Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:31 AM - Off Topic: Winter Hanger "Warm Box" (DaveG601XL)
2. 04:49 AM - Winter Hanger "Warm Box" (Beckman, Rick)
3. 05:17 AM - Re: Winter Hanger "Warm Box" (Al Hays)
4. 07:35 AM - Re: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (Dirk Zahtilla)
5. 08:53 AM - Re: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (Pete Krotje)
6. 09:44 AM - Re: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (Paul Mulwitz)
7. 12:20 PM - Re: Safetying of turnbuckles on 6B17-4 Torque Tube (moorecomp)
8. 12:24 PM - Re: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (Jimbo)
9. 01:57 PM - Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (Gig Giacona)
10. 02:22 PM - Re: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (jaybannist@cs.com)
11. 02:28 PM - Re: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (Craig Payne)
12. 02:32 PM - Re: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (Bryan Martin)
13. 02:36 PM - Re: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (Bryan Martin)
14. 02:46 PM - Re: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (Pete Krotje)
15. 03:22 PM - Re: Off Topic: Winter Hanger "Warm Box" (raymondj)
16. 03:26 PM - Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (kmccune)
17. 04:26 PM - Re: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (Paul Mulwitz)
18. 08:02 PM - Re: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? (Dirk Zahtilla)
19. 09:33 PM - My lengthy, upbeat update. (Richard Vetterli)
20. 10:29 PM - Re: My lengthy, upbeat update. (LHusky@aol.com)
21. 11:18 PM - Re: Off Topic: Winter Hanger "Warm Box" (burbby)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Off Topic: Winter Hanger "Warm Box" |
I am about to go through my first winter in a hanger. I have some chemicals like
cleaners, polishing compounds, etc. that have the recommendation to not let
freeze. I would rather keep these at the hanger instead of trying to remember
to haul them back and forth from home. I remember hearing or reading a recommendation
a while back about building a box and putting a light bulb inside it.
The idea is that the bulb would provide just enough heat to keep things from
freezing, but not too much to cause a fire hazard.
I am on southern Ohio where we usually do get too terribly cold, as compared to
you Wisconsin guys, but do see plenty of days below freezing. I was thinking
of a plywood box lined with aluminum foil and a 75 or 100 watt bulb. Any helpful
hints or suggestions on box construction, insulation and safety concerns?
Thanks
do not archive
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL/Jabiru 3300
First flight 7/24/08
Phase I flight test complete 10/16/08
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210073#210073
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: | Winter Hanger "Warm Box" |
Dave,
Depending on how large the box, a 25 watt bulb should do
the trick, and I think that in a box two feet square, a 75 or 100 watt
bulb would be way too much heat. There won't be any breeze in the hangar
to alleviate the heat build up.
Just my $0.02.
Rick Beckman
Midwest Mudworks
729 MSL and sinking
Zodie Rocket XL 52EB
www.sharbo.us/thebird
Do not archive.
I am about to go through my first winter in a hanger. I have some
chemicals like cleaners, polishing compounds, etc. that have the
recommendation to not let freeze. I would rather keep these at the
hanger instead of trying to remember to haul them back and forth from
home. I remember hearing or reading a recommendation a while back about
building a box and putting a light bulb inside it. The idea is that the
bulb would provide just enough heat to keep things from freezing, but
not too much to cause a fire hazard.
I am on southern Ohio where we usually do get too terribly cold, as
compared to you Wisconsin guys, but do see plenty of days below
freezing. I was thinking of a plywood box lined with aluminum foil and
a 75 or 100 watt bulb. Any helpful hints or suggestions on box
construction, insulation and safety concerns?
Thanks
do not archive
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL/Jabiru 3300
First flight 7/24/08
Phase I flight test complete 10/16/08
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: Winter Hanger "Warm Box" |
Dave,
You might want to incorporate a little device called a Thermo Cube
which looks like a regular multiple outlet adapter but has a
thermostat in it which turns on at about 35 degree and off at about
45 degree. They're carried by Tractor Supply Co with SKU Number
2170275 for about 13 bucks. Handy for the heater pad under your
engine too.
Al Hays
601XL N5892H reserved
Do not archive.
