Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:23 AM - What Listers Are Saying... (Matt Dralle)
1. 12:58 AM - Re: Powerplant Choices (jetboy)
2. 03:39 AM - Re: Re: Fuel selector location? (Paul Mulwitz)
3. 03:41 AM - Re: Pegastol Wings (kmccune)
4. 03:48 AM - Re: XL Cable rigging and fairlead (chris Sinfield)
5. 03:49 AM - Re: Pegastol Wings (kmccune)
6. 04:34 AM - Re: 701 Dual Controls. ref Michael Rand. (mcolbeck)
7. 04:53 AM - Re: XL Cable rigging and fairlead (DaveG601XL)
8. 05:35 AM - Re: What Listers Are Saying... (robert stone)
9. 05:53 AM - Re: Re: Fuel selector (paul baker)
10. 06:25 AM - Re: mounting engine with body on stands. (Gig Giacona)
11. 06:35 AM - Re: Re: Powerplant Choices (LarryMcFarland)
12. 07:06 AM - Hog Engine (LRM)
13. 07:14 AM - Re: Zenith-List Digest: Elevator cable rubbing ()
14. 07:43 AM - O-200 and O-235 information (LHusky@aol.com)
15. 08:24 AM - Re: Hog Engine (Jerry Hey)
16. 08:49 AM - Re: Hog Engine (LRM)
17. 10:07 AM - Fuel Tank Selector (Herb Heaton)
18. 11:03 AM - Re: Re: Powerplant Choices (Art Olechowski)
19. 11:14 AM - Re: Fuel Tank Selector (Gig Giacona)
20. 11:31 AM - Re: Powerplant Choices (Art Olechowski)
21. 12:03 PM - Re: Corvair College 11 (Jimbo)
22. 05:48 PM - Re:Fuel Tank Selector (MaxNr@aol.com)
23. 07:41 PM - matco wheels and brakes (Tracy)
24. 09:17 PM - Re: Powerplant Choices (jetboy)
Message 0
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | What Listers Are Saying... |
November is Matronics List Fund Raiser month and a number people been sending some
really nice comments regarding the Lists. I thought I'd share a few below.
The Lists are completely supported by your Contributions. All of the bills for
new hardware, connectivity, and electricity are paid by the generous support
of the List members.
Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation of the List
and Forums:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
================= What Listers Are Saying ================
Flying and building is much safer with this List!!
Robert D.
Thanks for having and maintaining such a great resource to
all of us builders and flyers.
Wayne E.
Love the fact that you haven't caved to advertising!
Peter J.
..a great resource!!
Robert C.
Not building at the moment, but the Lists keeps me right
up to date with what's going on.
Chris D.
The web forum has been running great.
James O.
I enjoy this [List] site very much...
Paul C.
This is a great list!
Albert G.
..a valuable resource!
Roger C.
I am deployed to Pakistan right now, and being able
to go on-line and keep up with the aircraft discussions
helps keep the aircraft building dream alive in my mind!
Gregory C.
..fantastic service!
Roger M.
..clearly a work of passion!
Mike C.
It is a great service to us!
Kevin C.
The list is a wonderful resource...
Ralph O.
[The Lists] have been the single greatest resource in
building my RV-9A and now my RV-10.
Albert G.
..a valuable and always improving service.
Dick S.
STILL THE BEST BARGAIN AROUND!!
Owen B.
..such a valuable tool.
Jon M.
[The Lists] have been an invaluable resource for me
as a Zenith homebuilder.
David G.
The opportunity to meet (on line at least) many other
interesting builders and to make some new friends is
truly appreciated.
Albert G.
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Powerplant Choices |
Art,
I use the 2200 in the 701 and it is adequate. I expect the ULpower to do slightly
bettter but its unlikely to overtake a geared setup like the 912S.
Reading these figures thru, you will not see 3300 rpm in the steep climb attitude,
with the ULpower it will likely make 2900 - 3000 rpm so you are getting 85
hp to 90 hp & 150 ft/lb torque into a 64" prop?
The Rotax should manage 95 hp under load with 2.43 reduction makes the 83 ft /lb
into 201 ft / lb driving a 68" or 72" prop. The larger prop being also more
efficient is why Zenair recommend the 912 as a starting point.
