Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:22 AM - Re: Fatal 701 Crash (Iberplanes IGL)
2. 01:24 AM - Re: Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. (Iberplanes IGL)
3. 01:28 AM - Re: Fatal 701 Crash (jetboy)
4. 05:41 AM - Re: Re: Is check valve in fuel return line needed? (wade jones)
5. 06:02 AM - Recycling Aluminum Scrap (thesumak@aol.com)
6. 06:19 AM - Re: Merry Christmas ()
7. 06:22 AM - Re: Recycling Aluminum Scrap ()
8. 06:48 AM - Re: Re: Is check valve in fuel return line needed? (Bryan Martin)
9. 06:49 AM - Re: Rough engine (Jeyoung65@aol.com)
10. 06:59 AM - Re: Jabiru 2200 Changes? (Pete Krotje)
11. 08:38 AM - Re: Fatality Reported in new 701 (Robert Hansen)
12. 08:42 AM - Re: 601HD Tires (John M. Goodings)
13. 08:55 AM - Re: Re: 601 Tires (Carlos Sa)
14. 09:03 AM - Electrical Connections (macleod@eagle.ca)
15. 09:12 AM - Re: Merry Christmas (nyterminat@aol.com)
16. 09:15 AM - Re: Electrical Connections (Paul Mulwitz)
17. 09:22 AM - Re: Electrical Connections (Jaybannist@cs.com)
18. 09:38 AM - Re: Electrical Connections ()
19. 09:44 AM - Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. (kmccune)
20. 09:48 AM - Re: Recycling Aluminum Scrap (kmccune)
21. 09:58 AM - Re: Recycling Aluminum Scrap (Gig Giacona)
22. 10:35 AM - Re: Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. (Joemotis@aol.com)
23. 10:35 AM - Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! (Scott Thatcher)
24. 10:36 AM - Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. (Iberplanes)
25. 10:57 AM - Re: Fatality Reported in new 701 (Gary Gower)
26. 11:12 AM - Re: Fatal 701 Crash (ROBERT SCEPPA)
27. 11:19 AM - Re: Fatality Reported in new 701 (SABorns@aol.com)
28. 11:42 AM - Re: 601HD Tires (Klaus Truemper)
29. 12:47 PM - Re: Fatality Reported in new 701 (swater6)
30. 12:51 PM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (Gary Gower)
31. 01:46 PM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (Gig Giacona)
32. 02:40 PM - Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. (kmccune)
33. 02:46 PM - Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! (kmccune)
34. 03:31 PM - Re: Jabiru 2200 Changes? (George Race)
35. 04:27 PM - Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! (PatrickW)
36. 04:34 PM - Re: Recycling Aluminum Scrap (PatrickW)
37. 04:43 PM - Re: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! (Ronald Steele)
38. 04:44 PM - Re: Recycling Aluminum Scrap (John Marzulli)
39. 05:27 PM - Re: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! ()
40. 06:02 PM - Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! (kmccune)
41. 06:03 PM - E-AB vs. E-LSA (Bryan Martin)
42. 06:11 PM - what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? (kmccune)
43. 06:16 PM - Re: E-AB vs. E-LSA (kmccune)
44. 06:23 PM - Re: N601EL receives E-LSA cert ()
45. 07:05 PM - Re: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA cert ()
46. 07:06 PM - Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion (AB_Summit)
47. 07:09 PM - Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
48. 07:52 PM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (kmccune)
49. 07:52 PM - Re: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! (Michael Hilderbrand)
50. 08:32 PM - Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? (Paul Mulwitz)
51. 08:42 PM - Re: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! (Craig Payne)
52. 08:44 PM - Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? (Bryan Martin)
53. 11:06 PM - Re: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! (raymondj)
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: Fatal 701 Crash |
It had to be a major problem to control the plane, because the lift and
the avility to land on small areas of the 701 is out of question.
on the video the planes seems to have all the parts together, so it was
not a missing "wing" or something.
Truly sad.
Merry Christmas to all. Greetings from Barcelona
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Espa=F1a
----- Original Message -----
From: John Marzulli
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fatal 701 Crash
I had read the sentence in the "just built yesterday" way, but also "a
plane he built, and had just flown yesterday" way.
Truly sad that the 701 has had it's first fatality, but also it is
truly amazing that it has taken twenty years for it to happen.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On Dec 17, 2007 2:32 PM, <Jaybannist@cs.com> wrote:
Really sad story. However, I thought it was only slightly amusing
that, in the write-up, they said that this was a homebuilt airplane that
he built yesterday. Someone probably told the writer that he had
COMPLETED it yesterday, and, as usual, this was misinterpreted.
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
"Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a
lot harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
-Airplane The Movie
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: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the |
701.
Great Plains Water cooled at 120 HP should do the job. Ive read an articule
from guys at Canada flying with that engine and they are very happy.
If I had a 701, that would be my engine for sure.
Take care.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r@xtra.co.nz>
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2007 11:31 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the
701.
>
> Randy,
> While youre waiting to decide the engine why not get on with the airframe.
> The scenery keeps changing with engine setups and that decision only needs
> finalizing before you do the mounts and cowl.
>
> I will add comment on the engines I personally know of in the 701.
> 1/The HKS never performed enough on the ground to risk flight. It was
> replaced with a Corvair which climbed tremendously well but the aircraft
> could not travel anywhere for long other than solo (load and endurance
> limited) It has been replaced with a Jabiru 2200 which goes just as fast,
> climbs half as good, but can carry full load the full distance.
> 2/The BMW 2 cyl. motor didnt work very well and has been replaced by a
> Rotax 532. This aircraft performs similar to my own 1100 lbs J2200 powered
> plane, but it is the earlier 960 lbs model.
> 3/VW air cooled with redrive performed well however overheated requiring
> rebuild in first 40 hrs. Cooling issues are likely to be fixable, as the
> cowl was an adapted one not setup for air cooling.
> 4/912 / 912S these seem to be the engine of choice, cost permitting,
> although the 912S with the tray mounting is not as smooth and cracks occur
> to the H stab attachments on models that dont have the updates.
>
>
> Ralph
>
> --------
> Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152569#152569
>
>
>
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: Fatal 701 Crash |
Not quite the first to result in a fatality
http://www.bst.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1994/a94q0114/a94q0114.asp
However the Canadian accident occurred to an aircraft not constructed within the
TP10141E compliance, so does not really relate to a 701 problem.
I keep a copy of these occurrences to be aware and avoid situations that could
easily happen if we miss something.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152841#152841
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: Is check valve in fuel return line needed? |
Bryan ,what you say is very true .However you can have vapor lock when no
fuel pump is used .I fly a Sonerai that has a gravity fuel delivery system
.In the Texas heat along with 450 degree cylinder head temps I get vapor
lock when using auto fuel .There was no problems when using 100LL .Those
high temps was when I had a VW engine ,I now have an 0200 Cont. and the CHT
is around 360 degrees .
Wade Jones South Texas
601XL plans building
Cont. 0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Martin" <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Is check valve in fuel return line needed?
>
> Vapor lock is what results when the fuel pump is full of fuel vapor (or
> air)instead of liquid fuel. The pump is designed to pump liquid, it won't
> pump vapor worth a damn. It is caused when the fuel in the line leading
> into the pump is vaporized due to excessive heat and/or excessive suction
> on the line. It often results from drawing a suction on the fuel line by
> trying to suck fuel uphill to a hot engine compartment because reducing
> the pressure on the fuel also reduces its boiling point. The situation is
> worse with auto fuel because some of its components have a much lower
> boiling point than anything found in avgas. The one of the worst cases is
> a pump attached to a hot engine on a hot day at high altitude sucking fuel
> from low-wing tanks during a nose high maneuver at full throttle and
> maximum fuel flow (i.e. just after takeoff from a high density altitude
> airport). One of the easiest ways to avoid it is to put the fuel pump near
> the fuel tank and pushing the fuel to the engine.
