---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 11/06/07: 73 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:37:50 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Jabiru Engine Price Outlook From: "secatur" WOW !!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144097#144097 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 01:38:18 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: A picture of My Balls holding an aileron From: "secatur" Do you have your trousers tailor made ?? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144098#144098 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 01:48:11 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Powerplant Choices From: "secatur" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:58:53 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: XL Cable rigging and fairlead From: "chris Sinfield" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:04:17 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:08:55 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz 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: > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:36:12 AM PST US From: Jaybannist@cs.com Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:37:58 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop From: deglass1@aol.com 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:45:24 AM PST US From: "steve" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:46:50 AM PST US From: Scott Laughlin Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:55:10 AM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:57:12 AM PST US From: "steve" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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: >> >> >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:02:33 AM PST US From: Terry Phillips Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:05:52 AM PST US From: "John Bolding" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:06:38 AM PST US From: "steve" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:28:02 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop From: "cookwithgas" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:31:59 AM PST US From: "steve" 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" Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 7:03 AM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 18 ____________________________________ Time: 06:34:16 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Video of my CNC machine making wheel Chocks From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:42:32 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:55:42 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:04:50 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:09:26 AM PST US From: "LRM" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 7:03 AM > Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date: 11/5/2007 4:36 AM > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 07:16:09 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:19:07 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:23:50 AM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:36:42 AM PST US From: John Davis Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:36:55 AM PST US From: "David Brooks" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:39:59 AM PST US From: Jaybannist@cs.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:45:44 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. From: "steveadams" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:48:50 AM PST US From: LarryMcFarland 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 31 ____________________________________ Time: 07:53:36 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Elevator cable rubbing, and Jabiru workshop From: "DaveG601XL" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:57:59 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:01:04 AM PST US From: "David Brooks" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:24:22 AM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:26:18 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Fuel selector location? From: "Tim Juhl" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:33:19 AM PST US From: "steve" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:33:30 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. From: "eedetail" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:37:48 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. From: "n85ae" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:38:03 AM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:42:12 AM PST US From: LarryMcFarland 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 41 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:09 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 3 Zodiacs down in 4 days. From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:19:34 AM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:19:44 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:36:22 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Fuel selector From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:41:25 AM PST US From: Trainnut01@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:49:27 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:54:15 AM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:34:00 AM PST US From: "RICHARD SCOTTER" Subject: Zenith-List: Engine for sale 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 Do not archive ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 11:06:39 AM PST US From: "Steve Sims" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:10:30 AM PST US From: "Jeff Small" Subject: Zenith-List: N27S 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 ________________________________ Message 51 ____________________________________ Time: 11:24:39 AM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:37:17 AM PST US From: "John Bolding" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:58:47 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: N27S From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:03:13 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Fuel selector From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:12:21 PM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" 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 Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 > 11/6/2007 10:04 AM 11/6/2007 10:04 AM ________________________________ Message 56 ____________________________________ Time: 12:22:50 PM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: N27S 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:42:50 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: N27S From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:06:37 PM PST US From: "JG" Subject: Zenith-List: HDS Adventures 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:37:21 PM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: N27S 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:52:26 PM PST US From: Peter Chapman Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:17:58 PM PST US From: MaxNr@aol.com Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:27:54 PM PST US From: "Southern Reflections" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:37:44 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:45:44 PM PST US From: "Southern Reflections" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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? > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:39:13 PM PST US From: "Morris, Glenn D" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:40:39 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:46:52 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Pegastol Wings From: "kmccune" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:54:02 PM PST US From: "wade jones" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:59:53 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith Play Time From: "akok" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:30:21 PM PST US From: "LRM" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Pegastol Wings Check with Raymond, E-mail Address(es): moseus@gmail.com Take care, Larry ----- Original Message ----- From: "kmccune" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:32:24 PM PST US From: LarryMcFarland 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: > > > 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" > To: > 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 >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 72 ____________________________________ Time: 07:20:43 PM PST US From: "Southern Reflections" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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: >> >> >> 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" >> To: >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 73 ____________________________________ Time: 08:19:42 PM PST US From: Art Olechowski Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 wrote: > > > 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 ?????? > > > > > > > > Click on > about > Admin. > browse > Un/Subscription, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List > Forums! > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.