I'm changing to a 64" x 30" prop to get a better match for climb rate, as the only
other 2200 (previously HKS then Corvair) 701 in NZ has just done. The standard
prop supplied by Jabiru was 60" x 38". I do not expect it to climb like a
homesick angel with the new prop, and it was my choice to go direct drive air
cooled for many reasons. Perhaps one good feature of the ULpower is compatible
engine mounts, because once you decide on a powerplant the FWF kit becomes locked
in and expensive to change later.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144369#144369
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel selector location? |
Hi Steve,
My memory of my early flying years is not terribly clear -- it was
around 35 years ago. I rented as many different makes and models as
I could find. I also did the high performance and complex
transitions, so that made a fairly large number of different planes.
As I recall the transition between high and low wing planes was not
at all difficult. Along with the fuel tank switching, the low wing
planes provided a gymnastic experience to enter and exit the cockpit
over the wing. I don't recall either of those being an issue for a young man.
The parts that I remember as being a problem had to do with the
complexities of the individual engines. I remember the Arrow had a
couple of "Orange" zones on the RPM where you couldn't leave the
engine running for any length of time. If you did the vibration was
likely to shake the engine right off the plane. Also, the fuel
injected engines were very finicky to start. They didn't have the
automatic start sequencers that cars with fuel injection always
include, so the pilot had to do a dance of different boost pump,
throttle, and starter functions to get them to start. Once they were
started the engines ran really nicely and didn't need any carb. heat
since they didn't have carburetors.
I also remember that each family of planes flew very differently from
any other design. I found I liked the crisp handling of Cessnas -
both the light and heavier models. Of course the heavier ones fly
completely differently from the light ones. I guess if I didn't have
medical certificate issues now I would probably buy a C-182RG. They
are really sweet planes if you don't mind heavy controls. They will
carry anything you can stuff into them at an honest 160 KTAS. They
also have no problem operating at difficult airports where many
planes must dodge golfers on takeoff. And yes, you can use the
"Both" fuel setting and have doors at ground level on both sides for
entry and exit. The only down side in today's environment is the 15
gallons per hour fuel burn.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 05:43 AM 11/6/2007, you wrote:
>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
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pegastol Wings |
Like I said that email address bounces back. Maybe I don't understand. I replaced
the (at) with an @ symbol, that should work shouldn't it?
T"he message could not be sent because one of the recipients was rejected by the
server. The rejected e-mail address was......"
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144376#144376
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL Cable rigging and fairlead |
Hi All
on page 6-B-22 of the plans, it shows within the top center diagram of the rear
frame channel 6B5-2, a support L angle between 6B5-3 and 6B5-2. The diagram
shows the placement of the L angle on the bottom part(6B5-2) but when you go to
the 6B5 page and look at the top upper channel (6b5-3) it does not show you
how far up this L angle goes?
What have I missed. Is it shown anywhere else in the plans? how far over from the
centerline should it be?
Is there a photo of this L angle anywhere within the guides or can someone send
me a photo?
Thanks
Chris
Sydney
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144377#144377
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pegastol Wings |
Thanks, it works this morning.
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144378#144378
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 Dual Controls. ref Michael Rand. |
Geoff my email that I have sent you keeps coming back so here is mine if you could
send the info there.
mark(at)masterpiece-inc.com
Thanks
--------
CH701 Builder and new flyer
Rudder, HS, and Elevator completed
50% complete on Wings
99% Complete on Fuselage
Working on Engine and Instrument panel
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144383#144383
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL Cable rigging and fairlead |
Chris,
It is just a support between the two channels. Make it just long enough to put
two rivets on either side using standard rivet spacing. If I had to guess, I
probably made mine extend around 40mm on each allowing for 10mm edge distances
and 20 mm between rivets. Just a guess.
Good luck,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, tail and wings completed,
fueslage almost done. Working engine and electrical systems.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144386#144386
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: What Listers Are Saying... |
Matt,
I sent you an e-mail requesting removal from all lists that I am on,
RVNet, KRNet and Zenith Net. I am still getting messages from all three.
Bob Stone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:18 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: What Listers Are Saying...
>
> November is Matronics List Fund Raiser month and a number people been
> sending some really nice comments regarding the Lists. I thought I'd
> share a few below.
>
> The Lists are completely supported by your Contributions. All of the
> bills for new hardware, connectivity, and electricity are paid by the
> generous support of the List members.
>
> Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation of
> the List and Forums:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> Thank you!
