Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:16 AM - Re: Main Spar Bolts and Holes (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
2. 06:45 AM - Re: Re: 601 steering slot cure / canopy progress (David Downey)
3. 06:52 AM - Re: Re: Drills and Drill press recommendations (David Downey)
4. 07:25 AM - Re: Main Spar Bolts and Holes (Dave Austin)
5. 07:47 AM - Re: Main Spar Bolts and Holes (steve)
6. 08:11 AM - Re: Re: Drill bits - recommendations (David Downey)
7. 08:36 AM - carbon monoxide (BobbyPaulk@comcast.net)
8. 09:36 AM - Re: Avex Rivets (PatrickW)
9. 09:58 AM - Re: 601XL - Riveting HT Attachment Brackets (Edward Moody II)
10. 11:15 AM - Re: Canopy Gas Struts (Springs) (Iberplanes IGL)
11. 11:23 AM - Re: Re:First time builder, need some advice:) (David Downey)
12. 11:25 AM - Re: carbon monoxide (LarryMcFarland)
13. 11:53 AM - Re: Main Spar Bolts and Holes (Larry Winger)
14. 11:54 AM - Re: Re: Drills and Drill press recommendations (George Swinford)
15. 12:11 PM - Re: Main Spar Bolts and Holes (David Downey)
16. 12:20 PM - Re: Canopy Gas Struts (Springs) (Southern Reflections)
17. 12:25 PM - Re: 601XL - Riveting HT Attachment Brackets (David Downey)
18. 01:04 PM - Re: Canopy Gas Struts (Springs) (robert stone)
19. 01:38 PM - Re: Canopy Gas Struts (Springs) (LarryMcFarland)
20. 02:42 PM - Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. (AB_Summit)
21. 02:42 PM - Re: Main Spar Bolts and Holes (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
22. 03:12 PM - Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. (John Short)
23. 03:18 PM - Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. (George Swinford)
24. 03:42 PM - Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. (Joshua)
25. 03:53 PM - Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. (AB_Summit)
26. 05:06 PM - Re: 601 steering slot cure / canopy progress (Gig Giacona)
27. 05:10 PM - Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. (LarryMcFarland)
28. 07:45 PM - Re: 601 steering slot cure / canopy progress (sonar1@cox.net)
29. 09:08 PM - Re: carbon monoxide (Tim Juhl)
30. 09:08 PM - Re: 601 steering slot cure / canopy progress (Tim Juhl)
31. 09:15 PM - Re: Re: 601 steering slot cure / canopy progress (NYTerminat@aol.com)
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: Main Spar Bolts and Holes |
Since the center section and main spars are supposed to be match drilled is
the slop the same in the wing spars also? I have helped build 3 601's and all
of the spar bolts were tight but not so tight that if they were aligned
perfectly that you couldn't slide them in with your hand. If you line them up
correctly you shouldn't have to knock them in. It is also a good idea to
sacrifice a couple of bolts and grind them to a point and remove all threads then
polish them so you can more easily locate the holes.
But the bigger question is where is Zeniths quality control?????
In a message dated 12/14/2007 7:16:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
notsew_evets@frontiernet.net writes:
OK builders here is one for you....
I m about to install my wings on the 601 XL QBK.
The other night I wanted to see how tight the main spar bolts would fit into
the wing spar ( factory drilled ) holes.
Man O man, there is a lot of "slop" in the holes.
I emailed Zenith and told them that I was concerned about this critical part.
The first answer I got from Zenith was, " Some slop is needed to get the
bolts in the holes "....
I disagreed..
Zenith asked me to measure the holes. I did. Used a caliper on the bolts
and then the holes. I got a reading of .011..
Eleven thousandths.....difference.
I m not a machinist but I aint totally stupit either.
Then Zenith emailed and said that I need to increase the spar hole size to
an AN-6. Thats 3/8 inch.....
Since I m not into dying just yet I asked Zenith engineers to confirm the
the AN 6 size is safe. I am worried about the metal removal on the spar.
They did....Said that in no way will going to an AN 6 decrease the wing
strength.....
Sooooo, what I want to know from you builders is this: Tell us about your
experience with the spar and bolts. Were yours tight ??? Sloppy ??
Steve W
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List)
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
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: 601 steering slot cure / canopy progress |
please remember that this is the FIREWALL we are talking about here. Its purpose
is to prevent flame from the passenger cabin. The steering rods traverse in
and out of the hot/cold plane and if the rod is hot enough to ignite the plastic,
it will burn on the inside as well.
The fumes generated are as big a concern as the flames...
If that is the case then there ought to be LOTS of plastics we can use and just
triple the test temp for good measure.
I assume that is 100 F right?
davgray(at)sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Gig
>
> My 601XL w/ WW cowl and WW corvair engine routinely tests about 100 degrees
> above ambient behind the engine.
>
>
> Gary Ray
> davgray@sbcglobal.net
>
> ---
--------
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=151567#151567
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
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: Drills and Drill press recommendations |
put a short piece of model airplane fuel hose on the shank of the bits and the
chuck marks go away to a massive degree. The hose is available in many sizes so
fit to the particular drill bit is not a problem.
I am a biiiiig fan of high RPM drills with fine teasing triggers. The control they
allow is second to none and the drilled holes show it. The minimal burrs,
as noted, are a benefit as well as they are much easier to remove without taking
structure along...
Just general personal experience below:
A slower drill bit rpm has more chance of breaking though the material without
having completely cut the diameter away. This will pull the material up the drill
bit and can cause stitches... yes I'm sure about this one. :^( The other
thing a higher speed does is to allow you to put less pressure on the drill,
the bit "bites" a smaller amount each revolution lessening the above situation,
results in a smaller burr and still allows a short drill time. This also allows
you to control the break through and subsequent "bumping" of the material
with the chuck better. But you really should have a rubber bumper on the chuck
for this reason anyway.
Air drill if you can, on thin material. On bigger holes/thicker material or harder
material slower is better. Always make sure that you are in control of the
material, see stitches above.
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=151283#151283
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
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: Main Spar Bolts and Holes |
One additional suggestion.. whether they are tight or not, have someone
preload the wing upward, just by lifting the tip by a few pounds, before
and as you tighten the bolts.
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912, Spitfire Mk VIII
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: Main Spar Bolts and Holes |
This "slop" that I found is in the wing spars AND the carry through spar
in the fuselage. All holes are "sloppy"...
I ve been building and maintaining aircraft for 43 years now and this is
the first I ve seen this. Thats why I questioned Zenith in the first
place. Sounds like its an easy fix using a 3/8 reamer but I agree
"where is Zeniths quality control". I removed these quick built wings
from the factory crate and know that the problem happened at Zenith.
The difference from AN 5 to AN 6 dosent seem like a big deal but I think
it is. Hold up a 5/16 bolt next to a 3/8 and tell me it isnt.
