Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:13 AM - Chris' Last Letter (roger lambert)
2. 06:34 AM - Any builders/flyers in the Camarillo, CA area (Keith Ashcraft)
3. 06:39 AM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Juan Vega)
4. 07:03 AM - Re: Chris' Last Letter (Paul Mulwitz)
5. 07:09 AM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Juan Vega)
6. 07:15 AM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Rene Felker)
7. 07:17 AM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Paul Mulwitz)
8. 07:25 AM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Jay Maynard)
9. 07:39 AM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Carlos Sa)
10. 07:39 AM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Paul Mulwitz)
11. 07:47 AM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Paul Mulwitz)
12. 08:05 AM - Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Ken Arnold)
13. 08:17 AM - Re: tight fit tool (bryanekholm)
14. 10:44 AM - Re: Chris' Last Letter (Dave)
15. 02:13 PM - Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (vayuwings)
16. 02:43 PM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight ()
17. 02:55 PM - Re: Chris' Last Letter (JohnDRead@aol.com)
18. 03:57 PM - Re: Chris' Last Letter (Jay Maynard)
19. 03:58 PM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Juan Vega)
20. 04:11 PM - Re: Chris' Last Letter (Juan Vega)
21. 04:15 PM - Re: Chris' Last Letter (Dave)
22. 04:22 PM - Re: Chris' Last Letter (Dave)
23. 04:31 PM - Re: Chris' Last Letter (Jay Maynard)
24. 04:33 PM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Bryan Martin)
25. 04:34 PM - Re: Chris' Last Letter (T. Graziano)
26. 06:22 PM - Removing Duct Tape residue from Canopy...? (PatrickW)
27. 06:25 PM - SECOND FLIGHT (GLJSOJ1)
28. 06:35 PM - Re: Removing Duct Tape residue from Canopy...? (Paul Mulwitz)
29. 07:21 PM - Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (vayuwings)
30. 07:27 PM - Re: SECOND FLIGHT (leinad)
31. 08:36 PM - Re: Removing Duct Tape residue from Canopy...? (MHerder)
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: | Chris' Last Letter |
"We appear to be fairly reassured that flutter is not an issue with cables
at proper tension,
adding balances is not required."
Agreed.
"On the other hand they need not be heavy or complex"
Agreed with the proviso that some real engineering would be necessary,
including the possibility that additional GVT testng would be necessary. See
the recomendations at the end of the GVT report done by Zenith's contractor.
" 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. "
Flutter mitigation, within the flight envelope, and a properly maintained
airplane is already not an issue without adding additional structures. As
there would have to be a specific cable tension maintained, even with mass
balanced ailerons, that would have to be checked as part of your
maintainance schedule, you have gained nothing by the addition of the
balanced ailerons except redundancy.
"Now I regard that as an improvement. I don't think the author was
advocating for flight minus controls. "
Actually the author is on record as demanding that Zenith's GVT testing be
done with the control cables without tension. Try to imagine flying the
Zenith without tension between the stick and the ailerons. Your problem
would not be flutter if the cables loosened to zero in flight.
"If such a mod is approved, it should be optional,"
Agreed, but who will design and approve it.
" but any further attempt to vilify ZBAG simply because of this wording will
only serve to further split the Zenith community"
ZBAG is a group of adults who sent the results unverified computer models to
virtually every government regulating aircraft insisting that flutter was
the cause of the crashes. They also haven't used the GVT testing rsults from
Zenith to verify their model. They are big boys who should be able to stand
their statements being analyzed.
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: | Any builders/flyers in the Camarillo, CA area |
All,
I am TDY here in the Camarillo area and was wondering if any body is close buy
and wanted to get together.
I should be free from work on Sunday afternoon (July 12th)
Let me know.
Thanks,
Keith
719-332-4364
Ch701 -- scratch
N 38.9940
W 105.1305
Alt. 9,100'
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Paul,
your shitting me right?
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Jul 10, 2009 7:00 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>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 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: Chris' Last Letter |
Hi Roger,
This one little part of your post caught my attention.
At 06:11 AM 7/11/2009, you wrote:
>you have gained nothing by the addition of the balanced ailerons
>except redundancy.
I think my view of this situation would be better stated if you
changed the word redundancy to robustness.
We all know that the Zodiac XL is basically a very sound design that
meets not only the specific criteria of ASTM LSA standards but also
is desirable enough to have sold hundreds or thousands of copies to
builders and flyers. It has passed static load testing multiple
times. It has passed ground vibration testing. We don't know the
results of the other "Engineering design studies" since some have
been kept secret from the general public, but I think we can assume
there have been no "Smoking Guns" found to explain the real world
structure failures.
