Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:39 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (rans6andrew)
2. 05:29 AM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Jim Belcher)
3. 06:30 AM - Re: Re: Aileron gussets (a.f.rupp@att.net)
4. 06:52 AM - Re: Aileron gussets (Sabrina)
5. 09:40 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (rans6andrew)
6. 10:03 AM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Jay Maynard)
7. 10:38 AM - Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) ()
8. 12:19 PM - Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) (MHerder)
9. 12:37 PM - Re: Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) (Ron Pollock)
10. 12:40 PM - Re: Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) (David Johnson)
11. 01:02 PM - Re: Re: Aileron gussets (A.F.RUPP@att.net)
12. 01:05 PM - Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) (Sabrina)
13. 01:10 PM - Re: Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) (jaybannist@cs.com)
14. 01:10 PM - Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) (Terry Phillips)
15. 01:31 PM - Re: Re: Aileron gussets (A.F.RUPP@att.net)
16. 01:35 PM - Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) (Jay Maynard)
17. 01:40 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (rans6andrew)
18. 01:45 PM - Re: Aileron gussets (Sabrina)
19. 01:51 PM - Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) (rans6andrew)
20. 02:12 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (GBzodiflyer)
21. 02:49 PM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Bryan Martin)
22. 03:03 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Sabrina)
23. 05:38 PM - Hingeless ailerons (Sabrina) (afterfxllc@aol.com)
24. 05:39 PM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet))
25. 06:48 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Sabrina)
26. 07:08 PM - Re: Hingeless ailerons (Sabrina) (Sabrina)
27. 07:24 PM - Re: Re: Hingeless ailerons (Sabrina) (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
28. 07:42 PM - Re: Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) (Gary Gower)
29. 10:51 PM - Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) (K Dilks)
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
[/quote]
Andrew, your logic was understood. The problem we may face is that the 601XLs
here in the U.S. are not all necessarily built to the same standards as the
601XLs in the U.K. and Europe.
I'm not sure here that we can throw all XLs and XL accidents into the same
category.
=============================================
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
=================================================[/quote]
the thing is: at the moment nobody seems to know if the European and US 601XLs
are built to the same standards. Until the investigation findings are made public
the only way YOU can tell if YOUR aircraft is one of the bad ones is by having
it come apart in flight. Not a way of finding out that I would choose.
Andrew.
--------
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225964#225964
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
On Wednesday 21 January 2009 03:38, rans6andrew wrote:
>
> the thing is: at the moment nobody seems to know if the European and US
> 601XLs are built to the same standards. Until the investigation findings
> are made public the only way YOU can tell if YOUR aircraft is one of the
> bad ones is by having it come apart in flight. Not a way of finding out
> that I would choose.
That is, I suppose, one form of testing to failure :-)
I'd bet the two aren't built to the same standards. I'm not aware of a way to
build one aircraft that looks something like another, make it considerably
lighter, and not make significant changes to the structure.
One question may be, what are those changes, and are they a possible cause of
some of the problems? I increasingly believe there are multiple problems,
ranging from possible structural areas, to poor maintenance on some aircraft.
The guy in the hangar next to me has one of the Czech 601s. It's a beautiful
airplane. Of course, I'm prejudiced.
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
============================================
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: Aileron gussets |
Kevin
I put gussets on the outside. Real easy to do, looks O.K. But it is easy to open
a couple of rivets and slip them under the skin and close it up also. I think
it is worth doing no matter which way.
Al Rupp
New York
-------------- Original message from "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks@liwest.at>: --------------
>
> Nobody got an opinion on this? Amazing.
> kev
>
> --------
> Austria .............
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225960#225960
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Aileron gussets |
Al,
Do you have piano hinge or flex hinge ailerons?
Did you add them per the Zenith plans aft of the aileron hinge or did you tie the
aft aileron hinge portion to the ribs?
Did you use A4 or AS5 rivets on the inboard aft attach rivet position?
Sabrina
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225985#225985
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Jim, please explain your comment re weight differences, quoted
"I'd bet the two aren't built to the same standards. I'm not aware of a way to
build one aircraft that looks something like another, make it considerably
lighter, and not make significant changes to the structure."