Again, I really thank you guys for the feed back.
No one has said a bad thing against using the AN 6 bolt.
It will be a pain the purchase a reamer and go in the fuselage to
correct the problem.
Steve W
----- Original Message -----
From: Afterfxllc@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Main Spar Bolts and Holes
Since the center section and main spars are supposed to be match
drilled is the slop the same in the wing spars also? I have helped build
3 601's and all of the spar bolts were tight but not so tight that if
they were aligned perfectly that you couldn't slide them in with your
hand. If you line them up correctly you shouldn't have to knock them in.
It is also a good idea to sacrifice a couple of bolts and grind them to
a point and remove all threads then polish them so you can more easily
locate the holes.
But the bigger question is where is Zeniths quality control?????
In a message dated 12/14/2007 7:16:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
notsew_evets@frontiernet.net writes:
OK builders here is one for you....
I m about to install my wings on the 601 XL QBK.
The other night I wanted to see how tight the main spar bolts would
fit into the wing spar ( factory drilled ) holes.
Man O man, there is a lot of "slop" in the holes.
I emailed Zenith and told them that I was concerned about this
critical part.
The first answer I got from Zenith was, " Some slop is needed to get
the bolts in the holes "....
I disagreed..
Zenith asked me to measure the holes. I did. Used a caliper on the
bolts and then the holes. I got a reading of .011..
Eleven thousandths.....difference.
I m not a machinist but I aint totally stupit either.
Then Zenith emailed and said that I need to increase the spar hole
size to an AN-6. Thats 3/8 inch.....
Since I m not into dying just yet I asked Zenith engineers to
confirm the the AN 6 size is safe. I am worried about the metal removal
on the spar.
They did....Said that in no way will going to an AN 6 decrease the
wing strength.....
Sooooo, what I want to know from you builders is this: Tell us
about your experience with the spar and bolts. Were yours tight ???
Sloppy ??
Steve W
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
f="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.
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: Drill bits - recommendations |
don't forget that the final hole size is reamed to a numbered bit diameter: 3/32"
to #40, 1/8 to #30, 5/32 to #20, etc. The final hole size is one of the factors
that directly affects the designed structural capacity of the subsequently
installed rivet and the joint being assembled.
All drill bits are not the same. Many require much higher feed pressures
even though they cost 3X.
I found a huge difference between the standard High speed black steel bits
that are the most common and inexpensive vs the high end triple price bits
that are more optimized for harder metals. Also supply houses do not seem
to know there is a difference so they will sell a bit that requires such a
high feed pressure that they will dent the thin base metal before starting
the cut.
I had the best luck with sharp standard high speed black steel bit from Home
Depo. Always start with a small bit 3/32 and work your way up. A higher
RPM produces less burring of the hole. A good hole is made with the right
bit and feed pressure.
At $1.68 each replace them when dull. I used about 24 1/8 inch bits for the
entire aircraft and 12 - 5/16 inch and 24 - 3/32 inch. Plus a 1/8 x 18 inch
bit and one 5/16 x 18 inch bit and a set of very short bits that came with a
flex drive for those tight fit or retrofit areas that need to be drilled out
and redone.
The air tools are nice because the RPM is higher but I have to admit that I
used the cordless drill a lot.
Other items include:
A bandsaw with a wide throat, a Delta 8 inch disc sander w/ a 1 inch x 42
inch belt sander, a deep throated drill press, a good fly cutter, rapid
deburring tools, and several sizes of fine toothed files, a good vise, three
good levels (2 foot, 4 foot, and laser), 4,8,& 12 foot straight edge of
aluminum strips w/ marks for 20mm 30mm 40mm, 50mm rivet spacing, metric tape
measure, english tape measure, good Weiss metal shears, Olfa knife, lots of
clamps and clecos, and and a perfectly flat and square 14 foot x 4 foot
table. I had the pneumatic rivet puller and preferred the hand pullers even
on bigger jobs. It takes about one hour to actually do the final riveting
of one entire wing surface by hand. You don't need to set all of the rivets
at one time. Setting the final rivets are one of the more enjoyable parts
of building. After hours/days/weeks of prep work you might want to savor
this part.
Gary Ray
601XL 59 hrTT
davgray@sbcglobal.net
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
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 |
|
to all
i have a 601 XL with the Jabiru 3300. during the summer i accumulated about 50
hrs and had no problem with carbon monoxide. when it got colder and i closed the
NACA air vents my CO monitor turned black in less than 2 tenths of an hour.
i got a headache and nauseated very quickly. when i noticed the monitor i opened
the vents and landed immediately. when the vents are open the cabin area is
pressurized and apparently keeps the CO out. When they are closed you can watch
the monitor start turning darker in a very short time. has anyone noticed
this and how can it be fixed. i have exhaust stains on the lower firewall and
all along the belly. my steering rods to the nose wheel are sealed somewhat but
i am planning to make them air tight. this is a very dangerous situation and
i need to find a solution fast
please help,
Bobby Paulk
N131BP
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 |
|
ashontz wrote:
> Could just be the rivet puller too.
I'm now using a better rivet puller, but still get some A5's that leave a sharp
tip poking up. I also have another box of fresh A5's from Zenith that I'll be
using next, so it'll be interesting to see how those are.
Not a big problem - I'll just file down the worse ones and move on.
Patrick
XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152346#152346
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: 601XL - Riveting HT Attachment Brackets |
Here's my two cents worth. Simply make sure that you are through
deburing, corrosion-proofing the mating surfaces (if you are doing so)
and that you are likewise finished with any and all prep work involving
the upper rear longerons. Once you are satisfied with all the involved
structures you can rivet to your heart's content. That being said, while
I find rivetting to be a very gratifying experience (ie:"There.... it's
done!"), it is also a fairly quick, no-sweat process that can be done at
any time you please.
My point is, unless you are short of clecos and are on a budget that
prohibits buying some more (which can be resold later) why rush? Another
caveat is that whenever you do decide that it is definitely time to
rivet anything (this is particularly true anywhere that the longerons
are involved) make sure that you have all the available parts assembled
and jigged up in their proper relative positions because you know full
well (or you should) that all your carefully drilled holes with clecos
in them can allow and tolerate a lot of slop or shifting that you
definitely don't want in the final rivetted product.
As for fitting the H-stab....... there are a lot of different approaches
out there for you to choose from but for me, it seemed that the only
solution was to make a removable piece of aluminum skin to bridge from
the fiberglass rudder fairing to the shortened aft edge of the rear top
skin. Unless I shortened the aft edge of the rear top skin, I could not
get the H-stab in place because the angle of the brackets require my
H-stab to drop in place almost vertically. With the aft edge of the rear
top skin trimmed to allow for that, the fiberglass rudder fairing is not
long enough at its forward edge to bridge the gap. I would strongly urge
the factory to begin making that fiberglass fairing much longer at its
front end to allow the builder to trim it to fit without the need for an
extra piece of aluminum. Other opinions will of course vary.
