Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:10 AM - Re: Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) (Gary Gower)
2. 12:59 AM - Re: Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) (James E. Lanier)
3. 03:10 AM - Re: Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) (Jerry Hey)
4. 05:55 AM - 601 performance on 80 HP (Ron DeWees)
5. 08:04 AM - Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) (Grant Corriveau)
6. 09:03 AM - Re: Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) (Bryan Martin)
7. 10:32 AM - Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) (Ken Erickson)
8. 10:54 AM - Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) (kmccune)
9. 11:28 AM - Rotary engines (Jerry Hey)
10. 12:42 PM - deburring tool (Lee Steensland)
11. 12:53 PM - Re: Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) (Bryan Martin)
12. 01:11 PM - Re: deburring tool (pavel569)
13. 01:14 PM - Re: deburring tool (MHerder)
14. 01:26 PM - Re: deburring tool (David Downey)
15. 01:26 PM - Re: Re: Letter from Chris (Darrell Haas)
16. 01:31 PM - Elevator Limits (Tim Juhl)
17. 01:34 PM - Re: deburring tool (n85ae)
18. 01:49 PM - Re: Elevator Limits (ihab.awad@gmail.com)
19. 02:03 PM - Re: Letter from Chris (swater6)
20. 02:14 PM - Re: Elevator Limits (Frank Roskind)
21. 02:52 PM - 701, 914 help (Tracy)
22. 03:14 PM - Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) (kmccune)
23. 03:38 PM - Re: Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) (Bryan Martin)
24. 03:56 PM - Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) (kmccune)
25. 04:19 PM - Re: 701, 914 help (Keith Ashcraft)
26. 04:33 PM - Re: Re: deburring tool (David Downey)
27. 06:37 PM - Re: Elevator Limits (Cessna 172) (MacDonald Doug)
28. 07:57 PM - Re: deburring tool (Paul Mulwitz)
29. 08:40 PM - firewall forward kit for a 0-200 engine (burbby)
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: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) |
Not writing in favor or against... Just my personal point of view (could be all
wrong dont trust me in this matter, Please! :-)
There are several "data" ( speed, weight, gph, costs, etc) available in all
aviation products for sale (aircraft, engines, kits, conversons, electronic devices,
etc.) you name it:
1.- The estimate (designer/developer) data (dreamer motivational "personal idea"),
2.- The computer generated data (best condition, optimistic parameters?),
3.- The sales/promotion data (nobody sells a bad product),
4.- The "factory" test data (in "optimum (where?)" conditions of climate, wind,
altitude, etc.)
All this with good faith from an honest people, just too optimistic.
And finaly
5.- The purchaser/pilot data on the every day REAL tests of the first products...
If Murphy is not around...
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala, Mexico
Have a box full of Marvelous (last wonder in Earth) aviation products (triplets
and product information) that exist no more... Saved lots of money :-)
Do not archive
kmccune <kmccune@somtel.net> wrote:
The single rotor turbo is not bad... 2.8 - 5.6 gph
[quote="graeme(at)coletoolcentre."]the main problem with rotary engines is fuel
consumption.
check endurance with the quoted consumption figures
rotary engines can be noisy at the exhaust also.
graemecns
> ---
--------
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=173144#173144
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
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: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) |
I don't understand. Is there an oil reservoir that feeds the engine
while the oil is being consumed (or exhausted)?
Jim
Jerry Hey wrote:
>
> Not only is there oil injection, there is no oil pan at all. The oil
> system is total loss and before this panics anyone, check it out at
> Sun N Fun. It is cool and it is proven. Much superior to
> recirculating dirty oil, I think. Also, since there is no pan, the
> engine's foot print, size and weight, is significantly reduced. Like
> I said, I have no connection with the company but I do admire this
> engine. I tend to think it will live up to its promises. jerry
>
>
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: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) |
Yes, you can mount a reservoir on the firewall. Oil is pumped
through the eccentric to the bearings and then it is picked up by the
rotor tip seals to lubricate them. Final step, it is consumed in
combustion. Oil consumption is approximately 1 qt per 37 gal of fuel.
