Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:17 AM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (Martin Pohl)
2. 01:29 AM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (jetboy)
3. 01:31 AM - Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion (rroberts)
4. 02:34 AM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (THOMAS SMALL)
5. 03:00 AM - Re: Couple of questions gang (THOMAS SMALL)
6. 03:12 AM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (Paul Mulwitz)
7. 03:22 AM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (David Downey)
8. 03:33 AM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (David Downey)
9. 03:51 AM - Crank work (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
10. 04:55 AM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (Iberplanes IGL)
11. 05:04 AM - A Practical Electric Airplane (Frank Derfler)
12. 05:07 AM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (steve)
13. 05:27 AM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (ashontz)
14. 05:40 AM - Re: A Practical Electric Airplane (Jerry Hey)
15. 06:03 AM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (William Dominguez)
16. 06:12 AM - 601XL Wings (ZodieRocket)
17. 06:30 AM - 601xl Project For Sale (Kemter)
18. 06:32 AM - Re: canopy gas struts (LarryMcFarland)
19. 06:38 AM - Re: seat for 601 (robert stone)
20. 06:41 AM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (ashontz)
21. 06:50 AM - Construction/Restoration (Russell Lassetter)
22. 07:13 AM - Re: A Practical Electric Airplane (Gig Giacona)
23. 07:33 AM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (Bryan Martin)
24. 07:40 AM - Re: seat for 601 (PatrickW)
25. 07:59 AM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (ashontz)
26. 08:21 AM - Duh! (Zed Smith)
27. 08:33 AM - Re: A "Practica"l Electric Airplane (THOMAS SMALL)
28. 09:07 AM - Re: A "Practica"l Electric Airplane (Bryan Martin)
29. 09:23 AM - locker placement in HD/HDS series (THOMAS SMALL)
30. 09:34 AM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers ()
31. 09:42 AM - exhaust system (Randy)
32. 09:56 AM - Re: Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion (Joemotis@aol.com)
33. 10:05 AM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (William Dominguez)
34. 10:41 AM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (Jaybannist@cs.com)
35. 11:21 AM - Seat elevating divices (robert stone)
36. 11:34 AM - riveting rear fuselage (Brad Cohen)
37. 12:13 PM - Re: riveting rear fuselage (chris Sinfield)
38. 12:25 PM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (Terry Turnquist)
39. 12:26 PM - Re: riveting rear fuselage ()
40. 12:27 PM - Re: 601XL Wings (chris Sinfield)
41. 12:47 PM - Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion (mikef)
42. 01:38 PM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (Dave Austin)
43. 02:14 PM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (Paul Mulwitz)
44. 02:32 PM - Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion (kmccune)
45. 02:34 PM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (John Short)
46. 02:40 PM - 601HD/HDS Tires (Carlos Sa)
47. 02:44 PM - Re: riveting rear fuselage (Gig Giacona)
48. 02:45 PM - Re: exhaust system (Juan Vega)
49. 03:01 PM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (Bryan Martin)
50. 03:03 PM - Jabiru Engine Seminar (Pete Krotje)
51. 03:09 PM - Re: Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion (NYTerminat@aol.com)
52. 03:09 PM - Lister accesability ? (Aaron Gustafson)
53. 03:52 PM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (ronlee)
54. 04:10 PM - Re: Lister accesability ? (Dave Austin)
55. 04:24 PM - Re: Seat elevating divices (Terry Phillips)
56. 04:30 PM - Re: Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion ()
57. 04:37 PM - Re: Lister accesability ? (Bryan Martin)
58. 05:19 PM - Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul (kmccune)
59. 05:50 PM - Re: Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul (John Short)
60. 06:24 PM - Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion (rroberts)
61. 06:32 PM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (Art Olechowski)
62. 06:37 PM - Re: Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul (Art Olechowski)
63. 06:50 PM - Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul (kmccune)
64. 06:57 PM - Re: Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul (wade jones)
65. 07:03 PM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (kmccune)
66. 07:30 PM - Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul (kmccune)
67. 07:32 PM - Christmas (Bob Unternaehrer)
68. 09:07 PM - Metric W & B (Darryl Legg)
69. 11:03 PM - Another 701 is ready to fly (Les Goldner)
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: 601 and wing failiers |
Hello everybody!
I personally like the wing locker option: I'd rather have my 70 lbs baggage in
the wings (wing lockers) and stress the wing spar at the wing/fuselage connection
to a much lesser extent than when having all this stuff in my aft baggage
compartment.
Nevertheless it is true of course that the wing structure itself is weakened by
the lockers.
So lets go and start an effective diet and loose some pounds: that most probably
is the best way to increase safety (keeping the weight of the loaded fuselage
low and therefore the wing loading low ... and besides keeping your heart running
for much longer) :D :D :D .
Cheers Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153217#153217
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 and wing failiers |
I'm concerned about the XL wing as to whether it may be susceptible to flutter,
induced by improper handling or loading. At least one pilot report of "washboarding"
on this list remains unexplained. Its only the XL wing that seems to
be affected, although I would be confident to fly in one that was built standard,
and flown appropriately, but would be reassured if some flight test data was
tabled showing how the prototypes handled these conditions - by what margin
they were tested to - and whether the CZAW mods were ever put thru the same testing?
Not advocating for any retest of this - just confirmation of what tolerance
for loading / CG and Vne / Vd exists?
When choosing the 701, I could have fitted an 0-200 as I already had one in a C150
that I was parting with, but chose to not use it because of the extra vibration
- especially if running rough or 1 cyl. out, could be a bit much for the
airframe, and besides, the weight puts it outside the design envelope. The fatal
crash in Canada and the cracking of Horiz. stab attach brackets when used
with the 912S are examples taken into account.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153218#153218
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: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion |
I'm here guys. I'll email you all off-line.
--------
Low & Slow
Rick
www.n701rr.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153219#153219
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: 601 and wing failiers |
Martin,
I respectfully disagree with your statement below and would like you to back
it up with some factual , empirical evidence. As Larry stated yesterday the
D-tube structure of the wing gives it the strength.
tj do not archive
>
> Nevertheless it is true of course that the wing structure itself is
> weakened by the lockers.
>
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: Couple of questions gang |
John,
Would recommend buying Kent Paser's book, Speed with Economy and using that
as a background for doing things in addition to the usual: wheelpants, small
gaps at wing lockers and wing splice skins if you have an HD/HDS model,
correct engine thrust, good rigging.
tj do not archive
>Would any of you mind mentioning things you've done to make the aircraft
>less draggy? I appreciate it.
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: 601 and wing failiers |
I can't say you are wrong about the "Builder margin" issue, but I can
say I disagree with you (whoever you are). There is a basic
difference between conventional airplane design and canard
architecture that might explain this little mystery. Canards cannot
be allowed to stall, because if they do the result is always
unrecoverable and fatal.
If the main wing in a canard airplane stalls before the front wing,
the plane will fall tail first through the air. That is a certain
death for the plane and all the folks in it. To prevent this
catastrophic flight condition, canard designers must limit the
elevator authority so that stalls of the main wing are impossible.
The Zodiac XL is designed with extremely effective control surfaces
in all three axes. That means the pilot has great control of the
plane even at very low airspeeds. The down side of this choice is
the pilot can assert such great forces on the airframe when the plane
is going fast and he applies high control force inputs that he can
literally pull the wings off. Chris Heintz seems to always refer to
this design choice when he writes about the structural failure
issue. It is a potential problem for pilots who are prone to panic
or otherwise tend to use ridiculously high forces on the controls.