Hope I didn't rain on the parade here but the truth shall set you free
and all that,
Dred
----- Original Message -----
From: PatrickW
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:29 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601XL - Riveting HT Attachment Brackets
Is there any advantage to NOT riveting the HT Attachment Brackets
(6B1-8 and 6B1-9) at the same time that the rest of the lower rear
fuselage is riveted...?
I'm roughly done with 6-B-4 (lower rear fuselage assembly) and am
wondering if any of you guys who are further along found it best to
rivet the HT Attachment Brackets at this time, or if it's better to be
able to remove them later in the process (like when you are fitting the
horizontal stabilizer).
Thanks,
Patrick
XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152271#152271
--
12/14/2007 11:29 AM
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: Canopy Gas Struts (Springs) |
Hi there!
anybody know if it is possible to order this gas struts direct from
Zenith when ordering the canopy?
Have fun !
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
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:First time builder, need some advice:) |
and full tanks now weigh more as well...
MaxNr@aol.com wrote: Great idea! Avgas could be hard to find on the other side
of the world. I heard that Avgas is now unavailable at Le Borget in Paris. Auto
gas may be hard to find without alcohol. Vapor lock would be an unpleasant experience
crossing a mountain range at altitude. I just retired as a pilot for
an international company that flies all over the world. I've got to say that
you can find aviation turbine fuel in every remote corner of the world. The world
is awash in kerosene. That points to a Diesel powerplant. They all burn Jet
A and oddly, some are even approved for Auto Diesel (#2) fuel. A tip; if you
find some JP 4, don't use it in a Diesel. Its a wide cut fuel that is aromatic
with some characteristics of av gas. Use only in turbines. Some engines that
meet C.H.'s weight/power criteria are: Wilksch in the UK. They have 100, 120
& 160 HP liquid cooled models that are flying on customer planes. Diesel Air LTD
(also UK) has the DAIR 100 flying on a Luscombe.
None delivered yet. The US project by Vulcan is called the Raptor 105 that is
intended to compete head to head with the Rotax 912. Only a prototype so far.
There is also the Centurion by Thielert that is at C.H.'s upper limit for weight
and power. They won't sell you one unless your name is Cessna. Zoche in Germany
has been on the verge of flying their line of radial air cooled Diesels for
over 20 years now. There are others being delivered to customers that are higher
weight and power, like DeltaHawk. If a Diesel is available for your first
flight, it will likely be the Wilksch. Models are flying now in Pietenpol, Europa
and Thorp T-211. If you do make the flight, take spare fuel filters with
you and a funnel. Turbine fuel is dispensed through big honking nozzles. It weighs
6.8 lbs per US gallon Vs 6 for gas. A rule of thumb you can do in your head
is 15 gal equals about 100 lbs. The higher density means your tanks now hold
13% more energy. Long range tanks with no
modifications to the tanks.
Bob 601XL/Lyc Do not archive
**************************************
See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: carbon monoxide |
Bobby,
I put a sealed sandwich construct behind the slots that is held by two
bolts. An O-ring grommet fits the steering rod and effectively seals
the opening.
Not hard to make as an afterthought. Install should be the same. See link,
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/controllinkages/full/steer-rod-air-barrier.gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/controllinkages/full/steer-rod-air-barrier-2.gif
Put a little silicone seal around the edge toward the firewall and allow
the slider with grommet to move up, down and a small amount sideways and
you've got it.
I'd also suggest you extend your exhaust pipe(s) to one side and or
behind the firewall.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
BobbyPaulk@comcast.net wrote:
>
> to all
> i have a 601 XL with the Jabiru 3300. during the summer i accumulated about 50
hrs and had no problem with carbon monoxide. when it got colder and i closed
the NACA air vents my CO monitor turned black in less than 2 tenths of an hour.
i got a headache and nauseated very quickly. when i noticed the monitor i opened
the vents and landed immediately. when the vents are open the cabin area
is pressurized and apparently keeps the CO out. When they are closed you can
watch the monitor start turning darker in a very short time. has anyone noticed
this and how can it be fixed. i have exhaust stains on the lower firewall and
all along the belly. my steering rods to the nose wheel are sealed somewhat
but i am planning to make them air tight. this is a very dangerous situation
and i need to find a solution fast
>
> please help,
>
> Bobby Paulk
> N131BP
>
>
>
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: Main Spar Bolts and Holes |
Steve, this may go without saying but you'll really want to lock the whole
assembly together as rigidly as possible before reaming anything.
I would start by filling all but one hole with the AN 5 bolts. Once they
are all in place, if there is still movement between the center and wing
spar,
I would find a way to carefully clamp them together. Then I would remove
one bolt at a time, ream that hole, and replace with the AN 6 bolt before
proceeding to the next. That way you don't magnify the effect of the slop,
just making it bigger slop.
On the bright side, assuming there is no degredation of structural integrity
by enlarging the holes in the web/doublers, you'll have even stronger bolts
than the rest of us. Think of it as a blessing in disguise!
Larry Winger
601XL/Corvair
Tustin, CA
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Drills and Drill press recommendations |
On a #40 bit, a length of plastic tubing from a household product spray
bottle works well. It can also serve as a depth gage. Chuck up the
bit, then snip a length of tubing a little shorter than the exposed
length of the bit.
George
----- Original Message -----
From: David Downey
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 5:23 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Drills and Drill press recommendations
put a short piece of model airplane fuel hose on the shank of the bits
and the chuck marks go away to a massive degree. The hose is available
in many sizes so fit to the particular drill bit is not a problem.
I am a biiiiig fan of high RPM drills with fine teasing triggers. The
control they allow is second to none and the drilled holes show it. The
minimal burrs, as noted, are a benefit as well as they are much easier
to remove without taking structure along...
kmccune <kmccune@somtel.net> wrote:
Just general personal experience below:
A slower drill bit rpm has more chance of breaking though the
material without having completely cut the diameter away. This will pull
the material up the drill bit and can cause stitches... yes I'm sure
about this one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
12/14/2007 11:29 AM
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Spar Bolts and Holes |
While there may be no issue with going out to 0.375" for the holes, maybe use an
NAS oversize standard bolt and match ream to fit?
The larger 0.375" holes will have better bearing strength due to the larger diameter
- all things considered.
steve <notsew_evets@frontiernet.net> wrote: OK builders here is one for you....
I m about to install my wings on the 601 XL QBK.
The other night I wanted to see how tight the main spar bolts would fit into
the wing spar ( factory drilled ) holes.
Man O man, there is a lot of "slop" in the holes.
I emailed Zenith and told them that I was concerned about this critical part.
