Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:15 AM - Re: brs install (Craig Payne)
2. 03:46 AM - Re: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. (Paul Mulwitz)
3. 05:22 AM - Re: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. (Jay Maynard)
4. 05:24 AM - Re: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. (Jay Maynard)
5. 06:48 AM - Re: Oil door, 601xl w/jab3300 designs?? (Jaybannist@cs.com)
6. 07:43 AM - Re: Jab 2200 question (LarryMcFarland)
7. 07:50 AM - Re: Re: Jab 2200 question (LarryMcFarland)
8. 08:45 AM - Re: Re: Jab 2200 question (Juan Vega)
9. 08:47 AM - Re: Re: Jab 2200 question (Juan Vega)
10. 08:50 AM - Re: Re: Jab 2200 question (Juan Vega)
11. 09:02 AM - Re: Re: Jab 2200 question (MacDonald Doug)
12. 09:18 AM - Re: Nose Rib Template DWG 6-T-4 (leinad)
13. 10:26 AM - Plans for Trade (Darian Williams)
14. 11:10 AM - Re: Plans for Trade (Jerry Hey)
15. 01:41 PM - Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for 701 (AB_Summit)
16. 01:45 PM - Re: E-LSB (Bicycle) (Ron Lendon)
17. 02:03 PM - aileron/flap installation (Brad Cohen)
18. 02:12 PM - Re: Re: E-LSB (Bicycle) (ihab.awad@gmail.com)
19. 02:21 PM - Re: Oil door, 601xl w/jab3300 designs?? (eddies)
20. 02:38 PM - Re: aileron/flap installation (Bryan Martin)
21. 03:00 PM - Re: Plans for Trade (Andrewlieser)
22. 03:08 PM - Re: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for 701 (M.Marcotte)
23. 03:13 PM - Re: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. (NYTerminat@aol.com)
24. 04:48 PM - Monday Evening Chat (George Race)
25. 05:52 PM - Re: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for 701 (AB_Summit)
26. 06:37 PM - Re: aileron/flap installation (Ron Lendon)
27. 06:55 PM - Haven't Forgotten New Lists... (Matt Dralle)
28. 08:00 PM - Re: Re: C-GXLP first flight- corvair 601XL (Lincoln Probst)
29. 08:22 PM - Re: Re: C-GXLP first flight- corvair 601XL (Lincoln Probst)
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 |
|
The BRS site is confusing. On this page it shows a picture of a canister
with the caption "The shape that defines Sport aircraft. Small light weight
fast opening, weights from 600 lbs to 1500."
http://brsparachutes.com/BRS+Products/Models/Sport+Aircraft/default.aspx
But the specifications here (or click on "Specifications" at the bottom of
the above page) don't list a canister above 1050 lbs:
http://brsparachutes.com/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID
Mike Sinclair's 701 tail dragger has a canister BRS which you can just
barely make out in this thumbnail. Maybe he kept the weight down:
I'd post the full-sized picture but Barnstormers is down.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les Goldner
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:26 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: brs install
<lgold@quantum-associates.com>
My chute was a soft pack (not a canister) and BRS said to cut the skin 2"
wider than the chute pack on all sides. I scored the cover about 1/2 way
through to make certain that I did not cut too deeply but BRS provided no
insight regarding this.
I don't think BRS recommends a canister for the 701. I don't think they make
a big enough one for the job.
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tracy
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 7:14 AM
> To: zenith-list: matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith-List: brs install
>
>
> has anybody installed the brs chute canister in the extended
> bagage copartment on a 701? how big do you make the plastic
> cover openin gin the skin and how deep do you score the
> plastic so that it will break open when deployed?
> thanks
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
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: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. |
Hi Gary,
I always respect your opinion, but on this point we are going to disagree.
