Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:57 AM - Monday Evening Chat (George Race)
2. 03:59 AM - Re: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for 701 (MacDonald Doug)
3. 04:19 AM - Canopy Question (DaveG601XL)
4. 05:21 AM - Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed (Martin Pohl)
5. 05:48 AM - Re: Canopy Question, Too (Jaybannist@cs.com)
6. 06:14 AM - Re: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed (Juan Vega)
7. 07:04 AM - Re: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed (steve)
8. 07:21 AM - Re: Canopy Question (Gig Giacona)
9. 07:26 AM - Re: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. (Jim McBurney)
10. 07:40 AM - Re: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for 701 (AB_Summit)
11. 08:05 AM - Re: Canopy Question (DaveG601XL)
12. 08:38 AM - Re: Re: Canopy Question (Jaybannist@cs.com)
13. 08:38 AM - Re: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for 701 (MacDonald Doug)
14. 08:53 AM - Re: Canopy Question (Gig Giacona)
15. 09:05 AM - Re: Canopy Question (DaveG601XL)
16. 09:29 AM - Re: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed (Tim Juhl)
17. 10:14 AM - Re: Re: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for 701 (R.D.(Ron) Leclerc)
18. 10:14 AM - Re: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. (Gary Gower)
19. 10:15 AM - Re: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed (Martin Pohl)
20. 10:23 AM - Re: Re: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for 701 (R.D.(Ron) Leclerc)
21. 10:57 AM - Re: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed (Sabrina)
22. 11:43 AM - TruTrak Autopilot for Zenith (Douglas Dalstrom)
23. 12:15 PM - Re: Death of my Harley (monte(a)rotaryae(dot)com)
24. 12:36 PM - Change topic to RotaMax for 701 and 601. (Jerry Hey)
25. 12:39 PM - Re: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed (Martin Pohl)
26. 12:43 PM - Re: Canopy Question (Bryan Martin)
27. 12:53 PM - Re: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed (Bryan Martin)
28. 01:00 PM - Re: Death of my Harley (Gig Giacona)
29. 01:04 PM - Re: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed (Gig Giacona)
30. 01:06 PM - 601XL Project for Sale - pictures (jhines)
31. 01:44 PM - Re: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed (Tim Juhl)
32. 02:01 PM - Re: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. (MaxNr@aol.com)
33. 02:16 PM - Re: Re: recent accident (xl)
34. 02:38 PM - Re: Re: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. (Craig Payne)
35. 02:50 PM - Re: recent accident (Gig Giacona)
36. 03:14 PM - Re: Canopy Question (Jerry Shepard)
37. 03:36 PM - Re: Re: recent accident (n801bh@netzero.com)
38. 04:24 PM - Re: 601HDS: Adding a cutout over the leading edge wing tanks (Mitch Hodges)
39. 04:30 PM - Re: Re: recent accident (Craig Payne)
40. 04:53 PM - Re: Re: recent accident (xl)
41. 05:03 PM - Rivet Gun Recommendation? (mwtucker)
42. 05:16 PM - Re: Rivet Gun Recommendation? (george may)
43. 05:34 PM - Re: Haven't Forgotten New Lists... (kmccune)
44. 05:42 PM - Re: Rivet Gun Recommendation? (burbby)
45. 05:48 PM - Primer Under Rivet Heads (dfmoeller)
46. 05:52 PM - Re: Rivet Gun Recommendation? (Lee Steensland)
47. 05:54 PM - Re: Rivet Gun Recommendation? (steve)
48. 05:56 PM - Re: Rivet Gun Recommendation? (kmccune)
49. 06:09 PM - Vertical Stab (rudder) question??? (Andrewlieser)
50. 06:12 PM - Re: Rivet Gun Recommendation? (Andrewlieser)
51. 06:35 PM - Where did zenair.com go? (seattle)
52. 06:35 PM - Re: Re: Rivet Gun Recommendation? (macleod@eagle.ca)
53. 06:44 PM - Re: Primer Under Rivet Heads (John Bolding)
54. 07:44 PM - Re: Rivet Gun Recommendation? (PatrickW)
55. 07:55 PM - Re: Where did zenair.com go? (Frank Roskind)
56. 08:15 PM - Re: C-GXLP first flight- corvair 601XL (Ron Lendon)
57. 08:34 PM - Re: Vertical Stab (rudder) question??? (Ron Lendon)
58. 08:38 PM - Re: Primer Under Rivet Heads (Ron Lendon)
59. 08:45 PM - Building again (Ron Lendon)
60. 09:13 PM - Re: Vertical Stab (rudder) question??? (Andrewlieser)
61. 09:18 PM - Re: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed (Jay Maynard)
62. 11:56 PM - Re: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed (Terry Phillips)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 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 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: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for |
701
Randy, you can set your gross weight at anything you
like within reason. You don't have to use the
additional GWT but it will take care of the math issue
for you. I would recommend using 1200lb as your GWT
as that is the maximum gross weight allowed for the
ULTRA permit. That way if you ever end up on floats,
you'll still have a little room in the calculations.