We will never know exactly why there are alarmingly high failures on
Zodiac XLs. They might just go away, or some day there might be a
little "Beef up" fix like there was on the V-Tail Bonanzas after
decades of in-flight structural failures. Still, most of the XL
drivers and builders must be doing something right because the number
of failures still represents only a very small percentage of the flying XLs.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 10:48 PM 12/19/2007, you wrote:
>
>I'll flog the dead horse with my take. I chose to build a 701
>instead of 601XL over this issue. I considered a 601HD but found
>that the 701 was close enough to 601HD speeds to suit my
>needs. I've previously built a canard composite.
>
>The issue I have with the 601XL failures is simply that they are not
>adequately defined. My talk with Sebastian didn't help this concern.
>
>My totally unsubstantiated theory is that the design, as it
>currently exists, is intolerant of some combination of builder
>error. A failure to design in enough "builder error tolerances" may
>explain why most 601XLs will fly forever (and test well with
>sandbags) and a few will catastrophically fail. Who knows if you
>might make just the right combination of fatal flaws when building your 601XL.
>
>Even in the event of pilot error, when reviewing other fleet
>aircraft, wings just don't seem to come off as often as with the
>601XL. I am not arguing that the Rutan canard is a superior
>aircraft, but there has simply not been an airframe failure in the
>canard fleet, even though 2000+ airframes have been built by
>amateur builders. So long as builders have *attempted* to place all
>the layers of fiberglass on, and balanced the surfaces, none have
>failed the structure in flight (even well past VNE). There is a
>tremendous amount of "margins for error" designed into the Rutan
>canard. I don't think such a margin exists in the 601XL spar/wing design.
>
>My opinions only.
>
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: 601 and wing failiers |
or with a little redesign, the inboard leading edge couild easily become genuine
wet wing fuel storage - more fuel, less weight - just more Proseal 890!
I thought I saw the wing lockers in the HD in the center spar. My bad. Still, they're
shorter wing panels.
Anyway, I'm done over analyzing the XL wing, but personally, I won't install the
wing lockers. Something about it from a "seat of your pants" engineering style,
it just looks "not right" to me. I also think making some other changes like
the 15 gallon tanks which puts a nose rib out of alignment with a rear rib,
especially in conjunction with a wing locker and a nose skin made of shorter
skins is asking for trouble. Any one of them are their own isn't a problem (except
the wing locker in my opinion), but combine all three and it's a potential
recipe for disaster.
I plan on completing my wings with no wing locker, 12 gallon tanks, and only one
change, a two piece nose skin instead of one full 12 foot span and have the
two over lap two rib stations. That's simply so that if I ever have to get to
the tanks it'll be a little easier, plus it'll be easier fitting and forming shorter
nose skins.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153192#153192
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
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: 601 and wing failiers |
why could the lockers simply be moved completly to the next to last bay outboard?
That would span load the weight of their contents and reduce the effect on
panel bending. Of course, then you have higher polar moments for things like spins
or upset recovery...
Hello everybody!
I personally like the wing locker option: I'd rather have my 70 lbs baggage in
the wings (wing lockers) and stress the wing spar at the wing/fuselage connection
to a much lesser extent than when having all this stuff in my aft baggage
compartment.
Nevertheless it is true of course that the wing structure itself is weakened by
the lockers.
So lets go and start an effective diet and loose some pounds: that most probably
is the best way to increase safety (keeping the weight of the loaded fuselage
low and therefore the wing loading low ... and besides keeping your heart running
for much longer) :D :D :D .
Cheers Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153217#153217
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
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 |
|
If anyone needs their crank done let me know... I will be doing a batch
around the middle of Jan.
Merry Xmas
Info at bottom.
These cranks have a Rockwell hardness of 50 to.006 and a white layer of 4-5
microns The core hardness is Rockwell 40. compared to my cranks from Nitron
these look far better and are more uniform. The company that does my cranks
also does cranks directly for a large aircraft engine manufacturer (I can't say
their name per their request) but these cranks were in the nitride for 48
hours and that is the same amount of time the aircraft cranks are in for.
They also give you a print out of the Nitriding Results that include
Effective Case Depth, Total Case Depth, Core Hardness 1 KGF and Surface hardness.
I have heard that other Nitriders have a failure rate of 1 and 10. I
guarantee you that if your crank warps I will give you one of mine for free...
And I
am saying that because the people I am using now have never warped a
crankshaft.
The cost of having this done is 150.00 and they do batches of 10 so if
anyone needs cranks done let me know but keep in mind I need 10 for the price
to
be 150.00 so plan on sending them early. I can also have your cranks magna
fluxed (high power), ground, tapped, polished, and nitrated for 375.00 plus
shipping and you will get YOUR crank back. Message me off list if interested.
Jeff
____________________________________
See what's new a
**************************************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: | Re: 601 and wing failiers |
Hi,
Is it possible not to install the wing lockers even if you have ordered
them? Im waiting my crate to arrive in january, but Im re-thinking due to
the comments Im reading here on not to construct that part.
Please, tell me.
----- Original Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:35 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 and wing failiers
>
> Is this the factory demo plane. It DOES NOT APPEAR to have the wing
> lockers. Personally, I'm very suspicious of the wing lockers. Granted,
> they may be fine in testing, but if the accident planes failed due to over
> stressing that would be where the stress would accumulate most, right at
> the wing locker area. Skins in tension are strong, skins in compression,
> or areas in compression where there are no skins, like the wing locker,
> would be particularly prone to failure first. If there is anything wrong
> with this design, I'd say this is it. I'd have to guess the wing is
> considerable stronger without the wing locker. Eliminate the locker and
> you eliminate one more stress point in an area that's already fairly
> stressed as it is as well as being even more diminished in capacity to
> deal with compression forces due to the locker. It would be interesting to
> see if these wings that failed also had wing lockers. Seems as those the
> wong locker idea is a carry-over from the 601HD wing loc!
> ker, the difference though is that the TRUE cantilever part of the wing on
> the HD is outboard of the wing locker area due to the fact that the wing
> on the HD is a three part deal, the 8 foot center section and two 8'
> outboard panels, both of which are solid and shorter and the wing locker
> is essentially part of the center wing section, not part of the seperate
> and shorter wing panels.
>
> [quote="ggower_99(at)yahoo.com"]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 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 Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
>> [b]
>
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153162#153162
>
>
>
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: | A Practical Electric Airplane |
I started a thread here a while back about an "alternative power" airplane.
I finally found that the folks at SONEX, apparently working with the
Aero-Conversions people, (VW Conversion specialists out of Oshkosh) have put
together a proof-of-concept flying version of a practical electric airplane.
Okay, it's "practical" if 45 minutes is your typical flight profile. Hey, I
know a lot of builders of experimental aircraft who get less flight time
than that! It would work for me in the Florida Keys.
You go out and fly for half an hour in the morning, bypass the fuel pump on
landing, plug it in, and go fly again in the afternoon.
The engineering is fascinating. The motor is the size of a coffee can. Well,
yes, the batteries do take up a the rest of the room. But, it looks like it
is all "firewall forward," I'd still like to tuck a fuel cell in there
somewhere. You could do this in a 701, couldn't you? See it at THIS
LINK. <http://www.sonexaircraft.com/press/releases/pr_072407.html>
--
Frank Derfler
-- Daily Discussions of All the Guy Toys that aren't (clearly) illegal or
(blatantly) immoral at my Blog http://MOSTLYFLYING.blogspot.com
- Pilots learn about flights to great places at www.FLYINFLORIDA.COM
-Boaters get the Best Information on Cruising the Florida Keys at
www.KEYSBOATER.com
-For the Best Gifts for Guys see my www.GREATGUYBOOKS.com
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: 601 and wing failiers |
Yes.
