Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:44 AM - Re: CH701 Usable Fuel (jetboy)
2. 03:14 AM - Re: CH701 Usable Fuel (river1)
3. 03:52 AM - Re: Jabiru engine choughing (IFLYSMODEL@aol.com)
4. 04:11 AM - Re: Bending leading edge skin (wade jones)
5. 04:14 AM - Getting all the little Chips out (Beckman, Rick)
6. 05:02 AM - Re: Bending leading edge skin (kmccune)
7. 05:06 AM - Re: CH701 Usable Fuel (kmccune)
8. 05:07 AM - Re: Re: Bending leading edge skin (wade jones)
9. 05:32 AM - XL Landing Gear (Debo Cox)
10. 05:36 AM - Re: Re: CH701 Usable Fuel (Carl)
11. 05:53 AM - Re: CH701 Usable Fuel (river1)
12. 05:56 AM - Re: 701 fuel capacity (Zed Smith)
13. 06:14 AM - Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (ashontz)
14. 06:46 AM - Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (ashontz)
15. 06:47 AM - Auto Conversion Discussion. (Paul Mulwitz)
16. 06:55 AM - Re: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (Southern Reflections)
17. 07:01 AM - Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (ashontz)
18. 07:02 AM - Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (ashontz)
19. 07:49 AM - Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (ashontz)
20. 07:53 AM - Re: XL Landing Gear (ashontz)
21. 07:56 AM - Re: In lite of the recent price discussion...CH 701 (ashontz)
22. 09:08 AM - Re: Questions on regs for E-AB Aircraft (txpilot)
23. 09:08 AM - Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (Gig Giacona)
24. 09:08 AM - 701 Fuel System with Rotax 912S (txpilot)
25. 09:48 AM - Aileron trim wiring? (Dr. Andrew Elliott)
26. 10:16 AM - Open Hangar day Zenith Factory (alex_01)
27. 10:35 AM - Re: Aileron trim wiring? (Craig Payne)
28. 10:42 AM - Re: Aileron trim wiring? (Edward Moody II)
29. 10:47 AM - Re: Aileron trim wiring? (Edward Moody II)
30. 11:00 AM - Re: Aileron trim wiring? (DaveG601XL)
31. 12:02 PM - Contact Magazine (ashontz)
32. 12:19 PM - Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory (ashontz)
33. 12:36 PM - Re: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (Paul Mulwitz)
34. 12:53 PM - Re: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (Craig Payne)
35. 01:28 PM - Re: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (LarryMcFarland)
36. 01:36 PM - Re: Contact Magazine (LarryMcFarland)
37. 02:02 PM - Re: 701 Fuel System with Rotax 912S (george may)
38. 02:10 PM - Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory (Gig Giacona)
39. 02:17 PM - Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (Gig Giacona)
40. 02:24 PM - Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (Gig Giacona)
41. 02:34 PM - Re: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (Southern Reflections)
42. 02:49 PM - Re: Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory (Skip Perry)
43. 03:02 PM - Re: CH701 Usable Fuel (Ken Arnold)
44. 03:02 PM - Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory (Tim Juhl)
45. 03:07 PM - Re: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (Juan Vega)
46. 03:13 PM - Re: Contact Magazine (ashontz)
47. 03:15 PM - Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory (ashontz)
48. 03:46 PM - Re: Contact Magazine (n801bh@netzero.com)
49. 03:54 PM - Re: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (John Bolding)
50. 04:12 PM - Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (kmccune)
51. 04:43 PM - Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory (PatrickW)
52. 04:51 PM - Re: Contact Magazine (Eric Tiethoff)
53. 05:09 PM - Re: Contact Magazine (Ron Lendon)
54. 05:19 PM - Chat - http://chat.iahu.ca/index.php (PatrickW)
55. 05:23 PM - Re: Contact Magazine (Southern Reflections)
56. 05:38 PM - Re: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (Southern Reflections)
57. 06:04 PM - Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (ashontz)
58. 06:35 PM - Re: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (Paul Mulwitz)
59. 06:42 PM - Re: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (Paul Mulwitz)
60. 06:58 PM - Re: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (Southern Reflections)
61. 07:05 PM - Re: CH701 Usable Fuel (kmccune)
62. 07:34 PM - Re: Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory (Terry Phillips)
63. 07:38 PM - Re: CH701 Usable Fuel (NYTerminat@aol.com)
64. 11:52 PM - Re: Bending leading edge skin (Bruno M.)
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: CH701 Usable Fuel |
Thanks kevin,
if I was doing it again I would probably construct an extra tall ZAC gascolator.
The drawings call for the gascolator(s) - two for the long range tanks option
- to be fabricated from a rectangular section aluminum extrusion with end
caps welded top and bottom. Would need to fit the outlet at the normal standoff
distance from the drain valve.
Because my aircraft didnt come with the gascolator parts I purchased an ACS one
with mesh filter
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138716#138716
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Usable Fuel |
Kevin ; The early 701 had that option , it was called "D" tank . It was used in
Conbination with the then optional wing tanks and allowed space for avionics.
kmccune wrote:
> Has anyone used a 3rd smaller tank in the fuselage, by plumbing both wing tanks
to it and the plumbing this to the engine? It would only take a couple of gallons
or less. And if you made the tank tall and narrow and place the outlet
on the bottom, then most maneuvers would not effect fuel flow.
>
> Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138720#138720
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: Jabiru engine choughing |
Thanks for the tip, Joe: I will get some carburetor cleaner this morning and
see what I can find.
Lynn
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bending leading edge skin |
Yes I will send some pictures and details if you will contact me at
wjones@brazoriainet.com .
Wade Jones South Texas
601XL plans building
Cont. 0200
----- Original Message -----
From: Afterfxllc@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Bending leading edge skin
Can you send me some more pics of the skin?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
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: | Getting all the little Chips out |
How are you guys getting all the little aluminum chips & bits out...?
To All...
When it comes to removing those pesky little
chips, one can buy a chip remover and turn loose of some hard earned
cash, or..... get hold of an old hack saw blade. Using a small grinder,
bench mounted is best for control, and grind all the teeth off of about
six inches on one end. Then use the grinder to notch that end to sort of
a hook. Then, carefully, grind it on the flat sides to make it thinner
than it already is. This thin hook will reach into those small angles
and remove most, if not all, of the chips. Cheap and effective.
Rick
Beckman
Midwest
Mudworks
Zodie
601 XL 52EB
www.sharbo.us/thebird
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: Bending leading edge skin |
Would a shop vac do that, or does it require a vacuum pump?
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138728#138728
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: CH701 Usable Fuel |
I had heard that they came with a cowl tank, is this the same or did the cowl tank
get replaced by wing tanks. Sorry, just trying to get it straight.
Any idea how much the D tank held?
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138729#138729
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bending leading edge skin |
Hi Kevin shop vac works great .
Wade Jones South Texas
601XL plans building
Cont. 0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "kmccune" <kmccune@somtel.net>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:59 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Bending leading edge skin
>
> Would a shop vac do that, or does it require a vacuum pump?
>
> Kevin
>
> --------
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138728#138728
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Hi guys,
Has anyone out there bent their own landing gear? I've searched the archives
and Google and I'm not coming up with much. If you had it done, let me know where
if you wouldn't mind. Thanks - just thinking ahead.
Debo Cox
Scratch-built XL/Corvair
Nags Head, NC
do not archive
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Usable Fuel |
Kevin.
I installed an 8 litre collector behind the baggage compartment four years
ago. Both wings feed through the collector. It is tall and narrow with a
gascolator on the bottom that drains through the bottom fuselage skin.
A float sensor in the top lights a low fuel warning as soon as the fuel
level starts to go down in the collector giving me a no s--- 30 minute
reserve. I also have a vertical sight gauge with a black cork float to make
it easier to read.
It works well and I can safely burn the wing tanks dry without fuel feed
interruption to the Rotax 912.
Carl
701 on amphibs 476 hrs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "kmccune" <kmccune@somtel.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 4:17 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: CH701 Usable Fuel
>
> Has anyone used a 3rd smaller tank in the fuselage, by plumbing both wing
> tanks to it and the plumbing this to the engine? It would only take a
> couple of gallons or less. And if you made the tank tall and narrow and
> place the outlet on the bottom, then most maneuvers would not effect fuel
> flow.