There should be a formula on your plans for adjusting
the load limits for opperation at higher gross weights
if you want to opperate at the higher weight.
Hope this helps with your calculations
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch Builder
NW Ontario, Canada
Do not Archive
--- AB_Summit <rengler@live.ca> wrote:
> <rengler@live.ca>
>
> 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
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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 |
|
I am now working on the canopy and I mirror the comments before me that this is
one of the more frustrating parts to work on. But I am chugging on and making
progress.
For the outside flashing piece it is attached to the frame, but extends past the
frame to the aft edge of the canopy bubble. On the prints and pictures I have
seen, there appears to be no fasteners attaching the flashing to the canopy
as it extends to the aft edge. I can't imagine just the rubber seal strip being
the only thing to hold it down. How have you guys kept this piece from flapping
in the breeze?
Thanks,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, working on final assembly.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178105#178105
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: | Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed |
My instrument panel is going to be finished soon. For the installation of the mandatory
"Maneuvering Speed" placard, I am trying to find out which is the "official"
maneuvering speed for the CH601XL.
Different sources indicate different va's: 80 kts, 82 kts, 88 kts, even 90 kts...
What is the official speed that Chris used for his XL-calculations?
Thank you for any information!
Cheers Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178113#178113
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: | Canopy Question, Too |
Dave,
With my canopy, that corner of the canopy presses against the side of the fuselage,
so there is no "flapping" in the breeze. The rubber seal seems to hold just
fine.
However, I have another canopy problem. (My canopy is completed) During assembly,
I used the latches frequently, with no problem. Now, when the canopy is up,
the latching mechanism works just fine. With the canopy down and latched,
most of the time I can't unlatch it with the outside turn button. I have drilled
holes in the frame to get emergency access to the latches. I can open them
through those holes. Obviously, that is not an acceptable method, long term.
Any suggestions?
Jay in Dallas CH 601XL N2630J "Lil Bruiser"
"DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher@ge.com> wrote:
>
>I am now working on the canopy and I mirror the comments before me that this is
one of the more frustrating parts to work on. But I am chugging on and making
progress.
>
>For the outside flashing piece it is attached to the frame, but extends past the
frame to the aft edge of the canopy bubble. On the prints and pictures I have
seen, there appears to be no fasteners attaching the flashing to the canopy
as it extends to the aft edge. I can't imagine just the rubber seal strip being
the only thing to hold it down. How have you guys kept this piece from flapping
in the breeze?
>
>Thanks,
>
>--------
>David Gallagher
>601 XL, working on final assembly.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178105#178105
>
>
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: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed |
maauvering speeds and V speeds are posted on the cover of your PLans. Manauvering
speed is 103 mph.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Pohl <mpohl@pohltec.ch>
>Sent: Apr 21, 2008 8:18 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed
>
>
>My instrument panel is going to be finished soon. For the installation of the
mandatory "Maneuvering Speed" placard, I am trying to find out which is the "official"
maneuvering speed for the CH601XL.
>
>Different sources indicate different va's: 80 kts, 82 kts, 88 kts, even 90 kts...
What is the official speed that Chris used for his XL-calculations?
>
>Thank you for any information!
>
>Cheers Martin
>
>--------
>Martin Pohl
>Zodiac XL QBK
>8645 Jona, Switzerland
>www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178113#178113
>
>
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: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed |
I guess I messed something.. I dont recall ever seeing a placarded
manuvering speed....
How is it marked on your glass ?? Mine is green to 130 and then goes yellow
to 150 then RED line.....
SW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Pohl" <mpohl@pohltec.ch>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 5:18 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed
>
> My instrument panel is going to be finished soon. For the installation of
> the mandatory "Maneuvering Speed" placard, I am trying to find out which
> is the "official" maneuvering speed for the CH601XL.