On Mar 28, 2008, at 3:53 AM, James E. Lanier wrote:
> >
>
> I don't understand. Is there an oil reservoir that feeds the engine
> while the oil is being consumed (or exhausted)?
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jerry Hey wrote:
>>
>> Not only is there oil injection, there is no oil pan at all. The
>> oil system is total loss and before this panics anyone, check it
>> out at Sun N Fun. It is cool and it is proven. Much superior to
>> recirculating dirty oil, I think. Also, since there is no pan,
>> the engine's foot print, size and weight, is significantly
>> reduced. Like I said, I have no connection with the company but I
>> do admire this engine. I tend to think it will live up to its
>> promises. jerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | 601 performance on 80 HP |
I think the performance of the HDS is a lot better than most realize.
After assisting me in testing my HDS/Jab 3300 TD a few years a friend
of mine came across a HDS project that begged for completion. Mike
built it clean straight and light, with minimum weight and paint. He
put an A-75 Continental in it and the all up weight was 576# and no
electrical system and 16 gallon header tank. His consistent performance
was 112-115 mph at cruse setting for the motor. Climb was adequate but
not thrilling, but it qualified for Light Sport with it's landing
numbers. He sold it to a student pilot who raved about it's performance
over the C 150 he had been flying. I think weight is the key factor in
601 performance and the XL airfoil and wing are even more efficient. I
think a very light XL could be a lot better performer than you think.
Ron
N601TD
> Matt,
> The analogy to the C150 is pretty close, but I'd think improved by the
> 601s weight advantage and wing. The HD would be less because of the
> thickness of the wing.
> On the other hand, a HDS would not be a performer because the 23 foot
> wingspan needs a 100 hp engine to climb and cruise decently. With my
> Stratus Subaru, the
> economy cruise is excellent and climb is very good, but the climb is
> nowhere close to an HD with the same engine.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) |
On 2008 03 27--, at 11:58 PM, Zenith-List Digest Server wrote:
> It certainly looks very promising, but we'll have to wait
> and see since "things that seem too good to be true probably are
Every engine sounds promising in the brochures ;-) but few actually
prove to be as successful as their hype. I notice that the
advertised weights don't mention radiators and exhaust systems/
mufflers, and so on. Be sure to compare fully-installed weights.
Also the belt drive is an integral part of the system and will
significantly affect the final weight, reliability and complexity of
the propulsion system.
I love the lack of mechanical engine parts. If it finally proves to
be reliable and If the installed weight is comparable, I'd prefer
this engine over a Rotax just for that feature alone. But there are
still a lot of significant IFs to face...
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: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) |
From their website:
* Fuel burn based upon using Mogas 87 octane. Other fuels may yield
different gph rates. Actual fuel burn will be affected by variables
like aircraft design, PSRU, prop design and pitch, weather, headwind,
etc. Obviously, you must establish your own fuel burn rates in your
own aircraft.
This sounds like pure BS. Fuel consumption for a particular engine
configuration is dependent on how much power it is producing. None of
the variables listed above (except maybe fuel type) have anything to
do with gallons per hour consumed. The listed burn rates are useless
unless you know how much power the engine was producing at that burn
rate. Listing the brake specific fuel consumption would be much more
useful.
The single rotor turbo is not bad... 2.8 - 5.6 gph
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) |
I have been in touch with Nate at Rotary Aircraft Engines - http://www.rotaryae.com/ inquring about the single rotor turbo model for my 701.
Regarding the weight:
"What is the weight with cooling/exhaust system, PSRU etc? --The total weight will
be around 140 lbs. "
Regarding the oil injection:
"The oil reservoir tank is now being provided w/the engine along with a line.
However, you are free to use your own. Basically since the burn on the carb version
of our engine burns 150-1 you will need 1 gallon of oil for every 150gals
of gas you burn.
The Fuel injected version of the engine should be closer to 200-1 on the oil burn.
So we have a tank that holds a few quarts of oil and you will need to top
it off after a couple fill ups!"
