---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 03/28/07: 52 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:59 AM - Re: Flap Motor Switch (Gary Ray) 2. 04:33 AM - Re: xxx Re: xxx Re: Re: Making an LRI probe (John Bolding) 3. 04:47 AM - Re: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (Jomar Quiroga) 4. 04:50 AM - Re: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (Jomar Quiroga) 5. 04:53 AM - Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (ashontz) 6. 05:00 AM - Re: Older Style Wheel Pants (Gary Ray) 7. 05:01 AM - Re: xxx Re: xxx Re: Re: Making an LRI probe (John Bolding) 8. 05:13 AM - e: xxx Re: xxx Re: Re: Making an LRI probe (John Bolding) 9. 05:36 AM - Re: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (David Downey) 10. 05:38 AM - Re: Apology (steveadams) 11. 06:02 AM - Re: e: xxx Re: xxx Re: Re: Making an LRI probe (Paul Mulwitz) 12. 06:05 AM - Re: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (Paul Mulwitz) 13. 06:38 AM - Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (ashontz) 14. 06:48 AM - LRI gauge artwork (Dino Bortolin) 15. 07:03 AM - Re: Re: Older Style Wheel Pants (LarryMcFarland) 16. 07:18 AM - e: xxx xxx Re: Making an LRI probe (n85ae) 17. 08:37 AM - Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (TxDave) 18. 08:44 AM - Re: Flap Motor Switch (Ron Ellis) 19. 08:45 AM - Re: LRI gauge artwork (Michael Valentine) 20. 09:00 AM - Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (ashontz) 21. 09:02 AM - Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (ashontz) 22. 09:16 AM - Re: Flap Motor Switch (txpilot) 23. 09:47 AM - Re: Re: Flap Motor Switch (NYTerminat@aol.com) 24. 09:50 AM - Re: Re: Flap Motor Switch (Afterfxllc@aol.com) 25. 10:01 AM - Re: Re: Flap Motor Switch (Paul Mulwitz) 26. 10:28 AM - Re: Re: Flap Motor Switch (Flydog1966@aol.com) 27. 11:20 AM - Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (TxDave) 28. 11:22 AM - Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (ashontz) 29. 11:41 AM - Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... (Bima, Martin) 30. 12:03 PM - 601HD wings modified to 23' (ray) 31. 12:25 PM - Re: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... (Frank Stutzman) 32. 01:04 PM - Re: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... (JOHN STARN) 33. 01:36 PM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (n801bh@netzero.com) 34. 02:02 PM - Re: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... (Gig Giacona) 35. 02:08 PM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (R.P.) 36. 02:15 PM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (Gig Giacona) 37. 02:53 PM - Re: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (R.P.) 38. 03:28 PM - Re: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... (n801bh@netzero.com) 39. 04:05 PM - Re: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (David Downey) 40. 04:16 PM - Re: e: xxx Re: xxx Re: Re: Making an LRI probe (John Bolding) 41. 04:22 PM - Re: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... (David Downey) 42. 04:23 PM - Re: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... (Tim Juhl) 43. 05:11 PM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (Gig Giacona) 44. 05:16 PM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (Bill Naumuk) 45. 05:30 PM - Re: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... (NYTerminat@aol.com) 46. 06:29 PM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (rickpitcher) 47. 06:30 PM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (rickpitcher) 48. 06:36 PM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (rickpitcher) 49. 06:54 PM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (rickpitcher) 50. 06:54 PM - Re: Apology () 51. 07:07 PM - Re: acrobatics on 601s () 52. 09:25 PM - Re: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... (Frank Stutzman) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:59:34 AM PST US From: "Gary Ray" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Flap Motor Switch I can add that a 7.5 amp fuse is not sufficient under flight loads. I use a 15 a and it is fine. Gary Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Payne" Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 7:40 PM Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flap Motor Switch > > I measured the steady-state draw of the factory actuator at 3-4 amps with no > mechanical load. I assume there is an initial surge that my meter doesn't > see and that the draw will be higher when actually moving the flaps in > flight. > > -- Craig > > > -- 2:31 PM > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:33:25 AM PST US From: "John Bolding" Subject: Re: xxx Re: xxx Re: Zenith-List: Re: Making an LRI probe Ron, My last message to the group got lost in space. When I announced,all the inventory evaporated in 3 hrs. I have another batch of 50 coming in a week or so. I'll keep your email and send out notices to those who got left behind the first time before I make the next announcement. thanks for your interest. John ----- Original Message ----- From: R.D.(Ron) Leclerc To: John Bolding Cc: R.D.(Ron) Leclerc Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:33 PM Subject: xxx Re: xxx Re: Zenith-List: Re: Making an LRI probe Hey John Don't know if you received my other e-mail... I'm interested in acquiring a probe if available - I have a gauge... need a nice picture for the face yet though! Please let me if available and payment procedures. Thank you Ron Leclerc infow@mts.net 204-227-8324 **************** Been holding off this discussion as I didn't have things quite together but lots of guys are looking for probes so I'll post what I have. I can supply these for $30, injection molded. they have 1/8" NPT (F) threads on the top. These are in stock. Been looking around for a good silkscreener for the guage face but haven't found one yet that I like so you're on your own there for the immediate future. I'll have them however as soon as I can. I'll post a picture of the probes as soon as I figure out how. Probes are black and made from nylon so rest assured that paint is probably not gonna stick. John Bolding --> http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:47:30 AM PST US From: Jomar Quiroga Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures Thanks! I'm sure I've got plenty of time to rebuild my brake since I'm still on the rudder. I'll do 8' next time. Happy building!