>
> Different sources indicate different va's: 80 kts, 82 kts, 88 kts, even 90
> kts... What is the official speed that Chris used for his XL-calculations?
>
> Thank you for any information!
>
> Cheers Martin
>
> --------
> Martin Pohl
> Zodiac XL QBK
> 8645 Jona, Switzerland
> www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178113#178113
>
>
>
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: Canopy Question |
While I haven't trimmed my flashing down yet to match the rear of the canopy it
does seem that glue and the rubber seal will be the way to go. The main reason
is clearance between the canopy and the fuselage skin.
BTW. I have had to trim the rear of the canopy at least an inch and a little more
near the bottom of the rear edge. I seem to have made the rear arch a little
short and the canopy was spreading when I tried to close it.
FYI a Drammel tool with 60 grit seems to work real well at this. but it does look
like it snowed under my plane.
--------
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=178130#178130
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: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. |
Hi, Paul a(nd List),
I wholeheartedly agree with your post of concerning operation into IMC.
Been there, done that. I wonder if the large percentage of instrument-rated
pilots not surviving may have something to do with what you described, the
difference being that you had someone aboard that could do the
traffic-avoidance part while you flew the gauges. My experience is that it
is harder to divide your attention between inside and outside than it is to
fly completely on the gauges.
Blue skies and tailwinds
Jim
CH-801
DeltaHawk diesel
Augusta GA
90% done, 90% left
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: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for |
701
dougsnash wrote:
> Randy, you can set your gross weight at anything you
> like within reason. You don't have to use the
> additional GWT but it will take care of the math issue
> for you. I would recommend using 1200lb as your GWT
>
Does that apply if I want to build in the amateur-built category as well, or only
if I build under the ultralight category? I heard somewhere that it is difficult
in Canada to get approval to increase your gross weight above what the designer
intended if you build in the amateur built category.
Thanks
Randy
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178137#178137
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: Canopy Question |
Another thing I am struggling with is the overall height of the canopy. I got
mine from Todd's Canopies and it definitely comes oversize. After sitting it
on the airframe, I liked the headroom it gave without any trimming of the forward
and aft ends. At this height, it looks to higher than anything I have seen
pictures of. The biggest construction downside of this is that there is very
little canopy for the outside flashing to attach to at the aft end. Has anybody
else who kept their canopy on the high side have any problems with it?
Thanks,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, working on final assembly.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178143#178143
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: Canopy Question |
Dave,
On this point, looks are secondary. Best to find out what your "real" headroom
requirements are before doing any cutting down. Pad your seats (if you don't
already have the final seating in place), put on your cap and headset. Then sit
with the canopy bubble in place. You will notice that the critical clearance
is at and just above your left ear. Mine is a little short here and requires
me to lean a little toward the right. The ZAC bubble is spherical and I assume
that Todd's is the same. An elliptical side to side would be much better, but,
I guess, harder to form. Bottom line, we have to deal with the lack of headroom
where we really need it. IMHO on the XL, there is no such thing as too
much headroom.
Jay in Dallas
"DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher@ge.com> wrote:
>
>Another thing I am struggling with is the overall height of the canopy. I got
mine from Todd's Canopies and it definitely comes oversize. After sitting it
on the airframe, I liked the headroom it gave without any trimming of the forward
and aft ends. At this height, it looks to higher than anything I have seen
pictures of. The biggest construction downside of this is that there is very
little canopy for the outside flashing to attach to at the aft end. Has anybody
else who kept their canopy on the high side have any problems with it?
>
>Thanks,
>
>--------
>David Gallagher
>601 XL, working on final assembly.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178143#178143
>
>
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: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight for |
701
I am refering to the Amateur Built catagory. The
reason I mentioned the Ultralight catagory is purly
for ease of getting a pilot permit/lic. Note that I
said "Reasonable" increase. When I filed my Letter of
Intent with the MD-RA I listed 1200lbs as my gross
weight and they did not even think twice about it.
Although, I haven't had my final inspection yet so who
knows what will be said at that time.
One other point is that you have to do your Climb Test
at gross weight. Therefore you don't want to get too
carried away.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch Builder
NW Ontario, Canada
Do Not Archive
>
> Does that apply if I want to build in the
> amateur-built category as well, or only if I build
> under the ultralight category? I heard somewhere
> that it is difficult in Canada to get approval to
> increase your gross weight above what the designer
> intended if you build in the amateur built category.