You are the builder and do the actually cutting and installation.
I m just now finishing the lockers and the addition of the rear panel is
beefy. Probably stronger than the plain ol skin.
How
ever, even with the extra "baggage" space, I kinda wish I would have waited
to hear the outcome of this thread before installing.....
Steve 601 XL QBK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Iberplanes IGL" <iberplanes@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601 and wing failiers
>
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible not to install the wing lockers even if you have ordered
> them? Im waiting my crate to arrive in january, but Im re-thinking due
> to the comments Im reading here on not to construct that part.
>
> Please, tell me.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:35 AM
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 and wing failiers
>
>
>>
>> Is this the factory demo plane. It DOES NOT APPEAR to have the wing
>> lockers. Personally, I'm very suspicious of the wing lockers. Granted,
>> they may be fine in testing, but if the accident planes failed due to
>> over stressing that would be where the stress would accumulate most,
>> right at the wing locker area. Skins in tension are strong, skins in
>> compression, or areas in compression where there are no skins, like the
>> wing locker, would be particularly prone to failure first. If there is
>> anything wrong with this design, I'd say this is it. I'd have to guess
>> the wing is considerable stronger without the wing locker. Eliminate the
>> locker and you eliminate one more stress point in an area that's already
>> fairly stressed as it is as well as being even more diminished in
>> capacity to deal with compression forces due to the locker. It would be
>> interesting to see if these wings that failed also had wing lockers.
>> Seems as those the wong locker idea is a carry-over from the 601HD wing
>> loc!
>> ker, the difference though is that the TRUE cantilever part of the wing
>> on the HD is outboard of the wing locker area due to the fact that the
>> wing on the HD is a three part deal, the 8 foot center section and two 8'
>> outboard panels, both of which are solid and shorter and the wing locker
>> is essentially part of the center wing section, not part of the seperate
>> and shorter wing panels.
>>
>> [quote="ggower_99(at)yahoo.com"]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 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 Find them fast with
>> Yahoo! Search.
>>> [b]
>>
>>
>> --------
>> Andy Shontz
>> CH601XL - Corvair
>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153162#153162
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: 601 and wing failiers |
Ok, this is a little more sane and less emotional thread on the issue, that's good.
It's nothing more than load analysis. Analyze the loads compression and tension
for the whole wing as well as what would be happening between each rib
station to make it fold and you can identify the stress points. Thinking of it
as a big big of Origami helps too. "If I attempt to fold this, which way do the
connecting pieces need to move and with how much force, and what's keeping
those connecting pieces from moving, and what does it take to move the connecting
pieces to the connecting pieces."
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153237#153237
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: A Practical Electric Airplane |
FYI, Sonex and Aero-Conversions are the same people.
On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:03 AM, Frank Derfler wrote:
> I started a thread here a while back about an "alternative power"
> airplane. I finally found that the folks at SONEX, apparently
> working with the Aero-Conversions people, (VW Conversion specialists
> out of Oshkosh) have put together a proof-of-concept flying version
> of a practical electric airplane. Okay, it's "practical" if 45
> minutes is your typical flight profile. Hey, I know a lot of
> builders of experimental aircraft who get less flight time than
> that! It would work for me in the Florida Keys.
>
> You go out and fly for half an hour in the morning, bypass the fuel
> pump on landing, plug it in, and go fly again in the afternoon.
>
> The engineering is fascinating. The motor is the size of a coffee
> can. Well, yes, the batteries do take up a the rest of the room.
> But, it looks like it is all "firewall forward," I'd still like to
> tuck a fuel cell in there somewhere. You could do this in a 701,
> couldn't you? See it at THIS LINK.
>
> --
> Frank Derfler
>
> -- Daily Discussions of All the Guy Toys that aren't (clearly)
> illegal or (blatantly) immoral at my Blog http://MOSTLYFLYING.blogspot.com
>
> - Pilots learn about flights to great places at www.FLYINFLORIDA.COM
>
> -Boaters get the Best Information on Cruising the Florida Keys at www.KEYSBOATER.com
>
> -For the Best Gifts for Guys see my www.GREATGUYBOOKS.com
>
>
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: 601 and wing failiers |
I don't believe it has something to do with builder error, one of the failure cases
was with a factory build AMD Zodiac. I don't believe this accident was due
to an explosion as some people has mention, the report for this accident states
"no evidence of fire was found" If there is a flaw in the design (I'm not
sure there is one), I think it is one that only comes during very specific flight
situation that provoke a failure when it shouldn't. Of course, this are just
my beliefs based on info available and they can change as new info comes out.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami, Florida
I'll flog the dead horse with my take. I chose to build a 701 instead of 601XL
over this issue. I considered a 601HD but found that the 701 was close enough
to 601HD speeds to suit my needs. I've previously built a canard composite.
The issue I have with the 601XL failures is simply that they are not adequately
defined. My talk with Sebastian didn't help this concern.
My totally unsubstantiated theory is that the design, as it currently exists, is
intolerant of some combination of builder error. A failure to design in enough
"builder error tolerances" may explain why most 601XLs will fly forever (and
test well with sandbags) and a few will catastrophically fail. Who knows if
you might make just the right combination of fatal flaws when building your
601XL.
Even in the event of pilot error, when reviewing other fleet aircraft, wings just
don't seem to come off as often as with the 601XL. I am not arguing that the
Rutan canard is a superior aircraft, but there has simply not been an airframe
failure in the canard fleet, even though 2000+ airframes have been built
by amateur builders. So long as builders have *attempted* to place all the layers
of fiberglass on, and balanced the surfaces, none have failed the structure
in flight (even well past VNE). There is a tremendous amount of "margins for
error" designed into the Rutan canard. I don't think such a margin exists
in the 601XL spar/wing design.
My opinions only.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153214#153214
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 |
|
Hi Guys, I have been busy trying to catch up on floats for the Sebring
show, so I have not been able to read the daily letters and have been
playing catch up every other day. I am not going to repeat everything I
have written in the past on the wings and the failures that were
reported. That is all in the archive.
For those of you who are new to this list and have not seen this thread
before please refer to the archives, it has all been discussed before
and every few months it pops up, not as a new inquiry just as an old
re-hashing, much like you will see a re-hashing of scotch bright pads,
vortex generators and others.
Transport has given it's final reports on the investigations that have
concluded and of course they are as clear as mud, so I have tried in the
past to fill in the blanks without violating the company agreement of
not disclosing privileged information.
If the wings were in any type of danger then the FAA would have put a
halt on the AMD Certified version of the LSA 601XL. They have not and
have not even made suggestions to the manufacturing. Your 601XL kit is
built from the same jigs as the SLSA certified version.
I know more information of the accidents that have been bounced around
this list and each has a reason for the result, none of which are
attributed to the structure of the wing itself, once again check the
archives for the information.
Nevertheless, to calm everyone, the wings were tested again, under the
authority of a 3rd party and that information was for your benefit, not
the FAA's and not for Zenith. They passed all tests and exceeded design
loads beyond stated limits.
Now I am hearing people saying that they are not installing wing lockers
because of fear induced by others. One such statement is that the
demonstrator with 1200 hrs on it doesn't have them. So why does the
demonstrator not have wing lockers, that one is simple. The demo plane
is used at all the airshows for people to get into and out of, to try on
for size and feel. With all those thousands of people getting in and out
more then once, people have lost their balance and fallen, tripped and
stepped on the wing where the lockers would have been installed. Not
having the lockers on the demo plane has nothing to do with the wings
strength but everything to do with people who have never been in a small
plane and step in the wrong spots. Installing the supporting structure
for the wing lockers strengthens the area more then just a skin, but it
would not handle a 300lb man stepping directly on them. IF you want to
strengthen the wing then install the lockers, it adds a mini spar and
the added "L's" re-enforce the whole area.
