Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:41 AM - Re: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions (BokKat)
2. 06:48 AM - Re: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions (BokKat)
3. 07:42 AM - Re: Inspection Plates (txpilot)
4. 07:53 AM - Carburetor Ice ? (Alvin Rose)
5. 08:27 AM - Re: Carburetor Ice ? (Ken Ryan)
6. 01:13 PM - Re: CH701 Wing Leveler (Les Goldner)
7. 01:13 PM - Re: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions (Les Goldner)
8. 01:45 PM - Re: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions (Craig Payne)
9. 02:06 PM - BRS balance issue (Les Goldner)
10. 02:31 PM - Re: CH701 Wing Leveler (Ashcraft, Keith - AES)
11. 02:58 PM - Fuel Tests (bob)
12. 03:18 PM - Re: Fuel Tests (Les Goldner)
13. 04:41 PM - Re: Fuel Tests (George Race)
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: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions |
Not a dumb question regarding CG issues at all! In inches (the DAR
wanted it figured out in inches) the CG was about at the 19 inch mark
with 20 being at the edge of the envelope. From 11 to 20 inches
according to ZAC.
After the first almost disasterous flight, our EAA group including two A
& P's concluded that though the plane was withing the CG limits, albeit
at the edge, probably as one gets closer to the aft limit of the cg
things get a lot more critical. In fct, we carefully went over the
plane and ran plumb bobs where we all agreed the various weights might
be, the fuel tanks, the seats, etc. and they didn't agree 100% with
numbers from the factory or what another builder in northern Minn had
used! An inch more or less makes a small difference in overall W & B
which gets more critical when you get closer to the edge of the CG
envelope! The moral of the story is to be awfully careful as you
approach the edge of the envelope.
"All the mods" in my airplane are ONLY the placement of X braces and
their rivets in the tail section, a mod that many people have done.
This adds pretty well no significant weight to the tail (a couple of
pounds, maybe) and no other mod was made to the entire airplace other
than long range tanks (four 10 gallon wing tanks instead of two)
Othersise NO mods at all! Standard kit!
My DAR was insistent that the CG be in the front half for the first
flight! He said his boss in the Minneapolis office insists on that.
After working the math for half the afternoon, we decided that the only
way to get the CG in the front half of the envelope would be to remove
the BRS and even add a few pounds of lead in the forward part of the
cockpit, and only put 10 gallons of gas in the tanks. This would put
the CG into the forward half.
I thought this was overkill as I had seen pictures of planes with a BRS
against the baggage comprtment bulkhead, although in retrospect those
were the earilier baggage compartments which were shorter than the
extended one that is now used. I thought I knew better than the DAR as
my plane was within the envelope so launched with the BRS on the baggage
compartment bulkhead, 20 gallons of gas, no lead, etc. With the cg in
this position the plane was almost uncontrollable at low speeds and
almost ended up in disaster! ;I escaped with only a bent nose fork and
bruised ego!
It looks to me like your BRS will end up even behind mine, and unless
your engine mount is longer or a heavier engine you could be setting
yourself up for problems. But every airplane is a little bit different
even though they are standard kits and who knows? You might be OK!
I have a standard FWF package from Skyshops and a Rotax 912 S which
obviously would not balance that 25 - 30 pound BRS way back there in my
airplane. One can't beat the laws of physics, unfortunately. The laws
of physics almost beat ME, instead! Never again.
Which is why I'm cautioning anyone who contemplates putting their BRS
way back there. These airplanes are light and a few pounds way back
there might make quite a difference. If the builder has a heavier
engine or longer engine mount that I have, it might work out OK. Even
with a 912 you MIGHT get away with it, depending on all the other little
factors involved in building a plane, although being kits they are
pretty well much the same. But even your strengthening the fuselage in
that area will shift the CG a little bit back. Every little bit makes a
difference on these light airplanes.
I built a Starduster 2 before the 701 and they tend to have an aft CG at
best which had to be overcome by either a longer engine mount or a
heavier engine. I love power and aerobatics, so put on a heavier
engine to kill two birds with one rock! Hah!
After sending your pictures around to several other EAA'rs who have all
built at least one airplane including 2 A &P's and who have all
inspected my airplane before and after the first sort-of-flight and
almost had the opportunity to analyze the wreckage, the most poignant
one I recieved back is quoted:
This is BIG TROUBLE!
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: RE: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions |
I was noticing your big door to the baggage compartment. I have a
couple of 20 inch folding bikes, but these weigh around 20 - 25 pounds
apiece, so if you add ANOTHER 25 pounds back there I'd be doubly
cautious! Not being critical, just cautious......