>
> Thanks
> Randy
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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: Canopy Question |
Another quick issue on working with the canopy. I don't remember where you live
Dave but if it is still cold there wait to do anything. The minimum temp is 70F
but the warmer the better. If I had it to do over again I'd wait until the
middle of the summer to work on mine and I live in South Arkansas where it is
HOT.
--------
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=178156#178156
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: Canopy Question |
Gig,
I am in Cincinnati, Oh. I waited until now to even order my bubble for the very
reason of temperature. It seems like summer will never come since it has remained
cool here a lot longer than normal.
I have sat under the bubble, but need to do it a few more times to make my final
decision. I do not remember having any issues in the AMD 601XL I flew a few
weeks ago. Although at 6' 0", I do not consider myself tall, I have some tall
friends and a brother who is 6'6" and it would be nice to accommodate them also.
Thanks,
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, working on final assembly.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178160#178160
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: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed |
Maneuvering speed is not marked on the ASI. I suspect that European regs may require
a placard - FAA does not.
Tim
Do not archive
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178166#178166
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: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight |
for 701
Randy...
If you belong to COPA... they have guidelines for Amateur aircraft and Ultra lights...
to access the guidelines you have to be a member of COPA!
R.D.(Ron) Leclerc
CH701 Plans(Scrap) Builder #7-6699
Porsche Power Belted Redrive
Winnipeg, MB Canada
infow@mts.net
4/21/2008 12:09:01 PM
***************************************
This E-Mail scanned with AVG Anti-Virus Ver: 7.5!
***************************************
The COPA Guide to Amateur-Builts
13th Edition September 2006
Copyright Canadian Owners and Pilots Association 2006
The Canadian Owners & Pilots Association
207 - 75 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5E7 Canada
Tel: 613-236-4901 Fax: 613-236-8646 Email: copa@copanational.org
Website: www.copanational.org
Contents
Introduction
Scope Of This Guide
Reviewing The Rules CAR STD 507 Appendix C
Canadian versus US Amateur-Built Rules
The 51% Rule
Mass Production Of Aircraft
Selecting A Design
Fly Before You Buy!
Construction Times
Options - Design Your Own Versus Plans Versus Kits Versus Buying Used
Aeroplanes
Gliders
Powered Gliders
Helicopters
Gyroplanes
Gyrogliders
Balloons
Airships
Some Warnings About Designs
Fixed Pitch Helicopters
Pressurized Turbine?
MD-RAs Role
Construction Outside Canada
Why do Some Aircraft Not Get Finished?
Documentation
Weight And Balance
Airworthiness Directives (ADs)
Design Changes
Installing Parts
Signing the Maintenance Release
Parts Warrantees
Registration & Markings
Insurance
Work-in-Progress Insurance
Taxes (At Registration And Importation)
Flight Requirements
Test Flying
Initial Operating Restrictions
Final Operating Restrictions
IFR Amateur-Builts
Aerobatic Amateur-Builts
Maintaining Your Amateur-Built
Repairs and Modifications to Amateur-Builts
Handheld Fire Extinguishers
Licences to Fly Amateur-Builts
Type Ratings
Canadian Amateur-Builts In The USA
Selling Your Amateur-Built
Buying a Used Amateur-Built
Importing an Amateur-Built
Join a Club
Aircraft Type Clubs
Amateur-Builts Versus Ultralights
Building An Ultralight Kit As An Amateur-Built
Can Certified Aircraft Become Amateur-Builts?
Can Existing Ultralights Become Amateur-Builts?
Appendix A - References For Building
Appendix B - Diary of an Amateur Test Pilot by Ken Beanlands
Appendix C - Regulations for Amateur-built Aircraft
CAR STD 507 Appendix C
CAR STD 507 Appendix D
Transport Canada Maintenance Policy Letter 13
The COPA Guide to Amateur-Builts
:-{
:-{
:-{ dougsnash wrote:
:-{:-{ Randy, you can set your gross weight at anything you like
:-{:-{ within reason. You don't have to use the
:-{:-{ additional GWT but it will take care of the math issue for
:-{:-{ you. I would recommend using 1200lb as your GWT
:-{:-{
:-{
:-{ Does that apply if I want to build in the amateur-built category
:-{ as well, or only if I build under the ultralight category? I
:-{ heard somewhere that it is difficult in Canada to get approval to
:-{ increase your gross weight above what the designer intended if
:-{ you build in the amateur built category.
