mykitlog.com/ashontz<BR><BR><B
R><BR><BR>Read this
<HR SIZE=1>
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? <A href="http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/?fr
=oni_on_mail&#news">Find a flick</A> in no time<BR>with the<A href
="http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/?fr=oni_on_mail&#news"
>Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.</A> <PRE><B><FONT face="courie
r new,courier" color=#000000 size=2>
========================
===========
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List</A>
========================
===========
tronics.com</A>
========================
===========
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 64
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LRI versus Stall warning |
I'm just a low time recreational pilot and I think there are surely
wiser and more experienced minds monitoring this list, so I'll give this
topic my best shot and those who know more can correct any errors or
oversights.
First, a lift reserve indicator (LRI) and an AOA indicator are pretty
much the same instrument with slightly different operating details. I
don't think many builders will install both in the same panel so don't
lose sleep about having to monitor both. If you are flying an approach
or a climb out by reference to angle of attack, you will be scanning
both the ASI and the AOA using the throttle and stick to keep the flight
within a safe envelope. For example, if the touchdown point is rising in
the windshield, a little back pressure slows the descent and a bit of
additional throttle keeps the AOA pegged where you want it.
Third, I think (hope) what Paul mean to convey was that using these
instruments allows you to better determine what a safe margin above
stall speed actually is at any moment of flight. I don't think it's a
great idea to fly right on the edge of a stall at low altitude with or
without one of these gadgets. The advantage of an AOA indicator is that
unlike a stall warning horn it tells you accurately how close you are to
the critical angle at which your lift will abandon you. Since the speed
at which that happens can vary a lot with atmospheric conditions,
loading, and the general condition of the plane, the margin between the
stall horn and the stall can increase or decrease too. The AOA
instrument gives you more and better information.
Now does this mean that stall horns are the agents of the antichrist?
Obviously not. Are you doomed if you don't install and use an AOA or LRI
instrument? Nope. Is it easier to fly safely using one of these
instruments? Yes it is.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it,
Dred
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh@netzero.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 5:57 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: LRI versus Stall warning
I have been following this thread for a few years and I guess it is
time for me to chime in on my thoughts. A plane flys because of the
pressure differential between the top wing surface and the bottom wing
surface. This differential is based on the airspeed, too slow and the
wing cannot support the weight of the plane and down you go, increasing
airspeed and the air passing over the wing will create more lift and the
plane stays in the air, The airspeed indicator gives this information.
Suppose you fly into a gust of wind that results in a tailwind componant
during landing, The airspeed indicator will instantly show that. Ok,
here is the scenerio, someone builds a wizbang 2000 kitplane, they
install a airspeed indicator, a Lift Reserve Indicator and a Angle Of
Attach indicator. They take off thinking they are bulletproof because of
all the gizmos mounted in the panel. Now there are THREE things to look
at during a landing event instead of one. They think they can land
"safely" at minimum airspeeds and at the flying envelope. You fly into
that gust of wind that's atailwind on short final and airspeed drops
instantly. My question is,,, which gauge or indicator do you trust and
bet your life on ??????
do not archive
rning that you may be near a stall.
AOA devices and the LRI actually help you to fly
your plane near the stall without risk of
actually stalling. They work to let you approach
the edge of your envelope no matter how your
plane is loaded or what the weather conditions
are. Using one of these devices you can safely
land and take off at minimum air speeds and
achieve ultimate performance with regard to
landing and takeoff distance as well as obstacle clearance.
I have never flown with one of these devices, but
all the jet pilots swear by them. I actually
built an LRI and will install it on my panel before my first flight.
Good luck,
Paul
XL fuselage
At 10:52 AM 2/28/2007, you wrote:
<larry@macsmachine.com>
>
>Hi guys,
>
>I've been reading about the Lift Reserve
>Indicator and stall warning indicators and wondering how much
>advantage there is to having a gage with the
>sensitivity of LRI range compared to a sound stall warning indicator
>that provides only a preliminary warning in advance of a stall.
>
>My panel is full and there's little room for
>anything more than a string of small lights. The stall-warning
indicator
>seems to do the same thing for about the same
>effort. Any recommendations or opinions on these devices?
