Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:41 AM - Re: Non-hinged ailerons with autopilot (John Livsey)
2. 04:23 AM - Re: Death of my Harley (ashontz)
3. 05:17 AM - Re: brs chute handle (ga23)
4. 05:25 AM - Re: 5th Bearing - What is the Purpose? (William Dominguez)
5. 05:25 AM - NOTAM: Florida (Frank Derfler)
6. 05:25 AM - Re: Non-hinged ailerons with autopilot (steveadams)
7. 05:50 AM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (ZodieRocket)
8. 05:51 AM - Goldwing conversion (ZodieRocket)
9. 05:54 AM - Re: NOTAM: Florida (ZodieRocket)
10. 06:16 AM - Re: NOTAM: Florida (Jay Maynard)
11. 06:20 AM - Re: 5th Bearing - What is the Purpose? (ashontz)
12. 06:27 AM - Re: Death of my Harley (ashontz)
13. 06:38 AM - Re: NOTAM: Florida (Larry H)
14. 06:59 AM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (Jerry Hey)
15. 07:46 AM - Re: Death of my Harley (Gig Giacona)
16. 08:22 AM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (LRM)
17. 08:25 AM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (LRM)
18. 09:16 AM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (Larry H)
19. 09:20 AM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (Larry H)
20. 09:21 AM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (Jerry Hey)
21. 09:56 AM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (Jerry Hey)
22. 09:59 AM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (steve)
23. 10:00 AM - Re: Re: brs chute handle (Les Goldner)
24. 10:17 AM - Re: Goldwing conversion (cookwithgas)
25. 10:24 AM - Re: Re: brs chute handle (John Short)
26. 10:53 AM - Re: Death of my Harley (kmccune)
27. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (Larry H)
28. 11:48 AM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (Larry H)
29. 01:37 PM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (george may)
30. 02:57 PM - Re: Death of my Harley (kmccune)
31. 03:10 PM - Re: Drawing 6-LRO-1 (Ron Lendon)
32. 03:40 PM - Re: Drawing 6-LRO-1 (pavel569)
33. 04:03 PM - Re: 701 Flap control solution and flying DVD 701 Flap control solution and flying DVD (Jim McBurney)
34. 04:06 PM - Re: Non-hinged ailerons with autopilot (Ronald Steele)
35. 04:37 PM - Re: Re: Drawing 6-LRO-1 (Larry Winger)
36. 04:50 PM - Re: 701 Flap control solution and flying DVD 701 Flap con trol solution and flying DVD (n801bh@netzero.com)
37. 05:06 PM - See the Odyssey at Sun-n-Fun (Craig Payne)
38. 05:14 PM - Re: Re: Death of my Harley (Larry H)
39. 06:32 PM - Re: Re: Positive Flap Position (MaxNr@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Non-hinged ailerons with autopilot |
Hi Ron,
As per other replies I fitted a Trio Single axis autopilot (Wing
Leveller) to my CH601HDS and it was the best thing I have done. I think
the CH601-HDS has longer ailerons than the XL and they are "hingeless"
and I'm not aware of any real servo slip. Even if it does slip a bit in
real bumpy conditions occasionally it doesn't matter, it won't get
itself out of position, it will just take a bit longer to get back
straight and level. Remember you can always "assist" the servo with some
gentle stick input !!!
You can check out my installation at
http://camilla.homelinux.net/flying/modifications/auto%20pilot/ the real
mistake I made was that it was a retrofit and I couldn't get to the back
of the GPS easily so I had to cut an access panel in the fwd fuselage
top cover. Should have done the access panel when I was building. My
advice, make sure you can get at all the required wiring !!! (Or build
the access panel during construction)
--
Regards, John Livsey
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: Death of my Harley |
How about a Honda Gold Wing engine instead. They're like 1.5 liter 6 cylinder horizontally
opposed. Shouuld be a pretty smooth engine. No idea on the weight
but I'd imagine it would be light.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172469#172469
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: brs chute handle |
Les,
Could you show details/pictures of your chute installation?
Greg
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172481#172481
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 5th Bearing - What is the Purpose? |
Andy,
The purpose of the 5th bearing is not to extend the crankshaft, it is to avoid
breaking the crankshaft due to the gyroscopic force of the propeller.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Andrew Hinsdale
>
> Hello Listers
>
> I have been reading the traffic on the 5th bearing for
> the Corvair. I posted this question on CORVAIRCRAFT a
> while back and did not get an answer. Simply put..
> why would I want a 5th bearing? My impression is that
> it applies mostly to extended crankshafts as used in
> some KRs, not really to the 601XL installation.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andy Hinsdale
>
>
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Kevin Bonds said: *"Why isn't this guy a member of the Zenith-list? He'd
fit right in! ;)"*
Well spoke, Kevin! Wish I'd have said it. Overall, I have never seen
such a bunch of hand-wringing and moaning old men gathered in one place
outside of Congress.
--
Frank Derfler
-- Daily Discussions of All the Guy Toys that aren't (clearly) illegal or
(blatantly) immoral at my Blog http://MOSTLYFLYING.blogspot.com
- Pilots learn about flights to great places at www.FLYINFLORIDA.COM
-Boaters get the Best Information on Cruising the Florida Keys at
www.KEYSBOATER.com
-For the Best Gifts for Guys see my www.GREATGUYBOOKS.com
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Non-hinged ailerons with autopilot |
Also be aware that trutrak has 3 different servos with progressively higher torque.
They all fit in the same mount, so if you try the smallest one, and it slips,
you can exchange it for a higher torque servo pretty easily. I don't know
if trio has similar options. On my CH640, I had to use the highest torque servo.
Steve
CH640
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172483#172483
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
Andy, I am one of the first to support an alternative engine choice as a
viable alternative and a cost effective replacement. Though in the 701 I
concede that nothing will fly the plane as well as the Rotax 912S and
few will fly it better then the 80 hp Rotax 912. So if nothing can out
perform it in the weight to power and torque to the prop range then
costs are the true consideration. In Larry's case I believe that he has
spent far more then the cost of a Rotax on his past engine choices that
didn't work out, forget about the 5 extra years he has been working on
his plane.
I am pointing this out for newbie's benefit, Larry would not have had it
any other way I believe, his joy and passion is in the build and
typically seems to be off the beaten track. I believe this to be the
attraction for Larry, though, he throws his passion and beliefs in his
choices, I applaud him for his enthusiasm, but wish to caution others.
Going the automotive course will never match the efficiency of the Rotax
installation in the 701. In the 601 the Corvair and Subaru can get close
to the Jabiru and surpass some other choices. However, we are talking
about the 701 here and the choices are limited, I have seen some Geo
conversions that have impressed me and I had finally seen 1 VW
conversion that actually seems to be acceptable, I have in fact seen
many vw's that didn't work be removed for the Rotax. Nevertheless, a VW
must have a reduction unit to get the torque to the prop and these seem
to be the weak link in the chain of VW conversions.
I will never tell anyone not to install an auto conversion in their
plane, I have done this in the past and have one on my 601, but I
caution new builders to research your choice. Any conversion will be a
constant care through the life of the plane, more so then an Aircraft
designed engine, plus resale value of your plane will always be
drastically lower and insurance costs will typically be higher. Try to
choose such an engine that has a FWF and is accepted as being a standard
choice, one that has a good following and proven performance across the
board for the plane will mean less aggravation as a whole.
But mostly, Please consider the costs, if a alternative engine is cost
effective and proven then it is a viable option, though it is very
likely a degradation in the planes performance. If it is not a route
well traveled then the costs will likely climb beyond the cost of the
aircraft engine installation. Choose wisely Grasshopper!
This letter is not intended for those who enjoy the tinkering and
experimentation that comes with a choice out of mainstream. It is simply
a caution to those who may not understand the process. We all hear the
hype of alternate powerplant choices, but caution has to be prudent,
costs can easily climb to be more then the accepted aircraft choice and
performance rarely comes close to a match. Once involved in such a
project it is hard to turn your back on your choice, so you work harder
to make your decision work and often you tend to support your decision
to others right or wrong.
Larry is well respected on this list by a great many members, myself
included for his determination. However, I have fielded calls over the
years about using a 2.5L Subaru and a Harley conversion in the 701
airframe. Several thought that the Harley conversion was the true way to
go. They are signs of those caught in hype and listen to the loudest
voice. Be careful in your decisions, don't follow a small group they may
all jump off the bridge together. Do your research closely and gain
opinions from several sources that are not related or knowledgeable of
each other.