:-{
:-{ Thanks
:-{ Randy
:-{
:-{
:-{ Read this topic online here:
:-{
:-{ http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178137#178137
:-{
:-{
:-{ = - The Zenith-List Email Forum -
:-{ much much more:
:-{ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
:-{ > http://forums.matronics.com
:-{ your generous support!
:-{ -> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs. |
Hello Paul,
Well, in fact we are talking about similar things, the big problem with getting
into IFR conditions is that this conditions build up stress in the pilot
the moment the visibility is lost, if the pilot is not proficient enough he can
easy get panic, desoriented and the next step is a spin... Your experience
is the perfect example of "friendly" conditions (no storm, turbulence or wind).
We all have to know the fact that aviation is learning, practice, and lots
of fun. I also hope that when eventually there is the chance in this list,
to learn a little more about flying our airplanes, someone gets the idea.
Just to do a little clarify before I forget, here also every pilot has to learn
to use the instruments as referernce, also needs to fly by feeling, (instructor
covers the instruments, and he needs to fly coordinate at diferent speeds
and the normal manuvers, but with time, if the pilot just flys around (not
working out its own proficiency) he will loose ability.
Just a Quiz: Everyone (just think for yourself, no need to answer to the list)
When was the last time you greased a good landing exactly in the numbers (or
the point you chosed)? With some crosswind and/or turbulence?
If we always do our landings (flying , navigation, etc) as practice, as if the
instructor or inspector was in the right seat. In the rare case of a deadstick
landing, weather or need to divert an airport etc. we will have a better
chance to save our live (and passenger).
This is the great thing about aviation, we need to be self resposibles, an look
ourselfs for proficiency, FAA or whatever Authorites rule in our country,
can give you a ticket, but "Aviation Rules" will harm or kill any of us
if we fail...
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net> wrote:
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...
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed |
Thank you for the link to the plan's first page. The 103 mph correspond to the
90kts indicated on my plans.
There is not only a european requirement, but also a FAA-requirement for a placard
on the instrument panel showing the maneuvering speed: see FAR23.1563.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=4e6cf388cbe492dba14c52d456ca0fe7&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.10.7.105.25&idno=14
Cheers Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178174#178174
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: Canadian amateur-built rules - maximum empty weight |
for 701
Some more Randy...
An exert from the COPA guidelines:
Ron
*****
Amateur-Builts Versus Ultralights
Many lighter amateur-built airplane designs can also be built and registered
as ultralights.
If the aircraft is under 1200 lbs gross weight and has a Landing Configuration
Stall Speed (VSO) of 39 knots or less then it can be built as a basic
ultralight aeroplane (BULA) instead of amateur-built. There are pros and cons
to this approach:
Pros:
BULAs do not to be inspected by any outside agency, thus saving money on
inspections
BULAs do not have any maintenance standards
BULAs do not have any design standards
BULAs do not have to carry some equipment that amateur-builts do, like:
o ELTs
o Operating checklist or placards
o Aeronautical charts and publications
o Fire extinguisher
o Timepiece
o Flashlight
o First aid kit
BULAs do not have to meet VFR instrument and equipment requirements
BULAs can be used commercially for flight training and hang glider towing
BULAs have simplified paperwork requirements C of R only required, no Special
C of A or logbooks required
BULAs can be purchased new and completely assembled no 51% rule
BULAs do not need to comply with Destination Fuel requirements (destination
plus 30 minutes worth of fuel)
BULAs are not required to carry survival equipment
BULAs do not need to file an Annual Airworthiness Information Report
Cons:
BULAs cannot carry passengers (however two pilots can fly together, provided
they both have licences that would let them fly the aircraft. Also a student
and instructor can fly together)
You need to wear a helmet in a BULA
BULAs have restrictions on airspace they cannot be flown in controlled terminal
airspace.
Another alternative is that some kit aircraft under 1232 lbs and with a VSO of
39 knots or less can be built as an advanced ultralight aircraft (AULA), if the
kit manufacturer has declared that the aircraft complies with the LAMAC publication
Design Standards for Advanced Ultralight Aeroplanes.
