Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:54 AM - Re: 601XL/Corvair Guys, How do you like your engine? (Scott Thatcher)
2. 07:37 AM - Re: question for Juan (Juan Vega)
3. 07:51 AM - Re: Happy Flying 601XL (Scott Thatcher)
4. 08:27 AM - Re: Re: Happy Flying 601XL (japhillipsga@aol.com)
5. 08:33 AM - Re: 601XL/Corvair Guys, How do you like your engine? (Gary Ray)
6. 08:47 AM - "leaning" the Bing carby (THOMAS SMALL)
7. 09:21 AM - Re: 601XL/Corvair Guys, How do you like your engine? (Gig Giacona)
8. 09:48 AM - 1000 foot turf runway (Chuck Deiterich)
9. 10:50 AM - Re: 601XL/Corvair Guys, How do you like your engine? (Phil Maxson)
10. 10:53 AM - Canopy covers? (Dr. Andrew Elliott)
11. 11:10 AM - Re: Canopy covers? (Craig Payne)
12. 11:25 AM - Re: (Juan Vega)
13. 12:23 PM - Technique For Pull Riveting In Tight Places (Dave VanLanen)
14. 01:16 PM - Re: Technique For Pull Riveting In Tight Places (Bryan Martin)
15. 02:51 PM - Ring gear fracture pics (Aerolitellc@aol.com)
16. 02:55 PM - rotax high oil temp (Frank Probst)
17. 03:06 PM - Scratch, kit , and Quick Build, build time survey (mcjon77)
18. 03:17 PM - Re: rotax high oil temp (Paul Mulwitz)
19. 03:29 PM - Re: Scratch, kit , and Quick Build, build time survey (Jaybannist@cs.com)
20. 03:56 PM - Re: rotax high oil temp (Bryan Martin)
21. 04:03 PM - Re: Scratch, kit , and Quick Build, build time survey (Bryan Martin)
22. 04:22 PM - Re: rotax high oil temp (Dave Austin)
23. 05:00 PM - Re: question for Juan( Good article pertaining to LOP) (Juan Vega)
24. 05:00 PM - Re: question for Juan( Good article pertaining to LOP) (Juan Vega)
25. 06:08 PM - Re: Scratch, kit , and Quick Build, build time survey (Dan)
26. 06:17 PM - Re: Nose Wheel Bearings Questions (pat & lyn)
27. 10:36 PM - Alternator failure (Grant Corriveau)
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: 601XL/Corvair Guys, How do you like your engine? |
The Corvair engine is simply amazing. Although I only have a little more
than 5 hours on the engine, the oil looks like the day I put it in and the
engine sounds incredibly smooth. At full throttle, I get about 2500 rpm's
static and about 2700-2800 Max in the air... not too far off from standard
Lycoming/Continental max settings. I cruise about 2400. There are no leaks
whatsoever! The engine I have was made from William Wynne parts and
assembled mostly by William and Kevin Fahy at the Edgewater facility. Kevin
will also build a complete engine and his site is at http://vairforce.com
while william is at http://flycorvair.com.
This is an unpaid endorsement of the William Wynne Corvair Conversion.
Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, http://placestofly.com, EAA203
<<snip>>
I am new here and am considering using the Corvair as a power-plant for
either
a 601XL or another aircraft. I wanted to know from the guys with experience
with
them (no matter how much or how little) what have your experiences been?
How is the reliability and maintenance issues? Have you had any engine out
situations?
Any info from users would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jon
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: question for Juan |
I HAVE A BING. YOU LEAN THE ENGINE USING EGT. 1400 with a certain size leaned
needle jet.
-----Original Message-----
>From: THOMAS SMALL <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>Sent: Jun 9, 2008 9:54 PM
>To: zenith-list <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Zenith-List: question for Juan
>
>Hi Juan,
>
>You mention "lean of peak" with your Jab. Have you an Ellison or an Aerocarb
(or perhaps one not familiar to us) instead of the Bing original. How do you
like it?
>
>cheers jeff do not archive
>
>
>>set the plane for 5 gal/hr burn at lean of peak EGT,
>
>
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: Happy Flying 601XL |
Hi Bill, Scott, Juan, & Larry
Great stories. From the Gulf of Mexico and Georgia to Nebraska and the
Northwest, it gives us all a chance to feel the excitement of faraway places
in the 601XL (mostly). Just a few more hours in the pattern and I'll be off
to early morning and late afternoon flights. I'm feeling more and more
comfortable flying the 601XL.
BTW, have any of you noticed when landing that you lose sight of the runway
when doing a full stall landing? I switch my sight to the left and as far
forward as I can during the landing and so far have greased every one of the
landings. The plane lands so easily it has been a non-event, so far. I
haven't tried to drive the aircraft to the runway yet as I'm pretty old
school about landings but it would sure be nice to see the runway during the
landing :-)
Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, http://placestofly.com, EAA203
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: Happy Flying 601XL |
Scott, I had to make me a booster pad to get my head up, but you are correct that
depending on how nose high you are at flair the strip will disappear. Then
I shift to left for judgement. I have once?in the past made a too high nose up
and scraped the rear tie loop. I'm real glad there is no video of that landing.
