Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:51 AM - Re: Firewall Boot for sealing Rudder Rods 701 (Bill Berle)
2. 02:11 AM - Re: Re: N701ZZ 1st flight (Jab 3300 w/retractable slats) (John Marzulli)
3. 03:39 AM - Re: First Flight of 601XL 19-5018 (Larry Winger)
4. 05:34 AM - prop change is a major change (THOMAS SMALL)
5. 05:51 AM - Re: Firewall Boot for sealing Rudder Rods 701 (n801bh@netzero.com)
6. 06:35 AM - One more " Newbie " joins the fray (stepinwolf)
7. 06:59 AM - For Corvair folks..Nitron and Aerovair (annken100)
8. 07:53 AM - Re: prop change is a major change (James Sagerser)
9. 08:50 AM - Re: prop change is a major change (THOMAS SMALL)
10. 09:54 AM - Re: Firewall Boot for sealing Rudder Rods 701 (Darrell Haas)
11. 09:59 AM - Re: VGs ()
12. 10:25 AM - Re: prop change is a major change (dragonfuel@aol.com)
13. 10:35 AM - Re: VGs (Jerry Hey)
14. 10:36 AM - Re: VGs (Larry H)
15. 10:36 AM - Re: prop change is a major change (Craig Payne)
16. 10:38 AM - Re: prop change is a major change (James Sagerser)
17. 11:22 AM - Re: First Flight of 601XL 19-5018 (eddies)
18. 11:59 AM - Re: VGs (Gig Giacona)
19. 12:39 PM - Re: prop change is a major change (George Tamvakis)
20. 01:53 PM - Re: prop change is a major change (Gig Giacona)
21. 02:29 PM - VDO sender stuck (kkinney)
22. 02:35 PM - Differences in Lyc O-235 (Gig Giacona)
23. 02:51 PM - Re: VDO sender stuck (ashontz)
24. 02:56 PM - Re: Differences in Lyc O-235 (Craig Payne)
25. 03:01 PM - Re: Rib forming questions (Jugle)
26. 03:07 PM - Re: Differences in Lyc O-235 (dragonfuel@aol.com)
27. 03:17 PM - Re: VGs (Les Goldner)
28. 03:38 PM - Nasty remarks (robert stone)
29. 04:00 PM - Re: VGs ()
30. 04:43 PM - Re: VGs (Tim Juhl)
31. 05:21 PM - Re: VGs on XL was Re: VGs (Ronald Steele)
32. 05:26 PM - Re: Nasty remarks (Larry H)
33. 06:26 PM - Re: Re: VGs (John Marzulli)
34. 06:34 PM - 601 Front Wheel Instructions (Don Mountain)
35. 07:33 PM - Re: VGs (LRM)
36. 07:41 PM - Re: Part Stoutness (Art Olechowski)
37. 07:44 PM - Re: Part Stoutness (Art Olechowski)
38. 07:56 PM - Re: Firewall Boot for sealing Rudder Rods 701 (norriedh)
39. 07:58 PM - Re: VGs (Joemotis@aol.com)
40. 08:49 PM - Re: VDO sender stuck (T. Graziano)
41. 09:05 PM - Re: Part Stoutness (Terry Turnquist)
42. 09:35 PM - Re: 601 Front Wheel Instructions (Craig Payne)
43. 09:42 PM - Re: VGs (George Swinford)
44. 10:07 PM - Re: VGs (Les Goldner)
45. 10:57 PM - Re: Holding Nose up (Terry Phillips)
46. 11:50 PM - Re: Holding Nose up (Terry Phillips)
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: Firewall Boot for sealing Rudder Rods 701 |
Sailplane pilot to the rescue !!! Make a conical "boot" out of
rubberized or weatherized ripstop nylon. The stuff they make tent floors
out of, or the stuff they make fabric inflatable boats out of. We used
to use these as pushrod seals on racing gliders and they worked great.
Measure the perimeter of the opening on the firewall. Add 3 inches. That
will be the large end of the seal, the extra 3 inches is to be able to
open out the "base" so it can be glued or mounted to the firewall.
Then measure the length of the nosewheel steering rod. That will be the
height of the cone.
Then draw a triangle on a piece of the weatherproof fabric using those
dimensions. Make the two long legs equal length, not a "right triangle".
At the small end of the triangle make it about an inch thick instead of
coming to a point. Carry that extra inch all the way back to the base.
That extra inch wide strip on the side is important. Cut out the fabric
into the shape of the piece.
Fold the triangular piece of fabric in half like a taco shell, with the
fold line running along the long axis (you will then have a narrower
"right triangle"), Have somebody sew the edges of the long side together
about halfan inch in from the edge. Sew it two or three times, using
heavy thread.
Open up the piece into a cone shape, then turn this cone inside out so
the sewn seam is inside. Slide the boot over the pushrod and glue the
base to the firewall using hi-temp silicone.Clamp the forward end of the
boot to the middle of the steering pushrod using cable ties (Ty-Rap) or
safety wire.
Do a function check to make sure the boot does not interfere with full
rudder travel, etc.
Thanks to Rick Wagner and Larry Lichina, the two guys who installed this
type of seal boot on my racing gliders a million years ago. RIP,
Lichina. Wagner get your S**T together.
Bill the New Guy
norriedh wrote:
>
> Would appreciate suggestions for the firewall boots to seal the rudder rods on
701/Savannah. I followed up on Ben Haas's recommendation of the 2001 Yamaha
Mountain Max snowmobile boots and bought them online at TEam Alpine in USA, but
found them quite heavy and likely too stiff for our Canadian winter.
>
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: N701ZZ 1st flight (Jab 3300 w/retractable slats) |
I know it varies from DAR to DAR. our guy up here has been know to require
an additional 20 hours for a prop change.
DO NOT ARCHIVE!
On Jan 21, 2008 6:29 PM, James Sagerser <alaskajim@cox.net> wrote:
> If a prop change was a "major change" and my original 40 hours were flown
> off, then I would have to fly an additional 5 hours in my test area then if
> the test is satisfactory, I would sign it back into service. A prop change
> is not major and does not require additional hours to my understanding.
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2008, at 6:50 PM, John Marzulli wrote:
>
> By changing props, how much time is being added to the testing by the DAR?
>
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE!
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 5:09 PM, James Sagerser <alaskajim@cox.net > wrote:
>
> > Thank you and thanks to all who have commented on "Buzz".
> > I called Pete at Jabiru USA today to see if I could change my prop to a
> > climb prop. My current prop os a 64/45. It's easy to blow right past VNe
> > if I'm not careful. Within 5 minutes Pete had contacted Sensenich and has
> > another prop, a 68/36 on it's way. My gear has been extended 4" so should
> > have plenty of clearance. Am eager to see how this works out. Anyway,
> > thanks again. Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 21, 2008, at 10:39 AM, IFLYSMODEL@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Hey Jim: Very nice. Too bad you didn't like yellow/black. I really like
> > your performance numbers
> > Lynn
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape<http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489>in the new year.
> >
> > *href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> > *
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> John Marzulli
> http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
>
> "Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot
> harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
> -Airplane The Movie
>
> *
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> *
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
"Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot
harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
-Airplane The Movie
Message 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: First Flight of 601XL 19-5018 |
What a beautiful airplane and a significant accomplishment.
Congratulations!
Larry Winger
Tustin, CA
601XL/Corvair
On Jan 21, 2008 11:58 AM, eddies <eddie.seve@clarity.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Fellow Listers,
>
> After 2 years of effort with a slow build kit, my Zodiac 19-5018, took to
> the air for the first time on January 11. The test pilot reported only a
> slightly heavy right wing. Details of engine temps, speeds and stall
> characteristics are on my website;
> http://mykitlog.com/eddieseve
>
> The link below is a short video of my XL taxiing back to the hanger after
> it's first flight (no sound);
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXL2BpEfgiM
>
> I'd like to thank ALL on the LIST for their help and advice. Special
> thanks to Scott Laughlin, Bill Sewell and Lance Gingell for their web sites
> which where always very helpful when I got stuck.
>
> Keep pulling those rivets, its so worth it,
> Eddie Seve :D
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159615#159615
>
>
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: | prop change is a major change |
I know it varies from DAR to DAR. our guy up here has been know to
require an additional 20 hours for a prop change.
