Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:07 AM - Re: Scratch built wing update and pictures (ashontz)
2. 05:49 AM - NTSB Final Report Available (moorecomp)
3. 06:20 AM - Instrument panels (txpilot)
4. 06:24 AM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (Gig Giacona)
5. 06:28 AM - Re: NTSB Final Report Available (Paul Mulwitz)
6. 06:31 AM - Re: NTSB Final Report Available (Gig Giacona)
7. 06:51 AM - LRI Temperature Limitations?? (Ron Lalonde)
8. 07:08 AM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (Gig Giacona)
9. 07:15 AM - Re: NTSB Final Report Available (Bryan Martin)
10. 07:27 AM - Re: NTSB Final Report Available (Gig Giacona)
11. 07:27 AM - I think I fried my CHT (george.mueller@aurora.org)
12. 08:07 AM - Rudder workshop at Sun n Fun 2007 (rlaviation@aol.com)
13. 08:13 AM - Re: I think I fried my CHT (Mark Sherman)
14. 08:30 AM - Re: NTSB Final Report Available (Terry Phillips)
15. 10:06 AM - Axle nuts (Bob)
16. 10:17 AM - Re: Instrument panels (Jaybannist@cs.com)
17. 10:50 AM - Re: Instrument panels (LarryMcFarland)
18. 10:53 AM - Re: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (LarryMcFarland)
19. 11:14 AM - Re: Instrument panels ()
20. 11:17 AM - Re: Instrument panels (japhillipsga@aol.com)
21. 11:34 AM - Re: Instrument panels (Bill Steer)
22. 11:46 AM - Re: NTSB Final Report Available (n85ae)
23. 11:50 AM - Re: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... (hansriet)
24. 12:16 PM - Re:Panel thickness (Zed Smith)
25. 12:22 PM - Re: Instrument panels (Art Gibeaut)
26. 12:52 PM - Re: Instrument panels (Dino Bortolin)
27. 01:00 PM - Re: Instrument panels (LarryMcFarland)
28. 01:07 PM - Re: Panel thickness (Gig Giacona)
29. 01:11 PM - Jacking up Plane (john H)
30. 01:17 PM - Re: NTSB Final Report Available (LarryMcFarland)
31. 01:29 PM - Re: Re: Panel thickness (Phil Maxson)
32. 01:47 PM - Re: Jacking up Plane (Gig Giacona)
33. 02:14 PM - Re: I think I fried my CHT (Gordon)
34. 02:32 PM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (Klaus Truemper)
35. 03:27 PM - Re: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (JG)
36. 03:52 PM - Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (rickpitcher)
37. 04:09 PM - Re: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (Robin Bellach)
38. 04:10 PM - Re: Axle nuts (Ron Lendon)
39. 04:46 PM - Re: Jacking up Plane (Tim Juhl)
40. 04:52 PM - Wing root fairings (Jaybannist@cs.com)
41. 04:57 PM - Re: Jacking up Plane (LarryMcFarland)
42. 05:15 PM - Re: Apology (Bill Naumuk)
43. 05:18 PM - Re: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' (Bill Naumuk)
44. 05:25 PM - Interiors (Bill Naumuk)
45. 05:43 PM - Jabiru Dual Throttles (Tim Juhl)
46. 06:35 PM - Re: Interiors (Craig Payne)
47. 07:11 PM - Re: Re: Panel thickness (OK2AV8@aol.com)
48. 07:53 PM - Rudder Spar Dent (Tom Lutz)
49. 08:17 PM - Re: Re: Panel thickness (Randy L. Thwing)
50. 11:32 PM - Re: Rudder Spar Dent (CH701)
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: Scratch built wing update and pictures |
I believe it's meant to give the tank a nice flush end to rest against, even with
the cork. Otherwise you have a tank fitting inside a flange that has exposed
rivet backs. Now what do you do, make the tank small at the ends, jam it in
there and let the rivet backs wear on the tank? Better to just put the flush side
of the flange towards the tank.
[quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]..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 Harleysville (SE) PA
> Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
>
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103624#103624
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: | NTSB Final Report Available |
All,
The NTSB released the final report on the crash from last February in Modesto,
CA that killed 2 people.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060217X00209&key=1
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The structural failure of the wings for undetermined reasons."
Comments?
Craig Moore A&P
Northern MI
701 builder wannabe
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103630#103630
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: | Instrument panels |
I'm looking for input from other builders on exactly how to build the instrument
panel. After the basic layout is determined and holes are cut in the supplied
.025 panel, are there 'subpanels' attached to the face of the instrument panel?
If so, what are the subpanels made of? Are they best attached using screws
and nutplates? What about paint?
If possible, attach pics to any replies (especially of work in progress)!
Thanks,
Dan Ginty
Woodlands, TX
701 builder - 70% complete
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103633#103633
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' |
rickpitcher wrote:
>
> 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
Please note that the original poster said, "The first owner ordered modified 23'
wings instead of the original 27' wings." He didn't say anything about cliping
the wings. I wasn't aware that Zenith ever offered a shorter wing option other
than the HDS wing.
--------
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=103636#103636
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: | Re: NTSB Final Report Available |
We pay zillions of tax dollars for this?
Perhaps they should have said the plane crashed because it hit the ground.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 04:49 AM 3/29/2007, you wrote:
>
>All,
>
>The NTSB released the final report on the crash from last February
>in Modesto, CA that killed 2 people.
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060217X00209&key=1
>
>"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
>cause(s) of this accident as follows:
>
>The structural failure of the wings for undetermined reasons."
>
>Comments?