>
> Kevin
>
> --------
> Kevin
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138649#138649
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Usable Fuel |
Hi Kevin ; No it was a separate option when you wanted either more range or space
for avionics. I have parts of a 1990 info pack , it doesn't say how many gal
the D tank had , maybe zac has option drawings for that .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138736#138736
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: 701 fuel capacity |
do not archive
Kevin,
To add some clarification to the fuel tank arrangement on the 701:
As I know it, the original 701 had a "cowl" tank.
This was later changed to a "D-tank" located in the same place but with reduced
capacity...
the tank was some smaller to accomodate items installed in the instrument panel.
With the 912 engine installed there just wasn't sufficient fuel, so wing tanks
were offered as an option.
A bit later the D-tank was dropped, no pun intended, and wing tanks were standard.
My kit, number 4433, was supplied with BOTH, as well as instructions for installing
a Rotax 582.
The 912 instructions were an addendum.
Even the D-tank didn't allow much room for instruments which extended very far
behind the panel.
Also, since the D-tank was below the level of the wing tanks, the Flight Engineer
was responsible for fuel managenment.....open a valve, let some run into the
D-tank, close valve before fuel ran out the D-tank vent. (Some apparently were
installed with the vent running up to the same level as the top of the wing
tank so as to prevent overflow).
Anyway, as I know the story to the present, the D-tank is history, and fuel line
plumbing is simplified; one tee and a shutoff valve is the shortest route to
the engine.
After considerable "measuring & looking" I did not install the D-tank. Twenty
gallons total in the wing tanks seems to equate to one bladder-full when one is
planning pit stops.
With the 912 you would have about four hours or more.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Zed
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: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
Personally, about the only thing I can see as a problem with an auto-conversion
is if you're rally trying to push it past it's limits to get power out of it.
For a comparison though, the engine in my Hyundai Elantra sees 3100 rpm in 5th
gear at 65mph. If that engine were light enough to use as an aircraft engine,
I'd redline it at 3100. 7 years of highway driveway with no problems indicates
that's an ok speed for that engine. In comparison, years ago I had a Datsun
B-210 that was a 4 speed and turned about 4000 rpm at 60mph, even so, it ran
for years no problem. I know for a fact that Chevy 350s when used it boating applications
(and they need to be dependable) turn 4 and change, so apparently
these engines are capable of putting out that kind of power for extended periods
of time. But just off the top of my head, you run an auto conversion at rpms
it would have seen on the street at 60mph or less and that puppy will last quite
awhile. 100,000 miles at 55mph is about 1,800 hours. I would guess a Corvair
in 5th gear doing 55mph would turn the engine about 2500rpm, under an Chevy
engineered load. Just as some basic starting numbers, that sounds totally realistic
to me with proper cooling and routine maintenance.
Here's and interesting side note too, the Corvair is a more naturally balance engine
compared to a 4 cylinder O-200. Not only that, but with those two extra
cylinders, for the same power output, each of those cylinders has less stress
on it. Just an interesting side note, having used a 140 Evinrude for years, I
have a better appreciation for overstressed designs. The 140 is the same block,
bore and stroke as the 90hp, but the
heads are different to up the compression. The 140 is the most problematic of the
bunch. Go back to a 90hp is step up to the 6-cylinder 150hp and there's a lot
less problems. People swear by the old 150s. Low stress engine.
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
> Good discussion guys,
> Popular auto conversions for aircraft require more builder
> decision-making on ignition, carburetor's and cooling. Statistically,
> numbers prove that the conversions have a broader range of solutions to
> deal with like selecting carbs, coils and radiators. Too many ?brilliant
> type-As? are reluctant to employ successful aircraft and engine
> solutions of previous builders. Most people fear doing a conversion, but
> don?t blame the engine, be it a Subaru, Corvair, Ford or Chevy. These
> are great engines! It is the builder that repeatedly makes the mistakes
> and the most onerous statistics would point to the conversion engines
> when they should point to the less than responsible builder.
> I'd like to think of it as a kind of a Darwinist plan for improving
> aircraft builder intellect and capability.
>
> Think, build and then fly safe,
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
>
> Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> > Nobody is saying you need to choose one but to attack those that choose to
use, say a Corvair, as being in some way less safe than you is going to piss
a lot of people off and cause them to discount anything you have to say on any
topic.
> >
> >
> > > Gig -
> > >
> > > I agree with that.
> > >
> > > Mechanical devices of all types, can and do fail. The likelihood is increased
> > > by using them for purposes other than that which they were designed.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138740#138740
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
Even if you went with a Lyc, you can still get one a lot cheaper. Anyone here think
of ariboat engines? I noticed year5s ago they use aircraft engines, and they're
generally less expensive.
If I needed a new Lycoming for a CH801
http://www.westernskyways.com/gator_engines.asp
$12,000, sweet!
Bet you could get gator engines to scrounge up and rebuild a O-200 for you for
$10,000 or less. Them apparently have access to a bunch of cheap Lycomings. And
if they can't there's probably a thousand airboat junkyards from Texas to Georgia
and down to Everglades City that could find one for you, rebuild it and
sell it to you for that price.
O-235, $3,600
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&viewitem=&item=280157388698
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138745#138745
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: | Auto Conversion Discussion. |
At 06:13 AM 10/8/2007, you wrote:
>Personally, about the only thing I can see as a problem with an
>auto-conversion is if you're rally trying to push it past it's
>limits to get power out of it.
Hi Andy,
Your discussion of suitability for aircraft use seems to focus only
on reliability. I agree this is an important aspect of engine choice
for your airplane, but there are many other issues to consider. When
you put it all together, I believe airplane use is the most difficult
environment for any engine. That leaves me thinking an engine
designed for airplane use is going to exceed the value of a similar
technology engine designed for a simpler environment.
Besides the reliability issue (which indeed should be at the top of
the list), there is:
1. Engine weight. Any additional pound robs the airplane of
performance in virtually all areas. It certainly impacts useful
load, climb performance, and probably airspeed.
2. Availability of fuel and spare parts while on cross country
trips. It is easy to get repairs or suitable fuel for aircraft
engines at any airport with "Services". The auto fuel desirable for
auto engines is rarely available at remote airports, and auto engine
spare parts are a bigger problem.
3. Extra engine systems. Many auto conversions require water
cooling systems and PSRUs. I believe purpose built airplane engines
never include these features. Extra parts means extra failure
possibilities and extra weight.
4. Propeller choices. Many propeller suppliers can easily provide a
nearly ideal product for airplane engines used in common performance
envelopes. When using a conversion, the builder must go through all
the calculations and experimentation to find a propeller that works
well. I am not sure if the torque curve of an auto engine matches
well with the needs of a propeller, but an airplane engine certainly
is designed to meet this requirement.
I'm sure there are lots of other issues to consider. This doesn't
mean I don't approve of conversion engine use in airplanes. It just
means I think the additional issues and problems might make the
savings in initial cost a somewhat false economy. For those who want
to enjoy flying and high performance, I think the purpose built
airplane engine is the best choice.
Paul
XL fuselage
Jab -3300
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: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
Go to infi@ramengines.com see what is done to those engines---the only part
that is Subaru is the block, and it is not stock in any way .I think it
will out perform and out last any thing out there, so I can't see how you
can paint all these auto converts with a broad brush . Mabye if you're
talking about going to a junk yard and draging aE 81 out putting some kind
of a re drive on it and calling it a auto converson That's what you're
talking about.! You are giving auto converts a bad rap,and turn you are not
giving the people that are asking for real info a fair shake . Read the
Spec's and then give us your Long winded responce.
Anxious N101HD 601XL RAMOriginal Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:13 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response
>
> Personally, about the only thing I can see as a problem with an
> auto-conversion is if you're rally trying to push it past it's limits to
> get power out of it. For a comparison though, the engine in my Hyundai
> Elantra sees 3100 rpm in 5th gear at 65mph. If that engine were light
> enough to use as an aircraft engine, I'd redline it at 3100. 7 years of
> highway driveway with no problems indicates that's an ok speed for that
> engine. In comparison, years ago I had a Datsun B-210 that was a 4 speed
> and turned about 4000 rpm at 60mph, even so, it ran for years no problem.