Ha. best regards, Bill?
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Thatcher <s_thatcher@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:48 am
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Happy Flying 601XL
?
Hi Bill, Scott, Juan, & Larry?
?
Great stories. From the Gulf of Mexico and Georgia to Nebraska and the Northwest,
it gives us all a chance to feel the excitement of faraway places in the 601XL
(mostly). Just a few more hours in the pattern and I'll be off to early morning
and late afternoon flights. I'm feeling more and more comfortable flying
the 601XL.?
?
BTW, have any of you noticed when landing that you lose sight of the runway when
doing a full stall landing? I switch my sight to the left and as far forward
as I can during the landing and so far have greased every one of the landings.
The plane lands so easily it has been a non-event, so far. I haven't tried to
drive the aircraft to the runway yet as I'm pretty old school about landings
but it would sure be nice to see the runway during the landing :-)?
?
Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL?
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA?
N601EL, http://placestofly.com, EAA203 ?
?
?
?
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: 601XL/Corvair Guys, How do you like your engine? |
Jon
I have 72 hours on my engine. For my 601XL, it offers plenty of power ,
starts on the first blade and runs very smooth. Were I to do it again, it
would still be my first choice.
William Wynne has made the FWF installation so much easier. He offers well
thought out flight tested parts for everything you might need to complete
the Corvair installation. If you build, this level of integration will save
you a lot of time and frustration.
Get his Corvair Conversion Manual and video's and read everything on his
website www.flycorvair.com
There is a lot of information along with the reasons why it is designed the
way that it is.
Gary Ray
davgray@sbcglobal.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "mcjon77" <mcjon77@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 8:47 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601XL/Corvair Guys, How do you like your engine?
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I am new here and am considering using the Corvair as a power-plant for
either a 601XL or another aircraft. I wanted to know from the guys with
experience with them (no matter how much or how little) what have your
experiences been? How is the reliability and maintenance issues? Have you
had any engine out situations? Any info from users would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jon
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=186955#186955
>
>
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: | "leaning" the Bing carby |
Juan,
I think you're talking about the "economy tuning kit" that Jab put forth
a while ago to improve fuel economy. Following that procedure of
re-jetting and drilling out some small passage (ask Pete or see back
issues of JabbaChat), fuel burn did go down. It was not recommended for
engines in the early serial # range, which mine is, so I have never done
it. The jetting of old engines was hit-and-miss with the jets in mine
having been drilled out by the factory(?) when purchased. My main jet
actual diameter (checked with numbered drill bits) was not what was
marked on the barrel of the jet. Same for needle jet.
The only way to truly lean a carb is to have mixture control. Since the
Bing is an altitude-compensated carby, no way of leaning it in the air
is possible. If you fly with a Jab and try for 1400F EGT, you're really
just flying at an RPM that gives you that temp. When you said you
leaned past peak I assumed you had installed an Ellison or AeroCarb,
both of which come with mixture control. Would be nice if the 3300 had
fuel injection.
tailwinds jeff do not archive
>I HAVE A BING. YOU LEAN THE ENGINE USING EGT. 1400 with a certain
size leaned
needle jet.
-----Original Message-----
>From: THOMAS SMALL <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>Sent: Jun 9, 2008 9:54 PM
>To: zenith-list <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: question for Juan
>
>Hi Juan,
>
>You mention "lean of peak" with your Jab. Have you an Ellison or an
Aerocarb
(or perhaps one not familiar to us) instead of the Bing original. How
do you
like it?
>
>cheers jeff do not archive
>
>
>>set the plane for 5 gal/hr burn at lean of peak EGT,
>
>
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: 601XL/Corvair Guys, How do you like your engine? |
I'm going to second Scott's endorsement. I too had my engine assembled from WW
parts by William and Kevin. And while it took a long time to get it the craftsmanship
is excellent. And while I haven't run my engine yet if it flies half as
good as it looks it will be a winner.
sdthatcher wrote:
> The Corvair engine is simply amazing. Although I only have a little more
> than 5 hours on the engine, the oil looks like the day I put it in and the
> engine sounds incredibly smooth. At full throttle, I get about 2500 rpm's
> static and about 2700-2800 Max in the air... not too far off from standard
> Lycoming/Continental max settings. I cruise about 2400. There are no leaks
> whatsoever! The engine I have was made from William Wynne parts and
> assembled mostly by William and Kevin Fahy at the Edgewater facility. Kevin
> will also build a complete engine and his site is at http://vairforce.com
> while william is at http://flycorvair.com.
>
> This is an unpaid endorsement of the William Wynne Corvair Conversion.