>
>Larry McFarland =AD 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
>
--&========================
- The Zeatronics List Features Navigator to browse
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Lis==========
==============sp; - NEat content
now also available via the
===============
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/28/2007 4:09 PM
Message 65
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LRI versus Stall warning |
stalls in the 601 are yaaaawwwnn inducing, 0n slow flight you can get to full
flaps, and trim for 50 knots, start pulling back and you think it will hang on
the prop, then just when the speed gauge starts coming out of the green arch
at around 40 knots, a little shutter, you push the nose and your done. the
plane loses at most 200 ft. Yaaawwwnn. zzzzzzzzzzzz.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Tim Juhl <juhl@avci.net>
>Sent: Feb 28, 2007 7:20 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: LRI versus Stall warning
>
>
>I'd like to hear from someone out there who has first hand knowledge of the stall
characteristics of the XL. I suspect that it's stalls are gentle and give
you plenty of warning, but would like to know if that is not the case.
>
>Truthfully, I have never paid much attention to stall warning devices in my flying
career. In fact, the Champ I fly now has no such device and I don't miss
it.
>
>One of the first things I do when checking out in a new aircraft is take it up
and stall it at different attitudes and airspeeds. I also check out it's behavior
in "slow flight" and other regimes of flight. Back in the pattern I trim
for an approach speed at around 1.3-1.4 times the stall speed in the landing
configuration and go from there. I suspect that the XL gives plenty of warning
when approaching the stall and that once a person has familiarized themselves
with the aircraft they should be able to avoid trouble quite easily. The decision
as to whether to install an AOA indicator, stall warning or the like depends
on what you need to feel comfortable in the aircraft.
>
>Tim
>
>--------
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>______________
>CFII
>Champ L16A flying
>Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
>Working on wings
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98019#98019
>
>
Message 66
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | LRI versus Stall warning |
Well, I *think* the carrier pilots who have AOA indicators just look at the
AOA. But I think we have real carrier pilots on this list so I'll hope for a
an answer from them.
-- Craig
do not archive
Message 67
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | aileron trim system |
nope, i thought the same thing till I want a flyin in a 601. PLane was at 2000
ft agl. with two dudes in it, it was turing slightly to the left so I hit
the right trim button. Looking left expecting to see the trim tab pointing down
I was surprised to see it up! SO looking at it I I pressed the left button,
pushing the trim down and wow, the plane turned left!. same ion the tail.
The difference between 601 and the GA piper we are used to is the trim when deflected
pushes the entire surface of the control that it is attached to in the
opposite direction. SO when you want to trim to go right the trim come up,
pushing the aileron down, raising the wing. Trim pushes down, then you get up
deflection turning the plane. On a Cub, the crank for trim lowers the leading
edge of the deflecting air up, thus up trim. The trims on the 601 and 701
Move the control surface.
After that, went home and swapped the neccessary wires to correct mine.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>Sent: Feb 28, 2007 4:38 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: aileron trim system
>
>
>Isn't the position of the large control surfaces actually unchanged by the
>trim (dictated by the control cables or tubes). I thought the trim tabs just
>deflect small amounts of air on their own.
>
>-- Craig
>
>
Message 68
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LRI versus Stall warning |
ground speed is affected, airspeed will read the same=0A=0A=0A----- Origina
l Message ----=0AFrom: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>=0ATo: zeni
th-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:57:23 PM=0ASub
ject: Re: Zenith-List: LRI versus Stall warning=0A=0A=0AI have been followi
ng this thread for a few years and I guess it is time for me to chime in on
my thoughts. A plane flys because of the pressure differential between the
top wing surface and the bottom wing surface. This differential is based o
n the airspeed, too slow and the wing cannot support the weight of the plan
e and down you go, increasing airspeed and the air passing over the wing w
ill create more lift and the plane stays in the air, The airspeed indicato
r gives this information. Suppose you fly into a gust of wind that results
in a tailwind componant during landing, The airspeed indicator will instant
ly show that. Ok, here is the scenerio, someone builds a wizbang 2000 kitpl
ane, they install a airspeed indicator, a Lift Reserve Indicator and a Angl
e Of Attach indicator. They take off thinking they are bulletproof because
of all the gizmos mounted in the panel. Now there are THREE things to look
at during a landing event instead of one. They think they can land
"safely" at minimum airspeeds and at the flying envelope. You fly into tha
t gust of wind that's atailwind on short final and airspeed drops instantly
. My question is,,, which gauge or indicator do you trust and bet your life
on ??????=0Ado not archive=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=0Arning that you may be near a stall.=0A=0AAOA devices and the LRI actuall
