Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:43 AM - Re: 601xl engine out glide ratio (hallert)
2. 08:05 AM - Re: Re: 601xl engine out glide ratio (Paul Mulwitz)
3. 08:12 AM - Re: [Probable Spam] Fuel lines (Larry McFarland)
4. 04:10 PM - Re: Re: 601xl engine out glide ratio (Paul Mulwitz)
5. 06:32 PM - Re: Re: 601xl engine out glide ratio (Mark Hubelbank)
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 engine out glide ratio |
Paul,
You're right about the engine weight. The other strange behavior I have noticed
is that slips have practically no effect on the descent rate unlike
any other aircraft I have flown. Have you noticed this?
Ted
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353780#353780
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: 601xl engine out glide ratio |
Hi Ted,
I haven't tried slips yet. The plane drops so nicely with full flaps I
never thought of slips.
I have tried to stall my plane and never really got a break.
I've been spending most of my time working on engine cooling issues and
flight control problems. I'm about the start spending some real time
just flying the plane and trying to get good at landing it.
The biggest flight control problems have been insufficient trim to trim
out full flap configuration and a need to hold left rudder to get it to
fly straight. I fixed the trim by adding a fixed tab to the motorized
one. The rudder "Trim" problem has been fixed by adjusting the rudder
cables.
My last change (I hope) is to add a small fin on the bottom rear of the
fuselage. I have been unhappy with the yaw stability and hope to
improve it a little bit. Especially in turbulence, the nose seems to
wander from side to side instead of finding a good position and staying
there. I can't imagine why Chris built his planes without a vertical
stabilizer, but this seems like the price for that choice. I don't know
of any other planes with this rudder configuration.
Paul
On 10/2/2011 7:41 AM, hallert wrote:
> --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "hallert"<hallert@verizon.net>
>
> Paul,
> You're right about the engine weight. The other strange behavior I have noticed
is that slips have practically no effect on the descent rate unlike
> any other aircraft I have flown. Have you noticed this?
>
> Ted
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353780#353780
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Paul,
I=92d recommend you stay clear of any tube or hose that is less than =BC
inch
diameter nominal I.D. The UK use 3/8 or more and US
Builders nearly always recommend 3/8 tube with =BC as minimum. The
Corvair is
likely to run on smaller diameter tube flow, but if you have any
obstructive debris, icing or other, the small 1/8 inch diameter will
shut
you down very quickly. I=92d recommend you look for something larger.
Respectfully,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
paulrod36@msn.com
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 8:57 PM
Subject: [Probable Spam] Zenith601-List: Fuel lines
A question for the Corvair drivers: My pre-supplied Zenith fuel hose is
1/4"
Unfortunately, it won't fit over the 1/4" AN fitting I'm using to go
through
the fuselage skin. Coming out of the finger screen is a 1/8" barb
fitting,
which does fit inside 1/4" hose. My idea is to use a 1/4" barb, and then
go
to 3/8" tubing, and eventually up to 1/4" AN fittings, and aluminum fuel
line. Has anybody used 1/8" barb fittings, or any other 1/8" component?
Did
it adequately feed the Corvair engine? (if it will, I'll save a whole
lot of
work getting to that fitting.) If it was gravity feed, no way. But,
with a
pump moving the fuel, it's more of a maybe. Any thoughts, or experience
with this setup?
Paul R
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: 601xl engine out glide ratio |
Hi Ted,
I just took a long look at the Zodiac XL fuselage. I wanted to consider
my new fin (which doesn't work) to get some yaw stability. I also
considered your comments about slips having little impact.
The Zodiac XL has a very funny shape. Because of the flat sides and the
angle they make to the tail and the way the front of the cabin is shaped
there seems to be no yaw stability at all built into the fuselage. When
you slip there is no significant change in the cross section of the
fuselage that hits the air flow. This changes once you get the tail out
further than the widest point at the cabin center (shoulder area for
passengers), but that would be a very deep slip indeed.
I wanted to add some yaw stability, but my first attempt to add a fin on
the bottom of the fuselage didn't work. In order to get a significant
"Height" the fin will hit the ground when the nose is raised. This
would be particularly noticeable when doing a full stall landing.
I took a look around the airport at other planes, and most of them
(particularly TC'd ones) have an extra fin that goes from the front or
middle of the fuselage length up to the front of the fixed fin in the
tail. I suspect adding such a fin to the XL might give it some
stability but this looks like it would be a big job. The top of the
rear fuselage has very little strength, and this would probably need to
be beefed up to support air loads to the side of the fuselage. And, of
course, the XL design as drawn has no vertical stabilizer at all.
If you compare the Piper Sport to the Zodiac XL you will see the biggest
change is in the addition of a vertical stabilizer. This plane was
designed by CZAW and appears to use many parts from the Zodiac XL they
used to sell into the European market.
I hope somebody else has looked at this with a smarter eye than mine and
come up with something that works.
Paul
Camas, WA
On 10/2/2011 7:41 AM, hallert wrote:
> --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "hallert"<hallert@verizon.net>
>
> Paul,
> You're right about the engine weight. The other strange behavior I have noticed
is that slips have practically no effect on the descent rate unlike
> any other aircraft I have flown. Have you noticed this?
>
> Ted
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=353780#353780
>
>
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 engine out glide ratio |
Ted,
My CH601LX may be a bit different. It is a Jabiru 3300 powered and
has no wheel covers at this time but otherwise it should be somewhat
similar.
I show a best glide of 65 mph IAS with a sink rate of about 700
feet per min for about a 8:1 ratio. This is at gross, while I have not
measured it carefully, I think it is about 500-600 feet per min sink
rate with no passenger and part fuel. I have not tried it with the prop
stopped, that would probably increase the ratio a bit.
I find that at gross and a 75 mph IAS, I can see a sink rate of
1000 feet per min with full flaps and almost 1500 in a slip plus flaps.
I do find that slips should not be done below 70 mph IAS or one can have
poor aileron control.
I also did run out of trim at full flaps and have put in a spring
on the elevator to neutralize its weight. This made the trim range just
make it to full flaps.
I believe you said that you had observed a tendency to roll to one
side when near stall. I originally had that problem. It turned out that
trailing edge of the right wing was a few mm too low. There had been a
measurement error that propogated through construction. This may have
nothing to do with your observations but it might be worth checking.
While I agree that this is not as stable as a high wing plane, I
have not found it to be unusually unstable. I don't find it to be too
much different from a PA24 (Piper Comanche) I once had. The PA24 was
very unforgiving if you let it drift on its own.
Mark Hubelbank
Ch601XL-B
Jabiru 3300
Sensenich adj prop
Rotec TBI-40-3
145 Hours airframe
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! --
|