Then make an educated decision.
As stated, this letter is not intended for seasoned builders or those
who are building for the joy of building and experimenting. It is
intended for those who are new and may not realize the trials and
tribulations of an alternate engine choice. IF your building to fly a
great plane like the 701 go with the most proven performer, that Is the
Rotax hands down. Or go with the alternate choice that has a proven
record in several like aircraft.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:19 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
How about a Honda Gold Wing engine instead. They're like 1.5 liter 6
cylinder horizontally opposed. Shouuld be a pretty smooth engine. No
idea on the weight but I'd imagine it would be light.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172469#172469
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: | Goldwing conversion |
The Goldwing engine has it's transmission as an integral part of the
whole and would require a very large amount of machinist skills to bring
the powerplant to the viable option stage. Then you will need to content
with the offset driveshaft. It is a nice engine and I have investigated
it, plus I ride a wing also. It is just very involved to try such a
conversion and has doubtful results.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com / www.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:19 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
How about a Honda Gold Wing engine instead. They're like 1.5 liter 6
cylinder horizontally opposed. Shouuld be a pretty smooth engine. No
idea on the weight but I'd imagine it would be light.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172469#172469
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 |
|
Then for goodness sake do not drop by my hanger for the Wed morning
coffee. There are days I am left in an absolute stupor.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com/ www.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Frank
Derfler
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:20 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: NOTAM: Florida
Kevin Bonds said: "Why isn't this guy a member of the Zenith-list? He'd
fit right in! ;)"
Well spoke, Kevin! Wish I'd have said it. Overall, I have never seen
such a bunch of hand-wringing and moaning old men gathered in one place
outside of Congress.
--
Frank Derfler
-- Daily Discussions of All the Guy Toys that aren't (clearly) illegal
or (blatantly) immoral at my Blog http://MOSTLYFLYING.blogspot.com
- Pilots learn about flights to great places at www.FLYINFLORIDA.COM
-Boaters get the Best Information on Cruising the Florida Keys at
www.KEYSBOATER.com
-For the Best Gifts for Guys see my www.GREATGUYBOOKS.com
Message 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: NOTAM: Florida |
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 08:19:37AM -0400, Frank Derfler wrote:
> - Pilots learn about flights to great places at www.FLYINFLORIDA.COM
You might put up a page on your site about the controversy...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 5th Bearing - What is the Purpose? |
Exactly! I think it's a good idea.
[quote="bill_dom(at)yahoo.com"]Andy,
The purpose of the 5th bearing is not to extend the crankshaft, it is to avoid
breaking the crankshaft due to the gyroscopic force of the propeller.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
[quote]-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Andrew Hinsdale
Hello Listers
I have been reading the traffic on the 5th bearing for
the Corvair. I posted this question on CORVAIRCRAFT a
while back and did not get an answer. Simply put..
why would I want a 5th bearing? My impression is that
it applies mostly to extended crankshafts as used in
some KRs, not really to the 601XL installation.
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172493#172493
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: Death of my Harley |
zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca wrote:
> Andy, I am one of the first to support an alternative engine choice as a
> viable alternative and a cost effective replacement. Though in the 701 I
> concede that nothing will fly the plane as well as the Rotax 912S and
> few will fly it better then the 80 hp Rotax 912. So if nothing can out
> perform it in the weight to power and torque to the prop range then
> costs are the true consideration. In Larry's case I believe that he has
> spent far more then the cost of a Rotax on his past engine choices that
> didn't work out, forget about the 5 extra years he has been working on
> his plane. Mark Townsend
> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
> president@can-zacaviation.com
> www.can-zacaviation.com
>
> --
I agree, if someone is not too familiar with the process it's better to go with
a known instead of an unknown. I suggested the Gold Wing engine because Larry
seems to enjoy tinkering and I think a Gold Wing engine is a viable alternative.
Yeah, it'll need a redrive, but then again, even a Rotax has a PSRU. I believe
the Gold Wing engine and the Rotax are of similar displacements and horsepower
at 4500rpm. Being that Larry's already worked with one motorcycle engine
I figured I'd throw it out there for a look see. I'm sure he'd know the pros
and cons better than me, just figured he may not have considered it before. I
took an interest in the Gold Wing engine a few years ago looking at one one someone's
bike in parking lot and it caught my eye as a possible alternative engine
which I haven't heard much about on these forums.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172496#172496
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NOTAM: Florida |
Yah know guys, one really great thing about living in the USA??? If you don't
like being on this forum you can ALWAYS play like a "tree" and just "leave"...EVERYONE
is entitled to an opinion INCLUDING you, but it makes me very tired listening
to people always complaining about certain people on here. My Mother
(God rest her soul) always taught me one very critical thing: "If you can't
say anything nice about someone - say nothing at all."
Larry H
Frank Derfler <fderfler@gmail.com> wrote:
Kevin Bonds said: "Why isn't this guy a member of the Zenith-list? He'd fit
right in! ;)"
Well spoke, Kevin! Wish I'd have said it. Overall, I have never seen such a
bunch of hand-wringing and moaning old men gathered in one place outside of
Congress.
--
Frank Derfler
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
I agree with what Mark has said but a new player is about to be added
to the engine list that may change everything. I am speaking about
the RotaMax which will be making its debut at Sun N Fun. They had a
booth at Oshkosh last year but the engines were under development. I
visited the factory a couple of months ago and was quite impressed
with their approach. I believe that a 120/130 hp Rotamax can be
installed with a FWF weight of less than 200 lbs. I have no
connection with the company at this time but in the way of full
disclosure I am thinking of developing a FWF package for the 601/701.
I have had a long time interest in the rotary engine and currently
supply engine mounts for Mazda conversions for a variety of
aircraft. If you are curious about the RotaMax, their web site is http://www.rotamax.net
. Regards, jerry (jerryhey.com)
On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:42 PM, ZodieRocket wrote:
>
> Andy, I am one of the first to support an alternative engine choice
> as a
> viable alternative and a cost effective replacement. Though in the
> 701 I
> concede that nothing will fly the plane as well as the Rotax 912S and
> few will fly it better then the 80 hp Rotax 912. So if nothing can out
> perform it in the weight to power and torque to the prop range then
> costs are the true consideration. In Larry's case I believe that he
> has
> spent far more then the cost of a Rotax on his past engine choices
> that
> didn't work out, forget about the 5 extra years he has been working on
> his plane.
> I am pointing this out for newbie's benefit, Larry would not have
> had it
> any other way I believe, his joy and passion is in the build and
> typically seems to be off the beaten track. I believe this to be the
> attraction for Larry, though, he throws his passion and beliefs in his
> choices, I applaud him for his enthusiasm, but wish to caution others.
>
> Going the automotive course will never match the efficiency of the
> Rotax
> installation in the 701. In the 601 the Corvair and Subaru can get
> close
> to the Jabiru and surpass some other choices. However, we are talking
> about the 701 here and the choices are limited, I have seen some Geo
> conversions that have impressed me and I had finally seen 1 VW
> conversion that actually seems to be acceptable, I have in fact seen
> many vw's that didn't work be removed for the Rotax. Nevertheless, a
> VW
> must have a reduction unit to get the torque to the prop and these
> seem
> to be the weak link in the chain of VW conversions.
>
> I will never tell anyone not to install an auto conversion in their
> plane, I have done this in the past and have one on my 601, but I
> caution new builders to research your choice. Any conversion will be a
> constant care through the life of the plane, more so then an Aircraft
> designed engine, plus resale value of your plane will always be
> drastically lower and insurance costs will typically be higher. Try to
> choose such an engine that has a FWF and is accepted as being a
> standard
> choice, one that has a good following and proven performance across
> the
> board for the plane will mean less aggravation as a whole.
>
> But mostly, Please consider the costs, if a alternative engine is cost
> effective and proven then it is a viable option, though it is very
> likely a degradation in the planes performance. If it is not a route
> well traveled then the costs will likely climb beyond the cost of the
> aircraft engine installation. Choose wisely Grasshopper!
>
> This letter is not intended for those who enjoy the tinkering and
> experimentation that comes with a choice out of mainstream. It is
> simply
> a caution to those who may not understand the process. We all hear the
> hype of alternate powerplant choices, but caution has to be prudent,
> costs can easily climb to be more then the accepted aircraft choice
> and
> performance rarely comes close to a match. Once involved in such a
> project it is hard to turn your back on your choice, so you work
> harder
> to make your decision work and often you tend to support your decision
> to others right or wrong.