>
>Craig Moore A&P
>Northern MI
>701 builder wannabe
>
>
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: NTSB Final Report Available |
One key sentence was, "The main wing aft attach points remained secured to the
fuselage in the normal manner." Because, if I remember correctly, there was some
talk at the time of the accident that the bolt in the rear spar was missing
or loose.
Do we know if this was Zenith built spar or a scratch built?
--------
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=103638#103638
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: | LRI Temperature Limitations?? |
List:
I have the Dwyer MINIHELIC II, PRESSURE GAGE required to make the LRI
indicator.
I have a few operational questions however:
1. The ambient operating temperature is listed at 20F to 120F. Living in
Canada, flying below the 20F temperature is most certainly probable. Will
the gage still function properly??
2. Have the different attitudes experienced during flight affected the gages
performance in any way?
By the way, this is a great list, fantastic gathering of builders and a
wealth of information.
The LRI is definately a "must have" for any aircraft, and I learned about it
on this list!!!!!
Thanks
Ron Lalonde
601XL (slowly working on the wings!!)
Nova Scotia, Canada
_________________________________________________________________
Dont waste time standing in linetry shopping online. Visit Sympatico / MSN
Shopping today! http://shopping.sympatico.msn.ca
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' |
This is an unfinshed kit so the design issue doesn't really apply. When he finishes
it he can call it the SuperDuper LSA Special and not mention either Zenith
nor 601.
naumuk(at)alltel.net wrote:
> 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
>
--------
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=103648#103648
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: NTSB Final Report Available |
It still isn't very clear whether or not the rear wing attach bolts
were installed. The reports states: "The main wing aft attach points
remained secured to the fuselage in the normal manner." and: "The aft
spar attach point was intact." But makes no mention of the rear bolts
themselves. It's almost like the investigators are hinting at a
possible couse but can't make a definite determination due to the
extent of the fire damage.
It seems to me that if those bolts were installed they would have had
to have been pulled out when the wings folded as described. In that
case, the attach points would have shown extensive damage due to the
bolts pulling out. The only way they could remain intact is if the
bolts were either not installed or fell out before the accident.
Maybe they were inserted into the holes but the nuts were left off.
Of course, this is all conjecture on my part since I had nothing to
do with the investigation. But with the long safety record of the 601
series and my engineering background, I can't think of a more
plausible explanation for this kind of accident.
On Mar 29, 2007, at 8:49 AM, moorecomp wrote:
> The NTSB released the final report on the crash from last February
> in Modesto, CA that killed 2 people.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060217X00209&key=1
>
> "The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
> cause(s) of this accident as follows:
>
> The structural failure of the wings for undetermined reasons."
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: NTSB Final Report Available |
I can't imagine considering all the other things they say, especially in the full
narrative, that they would mention that the rear spar was not attached if,
in fact, it wasn't.
--------
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=103655#103655
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: | I think I fried my CHT |
I have a couple of questions about installing instruments with a Rotax
912. I accidentally put 12 volts to my VDO CHT gauge and I think I fried
it. The needle at rest is now at the max reading. I didn?t notice at
first that the CHT gauge requires no power (except for the light) and the
+ terminal is for the sender. Does anyone know if applying 12 volts to
this gauge will fry it? I called VDO tech support about 25 times and
never got through. Also, I am not sure to hook up the VDO tach. The back
of the tack has a ground, power tab and one sender tab. I hooked up the
yellow and white wire from the 912 to the sender tab and the blue and
white wire from the 912 to airframe ground, and have power wire and a
ground wire going to the back of the tach. I then set the DIP switch to
1=on, 2=off, 3=off. Is this correct? Finally, for anyone with the
Skyshops FWF kit, I am not sure how to install the air filter in the cowl.
I have a bracket and an aluminum cylinder part and a strip of foam for
the air filter install and I am clueless as to how this all goes together.
There is nothing on this in the Skyshops instructions.
George in Milwaukee
701 almost ready to assemble at the airport
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: | Rudder workshop at Sun n Fun 2007 |
Flight Crafters and Zenith Aircraft will be hosting a rudder workshop during Sun
n Fun 2007. The dates are April 18th and 19th from 8:00am until 1:00pm. The
workshop will be located at Flight Crafters Builder Assistance Center next to
the Zephyrhills Municipal Airport. The Center is located approximately 20 minutes
from Sun n Fun.
The cost is $300 for the rudder kit. If you would like to come by and tour the
facility, please do so during the workshop times.
There is limited space and we are filling up, quickly.
Please contact Russell Lepre' at 813-690-1916 for reservations or more details.
________________________________________________________________________
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: I think I fried my CHT |
George.=0A =0ACan't answer your question about the VDO gauge, but my guess
is, it is history. I'm at work now but when I get home I will forward some
pictures to you of my installation. My drawings from Skyshops show the in
stallation. I could fax you a copy if you have a fax machine.=0A =0AMark S
.=0A701/912ULS,=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: "george.mueller
@aurora.org" <george.mueller@aurora.org>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0A
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:25:56 AM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: I think I
fried my CHT=0A=0A=0AI have a couple of questions about installing instrum
ents with a Rotax 912. I accidentally put 12 volts to my VDO CHT gauge and
I think I fried it. The needle at rest is now at the max reading. I didn
=A2t notice at first that the CHT gauge requires no power (except for the l
ight) and the + terminal is for the sender. Does anyone know if applying 1
2 volts to this gauge will fry it? I called VDO tech support about 25 time
s and never got through. Also, I am not sure to hook up the VDO tach. The
back of the tack has a ground, power tab and one sender tab. I hooked up t
he yellow and white wire from the 912 to the sender tab and the blue and wh
ite wire from the 912 to airframe ground, and have power wire and a ground
wire going to the back of the tach. I then set the DIP switch to 1=on, 2
=off, 3=off. Is this correct? Finally, for anyone with the Skyshops F
WF kit, I am not sure how to install the air filter in the cowl. I have a
bracket and an aluminum cylinder part and a
strip of foam for the air filter install and I am clueless as to how this
all goes together. There is nothing on this in the Skyshops instructions.