Nearly everyone who flies a Zodiac XL has a great experience with
it. However there have been enough fatal accidents involving
structural failure in flight that there is cause for alarm. So the
nature of the "Problem" with the XL is it lacks sufficient robustness
to have a great safety record instead of a pretty good one.
The XL design works fine in most cases. Some times in some unknown
set of conditions it fails to hold up. Stated differently: We need
to have more robustness in this design rather than a fix for a part
of the design which is broken.
The latest round of discussion of the aileron controls seems to
suggest that complete loss of aileron control due to slack cables is
an unthinkable situation. This is simply not true. Aileron control
is not required to allow for controlled flight.
There are three cables in the aileron control system. If any one of
them were severed then the tension in the system would be
removed. If it were the balance cable then the control stick would
still activate one of the ailerons when moved in either direction and
the pilot would be able to control movement about the aircraft's roll
axis. If either of the other cables (the ones going directly to one
wing) were severed, roll in one direction would still be controlled
and the other direction would be uncontrolled - as far as the aileron
system is concerned. However, roll in that direction and turning in
general would still be controllable through the rudder. Indeed if
the stick had no connection at all to the ailerons the rudder could
still be used to get the plane to fly in the direction desired by the
pilot. Yes, it would be uncoordinated flight, but that would only
make it a little bit uncomfortable for the occupants of the plane.
Put together this adds up to a robust system. Even complete loss of
aileron control leaves you with a controllable and flyable plane.
If loss of aileron cable tension leads to flutter and wing
separation, then the aileron cables become a critical system for
flight. Adding balance to the ailerons seems to change this by
removing any possibility of flutter when the aileron cable tension is
lost. This addition would restore some of the robustness to the
design that should have been there all along.
Paul
XL grounded
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Ladies,
I am headed to Wickee Wachee SPrings with the Kids, in the Mean Time, chew on
this piece from a n article from Mr. McGee. It starts on the basics of Overweight
issues on a lite wing loaded aircraft. Very Basic info but to the point.
ASk your self the questions after you read it,"do I want to deal with an over
maxed aircraft, and do I have the hours flown to understand how the plane will
behave at manuvering speeds at over gross" "WHat is my new stall speeds?".
As quoted from an article by Art Mcgee;
Aside from building a light plane, there is another option to achieve a reasonable
useful load. Under the FAA's Amateur Built Experimental aircraft guidelines,
the manufacturer (the builder) sets the gross weight of the aircraft. With
this flexibility you can increase the maximum gross weight to more than 800lbs.
Although the builder can assign any weight he feels appropriate, when doing
so he should keep in mind the original design load and the G load factor used
to determine the designed gross weight.
As you increase your gross weight, you must decrease the G rating of the aircraft
to keep from going over the design load of the aircraft. With this in mind,
let's go back to the information provided earlier about G rating, gross weight
and design load.
If you are willing to reduce your G ratings and use more precautions in rough conditions,
then you can increase your gross weight. Let's look back to the example
airplane. The gross weight was 800 lbs. and the empty weight was 472-lbs.
and left room after pilot fuel, and oil for 117.2 lbs. of passenger. If I were
to increase the gross weight to 900 pounds that would give me room for a 217.2-pound
passenger, which would give more flexibility in passengers.
I knew that if I lowered the maximum G ratings for my plane, that would increase
my gross weight. If you take the positive design load of 4800 lbs. and divide
it by the new maximum G rating of +5, that would give a gross weight of 960
lbs. If you take the negative design load of 2400 lbs. and divide it by 960lbs,
you get a G rating of -2.5G's.
This change leaves a fairly large margin of safety in turbulence and also gives
some increased utility since there is now a higher gross weight. This change
would now give me room for a passenger who weighed 277.2 pounds and would allow
me to carry anyone that I know who would want to fly. Increasing the gross weight
does not come without its drawbacks though.
The Down Side to Increasing Gross Weight
Like anything else in aviation, a gain in one place means a loss in another place.
There are some things to consider when raising the gross weight. Among those
things are decreased performance, increased fuel consumption, possible center
of gravity problems, and, of course, decreased G ratings.
Because of the higher gross weight, the take-off distance, landing distance and
stall speed will be increased and the climb rate will decrease. The pilot will
have to be aware of the G ratings when flying in turbulence and when doing yank
and bank flying. The pilot will have to remember when flying at the increased
weight to slow down more in turbulence and be easier on the controls. He will
also need to remember that stall speed will be higher and it will take more
distance to take off and land.