What makes you think that there is any design change which changes the weight?
Are Czech aircraft thought to be heavier or lighter than US aircraft?
In the UK the 601XL is only approved up to a gross weight of 560Kg (1230 pounds).
This could explain why the UK 601XLs are all built with Rotax 912ULS (about
68Kg wet and ready to turn) power which leaves enough payload capacity by keeping
the empty weight low.
I notice that many US built aircraft use Corvair or Lyc/Cont engines and have instrument
fits like all weather combat aircraft. All very heavy looking.
Andrew.
--------
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225997#225997
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 09:39:53AM -0800, rans6andrew wrote:
> In the UK the 601XL is only approved up to a gross weight of 560Kg (1230
> pounds). This could explain why the UK 601XLs are all built with Rotax
> 912ULS (about 68Kg wet and ready to turn) power which leaves enough
> payload capacity by keeping the empty weight low.
In the rest of Europe, the XL, to be registered in the microlight category
(or whatever it's called), has a max gross of 450 kg. That's about 990
pounds. A Zodiac with an empty weight of 770 pounds (350 kg) isn't going to
have much in the way of a useful load, but that's what many US Zodiacs come
in at.
BTW, your 68 kg (about 140 pounds) for the Rotax ignores some required extra
equipment that brings the real powerplant weight up to closer to 165 or so.
Yes, there's a difference, but it's not as much as Rotax advocates claim.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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 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: | Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
This is very interesting. Where do these numbers come from (the
additional 25lbs)? I know I'm not alone it trying to find COMPARABLE
weights of engine installations . You'd think it was classified
information. What exactly is included in this extra weight?
Ron
BTW, your 68 kg (about 140 pounds) for the Rotax ignores some required
extra
equipment that brings the real powerplant weight up to closer to 165 or
so.
Yes, there's a difference, but it's not as much as Rotax advocates
claim.
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: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
It really is interesting how difficult it is to find different weights for similar
installations.
Every manufacturer seems to quote their weights different, dry, wet, with accessories,
without, with exhaust ,without etc. With coolant ,without. I also would
love to know some real "useful" information regarding weights without playing
the games that various manufacturers like to play.
Jab 3300 ready to fly real weight, wet, with exhaust,=x #
Cont 200 " "
Jab 2200 " "
Lyc 235 " "
Rotax 912 " "
Not that it's difficult to add up yourself... Its just a pain. Walking around
and trying to talk to manufacaturers at Oshkosh and find out realistic weights
feels like haggling a car deal to me. "Oh you want wheels with that?"
--------
One Rivet at a Time!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226031#226031
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: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
If the airframe doesn't vary that much would it be reasonable to
subtract that from an aircraft's total weight? Then everything left is
the firewall forward weights that we'd like to compare to. Minus gas
of course. And the prop weight should be known.
Ron in L.A.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:18 PM, MHerder <michaelherder@beckgroup.com> wrote:
>
> It really is interesting how difficult it is to find different weights for similar
installations.
>
> Every manufacturer seems to quote their weights different, dry, wet, with accessories,
without, with exhaust ,without etc. With coolant ,without. I also
would love to know some real "useful" information regarding weights without playing
the games that various manufacturers like to play.
>
> Jab 3300 ready to fly real weight, wet, with exhaust,=x #
> Cont 200 " "
> Jab 2200 " "
> Lyc 235 " "
> Rotax 912 " "
>
> Not that it's difficult to add up yourself... Its just a pain. Walking around
and trying to talk to manufacaturers at Oshkosh and find out realistic weights
feels like haggling a car deal to me. "Oh you want wheels with that?"
>
> --------
> One Rivet at a Time!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226031#226031
>
>
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: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
If it's any use, I have just weighed my 601XL, It's not yet painted, but
apart from that, it's complete.
Jab 3300, wheel spats, Landing light, Strobes, Dual brakes/sticks.
Instrument fit is Dynon100 and 120 etc.
It came out at dead on 700Lbs.
