---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 07/10/09: 24 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:41 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Scotsman) 2. 06:59 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (James) 3. 10:49 AM - Most recent letter from Chris (roger lambert) 4. 11:28 AM - Re: Most recent letter from Chris (Dave) 5. 11:49 AM - 601XL transition training () 6. 11:55 AM - tight fit tool (Carlos Sa) 7. 12:10 PM - Re: tight fit tool (Stanley Challgren) 8. 12:13 PM - Re: tight fit tool (Ken Arnold) 9. 12:22 PM - Re: 601XL transition training (Gig Giacona) 10. 12:24 PM - Re: tight fit tool (Rick Lindstrom) 11. 12:30 PM - Re: Most recent letter from Chris (dougsire) 12. 12:52 PM - Re: tight fit tool (Carlos Sa) 13. 01:49 PM - A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Gig Giacona) 14. 02:09 PM - Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (ihab.awad@gmail.com) 15. 02:37 PM - Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Craig Payne) 16. 02:52 PM - Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (jetboy) 17. 03:43 PM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Paul Mulwitz) 18. 03:54 PM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Juan Vega) 19. 04:06 PM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Paul Mulwitz) 20. 04:08 PM - Re: Most recent letter from Chris (Juan Vega) 21. 04:22 PM - Re: Tool test... (n801bh@netzero.com) 22. 04:25 PM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (n801bh@netzero.com) 23. 04:44 PM - Re: tight fit tool (Craig Payne) 24. 07:11 PM - Re: tight fit tool (Ron Lendon) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:41:22 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today From: "Scotsman" Guys...probably time to drop this one. There is no point getting all heated about it as you are not realistically going to be able to change each others' opinions. The letter provides for consideration of both sides of the argument and importantly takes our safety (whether pilot and/or design impaired) as a primary concern. Let's wait and see what comes of of this as half of the nonsense on this thread will not achieve/solve anything. I look forward to hearing from Chris after the review is complete. Enjoy your building in the meantime. James -------- Cell +27 83 675 0815 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252418#252418 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:59:50 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today From: "James" I, for one, hope you folks don't stop the debate. I find it damn entertaining. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252430#252430 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 10:49:32 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Most recent letter from Chris From: roger lambert As some of you are not following ZBAG, I thought you might like the response to Jim's recent letter concerning flutter. Those in quotation marks are ZBAG's reply to Jim's statements, and the others are my reply to that. As recently stated: "It is my belief that the only FEA models of the 601XL/650 wing prior to the recently completed tests for the DAeC, are the models developed in conjunction with ZBAG by Mark Sensmeier and Jim Helbling, and by Stephen Mitchell." None of those models were validated by GVT, yet were sent to the NTSB. Have the GVT results supplied by Zenith been applied to those FEA models to re-evaluate those opinions? " I have absolutely no doubt that it would be possible to design a 601XL without counterbalances that would be immune to flutter with the controls disconnected." Why would you want to have an aircraft designed as immune to flutter with the controls disconnected? You couldn't fly it. Also, as has been stated by numerous authorities, an aircraft is supposed to be designed not to flutter within its flight envelope as properly maintained. " I believe that Jim is probably correct that the 601XL wing will not flutter if the cable tension is high enough. However, it is obvious from Mat Heintz' AvWeb Podcast that the 601XL wing will flutter with slack control cables. And it is apparent from the same Podcast that, by adding counterbalances, the wing will not flutter." Therefore, flutter can be prevented by merely maintaining the cable tensions at the levels proscribed by the designer without any further design change, including counterbalances. " So, while it is obviously possible to design a flutter-free, modern aircraft without counterbalances, the cost effective solution to the flutter problem for almost all aluminum skin general aviation aircraft is to just add counterbalances so that the aircraft meets the criteria of A&E Report No. 45. And that is why you find counterbalances on the vast majority of small aluminum skinned aircraft, be they FAA certificated or E-AB's." How is it cost effective to redesign the aileron control system to meet some criteria, that it was not designed to meet initially, by the addition of counterbalanced ailerons and any associated structures, when you agree that the flutter can be prevented within the aircraft's flight envelope by maintaining the cable tension as designed? Also my two cents worth ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:28:29 AM PST US From: "Dave" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Most recent letter from Chris Very interesting Roger. I have not quoted the entire posting just the one sentence, hope you don't mind. I think you might be approaching this from the standpoint that you do not want these aileron counterbalance. If you discard that position and look at it instead as a question of will these balances improve the aircraft, or even a more open perspective of will they hurt it you may come away with different opinion of the posting. We appear to be fairly reassured that flutter is not an issue with cables at proper tension, adding balances is not required. On the other hand they need not be heavy