Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:58 AM - Re: just a consideration (jetboy)
2. 04:49 AM - Re: Wing Sweep (ashontz)
3. 05:01 AM - Re: just a consideration (BadBob)
4. 06:37 AM - Re: Dual Stick weight in 601 ()
5. 06:46 AM - Re: Fw: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (David Mikesell)
6. 07:07 AM - Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank (maarten versteeg)
7. 07:18 AM - Re: Dual Stick weight in 601 (Ronald Steele)
8. 07:34 AM - Aileron stop 6W10-4 (Bill Sewell)
9. 08:08 AM - Re: Aileron stop 6W10-4 (Craig Payne)
10. 08:10 AM - What a useful tool!!! (Jeff Small)
11. 08:17 AM - flying over gross (john butterfield)
12. 08:42 AM - Re: Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks (Michael Valentine)
13. 09:31 AM - Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks (Tim Juhl)
14. 09:34 AM - Re: Aileron stop 6W10-4 ()
15. 09:39 AM - remove from list (john)
16. 09:49 AM - Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks (dgardea(at)gmail.com)
17. 09:52 AM - Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks (PatrickW)
18. 09:57 AM - Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks (dgardea(at)gmail.com)
19. 10:09 AM - Re: flying over gross ()
20. 10:19 AM - Re: Fuel system contamination (ashontz)
21. 10:20 AM - Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks (Tim Juhl)
22. 10:35 AM - Re: 701 wing strut (billmileski)
23. 10:58 AM - Re: remove from list (Bill Steer)
24. 11:22 AM - 701 for sale ()
25. 12:20 PM - Re: 601 load tests (PatrickW)
26. 12:30 PM - Flutter Analysis Software (ashontz)
27. 12:43 PM - Re: Flutter Analysis Software (ashontz)
28. 03:30 PM - Dynon installation (Bill Naumuk)
29. 03:41 PM - Re: Re: Harbor Freight Products (Stanley Challgren)
30. 03:52 PM - Re: Dynon installation (Jaybannist@cs.com)
31. 04:38 PM - Re: Dynon installation ()
32. 05:10 PM - Re: Fw: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (Kurt A. Schumacher)
33. 06:30 PM - Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank (Ron Lendon)
34. 06:44 PM - Re: Fw: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (Bryan Martin)
35. 07:04 PM - Re: Re: Harbor Freight Products (Bill Naumuk)
36. 07:06 PM - Re: Dynon installation (Bill Naumuk)
37. 07:07 PM - Re: Fw: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (David Mikesell)
38. 07:12 PM - Re: Dynon installation (RURUNY@aol.com)
39. 07:33 PM - Re: Dynon installation (Craig Payne)
40. 07:47 PM - Re: Dynon installation (Craig Payne)
41. 07:48 PM - Re: Re: Harbor Freight Products (Graeme)
42. 07:49 PM - Re: Fw: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (Paul Mulwitz)
43. 08:11 PM - Re: Re: Harbor Freight Products (Terry Turnquist)
44. 08:11 PM - Fuel Line Length between Wing Tank and Selector Valve? (PatrickW)
45. 09:06 PM - Re: Dynon installation (Gary Boothe)
46. 10:12 PM - Re: Fw: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (JohnDRead@aol.com)
47. 10:14 PM - Re: Aileron stop 6W10-4 (JohnDRead@aol.com)
48. 10:21 PM - Re: Re: 701 wing strut (JohnDRead@aol.com)
49. 11:17 PM - Re: Aileron stop 6W10-4 (Craig Payne)
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: just a consideration |
Fastback Cessna 150s don't have balance in the tails either, 150 series thru 150C
model. Also, the 601 rudder, being similar to my 701, is at least partly aerodynamically
and possibly mass balanced due to the position of the hinge axis?
I dont see any issues there. I did sit up and take notice of the 'washboarding'
wing vibrations reported on this forum a few months back to an XL, dismissed
at the time as being likely caused by heat efflux from a powerplant below.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112896#112896
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 |
|
I'm well aware of the differences. I also have a 601XL wing sitting on my workbench
and as careful as I've been constructing it, I'm not happy with the oil-canning
potential of the widely spaced ribs.
Neither the RV or the Grumman have a large hole on the top of the wing (baggage
compartment) in one of the most critical areas of the wing.
The additional support I believe the wing would benefit from (top spar cap angle
extrusion and 5 additional ribs) would only add about 10 pounds to each wing.
Hardly a difference in weight that would require a jet engine to get it off
the ground. Take away the wing locker and whatever additional weight in hiking
boots and toothbrushes to be transported would more than make up for it.
bryanmmartin wrote:
> Most RV's are 200 mph airplanes that weigh over 1600 lbs and can take a
> 180 hp engine. The Grumman Traveler is a four place 150 mph airplane
> with a gross weight of 2200 lbs and an O-320 engine. Do you think that
> might explain why they have more wing ribs than a 1320 lb, 130 mph
> airplane designed to handle no more than 130 hp?
>
> As far as wing sweep is concerned, take a good look at a Cessna Skyhawk.
> Notice the straight leading edge and the tapered trailing edge? Would
> anyone call the Cessna wing a forward swept wing? Many aircraft have
> been built over the years with a similar planform and none of them are
> considered forward swept wings. From a practical standpoint, a wing is
> not considered swept unless both the leading edge and the mean chord
> line are swept back or forward. Even if there is a small amount of sweep
> to the CH601XL wing, it isn't enough to have a significant effect in the
> flight envelope the plane operates in. The aerodynamic problems
> associated with forward swept wings only show up when there is a
> substantial amount of sweep and, usually, speeds well beyond the safe
> limits of the CH601.
