---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 07/26/07: 21 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:26 AM - Re: More torque wrench (David Downey) 2. 04:16 AM - Re: Pucker Factor (Afterfxllc@aol.com) 3. 04:21 AM - Re: Re: WW 601 Fuel and Ign System Parts list (Afterfxllc@aol.com) 4. 05:18 AM - Re: More torque wrench (ashontz) 5. 05:46 AM - Re: AMD Patriot (jsight) 6. 08:38 AM - 115mm flanging die needed (lwinger) 7. 09:06 AM - Re: More torque wrench (DanielBK) 8. 09:10 AM - Re: More torque wrench (ashontz) 9. 11:58 AM - Fw: Pucker Factor (wade jones) 10. 12:26 PM - Re: 115mm flanging die needed (Randy L. Thwing) 11. 02:09 PM - Re: 601XL fuel sender (AlanSmith) 12. 03:29 PM - form blocks (Jerry Hey) 13. 03:37 PM - Re: form blocks (wade jones) 14. 04:03 PM - Re: 115mm flanging die needed (Larry Winger) 15. 04:25 PM - Re: Re: More torque wrench (Southern Reflections) 16. 05:03 PM - Re: Re: More torque wrench (Dave Austin) 17. 05:36 PM - Re: Re: More torque wrench (LarryMcFarland) 18. 06:02 PM - Re: Re: More torque wrench (David Downey) 19. 07:40 PM - Re: form blocks (kevinbonds) 20. 08:04 PM - closing wing (Carlos Sa) 21. 09:52 PM - Off topic - Two killed in blast at Rutan rocket site in California (Craig Payne) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:26:13 AM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith-List: More torque wrench no reason for flames. Dead weight testing is one of the most stable methods known (as long as the reference is accurate). Just make sure that the socket is not off perpendicular and that there is no applied force to keep it that way. do not archive Mention was made earlier as to accuracy of various torque wrenches. Some years ago a field mechanic for Caterpillar told me that their wrenches were tested occasionally. Said they had, and most larger Cat distributors also had, a real test fixture for this purpose. When they were in the field and were in doubt, or just wanted to check one, they clamped a known good one in a vise and used a double-female very short "extension" to attach the unknown to the known and pulled on the free handle until the known read full scale....then checked the reading on the suspect wrench. Said they could check at any point across the range of a given wrench. This method may not be suitable for NASA, but he swears it works very well for checking (not calibrating), provided a known "good" wrench is used. Let the flames begin. Regards to all, Zed/701/R912/90+%/etc/do not archive. Dave Downey Harleysville (SE) PA 100 HP Corvair --------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:16:54 AM PST US From: Afterfxllc@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Pucker Factor I used 025 and not a pucker one plus it is a lot stiffer. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:21:53 AM PST US From: Afterfxllc@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: WW 601 Fuel and Ign System Parts list I had my hoses made local and put fire sleeve over them but I would wait until you need them to order them and be sure you only get what you need. Jeff In a message dated 7/25/2007 11:26:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, wr.giacona@suddenlink.net writes: http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=AER%2DFCA0620&N =700+300079+4294906619+115&autoview=sku ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:18:38 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: More torque wrench From: "ashontz" No flames. Actually, the metric vs English thing was an actual incident that occurred and caused them to lose a 150 million dollar Mars lander a few years back. I'm sure the project plan stuff is pretty accurate too. LOL do not archive [quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]no reason for flames. Dead weight testing is one of the most stable methods known (as long as the reference is accurate). Just make sure that the socket is not off perpendicular and that there is no applied force to keep it that way. do not archive Mention was made earlier as to accuracy of various torque wrenches. Some years ago a field mechanic for Caterpillar told me that their wrenches were tested occasionally. Said they had, and most larger Cat distributors also had, a real test fixture for this purpose. When they were in the field and were in doubt, or just wanted to check one, they clamped a known good one in a vise and used a double-female very short "extension" to attach the unknown to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. > [b] -------- Andy Shontz CH601XL - Corvair www.mykitlog.com/ashontz Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125747#125747 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:46:16 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: AMD Patriot From: "jsight" NYTerminat(at)aol.com wrote: > Wow, climbs 11,000 feet per minute, what a rocket!!!!!!!! > LOL! Yeah, that would be quite an aircraft! :-) I've corrected the typo. -------- Aviation Blog Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125753#125753 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:38:22 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: 115mm flanging die needed From: "lwinger" Thanks to a good