Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:24 AM - New Corvair Products (Brady)
2. 09:11 AM - props (Jim Belcher)
3. 09:33 AM - Re: props (Paul Mulwitz)
4. 09:37 AM - Re: props (Gig Giacona)
5. 09:56 AM - Re: props (Dirk Zahtilla)
6. 10:17 AM - Re: props (Jay Maynard)
7. 10:18 AM - Re: props (Jimbo)
8. 12:05 PM - Re: props (Gig Giacona)
9. 12:58 PM - Canopy Safety (jaybannist@cs.com)
10. 01:15 PM - Re: Re: props (David Downey)
11. 01:22 PM - Re: Canopy Safety (Thruster87)
12. 01:37 PM - Re: Re: Canopy Safety (Jay Maynard)
13. 02:13 PM - Re: Re: Canopy Safety (jaybannist@cs.com)
14. 03:12 PM - Re: Re: Canopy Safety (Bryan Martin)
15. 07:45 PM - Re: Re: props (Dirk Zahtilla)
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: | New Corvair Products |
For those who might be interested we have updated our website and we have some
new products to offer.
www.magnificentmachine.com
Enjoy,
Brady
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 9144#209144
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 |
|
I'm trying to plan ahead a bit, while waiting for the z601XL kit to be
available for pickup at Zenith's facility. One of the things on my shopping
list is a prop.
I've got an O-200A that I'm overhauling, and I need a prop to mate with it for
the 601XL. My current thinking is that:
1) I don't want to use a metal prop because of weight.
2) It may be desirable to use a ground-adjustable prop so I can tweak the
pitch for max performance consistent with LSA requirements.
While the lower weight of a wood or composite prop is desirable, it may also
shift the weight and balance envelope too far aft. What has been experienced
in this area?
And, in general, what are others using and experiencing? Are there any of the
homebuilt prop companies which seem particuarly good or particular bad, and
should be avoided? Your comments are solicited. Thanks.
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
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 |
|
Hi Jim,
I would suggest you plan to use a wood prop. I am using one from
Sensenich for my XL, but it was chosen by the folks that put together
a FWF for my Jabiru engine. Rumor has it this particular prop works
very well on the XL while the Sensenich composite ground adjustable may not.
Your engine is one of the heaviest ones that will work in the Zodiac
XL. That means your weight and balance problem will likely be too
much weight up front rather than too little.
You might be able to use one of the ground adjustable pitch props
available since you have only 100 HP. There are several choices with
100 HP as their upper limit.
One of the advantages of wood props is they are low enough in price
that you can plan to have a few different ones over time. Indeed you
will need to replace them much faster than a metal prop.
Good luck,
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 09:11 AM 10/17/2008, you wrote:
>
>I'm trying to plan ahead a bit, while waiting for the z601XL kit to be
>available for pickup at Zenith's facility. One of the things on my shopping
>list is a prop.
>
>I've got an O-200A that I'm overhauling, and I need a prop to mate
>with it for
>the 601XL. My current thinking is that:
>
>1) I don't want to use a metal prop because of weight.
>2) It may be desirable to use a ground-adjustable prop so I can tweak the
>pitch for max performance consistent with LSA requirements.
>
>While the lower weight of a wood or composite prop is desirable, it may also
>shift the weight and balance envelope too far aft. What has been experienced
>in this area?
>
>And, in general, what are others using and experiencing? Are there any of the
>homebuilt prop companies which seem particuarly good or particular bad, and
>should be avoided? Your comments are solicited. Thanks.
>--
>
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 |
|
With an O-200 I don't think you will ever need to concern yourself with the CG
being too far backwards because of a prop.
If you are going to keep your plane inside a hanger most of the time, rarely fly
in the rain and not land off airport too often go with wood. It looks better.
If not go with a Warp Drive or Sensnich composite.
z601(at)anemicaardvark.co wrote:
>
>
>
> While the lower weight of a wood or composite prop is desirable, it may also
> shift the weight and balance envelope too far aft. What has been experienced
> in this area?
>
>
--------
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 9188#209188
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 |
|
Check out the IVO prop. I had a 3 blade elec. adjust (in flight adjustable)
and it was GREAT! Excelent climb and then set for your cruise. Easy to use.
