Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:09 AM - Re: 601xl aeilerons (Paul Mulwitz)
2. 04:57 AM - Re: CH601XL roll sensitivity & aileron control weight (kevstewart)
3. 05:35 AM - Test (Bob)
4. 06:06 AM - Re: CH 650 canning supression angle (Gig Giacona)
5. 07:43 AM - Re: 601xl aeilerons (Dirk Zahtilla)
6. 08:21 AM - Corvair College in November (Al Hays)
7. 09:17 AM - Re: 601xl aeilerons (Brian Wood)
8. 09:31 AM - Re: 601xl aeilerons (Gig Giacona)
9. 09:46 AM - Re: 601xl aeilerons (Paul Mulwitz)
10. 09:57 AM - Re: Re: 601xl aeilerons (Paul Mulwitz)
11. 10:55 AM - Re: 601xl aeilerons (Jimbo)
12. 12:44 PM - Re: Re: 601xl aeilerons (jaybannist@cs.com)
13. 04:51 PM - Re: 601xl aeilerons (Dave Austin)
14. 05:07 PM - Flanging Dies (Lee Steensland)
15. 05:19 PM - Re: Flanging Dies (Paul Mulwitz)
16. 05:31 PM - Re: Flanging Dies (Bill Naumuk)
17. 07:01 PM - Re: Flanging Dies (Carlos Sa)
18. 07:51 PM - Re: Flanging Dies (Randy L. Thwing)
19. 08:20 PM - Re: Flanging Dies (Debo Cox)
20. 11:02 PM - Re: Flanging Dies (TxDave)
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: | Re: 601xl aeilerons |
I think you are discussing two different problems rather than one.
The counter balance is probably there to prevent diverging mechanical
oscillation, known as flutter, that can destroy the plane. C. H.
designed his ailerons and all the control surfaces so they are not
prone to this problem. If you don't want to take my word for it, and
his, this is a wonderful area for extended discussion some other time.
Your point about "Fixing" the heavy ailerons is an interesting
one. It presumes there is something wrong with them the way they
are. I don't agree with this point of view. Let me explain . . .
The notion that there should be "Harmony" in airplane controls seems
to be an idea unrelated to the way real airplanes function and real
pilots fly. It seems to come from people who are better magazine
article writers than pilots and nearly always shows up in airplane
flight reviews. This is the notion that all three axis controls
should respond with similar movement to the same input
forces. Perhaps this is a big deal for aerobatic planes that get
jerked around in the sky, but for most planes it is not even an
issue. What is an issue is that the pilot can get the desired
aircraft response rather than some arbitrary control stick movement.
All planes respond to force applied to a control input with movement
around the indicated axis. It is this aircraft rotation response to
force that is important rather than its response to control
movement. In many planes and many control axes there is no
discernable movement at all of the control input device. This is the
case with the Zodiac aileron control.
Of course, the above is just my personal opinion. I expect there to
be disagreement on the harmony point. To give you a direct answer to
your question, I am not aware of anyone redesigning the controls on
any Zodiac to allow the stick to move more easily.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 10:41 PM 10/22/2008, you wrote:
>So following todays little flood of mails about the heavy ailerons ,
>what if any mods have people done to make this easier?.
>
> I flew a Tecnam JF 2002 at the weekend and the ailerons are the
> similar but with balance weight extending forward. I wonder why CH
> has not put this on and if it could be done so without great modifications.
>
> Kit gets here 27november ........... :)
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: | Re: CH601XL roll sensitivity & aileron control weight |
Thanks for all the replies to my query. I should have said that the XL that I flew
had the aileron hinges fitted and not just the Al skin.
My apologies for using P1 & P2. In the UK P1 refers the pilot's position and P2
to the co-pilot's position. I know that this isn't strictly true in a single
crew aircraft.
My initial reaction upon the handling pilot in the LHS passing control to me in
the RHS was that he had clamped his stick between his knees and this was preventing
me from moving my stick.
I flew the aircraft back into the circuit for an overhead join and don't remember
feeling that I couldn't control the aircraft to make the turns in the circuit.