+++ Your DAR, like many that have been encountered by builders on this
list, is marching to the beat of his own drum.
Examples:
Wayne B. was told by his DAR that the strobe/position lights on
wingtips would have to be changed because they tilted forward too much.
Brent B. was given a 25 hour Phase I period with a Rotax 912 (not the
certificated model).
Ron D. was told that his a/c was not inspectable with the flex-skin
aileron hinges.
...probably many more.
According to FAR 21.93 the changing of a prop is a major change.
Forget any "wood to metal" qualification that might seep into the
discussion, the prop change will "...have an appreciable effect on the
operational characteristics of the a/c," and as such you will have to
look to the last page of your Operating Limitations granted when you
received your airworthiness certificate.
Below is what most of us have if we were inspected up until 2004:
(at the bottom of this post is what you folks inspected after 2004
must do - note it says that DARs lack authority in this area)
8130.2D 2/15/00
CHG 1
Page 114 Par 134
(19) After incorporating a major change as described in =A7 21.93, the
aircraft owner is required to
re-establish compliance with =A7 91.319(b). All operations will be
conducted VFR, day only, in a sparsely
populated area. The aircraft must remain in flight test for a minimum
of 5 hours. Persons non-essential to the
flight shall not be carried. The aircraft owner shall make a detailed
log book entry describing the change prior to
the test flight. Following satisfactory completion of the required
number of flight hours in the flight test area, the
pilot shall certify in the records that the aircraft has been shown to
comply with =A7 91.319(b). Compliance with
=A7 91.319(b) shall be recorded in the aircraft records with the
following or a similarly worded statement: "I
certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and
the aircraft is controllable
throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to
be executed, has no
hazardous operating characteristics or design features, and is safe
for operation. The following
aircraft operating data has been demonstrated during the flight
testing: speeds Vso______,
Vx______, and Vy______, and the weight______, and CG location______ at
which they were
obtained."
< A prop change is not major and does not require additional hours to
my understanding.
<< By changing props, how much time is being added to the testing by
the DAR?
+++ This example below from Government Relations clarification on
the EAA website:
Historically, that limitation has evolved (with the help of
EAA).
1.. Yours is an example of what was standard in 1985 - any
major changes required an FAA inspection and re-certification of the
aircraft. Which created a major FAA FSDO workload.
2.. In 1993 the limitation wording changed to "notify the FSDO
prior to making any changes." Now it was no longer mandatory to get a
new FSDO inspection if the FSDO approved your change data in writing.
This reduced their workload by 50%, but you still had to get their
approval in writing before starting with changing your aircraft.
3.. In 1999 the limitation was changed. No longer does the
FSDO have to be notified of a major change. The aircraft owner now just
has to make two entries in the logbook - one describing the major
change, and after a minimum of a five hour test flight, one showing that
the safety of the aircraft (FAR 91.319) and the critical airspeeds (Vx,
Vy, Vso) have been reestablished. No FSDO workload.
4.. In 2004 the limitation changed again. In this change the
owner has to obtain concurrence from the local FSDO as to the
suitability of the proposed test flight area. FAR 91.305 provides the
FAA guidance for this change. You can find the current limitation in FAA
Order 8130.2F, paragraph 153b(19).
Updating your operating limitations is a paperwork procedure
that does not require a reinspection of your aircraft.
Anyway, EAA recommends you ask your local FSDO or MIDO to update
your existing operating limitations to the ones in FAA Order 8130.2F.
You can locate your local FSDO or MIDO by calling EAA at 888-322-4636,
extension 4821 or by using the FAA FSDO locator or the FAA MIDO locator
web site. Call the FSDO or MIDO and tell them you'll be mailing (or by
fax if they'll allow it) them a letter requesting to update your
operating limitations, along with copies (DO NOT mail your originals -
just in case they get lost in the mail) of your current airworthiness
certificate, aircraft registration and operating limitations. Let them
know you'll bring in the original documents for exchange when the new
ones are ready - you can't fly your aircraft without the original
documents in the aircraft so hang onto them as long as you can. This is
a paperwork issue that should only take them 30 minutes to complete.
Don't let them refer you to a DAR for the paperwork conversion because a
DAR does not have the authority to do this - only a FAA FSDO or MIDO
Safety Inspector can do the paperwork. Note: a DAR can do the paperwork
under a "re-certification" action, which means they have to inspect your
aircraft and charge you for their services - while the FSDO or MIDO
Inspector does not have to do an inspection and the cost is more
reasonable - Free.
+++ Bottom line - look in your operating limitations
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: Firewall Boot for sealing Rudder Rods 701 |
I fly my 801 all the time in -25 f weather. Never had a bit of problem w
ith them being stiff. I will go to the local dealer today and get a boot
and put it on a scale.but my guess is they weigh 5-8 oz at the most.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "norriedh" <norried@shaw.ca> wrote:
Would appreciate suggestions for the firewall boots to seal the rudder r
ods on 701/Savannah. I followed up on Ben Haas's recommendation of the 2
001 Yamaha Mountain Max snowmobile boots and bought them online at TEam
Alpine in USA, but found them quite heavy and likely too stiff for our C
anadian winter. Have searched all local auto part stores etc but havent
found a substitute.
Just had a new suggestion from another list--- the Rakboot from Products
That Work -- and this looks really good --- has anyone here tried them?
I was hoping to find one of those thin silicone boots as they remain fle
xible in the cold but so far havent found one.
Thanks
Douglas N
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159695#159695
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
_____________________________________________________________
Click here and get the professional resume help you need.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4s1lmMd9q6PPDXzCew6
EiA8PvrNmyXrmeZZF7uffei34vKGG/
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: | One more " Newbie " joins the fray |
Hi everybody,
I am now semi retired, and finally can spare the time to do what ever I set my
mind to. I have spent most of my life as an avid builder ( of anything ) and
this has become for me my latest challenge.
Received my pilots license in the early 70's, and spent almost four years teaching
ground school for the local flying club. During that time I scratch built
a " Cubby ' but was forced to sell it six months before completion. Since then
I have always promised myself that one of these days I would build and fly
my own aircraft, and that is why I am here today.
I have just received my 701 plans from Zenith, and I am in the beginning stages
of gathering up all the necessary tools ( see attached photo ) and parts that
I will need. The major part of the project will be an additionel 20' x 40'
garage , that I will be building as soon as the ground thaws.
I would like to thank all of the Forum members who will have the time and patience,
to respond to all my future concerns.
Fly safe
Bob
a.k.a. stepinwolf
--------
Live each day, as if it was your last
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159743#159743
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/brake2_431.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/brake3_183.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/plyiers_904.jpg
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: | For Corvair folks..Nitron and Aerovair |
Fellow listers,
Pramod Kotwal of Nitron and Aerovair has suffered a tragic family crisis. While
dealing with this crisis Pramod will be unavailable to answer inquiries by phone
or email. Please keep Pramod and his family in your prayers and thoughts
during this difficult time.
Thank you in advance for your understanding.
Ken Pavlou
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159750#159750
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: prop change is a major change |
Thank you for the correction concerning a "major change" for a prop
installation. In my case, I'm still in my original test area and
still flying off my hours. I will make the change in my logbook and
return it to service when the 40 hours are flown off. No additional
hours, in my case are warranted. As you clarified, I'm not required
to contact my original DAR or even the FSDO office except to the
suitability (does not apply here) of the test area. I understand
from my DAR this is because I could have flown off my hours and have
moved back to Alaska in which case the local FSDO would approve/
disapprove my new test area at that time. This could be inaccurate,
but this is the way I interpret this situation. Thank you again for
all the time to research this for our list. Jim
On Jan 22, 2008, at 6:28 AM, THOMAS SMALL wrote:
>
>
> I know it varies from DAR to DAR. our guy up here has been know to
> require an additional 20 hours for a prop change.
> +++ Your DAR, like many that have been encountered by builders on
> this list, is marching to the beat of his own drum.
>
> Examples:
>
> Wayne B. was told by his DAR that the strobe/position lights on
> wingtips would have to be changed because they tilted forward too
> much.
>
> Brent B. was given a 25 hour Phase I period with a Rotax 912 (not
> the certificated model).
>
> Ron D. was told that his a/c was not inspectable with the flex-skin
> aileron hinges.
>
> ...probably many more.
>
> According to FAR 21.93 the changing of a prop is a major change.
