Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:57 AM - 601 wing on 650 fuselage (dalemed)
2. 08:03 AM - LSA Insurance Report (Rosalie)
3. 08:26 AM - Re: 601 wing on 650 fuselage (Larry Winger)
4. 08:58 AM - Re: 601 wing on 650 fuselage (Bryan Martin)
5. 04:56 PM - The removable forward top skin (LarryMcFarland)
6. 07:32 PM - Re: GVT? (Thruster87)
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: | 601 wing on 650 fuselage |
I'd already started my 601xl wings when the 650 design was released. I was told
at that time (by the factory) that I could use the 601 wings "as is". Now I'm
hearing about attachment differences between the two. Can anyone explain whats
really going on and what I might need to rework on the wings?
Thanks for any enlightenment!
--------
Dale
Flying Cessna 170B
Building Zenith CH650
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245890#245890
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: | LSA Insurance Report |
Plane and Pilot magazine, May 2009 issue, has a very interesting
article reporting on LSA crashes and the insurance industry's
perspective on the subject. The author reported on Mike Adams'
(Avemco's V.P. of underwriting) presentation at Sebring. There are some
interesting comments including the fact that Europe has not experienced
as many LSA accidents as in the U.S. because they have a lot more
micro-light experience than we do. Also, many LSA accidents involve
very experienced pilots with not enough transition training going from
G.A. airplanes that are very forgiving to lighter, more responsive,
LSA's. I transitioned from spam cans to my Zodiac XL by getting 6
hours of instructor supervised flight experience before I finished
building. Anyone not yet finished building should get some supervised
hours in a Zodiac before they finish building and start Phase I. I wish
everyone safe flying.
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: 601 wing on 650 fuselage |
No reworking of the wings is required. The change in angle of incidence
affects how you set the center spar in the fuselage as well as the vertical
location of the rear attach plate. Because it is closer to the lower
longeron, it cannot be as wide as on the 601XL, therefore it is made of
thicker material.
Larry Winger
601XL (now 650) / Corvair
Ready for canopy
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:57 AM, dalemed <dalemed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd already started my 601xl wings when the 650 design was released. I was
> told at that time (by the factory) that I could use the 601 wings "as is".
> Now I'm hearing about attachment differences between the two. Can anyone
> explain whats really going on and what I might need to rework on the wings?
>
> Thanks for any enlightenment!
>
> --------
> Dale
> Flying Cessna 170B
> Building Zenith CH650
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245890#245890
>
>
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: 601 wing on 650 fuselage |
I believe the 650 wings are set at a slightly different angle of
incidence to the fuselage: the trailing edge is lower. To make the 601
wings fit, all you should need to do is to adjust the lower flanges of
the center spar section to the new angle and use the new, thicker rear
attach plate.
>
> I'd already started my 601xl wings when the 650 design was
> released. I was told at that time (by the factory) that I could use
> the 601 wings "as is". Now I'm hearing about attachment differences
> between the two. Can anyone explain whats really going on and what
> I might need to rework on the wings?
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
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: | The removable forward top skin |
Hi guys,
There are a few still finishing the forward tilt canopy and I thought
perhaps this information would be useful for those wanting a removable
forward top skin. Its easier than trying to make a hole in the skin
work around the canopy etc., and it costs lots less.
For peripheral fasteners, I used clip nuts better labeled as J-nuts for
screws. I used a 6-32 J-nut from McMaster-Carr their part number #
94809A102 and 94808A401. These can be seen on the McMaster site
http://www.mcmaster.com/
I used round head 6-32 screws 3/8-inch long and spaced them about the
same as you'd do for A4 pop rivets.
Believe I used about 80 of these on the forward top skin and I use a
$9.00 battery powered screwdriver to remove them.
The clips were about $9.00 per 50 pieces. These do not raise the skin at
all. Much easier than nut plates and the half dozen that you might over
tighten or damage each year are just lifted from the hole catch, slid
off and replaced. These just slide over a hole and a very small
retaining edge captures it to keep it from slipping or being wiped off.