>
> Larry is well respected on this list by a great many members, myself
> included for his determination. However, I have fielded calls over the
> years about using a 2.5L Subaru and a Harley conversion in the 701
> airframe. Several thought that the Harley conversion was the true
> way to
> go. They are signs of those caught in hype and listen to the loudest
> voice. Be careful in your decisions, don't follow a small group they
> may
> all jump off the bridge together. Do your research closely and gain
> opinions from several sources that are not related or knowledgeable of
> each other.
>
> Then make an educated decision.
>
> As stated, this letter is not intended for seasoned builders or those
> who are building for the joy of building and experimenting. It is
> intended for those who are new and may not realize the trials and
> tribulations of an alternate engine choice. IF your building to fly a
> great plane like the 701 go with the most proven performer, that Is
> the
> Rotax hands down. Or go with the alternate choice that has a proven
> record in several like aircraft.
>
> Mark Townsend
> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
> president@can-zacaviation.com
> www.can-zacaviation.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:19 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
>
>
> How about a Honda Gold Wing engine instead. They're like 1.5 liter 6
> cylinder horizontally opposed. Shouuld be a pretty smooth engine. No
> idea on the weight but I'd imagine it would be light.
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172469#172469
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
The Rotomax might well be a great engine some day but I'd have to say that day
is probably well off in the future. If you look at the pictures on their website
they are all still computer generated and not photos of real engines.
jerry(at)jerryhey.com wrote:
> I agree with what Mark has said but a new player is about to be added to the
engine list that may change everything.
--------
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=172515#172515
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: Death of my Harley |
Just for the record, a couple of corrections. Since I started my 701 it has
been a little over 3 years. And that was off and on, I have built several
other projects during that time, so I would say the actual time I spent
working on this plane is less than 2 years.
I don't know the exact figures for a Rotax 912 ULS complete FW package, but
I've heard around 17K. Now I bought the Subaru 2.5 for $3000, redrive for
$900, direct drive for $700. I actually bought the Subaru with the PRSU for
an 801, then changed my mind to a 701, tried it with a direct drive, it was
just too heavy, 259lbs. Sold the Subaru for $4500, direct drive for $600,
redrive for $2500. I am now ahead by $3000, bought the Harley for $9300.
Now I am $6300 down, Bought the VW complete with redrive for $2500, add
$500 for misc. parts. I am $9300 down. All in all I have spent
approximately $7700 less than I would have for a Rotax. And I still have
the Harley and the VW. Now if you add time to it, that is a different
story, but I figure I would be building something anyway, so I don't count
it. Now I fully expect to build an airboat with the Harley for less than a
$2000, sell it for $10,000 or more. Bottom line is that I should end up on
the plus side by a few hundred dollars and have a free engine. It's all in
how you look at it.
Auto conversions vs Rotax is all about opinions. There are hundreds of auto
conversions of all kinds out there that work quite well. Many, many Subarus
on both Gyros and fixed wings. Thousands of VWs. Sure a few didn't work
out, that's normal in this experimental world. Rotax is a great engine even
with it's record number of ADs. I would love to have one, it's all about
the price, it's just not worth it. And of course a VW/Sub/Suz or any auto
conversion needs a PRSU. Does any one actually think that if a Rotax didn't
have a high ratio reduction drive it would have any torque?
Now let's not start arguing, I just wanted to correct a few of my thoughts.
Take care, LRM www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "ZodieRocket" <zodierocket@hsfx.ca>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 8:42 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
>
> Andy, I am one of the first to support an alternative engine choice as a
> viable alternative and a cost effective replacement. Though in the 701 I
> concede that nothing will fly the plane as well as the Rotax 912S and
> few will fly it better then the 80 hp Rotax 912. So if nothing can out
> perform it in the weight to power and torque to the prop range then
> costs are the true consideration. In Larry's case I believe that he has
> spent far more then the cost of a Rotax on his past engine choices that
> didn't work out, forget about the 5 extra years he has been working on
> his plane.
> I am pointing this out for newbie's benefit, Larry would not have had it
> any other way I believe, his joy and passion is in the build and
> typically seems to be off the beaten track. I believe this to be the
> attraction for Larry, though, he throws his passion and beliefs in his
> choices, I applaud him for his enthusiasm, but wish to caution others.
>
> Going the automotive course will never match the efficiency of the Rotax
> installation in the 701. In the 601 the Corvair and Subaru can get close
> to the Jabiru and surpass some other choices. However, we are talking
> about the 701 here and the choices are limited, I have seen some Geo
> conversions that have impressed me and I had finally seen 1 VW
> conversion that actually seems to be acceptable, I have in fact seen
> many vw's that didn't work be removed for the Rotax. Nevertheless, a VW
> must have a reduction unit to get the torque to the prop and these seem
> to be the weak link in the chain of VW conversions.
>
> I will never tell anyone not to install an auto conversion in their
> plane, I have done this in the past and have one on my 601, but I
> caution new builders to research your choice. Any conversion will be a
> constant care through the life of the plane, more so then an Aircraft
> designed engine, plus resale value of your plane will always be
> drastically lower and insurance costs will typically be higher. Try to
> choose such an engine that has a FWF and is accepted as being a standard
> choice, one that has a good following and proven performance across the
> board for the plane will mean less aggravation as a whole.
>
> But mostly, Please consider the costs, if a alternative engine is cost
> effective and proven then it is a viable option, though it is very
> likely a degradation in the planes performance. If it is not a route
> well traveled then the costs will likely climb beyond the cost of the
> aircraft engine installation. Choose wisely Grasshopper!
>
> This letter is not intended for those who enjoy the tinkering and
> experimentation that comes with a choice out of mainstream. It is simply
> a caution to those who may not understand the process. We all hear the
> hype of alternate powerplant choices, but caution has to be prudent,
> costs can easily climb to be more then the accepted aircraft choice and
> performance rarely comes close to a match. Once involved in such a
> project it is hard to turn your back on your choice, so you work harder
> to make your decision work and often you tend to support your decision
> to others right or wrong.
>
> Larry is well respected on this list by a great many members, myself
> included for his determination. However, I have fielded calls over the
> years about using a 2.5L Subaru and a Harley conversion in the 701
> airframe. Several thought that the Harley conversion was the true way to
> go. They are signs of those caught in hype and listen to the loudest
> voice. Be careful in your decisions, don't follow a small group they may
> all jump off the bridge together. Do your research closely and gain
> opinions from several sources that are not related or knowledgeable of
> each other.
>
> Then make an educated decision.
>
> As stated, this letter is not intended for seasoned builders or those
> who are building for the joy of building and experimenting. It is
> intended for those who are new and may not realize the trials and
> tribulations of an alternate engine choice. IF your building to fly a
> great plane like the 701 go with the most proven performer, that Is the
> Rotax hands down. Or go with the alternate choice that has a proven
> record in several like aircraft.
>
> Mark Townsend
> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
> president@can-zacaviation.com
> www.can-zacaviation.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:19 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
>
>
> How about a Honda Gold Wing engine instead. They're like 1.5 liter 6
> cylinder horizontally opposed. Shouuld be a pretty smooth engine. No
> idea on the weight but I'd imagine it would be light.
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172469#172469
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 3:03 PM
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
Yep, I have looked at a gold wing. The problem is that you would have to
cut the trans off, build a plate, have oil pump and oil tank external to the
engine. Not sure it's worth all that engineering. Take care, LRM
www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 8:23 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
>
>
> zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca wrote:
>> Andy, I am one of the first to support an alternative engine choice as a
>> viable alternative and a cost effective replacement. Though in the 701 I
>> concede that nothing will fly the plane as well as the Rotax 912S and
>> few will fly it better then the 80 hp Rotax 912. So if nothing can out
>> perform it in the weight to power and torque to the prop range then
>> costs are the true consideration. In Larry's case I believe that he has
>> spent far more then the cost of a Rotax on his past engine choices that
>> didn't work out, forget about the 5 extra years he has been working on
>> his plane. Mark Townsend
>> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
>> president@can-zacaviation.com
>> www.can-zacaviation.com
>>
>> --
>
>
> I agree, if someone is not too familiar with the process it's better to go
> with a known instead of an unknown. I suggested the Gold Wing engine
> because Larry seems to enjoy tinkering and I think a Gold Wing engine is a
> viable alternative. Yeah, it'll need a redrive, but then again, even a
> Rotax has a PSRU. I believe the Gold Wing engine and the Rotax are of
> similar displacements and horsepower at 4500rpm. Being that Larry's
> already worked with one motorcycle engine I figured I'd throw it out there
> for a look see. I'm sure he'd know the pros and cons better than me, just
> figured he may not have considered it before. I took an interest in the
> Gold Wing engine a few years ago looking at one one someone's bike in
> parking lot and it caught my eye as a possible alternative engine which I
> haven't heard much about on these forums.
