Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:37 AM - Re: Jabiru Engine Price Outlook (secatur)
2. 01:38 AM - Re: A picture of My Balls holding an aileron (secatur)
3. 01:48 AM - Re: Powerplant Choices (secatur)
4. 02:58 AM - XL Cable rigging and fairlead (chris Sinfield)
5. 04:04 AM - Re: Re: Powerplant Choices (Paul Mulwitz)
6. 04:08 AM - Re: XL Cable rigging and fairlead (Paul Mulwitz)
7. 05:36 AM - Re: XL Cable rigging and fairlead (Jaybannist@cs.com)
8. 05:37 AM - Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop (deglass1@aol.com)
9. 05:45 AM - Re: Re: Fuel selector location? (steve)
10. 05:46 AM - Video of my CNC machine making wheel Chocks (Scott Laughlin)
11. 05:55 AM - Zenith Play Time (ZodieRocket)
12. 05:57 AM - Re: XL Cable rigging and fairlead (steve)
13. 06:02 AM - Re: Re:Zenith down pilot OK (Terry Phillips)
14. 06:05 AM - Re: Re: Fuel selector location? (John Bolding)
15. 06:06 AM - Re: Re: Powerplant Choices (steve)
16. 06:28 AM - Re: Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop (cookwithgas)
17. 06:31 AM - Re: Re: Fuel selector location? (steve)
18. 06:34 AM - Re: Video of my CNC machine making wheel Chocks (ashontz)
19. 06:42 AM - Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (ashontz)
20. 06:55 AM - Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (Gig Giacona)
21. 07:04 AM - Re: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (Paul Mulwitz)
22. 07:09 AM - Re: Re: Fuel selector location? (LRM)
23. 07:16 AM - Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (ashontz)
24. 07:19 AM - Re: Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop (ashontz)
25. 07:23 AM - Re: Re: Powerplant Choices (LarryMcFarland)
26. 07:36 AM - Re: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (John Davis)
27. 07:36 AM - Re: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (David Brooks)
28. 07:39 AM - Re: Re: Fuel selector (Jaybannist@cs.com)
29. 07:45 AM - Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (steveadams)
30. 07:48 AM - Re: Re: Powerplant Choices (LarryMcFarland)
31. 07:53 AM - Re: Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop (DaveG601XL)
32. 07:57 AM - Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (ashontz)
33. 08:01 AM - Re: Re: Fuel selector (David Brooks)
34. 08:24 AM - Re: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (LarryMcFarland)
35. 08:26 AM - Re: Fuel selector location? (Tim Juhl)
36. 08:33 AM - Re: Re: Powerplant Choices (steve)
37. 08:33 AM - Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (eedetail)
38. 08:37 AM - Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (n85ae)
39. 08:38 AM - Re: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (ZodieRocket)
40. 08:42 AM - Re: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (LarryMcFarland)
41. 08:47 AM - Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (ashontz)
42. 09:19 AM - Re: Re: Powerplant Choices (LarryMcFarland)
43. 09:19 AM - Re: Re: Fuel selector location? (Paul Mulwitz)
44. 09:36 AM - Re: Fuel selector (Gig Giacona)
45. 09:41 AM - Re: Re: Fuel selector location? (Trainnut01@aol.com)
46. 09:49 AM - Re: Re: Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop ()
47. 09:54 AM - Re: Re: Fuel selector (Craig Payne)
48. 10:34 AM - Engine for sale (RICHARD SCOTTER)
49. 11:06 AM - Re: Engine for sale (Steve Sims)
50. 11:10 AM - N27S (Jeff Small)
51. 11:24 AM - Corvair College 11 (ZodieRocket)
52. 11:37 AM - Re: Re: Fuel selector location? (John Bolding)
53. 11:58 AM - Re: N27S (Gig Giacona)
54. 12:03 PM - Re: Fuel selector (Gig Giacona)
55. 12:12 PM - Re: Re: Fuel selector location? (ZodieRocket)
56. 12:22 PM - Re: Re: N27S (ZodieRocket)
57. 12:42 PM - Re: N27S (Gig Giacona)
58. 01:06 PM - HDS Adventures (JG)
59. 01:37 PM - Re: Re: N27S (LarryMcFarland)
60. 01:52 PM - Re: HDS Adventures (Peter Chapman)
61. 03:17 PM - Re:Re:3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (MaxNr@aol.com)
62. 04:27 PM - Re: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (Southern Reflections)
63. 04:37 PM - Re: Re: Powerplant Choices (n801bh@netzero.com)
64. 04:45 PM - Re: Re: Fuel selector location? (Southern Reflections)
65. 05:39 PM - Re: Re: mounting engine with body on stands. (Morris, Glenn D)
66. 05:40 PM - Re: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (n801bh@netzero.com)
67. 05:46 PM - Re: Pegastol Wings (kmccune)
68. 05:54 PM - Re: Re: Fuel Sender screws (wade jones)
69. 05:59 PM - Re: Zenith Play Time (akok)
70. 06:30 PM - Re: Re: Pegastol Wings (LRM)
71. 06:32 PM - Re: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (LarryMcFarland)
72. 07:20 PM - Re: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. (Southern Reflections)
73. 08:19 PM - Re: Re: Powerplant Choices (Art Olechowski)
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: Jabiru Engine Price Outlook |
WOW !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144097#144097
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: A picture of My Balls holding an aileron |
Do you have your trousers tailor made ??
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144098#144098
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: Powerplant Choices |
Here we go again..I am Jabiru fan, but will the 2200 pushing a direct drive prop
preserve the STOL characteristics of the 701 ? If so why we anyone opt for the
much more complicated arrangement of a redrive (geared or belt) to allow a
72 " prop to be used for optimum stol performance ??????
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144100#144100
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: | XL Cable rigging and fairlead |
Hi
I have gone over the XL photo guides and I can't find the photos of how the cable
rigging is done. Is there a section I have missed ?
Also on 6-B-22 the top center diagram of the rear frame channel 6B5-2 shows a support
L angle between 6B5-3 and 6B5-2 is there a photo of this L angle anywhere
within the guides?
Chris.
Sydney
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144104#144104
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: Powerplant Choices |
I'm afraid this thread is getting beyond my experience. I would have
thought the primary issues in engine selection involved things like
horsepower, weight, required accessories (like the PSRU and water
circulation system needed for the Rotax engines). I didn't know
there was an issue in the size propeller indicated to convert the
engine's power to thrust.
I was merely trying to answer the original poster's question with a
specification review.
I did do a little further research on the web and learned the Jabiru
folks do offer a complete firewall forward kit for the 701. Perhaps
Pete can make more informed comments on the performance for this
engine and airframe combination.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 01:45 AM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
>Here we go again..I am Jabiru fan, but will the 2200 pushing a
>direct drive prop preserve the STOL characteristics of the 701 ? If
>so why we anyone opt for the much more complicated arrangement of a
>redrive (geared or belt) to allow a 72 " prop to be used for optimum
>stol performance ??????
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: XL Cable rigging and fairlead |
Hi Chris,
I'm afraid you will find as you near completion of your XL that the
photo guide is not a complete set of instructions for building the
plane. At some point you must rely only on the drawings. There is a
hint of this in the basic instructions that tell you to consider the
photo guide only as a helper while the drawings rule in all cases.
There are a number of standard aircraft mechanical publications that
can help you learn how the various bits of hardware are used. I have
the "Standard Aircraft Handbook" by Larry Reithmaier as well as the
US FAA publications AC 43.13-1B "Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and
Practices" and AC 43.13-2A "Aircraft Alterations". These
publications have lots of good information about how to install and
repair things like the cables you mentioned. When you use the Zenith
drawings along with any of the standard publications you should be
able to complete your plane.
Good luck,
Paul
XL fuselage
At 02:57 AM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
><chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
>
>Hi
>I have gone over the XL photo guides and I can't find the photos of
>how the cable rigging is done. Is there a section I have missed ?
>
>Also on 6-B-22 the top center diagram of the rear frame channel
>6B5-2 shows a support L angle between 6B5-3 and 6B5-2 is there a
>photo of this L angle anywhere within the guides?
>
>Chris.
>Sydney
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144104#144104
>
>
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: | XL Cable rigging and fairlead |
Chris,
I don't think that rigging is addressed in the photo guides. You just have to
follow what is shown on 6-B-23.
I installed the vertical angle shown on 6-B-22.
I also installed a doubler for the elevator fairlead that attaches to bulkhead
6B12-3 (see photo) because others have reported that this one is prone to break
off.
Jay in Dallas 601XL N2630J
"chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>Hi
>I have gone over the XL photo guides and I can't find the photos of how the cable
rigging is done. Is there a section I have missed ?
>
>Also on 6-B-22 the top center diagram of the rear frame channel 6B5-2 shows a
support L angle between 6B5-3 and 6B5-2 is there a photo of this L angle anywhere
within the guides?
>
>Chris.
>Sydney
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144104#144104
>
>
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: | Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop |
Mornin' all -
I was trial-rigging the cables last night in preparation for installing the Trio
autopilot servos and found that the upper elevator cable just barely rubs against
the bottom of the flanged hole in the seat back, maybe deflected 1/4" from
straight.? Re-checking the position of the fairleads just aft of the seat back
found everything per the drawings, and the cable runs through the upper elevator
fairlead hole as drawn.? Looking at a few builders' web sites, I don't
see this condition.? By the way, the arm length of the control stick is 120 mm
from pivot to cable hole.
Has anyone else seen this, and installed another piece of fairlead material onto
the seat back hole to prevent metal contact?
Our fuselage airframe is complete (except the #*@x% canopy is only clecoed to frames
and tubes), and we're trucking it to Shelbyville next week as the demonstrator
for the Jab 3300A installation workshop.
Thanks -
David Glass
XL/3300A
N253DG about to get its engine
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel selector location? |
Paul
I guess my early training was just to get me used to procedures for
"furture" flying.
When I switched to Cessna it seemed soooo easy to transition to less complex
designs.
SW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Fuel selector location?
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> Thanks for adding to the tank choice discussion. I think I have the whole
> picture now.
>
> I believe fuel injected aircraft engines require a fuel return line. This
> somehow returns excess fuel from the injection pump to the fuel tank. I
> guess there is a standard that in small low wing planes, the left tank is
> the return location of choice. That makes the left tank the best choice
> for first fuel burn.
>
> While there is no necessary relationship between big planes and fuel
> injection it is an advanced feature that can often be found on more
> expensive planes. I have more hours in the C-172XP than any other plane.
> This has a Continental IO-360 installed - a 6 cylinder fuel injected
> engine. It is the smoothest running airplane engine I have ever
> experienced. I have also flown a Piper Arrow with a Lycoming IO-360 which
> has only 4 cylinders and doesn't run nearly as smoothly.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
>
> At 04:32 AM 11/5/2007, you wrote:
>>Paul and you guys.
>>I learned to fly in 1965 in a BeechCraft. I was taught from day one to
>>use the left tank first because in the "bigger" airplanes the fuel pump
>>would feed fuel to the engine. Any excess fuel that wasnt needed by the
>>engine would be returned by the system to the left tank...
>>Using the right tank first and having excess returned to the left would
>>allow fuel to overflow out the vent....
>>I ve always "assumed" that was the straight scoop and never questioned my
>>instructor. Instructors are experts, now I are one...