I could do with another flight but this is not practical given that the owner lives
about 8 hours away and the WX is pretty bad this time of year.
--------
Recreational pilot flying out of
EGHD Plymouth, UK.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 9970#209970
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 |
|
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: CH 650 canning supression angle |
According to the video of the hanger day the standard L-angles are used. I don't
remember off hand what their thickness is.
--------
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 9977#209977
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: 601xl aeilerons |
> I think you are discussing two different problems rather than one.
No, not really... Heavy ailerons. Maybe there are 2
solutions (or many more).
> The counter balance is probably there to prevent diverging mechanical
> oscillation, known as flutter, that can destroy the plane. C. H. designed
> his ailerons and all the control surfaces so they are not prone to this
> problem. If you don't want to take my word for it, and his, this is a
> wonderful area for extended discussion some other time.
Sorry to sound argumentative, but the balancing of control surfaces is to
releive the control forces required. Just picture a much larger aircraft
with the same setup as the XL and you would have a hard time controling the
plane at all; and if I'm not mistaken we can discuss this any time we want.
> Your point about "Fixing" the heavy ailerons is an interesting one. It
> presumes there is something wrong with them the way they are. I don't
> agree with this point of view. Let me explain . . .
>
> The notion that there should be "Harmony" in airplane controls seems to be
> an idea unrelated to the way real airplanes function and real pilots fly.
> It seems to come from people who are better magazine article writers than
> pilots and nearly always shows up in airplane flight reviews.
GEES! I guess I never knew I wasn't a REAL pilot! Plus all the certificated
planes I have flown (knot realizing that I didn't know how) had quite well
balanced controls. Just take a look at the balance weights on a cessna some
time. And by the way I have yet to write a magazine article but apparently
those who have may want a word...
> This is the notion that all three axis controls should respond with
> similar movement to the same input forces. Perhaps this is a big deal for
> aerobatic planes that get jerked around in the sky, but for most planes it
> is not even an issue. What is an issue is that the pilot can get the
> desired aircraft response rather than some arbitrary control stick
> movement.
Maybe you don't think pilot fatigue is an issue but some of us do
> All planes respond to force applied to a control input with movement
> around the indicated axis. It is this aircraft rotation response to force
> that is important rather than its response to control movement. In many
> planes and many control axes there is no discernable movement at all of
> the control input device. This is the case with the Zodiac aileron
> control.
What th...
> Of course, the above is just my personal opinion. I expect there to be
> disagreement on the harmony point. To give you a direct answer to your
> question, I am not aware of anyone redesigning the controls on any Zodiac
> to allow the stick to move more easily.
Well, I am aware of people making mods. There is one XL recently completed
at my home airport with push-pull tubes rather than cables. I am not aware
of whether or how much improvement this makes as I have not flown that plane
but it is certainly part of the multiple solutions to this problem.Also the
first plane I built had a similar issue which was very successfully
corrected by moving the hinge point on the ailerons to balance the control
forces (by the way, this releives the force on every component from the
aileron all the way to the pilots shoulder!)
Dirk Z
>
> Paul
> XL getting close
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: | Corvair College in November |
Listers,
William Wynne asked on his post to the CorvAircraft list, that a link
be posted to this announcement. It should interest anyone
considering Corvair power for their project, especially folks in the
eastern states. Since I haven't seen it posted by anyone else, and
it's coming up real soon, I'm copying his announcement below:
Al Hays
N5892H & N701GH reserved
Friends,
We've posted an update on our Web site at
_http://FlyCorvair.com/hangar.html_ (http://www.flycorvair.com/
hangar.html)
with all the information for Corvair College #12 to be held Nov. 7-9
just
outside Columbia, S.C.
Although it's short notice, the event has been planned for a long
time and a
lot of background work has been done. The host of the event is Ed
Fisher. Ed
is a member of this list who is a regular reader but rarely pops up
with a
post. Anyone with a specific question about the event can certainly
write back
to the list, and Ed can chime in and cover it for the benefit of those
planning on attending. Additionally, list members including Mark
Langford, Joe
Horton and Dan Weseman are planning on flying in. All of these guys
have been to
previous Colleges (in Mark's case all the way back to College #1)
and can
share with the group insight about the experience.