>
> We're not building F-15s here, we're building lightweight sport
> airplanes. I could build an airplane that would never break up under any
> conceivable flight conditions, you could fly it through thunder storms,
> hurricanes and even tornadoes. The only problem is, it would be so
> damned heavy, you would need a GE-90 to get the thing off the ground.
>
>
> >
> >
> > When the plane is level (which means the wings are level), the wings are in
fact swept forward. If there was no dyhedral (even with the inclined spar),
the wings regardless of whether it was tilted back or forward 9 degrees would
would have no sweep. It's the dihedral in conjunction with the inclined main spar
that causes a slight sweep forward when the plane is level.
> >
> > At what angle of attack does the plane fly at at cruise speed? 9 degrees.
In that case, the wings would have no sweep while in flight.
> >
> > Even so, I don't think the sweep is too much of a problem no that I think
about it. I think the bigger issue is that personally, now that I think about
it and compare the XL to other planes, it doesn't have enough ribs in the wing.
A RV has ribs every 9 inches, even a Grumman Traveler has them every 15 inches
where as the XL has them at 21+ inches. Push on the skin on either of those
wings and they feel solid where as the XL feels a little anemic. A fellow builder
has remarked that a lot of guys go ahead and put false ribs in the eliminate
oil-canning in the wings because there's just such a large space between ribs
that it's almost a give you're going to get some oil-canning, particularly
on the lower skin. I think thats a major indication that it doesn't just need
false ribs, but actual ribs in those locations. It's showing an inherent weakness
in those areas. Slightly oil-canning or depression when pushed by hand is
much more significant distortion under flight loads. A
> > n !
> >
>
>
> > oil can effect just with hand pressure probably distorts the wing by half
a millimeter. In flight conditions that could have up to a lot more shifting
of the structure. I think extra ribs in there would be a good idea. The strength
of the wing is reliant on the ability of the skins to distribute the force.
Allow that skin to move too much and you have problems. Not enough ribs is as
bad as oversized sloppy wholes on a plane that has enough ribs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> Zenith 601XL N61BM
> Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
> Do Not Archive
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112902#112902
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: just a consideration |
I have had my Cassutt to WELL over 200 knots in a dive. Neither the
rudder or elevator is balanced.
Do not archive.
Bob Johnson
badbob0007@earthlink.net
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: | Dual Stick weight in 601 |
Oh THAT WEIGHT! I thought the question was about the feel of resistance to movement.
My bad.
Dred
Do Not Archive
Do Not Listen to Idiots Like Me
---- Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know the difference in weight going with the dual stick option
> v.s. the single stick?
>
> 7.1 vs. 2.7 pounds for a difference of 4.4
>
> For the Y I weighed three parts: the torque tube, the Y stick and the rear
> support bearing 6B17-3.
>
> For the dual sticks I weighed the torque tube, support bearing, the two
> sticks, the control connection tube, the threaded rods, the three aluminum
> plates, the rod ends, the extruded L's and the hardware.
>
> -- Craig
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: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
Hmmm lets see no where did it say Standard or Utility and I have to agree if
you look at the website, promo material two different ratings. NO not like a
150 both the same plane, same weights, same performance but two different
negative g ratings. I hope just a typing error by the webmaster.
David Mikesell
23597 N. Hwy 99
Acampo, CA 95220
209-224-4485
skyguynca@skyguynca.com
www.skyguynca.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Martin" <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11
>
> Two separate claims for two separate standards of airworthiness. What's so
> odd about that? One's an Experimental Amateur Built and one has to meet
> the consensus standards under Special LSA. Even a Cessna 150 has two
> different load factors depending on which category you are operating it
> under, Normal or Utility.
>
>>
>> So now we have two seperate claims from CH about load factor? One stating
>> +6/-3 and another at +6/-6? Hhhhmmm. I doubt even the +6.
>>
>> [quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]came through white last time...
>> do not archive
>> David Downey wrote: [quote]Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: David Downey Subject: Re: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>
>> 601XL SN 6406 3-15-06 Ed 3 Rev 3 sheet 6-X-1 says:
>> "Design Load Factor (Ultimate): +/- 6 G @1320 lbs"
>> do not archive
>> Gig Giacona wrote:
>> the cover page of my set of 601XL plans S# 4959.
>>
>> "Design Load
>>> [b]
>>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> Zenith 601XL N61BM
> Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank |
Hello,
Yesterday evening I made the simple bead block press to create the bead on the
fuel tanks. The result is pretty good, but it requires a lot of pressure with
my vice on the .032 Al, also you have to do it in steps to keep the bead nice
and smooth. If I want to continue this I will also have to make a smaller block
that allows me to follow the curves of the fuel tank. The attached images show
the the little oak bead press block that I made and two images of results on
a bending test strip that I worked on to test the location for the fuel tank
bending. I'll continue working on this an report my results.
Regards,
Maarten
--------
Maarten Versteeg
601XL scratch building wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112931#112931
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bead_result_2_194.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bead_result_1_924.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/bead_block_186.jpg
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dual Stick weight in 601 |
Well, I was interested in weight wrt Gross Weight, but both pieces
info are useful.
Thanks for the responses.
Ron
On May 15, 2007, at 9:36 AM, <dredmoody@cox.net> <dredmoody@cox.net>
wrote:
>
> Oh THAT WEIGHT! I thought the question was about the feel of
> resistance to movement. My bad.
>
> Dred
> Do Not Archive
>
> Do Not Listen to Idiots Like Me
>
> ---- Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com> wrote:
>> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>>
>>> Does anyone know the difference in weight going with the dual
>>> stick option
>> v.s. the single stick?