//Jomar The section covering the fuel tank will overlap the others at the flanges of nose ribs 3 and 4. Butting the skins together is not mentioned in the ZAC Construction Standards and was never considered. I'm going with the standard tanks. My sweet wife can't go too long without a pit stop on road trips in the car, so.... do not archive Dave Clay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103339#103339 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:50:07 AM PST US From: Jomar Quiroga Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures wrong email replied on. Pls ignore my last email. It was only meant for Dave. He's been helping me on some of my beginner questions. Sorry folks. The section covering the fuel tank will overlap the others at the flanges of nose ribs 3 and 4. Butting the skins together is not mentioned in the ZAC Construction Standards and was never considered. I'm going with the standard tanks. My sweet wife can't go too long without a pit stop on road trips in the car, so.... do not archive Dave Clay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103339#103339 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 04:53:07 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures From: "ashontz" At least she'll fly with you. :) So the inboard skin ends at rib 4, the outboard skin starts at rib 5, then the center skin overlaps both and starts at rib 3 and extends to rib 6? Sounds good. I may go with that too. You said ZAC approved that, right? That's not a bad way to go in case you have to get in there and fart with the tank. The only problem I see with that is the back side of the rivets if you have to drill them out. I guess you still have decent access through the lightening holes. I'd imagine that ZAC would aprrove of this for the 15 gallon tanks too? So you're longest nose skin is roughly 6 feet, if that long. Should be about as hard to restle with as the stabilizer skin, and that was a piece of cake. do not archive TxDave wrote: > The section covering the fuel tank will overlap the others at the flanges of nose ribs 3 and 4. Butting the skins together is not mentioned in the ZAC Construction Standards and was never considered. I'm going with the standard tanks. My sweet wife can't go too long without a pit stop on road trips in the car, so.... > > do not archive > > Dave Clay -------- Andy Shontz CH601XL - Corvair www.mykitlog.com/ashontz Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103362#103362 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 05:00:25 AM PST US From: "Gary Ray" Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Older Style Wheel Pants Rather than give up on them, Has anybody tried to remodel the older style wheel pants for a sleeker appearance and function? I have not installed the ones that I have because I don't like the appearance. Gary Ray ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:01:59 AM PST US From: "John Bolding" Subject: Re: xxx Re: xxx Re: Zenith-List: Re: Making an LRI probe Wrong picture, sorry John ----- Original Message ----- From: R.D.(Ron) Leclerc To: John Bolding Cc: R.D.(Ron) Leclerc Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:33 PM Subject: xxx Re: xxx Re: Zenith-List: Re: Making an LRI probe Hey John Don't know if you received my other e-mail... I'm interested in acquiring a probe if available - I have a gauge... need a nice picture for the face yet though! Please let me if available and payment procedures. Thank you Ron Leclerc infow@mts.net 204-227-8324 **************** Been holding off this discussion as I didn't have things quite together but lots of guys are looking for probes so I'll post what I have. I can supply these for $30, injection molded. they have 1/8" NPT (F) threads on the top. These are in stock. Been looking around for a good silkscreener for the guage face but haven't found one yet that I like so you're on your own there for the immediate future. I'll have them however as soon as I can. I'll post a picture of the probes as soon as I figure out how. Probes are black and made from nylon so rest assured that paint is probably not gonna stick. John Bolding --> http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 05:13:10 AM PST US From: "John Bolding" Subject: e: xxx Re: xxx Re: Zenith-List: Re: Making an LRI probe OOPS, last message was not for the list, need to wake up before I hit the send key. Also wrong pic. Might as well correct for everybody. First batch of probes went in 3 hrs. another 50 on the way, If interested send an email and I'll notify you priviatly. All that have emailed so far are on the list. Sorry for the confusion John ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 05:36:25 AM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures Not having my drawings with me onthe road, this observation may be silly... Why can't the rib flanges simply be oriented towards the tank bay? That way if you do have to remove the tank-covering skin, no FOD will result that is not readily removed while the causative work is being done in the bay... I like the 3 piece leading edge concept as well as anything I have heard since I started monitoring the list. I also was wondering what, speciifically, ZAC approved and did they put it in writing? Were the proposed changes simply discussed verbally or were there any sketches submitted? If no documentation was submitted I will draw up the change and forward the CAD file to ZAC for "official" approval or correction. I was even wondering if the tank-covering skin could be attached with nutplates and screws or if the tank itself could be like the Cherokee's and be the leading edge proper... ashontz wrote: At least she'll fly with you. :) So the inboard skin ends at rib 4, the outboard skin starts at rib 5, then the center skin overlaps both and starts at rib 3 and extends to rib 6? Sounds good. I may go with that too. You said ZAC approved that, right? That's not a bad way to go in case you have to get in there and fart with the tank. The only problem I see with that is the back side of the rivets if you have to drill them out. I guess you still have decent access through the lightening holes. I'd imagine that ZAC would aprrove of this for the 15 gallon tanks too? So you're longest nose skin is roughly 6 feet, if that long. Should be about as hard to restle with as the stabilizer skin, and that was a piece of cake. do not archive TxDave wrote: > The section covering the fuel tank will overlap the others at the flanges of nose ribs 3 and 4. Butting the skins together is not mentioned in the ZAC Construction Standards and was never considered. I'm going with the standard tanks. My sweet wife can't go too long without a pit stop on road trips in the car, so.... > > do not archive > > Dave Clay -------- Andy Shontz CH601XL - Corvair www.mykitlog.com/ashontz Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103362#103362 Dave Downey Harleysville (SE) PA Zodiac 601XL/Corvair? --------------------------------- Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 05:38:15 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Apology From: "steveadams" [quote="NYTerminat(at)aol.com"]In a message dated 