Having these guys cover some of the basic questions will allow us to
stay
focused on filling orders. I have been laying off the Net in recent
weeks in
order to focus more effort on this. I appreciate the patience
builders have
shown. As evidence that we've continually pumped out parts, the
update includes
a photo of Lynn Dingfelder's newly flying Corvair powered 601. The done
airplanes and a dozen Colleges offer a testimonial to our long-term
commitment to
helping builders.
I would greatly appreciate it if builders on the KRNet, 601 list, Piet
discussion group and the Tailwind/Buttercup group would post a link
to our College
announcement. Although its shorter notice than we'd like, no one needs
reservations to attend the College, and if we get the word out
efficiently, no one
will miss the opportunity to have a great time while learning a lot.
Hope to see as many of you there as possible.
Thank you.
William Wynne
5000-18 HWY 17 #247
Orange Park, FL 32003 USA
_http://FlyCorvair.com/hangar.html_ (http://www.flycorvair.com/
hangar.html)
- October Update 2008
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: 601xl aeilerons |
>> I think you are discussing two different problems rather than one.
>
> No, not really... Heavy ailerons. Maybe there are 2
> solutions (or many more).
>
Maybe we are discussing one issue, but we are offering solutions that are
designed to address two issues that are quite distinct, control forces
and flutter. There are multiple ways to relieve the control forces,
including aerodynamic balance, balance tabs, spring tabs, weights, and
some others I can't remember at the moment.
Flutter is a complex phenonemon that is dependant on balance, speed,
elasticity, airflow, and probably a host of others that I don't know about
(I am no engineer). It is often overcome by use of balance weights, as
well as careful engineering.
Brian in Brazil
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: 601xl aeilerons |
[quote="ideaz1(at)sbcglobal.net]Sorry to sound argumentative, but the balancing
of control surfaces is to
releive the control forces required. Just picture a much larger aircraft
with the same setup as the XL and you would have a hard time controling the
plane at all; ...[/quote]
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/building/controls/Control%20Surface%20Balancing%20in%20Homebuilts.html?
Control Surface Balancing in Homebuilts
Sport Aviation - 12/96
By Tony Bingelis
The obvious question comes to mind. Why balance control surfaces? Do they really
need to be balanced?
Well, much seems to depend on the original design and construction of the control
surfaces. Well-designed, rigid structures with little or no play in the hinges,
control linkages, and trim tabs are less likely to be susceptible to flutter,
hence, may not need to be statically balanced.
--------
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=210008#210008
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: 601xl aeilerons |
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your comment. I think your point of view is very
valuable. These issues are related but only distant relatives.
This thread started as a discussion of heavy aileron forces on a demo
flight. The counterbalances were added as a possible solution for
the heavy controls. My last comment was to try to separate the
counterbalances from the heavy controls, but your take on this issue
seems like it is more clear.
I want to try again to distinguish the heavy control issues without
regard to flutter.
If you move the stick left and right on the ground, it takes a
significant amount of force to go from one limit to the other. I
submit this is a minor issue.
In the air, when you apply a side force to the stick the plane rolls
very nicely. However, the stick doesn't move much at all in this
case. For a pilot who gets his control feedback from the plane's
roll attitude this is not an issue. For a different pilot who
ignores the plane's attitude and only considers how far the control
stick moves this is a problem. I submit that a pilot should gauge
his actions by the response of the plane's attitude rather than the
movement of the stick.
Best regards,
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 09:17 AM 10/23/2008, you wrote:
>>>I think you are discussing two different problems rather than one.
>>
>> No, not really... Heavy ailerons. Maybe there are 2
>>solutions (or many more).
>
>Maybe we are discussing one issue, but we are offering solutions that are
>designed to address two issues that are quite distinct, control forces
>and flutter. There are multiple ways to relieve the control forces,
>including aerodynamic balance, balance tabs, spring tabs, weights, and
>some others I can't remember at the moment.