or complex and then flutter mitigation would not require a specific cable tension (although flight control would certainly require some tension). If they are added the ailerons would certainly not flutter even with no tension, controls disconnected (the ultimate slack) flutter would then never be an issue, under any circumstances. Now I regard that as an improvement. I don't think the author was advocating for flight minus controls. If such a mod is approved, it should be optional, but any further attempt to vilify ZBAG simply because of this wording will only serve to further split the Zenith community. Is there anyone here who still believes the XL WILL experience destructive flutter with these cables properly tensioned? That's not COULD, I specifically asked WILL. Further is there anyone here who would object to the existence of an optional mod that would remove COULD from the equation? If the answer to these questions is no, we should surely not be at each others throats over it. If the answer is yes, I'd be surprised, but the attitudes of some list members toward this has already surprised me so no change there! ----- Original Message ----- From: roger lambert To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 2:48 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Most recent letter from Chris " I have absolutely no doubt that it would be possible to design a 601XL without counterbalances that would be immune to flutter with the controls disconnected." ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:49:36 AM PST US From: Subject: Zenith-List: 601XL transition training << Hmm, I can think of three possibilities but none are terribly close: - Ed Moody got some time-in-type "near" New Orleans. Let's see if he picks up on this thread. >> I did my dual training in an AMD 601XL LSA at TVR (Tallulah Vicksburg Regional) with Nassour Aviation. Now the bad news... that plane failed to make it out of a short grass field at high takeoff weight a few weeks ago, so it is out of action for the near future. I have only 15.25 hours on my XL and will not be Phase 2 legal for at least a couple of months. After that I would be happy to take up an XL builder for some dual time. I am not a CFI and cannot endorse your logbook so you would still need to find a CFI with an XL to make your insurance company happy. Ed ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 11:55:49 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: tight fit tool From: Carlos Sa Hello, all Over the years, I have read a number of favorable comments regarding the tight fit tool (http://www.tightfittools.com/index.html), so I ordered one: http://www.tightfittools.com/tigfitdrilki1.html In testing it, I noticed the drill bit wobbled significantly. I wrote to them and they promptly sent me another tool, no charge (I told them I would send the first tool back, and they told me to keep it...!) The second tool arrived yesterday - same result ! I have written to them again, but they close on Fridays. See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TXGFprtlk Have others experienced this problem? Carlos Sa CH601-HD, plans ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 12:10:45 PM PST US From: Stanley Challgren Subject: Re: Zenith-List: tight fit tool Carlos: I had a problem with the first one I bought and they cheerfully sent me a second one at no charge. It fulfills its intended purpose and I am satisfied with it. Stan Challgren On Jul 10, 2009, at 12:54 , Carlos Sa wrote: > Hello, all > > > Over the years, I have read a number of favorable comments regarding > the tight fit tool (http://www.tightfittools.com/index.html), so I > ordered one: > http://www.tightfittools.com/tigfitdrilki1.html > In testing it, I noticed the drill bit wobbled significantly. I > wrote to them and they promptly sent me another tool, no charge (I > told them I would send the first tool back, and they told me to keep > it...!) > The second tool arrived yesterday - same result ! I have written to > them again, but they close on Fridays. > See this video: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TXGFprtlk > > Have others experienced this problem? > > > Carlos Sa > CH601-HD, plans ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 12:13:42 PM PST US From: "Ken Arnold" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: tight fit tool Carlos, They open at 8:00 am PST Monday. Suggest you contact them again. Sounds like you are building up a reserve quantity of tight fit tools. Good luck, Ken do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Carlos Sa To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 2:54 PM Subject: Zenith-List: tight fit tool Hello, all Over the years, I have read a number of favorable comments regarding the tight fit tool (http://www.tightfittools.com/index.html), so I ordered one: http://www.tightfittools.com/tigfitdrilki1.html In testing it, I noticed the drill bit wobbled significantly. I wrote to them and they promptly sent me another tool, no charge (I told them I would send the first tool back, and they told me to keep it...!) The second tool arrived yesterday - same result ! I have written to them again, but they close on Fridays. See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TXGFprtlk Have others experienced this problem? Carlos Sa CH601-HD, plans ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 12:22:15 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL transition training From: "Gig Giacona" That sucks so bad. I hope no one was hurt. Dr. Ed, Get you butt a flying. Sounds like I'm going to need you. Dave, that was the CFI and airplane I was talking about for you. -------- 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=252461#252461 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:24:40 PM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith-List: tight fit tool Well, Carlos, with just a few minor additions, you could resell it as a marital aid? (grinning, ducking, and