On Oct 24, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Beckman, Rick wrote:
> <Rick.Beckman@atk.com>
>
>
> Dave,
> Depending on how large the box, a 25 watt bulb should do
> the trick, and I think that in a box two feet square, a 75 or 100 watt
> bulb would be way too much heat. There won't be any breeze in the
> hangar
> to alleviate the heat build up.
> Just my $0.02.
> Rick Beckman
> Midwest Mudworks
> 729 MSL and sinking
> Zodie Rocket XL 52EB
> www.sharbo.us/thebird
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
> I am about to go through my first winter in a hanger. I have some
> chemicals like cleaners, polishing compounds, etc. that have the
> recommendation to not let freeze. I would rather keep these at the
> hanger instead of trying to remember to haul them back and forth from
> home. I remember hearing or reading a recommendation a while back
> about
> building a box and putting a light bulb inside it. The idea is
> that the
> bulb would provide just enough heat to keep things from freezing, but
> not too much to cause a fire hazard.
>
> I am on southern Ohio where we usually do get too terribly cold, as
> compared to you Wisconsin guys, but do see plenty of days below
> freezing. I was thinking of a plywood box lined with aluminum foil
> and
> a 75 or 100 watt bulb. Any helpful hints or suggestions on box
> construction, insulation and safety concerns?
>
> Thanks
> do not archive
>
> --------
> David Gallagher
> 601 XL/Jabiru 3300
> First flight 7/24/08
> Phase I flight test complete 10/16/08
>
>
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
The use of a re-drive to allow a longer prop at lower speeds is really
critical not to get more horsepower but to use what you have to the best
efficiency. This is just a proven fact. If not, nobody but nobody would
bother dragging around all that extra hardware.
Z
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
I don't think it is a fact when applied to a light aircraft like a 701.
We've just completed testing with our 85 hp Jabiru 2200 powered CH701 using
a 62 inch Sensenich ground adjustable prop and a Tennessee Props 62 inch
wood prop. We are off the ground in less than 100 ft and climb at 800+ fpm.
No redrive is used and prop turns about 3000 rpm on takeoff and climb out.
At cruise we see 87 mph (verified by GPS several times) at normal cruise rpm
of 2950.
Maybe for big heavy slow aircraft a longer slower turning prop may be needed
but for a 701 it just doesn't make much difference. Those who saw our 701
at the Zenith open house can attest that is does get off the ground in a
hurry and climbs very steeply at 50 mph.
Pete Krotje
Jabiru USA Sport Aircraft, LLC
931-680-2800
www.usjabiru.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dirk Zahtilla
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices?
The use of a re-drive to allow a longer prop at lower speeds is really
critical not to get more horsepower but to use what you have to the best
efficiency. This is just a proven fact. If not, nobody but nobody would
bother dragging around all that extra hardware.
Z
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
Hi Guys,
I agree with both of you to some degree, but my reasons are different
from the ones you wrote.
I think there are some limits on propeller length that must be considered.
First, if a propeller is too long the tips will hit the ground and
the prop will be damaged or destroyed. This gives a maximum prop
length controlled by the airplane's landing gear and engine position.
On the other end, the portion of the propeller's rotation disk that
is blocked by the fuselage doesn't provide much thrust. For the kind
of planes we are discussing this is perhaps the first 24 inches of
prop diameter.
The third limiting factor is the speed of sound. If the propeller
tips go too fast (around .8 mach) then energy is wasted forming sonic
booms and related things rather than producing thrust. The prop tip
speed is a direct function of the prop's length and the operating RPM.
This all leaves a rather narrow range for a propeller to use on any
given airplane design. The limit includes both the length and
maximum propeller RPM. If you choose an engine that produces its
best power at a higher RPM then you need to install a PSRU to allow
both the engine and propeller to operate efficiently. The PSRU
consumes a considerable amount of engine power and also introduces a
significant new point of failure for the power plant. You would only
want one if needed to get sufficient power from the engine converted
into thrust to make the whole plane work well.
Engines designed for light plane use will not need a PSRU. They are
designed to operate at appropriately low RPM. Sometimes, engines
designed for other purposes like running automobiles or snowmobiles
will require a PSRU to be compatible with propellers.
Paul
XL getting close
At 08:52 AM 10/24/2008, you wrote:
>
>I don't think it is a fact when applied to a light aircraft like a 701.