CH701 - Scratch & slowing building
--------
CH701 Scratch Builder
Rudder completed
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=173282#173282
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) |
Those "BS" factors among others are what determines your power setting and so your
fuel burn.
bryanmmartin wrote:
> From their website:
>
> * Fuel burn based upon using Mogas 87 octane. Other fuels may yield
> different gph rates. Actual fuel burn will be affected by variables
> like aircraft design, PSRU, prop design and pitch, weather, headwind,
> etc. Obviously, you must establish your own fuel burn rates in your
> own aircraft.
>
> This sounds like pure BS. Fuel consumption for a particular engine
> configuration is dependent on how much power it is producing. None of
> the variables listed above (except maybe fuel type) have anything to
> do with gallons per hour consumed. The listed burn rates are useless
> unless you know how much power the engine was producing at that burn
> rate. Listing the brake specific fuel consumption would be much more
> useful.
>
>
>
> The single rotor turbo is not bad... 2.8 - 5.6 gph
>
>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
> do not archive.
--------
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=173283#173283
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 |
|
In addition to RotaMax, the other rotary engine is of course Mazda.
Many of these engines are flying and thousands of hours have been
accumulated. For LSA, the Mazdas are too heavy but they would be good
matches for any aircraft for which an 0320, O360 or even an I.O. 540
is the design engine. The two rotor Mazda can easily produce 240 hp
normally aspirated, if it is P-ported (peripheral ported). Above 160
hp the Mazda compares favorably with any recip engine power to weight.
For the 701/ 601 what is needed is a single rotor version of the
Mazda and the side housings which are currently made of steel have to
be made of aluminum to get the weight down to what we need. The
good news is that aluminum side housings are available from Racing
Beat but expensive. There are a number of guys working on producing
aluminum sides and perhaps they will soon produce a less expensive
version. Even better, the next edition of the engine, the RX 16 will
have stock aluminum sides from Mazda. So the future is quite
promising.
A single rotor p port will easily produce 120 hp and weigh around 130
lbs. The engines are nearly bullet proof. And all the accessory
packages, intake, injection, drive and so have been around for a long
time and are reliable.
If you are interested in this topic you can check out http://www.rotaryeng.net
.
Mazda conversions in flying aircraft will be at S n F plus there will
be displays in engine area.
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 |
|
http://ezburr.com/
I emailed them about using their tools for deburring the 10,000-ish
holes we'll drill in the skin for a 601. They seemed confident it would
do the job. Now, being the skeptic that I am, I thought I would pass
this along to see what other non-sales people think. The sales guy
mentioned that I should order "Positive rake blades".
I might just buy one and try it on some scrap before I fully get to
gettin'.
--
Lee Steensland
601XL/Corvair (7637L reserved) Kit/Scratch builder 0.0% complete!
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: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) |
Those factors determine how much power you will need to get the
performance you want. They have little to do with how much fuel a
particular engine will burn at that power setting. In order to compare
the fuel consumption of different engines, you need to know the BSFC
of the engines. Just stating a fuel burn in gallons per hour without
any further details isn't very useful. BSFC at least gives you
somewhere to start.
>
>
> Those "BS" factors among others are what determines your power
> setting and so your fuel burn.
>
>
> bryanmmartin wrote:
>> From their website:
>>
>> * Fuel burn based upon using Mogas 87 octane. Other fuels may yield
>> different gph rates. Actual fuel burn will be affected by variables
>> like aircraft design, PSRU, prop design and pitch, weather, headwind,
>> etc. Obviously, you must establish your own fuel burn rates in your
>> own aircraft.
>>
>> This sounds like pure BS. Fuel consumption for a particular engine
>> configuration is dependent on how much power it is producing. None
>> of
>> the variables listed above (except maybe fuel type) have anything to
>> do with gallons per hour consumed. The listed burn rates are useless
>> unless you know how much power the engine was producing at that burn
>> rate. Listing the brake specific fuel consumption would be much more
>> useful.
>>
>>
>>
>> The single rotor turbo is not bad... 2.8 - 5.6 gph
>>
>>
>>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: deburring tool |
Lee,
I think it will be very hard to keep the deburring tool from making a small chamfer.
In .016" Alu sheet it can lead to enlarging the diameter of the hole and
possible to the rivet to get lose. I know, it is very hard to deburr so many
holes but IMHO the simple file pass over the sheet (when possible) is just the
safest way to clean the hole from chips.