I don't have wing lockers on my demo plane for a different reason, I
personally don't like the look of them. OF course that is me and my
opinion. But I really do see the value of them in the ability to store
oil and other things that I may not want in the cabin.
You all chose Zenith, not for the 601 itself but as a package, the
company, the designer and the people you interact with. All of this was
in your consideration of going with the 601 series. You know the ethics
of the company, you know that if anything arises Zenith is right on it.
Plus if anything is amiss then you would hear it from me personally.
I have remained on this list, mainly because I have been here since the
beginning, I have been here as a builder and remained when I became
Can-Zac. I am in no way here as a moderator, I believe everyone has the
right to vent frustration and express concerns. I do not provide tech
support or comment on opinions that I my feel differently about (well
most times). The company does not monitor this list, and I only read
posts from this list when I am at home on my personal computer. So any
comments that you feel need to be brought to Zenith's attention needs to
be mailed to them directly. It will be of little use to expect a result
from Zenith if they don't know you asked a question.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
12/19/2007 7:37 PM
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: | 601xl Project For Sale |
My military duties are keeping me much busier than I had hoped and wont be letting
up for quite some time. As a result Ive decided to sell the 601xl project
I purchased from Dave Clay in June and purchase a flying airplane. Many folks
Im sure have visited Daves website documenting the construction of these items
or have built his brake. The craftsmanship of his work is very good.
Included in the sale are the completed: right wing (EAA inspected), elevator,
rudder, left wing tank, left aileron, and left flap. All the wing ribs and rear
spar web for the right wing. Numerous fuselage parts are already done. This
is a great chance for the would be scratch builder to get a huge head start.
Email me off list for more details and pictures or with an offer.
Thanks.
Jim K.
San Antonio, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153251#153251
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 |
The logical answer is that 40 lbs was enough to do the job. My
cylinders have leaked down and need replacement, but I doubt I'd go to
the heavier
ones because the bending moment on the canopy tube section would be
loaded more and eventually bend and need stiffeners to stay straight.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
John Short wrote:
> Because there cheaper if I had to guess.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Southern Reflections <mailto:purplemoon99@bellsouth.net>
> *To:* zenith-list@matronics.com <mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:30 PM
> *Subject:* Zenith-List: canopy gas struts
>
> Hey Bob, and all ,received those 70# yesterday after noon,had to
> go to the plane because I was worried they would be to
> strong,being that you said the 60#worked great ,well so did the
> 70# . the 70's held the canopy at a 45 degree angle with no
> problem,gave it a little push and over it went and lached. thanks
> again , one nagging and on going problem from the start FIXED,
> thanks to the help on this list Why would the big Z use 40#?
> Joe N101HD 601XL/RAM
>
> *
>
> *
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: seat for 601 |
Joe,
Yes I saw your post concerning the 70# struts and I am glad they worked
for you. I am going to take some pictures of my seat modification devices
and put them on the net this afternoon.
Bob Stone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Southern Reflections" <purplemoon99@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: seat for 601
> <purplemoon99@bellsouth.net>
>
> Bob, could you send me a pict. or just post it,can't see over the
> dash......Did you seemy post on the 70#? If not they worked great....Joe
> N101HD 601XL/RAM "Don't Mess WIth Texas"
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "robert stone" <rstone4@hot.rr.com>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:04 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: seat for 601
>
>
>>
>> Juan,
>> I have the same problem with the exception, most of my height is in
>> my legs (High wasted) so when I sit in the ZodiacXL seat I can't see over
>> the instrument panel. I have made up some devices to elevate the seat
>> and will take dome digital pictures tomorrow and send them to you.
>>
>> Bob Stone
>> Harker Heights, Tx
>> ZodiacXL w/Jabiru 3300
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>> To: "Zodiac Forum" <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 7:21 PM
>> Subject: Zenith-List: seat for 601
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Guys,
>>> I am 6 '2" and fit in the Flight crafter made seats well, however I have
>>> flown with some people who are smaller and they need extra padding. Has
>>> any one made any seating pads they might want to sell? back rest and
>>> seat base. Shoot me a picture of what you have. Looking for some seat
>>> cushons for someone under 5;9.
>>>
>>> Juan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: 601 and wing failiers |
The more I read people's input, the more I'm considering adding ribs. Granted,
Zenith themselves say that you can overstress the structure with quick hard control
inputs, specifically elevator. I don't think adding a few ribs would hurt
or even be a big problem. In fact, I'm sure I can use the existing holes in
the main spar where the hat stiffeners are to add ribs without drilling more holes
in the main spar. More ribs would add more torsional strength as well as
shortening the bending moments in the wing itself between rib stations. Wouldn't
even be that hard to interpolate the dimensions for the new interim ribs, mostly
just time making about 4 more rib forms. That with no wing locker and I
think you're looking at a significantly stronger wing to make up for any possible
design flaw or builder error nor would it push stress somewhere else that
that stress shouldn't be going anyway. If it adds more stress to the root, oh
well, that's the roots job, to hold the damn wing on, and in the reports there
was no mention of the bolts at the root shearing. And if you wanted to beef up
the root that would be pretty easy too, just add some plate to span more of
the center spar and add more bolts. But that doesn't seem to be an issue.
[quote="bill_dom(at)yahoo.com"]I don't believe it has something to do with builder
error, one of the failure cases was with a factory build AMD Zodiac. I don't
believe this accident was due to an explosion as some people has mention, the
report for this accident states "no evidence of fire was found" If there is
a flaw in the design (I'm not sure there is one), I think it is one that only
comes during very specific flight situation that provoke a failure when it shouldn't.
Of course, this are just my beliefs based on info available and they
can change as new info comes out.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami, Florida
I'll flog the dead horse with my take. I chose to build a 701 instead of 601XL
over this issue. I considered a 601HD but found that the 701 was close enough
to 601HD speeds to suit my needs. I've previously built a canard composite.
The issue I have with the 601XL failures is simply that they are not adequately
defined. My talk with Sebastian didn't help this concern.
My totally unsubstantiated theory is that the design, as it currently exists, is
intolerant of some combination of builder error. A failure to design in enough
"builder error tolerances" may explain why most 601XLs will fly forever (and
test well with sandbags) and a few will catastrophically fail. Who knows if
you might make just the right combination of fatal flaws when building your
601XL.
Even in the event of pilot error, when reviewing other fleet aircraft, wings just
don't seem to come off as often as with the 601XL. I am not arguing that the
Rutan canard is a superior aircraft, but there has simply not been an airframe
failure in the canard fleet, even though 2000+ airframes have
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153254#153254
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: | Construction/Restoration |
Hello all,
I would like to offer my aircraft construction/restoration services to the
group. I have a 40' X 60' hangar in NE Georgia and have a lifetime of
experience with various aircraft. I can construct or restore large projects
for $20.00 per hour with first-class workmanship. This is an "introductory
rate" as I spread the word about my services but I will honor it for the
near future. Please email me directly or give me a call.
Russ Lassetter
Cleveland, GA
706-348-7514
rblassett(at)alltel.net
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: A Practical Electric Airplane |
fderfler(at)gmail.com wrote:
> I started a thread here a while back about an "alternative power" airplane.
I finally found that the folks at SONEX, apparently working with the Aero-Conversions
people, (VW Conversion specialists out of Oshkosh) have put together a
proof-of-concept flying version of a practical electric airplane.
I've got to stop you right there. I don't believe the aircraft has ever flown.