>
> Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
> 601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
> N601EL, http://placestofly.com, EAA203
>
--------
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=187169#187169
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: | 1000 foot turf runway |
Robert Schoenberger
I have a 1400 foot turf runway (TE95) of which the 400 feet of the south end
is rough, so I only use the 1000 feet from the north. The runway rises in
the center so I take off and land uphill for either 17 or 35. My 701 with an
80 hp Jabiru gets off the ground in 5 seconds (solo). I approach about 55 to
60 mph IAS with no flaps. I have a glide slope indicator for 17. (Look at my
article in the April 2008 Kitplanes.) I consistently land about 250 feet
from the north fence and with little braking I stop in about 350 feet. The
extra airspeed and no flaps gives me more float time during final flare and
landing. I am not sure why you will takeoff with the wind but even 10 mph of
tail wind will make the takeoff roll long. Even with only a little wind I
takeoff and land into it.
Chuck D.
N701TX
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: | 601XL/Corvair Guys, How do you like your engine? |
I have about 150 hours on mine. I've flown it to Florida (7.5 hours one wa
y) and West Virginia (3.5 hours one way) and many shorter trips. I love it
. I wouldn't have done it any other way. I have had no problems at all wi
th my engine, and I do routine maintenance every winter. I've made several
modifications this winter to the plane: WW Electronic Ignition, upgraded r
ubber fuel lines to stainless braided, re-designed the panel using a Dynon
D-180, and a few other things.
The CDI factor ("Chicks Dig It") is very high when you tell someone "I buil
t the plane, and I built the engine too."
Many more of my comments are in the archives.Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
Northwest New Jersey
> From: mcjon77@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 05:47:43 -0700> To: zenith
-list@matronics.com> > Hi guys,> > I am new here and am considering using t
he Corvair as a power-plant for either a 601XL or another aircraft. I wante
d to know from the guys with experience with them (no matter how much or ho
w little) what have your experiences been? How is the reliability and maint
enance issues? Have you had any engine out situations? Any info from users
would be appreciated.> > Thanks,> > Jon> > > > > Read this topic online her
e:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=186955#186955> > > > >
-========================
==> > >
_________________________________________________________________
It=92s easy to add contacts from Facebook and other social sites through Wi
ndows Live=99 Messenger. Learn how.
https://www.invite2messenger.net/im/?source=TXT_EML_WLH_LearnHow
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 |
|
Recommendations for good canopy covers?
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE (reserved)
601XL/TD, Corvair, building...
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 |
|
Bruce's Custom Canopy Covers. They have a template for the 601. Two years
ago at SnF they had a show discount so you might get a discount at OSH:
http://www.aircraftcovers.com/
Also Doug Dugger's wife Lori makes 601 covers (and seats for the 701) but
they are more intended as sun-shades rather than for long-term storage:
http://www.qualitysportplanes.com/qsp-2006_052.htm
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Andrew
Elliott
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:32 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Canopy covers?
Recommendations for good canopy covers?
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE (reserved)
601XL/TD, Corvair, building...
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: Zenith-List: |
sounds good
-----Original Message-----
>From: THOMAS SMALL <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>Sent: Jun 10, 2008 11:37 AM
>To: zenith-list <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Zenith-List: "leaning" the Bing carby
>
>Juan,
>
>I think you're talking about the "economy tuning kit" that Jab put forth a while
ago to improve fuel economy. Following that procedure of re-jetting and drilling
out some small passage (ask Pete or see back issues of JabbaChat), fuel
burn did go down. It was not recommended for engines in the early serial # range,
which mine is, so I have never done it. The jetting of old engines was
hit-and-miss with the jets in mine having been drilled out by the factory(?) when
purchased. My main jet actual diameter (checked with numbered drill bits)
was not what was marked on the barrel of the jet. Same for needle jet.
>
>The only way to truly lean a carb is to have mixture control. Since the Bing
is an altitude-compensated carby, no way of leaning it in the air is possible.
If you fly with a Jab and try for 1400F EGT, you're really just flying at an
RPM that gives you that temp. When you said you leaned past peak I assumed you
had installed an Ellison or AeroCarb, both of which come with mixture control.
Would be nice if the 3300 had fuel injection.
>
>tailwinds jeff do not archive
>
>>I HAVE A BING. YOU LEAN THE ENGINE USING EGT. 1400 with a certain size leaned
>needle jet.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: THOMAS SMALL <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>>Sent: Jun 9, 2008 9:54 PM
>>To: zenith-list <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: question for Juan
>>
>>Hi Juan,
>>
>>You mention "lean of peak" with your Jab. Have you an Ellison or an Aerocarb
>(or perhaps one not familiar to us) instead of the Bing original. How do you
>like it?