building buddy, I already have two sets of flanging dies (65mm and 95mm). I'm missing the larger 115mm dies for my wing ribs. Is there anyone on the list with a 115mm set that I could use for a few weeks? I'll be glad to pay shipping both ways. Thanks. Feel free to contact me off list. Do not archive. -------- Larry Winger Tustin, CA 601XL/Corvair from scratch Control surfaces and wing spars complete Making wing ribs Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125769#125769 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:06:33 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: More torque wrench From: "DanielBK" ashontz wrote: > ... I guess a better method would be to clamp the torque wrench perpendicular to the floor and then add a given weight (say 80 lbs) to the handle of the torque wrench at the 1 foot mark on the handle from the center of the socket fitting and see that the wrench reads 80ft-lbs. ... > Actually, this would be a terrible method that is commonly thought to be a good method. Think vectors. Or for a practical example, think of two extremes, then deduce the situation between extremes. For the example, we'll use an accurate and new wrench, fresh from the factory calibration bench. We'll use a special wrench that allows 90 of movement between zero and max torque for no better reason than it makes for an easier demonstration of principle. If we begin with the setup suggested, with the business end in the vice, everything true, level and orthogonal, the handle horizontal, and no weight attached, we get an accurate reading of zero lb-ft (not "ft-lb", a common error). That's the first extreme. Next, apply a whole bunch of weight, such that the handle swings down to a near vertical position. The reading on the wrench will be considerably less than the weight applied. Why so? Because the weight is pulling straight down, not tangent to the arc of the handle swing. Only force applied on a tangent to the arc (perpendicular to the handle shaft) produces torque. We lost that perpendicularity with the very first movement of the handle, thus when we reach this near vertical condition, most of the weight is simply pulling straight out on the handle. That is the second extreme. It's self evident that the error produced by this method is minor at first and escalates the further we swing the handle. A tip though: The progression is not linear. Three solutions come to mind that would allow us to use a dead weight test. One would be to dust off a geometry text and compute the effect at any angular displacement. Sines, cosines, arctangents, etc. If that makes us groan, an alternative would be to simply draw the vectors (lines showing direction and scale) and measure the resultant. The third solution would be the dirty fingernails approach (perfectly appropriate): Build our clamping rig rig such that we clamp the wrench as before,on the socket stud, apply the known weight, then rotate the clamp and stud to the degree that the handle is once again horizontal. Then read the torque scale on the wrench. The weight is applied perpendicular to the handle in that situation & thus is all used to produce torque. For a clicker wrench, simply perform the process twice, once with just a tad less weight than the sought after torque (no click) and once with just a tad more (click). A final caveat. These tests only tell us if the wrench is accurate at the tested data point. If we want to know if the wrench is accurate over the full range, then we must perform a full range of tests. A wrench is commonly spot on at two points, one low and one high, with a negligible error in between and beyond each of those two points. The thing is, we don't know if that's the case without testing throughout the range. -------- Daniel Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125771#125771 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:10:43 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: More torque wrench From: "ashontz" Why would it swing down to a near vertical position, it's clamped in the vise. The only movement you'll see is about 1 or 2 degrees as indicated on the torque wrench scale. If you want to get really accurate you could also factor in the 1 or 2 degree movement but it's negligible. This is a static test, not a dynamic test. Not the same as trying to measure the torque of a running engine, which is actually done the same way really, you just measure the perpendicular force at a certain distance and the brake (be it water or asbetos brake pads) adds the force to that arm. DanielBK wrote: > > ashontz wrote: > > ... I guess a better method would be to clamp the torque wrench perpendicular to the floor and then add a given weight (say 80 lbs) to the handle of the torque wrench at the 1 foot mark on the handle from the center of the socket fitting and see that the wrench reads 80ft-lbs. ... > > > > > Actually, this would be a terrible method that is commonly thought to be a good method. Think vectors. Or for a practical example, think of two extremes, then deduce the situation between extremes. For the example, we'll use an accurate and new wrench, fresh from the factory calibration bench. We'll use a special wrench that allows 90 of movement