Dave Johnson
(still grounded!!)
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "MHerder" <michaelherder@beckgroup.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 8:18 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread)
> <michaelherder@beckgroup.com>
>
> It really is interesting how difficult it is to find different weights for
> similar installations.
>
> Every manufacturer seems to quote their weights different, dry, wet, with
> accessories, without, with exhaust ,without etc. With coolant ,without.
> I also would love to know some real "useful" information regarding weights
> without playing the games that various manufacturers like to play.
>
> Jab 3300 ready to fly real weight, wet, with exhaust,=x #
> Cont 200 " "
> Jab 2200 " "
> Lyc 235 " "
> Rotax 912 " "
>
> Not that it's difficult to add up yourself... Its just a pain. Walking
> around and trying to talk to manufacaturers at Oshkosh and find out
> realistic weights feels like haggling a car deal to me. "Oh you want
> wheels with that?"
>
> --------
> One Rivet at a Time!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226031#226031
>
>
>
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: Aileron gussets |
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: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
Dave,
What is the break down of the 700 pounds per wheel?
Nose? Left Main? Right Main?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226042#226042
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: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
Ron.
The first word of your post is diagnostic (that big "IF"). The weight of completed
Zodiac 601XL airframes do vary - a LOT !? I know specifically of several XLs,
with WW Corvair engines and none weigh the same, varying around 100 lbs, lightest
to heaviest.? In this case, the Corvair engine is the constant, not the
airframe.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Pollock <ronpollock@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 2:37 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread)
If the airframe doesn't vary that much would it be reasonable to
subtract that from an aircraft's total weight? Then everything left is
the firewall forward weights that we'd like to compare to. Minus gas
of course. And the prop weight should be known.
Ron in L.A.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:18 PM, MHerder <michaelherder@beckgroup.com> wrote:
>
> It really is interesting how difficult it is to find different weights for
similar installations.
>
> Every manufacturer seems to quote their weights different, dry, wet, with
accessories, without, with exhaust ,without etc. With coolant ,without. I also
would love to know some real "useful" information regarding weights without
playing the games that various manufacturers like to play.
>
> Jab 3300 ready to fly real weight, wet, with exhaust,=x #
> Cont 200 " "
> Jab 2200 " "
> Lyc 235 " "
> Rotax 912 " "
>
> Not that it's difficult to add up yourself... Its just a pain. Walking
around and trying to talk to manufacaturers at Oshkosh and find out realistic
weights feels like haggling a car deal to me. "Oh you want wheels with that?"
>
> --------
> One Rivet at a Time!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226031#226031
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
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: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
One thing to do is to go to the 601XL spec page
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/specification.html
There you find (hopefully) comparable data for the empty weights of Zodiacs
with the Jabiru 3300A, the Rotax 912, and the Lycoming O-235, of 695, 690,
and 800 lbs respectively.
Before I bought my kit, I asked either ZAC or JabiruUSA why these weights
did not reflect the engine manufacturer's data for the engine weights. I
was told that the engine manufacturer's numbers did not necessarily include
all the peripheral items that are necessary for the complete installation.
Terry
At 11:38 AM 1/21/2009 -0700, you wrote:
>This is very interesting. Where do these numbers come from (the
>additional 25lbs)? I know I'm not alone it trying to find COMPARABLE
>weights of engine installations . You'd think it was classified
>information. What exactly is included in this extra weight?
>
>Ron
>
>
>BTW, your 68 kg (about 140 pounds) for the Rotax ignores some required
>extra
>equipment that brings the real powerplant weight up to closer to 165 or
>so.
>Yes, there's a difference, but it's not as much as Rotax advocates
>claim.
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
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: Aileron gussets |
Sabrina,
I have the standard flex hinges. I used A5's on both the gussets, going through
three thicknesses of metal I use A5's.
Al,
NY
-------------- Original message from "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>: --------------
>
> Al,
>
> Do you have piano hinge or flex hinge ailerons?
> Did you add them per the Zenith plans aft of the aileron hinge or did you tie
> the aft aileron hinge portion to the ribs?