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics Email List Administrator
>
>
> ================= What Listers Are Saying ================
>
> Flying and building is much safer with this List!!
> Robert D.
>
> Thanks for having and maintaining such a great resource to
> all of us builders and flyers.
> Wayne E.
>
> Love the fact that you haven't caved to advertising!
> Peter J.
>
> ..a great resource!!
> Robert C.
>
> Not building at the moment, but the Lists keeps me right
> up to date with what's going on.
> Chris D.
>
> The web forum has been running great.
> James O.
>
> I enjoy this [List] site very much...
> Paul C.
>
> This is a great list!
> Albert G.
>
> ..a valuable resource!
> Roger C.
>
> I am deployed to Pakistan right now, and being able
> to go on-line and keep up with the aircraft discussions
> helps keep the aircraft building dream alive in my mind!
>
> Gregory C.
>
> ..fantastic service!
> Roger M.
>
> ..clearly a work of passion!
> Mike C.
>
> It is a great service to us!
> Kevin C.
>
> The list is a wonderful resource...
> Ralph O.
>
> [The Lists] have been the single greatest resource in
> building my RV-9A and now my RV-10.
> Albert G.
>
> ..a valuable and always improving service.
> Dick S.
>
> STILL THE BEST BARGAIN AROUND!!
> Owen B.
>
> ..such a valuable tool.
> Jon M.
>
> [The Lists] have been an invaluable resource for me
> as a Zenith homebuilder.
> David G.
>
> The opportunity to meet (on line at least) many other
> interesting builders and to make some new friends is
> truly appreciated.
> Albert G.
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel selector |
I have flown many hours in a cessna 172 and I always wondered why the
left tank would go down faster. At a
meeting at oshcosh the question came up. The cessna
rep. said he was glad that was asked because he had the answer. It so
happens that the fuel vent is located on the left side and that puts a
little more preasure in the left tank,forcing the fuel to flow faster.
There are a lot of things
that affect fuel flow but there is one thing for sure, the tank under
presure will flow faster.
paul 601hd 210 hrs
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: mounting engine with body on stands. |
Glenn, you will need to follow the link down at the bottom of one of the e-mails
your receive, sign in and make the desired changes.
You also have the option of reading it via the Web forum available here. http://forums.matronics.com
glenn.d.morris(at)lmco.co wrote:
> I need to get this list reset. I only want to get the digest.
>
> Thanks,
> Glenn Morris
--------
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=144396#144396
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Powerplant Choices |
Art,
The largest prop for the hp, adjusted for a best pitch is probably the
best compromise.
The final choice on prop length and pitch setting is best answered by
Warp Drive as they
would have the most direct experience with the combinations for the 701.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
Art Olechowski wrote:
>
> Larry,
> When comparing the 912S to the UL260i the UL should have adequate torque to pull
the 701 through
> those high angles of attack. I used these two sources for my quick analysis:
> http://www.ulpower.com/downloads/UL260%20brochure%20EN.pdf
> http://www.zenithair.com/pdf-doc/912uls-100hp.pdf
>
> All atmospheric conditions set aside the UL260i produces ~150lb/ft of torque
@3300rpm and 95hp
> and 912S produces ~83lb/ft or torque@5500 and 95hp.
>
> However I believe the key for this installation to work would be prop pitch and
swing combination
> to obtain a compromise of thrust to accommodate all phases of flight. Would
you agree? or am I
> way off?
>
> do not archive
> Art
> --- LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
>
>
>> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>>
>> The 2200 has enough horsepower for fast light
>> aircraft, but may lack the
>> torque to deliver great climb power for a 701. A
>> re-drive is often one
>> way to match the best peak horsepower rpm with a
>> larger prop to deliver
>> better climb performance.
>>
>>
>> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>> do not archive
>>
>> secatur wrote:
>>
>>>
>> <appraise1@bigpond.com>
>>
>>> Here we go again..I am Jabiru fan, but will the
>>>
>> 2200 pushing a direct drive prop preserve the STOL
>> characteristics of the 701 ? If so why we anyone opt
>> for the much more complicated arrangement of a
>> redrive (geared or belt) to allow a 72 " prop to be
>> used for optimum stol performance ??????