>
> ashontz wrote:
>>
>> Good to know, I'll probably install a return line myself. What can it
>> hurt. I know all of my cars have a return line, probably for good reason
>> too. Is the return line smaller?
>>
>> That being the case, I always hear the term vapor lock, in technical
>> terms can someone explain EXACTLY what it is and where in the fuel system
>> it occurs generally for everyone's benefit? I know sometimes my old
>> lawnboy mower won't start after running for awhile and I need to take the
>> air filter off to let it breath better so I can restart it. I assume this
>> is vapor lock, but I'm not really sure. I've never had it stop running,
>> but restarting was a major problem before I replaced the mower due to
>> other problems with the mower being a yardsale total piece of crap I
>> bought when I was poor years ago and not worth fiddling with everytime I
>> wanted to mow the lawn.
>>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> Zenith 601XL N61BM
> Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
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: | Recycling Aluminum Scrap |
Greetings
=C2-
I was recently trimming off a tapered sliver from a wing
locker piece. The curled waste that rolled off my snips was intriguing.=C2
- I riveted it to a circular base and declared
it a Christmas ornament.=C2- Experimenting a
bit with sizes and such, I made a few more which I gave to friends as gifts.
=C2- They seem amused when I tell them it=99s a
piece of my airplane that as it turns out, I won=99t be needing.=C2
- If curious, I have attached a low resolution
image.=C2- A good case can be made that I
have been working on this thing too long.
=C2-
Cheers,
Bill
601 xl
=C2-
Do not archive
________________________________________________________________________
aol.com
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: Merry Christmas |
And may I add to that my wish that you only rivet your appendage to the empenage
of your special loved one...... ;-)
Merry Christmas from Dred
Do Not Archive
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: Recycling Aluminum Scrap |
There is medication for that and it just so happens that I have a recently filled
prescription if you need a couple of pills to tide you over....
Dred
Do Not Archive
Do Not Mistake Manufacturing Scraps for Art
PS: Do you have an extra one?
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: Is check valve in fuel return line needed? |
Yes, a vapor bubble in the line can block the flow of liquid fuel in
some cases. An electric boost pump upstream of the area where the bubble
forms can cure the problem.
wade jones wrote:
>
> Bryan ,what you say is very true .However you can have vapor lock when
> no fuel pump is used .I fly a Sonerai that has a gravity fuel delivery
> system .In the Texas heat along with 450 degree cylinder head temps I
> get vapor lock when using auto fuel .There was no problems when using
> 100LL .Those high temps was when I had a VW engine ,I now have an 0200
> Cont. and the CHT is around 360 degrees .
> Wade Jones South Texas
> 601XL plans building
> Cont. 0200
--
Bryan Martin
Zenith 601XL N61BM
Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
Do Not Archive
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: Rough engine |
Chuck, A manual for your carb will tell you how to adjust the carb fuel
level. Most carb. have a tab (section) that you bend so the valve will stop fuel
flow into the carb when the fuel level is at a given point. This level of
the fuel effects the fuel mixture so it is important and must be set right.
Sounds like yours is way off or the valve is leaking ( not seating ). Jerry of
GA
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
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: | Jabiru 2200 Changes? |
The transistorized magnetos are nothing new.
The 2200 has had its alternator upgraded to the 20 amp (same as the 3300)
since July 2007 production.
Pete Krotje
Jabiru USA Sport Aircraft, LLC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
tjs22t@verizon.net
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Jabiru 2200 Changes?
I noticed on the newly designed USA Jabiru Web Site the following in the
2200 specification.
Dual Transistorized Magneto Ignition
Integrated AC Generator 20 amp
Is this indeed something that has been upgraded?In particular I like the
20 Amp Generator output. Does the Transistorized Magneto also possibly mean
you can now HAND PROP a Jabiur 2200?
+++ Pete might want to jump in here if he's not too busy but Jabs have
always had 'dual transistorized magneto ignition.' No, you can't spin a
Jab, any model, fast enough for a hand start. Big cables and an Odyssey 680
do that,
As for the 20 amp alternator: the 20 amp replaced the 15 amp on the 3300 a
few years back, there was even a rumor that it was possible to "stack" two
of them for those with panels of power-hungry appetites - don't know if that
became a possibility or not. Not surprising to conjecture that the 2200
benefited about the same time. Switch came as Jab went from the three-phase
to single phase alternator. They weren't going to handle two differently
rated alternators when one would do.
regards tj do not archive
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: Fatality Reported in new 701 |
Really sad to learn of a fellow 701 builder being taken from us. I live 40 miles
from Las Cruces, wish I would have gotten to know Robert.
R. Hansen
----- Original Message ----
From: Roger Nyholm <pecosrog@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:42:44 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Fatality Reported in new 701
MESILLA, NM -- A 54-year-old Mesilla man was killed Saturday when the light aircraft
he was flying crashed near his home as his family watched.
Authorities say Robert Steinmetz was flying the aircraft he had built himself the
day before when it crashed into a field just south of his house.
The family told authorities the pilot flew too low, couldn't pull up and went straight
into the ground.
Steinmetz -- a physical therapist who worked in Las Cruces -- died immediately.
He was an avid supporter of the volleyball program at New Mexico State University,
where his daughter Alex, a college freshman, plays as an outside hitter.
There is a news video on the El Paso TX. ABC-TV website.
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
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 |
|
We would strongly endorse using the Michelin S83 motor scooter tires for
the 601HD (size 3.5 x 8.0). They fit the Matco rims with no trouble. Of
course, use a tube with an angled valve stem. We originally installed the
4.0 x 8.0 (wheelbarrow??? low-speed trailer???) tires which came from
Zenith. They showed bad wear after just a few landings (the tread was
worn off in many places), and were a source of worry after about 50 hours
(perhaps 200 landings). The Michelins were put on at about 80 hours.
They show no sign of wear at 130 hours (another 50 hours, probably another
200 landings). We run them at about 28 psi. (Some people run 601 tires
at much lower pressure. Having seen a 601 "incident" where the
low-pressure tire slipped on the rim, and sheared off the valve stem, we
do NOT endorse the low-pressure approach.) After installation, put
silicone sealant around the valve stem at the rim; the valve holes in the
Matco rims are oversize, and it seems a good idea to keep dirt out. The
Michelins are more expensive. Tires are one area where we don't scrimp;
tire failure on landing can get you and your aircraft into big trouble
very quickly!
John and Peter Goodings, C-FGPJ, CH601HD with R912S, Ottawa/Carp, Toronto.
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 |
|
Did anybody use smaller tires?
Comments?
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
On 18/12/2007, John M. Goodings <goodings@yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>
> We would strongly endorse using the Michelin S83 motor scooter tires for
> the 601HD (size 3.5 x 8.0). They fit the Matco rims with no trouble. Of
> course, use a tube with an angled valve stem. We originally installed the
> 4.0 x 8.0 (wheelbarrow??? low-speed trailer???) tires which came from
> Zenith.
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: | Electrical Connections |
List:
I want to share two related events which are giving me concern and get
your comments.