>
>Flutter is a complex phenonemon that is dependant on balance, speed,
>elasticity, airflow, and probably a host of others that I don't know about
>(I am no engineer). It is often overcome by use of balance weights, as
>well as careful engineering.
>
>Brian in Brazil
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: 601xl aeilerons |
Hi Gig,
I'm confused by your post.
In the first part you say balancing control surfaces is done to
relieve control pressures. In the second part you quote Bingelis
saying you only need to do this to reduce tendency for flutter.
In the aileron case, when you move the stick one aileron goes up and
the other goes down. This naturally provides balance from the
control stick's point of view. It is true no matter how big the
plane is. Said another way, the opposite aileron acts as a counter
balance. This addresses the control balance issue without
considering the flutter issue which, I believe, is more of a single
control surface issue and requires the local counterbalance you see
on many higher performance planes.
This is different from the elevator case where there is only one
moving control surface. The bigger the elevator the more effort it
takes, on the ground, to raise it. In the air, I submit it is the
airflow over the elevator and how much this is disrupted by a stick
movement that determines how much force is applied to the pitch axis
of the plane and how much feedback is applied to the stick. The
large forward movement of the plane along with the elevator trim
keeps the elevator centered before moving the stick. Still, a
counterbalance might be installed to reduce flutter tendencies in the
elevator in some designs.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 09:31 AM 10/23/2008, you wrote:
>[quote="ideaz1(at)sbcglobal.net]Sorry to sound argumentative, but
>the balancing of control surfaces is to
>releive the control forces required. Just picture a much larger aircraft
>with the same setup as the XL and you would have a hard time controling the
>plane at all; ...[/quote]
>
>
>http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/building/controls/Control%20Surface%20Balancing%20in%20Homebuilts.html?
>
>Control Surface Balancing in Homebuilts
>Sport Aviation - 12/96
>By Tony Bingelis
>
>The obvious question comes to mind. Why balance control surfaces? Do
>they really need to be balanced?
>
>Well, much seems to depend on the original design and construction
>of the control surfaces. Well-designed, rigid structures with little
>or no play in the hinges, control linkages, and trim tabs are less
>likely to be susceptible to flutter, hence, may not need to be
>statically balanced.
>
>--------
>W.R. "Gig" Giacona
>601XL Under Construction
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: 601xl aeilerons |
I have made demo flights in three different 601XL aircraft, two Continental powered
and one Corvair. My previous experience is mostly C-152's, but also a few
hours in the Tomahawk, Diamond Katana and Sonex. My impression of the 601XL is
yes, roll control feels a little heavy, but I do not see this as a problem.
It took only a few minutes to become familiar with it.
Even large certified transports, such as fly-by-wire Airbus', do not necessarily
have equal or even linear control forces in all axes.
Jim LoBue
601XL/Corvair
--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net> wrote:
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 601xl aeilerons
Hi Brian,
Thank you for your comment. I think your point of view is very
valuable. These issues are related but only distant relatives.
This thread started as a discussion of heavy aileron forces on a demo
flight. The counterbalances were added as a possible solution for
the heavy controls. My last comment was to try to separate the
counterbalances from the heavy controls, but your take on this issue
seems like it is more clear.
I want to try again to distinguish the heavy control issues without
regard to flutter.
If you move the stick left and right on the ground, it takes a
significant amount of force to go from one limit to the other. I
submit this is a minor issue.
In the air, when you apply a side force to the stick the plane rolls
very nicely. However, the stick doesn't move much at all in this
case. For a pilot who gets his control feedback from the plane's
roll attitude this is not an issue. For a different pilot who
ignores the plane's attitude and only considers how far the control
stick moves this is a problem. I submit that a pilot should gauge
his actions by the response of the plane's attitude rather than the
movement of the stick.
Best regards,
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 09:17 AM 10/23/2008, you wrote:
>>>I think you are discussing two different problems rather than one.
>>
>> No, not really... Heavy ailerons. Maybe there are 2
>>solutions (or many more).