>>
>>SW
>
>
>
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: | Video of my CNC machine making wheel Chocks |
While waiting on the FAA to inspect my airplane I decided to make some whee
l chocks. I was going to powder coat them but decided to polish them to ma
tch the airplane.
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/CNC_Mill/WheelChocks.wmv
If you have a tail number and want some like these (polished or powder-coat
ed) let me know via email - "cookwithgas@hotmail.com." I can do yellow, r
ed, black, blue or purple. Instead of the round holes it can be X's or squ
ares or something else.
Scott Laughlin
Omaha, Nebraska
www.cooknwithgas.com
_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
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: | Zenith Play Time |
http://www.zenithair.com/misc/paper-airplane.html
OK this is just too cool, it will take away from your building time but
is well worth the play time.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com
11/6/2007 10:04 AM
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: XL Cable rigging and fairlead |
To ad to this I just got to tell ya:
I ve built three homebuilts and each did the same thing to me. That is, the
plans and info take you thru the "basics" but you must do your own thing in
the last part of construction design. Thats why youll never see two
exactly alike homebuilts.
Easy as the manufacturers have made the quick build kits, there is much to
do on your own. Its actually fun to build you own custom aircraft. When
finished, it will fly and systems will work. The trick is to have a nice
looking project. You dont want to have a ball of spaghetti behind the
instrument panel. Wiring is a pain..... When people look at your creation
you want to hear excellent comments.....
People who look and say " heck I can do that" dont have a clue as to the
custom work that we put into our projects
Steve
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: XL Cable rigging and fairlead
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I'm afraid you will find as you near completion of your XL that the photo
> guide is not a complete set of instructions for building the plane. At
> some point you must rely only on the drawings. There is a hint of this in
> the basic instructions that tell you to consider the photo guide only as a
> helper while the drawings rule in all cases.
>
> There are a number of standard aircraft mechanical publications that can
> help you learn how the various bits of hardware are used. I have the
> "Standard Aircraft Handbook" by Larry Reithmaier as well as the US FAA
> publications AC 43.13-1B "Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices"
> and AC 43.13-2A "Aircraft Alterations". These publications have lots of
> good information about how to install and repair things like the cables
> you mentioned. When you use the Zenith drawings along with any of the
> standard publications you should be able to complete your plane.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
>
> At 02:57 AM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
>><chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
>>
>>Hi
>>I have gone over the XL photo guides and I can't find the photos of how
>>the cable rigging is done. Is there a section I have missed ?
>>
>>Also on 6-B-22 the top center diagram of the rear frame channel 6B5-2
>>shows a support L angle between 6B5-3 and 6B5-2 is there a photo of this L
>>angle anywhere within the guides?
>>
>>Chris.
>>Sydney
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144104#144104
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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:Zenith down pilot OK |
I agree that roll over protection would provide a significant safety factor
for the 601XL. The question is, what light weight structure could be added
to the XL design that would provide a reasonable level of protection? My
thoughts are that one would need to add something strong to the edges of
the seat backs, extending up to the canopy, so that the seat bottom would
not slam one's head into the ground. The roll over bar would have to tie
into the seat bottom, and, probably, the seat belts would have to be
anchored to the bottom of the bars.
While I have thought about this problem a bit, unfortunately, I'm a
chemical engineer, not a mechanical, and I don't know how to size a roll
bar. I don't even know how one would choose the design load. It would be
instructive to see what Van has designed into the RVs. Something similar
would be adequate for an XL.
Terry
At 09:25 PM 11/5/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Zenith rudder hinges are surprisingly strong. But no way meant to provide
>the only roll over protection. You still need some kind of roll over
>structure in the cockpit area to protect occupants. Crashes don't always
>happen on soft ground. Concrete is unforgiving. Thankfully the nose fuel
>tank (if equipped) or its hardware did not allow fuel to spill. Remember
>the Sonex in Texas couple of months ago? Some years ago, airshow pilot
>Charlie Hilliard died after a nose over. The roll over structure had been
>recently removed. (?)
>
>RTD
>Do not archive
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 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: Fuel selector location? |
> Hi Joe,
> I couldn't resist commenting on this topic.
> In a low wing plane, a pump must be used to raise the fuel from the tanks
> to the engine. If you gave the pump a choice, it would take its fuel from
> which ever tank had the lowest pressure. That means the pump would always
> take its fuel from which ever tank had the least fuel. With this
> arrangement you would never get any fuel from the tank with the most fuel
> in it. This is not what you want in an airplane. The normal solution is
> a selector switch that allows the pilot to draw fuel from which ever tank
> he chooses.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
Paul, Maybe I need to learn something here, WHY would the pump draw fuel
from the tank with the lowest pressure (emptiest)??
That has not been my experience (2000 hrs in an RV3) , my tanks empty
equally with one pump sucking on both tanks at the same time.
LOW&SLO John Bolding
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: Powerplant Choices |
I built an Avid Flyer years ago and it had a Rotax 582 with a 3/1 gear box.
The thing had torque up the ying yang.
I hated it! It swung a 72/42 prop and climbed like a scalded cat. I still
hate Rotax. I swapped out the Rotax for a 2200A Jabiru. I loved that
Jabby. It was like flying behind a sewing machine. Very good engine, just
not the torque without the gear box.. My 2200 swung a 62 inch prop. Now I
m totally a Jabiru believer..
My Zenith 601 has the 3300 and I expect the same good flying as with the
2200....
What I m saying is that the bigger the prop you can swing, the better torque
youll have.
I just dont like gear boxes.
Look at the Cessna 175.... not popular to most....
GEAR BOX...
SW
----- Original Message -----
From: "secatur" <appraise1@bigpond.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 2:45 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Powerplant Choices
>
> Here we go again..I am Jabiru fan, but will the 2200 pushing a direct
> drive prop preserve the STOL characteristics of the 701 ? If so why we
> anyone opt for the much more complicated arrangement of a redrive (geared
> or belt) to allow a 72 " prop to be used for optimum stol performance
> ??????
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144100#144100
>
>
>
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: Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop |
David:
I have had to relocate nearly all of the fairleads behind the cockpit area. If
you haven't installed the fairleads for your ailerons, don't rivet them in place
until you run the cables and test them. Drill the hole in the aluminum large
so you can move the fairlead to achieve clearance, then drill and rivet.
This is something Zenith has been "tweaking" for some time since my drawings are
from 2002, there have been many changes on cable routing to make sure they clear
all obstacles. Attached is a picture of my rudder and elevator fairlead
locations.
Good luck,
Scott Laughlin
Omaha, Nebraska
www.cooknwithgas.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144131#144131
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/cables_100.jpg
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: Fuel selector location? |
I wonder why they dont tie the two tanks together with an "equalizer"
pipe... Then both tanks would keep the same level of fuel....
Actually thats how a high wing airplanes works. The two tanks tie together
and you dont need to swap left/right tanks...
sw
----- Origin
al Message -----
From: "John Bolding" <jnbolding1@teleshare.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Fuel selector location?
> <jnbolding1@teleshare.net>
>
>
>> Hi Joe,
>> I couldn't resist commenting on this topic.
>> In a low wing plane, a pump must be used to raise the fuel from the tanks
>> to the engine. If you gave the pump a choice, it would take its fuel
>> from which ever tank had the lowest pressure. That means the pump would
>> always take its fuel from which ever tank had the least fuel. With this
>> arrangement you would never get any fuel from the tank with the most fuel
>> in it. This is not what you want in an airplane. The normal solution is
>> a selector switch that allows the pilot to draw fuel from which ever tank
>> he chooses.
>>
>> Paul
>> XL fuselage
>
>
> Paul, Maybe I need to learn something here, WHY would the pump draw fuel
> from the tank with the lowest pressure (emptiest)??
>
> That has not been my experience (2000 hrs in an RV3) , my tanks empty
> equally with one pump sucking on both tanks at the same time.
> LOW&SLO John Bolding
>
>
>
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: Video of my CNC machine making wheel Chocks |
Scott, could you send me some info or point me in a direction to set up my milling
machine as a CNC machine, if it's even possible. I have vintage 1940s - 1950s
Benchmaster Milling Machine, hopefully it's possible to set that badboy up
for CNC. I also have a 1936 SouthBend lathe, but I doubt that can be set up for
CNC, if it's even desirable to in the first place.
Thanks
[quote="cookwithgas(at)HOTMAIL.CO"]While waiting on the FAA to inspect my airplane
I decided to make some wheel chocks. I was going to powder coat them but
decided to polish them to match the airplane.
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/CNC_Mill/WheelChocks.wmv
If you have a tail number and want some like these (polished or powder-coated)
let me know via email - "cookwithgas@hotmail.com." I can do yellow, red, black,
blue or purple. Instead of the round holes it can be X's or squares or something
else.
Scott Laughlin
Omaha, Nebraska
www.cooknwithgas.com
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144132#144132
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Does anyone have any info on the number of accidents per hours flown for homebuilts
vs production aircraft? Everytime we hear about this stuff it makes me wonder,
are homebuilts more dangerous or is it just that pilots of homebuilts put
more hours on their planes because they can?
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144137#144137
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
You can check the Nall Report http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf
In 2005 14.1% of all GA accidents were in Exp-HB aircraft and 19.8 of the fatal
GA accidents were in Exp-HB.
The proportion of GA accidents that are in Exp-HB has increased over the last several
years as the number experimentals that make up the GA fleet has increased.
What you will find is that, surprise, experimentals are statistically more dangerous
than certified. You really should have known that before you started building.
--------
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=144138#144138
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Hi Andy,
I don't have any real statistics, but my sense is that
experimental-amateur built flight hours are a small drop in the
bucket compared to certified plane flight. While there are many home
builders who fly regularly, it is common for certified planes to be
rented out nearly all the time for long business related
flights. That doesn't even consider the airlines and part 135
operations where the planes don't seem to spend more than a few hours
on the ground while flying many hours each day.
On average, I think home built planes are less safe than certified
planes. Also, the average skill of the pilots of home built planes
is significantly lower than the average pilot. There are many
excellent pilots flying home built planes, but the requirements to
own a home built plane are more related to building skills than pilot
ratings and skills. I believe it is this reduced level of pilot
skill that accounts for most of the increase in home built plane
accidents rather than the actual inherent safety of the
planes. Still, there are a number of accidents related to poor
construction in the E-AB arena that are extremely rare in the
certified community.
If you believe the NTSB studies, you will believe that nearly all
airplane accidents are due to pilot error.
This is just my opinion, and may not be related to reality at all.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 06:41 AM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
>Does anyone have any info on the number of accidents per hours flown
>for homebuilts vs production aircraft? Everytime we hear about this
>stuff it makes me wonder, are homebuilts more dangerous or is it
>just that pilots of homebuilts put more hours on their planes because they can?
>
>--------
>Andy Shontz
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: Fuel selector location? |
Sometimes you want to burn off one side or the other to offside a heavy side
or wing. Makes it fly more gooder. Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "steve" <notsew_evets@frontiernet.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Fuel selector location?
>
> I wonder why they dont tie the two tanks together with an "equalizer"
> pipe... Then both tanks would keep the same level of fuel....
> Actually thats how a high wing airplanes works. The two tanks tie
> together and you dont need to swap left/right tanks...
> sw
> ----- Origin
>
> al Message -----
> From: "John Bolding" <jnbolding1@teleshare.net>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 7:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Fuel selector location?