> I know for a fact that Chevy 350s when used it boating applications (and
> they need to be dependable) turn 4 and change, so apparently these engines
> are capable of putting out that kind of power for extended periods of
> time. But just off the top of my head, you run an auto conversion at rpms
> it would have seen on the street at 60mph or less and that puppy will last
> quite awhile. 100,000 miles at 55mph is about 1,800 h!
> ours. I would guess a Corvair in 5th gear doing 55mph would turn the
> engine about 2500rpm, under an Chevy engineered load. Just as some basic
> starting numbers, that sounds totally realistic to me with proper cooling
> and routine maintenance.
>
> Here's and interesting side note too, the Corvair is a more naturally
> balance engine compared to a 4 cylinder O-200. Not only that, but with
> those two extra cylinders, for the same power output, each of those
> cylinders has less stress on it. Just an interesting side note, having
> used a 140 Evinrude for years, I have a better appreciation for
> overstressed designs. The 140 is the same block, bore and stroke as the
> 90hp, but the
> heads are different to up the compression. The 140 is the most problematic
> of the bunch. Go back to a 90hp is step up to the 6-cylinder 150hp and
> there's a lot less problems. People swear by the old 150s. Low stress
> engine.
>
>
> larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
>> Good discussion guys,
>> Popular auto conversions for aircraft require more builder
>> decision-making on ignition, carburetor's and cooling. Statistically,
>> numbers prove that the conversions have a broader range of solutions to
>> deal with like selecting carbs, coils and radiators. Too many ?brilliant
>> type-As? are reluctant to employ successful aircraft and engine
>> solutions of previous builders. Most people fear doing a conversion, but
>> don?t blame the engine, be it a Subaru, Corvair, Ford or Chevy. These
>> are great engines! It is the builder that repeatedly makes the mistakes
>> and the most onerous statistics would point to the conversion engines
>> when they should point to the less than responsible builder.
>> I'd like to think of it as a kind of a Darwinist plan for improving
>> aircraft builder intellect and capability.
>>
>> Think, build and then fly safe,
>>
>> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>>
>>
>> Gig Giacona wrote:
>>
>> > Nobody is saying you need to choose one but to attack those that
>> > choose to use, say a Corvair, as being in some way less safe than you
>> > is going to piss a lot of people off and cause them to discount
>> > anything you have to say on any topic.
>> >
>> >
>> > > Gig -
>> > >
>> > > I agree with that.
>> > >
>> > > Mechanical devices of all types, can and do fail. The likelihood is
>> > > increased
>> > > by using them for purposes other than that which they were designed.
>> > >
>> > > Jeff
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138740#138740
>
>
>
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: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
http://www.southernairboat.com/classifieds/showproduct.php/product/1529/cat/2
$4,400, take the engine, resell the hull. Appears to be an O-235 on there.
$1,000 POS. Who cares. Looks like an O-200.
http://www.southernairboat.com/classifieds/showproduct.php/product/1568/cat/2
Apparently these good old boys have access to Lyc parts fairly cheap. From the
looks of their backyards they don't look like they're rolling in cash.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138749#138749
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: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
'Nother source for cheap engines.
http://terf.com/AircraftEngines.html
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138750#138750
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: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
Can you easily get Jabiru parts at any airport? I'd have to imagine you'd probably
wait awhile to even get in a Lycoming part.
As far as weight goes, I'd never consider using something that weighs too much.
Agreed, there are a lot of factors involved with choice of airplane engines, not
just reliability. Personally, I'd find it extremely inconvenient to break down
anywhere with any airplane engine. 9 times out of 10 when you hear about someone
with a breakdown (provided they landed ok), it's a week and a half long
debacle before the plane is home and they've had a look-see inside.
Regarding fuel, from my understanding, you could more easily operate an auto-engine
on 100LL than you can the other way around. A guy in our local EAA chapter
has his Lycoming rated for auto fuel use, but still runs 100LL in it from time
to time with no problems. He's a chemical engineer and comes at the problem
from a very technical perspective.
I'm not a big fan on water-cooled engines for airplanes, but they do exist and
have even been used on WWII fighter planes.
For a full perspective on the pros and cons and viability of aircraft engines I
recommend everyone read Converting Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft.
http://www.amazon.com/Converting-Auto-Engines-Experimental-Aircraft/dp/0966145712
Excellent book to keep in the bathroom. This guy doesn't push one way or the other
or for any particular type of engine, he just gives a really detailed description
of how auto engines can be converted as well and safety, reliability,
how to, pros and cons, etc... It's not a "I'm right, you're wrong book", it just
gives some pretty convincing detailed, technical arguments for auto-engines
for use in airplanes.
psm(at)ATT.NET wrote:
> At 06:13 AM 10/8/2007, you wrote:
>
> > Personally, about the only thing I can see as a problem with an
> > auto-conversion is if you're rally trying to push it past it's
> > limits to get power out of it.
> >
> >
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Your discussion of suitability for aircraft use seems to focus only
> on reliability. I agree this is an important aspect of engine choice
> for your airplane, but there are many other issues to consider. When
> you put it all together, I believe airplane use is the most difficult
> environment for any engine. That leaves me thinking an engine
> designed for airplane use is going to exceed the value of a similar
> technology engine designed for a simpler environment.
>
> Besides the reliability issue (which indeed should be at the top of
> the list), there is:
> 1. Engine weight. Any additional pound robs the airplane of
> performance in virtually all areas. It certainly impacts useful
> load, climb performance, and probably airspeed.
> 2. Availability of fuel and spare parts while on cross country
> trips. It is easy to get repairs or suitable fuel for aircraft
> engines at any airport with "Services". The auto fuel desirable for
> auto engines is rarely available at remote airports, and auto engine
> spare parts are a bigger problem.
> 3. Extra engine systems. Many auto conversions require water
> cooling systems and PSRUs. I believe purpose built airplane engines
> never include these features. Extra parts means extra failure
> possibilities and extra weight.
> 4. Propeller choices. Many propeller suppliers can easily provide a
> nearly ideal product for airplane engines used in common performance
> envelopes. When using a conversion, the builder must go through all
> the calculations and experimentation to find a propeller that works
> well. I am not sure if the torque curve of an auto engine matches
> well with the needs of a propeller, but an airplane engine certainly
> is designed to meet this requirement.
>
> I'm sure there are lots of other issues to consider. This doesn't
> mean I don't approve of conversion engine use in airplanes. It just
> means I think the additional issues and problems might make the
> savings in initial cost a somewhat false economy. For those who want
> to enjoy flying and high performance, I think the purpose built
> airplane engine is the best choice.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
> Jab -3300
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138762#138762
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: XL Landing Gear |
I believe Scott Laughlin has at www.cooknwithgas.com. I believe he said he just used a 12-ton shop press cold bent it and put a 1/8 radius on the edges beforehand. I can see the 1/8 radius as being necessary (and I believe per the plans) so you don't initiate a crack.
[quote="sky_ranger161"]Hi guys,
Has anyone out there bent their own landing gear? I've searched the archives
and Google and I'm not coming up with much. If you had it done, let me know where
if you wouldn't mind. Thanks - just thinking ahead.
Debo Cox
Scratch-built XL/Corvair
Nags Head, NC
do not archive
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138765#138765
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: In lite of the recent price discussion...CH 701 |
That and you have to limit your girlfriends to 4'10" 90lb spinners. That sucks.
LOL I feel for you.
jfosse1(at)shawneelink.ne wrote:
> My 2 cents worth. I think you will regret it if you put a 230 lb engine on
> your 701. My Suzuki weighs in the neighborhood of 200 lbs. I had to put 30
> pounds of ballast as far aft as I could to eliminate a nose heavy condition
> and lack of up elevator authority. In the process, what with the extra 50
> lbs of engine and the 30 pounds of ballast, I have lost 80 lbs of useable
> load. The empty airplane weighs 0ver 700 lbs. So, with a full fuel load
> and my 190 lbs, I can carry a 90 lb passenger. The trade off, of course,
> is less fuel and less range.