> Forget any "wood to metal" qualification that might seep into the
> discussion, the prop change will "...have an appreciable effect on
> the operational characteristics of the a/c," and as such you will
> have to look to the last page of your Operating Limitations granted
> when you received your airworthiness certificate.
>
> Below is what most of us have if we were inspected up until 2004:
>
> (at the bottom of this post is what you folks inspected after 2004
> must do - note it says that DARs lack authority in this area)
>
> 8130.2D 2/15/00
>
> CHG 1
>
> Page 114 Par 134
>
> (19) After incorporating a major change as described in =A7 21.93,
> the aircraft owner is required to
>
> re-establish compliance with =A7 91.319(b). All operations will be
> conducted VFR, day only, in a sparsely
>
> populated area. The aircraft must remain in flight test for a
> minimum of 5 hours. Persons non-essential to the
>
> flight shall not be carried. The aircraft owner shall make a
> detailed log book entry describing the change prior to
>
> the test flight. Following satisfactory completion of the required
> number of flight hours in the flight test area, the
>
> pilot shall certify in the records that the aircraft has been shown
> to comply with =A7 91.319(b). Compliance with
>
> =A7 91.319(b) shall be recorded in the aircraft records with the
> following or a similarly worded statement: "I
>
> certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed
> and the aircraft is controllable
>
> throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers
> to be executed, has no
>
> hazardous operating characteristics or design features, and is safe
> for operation. The following
>
> aircraft operating data has been demonstrated during the flight
> testing: speeds Vso______,
>
> Vx______, and Vy______, and the weight______, and CG location______
> at which they were
>
> obtained."
>
>
> < A prop change is not major and does not require additional hours
> to my understanding.
>
> << By changing props, how much time is being added to the testing
> by the DAR?
> +++ This example below from Government Relations clarification on
> the EAA website:
>> Historically, that limitation has evolved (with the help of EAA).
>>
>> Yours is an example of what was standard in 1985 - any major
>> changes required an FAA inspection and re-certification of the
>> aircraft. Which created a major FAA FSDO workload.
>> In 1993 the limitation wording changed to "notify the FSDO prior
>> to making any changes." Now it was no longer mandatory to get a
>> new FSDO inspection if the FSDO approved your change data in
>> writing. This reduced their workload by 50%, but you still had to
>> get their approval in writing before starting with changing your
>> aircraft.
>> In 1999 the limitation was changed. No longer does the FSDO have
>> to be notified of a major change. The aircraft owner now just has
>> to make two entries in the logbook - one describing the major
>> change, and after a minimum of a five hour test flight, one
>> showing that the safety of the aircraft (FAR 91.319) and the
>> critical airspeeds (Vx, Vy, Vso) have been reestablished. No FSDO
>> workload.
>> In 2004 the limitation changed again. In this change the owner has
>> to obtain concurrence from the local FSDO as to the suitability of
>> the proposed test flight area. FAR 91.305 provides the FAA
>> guidance for this change. You can find the current limitation in
>> FAA Order 8130.2F, paragraph 153b(19).
>> Updating your operating limitations is a paperwork procedure that
>> does not require a reinspection of your aircraft.
>>
>> Anyway, EAA recommends you ask your local FSDO or MIDO to update
>> your existing operating limitations to the ones in FAA Order
>> 8130.2F. You can locate your local FSDO or MIDO by calling EAA at
>> 888-322-4636, extension 4821 or by using the FAA FSDO locator or
>> the FAA MIDO locator web site. Call the FSDO or MIDO and tell them
>> you'll be mailing (or by fax if they'll allow it) them a letter
>> requesting to update your operating limitations, along with copies
>> (DO NOT mail your originals ' just in case they get lost in the
>> mail) of your current airworthiness certificate, aircraft
>> registration and operating limitations. Let them know you'll bring
>> in the original documents for exchange when the new ones are ready
>> - you can't fly your aircraft without the original documents in
>> the aircraft so hang onto them as long as you can. This is a
>> paperwork issue that should only take them 30 minutes to complete.
>> Don't let them refer you to a DAR for the paperwork conversion
>> because a DAR does not have the authority to do this - only a FAA
>> FSDO or MIDO Safety Inspector can do the paperwork. Note: a DAR
>> can do the paperwork under a "re-certification" action, which
>> means they have to inspect your aircraft and charge you for their
>> services - while the FSDO or MIDO Inspector does not have to do an
>> inspection and the cost is more reasonable - Free.
>>
>> +++ Bottom line - look in your operating limitations
> ========================
> ========================
> ========================
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: prop change is a major change |
Alaska Jim,
Very confusing area. I sensed you were in still in Phase I and as such
you can make any changes you want. Had you been in Phase II and moved
and then made the prop change, I think you'd be required to at least
contact the local FSDO/MIDO in case they wanted to be a bit heavy-handed
and impose a new test area. Seems like the old reg adopted in 1999 was
a bit more lenient - but at least that's what my a/c is under so fine by
me.
This info came from Joe Norris at EAA when I called to check on a change
made last month from the old Jabiru 60x48 prop to a Sensenich 64x51 for
the opposite reason you did - to gain some cruise. Average speed
increase in the 2600 to 2850 RPM range was 9 MPH. With the prop you
described coming from Sensenich, you should have climb out the kazoo!
BTW, your bird is very sharp.
CAVU jeff HDS/3300 do not archive
Thank you for the correction concerning a "major change" for a prop
installation. In my case, I'm still in my original test area and still
flying off my hours. I will make the change in my logbook and return
it to service when the 40 hours are flown off. No additional hours, in
my case are warranted. As you clarified, I'm not required to contact my
original DAR or even the FSDO office except to the suitability (does
not apply here) of the test area. I understand from my DAR this is
because I could have flown off my hours and have moved back to Alaska in
which case the local FSDO would approve/disapprove my new test area at
that time. This could be inaccurate, but this is the way I interpret
this situation.
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: Firewall Boot for sealing Rudder Rods 701 |
I was told to get a boot that fits over the 4 wheel drive levers in an
older jeep etc. and then split them.
Darrell Haas
601 XL
On 1/21/08, norriedh <norried@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Would appreciate suggestions for the firewall boots to seal the rudder rods on
701/Savannah. I followed up on Ben Haas's recommendation of the 2001 Yamaha
Mountain Max snowmobile boots and bought them online at TEam Alpine in USA, but
found them quite heavy and likely too stiff for our Canadian winter. Have searched
all local auto part stores etc but havent found a substitute.
>
> Just had a new suggestion from another list--- the Rakboot from Products That
Work -- and this looks really good --- has anyone here tried them?
>
> I was hoping to find one of those thin silicone boots as they remain flexible
in the cold but so far havent found one.
>
> Thanks
>
> Douglas N
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159695#159695
>
>
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 |
|
UHHH, Les, we have talked on the phone when I was moving out here near SF
looking for a hangar. I am a real person not a sales agent for anyone.
David Mikesell
230 Theresa Drive, #6
Cloverdale, CA 95425
209-224-4485
skyguynca@skyguynca.com
www.skyguynca.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Les Goldner" <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:53 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: VGs
> <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
>
> I'm getting a little fed up with your crude attempt to sell VGs on this
> site. I come to the Zenith-list to give and get unbiased information, not
> to
> see your sales pitch. This is not the place for this. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
> Les
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:02 AM
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: VGs
>>
>>
>> The VG manufacture has tested and recommends that the VG's be
>> placed on the leading edge of the elevator for more authority
>> during the low speed flaring of the airplane.
>>
>> David Mikesell
>> 230 Theresa Drive, #6
>> Cloverdale, CA 95425
>> 209-224-4485
>> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>> www.skyguynca.com
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "THOMAS SMALL" <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 2:25 AM
>> Subject: Zenith-List: VGs
>>
>>
>> <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>> >
>> >
>> >> have you installed the VGs on the elevator?
>> >
>> > do not archive
>> >
>> > ...might you mean stab?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: prop change is a major change |
The ELSA planes follow a different path on such changes.? The builder simply reverts
the plane to Phase One test status, flys a minimum of one hour flight test
(or more if he believes needed), re-certifies the plane back into normal status,
and records the process in the log.? Works for a change of prop, engine,
landing gear, or whatever.? Wanted to change my Sensenich to a McCauley (done
it).? Wanted to change the McCauley to a Warp Drive (done it).? Switch from
Zenith landing gear to Grove (done it). Want to change the Lycoming for a Jabiru??