--------
Pavel
CA
Zodiac XL N581PM (Reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=173300#173300
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: deburring tool |
Another list member told me about this item from McMaster Carr. It is cheap and
works great. Even for "blind debrurring" I only use it when I cant get to
certain spots, but its advantage is that it handles both #20, and #30 holes.
The rest of the time I use my offset deburring tool with the three flutes like
they sell at avery.
Go to thier website and search item #7815A21
Small Hole Deburring Tools
Debur the front and back edges of a hole with just one tool. Pivoting, triangular-shaped
blades give these tools added versatility. They have an all-steel
body with an aluminum push-button that reverses the blades. Blades are high-speed
steel and cut clockwise and counterclockwise.
Hole Dia. O'all Deburring Tools Repl. Blades
Range Lg. Each Each
0.118"-0.2165" 3 3/8" 7815A21 $15.80
7815A41 $7.66
0.197"-0.3937" 4 3/4" 7815A22 15.80
7815A42 8.28
0.3937"-0.866" 6 3/4" 7815A23 18.81
7815A43 10.34
--------
One Rivet at a Time!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=173301#173301
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: deburring tool |
These are the Cadillacs of deburring tools. They deburr evenly with absolutely
minimal loss of gage. They are also expensive.
http://ezburr.com/
I emailed them about using their tools for deburring the 10,000-ish
holes we'll drill in the skin for a 601. They seemed confident it would
do the job. Now, being the skeptic that I am, I thought I would pass
this along to see what other non-sales people think. The sales guy
mentioned that I should order "Positive rake blades".
I might just buy one and try it on some scrap before I fully get to
gettin'.
--
Lee Steensland
601XL/Corvair (7637L reserved) Kit/Scratch builder 0.0% complete!
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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: Letter from Chris |
Someone mentioned that there has been some changes on the builders page.
What page/diagram etc?
Darrell
601 xl
do not archive
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Larry H <skyridersbn@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here is it Gig:
>
> http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/ch-letter-601xl-3-25-2008.pdf
>
> *Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@suddenlink.net>* wrote:
>
>
> Is it online? And if so where?
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
I read CH's letter with great interest. At least a little light has been shown
on the issue of structural failure and a "fix" that may help reduce such tragedies.
The discussion of adding elevator stops brought something to mind that I thought
I would share. I have instructed in Cessna 172's varying in vintage from 1956
to 1985. I owned a 1968 model for 23 years. I was surprised to find in the
1985 models that the max flap extension had been reduced to 30 and both aileron
and elevator deflections had been limited. Indeed, I found that the older
aircraft had greater ability to get in and out of short strips and deal with
strong, gusty crosswinds. True, the later models were a little faster and for
the most part I never noticed the control limits, but I can imagine situations
where the extra travel might have been useful.
To make a long story short, CH is not the only one to use control travel limits
to help protect pilots from themselves.
Tim Juhl
do not archive
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=173304#173304
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: deburring tool |
I took an old file, broke it in half and then using the grinder ground all
corners round. I Attached a handle to it, and a couple fast passes along
a row of drilled holes and they are all deburred at once. The key is NO
sharp edges, as you don't want scratches. It does produce scuffs
between the holes. But these go away when you paint prep it anyway.
On sheet you only need take off what sticks up. Using pretty much any
machinist deburring tool is pretty much a guarantee that you removed
metal and formed a small countersunk edge. Which you don't really
want.
Tediously deburring hole by hole is a big waste of time in my opinion.
You can do an entire wing skin in a couple minutes with a modified
file, with in my opinion less damage from over beveling edges.
Jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=173307#173307
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: Elevator Limits |
Folks,
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Tim Juhl <juhl@avci.net> wrote:
> To make a long story short, CH is not the only one to use control travel limits
to help protect pilots from themselves.
I'm reminded of glider varios that beep "excitedly" when they find
lift. How hard could it be to add an accelerometer gadget with an
audio output that "squeaks in pain" when the G limits are being
exceeded, with progressively more urgent squeaks as the G levels rise?