>>
>>cheers jeff do not archive
>>
>>
>>>set the plane for 5 gal/hr burn at lean of peak EGT,
>>
>>
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: | Technique For Pull Riveting In Tight Places |
I came across a great suggestion in an EAA "Hints For Homebuilders" video
clip for pulling rivets in tight places by using a small homemade "wedge"
between the rivet and the gun. Go to the following link, then scroll down
to "Pull Riveting In Tight Places"....
http://www.eaa.org/video/homebuilders.html?videoId=1568084461
The nice thing about this approach is that you do not need to modify the tip
on your riveter. However, the example was filmed on a Sonex project, where
the head of the rivet does not need to be formed to a dome-shape during the
pull, as we do on our Zenith aircraft. Has anyone successfully used this
technique on their Zenith project, and if so, how did you mirror the
required dome-shape in the wedge for properly forming the rivet? I had my
rivet tips modified by the factory when I was there for the rudder workshop,
but I wasn't present when they did it, so I don't know how it was done. I
do not have any machining tools, if that is what is needed. Any help /
suggestions would be appreciated.
Dave Van Lanen
Madison, WI
601XL - tail nearing completion
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: Technique For Pull Riveting In Tight Places |
I domed my own heads by chucking the head in a drill motor and
spinning it while grinding with a small grinding stone in a Dremel
tool. You could probably do the same with the wedges.
On Jun 10, 2008, at 3:20 PM, Dave VanLanen wrote:
>
> I came across a great suggestion in an EAA "Hints For Homebuilders"
> video
> clip for pulling rivets in tight places by using a small homemade
> "wedge"
> between the rivet and the gun. Go to the following link, then
> scroll down
> to "Pull Riveting In Tight Places"....
>
>
> Has anyone successfully used this
> technique on their Zenith project, and if so, how did you mirror the
> required dome-shape in the wedge for properly forming the rivet?
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: | Ring gear fracture pics |
I have added some pics on my web site of a ring gear that has fractured. I
also had one fracture a year ago in the same place. The link to the pics is
_http://aeroliteproducts.com/Technical_News.php_
(http://aeroliteproducts.com/Technical_News.php)
Jeff
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com)
502-644-8123
**************Vote for your city's best dining and nightlife. City's Best
2008. (http://citysbest.aol.com?ncid=aolacg00050000000102)
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: | rotax high oil temp |
I've been flying my newly built hd for several weeks. Now the weather is w
armer and my oil temps are too high. I've tried everything to get more flo
w into the cooler but I can not get the temps into a more comfortable range
. the problem is I have the older style cowl where the oil cooler is right
under the gear box. Later ZAC changed to the cooler in the belly of the c
owl. I was planing to switch to the newer style cowl to get rid of my prob
lems but no one makes it any more. Here is were I need your help. Does by
chance anyone have the cowl I'm looking for? Or has any one been able to
cool their 912S using the older style cowl? Any help would be appreciated.
This being grounded thing sucks!\
Thanks
Frank Probst
_________________________________________________________________
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: | Scratch, kit , and Quick Build, build time survey |
Hi guys,
Got another question for you. For those that have completed their airplanes (601,
640, 701, 801) via plans, standard kits, or quickbuild, could you please list
to total build hours you spent on the project (a rough estimate is fine) and
whether you were a plans, kit, or quickbuild builder. While no one can tell
exactly how long someone else will take to build their kit, it is good to know
the experiences of those who cam before us.
Thanks,
Jon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=187249#187249
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: rotax high oil temp |
Hi Frank,
There is a great article by Christopher Zavatson: "Cooling Drag"
in the December 2007 issue of Sport Aviation - the primary
publication of the EAA. I suggest you read this article. If you can
implement any of the ideas in it you may make great progress with
your oil cooling problem.
I am not familiar with the Rotax or the cowls you are dealing with,
so I can't really make any useful comments directly about your
problem. However, I believe you can fix your problem with some
fiberglass and/or RTV work to improve the air flow through your cowl.
Good luck,
Paul
XL fuselage
At 02:53 PM 6/10/2008, you wrote:
>I've been flying my newly built hd for several weeks. Now the
>weather is warmer and my oil temps are too high. I've tried
>everything to get more flow into the cooler but I can not get the
>temps into a more comfortable range. the problem is I have the
>older style cowl where the oil cooler is right under the gear
>box. Later ZAC changed to the cooler in the belly of the cowl. I
>was planing to switch to the newer style cowl to get rid of my
>problems but no one makes it any more. Here is were I need your
>help. Does by chance anyone have the cowl I'm looking for? Or has
>any one been able to cool their 912S using the older style
>cowl? Any help would be appreciated. This being grounded thing sucks!\
>
>Thanks
>
>Frank Probst
>
>
>----------
>
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: | Scratch, kit , and Quick Build, build time survey |
Jon,
I have built a CH601 XL from component kits. I have spent 1,386 hours directly
on the airplane and 1,625 counting all the related stuff (build table, wing storage
rack, panel & FWF design work, etc.). I probably have less than 20 hours
to go to get it flying.