Might some day but not yet, but same procedure. Simple?
Some of you guys couldn't see the advantage of ELSA?? This is one.
Cheers,
Bob Archibald
CH601XL/Lyc 125hp/Dynons/400 hrs
Dragonfly Aviation
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: THOMAS SMALL <tjs22t@verizon.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: prop change is a major change?
According to FAR 21.93 the changing of a
prop is a major change.? Forget any "wood to metal" qualification that
might seep into the discussion, the prop change will "...have an appreciable
effect on the operational characteristics of the a/c," and as such you will
have to look to the last page of your Operating Limitations granted when you
received your airworthiness certificate.
Below is what most of us have if we were
inspected up until 2004:?
________________________________________________________________________
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 |
|
I see nothing wrong with a vendor using this list to reference his own
web site. It is certainly better than not knowing of a product or
service being offered. If you want to know more you can check it
out. If not just delete the message and move on.
VGs may be controversial to some but many people who have tried them
would not give them up. I have had just one ride in a 701 with VGs
and it seemed to perform very well. Jerry
On Jan 22, 2008, at 12:56 PM, <skyguynca@skyguynca.com> <skyguynca@skyguynca.com
> wrote:
>
> UHHH, Les, we have talked on the phone when I was moving out here
> near SF looking for a hangar. I am a real person not a sales agent
> for anyone.
>
> David Mikesell
> 230 Theresa Drive, #6
> Cloverdale, CA 95425
> 209-224-4485
> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
> www.skyguynca.com
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Les Goldner" <lgold@quantum-associates.com
> >
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:53 PM
> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: VGs
>
>
>> >
>>
>> I'm getting a little fed up with your crude attempt to sell VGs on
>> this
>> site. I come to the Zenith-list to give and get unbiased
>> information, not to
>> see your sales pitch. This is not the place for this. ENOUGH IS
>> ENOUGH!
>> Les
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:02 AM
>>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: VGs
>>>
>>>
>>> The VG manufacture has tested and recommends that the VG's be
>>> placed on the leading edge of the elevator for more authority
>>> during the low speed flaring of the airplane.
>>>
>>> David Mikesell
>>> 230 Theresa Drive, #6
>>> Cloverdale, CA 95425
>>> 209-224-4485
>>> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>>> www.skyguynca.com
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "THOMAS SMALL" <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>>> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 2:25 AM
>>> Subject: Zenith-List: VGs
>>>
>>>
>>> <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> have you installed the VGs on the elevator?
>>> >
>>> > do not archive
>>> >
>>> > ...might you mean stab?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
Me thinks Les needs a "chill pill".....or something stronger.
---------------------------------
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: | prop change is a major change |
So is changing the pitch on a ground adjustable prop a major change? If you
change it enough seems like it would have as much impact on flight
characteristics as a new prop.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of THOMAS SMALL
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: prop change is a major change
Alaska Jim,
Very confusing area. I sensed you were in still in Phase I and as such you
can make any changes you want. Had you been in Phase II and moved and then
made the prop change, I think you'd be required to at least contact the
local FSDO/MIDO in case they wanted to be a bit heavy-handed and impose a
new test area. Seems like the old reg adopted in 1999 was a bit more
lenient - but at least that's what my a/c is under so fine by me.
This info came from Joe Norris at EAA when I called to check on a change
made last month from the old Jabiru 60x48 prop to a Sensenich 64x51 for the
opposite reason you did - to gain some cruise. Average speed increase in
the 2600 to 2850 RPM range was 9 MPH. With the prop you described coming
from Sensenich, you should have climb out the kazoo!
BTW, your bird is very sharp.
CAVU jeff HDS/3300 do not archive
Thank you for the correction concerning a "major change" for a prop
installation. In my case, I'm still in my original test area and still
flying off my hours. I will make the change in my logbook and return it to
service when the 40 hours are flown off. No additional hours, in my case
are warranted. As you clarified, I'm not required to contact my original
DAR or even the FSDO office except to the suitability (does not apply here)
of the test area. I understand from my DAR this is because I could have
flown off my hours and have moved back to Alaska in which case the local
FSDO would approve/disapprove my new test area at that time. This could be
inaccurate, but this is the way I interpret this situation.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: prop change is a major change |
Yes, I'm in phase I with 33 hours to go. I absolutely agree. Thanks
you Jim
do not archive
On Jan 22, 2008, at 9:45 AM, THOMAS SMALL wrote:
> Alaska Jim,
>
> Very confusing area. I sensed you were in still in Phase I and as
> such you can make any changes you want. Had you been in Phase II
> and moved and then made the prop change, I think you'd be required
> to at least contact the local FSDO/MIDO in case they wanted to be a
> bit heavy-handed and impose a new test area. Seems like the old
> reg adopted in 1999 was a bit more lenient - but at least that's
> what my a/c is under so fine by me.
>
> This info came from Joe Norris at EAA when I called to check on a
> change made last month from the old Jabiru 60x48 prop to a
> Sensenich 64x51 for the opposite reason you did - to gain some
> cruise. Average speed increase in the 2600 to 2850 RPM range was 9
> MPH. With the prop you described coming from Sensenich, you should
> have climb out the kazoo!
>
> BTW, your bird is very sharp.
>
> CAVU jeff HDS/3300 do not archive
>
>
> Thank you for the correction concerning a "major change" for a prop
> installation. In my case, I'm still in my original test area and
> still flying off my hours. I will make the change in my logbook
> and return it to service when the 40 hours are flown off. No
> additional hours, in my case are warranted. As you clarified, I'm
> not required to contact my original DAR or even the FSDO office
> except to the suitability (does not apply here) of the test area.
> I understand from my DAR this is because I could have flown off my
> hours and have moved back to Alaska in which case the local FSDO
> would approve/disapprove my new test area at that time. This could
> be inaccurate, but this is the way I interpret this situation.
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ============================================================ _-
> contribution_-
> ===========================================================
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: First Flight of 601XL 19-5018 |
Thanks guys,
The whole process has been a great experience and the plane flys like advertised,
which is a credit to the team at Zenith.
Eddie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159808#159808
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 |
|
In addition to what I've posted below I think it would be a pretty good idea that
if you are selling something that you are talking about that you should add
a disclaimer if it isn't clear from your post.
Here are the guidelines Matt wrote...
Occassional posts by vendors or individuals who are regularyly
subscribed to a given List are considered acceptable. Posts by
List members promoting their respective products or items for sale
should be of a friendly, informal nature, and should not resemble
a typical SPAM message. The List isn't about commercialism, but
is about sharing information and knowledge. This applies to
everyone, including those who provide products to the entire
community. Informal presentation and moderation should be the
operatives with respect to advertising on the Lists.
--------
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=159818#159818
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: | prop change is a major change |
I wonder if some of you guys that spend so much time and effort on these
trivial discussions were to spend equal time on building your planes, I
am sure some of you would probably finish your projects a lot sooner if
you spend your time on your projects instead.
________________________________
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
dragonfuel@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: prop change is a major change
The ELSA planes follow a different path on such changes. The builder
simply reverts the plane to Phase One test status, flys a minimum of one
hour flight test (or more if he believes needed), re-certifies the plane
back into normal status, and records the process in the log. Works for
a change of prop, engine, landing gear, or whatever. Wanted to change
my Sensenich to a McCauley (done it). Wanted to change the McCauley to
a Warp Drive (done it). Switch from Zenith landing gear to Grove (done
it). Want to change the Lycoming for a Jabiru? Might some day but not
yet, but same procedure. Simple?
Some of you guys couldn't see the advantage of ELSA? This is one.
Cheers,
Bob Archibald
CH601XL/Lyc 125hp/Dynons/400 hrs
Dragonfly Aviation
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: THOMAS SMALL <tjs22t@verizon.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: prop change is a major change
According to FAR 21.93 the changing of a prop is a major change.
Forget any "wood to metal" qualification that might seep into the
discussion, the prop change will "...have an appreciable effect on the
operational characteristics of the a/c," and as such you will have to
look to the last page of your Operating Limitations granted when you
received your airworthiness certificate.
Below is what most of us have if we were inspected up until
2004:
________________________________
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?nci
d=aolcmp00050000000003> !