y help you to fly =0Ayour plane near the stall without risk of =0Aactually
stalling. They work to let you approach =0Athe edge of your envelope no ma
tter how your =0Aplane is loaded or what the weather conditions =0Aare. Us
ing one of these devices you can safely =0Aland and take off at minimum air
speeds and =0Aachieve ultimate performance with regard to =0Alanding and t
akeoff distance as well as obstacle clearance.=0A=0AI have never flown with
one of these devices, but =0Aall the jet pilots swear by them. I actually
=0Abuilt an LRI and will install it on my panel before my first flight.=0A
=0AGood luck,=0A=0APaul=0AXL fuselage=0A=0A=0AAt 10:52 AM 2/28/2007, you wr
e.com>=0A>=0A>Hi guys,=0A>=0A>I=92ve been reading about the Lift Reserve
=0A>Indicator and stall warning indicators and wondering how much=0A>advant
age there is to having a gage with the =0A>sensitivity of LRI range compare
d to a sound stall warning indicator=0A>that provides only a preliminary wa
rning in advance of a stall.=0A>=0A>My panel is full and there=92s little r
oom for =0A>anything more than a string of small lights. The stall-warning
indicator=0A>seems to do the same thing for about the same =0A>effort. Any
recommendations or opinions on these devices?=0A>=0A>Larry McFarland =AD 60
1HDS at www.macsmachine.com=0A>=0A>=0A=0A--&==========
============== - The Zeatronics List Fe
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Lis=========
===============sp; - NEat content no
w also available via the ================
===0A=0A=0A =0A________________________________________________________
____________________________=0ATV dinner still cooling? =0ACheck out "Tonig
ht's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.=0Ahttp://tv.yahoo.com/
Message 69
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
do not archive
I always want teh long answer - as long as it is defensible!
"n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:
That is accurate. Would you like the short or long answer on why this is?
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- David Downey <planecrazydld@yahoo.com> wrote:
do not archive
I've always heard that the limiting factor are the piston reversal loads at the
top of the exhaust stroke.
ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
ronlee wrote:
> There is one thing no one has addressd yet is the surface speeds of large and
small displacement engines. Small engines have shorter strokes and smaller crankshaft
journals. An engine with a two inch stroke will have to turn twice as
fast to get the same piston surface speed as a large engine with a four inch
stroke. The same holds for crankshaft journals etc. Also the centrifugal force
increases as rotating parts increase in size as they swing a larger arc. In essence,
smaller engines do not encounter that much if any increase in stress over
large engines. A high RPM engine with a reduction for final output RPM such
as a propeller can have a much smaller crankshaft, as much less torque is being
transfered to the business end of the crankshaft. The end torque is increased
through the gearbox. With a direct drive engine all the final torque must
be carried by the crank, so it must be much heavier.
> Ron L.
It's not the surface speed as much as the stress from reversal of strokes. Higher
revving engines will generally have a shorter stroke and a larger bore to displace
the same amount of expanding gas. There's still plenty of stress in the
reversal of strokes and would probably be equal. The smaller cranks and bearings
is probably more due to the fact that the higher revving engine is creating
more HP per pound, but not as much torque, therefore no need for a heavy crank.
The torque gets developed in the PSRU.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this
---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
==================================== ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List ==================================== tronics.com ====================================
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
Message 70
| 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: LRI versus Stall warning |
You don't bet your life on either device. In normally good weather and a
short strip either one of these would
seem to be capable of giving you an edge getting in short. I've already
experienced a 100-foot drop in wind
shear some 5 years ago and had but 30-feet left on final. A sudden
tailwind would be the same thing and you can't
insure against either event, but I was looking for a preferred mechanism
and may have to design a
electrical multi-light LRI readout to get the job done.
Thanks,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
> My question is,,, which gauge or indicator do you trust and bet your
> life on ??????
>
> I have never flown with one of these devices, but
> all the jet pilots swear by them. I actually
> built an LRI and will install it on my panel before my first flight.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
> >My panel is full and theres little room for
> >anything more than a string of small lights. The stall-warning indicator
> >seems to do the same thing for about the same effort. Any
> recommendations or opinions on these devices?
> >
> >Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
Message 71
| 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 |
|
Defensible huh.... My time it too valuable to waste typing the answer to
an inquiry like that..
Have a happy time building your plane...
definately DO NOT ARCHIVE
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- David Downey <planecrazydld@yahoo.com> wrote:
do not archive I always want teh long answer - as long as it is defensib
le!
