Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:43 AM - Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory (alex_01)
2. 01:43 AM - Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory (alex_01)
3. 03:15 AM - 6061-T6... where's it made? (Jugle)
4. 03:21 AM - Re: Contact Magazine (Eric Tiethoff)
5. 04:33 AM - Re: 6061-T6... where's it made? (Paul Mulwitz)
6. 04:47 AM - Re: 6061-T6... where's it made? (Ken Lilja)
7. 05:39 AM - Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (steveadams)
8. 06:36 AM - Re: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (MacDonald Doug)
9. 06:53 AM - Vixen file with holder (Robert Schoenberger)
10. 07:17 AM - Re: Vixen file with holder (Larry Winger)
11. 07:36 AM - Re: Bending leading edge skin (Maarten Versteeg)
12. 07:48 AM - Re: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (William Dominguez)
13. 07:50 AM - Re: Re: Bending leading edge skin (wade jones)
14. 09:04 AM - Leading Edge (wade jones)
15. 10:59 AM - Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (steveadams)
16. 12:06 PM - Re: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (William Dominguez)
17. 02:57 PM - Re: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (Graeme)
18. 03:07 PM - Re: XL Landing Gear (tigermiller)
19. 03:32 PM - Re: 6061-T6... where's it made? (Bill Naumuk)
20. 03:43 PM - Re: Re: XL Landing Gear (David Downey)
21. 03:46 PM - Re: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (Bill Naumuk)
22. 03:58 PM - Re: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response (LarryMcFarland)
23. 07:06 PM - Re: Re: XL Landing Gear (Bob Unternaehrer)
24. 07:14 PM - Re: Re: XL Landing Gear (Joemotis@aol.com)
25. 07:41 PM - Re: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (Bob Unternaehrer)
26. 08:33 PM - Re: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. (Joemotis@aol.com)
27. 10:41 PM - Re: Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory (martyn@flight.co.za)
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: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory |
I got some fairings for a TD (see pic) but i need some for my CZAW trigear.
If someone would like to have them for the TD i can send them price is 50 USD
also I have cover for the brake calipers for the main gear to fit the CZAW wheel
fairings.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138925#138925
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/zodiak2_178.jpg
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: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory |
and one more
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138926#138926
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/zodiak3_212.jpg
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: | 6061-T6... where's it made? |
I've just checked my order for 6061-T6 sheet with the supplier I intend to buy
from here in Australia and have been told they are just waiting for a new shipment
to clear customs before they can complete my order. The other supplier I
tried to order from told me some thicknesses had a 12 week wait on shipments.
It occurred to me that aluminium is produced here by Alcoa in Victoria... do they
not produce aircraft aluminium? So where's it coming from? ...and what standards
is it produced to?
If I'm gonna bank my life on a spar I've built, I'd feel better if I knew the metal
was not produced by slave labour in some third world country.
Any thoughts, ideas, opinions? Anyone had experiences with sub-standard sheet?
BTW, when I speak to them next, I'll ask!
Glenn
--------
Glenn Andressen
601XL- just started.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138933#138933
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: | Contact Magazine |
Yes that's true. But the TBO of the 912ULS engine is 1500 h or 10 years
(whichever comes first) ! The normal maintenance you can do yourself (if
you
are flying experimental).
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 Southern
Reflections
Verzonden: dinsdag 9 oktober 2007 2:23
Aan: zenith-list@matronics.com
Onderwerp: Re: Zenith-List: Contact Magazine
It'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 <mailto:j.e.tiethoff@hccnet.nl> Tiethoff
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 <http://www.spamfighter.com/lnl> vandaag
nog!
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 <http://www.spamfighter.com/lnl> vandaag
nog!
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 6061-T6... where's it made? |
Hi Glenn,
Actually, as I understand it 6061-T6 isn't really aircraft
aluminum. It is a very common alloy used for all sorts of
applications including lawn furniture and other mundane tasks. It is
much harder(?) than soft pure aluminum which is also commonly
used. You will quickly learn to feel the difference between soft
aluminum and 6061-T6.
The sheets and bars will be marked with the alloy and the
manufacturer's name. I have not heard of any counterfeit metal in
this class. I suppose it is possible, but this is not a particularly
expensive alloy.