>>
>> 7.1 vs. 2.7 pounds for a difference of 4.4
>>
>> For the Y I weighed three parts: the torque tube, the Y stick and
>> the rear
>> support bearing 6B17-3.
>>
>> For the dual sticks I weighed the torque tube, support bearing,
>> the two
>> sticks, the control connection tube, the threaded rods, the three
>> aluminum
>> plates, the rod ends, the extruded L's and the hardware.
>>
>> -- Craig
>
>
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: | Aileron stop 6W10-4 |
My 2003 601xl wing kit came with a different type of aileron stop than that
which is now being used. I have just installed the ailerons on the wings
and would like to change the stops to the new design. I have pictures of
the new design from the aircraft at the Zenith booth at Sun-n-Fun last
month. I also have the pictures in the latest revision (06/24/05) photo
assembly guide. Could someone provide me with the overall dimensions, bend
locations and material thickness for this part. Also, is it riveted at both
the top and bottom or just the top?
Thanks,
Bill Sewell
N601BZ
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: | Aileron stop 6W10-4 |
A scan of section 6W10 from the March '06 plans is attached. The length
(meaning width?) is given as 60, the developed length as 77. The material is
.040. The 4 sections are 15, 29, 15 and 20mm long.
-- Craig
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: | What a useful tool!!! |
Dred,
+++Thanks for the laugh and the excellent suggestion. I think that "do
not archive" is never used enough when the bull begins to fly, but this
phrasing "Do Not Listen to Idiots Like Me" should be part of the
standard signature of many of the modern era listers. Most of the rest
of us, frequent posters or just lurkers, readily see the failings in
reasoning (add MORE ribs!!!) of the "experts." If an opinion is
constantly hammered by the opinionated, then it's their prerogative,
only it reeks of desperation and illustrates that they hope to accept
their own views by repeating them so often.
To the others who are building: stay away from spending too much time
with the trivialities of this list. Sooner or later you will leave the
earthbound view of every day and see the world from aloft in a creation
of your own hands. About four minutes into your first flight, after the
adrenalin comes down and your focus can expand a bit, you will be awash
in a feeling that only a few have experienced. You have given yourself
wings.
Do Not Listen to Idiots Like Me
jeff
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: | flying over gross |
hi list
not sure about the wing design, but have been
wondering about the real effect of flying "over" the
max gross weight. i know we set the max ourselves,
but what is the real effect on the aircraft if you fly
over weight within the cg limits. i know many people
add a little weight when they fly. it seems to me
that since we set our own limits, what is the
ralationship between g forces and weight conditions.
likely, you will lose some performance and reductions
of you max g limits, but as far as strength goes, if
you fly at 1 g, it should not be a problem.
i am sure my question is improperly stated, but what
really happens if your machine is very heavy.
john butterfield
601XL, corvair
torrance, ca
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks |
Patrick - I did not have the most recent designs on this one. My spar was
built for 12 gallon tanks with 4 nose ribs inboard of the tank, two just
outboard, another space for a 12 gallon tank, then three more ribs outboard
of the second space. When I spoke with the factory about changing the spar
to accomodate the longer 15 gallon tank, they said I should put 2 nose ribs
outboard of the tank. There was already a hat stiffener in that location -
easy to install two ribs right there.
Michael in NH
do not archive
On 5/14/07, PatrickW <pwhoyt@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Michael Valentine wrote:
> > I also added 2 ribs where the hat stiffener is - around 1700mm - at the
> end of the tank. I think this is required if you go this route.
>
>
> Where did you find that information...?
>
> I'm just now finishing one wing, and don't recall seeing any requirement
> for 2 more ribs. I *think* I have the most recent drawings.
>
> I'd sure hate to button this thing up missing a couple of wing ribs...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Patrick
> 601XL/Corvair
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112869#112869
>
>
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: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks |
When you install the 15 gallon tanks you move the rib from the position of the
L that you cut off to another flange outboard of the tank. You still have 7 Nose
Ribs - 3 inbd of the tank and 4 outboard.
See pix.
Tim
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112954#112954
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/noseribs2_212.jpg
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: | Aileron stop 6W10-4 |
The drawing also answers the question about riveting the piece. It is riveted with
the line of bottom rear skin to the flange rear spar channel and also to the
web of the rear spar channel.
Dred
---- Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com> wrote:
> A scan of section 6W10 from the March '06 plans is attached. The length
> (meaning width?) is given as 60, the developed length as 77. The material is
> .040. The 4 sections are 15, 29, 15 and 20mm long.
>
> -- Craig
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | remove from list |
please remove me from list jcl64@scccinternet.com thanks john
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: | Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks |
Tim,
So I will need to add a new nose rib "L" for the relocated nose rib #4? Thanks
for the pic. What is the new position for the relocated nose rib #4? I could not
find any reference to this in plans or assy docs, i.e., modifications of the
spar/nose rib attachment points to support the long range tanks. (Maybe I did
not look hard enough)
Thanks,
Dave
--------
Dave Gardea
601XL - Corvair
working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112959#112959
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: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks |
Tim Juhl wrote:
> See pix.Tim
Gotcha. Thanks. I'm ok.
It sure is nice to have this forum to correspond with others who are doing the
same thing.
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112960#112960
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: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks |
Pls disregard the last post .. I found the location, just the other side of the
hat stiffener, on the drawing at 1750 from the spar root for the relocated nose
rib #4 to support the long range tank.
Thanks for the help again, guys.
Dave Gardea
do not archive
--------
Dave Gardea
601XL - Corvair
working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112961#112961
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: flying over gross |
Seems like straightforward physics to me. 1G means one gravitational acceleration
force on the weight (mass) of the plane. If that weight is 1200 pounds the
wings are supporting 1200 pounds at 1G. If it's 200 pounds heavier, the wings
support 1400 pounds at 1G. Now at 3Gs the first plane's wings are supporting 3600
pounds and the secong one is supporting 4200 pounds. The difference in load
on the wings is 200 pounds at 1G but 600 pounds at 3Gs.