>
> Did you use A4 or AS5 rivets on the inboard aft attach rivet position?
> Sabrina
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225985#225985
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:38:08AM -0700, rsteele@rjsit.com wrote:
> This is very interesting. Where do these numbers come from (the
> additional 25lbs)? I know I'm not alone it trying to find COMPARABLE
> weights of engine installations . You'd think it was classified
> information. What exactly is included in this extra weight?
Radiator, coolamt, and associated plumbing.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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 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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Jim, the engine weight I mentioned came from chucking my engine, exhaust system,
oil cooler, water rad and oil reservoir onto my bathroom scales. The weights
I saw agree with those from the Rotax 912UL manual. Adding in water and oil
brought me up to 67 or 68Kg (149 pounds) if memory serves. The basic engine
weighs just 57Kg.
I believe that the Dutch ultralight rules allow 475Kg gross weight. In the UK
the rules are 450Kg for a 2 seat microlight BUT the empty weight has to be 450
minus 1 hours worth of fuel at max continuous power and minus 2 X 86Kg pilots
which comes down to an empty weight of 268Kg (590 pounds). Apart from the fuel
the aircraft must have everything it needs to fly when weighed empty.
If you use a 912, don't fit anything un-necessary, just basic instruments and go
easy on the paint it comes inside the 268Kg empty weight. You can help this
by removing excess length from bolts (leave 1.5 threads through nuts), round
off edges and trim spare material from all brackets, keep wire and hose lengths
to a minimum. I saved weight by throwing out a heavy key operated twin magneto
and starter switch (8 ounces) and using individual mag switches and a starter
button (less than 2 ounces). I have only one fuel gauge (2 were supplied)
and a change over switch as this saves some weight and some panel space. I chose
not to fit the Hobbs meter from the kit, I will use a handheld radio (not
in at time of weighing!). When you put your mind to it there is plenty of savings
to be made without affecting anything structural.
This works for a 601UL, I don't know what a 601XL could be built down to if attention
is given to keeping the weight down but it must be in the low 600 pounds
for the Dutch to be classing them as ultralights.
The aircraft is for daytime good vis pleasure flying, it does not need turn co-ordinator,
artificial horizon, panel fit radio, transponder, autopilot, gps, spats,
leg fairings, much sound insulation, carpets etc. I see most aircraft pictured
on the Zenith website have cockpits with more kit (weight!) than modern
frontline all weather fighters. A few ounces here, a few pounds there, it all
adds up if you let it.
Andrew.
--------
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226050#226050
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: Aileron gussets |
Al,
On top for flex hinges would be the only way I would do it, this way you reinforce
the aileron without messing up the flex hinge.
Alex,
Did you tie aft portion of the piano hinge to the aileron ribs or install as shown
in the 650 drawings, but on top?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226055#226055
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/650_185.jpg
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: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
the table of aircraft weights on the page
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/specification.html
has some er... errors in it. The empty weights of the Jab and 912ULS are only
5Lbs different and yet they are given as 6Kg different. 6Kg is 13Lbs!
They just don't add up.
Andrew.
--------
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226056#226056
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Talking about weight difference , there is a very big difference in weights in
the undercariage suppliied.
In usa kits , which is grove wheels etc , and a very heavy main aluminium gear
leg , And the original zenair/czaw u,c is two seperate composite legs and light
weight wheels /tyres/brakes , which i believe came from
http://www.marc-ingegno.it/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=53&lang=en
my xl tail dragger with this lightweight u/c came out at 305 kg painted , weighed
on u.s. built load cells .
do you guys in the u.s. have a lighter weight option main gear than the one supplied
in the american kit , I am a little concerned as the guys here are building
the u.s. version , but will be restricted to 560 kg mtow , a little lower
than your 600 kg i think .
Gary .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226058#226058
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
There is a Grove main landing gear that is considerably lighter than
the Zenith supplied one. it's built from a stronger type of aluminum
so it can be lighter (but more expensive).