He will also have to pay more attention to the center of gravity. The Challenger
has a wide center of gravity envelope, but all of the weight that is placed
in the cockpit moves the CG forward. With higher payloads, you may go past the
forward limit for center of gravity. The good news is that if you are flying
solo, then you are most likely below 800 pound gross weight flying a plane with
a designed +6 and -3G range.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Jul 10, 2009 7:00 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>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 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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Juan, I don't think he is.....
For my RV-10, I added 100lbs to my gross weight after looking at the numbers.
Had an AE look at it and in the end had to reduce my max G loading by .2 G's at
the new gross weight. I tested at that weight to include aft C/G....could not
test forward CG "limit" since there is no way of getting up on the forward
with that much weight. The only real concern I had was with the gear and what
affect the 100 lbs would have. But since I would not be landing at the gross
weight and since in almost all scenarios it is nearly impossible to load to max
and keep it there, I accepted that risk.
Rene' Felker
RV-10 N423CF Flying
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Juan Vega
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:38 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight
Paul,
your shitting me right?
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Jul 10, 2009 7:00 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>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 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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Hi Juan,
No. I am being completely serious. I really believe the impact of
being over gross weight is predictable and reasonably safe. There
are obvious impacts to required runway length and climb rates, but
for the most part a small excess of weight results in a small
reduction in performance.
Of course, this assumes that the CG for the plane is still within
normal limits.
My understanding of the FAA regs on this matter is that the pilot is
required to be aware of the weight situation but he is not required
to remain within the weight specified on the aircraft
documents. Indeed the MTOW specified in the documents is totally
arbitrary - based on a set of conditions that may or may not be the
ones faced for a given flight.
I still await your answer about what happens if you are over gross
weight. (Keep in mind that this happens every day on some aircraft
like the C-150, and will probably also happen on most dual flights of
the new C-162).
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 06:37 AM 7/11/2009, you wrote:
>
>Paul,
>your shitting me right?
>Juan
>
>-----Original Message-----
> >From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
> >Sent: Jul 10, 2009 7:00 PM
> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> >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 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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 07:13:34AM -0700, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
> My understanding of the FAA regs on this matter is that the pilot is
> required to be aware of the weight situation but he is not required to
> remain within the weight specified on the aircraft documents.
...except for an LSA, which may not be operated contrary to the
amnufacturer's instructions. The POH carries the force of law for an LSA.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Folks, there is a pertinent article in Flying (July 2009), page 32, by Peter
Garrison: "Aftermath / the myth of gross weight", which you can read here:
http://www.flyingmag.com/accidents/1593/the-myth-of-gross-weight.html
Carlos
2009/7/11 Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>
> Hi Juan,
>
> No. I am being completely serious. I really believe the impact of being
> over gross weight is predictable and reasonably safe. There are obvious
> impacts to required runway length and climb rates, but for the most part a
> small excess of weight results in a small reduction in performance.
>
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Hi Juan,
I agree with everything said in your quoted article except for the
turbulence comment. I'm afraid the author got this point backwards.
Increasing actual gross weight increases Va rather than decreasing
it. So, in theory, you could fly faster in the same turbulence with
more gross weight rather than needing to fly slower.
OK, it is a small point. The simple answer for most pilots in most
conditions is to keep under gross weight specified in the airplane's
documents. However, I still believe flying over gross weight can be
done safely, and legally, in some planes under some conditions.
Paul
do not archive
At 07:08 AM 7/11/2009, you wrote:
>The pilot will have to remember when flying at the increased weight
>to slow down more in turbulence
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Hi Jay,
This is a very interesting distinction.
I wonder how the C-162 will be certified. It seems if it is
certified under part 23 you can do dual instruction in it but if it
is certified as S-LSA you can't do dual legally. If I remember
correctly from my original calculations with full fuel and a normal
adult in one seat the other one will have to weigh 50 pounds or so to
stay under MTOW.
Paul
do not archive
At 07:24 AM 7/11/2009, you wrote:
>
>On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 07:13:34AM -0700, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
> > My understanding of the FAA regs on this matter is that the pilot is
> > required to be aware of the weight situation but he is not required to
> > remain within the weight specified on the aircraft documents.
>
>...except for an LSA, which may not be operated contrary to the
>amnufacturer's instructions. The POH carries the force of law for an LSA.
>--
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Over time, it has been proffered that inane speculation often subtracts from
the sum total of human intelligence.
Regards,
Ken
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: tight fit tool |
I thought mine was a bit sloppy too but it does end up drilling a decent hole.
Not bad for a $40 tool.