I don't know what the legality is since you cannot have in-flight adjust
under sport pilot rules. You should check if you do the initial registration
in that configuration can you remove the elec. adjust later to be legal
under sport OR do you register it without the elec. motor on, then add it
later so it can then be removed if you fly under sport rules???
At any rate the 3 blade elec adjust for the O-200 is a few lbs. lighter
than metal even with the elec adjust but the extra weight is at the hub so
the prop will still spin up faster than aluminum.
You can also remove one blade If one gets damaged and fly home on 2. OR
just fly on 2 blade prop, slightly less climb and slightly faster cruise
this way.
I'm not connected with IVO, just used one on a 2 place ultralight and was
very pleased with the performance.
Dirk
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 |
|
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:11:13AM -0500, Jim Belcher wrote:
> And, in general, what are others using and experiencing?
For completeness' sake, AMD is using a Sensenich wood-composite prop with
the O-200. CG has never been an issue for me.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC
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 |
|
The AMD factory built 601/650 has a wood Sensenich fixed pitch prop and O-200A.
Using the same one might get you a 25hr instead of 40hr flight test period.
--- On Fri, 10/17/08, Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com> wrote:
From: Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: props
<z601@anemicaardvark.com>
I'm trying to plan ahead a bit, while waiting for the z601XL kit to be
available for pickup at Zenith's facility. One of the things on my shopping
list is a prop.
I've got an O-200A that I'm overhauling, and I need a prop to mate with
it for
the 601XL. My current thinking is that:
1) I don't want to use a metal prop because of weight.
2) It may be desirable to use a ground-adjustable prop so I can tweak the
pitch for max performance consistent with LSA requirements.
While the lower weight of a wood or composite prop is desirable, it may also
shift the weight and balance envelope too far aft. What has been experienced
in this area?
And, in general, what are others using and experiencing? Are there any of the
homebuilt prop companies which seem particuarly good or particular bad, and
should be avoided? Your comments are solicited. Thanks.
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
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 |
|
I asked the FSDO in writing about that prop and LSA. Big NO. I even asked if it
would be legal if the in-flight adjustable feature were disabled and could not
be activated in the cockpit. Like a switch in the wire under the cowl that could
turn the adjustment ability on for a non-LSA pilot and off when an LS pilot
was flying. Again a big NO.
ideaz1(at)sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Check out the IVO prop. I had a 3 blade elec. adjust (in flight adjustable)
> and it was GREAT! Excelent climb and then set for your cruise. Easy to use.
> I don't know what the legality is since you cannot have in-flight adjust
> under sport pilot rules. You should check if you do the initial registration
> in that configuration can you remove the elec. adjust later to be legal
> under sport OR do you register it without the elec. motor on, then add it
> later so it can then be removed if you fly under sport rules???
> At any rate the 3 blade elec adjust for the O-200 is a few lbs. lighter
> than metal even with the elec adjust but the extra weight is at the hub so
> the prop will still spin up faster than aluminum.
> You can also remove one blade If one gets damaged and fly home on 2. OR
> just fly on 2 blade prop, slightly less climb and slightly faster cruise
> this way.
>
> I'm not connected with IVO, just used one on a 2 place ultralight and was
> very pleased with the performance.
>
> Dirk
--------
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 9211#209211
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 |
|
As you may know, the canopy of the AMD 601XLi I was flying came open; flew up to
about 50 degrees and the airplane became uncontrollable. As soon as I had recovered
enough to get around, the very first thing I did was to install a safety
cable to the canopy of my airplane, Lil Bruiser. I have attached drawing of
what I installed.? I made the cable just long enough, when pinned, that the canopy
can be open a little for taxi on hot days. I am probably going to add a
removable nylon strap that will be long enough to help pull the canopy down when
seated.? Let me know if you have any questions.
Jay in Dallas
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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 |
|
...and the natural damping of the wooden prop is an asset to both the airfr
ame and the engine.
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Fri, 10/17/08, Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: props
<wrgiacona@gmail.com>
With an O-200 I don't think you will ever need to concern yourself with the
CG being too far backwards because of a prop.