>We've just completed testing with our 85 hp Jabiru 2200 powered CH701 using
>a 62 inch Sensenich ground adjustable prop and a Tennessee Props 62 inch
>wood prop. We are off the ground in less than 100 ft and climb at 800+ fpm.
>No redrive is used and prop turns about 3000 rpm on takeoff and climb out.
>At cruise we see 87 mph (verified by GPS several times) at normal cruise rpm
>of 2950.
>
>Maybe for big heavy slow aircraft a longer slower turning prop may be needed
>but for a 701 it just doesn't make much difference. Those who saw our 701
>at the Zenith open house can attest that is does get off the ground in a
>hurry and climbs very steeply at 50 mph.
>
>
>Pete Krotje
>Jabiru USA Sport Aircraft, LLC
>931-680-2800
>www.usjabiru.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dirk Zahtilla
>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:35 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices?
>
>
>
>The use of a re-drive to allow a longer prop at lower speeds is really
>critical not to get more horsepower but to use what you have to the best
>efficiency. This is just a proven fact. If not, nobody but nobody would
>bother dragging around all that extra hardware.
>Z
>
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: Safetying of turnbuckles on 6B17-4 Torque Tube |
Try Wicks Aircraft:
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_cat.php/subid=9253/index.html
Best regards,
Craig Moore A&P
Mancelona, MI
701 builder wannabe
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210141#210141
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
Do you happen to know what factors dictate number of blades? Ive seen some three
bladed props on Rotax 912 installations, so it cant be hp alone. It made some
sense to be when looking at large transport aircraft with reduction geared radials,
where maximum diameter was limited by ground clearance. Two blade props
were generally used under 1000hp, three up to about 2000hp and four blades above
that.
--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net> wrote:
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices?
Hi Guys,
I agree with both of you to some degree, but my reasons are different
from the ones you wrote.
I think there are some limits on propeller length that must be considered.
First, if a propeller is too long the tips will hit the ground and
the prop will be damaged or destroyed. This gives a maximum prop
length controlled by the airplane's landing gear and engine position.
On the other end, the portion of the propeller's rotation disk that
is blocked by the fuselage doesn't provide much thrust. For the kind
of planes we are discussing this is perhaps the first 24 inches of
prop diameter.
The third limiting factor is the speed of sound. If the propeller
tips go too fast (around .8 mach) then energy is wasted forming sonic
booms and related things rather than producing thrust. The prop tip
speed is a direct function of the prop's length and the operating RPM.
This all leaves a rather narrow range for a propeller to use on any
given airplane design. The limit includes both the length and
maximum propeller RPM. If you choose an engine that produces its
best power at a higher RPM then you need to install a PSRU to allow
both the engine and propeller to operate efficiently. The PSRU
consumes a considerable amount of engine power and also introduces a
significant new point of failure for the power plant. You would only
want one if needed to get sufficient power from the engine converted
into thrust to make the whole plane work well.
Engines designed for light plane use will not need a PSRU. They are
designed to operate at appropriately low RPM. Sometimes, engines
designed for other purposes like running automobiles or snowmobiles
will require a PSRU to be compatible with propellers.
Paul
XL getting close
At 08:52 AM 10/24/2008, you wrote:
<pete@usjabiru.com>
>
>I don't think it is a fact when applied to a light aircraft like a 701.
>We've just completed testing with our 85 hp Jabiru 2200 powered CH701
using
>a 62 inch Sensenich ground adjustable prop and a Tennessee Props 62 inch
>wood prop. We are off the ground in less than 100 ft and climb at 800+
fpm.
>No redrive is used and prop turns about 3000 rpm on takeoff and climb out.
>At cruise we see 87 mph (verified by GPS several times) at normal cruise
rpm
>of 2950.
>
>Maybe for big heavy slow aircraft a longer slower turning prop may be
needed
>but for a 701 it just doesn't make much difference. Those who saw our
701
>at the Zenith open house can attest that is does get off the ground in a
>hurry and climbs very steeply at 50 mph.
>
>
>Pete Krotje
>Jabiru USA Sport Aircraft, LLC
>931-680-2800
>www.usjabiru.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dirk Zahtilla
>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:35 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices?
>
<ideaz1@sbcglobal.net>
>
>
>The use of a re-drive to allow a longer prop at lower speeds is really
>critical not to get more horsepower but to use what you have to the best
>efficiency. This is just a proven fact. If not, nobody but nobody would
>bother dragging around all that extra hardware.