between zero and max torque for no better reason than it makes for an easier demonstration of principle. > > If we begin with the setup suggested, with the business end in the vice, everything true, level and orthogonal, the handle horizontal, and no weight attached, we get an accurate reading of zero lb-ft (not "ft-lb", a common error). That's the first extreme. > > Next, apply a whole bunch of weight, such that the handle swings down to a near vertical position. The reading on the wrench will be considerably less than the weight applied. Why so? Because the weight is pulling straight down, not tangent to the arc of the handle swing. Only force applied on a tangent to the arc (perpendicular to the handle shaft) produces torque. We lost that perpendicularity with the very first movement of the handle, thus when we reach this near vertical condition, most of the weight is simply pulling straight out on the handle. That is the second extreme. > > It's self evident that the error produced by this method is minor at first and escalates the further we swing the handle. A tip though: The progression is not linear. > > Three solutions come to mind that would allow us to use a dead weight test. One would be to dust off a geometry text and compute the effect at any angular displacement. Sines, cosines, arctangents, etc. If that makes us groan, an alternative would be to simply draw the vectors (lines showing direction and scale) and measure the resultant. The third solution would be the dirty fingernails approach (perfectly appropriate): Build our clamping rig rig such that we clamp the wrench as before,on the socket stud, apply the known weight, then rotate the clamp and stud to the degree that the handle is once again horizontal. Then read the torque scale on the wrench. The weight is applied perpendicular to the handle in that situation & thus is all used to produce torque. For a clicker wrench, simply perform the process twice, once with just a tad less weight than the sought after torque (no click) and once with just a tad more (click). > > A final caveat. These tests only tell us if the wrench is accurate at the tested data point. If we want to know if the wrench is accurate over the full range, then we must perform a full range of tests. A wrench is commonly spot on at two points, one low and one high, with a negligible error in between and beyond each of those two points. The thing is, we don't know if that's the case without testing throughout the range. -------- Andy Shontz CH601XL - Corvair www.mykitlog.com/ashontz Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125772#125772 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 11:58:52 AM PST US From: "wade jones" Subject: Fw: Zenith-List: Pucker Factor Thanks to all that replied to my request .I am using .025 material and am well along the way . Thanks again Wade Jones South Texas 601XL plans building Cont. 0200 ----- Original Message ----- From: wade jones Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 7:00 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Pucker Factor Hello group ,I have just started fitting my middle top skin and will try very hard to not get the dreaded pucker .This is where it makes a compound bend with the forward side skin .ZAC instructions say to back drill to 6-B-12-2 then drill to the longerons then to the tube frames .then install this skin under the forward side skins .Has anyone in the group got by without any pucker in this area .Is there a better sequence for this task. Has anyone let the middle top skin go on top of the forward side skin .All replies will be greatly appreciated . Wade Jones South Texas 601XL plans building Cont. 0200 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:26:46 PM PST US From: "Randy L. Thwing" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 115mm flanging die needed Hey Larry: If you don't get a better offer, my "iron" dies are available. They are currently in the "custody" of Builder John Bolding in Texas who is finished with them and awaiting shipping instructions. It is the three die set that needs to stay together, but it is my understanding that the three dies will fit in a postal flat rate box and ship for under ten bucks. Let me know if you want them. Best Regards, Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas do not archive Subject: Zenith-List: 115mm flanging die needed > > Thanks to a good building buddy, I already have two sets of flanging dies (65mm and 95mm). I'm missing the larger 115mm dies for my wing ribs. > > Is there anyone on the list with a 115mm set that I could use for a few weeks? I'll be glad to pay shipping both ways. Thanks. > > Feel free to contact me off list. > > Do not archive. > > -------- > Larry Winger > Tustin, CA > 601XL/Corvair from scratch > Control surfaces and wing spars complete > Making wing ribs ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 02:09:24 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL fuel sender From: "AlanSmith" I have not gotten a chance to put a VOM on the wire yet, but I did fill the take to about 13 gal. and fly for an hour or so. Somewhere along the way my wife noticed that the gauge started reading something believable (12.5). After I while it dropped to 4, than up to 8, then 5.... It can't simply be getting stuck, because there is no reason for it to have ever hit zero. It can't have a hole in the float, because it never would gave risen up from zero. It must be some kind of failure in the sender, or faulty wiring on my part. The up-side of these senders is that they fit. No need for any dome covers on the wings. Thanks for the input. Alan -------- Alan Smith Zodiac 601 N601FW oaksnspokes@earthlink.