> >
>
> do you guys in the u.s. have a lighter weight option main gear than
> the one supplied in the american kit , I am a little concerned as
> the guys here are building the u.s. version , but will be restricted
> to 560 kg mtow , a little lower than your 600 kg i think .
>
> Gary .
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Pure Hypothetical....
Let's say Zenith sold me 372 pounds of aluminum... this 372 does not count the
landing gear, canopy, canopy struts, landing gear fixtures, axles, wheels, tubes,
tires, nose strut, rivets, torque tube, brakes, dual sticks, engine mount,
cowling, canopy rails, flap motor, flap tube/arms, interior, servos, fuel senders,
gauges, bolts, fiberglass pants/tips, nylon or cables.
Figure my O-200A engine, accessories, oil, engine mount, cowl, metal prop, prop
spacer, heat exchangers, exhaust, spinner come in at 250.
Figure the the misc. steel, main landing gear, rivets, wire, bolts, nuts, rubber,
pumps, batteries, avionics, lights, paint, fiberglass tips, canopy, interior,
cables, etc. come in at 250.
With four gallons of fuel, I am at 860, without fuel 836.
836 - 250 - 250 = 336 pounds of aluminum out of the 372 after trimming.
Assuming you can cut 30% of my engine weight and 30% of my "other" mass, you still
have 372 pounds of aluminum + 175 + 175 = 722.
To reach 590 one would have to trim the aluminum to 240/372 pounds or shave off
35% off the airframe.
I don't know how anyone in the EU gets down to 590 pounds... 700 I can see, 590???
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226064#226064
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: | Hingeless ailerons (Sabrina) |
Sabrina,
I have a set of ailerons that I built (from a Kit) that I didn't use because we
went with hinges. One of them has a slight dent on the out board end from my
canopy falling on it but can be repaired pretty easy. If you pay the shipping
I will give them to you.
let me know
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Sent: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 6:03 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
Pure Hypothetical....
Let's say Zenith sold me 372 pounds of aluminum... this 372 does not count the
landing gear, canopy, canopy struts, landing gear fixtures, axles, wheels,
tubes, tires, nose strut, rivets, torque tube, brakes, dual sticks, engine
mount, cowling, canopy rails, flap motor, flap tube/arms, interior, servos, fuel
senders, gauges, bolts, fiberglass pants/tips, nylon or cables.
Figure my O-200A engine, accessories, oil, engine mount, cowl, metal prop, prop
spacer, heat exchangers, exhaust, spinner come in at 250.
Figure the the misc. steel, main landing gear, rivets, wire, bolts, nuts,
rubber, pumps, batteries, avionics, lights, paint, fiberglass tips, canopy,
interior, cables, etc. come in at 250.
With four gallons of fuel, I am at 860, without fuel 836.
836 - 250 - 250 = 336 pounds of aluminum out of the 372 after trimming.
Assuming you can cut 30% of my engine weight and 30% of my "other" mass, you
still have 372 pounds of aluminum + 175 + 175 = 722.
To reach 590 one would have to trim the aluminum to 240/372 pounds or shave off
35% off the airframe.
I don't know how anyone in the EU gets down to 590 pounds... 700 I can see,
590???
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226064#226064
st Contribution Web Site -
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Lets assume they all are crazy in Europe ! Just pure hypothetical...
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:03 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
>
> Pure Hypothetical....
>
> Let's say Zenith sold me 372 pounds of aluminum... this 372 does not count
> the landing gear, canopy, canopy struts, landing gear fixtures, axles,
> wheels, tubes, tires, nose strut, rivets, torque tube, brakes, dual
> sticks, engine mount, cowling, canopy rails, flap motor, flap tube/arms,
> interior, servos, fuel senders, gauges, bolts, fiberglass pants/tips,
> nylon or cables.
>
> Figure my O-200A engine, accessories, oil, engine mount, cowl, metal prop,
> prop spacer, heat exchangers, exhaust, spinner come in at 250.
>
> Figure the the misc. steel, main landing gear, rivets, wire, bolts, nuts,
> rubber, pumps, batteries, avionics, lights, paint, fiberglass tips,
> canopy, interior, cables, etc. come in at 250.