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172496#172496
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 3:03 PM
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
If you are considering viable options in the 80 HP range, I would seriously look
at the Aero Conversion. It is the same engine a lot of Sonex builders use.
Its new. Its affordable at around $6500 or so. You DO have to assemble it and
you would know what is in it.
Just another option.
Larry H
ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca wrote:
> Andy, I am one of the first to support an alternative engine choice as a
> viable alternative and a cost effective replacement. Though in the 701 I
> concede that nothing will fly the plane as well as the Rotax 912S and
> few will fly it better then the 80 hp Rotax 912. So if nothing can out
> perform it in the weight to power and torque to the prop range then
> costs are the true consideration. In Larry's case I believe that he has
> spent far more then the cost of a Rotax on his past engine choices that
> didn't work out, forget about the 5 extra years he has been working on
> his plane. Mark Townsend
> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
> president@can-zacaviation.com
> www.can-zacaviation.com
>
> --
I agree, if someone is not too familiar with the process it's better to go with
a known instead of an unknown. I suggested the Gold Wing engine because Larry
seems to enjoy tinkering and I think a Gold Wing engine is a viable alternative.
Yeah, it'll need a redrive, but then again, even a Rotax has a PSRU. I believe
the Gold Wing engine and the Rotax are of similar displacements and horsepower
at 4500rpm. Being that Larry's already worked with one motorcycle engine
I figured I'd throw it out there for a look see. I'm sure he'd know the pros
and cons better than me, just figured he may not have considered it before. I
took an interest in the Gold Wing engine a few years ago looking at one one someone's
bike in parking lot and it caught my eye as a possible alternative engine
which I haven't heard much about on these forums.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172496#172496
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
It will be interesting to watch the development on it, but I for one, will not
use it until it has been proven out for many, many years.
Larry H
Jerry Hey <jerry@jerryhey.com> wrote:
I agree with what Mark has said but a new player is about to be added to the engine list that may change everything. I am speaking about the RotaMax which will be making its debut at Sun N Fun. They had a booth at Oshkosh last year but the engines were under development. I visited the factory a couple of months ago and was quite impressed with their approach. I believe that a 120/130 hp Rotamax can be installed with a FWF weight of less than 200 lbs. I have no connection with the company at this time but in the way of full disclosure I am thinking of developing a FWF package for the 601/701. I have had a long time interest in the rotary engine and currently supply engine mounts for Mazda conversions for a variety of aircraft. If you are curious about the RotaMax, their web site is http://www.rotamax.net. Regards, jerry (jerryhey.com)
On Mar 24, 2008, at 9:42 PM, ZodieRocket wrote:
Andy, I am one of the first to support an alternative engine choice as a
viable alternative and a cost effective replacement. Though in the 701 I
concede that nothing will fly the plane as well as the Rotax 912S and
few will fly it better then the 80 hp Rotax 912. So if nothing can out
perform it in the weight to power and torque to the prop range then
costs are the true consideration. In Larry's case I believe that he has
spent far more then the cost of a Rotax on his past engine choices that
didn't work out, forget about the 5 extra years he has been working on
his plane.
I am pointing this out for newbie's benefit, Larry would not have had it
any other way I believe, his joy and passion is in the build and
typically seems to be off the beaten track. I believe this to be the
attraction for Larry, though, he throws his passion and beliefs in his
choices, I applaud him for his enthusiasm, but wish to caution others.
Going the automotive course will never match the efficiency of the Rotax
installation in the 701. In the 601 the Corvair and Subaru can get close
to the Jabiru and surpass some other choices. However, we are talking
about the 701 here and the choices are limited, I have seen some Geo
conversions that have impressed me and I had finally seen 1 VW
conversion that actually seems to be acceptable, I have in fact seen
many vw's that didn't work be removed for the Rotax. Nevertheless, a VW
must have a reduction unit to get the torque to the prop and these seem
to be the weak link in the chain of VW conversions.
I will never tell anyone not to install an auto conversion in their
plane, I have done this in the past and have one on my 601, but I
caution new builders to research your choice. Any conversion will be a
constant care through the life of the plane, more so then an Aircraft
designed engine, plus resale value of your plane will always be
drastically lower and insurance costs will typically be higher. Try to
choose such an engine that has a FWF and is accepted as being a standard
choice, one that has a good following and proven performance across the
board for the plane will mean less aggravation as a whole.
But mostly, Please consider the costs, if a alternative engine is cost
effective and proven then it is a viable option, though it is very
likely a degradation in the planes performance. If it is not a route
well traveled then the costs will likely climb beyond the cost of the
aircraft engine installation. Choose wisely Grasshopper!
This letter is not intended for those who enjoy the tinkering and
experimentation that comes with a choice out of mainstream. It is simply
a caution to those who may not understand the process. We all hear the
hype of alternate powerplant choices, but caution has to be prudent,
costs can easily climb to be more then the accepted aircraft choice and
performance rarely comes close to a match. Once involved in such a
project it is hard to turn your back on your choice, so you work harder
to make your decision work and often you tend to support your decision
to others right or wrong.
Larry is well respected on this list by a great many members, myself
included for his determination. However, I have fielded calls over the
years about using a 2.5L Subaru and a Harley conversion in the 701
airframe. Several thought that the Harley conversion was the true way to
go. They are signs of those caught in hype and listen to the loudest
voice. Be careful in your decisions, don't follow a small group they may
all jump off the bridge together. Do your research closely and gain
opinions from several sources that are not related or knowledgeable of
each other.
Then make an educated decision.
As stated, this letter is not intended for seasoned builders or those
who are building for the joy of building and experimenting. It is
intended for those who are new and may not realize the trials and
tribulations of an alternate engine choice. IF your building to fly a
great plane like the 701 go with the most proven performer, that Is the
Rotax hands down. Or go with the alternate choice that has a proven
record in several like aircraft.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:19 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
How about a Honda Gold Wing engine instead. They're like 1.5 liter 6
cylinder horizontally opposed. Shouuld be a pretty smooth engine. No
idea on the weight but I'd imagine it would be light.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172469#172469 &n - &nbs --> =======================
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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: Death of my Harley |
The future is now. At Sun n Fun you will be able to see real engines
running and torn down. They have engines running on the dyno and
other test beds such as a motorcycle and RTV that I think you will be
able to see perform at Sun n Fun. I don't know if they will have an
engine in a flying airplane but that is coming very soon. Jerry
On Mar 25, 2008, at 10:43 AM, Gig Giacona wrote:
> >
>
> The Rotomax might well be a great engine some day but I'd have to
> say that day is probably well off in the future. If you look at the
> pictures on their website they are all still computer generated and
> not photos of real engines.
>
>
> jerry(at)jerryhey.com wrote:
>> I agree with what Mark has said but a new player is about to be
>> added to the engine list that may change everything.
>
>
> --------
> 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=172515#172515
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
Here are a couple of photos I took when I visited RotaMax. These are
both of the two rotor version which is around 130lbs and 130 hp. They
also have a single rotor which is much lighter, of course. I don't
know if the Gyro has flown or not. I think this will be a very big
deal for the Zenith community especially if they can have a price
point somewhat below Rotax. BTW, this is not new technology but is
based on the OMC racing outboards. Jerry
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
At one time I was very interested in the Aero Conversion.
Sonex sold me the assembly DVD and I watched it a few times. I think
their product is extremely good. I like the availability of VW parts
and the DVD made it look easy to put together. If I could have used 80
HP I would have purchased the VW.
I went with Jabiru and so far the FWF cost me $21K.
The VW would have been around $10K.... total....
Steve W.
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry H
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
If you are considering viable options in the 80 HP range, I would
seriously look at the Aero Conversion. It is the same engine a lot of
Sonex builders use. Its new. Its affordable at around $6500 or so.
You DO have to assemble it and you would know what is in it.
Just another option.