When you talk about flying at 1G, I expect you realize that you can't actually
do that for an entire flight.... you are constantly accelerating and decelerating
in various directions the whole time. Therefore the question is irrelevant.
The average Summer day around SW Louisiana includes a lot of 2.5 to 3G turbulence
even if I don't accelerate the plane at all.
Bottom line is go with what the designer established to allow you a margin of safety.
Dred
Do Not Archive
Do Not Second Guess the Designer
---- john butterfield <jdbutterfield@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> hi list
> not sure about the wing design, but have been
> wondering about the real effect of flying "over" the
> max gross weight. i know we set the max ourselves,
> but what is the real effect on the aircraft if you fly
> over weight within the cg limits. i know many people
> add a little weight when they fly. it seems to me
> that since we set our own limits, what is the
> ralationship between g forces and weight conditions.
> likely, you will lose some performance and reductions
> of you max g limits, but as far as strength goes, if
> you fly at 1 g, it should not be a problem.
>
> i am sure my question is improperly stated, but what
> really happens if your machine is very heavy.
> john butterfield
> 601XL, corvair
> torrance, ca
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: Fuel system contamination |
I agree, it sounds like 2-cycle oil, actually, it almost sounds like regualr motor
oil used as 2-cycle oil, (you can do that but it smokes like hell). My boat
has had the same black fuel lines for 11 years (yes, I shoud replace them),
even so, I've never seen anything like that in my fuel/water seperator even after
mixing stabilizer in the tanks and letting it sit over the winter.
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
> It nearly sounds like the guy tried to use the same can for his plane
> and a 2-cycle lawn mower. Aside from that, perhaps he put
> an additive in thinking it would mix and stabilize his fuel over
> winter. If he used a bad float, it may have gone south too. I'd at the
> least
> get a flashlight and a mirror in the tank after emptying it and have a
> good look inside.
>
> Larry McFarland at www.macsmachine.com
> do not archive
>
> robert stone wrote:
>
> > Members,
> > I have not had my ZodiacXL for very long and was unaware of the
> > center fuel drain until a friend pointed it out to me. When I opened
> > the valve nothing but black materiel came out eventually turning green
> > then finally blue. I have no idea what this materiel was but I
> > suspect auto fuel. I did not build this aircraft but got it from a
> > man in Ringwood, Oklahoma and I suspect he used auto fuel to fly the
> > 40 hours off. Have any of you Zodiac601XL builders had an experence
> > like this and what action did you take.
> >
> > Tracy Stone DO NOT ARCHIVE
> > Zodiac601XL
> > Harker Heights, Tx
> > *==========================
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112965#112965
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: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks |
For what it is worth - I had to add additional cork to the ends of the fuel tank
to get a snug fit using the ZAC rib locations. IMPORTANT - Fitting the tank
is difficult with both the #3 & 4 ribs riveted in place. In my case I didn't
rivet NR4 until the tank was installed because my capacitance type fuel sender
was installed on that end. If you used the standard float type you might want
to hold off on riveting NR 3 until everything is fitted and the tank installed.
I also had to build up some cork around the filler hole (about 5/16") to
make a snug fit without pushing the skin down around the neck. See pix.
If your filler neck turns in with any difficulty at all you might want to get on
the list for the "big tap" loaned out by ZAC. On one of my tanks when I hand
screwed the neck in and left it for a couple of days I couldn't get it back
out. The threads crossed and locked and I had to destroy the neck to remove
it. If you want more info do a search of Fuel Filler Neck Woes.
Tim
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112966#112966
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/fillhole_206.jpg
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: 701 wing strut |
I have one piece struts, and interestingly, from the factory, one fit perfectly,
and the other needed a four degree twist. I jigged it and carefully heated and
twisted the 4130 tube about a foot from the end and it worked out well.
I actually have one of the newer two-piece struts for the 701, as received from
Zenith (still wrapped), if anyone is interested.
Bill Mileski
Ledyard, CT
701/912S/90hrs
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112969#112969
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: remove from list |
You'll have to do that yourself, John, by going to the Matronics site
and following the directions there.
Bill
Do not archive
john wrote:
> please remove me from list jcl64@scccinternet.com
> <mailto:jcl64@scccinternet.com> thanks john
> *
> *
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 |
|
Just listed on Barnstormers under kit planes.
ZENITH 701 STOL . $21,000 . FOR SALE . Purchased as kit assembled ready
for engine/firewall forward. Wings not attached. Will give an EA81
engine (not rebuilt or in working order). Have pictures as it was being
assembled and plans. Always stored in a garage or hanger. Call or email
with questions. Marana is close to Tucson. . Contact Gayla A. Lemey -
located Marana, AZ USA . Telephone: 520-481-9252 . Posted May 15, 2007 .
Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser . Recommend This Ad to a Friend .
Email Advertiser . Report This Ad
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: 601 load tests |
Hey guys - for what it's worth, these recent discussions sound a lot like what
went on on one of the RV forums a while back.
Here's a thread from an RV site discussing the losses of two RV's. One was an
early RV-3, and the other was the RV-8 demo plane which was lost due to wings
folding:
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=10593&page=1&pp=10
Here is a Service Bulletin on the RV-3 wing failures:
http://vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb96-03-1.pdf
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112990#112990
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: | Flutter Analysis Software |
http://www.aircraftdesigns.com/books.html
MODERN AERODYNAMIC FLUTTER ANALYSIS by Martin Hollmann.