>
>
>> <jnbolding1@teleshare.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi Joe,
>>> I couldn't resist commenting on this topic.
>>> In a low wing plane, a pump must be used to raise the fuel from the
>>> tanks to the engine. If you gave the pump a choice, it would take its
>>> fuel from which ever tank had the lowest pressure. That means the pump
>>> would always take its fuel from which ever tank had the least fuel.
>>> With this arrangement you would never get any fuel from the tank with
>>> the most fuel in it. This is not what you want in an airplane. The
>>> normal solution is a selector switch that allows the pilot to draw fuel
>>> from which ever tank he chooses.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>> XL fuselage
>>
>>
>> Paul, Maybe I need to learn something here, WHY would the pump draw
>> fuel from the tank with the lowest pressure (emptiest)??
>>
>> That has not been my experience (2000 hrs in an RV3) , my tanks empty
>> equally with one pump sucking on both tanks at the same time.
>> LOW&SLO John Bolding
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date: 11/5/2007 4:36 AM
>
>
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Gig Giacona wrote:
> What you will find is that, surprise, experimentals are statistically more dangerous
than certified. You really should have known that before you started building.
Uh oh, I better stop building. LOL
Doesn't deter me one bit, just curious. Thanks for the info.
And could the increase in experimentals have anything to do with the new sport
pilot rating as well as all the new quick-build kits coming out? Kind of reminds
me of the increase in boating accidents due to wave-runners. Now all of a sudden
this year I had to take a boating safety course to operate my boat I had
been using just fine with no problems out in the Delaware Bay for years because
yahoos behind Ocean City and on the Delaware River can't seem to keep from
hurting themselves and running into other boats at high speeds in crowded areas.
Of course that's my fault and I should really be required to take a safety
course to use my boat I've had no problems with for years in uncrowded areas or
when in crowded areas operating with a decent margin or error.
Not to say I'm immune from an aviation accident by any means, just like I'm not
immune to a boating accident, but I do see a correlation.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144143#144143
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: Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop |
I like it, teflon blocks for the cables. Not sure if that's specified in the plans
without looking at them, but it's a nice setup.
do not archive
cookwithgas wrote:
> David:
>
> I have had to relocate nearly all of the fairleads behind the cockpit area.
If you haven't installed the fairleads for your ailerons, don't rivet them in
place until you run the cables and test them. Drill the hole in the aluminum
large so you can move the fairlead to achieve clearance, then drill and rivet.
>
> This is something Zenith has been "tweaking" for some time since my drawings
are from 2002, there have been many changes on cable routing to make sure they
clear all obstacles. Attached is a picture of my rudder and elevator fairlead
locations.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Scott Laughlin
> Omaha, Nebraska
> www.cooknwithgas.com
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144144#144144
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: Powerplant Choices |
The 2200 has enough horsepower for fast light aircraft, but may lack the
torque to deliver great climb power for a 701. A re-drive is often one
way to match the best peak horsepower rpm with a larger prop to deliver
better climb performance.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
secatur wrote:
>
> Here we go again..I am Jabiru fan, but will the 2200 pushing a direct drive prop
preserve the STOL characteristics of the 701 ? If so why we anyone opt for
the much more complicated arrangement of a redrive (geared or belt) to allow
a 72 " prop to be used for optimum stol performance ??????
>
>
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Andy,
The EAA has some accident rate info here:
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/operating/safety.html, its in
the members area so you'll need to have a login to see it. It does
compare the accident rates per 100,000 hours of certificated and
homebuilt a/c and of course homebuilt have a higher rate. Looks like
about a factor of 2x for both accident rate and fatal accident rates in
2004 (the latest year they show). The rates have been trending downward
though.
Seems like a large portion of homebuilt accidents are caused by engine
issues and looking at the ntsb database for 601 accidents would seem to
bear that out.
KitPlanes also has an article from Sept 2006 on homebuilt safely at
http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/23_9/exploring/7656-1.phtml.
Looking at the stats it still seems the most dangerous part of flying is
the pilot...
John
Burnsville, NC
Zodiac 601XL
ashontz wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any info on the number of accidents per hours flown for homebuilts
vs production aircraft? Everytime we hear about this stuff it makes me
wonder, are homebuilts more dangerous or is it just that pilots of homebuilts
put more hours on their planes because they can?
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144137#144137
>
>
>
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
This may be totally incorrect, but I wonder if builder/pilots of
experimental aircraft don't engage in a different kind of flying than most
of the rest of the GA world. I was a very active member of a good sized
flying club for a number of years in California and I can't remember one
single person talking about landing on a grass strip, flying low-and-slow
for fun on a regular basis or putting down in small remote airstrips (we had
one very small paved strip near our FBO that was used for training but that
was it). Most of the flights done by members of that club would fire (1) up
the engine, (2) climb to cruise (5000 to 7500 was normal) and (3) shoot for
some 11000ft paved runway somewhere two or three hours away. Sure there was
a good bit of sightseeing going on, but seems like it had a different feel
to it than what I read here (and on the Rans board).
I am just tossing this out there with absolutely no claim of authority on
the matter. I just get a different feel for the pilots on these boards than
the traditional rent-and-go guys at the FBO. There is a much more
adventurous feel around here and it doesn't seem unlikely that this doesn't
come with some additional risk.
Please don't misunderstand me - I am not claiming that pilot/builders of
experimentals are careless risk takers - I would suggest that just the
opposite is true. The people that regularly contribute to this list and the
Rans list seem like some of the most cautious and knowledgeable folks I have
ever come across. (Good God the knowledge - I am blown away daily by what I
see go by on this list.) I just get the sense that the kind of flying done
by home builders - in general - has a higher fun factor and consequently a
higher risk factor than the rest of the GA world.
As for the relative safety of an homebuilt experimental vs. a club rental I
only have this to say: in my five years of flying with that club (and this
was a highly regarded club with well maintained planes): we rented to a lot
of student pilots and it showed in the planes. I personally had several
avionics and radio failures and one really rough engine experience while in
the pattern. The tires were continuously being replaced because they were
constantly flat spotted by somewhat sideways student crosswind landings. A
good friend of mine even had the brake caliper fall off the right main on a
Archer while taxiing out to the run-up area. On more than one occasion I
found low engine oil (really low) with the engine still hot from the
previous flight. I think that the planes you guys fly are generally much
lower-hour craft than most rentals and far better maintained.
Happy flying! And I would climb aboard just about any plane that I have
seen in the builders logs from this list just as quickly as any club
152/175/Archer around. (In fact, anyone want to take me for a ride? ;))
Dave
On 11/6/07, Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> wr.giacona@suddenlink.net>
>
> You can check the Nall Report
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/06nall.pdf
>
> In 2005 14.1% of all GA accidents were in Exp-HB aircraft and 19.8 of the
> fatal GA accidents were in Exp-HB.
>
> The proportion of GA accidents that are in Exp-HB has increased over the
> last several years as the number experimentals that make up the GA fleet has
> increased.
>
> What you will find is that, surprise, experimentals are statistically more
> dangerous than certified. You really should have known that before you
> started building.
>
> --------
> 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=144138#144138
>
>
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: Fuel selector |
I agree with Larry. I've flown Cessnas and Pipers. In Cessnas, using "both" didn't
always result in an even fuel usage from both tanks. I don't know why, but
none the less, I felt better in Pipers and having the control over which tank
was in use at all times. I think fuel weight in a 601XL has a very real effect
on the lateral balance of the airplane and can result in that "heavy wing"
everyone talks about. I want to be able to control that.
Jay in Dallas 601XL N2630J
Do not archive
"LRM" <lrm@skyhawg.com> wrote:
>
>Sometimes you want to burn off one side or the other to offside a heavy side
>or wing. Makes it fly more gooder. Larry
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Not to start another heated debate about engine choices, but at least 2 of the
3 accidents involved loss of power with auto conversions. Experimentals on the
whole are slightly more risky than certified aircraft, however, IMHO those with
auto conversions carry significantly more risk. A 601 comes apart in a thunderstorm
and every one questions the 601 design, but it seems that engine failures
like these get little discussion from the advocates of auto conversions.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144152#144152
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: Powerplant Choices |
Steve,
I agree, the 2-cycle Rotax delivers the most raw power per pound, noise,
vibration and high fuel usage. The gear box is something most
experimenters are unable to repair
or deal with. Belt drive systems can be very reliable, quiet, easy to
inspect and aren't much to maintain.
I disagree with the comment that putting a larger prop on an engine
equates to more torque. It doesn't. Matching the horsepower curve to
the correct prop provides
the best means to selectively extract speed or torque from the engine. I
fly a Subaru and the belt drive is well matched for the performance I
need. It's quiet and very economical to own and operate. Not as simple
or as fast as the Jabaru to be sure, but a great performer.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
steve wrote:
>
> I built an Avid Flyer years ago and it had a Rotax 582 with a 3/1 gear
> box. The thing had torque up the ying yang.
> I hated it! It swung a 72/42 prop and climbed like a scalded cat. I
> still hate Rotax. I swapped out the Rotax for a 2200A Jabiru. I
> loved that Jabby. It was like flying behind a sewing machine. Very
> good engine, just not the torque without the gear box.. My 2200 swung
> a 62 inch prop. Now I m totally a Jabiru believer..
> My Zenith 601 has the 3300 and I expect the same good flying as with
> the 2200....
> What I m saying is that the bigger the prop you can swing, the better
> torque youll have.
> I just dont like gear boxes.
> Look at the Cessna 175.... not popular to most....
> GEAR BOX...
>
> SW
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop |
David,
My advice is the same as Scott's. The fairlead locations should not be considered
as fixed in concrete. It sounds like a little movement of the fairlead on
the rear frame is all you need. My upper elevator fairlead also contacted somewhere
in the seatback, I forget where, so I moved the fairlead a bit to eliminate
the interference. I will be at the Jabiru seminar and look forward to
seeing you there.
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=144154#144154
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Depends on how you use the auto engine. Personally, I've never burned out a transmission,
warped a head, or broke a rod or timing chain or belt from gunning
an engine and driving like a maniac, but I know a bunch of people who routinely
have these problems (of course that means the car is a lemon ;) ), and their
driving habits are to blame. If an auto engine conversion is not pushed anymore
than it would see at 55mph on the highway then it should be a pretty good match.
That's one reason I'm not big on these smaller engines turning 4500 - 5000rpm
with a PSRU. The engine wasn't meant to run that hard. Sure, a NASCAR engine
will run 8000rpm for a couple hours, then it needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
steveadams wrote:
> Not to start another heated debate about engine choices, but at least 2 of the
3 accidents involved loss of power with auto conversions. Experimentals on the
whole are slightly more risky than certified aircraft, however, IMHO those
with auto conversions carry significantly more risk. A 601 comes apart in a thunderstorm
and every one questions the 601 design, but it seems that engine failures
like these get little discussion from the advocates of auto conversions.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144155#144155
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: Fuel selector |
I liked the A/B switch in the Archer. I liked the fact that my flight plan
on my knee board told me to switch tanks in the Archer every half hour - it
forced me to be constantly aware of the fuel on board. I am an out-of-sight
out-of-mind mind of guy and being required to take an active part in fuel
management kept it right there, constantly on my mind.