About 18 months ago on the day of the EVENT I noticed that my transponder
did not seem to be responding to the Calgary terminal radar although it
appeared to be otherwise working fine. A few days after the EVENT when I
was dismantling the plane for salvage/junking I noticed that the terminal
screw on the power supply to the transponder was loose. I thought at the
time that 1 screw out of hundreds loose was cause for concern but not
real worry.
Last night I was removing the components from the dead planes instrument
panel for installation in my new 601 and was amazed to find that about 30
percent of the screws were slightly loose and two were very loose (the
ring terminal on the wire was flopping around on the screw).
I had definitely tightened all these screws to the max during construction.
The screws on the Ray Allen switches seemed to be the most prone to
loosening.
The dead plane had 200 hours, the vibration levels on the instrument panel
were very low.
A question:
For my 601 I want to ensure that all electrical screws remain tight. I
purchased some Starbright - Liquid Electrical Tape which seems to have
some thread locking capability. In light of my much higher screw failure
rate is there something better for electrical connections?
Mike
601XL waiting patiently for Rotax FWFwd
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: Merry Christmas |
Thank You Martyn, Merry Christmas to you.
Bob Spudis
-----Original Message-----
From: martyn@flight.co.za
Sent: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 1:15 am
Subject: Zenith-List: Merry Christmas
To all and Sundry,
Just a quick note far removed from the subject of Building. May you all
have a safe and peacefull festive season. To those still building, try not
to rivet your hand or other appendage to your empenage and to those who
will be flying may it be blue skies all the way.
Looking forward to 2008,
God Bless.
Martyn Ward
CH 701 ZU-DPL, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________
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: Electrical Connections |
Hi Mike,
I wonder if you installed lock washers on all the nuts?
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 08:58 AM 12/18/2007, you wrote:
>I had definitely tightened all these screws to the max during construction.
>
>The screws on the Ray Allen switches seemed to be the most prone to
>loosening.
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: | Electrical Connections |
Mike,
I have used lock washers on all my electrical screws and nuts. Some of the equipment
came with either split ring or the "many little grabber" type washers on
the screws. On the ones that appeared more vulnerable to vibration I also used
blue LockTite. Since I haven't yet started rattling things, I don't know how
they will perform.
Fingers crossed,
Jay in Dallas 601XL N2630J
macleod@eagle.ca wrote:
>
>List:
>
>I want to share two related events which are giving me concern and get
>your comments.
>
>About 18 months ago on the day of the EVENT I noticed that my transponder
>did not seem to be responding to the Calgary terminal radar although it
>appeared to be otherwise working fine. A few days after the EVENT when I
>was dismantling the plane for salvage/junking I noticed that the terminal
>screw on the power supply to the transponder was loose. I thought at the
>time that 1 screw out of hundreds loose was cause for concern but not
>real worry.
>
>Last night I was removing the components from the dead planes instrument
>panel for installation in my new 601 and was amazed to find that about 30
>percent of the screws were slightly loose and two were very loose (the
>ring terminal on the wire was flopping around on the screw).
>
>I had definitely tightened all these screws to the max during construction.
>
>The screws on the Ray Allen switches seemed to be the most prone to
>loosening.
>
>The dead plane had 200 hours, the vibration levels on the instrument panel
>were very low.
>
>A question:
>For my 601 I want to ensure that all electrical screws remain tight. I
>purchased some Starbright - Liquid Electrical Tape which seems to have
>some thread locking capability. In light of my much higher screw failure
>rate is there something better for electrical connections?
>
>Mike
>601XL waiting patiently for Rotax FWFwd
>
>
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: Electrical Connections |
In addition to internal tooth type lock washers, a bit of Loctite on the threads
would help a lot. The clamping pressure of the screw binding on the ring terminal
and the anchoring terminal should provide all the electrical continuity
you need and the Loctite in the threads will prevent movement caused by the vibration
inflight.
Dred
---- macleod@eagle.ca wrote:
>
> List:
>
> I want to share two related events which are giving me concern and get
> your comments.
>
> About 18 months ago on the day of the EVENT I noticed that my transponder
> did not seem to be responding to the Calgary terminal radar although it
> appeared to be otherwise working fine. A few days after the EVENT when I
> was dismantling the plane for salvage/junking I noticed that the terminal
> screw on the power supply to the transponder was loose. I thought at the
> time that 1 screw out of hundreds loose was cause for concern but not
> real worry.
>
> Last night I was removing the components from the dead planes instrument
> panel for installation in my new 601 and was amazed to find that about 30
> percent of the screws were slightly loose and two were very loose (the
> ring terminal on the wire was flopping around on the screw).
>
> I had definitely tightened all these screws to the max during construction.
>
> The screws on the Ray Allen switches seemed to be the most prone to
> loosening.
>
> The dead plane had 200 hours, the vibration levels on the instrument panel
> were very low.
>
> A question:
> For my 601 I want to ensure that all electrical screws remain tight. I
> purchased some Starbright - Liquid Electrical Tape which seems to have
> some thread locking capability. In light of my much higher screw failure
> rate is there something better for electrical connections?
>
> Mike
> 601XL waiting patiently for Rotax FWFwd
>
>
>
>
>
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: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. |
Were did you find the article?
Re: "Great Plains Water cooled at 120 HP should do the job. I've read an articule
from guys at Canada flying with that engine and they are very happy."
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152905#152905
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: Recycling Aluminum Scrap |
$450 @ Macys [Laughing]
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152910#152910
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: Recycling Aluminum Scrap |
I also noticed a piece like that the first year I was building and hung it on our
Christmas tree. The wife cut her finger on it when she was taking down the
tree.
I'll let you guess where she "stored" it.
--------
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=152913#152913
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.
In a message dated 12/18/2007 9:46:01 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
kmccune@somtel.net writes:
Great Plains Water cooled at 120 HP
I found this website that lists many alternative engines. Quite interesting
reading.
Joe Motis
do not archive
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
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: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! |
Hi Sammy,
I'll be doing Phase I testing up to the point of actual flight. Then I'm
going to let Gus Warren from http://FlyWithGus.com do the actual first
flight. After that, I'll run the numbers in flight myself. I was given a 5
hour fly-off using the Corvair engine. Not bad considering that the E-AB is
40 hours with a non-certified engine.
I guess the big difference between getting the certificate and actual
airworthiness boils down to how a person feels about getting into the plane
and flying it. I for one need to do a lot of "tweeking" before I do any
flying in it. I'm glad to hear that others aren't just ready to fly as soon
as their inspection is over... I thought I was the only one! I've got it to
the point where the controls are great, the instruments and gages all work,
but my Granddaughter just pushed in the baggage locker trying to get out and
I noticed that when I stepped on the step to get into the plane, the tail
started down.... So I will need to make some mods to the baggage locker to
keep it from sagging when pushed and I guess I'll have to get in from the
front of the plane! Also, for some reason the strobes don't work.
I haven't contacted the insurance company yet. Thanks for reminding me.
I'll keep everyone informed as to the numbers I'm getting and what hoops are
still needed to jump through. BTW, my plane came in at 774 lbs for a
corvair engine. Based on the weight of a Zenith using a Lycoming (800 lbs),
I feel pretty good about that number.
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zenith-List Digest Server" <zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:59 AM
Subject: Zenith-List Digest: 49 Msgs - 12/17/07
Scott,
Congratulations from many and various aspects. Are you going to be
doing your own Phase I flight testing or are you going to have a test
pilot? Interested in determining the differences between Airworthiness
Certificate and Airworthy. Received pink slip in June 2007 and still
going through some minor tweaking and getting near to the point where
the test pilot indicates it is "airworthy at all speeds and flying
conditions". How has your insurance company been cooperating in getting
your E-LSA fully insured.