"n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com> wrote:That is accurate. Would
you like the short or long answer on why this is?do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- David Downey <planecrazydld@yahoo.com> wrote:
do not archive I've always heard that the limiting factor are the piston
reversal loads at the top of the exhaust stroke.
ontz"
ronlee wrote:
> There is one thing no one has addressd yet is the surface speeds of la
rge and small displacement engines. Small engines have shorter strokes a
nd smaller crankshaft journals. An engine with a two inch stroke will ha
ve to turn twice as fast to get the same piston surface speed as a large
engine with a four inch stroke. The same holds for crankshaft journals
etc. Also the centrifugal force increases as rotating parts increase in
size as they swing a larger arc. In essence, smaller engines do not enco
unter that much if any increase in stress over large engines. A high RPM
engine with a reduction for final output RPM such as a propeller can ha
ve a much smaller crankshaft, as much less torque is being transfered to
the business end of the crankshaft. The end torque is increased through
the gearbox. With a direct drive engine all the final torque must be ca
rried by the crank, so it must be much heavier.
> Ron L.
It's not the surface speed as much as the stress from reversal of stroke
s. Higher revving engines will generally have a shorter stroke and a lar
ger bore to displace the same amount of expanding gas. There's still ple
nty of stress in the reversal of strokes and would probably be equal. Th
e smaller cranks and bearings is probably more due to the fact that the
higher revving engine is creating more HP per pound, but not as much tor
que, therefore no need for a heavy crank. The torque gets developed in t
he PSRU.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. =======
========================
===== ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
Dave DowneyHarleysville (SE) PAZodiac 601XL/Corvair?The fish are biting.
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
===================
<html><P>Defensible huh.... My time it too valuable to waste typing the
answer to an inquiry like that..</P>
<P> Have a happy time building your plane...</P>
<P>definately DO NOT ARCHIVE <BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.
haaspowerair.com<BR><BR>-- David Downey <planecrazydld
@yahoo.com> wrote:<BR></P>
<DIV>do not archive</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I always want teh long answer - as long as it is defensible!<BR><BR
><B><I>"n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com></I></B> wrote:</D
IV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<DIV>That is accurate. Would you like the short or long answer on why th
is is?</DIV>
<DIV>do not archive<BR><BR><BR>Ben Haas<BR>N801BH<BR>www.haaspowera
ir.com<BR><BR>-- David Downey <planecrazydld@yahoo.com
> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<DIV>do not archive</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I've always heard that the limiting factor are the piston reversal
loads at the top of the exhaust stroke.<BR><BR><B><I>ashontz <ashontz
@nbme.org></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--> Zenith-List message posted by: "
ashontz" <ASHONTZ@NBME.ORG><BR><BR><BR>ronlee wrote:<BR>> There is on
e thing no one has addressd yet is the surface speeds of large and small
displacement engines. Small engines have shorter strokes and smaller cr
ankshaft journals. An engine with a two inch stroke will have to turn tw
ice as fast to get the same piston surface speed as a large engine with
a four inch stroke. The same holds for crankshaft journals etc. Also the
centrifugal force increases as rotating parts increase in size as they
swing a larger arc. In essence, smaller engines do not encounter that mu
ch if any increase in stress over large engines. A high RPM engine with
a reduction for final output RPM such as a propeller can have a much sma
ller crankshaft, as much less torque is being transfered to the business
end of the crankshaft. The end torque is increased through the gearbox.