Jay in Dallas
"mcjon77" <mcjon77@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Hi guys,
>
>Got another question for you. For those that have completed their airplanes (601,
640, 701, 801) via plans, standard kits, or quickbuild, could you please
list to total build hours you spent on the project (a rough estimate is fine)
and whether you were a plans, kit, or quickbuild builder. While no one can tell
exactly how long someone else will take to build their kit, it is good to know
the experiences of those who cam before us.
>
>Thanks,
>Jon
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=187249#187249
>
>
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: rotax high oil temp |
The most effective way to improve cooling air flow is to make it
easier for the air to exit the cowl. I greatly improved the cooling
for my Subaru engine by adding a lip around the air outlet at the
bottom rear of my cowl. This lip is about an inch wide and slopes down
and back from the front edge of the opening. It creates a low pressure
bubble of air over the opening to help suck the air out of the
cowling. I originally riveted some scrap aluminum strips just forward
of the opening as a temporary solution, This solved my cooling problem
and I eventually removed the aluminum strips and formed a lip out of
fiberglas to make it permanent. I just used fiberglas cloth and
polyester resin from the auto parts store. No more cooling issues. You
may have to add some baffling inside the cowl to direct air through
the cooler but it won't do any good if the air can't get out of the
cowl.
On Jun 10, 2008, at 5:53 PM, Frank Probst wrote:
> I've been flying my newly built hd for several weeks. Now the
> weather is warmer and my oil temps are too high. I've tried
> everything to get more flow into the cooler but I can not get the
> temps into a more comfortable range. the problem is I have the
> older style cowl where the oil cooler is right under the gear box.
> Later ZAC changed to the cooler in the belly of the cowl. I was
> planing to switch to the newer style cowl to get rid of my problems
> but no one makes it any more. Here is were I need your help. Does
> by chance anyone have the cowl I'm looking for? Or has any one been
> able to cool their 912S using the older style cowl? Any help would
> be appreciated. This being grounded thing sucks!\
>
--
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: Scratch, kit , and Quick Build, build time survey |
I built from component kits and put about 1400 hours of actual
construction to get it ready for flight. I spent about 1000 hours on
just the firewall back airframe.
On Jun 10, 2008, at 6:04 PM,
wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Got another question for you. For those that have completed their
> airplanes (601, 640, 701, 801) via plans, standard kits, or
> quickbuild, could you please list to total build hours you spent on
> the project (a rough estimate is fine) and whether you were a plans,
> kit, or quickbuild builder. While no one can tell exactly how long
> someone else will take to build their kit, it is good to know the
> experiences of those who cam before us.
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: rotax high oil temp |
Right on, Brian. You have to suck the hot air out of the cowl. You
cannot blow it out! I put the lip on the outlet as you did. Fixed the
whole problem.
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912, Spitfire Mk VIII
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: question for Juan( Good article pertaining to LOP) |
Student pilots and renters rarely worry much about the red knob or lever that controls
the fuel/air mixture to their engines; owners worry about it a lot. For
a while, there has been a big controversy about how far to lean engines: as
the fuel/air mixture gets leaner (more air/less fuel), each cylinders exhaust
gas temperature (EGT) gets higher and higher; then, if you keep leaning, the EGT
drops again. The hottest possible exhaust temperature is called peak EGT. If
you lean the mixture at peak EGT (i.e. reduce the fuel flow), the EGT drops
and you are running lean of peak, or just LOP; if you enrich the mixture at peak
EGT (i.e. increase the fuel flow), the EGT also drops and you are running rich
of peak, or ROP. Which is better?
The LOP vs. ROP debate was pretty ferocious for a few years, but the LOP pilots
seem to be gaining ground after all, isnt it better to cool your engine by burning
more (free) air and less fuel, than by burning more fuel and less air?
Besides, extra, unburned air doesnt gunk up the engine, while extra, unburned
fuel leaves all kinds of nasty stuff behind, as well as producing a significant
amount of carbon monoxide (a big threat to winter fliers like me). Aside from
the cost of fuel and the risk of CO poisoning, however, theres also the question
of engine health; after all, an early overhaul will cost a lot more than
a bit of extra fuel.
Running Hot and Cold
The previous paragraph already mentioned gunk from flying ROP for example, lead
deposits that foul spark plugs but the biggest threat to an engine is heat,
not in the exhaust gas but in the cylinder itself. Many planes, including my
Warrior, do not have a gauge installed for measuring cylinder head temperature
(CHT), and most of those that do have a probe in only one of the four or six
cylinders. The opponents of LOP (including some less-than-educated mechanics)
used to claim that flying LOP increased cylinder temperatures and thus shortened
cylinder life. In fact, it turns out that peak CHT the hottest possible temperature
inside the cylinder actually occurs during ROP flight, specifically
when the exhaust temperature has fallen about 25-50 degF on the rich side of
peak EGT. In other words, if you lean your engine to peak EGT and then enrich
slightly, you will be closer to peak CHT (and to damaging your engine); if you
lean your engine to peak EGT and then lean a little further, you will be further
from peak CHT. The chart that demonstrates this should be present in any engine
operators manual (Im using the one on page 3-13 of the Lycoming Operators
manual for the O-320 and IO-320 series), but John Deakin also has one online
here that shows the same thing (after you stare at it for 45 minutes or so; the
best source of information on LOP operations, by the way, is John Deakins columns
on AvWeb see engine-related columns in the sidebar).