I know there are plants that make this alloy in the USA and Canada,
and I am sure there are some in other locations. All I can recommend
is you ask your distributors about their sources and if they can
trust the quality of products they get from them.
G'Day
Paul
XL fuselage, Jabiru 3300
Do not archive
At 03:14 AM 10/9/2007, you wrote:
>
>I've just checked my order for 6061-T6 sheet with the supplier I
>intend to buy from here in Australia and have been told they are
>just waiting for a new shipment to clear customs before they can
>complete my order. The other supplier I tried to order from told me
>some thicknesses had a 12 week wait on shipments.
>
>It occurred to me that aluminium is produced here by Alcoa in
>Victoria... do they not produce aircraft aluminium? So where's it
>coming from? ...and what standards is it produced to?
>
>If I'm gonna bank my life on a spar I've built, I'd feel better if I
>knew the metal was not produced by slave labour in some third world country.
>
>Any thoughts, ideas, opinions? Anyone had experiences with sub-standard sheet?
>
>BTW, when I speak to them next, I'll ask!
>Glenn
>
>--------
>Glenn Andressen
>601XL- just started.
>
>========================================================
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: 6061-T6... where's it made? |
Paul Mulwitz wrote:
>
> Hi Glenn,
>
> Actually, as I understand it 6061-T6 isn't really aircraft aluminum.
True. It is not the standard aircraft aluminum. It is reasonable
strong and has high corrosion resistance compared to 2024. I do wonder
why we get so upset about corrosion prevention. Prior to 1986 most
light aircraft were not corrosion proofed unless they were set up for
seaplane use. I would worry more about intergranular corrosion in the
extrusions than corrosion in the sheet metal.
Ken Lilja
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: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
I guess I will jump into the fray. First I just want to say that a lot of my opinion
is based on researching possible alternatives for a larger 180-200hp engine,
and may not be applicable to the smaller 80-100hp engines. I see a lot of
"I think", "should", "could", and "I believe" from people talking about auto
conversions. People touting their conversions are long on promises and potential,
and short on data. Certified engines do fail, however there are pretty good
stats on failure rates, causes of failure, maintenance issues to look out for,
and how long they will reliably last. Auto conversions are a crap shoot. If
you go for one of the bigger engine builders with some measure of previous installations
and success, savings, if any, over a certified engine are pretty small.
Engineer your own conversion and you best stay close to the airport because
it is likely that no matter how smart you are or mechanically gifted, it is
very unusual that someone will get everything right the first time. I respect
those of you going this this route for your desire to find a more modern and
efficient engine than the traditional certified engines available. However, if
you think going this route carries less risk than going with the tried and true,
you are deluding yourself. If you think I am wrong, show me some data and
I'll jump on the auto conversion bandwagon. As far as buying an old airboat lyco
and sticking it in your plane; there is a reason they are cheap. They are
built up of out of spec parts, which may be "good enough" for a boat, but are
not what I want to hang my life and my families life on. There is a difference
between good value and being cheap.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138946#138946
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: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
One of the PAV competitors is finding this issue with
GM. They initially got very good support from GM with
the idea of using the LS series V8 but after a
"Changing of the Guard" at GM, suddenly GM pulled
their support. The PAV manufacturer says he is in
discussions with Toyota now.
Oh well, GM's loss on this high profile project.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch builder
NW Ontario
> 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.
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Vixen file with holder |
List . . . there was a post a while back by someone who had obtained a
short (1.5") Vixen file with a handle attached. The name of the
supplying company indicated in the e-mail was Airparts, but they don't
carry this item. Can anyone supply me with info on where one can buy a
fairly short Vixen file with handle attached.to the top side? One
catalog listed Vixen files that were flexible - what is that all about.
I really like this tool, but the 10" file I have is a bit clumsy to
use. I don't have access to a grinder. Thanks for any help you can
render. Robert Schoenberger 701
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: Vixen file with holder |
I put my 10" vixen file in the vise and snapped it off to the length I
needed. I then hot glued it to a piece of wood. It has worked great for
700 hours of building.
Larry Winger
601XL/Corvair scratchbuilding
On 10/9/07, Robert Schoenberger <hrs1@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> hrs1@frontiernet.net>
>
> List . . . there was a post a while back by someone who had obtained a
> short (1.5") Vixen file with a handle attached. The name of the
> supplying company indicated in the e-mail was Airparts, but they don't
> carry this item. Can anyone supply me with info on where one can buy a
> fairly short Vixen file with handle attached.to the top side? One
> catalog listed Vixen files that were flexible - what is that all about.