I believe "flight solely by reference to instruments" is a capability
each plane and pilot should have. Equipping the plane is easy. All
you need is a single gyro instrument. It doesn't matter which
instrument type you choose, but I think the turn and bank is the best
choice. Others would choose another instrument and that is OK. The
hardest part of this need is the skill of the pilot. In the USA, all
pilots except for Sport Pilots must demonstrate the ability to fly
solely by reference to instruments to get their license. With the
new rule change, even Sport Pilots must receive some training in this
skill. The problem is that most pilots don't retain this skill for a
long time.
Your idea about depending on autopilot for this need is OK. I prefer
to keep the pilot capable of doing this task, but an autopilot can
save the plane and all its occupants in the sad event that the pilot
is incapable of simple instrument flight.
Let me tell the story of the first time I had to fly on instruments
in the real world. I was departing Norfolk, VA and planned my flight
to be completely over land except for the 1/2 mile or so of water
between Norfolk and the main land. All was well until I got
airborne. Then the tower controller ordered me to continue my climb
on the runway heading to allow an inbound airline flight access to
his runway. He was flying down the middle of Chesapeake Bay, and I
wound up flying over the water toward the eastern shore of the
Del-Mar-Va peninsula. There was around 8 miles visibility, and I had
no trouble seeing the DC-9 below me and off to the left a little as
he performed his instrument approach. The problem came when I was
released to continue my own navigation and turned west to cross the
bay. At that time the whole world looked grey. The sky was grey,
the water was grey, and the land ahead was invisible since it was
about 20 miles away. I had plenty of altitude (around 5,000 feet)
and could see plenty of distance to avoid traffic, so it was
perfectly legal VFR. I just couldn't see anything out in front of
the plane to keep myself oriented.
I found myself varying heading from my chosen one and had trouble
keeping the plane going the way I wanted. So I asked my wife, who
was sitting in the copilot's seat to watch out for traffic and went
completely on the instruments. This was difficult to do well, but I
was able to stabilize my heading and maintain altitude and made the
crossing with no further problem. After a couple of minutes I could
see the land on the other side of the water and the problem was over.
I know there are many pilots flying for recreation that would not
have survived that incident. My goal with these posts is to improve
the ability of Zenith pilots so they are not among the losers in this
kind of incident. The required skill is not very hard to get and
maintain. It takes a little bit of training and a little bit of
recurring practice to maintain. Since the reward is survival in this
kind of situation which can and does happen from time to time no
matter how hard we try to avoid it, I feel the small effort to train
for this event is worth it.
I was surprised to learn that the fatality rate for pilots accidently
entering IMC is nearly as high for instrument rated pilots as for
those without instrument ratings. I am not sure why this is. Of
course the instrument rated pilots have (or had) the necessary
skills. Still, many of them (about 50% over the years) still fail to
control the airplane successfully when faced with unplanned
IMC. Perhaps they panic. Perhaps they just can't adjust to the
unexpected and unplanned need to switch to complete instrument flight
and get out of the situation. Whatever the reason, this situation is
almost as likely to kill instrument rated pilots as unrated ones.
If my comments get a few of our list members to work on this skill
and just one survives an unexpected need to fly on instruments then I
will feel a great success. If all I do is annoy a few list members
with my point of view, then perhaps not much has been lost.
Best regards,
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 10:54 PM 4/19/2008, you wrote:
>I know that in a cross country flight when weather gets
>marginal, the "get-home-itis" pushes the pilot to believe he can
>make it -at least to the next airport in the plan- but without
>enough IFR practice is suicide.
>How much IFR practice can a week end pilot get, if he probably flys
>around 50 hrs a year all together? Probably an active comercial or
>airline pilot, flying a Sport Pilot for fun could have chance, not
>the rest of us...
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: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. |
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:54:36PM -0700, Gary Gower wrote:
> The BIG problem with IFR capable airplanes, are that the pilots "think"
> they are also capable...
I'm buying an IFR-capable Zodiac. I know damned good and well I'm not
instrument capable. Even after I get the hood time I want to with an
instructor, just to make sure my PPL-required skill level is back, I know
I'm still not instrument capable. I'm doing all that not because I want to
fly in the clouds, but because I want a fighting chance to survive should
all of my planning and decision making fail. Even so, the right answer is
not to get into that situation in the first place.