--------
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=153260#153260
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: 601 and wing failiers |
Just because there was no evidence of a fire does not mean there
wasn't an explosion. It is entirely possible to have an explosion
without a fire and without leaving any signs of heat damage. An
explosion does most of its damage because of the extreme pressures
produced, not from the heat. Debris from the explosion is often not
exposed to the heat for long enough to be damaged by it. Explosions in
real life don't necessarily act like they do in the movies.
On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:56 AM, William Dominguez wrote:
> I don't believe it has something to do with builder error, one of
> the failure cases was with a factory build AMD Zodiac. I don't
> believe this accident was due to an explosion as some people has
> mention, the report for this accident states "no evidence of fire
> was found" If there is a flaw in the design (I'm not sure there is
> one), I think it is one that only comes during very specific flight
> situation that provoke a failure when it shouldn't. Of course, this
> are just my beliefs based on info available and they can change as
> new info comes out.
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: seat for 601 |
amyvega2005(at)earthlink. wrote:
> This is why I built this plane.
That is really an awesome picture. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Patrick
XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153269#153269
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: 601 and wing failiers |
And if there was an explosion, it's more than likely that the tank leaked somehow
and fumes accummulated in the wing structure. An explosion is more likely when
there's less fuel to air ratio. An outright explosion of the tank is unlikely,
a small amount of fuel in the wink with a lot of air would make a bigger
boom.
bryanmmartin wrote:
> Just because there was no evidence of a fire does not mean there
> wasn't an explosion. It is entirely possible to have an explosion
> without a fire and without leaving any signs of heat damage. An
> explosion does most of its damage because of the extreme pressures
> produced, not from the heat. Debris from the explosion is often not
> exposed to the heat for long enough to be damaged by it. Explosions in
> real life don't necessarily act like they do in the movies.
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:56 AM, William Dominguez wrote:
>
>
> > I don't believe it has something to do with builder error, one of
> > the failure cases was with a factory build AMD Zodiac. I don't
> > believe this accident was due to an explosion as some people has
> > mention, the report for this accident states "no evidence of fire
> > was found" If there is a flaw in the design (I'm not sure there is
> > one), I think it is one that only comes during very specific flight
> > situation that provoke a failure when it shouldn't. Of course, this
> > are just my beliefs based on info available and they can change as
> > new info comes out.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
> do not archive.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153272#153272
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 |
|
"Practical" and "Electric" in the same sentence with "Airplane"??
That'll be a really LONG extension cord.
A powerful cup of nog to all.
Regards,
Zed/701/R912 with electric start/90+%/etc
do not archive
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: A "Practica"l Electric Airplane |
You go out and fly for half an hour in the morning, bypass the fuel
pump on landing, plug it in, and go fly again in the afternoon.
+++ Wouldn't this put you in violation of FAR Part 91.151 for the
final fifteen minutes of your half hour?
do not archive
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: A "Practica"l Electric Airplane |
=A7 91.151 Fuel requirements for flight in VFR conditions.
(a) No person may begin a flight in an airplane under VFR conditions
unless (considering wind and forecast weather conditions) there is
enough fuel to fly to the first point of intended landing and,
assuming normal cruising speed=97
(1) During the day, to fly after that for at least 30 minutes.
As long as your intended point of landing is no more than 15 minutes
away you should be legal. There's no rule saying must land with at
least 30 minutes of fuel onboard, you just need to plan on reaching
your destination with at least 30 minutes of fuel onboard. I'm not
saying it's smart to use some of that reserve, just legal.
On Dec 20, 2007, at 11:27 AM, THOMAS SMALL wrote:
>
>
> You go out and fly for half an hour in the morning, bypass the fuel
> pump on landing, plug it in, and go fly again in the afternoon.
> +++ Wouldn't this put you in violation of FAR Part 91.151 for the
> final fifteen minutes of your half hour?
>
>
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: | locker placement in HD/HDS series |
> ker, the difference though is that the TRUE cantilever part of the wing on
> the HD is outboard of the wing locker area due to the fact that the wing
> on the HD is a three part deal, the 8 foot center section and two 8'
> outboard panels, both of which are solid and shorter and the wing locker
> is essentially part of the center wing section, not part of the seperate
> and shorter wing panels.
My lawd!!! I built mine incorrectly!!! I put them in the outboard wing
sections according to plans!!!
This whole rehashed, dead horse, emotional, subjective,
wait-a-minute-I-have-an-opinion-and-I'll-state-it-until-the-cows-come-home
thread on XL wing structure "shortcomings" would be laughable were it not
for the verbal irony of the spelling of the word "failiers" which began the
debacle. If you don't trust the testing done to the design then you want to
decide whether to continue with the build. If unsure about lockers then
omit them.
If you're an aeronautical engineer with the background that Chris and Nick
have then state a factual analysis. It's unfortunate that the NTSB reports
don't guide us to objective reasoning and discussion, but as someone pointed
out astutely as few days back, they're not going to be as thorough or
skilled in investigating homebuilt accidents as builders demand. Much of
their input comes from non-aviation "eye witnesses" who, when interviewed,
might be tempted to inject some "aviation sounding" term to impress.
Just this morning on AVweb was the report that Dick Rutan suffered an engine
seizure in a C-150 and put it down on a road, the engine-out happening while
he was at 1000 feet. News reports cited he was "...lucky to be at a low
altitude" when the cylinder departed. I think we all know that a bit more
altitude in a case like this just might be beneficial. We as listers and
builders who wish to construct the safest possible a/c and help others do
the same, need to deal with fact and not hysteria.
do not archive
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 |
Not necessarily. An explosion is just a very fast fire, yes, but it al
so has a compressive aspect to it, due to the speed of the flame front
There will almost always be indications of heat (I say "almost", but
have never seen one that didn't) and will always show, if in an enclo
sed space, deformation of the surfaces in an outward, although not nec
essarily spherical, shape. The flame front of an exploding substance i
s moving too fast to escape out of any openings, and will, in series,
escape out of the weakest points of the enclosure, after deforming the
m. Typically, a seam bursts, followed by tearing of a surface, with co
mbustion residue applied to the interior surfaces. The extreme press
ures are a function of the resistive strength of the material trying t
o contain the heat of combustion. An "explosion" in the combustion ch
amber doesn't deform anything, due to the strength of the cylinder wal
l and head, but you hear the fast-moving flame front when it escapes t
hrough the exhaust. Just my two cents worth.=0A=0APaul Rodriguez
=0ADO NOT ARCHIVE=0A ----- Original Message ----- =0A From:
Bryan Martin<mailto:bryanmmartin@comcast.net> =0A To: zenith-list
@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com> =0A Sent: Thursda
y, December 20, 2007 9:29 AM=0A Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601
and wing failiers=0A=0A=0A --> Zenith-List message posted by
: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net<mailto:bryanmmartin@comcast.n
et>>=0A=0A Just because there was no evidence of a fire does no
t mean there =0A wasn't an explosion. It is entirely possible to
have an explosion =0A without a fire and without leaving any sign
s of heat damage. An =0A explosion does most of its damage becaus
e of the extreme pressures =0A produced, not from the heat. Debri
s from the explosion is often not =0A exposed to the heat for lon
g enough to be damaged by it. Explosions in =0A real life don't n
ecessarily act like they do in the movies.=0A=0A=0A On Dec 2
0, 2007, at 8:56 AM, William Dominguez wrote:=0A=0A > I don't b
elieve it has something to do with builder error, one of =0A > th
e failure cases was with a factory build AMD Zodiac. I don't =0A
> believe this accident was due to an explosion as some people has
=0A > mention, the report for this accident states "no evidence of
fire =0A > was found" If there is a flaw in the design (I'm not
sure there is =0A > one), I think it is one that only comes durin
g very specific flight =0A > situation that provoke a failure whe
n it shouldn't. Of course, this =0A > are just my beliefs based o
n info available and they can change as =0A > new info comes out.