Aircraft flutter is still one of those problems that takes the lives of a number
of aviators every year. Today, with the power of personal computers, PCs, and
the use of a powerful and accurate computer program as outlined in the MODERN
AERODYNAMIC FLUTTER ANALYSIS, flutter can be accurately predicted on an aircraft
before it is flown. This book is the only book which covers the history of
flutter analysis up to the present time. The flutter phenomena is explained
in layman terms and the process of predicting flutter using a program called Subsonic
Flutter Analysis, SAF, is explained.
MODERN AERODYNAMIC FLUTTER ANALYSIS describes the analysis sequence starting with
determining mode shapes and eigen values from a finite element analysis, ground
vibration survey test, flutter analysis using a doublet-lattice method and,
finally, a sensitivity study. Several examples are presented including the
wing of the Lancair IV, the Wheeler Express, a sailplane wing, a jet fighter and
the Stallion. Although the theory of the doublet-lattice procedure, modal interpolation,
generalized aerodynamic force interpolation and vibration analysis
is reviewed, the actual application of solving flutter problems is emphasized.
Finally, the Federal Aviation Administration's compliance to flutter prevention
is presented.
This book and software program is an absolute must for anyone designing a high
performance aircraft or for students interested in modern methods of solving flutter
problems.
Book: SALE PRICE $39.90.
Software program disk and key: The compiled Subsonic Flutter Analysis program for
Windows 95/98/2000. This is one of the best programs for flutter analysis.
It is used through out the aerospace industry. SALE PRICE $998.00
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112993#112993
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: Flutter Analysis Software |
http://www.geocities.com/mgd3/flying/flutter
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112996#112996
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: | Dynon installation |
All-
Many thanks to Larry Mac for measuring the space between his panel
and firewall for me.
Recent posts on numerous lists have insinuated that there wasn't
enough room to mount a Dynon in a Zenith with a header tank. Using
Larry's numbers, worst case scenario is I have 5-3/8" to work with.
According to the Dynon website, a D-100 EFIS is 4.51" deep. Should be
doable.
Thoughts? Excuse me, from Dynon owners, not speculators.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
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: | Re: Harbor Freight Products |
Dred & Dave:
OK, I will start over and dump out the oil I added as per the
instruction manual. The few drops before each day's use is what I
had been doing with the other rivet pullers I have.
Guess I should know better than to start reading instructions after 70
+ years.
Thanks,
Stan
On Apr 12, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Edward Moody II wrote:
> In my Harbor Freight puller, I only had trouble when I was putting
> oil in only periodically. After a year and a half of that practice,
> it would not reset after each rivet pulled. Once I began to put two
> - three drops at each work session, it has never given any more
> problems.
>
> Dred
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: TxDave
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:48 AM
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Harbor Freight Products
>
>
> Hey Stan,
>
> I have the same pneumatic riveter. You don't need to "prime" it.
> You only have to put 1 or 2 drops of oil in the inlet periodically
> to keep the moving parts lubricated. I have pulled thousands of
> rivets with mine without a hiccup. Sounds like you may have used
> too much oil. My apologies if I assumed incorrectly.
>
>
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: | Dynon installation |
Bill,
My Dynon EMS-D10 is only 4 1/2" deep; but when you attach the 37-pin D-sub connector
and room to curl the wiring, it requires around 10".
Jay in Dallas
"Bill Naumuk" <naumuk@alltel.net> wrote:
>All-
> Many thanks to Larry Mac for measuring the space between his panel and firewall
for me.
> Recent posts on numerous lists have insinuated that there wasn't enough room
to mount a Dynon in a Zenith with a header tank. Using Larry's numbers, worst
case scenario is I have 5-3/8" to work with. According to the Dynon website,
a D-100 EFIS is 4.51" deep. Should be doable.
> Thoughts? Excuse me, from Dynon owners, not speculators.
>Bill Naumuk
>HDS Fuse/Corvair
>Townville, Pa
>
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: Dynon installation |
With my ASF units the chasis depth is only part of the equation. I am advised by
the website info that the unit is 5.5" in depth plus connectors. They do not
estimate the depth of the plug and the radius of wire that exits the plug (in
a forward direction). My guess is that will take about 3 additional inches. Check
Dynon's website or call their customer support before making any concrete
plans.
Dred
Do Not archive
---- Bill Naumuk <naumuk@alltel.net> wrote:
> All-
> Many thanks to Larry Mac for measuring the space between his panel and firewall
for me.
> Recent posts on numerous lists have insinuated that there wasn't enough room
to mount a Dynon in a Zenith with a header tank. Using Larry's numbers, worst
case scenario is I have 5-3/8" to work with. According to the Dynon website,
a D-100 EFIS is 4.51" deep. Should be doable.
> Thoughts? Excuse me, from Dynon owners, not speculators.
> Bill Naumuk
> HDS Fuse/Corvair
> Townville, Pa
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: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
Ha, here is one more - the European distributor http://www.zenair.be/?PG=2
claims for the "normal" 601 XL (not the re-Europeanized 601 XL ULM variant
as shown under http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/xl-ulm.html without
technical data):
PERFORMANCE
CH601 XL w / ROTAX 912S
TOP SPEED
148
MPH
238
km/h
CRUISE (75%)
138
MPH
222
km/h
STALL SPEED V FE (with flaps)
38
MPH
60
km/h
STALL SPEED (no flaps)
48
MPH
78
km/h
RATE OF CLIMB
1200
FPM
4,8
m/sec
TAKE-OFF ROLL
500
Feet
152
m
LANDING DISTANCE
500
Feet
152
m
RANGE (std., no reserve)
600
s. m
960
km
ENDURANCE (no reserve)
4,5 h
NEVER EXCEED SPEED (VNE)
180
MPH
290
km/h
LOAD FACTOR (G)
+ 4 / - 2 g
This leads back to the realistic assumption (unless confirmed by the
factory) +6/-4 ultimate and +4/-2 limit is realistic.