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: prop change is a major change |
Well George, if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they hop. A
lot of us don't have the option of working on the plane every day and use our
not working on the plane time to wax philosophical on the process.
Don't feel like you must read all of our babbling.
If you don't like the stuff filling your mail box do what I do. Use the web based
reader. It really is, in a lot of ways, better and it is easier to skip over
stuff that isn't of interest.
For the record this thread on the regs has been of interest to me and I would assume
it has been to those that have posted to it. Remember we don't just fly
our planes in the sky. We fly them in a regulated sky.
George(at)gtelectricnc.co wrote:
> I wonder if some of you guys that spend so much time and effort on these trivial
discussions were to spend equal time on building your planes, I am sure some
of you would probably finish your projects a lot sooner if you spend your time
on your projects instead.
>
>
--------
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=159834#159834
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: | VDO sender stuck |
I have a VDO sender that's stuck. Other than picking up the wing and shaking it,
what can I do?
Regards,
Kevin Kinney
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159849#159849
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: | Differences in Lyc O-235 |
Anybody know the difference in the O-235-L2C and the O-235-N2C?
--------
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=159852#159852
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: VDO sender stuck |
Maybe bend a coat hanger and stick it in there and try to free it up? Ground yourself
and the tank before you do it if there's gas in the tank.
Treat it like a fuel filler and get one of those alligator clip wires from radio
shack and clip one end to a ground on the plane and the other to the coat hanger.
kkinney wrote:
> I have a VDO sender that's stuck. Other than picking up the wing and shaking
it, what can I do?
>
> Regards,
> Kevin Kinney
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159858#159858
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: | Differences in Lyc O-235 |
www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Lycoming/Lyc_Cert_list.html
T/O Compression
Model HP RPM Fuel Ratio
Suffix
O-235-L2C 118 2800 100/100LL 8.50:1 Same as -L2A but
with Slick Magnetos -15
O-235-N2C 116 2800 100/100LL 8.10:1 Same as -L2C but
lower comp. ratio and power -15
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gig Giacona
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:33 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Differences in Lyc O-235
Anybody know the difference in the O-235-L2C and the O-235-N2C?
--------
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=159852#159852
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: Rib forming questions |
Thanks for those of you who responded to this post. I contacted Zenith and showed
them photos, Nick confirmed all is okay.
Gary, your idea of using the dowell is a good one and thanks for your other tips.
Glenn
gboothe5(at)comcast.net wrote:
> Glenn,
>
> The roll-out at your joggle doesn't appear to be bad at all. In the future,
> you might consider a tighter clamp at that exact area when you form the
> joggle.
>
> The length of the joggle is not critical if it does not interfere with the
> placement of a rivet. If it does interfere with a rivet, there may be
> options, but re-bending the aluminum is not preferred. Too much bending
> 'work hardens' the aluminum, creating a possible crack.
>
> The clearance referred to should be good at 1-2mm. The important thing is
> that the rib flange does not touch the spar flange, and there is not so much
> gap that you lose your edge clearance on your last rivet.
>
> If the ends are high on your ribs, just put a large dowel under the rib
> (like a closet hanger rod) and roll the rib back and forth with gentle
> pressure. The rib will flatten out very easily.
>
> --
--------
Glenn Andressen
601XL- just started.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159860#159860
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Differences in Lyc O-235 |
Slight difference in the cylinders, I have always interchanged them.? I have operated
up to 10 Cessna 152's at a time using these engines and done all the overhaul
disassembly and assembly here.? That is why I had a spare O-235 available
for my Zodiac.
Cheers,
Bob Archibald
N601BA
-----Original Message-----
From: Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@suddenlink.net>
Sent: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 2:33 pm
Subject: Zenith-List: Differences in Lyc O-235
Anybody know the difference in the O-235-L2C and the O-235-N2C?
--------
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=159852#159852
________________________________________________________________________
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 |
|
David,
I apologize for the outburst.
I didn't look at who the sender was until after sending the nasty email. The
guys from Australia have been pushing VGs hard on this site, sometimes
without stating that they were selling them, and mistook you for them.
I know you are not trying to sell VGs and I hope you accept my apology.
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:56 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: VGs
>
>
> UHHH, Les, we have talked on the phone when I was moving out
> here near SF looking for a hangar. I am a real person not a
> sales agent for anyone.
>
> David Mikesell
> 230 Theresa Drive, #6
> Cloverdale, CA 95425
> 209-224-4485
> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
> www.skyguynca.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Les Goldner" <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:53 PM
> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: VGs
>
>
> > <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
> >
> > I'm getting a little fed up with your crude attempt to sell
> VGs on this
> > site. I come to the Zenith-list to give and get unbiased
> information, not
> > to
> > see your sales pitch. This is not the place for this.
> ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
> > Les
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> >> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
> >> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:02 AM
> >> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: VGs
> >>
> >>
> >> The VG manufacture has tested and recommends that the VG's be
> >> placed on the leading edge of the elevator for more authority
> >> during the low speed flaring of the airplane.
> >>
> >> David Mikesell
> >> 230 Theresa Drive, #6
> >> Cloverdale, CA 95425
> >> 209-224-4485
> >> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
> >> www.skyguynca.com
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "THOMAS SMALL" <tjs22t@verizon.net>
> >> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 2:25 AM
> >> Subject: Zenith-List: VGs
> >>
> >>
> >> <tjs22t@verizon.net>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> have you installed the VGs on the elevator?
> >> >
> >> > do not archive
> >> >
> >> > ...might you mean stab?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Some of the wise ass remarks I read on this forum make me feel like
thisThen I read a little further and feel like thisThe point is, a good
many people who have something to offer are leaving the Zenith net
because so many other people have had something nasty to say about their
entry. People who make these remarks are weak, stupid and have nothing
to offer but their crap.
(Now go ahead and flame me and see if I give a dam, I have thick
skin)
Bob Stone
Harker Heights, Tx
ZodiacXL w/Jabiru 3300
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 |
|
No problem Les.
David Mikesell
230 Theresa Drive, #6
Cloverdale, CA 95425
209-224-4485
skyguynca@skyguynca.com
www.skyguynca.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Les Goldner" <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:15 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: VGs
> <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
>
> David,
> I apologize for the outburst.
> I didn't look at who the sender was until after sending the nasty email.
> The
> guys from Australia have been pushing VGs hard on this site, sometimes
> without stating that they were selling them, and mistook you for them.
> I know you are not trying to sell VGs and I hope you accept my apology.
> Les
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:56 AM
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: VGs
>>
>>
>> UHHH, Les, we have talked on the phone when I was moving out
>> here near SF looking for a hangar. I am a real person not a
>> sales agent for anyone.
>>
>> David Mikesell
>> 230 Theresa Drive, #6
>> Cloverdale, CA 95425
>> 209-224-4485
>> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>> www.skyguynca.com
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Les Goldner" <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
>> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:53 PM
>> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: VGs
>>
>>
>> > <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
>> >
>> > I'm getting a little fed up with your crude attempt to sell
>> VGs on this
>> > site. I come to the Zenith-list to give and get unbiased
>> information, not
>> > to
>> > see your sales pitch. This is not the place for this.
>> ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
>> > Les
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>> >> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> >> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>> >> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:02 AM
>> >> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> >> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: VGs
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The VG manufacture has tested and recommends that the VG's be
>> >> placed on the leading edge of the elevator for more authority
>> >> during the low speed flaring of the airplane.
>> >>
>> >> David Mikesell
>> >> 230 Theresa Drive, #6
>> >> Cloverdale, CA 95425
>> >> 209-224-4485
>> >> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>> >> www.skyguynca.com
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "THOMAS SMALL" <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>> >> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> >> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 2:25 AM
>> >> Subject: Zenith-List: VGs
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> have you installed the VGs on the elevator?
>> >> >
>> >> > do not archive
>> >> >
>> >> > ...might you mean stab?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Please note that I asked for the name of the vendor... sorry if I got everyone
excited.
I have talked to people who have installed VG's on other aircraft and reported
measurable improvements. For example, Kenmore Air Service in Seattle was operating
two super cubs on floats. One had VG's. I spoke to one of their instructors
who said the AC with VGs outperformed the other by quite a margin.
I am seriously considering VG's for my XL and am interested in whatever info I
can find on the subject.