You might want to keep the mailing list up to date on these various
subsets for finally getting the project off of the ground.
Many thanks and much congratulations.
Sammy J Hutcheson
N6412Z - 912S
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. |
Hi Kevin,
It was not an article, it was a website. Sorry for the mistake.
http://www.culverprops.com/index.php
Take care.
--------
Alberto Martin
601 XL - Jabiru 3300
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152921#152921
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: Fatality Reported in new 701 |
The sad thing was that we (any of us, builder and fellow pilot) were not there
during the building and testing process to give him advice...
Programs like the EAA Chapter's Builder and Flight Advisors were designed with
that idea in mind.
Here in our area we have a similar program that we started years ago, as a Safety
Advise for Sport type of Aviation, where I am a Builder Adviser.
Every time we hear that somebody is building any project near our area, we look
for them and try to give advise, This advise is most of the time welcome.
We also are in contact with the Aviation Authorities, this work is completly
free and in a Voluntary basis.
Is a good feeling when a pilot tests his plane or ultralight, That moment, sometimes
I "look back" when we first meet him, remembering how we were frightened
listening to his first ideas of building and test flying... Lots of courage
and dreams and so little knowledge... Politely and diplomatlicaly we changed
his ideas, one at a time, to safe building and flying.
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala, Mexico.
obert Hansen <stol701@yahoo.com> wrote:
Really sad to learn of a fellow 701 builder being taken from us. I live
40 miles from Las Cruces, wish I would have gotten to know Robert.
R. Hansen
----- Original Message ----
From: Roger Nyholm <pecosrog@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:42:44 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Fatality Reported in new 701
MESILLA, NM -- A 54-year-old Mesilla man was killed Saturday when the light aircraft
he was flying crashed near his home as his family watched.
Authorities say Robert Steinmetz was flying the aircraft he had built himself
the day before when it crashed into a field just south of his house.
The family told authorities the pilot flew too low, couldn't pull up and went
straight into the ground.
Steinmetz -- a physical therapist who worked in Las Cruces -- died immediately.
He was an avid supporter of the volleyball program at New Mexico State University,
where his daughter Alex, a college freshman, plays as an outside hitter.
There is a news video on the El Paso TX. ABC-TV website.
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
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: Fatal 701 Crash |
> This accident needs a lot of unanswered questions.
> If he had just completed the project and went flying
> then we can assume he didn't follow the rules of
> flight testing before taking off, fast taxiing, lift
> off check controls, etc. There's another thing that
> concerns me here also. Was he "Buzzing"? I would
> think that he didn't have much flying experience to
> just take the plane off and fly around to see how
> much he can push its limits. Just seems like a case
> of carelessness to me. Thats just my opinion......
> Do not archive....
> a case of
--- Iberplanes IGL <iberplanes@gmail.com> wrote:
> It had to be a major problem to control the plane,
> because the lift and the avility to land on small
> areas of the 701 is out of question.
>
> on the video the planes seems to have all the parts
> together, so it was not a missing "wing" or
> something.
>
> Truly sad.
>
> Merry Christmas to all. Greetings from Barcelona
>
> Iberplanes IGL
> http://www.iberplanes.es
> Igualada - Barcelona - Espaa
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Marzulli
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:52 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fatal 701 Crash
>
>
> I had read the sentence in the "just built
> yesterday" way, but also "a plane he built, and had
> just flown yesterday" way.
>
> Truly sad that the 701 has had it's first
> fatality, but also it is truly amazing that it has
> taken twenty years for it to happen.
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2007 2:32 PM, <Jaybannist@cs.com>
> wrote:
>
> Jaybannist@cs.com
>
> Really sad story. However, I thought it was only
> slightly amusing that, in the write-up, they said
> that this was a homebuilt airplane that he built
> yesterday. Someone probably told the writer that he
> had COMPLETED it yesterday, and, as usual, this was
> misinterpreted. http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
>
> "Flying a plane is no different than riding a
> bicycle... it's just a lot harder to put baseball
> cards in the spokes.
> -Airplane The Movie
>
>
>
>
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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: Fatality Reported in new 701 |
Hello All,
It is always sad whenever a homebuilt is involved in any mishap that might
have been avoided.
It is very easy for the builder to overlook some critical item because of
over familiarity with the project.
One way we have found to check for this is to have an "EAA chapter
inspection". The procedure we have used is to have the builder relax with some
coffee
and have as many eyeballs as possible take their time
examining the aircraft looking for that missing nut, forgotten safety wire,
etc, etc.
Steven Bornstein
475 E. North Broadway
Columbus, Ohio 43214
614 263-5819
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
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 |
|
We have used the Michelin S83 tires on the main wheels
for two years. After 200 hrs, they show virtually no wear.
The wheel barrow tires are a BAD idea.
We had such a tire fail on a trip to the West Coast when it was
punctured by grass burrs (!)
A good decision is to get the inner tube for the S83 made
by Michelin. That inner tube is balanced, by having
a bit more rubber opposite the stem. As a result, the wheels spin up
on takeoff without any vibration whatsoever.
On the nose gear, we use a smaller Honda moped tire made by
Bridgestone, since the weight
on the nose gear is only about 200 lbs and remains virtually unchanged,
indeed is reduced a bit, when the plane is loaded to gross weight.
Unfortunately, the inner tube for that tire is not balanced and we
use a balancing weight opposite the stem. Thus, the wheel also
spins up without any vibration whatsoever.
As for air pressure, we are using 30-35 lbs. On earlier tires, we once
had a blowout when the tire rotated on the rim while braking.
It sheared of the stem and was something I do not want to experience
again. This happened when we used a bit of soapy liquid on the rim to make
mounting of the tires easier, just as they do for mounting auto tires.
This is a bad idea, and we now use at most a bit of water.
Happy flying,
Klaus
--
Klaus Truemper
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
University of Texas at Dallas
Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and
Computer Science EC31
P.O. Box 830688
Richardson, TX 75083-0688
(972) 883-2712
klaus@utdallas.edu
www.utdallas.edu/~klaus
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: Fatality Reported in new 701 |
Here is a link to a post on the AOPA forum regarding this accident.
http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=37425
For those of you not AOPA members, I'm copying one of the forum entries here from
someone who claims to have known the pilot/builder.
Unfortunately, based on the witness reports on the video and this account, this
may likely be a maneuvering accident at low altitude.
Here's the post:
Zenith 701 down in Mesilla, NM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This one hits close to home. The victim was a friend of my AOPA mentor's...
http://www.krqe.com/global/story.asp?s=7504514
An excerpt from my AOPA mentor's email:
Saturday late I lost a flying friend. Until the feds give the actual facts and conclusion, we can only speculate. It seems he was flying his Zenith 701 (kind of a back country light sport airplane). He was circling his house at a rather low altitude and waving to his kids and wife. The airplane then spiraled down and crashed - wing low and mains wrecked. The airplane lands on a dime and has extra strong suspensions. See video at http://www.zenithair.com/video/index.html.
As I understand he has been trying to push the envelope on performance - shorter
landings and minimizing the speed. There are two aspects of flying that one
has to be aware of. The first is the recognition of a stall - or a condition that
places you in the stall. It's never fun to practice stalls but the practice
will save a life. The second is the correction. We all stall the airplane at
landing but at that we have our airplane properly trimmed (all three axis) and
then settle down over the landing zone with appropriate speed). The correction
of a stalled airplane however requires not only recognizing the situation but
when it does happen prom pt repsonse.