>
> Jim Fosse
> CH 701 N329F
> Goreville, IL
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138766#138766
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: Questions on regs for E-AB Aircraft |
Great. Thanks for the replies.
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138779#138779
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: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
1. The Corvair converted is heavier than a Rotax ot Jabiru but about the same as
an O-200 or O-235.
2. I plan to burn 100LL in my Corvair but I have the option of running Mogas.
Most of the parts I would have to replace away from my home field can be purchased
at Auto-Zone. Where are you going to get Jab, Rotax, Lyc or Cont. parts when
you are at (enter small field name here)?
3. The Rotax has both.
4. There are a wide range of props to choose from and when I call Sensinich (sp?)
and told them what I was putting it on they asked two questions and told me
where to send the check.
psm(at)ATT.NET wrote:
> Your discussion of suitability for aircraft use seems to focus only
> on reliability. I agree this is an important aspect of engine choice
> for your airplane, but there are many other issues to consider. When
> you put it all together, I believe airplane use is the most difficult
> environment for any engine. That leaves me thinking an engine
> designed for airplane use is going to exceed the value of a similar
> technology engine designed for a simpler environment.
>
> Besides the reliability issue (which indeed should be at the top of
> the list), there is:
> 1. Engine weight. Any additional pound robs the airplane of
> performance in virtually all areas. It certainly impacts useful
> load, climb performance, and probably airspeed.
> 2. Availability of fuel and spare parts while on cross country
> trips. It is easy to get repairs or suitable fuel for aircraft
> engines at any airport with "Services". The auto fuel desirable for
> auto engines is rarely available at remote airports, and auto engine
> spare parts are a bigger problem.
> 3. Extra engine systems. Many auto conversions require water
> cooling systems and PSRUs. I believe purpose built airplane engines
> never include these features. Extra parts means extra failure
> possibilities and extra weight.
> 4. Propeller choices. Many propeller suppliers can easily provide a
> nearly ideal product for airplane engines used in common performance
> envelopes. When using a conversion, the builder must go through all
> the calculations and experimentation to find a propeller that works
> well. I am not sure if the torque curve of an auto engine matches
> well with the needs of a propeller, but an airplane engine certainly
> is designed to meet this requirement.
>
> I'm sure there are lots of other issues to consider. This doesn't
> mean I don't approve of conversion engine use in airplanes. It just
> means I think the additional issues and problems might make the
> savings in initial cost a somewhat false economy. For those who want
> to enjoy flying and high performance, I think the purpose built
> airplane engine is the best choice.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
> Jab -3300
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138778#138778
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 701 Fuel System with Rotax 912S |
I have a couple questions regarding the fuel system. According to the Rotax installation
manual, a return line is required from the fuel manifold back to the
fuel tank. I spoke with ZAC about this since the 701 plans make no mention
of this return line.
They said the return line is not necessary if you're running 100LL because of the
reduced chance of vapor lock. Although I plan on running only 100LL, I'm wondering
if any other builders are installing a return fuel line. If there are
builders installing return lines, do you go to a wing tank or to the gascolator?
I spoke with my EAA tech adviser and he wasn't sure. He did make another suggestion:
use stainless steel fuel lines instead of the supplied 1/4" rubber hose.
That leads me to another question for the forum: are there any builders experiencing
problems with their rubber hose fuel lines, or are stainless steel
fuel lines an overkill?
Thanks,
Dan Ginty
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138777#138777
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: | Aileron trim wiring? |
Gang:
To make wing closing and final assembly easier, and perhaps necessary
future maintenance, I am planning put a Molex connector in the aileron
trim cable. My idea would be to leave enough attached to the aileron to
come into the wing and make a small maintenance loop, then the
connector. Connector will be accessed through the same panel as the
bellcrank.
Anyone see any problem with this approach?
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE (reserved)
601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building...
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: | Open Hangar day Zenith Factory |
i did see some pics on the website from the open day and i liked very much the
601xl from Mike Canion. I would be interested in the wing root fairings does anyone
no how to contact him or how I could get some of those fairings
thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138793#138793
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/237_182.jpg
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: | Aileron trim wiring? |
Another approach is to not run the wire inside the wing. I have seen it run
up under the top skin along the rear spar between the spar and the
aileron/flaps. I think this was on Dragonfly Aviation's 601XL. They may have
done this if the trim was a retrofit and the couldn't/wouldn't open the
wing..
-- Craig
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trim wiring? |
None at all Andy. It will give you peace of mind vis a vis repair /
replacement a any future point of need.The electrical amp hours are so
minimal for a tim servo that an aditionla connector is not likely to
have a down side except to lock the halves together before buttoning up
that area.
Dred
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Andrew Elliott
To: Zenith-List Digest Server
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:42 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Aileron trim wiring?
Gang:
To make wing closing and final assembly easier, and perhaps necessary
future maintenance, I am planning put a Molex connector in the aileron
trim cable. My idea would be to leave enough attached to the aileron to
come into the wing and make a small maintenance loop, then the
connector. Connector will be accessed through the same panel as the
bellcrank.
Anyone see any problem with this approach?
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE (reserved)
601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
10/7/2007 6:12 PM
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trim wiring? |
None at all Andy. It will give you peace of mind vis a vis repair /
replacement a any future point of need.The electrical amp hours are so
minimal for a tim servo that an aditionla connector is not likely to
have a down side except to lock the halves together before buttoning up
that area.
Dred
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Andrew Elliott
To: Zenith-List Digest Server
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:42 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Aileron trim wiring?
Gang:
To make wing closing and final assembly easier, and perhaps necessary
future maintenance, I am planning put a Molex connector in the aileron
trim cable. My idea would be to leave enough attached to the aileron to
come into the wing and make a small maintenance loop, then the
connector. Connector will be accessed through the same panel as the
bellcrank.
Anyone see any problem with this approach?
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE (reserved)
601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
10/7/2007 6:12 PM
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trim wiring? |
It should work OK, at least I hope so, because I am doing basically the same thing.
I am using a 9-pin d-sub connector as suggested by Bob Nuckhols.
Good luck,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, tail and wings completed,
fueslage almost done, engine next.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138804#138804
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: | Contact Magazine |
http://www.contactmagazine.com/contact1.html
Does anyone receive this? This looks like what the old EAA Experimenter magazine
used to be before they stopped publishing it and instead started putting on
the new glossy ad filled rag.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138813#138813
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: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory |
That's gotta be a beautiful airplane. Do you have anymore pix of this?
do not archive
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138815#138815
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: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
Hi Andy,
I guess for me the bottom line is this: If auto conversions are such
a great thing to use in airplanes, then why don't the airplane
manufacturers (Cessna, Piper, etc.) use them?
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 07:48 AM 10/8/2007, you wrote:
>For a full perspective on the pros and cons and viability of
>aircraft engines I recommend everyone read Converting Auto Engines
>for Experimental Aircraft.
>http://www.amazon.com/Converting-Auto-Engines-Experimental-Aircraft/dp/0966145712
>
>Excellent book to keep in the bathroom. This guy doesn't push one
>way or the other or for any particular type of engine, he just gives
>a really detailed description of how auto engines can be converted
>as well and safety, reliability, how to, pros and cons, etc... It's
>not a "I'm right, you're wrong book", it just gives some pretty
>convincing detailed, technical arguments for auto-engines for use in airplanes.
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: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
> If auto conversions are such a great thing to use in airplanes, then why
don't the airplane manufacturers (Cessna, Piper, etc.) use them?
They do. Cessna and Diamond use the Thielert Diesels.
Would you fly behind (or in front of) a Jabiru? Because Cessna etc don't use
Jabiru either.
But if certified aircraft are your standard then why are you building an
experimental?
-- Craig
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: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
Gig,
Id ask Zenith if there were any areas of the 701 that might need
beefing up in using a Corvair. The Corvairs ability to pull the 701
past its Vne would give me the most concern. Being able to so easily fly
into the aircrafts restricted maneuvering speed is a worry Id share
with Zenith before committing this engine to the 701.