>>
>>>
>>>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I finally found the problem with my Hog engine. It is supposed to be a
108 hp at 4500 rpm. I have never been able to get over 300 lbs of
thrust with a prop set up for a 100+ hp engine. Static rpm should be
around 38 to 4200 rpm, the most I could get was 3000 with a prop set up
for the 100+. That is after four different props. The only time I
reached 42 and about 400 lbs was using the warp drive with the pitch set
around 7 degrees. A 100+ hp should handle 11 degrees plus.
It now appears that the people who put the big bore kit on the engine,
made a mistake and didn't do it and I have a 80 hp engine. On a Harley
the only way to tell for sure is to pop a head and measure the cylinder.
Since it's taken me two years to find this out, it is very doubtful they
will admit the mistake or do anything about it. And, you know how
lawsuits go, takes forever and cost a lot of money. Then you probably
won't win. I therefore have decided to sell the 80 hp with everything
except the cowling and prop (prop is for 100 anyway). That includes the
engine, re-drive, 701 engine mount, pipes, ignition, carb, charging
system (which is 45 amp)and oil tank. The price will be right. The
engine runs really well.
Yes, I know a 701 will fly with 80 hp, but that's not what I want. Just
call or e-mail me, that info is on my site.
Larry, www.SkyHawg.com, N1345L
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Zenith-List Digest: Elevator cable rubbing |
I had the identical issue and installed a piece of fairlead material at the contact
point. Fortunately this is an area that is easily inspected for wear of the
fairlead or cable. Hopefully updated drawings have corrected this issue.
Craig S.
N601XS, 601xl lyc 0-235, wiring in progress
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?
Thanks -
David Glass
-----------------------------------------
**************************************************
This e-mail and any of its attachments may contain Exelon
Corporation proprietary information, which is privileged,
confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to the Exelon
Corporation family of Companies.
This e-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or
entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended
recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation
to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail
in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently
delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout.
Thank You.
**************************************************
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | O-200 and O-235 information |
I would like to hear from people flying their 601XL with a O-200 or O-235.
I am really interested in your empty weight, speeds, climb FPM and fuel burn.
I would like your opinion of the XL with your engine and if you would do it
again. There are some figures on the Zenith site, but they are really
generic. I would like to hear some real numbers. Anyone out there changing from
one of these engines for another engine? Why?
Thank you for the information,
Larry Husky
601XL / ?
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Larry, Is the big bore kit still an option? Did you get the
vibration problem resolved? Jerry
On Nov 7, 2007, at 10:01 AM, LRM wrote:
> I finally found the problem with my Hog engine. It is supposed to
> be a 108 hp at 4500 rpm. I have never been able to get over 300 lbs
> of thrust with a prop set up for a 100+ hp engine. Static rpm
> should be around 38 to 4200 rpm, the most I could get was 3000 with
> a prop set up for the 100+. That is after four different props. The
> only time I reached 42 and about 400 lbs was using the warp drive
> with the pitch set around 7 degrees. A 100+ hp should handle 11
> degrees plus.
>
> It now appears that the people who put the big bore kit on the
> engine, made a mistake and didn't do it and I have a 80 hp engine.
> On a Harley the only way to tell for sure is to pop a head and
> measure the cylinder.
>
> Since it's taken me two years to find this out, it is very doubtful
> they will admit the mistake or do anything about it. And, you know
> how lawsuits go, takes forever and cost a lot of money. Then you
> probably won't win. I therefore have decided to sell the 80 hp with
> everything except the cowling and prop (prop is for 100 anyway).
> That includes the engine, re-drive, 701 engine mount, pipes,
> ignition, carb, charging system (which is 45 amp)and oil tank. The
> price will be right. The engine runs really well.
>
> Yes, I know a 701 will fly with 80 hp, but that's not what I want.
> Just call or e-mail me, that info is on my site.
> Larry, www.SkyHawg.com, N1345L
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Yes it is. I just want to go another direction. Culver prop fixed the
vibration. Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry Hey
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Hog Engine
Larry, Is the big bore kit still an option? Did you get the
vibration problem resolved? Jerry
On Nov 7, 2007, at 10:01 AM, LRM wrote:
I finally found the problem with my Hog engine. It is supposed to
be a 108 hp at 4500 rpm. I have never been able to get over 300 lbs of
thrust with a prop set up for a 100+ hp engine. Static rpm should be
around 38 to 4200 rpm, the most I could get was 3000 with a prop set up
for the 100+. That is after four different props. The only time I
reached 42 and about 400 lbs was using the warp drive with the pitch set
around 7 degrees. A 100+ hp should handle 11 degrees plus.