Thus if the nose is high (as on the back side of the power curve where I suspect
Rob was), full power doesn't help. We need to get the nose down - often just
releasing the controls brings the nose down. We do need full power. If the nose
is down, then we need to pull off the power.. In the nose up configuration,
often it takes turning one wing down to break the stall.
In both situations the ball needs to be centered with prompt ruder. In the nose
down, we bring the wings level and pull up and then add power. In the nose high,
after breaking the stall we get the wings level and get on the power.
The difficulty is flying low to the ground. I suspect if he was waiving to his
family as I have heard that he was below legal (1000 feet above houses).
That gave him precious little room to achieve a correction. Someone said last week
he dropped the airplane about 10 feet and had a hard landing which hurt his
back. That says something about the landing technique as well as understanding
the stall configuration needed for landing.
I will miss Rob. We ate in his hangar last Saturday and he made me a vegetarian
quesadilla. His last words to me were "I strongly recommend the Pico de Gallo"
on this. The night before the "west end" hangar pilots met at his partner (on
the Zenith) house for a pot luck. there were about 25 pilots and spouses. Rob
brought his wife and two of his three children. It was a pleasant evening.
In any event, practice stalls and corrections like they will save your life.
Also follow the specifications on the airplane you fly even though you think you
can squeeze something more from it. The laws of physics were used to design
the airplane and the various V speeds are, at least to me, not subject to toying
with. In Rob's case the airplane was designed to land on a dime and I see no
need to get it to land on half a dime.
--------
601 XL kit
Tail, control surfaces and both wings complete. Now working on fuselage
www.scottwaters.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152944#152944
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 and wing failiers |
One thing that gives me trust in the design are the lots of hours that some of
the older 601 XL have already acumulated. Not mentioning the previous 601 series
(HD; HDS, UL).
The factory prototype has the same wings since his first flight and is a plane
that is flying every day as a demo, also travels a lot to Fly ins and Aviation
events...
I am also waiting for the results of the investigations of this accidents, I
dont know how long they might take to be released, mean time, I will continue
building and will fly mine when finished.
Yes, I am extra carefull with our building process and double check every step,
I want to be sure that I build it safe in my side.
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala, Mexico
701 912S Flying
601 XL Jab 3300 building.
annken100 <annken100@aol.com> wrote:
The issue of wing failures and the safety of the 601 design has been hashed out,
debated, speculated on, and generally beaten to death in previous threads. A
simple search of the archives will bring you up to speed.
Not being a structural, mechanical, or aeronautical engineer, I can't say with
any authority that the design is safe or unsafe. However, the few past wing failures
appear to be a result of pilot error or ambiguous mechanical defects. No
one knows for sure.
The conclusion I draw is that the 601 is safe based on the ample number of planes
that are flying that haven't had wing failures. Considering that most 601's
are assembled by amateur airplane builders with out any quality control measures
as would be expected in a manufacturing setting, it is not outside the realm
of possibility that a few 601's may have been built to substandard levels and
therefore turned out unsafe.
The bottom line is that you either trust the designer and the design or you don't.
I don't think it makes any sense to try and convince someone the plane is
safe if they already have made up their minds that indeed it is not.
Good Luck,
Ken Pavlou
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152593#152593
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
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 and wing failiers |
I think you will be disappointed when you read the reports. The ones that have
been released, including the accident where there was concern that the rear wing
attach bolts had either not been installed correctly or with the wrong bolts,
have been pretty limited in the information they provide.
The FAA/NTSB doesn't spend the money or the man power (nor should they) on accidents
involving experimentals that provide the sort of rock solid evidence that
we see when an airliner goes down.
These accidents have been discussed in length on this list and the general consensus,
with a few exceptions, is that the planes that failed had been stressed
beyond their design limitations either at the time of the accident or before.
It all comes down to follow the plans, follow the proper building methods and most
important fly safely.
ggower_99(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I am also waiting for the results of the investigations of this accidents,
I dont know how long they might take to be released, mean time, I will continue
building and will fly mine when finished.
> Yes, I am extra carefull with our building process and double check every
step, I want to be sure that I build it safe in my side.
>
--------
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=152959#152959
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. |
Joe, I don't see a web address.
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152966#152966
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! |
Sorry for the dumb question, but what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB?
I can't find a good source on this. My buddy is going to register his Challenger
E-LSA. I've heard people say that you can't register anything E-LSA after
this year? All the while I've not found any thing official that really spells
it out. I assume that if you scratch build is has to be E-AB?
PS congrats on the milestone!
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152968#152968
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jabiru 2200 Changes? |
Pete thanks for the reply on the list.
Yes, I know better now about the transistorized magnetos not changing.
As I have a brand new 2200a that has not been started up yet, is there an
exchange or update price on fitting it with the larger alternator? The 20
amp charge rate sounds very nice to me!
I am sure that many on the list will be thinking about asking the same
question.
George Race
Albion MI
CH-701 Jabiru 2200
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! |
Congrats on the progress, Scott.
We're all very interested in how things proceed for you!
Patrick
XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152986#152986
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Recycling Aluminum Scrap |
What color of Scotchbrite did you use to deburr it...?
Patrick
XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152988#152988
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! |
I'm sure there are those that could answer this better, but I'll jump
in and maybe save someone some typing.
E-AB = experimental amateur build. These planes fall into the FAA
experimental category and must be 51% build by builder, who by rule
must be an amateur. There is a debate about how much help can be
received by a professional helper. EAB can be anything from a plane
designed and build by the builder - a complete one-off to a Quick
Build Kit that is a virtually complete plane that pushes the 51%
definition pretty hard. The result might fly at 300MPH or 50MP and
hold one person or many. It may be powered by a chain saw engine or a
jet.
E-LSA Start with LSA. An LSA is a Light Sport Aircraft. 1320
pounds (600 kilo) max gross weight, 120knot max continuous cruise,
single engine, piston powered, no more than 2 seats and a low stall
speed, 45 knots I believe. To be an S-LSA, the plane must be build
to a set ASTM standards (note - not FAA standards) and the production
facility and procedures are inspected by the FAA. An E-LSA has all
the same restrictions, but is manufactured from a kit that meats the
definition of an LSA. (There are factory built E-LSA also, but I'm
fuzzy on why) The kit must not be modified from that supplied by the
manufacturer in any substantive way. The kit does not have to meet
the 51% rule requirement for an EAB.
E-LSA was dreamed up to get "fat ultral-lights" , those weighing more
than 255 lbs. registered with the FAA. That process ends the end of
January 2008, so time's about up. After that, there will be no more
new E-LSAs.
There are maintenance considerations. The builder of an EAB can do
anything he wants to the plane. If he sells it, the buyer must have
the original builder do the work, or an A&P. An E-LSA can be worked
on by anyone who takes a course (80 hours I think) in LSA
maintenance. This includes the builder - once it's registered as an
E-LSA he must have the maintenance cert' to work on the plane.
These are to completely different regulations, meant for different
purposes with different requirements. It's an extraordinary
coincidence that one can be registered as the other.
Ron
On Dec 18, 2007, at 5:45 PM, kmccune wrote:
>
> Sorry for the dumb question, but what IS the difference between E-
> SLA and E-AB? I can't find a good source on this. My buddy is going
> to register his Challenger E-LSA. I've heard people say that you
> can't register anything E-LSA after this year? All the while I've
> not found any thing official that really spells it out. I assume
> that if you scratch build is has to be E-AB?