At least - these are the numbers CZAW had published in better times.
-Kurt.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Mikesell
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11
<skyguynca@skyguynca.com>
Hmmm lets see no where did it say Standard or Utility and I have to agree if
you look at the website, promo material two different ratings. NO not like a
150 both the same plane, same weights, same performance but two different
negative g ratings. I hope just a typing error by the webmaster.
David Mikesell
23597 N. Hwy 99
Acampo, CA 95220
209-224-4485
skyguynca@skyguynca.com
www.skyguynca.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Martin" <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11
>
> Two separate claims for two separate standards of airworthiness. What's so
> odd about that? One's an Experimental Amateur Built and one has to meet
> the consensus standards under Special LSA. Even a Cessna 150 has two
> different load factors depending on which category you are operating it
> under, Normal or Utility.
>
>>
>> So now we have two seperate claims from CH about load factor? One stating
>> +6/-3 and another at +6/-6? Hhhhmmm. I doubt even the +6.
>>
>> [quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]came through white last time...
>> do not archive
>> David Downey wrote: [quote]Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: David Downey Subject: Re: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>
>> 601XL SN 6406 3-15-06 Ed 3 Rev 3 sheet 6-X-1 says:
>> "Design Load Factor (Ultimate): +/- 6 G @1320 lbs"
>> do not archive
>> Gig Giacona wrote:
>> the cover page of my set of 601XL plans S# 4959.
>>
>> "Design Load
>>> [b]
>>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> Zenith 601XL N61BM
> Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
>
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: Rolled bead for fuel tank |
Here are some pictures of the setup used for putting the beads in the tanks. One
pass gets the depth and just used a mark on the closure screw and counted turns
to get the same depth each time. I clamped a (1" x 3" x 7" steel block),
near the die end to keep things inline. Also polished the tools to get a better
surface finish, no marks on the sheet metal.
Kitlog entry here:
--------
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=113047#113047
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1138_137.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/100_1141_884.jpg
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: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
They are not the same airplane, technically speaking. The +6 -3 G rated
plane is factory built by AMD in Georgia to meet the consensus standards
for S-LSA. The +6 -6 G rated plane is a homebuilt kit from Zenith
Aircraft in Missouri for Experimental Amateur Built. Two separate
airplanes built by two separate companies to two separate airwortiness
standards. Even if they are nearly identical in all other respects.
The consensus standards may have different guidelines for load ratings
than the homebuilt industry which may account for the difference. The G
ratings for the homebuilt version are probably based entirely on the
structural strength of the airframe and other components. The reduced
negative G rating for the S-LSA may be based on other considerations as
well. There are no set rules for homebuilt like there are for S-LSA.
Perhaps it takes into consideration the fuel system limitations for
instance. I don't know, I haven't studied the standards. But I would not
be surprised if the difference in load ratings is purely a technicality
of the S-LSA standards.
The Zodiac kits sold in Europe have to be certificated under European
rules which are also more restrictive than the American E-AB rules,
which probably accounts for the difference in load ratings there.
I never implied that the difference was because one was utility and one
was standard since those terms in no way apply to either the S-LSA or
the E-AB airworthiness certificates, I merely used the C-150 as an
example of how aircraft specifications can differ for the same type
aircraft based on the certification standards it was being operated under.
David Mikesell wrote:
> <skyguynca@skyguynca.com>
>
> Hmmm lets see no where did it say Standard or Utility and I have to
> agree if you look at the website, promo material two different ratings.
> NO not like a 150 both the same plane, same weights, same performance
> but two different negative g ratings. I hope just a typing error by the
> webmaster.
>
> David Mikesell
>
>> <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>>
>> Two separate claims for two separate standards of airworthiness.
>> What's so odd about that?....
>>
>>>
>>> So now we have two seperate claims from CH about load factor? One
>>> stating +6/-3 and another at +6/-6? Hhhhmmm. I doubt even the +6.
>>>
>>>
>>
--
Bryan Martin
Zenith 601XL N61BM
Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
Do Not Archive
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: Harbor Freight Products |
All-
I recently had problems with my HF puller- had nothing to do with
lube, but with nosepieces working themselves loose.
I put a couple of drops of oil in the inlet every time I used the
puller, and when I had to tear it apart to find the real reason it
wasn't working, oil just gushed out.
I don't think oiling every time you pull hurts anything, but I don't
think that's the cause of the problem. In my case, I KNOW it wasn't the
cause.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: Stanley Challgren
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Harbor Freight Products
Dred & Dave:
OK, I will start over and dump out the oil I added as per the
instruction manual. The few drops before each day's use is what I had
been doing with the other rivet pullers I have.
Guess I should know better than to start reading instructions after
70+ years.
Thanks,
Stan
On Apr 12, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Edward Moody II wrote:
In my Harbor Freight puller, I only had trouble when I was putting
oil in only periodically. After a year and a half of that practice, it
would not reset after each rivet pulled. Once I began to put two - three
drops at each work session, it has never given any more problems.
Dred
----- Original Message -----
From: TxDave
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:48 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Harbor Freight Products
Hey Stan,
I have the same pneumatic riveter. You don't need to "prime" it.
You only have to put 1 or 2 drops of oil in the inlet periodically to
keep the moving parts lubricated. I have pulled thousands of rivets with
mine without a hiccup. Sounds like you may have used too much oil. My
apologies if I assumed incorrectly.