>
>Maybe we are discussing one issue, but we are offering solutions that are
>designed to address two issues that are quite distinct, control forces
>and flutter. There are multiple ways to relieve the control forces,
>including aerodynamic balance, balance tabs, spring tabs, weights, and
>some others I can't remember at the moment.
>
>Flutter is a complex phenonemon that is dependant on balance, speed,
>elasticity, airflow, and probably a host of others that I don't know
about
>(I am no engineer). It is often overcome by use of balance weights, as
>well as careful engineering.
>
>Brian in Brazil
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: 601xl aeilerons |
To add to what Gig and Tony Benglis say, I think that nearly all "add-ons" (such
as balance weights, VGs, etc.) are to overcome a not quite perfected design.?
Granted, airplane design is really part science, part art. There is ample evidence
that not all aeronautical engineers are skillful at blending all the requirements
into a fully complete design that requires no "add-ons". Chris Heintz
has been designing airplanes for a LONG time. I fully trust him and believe
that if he thought aileron balance weights or VGs were necessary, they would
have been there.
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:31 am
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: 601xl aeilerons
[quote="ideaz1(at)sbcglobal.net]Sorry to sound argumentative, but the balancing
of control surfaces is to
releive the control forces required. Just picture a much larger aircraft
with the same setup as the XL and you would have a hard time controling the
plane at all; ...[/quote]
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/building/controls/Control%20Surface%20Balancing%20in%20Homebuilts.html?
Control Surface Balancing in Homebuilts
Sport Aviation - 12/96
By Tony Bingelis
The obvious question comes to mind. Why balance control surfaces? Do they really
need to be balanced?
Well, much seems to depend on the original design and construction of the
control surfaces. Well-designed, rigid structures with little or no play in the
hinges, control linkages, and trim tabs are less likely to be susceptible to
flutter, hence, may not need to be statically balanced.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
Message 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: 601xl aeilerons |
Just a thought..
You could not break the aeroplane with the way the ailerons are by design,
at any speed, but you could very easily break it with the sensitive
elevators at higher speeds. However, you don't need to have more sensitive
ailerons for control at any speed, but you certainly need sensitive
elevators at low speed.
I think that's why Chris designed it the way it is.
Solution is, install roll trim. I have and have flown many long flights
without any tiring effect.
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912
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 |
|
Fellow builders,
I am trying to get a little ahead on the wings and have my dad build the
ribs for my 601xl. However, I have been looking around and flanging
dies are hard to come by unless you want to make them out of wood (which
is completely doable). I had a local machine shop quote me for all 4
and they want $2300+ for the set! After I got done laughing, I starting
thinking of alternatives. There are about 10k+ ways to skin this cat,
but I figured I'd see if anyone had a set for loan?
--
Lee Steensland
601XL/Corvair (7637L reserved) Kit/Scratch builder 0.1% complete!
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: Flanging Dies |
Hi Lee,
A slotted stick works really well for bending the flanges on
lightening holes. I made one out of very fancy Russian 1/2" Russian
plywood. I don't know my actual cost but it was probably something
around a nickel.
Flanging dies are very nice if you are running a kit building factory
and don't really care how close the results are to the finished
needs. After bending the flanges with a die you still need to use
the slotted stick to adjust the final bend to get a truly flat rib
web. In the kit case this final step is left to the final kit builder.
The problem is there is spring-back of the metal after being stamped
with the flanging dies. This causes the rib web to spring back as
well and you get warped webs around the hole. This is easy to
relieve with the slotted stick by bending the flange a little further
than the position it comes out of the die. You just work your way
around the hole bending a little bit while watching the flatness of
the web against your work bench. You will probably want to perform a
similar bending operation on the outside flange of each rib for the
same reasons.
For scratch builders, you can do the same operation after cutting the
hole with the slotted stick and just skip the flanging die
altogether. This will take an extra minute or so for each lightening hole.