Dave
do not archive
On 11/6/07, Jaybannist@cs.com <Jaybannist@cs.com> wrote:
>
>
> I agree with Larry. I've flown Cessnas and Pipers. In Cessnas, using
> "both" didn't always result in an even fuel usage from both tanks. I don't
> know why, but none the less, I felt better in Pipers and having the control
> over which tank was in use at all times. I think fuel weight in a 601XL has
> a very real effect on the lateral balance of the airplane and can result in
> that "heavy wing" everyone talks about. I want to be able to control that.
>
> Jay in Dallas 601XL N2630J
> Do not archive
>
>
> "LRM" <lrm@skyhawg.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Sometimes you want to burn off one side or the other to offside a heavy
> side
> >or wing. Makes it fly more gooder. Larry
>
>
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Andy,
The accident rate for Experimentals would probably be only minutely
greater than general aviation if flying skill and structural failure
were the main issue. The larger rate of experimental accidents likely
relates to a lack of focus on fuel systems, connections, poor wiring,
one-of-a-kind ignition systems as well as more than a few control
linkage defects introduced by the builder. Each of us needs to review
our plan, get the assistance of a technical counselor, read and revisit
the Matronics archives which are filled with detailed errors, foibles
and mistakes unearthed by questions asked and many consequences of
questions not asked.
After 2 years flying, and 108 hours, I feel like I'm just emerging from
"test mode".
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
ashontz wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any info on the number of accidents per hours flown for homebuilts
vs production aircraft? Everytime we hear about this stuff it makes me
wonder, are homebuilts more dangerous or is it just that pilots of homebuilts
put more hours on their planes because they can?
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144137#144137
>
>
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: Fuel selector location? |
Older Cessna I72's are placarded requiring flight on a single tank above 5000 feet.
Apparently there is a greater risk of vapor lock in such aircraft that was
due to the unvented caps and single vent line running between the two tanks.
Later models are not placarded but I'm not sure exactly what they did to correct
it besides the AD requiring use of a special cap that would vent in case
of a vacuum in the tank.
I'm not big on doing a lot of experimenting on the fuel system.... keep it simple
and go with what is known to work. In my experience, seemingly inconsequential
changes can sometimes lead to unintended consequences.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144163#144163
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: Powerplant Choices |
OK Larry,
I m not a for real expert so I ask this:
Why was it that my Rotax 65 horse power engine would easily swing a 74 inch
/ 46 pitch prop and my 85 horse power Jabiru would only handle a 62 / 28
prop ?
Torque ? Gear box ?
Ever see a P 51 with that ol 16 foot prop ?
Talk about torque... Absolutely full right rudder on take off....
SW
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryMcFarland" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Powerplant Choices
>
> Steve,
> I agree, the 2-cycle Rotax delivers the most raw power per pound, noise,
> vibration and high fuel usage. The gear box is something most
> experimenters are unable to repair
> or deal with. Belt drive systems can be very reliable, quiet, easy to
> inspect and aren't much to maintain.
> I disagree with the comment that putting a larger prop on an engine
> equates to more torque. It doesn't. Matching the horsepower curve to the
> correct prop provides
> the best means to selectively extract speed or torque from the engine. I
> fly a Subaru and the belt drive is well matched for the performance I
> need. It's quiet and very economical to own and operate. Not as simple
> or as fast as the Jabaru to be sure, but a great performer.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
> steve wrote:
>>
>> I built an Avid Flyer years ago and it had a Rotax 582 with a 3/1 gear
>> box. The thing had torque up the ying yang.
>> I hated it! It swung a 72/42 prop and climbed like a scalded cat. I
>> still hate Rotax. I swapped out the Rotax for a 2200A Jabiru. I loved
>> that Jabby. It was like flying behind a sewing machine. Very good
>> engine, just not the torque without the gear box.. My 2200 swung a 62
>> inch prop. Now I m totally a Jabiru believer..
>> My Zenith 601 has the 3300 and I expect the same good flying as with the
>> 2200....
>> What I m saying is that the bigger the prop you can swing, the better
>> torque youll have.
>> I just dont like gear boxes.
>> Look at the Cessna 175.... not popular to most....
>> GEAR BOX...
>>
>> SW
>
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Folks,
A big problem with comparing experimental vs certified is that there is not an
accurate record of hours flown of either category of aircraft, which would be
the best Gage of the safety of either. The statistics are all based upon an estimate,
which could be very wrong.
I posted the initial accident reports, It is a curiosity that there were three
in a four day period, but by the same token there were seven gear up or gear collapse
in certified planes, two that hit deer, and numerous other accidents and
incidents.
TimE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144164#144164
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
I'd suggest that a large part of it, is the fix fly it yourself thing that comes
with homebuilding.
People might not want to admit it, but the average rental Cessna, gets
better QA than a lot of experimental's. How can this be, I hear them
saying? It is simply because you have multiple sets of eyes looking at
the plane, and maintaining it. You don't have an engine that somebody
convinced themself was better than the other. There's no ego's putting
planes in the air.
I think pride and ego have brought down quite a few experimentals to
be perfectly honest.
Jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144167#144167
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Actually, I was just about to write a letter about this.
You have all read the posts on the last 3 accidents, nothing pleasant to
think about. Andy asked about statistics. I looked up in the NTSB in the
last month I saw 77 accidents and 48 fatalities. This is a disturbing
number and didn't include the 601's the accidents were mostly certified
aircraft.
Now about these 3 planes,
One had a Subaru with an engine out and landed nose over after digging
in. If we look carefully, you can see damage on the Rudder. Questions
come up on Roll over protection, though it seems like little is
installed in the 601 series in fact it has not one system for rollover
but several smaller ones adding to a whole in a survivable condition. I
would not, and have not beefed up my structure in my 601 and I have seen
a couple of planes that have rolled over. One suggestion I do have
though. We have a great view in the 601 with the bubble top.
However, it has an inherent danger as all canopies do and that is simply
operating while inverted on the ground. This is a very rare instance,
but with installing my 601 on floats I have made it mandatory to carry a
bubble smasher. IT can be small and simple and makes far more sense then
making a roll cage.
But other then the nose over in a soft landing, I commend the pilot for
a dead stick with a heavy FWF, It looks like he held the front wheel off
as long as possible and for so little damage it was going very slow when
the nose wheel dug in.
The other accident, has reports of an engine out in a Corvair
installation, I have nothing more to add to this, it is a tragedy and I
will await the final report to see if I need to do anything to my
Corvair.
Now we come to the third, this is information shared by the owners of
the plane.
This plane had shared ownership, the one who was flying it was 71 years
old. The plane took off and seemed to be flying well for a few miles.
The accident site shown the plane to be intact and whole, though the
plane is a complete write of. It appears that the plane was flown to the
ground and not spiraled or entered any unusual attitudes. Investigations
by NTSB so far found no mechanical issues that they can discern all
flight controls and structures are intact.
At present FAA is investigating medical tests and will not have results
for about a month. I will relay the results as soon as possible. I can
relay this information before NTSB release because it has been shared by
one of the planes owners.
This accident looks to have been a stroke or heart attack. My prayers
and condolences do go out to the family.
Let close this letter by answering a few of Andy's questions. The worst
time for any homebuilt is in the first 20 hrs, most problems missed or
neglected during construction can result in an accident. Even an
inspection can still miss issues. Remember to mark every bolt in your
plane, After construction take a day to run through each page of your
plane and check off every bolt and mark them. Check your cables and the
routing of such, Even Chris Heintz had a plane one day with the rudder
cables reversed.
Once you have done this then have your buddy do it over again with the
plans in his hand. I have seen AME's who have built a plane leave the
flapperon attachment bolt out. Practice engine outs, over long runways
actually kill the motor. Know what your plane will do. We have read that
the engine out on the Subaru landed fine, only to catch a nose wheel at
final seconds. Engine out in the Corvair ended in Fatality, why? Was
this maneuver practiced? Or did something major happen to the Corvair,
like a broken crank and bad vibration causing other damage? We just
don't know yet.
Engines, and fuel, the two leading causes for accidents, aside from
pilots, though an auto conversion for the most part is cheaper and has
redeeming features, it has the drawbacks of the unknown and the
mechanic. Who assembled the engine? Who does maintenance on said engine?
Though I feel qualified to work on my own engine how do you feel if a
first year car mechanic worked on it? Not to insult any one by any means
but to make each of you to realize that not everyone has the same
experience and background.
I like auto conversions and have spent many a time behind one, I also
know that as a rule they tend to require more care and tinkering. Also
it tends to be the builders of auto conversions that tinker with the
motor just to tinker.
I like many of you enjoy the ability of choosing the proper motors and
upholstery and panel for my personal plane. That has always been a
redeeming feature of going with a Designer like Chris Heintz, he allows
you to make your own decisions based on your experience and research.
Chris does not dictate that you must install a 0-235 with steam gauges
and small foam cushions like in his own plane. His designs have approved
and supported FWF's but they also allow you to install whatever you like
, Even a 2 cyl Harley motor or a 7 cyl radial, I have even seen a
turboprop setup for a 701. These are extremes but you get the message.
The down side is that some of these result in higher statistics.
These are the mechanical issues of owning a homebuilt of any make, the
pilot issues add up to a larger ball of wax. We as a rule, build a
homebuilt to get a brand new plane we have always desired, which is
affordable, not to own a 30 yr old Cessna. However, keep in mind that
there are a few different people out there with different reasons.
I have seen one fellow build a 601 because NO-ONE would rent him a plane
anymore, he was young and foolish and with a warped wing he knew about
but would not fix, he would still do near stall takeoffs to get the
thrill and show off. As a joke in poor taste some of the guys at the
hangers had a death pool on him. He is now a statistic and the pool was
never mentioned again.
There is another fellow who is feeble minded and can hardly put
sentences together to form a cognitive thought, no-one would ever sit
beside him in a cockpit but he has been happily flying his 701 for the
last few years. Another is getting to a stage in life that the only way
he can now fly is if there is another plane 200 ft in front of him.
Moreover, he needs this other plane to land due to eyesight, he can no
longer see runways at 500ft.
Look around, you will also see those situations, and yes these are the
people we eventually see on reports no matter how much we try to curb
behavior.
As for the reports of recent, unfortunate but reality states two auto
conversions both with reported engine issues. 3rd is possibly pilot
medical issue we'll wait on that one.
We do not need to beef up our planes, we do need to be more careful in
our decisions and in our workmanship.
I am Canadian and as such we do not have the LSA market yet, however at
all the air shows I have time and time again seen older people going LSA
because of medical issues. This will only increase in my thoughts, and
we will likely see more instances across the board and some people push
the envelope of retaining the desire to fly. It's great that some can,
but some shouldn't, it is the ones that shouldn't that we will hear
about.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 9:42 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.
Does anyone have any info on the number of accidents per hours flown for
homebuilts vs production aircraft? Everytime we hear about this stuff it
makes me wonder, are homebuilts more dangerous or is it just that pilots
of homebuilts put more hours on their planes because they can?