Bad Vibrations
So why not always fly LOP? One problem is that some engines just cannot do it.
The fuel/air distribution to the cylinders is not always even, so one cylinder
might be running much richer than another; by the time you lean far enough to
get the richest cylinder LOP, the leanest cylinder might no longer have enough
fuel to ignite at all, and the engine will start vibrating violently. Carbureted
engines mix the fuel and air together in a single place (the carburetor)
then send the mixture to all of the cylinders, where it arrives in various states
(sometimes more air will get through, and sometimes more fuel). Fuel-injected
engines actually mix the fuel and air separately for each cylinder, so it
should be possible to adjust them so that all cylinders get exactly the same mixture.
In fact, the original factory injectors almost never work that well, but GAMI makes
third-party injectors that do a much better job; not surprisingly, the company
and its founder, George Braly, are strong advocates of flying LOP. Lycoming,
one of the two major engine manufacturers, has just as strongly opposed LOP,
using articles like this one. Essentially, Lycomings argument is that with
a constant-speed propeller pilots have no way to read their power setting directly,
so if they lean the mixture and increase manifold pressure to compensate
for the lost power, they might end up flying lean at a dangerously high power
setting. That argument does not apply to engines with fixed-pitch propellers,
like the one on my Warrior, because there the power setting corresponds directly
to the RPM at any given density altitude (or, in plain English, its no harder
to figure out the power setting LOP than ROP). Even with a constant-speed
propeller, the same horsepower should produce the same indicated airspeed no
matter where the mixture is set, so its not that hard to manage the power setting.
Wide-Open Throttle!
The most fanatical faction of the LOP group and the one to which I belong is
the group that flies lean of peak/wide-open throttle (LOP/WOT). Using this technique,
you do not touch the throttle at all until youre descending for landing;
instead, you leave the throttle wide open the way it was for takeoff, and then
you use the mixture (red button or lever) exclusively to control power, going
leaner to reduce power, or richer to increase it. That way, youre always flying
the leanest possible for any given power setting (you cannot open the throttle
any further to get more air), so theres no hard brain-work involved. Of
course, you need an engine that runs well LOP to pull this off, either a fuel-injected
engine with GAMIjectors or a four-cylinder carbureted engine with good
distribution like the O-320 (a six-cylinder carbureted engine is unlikely to
work, because its impossible for all six cylinders to be the same distance from
the carburetor). The fuel savings can be spectacular: I burn about 20% less
fuel in my Warrior flying just as fast, and I have cleaner plugs and minimal
risk of CO poisoning if the muffler ever leaks into my cabin heater. In fact,
I am especially fortunate, because in the early 1980s, Pipers Warrior II POH
actually recommended LOP/WOT far ahead of its time:
For Best Economy cruise, a simplified leaning procedure which consistently allows
accurate achievement of best engine efficiency has been developed. Best Economy
Cruise performance is obtained with the throttle fully open. To obtain a
desired cruise power setting, set the throttle and mixture control full forward,
taking care not to exceed the engine speed limitation, then begin leaning the
mixture. The RPM will increase slightly but will then begin to decrease. Continue
leaning until the desired cruise engine RPM is reached. This will provide
best fuel economy and maximum miles per gallon for a given power setting. See
following CAUTION when using this procedure.
CAUTION
Prolonged engine operation at powers above 75% with a leaned mixture can result
in engine damage. While establishing Best Economy Cruise Mixture, below 6,000
feet, care must be taken not to remain in the range above 75% power more than
15 seconds while leaning. Above 6,000 feet the engine is incapable of generating
more than 75%.
For my Warriors 160 hp O-320-D3G Lycoming engine, it seems to be RPM rather than
power setting that determines things: my engine will almost always run smoothly
LOP/WOT at 2500 RPM or above, and will sometimes let me get down to 2400 RPM.
Obviously, then, I do better at higher density altitudes, where these RPMs
give me safe power settings
-----Original Message-----
>From: Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>Sent: Jun 10, 2008 10:34 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com, zenith-list <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: question for Juan
>
>
>I HAVE A BING. YOU LEAN THE ENGINE USING EGT. 1400 with a certain size leaned
needle jet.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: THOMAS SMALL <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>>Sent: Jun 9, 2008 9:54 PM
>>To: zenith-list <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Zenith-List: question for Juan
>>
>>Hi Juan,
>>
>>You mention "lean of peak" with your Jab. Have you an Ellison or an Aerocarb
(or perhaps one not familiar to us) instead of the Bing original. How do you
like it?