The idea of a door to the baggage compartment is a good one though. How
did you build it so as not to weaken the airframe? I'd be quite
interested in this. Thanks Bob
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: Inspection Plates |
Thanks for the replies. That gives me some good info to work on.
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 6437#206437
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: | Carburetor Ice ? |
Hi Ralph
I think this problem may have to do with fuel flow...but I am not ruling
out carb heat..I flew all of last winter with no carb heat and did not
have a problem
even on the coldest days..I found some dirt in my gas filter so I will
clean it.
also clean the air filters I have a electric pump installed with a
bypass valve
but did not turn it on as I was setting up a glide to the landing
strip..the engine did not stop
It was just speeding up and slowing down
>From now on I will keep the electric pump on to provide extra gas to the
mechanical pump.
Also I will install 1/4 inch vent tubing on the top of each tank cap to
vent better.
I have had the problem of the right tank supply going down before the
left but this
has not been an issue..I will also check the float bowls on the
carburetors to see
if there is any water or sediment..I use a mr funnel on all gas so I
don't see any
water or cantamination in the gascolator or tank drains..I am doing some
checks of the
fuel system today and will fly again over the airstrip.
Alvin
Alvin,
What you describe is not the usual carb ice symptoms although
with 2 carbs
it could manifest that way.
I have had a power loss 6 times now which first thought was carb ice
but now certain
caused by steep descent or unbalanced attitudes causing unporting of the
fuel feed. On separate occasions during ground running above damp grass
I've
had carb ice and cleared it with carb ht. then let it occur again and
clear again
just to confirm. My engine is a 2200 however it uses the same model of
carb
as the 912 and although I see many not fitting a heat system its proved
necessary
for me.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
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: Carburetor Ice ? |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
>Previous post:
>
> I flew all of last winter with no carb heat and did not have a problem
> even on the coldest days
>
I just want to chime in to remind everyone that
you don't need cold outside air temperature to
develop carb icing. As the intake air expands
going through the carburetor venturi the
temperature can drop 30 degrees. You can get
carb icing on a 60 degree day. I've seen it many
times.
On the other hand, when it is extremely cold,
there is very little moisture in the air and carb
icing is far less likely.
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: | CH701 Wing Leveler |
Keith,
My Trio EZ autopilot worked great keeping the wings level and the plane
on-course. EZ a great product with good support. I took a 3000-mile round
trip flight into a lot of high-wind conditions without having to put my
hands on the stick except to adjust the trim tab and to land. Notice that I
used the past tense here because I no longer have good GPS input into the
EZ. When the EZ worked, I was using my Lowrance 1000 GPS output to control
it. Then I made a bad mistake by selling my Lowrance & purchasing a fancy
do-everything, AnyWhereMap GPS that operates on a Windows tablet PC.
AnyWhereMap assured me that their product would work with my EZ but it
doesn't! The plane now swings back and forth up to 15-degrees off-course
under the control of the AnyWhereMap. AnyWhereMap won't give me back my
money without hitting me with a hefty restocking fee. Its been 3-months
since I purchased the unit and they still haven't fixed the problem! (You
may want to consider putting this firm on your no-buy list).
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Ashcraft, Keith - AES
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 6:32 PM
> To: zenith701801-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith701801-List: CH701 Wing Leveler
>
> --> <Keith.Ashcraft@itt.com>
>
> Les Goldner,
> Since the matronics 601 group have been having the discussion
> on AutoPilots, how has your wing-leveler been working out
> with your 701?
> Any inverse-yaw actions?
>
> Just curious, and hope you are making sure that there is more
> air time under your tires than ground time :-)
>
> Keith
> CH701 -- scratch -- finishing up rear fuselage, ready to
> finish cabin sides, and work on forward fuselage.
> N 38.9940
> W 105.1305
> Alt. 9,100'
>
>
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be
> proprietary and are intended solely for the use of the
> individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
> received this e-mail in error please notify the sender.
> Please note that any views or opinions presented in this
> e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of ITT Corporation. The recipient should
> check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of
> viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage caused by
> any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
>
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: After 5 hours flight time, questions |
My 701 with a Rotax 100HP and a BRS behind the baggage compartment
weights 650# and has an empty CG of 374cm behind the front of the slats.
(500cm is max.)
Les
_____
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Gordon
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
I had the same question --- wondering what the numbers were??
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh@netzero.com
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
I guess this is a rather dumb question but,,,, Didnt you put the plane
on scales after all your mods and just before the first flight to run
the CG numbers?