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144137#144137
11/6/2007 10:04 AM
11/6/2007 10:04 AM
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Andy,
In the case of the Subaru, your statement couldn't be more wrong. It was
originally designed as an aircraft engine in the 70s and when the
aircraft market softened, it became a car engine. The EA81 can be run
250K miles and you'll still find the cylinders in good shape. There are
more than several gyros flying the EA81 with 1400 to 2200 hours
on them and still going strong. These engines are raced to over 10K rpm
because they're built for it and being opposed cylinders balanced and
supported by large crank and bearings, the Subaru is a great
conversion. The problem with conversion is conversion which requires
each builder to learn more about carburetors, ignition, fuel feed
systems, oil pressure connections, cylinder head sensors and more. I've
made mistakes and fortunately survived them, but the extra items found
on all conversions and standard firewall forward aircraft engines is
what gets us all in the most trouble. It's been a long time since I've
heard about a belt re-drive failure and the last one was probably the
fault of it's owner.
cool and respectfully,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
ashontz wrote:
>
> Depends on how you use the auto engine. Personally, I've never burned out a transmission,
warped a head, or broke a rod or timing chain or belt from gunning
an engine and driving like a maniac, but I know a bunch of people who routinely
have these problems (of course that means the car is a lemon ;) ), and their
driving habits are to blame. If an auto engine conversion is not pushed anymore
than it would see at 55mph on the highway then it should be a pretty good
match. That's one reason I'm not big on these smaller engines turning 4500 -
5000rpm with a PSRU. The engine wasn't meant to run that hard. Sure, a NASCAR
engine will run 8000rpm for a couple hours, then it needs to be torn down and
rebuilt.
>
>
> steveadams wrote:
>
>> Not to start another heated debate about engine choices, but at least 2 of the
3 accidents involved loss of power with auto conversions. Experimentals on
the whole are slightly more risky than certified aircraft, however, IMHO those
with auto conversions carry significantly more risk. A 601 comes apart in a thunderstorm
and every one questions the 601 design, but it seems that engine failures
like these get little discussion from the advocates of auto conversions.
>>
>
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144155#144155
>
>
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
I agree.
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
> Andy,
> The accident rate for Experimentals would probably be only minutely
> greater than general aviation if flying skill and structural failure
> were the main issue. The larger rate of experimental accidents likely
> relates to a lack of focus on fuel systems, connections, poor wiring,
> one-of-a-kind ignition systems as well as more than a few control
> linkage defects introduced by the builder. Each of us needs to review
> our plan, get the assistance of a technical counselor, read and revisit
> the Matronics archives which are filled with detailed errors, foibles
> and mistakes unearthed by questions asked and many consequences of
> questions not asked.
> After 2 years flying, and 108 hours, I feel like I'm just emerging from
> "test mode".
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
> ashontz wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Does anyone have any info on the number of accidents per hours flown for homebuilts
vs production aircraft? Everytime we hear about this stuff it makes
me wonder, are homebuilts more dangerous or is it just that pilots of homebuilts
put more hours on their planes because they can?
> >
> > --------
> > Andy Shontz
> > CH601XL - Corvair
> > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144137#144137
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144173#144173
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: Powerplant Choices |
Steve,
The Rotax and its gear box were matched to optimize power for the larger
prop. The 80-hp Jabiru measures its horsepower at the peak of the power
curve
which is probably an rpm that is too high for the limited rpm of the
propeller. Lots of engine makers advertise hp that is greater than the
rpm we can use.
On the P 51 you only need to count the 12 huge cylinders to understand
the torque available to the 16-foot prop. I believe all that torque was
really
only available at top speeds too, despite the fact that Merlin had a
gear reduction drive to the prop shaft.
Larry McFarland
steve wrote:
>
> OK Larry,
> I m not a for real expert so I ask this:
> Why was it that my Rotax 65 horse power engine would easily swing a 74
> inch / 46 pitch prop and my 85 horse power Jabiru would only handle a
> 62 / 28 prop ?
> Torque ? Gear box ?
>
> Ever see a P 51 with that ol 16 foot prop ?
> Talk about torque... Absolutely full right rudder on take off....
>
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: Fuel selector location? |
Hi John,
I stand corrected.
Your message got me to do an experiment in my kitchen. I took two
identical glasses and put 2 ounces of water in one and 6 ounces in
the other one. I then took a big suck on two identical
straws. Measuring the remaining water in the glasses I discovered
there was one ounce taken out of each one. So, as you suggested the
water was not taken from the lower level "Tank" but taken equally
from both tanks.
You will notice this is not the same as the behavior of two gravity
fed tanks which will tend to equalize their levels. I started with 6
and 2 ounces and ended with 5 and 1. In a high wing model I would
have ended with 3 and 3.
So, I was wrong, but the "Both" solution still doesn't work for low
wing planes.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 06:03 AM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
>Paul, Maybe I need to learn something here, WHY would the pump
>draw fuel from the tank with the lowest pressure (emptiest)??
>
>That has not been my experience (2000 hrs in an RV3) , my tanks
>empty equally with one pump sucking on both tanks at the same time.
> LOW&SLO John Bolding
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: Fuel selector |
A little trick one of my instructors taught me many years ago.
Point the selector towards the side of the clock the minute hand is on.
Between :00 - :30 = right tank :30 - :59= left tank.
Fullest tank during take-off and landing.
--------
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=144178#144178
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: Fuel selector location? |
Hey Paul
If you keep sucking you'll find that when the lower level "tank" runs dry
you will no longer be able to get "fuel" from the higher level "tank" even
though it still will contain about 4 ounces.
Carroll
do not archive
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: Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop |
I had to monkey around a bit with one of my elevator fairleads too.... don't recall
which onebut I think it was the bottom (up elevator) cable. Haven't donethe
aileron fairleads yet but I have drilled a #30 size hole where the plans indicted
as a starting point.
I'll be at the seminar too.... trying to avoid mistakes.
Dred
---- DaveG601XL <david.m.gallagher@ge.com> wrote:
>
> David,
>
> My advice is the same as Scott's. The fairlead locations should not be considered
as fixed in concrete. It sounds like a little movement of the fairlead
on the rear frame is all you need. My upper elevator fairlead also contacted
somewhere in the seatback, I forget where, so I moved the fairlead a bit to eliminate
the interference. I will be at the Jabiru seminar and look forward to
seeing you there.
>
> Good luck,
>
> --------
> David Gallagher
> 601 XL, tail and wings completed,
> fueslage almost done, engine next.
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: Fuel selector |
> Point the selector towards the side of the clock the minute hand is on.
I've got a digital watch, what is a "hand"?
;-)
-- Craig
do not archive
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 |
|
1966 rebuilt Corvair engine with nitrited crankshaft by Nitron, OT-10
camshaft with new cam gears, new TRW forged pistons and chrome rings,
balanced connecting rod set, new bearings, new hydraulic lifters,
cylinder heads by Falcon Automotive, William Wynne's Gold Prop Hub, Oil
Top Cover, Safety Shaft, converted oil case and Oil Pan. Also have WW's
CNC stainless exhaust for a Zenith 601, Baffle kit for 601, CNC
alternator brackets, and a low profile front starter kit with starter.
Also have a Niagara oil cooler, rebuilt MA3-SPA carburetor, Warp Drive
Propeller, RV Spinner, and a Corvair nosebowl from Corvair Authority.
Also for sale are various new instrument gauges from Westach and Summit
Racing equipment for the above engine.
Contact me direct for more information.
Dick
djscotter@MSN.com<mailto:djscotter@MSN.com>
Do not archive
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: Engine for sale |
I just purchased a 601 HDS project and have been working on collecting all
the Corvair engine parts for the conversion. This sounds like what I was g
oing to do. How many hours on it? How much? Where are you located?
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: RICHARD SCOTTER
To: Zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 12:26 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Engine for sale
1966 rebuilt Corvair engine with nitrited crankshaft by Nitron, OT-10 cam
shaft with new cam gears, new TRW forged pistons and chrome rings, balanced
connecting rod set, new bearings, new hydraulic lifters, cylinder heads by
Falcon Automotive, William Wynne's Gold Prop Hub, Oil Top Cover, Safety Sh
aft, converted oil case and Oil Pan. Also have WW's CNC stainless exhaust
for a Zenith 601, Baffle kit for 601, CNC alternator brackets, and a low pr
ofile front starter kit with starter. Also have a Niagara oil cooler, rebu
ilt MA3-SPA carburetor, Warp Drive Propeller, RV Spinner, and a Corvair nos
ebowl from Corvair Authority.
Also for sale are various new instrument gauges from Westach and Summit R
acing equipment for the above engine.
Contact me direct for more information.
Dick
djscotter@MSN.com
Do not archive
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 |
|
Very preliminary and filled with the usual "chase-any-angle" trash and
some inaccuracies.
I knew Ray and will miss him greatly.
sadly jeff
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071106/NEWS/
711060383/1006/NEWS<http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A
ID=/20071106/NEWS/711060383/1006/NEWS>
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: | Corvair College 11 |
The timing of this post is wrong being so close to my other letter, but
it is appropriate to our hobby.
Many of us wish to save a few dollars and in doing that we look towards
the powerplant. For those of us who wish to travel this route,
experience and education are of Utmost priority!
The Corvair Conversion has a proven record of accomplishment, and is
considered a reliable, viable option in the 601XL series when built to
the standards of William Wynnes research. I would like to invite
everyone who is considering this approach to join in on
Being held at Quality Sport Planes In Cloverdale CA
More information at HYPERLINK
"http://www.qualitysportplanes.com/qsp-2006_077.htm"http://www.qualitysp
ortplanes.com/qsp-2006_077.htm
This event is a must if your planning on using a Corvair Conversion, I
have spent time with William at one of these events and it is a workshop
in which you will learn all the tips and trick of building your own
motor. William will talk about the design of his parts and the reason
for it as well as the hours of proven track record. SO if you plan on a
Corvair then this is a must.
Where is it
Cloverdale Airport (O60 on the San Francisco sectional), home of Quality
Sport Planes, the Western regional representative for Zenith Aircraft.
The event will be held in QSP's Builder- Assistance hangar/workshop.
If flying commercial, San Francisco International (SFO) and Oakland
(OAK) are both about 100 miles away. Santa Rosa (STS) has direct flights
from Seattle and L.A. and is just 25 miles south of Cloverdale.
Cost
It is free, although donations to offset event expenses, including
William's travel costs, will gladly be accepted. Meals (deli sandwiches,
pizza, drinks, etc.) will be provided at cost
What do you bring?
Bring all the parts you'd like inspected or potentially worked on. A
folding workbench can be helpful; definitely bring your own hand tools
if you are working on an engine. Most importantly bring a good attitude.
You'll meet lots of new friends here, and you'll go home with more
enthusiasm for your project than you dreamed possible.
William will have examples of virtually every part that he sells.
However, since this is a road trip, he won=92t be bringing his full
inventory. If there=92s a part you need to assemble your engine, it=92s
best
to order it from him in advance.
Who is invited?
Anyone who has an interest in building and flying their own Corvair
engine, regardless of aircraft make or model. Bring a friend or two if
you like, William will make converts out of them also. In William's
words: "This is not a male only event, and a number of female aviators
and builders will be there. Events tend to be social gatherings also,
and if your better half is reluctant to come because she doesn't want to
sit in the hangar and talk about airplanes all day, assure her that
we'll be talking about airplanes probably 50 percent of the time. The
other half, we'll be talking about airplane engines." If that doesn't do
it, perhaps the fact that Cloverdale is in the midst of beautiful Sonoma
County wine country, with numerous wineries, redwood groves and the
Pacific Coast nearby will!