>Z
>
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
Some of the 3-blade installations I've seen on small planes would have been better
off with 2 blades but the builder wanted that faster LOOK that you get with
more blades.
Remember all things being equal the more effeceint prop is the one with the fewer
blades right down to 1.
jimandmandy(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> Do you happen to know what factors dictate number of blades? Ive seen some three
bladed props on Rotax 912 installations, so it cant be hp alone. It made some
sense to be when looking at large transport aircraft with reduction geared
radials, where maximum diameter was limited by ground clearance. Two blade props
were generally used under 1000hp, three up to about 2000hp and four blades
above that.
--------
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=210152#210152
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
Yes, it has been proved that a single, counterbalanced blade is the most efficient.?
It is simply not acceptable because of the LOOK.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 3:56 pm
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices?
Some of the 3-blade installations I've seen on small planes would have been
better off with 2 blades but the builder wanted that faster LOOK that you get
with more blades.
Remember all things being equal the more effeceint prop is the one with the
fewer blades right down to 1.
jimandmandy(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> Do you happen to know what factors dictate number of blades? Ive seen some
three bladed props on Rotax 912 installations, so it cant be hp alone. It made
some sense to be when looking at large transport aircraft with reduction geared
radials, where maximum diameter was limited by ground clearance. Two blade props
were generally used under 1000hp, three up to about 2000hp and four blades above
that.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
> 62 inch Sensenich ground adjustable prop and a Tennessee Props 62 inch
wood prop
So which prop performed better? I know which one is less expensive.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete Krotje
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices?
I don't think it is a fact when applied to a light aircraft like a 701.
We've just completed testing with our 85 hp Jabiru 2200 powered CH701 using
a 62 inch Sensenich ground adjustable prop and a Tennessee Props 62 inch
wood prop. We are off the ground in less than 100 ft and climb at 800+ fpm.
No redrive is used and prop turns about 3000 rpm on takeoff and climb out.
At cruise we see 87 mph (verified by GPS several times) at normal cruise rpm
of 2950.
Maybe for big heavy slow aircraft a longer slower turning prop may be needed
but for a 701 it just doesn't make much difference. Those who saw our 701
at the Zenith open house can attest that is does get off the ground in a
hurry and climbs very steeply at 50 mph.
Pete Krotje
Jabiru USA Sport Aircraft, LLC
931-680-2800
www.usjabiru.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dirk Zahtilla
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices?
The use of a re-drive to allow a longer prop at lower speeds is really
critical not to get more horsepower but to use what you have to the best
efficiency. This is just a proven fact. If not, nobody but nobody would
bother dragging around all that extra hardware.
Z
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
Efficiency, ground clearance, noise and power all factor in to the
number of blades used on a prop.
The most efficient propellor is a single blade prop with a counter
balance. This arrangement has actually been used on a few motor
gliders but it isn't very practical for high power applications
because of the unbalanced moment it applies to the end of the prop
shaft. In general, the more blades a propellor has the more
aerodynamic interference there is between the blades, which hurts
efficiency.
The most common prop has two blades because this gives the highest
efficiency for most applications. The more power your engine produces,
the more power the propellor has to absorb. Three ways to increase the
amount of power a prop can absorb are to increase the pitch, chord or
length of the prop. There is a practical limit to how much you can do
any combination of these things. You may run out of ground clearance
or start getting too much sonic losses if the blade get too long, you
may start to exceed the maximum angle of attack if the pitch gets too
high, etc. At some point, the only way to absorb more power may be to
start adding blades.
Another factor is noise, in at least one case I know of, the original
two blade prop had such high tip speeds on take-off that it was
extremely noisy, so a shorter, three blade prop was substituted to
reduce the noise level. Another point to consider is that a three
blade prop produces a higher pitched sound which generally dissipates
more rapidly over distance than a lower pitched sound. You give up a
little bit of efficiency but keep the neighbors happy.
On Oct 24, 2008, at 3:24 PM, Jimbo wrote:
> Do you happen to know what factors dictate number of blades? Ive
> seen some three bladed props on Rotax 912 installations, so it cant
> be hp alone. It made some sense to be when looking at large
> transport aircraft with reduction geared radials, where maximum
> diameter was limited by ground clearance. Two blade props were
> generally used under 1000hp, three up to about 2000hp and four
> blades above that.