Tim
Do not archive
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159880#159880
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VGs on XL was Re: VGs |
I'd be interested in more info on VG's on an XL also. This seems
like a two edged sword. You would likely lower the stall speed, and
maybe shorten the takeoff run, but wouldn't you also lower the
maneuvering speed by a similar amount?
Ron
On Jan 22, 2008, at 7:40 PM, Tim Juhl wrote:
>
> Please note that I asked for the name of the vendor... sorry if I
> got everyone excited.
>
> I have talked to people who have installed VG's on other aircraft
> and reported measurable improvements. For example, Kenmore Air
> Service in Seattle was operating two super cubs on floats. One had
> VG's. I spoke to one of their instructors who said the AC with VGs
> outperformed the other by quite a margin.
>
> I am seriously considering VG's for my XL and am interested in
> whatever info I can find on the subject.
>
> Tim
>
> Do not archive
>
> --------
> ______________
> CFII
> Champ L16A flying
> Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
> Working on fuselage
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159880#159880
>
>
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: Nasty remarks |
No Bob, by now you probably had a chance to read what was actually said and saw
where these two GENTLEMEN realized it was an HONEST MISTAKE and DID apologize
and it was accepted. People DO get tired of get advertised to death and the
LAST THING we want to read on here is ANOTHER ADVERTISER or people with an attitude
problem. I can honestly say I understand how they feel. I feel the same
way. To say what you said, tends to give me the impress you are shallow-minded.....of
course, that is my opinion and I am entitled to it. I DO want this
forum to continue but I'm sure Matt doesn't want to have to keep "babysitting"
our childish writing. I don't think it was his intention - not at all. Am
I right Matt?
If you want to leave the forum Bob, it's your prerogative....bon voyage!
Larry
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
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 |
|
Ahh, the Kenmore Cubs. I gotta chime in here:
I have about 10 hours in each of those two planes and can tell you this is
an apples to oranges comparison concerning the VGs.
First, the plane with VGs ( "0CC" ) is a Cub Crafters Top cub with 180
ponies behind it. The prop size eludes me, but I think it was in the 84"
range. It not only has a large number of VGs on the wings, but also strakes
on the elevator. For climb, fully loaded, on a warm day you can easily see
2000fpm. That plane is almost un-stallable. I will not practice a power on
stall with more than 80% power since the AOA is just too extreme. The
minimum controllable airspeed is around 20MPH, if not lower since the pitot
tube becomes inaccurate below 25MPH. You have full elevator authority even
into stall, no mushing. If you are not watching the altimeter you may not
even realize a stall has been entered, you almost have to push the nose over
to encourage a break.
The other plane ( "66P" ) is a true PA-18 with a 150hp engine, no VGs, no
strakes and a prop that was close to 92" iirc. It still gets off the water
quickly, and you can even get it up on the step with reduced power on a warm
day with good technique. For stalls the elevator authority mushes in the low
30s and it stalls soon after with a true break. I have also done full power
on stalls without being vertical in this plane.
All that being said, the 0CC solidly outperforms 66P in every way. The low
speed qualities of 0CC are the best I have ever had the pleasure to fly. I
believe this is due to the VGs and strakes, but having never flown another
Top Cub there is no control group and the claim can not be proved.
0CC and 66P are very different planes with different weights and different
floats mounted at different angles, all that affects the low speed handling.
Here are some pics that were done thanks to 0CC a few months ago in the
Cascade Mountains:
http://picasaweb.google.com/john.marzulli/LakeIsabel
http://picasaweb.google.com/john.marzulli/HancockAndCalliganLakes
And some pics thanks to 66P in the Olympic Mountains:
http://picasaweb.google.com/john.marzulli/WynoocheBFR
Enjoy!
PS: Nothing is more confusing to a boater than blowing past an airplane
moving in the same direction. The look in their eyes is priceless as they
try to figure out how a plane is moving slower than them.
On Jan 22, 2008 4:40 PM, Tim Juhl <juhl@avci.net> wrote:
>
> Please note that I asked for the name of the vendor... sorry if I got
> everyone excited.
>
> I have talked to people who have installed VG's on other aircraft and
> reported measurable improvements. For example, Kenmore Air Service in
> Seattle was operating two super cubs on floats. One had VG's. I spoke to
> one of their instructors who said the AC with VGs outperformed the other by
> quite a margin.
>
> I am seriously considering VG's for my XL and am interested in whatever
> info I can find on the subject.
>
> Tim
>
> Do not archive
>
> --------
> ______________
> CFII
> Champ L16A flying
> Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
> Working on fuselage
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159880#159880
>
>
--
John Marzulli
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
"Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot
harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
-Airplane The Movie
Message 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: | 601 Front Wheel Instructions |
I am about finished with my fuselage on my 601 XL, and getting ready to start installing
the landing gear. I copied the Gear/Brake Lines section 6-G down from
Zenith's builders web site. But I couldn't find a section of the instruction
manual for installation of the front landing gear. Is there one? Or do you
just build it from the plans? Or is it complete enough from the factory to
just put it in? I have the factory complete kit.
Don Mountain
---------------------------------
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 |
|
I don't see it like the guys from Australia as pushing, more like providing
info, which I like. I wish more people would provide information about
their products especially when their seems to be a lot of interest on the
list. Besides when I don't want to read about something I just hit delete.
No outburst, just delete. It takes about a half a second. I've been on
this list and other forums a long time and have gotten into quite a few tit
or tats which I have sometimes regretted. It's easy to get a rep of being
an asshole if you are not careful. So, we should just choose our words more
carefully. Once you hit the enter key, it's in writing and you can't take
it back. Take care, LRM www.airhawg.com.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Les Goldner" <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:15 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: VGs
> <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
>
> David,
> I apologize for the outburst.
> I didn't look at who the sender was until after sending the nasty email.
> The
> guys from Australia have been pushing VGs hard on this site, sometimes
> without stating that they were selling them, and mistook you for them.
> I know you are not trying to sell VGs and I hope you accept my apology.
> Les
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:56 AM
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: VGs
>>
>>
>> UHHH, Les, we have talked on the phone when I was moving out
>> here near SF looking for a hangar. I am a real person not a
>> sales agent for anyone.
>>
>> David Mikesell
>> 230 Theresa Drive, #6
>> Cloverdale, CA 95425
>> 209-224-4485
>> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>> www.skyguynca.com
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Les Goldner" <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
>> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:53 PM
>> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: VGs
>>
>>
>> > <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
>> >
>> > I'm getting a little fed up with your crude attempt to sell
>> VGs on this
>> > site. I come to the Zenith-list to give and get unbiased
>> information, not
>> > to
>> > see your sales pitch. This is not the place for this.
>> ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
>> > Les
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>> >> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> >> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>> >> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 9:02 AM
>> >> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> >> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: VGs
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The VG manufacture has tested and recommends that the VG's be
>> >> placed on the leading edge of the elevator for more authority
>> >> during the low speed flaring of the airplane.
>> >>
>> >> David Mikesell
>> >> 230 Theresa Drive, #6
>> >> Cloverdale, CA 95425
>> >> 209-224-4485
>> >> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
>> >> www.skyguynca.com
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "THOMAS SMALL" <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>> >> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> >> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 2:25 AM
>> >> Subject: Zenith-List: VGs
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> have you installed the VGs on the elevator?
>> >> >
>> >> > do not archive
>> >> >
>> >> > ...might you mean stab?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> 11:04 AM
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Part Stoutness |
Doug,
Thanks for the advise, I'll take it into consideration.
do not archive
Art
--- MacDonald Doug <dougsnash@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Art, I am not flying yet but have my airframe sitting
> on the gear. The large bays of the fuselage sides are
> going to be prone to oilcanning. I added one diagnal
> brace to each bay on mine. I think the big area
> immediately behind the baggage compartment is still
> going to oil can so I will probably add another
> diagnal brace there once I'm flying.
>
> Mark Townsend recommended that I go with 020 wing
> skins to deaden the oil canning tendancy. I have done
> this but have not yet started skinning my wings. so
> cannot comment on how stiff they will be.
>
> Doug MacDonald
> NW Ontario, Canada
> Scratch building CH-701
> Working on wiring the inst panel
>
> Do not archive
>
> > List,
> >
> > Is there any 701 builders who would recommend
> > increasing material thickness of any particular
> > airframe part that would help prevent oil canning
> > etc...?
