---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith601-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 10/23/08: 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:09:32 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:57:56 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: CH601XL roll sensitivity & aileron control weight From: "kevstewart" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:35:39 AM PST US From: "Bob" Subject: Zenith601-List: Test ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:06:49 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: CH 650 canning supression angle From: "Gig Giacona" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:43:24 AM PST US From: "Dirk Zahtilla" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:21:48 AM PST US From: Al Hays Subject: Zenith601-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:17:49 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 601xl aeilerons From: "Brian Wood" >> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:31:32 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: 601xl aeilerons From: "Gig Giacona" [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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:46:28 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz 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 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:57:09 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:55:15 AM PST US From: Jimbo Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 wrote: From: Paul Mulwitz 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:44:37 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601xl aeilerons From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:51:13 PM PST US From: "Dave Austin" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:07:15 PM PST US From: Lee Steensland Subject: Zenith601-List: Flanging Dies 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:19:21 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:31:01 PM PST US From: "Bill Naumuk" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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" Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 8:06 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Flanging Dies > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:01:19 PM PST US From: "Carlos Sa" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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> > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:51:35 PM PST US From: "Randy L. Thwing" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:20:15 PM PST US From: Debo Cox Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:02:13 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Flanging Dies From: "TxDave" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith601-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith601-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith601-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith601-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.