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: Dynon installation |
5-1/2" for the connector and wiring?? Wow, am I screwed!
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jaybannist@cs.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:51 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Dynon installation
>
> Bill,
>
> My Dynon EMS-D10 is only 4 1/2" deep; but when you attach the 37-pin D-sub
> connector and room to curl the wiring, it requires around 10".
>
> Jay in Dallas
>
>
> "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk@alltel.net> wrote:
>
>>All-
>> Many thanks to Larry Mac for measuring the space between his panel and
>> firewall for me.
>> Recent posts on numerous lists have insinuated that there wasn't
>> enough room to mount a Dynon in a Zenith with a header tank. Using
>> Larry's numbers, worst case scenario is I have 5-3/8" to work with.
>> According to the Dynon website, a D-100 EFIS is 4.51" deep. Should be
>> doable.
>> Thoughts? Excuse me, from Dynon owners, not speculators.
>>Bill Naumuk
>>HDS Fuse/Corvair
>>Townville, Pa
>>
>
>
>
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: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
I have read as many people have the ATSM standards for LSA and no where
would it say to lower or recalculate it lower. I really don't see what point
you are trying to make. The XL is a XL no matter who builds it. They are
built from the same materials and plans to the standard set by the designer
CH.
David Mikesell
23597 N. Hwy 99
Acampo, CA 95220
209-224-4485
skyguynca@skyguynca.com
www.skyguynca.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Martin" <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11
>
> They are not the same airplane, technically speaking. The +6 -3 G rated
> plane is factory built by AMD in Georgia to meet the consensus standards
> for S-LSA. The +6 -6 G rated plane is a homebuilt kit from Zenith Aircraft
> in Missouri for Experimental Amateur Built. Two separate airplanes built
> by two separate companies to two separate airwortiness standards. Even if
> they are nearly identical in all other respects.
>
> The consensus standards may have different guidelines for load ratings
> than the homebuilt industry which may account for the difference. The G
> ratings for the homebuilt version are probably based entirely on the
> structural strength of the airframe and other components. The reduced
> negative G rating for the S-LSA may be based on other considerations as
> well. There are no set rules for homebuilt like there are for S-LSA.
> Perhaps it takes into consideration the fuel system limitations for
> instance. I don't know, I haven't studied the standards. But I would not
> be surprised if the difference in load ratings is purely a technicality of
> the S-LSA standards.
>
> The Zodiac kits sold in Europe have to be certificated under European
> rules which are also more restrictive than the American E-AB rules, which
> probably accounts for the difference in load ratings there.
>
> I never implied that the difference was because one was utility and one
> was standard since those terms in no way apply to either the S-LSA or the
> E-AB airworthiness certificates, I merely used the C-150 as an example of
> how aircraft specifications can differ for the same type aircraft based on
> the certification standards it was being operated under.
>
> David Mikesell wrote:
>> <skyguynca@skyguynca.com>
>>
>> Hmmm lets see no where did it say Standard or Utility and I have to agree
>> if you look at the website, promo material two different ratings. NO not
>> like a 150 both the same plane, same weights, same performance but two
>> different negative g ratings. I hope just a typing error by the
>> webmaster.
>>
>> David Mikesell
>>
>>> <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>>>
>>> Two separate claims for two separate standards of airworthiness. What's
>>> so odd about that?....
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So now we have two seperate claims from CH about load factor? One
>>>> stating +6/-3 and another at +6/-6? Hhhhmmm. I doubt even the +6.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> Zenith 601XL N61BM
> Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Dynon installation |
>but when you attach the 37-pin D-sub connector
>and room to curl the wiring, it requires around 10".
Also don't forget the tubing for pitot, AOA, and static. It might or might not
be an issue see pic at _http://www.701builder.com/electrical10.htm_
(http://www.701builder.com/electrical10.htm) go down
to the 9th pic on this page.
Brian Unruh
Long Island, NY
www.701builder.com
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Dynon installation |
There are right angle hoods for "D" connectors. With the connector and hood
I would estimate the total depth to be well under 2 inched. A typical
datasheet is attached. Digikey sells these for $4.29. But if you need more
than 25 pins you will need a different family of hoods (see second
datasheet).
For the pitot/static lines you could add right-angle unions.
-- Craig
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Dynon installation |
Take a look at this diagram: www.dynonavionics.com/downloads/EFIS%20D100.PDF
I think the depth you have to worry about is 4.15". The distance from the
forward face of the cage to the rear-facing surface of the D connector looks
to be 4.15.
-- Craig
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: Harbor Freight Products |
Most Pop riviters are air over hydraulic
the will use a tiny amount of oil with each pull.
after many rivets it will loose stroke.
the bottom has to come off the tool the air piston has to be removed you
will see the smaller shaft attached to the
piston this is the hydraulic piston you need to fill to the top the hole
where the small (approx 12mm) piston goes .
reassemble gun should be like new again.
if it looses stroke to quickly it may need new x rings.
Graeme Bell
Cairns Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Naumuk
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Harbor Freight Products
All-
I recently had problems with my HF puller- had nothing to do with
lube, but with nosepieces working themselves loose.
I put a couple of drops of oil in the inlet every time I used the
puller, and when I had to tear it apart to find the real reason it
wasn't working, oil just gushed out.
I don't think oiling every time you pull hurts anything, but I
don't think that's the cause of the problem. In my case, I KNOW it
wasn't the cause.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: Stanley Challgren
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Harbor Freight Products
Dred & Dave:
OK, I will start over and dump out the oil I added as per the
instruction manual. The few drops before each day's use is what I had
been doing with the other rivet pullers I have.
Guess I should know better than to start reading instructions after
70+ years.