> I really like this tool, but the 10" file I have is a bit clumsy to
> use. I don't have access to a grinder. Thanks for any help you can
> render. Robert Schoenberger 701
>
>
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: Bending leading edge skin |
Hello Wade,
I am approaching the leading edge step in my building so I was
very interested in options for the bending process.
I watched the video's on 'youtube' and it looked like a great
way to get the desired bending in a very controlled process.
I have tried both the 'table' and air bending processes on a
very small piece of material and the leading edge fit was a
little better with the 'table' pressed part. My question is
what size of tube did you use to 'air' bend the skin, I did my
test with the drawing listed 1 3/8" tube.
Regards,
Maarten, San Antonio
601xl, plans building wings
> Time: 09:08:24 AM PST US
> From: "wade jones" <wjones@brazoriainet.com>
> 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
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: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
steveadams <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com> wrote:Certified engines do fail, however
there are pretty good stats on failure rates, causes of failure, maintenance issues
to look out for, and how long they will reliably last. Auto conversions
are a crap shoot.
Can you show me where I can find stats on failure rates for Jabiru 3300, Rotax,
Continental O-200?
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida.
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: Bending leading edge skin |
Hi Maarten ,I used a galvanized 1" sch 40 pipe .The pipe book lists this
size as 1.315" mine measured 1.322 .This being a bit smaller than the
required 1.375 worked out well and took care of the spring back .
Wade Jones South Texas
601XL plans building
Cont. 0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "Maarten Versteeg" <maarten.versteeg@swri.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Bending leading edge skin
> <maarten.versteeg@swri.org>
>
> Hello Wade,
>
> I am approaching the leading edge step in my building so I was
> very interested in options for the bending process.
> I watched the video's on 'youtube' and it looked like a great
> way to get the desired bending in a very controlled process.
> I have tried both the 'table' and air bending processes on a
> very small piece of material and the leading edge fit was a
> little better with the 'table' pressed part. My question is
> what size of tube did you use to 'air' bend the skin, I did my
> test with the drawing listed 1 3/8" tube.
>
> Regards,
> Maarten, San Antonio
> 601xl, plans building wings
>
>> Time: 09:08:24 AM PST US
>> From: "wade jones" <wjones@brazoriainet.com>
>> 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
>
>
>
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 |
|
Don't want to boor you guys ,but I was so pleased with the results I
thought I should pass this picture along to the plans builders .This was
taken just prior to starting the shop-vac and 3 or 4 mins. later it was
complete . Wade Jones
HP Photosmart Essential - Smart. Simple. Fast!
Unleash the Photo Power of your Printer.
Download your copy in less than a minute at:
http://www.hp.com/go/pse/email
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: | Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
bill_dom(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
Can you show me where I can find stats on failure rates for Jabiru 3300, Rotax,
Continental O-200?
quote]
As I said at the beginning of my message, all my research has been on larger engines
and I know nothing about Jabiru and Rotax engines. For the continental 0-200,
look in the NTSB database at airframes flying behind the engine for the
last 50 years and see how often mech failure results in an accident. Then just
for fun, look at all of the zodiac accidents in the past 10 years, and see what
percentage of the engine failures were flying an auto conversion.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138983#138983
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 |
Thanks,
I did what you described but only for engines flying in Zodiac 601 airframes. The
majority of Zodiacs accidents where engine failure was the cause happened with
Rotax engines. However, this is not valid statistic since Rotax could be the
most common engine used in Zodiacs. There where a couple of Lycoming, a couple
of Subarus but not Corvairs or Jabirus. But then again, without knowing how
many of them have been flying, this is inconclusive.
If I get some time one of these days I'll get this as failures as percentage of
engine flying in Zodiacs.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida.
bill_dom(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
Can you show me where I can find stats on failure rates for Jabiru 3300, Rotax,
Continental O-200?
quote]
As I said at the beginning of my message, all my research has been on larger engines
and I know nothing about Jabiru and Rotax engines. For the continental 0-200,
look in the NTSB database at airframes flying behind the engine for the
last 50 years and see how often mech failure results in an accident. Then just
for fun, look at all of the zodiac accidents in the past 10 years, and see what
percentage of the engine failures were flying an auto conversion.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138983#138983
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 |
I would be surprised that the majority of engine failures would be
behind Rotax engines.