>
> PS congrats on the milestone!
>
> --------
> Kevin
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152968#152968
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Recycling Aluminum Scrap |
I made a circular mold to cook a scrambled egg in a round shape AND a
doughnut cutter:
http://picasaweb.google.com/john.marzulli/HomeCookedCookbookPresentation/photo#5116265629490190482
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On Dec 18, 2007 5:58 AM, <thesumak@aol.com> wrote:
> Greetings
>
> I was recently trimming off a tapered sliver from a wing locker piece. The
> curled waste that rolled off my snips was intriguing. I riveted it to a
> circular base and declared it a Christmas ornament. Experimenting a bit
> with sizes and such, I made a few more which I gave to friends as gifts. They
> seem amused when I tell them it's a piece of my airplane that as it turns
> out, I won't be needing. If curious, I have attached a low resolution
> image. A good case can be made that I have been working on this thing too
> long.
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
> 601 xl
>
> Do not archive
> ------------------------------
> !
>
--
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
"Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot
harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
-Airplane The Movie
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! |
Small correction, Experimental Amateur Buit......anyone can work on it but
the Annual Condition Inspection must be done by a A&P or higher.
David Mikesell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Steele" <rsteele@rjsit.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification!
>
> I'm sure there are those that could answer this better, but I'll jump in
> and maybe save someone some typing.
>
> E-AB = experimental amateur build. These planes fall into the FAA
> experimental category and must be 51% build by builder, who by rule must
> be an amateur. There is a debate about how much help can be received by
> a professional helper. EAB can be anything from a plane designed and
> build by the builder - a complete one-off to a Quick Build Kit that is a
> virtually complete plane that pushes the 51% definition pretty hard. The
> result might fly at 300MPH or 50MP and hold one person or many. It may be
> powered by a chain saw engine or a jet.
>
> E-LSA Start with LSA. An LSA is a Light Sport Aircraft. 1320 pounds
> (600 kilo) max gross weight, 120knot max continuous cruise, single
> engine, piston powered, no more than 2 seats and a low stall speed, 45
> knots I believe. To be an S-LSA, the plane must be build to a set ASTM
> standards (note - not FAA standards) and the production facility and
> procedures are inspected by the FAA. An E-LSA has all the same
> restrictions, but is manufactured from a kit that meats the definition of
> an LSA. (There are factory built E-LSA also, but I'm fuzzy on why) The
> kit must not be modified from that supplied by the manufacturer in any
> substantive way. The kit does not have to meet the 51% rule requirement
> for an EAB.
>
> E-LSA was dreamed up to get "fat ultral-lights" , those weighing more
> than 255 lbs. registered with the FAA. That process ends the end of
> January 2008, so time's about up. After that, there will be no more new
> E-LSAs.
>
> There are maintenance considerations. The builder of an EAB can do
> anything he wants to the plane. If he sells it, the buyer must have the
> original builder do the work, or an A&P. An E-LSA can be worked on by
> anyone who takes a course (80 hours I think) in LSA maintenance. This
> includes the builder - once it's registered as an E-LSA he must have the
> maintenance cert' to work on the plane.
>
>
> These are to completely different regulations, meant for different
> purposes with different requirements. It's an extraordinary coincidence
> that one can be registered as the other.
>
> Ron
>
> On Dec 18, 2007, at 5:45 PM, kmccune wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry for the dumb question, but what IS the difference between E- SLA
>> and E-AB? I can't find a good source on this. My buddy is going to
>> register his Challenger E-LSA. I've heard people say that you can't
>> register anything E-LSA after this year? All the while I've not found
>> any thing official that really spells it out. I assume that if you
>> scratch build is has to be E-AB?
>>
>> PS congrats on the milestone!
>>
>> --------
>> Kevin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=152968#152968
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! |
I'm going to start a new thread as I don't want to high-jack this one.
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153001#153001
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
E-AB:
-An E-AB must meet the 51% rule and doesn't have to meet the LSA
limitations.
-It will be issued either a 25 hour or 40 hour phase 1 flight test
period.
-The builder of an E-AB can get the repairman certificate for his
airplane with no requirement for maintenance training.
-The original builder is the only one that can be issued a repairman
certificate for that airplane.
-The AB repairman certificate holder for that airplane or an A&P
mechanic are the only people who may the annual condition inspection
on that airplane.
-Anybody can perform maintenance on or make modifications to an E-AB.
-An E-AB can not be rented for flight training (a flight instructor
can get paid for flight training given in someone's E-AB).
E-LSA:
-An E-LSA does not have to meet the 51% rule. It can even be purchased
ready to fly.
-It can be assigned a flight test period as short as five hours.
-The owner of an E-LSA can earn a LSA repairman certificate by taking
a 16 hour maintenance course.
-The LSA repairman certificate will allow the holder to sign off the
annual condition inspection on any LSA that the holder of the
certificate owns.
-Anybody can perform maintenance on or make modifications to an E-LSA.
-An E-LSA can be rented for flight instruction until January 31st 2010.
There are three ways to certificate an airplane as an E-LSA:
FAR 21.191 (i) (1): An airplane that has never had an airworthiness
certificate issued for it and does not meet the definition of an
ultralight but does meet the limitations of the LSA rule. This is the
so called "fat ultralight" rule. It was intended to allow owners of
aircraft two place ultralight trainers and other aircraft that did not
meet the ultralight rules to make their aircraft legal and continue to
fly them and allow people giving ultralight flight instruction in
these airplanes to continue to do so until 2010. ANY kit, scratch
built or ready to fly airplane that qualifies as LSA and has never
been certificated can be certificated under this rule, it doesn't have
to be the typical "fat ultralight". This rule expires on January 31st
2008. After that date, no airplane can receive an airworthiness under
this rule.
FAR 21.191 (i) (2): A manufacturer can build a prototype that meets
the consensus standards for S-LSA can then build E-LSA kits based on
this prototype. These airplane kits must be built according to the kit
manufacturers plans with no deviations. Modifications can only be made
after the plane has received its airworthiness certificate and the
test time flown off. As far as I know, no manufacturer has chosen to
go this route yet so no E-LSAs can actually be certificated under this
rule.
FAR 21.191 (i) (3): An airplane that has previously received an S-LSA
certificate can be re-certificated as an E-LSA.
The only way you can certificate a scratch built aircraft after
January 31st 2008 is as an E-AB but if it meets the limitations of the
LSA rules, you can still fly it under the Sport Pilot rules.
There are probably a few details I left out, but this pretty much
covers the differences between E-AB and E-LSA as I understand them.
On Dec 18, 2007, at 5:45 PM, kmccune wrote:
>
> Sorry for the dumb question, but what IS the difference between E-
> SLA and E-AB? I can't find a good source on this. My buddy is going
> to register his Challenger E-LSA. I've heard people say that you
> can't register anything E-LSA after this year? All the while I've
> not found any thing official that really spells it out. I assume
> that if you scratch build is has to be E-AB?
>
> PS congrats on the milestone!
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? |
Pasted from another post because I didn't want to high-jack it. My question is
the first, below.
**************
kmccune
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 74
Location: Wisconsin, USA
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA
certification! Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
Sorry for the dumb question, but what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB?
I can't find a good source on this. My buddy is going to register his Challenger
E-LSA. I've heard people say that you can't register anything E-LSA after
this year? All the while I've not found any thing official that really spells
it out. I assume that if you scratch build is has to be E-AB?
PS congrats on the milestone!