> Remember, we fly for fun, not to get "there __________" (put destination
> in line). If weather gets bad, or headwind ends the afternoon earlier
> than expected... Get a motel room or buy a comuter airline ticket and
> the next week end come back for your still flyable and loved airplane
> that too much work and trouble cost you to have it.
That's exactly my approach. The only difference I see is that I have no
problem with the idea of using it to go someplace if the weather cooperates.
If it doesn't, I'll find another way to get there.
--
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 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: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. |
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 03:43:35AM -0700, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
> Your idea about depending on autopilot for this need is OK. I prefer
> to keep the pilot capable of doing this task, but an autopilot can
> save the plane and all its occupants in the sad event that the pilot
> is incapable of simple instrument flight.
Well, when understood and used correctly, it can.
N55ZC will have a Digiflight IIVSG. It's another tool in the box. Like any
tool, it must be used correctly and safely, or it will bite.
--
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 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: | Oil door, 601xl w/jab3300 designs?? |
I don't know about Jab and Rotax installations, but with a Corviar and WW's cowling
package, the oil door would not be in the fiberglass nose bowl. It needs
to be in the aluminum part of the cowling. The inboard edge of the door should
be about where the hinge between the upper center part and the upper side part
is. I think that one side of that hinge could be cut and then used for the
oil door. I haven't figured out exactly where the three other edges should be,
but I think it is do-able. Since the upper side part of the cowling is so easy
to open anyway, I'm not sure why an oil door is really necessary.
Jay in Dallas CH 601XL N2630J "Lil Bruiser"
"Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com> wrote:
>The 601XL cowl that Jabiru USA provides with their 3300 FWF kit comes with a
>door and a recessed molded cut-out. See the attached picture.
>
>
>
>Here is an offset hinge (for an RV-10):
>
>
>
>http://www.justrvparts.com/Oil%20Door%20Hidden%20Hinge.htm
>
>
>
>If you want a classy latch (instead of a quarter turn fastener) consider a
>Hartwell fastener. But you have to match them to the depth of the door and
>frame):
>
>
>
>http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_detail.php/pid=5075~subid=1456/
>index.html
>
>
>
>-- Craig
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of n787xl@aol.com
>Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 7:20 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Oil door, 601xl w/jab3300 designs??
>
>
>
>List
>
>Has anyone have oil door design pictures and drawings if possible??
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>James S.
>601xl@90%
>Jab 3300
>Placerville, CA
>
> _____
>
>Get the MapQuest <http://www.mapquest.com/toolbar?NCID=mpqmap00030000000003>
>Toolbar, Maps, Traffic, Directions & More!
>
>
>
>
>
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: Jab 2200 question |
Hi John,
Max loading is the variable here. If the plane were built light to
begin with contrary to current trends, the engine would probably perform
well, not great, but o.k.
With a single header tank, two people and 40 lbs baggage, starting with
an empty weight less than 650 lbs, you'd be surprised at the economy and
distance you'd be
able to go. I bet someone has already done it out there.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
John Reinking wrote:
>
> Quick question: I'm not too optimistic about this but what kind of
> performance would I expect to see with the Jab 2200 on a max loaded
> 601XL? I'll stand back....
>
>
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: Jab 2200 question |
Ralph,
Several Stratus and Ram EA-81s are being put on XLs of late as they
offer not less than 100 hp and performance in line with or better than
the 0-200
class engines. They cost much less to buy and can operate on 87-octane
car gas or 100LL.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
jetboy wrote:
>
> the XL was designed for 100 hp or more engines in mind, specifically Jabiru 3300
and Rotax 912S. If you only have 80hp, better stick with the basic 601UL
or 601 model that are set up for that range. If you are yet to buy the engine,
the 3300 is not much more $ than a 2200 anyway.
>
> I can't answer with direct experience, but expect a 601XL would be unsatisfactory
with any 80hp direct drive engine, be it VW, EA81 or 2200.