After living with one of these for a while, I suspect a pilot's muscle
memory would develop a pretty good idea of how much to move the
controls at various speeds.
Thoughts?
Cheers and regards,
Ihab
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
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: Letter from Chris |
Darrell,
It's on the Builders pages. Go to the XL drawing updates page. It's the first one.
--------
601 XL kit N596SW reserved
Tail, control surfaces and both wings complete. Now working on fuselage
www.scottwaters.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=173311#173311
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 |
|
The flap limits in later model Cessna 172's and 152's were installed becaus
e in a slip at the highest flap settings a pilot could cause a turbulent fl
ow which would make the rudder ineffective or buffet. The POH covers this
in 40 degree flap models, but I guess that there are dummies around who get
into trouble forward slipping at full flaps. This is not the same case as
what is going on with the Zodiacs. A closer anapolgy would be the Cessna
177 series, where the first year or two had more generous stabilator limits
, but since the stabilator was more senstive than the elevaotors in 150's a
nd 172's, Cessna found some pilots were overcontrolling in pitch during lan
ding, whith bad results, so Cessna further limited the available range for
the stabilator.> Subject: Zenith-List: Elevator Limits> From: juhl@avci.net
> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:28:34 -0700> To: zenith-list@matronics.com> > -
letter with great interest. At least a little light has been shown on the
issue of structural failure and a "fix" that may help reduce such tragedies
.> > The discussion of adding elevator stops brought something to mind that
I thought I would share. I have instructed in Cessna 172's varying in vint
age from 1956 to 1985. I owned a 1968 model for 23 years. I was surprised t
o find in the 1985 models that the max flap extension had been reduced to 3
0=C2=B0 and both aileron and elevator deflections had been limited. Indeed,
I found that the older aircraft had greater ability to get in and out of s
hort strips and deal with strong, gusty crosswinds. True, the later models
were a little faster and for the most part I never noticed the control limi
ts, but I can imagine situations where the extra travel might have been use
ful.> > To make a long story short, CH is not the only one to use control t
ravel limits to help protect pilots from themselves.> > Tim Juhl> > do not
archive> > --------> ______________> CFII> Champ L16A flying> Zodiac XL - J
abiru 3300A> Working on fuselage> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > h
ttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=173304#173304> > > > > > > > _
-========================
> > >
_________________________________________________________________
How well do you know your celebrity gossip?
http://originals.msn.com/thebigdebate?ocid=T002MSN03N0707A
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 |
|
anyone that has put a 914 in a701 ,can they tell me where they put the electric
control box and wastegate servo.
also look like they call for a return line to the tank,has anyone done that ?
I have questions!!
thanks
Tracy
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: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) |
Exactly, so do you believe we ALL drive 55 too?
[quote="bryanmmartin"]Those factors determine how much power you will need to get
the
performance you want.
--------
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=173321#173321
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: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) |
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
On Mar 28, 2008, at 6:08 PM, kmccune wrote:
>
> Exactly, so do you believe we ALL drive 55 too?
>
>
> [quote="bryanmmartin"]Those factors determine how much power you
> will need to get the
> performance you want.
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ROTOMAX skypower 130 engine (130hp max/120 cruise) |
I don't believe that is the case. But its all good! We will most likely know in
a year or so the results. Soon enough for me.
Do not archive
--------
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=173329#173329
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: 701, 914 help |
Tracy,
Here is some information about a guy here in Colorado, on the Western
part of the state..
http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/7-914.html
Maybe you can get in touch with him.
Keith
CH701 -- scratch
N 38.9947
W 105.1305
Alt. 9,100'
****************************************************************************************
Tracy wrote:
>
>anyone that has put a 914 in a701 ,can they tell me where they put the electric
control box and wastegate servo.
>also look like they call for a return line to the tank,has anyone done that ?
>I have questions!!
>thanks
>Tracy
>
>
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender. Please note
that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporation. The recipient
should check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of viruses. ITT
accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this
e-mail.
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: deburring tool |
yeah - much faster. and all the possible residual scratches/gouges are running
parallel to the fastener pattern. Maybe you can do it correctly every time but
some out there will not - and having that scratch pattern is fatal every time
- just the time is variable.