Larry H
ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca wrote:
> Andy, I am one of the first to support an alternative engine
choice as a
> viable alternative and a cost effective replacement. Though in the
701 I
> concede that nothing will fly the plane as well as the Rotax 912S
and
> few will fly it better then the 80 hp Rotax 912. So if nothing can
out
> perform it in the weight to power and torque to the prop range
then
> costs are the true consideration. In Larry's case I believe that
he has
> spent far more then the cost of a Rotax on his past engine choices
that
> didn't work out, forget about the 5 extra years he has been
working on
> his plane. Mark Townsend
> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
> president@can-zacaviation.com
> www.can-zacaviation.com
>
> --
I agree, if someone is not too familiar with the process it's better
to go with a known instead of an unknown. I suggested the Gold Wing
engine because Larry seems to enjoy tinkering and I think a Gold Wing
engine is a viable alternative. Yeah, it'll need a redrive, but then
again, even a Rotax has a PSRU. I believe the Gold Wing engine and the
Rotax are of similar displacements and horsepower at 4500rpm. Being that
Larry's already worked with one motorcycle engine I figured I'd throw it
out there for a look see. I'm sure he'd know the
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: brs chute handle |
Greg,
I will send pics off-line to your email address.
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ga23
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:12 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: brs chute handle
>
>
> Les,
>
> Could you show details/pictures of your chute installation?
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172481#172481
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Goldwing conversion |
Mark Wrote: "It is just very involved... and has doubtful results."
Mark:
That's exactly what I kept hearing about building an airplane in my garage!
See you in Florida in two weeks!
Scott Laughlin
Omaha, Nebraska
www.cooknwithgas.com
601XL/Corvair
Finished & Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172555#172555
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: brs chute handle |
Would you please include me in those as well.
creativesigns@embarqmail.com
John (Scratch building 701)
Kaufman, Tx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Les Goldner" <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:55 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: brs chute handle
> <lgold@quantum-associates.com>
>
> Greg,
> I will send pics off-line to your email address.
> Les
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ga23
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:12 AM
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: brs chute handle
>>
>>
>> Les,
>>
>> Could you show details/pictures of your chute installation?
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172481#172481
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Photoshare, and much much more:
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Death of my Harley |
This is a nice engine, but it would not work for well a 701, not enough thrust.
Due to the short prop, mandated by its lack of a redrive, see Marks comment above.
skyridersbn wrote:
> If you are considering viable options in the 80 HP range, I would seriously look
at the Aero Conversion. It is the same engine a lot of Sonex builders use.
Its new. Its affordable at around $6500 or so. You DO have to assemble it
and you would know what is in it.
> Just another option.
> Larry H
>
> [
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172564#172564
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
I fly on a Rotax (rent the plane) and it IS a decent running engine.....in the
summer time. Here with the colder weather, the Rotax seems to always need carb
heat - constantly. It tends to load up too at times. The place where I rent
at, the owner is a Certified Rotax repairman AND a CFI so he KNOWS what he's
doing with it. He says its one of those "quirks" that Rotax has.....I personally
looked into the cost of a Rotax for my CH601XL. I too found out that the
cost IS prohibitive coming in around $19,500 and then I would STILL have to
purchase the Firewall Forward Kit too. I was on the Zenith website and stumbled
on to the Corvair engine conversion. The cost is extremely affordable and
the nicest part about it, I can do all the work on it myself. I found 2 core
engines that are totally rebuildable for $300.00 (for both). I am guessing with
everything I want to do to it, I should come in way under $5,000. I will still
have to buy a FWF kit but even that is more
reasonably priced than the Rotax was. The only OTHER engine I would have considered
also was the Jabiru 3300. But like the Rotax, it too was excessively expensive.
Don't get me wrong here, I DO like both the Rotax and the Jabiru but
I DO think there are a lot of other more "affordable options" out here if you're
willing to do research and work that it requires to get the end results you
are looking for. For me, dependable and affordable was my two majors goals
when I decided on the Corvair.
Regards,
Larry H
LRM <lrm@skyhawg.com> wrote:
Just for the record, a couple of corrections. Since I started my 701 it has
been a little over 3 years. And that was off and on, I have built several
other projects during that time, so I would say the actual time I spent
working on this plane is less than 2 years.
I don't know the exact figures for a Rotax 912 ULS complete FW package, but
I've heard around 17K. Now I bought the Subaru 2.5 for $3000, redrive for
$900, direct drive for $700. I actually bought the Subaru with the PRSU for
an 801, then changed my mind to a 701, tried it with a direct drive, it was
just too heavy, 259lbs. Sold the Subaru for $4500, direct drive for $600,
redrive for $2500. I am now ahead by $3000, bought the Harley for $9300.
Now I am $6300 down, Bought the VW complete with redrive for $2500, add
$500 for misc. parts. I am $9300 down. All in all I have spent
approximately $7700 less than I would have for a Rotax. And I still have
the Harley and the VW. Now if you add time to it, that is a different
story, but I figure I would be building something anyway, so I don't count
it. Now I fully expect to build an airboat with the Harley for less than a
$2000, sell it for $10,000 or more. Bottom line is that I should end up on
the plus side by a few hundred dollars and have a free engine. It's all in
how you look at it.
Auto conversions vs Rotax is all about opinions. There are hundreds of auto
conversions of all kinds out there that work quite well. Many, many Subarus
on both Gyros and fixed wings. Thousands of VWs. Sure a few didn't work
out, that's normal in this experimental world. Rotax is a great engine even
with it's record number of ADs. I would love to have one, it's all about
the price, it's just not worth it. And of course a VW/Sub/Suz or any auto
conversion needs a PRSU. Does any one actually think that if a Rotax didn't
have a high ratio reduction drive it would have any torque?
Now let's not start arguing, I just wanted to correct a few of my thoughts.
Take care, LRM www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "ZodieRocket"
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 8:42 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
>
> Andy, I am one of the first to support an alternative engine choice as a
> viable alternative and a cost effective replacement. Though in the 701 I
> concede that nothing will fly the plane as well as the Rotax 912S and
> few will fly it better then the 80 hp Rotax 912. So if nothing can out
> perform it in the weight to power and torque to the prop range then
> costs are the true consideration. In Larry's case I believe that he has
> spent far more then the cost of a Rotax on his past engine choices that
> didn't work out, forget about the 5 extra years he has been working on
> his plane.
> I am pointing this out for newbie's benefit, Larry would not have had it
> any other way I believe, his joy and passion is in the build and
> typically seems to be off the beaten track. I believe this to be the
> attraction for Larry, though, he throws his passion and beliefs in his
> choices, I applaud him for his enthusiasm, but wish to caution others.
>
> Going the automotive course will never match the efficiency of the Rotax
> installation in the 701. In the 601 the Corvair and Subaru can get close
> to the Jabiru and surpass some other choices. However, we are talking
> about the 701 here and the choices are limited, I have seen some Geo
> conversions that have impressed me and I had finally seen 1 VW
> conversion that actually seems to be acceptable, I have in fact seen
> many vw's that didn't work be removed for the Rotax. Nevertheless, a VW
> must have a reduction unit to get the torque to the prop and these seem
> to be the weak link in the chain of VW conversions.
>
> I will never tell anyone not to install an auto conversion in their
> plane, I have done this in the past and have one on my 601, but I
> caution new builders to research your choice. Any conversion will be a
> constant care through the life of the plane, more so then an Aircraft
> designed engine, plus resale value of your plane will always be
> drastically lower and insurance costs will typically be higher. Try to
> choose such an engine that has a FWF and is accepted as being a standard
> choice, one that has a good following and proven performance across the
> board for the plane will mean less aggravation as a whole.
>
> But mostly, Please consider the costs, if a alternative engine is cost
> effective and proven then it is a viable option, though it is very
> likely a degradation in the planes performance. If it is not a route
> well traveled then the costs will likely climb beyond the cost of the
> aircraft engine installation. Choose wisely Grasshopper!
>
> This letter is not intended for those who enjoy the tinkering and
> experimentation that comes with a choice out of mainstream. It is simply
> a caution to those who may not understand the process. We all hear the
> hype of alternate powerplant choices, but caution has to be prudent,
> costs can easily climb to be more then the accepted aircraft choice and
> performance rarely comes close to a match. Once involved in such a
> project it is hard to turn your back on your choice, so you work harder
> to make your decision work and often you tend to support your decision
> to others right or wrong.
>
> Larry is well respected on this list by a great many members, myself
> included for his determination. However, I have fielded calls over the
> years about using a 2.5L Subaru and a Harley conversion in the 701
> airframe. Several thought that the Harley conversion was the true way to
> go. They are signs of those caught in hype and listen to the loudest
> voice. Be careful in your decisions, don't follow a small group they may
> all jump off the bridge together. Do your research closely and gain
> opinions from several sources that are not related or knowledgeable of
> each other.