=0A=0A=0A=0AGeorge in Milwaukee =0A701 almost ready to assemble at the airp
=========================0A
=0A=0A =0A_________________________________________________________________
___________________=0ANever miss an email again!=0AYahoo! Toolbar alerts yo
u the instant new Mail arrives.=0Ahttp://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/fea
tures/mail/
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: NTSB Final Report Available |
Lots of things of interest here.
* 1st, the probable cause, structural failure of the wings for
undetermined reasons, is troubling. But, the fire damage to the aluminum
structure destroyed any evidence that might have told why the collapse
occurred.
* 2nd, with an estimated takeoff weight of 1326 lbs, the aircraft was
26 lbs over the stated gross of 1300 lbs. The gross currently listed for
601XL's on the Zenith website is 1320 lbs.
* 3rd, this may have been the first flight of the airplane with two
persons on board. If so, the extra 200 lb load may have been enough to
collapse the wings.
* 4th, it is not clear whether the builder, Mr. Hooker, flew the
airplane beyond the 40 hr. requirement. The total hours on the airframe is
not given.
* 5th, while it is not explicitly stated, it appears that this aircraft
was built from a kit, not from plans. That should remove the possibility
that the wing spars were poorly constructed by the builder. It does not
preclude damage to the spars during or prior to construction.
* 6th, I find no mention in the report of the use of "hardware store"
bolts in the spars which has been suggested in some posts to this group or
of loose bolts.
* 7th, the empty weight of the aircraft is given as 754.5 lbs which is
about 60 lbs greater than the 695 lbs listed for the 601/Jab 3300 on the
Zenith website. It would be enlightening to know where the 60 lbs comes
from. The dual brakes are one item. My conclusion is that we should be very
rigorous in evaluating the weight/benefit ratio of anything we add to the
basic airframe. I'm curious what empty weights others builders have ended
up with.
* 8th, the reports gives the unusable fuel as 3 gal. I know I've seen
that number before, but I cannot seem to find it in the information I have.
A useful fuel load of 21 gal vs. 24 gal makes me wish I had opted for the
30 gal tanks.
* 9th, the elongated rivet holes probably resulted from the forces of
impact. However, if they were a construction defect, is it possible that
they could have weakened the wing structure?
In summary, lots of information here, but it would have been great if they
had identified the cause of the wing failure. Then we could make sure that,
at least, we try to correct any obvious shortcomings in the design.
Terry
At 05:49 AM 3/29/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>All,
>
>The NTSB released the final report on the crash from last February in
>Modesto, CA that killed 2 people.
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060217X00209&key=1
>
>"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
>cause(s) of this accident as follows:
>
>The structural failure of the wings for undetermined reasons."
>
>Comments?
>
>Craig Moore A&P
>Northern MI
>701 builder wannabe
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
Just starting a 601 kit
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 |
|
Anyone have a source for 1 1/4" /12 wheel pant axle nuts other than A/S,
Grove and the RV store?
Wicks and Wag Aero apparently do not carry.
Thanks,
Bob, Wichita
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 |
|
Subject: | Instrument panels |
Dan,
Here's how I did it. As you can see, a lot of the .025 has been cut away. My
sub-panels are .040, and they are attached with T-nuts from the aviation department
of my local Ace Hardware. I painted it with Rustoleum High Performance
Enamel (Home Depot). Feel free to ask more.
Jay in Dallas
"txpilot" <djg7@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>I'm looking for input from other builders on exactly how to build the instrument
panel. After the basic layout is determined and holes are cut in the supplied
.025 panel, are there 'subpanels' attached to the face of the instrument panel?
If so, what are the subpanels made of? Are they best attached using screws
and nutplates? What about paint?
>
>If possible, attach pics to any replies (especially of work in progress)!
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Dan Ginty
>Woodlands, TX
>701 builder - 70% complete
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103633#103633
>
>
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: Instrument panels |
Dan,
.025 aluminum is a poor thickness for an instrument panel. I'd start
with .050 and go from there. You will need
less reinforcement and attachments will need to be fewer or less
stressed by the flexure of .025.
For better information, try the Bengilis Books and what's suggested there.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
txpilot wrote:
>
> I'm looking for input from other builders on exactly how to build the instrument
panel. After the basic layout is determined and holes are cut in the supplied
.025 panel, are there 'subpanels' attached to the face of the instrument
panel? If so, what are the subpanels made of? Are they best attached using screws
and nutplates? What about paint?
>
> If possible, attach pics to any replies (especially of work in progress)!
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Dan Ginty
> Woodlands, TX
> 701 builder - 70% complete
>
>
>
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' |
Gig,
The vortex generators would lower the stall speed, but each individual
HDS has to be sorted out on its own stall speed. Some will be slower
and some faster, depending a lot on prop pitch, engine, weight and
fairings present. Too many factors to make a single stall speed fits
all envelope.
Some will make SLA and others won't.
Larry McFarland
Gig Giacona wrote:
>
>
> rickpitcher wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> Please note that the original poster said, "The first owner ordered modified
23' wings instead of the original 27' wings." He didn't say anything about cliping
the wings. I wasn't aware that Zenith ever offered a shorter wing option
other than the HDS wing.
>
> --------
> 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=103636#103636
>
>
>
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Instrument panels |
I cut a doubler out of .050" 6061-T6 and had a local machine sop bend the radius
for the bottom flange. There is no side or top flange. The doubler nests inside
the factory panel nice and snug.