The availability of auto fuel is not an issue with the Subaru or the
Corvair as either can burn 100LL. The Corvair is the best alternative to
the Jab 3300, no question, provided its on the right aircraft. Spare
parts are a lesser concern with Auto Zone or O'Reilly's nearby. Try to
find a Lyc cylinder locally that's affordable.
Most people dont know that the Subaru originally was originally
designed to be an aircraft engine and when the aircraft market softened,
it was remarketed as a car engine.
Coolant systems are not a deficit item; otherwise cars and formerly
noisy air-cooled motorcycles today would have evolved to air-cooling.
The auto engine has a harder run environment, is quieter and controls
its heat to a better degree. Aircraft engines are becoming more
efficient because of the addition of coolant systems that were common in
the 30s and 40s. Think Merlin, Rolls, Allison etc, and recently Rotax
and a host of others carry coolant. I believe radiators will ultimately
become the norm and air-cooling the exception.
The need to conserve fuel, reduce noise and get more hours on an engine
is what is bringing on the current transition to coolant systems. Their
reliability in cars is taken for granted with proper maintenance. Gyros
use the Subaru with good economy, reliability at slower speeds, heavier
loading and harsher environments.
The current expensive air-cooled engines are expensive because they have
such a large temperature range in which to work. Their high cost and
life span are controlled by low- volume production and necessarily
larger tolerance parts closest to the fire
The purpose-built engine is being produced as we speak and increasingly
it is liquid-cooled.
respectfully,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> 1. The Corvair converted is heavier than a Rotax ot Jabiru but about the same
as an O-200 or O-235.
>
> 2. I plan to burn 100LL in my Corvair but I have the option of running Mogas.
Most of the parts I would have to replace away from my home field can be purchased
at Auto-Zone. Where are you going to get Jab, Rotax, Lyc or Cont. parts
when you are at (enter small field name here)?
>
> 3. The Rotax has both.
>
> 4. There are a wide range of props to choose from and when I call Sensinich (sp?)
and told them what I was putting it on they asked two questions and told
me where to send the check.
>
>
> psm(at)ATT.NET wrote:
>
>> Your discussion of suitability for aircraft use seems to focus only
>> on reliability. I agree this is an important aspect of engine choice
>> for your airplane, but there are many other issues to consider. When
>> you put it all together, I believe airplane use is the most difficult
>> environment for any engine. That leaves me thinking an engine
>> designed for airplane use is going to exceed the value of a similar
>> technology engine designed for a simpler environment.
>>
>> Besides the reliability issue (which indeed should be at the top of
>> the list), there is:
>> 1. Engine weight. Any additional pound robs the airplane of
>> performance in virtually all areas. It certainly impacts useful
>> load, climb performance, and probably airspeed.
>> 2. Availability of fuel and spare parts while on cross country
>> trips. It is easy to get repairs or suitable fuel for aircraft
>> engines at any airport with "Services". The auto fuel desirable for
>> auto engines is rarely available at remote airports, and auto engine
>> spare parts are a bigger problem.
>> 3. Extra engine systems. Many auto conversions require water
>> cooling systems and PSRUs. I believe purpose built airplane engines
>> never include these features. Extra parts means extra failure
>> possibilities and extra weight.
>> 4. Propeller choices. Many propeller suppliers can easily provide a
>> nearly ideal product for airplane engines used in common performance
>> envelopes. When using a conversion, the builder must go through all
>> the calculations and experimentation to find a propeller that works
>> well. I am not sure if the torque curve of an auto engine matches
>> well with the needs of a propeller, but an airplane engine certainly
>> is designed to meet this requirement.
>>
>> I'm sure there are lots of other issues to consider. This doesn't
>> mean I don't approve of conversion engine use in airplanes. It just
>> means I think the additional issues and problems might make the
>> savings in initial cost a somewhat false economy. For those who want
>> to enjoy flying and high performance, I think the purpose built
>> airplane engine is the best choice.
>>
>> Paul
>> XL fuselage
>> Jab -3300
>>
>
>
> --------
> W.R. "Gig" Giacona
> 601XL Under Construction
> See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138778#138778
>
>
>
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: Contact Magazine |
> Hi Andy, I've received Contact Magazine for several years and find their discussion
of aircraft engines and mechanicals extremely well done. It would be regarded
as somewhat expensive until you've read one whole magazine and found that
it quenched your thirst for really fine writing and coverage of a subject.
Exceedingly well done. The Experimenter never quite had the complete kind of
coverage found in this Diamond of a magazine.
>
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
ashontz wrote:
http://www.contactmagazine.com/contact1.html
> Does anyone receive this? This looks like what the old EAA Experimenter magazine
used to be before they stopped publishing it and instead started putting on
the new glossy ad filled rag.
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
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: | 701 Fuel System with Rotax 912S |
Dan--
Many rotax engines are run without a return line. The major reason for t
he return line is to help avoid vapor lock when using autogas. I did insta
ll a return line in the system on my 601xl because I mostly use autofuel. I
f you usage of auto fuel is minimal, I'd skip the return line.
You can ever go wrong using the stainless steel line in the engine compa
rtment, but I personally think it is overkill for the mission of our planes
. The rubber fuel line will suffice and if in doubt about they can be rela
tively easily changed out every couple of years
George May
601xl 912s 162 hrs> Subject: Zenith-List: 701 Fuel System with Rotax 912S>
From: djg7@comcast.net> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:07:07 -0700> To: zenith-l
cast.net>> > I have a couple questions regarding the fuel system. According
to the Rotax installation manual, a return line is required from the fuel
manifold back to the fuel tank. I spoke with ZAC about this since the 701 p
lans make no mention of this return line.> > They said the return line is n
ot necessary if you're running 100LL because of the reduced chance of vapor
lock. Although I plan on running only 100LL, I'm wondering if any other bu
ilders are installing a return fuel line. If there are builders installing
return lines, do you go to a wing tank or to the gascolator?> > I spoke wit
h my EAA tech adviser and he wasn't sure. He did make another suggestion: u
se stainless steel fuel lines instead of the supplied 1/4" rubber hose. Tha
t leads me to another question for the forum: are there any builders experi
encing problems with their rubber hose fuel lines, or are stainless steel f
uel lines an overkill?> > Thanks,> > Dan Ginty> > > > > Read this topic onl
ine here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138777#138777> >
===============> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ' together at last. -
Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL10062
6971033
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: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory |
If you get any info PLEASE pass it own to the rest of us.
alex_01 wrote:
> i did see some pics on the website from the open day and i liked very much the
601xl from Mike Canion. I would be interested in the wing root fairings does
anyone no how to contact him or how I could get some of those fairings
>
> thanks
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138840#138840
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
Larry,
I'm not building a 701 so I'll leave that for someone that is and just for the
record neither is Paul who I was responding to. I do know that William Wynne has
communicated with Zenith about the Corvair 701 he is working on.
I don't think you are really aiming the post at me but I never said (well at least
not in this thread) that liquid cooling was a problem.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138841#138841
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: | Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
They are. Check into who actually builds the new diesel that is going into the
new 172s.
The other answer is liability. I doubt you could get GM to allow one of their engines
to be put into a certified aircraft. The marginal income they would make
from it just wouldn't be worth it to them. They can probably pay for the liability
for 1,000 car engines for what the cost of 1 aircraft engine would cost
them.
It actually surprises me that they haven't sued to stop us from doing as we are.
psm(at)ATT.NET wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> I guess for me the bottom line is this: If auto conversions are such
> a great thing to use in airplanes, then why don't the airplane
> manufacturers (Cessna, Piper, etc.) use them?
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
> do not archive
>
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138844#138844
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: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Southern Reflections" <purplemoon99@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response
> Go to infi@ramengines.com see what is done to those engines---the only
> part that is Subaru is the block, and it is not stock in any way .I
> think it will out perform and out last any thing out there, so I can't see
> how you can paint all these auto converts with a broad brush . Mabye if
> you're talking about going to a junk yard and draging aE 81 out putting
> some kind of a re drive on it and calling it a auto converson That's what
> you're talking about.! You are giving auto converts a bad rap,and turn
> you are not giving the people that are asking for real info a fair shake .