>
> Then make an educated decision.
>
> As stated, this letter is not intended for seasoned builders or those
> who are building for the joy of building and experimenting. It is
> intended for those who are new and may not realize the trials and
> tribulations of an alternate engine choice. IF your building to fly a
> great plane like the 701 go with the most proven performer, that Is the
> Rotax hands down. Or go with the alternate choice that has a proven
> record in several like aircraft.
>
> Mark Townsend
> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
> president@can-zacaviation.com
> www.can-zacaviation.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:19 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
>
>
> How about a Honda Gold Wing engine instead. They're like 1.5 liter 6
> cylinder horizontally opposed. Shouuld be a pretty smooth engine. No
> idea on the weight but I'd imagine it would be light.
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172469#172469
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 3:03 PM
>
>
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
Well, you might want to reconsider your options on the Corvair. Look at this website:
http://www.flywithgus.com/page4.html
Gus is an A&P and a test pilot. He is associated with William Wynne's "Hanger
Gang" out of Florida. Gus's 701 has the Corvair engine in it and he is doing
more testing as we speak. If you want the cold hard facts (not speculations)
I would suggest you contact Gus or William and ask them what their results they
are finding. I'm positive they would be more than happy to tell you both
the good and the bad (if there is any). Keep in mind too, parts are readily available
for these engines at your local auto parts store.
Regards,
Larry H
kmccune <kmccune@somtel.net> wrote:
This is a nice engine, but it would not work for well a 701, not enough thrust.
Due to the short prop, mandated by its lack of a redrive, see Marks comment above.
skyridersbn wrote:
> If you are considering viable options in the 80 HP range, I would seriously look
at the Aero Conversion. It is the same engine a lot of Sonex builders use.
Its new. Its affordable at around $6500 or so. You DO have to assemble it and
you would know what is in it.
> Just another option.
> Larry H
>
> [
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172564#172564
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
Larry--
I think your Rotax repairman needs some new training. I've been flying a
Rotax 912uls in my 601XL for almost 200 hours, mostly in the colder weathe
r in New Hampshire and Maine and it has never needed carb heat. I utilize c
arb heat only in the pattern or slow flying work.
There's no question it is an expensive engine, however, I have found tha
t it is very reliable, and requires no tweeking or tuning between suggested
maintenance intervals once it is set up .
That being said ,it sure would be nice to see a USA made engine to compete
with Rotax and Jabiru both on performace and at a better price.
George May
601XL 912s ----197 hrs
: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my HarleyTo: zenith-list@matronics.com
I fly on a Rotax (rent the plane) and it IS a decent running engine.....in
the summer time. Here with the colder weather, the Rotax seems to always n
eed carb heat - constantly. It tends to load up too at times. The place w
here I rent at, the owner is a Certified Rotax repairman AND a CFI so he KN
OWS what he's doing with it. He says its one of those "quirks" that Rotax
has.....I personally looked into the cost of a Rotax for my CH601XL. I to
o found out that the cost IS prohibitive coming in around $19,500 and then
I would STILL have to purchase the Firewall Forward Kit too. I was on the
Zenith website and stumbled on to the Corvair engine conversion. The cost
is extremely affordable and the nicest part about it, I can do all the work
on it myself. I found 2 core engines that are totally rebuildable for $30
0.00 (for both). I am guessing with everything I want to do to it, I shoul
d come in way under $5,000. I will still have to buy a FWF kit but even th
at is more reasonably priced than the Rotax was. The only OTHER engine I w
ould have considered also was the Jabiru 3300. But like the Rotax, it too
was excessively expensive. Don't get me wrong here, I DO like both the Rot
ax and the Jabiru but I DO think there are a lot of other more "affordable
options" out here if you're willing to do research and work that it require
s to get the end results you are looking for. For me, dependable and affor
dable was my two majors goals when I decided on the Corvair.
Regards,
Larry HLRM <lrm@skyhawg.com> wrote:
orrections. Since I started my 701 it has been a little over 3 years. And t
hat was off and on, I have built several other projects during that time, s
o I would say the actual time I spent working on this plane is less than 2
years.I don't know the exact figures for a Rotax 912 ULS complete FW packag
e, but I've heard around 17K. Now I bought the Subaru 2.5 for $3000, redriv
e for $900, direct drive for $700. I actually bought the Subaru with the PR
SU for an 801, then changed my mind to a 701, tried it with a direct drive,
it was just too heavy, 259lbs. Sold the Subaru for $4500, direct drive for
$600, redrive for $2500. I am now ahead by $3000, bought the Harley for $9
300. Now I am $6300 down, Bought the VW complete with redrive for $2500, ad
d $500 for misc. parts. I am $9300 down. All in all I have spent approximat
ely $7700 less than I would have for a Rotax. And I still have the Harley a
nd the VW. Now if you add time to it, that is a different story, but I figu
re I would be building something anyway, so I don't count it. Now I fully e
xpect to build an airboat with the Harley for less than a $2000, sell it fo
r $10,000 or more. Bottom line is that I should end up on the plus side by
a few hundred dollars and have a free engine. It's all in how you look at i
t.Auto conversions vs Rotax is all about opinions. There are hundreds of au
to conversions of all kinds out there that work quite well. Many, many Suba
rus on both Gyros and fixed wings. Thousands of VWs. Sure a few didn't work
out, that's normal in this experimental world. Rotax is a great engine eve
n with it's record number of ADs. I would love to have one, it's all about
the price, it's just not worth it. And of course a VW/Sub/Suz or any auto c
onversion needs a PRSU. Does any one actually think that if a Rotax didn't
have a high ratio reduction drive it would have any torque?Now let's not st
art arguing, I just wanted to correct a few of my thoughts. Take care, LRM
www.skyhawg.com----- Original Message ----- From: "ZodieRocket" To: Sent: M
onday, March 24, 2008 8:42 PMSubject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harl
he first to support an alternative engine choice as a> viable alternative a
nd a cost effective replacement. Though in the 701 I> concede that nothing
will fly the plane as well as the Rotax 912S and> few will fly it better th
en the 80 hp Rotax 912. So if nothing can out> perform it in the weight to
power and torque to the prop range then> costs are the true consideration.
In Larry's case I believe that he has> spent far more then the cost of a Ro
tax on his past engine choices that> didn't work out, forget about the 5 ex
tra years he has been working on> his plane.> I am pointing this out for ne
wbie's benefit, Larry would not have had it> any other way I believe, his j
oy and passion is in the build and> typically seems to be off the beaten tr
ack. I believe this to be the> attraction for Larry, though, he throws his
passion and beliefs in his> choices, I applaud him for his enthusiasm, but
wish to caution others.>> Going the automotive course will never match the
efficiency of the Rotax> installation in the 701. In the 601 the Corvair an
d Subaru can get close> to the Jabiru and surpass some other choices. Howev
er, we are talking> about the 701 here and the choices are limited, I have
seen some Geo> conversions that have impressed me and I had finally seen 1
VW> conversion that actually seems to be acceptable, I have in fact seen> m
any vw's that didn't work be removed for the Rotax. Nevertheless, a VW> mus
t have a reduction unit to get the torque to the prop and these seem> to be
the weak link in the chain of VW conversions.>> I will never tell anyone n
ot to install an auto conversion in their> plane, I have done this in the p
ast and have one on my 601, but I> caution new builders to research your ch
oice. Any conversion will be a> constant care through the life of the plane
, more so then an Aircraft> designed engine, plus resale value of your plan
e will always be> drastically lower and insurance costs will typically be h
igher. Try to> choose such an engine that has a FWF and is accepted as bein
g a standard> choice, one that has a good following and proven performance
across the> board for the plane will mean less aggravation as a whole.>> Bu
t mostly, Please consider the costs, if a alternative engine is cost> effec
tive and proven then it is a viable option, though it is very> likely a deg
radation in the planes performance. If it is not a route> well traveled the
n the costs will likely climb beyond the cost of the> aircraft engine insta
llation. Choose wisely Grasshopper!>> This letter is not intended for those
who enjoy the tinkering and> experimentation that comes with a choice out
of mainstream. It is simply> a caution to those who may not understand the
process. We all hear the> hype of alternate powerplant choices, but caution
has to be prudent,> costs can easily climb to be more then the accepted ai
rcraft choice and> performance rarely comes close to a match. Once involved
in such a> project it is hard to turn your back on your choice, so you wor
k harder> to make your decision work and often you tend to support your dec
ision> to others right or wrong.>> Larry is well respected on this list by
a great many members, myself> included for his determination. However, I ha
ve fielded calls over the> years about using a 2.5L Subaru and a Harley con
version in the 701> airframe. Several thought that the Harley conversion wa
s the true way to> go. They are signs of those caught in hype and listen to
the loudest> voice. Be careful in your decisions, don't follow a small gro
up they may> all jump off the bridge together. Do your research closely and
gain> opinions from several sources that are not related or knowledgeable
of> each other.>> Then make an educated decision.>> As stated, this letter
is not intended for seasoned builders or those> who are building for the jo
y of building and experimenting. It is> intended for those who are new and
may not realize the trials and> tribulations of an alternate engine choice.