Good luck,
Paul
XL getting close
At 05:06 PM 10/23/2008, you wrote:
>Fellow builders,
>
>I am trying to get a little ahead on the wings and have my dad build
>the ribs for my 601xl. However, I have been looking around and
>flanging dies are hard to come by unless you want to make them out
>of wood (which is completely doable). I had a local machine shop
>quote me for all 4 and they want $2300+ for the set! After I got
>done laughing, I starting thinking of alternatives. There are about
>10k+ ways to skin this cat, but I figured I'd see if anyone had a set for loan?
>
>
>--
>Lee Steensland
>601XL/Corvair (7637L reserved) Kit/Scratch builder 0.1% complete!
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: Flanging Dies |
Lee-
I believe Gary Boothe posted instructions on how to make them out of
wood that should be in the archives.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Steensland" <zenith-list@steensland.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:06 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Flanging Dies
> <zenith-list@steensland.net>
>
> Fellow builders,
>
> I am trying to get a little ahead on the wings and have my dad build the
> ribs for my 601xl. However, I have been looking around and flanging dies
> are hard to come by unless you want to make them out of wood (which is
> completely doable). I had a local machine shop quote me for all 4 and
> they want $2300+ for the set! After I got done laughing, I starting
> thinking of alternatives. There are about 10k+ ways to skin this cat, but
> I figured I'd see if anyone had a set for loan?
>
>
> --
> Lee Steensland
> 601XL/Corvair (7637L reserved) Kit/Scratch builder 0.1% complete!
>
>
>
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: Flanging Dies |
Recently (a few weeks ago?) someone had a set available for loan.
I don't remember on which of the Z lists, you would have to search the
archives...
Good luck
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
2008/10/23 Lee Steensland <zenith-list@steensland.net>
> zenith-list@steensland.net>
>
> Fellow builders,
>
> I am trying to get a little ahead on the wings and have my dad build the
> ribs for my 601xl. However, I have been looking around and flanging dies
> are hard to come by unless you want to make them out of wood (which is
> completely doable). I had a local machine shop quote me for all 4 and they
> want $2300+ for the set! After I got done laughing, I starting thinking of
> alternatives. There are about 10k+ ways to skin this cat, but I figured I'd
> see if anyone had a set for loan?
>
>
> --
> Lee Steensland
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: Flanging Dies |
Do not archive
Are there now four flanging die sizes needed for the 601? There used to
be three; 65, 95, 115. What's new?
Regards,
Randy, Las Vegas
I had a local machine shop quote me for all 4 and they want $2300+
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: Flanging Dies |
Hey Lee,
Just for another perspective, I'll throw in my two cents. Making the dies out of
locally available oak (like at Home Depot) is really not too hard, although
it does require a lathe. I bet you could get a high school shop class to turn
yours for less than $2300. (LOL - I was floored by that - sounds like you were
too.) If you check my Kitlog site, there are some pretty good pictures that detail
how I glued mine up and turned them. I'm including the link below.
I must not have been doing something right with the "slotted stick" method. I've
read plenty of guys who had luck with it, but mine always ended up looking like
hell. BTW, my dies are in use or you could use them - still can if you want
to wait a little while.
I have noticed that some people mention an "oil-canning" or bowing of the webs
that I never experienced. I've come to suspect that most people who got that result
did one of two things...
1.) Either their dies never included, or had an ill-formed "shelf" portion at the
top of the die - the part that actually straightens the web back out to 90-degrees
after flanging the hole. I've seen people make the beveled part of the
die with a router bit and never include the flat "shelf." An early experiment
of mine didn't have the flat part, and they bowed the webs like crazy. The little
flat part at the top is very important.
2.) Their dies included the flat shelf, but they never hauled-off and whacked the
die as hard as you need to to straighten it out properly.
I've said it before, I'm no expert - just offering another opinion. Good luck,
and I hope this helps!
Debo Cox
Nags Head, NC
Scratchbuilt XL/Corvair
Airframe 85% complete
www.mykitlog.com/debo
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: Flanging Dies |
There are plans for dies on the ch601.org web site. I was fortunate enough to have
Debo's dies.
Dave Clay
Temple, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=210069#210069
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! --
|