Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:32 AM - 601 vs 650 (dougsire)
2. 05:40 AM - Re: taildragger (Roger & Lina Hill)
3. 06:40 AM - Re: New Panel Design (annken100)
4. 07:33 AM - 1 Last Post-open to critizism both constructive & otherw (Sabrina)
5. 08:07 AM - Re: Re: New Panel Design (Juan Vega)
6. 08:26 AM - Re: 1 Last Post-open to critizism both constructive & otherw (Paul Mulwitz)
7. 09:05 AM - Re: 1 Last Post-open to critizism both constructive & otherw (Juan Vega)
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 |
|
I finished up my 3 day visit to Airventure and this is what I gather as to the
differences and reasons for the new 650 model:
Reasons:
-They want to have part commonality across all distribution channels (Zenith, AMD)
-Sometimes you just need to introduce a new model to keep interest going
Similarities and differences. The 650 is the 601 with the following differences
(might be more):
-New rudder. It has more of an angle and just looks better. No one had a better
explanation here except for looks. The nose skin and nose rib are larger
and the bottom angle is different so can't really redo a current rudder.
-Canopy. No brainer here. It looks nicer, has a better locking mechanism, has
greater headroom, is easier to build and has rollover protection. A retro kit
will be available for 601s.
-Angle of incidence on wing has changed. They have slighltly lowered the rear
spar to provide a lower nose position and better visibility. Roger said this
was what the Europeans were used to so they decided to change it. No performance
reasons were indicated. Otherwise the wing is the same.
-Additional fuselage bracing. Sebastian said there was some additional bracing
on the rear fuselage.
-Possible aileron balancing. Sebastian also indicated that they may add aileron
balancing which would consist of an extra rib added at the end of the aileron
with the balance inside the wing (not like Brazilian one).
-There may well be other small changes but is still the same basic structure.
It is interesting that the "loose cable" theory is now the official company line.
Doug Sire
601 XL
Billings, MT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195848#195848
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 |
|
Jim;
Mostly it impacts your wallet. Have you ever tried to sell a tail dragger
in this tri-gear world? I would say it would knock 25% of the value of
the plane, and reduce your interested buyers by 80%
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Belcher
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 5:21 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: taildragger
I checked the archives, and perhaps the questions were just asked a long
time
ago, because I did not find an answer.
What weight impact does going from the nose wheel to the tail dragger have?
How difficult is the tail wheel configuration to fly/land when compared to
say, a J3? Does anyone have a rough guess as to how many tail wheel versions
have been built vs the nose wheel?
--
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
============================================
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: New Panel Design |
Dan,
The next gen dynon units are most impressive. I stop by the dynon booth here at
OSH daily to gawk at them. Of course, you guys suck because I have already
purchased my dynon gear already!! In comparison to the next gen stuff my panel
all of a sudden looks archaic. I've included a picture below. It looks like
a major avionics upgrade is in my plane's future and its not even finished yet!!
Ken Pavlou
601XL / Corvair
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195856#195856
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0274_211.jpg
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: | 1 Last Post-open to critizism both constructive & otherw |
The decalage change still bothers me...
I increased the decalage, be it aerodynamic or geometric, by pitching my horizontal
stabilizer down two degrees.
Zenith has now increased the decalage by lowering the rear of the wing and maintaining
the status quo on the horizontal stabilizer. I am told, second hand,
this is done without ANY change to the main spar set angle (that is why I wanted
to compare plans.)
Both the 650 and Sabrina are inherently more stable than the 601 with this increased
decalage giving it the ability to dampen larger vibrations/oscillations.
We both loose performance. The 601 is more efficient. Correct?
With a factory O-200A engine mount, the engine mount aligns the center of trust
with the main longerons.
Does the twisting of the 650 main spar (if indeed it remains as speced in the 601
plans) add strength to the structure by pre-loading it?
I lowered the leading edge of the my horizontal stabilizer to better balance the
airplane so will it fly level without trim (heavy engine) compared to the line
of thrust and main longerons. The added benefit was additional stability.
By lowering the rear spar, the aircraft will fly more nose down. To fly level,
the 650, with a 601 engine mount, no longer flies along its line of thrust or
main longerons. Correct?
Comments?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195862#195862
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/decalage_407.jpg
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: New Panel Design |
Bout the nicest panel I have seen so far!
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: annken100 <annken100@aol.com>
>Sent: Jul 31, 2008 9:37 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Panel Design
>
>
>Dan,
>
>The next gen dynon units are most impressive. I stop by the dynon booth here
at OSH daily to gawk at them. Of course, you guys suck because I have already
purchased my dynon gear already!! In comparison to the next gen stuff my panel
all of a sudden looks archaic. I've included a picture below. It looks like
a major avionics upgrade is in my plane's future and its not even finished
yet!!
>
>Ken Pavlou
>
>601XL / Corvair
>
>--------
>601 XL / Corvair
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=195856#195856
>
>
>Attachments:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0274_211.jpg
>
>
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: 1 Last Post-open to critizism both constructive & otherw |
Hi Sabrina,
I agree with your analysis and conclusions.
By lowering the trailing edge ZAC has not only increased the
decalage, they have also changed the wing incidence angle as compared
to the fuselage. I think both approaches (yours and theirs) add a
bit to the pitch stability compared to the original design.