IF your building to fly a> great plane like the 701 go with the most prove
n performer, that Is the> Rotax hands down. Or go with the alternate choice
that has a proven> record in several like aircraft.>> Mark Townsend> Can-Z
ac Aviation Ltd.> president@can-zacaviation.com> www.can-zacaviation.com>>
-----Original Message-----> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com> [
mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz> Sent:
Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:19 AM> To: zenith-list@matronics.com> Subject: Ze
ontz" >> How about a Honda Gold Wing engine instead. They're like 1.5 liter
6> cylinder horizontally opposed. Shouuld be a pretty smooth engine. No> i
dea on the weight but I'd imagine it would be light.>> --------> Andy Shont
z> CH601XL - Corvair>
_________________________________________________________________
Test your Star IQ
http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=redcarpet_HMTAGMAR
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
skyridersbn,
The quote below my comment is not about the Corvair, it is about a direct drive
VW kit engine. The kit engine IS a great concept, but it just won't turn a 3
blade 72" prop. The Corvair is a good engine, and I believe will make the 701
stand on its tail. It is a little heavy but the CG can be brought in line.I think
it needs a 5th bearing for the 701. And it will reduce the crew and cargo
by 40-80lbs. Depends on your intent.
Kevin
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172633#172633
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: Drawing 6-LRO-1 |
Larry,
I think I only used the top portion or 6-W-7 for the rear spar and a combination
of 6-W-3 and 6-K-0 for the main spar. I do remember getting confused here and
calling Zenith for confirmation. I am using the 15 gal 6-K-1 tanks, for 30
gals total.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172634#172634
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: Drawing 6-LRO-1 |
Thanks guys. Maybe it is just Zenith/FAA testing us if we really know how to and
actually do read the drawings. You don't call or ask - you are in trouble :)
. I'm clear now.
--------
Pavel
CA
Zodiac XL N581PM (Reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172641#172641
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 Flap control solution and flying DVD 701 Flap control |
solution and flying DVD
Hi, Ben,
Do you have the 20mm split between inboard and outboard sections of your
flaperons? I split mine, and it looks like the outboards are "reflexed"
already. Not flying yet, so can't comment on performance, but I'm going to
set my vertical control rods so that I can "reflex" with the flap control,
for experimenting (that's what we do, right?). Probably won't need full
flap extension, anyway, at least not until I get into real STOL training.
(Do not archive)
Blue skies and tailwinds
Jim
CH-801
DeltaHawk diesel
Augusta GA
90% done, 90% left
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Non-hinged ailerons with autopilot |
Thanks to everyone who has replied.
I looked over the pictures. Is there some sort of triangular fitting
where the control rod connects to the cables? It looks like there
would be a lot of slop in the connection. I'm sure it's just because
I can't make out how the connection works
Ron
On Mar 25, 2008, at 4:33 AM, John Livsey wrote:
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> As per other replies I fitted a Trio Single axis autopilot (Wing
> Leveller) to my CH601HDS and it was the best thing I have done. I
> think the CH601-HDS has longer ailerons than the XL and they are
> "hingeless" and I'm not aware of any real servo slip. Even if it
> does slip a bit in real bumpy conditions occasionally it doesn't
> matter, it won't get itself out of position, it will just take a
> bit longer to get back straight and level. Remember you can always
> "assist" the servo with some gentle stick input !!!
>
> You can check out my installation at http://camilla.homelinux.net/
> flying/modifications/auto%20pilot/ the real mistake I made was that
> it was a retrofit and I couldn't get to the back of the GPS easily
> so I had to cut an access panel in the fwd fuselage top cover.
> Should have done the access panel when I was building. My advice,
> make sure you can get at all the required wiring !!! (Or build the
> access panel during construction)
> --
> Regards, John Livsey
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Drawing 6-LRO-1 |
You're probably right. I remember being fairly confused at the time and
getting it resolved. Unfortunately, I've slept since then and those
memories have faded.
Larry Winger
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Ron Lendon <rlendon@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Larry,
>
> I think I only used the top portion or 6-W-7 for the rear spar and a
> combination of 6-W-3 and 6-K-0 for the main spar. I do remember getting
> confused here and calling Zenith for confirmation. I am using the 15 gal
> 6-K-1 tanks, for 30 gals total.
>
> --------
> Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
> Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
> http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=172634#172634
>
>
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: 701 Flap control solution and flying DVD 701 Flap con |
trol solution and flying DVD
My flaperons have the split between the inboard and outboard sections to
o. If set up the way zenith calls for,,, the outboard, which are really
the ailerons the nuetral setting puts them at about true flat with the a
irflow, the inner sections are the flaps and they are deployed all the t
ime by that 20 mm amount. I rigged mine so that all the travel was deter
mined by the limit switches, thus letting me go into reflex just by movi
ng the flaperons in the full up position. All I did was to move the limi
t switch an 1/8" or so to disable that concept. Flying my beast in a nos
e high attitude was a bother to me visually and it slowed mine down too.
Your plane might act differently then mine did. YMMV
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Jim McBurney" <jmcburney@pobox.com> wrote:
Hi, Ben,
Do you have the 20mm split between inboard and outboard sections of your
flaperons? I split mine, and it looks like the outboards are "reflexed"
already. Not flying yet, so can't comment on performance, but I'm going
to
set my vertical control rods so that I can "reflex" with the flap contro
l,
for experimenting (that's what we do, right?). Probably won't need full
flap extension, anyway, at least not until I get into real STOL training
.
(Do not archive)
Blue skies and tailwinds
Jim
CH-801
DeltaHawk diesel
Augusta GA
90% done, 90% left
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
_____________________________________________________________
Make them pay. If you've been a victim of medical malpractice, click he
re to contact a lawyer.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4vEhheUX1ZjdyCXYUdQ
j9G3Nm0tFeb6nQi52dDT9P6V1vwuu/
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: | See the Odyssey at Sun-n-Fun |
If anyone is attending Sun-N-Fun and interested in MGL Avionics' Odyssey
10.4 inch (diagonal) color glass panel they will be showing it in the
Aircraft Spruce booth. As mentioned below they will have their own booth and
a much larger presence at Oshkosh and hopefully show the upcoming 8 inch
Voyager EFIS.
I don't work for MGL. I just own one of their Enigma EFIS and moderate the
user group on Yahoo.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: stratomaster_users_group@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:stratomaster_users_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mattskyflyer
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 4:32 PM
Subject: [stratomaster_users_group] See the Odyssey at Sun-n-Fun
Hi All,
We did not intend to display at Sun-n-Fun this year - we do Oshkosh
every year and it does take a chunk out of our year.
However, due to many requests and due to an invitation for Aircraft
Spruce who are selling quite a lot of our products, we are going to
be in Aircraft Spruce's booth for 3 days.
We cannot display all of our products, but we will have an Odyssey
there.
We will be there on Thursday, Friday and Saturday (10, 11, 12 April).
Look for us inside Aircraft Spruce's booth:
Hangar B
Booth 4-9
Contact me on my cellphone during the show (310-251-7560) or Derek at
the office here in California (877-835-9464)
Thanks!
Matt
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stratomaster_users_group/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stratomaster_users_group/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:stratomaster_users_group-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:stratomaster_users_group-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
stratomaster_users_group-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
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: Death of my Harley |
I'm not sure what is actually up with the Rotax honestly. The last several times
I flew it, it just wasn't acting right. I had gone up with my CFI and he was
more aware of it than I was. It was acting like it was loading up and then
it would clear out. The CFI told me to just keep adding carb heat to it....so
I did. This engine has well over 1,100 hours on it and I would think its getting
pretty well run out. Maybe that is what's happening to it....the last time
I flew it before the snow hit, it was still warm outside and it ran strong.