Bryan Ekholm
--------
Bryan Ekholm
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252566#252566
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: Chris' Last Letter |
It may be issued as a result of OTHER gov't's demands, it doesn't look
like the U.S. gov't has much interest. If it isn't issued and or
approved it would be fine with me if any individual designed their own
and self-evaluated the result. If it works well other builders could use
it. If Zenith saw no harm in it that would likely be the extend of
factory approval but we'll see. Frankly i think flutter is now a dead
issue, doesn't mean the airframe can't be improved. I would regard these
balance as desirable but not high priority.
I see ZBAG as a bunch of interested and engaged owners, not an enemy. I
don't believe they had much influence on the Gov't and I don't believe
they've grounded anything. They MAY have had a very small part in
getting a very small and so far unenforced recommendation made by a
safety agency. I believe the actions of foriegn gov'ts and the accidents
will have had much more influence. All in all I see ZBAG as exactly what
they say they are, a group of interested builders. Mostly irrelevant to
the rest of us, certainly not worth all the electrons and angst required
to hate their guts the way most of the zenith builders have decided to.
I would certainly analyse any "statement" made by the group as a whole
as an official statement, but there has been none and unless they find
something definitive I would not expect that. Any statements by a person
who happens to be a member would hold no more weight than any other of
the vast array of opinions I've read here. I encourage ZBAG to do their
thing, so far I percieve them as irrelevant. I'm unsure who the author
who wants the GVT done with slack cables is, but he's free to want
anything. I want the accidents to stop, after that I want to understand
the reason this airframe appears to have a disproportionate rate of
failure. I bet my wish happens before his.
----- Original Message -----
From: roger lambert
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:11 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Chris' Last Letter
Agreed, but who will design and approve it.
" but any further attempt to vilify ZBAG simply because of this
wording will only serve to further split the Zenith community"
ZBAG is a group of adults who sent the results unverified computer
models to virtually every government regulating aircraft insisting that
flutter was the cause of the crashes. They also haven't used the GVT
testing rsults from Zenith to verify their model. They are big boys who
should be able to stand their statements being analyzed.
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
'Over time, it has been proffered that inane speculation often subtracts from
the sum total of human intelligence.'
Hmm... making the assumptive leap that 'human intelligence' is not a conflict in
terms, and those doing the proffering are proven by all to be the Wise, methinks
speculation of any sort can be classified either as inane or not - praytell,
whom dost say whether inane or not?
so as the river winding to the sea is never direct, but flows inanely across the
land to the ocean.....
Let it flow and enjoy the shore a bit, eh? just might find a cove of great surprise
Dave
601XL
building temporarily frozen in the phoenix heat
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252588#252588
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
> Dave
> 601XL
> building temporarily frozen in the phoenix heat
My garage temperature was over 120. Outside temp just over 113.
Also waiting for heat to subside.
Jerry
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: Chris' Last Letter |
How about we bag the Zbaggers and get on with life? Personally I have had
it with their unfounded accusations of the 601.
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
**************Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
(http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove00000003)
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: Chris' Last Letter |
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 05:57:51PM -0400, JohnDRead@aol.com wrote:
> How about we bag the Zbaggers and get on with life? Personally I have had
> it with their unfounded accusations of the 601.
If I thought there was no foundation for the concerns, I wouldn't have sent
in my money to support the effort. Do you think that we're doing this out of
a desire to harm the Zenith family of companies? Why on earth would that be
something Zenith owners and builders would want to do?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Dave,
Put down the Bong and get back to building:)
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: vayuwings <vayuwings@cox.net>
>Sent: Jul 11, 2009 5:10 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight
>
>
>'Over time, it has been proffered that inane speculation often subtracts from
>the sum total of human intelligence.'
>
>Hmm... making the assumptive leap that 'human intelligence' is not a conflict
in terms, and those doing the proffering are proven by all to be the Wise, methinks
speculation of any sort can be classified either as inane or not - praytell,
whom dost say whether inane or not?
>
>so as the river winding to the sea is never direct, but flows inanely across the
land to the ocean.....
>
>Let it flow and enjoy the shore a bit, eh? just might find a cove of great surprise
>
>Dave
>601XL
>building temporarily frozen in the phoenix heat
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252588#252588
>
>
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: Chris' Last Letter |
Dave,
Of all the accidents, There were two, out of all that may have been remotely based
on some flutter, but totally unproven. Look at each accident and prior
to people seeing the wings fall off, something else occured, crap weather, engine
quits, pilot buzzing the field, Even the one in Texas, the witness heard
the engine quite, THEN something about the wing failing. The only one that
is complete unknown, is the one at Sun N FUn. The rest had something happen
right before the claimed flutter. ZBAG latched on to the flutter issue like a
Pissed off pit bull. Because some guy claimed he saw flutter over flying a power
plant, then couldnt repeat it. 1000 zodiacs flying, and maybe 2 accidents
that arte maybe a flutter issue.