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125807#125807 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 03:29:57 PM PST US From: Jerry Hey Subject: Zenith-List: form blocks I am just getting started. Tomorrow I plan to pick up material for form blocks. Is 3/4 inch hardwood good for all situations? Thanks, Jerry CH 701 ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 03:37:25 PM PST US From: "wade jones" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: form blocks Hi Jerry ,the hardwood will work but why spend so much money .3/4" MDF is much cheaper and will do the job just as well . Wade Jones South Texas 601XL plans building Cont. 0200 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Hey" Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:25 PM Subject: Zenith-List: form blocks > > I am just getting started. Tomorrow I plan to pick up material for form > blocks. Is 3/4 inch hardwood good for all situations? > Thanks, Jerry CH 701 > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 04:03:08 PM PST US From: "Larry Winger" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 115mm flanging die needed Thanks, Randy. That sounds great to me. I'll contact you off list for more details. Larry Winger Do Not Archive On 7/26/07, Randy L. Thwing wrote: > > Hey Larry: > > If you don't get a better offer, my "iron" dies are available. They are > currently in the "custody" of Builder John Bolding in Texas who is > finished > with them and awaiting shipping instructions. It is the three die set > that > needs to stay together, but it is my understanding that the three dies > will > fit in a postal flat rate box and ship for under ten bucks. > > Let me know if you want them. > > Best Regards, > > Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas do not archive > > > Subject: Zenith-List: 115mm flanging die needed > > > > > > Thanks to a good building buddy, I already have two sets of flanging > dies > (65mm and 95mm). I'm missing the larger 115mm dies for my wing ribs. > > > > Is there anyone on the list with a 115mm set that I could use for a few > weeks? I'll be glad to pay shipping both ways. Thanks. > > > > Feel free to contact me off list. > > > > Do not archive. > > > > -------- > > Larry Winger > > Tustin, CA > > 601XL/Corvair from scratch > > Control surfaces and wing spars complete > > Making wing ribs > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 04:25:53 PM PST US From: "Southern Reflections" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: More torque wrench I wonder if WW would agree with you? Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "DanielBK" Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:06 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Re: More torque wrench > > > ashontz wrote: >> ... I guess a better method would be to clamp the torque wrench >> perpendicular to the floor and then add a given weight (say 80 lbs) to >> the handle of the torque wrench at the 1 foot mark on the handle from the >> center of the socket fitting and see that the wrench reads 80ft-lbs. ... >> > > > Actually, this would be a terrible method that is commonly thought to be a > good method. Think vectors. Or for a practical example, think of two > extremes, then deduce the situation between extremes. For the example, > we'll use an accurate and new wrench, fresh from the factory calibration > bench. We'll use a special wrench that allows 90 of movement between > zero and max torque for no better reason than it makes for an easier > demonstration of principle. > > If we begin with the setup suggested, with the business end in the vice, > everything true, level and orthogonal, the handle horizontal, and no > weight attached, we get an accurate reading of zero lb-ft (not "ft-lb", a > common error). That's the first extreme. > > Next, apply a whole bunch of weight, such that the handle swings down to a > near vertical position. The reading on the wrench will be considerably > less than the weight applied. Why so? Because the weight is pulling > straight down, not tangent to the arc of the handle swing. Only force > applied on a tangent to the arc (perpendicular to the handle shaft) > produces torque. We lost that perpendicularity with the very first > movement of the handle, thus when we reach this near vertical condition, > most of the weight is simply pulling straight out on the handle. That is > the second extreme. > > It's self evident that the error produced by this method is minor at first > and escalates the further we swing the handle. A tip though: The > progression is not linear. > > Three solutions come to mind that would allow us to use a dead weight > test. One would be to dust off a geometry text and compute the effect at > any angular