3/27/2007 8:09:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ashontz@nbme.org writes: > > Just from memory, I thought a regular Cessna 152 was +4 and -3 Gs where as an aerobat is +6, -6 Gs, which is the same as a 601Xl, so wouldn't that by default qualify a 601XL as an aerobatic plane by default? That wouldn't apply to the 701 though. Why not? The 701 is the same +6 and -3 ultimate load at gross weight. > > > AOL now offersle="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339" href="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339" target="_blank">AOL.com. > [b] You are comparing apples and oranges here. The +/- 6G's is the ultimate load factor for the Zodiac, while a certified aircraft generally give the flight load factor. For certified aircraft, the ultimate + load must be at least 5.7G, for utility 6.6G, and for aerobatic 9.0 G, and that's the minimum. The Sukhoi's ultimate load factor is +/-23 G's. The Zodiac doesn't make the utility category, let alone the aerobatic category. Of course it's an experimental and you can do what you want. Do everything right and you'll never have a problem. I'm sure no one ever botched a maneuver, thus the incredibly low aerobatic accident rate in the NTSB files. There are a lot of great things about experimental aviation; you have a lot of freedom and there is a huge choice of aircraft designs out there. You can choose a 2 seat design, stuff 4 seats in it and increase the gross weight by 500 lbs if you want to. You can tell yourself you baby the plane and don't need the safety factor, so it's perfectly safe for you and the way you fly. But it would probably be a better idea to choose a design that better fits your needs. It's the same with aerobatics and the Zodiac. If you really want to do aerobatics, wouldn't it make more sense to choose a design more appropriate to your needs? You can rationalize anything, and cite 100 examples of people having no problems doing what you propose doing. Sure people have probably looped about every GA aircraft out there, usually with no ill effects. It still doesn't make it smart. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103375#103375 ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:02:51 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: e: xxx Re: xxx Re: Zenith-List: Re: Making an LRI probe Hi John, I took a look at your LRI probe picture and noticed it is significantly different from the one that I made. I did mine according to the drawing I got online. It seems you have rounded and angled the edges differently. I wonder, have you done any testing on this new probe design? Does it work the same as the original design? Does it work better? What happens when you put your plane in a forward slip with this new design? Paul XL fuselage do not archive At 05:11 AM 3/28/2007, you wrote: >OOPS, last message was not for the list, need to wake up before I >hit the send key. > >Also wrong pic. Might as well correct for everybody. >First batch of probes went in 3 hrs. another 50 on the way, If >interested send an email and I'll notify you priviatly. All that >have emailed so far are on the list. >Sorry for the confusion John > > --------------------------------------------- Paul Mulwitz 32013 NE Dial Road Camas, WA 98607 --------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:05:04 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures Hi David, I think the flanges are oriented away from the tank to allow the tank to fit into the area. If the flanges were faced toward the tank you might need to move the nose ribs apart so you can move the tank into position. Paul XL fuselage do not archive At 04:35 AM 3/28/2007, you wrote: > >Why can't the rib flanges simply be oriented towards the tank bay? >That way if you do have to remove the tank-covering skin, no FOD >will result that is not readily removed while the causative work is >being done in the bay... --------------------------------------------- Paul Mulwitz 32013 NE Dial Road Camas, WA 98607 --------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 06:38:56 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures From: "ashontz" I'm going to do mine this way. I know #3 and #4 ribs are close together. #5 and #6 may be close together too. If not I'll add another rib on the outboard side of the tank for more to tie into. -------- Andy Shontz CH601XL - Corvair www.mykitlog.com/ashontz Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103394#103394 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 06:48:21 AM PST US From: "Dino Bortolin" Subject: Zenith-List: LRI gauge artwork List, I drew ten variations of artwork for the Dwyer gauge. Print it out and pick your favorite. Dino Bortolin XL/Corvair (eventually, pace is slow!) ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 07:03:25 AM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Older Style Wheel Pants Gary, I did a redesign of the wheel pants for the 4 x 8 wheels and ended up with a better look if this is the size you're looking for. http://www.macsmachine.com/images/wheelfairings/full/40.gif Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com do not archive Gary Ray wrote: > > Rather than give up on them, > Has anybody tried to remodel the older style wheel pants for a sleeker > appearance and function? > I have not installed the ones that I have because I don't like the > appearance. > > > Gary Ray > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 07:18:43 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: e: xxx xxx Re: Making an LRI probe From: "n85ae" This is certainly not rocket science. No sense spending a hundred years figuring it out to the the last angstrom. Just a mere differential pressure sensor. A REALLY simple way to test it would be mount it on something (a Burt Rutan wind tunnel for example (a car)). with a pressure gauge (airspeed indicator, etc) on each port hop in, stick it out the window and simply confirm a reasonable pressure differential across say 0-30 degrees or so. That would certainly be enough to tell you whether or not it will work. Regards, Jeff Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103409#103409 ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 08:37:44 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures From: "TxDave" Hold on there kids! I think we're getting confused. The inboard section covers nose ribs 1-3. There are only 3 nose ribs inboard of the fuel tank in my plans. The outboard section covers nose ribs 4-wingtip. The fuel tank section overlaps the other skins only about 20mm over the flanges at nose ribs 3 and 4. In the new ZAC Construction Standards Manual on page 40 (CS #604) the method for using several smaller skins is clearly described. This is where I got the idea. I called and spoke to Caleb and