It now appears that the people who put the big bore kit on the
engine, made a mistake and didn't do it and I have a 80 hp engine. On a
Harley the only way to tell for sure is to pop a head and measure the
cylinder.
Since it's taken me two years to find this out, it is very doubtful
they will admit the mistake or do anything about it. And, you know how
lawsuits go, takes forever and cost a lot of money. Then you probably
won't win. I therefore have decided to sell the 80 hp with everything
except the cowling and prop (prop is for 100 anyway). That includes the
engine, re-drive, 701 engine mount, pipes, ignition, carb, charging
system (which is 45 amp)and oil tank. The price will be right. The
engine runs really well.
Yes, I know a 701 will fly with 80 hp, but that's not what I want.
Just call or e-mail me, that info is on my site.
Larry, www.SkyHawg.com, N1345L
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matron
ics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
11/6/2007 10:04 AM
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel Tank Selector |
List,
I am trying to decide on an appropriate fuel tank selector. I am using
fuel injection so I need a return line to the same tank I am pulling
fuel from. My choices from A/S seem to be the Andair Duplex valve
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/fs22d2.php<http://www.aircr
aftspruce.com/catalog/appages/fs22d2.php> or two ball valves, one for
feed and one for return. The tank selection sequence could get very
confusing with two separate valves since I need to switch fuel pumps at
each tank when I change the valves. I have Facet low pressure pumps at
each tank before the selector valve, which then feeds a small header
tank which gravity feeds the high pressure pumps. Confused? Me too.
For example with the Andair Duplex, when I switch tanks I would move the
selector to say the right tank, flip the switch to turn on the right
fuel pump, turn off the left fuel pump. Or use a DPDT switch to select
which pump. Not too bad.
With two ball valves I would have to switch the fuel supply valve to the
right tank, switch the return line valve to the right tank, turn on the
right tank fuel pump, turn off the left fuel fuel pump. This could be
too much pilot load during an emergency situation.
Now to the alternate (experimental) system. Has anyone used the Pollak
auxiliary tank selector valve used in trucks?
http://pollak.thomasnet.com/viewitems/fuel-tank-selector-valves/light-tru
ck-6-port-motor-driven-valve?&forward=1<http://pollak.thomasnet.com/vie
witems/fuel-tank-selector-valves/light-truck-6-port-motor-driven-valve?&f
orward=1> One advantage I see is the possible remote location of the
valve. The other is that when you change tanks with the toggle switch,
the fuel pumps to the appropriate tank will turn on or off. One simple
toggle switch (right or left) selects the tank, sets the return line,
starts the proper fuel pump and turns off the other pump.
Any reasonable suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Herb Heaton
EA-81 turbo
Zodiac 601XL
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Powerplant Choices |
Thanks for your in sight Larry. Are you still planning on installing the VW on
your 701?
Art
--- LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
>
> Art,
> The largest prop for the hp, adjusted for a best pitch is probably the
> best compromise.
> The final choice on prop length and pitch setting is best answered by
> Warp Drive as they
> would have the most direct experience with the combinations for the 701.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> do not archive
>
>
>
> Art Olechowski wrote:
> >
> > Larry,
> > When comparing the 912S to the UL260i the UL should have adequate torque to
pull the 701
> through
> > those high angles of attack. I used these two sources for my quick analysis:
> > http://www.ulpower.com/downloads/UL260%20brochure%20EN.pdf
> > http://www.zenithair.com/pdf-doc/912uls-100hp.pdf
> >
> > All atmospheric conditions set aside the UL260i produces ~150lb/ft of torque
@3300rpm and 95hp
>
> > and 912S produces ~83lb/ft or torque@5500 and 95hp.
> >
> > However I believe the key for this installation to work would be prop pitch
and swing
> combination
> > to obtain a compromise of thrust to accommodate all phases of flight. Would
you agree? or am
> I
> > way off?
> >
> > do not archive
> > Art
> > --- LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> <larry@macsmachine.com>
> >>
> >> The 2200 has enough horsepower for fast light
> >> aircraft, but may lack the
> >> torque to deliver great climb power for a 701. A
> >> re-drive is often one
> >> way to match the best peak horsepower rpm with a
> >> larger prop to deliver
> >> better climb performance.