>
> ---
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
Yes, looks play a factor also. The swept back vertical tails on many
light aircraft actually hurt the performance of the airplane, but they
look good, so that's why they're there.
On Oct 24, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> Some of the 3-blade installations I've seen on small planes would
> have been better off with 2 blades but the builder wanted that
> faster LOOK that you get with more blades.
>
> Remember all things being equal the more effeceint prop is the one
> with the fewer blades right down to 1.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
Performance was pretty much the same. We had the Sensenich pitched to give
about 80 rpm more than the TN Prop so it climbed just a bit faster but I was
quite happy with both.
Next week we will test the latest Sensenich wood design that was made
specifically for the 701. Once that testing is complete we will offer that
701 for sale.
Pete Krotje
Jabiru USA Sport Aircraft, LLC
931-680-2800
www.usjabiru.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices?
> 62 inch Sensenich ground adjustable prop and a Tennessee Props 62 inch
wood prop
So which prop performed better? I know which one is less expensive.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete Krotje
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices?
I don't think it is a fact when applied to a light aircraft like a 701.
We've just completed testing with our 85 hp Jabiru 2200 powered CH701 using
a 62 inch Sensenich ground adjustable prop and a Tennessee Props 62 inch
wood prop. We are off the ground in less than 100 ft and climb at 800+ fpm.
No redrive is used and prop turns about 3000 rpm on takeoff and climb out.
At cruise we see 87 mph (verified by GPS several times) at normal cruise rpm
of 2950.
Maybe for big heavy slow aircraft a longer slower turning prop may be needed
but for a 701 it just doesn't make much difference. Those who saw our 701
at the Zenith open house can attest that is does get off the ground in a
hurry and climbs very steeply at 50 mph.
Pete Krotje
Jabiru USA Sport Aircraft, LLC
931-680-2800
www.usjabiru.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dirk Zahtilla
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices?
The use of a re-drive to allow a longer prop at lower speeds is really
critical not to get more horsepower but to use what you have to the best
efficiency. This is just a proven fact. If not, nobody but nobody would
bother dragging around all that extra hardware.
Z
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: Off Topic: Winter Hanger "Warm Box" |
For warming boxes I have used 2" foam glued together with RTV. Light, easy
to construct, and well insulated.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst."
----- Original Message -----
From: "DaveG601XL" <david.m.gallagher@ge.com>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 6:30 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Off Topic: Winter Hanger "Warm Box"
>
> I am about to go through my first winter in a hanger. I have some
> chemicals like cleaners, polishing compounds, etc. that have the
> recommendation to not let freeze. I would rather keep these at the hanger
> instead of trying to remember to haul them back and forth from home. I
> remember hearing or reading a recommendation a while back about building a
> box and putting a light bulb inside it. The idea is that the bulb would
> provide just enough heat to keep things from freezing, but not too much to
> cause a fire hazard.
>
> I am on southern Ohio where we usually do get too terribly cold, as
> compared to you Wisconsin guys, but do see plenty of days below freezing.
> I was thinking of a plywood box lined with aluminum foil and a 75 or 100
> watt bulb. Any helpful hints or suggestions on box construction,
> insulation and safety concerns?
>
> Thanks
> do not archive
>
> --------
> David Gallagher
> 601 XL/Jabiru 3300
> First flight 7/24/08
> Phase I flight test complete 10/16/08
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210073#210073
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
7:25 AM
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
Don't forget that a redrive multiples torque to the prop. This does give a 80hp
redrive an advantage over a 80 hp direct drive of the same engine in swinging
a prop at the same RPM and engine torque. The redrive engine has a greater latitude
of pitch because of the higher prop torque available, as well as bland
length options.
And don't forget that the 912S is limited to 5 min on top too.
Kevin
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210168#210168
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
Hi Jimbo,
I'm just guessing, but I think you have the most important issue when
you mention power. There is some limit to the amount of power, i.e.
thrust, you can get from one blade. Adding blades makes sense when
your power is more than a two blade prop can handle.
One other issue that applies to our size planes. The ultralight
community led to a lot of products for low power engines. Perhaps
some of them exist simply because people with money thought they were
cool. This may well explain why there are so many fancy multi-blade
propellers available for engines up to 100 HP.