> Read the Spec's and then give us your Long winded responce. Anxious
> N101HD 601XL RAMOriginal Message -----
> From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:13 AM
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response
>
>
>>
>> Personally, about the only thing I can see as a problem with an
>> auto-conversion is if you're rally trying to push it past it's limits to
>> get power out of it. For a comparison though, the engine in my Hyundai
>> Elantra sees 3100 rpm in 5th gear at 65mph. If that engine were light
>> enough to use as an aircraft engine, I'd redline it at 3100. 7 years of
>> highway driveway with no problems indicates that's an ok speed for that
>> engine. In comparison, years ago I had a Datsun B-210 that was a 4 speed
>> and turned about 4000 rpm at 60mph, even so, it ran for years no problem.
>> I know for a fact that Chevy 350s when used it boating applications (and
>> they need to be dependable) turn 4 and change, so apparently these
>> engines are capable of putting out that kind of power for extended
>> periods of time. But just off the top of my head, you run an auto
>> conversion at rpms it would have seen on the street at 60mph or less and
>> that puppy will last quite awhile. 100,000 miles at 55mph is about 1,800
>> h!
>> ours. I would guess a Corvair in 5th gear doing 55mph would turn the
>> engine about 2500rpm, under an Chevy engineered load. Just as some basic
>> starting numbers, that sounds totally realistic to me with proper cooling
>> and routine maintenance.
>>
>> Here's and interesting side note too, the Corvair is a more naturally
>> balance engine compared to a 4 cylinder O-200. Not only that, but with
>> those two extra cylinders, for the same power output, each of those
>> cylinders has less stress on it. Just an interesting side note, having
>> used a 140 Evinrude for years, I have a better appreciation for
>> overstressed designs. The 140 is the same block, bore and stroke as the
>> 90hp, but the
>> heads are different to up the compression. The 140 is the most
>> problematic of the bunch. Go back to a 90hp is step up to the 6-cylinder
>> 150hp and there's a lot less problems. People swear by the old 150s. Low
>> stress engine.
>>
>>
>> larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
>>> Good discussion guys,
>>> Popular auto conversions for aircraft require more builder
>>> decision-making on ignition, carburetor's and cooling. Statistically,
>>> numbers prove that the conversions have a broader range of solutions to
>>> deal with like selecting carbs, coils and radiators. Too many ?brilliant
>>> type-As? are reluctant to employ successful aircraft and engine
>>> solutions of previous builders. Most people fear doing a conversion, but
>>> don?t blame the engine, be it a Subaru, Corvair, Ford or Chevy. These
>>> are great engines! It is the builder that repeatedly makes the mistakes
>>> and the most onerous statistics would point to the conversion engines
>>> when they should point to the less than responsible builder.
>>> I'd like to think of it as a kind of a Darwinist plan for improving
>>> aircraft builder intellect and capability.
>>>
>>> Think, build and then fly safe,
>>>
>>> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Gig Giacona wrote:
>>>
>>> > Nobody is saying you need to choose one but to attack those that
>>> > choose to use, say a Corvair, as being in some way less safe than you
>>> > is going to piss a lot of people off and cause them to discount
>>> > anything you have to say on any topic.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > Gig -
>>> > >
>>> > > I agree with that.
>>> > >
>>> > > Mechanical devices of all types, can and do fail. The likelihood is
>>> > > increased
>>> > > by using them for purposes other than that which they were designed.
>>> > >
>>> > > Jeff
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>> --------
>> Andy Shontz
>> CH601XL - Corvair
>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138740#138740
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
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: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory |
I talked to him but did not get any contact information. He said he laid
them up over clay. I asked if he had done much fiberglass work and he said
he hadn't. They really looked nice!! I would love to have some myself but I
don't know if I feel like tackling the job.
Skip Perry - 601XL QB
DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gig Giacona
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:10 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory
If you get any info PLEASE pass it own to the rest of us.
alex_01 wrote:
> i did see some pics on the website from the open day and i liked very much
the 601xl from Mike Canion. I would be interested in the wing root fairings
does anyone no how to contact him or how I could get some of those fairings
>
> thanks
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138840#138840
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: CH701 Usable Fuel |
Thanks for all the good comments. It appears the 701 has a little over
20gal of usable fuel. Installing a "D" tank is more than I want to
tackle. It appears to have merit and adds another level of safety.
Another suggestion is to install individual fuel cutoffs on the two
tanks. Run one dry and then quickly turn the other on. Not sure if
intentionally stopping the engine while airborne is a good idea.
Regards,
Ken Arnold
CH701 N701LK 91%
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Arnold
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:44 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: CH701 Usable Fuel
I am close to finishing my 701. To measure usable fuel, I plan to
fill the tanks, drain them thru the regular fuel lines while the plane
is sitting on the ground. Seems this should provide reasonable estimate
of usable fuel.
I would appreciate any values other 701 flyers are using.
Regards,
Ken Arnold
CH701 N701LK 90%
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory |
In April I took the EAA weekend course in composites. They explained how to do
such things and I might consider trying it but it sure would be nice to buy them
from someone ready made. The brake fairings are really nice!
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138850#138850
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
they do, the diesel engine in the DIamond is a daimler/ CHrysler Diesel derated
to 135 BHP.
the reason the compnaies do not use off the shelf auto diesel engines is the life
cycle of an engine in the auto world is less than 5 years. they change the
model and other componants regularly, you can't do that in commerical aircraft
as the number of planes with them is small and the FAA regulations restrict
flexibility in change of models. It is an ongoing problem currently with the
new Diamond twin diesel, it is a d/Crysler engine, based on a 2003 model year.
They descontinued that engine line last year so now they have to service two
differenct engine lines under the same diesel brand in aviation.
You will see diesel aviation flourish when they create a dedicate engine core and
parts line.
Does not have to do with Liability or very limited.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@suddenlink.net>
>Sent: Oct 8, 2007 5:24 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion.
>
>
>They are. Check into who actually builds the new diesel that is going into the
new 172s.
>
>The other answer is liability. I doubt you could get GM to allow one of their
engines to be put into a certified aircraft. The marginal income they would make
from it just wouldn't be worth it to them. They can probably pay for the liability
for 1,000 car engines for what the cost of 1 aircraft engine would cost
them.
>
>It actually surprises me that they haven't sued to stop us from doing as we are.
>
>
>psm(at)ATT.NET wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> I guess for me the bottom line is this: If auto conversions are such
>> a great thing to use in airplanes, then why don't the airplane
>> manufacturers (Cessna, Piper, etc.) use them?
>>
>> Paul
>> XL fuselage
>> do not archive
>>
>
>
>--------
>W.R. "Gig" Giacona
>601XL Under Construction
>See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138844#138844
>
>
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: Contact Magazine |
Cool, thanks. And here I thought Experimenter was good. [Wink] Sounds worth the
money. I couldn't get enough of Experimenter and then they went and replaced
it with Entertainment Tonight.
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
>
> > Hi Andy, I've received Contact Magazine for several years and find their discussion
of aircraft engines and mechanicals extremely well done. It would be
regarded as somewhat expensive until you've read one whole magazine and found
that it quenched your thirst for really fine writing and coverage of a subject.
Exceedingly well done. The Experimenter never quite had the complete kind
of coverage found in this Diamond of a magazine.
> >
> > Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> >
>
>
> ashontz wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.contactmagazine.com/contact1.html
> >
>
>
> > Does anyone receive this? This looks like what the old EAA Experimenter magazine
used to be before they stopped publishing it and instead started putting
on the new glossy ad filled rag.
> >
> > --------
> > Andy Shontz
> > CH601XL - Corvair
> > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138854#138854
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: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory |
They really make it look like a production plane. I like it. Wheel fairings too.
Tim Juhl wrote:
> In April I took the EAA weekend course in composites. They explained how to
do such things and I might consider trying it but it sure would be nice to buy
them from someone ready made. The brake fairings are really nice!