Do people use 582 two strokes in 601 I would assume so as they have
about the same performance as the old 2200 Jabiru.
The two strokes are definatly not as reliable as the 912 four stroke .
If they are 912 failures are fuel starvation problems classed as an
engine failure???
Graeme Cairns
----- Original Message -----
From: William Dominguez
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 5:05 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Sorry Guys it is another long winded
response
Thanks,
I did what you described but only for engines flying in Zodiac 601
airframes. The majority of Zodiacs accidents where engine failure was
the cause happened with Rotax engines. However, this is not valid
statistic since Rotax could be the most common engine used in Zodiacs.
There where a couple of Lycoming, a couple of Subarus but not Corvairs
or Jabirus. But then again, without knowing how many of them have been
flying, this is inconclusive.
If I get some time one of these days I'll get this as failures as
percentage of engine flying in Zodiacs.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida.
steveadams <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com> wrote:
bill_dom(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
Can you show me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
9/10/2007 4:43 PM
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: XL Landing Gear |
Debo, I haven't bent mine yet, but it is cut, radiused and ready to bend. I've
done test bends on my 12 ton Taiwan press, it it seems to work fine. Don't
know how the full width gear will bend, but according to my calculations, I should
be able to bend it with the 12 ton press. I made a special bending fixture
with two steel rollers on it about 8 inches apart. I'm using a 6 inch diameter
piece of aluminum billet to form the inside radius. When I actually bend
it, I'll post something, but it'll be awhile. I don't need the gear for quite
awhile, and if bent up, it's a pain to store.
--------
Dave Miller
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=139031#139031
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: 6061-T6... where's it made? |
My kit had aluminum parts from Canada, Switzerland, and possibly Germany.
do not archive
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jugle" <glenn@eastcoastit.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:14 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: 6061-T6... where's it made?
>
> I've just checked my order for 6061-T6 sheet with the supplier I intend to
> buy from here in Australia and have been told they are just waiting for a
> new shipment to clear customs before they can complete my order. The other
> supplier I tried to order from told me some thicknesses had a 12 week wait
> on shipments.
>
> It occurred to me that aluminium is produced here by Alcoa in Victoria...
> do they not produce aircraft aluminium? So where's it coming from? ...and
> what standards is it produced to?
>
> If I'm gonna bank my life on a spar I've built, I'd feel better if I knew
> the metal was not produced by slave labour in some third world country.
>
> Any thoughts, ideas, opinions? Anyone had experiences with sub-standard
> sheet?
>
> BTW, when I speak to them next, I'll ask!
> Glenn
>
> --------
> Glenn Andressen
> 601XL- just started.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=138933#138933
>
>
>
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 would suggest that you build a centering jig so that regardless if the be
nd center is per plan or not at least the second bend will be symmetrical.
Another jig to determine the bend depth and a third and fourth to do the ax
le bends as well. Also remember that if you creep up on the bend amount on
the first side, you need to creep up on the second side as well as creeping
up on a bend angle and doing it in one shot has the possibility of differe
nt results...=0A =0ADave Downey=0AHarleysville (SE) PA=0A100 HP Corvair=0A
=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: tigermiller <tigermiller1595@m
sn.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 5:
06:40 PM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: Re: XL Landing Gear=0A=0A=0A--> Zenith-Lis
t message posted by: "tigermiller" <tigermiller1595@msn.com>=0A=0ADebo, I
haven't bent mine yet, but it is cut, radiused and ready to bend. I've don
e test bends on my 12 ton Taiwan press, it it seems to work fine. Don't kn
ow how the full width gear will bend, but according to my calculations, I s
hould be able to bend it with the 12 ton press. I made a special bending f
ixture with two steel rollers on it about 8 inches apart. I'm using a 6 in
ch diameter piece of aluminum billet to form the inside radius. When I act
ually bend it, I'll post something, but it'll be awhile. I don't need the
gear for quite awhile, and if bent up, it's a pain to store.=0A=0A--------
=0ADave Miller=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forum
========================0A=0A
=0A =0A______________________________________________________________
______________________=0ANeed a vacation? Get great deals=0Ato amazing plac
es on Yahoo! Travel.=0Ahttp://travel.yahoo.com/
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: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
All-
WW recommends the use of 100LL in his conversions. Therefore, the
biggest savings isn't in the weight of the engine, but the weight of the
fuel you have to drag around.