The plan is to cut out the final placement instrument holes in the factory supplied
.025" panel, file and sand the edges smooth as needed. Then the shapes of
the cutouts can be transfered to the .050" doubler and cut out to match. Any
errors there would be filing or cutting to slightly larger size. The easier fine
cuts in the thinner material will determine the esthetic result on the face
of the panel and the less esthetically critical .050" doubler will provide the
strength.
The two pieces can be riveted or bolted together in empty areas where there are
no instrument mounting screws to help hold the two together.
Dred
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Instrument panels |
Dan, much as Larry stated the regular panel metal is really too thin unless you
are not putting full size and several gages in. Maybe ok for some glass panel
set ups, someone else can address that application. I took .90 aluminum and cut
out two clusters and installed the clusters with 4-5 screws into platenuts.
Left side for flight instruments. Rightside for engine. Center for trans & transponder.
That way I can unscrew the cluster and pull out the whole section for
access. Works, unfortunately this I know. Looks pretty good and isn't much
of a weight addition. Remember, you cut big holes in the .90. Lastly, there is
as many neat and good ways to solve this problem as there are 601s. Good luck,
Bill of Georgia
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: larry@macsmachine.com
Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Instrument panels
Dan,
.025 aluminum is a poor thickness for an instrument panel. I'd start with .050
and go from there. You will need
less reinforcement and attachments will need to be fewer or less stressed by the
flexure of .025.
For better information, try the Bengilis Books and what's suggested there.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
txpilot wrote:
>
> I'm looking for input from other builders on exactly how to build the instrument
panel. After the basic layout is determined and holes are cut in the supplied
.025 panel, are there 'subpanels' attached to the face of the instrument panel?
If so, what are the subpanels made of? Are they best attached using screws
and nutplates? What about paint?
>
> If possible, attach pics to any replies (especially of work in progress)!
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Dan Ginty
> Woodlands, TX
> 701 builder - 70% complete
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Instrument panels |
I agree. A key question is whether you want to shock mount your panel or
not. Some do, some don't. I shock mounted mine and made a new panel out of
.063. Mine is one piece, but others have used up to three pieces. I
reinforced the original panel, around the edges and vertically, with
standard L angle and cut out the middle. Like Larry said, Tony's book (and
articles on the EAA site) talk about how to do all that.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryMcFarland" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Instrument panels
>
> Dan,
> .025 aluminum is a poor thickness for an instrument panel. I'd start with
> .050 and go from there. You will need
> less reinforcement and attachments will need to be fewer or less stressed
> by the flexure of .025.
> For better information, try the Bengilis Books and what's suggested there.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> do not archive
>
> txpilot wrote:
>>
>> I'm looking for input from other builders on exactly how to build the
>> instrument panel. After the basic layout is determined and holes are cut
>> in the supplied .025 panel, are there 'subpanels' attached to the face of
>> the instrument panel? If so, what are the subpanels made of? Are they
>> best attached using screws and nutplates? What about paint?
>>
>> If possible, attach pics to any replies (especially of work in progress)!
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>> Dan Ginty
>> Woodlands, TX
>> 701 builder - 70% complete
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 4:23 PM
>
>
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: NTSB Final Report Available |
p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att wrote:
>
>
> We pay zillions of tax dollars for this?
>
> Perhaps they should have said the plane crashed because it hit the ground.
>
>
Nothing wrong with the report, they could not determine why it failed,
likely because fire consumed all the important evidence of the failure.
People who seek answers to every question, some times end up
dissapointed.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103715#103715
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: Small Vs. Big - small plane builders pep talk ... |
[quote="Tim Juhl"]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[/quote]
I concur. I always thought that flying higher, faster and with more avionics was
the bomb. Until I took lessons for my seaplane rating. It was in a beat up C152
with a 150 hp engine, no gyros. In three days we didn't have the radio on
one single time (unheard of when you're normally flying in SoCal) and we were
never higher than 500 ft AGL. It was the best flying experience in my life.
Hans van Riet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103717#103717
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:Panel thickness |
do not archive
Obviously most agree that .025 is too flimsy.
If you use .063 material for the panel and a couple of vertical stiffeners behnd
the panel between instruments it'll be okay.
I used half-by-half aluminum angle (1/8" thickness) riveted with A5s from the front.
Looks okay.
There were a couple of places where the angle is cut out a bit to clear instruments.
The verticals are mounted about 1/3 distance from each side, instrument
size and layout dictating actual brace location. The instrument holes were punched
with appropriately-sized Greenlee punches. Put the big half of the punch
on the back side for this, otherwise you'll have tool marks on the front that
even crackle paint may not hide.
Bent the bottom flange 2" in a brake, cut the top edge rounded per plans, then
had a professional welder TIG a 2-inch-wide strip of .063 across the top. The
wider flange & top shouldn't interfere with other items but does add some resistance
to wayward knees at the bottom.
With the holes cut and vertical braces in place there was no flexing. Once mounted
in the airframe it is solid and instruments don't sag from their own weight.
If I had it to do again I might build a "frame" only and mount it, then make the
flat panel with stiffeners to attach to the frame with Cam Locks or a hinge
or chewing gum or something. Attachment points would eat up some panel space.
Regards to all,
Zed/701/912/BR549/etc
Message 25
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Instrument panels |
Larry, can you be more specific on the book? I Googled
and came up with nothing.
New 701 Builder
Do not archive
--- LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> Dan,
> .025 aluminum is a poor thickness for an instrument
> panel. I'd start
> with .050 and go from there. You will need
> less reinforcement and attachments will need to be
> fewer or less
> stressed by the flexure of .025.