Paul
XL getting close
At 12:24 PM 10/24/2008, you wrote:
>Do you happen to know what factors dictate number of blades? Ive
>seen some three bladed props on Rotax 912 installations, so it cant
>be hp alone. It made some sense to be when looking at large
>transport aircraft with reduction geared radials, where maximum
>diameter was limited by ground clearance. Two blade props were
>generally used under 1000hp, three up to about 2000hp and four
>blades above that.
>
>--- On Fri, 10/24/08, Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net> wrote:
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices?
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Date: Friday, October 24, 2008, 9:43 AM
>
>
>
>
>Hi
>
> Guys,
>
>
>I agree with both of you to some degree, but my reasons are different
>
>from the ones you wrote.
>
>
>I think there are some limits on propeller length that must be considered.
>
>
>First, if a propeller is too long the tips will hit the ground and
>
>the prop will be damaged or destroyed. This gives a maximum prop
>
>length controlled by the airplane's landing gear and engine position.
>
>
>On the other end, the portion of the propeller's rotation disk that
>
>is blocked by the fuselage doesn't provide much thrust. For the kind
>
>of planes we are discussing this is perhaps the first 24 inches of
>
>prop diameter.
>
>
>The third limiting factor is the speed of sound. If the propeller
>
>tips go too fast (around .8 mach) then energy is wasted forming sonic
>
>booms and related things rather than producing thrust. The prop tip
>
>speed is a direct function of the prop's length and the operating RPM.
>
>
>This all
>
> leaves a rather narrow range for a propeller to use on any
>
>given airplane design. The limit includes both the length and
>
>maximum propeller RPM. If you choose an engine that produces its
>
>best power at a higher RPM then you need to install a PSRU to allow
>
>both the engine and propeller to operate efficiently. The PSRU
>
>consumes a considerable amount of engine power and also introduces a
>
>significant new point of failure for the power plant. You would only
>
>want one if needed to get sufficient power from the engine converted
>
>into thrust to make the whole plane work well.
>
>
>Engines designed for light plane use will not need a PSRU. They are
>
>designed to operate at appropriately low RPM. Sometimes, engines
>
>designed for other purposes like running automobiles or snowmobiles
>
>will require a PSRU to be compatible with propellers.
>
>
>Paul
>
>XL getting close
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: Which Of Two STOL CH7XX Building Choices? |
Bryan gives an excellent explanation of prop physics. In a prior plane I
built I had an IVO 3 blade electric adjust prop. Because of the size and
weight of the plane and engine many factors don't applly. I did however
have real world experience as I could in a few minutes switch from 3 to
2 blades. I also could adjust the pitch in flight to get max efficiency
at any time, i.e. climbing or cruise. The results were that 3 blades
were a bit quieter and smoother (less vibration) and climb was improved.
With 2 blades top level speed was about 3-4% higher, but of course climb
suffered a bit. Remember I was able to adjust the pitch at will so as to
get the most of the prop in any conditions, so theres no question of
making a bad choice of pitch.
I preferred the 3 blades for my use as the climb and smoothness was more
important to me than a slight speed improvement.
The differences were subtle but noticeable.
Dirk Z
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: | My lengthy, upbeat update. |
I dont know about anyone else, but Im having a blast
building my airplane. Im four years into the project
and can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Ill
have the canopy finished in the next day or two, then
its a lot of little finishing details. Its also
about time to start the FAA paperwork.
If youre getting bogged down in your build, make sure
you at least look at your project every day. Like
many others, Ive had some slow periods, but now that
its all coming together, the excitement is
incredible.
Id thought about building a plane since the early
80s, but other things kept getting in the way. Boy,
I sure wish I had done this years ago.
If youre thinking about getting started but are
worried about the money, all I can say is that my wife
and I live a normal middle-class lifestyle and dont
have much in the way of extra income. By chosing the
601XL, I was able to buy individual kits instead of
the entire airplane, which helped me spread the money
out over a few years. I built my Corvair engine using
the William Wynne conversion manual and all of his
parts. This not only saved me a lot of money, but I
went from knowing nothing about engines, to becoming
an engine builder. Starting my engine for the first
time was one of the most exciting things Ive ever
experienced.
Let me share my excitement with you. On November
15th, Ill be trailering my nearly-complete airplane
with running engine to the Grand Opening of F.L.A.G.