With a direct drive engine all the final torque must be carried by the
crank, so it must be much heavier.<BR>> Ron L.<BR><BR><BR>It's not th
e surface speed as much as the stress from reversal of strokes. Higher r
evving engines will generally have a shorter stroke and a larger bore to
displace the same amount of expanding gas. There's still plenty of stre
ss in the reversal of strokes and would probably be equal. The smaller c
ranks and bearings is probably more due to the fact that the higher revv
ing engine is creating more HP per pound, but not as much torque, theref
ore no need for a heavy crank. The torque gets developed in the PSRU.<BR
><BR>--------<BR>CH601XL - Corvair<BR>www.mykitlog.com/ashontz<BR><BR><B
R><BR><BR>Read this
<HR SIZE=1>
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? <A href="http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/?fr
=oni_on_mail&#news">Find a flick</A> in no time<BR>with the<A href
="http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/?fr=oni_on_mail&#news"
>Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.</A> <PRE><B><FONT face="courie
r new,courier" color=#000000 size=2> ==========
========================
== ">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List</A>
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>Dave Downey</DIV>
<DIV>Harleysville (SE) PA</DIV>
<DIV>Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?</DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR SIZE=1>
The fish are biting.<BR><A href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49679/*h
ttp://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php?o=US2140&am
p;cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Q107Tagline&s=Y&s2=EM&b=50">Ge
t more visitors</A> on your site using <A href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com
/evt=49679/*http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.ph
p?o=US2140&cmp=Yahoo&ctv=Q107Tagline&s=Y&s2=EM
&b=50">Yahoo! Search Marketing.</A> <PRE><B><FONT face="courier
new,courier" color=#000000 size=2>
========================
===========
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List</A>
========================
===========
tronics.com</A>
========================
===========
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 72
| 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: LRI versus Stall warning |
Well I have to go with opinions of several Naval Aviators that land on
carriers, at night, pitching deck & howling winds... They pick
AOA....We asked before installing AOA in HRII. Stall warnings are NOT
graduated, kinda like a low oil light. It blinks under braking when it's
almost too late. Three green, three yellow & four red tell you as you
approach. doesn't wait till your at the point of no return to do
anything. AOA, every scenario I heard so far. KABONG Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Big Gee
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: LRI versus Stall warning
ground speed is affected, airspeed will read the same
----- Original Message ----
From: "n801bh@netzero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:57:23 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: LRI versus Stall warning
I have been following this thread for a few years and I guess it is
time for me to chime in on my thoughts. A plane flys because of the
pressure differential between the top wing surface and the bottom wing
surface. This differential is based on the airspeed, too slow and the
wing cannot support the weight of the plane and down you go, increasing
airspeed and the air passing over the wing will create more lift and the
plane stays in the air, The airspeed indicator gives this information.
Suppose you fly into a gust of wind that results in a tailwind componant
during landing, The airspeed indicator will instantly show that. Ok,
here is the scenerio, someone builds a wizbang 2000 kitplane, they
install a airspeed indicator, a Lift Reserve Indicator and a Angle Of
Attach indicator. They take off thinking they are bulletproof because of
all the gizmos mounted in the panel. Now there are THREE things to look
at during a landing event instead of one. They think they can land
"safely" at minimum airspeeds and at the flying envelope. You fly into
that gust of wind that's atailwind on short final and airspeed drops
instantly. My question is,,, which gauge or indicator do you trust and
bet your life on ??????
do not archive
rning that you may be near a stall.
AOA devices and the LRI actually help you to fly
your plane near the stall without risk of
actually stalling. They work to let you approach
the edge of your envelope no matter how your
plane is loaded or what the weather conditions
are. Using one of these devices you can safely
land and take off at minimum air speeds and
achieve ultimate performance with regard to
landing and takeoff distance as well as obstacle ;clearance.
I have never flown with one of these devices, but
all the jet pilots swear by them. I actually
built an LRI and will install it on my panel before my first flight.
Good luck,
Paul
XL fuselage
At 10:52 AM 2/28/2007, you wrote:
<larry@macsmachine.com>
>
>Hi guys,
>
>I've been reading about the Lift Reserve
>Indicator and stall warning indicators and wondering how much
>advantage there is to having a gage with the
>sensitivity of LRI range comp ared to a sound stall warning indicator
>that provides only a preliminary warning in advance of a stall.
>
>My panel is full and there's little room for
>anything more than a string of small lights. The stall-warning
indicator
>seems to do the same thing for about the same
>effort. Any recommendations or opinions on these devices?
>
>Larry McFarland =AD 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
>
--&========================
- The Ze= the many List utilities such as& nbsp;sp; -->
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Lis==========
==============sp; - NEat content
now also available via the
===============
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Message 73
| 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: Solid riveting spar - setting solid AN6 rivets |
[quote="naumuk(at)alltel.net"]Hey, guys-
Go back to the start of the string, I didn't say this!! I'm the one who originally
figured the rivet was too short. When the poster said it was the correct
length rivet, the only thing I could think of was the bucking bar wasn't
stout enough.
I tried setting mine by hand using a wimpy piece of metal for backing and
had the same problem until I went with a chunk of steel big enough to be an
anvil.
I have enough stupid observations in the archives. I don't need help to become
a legend- I can do it myself!!
? ? do not archive
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuselage
Townville, Pa
> ---
The bucking bar I have is pretty substantial, as is the table, even if it is wood,
but the table may be contributing to not getting a full set on the rivet.
I'll try it with the bar on the concrete floor.