Where is the disproportionate failure issue? check out the number of accidents
of other aircraft. 2 out of how many zodiacs? PULL EVERY NTSB Zodiac accident,
and label the ones that were possible flutter or design issue! Maybe 2!
And trhe tests and nath can't find it!
Build it right, fly it right , maintain it right, its a great plane.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave <d.goddard@ns.sympatico.ca>
>Sent: Jul 11, 2009 1:41 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Chris' Last Letter
>
>It may be issued as a result of OTHER gov't's demands, it doesn't look like the
U.S. gov't has much interest. If it isn't issued and or approved it would be
fine with me if any individual designed their own and self-evaluated the result.
If it works well other builders could use it. If Zenith saw no harm in it
that would likely be the extend of factory approval but we'll see. Frankly i
think flutter is now a dead issue, doesn't mean the airframe can't be improved.
I would regard these balance as desirable but not high priority.
>
>I see ZBAG as a bunch of interested and engaged owners, not an enemy. I don't
believe they had much influence on the Gov't and I don't believe they've grounded
anything. They MAY have had a very small part in getting a very small and
so far unenforced recommendation made by a safety agency. I believe the actions
of foriegn gov'ts and the accidents will have had much more influence. All in
all I see ZBAG as exactly what they say they are, a group of interested builders.
Mostly irrelevant to the rest of us, certainly not worth all the electrons
and angst required to hate their guts the way most of the zenith builders have
decided to. I would certainly analyse any "statement" made by the group as
a whole as an official statement, but there has been none and unless they find
something definitive I would not expect that. Any statements by a person who
happens to be a member would hold no more weight than any other of the vast array
of opinions I've read here. I encourage ZBAG to do their thing, so far I
percieve them as irrelevant. I'm unsure who the author who wants the GVT done
with slack cables is, but he's free to want anything. I want the accidents to
stop, after that I want to understand the reason this airframe appears to have
a disproportionate rate of failure. I bet my wish happens before his.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: roger lambert
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:11 AM
> Subject: Zenith-List: Chris' Last Letter
>
>
> Agreed, but who will design and approve it.
>
>
> " but any further attempt to vilify ZBAG simply because of this wording will
only serve to further split the Zenith community"
>
> ZBAG is a group of adults who sent the results unverified computer models to
virtually every government regulating aircraft insisting that flutter was the
cause of the crashes. They also haven't used the GVT testing rsults from Zenith
to verify their model. They are big boys who should be able to stand their
statements being analyzed.
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: Chris' Last Letter |
John, I am not clear that they have made any accusations. I believe they
have some areas of concern that they are investigating. Any absolute
accusations might well have come from a member, or from someone else.
Let them do their thing. So far I don't believe they have harmed anyone,
on the other hand, unexplained failures have. I hope they keep looking,
maybe they'll help find an answer.
----- Original Message -----
From: JohnDRead@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Chris' Last Letter
How about we bag the Zbaggers and get on with life? Personally I have
had it with their unfounded accusations of the 601.
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
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: Chris' Last Letter |
I don't believe they are out to harm anybody Jay, I believe you/they are
doing their best to satisfy themselves that their aircraft are as good as
they can be. Not sure how ZBAG got tagged an enemy that must be attacked at
every turn, miht be that old "If yer not with us, yer agin us us!!" crap.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Maynard" <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Chris' Last Letter
>
> If I thought there was no foundation for the concerns, I wouldn't have
> sent
> in my money to support the effort. Do you think that we're doing this out
> of
> a desire to harm the Zenith family of companies? Why on earth would that
> be
> something Zenith owners and builders would want to do?
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: Chris' Last Letter |
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 08:22:17PM -0300, Dave wrote:
> I don't believe they are out to harm anybody Jay, I believe you/they are
> doing their best to satisfy themselves that their aircraft are as good as
> they can be.
I can't speak for everyone involved, but that's certainly my motivation.
> Not sure how ZBAG got tagged an enemy that must be attacked at every turn,
> miht be that old "If yer not with us, yer agin us us!!" crap.
I don't know either, but I'm getting goddamned tired of it.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
It's not quite that simple. For a given MTOW and flight load factor
(FLF), Va is the speed where, when the plane is actually loaded to the
MTOW, the wing will stall before the FLF is exceeded. This assumes
that the aircraft is in coordinated flight and the G loading is being
increased at a defined rate. In this situation, the wing generating
the maximum amount of lift that it can at that speed, the wing spar to
fuselage attachment is experiencing the maximum stress it is designed
to handle in flight, the engine mount may also be carrying the maximum
load it is designed to carry and the mounts for many other fixed
objects in the airplane may be carrying their maximum loads.