The first answer I got from Zenith was, " Some slop is needed to get the bolts
in the holes "....
I disagreed..
Zenith asked me to measure the holes. I did. Used a caliper on the bolts and
then the holes. I got a reading of .011..
Eleven thousandths.....difference.
I m not a machinist but I aint totally stupit either.
Then Zenith emailed and said that I need to increase the spar hole size to an
AN-6. Thats 3/8 inch.....
Since I m not into dying just yet I asked Zenith engineers to confirm the the
AN 6 size is safe. I am worried about the metal removal on the spar.
They did....Said that in no way will going to an AN 6 decrease the wing strength.....
Sooooo, what I want to know from you builders is this: Tell us about your experience
with the spar and bolts. Were yours tight ??? Sloppy ??
Steve W
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Gas Struts (Springs) |
Bob, you are a champ , I broke one today, due to high wind, most likely
caused by the warm air and sun shine down here in florida I was going to
oder two today from the big Z, thanks to you, I can oder the 60# , this
has been an on going problem. this list is worth it's weight in
gold.... Merry Christmas to every body, Hope I don't put in jail
for saying Merry Christmas... Joe N101 HD 601XL/RAM
----- Original Message -----
From: robert stone
To: Zenith list
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:27 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Canopy Gas Struts (Springs)
I found the canopy gas springs or struts were not strong enough
to hold the canopy up even in a light breeze. I inquired as to the
strength of the struts furnished in the kit and found them to be 40
pounds. I replaced them with a pair of 60 pounders and eliminated the
problem of my canopy slamming down unexpected.
I am sure some of you who are building or have built the ZodiacXL
either have the same problem or will have so here is the information on
obtaining the stronger struts. McMasters & Company are the people Zenith
Aircraft gets the struts from. Their phone number is 630-833-0300. The
gas struts furnished by Zenith for the ZodiacXL are part number 9416K12
(40 Pound) the stronger strut is part number 8416K123 (60 Pound) The
cost for two is $19.76, shipping is $5.00 for a total of $24.76. They
come without the attaching ends so you have to use your old ones however
the old struts screw out and the new one screws in. Very easy to
change.
Bob Stone
Harker Heights, Tx.
ZodiacXL w/Jabiru 3300
N4337G
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL - Riveting HT Attachment Brackets |
...and remember that if you are using Clecos in every other hole to allow further
progress without commitment, that they hold position considerably better if
you alternate the orientation of the center blade (90, 0, 90, 0, ...)...
Another way to do it even on ebetter is to never go to the nunmber drill/reamer
during assembly. The Clecos fit much tighter in the fraction holes. Then once
all details have been drilled to nominal fractional size and deburred (can make
a big difference on stacks that traverse contours!), go back and start reaming
to numbered size one hole/Cleco at a time. Disassemble, final deburr (will
be very minor), re-assemble with Clecos and replace the Clecos one at a time
with rivets. Results in very smooth contoured joints with minimal puckering if
there are any slight differences.
Edward Moody II <dredmoody@cox.net> wrote: Here's my two cents worth. Simply
make sure that you are through deburing, corrosion-proofing the mating surfaces
(if you are doing so) and that you are likewise finished with any and
all prep work involving the upper rear longerons. Once you are satisfied with
all the involved structures you can rivet to your heart's content. That being
said, while I find rivetting to be a very gratifying experience (ie:"There....
it's done!"), it is also a fairly quick, no-sweat process that can be done
at any time you please.
My point is, unless you are short of clecos and are on a budget that prohibits
buying some more (which can be resold later) why rush? Another caveat is that
whenever you do decide that it is definitely time to rivet anything (this
is particularly true anywhere that the longerons are involved) make sure that
you have all the available parts assembled and jigged up in their proper relative
positions because you know full well (or you should) that all your carefully
drilled holes with clecos in them can allow and tolerate a lot of slop
or shifting that you definitely don't want in the final rivetted product.
As for fitting the H-stab....... there are a lot of different approaches out
there for you to choose from but for me, it seemed that the only solution was
to make a removable piece of aluminum skin to bridge from the fiberglass rudder
fairing to the shortened aft edge of the rear top skin. Unless I shortened
the aft edge of the rear top skin, I could not get the H-stab in place because
the angle of the brackets require my H-stab to drop in place almost vertically.
With the aft edge of the rear top skin trimmed to allow for that, the fiberglass
rudder fairing is not long enough at its forward edge to bridge the
gap. I would strongly urge the factory to begin making that fiberglass fairing
much longer at its front end to allow the builder to trim it to fit without
the need for an extra piece of aluminum. Other opinions will of course vary.
Hope I didn't rain on the parade here but the truth shall set you free and all
that,
Dred
----- Original Message -----
From: PatrickW
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:29 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601XL - Riveting HT Attachment Brackets
Is there any advantage to NOT riveting the HT Attachment Brackets (6B1-8 and
6B1-9) at the same time that the rest of the lower rear fuselage is riveted...?
I'm roughly done with 6-B-4 (lower rear fuselage assembly) and am wondering
if any of you guys who are further along found it best to rivet the HT Attachment
Brackets at this time, or if it's better to be able to remove them later
in the process (like when you are fitting the horizontal stabilizer).
Thanks,
Patrick
XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152271#152271
http://www.matronics.com/c Thank you for your generous ; -Matt Dralle, List nbsp; Features Chat, --> http://www.matron======================
bsp; via the Web href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
-- Edition. 12/14/2007 11:29 AM
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
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: Canopy Gas Struts (Springs) |
When you order the kit for the Zodiac601XL the 40# gas struts will
be included. You might specifically request 60# struts when you order
the kit however I don't know if Zenith Aircraft even stocks the stronger
ones. I would order direct from the McMaster-Carr Company, Stock number
for the 60# strut is 9416K123, the company web site is:
http://www.mcmaster.com/
If you order the 60# struts from Zenith after you order the kit you will
be charged for shipping from McMaster-Carr to Zenith and then again from
Zenith to you so it's better to order them direct. The cost is $9.88
per strut plus what ever the shipping cost to Barcelona, Spain would be.
I hope this helps you,
Us airplane nuts have to stick together because the rest of the
world thinks we are all mad as hatters. and they may be right
Bob Stone
Harker Heights, Tx
ZodiacXL w/Jabiru 3300
----- Original Message -----
From: Iberplanes IGL
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Canopy Gas Struts (Springs)
Hi there!
9416K123
anybody know if it is possible to order this gas struts direct from
Zenith when ordering the canopy?
Have fun !
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
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: Canopy Gas Struts (Springs) |
Hi guys,
On a related note, I have worked on my plane with the canopy up and had
it bonk down on me several times. So until the gas springs are replaced,
I've been using two pieces of rubber hose split on one side slipped over
the extended cylinder arms to act as restraints. They work fine in a
quiet hangar that's out of the wind.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
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: | Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. |
Hi everyone,
I'm fairly new to the forum and hopefully soon to be a 701 plans builder. I posted
once before about building as a way for a non-pilot to get into aviation and
it generated a lot of discussion which I found helpful.