***************
rsteele(at)rjsit.com
Guest
New postPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: N601EL receives E-LSA
certification! Reply with quote
I'm sure there are those that could answer this better, but I'll jump
in and maybe save someone some typing.
E-AB = experimental amateur build. These planes fall into the FAA
experimental category and must be 51% build by builder, who by rule
must be an amateur. There is a debate about how much help can be
received by a professional helper. EAB can be anything from a plane
designed and build by the builder - a complete one-off to a Quick
Build Kit that is a virtually complete plane that pushes the 51%
definition pretty hard. The result might fly at 300MPH or 50MP and
hold one person or many. It may be powered by a chain saw engine or a
jet.
E-LSA Start with LSA. An LSA is a Light Sport Aircraft. 1320
pounds (600 kilo) max gross weight, 120knot max continuous cruise,
single engine, piston powered, no more than 2 seats and a low stall
speed, 45 knots I believe. To be an S-LSA, the plane must be build
to a set ASTM standards (note - not FAA standards) and the production
facility and procedures are inspected by the FAA. An E-LSA has all
the same restrictions, but is manufactured from a kit that meats the
definition of an LSA. (There are factory built E-LSA also, but I'm
fuzzy on why) The kit must not be modified from that supplied by the
manufacturer in any substantive way. The kit does not have to meet
the 51% rule requirement for an EAB.
E-LSA was dreamed up to get "fat ultral-lights" , those weighing more
than 255 lbs. registered with the FAA. That process ends the end of
January 2008, so time's about up. After that, there will be no more
new E-LSAs.
There are maintenance considerations. The builder of an EAB can do
anything he wants to the plane. If he sells it, the buyer must have
the original builder do the work, or an A&P. An E-LSA can be worked
on by anyone who takes a course (80 hours I think) in LSA
maintenance. This includes the builder - once it's registered as an
E-LSA he must have the maintenance cert' to work on the plane.
These are to completely different regulations, meant for different
purposes with different requirements. It's an extraordinary
coincidence that one can be registered as the other.
Ron
**************
skyguynca
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 62
New postPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: N601EL receives E-LSA
certification! Reply with quote
Small correction, Experimental Amateur Buit......anyone can work on it but
the Annual Condition Inspection must be done by a A&P or higher.
David Mikesell
---
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153003#153003
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-AB vs. E-LSA |
THATs what I wanted, thanks!
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153011#153011
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N601EL receives E-LSA cert |
+++ Sorry, but I must be breaking the regs. I've done my annual conditional inspection
for the past five years and I don't hold an A&P, just a repairman certificate.
On things of importance like this don't take your facts off an e-mail forum. Call
or e-mail Joe Norris at the EAA for the real, factual information.
>Small correction, Experimental Amateur Buit......anyone can work >on it but
>the Annual Condition Inspection must be done by a A&P or higher.
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N601EL receives E-LSA cert |
You are correct, the Repairman's for that airplane is issued to the majority
builder if more than one builder aided in the construction of the airplane.
That is plainly written in the reg, but the fact that anyone can work on it
is not,and that came directly from the Faa. All you have to do is ask.
David Mikesell
----- Original Message -----
From: <tjs22t@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:22 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA cert
>
> +++ Sorry, but I must be breaking the regs. I've done my annual
> conditional inspection for the past five years and I don't hold an A&P,
> just a repairman certificate.
>
> On things of importance like this don't take your facts off an e-mail
> forum. Call or e-mail Joe Norris at the EAA for the real, factual
> information.
>
>>Small correction, Experimental Amateur Buit......anyone can work >on it
>>but
>>the Annual Condition Inspection must be done by a A&P or higher.
>
>
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion |
Hello everyone,
I'm looking for more information on the Suzuki/Geo 1300 conversion in the 701.
I'm just wondering if any of you that have this combination flying, and what your
empty weight and useful load is.
I'm also wondering what the difference in installed weight is between the Rotax
912 and the Suzuki engine, complete with radiators, etc.
Thanks in advance,
Randy
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153022#153022
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? |
I'm not sure why anyone would register their plane Light sport... If you
register it as experimental only it can be flown under light sport if it
qualifies or you can fly it as a regular aircraft if you have a valid medical
and
Lic.. If you register it as E-LSA it can only be flown under the LSA rules and
can never be flown as Experimental i.e.at night etc. . Conversely if it is
Lic. as Experimental it can be downgraded to LSA but it can ever be upgraded if
it is LSA.
In a message dated 12/18/2007 9:12:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
kmccune@somtel.net writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "kmccune" <kmccune@somtel.net>
Pasted from another post because I didn't want to high-jack it. My question
is the first, below.
**************
kmccune
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 74
Location: Wisconsin, USA
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: Re: N601EL receives
E-LSA certification! Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post
Sorry for the dumb question, but what IS the difference between E-SLA and
E-AB? I can't find a good source on this. My buddy is going to register his
Challenger E-LSA. I've heard people say that you can't register anything E-LSA
after this year? All the while I've not found any thing official that really
spells it out. I assume that if you scratch build is has to be E-AB?
PS congrats on the milestone!
***************
rsteele(at)rjsit.com
Guest
New postPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: N601EL receives
E-LSA certification! Reply with quote
I'm sure there are those that could answer this better, but I'll jump
in and maybe save someone some typing.
E-AB = experimental amateur build. These planes fall into the FAA
experimental category and must be 51% build by builder, who by rule
must be an amateur. There is a debate about how much help can be
received by a professional helper. EAB can be anything from a plane
designed and build by the builder - a complete one-off to a Quick
Build Kit that is a virtually complete plane that pushes the 51%
definition pretty hard. The result might fly at 300MPH or 50MP and
hold one person or many. It may be powered by a chain saw engine or a
jet.
E-LSA Start with LSA. An LSA is a Light Sport Aircraft. 1320
pounds (600 kilo) max gross weight, 120knot max continuous cruise,
single engine, piston powered, no more than 2 seats and a low stall
speed, 45 knots I believe. To be an S-LSA, the plane must be build
to a set ASTM standards (note - not FAA standards) and the production
facility and procedures are inspected by the FAA. An E-LSA has all
the same restrictions, but is manufactured from a kit that meats the
definition of an LSA. (There are factory built E-LSA also, but I'm
fuzzy on why) The kit must not be modified from that supplied by the
manufacturer in any substantive way. The kit does not have to meet
the 51% rule requirement for an EAB.
E-LSA was dreamed up to get "fat ultral-lights" , those weighing more
than 255 lbs. registered with the FAA. That process ends the end of
January 2008, so time's about up. After that, there will be no more
new E-LSAs.
There are maintenance considerations. The builder of an EAB can do
anything he wants to the plane. If he sells it, the buyer must have
the original builder do the work, or an A&P. An E-LSA can be worked
on by anyone who takes a course (80 hours I think) in LSA
maintenance. This includes the builder - once it's registered as an
E-LSA he must have the maintenance cert' to work on the plane.
These are to completely different regulations, meant for different
purposes with different requirements. It's an extraordinary
coincidence that one can be registered as the other.
Ron
**************
skyguynca
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 62
New postPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:27 pm Post subject: N601EL receives
E-LSA certification! Reply with quote
Small correction, Experimental Amateur Buit......anyone can work on it but
the Annual Condition Inspection must be done by a A&P or higher.
David Mikesell
---
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153003#153003
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 and wing failiers |
PatrickW wrote:
>
> People who give it some thought tend to like the design. Seems that people
either love the 601, or they hate it - no middle ground.