=0A >=0A=0A=0A -- =0A Bryan Martin=0A N61BM, CH
601 XL,=0A RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.=0A do not archive.
=======================
=======================
=======================
=======================
ww.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List<http://www.matronics.com/Naviga
=======================
=======================
=======================
=======================
==============0A=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
This question is for any of you that have the FWF package, from Jabiru,
for the 3300 engine.
The muffler has three holes, on each side, that fit into the three
exhaust pipes and is held on by one spring (on each side). This does
not seem to make a very good seal and there is clear evidence that
exhaust gases are leaking on both sides. Has anyone else seen this
problem, and if so, what have you done to fix it?
Thank you,
Randy 601xl, Jabiru 3300
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: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion |
Hi Rick,
I would also like to receive your e mail.
Thanks,
Joe Motis
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
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: 601 and wing failiers |
And just because a witness heard the sound of an explosion is not evidence than
an explosion occurred. Other than the witness account, there is no other mention
of an explosion in the report. There are reasons why NTSB takes witness accounts
with a grain of salt.
Bryan:
Thanks for the warning, but I'm fully aware that real life is not like in the movies.
Heck, life some times is not like in the news.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
And if there was an explosion, it's more than likely that the tank leaked somehow
and fumes accummulated in the wing structure. An explosion is more likely when
there's less fuel to air ratio. An outright explosion of the tank is unlikely,
a small amount of fuel in the wink with a lot of air would make a bigger
boom.
bryanmmartin wrote:
> Just because there was no evidence of a fire does not mean there
> wasn't an explosion. It is entirely possible to have an explosion
> without a fire and without leaving any signs of heat damage. An
> explosion does most of its damage because of the extreme pressures
> produced, not from the heat. Debris from the explosion is often not
> exposed to the heat for long enough to be damaged by it. Explosions in
> real life don't necessarily act like they do in the movies.
>
>
> On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:56 AM, William Dominguez wrote:
>
>
> > I don't believe it has something to do with builder error, one of
> > the failure cases was with a factory build AMD Zodiac. I don't
> > believe this accident was due to an explosion as some people has
> > mention, the report for this accident states "no evidence of fire
> > was found" If there is a flaw in the design (I'm not sure there is
> > one), I think it is one that only comes during very specific flight
> > situation that provoke a failure when it shouldn't. Of course, this
> > are just my beliefs based on info available and they can change as
> > new info comes out.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
> do not archive.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153272#153272
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: 601 and wing failiers |
I'm amazed at how many news reports there are of witnesses that say the airplane
was on fire as it came down, when, in fact, it actually didn't catch fire until
it hit the ground. I think that is probably related to the phenom where a
driver speeds up when you try to pass him on the highway. It is a somewhat unconscious,
unintended and unrealistic reaction to reality.
It is also common for non-aviation people to think of a stall in terms of their
car engine stalling, and they are totally ignorant of the aerodynamics of an
aircraft stall, and what one looks like.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>And just because a witness heard the sound of an explosion is not evidence than
an explosion occurred. Other than the witness account, there is no other mention
of an explosion in the report. There are reasons why NTSB takes witness
accounts with a grain of salt.
>
>Bryan:
>Thanks for the warning, but I'm fully aware that real life is not like in the
movies. Heck, life some times is not like in the news.
>
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>
>
>And if there was an explosion, it's more than likely that the tank leaked somehow
and fumes accummulated in the wing structure. An explosion is more likely
when there's less fuel to air ratio. An outright explosion of the tank is unlikely,
a small amount of fuel in the wink with a lot of air would make a bigger
boom.
>
>
>bryanmmartin wrote:
>> Just because there was no evidence of a fire does not mean there
>> wasn't an explosion. It is entirely possible to have an explosion
>> without a fire and without leaving any signs of heat damage. An
>> explosion does most of its damage because of the extreme pressures
>> produced, not from the heat. Debris from the explosion is often not
>> exposed to the heat for long enough to be damaged by it. Explosions in
>> real life don't necessarily act like they do in the movies.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:56 AM, William Dominguez wrote:
>>
>>
>> > I don't believe it has something to do with builder error, one of
>> > the failure cases was with a factory build AMD Zodiac. I don't
>> > believe this accident was due to an explosion as some people has
>> > mention, the report for this accident states "no evidence of fire
>> > was found" If there is a flaw in the design (I'm not sure there is
>> > one), I think it is one that only comes during very specific flight
>> > situation that provoke a failure when it shouldn't. Of course, this
>> > are just my beliefs based on info available and they can change as
>> > new info comes out.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bryan Martin
>> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
>> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
>> do not archive.
>
>
>--------
>Andy Shontz
>CH601XL - Corvair
>www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153272#153272
>
>
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: | Seat elevating divices |
When I attempted to send out pictures of how I raised my seats, the
system rejected all of them for being too large. I have tried
everything I know to reduce the size of the pictures and nothing seem to
work so all who would like to see these pictures, please send me a good
e-mail address and I will send them direct to you.
Bob Stone
Harker Heights, Tx
ZodiacXL w/Jabiru 3300
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: | riveting rear fuselage |
I am working on the rear fuselage of my XL/TD, (everything except the
turtledeck) but the manual is not specific as to when to deburr, cortec and
rivet the whole mess together. I am planning to rivet it all (L-angles to
fuselage sides, longerons, upper rudder hinge and horizontal stab brackets_
all at one time unless there would be a reason to break it down into smaller
subsets.
Any thoughts?
B. Cohen
XL/TD
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: riveting rear fuselage |
short answer when you run out of skin pins..
Long answer.. I did not rivet up the fuse till I was just about ready to up the
canopy on.. Dont rivet the top sinks on till last minute as you will find its
a lot easier to wire it up finish the inst panel ect
Chris..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153343#153343
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: 601 and wing failiers |
I'm going to put a couple of one inch access holes in my wings and when I close
them up I'll pump them full of concrete for added stiffness.
Do not archive!
Terry
The more I read people's input, the more I'm considering adding ribs. Granted,
Zenith themselves say that you can overstress the structure with quick hard control
inputs, specifically elevator. I don't think adding a few ribs would hurt
or even be a big problem. In fact, I'm sure I can use the existing holes in
the main spar where the hat stiffeners are to add ribs without drilling more holes
in the main spar. More ribs would add more torsional strength as well as
shortening the bending moments in the wing itself between rib stations. Wouldn't
even be that hard to interpolate the dimensions for the new interim ribs, mostly
just time making about 4 more rib forms. That with no wing locker and I
think you're looking at a significantly stronger wing to make up for any possible
design flaw or builder error nor would it push stress somewhere else that
that stress shouldn't be going anyway. If it adds more stress to the root, oh
well, that's the roots job, to hold the damn wing
on!
, and in the reports there was no mention of the bolts at the root shearing. And
if you wanted to beef up the root that would be pretty easy too, just add some
plate to span more of the center spar and add more bolts. But that doesn't
seem to be an issue.
[quote="bill_dom(at)yahoo.com"]I don't believe it has something to do with builder
error, one of the failure cases was with a factory build AMD Zodiac. I don't
believe this accident was due to an explosion as some people has mention, the
report for this accident states "no evidence of fire was found" If there is
a flaw in the design (I'm not sure there is one), I think it is one that only
comes during very specific flight situation that provoke a failure when it shouldn't.