>
> Tim
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138855#138855
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: Contact Magazine |
I have received that magazine for a few years now. Good articles and pre
tty honest in all the reviews they do on various auto engine conversions
. I am a BIG auto engine conversion believer YMMV.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
http://www.contactmagazine.com/contact1.html
Does anyone receive this? This looks like what the old EAA Experimenter
magazine used to be before they stopped publishing it and instead starte
d putting on the new glossy ad filled rag.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138813#138813
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
I HAVE asked Zenith !! Have reported it here on this list several
times that Chris wrote back "use the Corvair,no airframe mods
necessary". You certainly have to respect CG, gross weight, VNE etc etc
etc. It will be a good combo ONLY if you get rabid about weight
control on the engine and airframe however. If you load up on radios,
instruments, upholstery, extra tanks, blah, blah it will be a 1 1/2 seat
airplane.
There is a big red line on the airspeed indicator that indicates VNE,
when you get close to it you pull the throttle back if you are in level
flight or pull the nose up if you are decending, simple. Have done it
2000 hrs on my RV, not hard to remember.
The ONLY guy that has flown a 701/Vair has told me one of the reasons
the plane is such a JOY to fly is the fact that cruise speed happens at
such a low power setting that the engine is almost silent,and very
smooth. He also mentioned that climb rate was very impressive.
John
Gig,
I=92d ask Zenith if there were any areas of the 701 that might need
beefing up in using a Corvair. The Corvair=92s ability to pull the 701
past its Vne would give me the most concern. Being able to so easily fly
into the aircrafts restricted maneuvering speed is a worry I=92d share
with Zenith before committing this engine to the 701.
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
[quote="John Bolding"]
The ONLY guy that has flown a 701/Vair has told me one of the reasons the plane
is such a JOY to fly is the fact that cruise speed happens at such a low power
setting that the engine is almost silent,and very smooth. He also mentioned
that climb rate was very impressive.
John
> [b]
:D
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138862#138862
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory |
But how do you polish fiberglass...? [Laughing] [Laughing] [Laughing]
Patrick
XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138868#138868
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Contact Magazine |
Well I'm NOT ! I believe in aircraft engines, NOT the middele age stuff
(lycoming, big is not beautifull !) or automotive use. Rotax is my
favourite. Designed for aircraft use, well built, mean and lean.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Eric Tiethoff
j.e.tiethoff@hccnet.nl
tel: 0031 35 6247726
fax: 0031 84 7208379
gsm: 0031 61 2365880
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] Namens
n801bh@netzero.com
Verzonden: dinsdag 9 oktober 2007 0:44
Aan: zenith-list@matronics.com
Onderwerp: Re: Zenith-List: Contact Magazine
I have received that magazine for a few years now. Good articles and
pretty
honest in all the reviews they do on various auto engine conversions. I
am a
BIG auto engine conversion believer YMMV.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
http://www.contactmagazine.com/contact1.html
Does anyone receive this? This looks like what the old EAA Experimenter
magazine used to be before they stopped publishing it and instead
started
putting on the new glossy ad filled rag.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138813#138813
========================b
sp; - The Zenith-List
Em========================
======================
_____
Mijn Postvak In wordt beschermd door SPAMfighter
1632 spam-mails zijn er tot op heden geblokkeerd.
Download de gratis SPAMfighter <http://www.spamfighter.com/lnl> vandaag
nog!
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Contact Magazine |
Been reading Contact for a couple years now. I won't let the subscription lapse.
You can also order back issues.
http://www.contactmagazine.com/
--------
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=138873#138873
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
http://chat.iahu.ca/index.php
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138876#138876
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Contact Magazine |
BerichtIt's my understanding that the great rotex can only be over
hauled by a factory aproved dealer? Is that true.. Joe N101HD
601Xl/RAM
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Tiethoff
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 7:51 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Contact Magazine
Well I'm NOT ! I believe in aircraft engines, NOT the middele age
stuff (lycoming, big is not beautifull !) or automotive use. Rotax is my
favourite. Designed for aircraft use, well built, mean and lean.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Eric Tiethoff
j.e.tiethoff@hccnet.nl
tel: 0031 35 6247726
fax: 0031 84 7208379
gsm: 0031 61 2365880
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] Namens
n801bh@netzero.com
Verzonden: dinsdag 9 oktober 2007 0:44
Aan: zenith-list@matronics.com
Onderwerp: Re: Zenith-List: Contact Magazine
I have received that magazine for a few years now. Good articles and
pretty honest in all the reviews they do on various auto engine
conversions. I am a BIG auto engine conversion believer YMMV.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
http://www.contactmagazine.com/contact1.html
Does anyone receive this? This looks like what the old EAA
Experimenter magazine used to be before they stopped publishing it and
instead started putting on the new glossy ad filled rag.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138813#138813
========================b
sp; - The Zenith-List
Em========================
======================
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matron
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Mijn Postvak In wordt beschermd door SPAMfighter
1632 spam-mails zijn er tot op heden geblokkeerd.
Download de gratis SPAMfighter vandaag nog!
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
Oh by the way I had 2- 350 chevs in a boat that turned 6800 rpm . for 30
to 40 mins. at atime and ran 5200 to5600 for hrs. no problems at all. It
all goes back to who built the eng, and it wasn't someone who thought they
were a eng. builder ,but a real eng. builder same with the subaru or any
other eng. that you can think of... Anxious N101HD 601XL/RAM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Southern Reflections" <purplemoon99@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response
> <purplemoon99@bellsouth.net>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Southern Reflections" <purplemoon99@bellsouth.net>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded
> response
>
>
>> Go to infi@ramengines.com see what is done to those engines---the only
>> part that is Subaru is the block, and it is not stock in any way .I
>> think it will out perform and out last any thing out there, so I can't
>> see how you can paint all these auto converts with a broad brush . Mabye
>> if you're talking about going to a junk yard and draging aE 81 out
>> putting some kind of a re drive on it and calling it a auto converson
>> That's what you're talking about.! You are giving auto converts a bad
>> rap,and turn you are not giving the people that are asking for real info
>> a fair shake . Read the Spec's and then give us your Long winded
>> responce. Anxious N101HD 601XL RAMOriginal Message -----
>> From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
>> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:13 AM
>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Personally, about the only thing I can see as a problem with an
>>> auto-conversion is if you're rally trying to push it past it's limits to
>>> get power out of it. For a comparison though, the engine in my Hyundai
>>> Elantra sees 3100 rpm in 5th gear at 65mph. If that engine were light
>>> enough to use as an aircraft engine, I'd redline it at 3100. 7 years of
>>> highway driveway with no problems indicates that's an ok speed for that
>>> engine. In comparison, years ago I had a Datsun B-210 that was a 4 speed
>>> and turned about 4000 rpm at 60mph, even so, it ran for years no
>>> problem. I know for a fact that Chevy 350s when used it boating
>>> applications (and they need to be dependable) turn 4 and change, so
>>> apparently these engines are capable of putting out that kind of power
>>> for extended periods of time. But just off the top of my head, you run
>>> an auto conversion at rpms it would have seen on the street at 60mph or
>>> less and that puppy will last quite awhile. 100,000 miles at 55mph is
>>> about 1,800 h!
>>> ours. I would guess a Corvair in 5th gear doing 55mph would turn the
>>> engine about 2500rpm, under an Chevy engineered load. Just as some basic
>>> starting numbers, that sounds totally realistic to me with proper
>>> cooling and routine maintenance.
>>>
>>> Here's and interesting side note too, the Corvair is a more naturally
>>> balance engine compared to a 4 cylinder O-200. Not only that, but with
>>> those two extra cylinders, for the same power output, each of those
>>> cylinders has less stress on it. Just an interesting side note, having
>>> used a 140 Evinrude for years, I have a better appreciation for
>>> overstressed designs. The 140 is the same block, bore and stroke as the
>>> 90hp, but the
>>> heads are different to up the compression. The 140 is the most
>>> problematic of the bunch. Go back to a 90hp is step up to the 6-cylinder
>>> 150hp and there's a lot less problems. People swear by the old 150s. Low
>>> stress engine.
>>>
>>>
>>> larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
>>>> Good discussion guys,
>>>> Popular auto conversions for aircraft require more builder
>>>> decision-making on ignition, carburetor's and cooling. Statistically,
>>>> numbers prove that the conversions have a broader range of solutions to
>>>> deal with like selecting carbs, coils and radiators. Too many
>>>> ?brilliant
>>>> type-As? are reluctant to employ successful aircraft and engine
>>>> solutions of previous builders. Most people fear doing a conversion,
>>>> but
>>>> don?t blame the engine, be it a Subaru, Corvair, Ford or Chevy. These
>>>> are great engines! It is the builder that repeatedly makes the mistakes
>>>> and the most onerous statistics would point to the conversion engines
>>>> when they should point to the less than responsible builder.