>
> Patrick
> XL/Corvair
Funny thing is that I'm pretty indifferent to it. It does not do what I want, so
it was never in the running. I think its a good plane, it is "relatively" inexpensive
to scratch build, and has a wider engine range then the 701. It cruises
pretty fast and..and ...and. :?
Oh well, some people kids!
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153030#153030
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! |
Did Gus break-away from WW?
Do not archive.
Michael Hilderbrand
Derby, Kansas
Http://www.kansasflying.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Scott Thatcher <s_thatcher@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:34:35 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification!
Hi Sammy,
I'll be doing Phase I testing up to the point of actual flight. Then I'm
going to let Gus Warren from http://FlyWithGus.com do the actual first
flight. After that, I'll run the numbers in flight myself. I was given a 5
hour fly-off using the Corvair engine. Not bad considering that the E-AB is
40 hours with a non-certified engine.
I guess the big difference between getting the certificate and actual
airworthiness boils down to how a person feels about getting into the plane
and flying it. I for one need to do a lot of "tweeking" before I do any
flying in it. I'm glad to hear that others aren't just ready to fly as soon
as their inspection is over... I thought I was the only one! I've got it to
the point where the controls are great, the instruments and gages all work,
but my Granddaughter just pushed in the baggage locker trying to get out and
I noticed that when I stepped on the step to get into the plane, the tail
started down.... So I will need to make some mods to the baggage locker to
keep it from sagging when pushed and I guess I'll have to get in from the
front of the plane! Also, for some reason the strobes don't work.
I haven't contacted the insurance company yet. Thanks for reminding me.
I'll keep everyone informed as to the numbers I'm getting and what hoops are
still needed to jump through. BTW, my plane came in at 774 lbs for a
corvair engine. Based on the weight of a Zenith using a Lycoming (800 lbs),
I feel pretty good about that number.
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zenith-List Digest Server" <zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:59 AM
Subject: Zenith-List Digest: 49 Msgs - 12/17/07
Scott,
Congratulations from many and various aspects. Are you going to be
doing your own Phase I flight testing or are you going to have a test
pilot? Interested in determining the differences between Airworthiness
Certificate and Airworthy. Received pink slip in June 2007 and still
going through some minor tweaking and getting near to the point where
the test pilot indicates it is "airworthy at all speeds and flying
conditions". How has your insurance company been cooperating in getting
your E-LSA fully insured.
You might want to keep the mailing list up to date on these various
subsets for finally getting the project off of the ground.
Many thanks and much congratulations.
Sammy J Hutcheson
N6412Z - 912S
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? |
Actually, this is not a true statement. LSA airplanes can be flown
under all the same conditions as E-AB or indeed certified Part 23
airplanes. It is the Sport Pilots that are limited in operations
rather than the airplanes. If an LSA is properly equipped, it can
legally be flown at night, under IFR, above 10,00 feet and into all
classes of airspace by an appropriately licensed pilot.
The choice of whether to have an E-LSA or E-AB certificate for a kit
built plane goes away next month. That means it won't be an issue
after that time. Starting in February, the only E-LSA certificates
will be issued to planes which are essentially identical to S-LSA
planes manufactured by the same company. I think of this kind of
E-LSA as a bolt-together kit rather than the 51% style kit we are all
used to. I have no idea how any modifications can be done to this
style of plane, but it will probably be something like the STC
process used today for certified planes. Perhaps the STC will be
replaced by some sort of approval from the manufacturer of the plane
rather than the FAA. I don't know of any such planes available on
the market today, but as they become available (if they become
available) some of these questions will get answered.
For me, the best way to deal with all of these regulatory issues is
just to consider my kit built XL as a project destined for an E-AB
certificate - just as it has always been.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 07:08 PM 12/18/2007, you wrote:
>I'm not sure why anyone would register their plane Light sport... If
>you register it as experimental only it can be flown under light
>sport if it qualifies or you can fly it as a regular aircraft if you
>have a valid medical and Lic.. If you register it as E-LSA it can
>only be flown under the LSA rules and can never be flown as
>Experimental i.e.at night etc. . Conversely if it is Lic. as
>Experimental it can be downgraded to LSA but it can ever be upgraded
>if it is LSA.
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! |
> Did Gus break-away from WW?
Yes, back in March. Look for "Fly With Gus" about 2/3rds of the way down
this page:
http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar0307.html
-- Craig
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? |
The limitations on night flight and flight in instrument conditions
have nothing to do with the airplane, they are limitations on the
sport pilot. As long as the airplane is properly equipped and the
pilot is properly certificated, an LSA can be flown at night or in IMC.
It is true that an airplane that is certificated as LSA must always
remain within the LSA limitations or it will no longer be legal. It is
also true that an airplane that is certificated as E-AB but meets the
limitations of LSA can be modified so that it no longer meets those
limitations and still be legal for a private pilot fly. But once an
airplane is modified to exceed the LSA limitations, it can never again
be made legal to fly by a sport pilot under the LSA rules.
On Dec 18, 2007, at 10:08 PM, Afterfxllc@aol.com wrote:
> I'm not sure why anyone would register their plane Light sport... If
> you register it as experimental only it can be flown under light
> sport if it qualifies or you can fly it as a regular aircraft if you
> have a valid medical and Lic.. If you register it as E-LSA it can
> only be flown under the LSA rules and can never be flown as
> Experimental i.e.at night etc. . Conversely if it is Lic. as
> Experimental it can be downgraded to LSA but it can ever be upgraded
> if it is LSA.
>
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! |
Michael,
Just tried the link in your signature and it didn't work for me.
Just an FYI.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst."
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Hilderbrand
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification!
Did Gus break-away from WW?
Do not archive.
Michael Hilderbrand
Derby, Kansas
Http://www.kansasflying.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Scott Thatcher <s_thatcher@bellsouth.net>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com; samhutcheson@kc.rr.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:34:35 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification!
<s_thatcher@bellsouth.net>
Hi Sammy,
I'll be doing Phase I testing up to the point of actual flight. Then
I'm
going to let Gus Warren from http://FlyWithGus.com do the actual
first
flight. After that, I'll run the numbers in flight myself. I was
given a 5
hour fly-off using the Corvair engine. Not bad considering that the
E-AB is
40 hours with a non-certified engine.
I guess the big difference between getting the certificate and actual
airworthiness boils down to how a person feels about getting into the
plane
and flying it. I for one need to do a lot of "tweeking" before I do
any
flying in it. I'm glad to hear that others aren't just ready to fly
as soon
as their inspection is over... I thought I was the only one! I've got
it to
the point where the controls are great, the instruments and gages all
work,
but my Granddaughter just pushed in the baggage locker trying to get
out and
I noticed that when I stepped on the step to get into the plane, the
tail
started down.... So I will need to make some mods to the baggage
locker to
keep it from sagging when pushed and I guess I'll have to get in from
the
front of the plane! Also, for some reason the strobes don't work.
I haven't contacted the insurance company yet. Thanks for reminding
me.
I'll keep everyone informed as to the numbers I'm getting and what
hoops are
still needed to jump through. BTW, my plane came in at 774 lbs for a
corvair engine. Based on the weight of a Zenith using a Lycoming (800
lbs),
I feel pretty good about that number.
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zenith-List Digest Server" <zenith-list@matronics.com>
To: "Zenith-List Digest List" <zenith-list-digest@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:59 AM
Subject: Zenith-List Digest: 49 Msgs - 12/17/07
Scott,
Congratulations from many and various aspects. Are you going to be
doing your own Phase I flight testing or are you going to have a test
pilot? Interested in
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! --
|