>
> Ralph
>
> --------
> Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
>
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: Jab 2200 question |
you can put an engine smaller than 90 hp on the XL. Just check the weights when
flying. CHeck with Zenith and the Heintzs, there are XLs flying just fine with
less than 100 hp. Frankly I have a 3300 Jab and I hardly use full power.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
>Sent: Apr 20, 2008 10:47 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Jab 2200 question
>
>
>Ralph,
>Several Stratus and Ram EA-81s are being put on XLs of late as they
>offer not less than 100 hp and performance in line with or better than
>the 0-200
>class engines. They cost much less to buy and can operate on 87-octane
>car gas or 100LL.
>
>Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
>jetboy wrote:
>>
>> the XL was designed for 100 hp or more engines in mind, specifically Jabiru
3300 and Rotax 912S. If you only have 80hp, better stick with the basic 601UL
or 601 model that are set up for that range. If you are yet to buy the engine,
the 3300 is not much more $ than a 2200 anyway.
>>
>> I can't answer with direct experience, but expect a 601XL would be unsatisfactory
with any 80hp direct drive engine, be it VW, EA81 or 2200.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> --------
>> Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
>>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jab 2200 question |
thats not entirely correct, if that is the case a O 200 would not be n the the
XL as it's max HP rating is 95 hp. there have been less HP egnies on XLs and
depending on weight issues, work fine. JUst do the research. 2200 may work but
you may have long take offs.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: jetboy <sanson.r@xtra.co.nz>
>Sent: Apr 20, 2008 1:21 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Jab 2200 question
>
>
>the XL was designed for 100 hp or more engines in mind, specifically Jabiru 3300
and Rotax 912S. If you only have 80hp, better stick with the basic 601UL or
601 model that are set up for that range. If you are yet to buy the engine,
the 3300 is not much more $ than a 2200 anyway.
>
>I can't answer with direct experience, but expect a 601XL would be unsatisfactory
with any 80hp direct drive engine, be it VW, EA81 or 2200.
>
>Ralph
>
>--------
>Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=177939#177939
>
>
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: Jab 2200 question |
see attached picture of 2200 Jabiru on XL.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: jetboy <sanson.r@xtra.co.nz>
>Sent: Apr 20, 2008 1:21 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Jab 2200 question
>
>
>the XL was designed for 100 hp or more engines in mind, specifically Jabiru 3300
and Rotax 912S. If you only have 80hp, better stick with the basic 601UL or
601 model that are set up for that range. If you are yet to buy the engine,
the 3300 is not much more $ than a 2200 anyway.
>
>I can't answer with direct experience, but expect a 601XL would be unsatisfactory
with any 80hp direct drive engine, be it VW, EA81 or 2200.
>
>Ralph
>
>--------
>Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=177939#177939
>
>
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: Jab 2200 question |
Notice Ralph said "Direct Drive". The Ram and Stratus
engines have re-drives.
Do not archive.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch Builder
NW Ontario, Canada
--- LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> Ralph,
> Several Stratus and Ram EA-81s are being put on XLs
> of late as they
> offer not less than 100 hp and performance in line
> with or better than
> the 0-200
> class engines. They cost much less to buy and can
> operate on 87-octane
> car gas or 100LL.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
> jetboy wrote:
> <sanson.r@xtra.co.nz>
> >
> > the XL was designed for 100 hp or more engines in
> mind, specifically Jabiru 3300 and Rotax 912S. If
> you only have 80hp, better stick with the basic
> 601UL or 601 model that are set up for that range.
> If you are yet to buy the engine, the 3300 is not
> much more $ than a 2200 anyway.
> >
> > I can't answer with direct experience, but expect
> a 601XL would be unsatisfactory with any 80hp direct
> drive engine, be it VW, EA81 or 2200.
> >
> > Ralph
> >
> > --------
> > Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
> >
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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: Nose Rib Template DWG 6-T-4 |
Jim,
I left about 5 mm at the nose for the rudder rib when I made the part. You're
right though, I don't think the drawings show the dimension. I think if you make
it look like the drawing you'll be in good shape.