I'm terribly keen on these things, because they're cheap, refuse to let
go and never allow screws to come loose.
The forward top skin has to be modified to eliminate the wide segments
on each side and the wide segments have to become separate pieces that
stay on the plane.
See links below.
The fastener hole normally used should be 7/32 diameter for the clips.
The top skin holes should be 9/64 inch. I purchased about 300 of both
types and have used them elsewhere. See links of clips placed,
originally clecoed, finished install and access.
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/uclips.gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/xlfwdtopskin.gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/flash&rubber.gif
<http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/flash&rubber.gif>
<http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/flash&rubber.gif
<http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/flash&rubber.gif>>
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/electricaccess.gif
The method for removing the forward top skin begins by removing the
forward most 6 side screws before opening the canopy.
Two 3 x 5 rectangles of deburred aluminum are slid between the rubber
trim near the hinge to prevent the rubber from catching on the edges of
the top skin. When the canopy is lifted, these screw holes are covered
by the canopy arms. The rest of the screws are removed progressively,
the gas cap is removed and the skin is lifted out toward the cockpit and
set aside. The gas cap is then reinstalled.
The canopy should be raised to replace the forward top skin and the
reverse assembly is the same.
The removable forward top skin allows an easy removal of the forward
tilt canopy when it's time to paint. I've had the skin off half a dozen
times the past two years for wiring, gage replacement, checking inside
engine mount integrity, etc.
I hope this is useful for you and as you have questions, don't hesitate
to ask.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
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 |
|
The recent meetings between Zenair and German authorities (the DAeC and their DAR
engineers as well as the BFU) were very productive with key steps taken towards
re-establishing the good standing of the CH 601 XL aircraft throughout Europe.
A very comprehensive presentation by the head of the GVT program that tested
the aircraft made it very clear that the often suggested flutter is an exceedingly
unlikely "smoking gun" to explain past accidents. The engineer in charge
instead applauded Chris Heintz for the overall scores obtained by the Zodiac
throughout the tests, as they were among the best ever seen in his lab. The
results of the very thorough linear flutter analysis left no doubts in anyone's
mind: "No tendency to flutter or divergence was found within the flight envelope
of the CH 601 XL". This included tests from minimum to maximum take-off
weight; with fixed as well as free controls; with control cable tensions varying
from well below 10 lbs. to over 40 lbs, and with standard as well as overweight
control surfaces (i.e. possibly due to excessive paint in the "real world");
all from sea level to over 15,000 feet and to speeds well above 400 km/h.
In order to ensure accurate results, all tests were carried out on two different
Zodiac aircraft. The significance of the flap stops called-for as part of the
regular design was confirmed. The aircraft which did not at first have these
installed showed less satisfactory results than Zenair's own standard demo plane
(with stops) which was one of the tested planes. Zenair will be issuing a
Service Letter very shortly calling for owners/pilots to check their flap stops
(and to install them prior to further flight operations if these have not been
previously fitted). By the end of the tests, both aircraft (a classic CH 601
XL and the newer CH 650 E) presented the same consistent results: No tendency
to flutter.
Also during this GVT testing process, it was noticed that the German-registered
CH 601 XL on which the tests were conducted did not have part of the aileron-stop
structure which was an integral part of the CH 601 XL at the time of German
certification. Zenair has been asked by the DAeC to issue a Service Letter
addressing this potential discrepancy for German-registered CH 601 XL; the DAeC
will be issuing its own AD shortly to ensure the aircraft's ongoing compliance
with LTF-UL certification.
Many questions were answered by the flutter expert after his presentation to German
authorities; his answers and ample GVT data successfully satisfied those
present that flutter was a non-issue for the Zenair Zodiac design. "The complete
ground vibration tests (GVT) just completed were conducted to natural frequencies
well over 70 Hz. This clearly demonstrates that the standard Zodiac design
is flutter-free within (and well beyond) the entire range of its flight envelope"
said Chris Heintz, who also attended the meetings.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245989#245989
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! --
|