> For better information, try the Bengilis Books and
> what's suggested there.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> do not archive
>
> txpilot wrote:
> <djg7@houston.rr.com>
> >
> > I'm looking for input from other builders on
> exactly how to build the instrument panel. After
> the basic layout is determined and holes are cut in
> the supplied .025 panel, are there 'subpanels'
> attached to the face of the instrument panel? If
> so, what are the subpanels made of? Are they best
> attached using screws and nutplates? What about
> paint?
> >
> > If possible, attach pics to any replies
> (especially of work in progress)!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Dan Ginty
> > Woodlands, TX
> > 701 builder - 70% complete
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
Message 26
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Instrument panels |
Art, have a look here
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/bv/books_bingelis.html
Dino
On 3/29/07, Art Gibeaut <aagibeaut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Larry, can you be more specific on the book? I Googled
> and came up with nothing.
>
> New 701 Builder
>
> Do not archive
> --- LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
>
> > <larry@macsmachine.com>
> >
> > Dan,
> > .025 aluminum is a poor thickness for an instrument
> > panel. I'd start
> > with .050 and go from there. You will need
> > less reinforcement and attachments will need to be
> > fewer or less
> > stressed by the flexure of .025.
> > For better information, try the Bengilis Books and
> > what's suggested there.
> >
> > Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> > do not archive
> >
> > txpilot wrote:
> > <djg7@houston.rr.com>
> > >
> > > I'm looking for input from other builders on
> > exactly how to build the instrument panel. After
> > the basic layout is determined and holes are cut in
> > the supplied .025 panel, are there 'subpanels'
> > attached to the face of the instrument panel? If
> > so, what are the subpanels made of? Are they best
> > attached using screws and nutplates? What about
> > paint?
> > >
> > > If possible, attach pics to any replies
> > (especially of work in progress)!
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > > Dan Ginty
> > > Woodlands, TX
> > > 701 builder - 70% complete
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
> >
> > Web Forums!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Instrument panels |
Art,
Try the link below. I misspelled the Bingelis name, but
the link will refer you to 4 good books on building.
The one I'd recommend is Sportplane Construction Techniques
http://shop.eaa.org/html/04_books_bingelis.html?cart_id
Good luck,
Larry McFarland
do not archive
Art Gibeaut wrote:
>
> Larry, can you be more specific on the book? I Googled
> and came up with nothing.
>
> New 701 Builder
>
> Do not archive
> --- LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
>
>
>> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>>
>> Dan,
>> .025 aluminum is a poor thickness for an instrument
>> panel. I'd start
>> with .050 and go from there. You will need
>> less reinforcement and attachments will need to be
>> fewer or less
>> stressed by the flexure of .025.
>> For better information, try the Bengilis Books and
>> what's suggested there.
>>
>> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>> do not archive
>>
>> txpilot wrote:
>>
>>>
>> <djg7@houston.rr.com>
>>
>>> I'm looking for input from other builders on
>>>
>> exactly how to build the instrument panel. After
>> the basic layout is determined and holes are cut in
>> the supplied .025 panel, are there 'subpanels'
>> attached to the face of the instrument panel? If
>> so, what are the subpanels made of? Are they best
>> attached using screws and nutplates? What about
>> paint?
>>
>>> If possible, attach pics to any replies
>>>
>> (especially of work in progress)!
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan Ginty
>>> Woodlands, TX
>>> 701 builder - 70% complete
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
>>
>> Web Forums!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
>
>
>
Message 28
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Panel thickness |
Obviously most agree that .025 is too flimsy.
If you use .063 material for the panel and a couple of vertical stiffeners behnd
the panel between instruments it'll be okay.
I used half-by-half aluminum angle (1/8" thickness) riveted with A5s from the front.
Looks okay.
There were a couple of places where the angle is cut out a bit to clear instruments.
The verticals are mounted about 1/3 distance from each side, instrument
size and layout dictating actual brace location. The instrument holes were punched
with appropriately-sized Greenlee punches. Put the big half of the punch
on the back side for this, otherwise you'll have tool marks on the front that
even crackle paint may not hide.
Bent the bottom flange 2" in a brake, cut the top edge rounded per plans, then
had a professional welder TIG a 2-inch-wide strip of .063 across the top. The
wider flange & top shouldn't interfere with other items but does add some resistance
to wayward knees at the bottom.
With the holes cut and vertical braces in place there was no flexing. Once mounted
in the airframe it is solid and instruments don't sag from their own weight.
If I had it to do again I might build a "frame" only and mount it, then make the
flat panel with stiffeners to attach to the frame with Cam Locks or a hinge
or chewing gum or something. Attachment points would eat up some panel space.
Regards to all,
Zed/701/912/BR549/etc
Why in God's name would you not want that archived? You don't have to answer it
is now.
--------
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=103733#103733
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: | Jacking up Plane |
Hi List
Its time to change tires on my 601 and was wondering how people were jacking
up and supporting the plane to change the mains. It seems the only place to
lift would be under the spars. Anybody done this or have ideas?
Thanks
John
_________________________________________________________________
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian.
http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE
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: | Re: NTSB Final Report Available |
Terry,
The thing I see so often and would question, is whether the cap angles
were of the correct material. Too often people ask if the spar cap angles
can be bought from local sources like Farm & Fleet. The fact that the
wing is considerably thinner and that so many have questioned the
material for this particular part of construction suggests that perhaps
the builder(s) may have made a seriously bad assumption. I'd doubt FAA
investigators would even check material type and strength.
Simple adherence to material and bolt call outs would not get you to
failure of a spar structure with any of the excess weights below.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
Terry Phillips wrote:
> Lots of things of interest here.