Here's a cut-and-paste of a topic I started over at homebuiltairplanes.com, I'd
like to hear from you guys on this topic as well so I thought I'd post it over
here as well:
Hi everyone,
I'm quite new to this forum, I posted once before inquiring about plans built 4
place aircraft. However I'm on a fairly tight budget, and after thinking about
it for a while I think that the cost of an engine for a 4 place airplane, and
the operating costs for a 4 place airplane will be too high for my limited budget.
So now I am considering 2 place aircraft.
Let me tell you a bit about myself. I'm not a pilot yet. I was taking flying lessons
a couple of years ago, but then I had a snowmobile accident and had to put
my lessons on hold and I haven't resumed them. I've got about 25 hours in a
C172 and a Citabria though. I've always been interested in planes and aviation
and it's always been my dream to have my pilot's license and my own plane. I'm
a born experimenter, I love fabricating things and doing things differently
than most people, which makes homebuilding a natural fit for me. To give you
an example, I basically built my own snowmobile (I used mostly off the shelf parts
though), installing every rivet and bolt myself, and then added an automotive
turbocharger to the two stroke engine. This involved redesigning the fuel
system, exhaust, intake system, ignition, and installing a pressurized oil system
to lubricate the turbo. If you're interested in seeing pictures of the project
you can click on this link.
http://s112.photobucket.com/albums/n186/AB_Summit/Snowmobile%20project/
As I said, I'm considering building a 2 place airplane from plans. The aircraft
I am leaning towards is the Zenith STOL CH-701. To me the advantages are it's
all metal, meaning storage and maintenance costs will be low, and it appears
to be quite simple to build, and plans are available for it.
The only big downside to the 701 is the high cost of the Rotax 912, so I've been
looking into alternatives to the 912. From looking around on the net, I have
seen quite a few different kinds of engines installed in the 701, here are the
alternatives I have come up with:
a)the Rotax 582
Pros: great power to weight ratio would give good useful load, cheap to buy, already
comes with a redrive, so no engineering/conversion required, motor mount/FWF
is available from Zenith.
Cons: two stroke, so reliability is questionable, high fuel consumption, TBO only
300 hours, would need careful attention to jetting, EGT's, etc to be semi-reliable,
a little low on horsepower.
b)GEO/Suzuki 1.0L or 1.3L
Pros: cheap to buy, good fuel consumption, cheap to rebuild, can have EFI
Cons: heavy, would cut into useful load, needs aftermarket redrive, need to fabricate/engineer
motor mount/FWF/cooling system, etc.
c)Subaru EA81 or similar
Pros and cons similar to Suzuki but I think the Subaru engine is even heavier so
useful load would be minimal.
d)Continental 65 horsepower
Pros: simple, reliable, familiar to aircraft mechanics, no liquid cooling required,
motor mount available from Zenith, good fuel consumption.
Cons: heavy, low useful load, might be short on horsepower.
e)VW conversion w/redrive
Pros: cheap compared to 912
Cons: heavy, low on horsepower
f)Corvair
Pros: cheap compared to 912
Cons: too heavy for 701, useful load would be low, performance would not be great
due to direct drive.
g)HKS 700E
Pros: cheap compared to 912, lightweight would give good useful load.
Cons: short on horsepower at 60HP.
h)my own home-brewed design: what I'm thinking of doing is taking a Yamaha 4 stroke,
4 cylinder snowmobile engine and adapting a Rotax C gearbox to it to get
the RPM's down to where they are usable on an airplane. This engine weighs 118
lbs dry and puts out 140 to 150 HP at 10,500 rpm. I would derate it for aircraft
use and limit the RPM to maybe 7000 or 8000, but I think the horsepower would
still be over 100. With the weight of the redrive and coolant/oil etc, I
think the weight would be slightly more than the 912 but not by much, I would
estimate the installed weight at maybe 150 lbs.
Pros: performance could be equal or better to 912, cost much cheaper than 912,
good fuel consumption, decent useful load, cheaper to rebuild.
Cons: a huge amount of engineering required (attaching the redrive to the engine,
designing an engine mount, cooling system, etc.), unproven design, unknown
reliabilty
That's about all I can think of, other than a few other 2 stroke engines that would
be similar to the 582 - Hirth, Simonini, MZ, etc.
I'll be using this plane for exploring the great outdoors - scoping out snowmobiling
areas, checking out canoe routes, scouting for game, etc. so reliability
and useful load are important. I want it to be reliable enough to fly into a
remote area without worrying about a mechanical failure, and I need enough useful
load to carry a reasonable amount of survival gear.
Am I better off saving up for a while longer and going the proven, factory supported
route of the Rotax 912? Or would one of the above mentioned alternatives
acheive the same goal for less money? I've pretty much ruled out the Subaru and
the Corvair due to useful load considerations, but what are your thoughts on
the other options?
Thanks in advance for your input,
Randy
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152422#152422
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: Main Spar Bolts and Holes |
If there is enough slop that the wings can move up and down with the bolts
in place I would tell zenith to send me a new set of wings and center section
if you drills them and mess them up they are yours. If you hold Zenith to the
fire on this one they will get to the problem and make sure it doesn't
happen again but if you fix it they will figure out of sight out of mind. And
worse if you mess it up you own a set of wings that they will say "Prove they
were wrong in the first place" You should have been shipped the proper parts in
the first place.
In a message dated 12/15/2007 2:54:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
larrywinger@gmail.com writes:
Steve, this may go without saying but you'll really want to lock the whole
assembly together as rigidly as possible before reaming anything.
I would start by filling all but one hole with the AN 5 bolts. Once they
are all in place, if there is still movement between the center and wing spar,
I would find a way to carefully clamp them together. Then I would remove
one bolt at a time, ream that hole, and replace with the AN 6 bolt before
proceeding to the next. That way you don't magnify the effect of the slop,
just making it bigger slop.
On the bright side, assuming there is no degredation of structural integrity
by enlarging the holes in the web/doublers, you'll have even stronger bolts
than the rest of us. Think of it as a blessing in disguise!
Larry Winger
601XL/Corvair
Tustin, CA
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List)
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
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: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. |
I just started scratch building a 701 myself only a week ago and also am
struggling with the engine.
I have received a small bit of info from both Great planes and Aerovee.
I have pasted the actual emails I received from them.
A direct drive VW air or water cooled will not perform in the 701. They
both turn the same prop diameter. One does about 215 lbs of thrust the
other about 260. The 701 needs at least 360 to do the job. We have quite a
numnber of aircooled VW redrives in 701.