From the comments posted by others, I think ZAC's goal was not to
increase the stability but rather to increase the forward
visibility. By changing the incidence they have made a bigger impact
on the airspeed capability of the plane. The fuselage (or wing,
depending on how you hold your head) has more parasitic drag because
of the incidence change.
In short, I think you have traded stability for drag while they have
traded forward visibility and stability for even more drag.
I don't know what happens if they align the engine thrust with the
longerons rather than the wing. I guess throttle changes will have
more impact on elevator trim. I have no opinion on your pre-loading
point with regard to the spar angle.
However, I still think (as I posted a few days ago) they are hoping
the bad publicity associated with the XL will all go away because
they changed the model name.
Paul
XL getting close
At 07:29 AM 7/31/2008, you wrote:
>The decalage change still bothers me...
>
>I increased the decalage, be it aerodynamic or geometric, by
>pitching my horizontal stabilizer down two degrees.
>
>Zenith has now increased the decalage by lowering the rear of the
>wing and maintaining the status quo on the horizontal stabilizer. I
>am told, second hand, this is done without ANY change to the main
>spar set angle (that is why I wanted to compare plans.)
>
>Both the 650 and Sabrina are inherently more stable than the 601
>with this increased decalage giving it the ability to dampen larger
>vibrations/oscillations. We both loose performance. The 601 is
>more efficient. Correct?
>
>With a factory O-200A engine mount, the engine mount aligns the
>center of trust with the main longerons.
>
>Does the twisting of the 650 main spar (if indeed it remains as
>speced in the 601 plans) add strength to the structure by pre-loading it?
>
>I lowered the leading edge of the my horizontal stabilizer to better
>balance the airplane so will it fly level without trim (heavy
>engine) compared to the line of thrust and main longerons. The
>added benefit was additional stability.
>
>By lowering the rear spar, the aircraft will fly more nose
>down. To fly level, the 650, with a 601 engine mount, no longer
>flies along its line of thrust or main longerons. Correct?
>
>Comments?
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: 1 Last Post-open to critizism both constructive & |
otherw
I would just ask AMD if they changed the angle of incidence to the horizontal
stab, the engine mount as well as the wing? If they changed the stab and wing,
the speed would not vary significantly. Engine mount would be insignificant
at torque and speeds we fly,You could probably change the angle enough with
a few well placed washers. You could do all three to the 601.
I disagree with the thought the "Bad name" of the 601 would go away. What bad
name? Some guys flew it out of spec so blame it on the plane?
Interesting how we always blame the machines not the men.
Juan
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Jul 31, 2008 11:22 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 1 Last Post-open to critizism both constructive &
otherw
>
>
>Hi Sabrina,
>
>I agree with your analysis and conclusions.
>
>By lowering the trailing edge ZAC has not only increased the
>decalage, they have also changed the wing incidence angle as compared
>to the fuselage. I think both approaches (yours and theirs) add a
>bit to the pitch stability compared to the original design.
>
> From the comments posted by others, I think ZAC's goal was not to
>increase the stability but rather to increase the forward
>visibility. By changing the incidence they have made a bigger impact
>on the airspeed capability of the plane. The fuselage (or wing,
>depending on how you hold your head) has more parasitic drag because
>of the incidence change.
>
>In short, I think you have traded stability for drag while they have
>traded forward visibility and stability for even more drag.
>
>I don't know what happens if they align the engine thrust with the
>longerons rather than the wing. I guess throttle changes will have
>more impact on elevator trim. I have no opinion on your pre-loading
>point with regard to the spar angle.
>
>However, I still think (as I posted a few days ago) they are hoping
>the bad publicity associated with the XL will all go away because
>they changed the model name.
>
>Paul
>XL getting close
>
>
>At 07:29 AM 7/31/2008, you wrote:
>>The decalage change still bothers me...
>>
>>I increased the decalage, be it aerodynamic or geometric, by
>>pitching my horizontal stabilizer down two degrees.
>>
>>Zenith has now increased the decalage by lowering the rear of the
>>wing and maintaining the status quo on the horizontal stabilizer. I
>>am told, second hand, this is done without ANY change to the main
>>spar set angle (that is why I wanted to compare plans.)
>>
>>Both the 650 and Sabrina are inherently more stable than the 601
>>with this increased decalage giving it the ability to dampen larger
>>vibrations/oscillations. We both loose performance. The 601 is
>>more efficient. Correct?
>>
>>With a factory O-200A engine mount, the engine mount aligns the
>>center of trust with the main longerons.
>>
>>Does the twisting of the 650 main spar (if indeed it remains as
>>speced in the 601 plans) add strength to the structure by pre-loading it?
>>
>>I lowered the leading edge of the my horizontal stabilizer to better
>>balance the airplane so will it fly level without trim (heavy
>>engine) compared to the line of thrust and main longerons. The
>>added benefit was additional stability.
>>
>>By lowering the rear spar, the aircraft will fly more nose
>>down. To fly level, the 650, with a 601 engine mount, no longer
>>flies along its line of thrust or main longerons. Correct?
>>
>>Comments?
>
>
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! --
|