--------
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=98046#98046
Message 74
| 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: LRI versus Stall warning |
Hi Larry,
If you would like to have the LED readout without having to design
it, you might want to look at Elbie's AOA product. His web page is:
http://www.riteangle.com/index.htm
The AOA product gives you similar capabilities to the LRI. I think
they are the same, but Elbie assures me they are actually
different. Still, either one allows you to maintain whatever margin
you want over stall speed.
For me, the big advantage of the LRI is you can build one for under
$100. That is a lot less than the purchase price of any of the
completed products.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 05:31 PM 2/28/2007, you wrote:
>I was looking for a preferred mechanism and may have to design a
>electrical multi-light LRI readout to get the job done.
-
Message 75
| 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: What does it mean? |
Gig,
I realise that you are not really supportive of the FAA plan and that
it was not as bad as it could have been. And yes, the proposed tax
increase can be avoided by using Mogas - until most Mogas has ehonol!
Never-the-less, my point is and was that nobody should give them an
inch about any user fee, higher tax, etc. Doing so only restricts
freedom. No pilot should be a sheep being lead by the government wolf
- we must all be sheepdogs and keep the wolf at bay or reduce the wolf
population.
I was an air traffic controller for 20 years - rising from new
controller to facility chief and both busy and not so busy military
and joint use civil/military airports. I have been a pilot for more
than 40 years, flying in many foreign lands and the United States.
Without a doubt, every single other country in the world has a system
that cannot match ours for individual freedom and cost - including
Canada, Australia and the few other countries that have relatively
free sky's.The current FAA system is not even close to being broke or
out of money. It is the best in the world and the only reasons this or
any administration wants to change it are: Gain more power and control
over pilots. Ensure that airlines have the most say and that the
system caters to them before all others.
Granting fees for any use at any place paid by any group will only
lead to a complete system of user fees. Fight them all the time every
chance that you can and at every venue that you can. That is the only
way we will win.
Do Not Archive
--
Semper Fi,
Steven R. Hulland
CH 600 Taildragger
Amado, AZ
This and all other incoming/outgoing email, attachments and replies
scanned prior to opening/sending and uses an external firewall to help
insure virus free email and attachments.
Message 76
| 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: | Flying into Canada |
Ok I was wondering because your PPL and class 3 is accepted by TC. I
don't
think the sport pilot license is an issue with TC but the drivers
license
medical is. Some of us have been pushing for a similar medical for
quite
some time but there is no standardization of drivers medical
requirements.
Newfoundland as far as I know doesn't even have a drivers license
medical
for regular drivers licences. We do have a medical for large trucks,
busses
and air brakes.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Phillips
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:00 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
I do right now, but I do not plan to renew it. I plan to fly under sport
pilot rules from here on out. It's a long story.
Terry
do not archive
At 02:36 PM 2/28/2007 -0330, you wrote:
Don't you have a class 3 for your PPL?
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Phillips
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:45 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flying into Canada
Thanks, Mark
In my case, I would be looking at flying with a PPL, but flying light
sport
without a class 3 medical, i.e., with a driver's license. As long as
you're
asking, try to find out about that situation. Thank you for looking into
this for us. It would be great if our respective governments would get
together and develop rules with reasonable reciprocity for each other's
pilots.
Terry
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
Just starting a 601 kit
Message 77
| 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: | Flying into Canada |
Thanks, Noel
I appreciate your information, and Mark's, as well, though I was hoping for
the opposite result.
In my experience in the US, none of the 6 states in which I've been
licensed to drive do any medical checks on drivers other than vision. I
can't recall what the questionnaires I filled out for drivers licenses
asked about medical conditions. In any case, they were nothing like the
questionnaire for the FAA Class 3 medical.
But I'm just starting to build. Perhaps TC will change their position on
class 3 medical vs. driver's license before I finish. I sure would like to
fly my 601 to Alaska--when I get it done!
Terry
do not archive
At 11:38 PM 2/28/2007 -0330, you wrote:
>Ok I was wondering because your PPL and class 3 is accepted by TC. I
>don't think the sport pilot license is an issue with TC but the drivers
>license medical is. Some of us have been pushing for a similar medical
>for quite some time but there is no standardization of drivers medical
>requirements. Newfoundland as far as I know doesn't even have a drivers
>license medical for regular drivers licences. We do have a medical for
>large trucks, busses and air brakes.
>
>
>Noel
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
Just starting a 601 kit
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! --
|