Steve Bennett
Great Plains Aircraft
Greetings John,
Thanks for your interest in the AeroVee Engine Kit and AeroConversions
products!
As with all engines, cooling is critical to the AeroVee's long-term
reliability, and we regard the AeroVee's cooling considerations as being no
different from other air-cooled direct-drive engines.
If you are in an aircraft climbing at high throttle settings and low
airspeeds, adequate cooling may be more difficult to achieve and the
installation will most likely need some customization for that mission.
We recommend a fence-type baffle system, such as our Laser-cut Fence
Baffles, to create a large plenum of available cooling air that is not
forced through the engine at excessive velocity such that heat does not
efficiently transfer to the transient cooling air:
http://www.sonexaircraft.com/eshop/cart.php?target=product&product_id=16576&
category_id=268
Note that our Laser-Cut Fence Baffle System is a relatively new product,
which has greatly improved cooling vs. the box baffle system we previously
offered.
If the cowl inlets and exits are appropriately designed on your
installation, this type of baffle system should provide adequate cooling air
at lower airspeeds because, as I mentioned before, lower cooling air
velocities are desirable for the most efficient cooling.
We do not have specific, flight tested AeroVee installation packages for
other aircraft (all of our factory AeroVee installations are on our Sonex
Aircraft airframes). We use the AeroVee/Sonex installation as a baseline
(the AeroVee/Sonex Installation Guide is included with all AeroVee Engine
Kits) and customizations for the unique traits of other airframes are left
up to the builder.
If there are other CH 701 airframes flying (and being adequately cooled)
with direct-drive air-cooled engines such as the AeroVee, other VW
conversions, or engines such as the Jabiru 2200, you will want to look to
those installations for more information about configuring your
installation. We can also offer assistance in looking at pictures or
diagrams of your planned installation for advice and troubleshooting,
however, we can offer no guarantees, as we have never personally performed
an AeroVee installation on your airframe of choice.
As the AeroVee gains popularity, we are counting on the builder support
communities for each airframe design to support one another with successful
installation considerations. As more aircraft of a certain type are built
and flown using the AeroVee, the larger the knowledgebase that will become
available to other builders. We are confident the AeroVee can be
successfully installed and flown with adequate cooling on just about any
airframe. As is the case with any engine installation that is alternative to
the airframe designer's recommendations, however, it may take some
experimentation on your part as the builder to get things just right.
Thanks again for your interest, and please let us know if you have any
additional questions.
Regards,
-Mark
From: John Short <creativesigns@embarqmail.com>
Organization: Creative SignWorks
Subject: Engine
I'm currently building a Zenith 701 and have been looking at your engine
package.
----- Original Message -----
From: "AB_Summit" <rengler@telus.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 4:33 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the
701.
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm fairly new to the forum and hopefully soon to be a 701 plans builder.
> I posted once before about building as a way for a non-pilot to get into
> aviation and it generated a lot of discussion which I found helpful.
>
> Here's a cut-and-paste of a topic I started over at
> homebuiltairplanes.com, I'd like to hear from you guys on this topic as
> well so I thought I'd post it over here as well:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm quite new to this forum, I posted once before inquiring about plans
> built 4 place aircraft. However I'm on a fairly tight budget, and after
> thinking about it for a while I think that the cost of an engine for a 4
> place airplane, and the operating costs for a 4 place airplane will be too
> high for my limited budget. So now I am considering 2 place aircraft.
>
> Let me tell you a bit about myself. I'm not a pilot yet. I was taking
> flying lessons a couple of years ago, but then I had a snowmobile accident
> and had to put my lessons on hold and I haven't resumed them. I've got
> about 25 hours in a C172 and a Citabria though. I've always been
> interested in planes and aviation and it's always been my dream to have my
> pilot's license and my own plane. I'm a born experimenter, I love
> fabricating things and doing things differently than most people, which
> makes homebuilding a natural fit for me. To give you an example, I
> basically built my own snowmobile (I used mostly off the shelf parts
> though), installing every rivet and bolt myself, and then added an
> automotive turbocharger to the two stroke engine. This involved
> redesigning the fuel system, exhaust, intake system, ignition, and
> installing a pressurized oil system to lubricate the turbo. If you're
> interested in seeing pictures of the project you can click on this link.
>
> http://s112.photobucket.com/albums/n186/AB_Summit/Snowmobile%20project/
>
> As I said, I'm considering building a 2 place airplane from plans. The
> aircraft I am leaning towards is the Zenith STOL CH-701. To me the
> advantages are it's all metal, meaning storage and maintenance costs will
> be low, and it appears to be quite simple to build, and plans are
> available for it.
>
> The only big downside to the 701 is the high cost of the Rotax 912, so
> I've been looking into alternatives to the 912. From looking around on the
> net, I have seen quite a few different kinds of engines installed in the
> 701, here are the alternatives I have come up with:
>
> a)the Rotax 582
>
> Pros: great power to weight ratio would give good useful load, cheap to
> buy, already comes with a redrive, so no engineering/conversion required,
> motor mount/FWF is available from Zenith.
> Cons: two stroke, so reliability is questionable, high fuel consumption,
> TBO only 300 hours, would need careful attention to jetting, EGT's, etc to
> be semi-reliable, a little low on horsepower.
>
> b)GEO/Suzuki 1.0L or 1.3L
>
> Pros: cheap to buy, good fuel consumption, cheap to rebuild, can have EFI
> Cons: heavy, would cut into useful load, needs aftermarket redrive, need
> to fabricate/engineer motor mount/FWF/cooling system, etc.
>
> c)Subaru EA81 or similar
>
> Pros and cons similar to Suzuki but I think the Subaru engine is even
> heavier so useful load would be minimal.
>
> d)Continental 65 horsepower
>
> Pros: simple, reliable, familiar to aircraft mechanics, no liquid cooling
> required, motor mount available from Zenith, good fuel consumption.
> Cons: heavy, low useful load, might be short on horsepower.
>
> e)VW conversion w/redrive
>
> Pros: cheap compared to 912
> Cons: heavy, low on horsepower
>
> f)Corvair
> Pros: cheap compared to 912
> Cons: too heavy for 701, useful load would be low, performance would not
> be great due to direct drive.
>
> g)HKS 700E
> Pros: cheap compared to 912, lightweight would give good useful load.
> Cons: short on horsepower at 60HP.
>
> h)my own home-brewed design: what I'm thinking of doing is taking a Yamaha
> 4 stroke, 4 cylinder snowmobile engine and adapting a Rotax C gearbox to
> it to get the RPM's down to where they are usable on an airplane. This
> engine weighs 118 lbs dry and puts out 140 to 150 HP at 10,500 rpm. I
> would derate it for aircraft use and limit the RPM to maybe 7000 or 8000,
> but I think the horsepower would still be over 100. With the weight of the
> redrive and coolant/oil etc, I think the weight would be slightly more
> than the 912 but not by much, I would estimate the installed weight at
> maybe 150 lbs.