I also agree that the tendency to remove metal is very real. sharp, lubricated
bits and step drilled holes will result in minimal thickness burrs (thickness
of the burr - not the height of the burr from the face of the sheet) that will
come off with virtually no countersinking.
I took an old file, broke it in half and then using the grinder ground all
corners round. I Attached a handle to it, and a couple fast passes along
a row of drilled holes and they are all deburred at once. The key is NO
sharp edges, as you don't want scratches. It does produce scuffs
between the holes. But these go away when you paint prep it anyway.
On sheet you only need take off what sticks up. Using pretty much any
machinist deburring tool is pretty much a guarantee that you removed
metal and formed a small countersunk edge. Which you don't really
want.
Tediously deburring hole by hole is a big waste of time in my opinion.
You can do an entire wing skin in a couple minutes with a modified
file, with in my opinion less damage from over beveling edges.
Jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=173307#173307
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Like movies? Here's a limited-time offer: Blockbuster Total Access for one month
at no cost.
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: Elevator Limits (Cessna 172) |
Tim, while this is a little off topic, I think there
was something about a Gross Weight increase on the 172
if the controls and flaps were limited.
When I did my 172 check ride last year (up from 152s)
I was surprised that the flaps would not come all the
way down, the GWT increase was the reason I was given.
Do not archive
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch builder
NW Ontario, Canada'
--- Tim Juhl <juhl@avci.net> wrote:
> <juhl@avci.net>
>
> I read CH's letter with great interest. At least a
> little light has been shown on the issue of
> structural failure and a "fix" that may help reduce
> such tragedies.
>
> The discussion of adding elevator stops brought
> something to mind that I thought I would share. I
> have instructed in Cessna 172's varying in vintage
> from 1956 to 1985. I owned a 1968 model for 23
> years. I was surprised to find in the 1985 models
> that the max flap extension had been reduced to 30
> and both aileron and elevator deflections had been
> limited. Indeed, I found that the older aircraft
> had greater ability to get in and out of short
> strips and deal with strong, gusty crosswinds.
> True, the later models were a little faster and for
> the most part I never noticed the control limits,
> but I can imagine situations where the extra travel
> might have been useful.
Special deal for Yahoo! users & friends - No Cost. Get a month of Blockbuster Total
Access now
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text3.com
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: deburring tool |
Hi Lee,
This tool looks like a good idea for a Zodiac builder. I would try
one except I am almost done with deburring holes. After 3 years
working on the same plane, I don't have much basic assembly left to do.
I took a quick look at the web site, and wound up with more questions
than answers. I did like the little video demo. My questions:
1. What do these little gems cost?
2. Do you need a different tool for each hole size?
3. How important is the speed and feed used on these tools?
I did most of my deburring with a single edge countersink tool
mounted on a lithium ion battery powered screwdriver. It works well
and only needs resharpening once a year or so. The tool is high
speed steel and cutting aluminum is easy for it. The tool bit only
costs a few bucks from a place like MSC and total cost with a chuck
and power screwdriver is less than $50.
Good luck,
Paul
XL fuselage
At 12:38 PM 3/28/2008, you wrote:
>http://ezburr.com/
>
>I emailed them about using their tools for deburring the 10,000-ish
>holes we'll drill in the skin for a 601. They seemed confident it
>would do the job. Now, being the skeptic that I am, I thought I
>would pass this along to see what other non-sales people think. The
>sales guy mentioned that I should order "Positive rake blades".
>
>I might just buy one and try it on some scrap before I fully get to gettin'.
>
>--
>Lee Steensland
>601XL/Corvair (7637L reserved) Kit/Scratch builder 0.0% complete!
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: | firewall forward kit for a 0-200 engine |
Is there a firewall forward kit for the 0-200?
If so where is the best supplier?
I would like a copy of a 601 XL with a 0-200 engine and tricycle gear and small
fuel tanks.
I think that will fix me up nicely..
Thanks in advanced
Gary Bassham
601 XL (N7601) resereved
Millsap, TX
817-629-9445 Cell
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
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! --
|