For example, an airplane with a 1000 lb MTOW and 4 G FLF and Va of 100
mph. At Va and the stall angle of attack the wing will be producing
4000 lbs of lift. If the each wing weighs 100 lb, the fuselage weighs
800 lb so: 800 lb * 4 = 3200 lb of load on the wing spar-fuselage
joint (1600 lb per side).
If this same airplane (same MTOW and FLF) is loaded to less than MTOW
and flying at 100 mph, the airplane will still produce the same
maximum lift when it stalls but, since the airplane is lighter, the G
factor will be higher. For example, if the airplane actually weighs
900 lb: 4000 / 900 gives a G factor of 4.44. If the weight was all
removed from the fuselage then, 700 lb * 4.44 G = 3111 lb load at the
spar-fuselage joint. In this situation, the wing spar will not be over
loaded even though the G factor is higher, but the engine mounts may
be overloaded, or some other structure may be overloaded. If instead,
you are carrying 100 lb less fuel in the wing tanks but the same load
in the fuselage then, 800 * 4.44 G = 3556 lb load at the spar-fuselage
joint. In this situation, the wing is overloaded as well as the rest
of the aircraft structures. This is why Va should be reduced when
flying with a lighter load with a given FLF.
If the MTOW is increased on this airplane, for instance to 1050 lb,
the maximum flight load factor would have to be decreased to prevent
overloading the spar. But this is the same airplane, so the spar is
the same strength: it can still carry the same a maximum load at the
spar-fuselage joint. Assuming the extra weight is in the fuselage:
3200 / 850 = 3.76 G. So the new FLF is 3.76 G for the airplane. Now:
3.76 G * 1050 = 3953 lb = the lift the wings will need to generate at
3.76 G. Since the lift needed at the new FLF is lower than it was for
the 1000 lb MTOW case, you have to fly slower if you want the wing to
stall before it exceeds this maximum lift value. So Va will decrease
if you increase MTOW and decrease FLF.
In this discussion, I have neglected any lift generated by the
fuselage and the down force generated by the horizontal stabilizer.
These may have some effect on the actual load carried by the wings.
>
> Hi Juan,
>
> I agree with everything said in your quoted article except for the
> turbulence comment. I'm afraid the author got this point backwards.
>
> Increasing actual gross weight increases Va rather than decreasing
> it. So, in theory, you could fly faster in the same turbulence with
> more gross weight rather than needing to fly slower.
>
> OK, it is a small point. The simple answer for most pilots in most
> conditions is to keep under gross weight specified in the airplane's
> documents. However, I still believe flying over gross weight can be
> done safely, and legally, in some planes under some conditions.
>
> Paul
> do not archive
>
>
> At 07:08 AM 7/11/2009, you wrote:
>> The pilot will have to remember when flying at the increased weight
>> to slow down more in turbulence
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
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: Chris' Last Letter |
IRT "some guy claimed he saw flutter over flying a power plant, then
couldnt repeat it."
See below from my archives;
Tony Graziano; XL/Jab N493TG w 510 hrs to date
-
Hi Bill,Glad everything came out OK. Looks like you ran into some really
weird turbulence from the power-plant, giving you an "E" ticket ride. If
you were really experiencing wing or control surface flutter, your diving
and picking up speed should have exacerbated the problem with the amplitude
going divergent very rapidly, until something(s) bends or more likely breaks
off. Only saw this once in a film of a dynamic model in a wind tunnel - once
flutter started the entire model was gonzo in a second or two. Do you
recall experiencing any feed back in the stick/rudder?In 199 hours in my XL,
I have had some bumpy rides and the airplane has handled it ok - just glad I
always have my seat belt tight. I have also had some GREAT*, almost I would
have believed, GOOD*, landings and I agree the airplane is tough. *GREAT
Landing - Airplane is still flyable. GOOD Landing - You can walk away from
the airplane.Please let us know if you find anything after your in-depth
inspection. I kind of suspect you will not find anything amiss, but if you
do it would be a good data point for all of us for tailoring our structural
inspections. Tony Graziano XL; N493TG--------Ben, maybe I did not explain
well, but it was not control flutter. The
aileron did not move independent of the wing. What occurred is the whole
wing
fluttered with aileron moving with it., best regards,
Bill------------------------- Dear Thread Friends, I went flying this
afternoon. Took a fellow with me and
just wanted an hour in the clear blue. Conditions were perfect, clear, cool
and only a slight wind. The only big thing around much to see nearby is Lake
Juliette which has a big coal fired power station in the middle. Three huge
steam
towers that look like a nuclear power station. We flew around the lake about
two miles away at 5000 feet so my pal could get a good look see. On the down
wind side we flew into an invisible killer. We were doing above 140 when we
flew into it. Instantly the left wing fluttered at a fast pitch, aileron and
all
and it looked to be moving maybe two inched up and down. I figured a couple
seconds would break it off. I didn't have time to look around the passenger
to
see if the right wing was fluttering, but I suspect it was. I chopped power
and
did a hard diving wing over to the left and out of it. The flutter sound was
great even over my Lightspeed AN system and the whole thing probably last
maybe 5 or 6 seconds. I regained control out of the snap dive, maxing above
170
and flew slow and easy back to the field before I tested the controls.