> > If so which ones?
> >
> >
> > Art
> > Scrathin 701
>
>
>
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Part Stoutness |
Thanks for the input.
do not archive
Art
--- John Marzulli <john.marzulli@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not flying yet... but I did add some extra "L" onto the fuselage for noise
> reduction.
>
> http://701builder.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html
>
> For the triangular area where "top pilot side" is written, I added some 1/4"
> sound deadening material to help reduce the noise when uncoordinated. The
> whole rear section tends to act like a megaphone.
>
> As for the wings, do consider increasing the thickness of the top skins to
> 0.020. This will allow for much better handling and fewer blemished. You may
> also want to consider using two or three smaller pieces ( overlapping them
> at the ribs ) instead of one huge skin.
>
> Good luck!
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 12:17 PM, MacDonald Doug <dougsnash@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Art, I am not flying yet but have my airframe sitting
> > on the gear. The large bays of the fuselage sides are
> > going to be prone to oilcanning. I added one diagnal
> > brace to each bay on mine. I think the big area
> > immediately behind the baggage compartment is still
> > going to oil can so I will probably add another
> > diagnal brace there once I'm flying.
> >
> > Mark Townsend recommended that I go with 020 wing
> > skins to deaden the oil canning tendancy. I have done
> > this but have not yet started skinning my wings. so
> > cannot comment on how stiff they will be.
> >
> > Doug MacDonald
> > NW Ontario, Canada
> > Scratch building CH-701
> > Working on wiring the inst panel
> >
> > Do not archive
> >
> > > List,
> > >
> > > Is there any 701 builders who would recommend
> > > increasing material thickness of any particular
> > > airframe part that would help prevent oil canning
> > > etc...?
> > > If so which ones?
> > >
> > >
> > > Art
> > > Scrathin 701
> >
> >
> >
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> John Marzulli
> http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
>
> "Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot
> harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
> -Airplane The Movie
>
Message 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: Firewall Boot for sealing Rudder Rods 701 |
Much appreciation to those who replied! Excellent ideas and I now have several
approaches to try out. The "cone shape" from sailplane experience, I know I will
use on at least another (different) application.
I think I will also weigh the snowmobile boots --- if they only weigh 8 oz and
work in -25 F as Ben Haas says --- then they could really be worth a try -- although
i am trying not to add weight if I can.
Thanks again
Douglas N
(do not archive)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=159909#159909
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 |
|
OK, I admit my ignorance. What are VG'S Variable geometry ?
Thanks Joe Motis
Do not archive
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | re: VDO sender stuck |
Kevin,
I noticed that one of my aux tanks had a stuck VDO sender after I
installed my wings. Gauge was showing fuel
when in fact the tank was empty. I pounded on the wing in the tank area
and it "Unstuck". It probably was a result of my installing the sender
float too close to the aft skin of the fuel tank and when the tank was a
little stressed after the LE skin install, it permitted contact with the
float. I was afraid that after I fueled the tank, it would not show any
fuel use but would stick in flight.
Bottom line: No problem in 343 hours. The force of the fuel I suspect
is enough to give clearance to the float and/or in flight vibrations
keep it from sticking - hope this is your problem.
Tony Graziano
XL; N493TG; 343 hrs
----------------
I have a VDO sender that's stuck. Other than picking up the wing and
shaking it,
what can I do?
Regards,
Kevin Kinney
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: Part Stoutness |
I can't remember who to give credit to, but someone here glued "L" angles diagonally
to the fuselage to reduce oil canning without creating extra rivet lines.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Terry Turnquist
601XL-Plans
St. Peters, MO
Thanks for the input.
do not archive
Art
--- John Marzulli wrote:
> Not flying yet... but I did add some extra "L" onto the fuselage for noise
> reduction.
>
> http://701builder.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html
>
> For the triangular area where "top pilot side" is written, I added some 1/4"
> sound deadening material to help reduce the noise when uncoordinated. The
> whole rear section tends to act like a megaphone.
>
> As for the wings, do consider increasing the thickness of the top skins to
> 0.020. This will allow for much better handling and fewer blemished. You may
> also want to consider using two or three smaller pieces ( overlapping them
> at the ribs ) instead of one huge skin.
>
> Good luck!
>
> On Jan 21, 2008 12:17 PM, MacDonald Doug wrote:
>
> >
> > Art, I am not flying yet but have my airframe sitting
> > on the gear. The large bays of the fuselage sides are
> > going to be prone to oilcanning. I added one diagnal
> > brace to each bay on mine. I think the big area
> > immediately behind the baggage compartment is still
> > going to oil can so I will probably add another
> > diagnal brace there once I'm flying.
> >
> > Mark Townsend recommended that I go with 020 wing
> > skins to deaden the oil canning tendancy. I have done
> > this but have not yet started skinning my wings. so
> > cannot comment on how stiff they will be.
> >
> > Doug MacDonald
> > NW Ontario, Canada
> > Scratch building CH-701
> > Working on wiring the inst panel
> >
> > Do not archive
> >
> > > List,
> > >
> > > Is there any 701 builders who would recommend
> > > increasing material thickness of any particular
> > > airframe part that would help prevent oil canning
> > > etc...?
> > > If so which ones?
> > >
> > >
> > > Art
> > > Scrathin 701
> >
> >
> >
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> John Marzulli
> http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
>
> "Flying a plane is no different than riding a bicycle... it's just a lot
> harder to put baseball cards in the spokes.
> -Airplane The Movie
>
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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: | 601 Front Wheel Instructions |
I didn't find anything in the photo assembly guide on the front gear and
just followed the plans. Lance Gingell suggests following the CH801 guide on
this (although it lacks the reinforcing "U"):
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/data/gear-nose-s1.pdf
http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/data/gear-nose-s2.pdf
There is a little in the HomebuiltHELP Quick-build kit DVD.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Mountain
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:31 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601 Front Wheel Instructions
I am about finished with my fuselage on my 601 XL, and getting ready to
start installing the landing gear. I copied the Gear/Brake Lines section
6-G down from Zenith's builders web site. But I couldn't find a section of
the instruction manual for installation of the front landing gear. Is there
one? Or do you just build it from the plans? Or is it complete enough from
the factory to just put it in? I have the factory complete kit.
Don Mountain
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 |
|
Joe:
VGs are vortex generators. They are tiny vanes which project up from
the surface and create a vortex which flows downstream. The vortex
mixes with the faster moving airstream above the surface and sweeps some
of it down into the slower boundary layer air, adding energy which tends
to keep the boundary layer attached to the surface. On an airfoil,
keeping the boundary layer attached reduces the speed at which the
airfoil finally stalls.
George Swinford
----- Original Message -----
From: Joemotis@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: VGs
OK, I admit my ignorance. What are VG'S Variable geometry ?
Thanks Joe Motis
Do not archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
1/22/2008 11:04 AM
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 |
|
Joe,
VGs are Vortex Generators. If you Google these words you will find many
descriptions, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_generator.
Even though Chris Heintz has not recommended them for the 701, some people
are replacing their slats with these VGs.
Regards,
Les
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Joemotis@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: VGs
OK, I admit my ignorance. What are VG'S Variable geometry ?
Thanks Joe Motis
Do not archive
_____
Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape
<http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489> in
the new year.
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: Holding Nose up |
Hi Paul
'Sorry it has taken so long to answer. I've been visiting my daughter in
Seattle. I forgot to take the charger for my laptop, so I've been
incommunicado for the past 4 days.
The way I visualize this, is that, ideally, the horizontal stabilizer
should be installed so that, at cruise with neutral trim and elevator, it
exerts a downward force that just balances the moment exerted by the heavy
weight of the engine at the front of the aircraft. I think that would be
the minimum drag design. ZAC told me that the zodiac stabilizer was
symmetrical--an inspection of the drawings would tell me the same thing, if
I was clever enough to look. So, I think, that, if the stabilizer was
parallel to the airstream flowing aft of the wings at cruise, then it would
not produce a force up or down. Since, in tractor designs, the function of
the stabilizer is to balance the weight of the engine up front, then the
stabilizer must be angled slightly upwards w.r.t. the airstream. Then, just
like when you angle your hand upward out the window of a moving car, it
would generate the required upward force. Since an airplane in flight will
rotate around the cg, the balancing moment must be w.r.t. the cg.