As in the case of the BULAs there are pros and cons in comparison to amateur-builts:
Pros:
AULAs do not need to be inspected by an outside agency, unless the factory
requires it (some do and there is usually a fee if they do)
AULAs have simple maintenance standards (they must follow the factory approved
standard)
AULAs do not require logbooks, just maintenance records
AULAs do not have to carry some equipment that amateur-builts do, like:
o ELTs
o Operating checklist or placards
o Aeronautical charts and publications
o Fire extinguisher
o Timepiece
o Flashlight
o First aid kit
AULAs can be used commercially for flight training and hang glider towing
AULAs have simplified paperwork requirements C of R only required, no Special
C of A or logbooks required
AULAs can be purchased new and completely assembled no 51% rule
AULAs do not need to comply with Destination Fuel requirements (destination
plus 30 minutes worth of fuel)
AULAs are not required to carry survival equipment
AULAs do not need to file an Annual Airworthiness Information Report
Cons:
Modifications require written authority from the kit manufacturer if they
go out of business then no further modifications are allowed
AULAs must be built from a kit or sold completed, no building from plans
allowed
Manufacturers may issue Mandatory Actions similar to ADs for certified aircraft.
For more information on ultralights see The COPA Guide to Ultralights.
Building An Ultralight Kit As An Amateur-Built
Most aircraft kits that fit the ultralight category can also be built
as amateur-built aircraft. Since the amateur-built rules allow bigger and heavier
aircraft than the ultralight category, any kit that would qualify as an
ultralight will fit the basic amateur-built definition.
Some of these kits will also require a 51% determination, if they have not been
assessed at the factory request before. See the section on 51% determination
for more information.
Many Canadian kit manufacturers produce different versions of their
kits for the ultralight and amateur-built markets. These ones are easy to assess;
they will usually require no changes to be built as amateur-builts.
Other manufacturers produce their aircraft strictly for the Canadian ultralight
category. These may need some serious changes to fit them into the amateur-built
category. The Canadian amateur-built rules and construction practices differ
from normal ultralight construction methods and so there will probably be a
requirement that some of the materials be changed to fit the aircraft into the
amateur-built category
:-{
:-{
:-{ dougsnash wrote:
:-{:-{ Randy, you can set your gross weight at anything you like
:-{:-{ within reason. You don't have to use the
:-{:-{ additional GWT but it will take care of the math issue for
:-{:-{ you. I would recommend using 1200lb as your GWT
:-{:-{
:-{
:-{ Does that apply if I want to build in the amateur-built category
:-{ as well, or only if I build under the ultralight category? I
:-{ heard somewhere that it is difficult in Canada to get approval to
:-{ increase your gross weight above what the designer intended if
:-{ you build in the amateur built category.
:-{
:-{ Thanks
:-{ Randy
:-{
:-{
:-{ Read this topic online here:
:-{
:-{ http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178137#178137
:-{
:-{
:-{ = - The Zenith-List Email Forum -
:-{ much much more:
:-{ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
:-{ > http://forums.matronics.com
:-{ your generous support!
:-{ -> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed |
23.1 Applicability.
top
(a) This part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of type certificates,
and changes to those certificates, for airplanes in the normal, utility,
acrobatic, and commuter categories.
(b) Each person who applies under Part 21 for such a certificate or change must
show compliance with the applicable requirements of this part.
E-AB and E-LSA builders, by definition, do no apply under part 21 for a "type certificate"
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178192#178192
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: | TruTrak Autopilot for Zenith |
With the current string of e-mails discussing potential safety enhancements
with an autopilot if you unexpectedly stray into IMC, some of you might be
interested in the ad I recently placed in Barnstormers for a new TruTrak
Digitrak (roll axis) autopilot. It includes the 2 1/4" unit, servo and Zenith
hardware kit. Priced at $200 under list. Check it out at barnstormers.com under
Experimental/Zenith or Avionics/autopilot. Thanks.
Doug
Do not archive
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: Death of my Harley |
I just joined your forum and thought I'd address some of the facts stated here.
I'm the Director of Sales & Marketing at Rotary Aircraft Engines. We are the
only licensed worldwide distributer of the aviation version of this engine that
Rotamax is developing. We currently have the Rotamax engine flying in the Sadler
Vampire and the Sparrowhawk Gyrocopter. We will soon have one installed in
a Sport Copter II, the Outback 2 and the Sport Hornet. The folks that make the
Sport Hornet are at the Rotamax factory as I speak testing the engine on their
aircraft with various props and in different configurations. We've had a lot
of interest from many Zenith 601 & 701 builders regarding our engine, so it's
good news to hear that you're working on building a FWF kit for this engine
to work with those planes. Please contact me--we'd love to do what we can to
assist.