Everything felt okay and I could see no wrinkles in the top skin so I
landed. Didn't
really have much choice. Upon inspection I found no sign of stress, no skin
deform, no paint cracked around rivets, nothing. I will take off all
inspection
panels for a close inspection this weekend and check bolts, controls, etc.,
but
I cannot believe such a prolonged violent movement of the wing did not
damage
something other than my pride. Two things learned. Don't fly anywhere near a
power station. Even at 5000 feet and miles away the invisible heat rises and
is
most extreme. Maybe intensified in cold weather. The other thing is the XL
is
very, very tough. Oh, there is a third thing. How could I have been so
stupid
not to know the first thing !! I am interested though in knowing why the
wings fluttered in this thermal? What theory of air dynamics would cause
this
extreme reaction? Was is just the level of heat and speed the invisible air
was
streaming past? This was my 90th flight in her and she made me proud again.
Best regards to you all,
Bill of Georgia
N505WP
601XL-3300
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Chris' Last Letter
>
> Dave,
> Of all the accidents, There were two, out of all that may have been
> remotely based on some flutter, but totally unproven. Look at each
> accident and prior to people seeing the wings fall off, something else
> occured, crap weather, engine quits, pilot buzzing the field, Even the
> one in Texas, the witness heard the engine quite, THEN something about
> the wing failing. The only one that is complete unknown, is the one at
> Sun N FUn. The rest had something happen right before the claimed
> flutter. ZBAG latched on to the flutter issue like a Pissed off pit bull.
> Because some guy claimed he saw flutter over flying a power plant, then
> couldnt repeat it. 1000 zodiacs flying, and maybe 2 accidents that
> arte maybe a flutter issue.
>
> Where is the disproportionate failure issue? check out the number of
> accidents of other aircraft. 2 out of how many zodiacs? PULL EVERY NTSB
> Zodiac accident, and label the ones that were possible flutter or design
> issue! Maybe 2! And trhe tests and nath can't find it!
>
> Build it right, fly it right , maintain it right, its a great plane.
>
> Juan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Dave <d.goddard@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>Sent: Jul 11, 2009 1:41 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Chris' Last Letter
>>
>>It may be issued as a result of OTHER gov't's demands, it doesn't look
>>like the U.S. gov't has much interest. If it isn't issued and or approved
>>it would be fine with me if any individual designed their own and
>>self-evaluated the result. If it works well other builders could use it.
>>If Zenith saw no harm in it that would likely be the extend of factory
>>approval but we'll see. Frankly i think flutter is now a dead issue,
>>doesn't mean the airframe can't be improved. I would regard these balance
>>as desirable but not high priority.
>>
>>I see ZBAG as a bunch of interested and engaged owners, not an enemy. I
>>don't believe they had much influence on the Gov't and I don't believe
>>they've grounded anything. They MAY have had a very small part in getting
>>a very small and so far unenforced recommendation made by a safety agency.
>>I believe the actions of foriegn gov'ts and the accidents will have had
>>much more influence. All in all I see ZBAG as exactly what they say they
>>are, a group of interested builders. Mostly irrelevant to the rest of us,
>>certainly not worth all the electrons and angst required to hate their
>>guts the way most of the zenith builders have decided to. I would
>>certainly analyse any "statement" made by the group as a whole as an
>>official statement, but there has been none and unless they find something
>>definitive I would not expect that. Any statements by a person who happens
>>to be a member would hold no more weight than any other of the vast array
>>of opinions I've read here. I encourage ZBAG to!
> do their thing, so far I percieve them as irrelevant. I'm unsure who the
> author who wants the GVT done with slack cables is, but he's free to want
> anything. I want the accidents to stop, after that I want to understand
> the reason this airframe appears to have a disproportionate rate of
> failure. I bet my wish happens before his.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: roger lambert
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:11 AM
>> Subject: Zenith-List: Chris' Last Letter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed, but who will design and approve it.