Thanks,
Stan
On Apr 12, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Edward Moody II wrote:
In my Harbor Freight puller, I only had trouble when I was putting
oil in only periodically. After a year and a half of that practice, it
would not reset after each rivet pulled. Once I began to put two - three
drops at each work session, it has never given any more problems.
Dred
----- Original Message -----
From: TxDave
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:48 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Harbor Freight Products
<dclaytx2@hotmail.com>
Hey Stan,
I have the same pneumatic riveter. You don't need to "prime" it.
You only have to put 1 or 2 drops of oil in the inlet periodically to
keep the moving parts lubricated. I have pulled thousands of rivets with
mine without a hiccup. Sounds like you may have used too much oil. My
apologies if I assumed incorrectly.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matron
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
15/05/2007 10:47 AM
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
Hi David,
I have trouble accepting your position that an XL is an XL is an
XL. The CH601XL is not a single design. The official drawings as
released by ZAC allow for considerable choices including engine, wing
lockers, lights, aileron trim, fuel tank size, landing gear
configuration, and I'm not sure what else. In addition, the CZAW
CH601XL had some differences from the ZAC one including composite
landing gear instead of aluminum gear. I suspect AMD has its own
version of the XL including dual sticks instead of the single stick
design that is standard with ZAC. There are also major differences
in the aileron hinge design.
After that extensive list, you need to include the pathetic fact that
ZAC continues to make random design changes without any
announcement. I have seen several different elevator trim tab
designs, and I know there have been a number of other design changes
since I got my prints two years ago. It is these random design
changes made by the local ZAC engineers (note that CH has retired to
France) that concern me personally the most. Everyone I have talked
to at ZAC seems very nice, but none of them has anything even close
to Chris's experience designing airplanes.
That said, let me repeat that I am delighted Chris has committed to
reviewing and testing the current design again.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 07:06 PM 5/15/2007, you wrote:
>I have read as many people have the ATSM standards for LSA and no
>where would it say to lower or recalculate it lower. I really don't
>see what point you are trying to make. The XL is a XL no matter who
>builds it. They are built from the same materials and plans to the
>standard set by the designer CH.
>
>David Mikesell
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: Harbor Freight Products |
Some people (because of the poor documentation provided by the Chinese manufacturer)
don't realize that
their pneumatic rivet puller is only half air driven. The upper part, the piece
that actually pulls the rivet is hydraulic,
and needs to be filled with oil to about an inch from the top where the small
plunger enters the shaft opening.
The drop of oil placed in the air opening before each use is for the rest of
the moving parts.
Terry Turnquist
601-XL Plans
Bill Naumuk <naumuk@alltel.net> wrote:
All-
I recently had problems with my HF puller- had nothing to do with lube, but
with nosepieces working themselves loose.
I put a couple of drops of oil in the inlet every time I used the puller,
and when I had to tear it apart to find the real reason it wasn't working, oil
just gushed out.
I don't think oiling every time you pull hurts anything, but I don't think
that's the cause of the problem. In my case, I KNOW it wasn't the cause.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: Stanley Challgren
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Harbor Freight Products
Dred & Dave:
OK, I will start over and dump out the oil I added as per the instruction manual.
The few drops before each day's use is what I had been doing with the other
rivet pullers I have.
Guess I should know better than to start reading instructions after 70+ years.
Thanks,
Stan
On Apr 12, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Edward Moody II wrote:
In my Harbor Freight puller, I only had trouble when I was putting oil in only
periodically. After a year and a half of that practice, it would not reset
after each rivet pulled. Once I began to put two - three drops at each work session,
it has never given any more problems.
Dred
----- Original Message -----
From: TxDave
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 11:48 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Harbor Freight Products
Hey Stan,
I have the same pneumatic riveter. You don't need to "prime" it. You only have
to put 1 or 2 drops of oil in the inlet periodically to keep the moving parts
lubricated. I have pulled thousands of rivets with mine without a hiccup. Sounds
like you may have used too much oil. My apologies if I assumed incorrectly.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel Line Length between Wing Tank and Selector Valve? |
Does anyone know the length of fuel hose required between the wing tank and the
fuel selector valve on a 601XL...?
I'm looking at the bottom right diagram on page 6-K-2, but I do not see any figures.
I have a nice 20' length of braided steel fuel hose that I'd like to cut to proper
lengths with minimal waste.
Instead of me doing a rough guestimate, does anyone know the length so I can do
it right the first time?
Thanks,
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=113077#113077
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: | Dynon installation |
Bill,
This sounds encouraging for you. Can you move the installation out a bit
with a separate "shock" panel?
Gary Boothe
Cool, CA
601 HDSTD, WW Conversion 90% done,
Tail done, wings done, working on c-section
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:26 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Dynon installation
There are right angle hoods for "D" connectors. With the connector and hood
I would estimate the total depth to be well under 2 inched. A typical
datasheet is attached. Digikey sells these for $4.29. But if you need more
than 25 pins you will need a different family of hoods (see second
datasheet).
For the pitot/static lines you could add right-angle unions.
-- Craig
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
Instead of uninformed hypothesizing you could try sending a request for
clarification to the factory.
John Read
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron stop 6W10-4 |
Bill:
You should be able to download the drawings of the part from the
Zenith web site.
John Read
************************************** 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: | Re: 701 wing strut |
Bill:
I would strongly suggest that you use the new strut from the
factory. They will no doubt have a fit at the thought that you heated the tube
and
gave a twist!
John Read
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aileron stop 6W10-4 |
> You should be able to download the drawings of the part from the Zenith
web site.
>From where on the site? All I know of is the links off of this page which
only describe the changes:
www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/xl-up-drawings.html
-- Craig
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|