running!) Rick PLEASE do not archive -----Original Message----- >From: Carlos Sa >Sent: Jul 10, 2009 2:54 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: Zenith-List: tight fit tool > >Hello, all > > >Over the years, I have read a number of favorable comments regarding the >tight fit tool (http://www.tightfittools.com/index.html), so I ordered one: >http://www.tightfittools.com/tigfitdrilki1.html >In testing it, I noticed the drill bit wobbled significantly. I wrote to >them and they promptly sent me another tool, no charge (I told them I would >send the first tool back, and they told me to keep it...!) >The second tool arrived yesterday - same result ! I have written to them >again, but they close on Fridays. >See this video: >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TXGFprtlk > >Have others experienced this problem? > > >Carlos Sa >CH601-HD, plans ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 12:30:53 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Most recent letter from Chris From: "dougsire" Roger, There is no "ZBAG reply" as you state, "Those in quotation marks are ZBAG's reply to Jim's statements". There is no global ZBAG headquarters where opinions are promulgated and press releases generated. It is simply a forum for those individuals wishing to discuss 601XL design issues in a civil and intelligent matter. To state otherwise is a misleading statement. -------- Doug Sire 601XL Do Not Archive Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252463#252463 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 12:52:21 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: tight fit tool From: Carlos Sa ...and some people think this list is no longer entertaining... Well, we try, don't we, Rick... 2009/7/10 Rick Lindstrom > tigerrick@mindspring.com> > > Well, Carlos, with just a few minor additions, you could resell it as a > marital aid? > > (grinning, ducking, and running!) > > Rick > > PLEASE do not archive > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:49:33 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight From: "Gig Giacona" The following was written by Andy Elliot and posted on the Zenith Aircraft Builder's & Flyer's forum. Since he doesn't post to this list any more he gave me permission to post this here. Planes obey the laws of physics like nearly everything else. It is not just the weight of the plane that produces flight loads, it is the weight x G loading. So if the plane's design somehow suddenly became weaker (which seems illogical), and now is limited to +4 G's at 1255#, you could still safely fly it at 1320# if you limit yourself to just +3.8 G's. Not so bad, eh? In fact, I certified my 601XL (non-LSA) to 1450# max gross weight, but at reduced G limits of +3.6, -1.6. Not much of a restriction in my book, and I tested the gear (Grove) at the higher weight during Phase 1 and found it acceptable. A PDF copy of the flight load limit diagram that appears in my POH is attached. For reference, I am also attaching the CG most forward and max aft limit pages from my POH, which show how the CG range also changes at various weights. You should have, or will be, required by your DAR to produce similar diagrams for your plane for certification. As for the 140 MIAS VNE change, well if that effects you directly, Congratulations! The net result is that if you fly the plane within its limits, either old or "temporarily recommended" you still have a highly useful machine. Andy Elliott N601GE/ TD / Corvair -------- 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=252478#252478 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 02:09:50 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight From: ihab.awad@gmail.com On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Gig Giacona wrote: > Planes obey the laws of physics like nearly everything else. It is not just the > weight of the plane that produces flight loads, it is the weight x G loading. Yes, but gusts and turbulence may impose a G loading on your aircraft that is independent of your control inputs. For example, would you also not need to reduce your Va? Ihab ps "Nearly" everything? *Nearly*? Hmmm.... :) -- Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 02:37:15 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight Things which do not obey the laws of physics: - Wile E. Coyote - my bank account - nearly everything in Sci-Fi movies -- Craig Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ihab.awad@gmail.com Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 3:00 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Gig Giacona wrote: > Planes obey the laws of physics like nearly everything else. It is not just the > weight of the plane that produces flight loads, it is the weight x G loading. Yes, but gusts and turbulence may impose a G loading on your aircraft that is independent of your control inputs. For example, would you also not need to reduce your Va? Ihab ps "Nearly" everything? *Nearly*? Hmmm.... :) -- Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 02:52:10 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight From: "jetboy" I asked Andy about changing limit speeds and he agreed there should be a reduction to Va Actually this subject is more complicated dependent on which category of operation the aircraft is registered for. In New Zealand CH601, HD and XL and CH701 are only eligible to be registered as a microlight if they comply with the design rules of Canadian Advanced Ultralight spec. TC10141E (now DS10141E) or the British BCAR-S which is a more stringent rule. Both these design rules require flutter testing which it seems the LSA (ASTM) does not. These aircraft cannot be modified without designer approval and must continue to comply with the design rules subsequent to any modification. The DS10141E spec includes a clause requiring design limit load of not less than 4G. I have no idea what the ASTM allows for LSA because that information is not publicly available. Therefore if you were to operate over the design gross there would need a restriction on the various limit airspeeds Vfe, Vc, Va, Vne ? Most countries would only allow operations above design gross wt. if the aircraft was being operated in Experimental category and the test pilot had proved it safe. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252488#252488 ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 03:43:02 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight Hi Ralph, Oddly, it has been common practice in my flying experience to nearly always fly some planes over the MTOW. I don't know the formal treatment of this question, but the informal treatment I have heard from several instructors suggests the FAA's version of MTOW is ultra-conservative and should only be considered a serious limit at high density altitudes. The prime example of this issue is the Cessna 150. Many of us learned to fly with dual instruction in this humble plane. When it carries two adult males it is almost certainly a couple of hundred pounds over gross weight. It still flies just fine, but the climb rate is very low. Even solo with a teenager at the controls the climb rate on this fine old plane is not very impressive. Historically, I have always considered CG to be a much more important specification than gross weight. Of course this thinking only works if you fly the plane gently. (On the other hand, all the aerobatic maneuvers I learned were done with two adults in a C-152 . . .). I don't know about Vne, Va or other performance limits. From my point of view these only come into play when you fly the plane in very harsh conditions or with a very heavy hand on the stick or throttle. Paul XL grounded At 02:47 PM 7/10/2009, you wrote: >Most countries would only allow operations above design gross wt. if >the aircraft was being operated in Experimental category and the >test pilot had proved it safe. >Ralph ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 03:54:55 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight Paul, Ignoring MTOW is playing Russian roullette. PLay at your own peril. Juan -----Original Message----- >From: Paul Mulwitz >Sent: Jul 10, 2009 6:39 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight > > >Hi Ralph, > >Oddly, it has been common practice in my flying experience to nearly >always fly some planes over the MTOW. I don't know the formal >treatment of this question, but the informal treatment I have heard >from several instructors suggests the FAA's version of MTOW is >ultra-conservative and should only be considered a serious limit at >high density altitudes. > >The prime example of this issue is the Cessna 150. Many of us >learned to fly with dual instruction in this humble plane. When it >carries two adult males it is almost certainly a couple of hundred >pounds over gross weight. It still flies just fine, but the climb >rate is very low. Even solo with a teenager at the controls the >climb rate on this fine old plane is not very impressive. > >Historically, I have always considered CG to be a much more important >specification than gross weight. Of course this thinking only works >if you fly the plane gently. (On the other hand, all the aerobatic >maneuvers I learned were done with two adults in a C-152 . . .). > >I don't know about Vne, Va or other performance limits. From my >point of view these only come into play when you fly the plane in >very harsh conditions or with a very heavy hand on the stick or throttle. > >Paul >XL grounded > > >At 02:47 PM 7/10/2009, you wrote: >>Most countries would only allow operations above design gross wt. if >>the aircraft was being operated in Experimental category and the >>test pilot had proved it safe. >>Ralph > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 04:06:51 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight OK, Juan. I'll bite. What outcome would you expect from flying over gross weight? We all know it will reduce the climb rate. We also know that Va increases with increased weight. This would seem to suggest that structure failures are less likely with excess weight rather than more likely (the plane is more likely to stall than sustain high G's). So, what is the big problem with excess weight? Paul do not archive At 03:52 PM 7/10/2009, you wrote: >Paul, >Ignoring MTOW is playing Russian roullette. PLay at your own peril. > > >Juan ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 04:08:16 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Most recent letter from Chris Dave, i don't understand, whats your point? Juan -----Original Message----- >From: Dave >Sent: Jul 10, 2009 2:27 PM >To: zenith-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Most recent letter from Chris > >Very interesting Roger. I have not quoted the entire posting just the one sentence, hope you don't mind. > >I think you might be approaching this from the standpoint that you do not want these aileron counterbalance. If you discard that position and look at it instead as a question of will these balances improve the aircraft, or even a more open perspective of will they hurt it you may come away with different opinion of the posting. We appear to be fairly reassured that flutter is not an issue with cables at proper tension, adding balances is not required. On the other hand they need not be heavy or complex and then flutter mitigation would not require a specific cable tension (although flight control would certainly require some tension). If they are added the ailerons would certainly not flutter even with no tension, controls disconnected (the ultimate slack) flutter would then never be an issue, under any circumstances. Now I regard that as an improvement. I don't think the author was advocating for flight minus controls. If such a mod is approved, it should be optional, but any further attempt to vilify ZBAG simply because of this wording will only serve to further split the Zenith community. > >Is there anyone here who still believes the XL WILL experience destructive flutter with these cables properly tensioned? That's not COULD, I specifically asked WILL. Further is there anyone here who would object to the existence of an optional mod that would remove COULD from the equation? If the answer to these questions is no, we should surely not be at each others throats over it. If the answer is yes, I'd be surprised, but the attitudes of some list members toward this has already surprised me so no change there! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: roger lambert > To: zenith-list@matronics.com > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 2:48 PM > Subject: Zenith-List: Most recent letter from Chris > > > " I have absolutely no doubt that it would be possible to design a > 601XL without counterbalances that would be immune to flutter with the > controls disconnected." > ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 04:22:46 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Tool test... I just played the youtube video a few times and it appears your drill co llet/chuck has alot of runout. It might not be the bit at all.... IMHO do not archive Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Gig Giacona" Subject: Zenith-List: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight The following was written by Andy Elliot and posted on the Zenith Aircra ft Builder's & Flyer's forum. Since he doesn't post to this list any mor e he gave me permission to post this here. Planes obey the laws of physics like nearly everything else. It is not j ust the weight of the plane that produces flight loads, it is the weight x G loading. So if the plane's design somehow suddenly became weaker (w hich seems illogical), and now is limited to +4 G's at 1255#, you could still safely fly it at 1320# if you limit yourself to just +3.8 G's. Not so bad, eh? In fact, I certified my 601XL (non-LSA) to 1450# max gross weight, but a t reduced G limits of +3.6, -1.6. Not much of a restriction in my book, and I tested the gear (Grove) at the higher weight during Phase 1 and fo und it acceptable. A PDF copy of the flight load limit diagram that appe ars in my POH is attached. For reference, I am also attaching the CG most forward and max aft limit pages from my POH, which show how the CG range also changes at various weights. You should have, or will be, required by your DAR to produce si milar diagrams for your plane for certification. As for the 140 MIAS VNE change, well if that effects you directly, Congr atulations! The net result is that if you fly the plane within its limits, either ol d or "temporarily recommended" you still have a highly useful machine. Andy Elliott N601GE/ TD / Corvair -------- 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=252478#252478 ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ____________________________________________________________ Get your dream car or truck. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYYjRV7LULR5tzYuWjzD yJIW0Tfu8K178Zk6oJ88z4wJCZXkaBH6EI/ ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 04:25:17 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight My Zenith is an" EXPERIMENTAL".. I can make my MTOW 10,000 lbs if I wan t. do not archive. Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight OK, Juan. I'll bite. What outcome would you expect from flying over gross weight? We all know it will reduce the climb rate. We also know that Va increases with increased weight. This would seem to suggest that structure failures are less likely with excess weight rather than more likely (the plane is more likely to stall than sustain high G's). So, what is the big problem with excess weight? Paul do not archive At 03:52 PM 7/10/2009, you wrote: >Paul, >Ignoring MTOW is playing Russian roullette. PLay at your own peril. > > >Juan ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ======================== =========== ____________________________________________________________ Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYYipdGB2OFTqExcBkv1 cU1EgPNXxRp44pxUZpZYaQHWtYLeyx5V8c/ ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 04:44:05 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: tight fit tool Mine does not appear to have the same problem (what appears to be a misaligned chuck). In mine there is some free-play in the whole "final shaft". With a 2 inch long drill there is about 0.06 inch side-to-side free-play at the tip of the drill. This has never been a problem in actual use. -- Craig From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Sa Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:55 PM Subject: Zenith-List: tight fit tool Hello, all Over the years, I have read a number of favorable comments regarding the tight fit tool (http://www.tightfittools.com/index.html), so I ordered one: http://www.tightfittools.com/tigfitdrilki1.html In testing it, I noticed the drill bit wobbled significantly. I wrote to them and they promptly sent me another tool, no charge (I told them I would send the first tool back, and they told me to keep it...!) The second tool arrived yesterday - same result ! I have written to them again, but they close on Fridays. See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TXGFprtlk Have others experienced this problem? Carlos Sa CH601-HD, plans ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 07:11:26 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: tight fit tool From: "Ron Lendon" I agree with what Craig just said. The tool is loose but drills a good hole. As a matter of fact I picked up more bits at SnF and they drill good holes in the tight fit tool also. -------- Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon Corvair Engine Prints: http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/ Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252521#252521 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.