[quote="jerry(at)jerryhey.com"]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:
[quote]
>
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
[/quote][/quote]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178213#178213
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: | Change topic to RotaMax for 701 and 601. |
The Rotamax 2 rotor will be a worthy competitor for the Rotex and
Jabiru. It will deliver 120 hp at peak and 100 hp continuous and the
firewall forward package will be less than 200 lbs. This engine is
capable of much more power and is just loafing at 120 hp. Jerry
On Apr 21, 2008, at 3:13 PM, monte(a)rotaryae(dot)com wrote:
> >
>
> I just joined your forum and thought I'd address some of the facts
> stated here. I'm the Director of Sales & Marketing at Rotary
> Aircraft Engines. We are the only licensed worldwide distributer of
> the aviation version of this engine that Rotamax is developing. We
> currently have the Rotamax engine flying in the Sadler Vampire and
> the Sparrowhawk Gyrocopter. We will soon have one installed in a
> Sport Copter II, the Outback 2 and the Sport Hornet. The folks that
> make the Sport Hornet are at the Rotamax factory as I speak testing
> the engine on their aircraft with various props and in different
> configurations. We've had a lot of interest from many Zenith 601 &
> 701 builders regarding our engine, so it's good news to hear that
> you're working on building a FWF kit for this engine to work with
> those planes. Please contact me--we'd love to do what we can to
> assist.
>
>
> [quote="jerry(at)jerryhey.com"]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:
>
> [quote]
>>
>
> 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
>
>
> [/quote][/quote]
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178213#178213
>
>
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: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed |
Sabrina, thank you for the info. I didn't know that...
Nevertheless here in Europe (or at least in Switzerland), we have to install this
VA-placard before showing it to the aviation authority.
Cheers Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=178220#178220
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: Canopy Question |
I just used 3M weather strip adhesive between the flashing and the
canopy and used the same stuff to glue on the seal strip. I haven't had
any trouble with it.
For the front flashing, I used some 3 automotive trim tape between the
flashing and the canopy along the top edge to fill the gap that wanted
to appear there.
>
> I am now working on the canopy and I mirror the comments before me that this
is one of the more frustrating parts to work on. But I am chugging on and making
progress.
>
> For the outside flashing piece it is attached to the frame, but extends past
the frame to the aft edge of the canopy bubble. On the prints and pictures I
have seen, there appears to be no fasteners attaching the flashing to the canopy
as it extends to the aft edge. I can't imagine just the rubber seal strip
being the only thing to hold it down. How have you guys kept this piece from
flapping in the breeze?
>
> Thanks,
>
--
Bryan Martin
Zenith 601XL N61BM
Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
Do Not Archive
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed |
The information I received from ZAC was 110 mph (96 kts) but mine is an
early kit, that information may be for the original gross weight of 1400
lbs. The maneuvering speed goes down with decreasing weight.
In the U.S. there is no placard required tor maneuvering speed, it just
must be included in the pilot's operating handbook.
>
> My instrument panel is going to be finished soon. For the installation of the
mandatory "Maneuvering Speed" placard, I am trying to find out which is the "official"
maneuvering speed for the CH601XL.
>
> Different sources indicate different va's: 80 kts, 82 kts, 88 kts, even 90 kts...
What is the official speed that Chris used for his XL-calculations?
>
> Thank you for any information!
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
--
Bryan Martin
Zenith 601XL N61BM
Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
Do Not Archive
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of my Harley |
Well Monte, I strongly suggest you guys need to update the pictures of the engines on your home page http://www.rotamax.net/ . Because when I see computer generated pictures of airplane parts I think vaporware.
--------
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=178227#178227
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: Zodiac XL - Maneuvering Speed |
Strange... Looking at the front page of my planes there is no maneuvering speed
called out. Just Top, Cruise, Stall and Vne.
1st Edition 04/02.
--------
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=178230#178230
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: | 601XL Project for Sale - pictures |
I know I posted this last week, but I have more information and pictures. This
is not your average scratch build project. All the parts are CNC cut and many
are pre-drilled. I am asking $3000 for all. Much more invested. Check out