Of course, this are just my beliefs based on info available and they
can change as new info comes out.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami, Florida
I'll flog the dead horse with my take. I chose to build a 701 instead of 601XL
over this issue. I considered a 601HD but found that the 701 was close enough
to 601HD speeds to suit my needs. I've previously built a canard composite.
The issue I have with the 601XL failures is simply that they are not adequately
defined. My talk with Sebastian didn't help this concern.
My totally unsubstantiated theory is that the design, as it currently exists, is
intolerant of some combination of builder error. A failure to design in enough
"builder error tolerances" may explain why most 601XLs will fly forever (and
test well with sandbags) and a few will catastrophically fail. Who knows if
you might make just the right combination of fatal flaws when building your
601XL.
Even in the event of pilot error, when reviewing other fleet aircraft, wings just
don't seem to come off as often as with the 601XL. I am not arguing that the
Rutan canard is a superior aircraft, but there has simply not been an airframe
failure in the canard fleet, even though 2000+ airframes have
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153254#153254
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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: riveting rear fuselage |
Like everyone says, definitely leave the rear and middle top skins free until the
very last moment. the rest you can do as you please when you please but make
sureto jig everything up with no twist and top longerons level etc. before pulling
the first rivet. Recheck that setup frequently as you rivet and you will
be happy with the result.
Dred
---- Brad Cohen <bradfnp@msn.com> wrote:
>
> I am working on the rear fuselage of my XL/TD, (everything except the
> turtledeck) but the manual is not specific as to when to deburr, cortec and
> rivet the whole mess together. I am planning to rivet it all (L-angles to
> fuselage sides, longerons, upper rudder hinge and horizontal stab brackets_
> all at one time unless there would be a reason to break it down into smaller
> subsets.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> B. Cohen
> XL/TD
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 |
|
Mark
Thanks for putting it back on the rails..
as for wing lockers.. I have them in my plane. and after building them I agree
that it ADDS strength to the wing. I would not be without it for x country trips
Please for the new people read the older posts and the accident reports.
As a parent would you let you kids fly your plane if you had insider info thought
it was unsafe?. of course not... but the Hinze family fly the 601 daily..
enough said back to building and flying xls ..
chris..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153346#153346
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion |
Rick,
Please include me on the Suzuki engine reply too.
Thank you,
Mike
mikefapex at gmail dot com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153353#153353
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 and wing failiers |
Can I suggest changing all 6061T6 to 2024T3 for greater strength and making
everything twice as thick?
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912
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: 601 and wing failiers |
Hi Dave,
I figure that would make the empty weight twice as much so you would
be over gross weight before adding any payload.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 01:36 PM 12/20/2007, you wrote:
>Can I suggest changing all 6061T6 to 2024T3 for greater strength and
>making everything twice as thick?
>Dave Austin 601HDS - 912
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: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion |
Me too, please.
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153374#153374
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: 601 and wing failiers |
Just a thought and it probably ain't a good one but what about filling
certain cavities with a low expansion foam.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601 and wing failiers
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I figure that would make the empty weight twice as much so you would be
> over gross weight before adding any payload.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
> do not archive
>
> At 01:36 PM 12/20/2007, you wrote:
>
>>Can I suggest changing all 6061T6 to 2024T3 for greater strength and
>>making everything twice as thick?
>>Dave Austin 601HDS - 912
>
>
>
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 |
|
Hello, listers
I got no replies to my original question, so let me try this again, more to
the point:
Has anyone used tires smaller (diameter) than the standard 4.0 x 8.0?
(CH601-HD/HDS)
If so, what size, and what modifications were necessary?
Thanks in advance
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
Montreal, Canada
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
>
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: riveting rear fuselage |
Rivet that sucker. It will make you feel so much better. As you will learn once
you get to the fuselage the manual stops providing a lot of information that
you might have come to expect in the wings and certainly the tail.
This is why when anyone asks if the should build the fuselage before the wings
I try to warn them off.
bradfnp(at)msn.com wrote:
> I am working on the rear fuselage of my XL/TD, (everything except the
> turtledeck) but the manual is not specific as to when to deburr, cortec and
> rivet the whole mess together. I am planning to rivet it all (L-angles to
> fuselage sides, longerons, upper rudder hinge and horizontal stab brackets_
> all at one time unless there would be a reason to break it down into smaller
> subsets.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> B. Cohen
> XL/TD
--------
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=153379#153379
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: exhaust system |
i have that engine, and just followed the directions, the fit is quite tight.
The thing I suggest though is the springs do wear on the muffler so add a thick
beed of red RTV to the springs and safety wire them. The springs need to
be replaced from time to time.
MOST IMPORTANTE Make sure that the muffler exhaust goes past the fire wall. or
there will be CO in the cock pit. Just take the muffler and add 8 inches to
it with slip on extensions you can have made at an auto muffler house. HIGHLY
RECOMMENDED>
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Randy <rpf@wi.rr.com>
>Sent: Dec 20, 2007 12:41 PM
>To: jabiruengines@yahoogroups.com, zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: exhaust system
>
>This question is for any of you that have the FWF package, from Jabiru, for the
3300 engine.
>
>The muffler has three holes, on each side, that fit into the three exhaust pipes
and is held on by one spring (on each side). This does not seem to make a
very good seal and there is clear evidence that exhaust gases are leaking on both
sides. Has anyone else seen this problem, and if so, what have you done to
fix it?
>
>Thank you,
>Randy 601xl, Jabiru 3300
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: 601 and wing failiers |
It had better be an open cell foam or it will expand with altitude and
bulge the skin outward. In any case it will add some weight. It will
add even more weight and will promote corrosion if it absorbs water.
On Dec 20, 2007, at 5:32 PM, John Short wrote:
> >
>
> Just a thought and it probably ain't a good one but what about
> filling certain cavities with a low expansion foam.
>
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Jabiru Engine Seminar |
Hi All,
The February Jabiru Engine Maintenance & Rebuild seminar is now full
(actually overbooked) so we've scheduled another for March 14th - 16th,
2008. For details see www.usjabiru.com
Pete Krotje
Jabiru USA Sport Aircraft, LLC__
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: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion |
Me too! Bob Spudis
In a message dated 12/20/2007 12:58:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Joemotis@aol.com writes:
Hi Rick,
I would also like to receive your e mail.
Thanks,
Joe Motis
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
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: | Lister accesability ? |
I'm wondering why some people's posts have their email address included
in the message and some do not. I would sometimes reply directly to a
poster but do not want to reply to the whole list. If there is no
address I just forget about it.
Aaron Gustafson
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: 601 and wing failiers |
The Titan has a foam filled D-Cell.
--------
Ron Lee
Tucson, Arizona
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153399#153399
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lister accesability ? |
I find that if I print out the msg the person's email address will show.
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912, Spitfire Mk VIII
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Seat elevating divices |
Bob
Assuming you are running Win XP,
Go to:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
or, if that long URL doesn't work, go to
http://tinyurl.com/2meyw
and download the application Image Resizer. It is free from Microsoft and
will reduce .jpg's to ~40-50 kB for a 768x1024 screen. It works like a
charm. There are also some other nice utilities there. The xp-powertoys are
basically things that should have been in xp, but, apparently, were not
ready in time.
Terry
At 01:21 PM 12/20/2007 -0600, you wrote:
> When I attempted to send out pictures of how I raised my seats, the
> system rejected all of them for being too large. I have tried everything
> I know to reduce the size of the pictures and nothing seem to work so all
> who would like to see these pictures, please send me a good e-mail
> address and I will send them direct to you.