displacement. Sines, cosines, arctangents, etc. If that > makes us groan, an alternative would be to simply draw the vectors (lines > showing direction and scale) and measure the resultant. The third > solution would be the dirty fingernails approach (perfectly appropriate): > Build our clamping rig rig such that we clamp the wrench as before,on the > socket stud, apply the known weight, then rotate the clamp and stud to the > degree that the handle is once again horizontal. Then read the torque > scale on the wrench. The weight is applied perpendicular to the handle in > that situation & thus is all used to produce torque. For a clicker > wrench, simply perform the process twice, once with just a tad less weight > than the sought after torque (no click) and once with just a tad more > (click). > > A final caveat. These tests only tell us if the wrench is accurate at the > tested data point. If we want to know if the wrench is accurate over the > full range, then we must perform a full range of tests. A wrench is > commonly spot on at two points, one low and one high, with a negligible > error in between and beyond each of those two points. The thing is, we > don't know if that's the case without testing throughout the range. > > -------- > Daniel > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=125771#125771 > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 05:03:29 PM PST US From: "Dave Austin" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: More torque wrench Are the torque specs so close that it is necessary to go to the extremes you folks have written of? How about torqueing up bolts that, by definition, use castle nuts? Do you go up in torque to the next slot, or down to the previous slot? Dave Austin 601HDS - 912, Spitfire Mk VIII ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 05:36:12 PM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: More torque wrench Dave, If you're talking propeller hub bolts, I don't use castle nuts. I use Nylock nuts to avoid over-tightening. Otherwise you'll be fighting this battle forever. They are acceptable for metal props and don't come loose. I don't go past the sound of the click on the torque wrench and wouldn't pass the indicator of that type. If you're talking wood props, you need a thick metal faceplate, thin washers, castle nuts and better guidance from the mfr of the prop. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com Dave Austin wrote: > > Are the torque specs so close that it is necessary to go to the > extremes you folks have written of? How about torqueing up bolts > that, by definition, use castle nuts? Do you go up in torque to the > next slot, or down to the previous slot? > Dave Austin 601HDS - 912, Spitfire Mk VIII > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 06:02:15 PM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: More torque wrench torque to the low limit and tighten to the next slot/hole combination. If the bolt has 4 holes and the nut has 3 slots it is very easy to make the middle of the range. If the bolt has 1 hole and the nut has 3 slots you may need an AN960 "L" washer to adjust the length under the nut. Are the torque specs so close that it is necessary to go to the extremes you folks have written of? How about torqueing up bolts that, by definition, use castle nuts? Do you go up in torque to the next slot, or down to the previous slot? Dave Austin 601HDS - 912, Spitfire Mk VIII Dave Downey Harleysville (SE) PA 100 HP Corvair --------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 07:40:00 PM PST US From: "kevinbonds" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: form blocks I concur. MDF is great, especially since the XL uses so many blocks and you only need two ribs from each. I only used hardwood (oak) for the one set of nose rib blocks--since you need to make so many from them, and they have that hard radius. I did not add aluminum, to my nose ribs blocks, as the plans suggested. They have held up fine. The aluminum may be necessary if you were using regular plywood, though. Kevin Bonds Nashville TN 601XL; Plans building. http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of wade jones Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:37 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: form blocks Hi Jerry ,the hardwood will work but why spend so much money .3/4" MDF is much cheaper and will do the job just as well . ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 08:04:12 PM PST US From: "Carlos Sa" Subject: Zenith-List: closing wing Hello, all Any recommendations on the order of riveting the wing skins? The old CH601-HD manual says the top skin should go first, so you can adjust any imperfections from underneath, before installing the bottom skin. All input welcome, particularly from -HD and -HDS builders. Thanks in advance Carlos CH601-HD, plans ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:32 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: Zenith-List: Off topic - Two killed in blast at Rutan rocket site in California http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070727/ts_nm/airport_explosion_dc_6 -- Craig do not archive ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.