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
HYPERLINK "http://www.ch601.org"www.ch601.org / HYPERLINK
"http://www.ch701.com"www.ch701.com/ HYPERLINK
"http://www.Osprey2.com"www.Osprey2.com
11/6/2007 10:04 AM
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: | Re: Fuel selector location? |
My appologies to the group for continuing this thread but as has been
pointed out, many accidents arise from improper understanding,design and
management of fuel systems.
Paul,
IF you agree that it is possible to empty two low wing tanks equally by the
use of one pump in the "both" position as you seem to support by your
kitchen test then WHY do you say it won't work several sentences later??
My RV3 has run thru MANY thousand gallons of fuel in that condition(single
pump drawing from both tanks) while emptying the tanks at the same rate . I
DO concede that mine is not a very common case however, generally one or the
other will feed more fuel.
Someone pointed out that once you unport one of the tanks then all bets are
off as you possibly/probably (you choose) introduce a bubble into the line
and that changes the equation and that is absolutly true.
My Cessna 180 fed almost twice as much fuel from one tank as the other
while in the "both" position and that is a gravity system. ?? I have also
known other low wing operators that could NOT run in the "both" position as
one wing or the other would empty completely without drawing ANY fuel from
the other wing.
Sorting this out is what the initial engine runs and 40 hr test period is
for. (Among other things)
Fuel delivery, lack of same really, has killed a lot of homebuilders. The
early Glasair's had a bunch of problems with unporting 'till it was figured
out what was causing it. The Lancairs (and my Glasair) did NOT as they
continually pumped from the wing tanks to a header tank which overflowed
back to a wing tank. The header tank then gravity fed the carb.
John
>
> Hi John,
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> Your message got me to do an experiment in my kitchen. I took two
> identical glasses and put 2 ounces of water in one and 6 ounces in the
> other one. I then took a big suck on two identical straws. Measuring the
> remaining water in the glasses I discovered there was one ounce taken out
> of each one. So, as you suggested the water was not taken from the lower
> level "Tank" but taken equally from both tanks.
>
> You will notice this is not the same as the behavior of two gravity fed
> tanks which will tend to equalize their levels. I started with 6 and 2
> ounces and ended with 5 and 1. In a high wing model I would have ended
> with 3 and 3.
>
> So, I was wrong, but the "Both" solution still doesn't work for low wing
> planes.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
> do not archive
>
>
> At 06:03 AM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
>
>>Paul, Maybe I need to learn something here, WHY would the pump draw fuel
>>from the tank with the lowest pressure (emptiest)??
>>
>>That has not been my experience (2000 hrs in an RV3) , my tanks empty
>>equally with one pump sucking on both tanks at the same time.
>> LOW&SLO John Bolding
>
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 |
|
Actually, that is a pretty well written story. I'm amazed at this line...
"William Standing, an inspector with the FAA's Philadelphia office, said Monday
that it appeared almost certain Blondin's engine did not factor into the crash."
I don't think I've ever seen an FAA official say something like that this soon
after an accident. Especially if their name is going to be used.
--------
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=144196#144196
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel selector |
craig(at)craigandjean.com wrote:
>
> > Point the selector towards the side of the clock the minute hand is on.
> >
> >
>
> I've got a digital watch, what is a "hand"?
>
> ;-)
>
> -- Craig
>
>
You know Craig, when I was young, single and spending way too much time and effort
chasing ladies of questionable moral fiber I noticed a direct correlation
between digital watches and NOT getting laid. [Twisted Evil]
Really, really...
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=144198#144198
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: Fuel selector location? |
Gents, I have added this before and it is in the archives. In Canada
your homebuilt low wing will not be allowed to pass it's final
inspection if it has a both selector installed. It is simply not
allowed.
SO if the whole Transport Canada is going to rule that it is not a good
idea then maybe it has merit to not install a both selector in a low
wing aircraft. I understand the principals of this requirement and some
have been discussed. Our registration process is more stringent then the
United States, which is why this issue never come up.
In short if a whole government body decides that their may be safety
issues, derived from past experiences then why would we wish to discuss
this?
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Bolding
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Fuel selector location?
<jnbolding1@teleshare.net>
My appologies to the group for continuing this thread but as has been
pointed out, many accidents arise from improper understanding,design and
management of fuel systems.
Paul,
IF you agree that it is possible to empty two low wing tanks equally by
the
use of one pump in the "both" position as you seem to support by your
kitchen test then WHY do you say it won't work several sentences later??
My RV3 has run thru MANY thousand gallons of fuel in that
condition(single
pump drawing from both tanks) while emptying the tanks at the same rate
. I
DO concede that mine is not a very common case however, generally one or
the
other will feed more fuel.
Someone pointed out that once you unport one of the tanks then all bets
are
off as you possibly/probably (you choose) introduce a bubble into the
line
and that changes the equation and that is absolutly true.
My Cessna 180 fed almost twice as much fuel from one tank as the other
while in the "both" position and that is a gravity system. ?? I have
also
known other low wing operators that could NOT run in the "both"
position as
one wing or the other would empty completely without drawing ANY fuel
from
the other wing.
Sorting this out is what the initial engine runs and 40 hr test period
is
for. (Among other things)
Fuel delivery, lack of same really, has killed a lot of homebuilders.
The
early Glasair's had a bunch of problems with unporting 'till it was
figured
out what was causing it. The Lancairs (and my Glasair) did NOT as they
continually pumped from the wing tanks to a header tank which overflowed
back to a wing tank. The header tank then gravity fed the carb.
John
>
> Hi John,
>
> I stand corrected.
>
> Your message got me to do an experiment in my kitchen. I took two
> identical glasses and put 2 ounces of water in one and 6 ounces in the
> other one. I then took a big suck on two identical straws. Measuring
the
> remaining water in the glasses I discovered there was one ounce taken
out
> of each one. So, as you suggested the water was not taken from the
lower
> level "Tank" but taken equally from both tanks.
>
> You will notice this is not the same as the behavior of two gravity
fed
> tanks which will tend to equalize their levels. I started with 6 and
2
> ounces and ended with 5 and 1. In a high wing model I would have
ended
> with 3 and 3.
>
> So, I was wrong, but the "Both" solution still doesn't work for low
wing
> planes.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
> do not archive
>
>
> At 06:03 AM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
>
>>Paul, Maybe I need to learn something here, WHY would the pump draw
fuel
>>from the tank with the lowest pressure (emptiest)??
>>
>>That has not been my experience (2000 hrs in an RV3) , my tanks empty
>>equally with one pump sucking on both tanks at the same time.
>> LOW&SLO John Bolding
>
11/6/2007 10:04 AM
11/6/2007 10:04 AM
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 |
|
Amazingly enough I have been told other information, and your right no
FAA officer would ever state such a comment. They put such a gag on
things so fast it is amazing that they say anything, most times they
don't. Also IF I read the story correctly it seemed to have been written
by two different styles, one knowledgeable of the homebuilt market and
one who just didn't have a clue. I found the comments at the bottom in
response to the story very disturbing though.
Plus can anyone tell me what Nadar has to do with this? I don't remember
him ever commenting about the engine design or power. Didn't he just
lose it on the cars design?
I knew Ray from past conversations, I considered him articulate and
knowledgeable, I enjoyed talking to him over the years. My condolences
to his family.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gig Giacona
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 2:58 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: N27S
<wr.giacona@suddenlink.net>
Actually, that is a pretty well written story. I'm amazed at this
line...
"William Standing, an inspector with the FAA's Philadelphia office, said
Monday that it appeared almost certain Blondin's engine did not factor
into the crash."
I don't think I've ever seen an FAA official say something like that
this soon after an accident. Especially if their name is going to be
used.
--------
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=144196#144196
11/6/2007 10:04 AM
11/6/2007 10:04 AM
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 |
|
No Nader never, to my knowledge, ever had any issue with the engine.
As far as the comments to the story go, 2 out of 3 are morons. That pretty much
falls in line with the moron ratio I've seen during my 45 years on the planet.
--------
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=144206#144206
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 |
|
Gday all,
HDS owners, and others, need to have a look at this:
http://www.stolspeed.com/content.php?id=57
Tailwinds Always,
JG
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 |
|
This one has a familiar ring to it as we lost a test pilot several years
ago in a similarly described accident. The strongest argument for
having a prop out of pitch to the extent
that it may have been unable to climb out. Too much either way would
put you in difficulty without having any engine problems.
Sad indeed,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> Actually, that is a pretty well written story. I'm amazed at this line...
>
> "William Standing, an inspector with the FAA's Philadelphia office, said Monday
that it appeared almost certain Blondin's engine did not factor into the crash."
>
> I don't think I've ever seen an FAA official say something like that this soon
after an accident. Especially if their name is going to be used.
>
> --------
> 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=144196#144196
>
>
>
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: HDS Adventures |
At 16:05 06-11-07, you wrote:
>Gday all,
>HDS owners, and others, need to have a look at this:
><http://www.stolspeed.com/content.php?id=57>http://www.stolspeed.com/content.php?id=57
>Tailwinds Always,
>JG
I personally like to have a little background info in posts that say
"hey check this out". So I'll fill it in:
I can't agree that anyone "needs" to have a look. But it is a useful
link for those interested in vortex generators and tuft tests
(including myself).
So for those who aren't clicking through, the URL is for a Swiss
fellow's tuft test photos and performance data, before and after
putting some of JG's vortex generators on a 601 HDS.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON
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: RE:Re:3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Excellent points by Mark. IMHO there will always be a thousand way to crash.
Old salts are as likely as newbies. In each of the mishaps that come up on the
list from time to time, the first comments are usually "What caused it?" The
theories fly.
I approach it a little differently. When I was a military pilot, I was
trained in Crash Survival Investigation. Find out what caused the injuries. Fix
that
with new procedures or new design. A crash is considered "survivable" if
three conditions exist:
1.G forces are within human tolerances.
2. The survivable space is maintained.
3. There is no post crash fire.
Number one is easy. All Zenairs land into the wind at less than 40KTS. A good
restraint system will protect you. Certified planes are designed with 26 G
seats. Even if you cart wheel, each piece that rips off or collapses absorbs
energy. Watch a NASCAR race.
Number two means that the 200 lbs of iron up front will protect the occupants
as you tear through the side of a building or clump of trees. I know that
pusher/canards are cool, but... Do what you can within reason to ensure that a
stump or fence post does not intrude into your space. We all have something that
we think is MOST important.
Number three means to use good practices in installation or design. Tanks in
the wings are good. Tanks in the nose (like a Cub), aft of the cockpit
(Luscombe), or in the roof (Aeronca Defender) are bad. A good practice would be
to
put a small loop in the fuel line where it enters the fuselage. This permits
flexing without breaking if the wing takes a hit. Military aircraft use breakaway
fuel fittings. These are also used by the auto racing guys. The fitting
separates under stress and shuts off like a compressed air fitting. Since I began
flying in 1956, I've had some bad moments, but I have still enjoyed a safe
record in personal, military and commercial aviation. When I walk up to an
aircraft today, I think that this is the day that my streak will break. I can
tolerate death, but not embarrassment. What the heck, flying is fun. Go anyway.
RTD XL/Lyc
Do not archive
**************************************
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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Larry, I dont want to put you on the spot BUT, what would you say are the 5
most important mistakes made on engines or aircraft,not flying mistakes.