described what I planned to do and he said it would be fine if I followed the method in the Construction Standards. It's really very simple. I suppose nut plates and screws would work , but the Standards recommend you stick with the fasteners specified in the plans. Dave Clay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103430#103430 ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 08:44:49 AM PST US From: Ron Ellis Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Flap Motor Switch Thanks for the info Craig, and Gary, I also have the 15a circuit shown on 6-B-20 (didn't see that before), so I'll just reorder a 15a breaker so I won't worry. Ron >I measured the steady-state draw of the factory >actuator at 3-4 amps >with no >mechanical load. I assume there is an initial surge >that my meter >doesn't >see and that the draw will be higher when actually >moving the flaps in >flight. >-- Craig Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 08:45:55 AM PST US From: "Michael Valentine" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: LRI gauge artwork Thanks Dino - For those who don't have a gauge yet but still want to think about the designs, the indicator is painted silver/gray with a red tip (at least on mine - from Surplus Center ala the recent posts). Michael in NH do not archive On 3/28/07, Dino Bortolin wrote: > > List, > > I drew ten variations of artwork for the Dwyer gauge. Print it out and > pick your favorite. > > Dino Bortolin > XL/Corvair (eventually, pace is slow!) > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 09:00:40 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures From: "ashontz" Sorry, you're right, I was thinking of the rear ribs, of which there are four before you reach the gas tank area, not that the rear ribs effect the fuel tank. do not archive TxDave wrote: > Hold on there kids! I think we're getting confused. The inboard section covers nose ribs 1-3. There are only 3 nose ribs inboard of the fuel tank in my plans. The outboard section covers nose ribs 4-wingtip. The fuel tank section overlaps the other skins only about 20mm at each end, over the flanges at nose ribs 3 and 4. There is no need to add any additional nose ribs. > > In the new ZAC Construction Standards Manual on page 40 (CS #604) the method for using several smaller skins is clearly described. This is where I got the idea. I called and spoke to Caleb at ZAC and described what I planned to do and he said it would be fine if I followed the method in the Construction Standards. It's really very simple. > > I suppose nut plates and screws would work , but the Standards recommend you stick with the fasteners specified in the plans. > > Dave Clay -------- Andy Shontz CH601XL - Corvair www.mykitlog.com/ashontz Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103440#103440 ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 09:02:50 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures From: "ashontz" Could you send me a copy of the related pages please. I'd like to see them. I'm going with 15 gallon tanks, which moves rib 4 out about 200mm. Do you see any problem with the 3 skin approach considering I'm going with 15 gallon tanks? do not archive TxDave wrote: > Hold on there kids! I think we're getting confused. The inboard section covers nose ribs 1-3. There are only 3 nose ribs inboard of the fuel tank in my plans. The outboard section covers nose ribs 4-wingtip. The fuel tank section overlaps the other skins only about 20mm at each end, over the flanges at nose ribs 3 and 4. There is no need to add any additional nose ribs. > > In the new ZAC Construction Standards Manual on page 40 (CS #604) the method for using several smaller skins is clearly described. This is where I got the idea. I called and spoke to Caleb at ZAC and described what I planned to do and he said it would be fine if I followed the method in the Construction Standards. It's really very simple. > > I suppose nut plates and screws would work , but the Standards recommend you stick with the fasteners specified in the plans. > > Dave Clay -------- Andy Shontz CH601XL - Corvair www.mykitlog.com/ashontz Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103441#103441 ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 09:16:08 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Flap Motor Switch From: "txpilot" Two follow-up questions for some of the responders: Why DPDT and not SPDT? Maybe there's a difference with the 601 and 701 (I'm a 701 builder), but it seems with only one linear actuator you don't need a double pole. Am I missing something? Second, does anyone know who sells toggle switches that actually look like a flap handle, as opposed to the generic looking toggle switch? Regarding your original question Jim, I've purchased Bob Nuckoll's Aeroelectic Connection. He gives an excellent wiring diagram for an electric flap system. In the diagram, he recommends a 15 amp breaker for the flap motor and 5 amp breaker for the flap control (relays and limit switches). Dan Ginty Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103447#103447 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 09:47:02 AM PST US From: NYTerminat@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Flap Motor Switch In a message dated 3/28/2007 12:17:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, djg7@houston.rr.com writes: Two follow-up questions for some of the responders: Why DPDT and not SPDT? Maybe there's a difference with the 601 and 701 (I'm a 701 builder), but it seems with only one linear actuator you don't need a double pole. Am I missing something? If you are not using relays, you need the DPDT switch to reverse the polarity Bob ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 09:50:42 AM PST US From: Afterfxllc@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Flap Motor Switch The reason for the DPDT is to reverse the polarity one side middle is B+ and the other middle connection is - and you couldn't have that with a SPDT switch. do not archive ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 10:01:12 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Flap Motor Switch Hi Dan, The DPDT switch is needed because both the leads on the motor must be switched between power and ground. With a single pole switch one of the motor leads must be permanently connected to one of the power leads, and this would not allow for reversal of the motor direction. I found a switch at Radio Shack that has a flattened toggle. It is not as similar to flaps as the Cessna switch, but it is a small step in the right direction. Paul XL fuselage Do not archive >Why DPDT and not SPDT? Maybe there's a difference with the 601 and >701 (I'm a 701 builder), but it seems with only one linear actuator >you don't need a double pole. Am I