If you are going to keep your plane inside a hanger most of the time, rarel
y
fly in the rain and not land off airport too often go with wood. It looks
better. If not go with a Warp Drive or Sensnich composite.
z601(at)anemicaardvark.co wrote:
>
>
>
> While the lower weight of a wood or composite prop is desirable, it may
also
> shift the weight and balance envelope too far aft. What has been
experienced
> in this area?
>
>
--------
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 9188#209188
//mail.yahoo.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: Canopy Safety |
Hi Jay,Have you ascertained as to why it opened ? or possible reasons ?as stated
in a previous thread it seems the locking studs height may have been made a
bit short thus not giving a positive lock [there are two clicks as the canopy
locks, if it is too short it will only engage the first click and it may not
stay locked ] Cheers T87
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 9223#209223
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: Canopy Safety |
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 01:22:39PM -0700, Thruster87 wrote:
> Hi Jay,Have you ascertained as to why it opened ? or possible reasons ?as
> stated in a previous thread it seems the locking studs height may have
> been made a bit short thus not giving a positive lock [there are two
> clicks as the canopy locks, if it is too short it will only engage the
> first click and it may not stay locked ] Cheers T87
That discussion does not apply to the aircraft Jay was flying. It, like
mine, has the new-style latch system as found on the 650.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC
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: Canopy Safety |
Yes, I have ascertained why it came open. But that is beside the point.
As Jay Maynard pointed out, the latching system on the airplane I was flying is
not like the CH 601XL latch.?
Regardless of the latching system, I don't want a canopy to come open in flight,
EVER AGAIN, for whatever reason, period.? I don't doubt the integrity of either
latching system; but neither one of them can absolutely overcome the carelessness
or pilot error that too often occurs in aviation.
Jay in Dallas
(That is Jay Bannister)
-----Original Message-----
From: Thruster87 <alania@optusnet.com.au>
Sent: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 3:22 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Canopy Safety
Hi Jay,Have you ascertained as to why it opened ? or possible reasons ?as
stated in a previous thread it seems the locking studs height may have been made
a bit short thus not giving a positive lock [there are two clicks as the canopy
locks, if it is too short it will only engage the first click and it may not
stay locked ] Cheers T87
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Canopy Safety |
The accident airplane had the new canopy latching system currently
used on the CH650. This does not have the two stage latches of the old
system, it has two hooks connected to a torque tube that engage a stud
on each side of the canopy. With the old system, each side of the
canopy latched up independently of the other so that is was likely
that at least one side of the canopy would always fully latch when
closed and the unlatched side can be pulled closed with no danger of
unlatching the other side. I've had one side of my canopy come open in
flight but never both.
In my opinion, the new design needs some improvement. Because both
latch hooks are connected rigidly to the torque tube, if one is not
fully latched, neither will the other one be and, if one side does
latch and the other doesn't, attempting to latch the canopy in flight
will probably cause both sides to unlatch. (This is probably what
happened in this accident.) I think a slotted hole in the forward end
of the linkage (65-C-2-4) connecting the hook (65-C-1-1) to the torque
tube end, along with a spring connected to the bottom of the hook
pulling the hook towards the latched position would allow the hooks
enough free motion to latch up independently. This would also prevent
one side from unlatching if someone attempts to pull the other side
down to the latched position.
On Oct 17, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Thruster87 wrote:
> >
>
> Hi Jay,Have you ascertained as to why it opened ? or possible
> reasons ?as stated in a previous thread it seems the locking studs
> height may have been made a bit short thus not giving a positive
> lock [there are two clicks as the canopy locks, if it is too short
> it will only engage the first click and it may not stay locked ]
> Cheers T87
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
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 |
|
You can still install this prop as ground ajustable and add the elec. motor
later.
> I asked the FSDO in writing about that prop and LSA. Big NO. I even asked
> if it would be legal if the in-flight adjustable feature were disabled and
> could not be activated in the cockpit. Like a switch in the wire under the
> cowl that could turn the adjustment ability on for a non-LSA pilot and off
> when an LS pilot was flying. Again a big NO.
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! --
|