>>
>>cheers jeff do not archive
>>
>>
>>>set the plane for 5 gal/hr burn at lean of peak EGT,
>>
>>
>
>
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: question for Juan( Good article pertaining to LOP) |
Student pilots and renters rarely worry much about the red knob or lever that controls
the fuel/air mixture to their engines; owners worry about it a lot. For
a while, there has been a big controversy about how far to lean engines: as
the fuel/air mixture gets leaner (more air/less fuel), each cylinders exhaust
gas temperature (EGT) gets higher and higher; then, if you keep leaning, the EGT
drops again. The hottest possible exhaust temperature is called peak EGT. If
you lean the mixture at peak EGT (i.e. reduce the fuel flow), the EGT drops
and you are running lean of peak, or just LOP; if you enrich the mixture at peak
EGT (i.e. increase the fuel flow), the EGT also drops and you are running rich
of peak, or ROP. Which is better?
The LOP vs. ROP debate was pretty ferocious for a few years, but the LOP pilots
seem to be gaining ground after all, isnt it better to cool your engine by burning
more (free) air and less fuel, than by burning more fuel and less air?
Besides, extra, unburned air doesnt gunk up the engine, while extra, unburned
fuel leaves all kinds of nasty stuff behind, as well as producing a significant
amount of carbon monoxide (a big threat to winter fliers like me). Aside from
the cost of fuel and the risk of CO poisoning, however, theres also the question
of engine health; after all, an early overhaul will cost a lot more than
a bit of extra fuel.
Running Hot and Cold
The previous paragraph already mentioned gunk from flying ROP for example, lead
deposits that foul spark plugs but the biggest threat to an engine is heat,
not in the exhaust gas but in the cylinder itself. Many planes, including my
Warrior, do not have a gauge installed for measuring cylinder head temperature
(CHT), and most of those that do have a probe in only one of the four or six
cylinders. The opponents of LOP (including some less-than-educated mechanics)
used to claim that flying LOP increased cylinder temperatures and thus shortened
cylinder life. In fact, it turns out that peak CHT the hottest possible temperature
inside the cylinder actually occurs during ROP flight, specifically
when the exhaust temperature has fallen about 25-50 degF on the rich side of
peak EGT. In other words, if you lean your engine to peak EGT and then enrich
slightly, you will be closer to peak CHT (and to damaging your engine); if you
lean your engine to peak EGT and then lean a little further, you will be further
from peak CHT. The chart that demonstrates this should be present in any engine
operators manual (Im using the one on page 3-13 of the Lycoming Operators
manual for the O-320 and IO-320 series), but John Deakin also has one online
here that shows the same thing (after you stare at it for 45 minutes or so; the
best source of information on LOP operations, by the way, is John Deakins columns
on AvWeb see engine-related columns in the sidebar).
Bad Vibrations
So why not always fly LOP? One problem is that some engines just cannot do it.
The fuel/air distribution to the cylinders is not always even, so one cylinder
might be running much richer than another; by the time you lean far enough to
get the richest cylinder LOP, the leanest cylinder might no longer have enough
fuel to ignite at all, and the engine will start vibrating violently. Carbureted
engines mix the fuel and air together in a single place (the carburetor)
then send the mixture to all of the cylinders, where it arrives in various states
(sometimes more air will get through, and sometimes more fuel). Fuel-injected
engines actually mix the fuel and air separately for each cylinder, so it
should be possible to adjust them so that all cylinders get exactly the same mixture.
In fact, the original factory injectors almost never work that well, but GAMI makes
third-party injectors that do a much better job; not surprisingly, the company
and its founder, George Braly, are strong advocates of flying LOP. Lycoming,
one of the two major engine manufacturers, has just as strongly opposed LOP,
using articles like this one. Essentially, Lycomings argument is that with
a constant-speed propeller pilots have no way to read their power setting directly,
so if they lean the mixture and increase manifold pressure to compensate
for the lost power, they might end up flying lean at a dangerously high power
setting. That argument does not apply to engines with fixed-pitch propellers,
like the one on my Warrior, because there the power setting corresponds directly
to the RPM at any given density altitude (or, in plain English, its no harder
to figure out the power setting LOP than ROP). Even with a constant-speed
propeller, the same horsepower should produce the same indicated airspeed no
matter where the mixture is set, so its not that hard to manage the power setting.
Wide-Open Throttle!