(First Light Aviation Group) in Livermore, CA. Check
out FLAGs website (flaglvk.com) or Williams Wynnes
website (flycorvair.com) for details about the event.
Come and hang out with other builders, meet some
really great people, check out Rick Lindstroms great
new facility and rejuvenate your spirit.
I live ten minutes away from FLAG, so if youre coming
a long distance and need a place to crash, let me
know. Ive got two couches and an inflatable bed.
Rich Vetterli
601XL/Corvair
95% done, 80 % to go.
Check out my progress at: www.geocities.com/stixx5a
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: My lengthy, upbeat update. |
I will be there Rich! I am coming from Central Oregon and I plan on
starting on my engine at FLAG. See you there.
Larry Husky
Madras, Oregon
In a message dated 10/24/2008 9:34:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
richvetterli@yahoo.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Richard Vetterli <richvetterli@yahoo.co
m>
I don=99t know about anyone else, but I=99m having a blast
building my airplane. I=99m four years into the project
and can see the light at the end of the tunnel. I=99ll
have the canopy finished in the next day or two, then
it=99s a lot of little finishing details. It=99s also
about time to start the FAA paperwork.
If you=99re getting bogged down in your build, make sure
you at least look at your project every day. Like
many others, I=99ve had some slow periods, but now that
it=99s all coming together, the excitement is
incredible.
I=99d thought about building a plane since the early
80=99s, but other things kept getting in the way. Boy,
I sure wish I had done this years ago.
If you=99re thinking about getting started but are
worried about the money, all I can say is that my wife
and I live a normal middle-class lifestyle and don=99t
have much in the way of extra income. By chosing the
601XL, I was able to buy individual kits instead of
the entire airplane, which helped me spread the money
out over a few years. I built my Corvair engine using
the William Wynne conversion manual and all of his
parts. This not only saved me a lot of money, but I
went from knowing nothing about engines, to becoming
an engine builder. Starting my engine for the first
time was one of the most exciting things I=99ve ever
experienced.
Let me share my excitement with you. On November
15th, I=99ll be trailering my nearly-complete airplane
with running engine to the Grand Opening of F.L.A.G.
(First Light Aviation Group) in Livermore, CA. Check
out FLAG=99s website (flaglvk.com) or Williams Wynne=99s
website (flycorvair.com) for details about the event.
Come and hang out with other builders, meet some
really great people, check out Rick Lindstrom=99s great
new facility and rejuvenate your spirit.
I live ten minutes away from FLAG, so if you=99re coming
a long distance and need a place to crash, let me
know. I=99ve got two couches and an inflatable bed.
Rich Vetterli
601XL/Corvair
95% done, 80 % to go.
Check out my progress at: www.geocities.com/stixx5a
**************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites
,
no registration required and great graphics =93 check it out!
http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)
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: Off Topic: Winter Hanger "Warm Box" |
I went to the local hardware store and purchased a thermostat and it truns
on and off a 500 watt heat lamp in my small well house.-- it keeps it a
round 45 degrees F .-- The well house is well insulated and it works ve
ry good.--I live in Tx so my temps are warmer than yours but gives you
a idea anyway.
-
Gary
--- On Fri, 10/24/08, DaveG601XL <david.m.gallagher@ge.com> wrote:
From: DaveG601XL <david.m.gallagher@ge.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Off Topic: Winter Hanger "Warm Box"
<david.m.gallagher@ge.com>
I am about to go through my first winter in a hanger. I have some chemical
s
like cleaners, polishing compounds, etc. that have the recommendation to no
t let
freeze. I would rather keep these at the hanger instead of trying to remem
ber
to haul them back and forth from home. I remember hearing or reading a
recommendation a while back about building a box and putting a light bulb i
nside
it. The idea is that the bulb would provide just enough heat to keep thing
s
from freezing, but not too much to cause a fire hazard.
I am on southern Ohio where we usually do get too terribly cold, as compare
d to
you Wisconsin guys, but do see plenty of days below freezing. I was thinki
ng of
a plywood box lined with aluminum foil and a 75 or 100 watt bulb. Any help
ful
hints or suggestions on box construction, insulation and safety concerns?
Thanks
do not archive
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL/Jabiru 3300
First flight 7/24/08
Phase I flight test complete 10/16/08
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210073#210073
=0A=0A=0A
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! --
|