>>>> I'd like to think of it as a kind of a Darwinist plan for improving
>>>> aircraft builder intellect and capability.
>>>>
>>>> Think, build and then fly safe,
>>>>
>>>> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gig Giacona wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Nobody is saying you need to choose one but to attack those that
>>>> > choose to use, say a Corvair, as being in some way less safe than you
>>>> > is going to piss a lot of people off and cause them to discount
>>>> > anything you have to say on any topic.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > > Gig -
>>>> > >
>>>> > > I agree with that.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Mechanical devices of all types, can and do fail. The likelihood is
>>>> > > increased
>>>> > > by using them for purposes other than that which they were
>>>> > > designed.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Jeff
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Andy Shontz
>>> CH601XL - Corvair
>>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138740#138740
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
Damn, didn't realize they turned that fast. Yeah, it's always the unlikely grease-monkey
that's actualy better at whatever someone else's alleged expertise is.
Guess it's the peter principle thng at work for the other guy. LOL
purplemoon99(at)bellsouth wrote:
> Oh by the way I had 2- 350 chevs in a boat that turned 6800 rpm . for 30
> to 40 mins. at atime and ran 5200 to5600 for hrs. no problems at all. It
> all goes back to who built the eng, and it wasn't someone who thought they
> were a eng. builder ,but a real eng. builder same with the subaru or any
> other eng. that you can think of... Anxious N101HD 601XL/RAM
> ---
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138887#138887
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
oops, sorry folks. I meant to send my last post privately but failed
to inform my computer.
Please feel free to ignore my comments.
Paul
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
Hi Craig,
Thanks for the reply. I am writing off list because I think I
already addressed the issues you raised, but apparently I wasn't very
clear in my posts.
Yes, I will fly behind a Jabiru. I didn't mean to say anything about
certification for engines. Indeed, all I said was that I felt
purpose built engines were preferable to conversions. I still feel
that way. However, even among purpose built engines there are
choices to be made. For me, the Jabiru 3300 easily comes out on
top. The fact that it isn't certified doesn't bother me a bit. It
provides the best proven performance, by far, in the plane I am building.
I realize there can be no standard performance for conversions since
each one is a bit different from the other ones. Still, if I thought
I would get better performance from any conversion I would certainly
consider it. The anecdotal information I have gathered over the years
I have been building my Zodiac indicate something like a 30 percent
speed advantage for the Jabiru over Corvair conversions. There is
also an unknown but significant weight advantage for the
Jabiru. From the information on the ZAC web site and from just plain
common sense, the Rotax seems clearly inferior to the Jabiru. It
claims only 100 hp compared to 120 or 130 from the Jabiru and has
less than 50 percent of the Jab's displacement (if I remember
correctly). It also has water cooling and PSRU which I don't want on
my plane. The certified choices all seem significantly heavier and
lower in horsepower than the Jabiru.
Once again, I don't mean to knock anyone's choice for a
conversion. There are reasons why they could easily be the best
choice for any particular builder. As with most choices, home built
airplanes just don't offer "One size fits all" solutions.
As I have clearly said in recent posts, I am building an airplane
mostly because I like to build things. I never claimed to prefer
factory built airplanes, but I do think the choices made by the
factories should rightfully be considered when making judgements over
builder's choices.
I really don't know where you got the idea that I would only consider
brands of engines and airplanes that are certified for my use. I
didn't say that.
Best regards,
Paul
XL, Jabiru, nearing completion.
At 12:52 PM 10/8/2007, you wrote:
>
> > If auto conversions are such a great thing to use in airplanes, then why
>don't the airplane manufacturers (Cessna, Piper, etc.) use them?
>
>They do. Cessna and Diamond use the Thielert Diesels.
>
>Would you fly behind (or in front of) a Jabiru? Because Cessna etc don't use
>Jabiru either.
>
>But if certified aircraft are your standard then why are you building an
>experimental?
>
>-- Craig
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
I don't know if they would like being called" grease monkeys ", the one's
I know put there engs. together in" Clean Rooms" where they don't even get
dust In them. Grease monkey's are the ones that build that E81 found in a
junk yard, build it on the kitchen table and can't figure why it doesn't do
such a hot job. Hence "auto conv. are no good" The distance between
"grease monkey"and "engine builder" is about 10 to 25 years . Joe N101
HD 601 XL/ RAM
----- Original Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 9:03 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response
>
> Damn, didn't realize they turned that fast. Yeah, it's always the unlikely
> grease-monkey that's actualy better at whatever someone else's alleged
> expertise is. Guess it's the peter principle thng at work for the other
> guy. LOL
>
>
> purplemoon99(at)bellsouth wrote:
>> Oh by the way I had 2- 350 chevs in a boat that turned 6800 rpm . for 30
>> to 40 mins. at atime and ran 5200 to5600 for hrs. no problems at all. It
>> all goes back to who built the eng, and it wasn't someone who thought
>> they
>> were a eng. builder ,but a real eng. builder same with the subaru or any
>> other eng. that you can think of... Anxious N101HD 601XL/RAM
>> ---
>
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138887#138887
>
>
>
Message 61
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Usable Fuel |
Actually my idea, which apparently is NOT new [Wink] was to get a bit more range
cheaply. The safety factor is just a welcomed by-product.
Hope it all works out well for you.
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138902#138902
Message 62
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory |
Andy
I took about a half dozen picts of that plane, and, yes, it was beautiful.
Let me know off line if you'd like me to send them to you. Unfortunately, I
don't have a single view that shows the whole plane. I was mostly taking
picts of parts of interest to me.
The fairings were very attractive. My concern with those fairings is that
they are of constant width, and thus probably would not provide the
improved aerodynamics that Klaus Truemper was able to demonstrate with the
fairings that he put on his HDS. Klaus' analysis was that the junction
between the fairing and the wing needed to be a straight line from the
front of the wing to the wing trailing edge. That requires that the fairing
be significantly larger at the front and rear of the wing than they are at
the widest point on the fuselage. For details, see:
http://www.utdallas.edu/~klaus/Airplane/wing_root_fairing.html
Terry
At 12:19 PM 10/8/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>That's gotta be a beautiful airplane. Do you have anymore pix of this?
>
>do not archive
>
>--------
>Andy Shontz
>CH601XL - Corvair
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Rudder done--finally; working on the stab
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
Message 63
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CH701 Usable Fuel |
I installed a valve at each wing root to be able to shut off each tank. If
you have an imbalance you can burn off the higher tank and shut off the lower
one. This does not happen often but the real plus of having the valves is
when you park at an uneven slope you can prevent the one tank siphoning into the
other and then flowing out of the tank vent. I have found this invaluable. I
got this suggestion from Gary in Mexico. Thanks Gary, works great!!!!
Bob Spudis
N701ZX CH701/912S/138 hrs
In a message dated 10/8/2007 6:04:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
arno7452@bellsouth.net writes:
Thanks for all the good comments. It appears the 701 has a little over
20gal of usable fuel. Installing a "D" tank is more than I want to tackle. It
appears to have merit and adds another level of safety.
Another suggestion is to install individual fuel cutoffs on the two tanks.
Run one dry and then quickly turn the other on. Not sure if intentionally
stopping the engine while airborne is a good idea.
Regards,
Ken Arnold
CH701 N701LK 91%
Message 64
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bending leading edge skin |
Here a video about this method (3 parts):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqzToYQ765w&mode=related&search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa9LVYDeMEo&mode=related&search=Sone
x%20sonexbuilding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IonjM5IEoMs
bye
Bruno
----- Original Message -----
From: wade jones
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 5:52 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Bending leading edge skin
Hello group ,yes it can be done the same as the Sonex .This morning I
was amazed at how easy it was to form the leading edge skin using the
vacuum method .It only took about one hour with the help of my lovely
wife . The results are very satisfactory.
Wade Jones
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! --
|