Thank's Joe N101HD 601XL/RAM
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryMcFarland" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.
>
> Andy,
> In the case of the Subaru, your statement couldn't be more wrong. It was
> originally designed as an aircraft engine in the 70s and when the aircraft
> market softened, it became a car engine. The EA81 can be run 250K miles
> and you'll still find the cylinders in good shape. There are more than
> several gyros flying the EA81 with 1400 to 2200 hours
> on them and still going strong. These engines are raced to over 10K rpm
> because they're built for it and being opposed cylinders balanced and
> supported by large crank and bearings, the Subaru is a great conversion.
> The problem with conversion is conversion which requires each builder to
> learn more about carburetors, ignition, fuel feed systems, oil pressure
> connections, cylinder head sensors and more. I've made mistakes and
> fortunately survived them, but the extra items found on all conversions
> and standard firewall forward aircraft engines is what gets us all in the
> most trouble. It's been a long time since I've heard about a belt re-drive
> failure and the last one was probably the fault of it's owner.
>
> cool and respectfully,
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
>
> ashontz wrote:
>>
>> Depends on how you use the auto engine. Personally, I've never burned out
>> a transmission, warped a head, or broke a rod or timing chain or belt
>> from gunning an engine and driving like a maniac, but I know a bunch of
>> people who routinely have these problems (of course that means the car is
>> a lemon ;) ), and their driving habits are to blame. If an auto engine
>> conversion is not pushed anymore than it would see at 55mph on the
>> highway then it should be a pretty good match. That's one reason I'm not
>> big on these smaller engines turning 4500 - 5000rpm with a PSRU. The
>> engine wasn't meant to run that hard. Sure, a NASCAR engine will run
>> 8000rpm for a couple hours, then it needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
>>
>>
>> steveadams wrote:
>>
>>> Not to start another heated debate about engine choices, but at least 2
>>> of the 3 accidents involved loss of power with auto conversions.
>>> Experimentals on the whole are slightly more risky than certified
>>> aircraft, however, IMHO those with auto conversions carry significantly
>>> more risk. A 601 comes apart in a thunderstorm and every one questions
>>> the 601 design, but it seems that engine failures like these get little
>>> discussion from the advocates of auto conversions.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --------
>> Andy Shontz
>> CH601XL - Corvair
>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144155#144155
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Powerplant Choices |
Guys, the main reason for a larger diameter prop on the 701/801 STOL ser
ies of planes is to have a greater blast of air off the prop to hit the
rear tail feathers, that makes them more effective at lower airspeeds. H
igh speed planes don't need this,or at least to a reduced extent. There
is a guy in Wis that is building an 801 and had the idea to use the 8 cy
l Jabiru. That motor only makes max power at 3300 rpms. Definatly not a
good match for an 801.
ack the
torque to deliver great climb power for a 701. A re-drive is often one
way to match the best peak horsepower rpm with a larger prop to deliver
better climb performance.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
secatur wrote:
>
> Here we go again..I am Jabiru fan, but will the 2200 pushing a direct
drive prop preserve the STOL characteristics of the 701 ? If so why we a
nyone opt for the much more complicated arrangement of a redrive (geared
or belt) to allow a 72 " prop to be used for optimum stol performance ?
?????
>
>
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
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: Fuel selector location? |
O.K. the best of both worlds be buy a fuel selector that has Left and Right.
Take the money that you saved by not buying the Left,Both, Right
selector,buy a egg timer set it every 30 min. when you change tanks...and
you're good to go.. Joe N101HD
----- Original Message -----
From: "ZodieRocket" <zodierocket@hsfx.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 3:11 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Fuel selector location?
>
> Gents, I have added this before and it is in the archives. In Canada
> your homebuilt low wing will not be allowed to pass it's final
> inspection if it has a both selector installed. It is simply not
> allowed.
>
> SO if the whole Transport Canada is going to rule that it is not a good
> idea then maybe it has merit to not install a both selector in a low
> wing aircraft. I understand the principals of this requirement and some
> have been discussed. Our registration process is more stringent then the
> United States, which is why this issue never come up.
>
> In short if a whole government body decides that their may be safety
> issues, derived from past experiences then why would we wish to discuss
> this?
>
> Mark Townsend
> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
> president@can-zacaviation.com
> www.can-zacaviation.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Bolding
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 2:34 PM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Fuel selector location?
>
> <jnbolding1@teleshare.net>
>
> My appologies to the group for continuing this thread but as has been
> pointed out, many accidents arise from improper understanding,design and
>
> management of fuel systems.
>
> Paul,
> IF you agree that it is possible to empty two low wing tanks equally by
> the
> use of one pump in the "both" position as you seem to support by your
> kitchen test then WHY do you say it won't work several sentences later??
>
> My RV3 has run thru MANY thousand gallons of fuel in that
> condition(single
> pump drawing from both tanks) while emptying the tanks at the same rate
> . I
> DO concede that mine is not a very common case however, generally one or
> the
> other will feed more fuel.
> Someone pointed out that once you unport one of the tanks then all bets
> are
> off as you possibly/probably (you choose) introduce a bubble into the
> line
> and that changes the equation and that is absolutly true.
> My Cessna 180 fed almost twice as much fuel from one tank as the other
> while in the "both" position and that is a gravity system. ?? I have
> also
> known other low wing operators that could NOT run in the "both"
> position as
> one wing or the other would empty completely without drawing ANY fuel
> from
> the other wing.
>
> Sorting this out is what the initial engine runs and 40 hr test period
> is
> for. (Among other things)
>
> Fuel delivery, lack of same really, has killed a lot of homebuilders.
> The
> early Glasair's had a bunch of problems with unporting 'till it was
> figured
> out what was causing it. The Lancairs (and my Glasair) did NOT as they
> continually pumped from the wing tanks to a header tank which overflowed
>
> back to a wing tank. The header tank then gravity fed the carb.
> John
>
>
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I stand corrected.
>>
>> Your message got me to do an experiment in my kitchen. I took two
>> identical glasses and put 2 ounces of water in one and 6 ounces in the
>
>> other one. I then took a big suck on two identical straws. Measuring
> the
>> remaining water in the glasses I discovered there was one ounce taken
> out
>> of each one. So, as you suggested the water was not taken from the
> lower
>> level "Tank" but taken equally from both tanks.
>>
>> You will notice this is not the same as the behavior of two gravity
> fed
>> tanks which will tend to equalize their levels. I started with 6 and
> 2
>> ounces and ended with 5 and 1. In a high wing model I would have
> ended
>> with 3 and 3.
>>
>> So, I was wrong, but the "Both" solution still doesn't work for low
> wing
>> planes.
>>
>> Paul
>> XL fuselage
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> At 06:03 AM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
>>
>>>Paul, Maybe I need to learn something here, WHY would the pump draw
> fuel
>>>from the tank with the lowest pressure (emptiest)??
>>>
>>>That has not been my experience (2000 hrs in an RV3) , my tanks empty
>>>equally with one pump sucking on both tanks at the same time.
>>> LOW&SLO John Bolding
>>
>
>
> 11/6/2007 10:04 AM
>
>
> 11/6/2007 10:04 AM
>
>
>
Message 65
| 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: mounting engine with body on stands. |
I need to get this list reset. I only want to get the digest.
Thanks,
Glenn Morris
Message 66
| 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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
:
-steveadams wrote:
> Not to start another heated debate about engine choices, but at least
2 of the 3 accidents involved loss of power with auto conversions. Exper
imentals on the whole are slightly more risky than certified aircraft, h
owever, IMHO those with auto conversions carry significantly more risk.
A 601 comes apart in a thunderstorm and every one questions the 601 desi
gn, but it seems that engine failures like these get little discussion f
rom the advocates of auto conversions.
Flying a plane has some risk to it. Flying an experimental adds more ris
k. An auto engine powered experimental plane is even more riskier. Let's
do some math here. Last year I believe 436 people were killed in all ty
pes of planes. Somewhere around 70 were in an experimental. Last year mo
re then 124,000 people were killed in hospitals by doctors and nurses no
t washing good enough and spreading staph infections and by being given
wrong or inncorrect amounts of drugs. The way I see it if one wants to t
o a ripe old age stay away from doctors, nurses and hospitals. Just my o
pinion of course...
do not archive
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144155#144155
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
Message 67
| 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: Pegastol Wings |
Larry, this email bounces back.
I am also interested in this wing
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144258#144258
Message 68
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Sender screws |
Hello group ,thanks to all that responded to my fuel sender questions .
Wade Jones South Texas
601XL plans building
Cont. 0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "lwhitlow" <ldwhitlow@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 3:05 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Fuel Sender screws
>
>
> wjones(at)brazoriainet.co wrote:
>> Today I received my fuel senders from ZAC .All the hardware including the
>> screws were there .Now I am ready to cut the hole in the tank for
>> mounting
>> senders .Question (I would appreciate several pros & cons )What is the
>> better location top or side ,should any sealant be used or is the
>> supplied
>> gasket good enough ,is the 59mm hole in the tank a good number . Thanks
>> Wade Jones South Texas
>> 601XL plans building
>> Cont. 0200
>> ---
>
>
> Hi Wade
>
> I initially made mine a couple of millimeters smaller and then sanded out
> the hole until the sender and the screws would just fit . Remember its all
> about the angles. I made my hole just big enough to clear the notch on the
> inside screw plate. When you tip the assembly at just the right angle it
> just slips right in. After I got a good fit, I removed the sender and
> flushed the tank with medium pressure water to get rid of any debris.
> Then I re-installed the sender and the filler neck. capped off the
> openings and filled it with fuel to check for leaks. Don't check for
> leaks with water, it will ruin the level sender.
>
> HTH
>
>
> Larry Whitlow
> 601XL 60% done 90% to go
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144028#144028
>
>
>
Message 69
| 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: Zenith Play Time |
very cool! This will occupy at least a few hours of my time until I can start building
a real one! My son will love this :)
-andr
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144262#144262
Message 70
| 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: Pegastol Wings |
Check with Raymond, E-mail Address(es):
moseus@gmail.com
Take care, Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "kmccune" <kmccune@somtel.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 7:46 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Pegastol Wings
>
> Larry, this email bounces back.
> I am also interested in this wing
>
> Kevin
>
> --------
> Kevin
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144258#144258
>
>
> --
> 11/6/2007 10:04 AM
>
>
Message 71
| 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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Joe,
Overcoming the first mistake would be a big help. To learn before the
fact what the engine needs to run correctly, from idle, to warm up, to
taxi, to takeoff.
Most of us learn by luck and discovery that the valves are not set
right, timing is off or the carbs are not jetted a correct mixture, oil
pressure is not or the cowl or the radiator is not cooling. By the time
we discover these an engines reliability may be damaged.
A good EIS system is fast and puts your attention on a problem before it
gets serious. With steam gages, one has to know what hes looking for,
when to look for it and in what order and I certainly wouldnt have
fared well here. With EIS, you program the limits, so you already know
mostly what your engine needs before the fact and it points to those
problems that arise immediately.
A conversion engine comes with an oil pressure sensor thats an on off
switch for an idiot light and most are replaced with a sensor that reads
oil pressure. Often we buy a nipple that places the sensor away from the
engine and tighten it in place. Regular aircraft generally place an oil
sensor on the firewall and connect the oil pressure sensor with a
flex-hose. My hardware store brass nipple cracked at the threads because
it vibrated and wall thickness at the threads was half the thickness of
an automotive nipple. I lost a quart in a 1-hour flight but it could
have been much worse.