I used to flight plan at 8gph when I was part owner of a C-152/O235. All
(And recurring) burn data on a WW conversion is in the mid 5's. Figure 6 and
you're still 25% less burn than an O-200/235.
Stock tanks for an XL are 30 gal @ 6lbs per gal. Around 50lbs of built
in dead weight for the O-235. Figure a fraction less for the O-200.
do not archive
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryMcFarland" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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:
>> <wr.giacona@suddenlink.net>
>>
>> 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 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: Sorry Guys it is another long winded response |
Graeme,
Its not that Rotax 912 series had exceptional difficulties. They went
through teething problems in the beginning keeping re-drives running.
Recently, theyve had a hard time keeping their engines cool and
mandated oil and special coolant requirements for some if not all users.
The 912 is or was the most popular engine and had a tremendous early
lead in market share. Theyre just coming to terms with the Jabaru and
the competition. If it appeared that they have a disproportionate number
of engine problems or failures, thats only because there are so many of
them out there.
It's not likely that enough 582 are powering 601s to count in engine
failure rates and fuel starvation is most likely a problem with aircraft
plumbing, pumps or trying to suck fuel uphill. These are people
problems, not engine problems.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com <http://www.macsmachine.com/>
Do not archive
Graeme wrote:
> I would be surprised that the majority of engine failures would be
> behind Rotax engines.
> Do people use 582 two strokes in 601 I would assume so as they have
> about the same performance as the old 2200 Jabiru.
> The two strokes are definatly not as reliable as the 912 four stroke .
> If they are 912 failures are fuel starvation problems classed as an
> engine failure???
> Graeme Cairns
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: XL Landing Gear |
Will the gear be heat treated after you bend it? Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: tigermiller
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 5:06 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: XL Landing Gear
<tigermiller1595@msn.com>
Debo, I haven't bent mine yet, but it is cut, radiused and ready to
bend. I've done test bends on my 12 ton Taiwan press, it it seems to
work fine. Don't know how the full width gear will bend, but according
to my calculations, I should be able to bend it with the 12 ton press.
I made a special bending fixture with two steel rollers on it about 8
inches apart. I'm using a 6 inch diameter piece of aluminum billet to
form the inside radius. When I actually bend it, I'll post something,
but it'll be awhile. I don't need the gear for quite awhile, and if
bent up, it's a pain to store.
--------
Dave Miller
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=139031#139031
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL Landing Gear |
Hi Dave,
As a builder of 3 arbor presses ,I would be grateful for a picture of your
601 XL landing gear jig!
Joe Motis
Do not archive
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
What is PAV, Bob U.
----- Original Message -----
From: MacDonald Doug
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Auto Conversion Discussion.
<dougsnash@yahoo.com>
One of the PAV competitors is finding this issue with
GM. They initially got very good support from GM with
the idea of using the LS series V8 but after a
"Changing of the Guard" at GM, suddenly GM pulled
their support. The PAV manufacturer says he is in
discussions with Toyota now.
Oh well, GM's loss on this high profile project.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch builder
NW Ontario
> 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.
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Auto Conversion Discussion. |
In a message dated 10/9/2007 7:42:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
shilocom@mcmsys.com writes:
It actually surprises me that they haven't sued to
> stop us from doing as we are.
Come out of your shell man.
On what farthest stretch of the imagination of liability do you think that
GM or whomever could sue you for using a device in an situation of your own
risk and peril?I.E. way the heck out of their published design parameters??
You had better not ever look at another fan belt because it might come off
and smite you.
Jesus H. Farkin Christ.
Joe Motis
Do not archive
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Open Hangar day Zenith Factory |
Good Day all,
I have gone through the archives and I have not found anything really
conclusive regarding Hirth powerplants as a viable alternative.
The 3 cylinder 100 HP fuel injected 2 stroke, weighing in at 45kg's
(99lb's) seems too good to be true.
Anybody out there that runs a Hirth or knows of someone who has one. I'd
really like to get their feedback regarding these engines.
Blue Skies everyone,
Martyn Ward
CH701 ZU-DPL
Do Not Archive
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! --
|