missing something? > >Second, does anyone know who sells toggle switches that actually >look like a flap handle, as opposed to the generic looking toggle switch? --------------------------------------------- Paul Mulwitz 32013 NE Dial Road Camas, WA 98607 --------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 10:28:21 AM PST US From: Flydog1966@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Flap Motor Switch In a message dated 3/28/2007 12:02:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net writes: I found a switch at Radio Shack that has a flattened toggle. And I have found that the quality/reliability of Radio Shack switches is horrible. But this was some years ago,maybe its been resolved by now. do not archive ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 11:20:56 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures From: "TxDave" Andrew, I'll email you the pdf file for the Construction Standards. I see no reason why this wouldn't work for the long range tanks. do not archive Dave Clay Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103477#103477 ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 11:22:21 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures From: "ashontz" It should be fine, it's only an extra 200mm longer. TxDave wrote: > Andrew, > I'll email you the pdf file for the Construction Standards. I see no reason why this wouldn't work for the long range tanks. > > do not archive > > Dave Clay -------- Andy Shontz CH601XL - Corvair www.mykitlog.com/ashontz Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103479#103479 ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 11:41:27 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... From: "Bima, Martin" I have nothing against the big airplanes - I take my family for rides and was trained in a 172 (rental) - a real gentleman's airplane. BUT ... A friend of mine recently learned he has to put about $15,000 into his Piper Arrow engine because it sits around all of the time, and only turns over about 5-10 hours per year. Why? Not very fun flying around the local patch in a rocket. I have the same conversation each year with the same group of 4-5 local ultralight pilots. They all get laughed at by the big boys with their Bonanzas and Buck82's. But while the big boys cruise an hour to the left and right twice a year, these UL guys are putting up 20-30 hours a month in the summer and a few of them them half that in the winter on skis. Big Boys to UL's: Why don't you fly a "REAL" airplane. UL's to Big Boys" Why don't you "FLY" a real airplane. I am building a small and slow aircraft to do the kind of flying I will do most often - putt-putting around the local forests, beaches, sand-dunes, etc. If I ever want to fly 2000 miles from here in a hurry, I'll jump on a 737. KEEP ON BUILDING - PROUDLY !!!! Martin Bima Winnipeg STOLVAIR 701 Do not archive ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 12:03:44 PM PST US From: "ray" Subject: Zenith-List: 601HD wings modified to 23' Hi All, I have a partially completed 601HD kit. The first owner ordered modified 23' wings instead of the original 27' wings. It is important when completed this kit comply with LSA requirements. Personnel at Zenith feel there will not be a problem but to lessen concern vortex generators could be added to the wings lowering the stall speed by 4 to 6 mph (conservative estimate). Any thoughts to assure LSA compliance especially as it relates to stall or cruise speeds would be greatly appreciated. Ray ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 12:25:24 PM PST US From: Frank Stutzman Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Bima, Martin wrote: > A friend of mine recently learned he has to put about $15,000 into his > Piper Arrow engine because it sits around all of the time, and only > turns over about 5-10 hours per year. > > Why? Not very fun flying around the local patch in a rocket. > > They all get laughed at by the big boys with their Bonanzas and > Buck82's. But while the big boys cruise an hour to the left and right > twice a year, these UL guys are putting up 20-30 hours a month in the > summer and a few of them them half that in the winter on skis. > > I am building a small and slow aircraft to do the kind of flying I will > do most often - putt-putting around the local forests, beaches, > sand-dunes, etc. If I ever want to fly 2000 miles from here in a hurry, > I'll jump on a 737. Personally, I think every one ought to have at least two planes. I'm planning on building a 701 simply because it is so very un-like my Bonanza. The Bo is fast and confortable for the twice a month 2+ hour trips I routinely make. Doing the same in a 701 would be painful at best. On the other hand the Bonanza is just plain wasteful when I just want to go, as you say, "putt-putting around". Now I suppose if I could find an expermental that could land and t/o in less than 300 feet, cruise at over 150 mph, burn less than 5 gallons an hour and have a useful load over 800 lbs, I could live with just one plane. I am unaware of any such animal and I don't think it exists. Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID) ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 01:04:08 PM PST US From: "JOHN STARN" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... With the term "rocket" one would hope your not referring to an HRII Harmon Rocket but rather a Piper Arrow. Having flown both I can assure you that the fully aerobatic HRII is fun to fly around the pond. Piper Arrow is a nice airplane but it's no Rocket or "rocket". We have a newly completed "V" tailed Sonex to add to our homebuilts at APV, flying off his time every day. KABONG HRII N561FS Do Not Archive. > A friend of mine recently learned he has to put about $15,000 into his > Piper Arrow engine because it sits around all of the time, and only > turns over about 5-10 hours per year. > > Why? Not very fun flying around the local patch in a rocket. ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 01:36:58 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601HD wings modified to 23' Clipping the wings 5 feet will have a huge impact on stall speeds. IMHO do not archive Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com -- "ray" wrote: Hi All, I have a partially completed 601HD kit. The first owner ordered modified 23' wings instead of the original 27' wings.It is important whe n completed this kit comply with LSA requirements. Personnel at Zenith f eel there will notbe a problem but to lessen concern vortex generators c ould be added to the wings lowering the stall speedby 4 to 6 mph (conser vative estimate). Any thoughts to assure LSA compliance especially as it ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================== ======================