Aircraft flare fittings are 37-degree flanged and previously as a
technical counselor, Ive seen regular automotive flares used and mixed
on fuel systems, rubber fuel hoses run through wings that would be
permanently buttoned up, fuel lines tank to engine without filters. I
managed to clog the finger strainers by not thinking to clean swarf out
the fuel tank after construction. Theyd been flushed, float checked and
leak checked right? Not good enough.
Cooling is the most misunderstood and problematic thing for Subaru
water-cooled engines and even the most popular air cooled engines. Air
cannot be shoved down a hole thru a radiator or cowl to cool an engine.
Its surprising that so many people dont know this applies equally to
air-cooling or air-exchange. The effective draw must be behind the
radiator or on exiting the cowl. The water-cooled engine should have an
advantage here but its too often not well enough understood by the
builder to use it and the Subaru gets a bad rap for the builders ignorance.
There are too many detailed problems to describe, but the essence is
that I have made as many mistakes as anyone and its obviously clear
that these could be avoided by focused forethought and a second set of
eyes. The accident statistics would reward us well if we did.
I didn't mean to rant, but these things do repeat too often without
comment.
Thanks Joe,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Southern Reflections wrote:
> <purplemoon99@bellsouth.net>
>
> Larry, I dont want to put you on the spot BUT, what would you say are
> the 5 most important mistakes made on engines or aircraft,not flying
> mistakes. Thank's Joe N101HD 601XL/RAM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LarryMcFarland" <larry@macsmachine.com>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.
>
>
>> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>>
>> Andy,
>> In the case of the Subaru, your statement couldn't be more wrong. It
>> was originally designed as an aircraft engine in the 70s and when the
>> aircraft market softened, it became a car engine. The EA81 can be run
>> 250K miles and you'll still find the cylinders in good shape. There
>> are more than several gyros flying the EA81 with 1400 to 2200 hours
>> on them and still going strong. These engines are raced to over 10K
>> rpm because they're built for it and being opposed cylinders balanced
>> and supported by large crank and bearings, the Subaru is a great
>> conversion. The problem with conversion is conversion which requires
>> each builder to learn more about carburetors, ignition, fuel feed
>> systems, oil pressure connections, cylinder head sensors and more.
>> I've made mistakes and fortunately survived them, but the extra items
>> found on all conversions and standard firewall forward aircraft
>> engines is what gets us all in the most trouble. It's been a long
>> time since I've heard about a belt re-drive failure and the last one
>> was probably the fault of it's owner.
>>
>> cool and respectfully,
>>
>> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>>
>>
>> ashontz wrote:
>>>
>>> Depends on how you use the auto engine. Personally, I've never
>>> burned out a transmission, warped a head, or broke a rod or timing
>>> chain or belt from gunning an engine and driving like a maniac, but
>>> I know a bunch of people who routinely have these problems (of
>>> course that means the car is a lemon ;) ), and their driving habits
>>> are to blame. If an auto engine conversion is not pushed anymore
>>> than it would see at 55mph on the highway then it should be a pretty
>>> good match. That's one reason I'm not big on these smaller engines
>>> turning 4500 - 5000rpm with a PSRU. The engine wasn't meant to run
>>> that hard. Sure, a NASCAR engine will run 8000rpm for a couple
>>> hours, then it needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
>>>
>>> steveadams wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not to start another heated debate about engine choices, but at
>>>> least 2 of the 3 accidents involved loss of power with auto
>>>> conversions. Experimentals on the whole are slightly more risky
>>>> than certified aircraft, however, IMHO those with auto conversions
>>>> carry significantly more risk. A 601 comes apart in a thunderstorm
>>>> and every one questions the 601 design, but it seems that engine
>>>> failures like these get little discussion from the advocates of
>>>> auto conversions.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Andy Shontz
>>> CH601XL - Corvair
>>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 72
| 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: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. |
Thank's Larry, I always value your input. I'am down to doing Punch-lists
80%done,80% to go..I saw some silicone 90's on the web last night and going
to change the two at the rad. to silicone , I just feel better with that
rather than rubber. louver's and scoop are workimg perfect. Changed the oil
pres. gage to direct feed/with copper line,feel better about that too.
Engine is running super smooth,but idleing @ 1200 that's as slow as it will
run before getting rough,the people a t REV-Master say i've got to much fuel
pressureand its flooding the engine, 1/12 lb. may have to re jet or make a
by pass back to the tank..Oh well all in a day's play . Have you seen those
VG's from down under? very intresting numbers. See ya Joe
N101HD601XL/RAM
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryMcFarland" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.
>
> Joe,
>
> Overcoming the first mistake would be a big help. To learn before the fact
> what the engine needs to run correctly, from idle, to warm up, to taxi, to
> takeoff.
>
> Most of us learn by luck and discovery that the valves are not set right,
> timing is off or the carbs are not jetted a correct mixture, oil pressure
> is not or the cowl or the radiator is not cooling. By the time we discover
> these an engines reliability may be damaged.
>
> A good EIS system is fast and puts your attention on a problem before it
> gets serious. With steam gages, one has to know what hes looking for,
> when to look for it and in what order and I certainly wouldnt have fared
> well here. With EIS, you program the limits, so you already know mostly
> what your engine needs before the fact and it points to those problems
> that arise immediately.
>
> A conversion engine comes with an oil pressure sensor thats an on off
> switch for an idiot light and most are replaced with a sensor that reads
> oil pressure. Often we buy a nipple that places the sensor away from the
> engine and tighten it in place. Regular aircraft generally place an oil
> sensor on the firewall and connect the oil pressure sensor with a
> flex-hose. My hardware store brass nipple cracked at the threads because
> it vibrated and wall thickness at the threads was half the thickness of an
> automotive nipple. I lost a quart in a 1-hour flight but it could have
> been much worse.
>
> Aircraft flare fittings are 37-degree flanged and previously as a
> technical counselor, Ive seen regular automotive flares used and mixed on
> fuel systems, rubber fuel hoses run through wings that would be
> permanently buttoned up, fuel lines tank to engine without filters. I
> managed to clog the finger strainers by not thinking to clean swarf out
> the fuel tank after construction. Theyd been flushed, float checked and
> leak checked right? Not good enough.
>
> Cooling is the most misunderstood and problematic thing for Subaru
> water-cooled engines and even the most popular air cooled engines. Air
> cannot be shoved down a hole thru a radiator or cowl to cool an engine. Its
> surprising that so many people dont know this applies equally to
> air-cooling or air-exchange. The effective draw must be behind the
> radiator or on exiting the cowl. The water-cooled engine should have an
> advantage here but its too often not well enough understood by the
> builder to use it and the Subaru gets a bad rap for the builders
> ignorance.
>
> There are too many detailed problems to describe, but the essence is that
> I have made as many mistakes as anyone and its obviously clear that these
> could be avoided by focused forethought and a second set of eyes. The
> accident statistics would reward us well if we did.
>
> I didn't mean to rant, but these things do repeat too often without
> comment.
> Thanks Joe,
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
>
> Southern Reflections wrote:
>> <purplemoon99@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> Larry, I dont want to put you on the spot BUT, what would you say are the
>> 5 most important mistakes made on engines or aircraft,not flying
>> mistakes. Thank's Joe N101HD 601XL/RAM
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "LarryMcFarland" <larry@macsmachine.com>
>> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 11:40 AM
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days.
>>
>>
>>> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>>>
>>> Andy,
>>> In the case of the Subaru, your statement couldn't be more wrong. It was
>>> originally designed as an aircraft engine in the 70s and when the
>>> aircraft market softened, it became a car engine. The EA81 can be run
>>> 250K miles and you'll still find the cylinders in good shape. There are
>>> more than several gyros flying the EA81 with 1400 to 2200 hours
>>> on them and still going strong. These engines are raced to over 10K rpm
>>> because they're built for it and being opposed cylinders balanced and
>>> supported by large crank and bearings, the Subaru is a great conversion.
>>> The problem with conversion is conversion which requires each builder to
>>> learn more about carburetors, ignition, fuel feed systems, oil pressure
>>> connections, cylinder head sensors and more. I've made mistakes and
>>> fortunately survived them, but the extra items found on all conversions
>>> and standard firewall forward aircraft engines is what gets us all in
>>> the most trouble. It's been a long time since I've heard about a belt
>>> re-drive failure and the last one was probably the fault of it's owner.
>>>
>>> cool and respectfully,
>>>
>>> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ashontz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Depends on how you use the auto engine. Personally, I've never burned
>>>> out a transmission, warped a head, or broke a rod or timing chain or
>>>> belt from gunning an engine and driving like a maniac, but I know a
>>>> bunch of people who routinely have these problems (of course that means
>>>> the car is a lemon ;) ), and their driving habits are to blame. If an
>>>> auto engine conversion is not pushed anymore than it would see at 55mph
>>>> on the highway then it should be a pretty good match. That's one reason
>>>> I'm not big on these smaller engines turning 4500 - 5000rpm with a
>>>> PSRU. The engine wasn't meant to run that hard. Sure, a NASCAR engine
>>>> will run 8000rpm for a couple hours, then it needs to be torn down and
>>>> rebuilt.
>>>>
>>>> steveadams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not to start another heated debate about engine choices, but at least
>>>>> 2 of the 3 accidents involved loss of power with auto conversions.
>>>>> Experimentals on the whole are slightly more risky than certified
>>>>> aircraft, however, IMHO those with auto conversions carry
>>>>> significantly more risk. A 601 comes apart in a thunderstorm and every
>>>>> one questions the 601 design, but it seems that engine failures like
>>>>> these get little discussion from the advocates of auto conversions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------
>>>> Andy Shontz
>>>> CH601XL - Corvair
>>>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 73
| 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: Powerplant Choices |
Larry,
When comparing the 912S to the UL260i the UL should have adequate torque to pull
the 701 through
those high angles of attack. I used these two sources for my quick analysis:
http://www.ulpower.com/downloads/UL260%20brochure%20EN.pdf
http://www.zenithair.com/pdf-doc/912uls-100hp.pdf
All atmospheric conditions set aside the UL260i produces ~150lb/ft of torque @3300rpm
and 95hp
and 912S produces ~83lb/ft or torque@5500 and 95hp.
However I believe the key for this installation to work would be prop pitch and
swing combination
to obtain a compromise of thrust to accommodate all phases of flight. Would you
agree? or am I
way off?
do not archive
Art
--- LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> The 2200 has enough horsepower for fast light
> aircraft, but may lack the
> torque to deliver great climb power for a 701. A
> re-drive is often one
> way to match the best peak horsepower rpm with a
> larger prop to deliver
> better climb performance.
>
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> do not archive
>
> secatur wrote:
> <appraise1@bigpond.com>
> >
> > Here we go again..I am Jabiru fan, but will the
> 2200 pushing a direct drive prop preserve the STOL
> characteristics of the 701 ? If so why we anyone opt
> for the much more complicated arrangement of a
> redrive (geared or belt) to allow a 72 " prop to be
> used for optimum stol performance ??????
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Click on
> about
> Admin.
> browse
> Un/Subscription,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
> Forums!
>
>
>
>
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! --
|