Dan
plans building 601xl/Corvair
> ="jim.lanier(at)charter.net"]I have a question about the form block and raw aluminum
shape/size of
> the nose rib before bending.
>
> The ribs 1-4 are shown in a pre-bend template drawing. I see no such
> template for the nose rib.
> The flange is 19mm on the sides and the spar end. It is the tip that is
> unclear to me. Where does it show the flange dimension on the tip? What
> is the shape/dimensions of the pre-bent aluminum to bolt to the form block?
>
> Thanks is advance.
>
> Jim
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=177995#177995
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 |
|
Hello all,
I am looking to trade my 601XL plans for a set of 701 plans if anyone is interested.
Best regards,
Darian
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: Plans for Trade |
Darian, I am not interested in a trade, but I do have a very clean
set of 701 plans (#6856) purchased from Zenith one year ago that I
will sell for half price. Perhaps you could sell your 601 drawings
for the same. I had these spiral bound with plastic covers. There
is one tiny blemish on page 7-G-1 (three view) caused by water which
I have repaired. No information is lost. If you are interested,
contact me at jerry@jerryhey.com Jerry
On Apr 20, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Darian Williams wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am looking to trade my 601XL plans for a set of 701 plans if
> anyone is interested.
>
> Best regards,
> Darian
>
>
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: | Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for 701 |
Hi everyone,
Just doing some studying and research while I wait for my 701 plans to arrive and
I discovered this formula to calculate the maximum empty weight allowed. I
am wondering if I am interpreting this correctly.
According this formula, if I used a 90HP Suzuki 1.3L, in a 701 with a gross weight
of 1100 lbs, I would be allowed a max. empty weight of 633 lbs in order to
be legal in the amateur built category. I'm thinking it might be tough to achieve
that weight using anything other than a Rotax engine.
Here's how I arrived at that 633 lb figure:
1100 - (175 + (175 x 1.414) + (90 x 0.5)) = ~633 lbs.
Here's a link to the rule and the formula:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part5/Standards/549/sub-b.htm#549.107
I'm just wondering if this rule is enforced because if it is, it would rule out
a lot of alternative engine choices for Canadians building in the Amateur-built
category.
Would there be any hope of getting a Suzuki powered 701 to weigh less than 633
lbs empty?
Thanks
Randy
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178015#178015
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: E-LSB (Bicycle) |
You don't even have to wait to finish the airplane. I stopped the plane build
in November at the 2 year mark and built the bike just for a change of pace.
The Left wing goes on the table Monday.
--------
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=178017#178017
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: | aileron/flap installation |
Did I miss something? there does not seem to be a whole lot of info
regarding the installation of the flaps and ailerons in the construction
manual. I have the blueprints of course, but can't find much else.
I am actually waiting for a part to ersume construction of the firewall and
cabin area and decided to go ahead and mount the ailerons and flaps to the
wings to keep busy.
Does anyone have an opinion (on this list?) of the pros vs. cons of mounting
the flaps and ailerons now or waiting until the wings are mounted to the
fuselage?
Once I do mount the ailerons, (I am using the hingless option) do I need to
trim the aileron top skin back so it fits under the trailing edge of the top
wing skin or do I leave it full length (because leaving it full length
means that the aileron skin actually overlaps the back 1/4 of the wing ribs)
and use the rib rivets to reinforce the assembly)?
any suggestions?
on another topic, has anyone ordered the BRS brackets from AMD in Ga? and if
so what did you get and how much did it cost?
-Brad Cohen
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: E-LSB (Bicycle) |
For what it's worth, folks, I've been trying for ages to come up with
a design, suitable for scratch or kit building, to allow folks to make
recumbent bikes out of riveted sheetmetal *just* like your airplane.
Unfortunately, I've had very little time to work on it. But here is my
blog; anything I accomplish that's worth looking at will eventually
make its way there --
http://schmivits.blogspot.com/
Just so I know: if there *were* such a kit or easily scra[tch,p] built
plans, would you bother to build it? If the "standard channel" used to
make it (.025" sheet, 2" wide) were available over the Internet,
perhaps along with a few small parts for making hardpoints (for
mounting the wheels and other things), would you be excited about
this?