Clipping the wings 5 feet will have a huge impact on stall spee ds. IMHO

do not archive


Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair .com

-- "ray" <rmallett@tampabay.rr.com> wro te:

Hi All,
 
I have a partially completed 601HD kit. The first owner ordered modified 23' wings instead of the original 27' wings.
It is important when complete d this kit comply with LSA requirements. Personnel at Zenith f eel there will not
be a problem but to lessen concern vort ex generators could be added to the wings lowering the stall speed
by 4 to 6 mph (conservative estimate). Any thoughts to assure LSA compliance especially as it relates
to stall or cruise speeds would be greatly appreciated.
Ray
 


========================
===========
">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
========================
===========
tronics.com
========================
===========
________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 02:02:06 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... From: "Gig Giacona" My hanger neighbors got a Bo A-36 about a year or so ago. The two partners were required to get 25 hours each of dual in it for insurance. Cost them a fortune in AvGas. If they fly a couple of hour a month now it was a busy month. Before they had an Archer they each flew it at least five or six hours a month and almost always just came out and flew on the weekends for the fun of it. They never just fly around the patch anymore. Kinda sad. -------- 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=103517#103517 ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 02:08:48 PM PST US From: "R.P." Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601HD wings modified to 23' ----- Original Message ----- From: "ray" Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:03 PM Subject: Zenith-List: 601HD wings modified to 23' Hi All, I have a partially completed 601HD kit. The first owner ordered modified 23' wings instead of the original 27' wings. It is important when completed this kit comply with LSA requirements. Personnel at Zenith feel there will not be a problem but to lessen concern vortex generators could be added to the wings lowering the stall speed by 4 to 6 mph (conservative estimate). Any thoughts to assure LSA compliance especially as it relates to stall or cruise speeds would be greatly appreciated. Ray Hi Ray. I'm glad to see someone trying this. I have an HD that I'm quite pleased with, but I've considered clipping a couple feet off each wingtip for higher cruise. That fat HD wing is REAL draggy at 115 MPH (cruise with Jabiru 3300 @ 108 hp). I hesitate to clip the wings because I don't want to loose too much of the excellent slow speed with the existing wings. According to the Zenith specs, the HD stalls at 44 mph. The LSA rules say max stall speed is 51 MPH http://sportpilot.org/learn/final_rule_synopsis.html so I'm inclined to believe you might be OK even without the vortex generators. Please keep us posted with your results once you get into your flight testing. Rick http://www.lightflyers.com/birthday ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 02:15:41 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' From: "Gig Giacona" That basically makes it an HDS. The Zenith site says the HDS has a stall speed at 1050 lbs of 54mph and a top speed of 150mph. http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/601-hds.html The top speed isn't a problem because even if the plane can do it you could adjust the prop so it can't. The LSA max stall speed is 50 mph. Can you shave off 4 mph with vortex generators? I don't know. But remember that stall speed is at 1050 lbs. that is awful low compared to the XL. -------- 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=103521#103521 ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 02:53:15 PM PST US From: "R.P." Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gig Giacona" Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:15 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' > > > That basically makes it an HDS. The Zenith site says the HDS has a stall > speed at 1050 lbs of 54mph and a top speed of 150mph. > > http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/601-hds.html The span would be the same as the HDS: 23'. But the total surface area will be greater than the HDS's 98'ft (compared to 130'ft for the stock HD). The HD wing is a constant chord at 58" instead of the taper from 58" at the root to 34" at the tip, so a clip-wing HD will have more surface area than HDS , hence a lower stall speed than the 54mph of the HDS. I'm not an engineer, just a mechanic... so anyone who has a better understanding of the math involved can feel free to correct my aerodynamic assumptions. Interesting idea, I'll be anxious to see how it plays out. Rick ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 03:28:18 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... Geez.. my 801 can do one of those things consistantly. I can do 150,,,, headed straight down, and I can burn 5 GPH during decent. One out of thr ee isn't all too bad. Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com -- Frank Stutzman wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Bima, Martin wrote: > A friend of mine recently learned he has to put about $15,000 into his > Piper Arrow engine because it sits around all of the time, and only > turns over about 5-10 hours per year. > > Why? Not very fun flying around the local patch in a rocket. > > They all get laughed at by the big boys with their Bonanzas and > Buck82's. But while the big boys cruise an hour to the left and right > twice a year, these UL guys are putting up 20-30 hours a month in the > summer and a few of them them half that in the winter on skis. > > I am building a small and slow aircraft to do the kind of flying I wil l > do most often - putt-putting around the local forests, beaches, > sand-dunes, etc. If I ever want to fly 2000 miles from here in a hurry , > I'll jump on a 737. Personally, I think every one ought to have at least two planes. I'm planning on building a 701 simply because it is so very un-like my Bonanza. The Bo is fast and confortable for the twice a month 2+ hour trips I routinely make. Doing the same in a 701 would be painful at bes t. On the other hand the Bonanza is just plain wasteful when I just want to go, as you say, "putt-putting around". Now I suppose if I could find an expermental that could land and t/o in less than 300 feet, cruise at over 150 mph, burn less than 5 gallons an hour and have a useful load over 800 lbs, I could live with just one plane. I am unaware of any such animal and I don't think it exists. Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID) ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== Geez.. my 801 can do one of those things consistantly. I can do 15 0,,,, headed straight down, and I can burn 5 GPH during decent. One out of three isn't all too bad. <G>


Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com

-- Frank Stutzman <stu tzman@stutzman.com> wrote:
--> Zenith-List messa ge posted by: Frank Stutzman <stutzman@stutz man.com>

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Bima,&n bsp;Martin wrote:

> --> Zenith-List mes sage posted by: "Bima, Martin" <mbima@hydro. mb.ca>

> A friend of mine recently  learned he has to put about $15,000& nbsp;into his
> Piper Arrow engine becaus e it sits around all of the time,&nbs p;and only
> turns over about 5-10 h ours per year.
>
> Why? Not very&nb sp;fun flying around the local patch in&nb sp;a rocket.
>
> They all get laugh ed at by the big boys with their  ;Bonanzas and
> Buck82's. But while the&n bsp;big boys cruise an hour to the le ft and right
> twice a year, these&n bsp;UL guys are putting up 20-30 hours&nbs p;a month in the
> summer and a  ;few of them them half that in the&nb sp;winter on skis.
>
> I am buildin g a small and slow aircraft to do&nbs p;the kind of flying I will
> do&nbs p;most often - putt-putting around the loc al forests, beaches,
> sand-dunes, etc. I f I ever want to fly 2000 miles  from here in a hurry,
> I'll jump&nb sp;on a 737.

Personally, I think every&n bsp;one ought to have at least two pl anes.

I'm planning on building a 701&nbs p;simply because it is so very un-like&nbs p;my 
Bonanza.  The Bo is fast and  confortable for the twice a month 2+  hour 
trips I routinely make.  Do ing the same in a 701 would be p ainful at best. 
On the other hand  ;the Bonanza is just plain wasteful when&n bsp;I just want to 
go, as you say , "putt-putting around".

Now I suppose i f I could find an expermental that co uld land and t/o in 
less than 300  feet, cruise at over 150 mph, burn&n bsp;less than 5 gallons an
hour and hav e a useful load over 800 lbs, I  could live with just one 
plane.   I am unaware of any such animal and&n bsp;I don't think it exists.