>
> Pros: performance could be equal or better to 912, cost much cheaper than
> 912, good fuel consumption, decent useful load, cheaper to rebuild.
> Cons: a huge amount of engineering required (attaching the redrive to the
> engine, designing an engine mount, cooling system, etc.), unproven design,
> unknown reliabilty
>
> That's about all I can think of, other than a few other 2 stroke engines
> that would be similar to the 582 - Hirth, Simonini, MZ, etc.
>
> I'll be using this plane for exploring the great outdoors - scoping out
> snowmobiling areas, checking out canoe routes, scouting for game, etc. so
> reliability and useful load are important. I want it to be reliable enough
> to fly into a remote area without worrying about a mechanical failure, and
> I need enough useful load to carry a reasonable amount of survival gear.
>
> Am I better off saving up for a while longer and going the proven, factory
> supported route of the Rotax 912? Or would one of the above mentioned
> alternatives acheive the same goal for less money? I've pretty much ruled
> out the Subaru and the Corvair due to useful load considerations, but what
> are your thoughts on the other options?
>
> Thanks in advance for your input,
> Randy
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152422#152422
>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. |
When you are dealing with airplanes where STOL performance is important, the
amount of horsepower that gets realized as thrust becomes very important. A
large displacement slow-turning engine will swing a large diameter prop.
Less of the prop disk will be blocked by the fuselage, and a smaller
proportion of the slipstream will be slowed by the wetted area of the
fuselage. If you can live with the idea of hand-propping, the Continental
65 deserves a good look.
George
----- Original Message -----
From: "AB_Summit" <rengler@telus.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 2:33 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the
701.
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm fairly new to the forum and hopefully soon to be a 701 plans builder.
I posted once before about building as a way for a non-pilot to get into
aviation and it generated a lot of discussion which I found helpful.
>
> Here's a cut-and-paste of a topic I started over at
homebuiltairplanes.com, I'd like to hear from you guys on this topic as well
so I thought I'd post it over here as well:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm quite new to this forum, I posted once before inquiring about plans
built 4 place aircraft. However I'm on a fairly tight budget, and after
thinking about it for a while I think that the cost of an engine for a 4
place airplane, and the operating costs for a 4 place airplane will be too
high for my limited budget. So now I am considering 2 place aircraft.
>
> Let me tell you a bit about myself. I'm not a pilot yet. I was taking
flying lessons a couple of years ago, but then I had a snowmobile accident
and had to put my lessons on hold and I haven't resumed them. I've got about
25 hours in a C172 and a Citabria though. I've always been interested in
planes and aviation and it's always been my dream to have my pilot's license
and my own plane. I'm a born experimenter, I love fabricating things and
doing things differently than most people, which makes homebuilding a
natural fit for me. To give you an example, I basically built my own
snowmobile (I used mostly off the shelf parts though), installing every
rivet and bolt myself, and then added an automotive turbocharger to the two
stroke engine. This involved redesigning the fuel system, exhaust, intake
system, ignition, and installing a pressurized oil system to lubricate the
turbo. If you're interested in seeing pictures of the project you can click
on this link.
>
> http://s112.photobucket.com/albums/n186/AB_Summit/Snowmobile%20project/
>
> As I said, I'm considering building a 2 place airplane from plans. The
aircraft I am leaning towards is the Zenith STOL CH-701. To me the
advantages are it's all metal, meaning storage and maintenance costs will be
low, and it appears to be quite simple to build, and plans are available for
it.
>
> The only big downside to the 701 is the high cost of the Rotax 912, so
I've been looking into alternatives to the 912. From looking around on the
net, I have seen quite a few different kinds of engines installed in the
701, here are the alternatives I have come up with:
>
> a)the Rotax 582
>
> Pros: great power to weight ratio would give good useful load, cheap to
buy, already comes with a redrive, so no engineering/conversion required,
motor mount/FWF is available from Zenith.
> Cons: two stroke, so reliability is questionable, high fuel consumption,
TBO only 300 hours, would need careful attention to jetting, EGT's, etc to
be semi-reliable, a little low on horsepower.
>
> b)GEO/Suzuki 1.0L or 1.3L
>
> Pros: cheap to buy, good fuel consumption, cheap to rebuild, can have EFI
> Cons: heavy, would cut into useful load, needs aftermarket redrive, need
to fabricate/engineer motor mount/FWF/cooling system, etc.
>
> c)Subaru EA81 or similar
>
> Pros and cons similar to Suzuki but I think the Subaru engine is even
heavier so useful load would be minimal.
>
> d)Continental 65 horsepower
>
> Pros: simple, reliable, familiar to aircraft mechanics, no liquid cooling
required, motor mount available from Zenith, good fuel consumption.
> Cons: heavy, low useful load, might be short on horsepower.
>
> e)VW conversion w/redrive
>
> Pros: cheap compared to 912
> Cons: heavy, low on horsepower
>
> f)Corvair
> Pros: cheap compared to 912
> Cons: too heavy for 701, useful load would be low, performance would not
be great due to direct drive.
>
> g)HKS 700E
> Pros: cheap compared to 912, lightweight would give good useful load.
> Cons: short on horsepower at 60HP.
>
> h)my own home-brewed design: what I'm thinking of doing is taking a Yamaha
4 stroke, 4 cylinder snowmobile engine and adapting a Rotax C gearbox to it
to get the RPM's down to where they are usable on an airplane. This engine
weighs 118 lbs dry and puts out 140 to 150 HP at 10,500 rpm. I would derate
it for aircraft use and limit the RPM to maybe 7000 or 8000, but I think the
horsepower would still be over 100. With the weight of the redrive and
coolant/oil etc, I think the weight would be slightly more than the 912 but
not by much, I would estimate the installed weight at maybe 150 lbs.
>
> Pros: performance could be equal or better to 912, cost much cheaper than
912, good fuel consumption, decent useful load, cheaper to rebuild.
> Cons: a huge amount of engineering required (attaching the redrive to the
engine, designing an engine mount, cooling system, etc.), unproven design,
unknown reliabilty
>
> That's about all I can think of, other than a few other 2 stroke engines
that would be similar to the 582 - Hirth, Simonini, MZ, etc.
>
> I'll be using this plane for exploring the great outdoors - scoping out
snowmobiling areas, checking out canoe routes, scouting for game, etc. so
reliability and useful load are important. I want it to be reliable enough
to fly into a remote area without worrying about a mechanical failure, and I
need enough useful load to carry a reasonable amount of survival gear.
>
> Am I better off saving up for a while longer and going the proven, factory
supported route of the Rotax 912? Or would one of the above mentioned
alternatives acheive the same goal for less money? I've pretty much ruled
out the Subaru and the Corvair due to useful load considerations, but what
are your thoughts on the other options?