The most fanatical faction of the LOP group and the one to which I belong is
the group that flies lean of peak/wide-open throttle (LOP/WOT). Using this technique,
you do not touch the throttle at all until youre descending for landing;
instead, you leave the throttle wide open the way it was for takeoff, and then
you use the mixture (red button or lever) exclusively to control power, going
leaner to reduce power, or richer to increase it. That way, youre always flying
the leanest possible for any given power setting (you cannot open the throttle
any further to get more air), so theres no hard brain-work involved. Of
course, you need an engine that runs well LOP to pull this off, either a fuel-injected
engine with GAMIjectors or a four-cylinder carbureted engine with good
distribution like the O-320 (a six-cylinder carbureted engine is unlikely to
work, because its impossible for all six cylinders to be the same distance from
the carburetor). The fuel savings can be spectacular: I burn about 20% less
fuel in my Warrior flying just as fast, and I have cleaner plugs and minimal
risk of CO poisoning if the muffler ever leaks into my cabin heater. In fact,
I am especially fortunate, because in the early 1980s, Pipers Warrior II POH
actually recommended LOP/WOT far ahead of its time:
For Best Economy cruise, a simplified leaning procedure which consistently allows
accurate achievement of best engine efficiency has been developed. Best Economy
Cruise performance is obtained with the throttle fully open. To obtain a
desired cruise power setting, set the throttle and mixture control full forward,
taking care not to exceed the engine speed limitation, then begin leaning the
mixture. The RPM will increase slightly but will then begin to decrease. Continue
leaning until the desired cruise engine RPM is reached. This will provide
best fuel economy and maximum miles per gallon for a given power setting. See
following CAUTION when using this procedure.
CAUTION
Prolonged engine operation at powers above 75% with a leaned mixture can result
in engine damage. While establishing Best Economy Cruise Mixture, below 6,000
feet, care must be taken not to remain in the range above 75% power more than
15 seconds while leaning. Above 6,000 feet the engine is incapable of generating
more than 75%.
For my Warriors 160 hp O-320-D3G Lycoming engine, it seems to be RPM rather than
power setting that determines things: my engine will almost always run smoothly
LOP/WOT at 2500 RPM or above, and will sometimes let me get down to 2400 RPM.
Obviously, then, I do better at higher density altitudes, where these RPMs
give me safe power settings
-----Original Message-----
>From: Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>Sent: Jun 10, 2008 10:34 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com, zenith-list <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: question for Juan
>
>
>I HAVE A BING. YOU LEAN THE ENGINE USING EGT. 1400 with a certain size leaned
needle jet.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: THOMAS SMALL <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>>Sent: Jun 9, 2008 9:54 PM
>>To: zenith-list <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Zenith-List: question for Juan
>>
>>Hi Juan,
>>
>>You mention "lean of peak" with your Jab. Have you an Ellison or an Aerocarb
(or perhaps one not familiar to us) instead of the Bing original. How do you
like it?
>>
>>cheers jeff do not archive
>>
>>
>>>set the plane for 5 gal/hr burn at lean of peak EGT,
>>
>>
>
>
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: Scratch, kit , and Quick Build, build time survey |
mcjon77 wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Got another question for you. For those that have completed their airplanes
(601, 640, 701, 801) via plans, standard kits, or quickbuild, could you please
list to total build hours you spent on the project (a rough estimate is fine)
and whether you were a plans, kit, or quickbuild builder. While no one can tell
exactly how long someone else will take to build their kit, it is good to
know the experiences of those who cam before us.
>
> Thanks,
> Jon
>
>
>
I spent 1200 hours building my 701 from a kit. This includes FWF time.
The FWF was a Rotax kit from ZAC.
Dan Wilde
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: Nose Wheel Bearings Questions |
Hay U all,I just went through this bearing problem on my 601,I had the
5/8 roller bearing,I replaced it with a 5/8 tapered, much less friction.
Qestion call Pat 941 270 7802
----- Original Message -----
From: Aerolitellc@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 4:09 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Nose Wheel Bearings Questions
Ours fell apart after about 10 hours (couldn't find any of the
bearings) if it is the same one piece bearing. If you have the small
axle I would call zenith and upgrade to the bearings that comes with the
new kits. They use thicker axles and better bearings and I think the
axle is only like 8 bucks.
Jeff
All
I've been working on the nose gear and pulled the Matco Wheel out
for a test fit (kit is from Nov 2005)
The included bearings have the name Azusua on them and are stamped
made in China.
Any issues with these wheels / bearings that anyone would care to
comment on?? And while we're at it, What grease should I pack them with
and how often should I repack them?
Thanks in Advance
Larry
601XL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler
Florence" on AOL Food.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
6/10/2008 5:11 PM
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: | Alternator failure |
During the pre-taxi checklist this evening I thought my alternator
output was a little low. I usually see 13 volts and I was only
seeing about 12.5v. I switched the alternator off then on to be
sure it was actually putting out, which it was. So I pressed on for
a lovely evening putter around the area.
After about 20 minutes I glanced over and saw the volts were down to
11 at zero amps, so I landed. It was nice to know I had two fresh
batteries available (one only a month old) -- converted auto engines
without magnetos introduce new failure modes that had to be
incorporated into the electrical system design.
Anyway, my next task is to find an appropriate replacement alternator
- hopefully a lighter one. This one has 60 amps output, but do I need
that much? I'd prefer to save a few pounds if possible.
Suggestions?
Grant
GHTF
601hds/CAM100
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! --
|