Frank Stutz man
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River,  ======================== ========================     - The Zenith-List Email Foru ist utilities such as the Subscriptions pa ======================== ======================== sp;     - NEW MATRONICS WEB  ======================== ======================== =======
________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 04:05:02 PM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures ...and I had wondered about that possibility. I will look closely at the drawings (might just reverse them into CAD so that I can better visualize the relationships) and see what the consequences would be. Hi David, I think the flanges are oriented away from the tank to allow the tank to fit into the area. If the flanges were faced toward the tank you might need to move the nose ribs apart so you can move the tank into position. Paul XL fuselage do not archive At 04:35 AM 3/28/2007, you wrote: > >Why can't the rib flanges simply be oriented towards the tank bay? >That way if you do have to remove the tank-covering skin, no FOD >will result that is not readily removed while the causative work is >being done in the bay... --------------------------------------------- Paul Mulwitz 32013 NE Dial Road Camas, WA 98607 --------------------------------------------- Dave Downey Harleysville (SE) PA Zodiac 601XL/Corvair? --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 04:16:50 PM PST US From: "John Bolding" Subject: Re: e: xxx Re: xxx Re: Zenith-List: Re: Making an LRI probe I took a look at your LRI probe picture and noticed it is significantly different from the one that I made. I did mine according to the drawing I got online. It seems you have rounded and angled the edges differently. Correct I wonder, have you done any testing on this new probe design? Yep, not new really, been around 30 yrs that I know of. Does it work the same as the original design? Never flew the original. Does it work better? Of COURSE it does :) Truthfully ,I have no clue. What happens when you put your plane in a forward slip with this new design? Indicates normally , only testing I've done so far is on my Champ, it has been flown on several ultralights as well. John Paul XL fuselage do not archive ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 04:22:59 PM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... do not archive Hey frank, a "small block" RV can get mighty close to that. Everybody forgets that those airframes do really well with an O-235 up front - they just don't climb like homesick angels... Frank Stutzman wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Bima, Martin wrote: > A friend of mine recently learned he has to put about $15,000 into his > Piper Arrow engine because it sits around all of the time, and only > turns over about 5-10 hours per year. > > Why? Not very fun flying around the local patch in a rocket. > > They all get laughed at by the big boys with their Bonanzas and > Buck82's. But while the big boys cruise an hour to the left and right > twice a year, these UL guys are putting up 20-30 hours a month in the > summer and a few of them them half that in the winter on skis. > > I am building a small and slow aircraft to do the kind of flying I will > do most often - putt-putting around the local forests, beaches, > sand-dunes, etc. If I ever want to fly 2000 miles from here in a hurry, > I'll jump on a 737. Personally, I think every one ought to have at least two planes. I'm planning on building a 701 simply because it is so very un-like my Bonanza. The Bo is fast and confortable for the twice a month 2+ hour trips I routinely make. Doing the same in a 701 would be painful at best. On the other hand the Bonanza is just plain wasteful when I just want to go, as you say, "putt-putting around". Now I suppose if I could find an expermental that could land and t/o in less than 300 feet, cruise at over 150 mph, burn less than 5 gallons an hour and have a useful load over 800 lbs, I could live with just one plane. I am unaware of any such animal and I don't think it exists. Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID) --------------------------------- No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 04:23:53 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... From: "Tim Juhl" My experience has been, the bigger the plane the less often it flys. For most of my flying career I have owned two planes. A 172 and later a 182 for XC flying and a Aeronca Champ for fun. The last year I owned the 182 I think I flew it 20 hours..... there was something inhibiting about pumping gas into a plane the burned a steady 13 gallons per hour. In my travels I have criss-crossed much of N. America and am hoping to do so again. My choice for this is the 601 XL, which albeit small and lightweight, I believe to be a very capable airplane. Hopefully experience will prove me correct. We have a group of six guys on the field that went in together and bought a Cherokee six. All but two of them are very low time pilots and the insurance company won't let them fly as PIC until they get more hours. Needless to say, those of us with lesser planes are having all the fun. Tim Juhl -------- 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=103551#103551 ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 05:11:28 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' From: "Gig Giacona" Rick, neither of you posts to this thread can be read in the web forum. -------- 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=103558#103558 ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 05:16:13 PM PST US From: "Bill Naumuk" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 601HD wings modified to 23' Ray- Look in the archives. Unfortunately, LSA figures have to be attained as the plane was originally designed. As I understand it, you can't use VGs to bring an airframe into LSA requirements. I would suggest contacting EAA or (Gulp) the FAA for a final word. Bill Naumuk HDS Fuse/Corvair Townville, Pa ----- Original Message ----- From: ray To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:03 PM Subject: Zenith-List: 601HD wings modified to 23' Hi All, I have a partially completed 601HD kit. The first owner ordered modified 23' wings instead of the original 27' wings. It is important when completed this kit comply with LSA requirements. Personnel at Zenith feel there will not be a problem but to lessen concern vortex generators could be added to the wings lowering the stall speed by 4 to 6 mph (conservative estimate). Any thoughts to assure LSA compliance especially as it relates to stall or cruise speeds would be greatly appreciated. Ray ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 05:30:54 PM PST US From: NYTerminat@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... Frank, When you find it let me know!!! Bob Spudis In a message dated 3/28/2007 3:26:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, stutzman@stutzman.com writes: Now I suppose if I could find an expermental that could land and t/o in less than 300 feet, cruise at over 150 mph, burn less than 5 gallons an hour and have a useful load over 800 lbs, I could live with just one plane. I am unaware of any such animal and I don't think it exists. Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID) ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 06:29:39 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' From: "rickpitcher" rickpitcher wrote: > --- Hi Ray. I'm glad to see someone trying this. I have an HD that I'm quite pleased with, but I've considered clipping a couple feet off each wingtip for higher cruise. That fat HD wing is REAL draggy at 115 MPH (cruise with Jabiru 3300 @ 108 hp). I hesitate to clip the wings because I don't want to loose too much of the excellent slow speed with the existing wings. According to the Zenith specs, the HD stalls at 44 mph. The LSA rules say max stall speed is 51 MPH http://sportpilot.org/learn/final_rule_synopsis.html so I'm inclined to believe you might be OK even without the vortex generators. Please keep us posted with your results once you get into your flight testing. Rick http://www.lightflyers.com/birthday Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103577#103577 ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 06:30:07 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' From: "rickpitcher" Gig Giacona wrote: > That basically makes it an HDS. The Zenith site says the HDS has a stall speed at 1050 lbs of 54mph and a top speed of 150mph. > > http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/601-hds.html > > The top speed isn't a problem because even if the plane can do it you could adjust the prop so it can't. > > The LSA max stall speed is 50 mph. Can you shave off 4 mph with vortex generators? I don't know. But remember that stall speed is at 1050 lbs. that is awful low compared to the XL. The span would be the same as the HDS: 23'. But the total surface area will be greater than the HDS's 98'ft (compared to 130'ft for the stock HD). The HD wing is a constant chord at 58" instead of the taper from 58" at the root to 34" at the tip, so a clip-wing HD will have more surface area than HDS , hence a lower stall speed than the 54mph of the HDS. I'm not an engineer, just a mechanic... so anyone who has a better understanding of the math involved can feel free to correct my aerodynamic assumptions. Interesting idea, I'll be anxious to see how it plays out. Rick Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103578#103578 ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 06:36:00 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' From: "rickpitcher" Gig Giacona wrote: > Rick, neither of you posts to this thread can be read in the web forum. Thanks Gig. I'll repost from the Web-based site. Rick Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103581#103581 ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 06:54:23 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' From: "rickpitcher" [quote="naumuk(at)alltel.net"]Ray- Look in the archives. Unfortunately, LSA figures have to be attained as the plane was originally designed. As I understand it, you can't use VGs to bring an airframe into LSA requirements. I would suggest contacting EAA or (Gulp) the FAA for a final word. Bill Naumuk HDS Fuse/Corvair Townville, Pa > --- I don't think that's correct Bill. >From http://sportpilot.org/learn/final_rule_synopsis.html "The FAA defines a light-sport aircraft as an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following: " If the plane hasn't been issued an airwothiness certificate yet you're "good to go". If a plane was previously certified with numbers outside the LSA realm, then you can't re-register the same plane with different numbers (speeds weight, etc) in order to "pencil whip" it into compliance. Rick Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103584#103584 ________________________________ Message 50 ____________________________________ Time: 06:54:27 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology Breathes there a man with soul so glub, =0AWould never loop a J-3 C ub;=0ATo make the horizon all a-snocker,=0AAnd barrel roll an ol d Airknocker?=0AIs his sense of joy so thin, =0AHe'd never want to do a spin?=0ATo heave the stick to left or right=0Aand ailero n roll with all his might?=0AOthers might think him a bit daft. =0AAs he Immelmans his Taylorcraft.=0AOne could not say he's lived at all,=0AIf he hasn't tried a hammerhead stall.=0ATo nibble at the edge of fright,=0AIn recovery from vertical flight.=0APeople do these, all wide-eyed,=0AIn airplanes that're Certified.=0AGo d lets people be all erratics,=0ABut he only lets pilots know aerob atics.=0A=0A(Apologies to the Muse!)=0A=0APaul Rodriguez =0ADO NOT ARCHIVE=0A=0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A From: Craig Payne =0A To: zenith-l ist@matronics.com =0A Sent: Sund ay, March 25, 2007 3:05 PM=0A Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology ig@craigandjean.com>=0A=0A > The FAA doesn't much care if you kill yourself in an airplane as long as =0A you don't take out anybody else with you.=0A=0A But you r heirs might have a hard time collecting on your insurance: personal =0A life, aircraft. =0A=0A -- Craig=0A=0A=0A=0A ======================= ======================= ======================= ======================= ====================== =0A=0A=0A=0A ________________________________ Message 51 ____________________________________ Time: 07:07:51 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: acrobatics on 601s YEA, VERILY YEA!! I strongly recommend all personnel herein involved , obtain and read carefully, Richard Bach's "A Gift Of Wings." In ther e you will find a short story, "Found at _______ (Can't remember the p lace) . Bach hits this discussion spot-on, from thirty years ago. =0A=0APaul Rodriguez=0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A Fr om: Jim Norton =0A To: zenith-list@ma tronics.com =0A Sent: Sunday, Ma rch 25, 2007 6:20 PM=0A Subject: Zenith-List: acrobatics on 601s ton@optonline.net>=0A=0A It seems to me that people have two opposing views to personal safety =0A v s. individual rights. The old school would say that an individual has =0A the unalienable right to do stupid things as long as they don 't do =0A damage to other people's life or property. The new school would =0A say that we must provide adequate protection for people who are too =0A lazy, stupid, or too easily duped into do ing unsafe acts which would =0A hurt them or others.* Remember i n the old days when we had swing sets =0A on the school playground Some of us would swing as high as we could, =0A others just lik e a more casual motion. =0A The tension between the two pole s is illustrated in the idea that =0A we need to have a license to fly a plane. A industrious person would do =0A all he could do t o learn about flying before s/he got behind the stick. =0A Other idiots would get behind the stick and think "i can do this" and =0A attempt to fly without any preparation. Who is right? The tension =0A can be further illustrated by the designation of the 6 01 i.e. =0A experimental/recreational. The old school says I ha ve the right to =0A experiment anyway I /deem fit/ with this airc raft. (note the emphasis =0A on deem fit). The new school thinks a recreational plane should be =0A /made and used/ in such that i t would be as absolutely safe as =0A possible. Unfortunately, mos t of us who are fliers are tend to be old =0A school. Courts, gov ernment officials, laws etc. tend to be new school=0A These are po lar views, the way it all shakes out in time and society is =0A s omewhere in between. Not all pilots are Evil Kneivels, nor are all =0A others walking around in pads, bubbles and bullet proof vests, it just =0A seems that way. It's not all bad that the daredevil s aren't allowed to =0A do whatever they please - likewise its not all bad that some of us like =0A to push the envelope. We probab ly will never resolve the =0A tension/conflict between the two cam ps, but maybe we can exercise some =0A tolerance...=0A=0A ======================= ======================= ======================= ======================= ======================= ==0A=0A=0A=0A ________________________________ Message 52 ____________________________________ Time: 09:25:17 PM PST US From: Frank Stutzman Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, David Downey wrote: > do not archive > > Hey frank, a "small block" RV can get mighty close to that. Everybody > forgets that those airframes do really well with an O-235 up front - > they just don't climb like homesick angels... Yup, there are a fair number of things that get fairly close, but nothing that meets ALL of those requirements. If there was, we all would be flying one. Also you shouldn't judge how much a plane flys by how often you see it in the pattern. I think most of the denziens of my airport think my plane doesn't fly that often. The fact of the matter is I put on more hours than many of the local super cubs. I just do it on 2+ hour cross countries rather than 2+ hours bouncing around within 30 miles of the home drome. Frank Stutzman Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl" Hood River, OR (soon to be Boise, ID) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.