>
> * 1st, the probable cause, structural failure of the wings for
> undetermined reasons, is troubling. But, the fire damage to the
> aluminum structure destroyed any evidence that might have told
> why the collapse occurred.
> * 2nd, with an estimated takeoff weight of 1326 lbs, the aircraft
> was 26 lbs over the stated gross of 1300 lbs. The gross
> currently listed for 601XL's on the Zenith website is 1320 lbs.
> * 3rd, this may have been the first flight of the airplane with
> two persons on board. If so, the extra 200 lb load may have been
> enough to collapse the wings.
> * 4th, it is not clear whether the builder, Mr. Hooker, flew the
> airplane beyond the 40 hr. requirement. The total hours on the
> airframe is not given.
> * 5th, while it is not explicitly stated, it appears that this
> aircraft was built from a kit, not from plans. That should
> remove the possibility that the wing spars were poorly
> constructed by the builder. It does not preclude damage to the
> spars during or prior to construction.
> * 6th, I find no mention in the report of the use of "hardware
> store" bolts in the spars which has been suggested in some posts
> to this group or of loose bolts.
> * 7th, the empty weight of the aircraft is given as 754.5 lbs
> which is about 60 lbs greater than the 695 lbs listed for the
> 601/Jab 3300 on the Zenith website. It would be enlightening to
> know where the 60 lbs comes from. The dual brakes are one item.
> My conclusion is that we should be very rigorous in evaluating
> the weight/benefit ratio of anything we add to the basic
> airframe. I'm curious what empty weights others builders have
> ended up with.
> * 8th, the reports gives the unusable fuel as 3 gal. I know I've
> seen that number before, but I cannot seem to find it in the
> information I have. A useful fuel load of 21 gal vs. 24 gal
> makes me wish I had opted for the 30 gal tanks.
> * 9th, the elongated rivet holes probably resulted from the forces
> of impact. However, if they were a construction defect, is it
> possible that they could have weakened the wing structure?
>
> In summary, lots of information here, but it would have been great if
> they had identified the cause of the wing failure. Then we could make
> sure that, at least, we try to correct any obvious shortcomings in the
> design.
>
> Terry
Message 31
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Panel thickness |
I'm using the stock, standard, kit-supplied instrument panel. All my instr
uments are just hanging out the back. My Transponder and COM Radio are abo
ut 6 inches long, so they are braced in the back. Other than that, I haven
't had any problems.
I've been flying for about 120 hours now. It sure is easy to over think th
ings when you're building. Just cut holes in the stock panel, get finished
early and go flying.Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
Northwest New Jersey
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Panel thickness> From: wr.giacona@suddenlink.ne
t> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:06:50 -0700> To: zenith-list@matronics.com> >
>> > Obviously most agree that .025 is too flimsy.> > If you use .063 mater
ial for the panel and a couple of vertical stiffeners behnd the panel betwe
en instruments it'll be okay.> > I used half-by-half aluminum angle (1/8" t
hickness) riveted with A5s from the front. Looks okay.> There were a couple
of places where the angle is cut out a bit to clear instruments. The verti
cals are mounted about 1/3 distance from each side, instrument size and lay
out dictating actual brace location. The instrument holes were punched with
appropriately-sized Greenlee punches. Put the big half of the punch on the
back side for this, otherwise you'll have tool marks on the front that eve
n crackle paint may not hide.> > Bent the bottom flange 2" in a brake, cut
the top edge rounded per plans, then had a professional welder TIG a 2-inch
-wide strip of .063 across the top. The wider flange & top shouldn't interf
ere with other items but does add some resistance to wayward knees at the b
ottom.> > With the holes cut and vertical braces in place there was no flex
ing. Once mounted in the airframe it is solid and instruments don't sag fro
m their own weight.> > If I had it to do again I might build a "frame" only
and mount it, then make the flat panel with stiffeners to attach to the fr
ame with Cam Locks or a hinge or chewing gum or something. Attachment point
s would eat up some panel space. > > Regards to all,> > Zed/701/912/BR549/e
tc> > Why in God's name would you not want that archived? You don't have to
answer it is now.> > --------> W.R. "Gig" Giacona> 601XL Under C
onstruction> See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR> > > > > Read thi
s topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=10373
====================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
It=92s tax season, make sure to follow these few simple tips
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.
aspx?icid=WLMartagline
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: Jacking up Plane |
If it is an XL I think you could do it under the main gear with two or if you have
some help one jack. this might not work as well with and earlier 601.
--------
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=103740#103740
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: I think I fried my CHT |
George,
I also am using VDO gages with my 912. They have a terminal for the
sender wire, and a 12 V + terminal and a 12V ground as well as separate
terminals + and ground for the light.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: george.mueller@aurora.org
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: I think I fried my CHT
I have a couple of questions about installing instruments with a Rotax
912. I accidentally put 12 volts to my VDO CHT gauge and I think I
fried it. The needle at rest is now at the max reading. I didn't
notice at first that the CHT gauge requires no power (except for the
light) and the + terminal is for the sender. Does anyone know if
applying 12 volts to this gauge will fry it? I called VDO tech support
about 25 times and never got through. Also, I am not sure to hook up the
VDO tach. The back of the tack has a ground, power tab and one sender
tab. I hooked up the yellow and white wire from the 912 to the sender
tab and the blue and white wire from the 912 to airframe ground, and
have power wire and a ground wire going to the back of the tach. I then
set the DIP switch to 1=on, 2=off, 3=off. Is this correct?
Finally, for anyone with the Skyshops FWF kit, I am not sure how to
install the air filter in the cowl. I have a bracket and an aluminum
cylinder part and a strip of foam for the air filter install and I am
clueless as to how this all goes together. There is nothing on this in
the Skyshops instructions.