>
> With four gallons of fuel, I am at 860, without fuel 836.
>
> 836 - 250 - 250 = 336 pounds of aluminum out of the 372 after trimming.
>
> Assuming you can cut 30% of my engine weight and 30% of my "other" mass,
> you still have 372 pounds of aluminum + 175 + 175 = 722.
>
> To reach 590 one would have to trim the aluminum to 240/372 pounds or
> shave off 35% off the airframe.
>
> I don't know how anyone in the EU gets down to 590 pounds... 700 I can
> see, 590???
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226064#226064
>
>
>
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
grinding off bolts to save weight is zcary, not crazy, pick the correct size bolt,
if it is done while the nylo nut is on, the heat of the grind/cut can damage
the nut, if done after, the sharp thread can also damage it.
1 1/2 threads is a minimum NOT nominal. 1 1/2 coupled with heat damage should
ground an aircraft here...
No offense... but I think we are getting at something here...
so too, I have never heard of Zenith supplying center spar webs to CZAW that were
bent to the new angle, who unbends the web?
cutting corners is never good...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226107#226107
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: | Re: Hingeless ailerons (Sabrina) |
I would love them... WOW! I will try to get a UPS shipping account number to
you off list soon...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226112#226112
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Hingeless ailerons (Sabrina) |
Ok I will get some pics of them to you in the morning. They are also primed
inside and out with Dupont 2 part etching primer.
Jeff
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
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: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
There are two simple questions-that men will never get a straight answer
ever:
-
Homebuilt engines real -weight an power-- and women-age...- :-)
- :-)- :-)
-
Saludos
Gary- Gower
Do not archive.
--- On Wed, 1/21/09, MHerder <michaelherder@beckgroup.com> wrote:
From: MHerder <michaelherder@beckgroup.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread)
<michaelherder@beckgroup.com>
It really is interesting how difficult it is to find different weights for
similar installations.
Every manufacturer seems to quote their weights different, dry, wet, with
accessories, without, with exhaust ,without etc. With coolant ,without. I
also
would love to know some real "useful" information regarding weights
without playing the games that various manufacturers like to play.
Jab 3300 ready to fly real weight, wet, with exhaust,=x #
Cont 200 " "
Jab 2200 " "
Lyc 235 " "
Rotax 912 " "
Not that it's difficult to add up yourself... Its just a pain. Walking
around and trying to talk to manufacaturers at Oshkosh and find out realist
ic
weights feels like haggling a car deal to me. "Oh you want wheels with
that?"
--------
One Rivet at a Time!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226031#226031
=0A=0A=0A
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: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
Hi all,
I have to chip in with a little reality check on this topic.
I worked for three years in France for the Rotax dealer there.
The system is that the lanes for ULM ( microlight) must have a empty weight
of 450 kg or 475 with a BRS fitted.
Now here is the punch line . The planes are NOT weighed , you just sign a declaration
that states you comply. No inspection of the craft is made ONLY this declaration
and you get registration.
Hence Zodiacs , Sting Carbons, and virtually all designes in this catagory are
more than this limit.
We had a Sting Carbon retratable gear in the shop with every thing on it , Full
IFR kit , pitot heat , second generator the list was endless. When i could not
push it in our hanger on my own I asked the owner how much it weighed and he
just laughed. So when he went out we weighed it at 410KG wet ! He then said
the empty figure was about 375 and could he have some fuel to fill it up ...................Rotax
engine too.
My point is that in the UK the really weight the planes but Im not so sure the
REAL weight is on the documents in many European countries.
All the planes that live in Belgium have French registrations ( ULM) .....as
the process is so easy.
This was also the case with the Belgium Zodiac dealer we did work for , he said
that its better to be a bit heavy and safe ...... as he new all the Zodiacs
were a bit porky.
Why the UK XL is limited to 560 kg ?? is this because they are from CZAW as
my plans state 590 and that is what I shall enter on the paperwork.
Cheers!
Kev
--------
Austria .............
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226134#226134
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! --
|