Cheers,
Ihab
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: Oil door, 601xl w/jab3300 designs?? |
Hi,
This is how I did my installation in the Jab 3300 cowl, mine was the Australian
version of the cowl, so it had no pre-molded cutout.
http://www.mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=eddieseve&project=343&category=2447&log=32315&row=11
Paste the whole link into your browser for Photo's
Eddie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178021#178021
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: aileron/flap installation |
I fit the flaps and ailerons to the wing before I had the fuselage
done but I didn't mount them until the wings were installed. I figured
it would be easier to fit the wing to the fuselage without the control
surfaces flopping around loose. The wing had to be positioned several
times as the inboard edges were trimmed to fit.
I don't remember trimming the aileron top skin but I don't think mine
overlap the ribs. I certainly don't have any rivets through both the
ribs and aileron top skins. I clamped the ailerons in position first
then put the flaps in position with the correct spacing between the
two then adjusted the ailerons so the trailing edges lined up with the
flaps. Then I drilled and clecoed the ailerons in place followed by
the flaps. After I finished fitting the wings to the fuselage, I
clecoed the control surfaces in place and pinned the wings in position
on the fuselage for a final fit check before I riveted the control
surfaces on.
>
> Did I miss something? there does not seem to be a whole lot of info
> regarding the installation of the flaps and ailerons in the
> construction manual. I have the blueprints of course, but can't find
> much else.
> I am actually waiting for a part to ersume construction of the
> firewall and cabin area and decided to go ahead and mount the
> ailerons and flaps to the wings to keep busy.
>
> Does anyone have an opinion (on this list?) of the pros vs. cons of
> mounting the flaps and ailerons now or waiting until the wings are
> mounted to the fuselage?
>
> Once I do mount the ailerons, (I am using the hingless option) do I
> need to trim the aileron top skin back so it fits under the trailing
> edge of the top wing skin or do I leave it full length (because
> leaving it full length means that the aileron skin actually overlaps
> the back 1/4 of the wing ribs) and use the rib rivets to reinforce
> the assembly)?
>
> any suggestions?
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: Plans for Trade |
If you guys go the half price route I would be willing to pay half price for the
601xl plans. I am still working on my rudder kit but I have enjoyed it so much
I think I will be scratch building the rest. Does your set of plans come
with everything listed on the web page? Please let me know!!! :D
--------
Andrew Lieser
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178030#178030
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: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for |
701
Variable "a" is the number of passenger seats other than the pilot's seat
(click on TC's definition right after the formula) and should therefore be 1
instead of 2 that you have used. The max empty weight then becomes 705
which should be much easier to reach.
----- Original Message -----
From: "AB_Summit" <rengler@live.ca>
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 3:36 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight
for 701
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Just doing some studying and research while I wait for my 701 plans to
arrive and I discovered this formula to calculate the maximum empty weight
allowed. I am wondering if I am interpreting this correctly.
>
> According this formula, if I used a 90HP Suzuki 1.3L, in a 701 with a
gross weight of 1100 lbs, I would be allowed a max. empty weight of 633 lbs
in order to be legal in the amateur built category. I'm thinking it might be
tough to achieve that weight using anything other than a Rotax engine.
>
> Here's how I arrived at that 633 lb figure:
>
> 1100 - (175 + (175 x 1.414) + (90 x 0.5)) = ~633 lbs.
>
> Here's a link to the rule and the formula:
>
>
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part5/Standards/549/s
ub-b.htm#549.107
>
> I'm just wondering if this rule is enforced because if it is, it would
rule out a lot of alternative engine choices for Canadians building in the
Amateur-built category.
>
> Would there be any hope of getting a Suzuki powered 701 to weigh less than
633 lbs empty?