George in Milwaukee
701 almost ready to assemble at the airport
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: | Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' |
Hi Ray,
You may want to do the following. First, you can install
vortex generators, if you are so inclined. This is a quick thing to do.
Then, if that does not suffices, you may want to
look into the wing root fairings I have designed, seen at
http://www.utdallas.edu/~klaus/Airplane/wing_root_fairing.html
With those fairings, you surely will satisfy the LSA requirements,
for the following reasons. For my HDS, the fairings reduced the
stall speed at 1020 lbs from 50 KIAS to 42 kts KIAS, which translates
to 58 mph versus 48 mph. My guess is that a 1,100 lbs, which effectively
is the gross limit for my plane due to CG limitations, I would satisfy LSA.
Your clipped wing HD has substantially more wing area than the HDS
since the wing does not taper. Hence, stall speed will be even lower.
BTW, do not worry about top speed going beyond the LSA requirement.
With all the design improvements, my HDS has top speed somewhere
around 132 mph, single pilot, 3,000 ft altitude.
This is with the 80 hp Rotax 912 UL and
with the propeller pitched so that, in level flight, wide open throttle
produces
5,400 rpm.
Best wishes,
Klaus
--
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 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: 601HD wings modified to 23' |
What excellent work Klaus! That's really interesting and significant
results.......
Tailwinds always,
JG
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Klaus Truemper
To: Zenith-List@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:31 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23'
Hi Ray,
You may want to do the following. First, you can install
vortex generators, if you are so inclined. This is a quick thing to
do.
Then, if that does not suffices, you may want to
look into the wing root fairings I have designed, seen at
http://www.utdallas.edu/~klaus/Airplane/wing_root_fairing.html
With those fairings, you surely will satisfy the LSA requirements,
for the following reasons. For my HDS, the fairings reduced the
stall speed at 1020 lbs from 50 KIAS to 42 kts KIAS, which translates
to 58 mph versus 48 mph. My guess is that a 1,100 lbs, which
effectively
is the gross limit for my plane due to CG limitations, I would satisfy
LSA.
Your clipped wing HD has substantially more wing area than the HDS
since the wing does not taper. Hence, stall speed will be even lower.
BTW, do not worry about top speed going beyond the LSA requirement.
With all the design improvements, my HDS has top speed somewhere
around 132 mph, single pilot, 3,000 ft altitude.
This is with the 80 hp Rotax 912 UL and
with the propeller pitched so that, in level flight, wide open
throttle
produces
5,400 rpm.
Best wishes,
Klaus
--
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 36
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: 601HD wings modified to 23' |
[quote="Gig Giacona
Please note that the original poster said, "The first owner ordered modified 23'
wings instead of the original 27' wings." He didn't say anything about cliping
the wings. I wasn't aware that Zenith ever offered a shorter wing option other
than the HDS wing.[/quote]
Ahhh... I see. Good point Gig.
The title "601HD wings modified to 23'" had me thinking that these were HD wings
modified to 23'. I figured the "modified" part meant that they were clipped.
This was discussed on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/601_HD-HDS/
a few months ago. I had talked to one of the ZAC guys (Sebastion?) about doing
exactlty that: clipping about 2' from the outboard tip of the HD wing, clipping
off the outboard panel and ending the wing at the end of the aileron.
Ray, are the ribs all the same size, or are there pairs of progressively smaller
ribs as the planform goes outboard?
Thanks,
Rick
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103766#103766
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: 601HD wings modified to 23' |
DITTO! I'm rethinking my planed XL fairings!
Do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: JG
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23'
What excellent work Klaus! That's really interesting and significant
results.......
Tailwinds always,
JG
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Klaus Truemper
To: Zenith-List@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:31 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23'
<klaus@utdallas.edu>
Hi Ray,
You may want to do the following. First, you can install
vortex generators, if you are so inclined. This is a quick thing to
do.
Then, if that does not suffices, you may want to
look into the wing root fairings I have designed, seen at
http://www.utdallas.edu/~klaus/Airplane/wing_root_fairing.html
With those fairings, you surely will satisfy the LSA requirements,
for the following reasons. For my HDS, the fairings reduced the
stall speed at 1020 lbs from 50 KIAS to 42 kts KIAS, which
translates
to 58 mph versus 48 mph. My guess is that a 1,100 lbs, which
effectively
is the gross limit for my plane due to CG limitations, I would
satisfy LSA.
Your clipped wing HD has substantially more wing area than the HDS
since the wing does not taper. Hence, stall speed will be even
lower.
BTW, do not worry about top speed going beyond the LSA requirement.
With all the design improvements, my HDS has top speed somewhere
around 132 mph, single pilot, 3,000 ft altitude.
This is with the 80 hp Rotax 912 UL and
with the propeller pitched so that, in level flight, wide open
throttle
produces
5,400 rpm.
Best wishes,
Klaus
--
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
http://www.matron===================
===
bsp; available via
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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 |
|
Looks like McMaster Carr has castle nuts that might meet your needs.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=103770#103770
Message 39
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Jacking up Plane |
I've wondered the same thing. With flat gear cessnas you can make a bracket out
of a couple of pieces of heavy steel or aluminum angle by clamping it to the
leg with bolts at either end. You'll want to pad it with something to protect
the paint. To the bottom angle weld a ball or something that will engage the
top of the jack. I suggest a floor jack on wheels as the gear will probably
spring out on you a bit when you raise it.
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=103775#103775
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: | Wing root fairings |
Klaus,
For those of us building XLs (with flaps), what do you think would be the effect
of adding only the forward part of the wing root fairings?