>>
>>
>> " but any further attempt to vilify ZBAG simply because of this wording
>> will only serve to further split the Zenith community"
>>
>> ZBAG is a group of adults who sent the results unverified computer
>> models to virtually every government regulating aircraft insisting that
>> flutter was the cause of the crashes. They also haven't used the GVT
>> testing rsults from Zenith to verify their model. They are big boys who
>> should be able to stand their statements being analyzed.
>
>
>
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: | Removing Duct Tape residue from Canopy...? |
I covered my canopy hoops with Duct Tape with the intent of protecting the soft
interior of the canopy bubble from scratches.
During the course of all the fitting, sliding around, cursing, and generally getting
the bubble to fit the hoops, a lot of the duct tape residue rubbed onto
the interior of the canopy.
Anybody know what I can use to safely remove that gunk from the inside of my canopy...?
Thanks,
- Pat
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252611#252611
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 |
|
Hi everyone
Made my second flight today after making some adjustments.
first adjustment was to re pitch the prop from 13.5 to 12 degrees.
Second adjustment was to re-check the wings and their rigging. I found now issues
here that may cause a heavy left wing. Along with this as some suggested,
I moved 5 gallons of fuel from the left inboard tank to the the right inboard
tank. The right tank is full (12 gal) and the left tank has about 4 gallons
.
third adjustment was to right up the cooling intakes by 1" X 5 " on the left side
and 3/4 " x 6 " on the right side.
I rotated at about 55 KIAS and lifted of at 60 KIAS, then gained speed to 80 KIAS
to climb out at abut 400 to 500 RPM. I no longer have a heavy left wing.
The airplane will climb and oil temps are no longer approaching the red line.
I was able to fly level at 2300 RPM and indicated 94 knots. I was able to trim
it to fly hands off.
Now the real testing will begin as Learn more about my airplane
Thanks to all the offered suggestions and ideas
--------
601XL N676L reserved
ALMOST DONE
CHESAPEAKE VA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252612#252612
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Removing Duct Tape residue from Canopy...? |
Hi Pat,
Mineral Spirits should work - available at paint and hardware stores.
Try some on a hidden corner first . . .
Paul
XL grounded
At 06:21 PM 7/11/2009, you wrote:
>
>I covered my canopy hoops with Duct Tape with the intent of
>protecting the soft interior of the canopy bubble from scratches.
>
>During the course of all the fitting, sliding around, cursing, and
>generally getting the bubble to fit the hoops, a lot of the duct
>tape residue rubbed onto the interior of the canopy.
>
>Anybody know what I can use to safely remove that gunk from the
>inside of my canopy...?
>
>Thanks,
>
>- Pat
>
>--------
>Patrick
>XL/650/Corvair
>N63PZ (reserved)
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Juan - ah, if only I could.....
build, that is-
this is where the mind goes with 114 degree heat - no need for costly bongs and
required inducements... but see how you have proven my point? flow river flow...
:)
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252615#252615
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SECOND FLIGHT |
Thanks for the report. Sounds great!
Dan Dempsey
Do not archive
GLJSOJ1 wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> Made my second flight today after making some adjustments.
>
> first adjustment was to re pitch the prop from 13.5 to 12 degrees.
>
> Second adjustment was to re-check the wings and their rigging. I found now issues
here that may cause a heavy left wing. Along with this as some suggested,
I moved 5 gallons of fuel from the left inboard tank to the the right inboard
tank. The right tank is full (12 gal) and the left tank has about 4 gallons
.
>
> third adjustment was to right up the cooling intakes by 1" X 5 " on the left
side and 3/4 " x 6 " on the right side.
>
> I rotated at about 55 KIAS and lifted of at 60 KIAS, then gained speed to 80
KIAS to climb out at abut 400 to 500 RPM. I no longer have a heavy left wing.
The airplane will climb and oil temps are no longer approaching the red line.
I was able to fly level at 2300 RPM and indicated 94 knots. I was able to
trim it to fly hands off.
>
> Now the real testing will begin as Learn more about my airplane
>
> Thanks to all the offered suggestions and ideas
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252617#252617
Message 31
| 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: Removing Duct Tape residue from Canopy...? |
70% isopropyl rubbing alchohol has worked for me, and it won't leave an oily residue
like Im afraid rubbbing spirits might. Again, try in non visible corner
first on your canopy! Worked great for me, and remember only use plexus or
similar cleaning agent as approved for that purpose. DO NOT USE PAPER TOWELS
AND WINDEX!!!!!
--------
One Rivet at a Time!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252625#252625
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! --
|