>
> Thanks
> Randy
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178015#178015
>
>
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: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. |
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 03:43:35AM -0700, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
> Your idea about depending on autopilot for this need is OK. I prefer
> to keep the pilot capable of doing this task, but an autopilot can
> save the plane and all its occupants in the sad event that the pilot
> is incapable of simple instrument flight.
Well, when understood and used correctly, it can.
Jay, you are right and if JFK junior had used his autopilot on his fateful
flight he might be around today. I flew from NY to Chicago and back to NY on
the same day that JFL JR. crashed and gladly used my autopilot in the Cessna
337 I was flying. I flew VFR both ways with flight following, while it was
legal visibility, the haze made it difficult to see the horizon. On the way back
at night it was a little better and the ground lights were more evident.
Yes I am Instrument rated and yes I could have hand flown but why not use
the equipment to make the flight less stressful?
N55ZC will have a Digiflight IIVSG. It's another tool in the box. Like any
tool, it must be used correctly and safely, or it will bite.
Again, I agree, it is a tool and will make your flight more enjoyable. All
IFR flight is not nasty weather. It could be a low layer near the ground and
once you pop through, it may be bright sunshine and clear sailing. It could be
a layer that you have at your destination that you have to let down through.
Either way IFR flying with a properly equipped plane and pilot is not a bad
thing.
Yes there are many days to stay on the ground, and I am a fair weather IFR
pilot myself, but there would be many missed flights if I didn't have my IFR
ticket.
Bob Spudis
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
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: | Monday Evening Chat |
Please join us for our Monday evening chat room starting around
8:00 PM Eastern (Daylight Savings Time now in effect)
http://www.mykitairplane.com/chat/
George
CH-701 N73EX (Reserved)
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: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for |
701
Thanks, that makes more sense, I missed the fact that the pilot's seat isn't counted
as a passenger's seat. 705 lbs should be doable.
Thanks
Randy
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178057#178057
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: aileron/flap installation |
I fit and riveted both the flaps and aileron on the one wing I have made so far.
I figure on pulling the pin on the flap to fit the wing to the fuselage.
--------
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=178065#178065
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: | Haven't Forgotten New Lists... |
Hi Zenith Listers!
Just a quick note to say that I haven't forgotten about adding the new 601 and
701/801 specific Lists. I'm about half done, but got side tracked with other
projects this weekend. I promise to finish up next weekend and roll them out
for all to enjoy...
FYI
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
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: C-GXLP first flight- corvair 601XL |
That is a camera -- a "helmet cam"... but for some reason the take-off video was
corrupted, so no nose-wheel point of view on that.
Lincoln
(do not archive)
--- On Fri, 4/18/08, Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> From: Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@suddenlink.net>
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: C-GXLP first flight- corvair 601XL
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Date: Friday, April 18, 2008, 12:11 PM
> Giacona" <wr.giacona@suddenlink.net>
>
> One other quick question Lincoln. What is that strapped to
> the nose gear?
>
> --------
> 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=177652#177652
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: C-GXLP first flight- corvair 601XL |
Thanks for all the congrats.... it was very exciting. I didn't quite realize how
nerve-wracking it would be waiting for the newly minted plane to be safely
BACK on the ground.
A few things:
1) Fuel tank venting-- I'm covered on that; venting fine and fuel flow test is
no problem. Fuel flow test is quite important and did show one connection that
dripped.
2) Engine ran rough when trying to get full power after the stall... The rough
running could either be a vapor lock problem or carb ice or some combination,
or carb running lean in general possibly some very small pin-holes in the manifold.
So am examining that again. Intalled a temp sender in the carb throat.
2a) Stall speed was about 40knots
3) Ran out of elevator trim on the flight. So I'll make the trim tab bigger.
4) Radio picked up a lot of interference that it doesn't seem to on the ground,
related to higher engine RPMs. Am going to install ferrite bead to help this--
already have a capacitor installed.
5) Oil temps ended up around 250F as measured prior to the oil cooler. Using synthetic
oil- Rotella T.
6) Head temps around 350F
Lincoln
601XL; corvair.
Started Jan 2005; 1st flight April 2008.
do not archive
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! --
|