Jay in Dallas
Message 41
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Jacking up Plane |
John,
If you have the fork type the link below will show you the easiest way
to lift the plane
to change out tires and wheels, etc. Very low investment.
see link,
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/tjh/hscentersection/full/Teebarforkjack2.gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/completion/full/601-gear-fork-jack.gif
Larry McFarland
do not archive
john H wrote:
>
> Hi List
> Its time to change tires on my 601 and was wondering how people were
> jacking up and supporting the plane to change the mains. It seems the
> only place to lift would be under the spars. Anybody done this or have
> ideas?
> Thanks
> John
>
>
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 |
|
Paul-
Cool. On my 3rd flight ever with an instructor, he had me kick hard
right rudder while in a power on stall in our 1971 C150 trainer. You
know, the kind that had "Learn how to fly" on the tail.
When I recovered from the blackout from the snap roll, he said "You
don't want to do that".
It was a real rush. Unfortuately (Or fortunately, depending on how
you look at it) I've managed to outlive my first instructor by better
than 30 years.
As I understand it, the only difference between a C-150 and an
Aerobat is the grade of a couple of spar bolts. I could care less about
loops, but I intend to aileron roll my HDS. Call me conservatively
stupid.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: paulrod36@msn.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Apology
Breathes there a man with soul so glub,
Would never loop a J-3 Cub;
To make the horizon all a-snocker,
And barrel roll an old Airknocker?
Is his sense of joy so thin,
He'd never want to do a spin?
To heave the stick to left or right
and aileron roll with all his might?
Others might think him a bit daft.
As he Immelmans his Taylorcraft.
One could not say he's lived at all,
If he hasn't tried a hammerhead stall.
To nibble at the edge of fright,
In recovery from vertical flight.
People do these, all wide-eyed,
In airplanes that're Certified.
God lets people be all erratics,
But he only lets pilots know aerobatics.
(Apologies to the Muse!)
Paul Rodriguez
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Payne
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Apology
<craig@craigandjean.com>
> The FAA doesn't much care if you kill yourself in an airplane as
long as
you don't take out anybody else with you.
But your heirs might have a hard time collecting on your insurance:
personal
li========================
======================nbsp;
- The Zenith-List Email Forum
-http:/======================
========================n
bsp; - NEW MATRONICS WEB rums.matronics.com/
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http:===========
===========
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: 601HD wings modified to 23' |
Gig-
I can't say you're right, but I think you're wrong. EAA said NO.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wr.giacona@suddenlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601HD wings modified to 23'
> <wr.giacona@suddenlink.net>
>
> This is an unfinshed kit so the design issue doesn't really apply. When he
> finishes it he can call it the SuperDuper LSA Special and not mention
> either Zenith nor 601.
>
>
> naumuk(at)alltel.net wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --------
> 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=103648#103648
>
>
>
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 |
|
All-
I can't run a sewing machine, and ma's no better. Links for
interiors would be appreciated.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
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: | Jabiru Dual Throttles |
I'm sorting out the FWF kit from JabiruUSA that I purchased along with a 3300A.
I ordered the dual throttle kit but there is no documentation. I've figured
most of it out except for a 4 inch long piece of 1/8th x 3/4 inch aluminum.
Can anyone tell me what that piece is used for and does anyone have some pictures
of the dual throttle kit (firewall side) installed?
Thanks!
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=103787#103787
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 |
|
I'm not certain if theses nominal "XL" seats will fit in your HDS. The
side-panel fit is even more debatable. Top dollar but I bought some of their
factory leftovers on sale and am impressed by the quality. They are good
people to work with - they sent me the seats without payment and told me
that if they fit I should call back with my CC number.
www.skyshops.org/601seatsZ.htm
A lower cost alternative is to buy foam from these folks, cut it , form it,
glue it and have a local upholstery shop cover them. They have templates for
the XL but I don't know what they have for the HDS. Figuring out the
dimensions on your own isn't hard.
www.seatfoam.com
I debate the need for any side panels but if you want them the simple
approach is to find some inflammable foam 3/4" thick, cut to fit between the
stiffeners and cover with the material of your choice attached with 3M spray
adhesive. No sewing needed.
-- Craig
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: | Re: Panel thickness |
I'm with Phil. Stock, standard, kit supplied with all electric 6-pack. No
problems so far. The factory demonstrator has the same with more than 1000 hours.
Chris Heintz designs light. You (the manufacturer/owner/maintainer) can chose
to add weight.
Tim Garrett
601XL/Jabiru 3300
St. Louis
flyingwithms.com
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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: | Rudder Spar Dent |
Grrrr....mad at myself for either (1) not noticing this upon shipment OR (2)
causing it myself somehow, unknowingly.
I plan on contacting ZAC tomorrow to show them the pictures. It is a smooth
dent, about 4mm in width. I don't like where it is (~220mm from top of
spar). What is your take?
Thanks,
Tom
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: Panel thickness |
Be cautious adding weight, I have never attended a "happy" weighing.
Most homebuilts come in overweight. If you wind up adding more than
estimated weight, you may choose to use the attached VSI.
Regards,
Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas do not archive
EAA B-17 "Aluminum Overcast" arrived at VGT (North Las Vegas Air
Terminal) today, our EAA Chapter 163 will be working with them all
weekend, neat looking big bird!
Chris Heintz designs light. You (the manufacturer/owner/maintainer) can
chose to add weight.
Tim Garrett
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: | Rudder Spar Dent |
Hey Tom,
Please post Zeniths reply to your question about the dent on this list.
Thanks,
Todd
_____
I plan on contacting ZAC tomorrow to show them the pictures. It is a smooth
dent, about 4mm in width. I don't like where it is (~220mm from top of
spar). What is your take?
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! --
|