>
> Thanks in advance for your input,
> Randy
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152422#152422
>
>
> --
12/15/2007 12:00 PM
>
>
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: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. |
I'm probably the last guy you should listen too because of my very limited experience.
BUT... I am in EXACTLY the same boat as you. I too wanted to build an
801 but Im not so sure I can afford the expenses of a 4 seat plane. On the other
hand my financial situation could change in my future and I often think I should
go ahead with the 801 for its versatility.
My big question is this- The cost of an 801 kit is SIGNIFICANTLY greater than that
of the 701. But what about scratch building cost of 701 vs. 801?
Just wondering if that is something you've considered.
But to stay on topic- Have you looked at BMW R1200 conversions?
They don't get much chat on this forum but they seem to be fairly popular in the
UK. I dont know nearly so much about airplanes as most of these guys (really
great forum) but I do know motorcyles and the BMW R series is just a fantastic
engine. They have a legendary reputation for reliability and seem to me ideally
suited for aircraft conversion. Heres what i've found out about them so far-
www.microlightsport.co.uk/Catalogue/New/bmwengine.htm
www.xairireland.com/conversion.htm
www.spang-air.de/willkommen/BMW_Engine/bmw_engine.html
If anyone has any experience with this conversion I would love to hear more about
them.
Cheers,
Joshua
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152431#152431
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. |
Joshua wrote:
> My big question is this- The cost of an 801 kit is SIGNIFICANTLY greater than
that of the 701. But what about scratch building cost of 701 vs. 801?
> Just wondering if that is something you've considered.
> But to stay on topic- Have you looked at BMW R1200 conversions?
Thanks for the replies - Joshua I would love to scratch build an 801, unfortunately
Zenith doesn't give us that option. Detailed blueprint style plans that would
be required for scratch building are only available for the 701 not the 801.
That being said, switching to an 801 and buying the kit rather than scratchbuilding
would open up a whole new bunch of possibilities for alternative engines,
stuff like the bigger Subarus - EJ25, etc... I wonder if an 801 with an altenative
engine could be done for almost as cheaply as a 701 with a 912 (both being
built from the kit of course.) I'll have to consider that.
I hadn't thought of the BMW engines either, I may have to look into that possibility
as well.
George you're right I think the C65 may be a good option as well. The VW's I'm
not so sure about.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152434#152434
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 steering slot cure / canopy progress |
I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm looking for a way to improve on the very
leaky design that is in my set of 601XL plans.
planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co wrote:
> please remember that this is the FIREWALL we are talking about here. Its purpose
is to prevent flame from the passenger cabin. The steering rods traverse in
and out of the hot/cold plane and if the rod is hot enough to ignite the plastic,
it will burn on the inside as well.
>
> The fumes generated are as big a concern as the flames...
>
>
> If that is the case then there ought to be LOTS of plastics we can use and just
triple the test temp for good measure.
>
> I assume that is 100 F right?
>
>
> davgray(at)sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Gig
>
> My 601XL w/ WW cowl and WW corvair engine routinely tests about 100 degrees
> above ambient behind the engine.
>
>
>
--------
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=152445#152445
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. |
Randy,
The Suzuki 1300 with redrive is probably the best alternative engine
going for a while. I fly a 601 HDS Subaru and have two friends that fly
701 Subarus that
like their power and economy. Don't let liquid cooling be a downside as
it's not. Recently the Suzuki was revved up here on by Rick Roberts and
his good looking
701 Suzuki. Very sleek looking machine. See link to www.n*701*rr.com/
It's a whole lot less cost than a 912 or a Jabaru. So's a Subaru at
$6900.00 or half that
used. Stratus has a great re-drive that's easy to maintain too.
Everyone has an engine to promote based on what they own, but look to
your own pocketbook and if you're a mechanical guy, these are a best
choice for the buck.
Problems with running these were solved long ago.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
AB_Summit wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm fairly new to the forum and hopefully soon to be a 701 plans builder. I posted
once before about building as a way for a non-pilot to get into aviation
and it generated a lot of discussion which I found helpful.
>
>
> As I said, I'm considering building a 2 place airplane from plans. The aircraft
I am leaning towards is the Zenith STOL CH-701. To me the advantages are it's
all metal, meaning storage and maintenance costs will be low, and it appears
to be quite simple to build, and plans are available for it.
>
> The only big downside to the 701 is the high cost of the Rotax 912,
>
> b)GEO/Suzuki 1.0L or 1.3L
>
> Pros: cheap to buy, good fuel consumption, cheap to rebuild, can have EFI
> Cons: heavy, would cut into useful load, needs aftermarket redrive, need to fabricate/engineer
motor mount/FWF/cooling system, etc.
>
> c)Subaru EA81 or similar
>
> Pros and cons similar to Suzuki but I think the Subaru engine is even heavier
so useful load would be minimal.
>
>
> Thanks in advance for your input,
> Randy
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152422#152422
>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 steering slot cure / canopy progress |
Hi guys:
For the steering rods, I did something that I really like on my 701. It seems
to work just fine.
I bought some nomex cloth - about as thick as denim, and non porous - and sewed
up two triangular boots. I made a rectangular L-angle support for inside the
cabin.
I have a portable CO detector, and have never had a rise above background reading.
Got the nomex and the kevlar thread on the internet somewhere.
This stuff will withstand really high temperatures.
Don't have a picture handy, but if interested, will find one.
Fred Sanford N9701 flew Sept '05, now building 9601 Santa Barbara, Ca.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152460#152460
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: carbon monoxide |
Do you have a cabin heat system? If yes, it should be checked out as well.
The existance of exhaust stains on the lower firewall would suggest that the exhaust
pipe does not penetrate far enough into the slipstream to carry the exhaust
away. Obviously you don't want to be dumping exhaust into the engine compartment.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152472#152472
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 steering slot cure / canopy progress |
Where did you get the nomex and did you use nomex thread as well?
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152473#152473
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 steering slot cure / canopy progress |
Fred,
I would be interested in looking at that.
Bob Spudis N701ZX CH701/912s
In a message dated 12/15/2007 10:46:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
sonar1@cox.net writes:
Hi guys:
For the steering rods, I did something that I really like on my 701. It
seems to work just fine.
I bought some nomex cloth - about as thick as denim, and non porous - and
sewed up two triangular boots. I made a rectangular L-angle support for
inside the cabin.
I have a portable CO detector, and have never had a rise above background
reading.
Got the nomex and the kevlar thread on the internet somewhere.
This stuff will withstand really high temperatures.
Don't have a picture handy, but if interested, will find one.
Fred Sanford N9701 flew Sept '05, now building 9601 Santa Barbara, Ca.
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
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! --
|