I'd asked my CFI if it could be needing plugs and he said it had just been
tuned up. (He is a Certified Rotax repairman but he has the work done by an actual
A&P). Not sure what is going on with it honestly but I know I wasn't happy
with the way it was flying last time I flew it. Not a good feeling......not
at all.
Larry H
george may <gfmjr_20@hotmail.com> wrote:
.hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE:
10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } Larry--
I think your Rotax repairman needs some new training. I've been flying a Rotax
912uls in my 601XL for almost 200 hours, mostly in the colder weather in New
Hampshire and Maine and it has never needed carb heat. I utilize carb heat only
in the pattern or slow flying work.
There's no question it is an expensive engine, however, I have found that it
is very reliable, and requires no tweeking or tuning between suggested maintenance
intervals once it is set up .
That being said ,it sure would be nice to see a USA made engine to compete with
Rotax and Jabiru both on performace and at a better price.
George May
601XL 912s ----197 hrs
---------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:28:28 -0700
From: skyridersbn@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
I fly on a Rotax (rent the plane) and it IS a decent running engine.....in the
summer time. Here with the colder weather, the Rotax seems to always need carb
heat - constantly. It tends to load up too at times. The place where I rent
at, the owner is a Certified Rotax repairman AND a CFI so he KNOWS what he's
doing with it. He says its one of those "quirks" that Rotax has.....I personally
looked into the cost of a Rotax for my CH601XL. I too found out that
the cost IS prohibitive coming in around $19,500 and then I would STILL have to
purchase the Firewall Forward Kit too. I was on the Zenith website and stumbled
on to the Corvair engine conversion. The cost is extremely affordable and
the nicest part about it, I can do all the work on it myself. I found 2 core
engines that are totally rebuildable for $300.00 (for both). I am guessing
with everything I want to do to it, I should come in way under $5,000. I will
still have to buy a FWF kit but even that is more
reasonably priced than the Rotax was. The only OTHER engine I would have considered
also was the Jabiru 3300. But like the Rotax, it too was excessively expensive.
Don't get me wrong here, I DO like both the Rotax and the Jabiru but
I DO think there are a lot of other more "affordable options" out here if you're
willing to do research and work that it requires to get the end results you
are looking for. For me, dependable and affordable was my two majors goals
when I decided on the Corvair.
Regards,
Larry H
LRM <lrm@skyhawg.com> wrote:
Just for the record, a couple of corrections. Since I started my 701 it has
been a little over 3 years. And that was off and on, I have built several
other projects during that time, so I would say the actual time I spent
working on this plane is less than 2 years.
I don't know the exact figures for a Rotax 912 ULS complete FW package, but
I've heard around 17K. Now I bought the Subaru 2.5 for $3000, redrive for
$900, direct drive for $700. I actually bought the Subaru with the PRSU for
an 801, then changed my mind to a 701, tried it with a direct drive, it was
just too heavy, 259lbs. Sold the Subaru for $4500, direct drive for $600,
redrive for $2500. I am now ahead by $3000, bought the Harley for $9300.
Now I am $6300 down, Bought the VW complete with redrive for $2500, add
$500 for misc. parts. I am $9300 down. All in all I have spent
approximately $7700 less than I would have for a Rotax. And I still have
the Harley and the VW. Now if you add time to it, that is a different
story, but I figure I would be building something anyway, so I don't count
it. Now I fully expect to build an airboat with the Harley for less than a
$2000, sell it for $10,000 or more. Bottom line is that I should end up on
the plus side by a few hundred dollars and have a free engine. It's all in
how you look at it.
Auto conversions vs Rotax is all about opinions. There are hundreds of auto
conversions of all kinds out there that work quite well. Many, many Subarus
on both Gyros and fixed wings. Thousands of VWs. Sure a few didn't work
out, that's normal in this experimental world. Rotax is a great engine even
with it's record number of ADs. I would love to have one, it's all about
the price, it's just not worth it. And of course a VW/Sub/Suz or any auto
conversion needs a PRSU. Does any one actually think that if a Rotax didn't
have a high ratio reduction drive it would have any torque?
Now let's not start arguing, I just wanted to correct a few of my thoughts.
Take care, LRM www.skyhawg.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "ZodieRocket"
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 8:42 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
>
> Andy, I am one of the first to support an alternative engine choice as a
> viable alternative and a cost effective replacement. Though in the 701 I
> concede that nothing will fly the plane as well as the Rotax 912S and
> few will fly it better then the 80 hp Rotax 912. So if nothing can out
> perform it in the weight to power and torque to the prop range then
> costs are the true consideration. In Larry's case I believe that he has
> spent far more then the cost of a Rotax on his past engine choices that
> didn't work out, forget about the 5 extra years he has been working on
> his plane.
> I am pointing this out for newbie's benefit, Larry would not have had it
> any other way I believe, his joy and passion is in the build and
> typically seems to be off the beaten track. I believe this to be the
> attraction for Larry, though, he throws his passion and beliefs in his
> choices, I applaud him for his enthusiasm, but wish to caution others.
>
> Going the automotive course will never match the efficiency of the Rotax
> installation in the 701. In the 601 the Corvair and Subaru can get close
> to the Jabiru and surpass some other choices. However, we are talking
> about the 701 here and the choices are limited, I have seen some Geo
> conversions that have impressed me and I had finally seen 1 VW
> conversion that actually seems to be acceptable, I have in fact seen
> many vw's that didn't work be removed for the Rotax. Nevertheless, a VW
> must have a reduction unit to get the torque to the prop and these seem
> to be the weak link in the chain of VW conversions.
>
> I will never tell anyone not to install an auto conversion in their
> plane, I have done this in the past and have one on my 601, but I
> caution new builders to research your choice. Any conversion will be a
> constant care through the life of the plane, more so then an Aircraft
> designed engine, plus resale value of your plane will always be
> drastically lower and insurance costs will typically be higher. Try to
> choose such an engine that has a FWF and is accepted as being a standard
> choice, one that has a good following and proven performance across the
> board for the plane will mean less aggravation as a whole.
>
> But mostly, Please consider the costs, if a alternative engine is cost
> effective and proven then it is a viable option, though it is very
> likely a degradation in the planes performance. If it is not a route
> well traveled then the costs will likely climb beyond the cost of the
> aircraft engine installation. Choose wisely Grasshopper!
>
> This letter is not intended for those who enjoy the tinkering and
> experimentation that comes with a choice out of mainstream. It is simply
> a caution to those who may not understand the process. We all hear the
> hype of alternate powerplant choices, but caution has to be prudent,
> costs can easily climb to be more then the accepted aircraft choice and
> performance rarely comes close to a match. Once involved in such a
> project it is hard to turn your back on your choice, so you work harder
> to make your decision work and often you tend to support your decision
> to others right or wrong.
>
> Larry is well respected on this list by a great many members, myself
> included for his determination. However, I have fielded calls over the
> years about using a 2.5L Subaru and a Harley conversion in the 701
> airframe. Several thought that the Harley conversion was the true way to
> go. They are signs of those caught in hype and listen to the loudest
> voice. Be careful in your decisions, don't follow a small group they may
> all jump off the bridge together. Do your research closely and gain
> opinions from several sources that are not related or knowledgeable of
> each other.
>
> Then make an educated decision.
>
> As stated, this letter is not intended for seasoned builders or those
> who are building for the joy of building and experimenting. It is
> intended for those who are new and may not realize the trials and
> tribulations of an alternate engine choice. IF your building to fly a
> great plane like the 701 go with the most proven performer, that Is the
> Rotax hands down. Or go with the alternate choice that has a proven
> record in several like aircraft.
>
> Mark Townsend
> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
> president@can-zacaviation.com
> www.can-zacaviation.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 6:19 AM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Death of my Harley
>
>
> How about a Honda Gold Wing engine instead. They're like 1.5 liter 6
> cylinder horizontally opposed. Shouuld be a pretty smooth engine. No
> idea on the weight but I'd imagine it would be light.
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
>
arget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List p://forums.matronics.com blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
---------------------------------
Test your Star IQ Play now!
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Re: Positive Flap Position |
We see that reflex flaps can give you a couple of knots. Now on the other
hand, 3 or 4 degrees of down flap on a Cessna Birddog in cruise would also give
you a couple knots increase. It aint a rule if it doesn't work every time.
Bob Do not archive
**************
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch
the video on AOL Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
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! --
|