> >>
> >>
> >> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> >> do not archive
> >>
> >> secatur wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >> <appraise1@bigpond.com>
> >>
> >>> Here we go again..I am Jabiru fan, but will the
> >>>
> >> 2200 pushing a direct drive prop preserve the STOL
> >> characteristics of the 701 ? If so why we anyone opt
> >> for the much more complicated arrangement of a
> >> redrive (geared or belt) to allow a 72 " prop to be
> >> used for optimum stol performance ??????
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Tank Selector |
By far the easiest option would be to send all the fuel back to just one tank.
I think there would actually be less chance of over filling a tank that way.
--------
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=144447#144447
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Powerplant Choices |
Ralph,
Thanks for your response I'm just trying to get educated maybe its time to for
me to do some more
reading...but is it not true that RPM is controlled by throttle input and prop
pitch and limited
by HP? I guess I don't understand why the pitch of the prop could not be adjusted
(reduced pitch
angle) such that 3300rpm can be obtained during climb with the result of decreased
climb
performance? Now this definitely defeats the capability of STOL flight profile
but still possible,
right?
do not archive
Art
--- jetboy <sanson.r@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Art,
>
> I use the 2200 in the 701 and it is adequate. I expect the ULpower to do slightly
bettter but
> its unlikely to overtake a geared setup like the 912S.
>
> Reading these figures thru, you will not see 3300 rpm in the steep climb attitude,
with the
> ULpower it will likely make 2900 - 3000 rpm so you are getting 85 hp to 90 hp
& 150 ft/lb
> torque into a 64" prop?
>
> The Rotax should manage 95 hp under load with 2.43 reduction makes the 83 ft
/lb into 201 ft /
> lb driving a 68" or 72" prop. The larger prop being also more efficient is why
Zenair recommend
> the 912 as a starting point.
>
> I'm changing to a 64" x 30" prop to get a better match for climb rate, as the
only other 2200
> (previously HKS then Corvair) 701 in NZ has just done. The standard prop supplied
by Jabiru was
> 60" x 38". I do not expect it to climb like a homesick angel with the new prop,
and it was my
> choice to go direct drive air cooled for many reasons. Perhaps one good feature
of the ULpower
> is compatible engine mounts, because once you decide on a powerplant the FWF
kit becomes locked
> in and expensive to change later.
>
> Ralph
>
> --------
> Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144369#144369
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corvair College 11 |
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:Fuel Tank Selector |
Gig is right. I owned a Beechcraft that had the only return line emptying
into the left tank. Flight Manual said in several places to "operate the first
45
minutes on the left tank." Nobody ever had a problem with this procedure.
System was trouble free and simple. I believe that it returned about four Gal/hr.
Bob XL/Lyc
**************************************
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | matco wheels and brakes |
for sale
Brand new Macto wheels and brakes from Zenith 801 gear kit.
Matco wheel part number w 600 xlt with brakes part number ph-6xt slc,ut
these parts are brand new never installed on anything,they do not have the 1.5
" axles,I used those on the 801 kit,they come with plastic hub caps
They are about 13 pound a piece
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Powerplant Choices |
Art,
I'm not sure how to answer that one - my understanding is that if you set the pitch
so low that the engine is producing full rated hp 3300 rpm in climb, then
you indeed get the best rate of climb. The problem comes when you try to cruise,
you cannot go any faster. the 701 is slow enough as it is, without limiting
it to 50 mph. With a CSU, you get best possible climb because full fine pitch
allows the engine to rev to full ratings - If I recall correctly sometimes
we had to limit the throttle on TO run to keep the mp in limits (Cessna 207)
depending on the day.
So in real life the prop is set to allow rated max. rpm when full throttle is applied
in level flight. For all my previous aircraft this was the situation. I
had geared 503s and warp drive props, and a metal sensenich on an 0-200 and I
had that one repitched and got 2750 in level and better climb rate. A 2 blade
68" warp drive was better than a 3 bladed 62".
This is all very easy if using adjustable props the trouble is only the hollow
carbon fibre sensenich is suitable for the Jabiru and most direct drives, so
the option I've taken is to buy one more wood prop with different numbers, now
that I've had plenty of experience with the 60", and see how that runs. If its
any help, my landing run is much longer than any takeoff, so the less efficient
prop is more a nuisance than a problem.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=144545#144545
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|