When the airplane touches down on the mains, the nose (hopefully) will be
upward. If the nose is high (relative to cruise angle of attack) then the
tail will be low, and the horizontal stabilizer will be making an upward
angle with respect to the airflow past the airplane. Thus (I think) that
the air flowing past the stabilizer will be pushing the stabilizer upward,
driving the nose wheel to the ground.
The elevator, of course, is designed to bend the air flow so that, by
pulling back on the stick, the force exerted by the stabilizer/elevator can
be changed from the upward force that would exist with a neutral elevator,
to a net downward force. But, if I interpret Stan's results correctly, the
unmodified zodiac elevator is incapable of holding the nose up after touch
down. But, Stan's addition of VGs to the underside of the stabilizer,
increased the effectiveness of the elevator on Stan's airplane. Then he
could hold the nose up until he slowed to 20 mph.
So that's what it looks like to me.
My understanding of VGs is that they function by causing the laminar
boundary layer over an airfoil to transition to a turbulent boundary layer.
Turbulent boundary layers (for reasons I do not understand) stay attached
better than laminar boundary layers. And by staying attached, the airflow
over the airfoil exerts a net lower pressure on the bottom of the
stabilizer/elevator (think Bernoulli's law), thus effectively pulling the
tail down (and the nose up).
There are a couple of other effects in play here.
One is that, on the ground, the plane will rotate around the mains, rather
than around the cg. The cg is forward of mains, so the moment arm of the
stabilizer around the center of rotation is shorter when the plane is on
the ground. So moment from the force produced by the stabilizer will be
less than the moment produced by the same force when the plane is flying.
So, on the ground, a greater downward force is needed to raise the nose
than when flying.
The second is that, when the plane is flying, the wings must cause the
airstream aft of the wings to deflect downward (to balance the upward lift
on the wings). So, the horizontal stabilizer sees an airstream that has a
net downward velocity. If the horizontal stabilizer is to generate a net
upward force at cruise, then it must be inclined upward at a great angle
than would be necessary if the airflow were horizontal. On the ground, the
wings still try to deflect the air flow downward. But the ground is in the
way. So the airstream the horizontal stabilizer/elevator sees will be
flowing nearly parallel to the ground. The horizontal air flow on the
ground should further increase the upward force generated by the horizontal
stabilizer.
So, why is Stan's result important to me, since zodiac's have been landing
just fine for years, plunking their nose down on the runway right after
touch down? One reason would be soft field takeoff and landing capability.
In a 152, a skilled pilot can land on the mains, and keep the nose up,
until, maybe 20 mph or less. And with full up elevator one can taxi a 152
with the nose way up in the air, thus reducing the nose wheel loading. I'd
like to be able to imitate that with my zodiac on some of the back country
airfields here in western Montana. So, I think Stan's result is pretty
exciting.
First I have this airplane to build!
Terry
At 04:09 AM 1/20/2008 -0800, you wrote:
>Hi Terry,
>
>I'm confused. Why does touching down change the force generated by the
>stabilizer from downward to upward? Do you experience a huge difference
>in control feedback when the wheels touch down?
>
>If the VGs have any impact at all on this phenomenon, it must be because
>the VGs generate lift in the negative direction for the stabilizer. That
>way the lift would be reduced as the airspeed and ground speed are reduced
>during landing. I don't see how this is possible since the stabilizer has
>a positive angle of attack after touchdown. However, the combined
>stabilizer and elevator must have a negative total force on the airplane's
>tail for the nose to be elevated on landing.
>
>Maybe I'll just stay confused.
>
>Paul
>
>
>At 08:48 PM 1/19/2008, you wrote:
>>Since the stabilizer exerts a downward force to balance the moment of the
>>engine around the aircraft cg, the symetrical airfoil must be angled
>>slightly downward to generate a downward force with neutral trim. After
>>touchdown, with the nose up, the stabilizer would be angled upward,
>>generating an upward force that would rotate the A/C around the mains,
>>pushing the nose down.
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 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Holding Nose up |
Whoops--got that backwards. The stabilizer generates a downward force, so
must be angled downward at neutral elevator and trim. What can I say--I'm a
geometrically challenged chemical engineer--that's why I'm not an ME. I
think I'll go to bed and try to rethink my reply in the morning.
Terry
At 11:46 PM 1/22/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Paul
>
>'Sorry it has taken so long to answer. I've been visiting my daughter in
>Seattle. I forgot to take the charger for my laptop, so I've been
>incommunicado for the past 4 days.
>
>The way I visualize this, is that, ideally, the horizontal stabilizer
>should be installed so that, at cruise with neutral trim and elevator, it
>exerts a downward force that just balances the moment exerted by the heavy
>weight of the engine at the front of the aircraft. I think that would be
>the minimum drag design. ZAC told me that the zodiac stabilizer was
>symmetrical--an inspection of the drawings would tell me the same thing,
>if I was clever enough to look. So, I think, that, if the stabilizer was
>parallel to the airstream flowing aft of the wings at cruise, then it
>would not produce a force up or down. Since, in tractor designs, the
>function of the stabilizer is to balance the weight of the engine up
>front, then the stabilizer must be angled slightly upwards w.r.t. the
>airstream. Then, just like when you angle your hand upward out the window
>of a moving car, it would generate the required upward force. Since an
>airplane in flight will rotate around the cg, the balancing moment must be
>w.r.t. the cg.
>
>When the airplane touches down on the mains, the nose (hopefully) will be
>upward. If the nose is high (relative to cruise angle of attack) then the
>tail will be low, and the horizontal stabilizer will be making an upward
>angle with respect to the airflow past the airplane. Thus (I think) that
>the air flowing past the stabilizer will be pushing the stabilizer upward,
>driving the nose wheel to the ground.
>
>The elevator, of course, is designed to bend the air flow so that, by
>pulling back on the stick, the force exerted by the stabilizer/elevator
>can be changed from the upward force that would exist with a neutral
>elevator, to a net downward force. But, if I interpret Stan's results
>correctly, the unmodified zodiac elevator is incapable of holding the nose
>up after touch down. But, Stan's addition of VGs to the underside of the
>stabilizer, increased the effectiveness of the elevator on Stan's
>airplane. Then he could hold the nose up until he slowed to 20 mph.
>
>So that's what it looks like to me.
>
>My understanding of VGs is that they function by causing the laminar
>boundary layer over an airfoil to transition to a turbulent boundary
>layer. Turbulent boundary layers (for reasons I do not understand) stay
>attached better than laminar boundary layers. And by staying attached, the
>airflow over the airfoil exerts a net lower pressure on the bottom of the
>stabilizer/elevator (think Bernoulli's law), thus effectively pulling the
>tail down (and the nose up).
>
>There are a couple of other effects in play here.
>
>One is that, on the ground, the plane will rotate around the mains, rather
>than around the cg. The cg is forward of mains, so the moment arm of the
>stabilizer around the center of rotation is shorter when the plane is on
>the ground. So moment from the force produced by the stabilizer will be
>less than the moment produced by the same force when the plane is flying.
>So, on the ground, a greater downward force is needed to raise the nose
>than when flying.
>
>The second is that, when the plane is flying, the wings must cause the
>airstream aft of the wings to deflect downward (to balance the upward lift
>on the wings). So, the horizontal stabilizer sees an airstream that has a
>net downward velocity. If the horizontal stabilizer is to generate a net
>upward force at cruise, then it must be inclined upward at a great angle
>than would be necessary if the airflow were horizontal. On the ground, the
>wings still try to deflect the air flow downward. But the ground is in the
>way. So the airstream the horizontal stabilizer/elevator sees will be
>flowing nearly parallel to the ground. The horizontal air flow on the
>ground should further increase the upward force generated by the
>horizontal stabilizer.
>
>So, why is Stan's result important to me, since zodiac's have been landing
>just fine for years, plunking their nose down on the runway right after
>touch down? One reason would be soft field takeoff and landing capability.
>In a 152, a skilled pilot can land on the mains, and keep the nose up,
>until, maybe 20 mph or less. And with full up elevator one can taxi a 152
>with the nose way up in the air, thus reducing the nose wheel loading. I'd
>like to be able to imitate that with my zodiac on some of the back country
>airfields here in western Montana. So, I think Stan's result is pretty
>exciting.
>
>First I have this airplane to build!
>
>Terry
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/
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! --
|