>
>Bob Stone
>Harker Heights, Tx
>ZodiacXL w/Jabiru 3300
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Tail is finished; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion |
ME TOOO please!
David Mikesell
230 Theresa Drive, #6
Cloverdale, CA 95425
209-224-4485
skyguynca@skyguynca.com
www.skyguynca.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Joemotis@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo
conversion
Hi Rick,
I would also like to receive your e mail.
Thanks,
Joe Motis
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lister accesability ? |
The e-mail address always seem to show up on my computers. Maybe it's
an artifact of OE. You can try viewing the raw source of the message.
That should reveal the address of the sender. I'm not sure how to do
that in OE, I quit using that piece of crap a long time ago. I would
recommend Mozilla Thunderbird. It's free and a much better e-mail
client than OE. http://www.mozilla.org/
On Dec 20, 2007, at 6:08 PM, Aaron Gustafson wrote:
> I'm wondering why some people's posts have their email address
> included in the message and some do not. I would sometimes reply
> directly to a poster but do not want to reply to the whole list. If
> there is no address I just forget about it.
>
> Aaron Gustafson
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul |
Erickson Metals just quoted me $233.76 for a will call order, non packaged 4x12
foot sheet of IN STOCK material! :x
Guess I'll keep looking.
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153412#153412
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul |
Kevin:
I don't know where your located but you might try Trident metals, they have
several locations one here in Dallas I have been buying from. There cheaper
than any place I have found.
The only so far they have not had in stock was the .016" which they ordered
for me. It wound up being about 85 a sheet plus a little extra for shipping
to there location.
They just delivered 3 - 25' pieces of 6061 T6 3/4" x 3/4" angle delivered
was $50 for all 3 pieces.
----- Original Message -----
From: "kmccune" <kmccune@somtel.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul
>
> Erickson Metals just quoted me $233.76 for a will call order, non packaged
> 4x12 foot sheet of IN STOCK material! :x
>
> Guess I'll keep looking.
>
> --------
> Kevin
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153412#153412
>
>
>
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion |
OK here goes. There isn't much flight data yet as I can't remember to fly and write
at the same time. It gets off the ground like a bat out of hell or like
a pussy cat..you choose.
I'm using the IVO Ultralight prop, In-flight adjustable. Right now I have the
ground adjustable hub on it and Tommy and I set the pitch to 10.5 degrees per
Jeron. I see 5400 RPM WOT on takeoff. In cruise I have seen 90 IAS but that
isn't saying much right now.
Jeron, Raven, advertises the engine wt a 168 lbs. I'm not sure of the stand alone
weight as I never weighed it. Raven does supply the engine mount and exhaust
for the 701 so you don't have to worry about that.
You will have to think about and build your fuel injection - fuel delivery system
as after the recommended pump the rest is up to you. ( ZAC needs to weld
a return fitting on one of your fuel tanks..eg)
BUT there are several 701 flying with this combo so we all can/will help.
You will also have to deal with the cooling system. Larry McFarland solved my problem. I copied his Subaru system and it's perfect. http://www.macsmachine.com/
The 582 engine cowl will work..thats up to you. I used the Jabiru cowl.
Guys...my airplane was heavy compared to Tommy's with a 912. My empty weight is
744. Part of that, I'm sure is my base coat clear coat paint system and my
big fat panel, etc. (not to mention the rear galley) ;>)
With my 17lb battery mounted about a foot aft of the bottom access hole the W&B
is near perfect..just a tish nose heavy which is fine with me.
The airplane flew from day one hands off!
I'd recommend, if you're thinking about this conversion, to buy www.homebuilthelp.com video THE 912 COMPETITION. Jeron's piece will answer many of your questions for sure. Then buy the Raven manual!
I plan on having the plane at Sun & Fun in the ultralight section so I hope to
meet you there.
I have just moved from GA to Ft Lauderdale so my Phase 1 has hit a snag. I must
get it done and the plane down here ASAP!
BTW, I got .5 hours in the right seat of a Fairchild Metroliner today. Its got
nothing on our 701s! :>)
Anymore questions..ask away.
Rick
--------
Low & Slow
Rick
www.n701rr.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153429#153429
Message 61
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 and wing failiers |
You guys have it all wrong you need to fill the wings with helium...
Art
do not archive
--- John Short <creativesigns@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just a thought and it probably ain't a good one but what about filling
> certain cavities with a low expansion foam.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601 and wing failiers
>
>
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > I figure that would make the empty weight twice as much so you would be
> > over gross weight before adding any payload.
> >
> > Paul
> > XL fuselage
> > do not archive
> >
> > At 01:36 PM 12/20/2007, you wrote:
> >
> >>Can I suggest changing all 6061T6 to 2024T3 for greater strength and
> >>making everything twice as thick?
> >>Dave Austin 601HDS - 912
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 62
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul |
Kevin,
Have you tried Yarde Metals? I have recieved quotes from local suppliers in the
air capital of the
world and Yarde still blows them away...
Art
--- kmccune <kmccune@somtel.net> wrote:
>
> Erickson Metals just quoted me $233.76 for a will call order, non packaged 4x12
foot sheet of IN
> STOCK material! :x
>
> Guess I'll keep looking.
>
> --------
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153412#153412
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 63
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul |
Thanks I'll check them out
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153437#153437
Message 64
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul |
Kevin ,that is about $170.00 too high . Try Trident I have been buying
6061-t6 4' X 12' .025 from them at $60.00 .
Wade Jones South Texas
601XL plans building
Cont. 0200
----- Original Message -----
From: "kmccune" <kmccune@somtel.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:17 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul
>
> Erickson Metals just quoted me $233.76 for a will call order, non packaged
> 4x12 foot sheet of IN STOCK material! :x
>
> Guess I'll keep looking.
>
> --------
> Kevin
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153412#153412
>
>
>
Message 65
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 and wing failiers |
Anyone ever wish that they had never asked a question? [Laughing]
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153442#153442
Message 66
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum source in Minneapolis/ST Paul |
I know its high, I was trying to buy locally, I'm willing to pay a little more
and not have to pay for shipping, but WOW! I'll contact the places listed.
Kevin
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153446#153446
Message 67
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Man every body that works must be OFF for Christmas already. Lots of
emails everywhere. bob U.
Message 68
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Group,
I have come across a couple of very well laid out weight & balance Excel
sheets, but only with weights in pounds and fuel in gallons. Has anyone
made/know of one in metric kgs/litres for us metricated people down under.
Thanks,
Darryl.
Message 69
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Another 701 is ready to fly |
My 701 was given an airworthiness certificate yesterday. It's ready to fly,
but still needs some paint and a few add-ons.
It took me about a year and a half working 4 or 5-hours per day, or about
1500 hours to build it. I guess you could build one in the advertised 500
hours if you are really really fast and already built a few other 701s to
get your speed up, but I couldn't do it. Each additional item I added (like
a removable panel, cargo and under-tail access doors, much lighter mailbox
type door locks, and an internal BRS chute) took me an extra week or two of
work. The chute put an extra 40# behind the baggage compartment but the CG
and empty weight still looks OK. Why a chute? A trip in a 2-seat ultralight
from San Francisco to the Grand Canyon and back early this year convinced me
of the need to be able to make a "soft" emergency landing in places where it
would not be possible without a chute. I would not have taken this
spectacular flight without a chute.
I placed a picture of N67MG below, but don't know if Matronics will allow it
to be posted.
Regards,
Les Goldner
701 N67MG
Petaluma, Ca
<http://us.a2.yahoofs.com/groups/g_20314034/187a/__sr_/4b8c.jpg?groW5aHBKNXz
hYNv>
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! --
|