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "BokKat" <bobkat@btinet.net> wrote:
=C3=AF=C2=BB=C2
I had my BRS mounted similarly to where your is, only on the front side
of the firewall. The DAR warned me that the CG would be too far back,
and although the plane was well built and perfectly safe in every other
way, he insisted that the BRS be taken out and weight added forward
before the first flight! Being stupid and stubborn, I thought I knew
better and flew it like that, and though I hate to admit it, I almost
paid a heavy price for doing so! The plane was almost uncontrolable at
low speed, and I finally got it on the ground, but when it slowed during
the flare the nose took off like a homesick angel and then slammed down
on the turf, flattening the front fork. I made several passes at the
runway, using every bit of skill I had gleaned from 3,000+ hours of
flying everything from ultralights on up. When it slowed down the nose
raised, the tail dropped and it became so sluggish it was virtually
uncontrollable! Very unsafe, at least in my airplane!
I now have it mounted immediately behind the pilot/copilot seats, so
that one can use it as a head rest. I also moved the battery forward
to the front of the firewall to try to move the seriously aft CG
forward. Now it flies OK, but I'd be really concerned about the
placement of your BRS!
The only thing I had changed in the tail to move the CG backward was X
braces made of L angle aluminum as an anti-oil-canning thing, but this
probably wasn't of too much consequence. Basically the placement of my
"safety" chute almost became a "killer" chute.
I hate to admit how stupid and arrogant I was regarding the CG, but if
it saves someone else from making the same mistake, what the
heck........
What was unsafe in my plane MIGHT be safe in yours, but be very very
careful!
If you keep it like tht, be awfully sure of your weights and your
calculations regarding the CG!
----- Original Message -----
From: Les Goldner <mailto:lgold@quantum-associates.com>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:11 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
Thanks guys for the advice regarding sending pics through matronics.
I have attached two pictures taken during the construction of N67MG that
show the reinforcement to the baggage compartment back wall used to
support my BRS chute. The reinforcement consists of some big gussets
with Ls on their sides, and horizontal Ls top and bottom. The heavy
vertical Ls close to the center hold the chute.
Also, see the full-height cargo door on the pilot side of the
compartment in the pictures. I can get my 20# folding bike through this
door and have cargo nets forward of the door so nothing heavy falls to
the back.
Rgds,
Les
_____
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
The file and photo share is fine (but takes time) if you want the item
to stay around forever. But for one-offs you can also just attach
=C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93reasonable=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D sized files to your
posts.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Randall J. Hebert
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 2:43 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
Do Not Archive
This is from the list FAQ
There is more there but this should help get you started
****************************
*** File and Photo Share ***
****************************
With the Matronics Email List File and Photo Share you can share
pictures
and other data with members of the List without having to forward a
copy of it to everyone. To share your Files and Photos, simply email
them to:
pictures@matronics.com
!! ==> Please including the following information with each
submission:
1) Email Lists that they are related to.
2) Your Full Name.
3) Your Email Address.
4) One line Subject description.
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic.
6-x) One-line Description of each photo or file
Randall J Hebert
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
Just send the picture as a regular attachment to your e-mail. It will
either appear as a regular attachment on a link will be added at the
bottom of the message. If the picture/file is large (more than 100,000
to 300,000 bytes or 100 to 300 kB) you might resize it.
~,
_____
g=C3=93=9C
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
1-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List
tronics.com
www.matronics.com/contribution
____________________________________________________________
Click to find airline tickets for your next
<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2242/fc/Ioyw6i4uHo5hzMV7ojQt0ttMf
pAes12gcoU18FsLa1WX80DfHwI6U6/> trip.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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: After 5 hours flight time, questions |
Les, where did you mount your battery?
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Les
Goldner
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 2:13 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
My 701 with a Rotax 100HP and a BRS behind the baggage compartment
weights 650# and has an empty CG of 374cm behind the front of the slats.
(500cm is max.)
Les
_____
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Gordon
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
I had the same question --- wondering what the numbers were??
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh@netzero.com
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
I guess this is a rather dumb question but,,,, Didnt you put the plane
on scales after all your mods and just before the first flight to run
the CG numbers?
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "BokKat" <bobkat@btinet.net> wrote:
=C3=AF=C2=BB=C2
I had my BRS mounted similarly to where your is, only on the front side
of the firewall. The DAR warned me that the CG would be too far back,
and although the plane was well built and perfectly safe in every other
way, he insisted that the BRS be taken out and weight added forward
before the first flight! Being stupid and stubborn, I thought I knew
better and flew it like that, and though I hate to admit it, I almost
paid a heavy price for doing so! The plane was almost uncontrolable at
low speed, and I finally got it on the ground, but when it slowed during
the flare the nose took off like a homesick angel and then slammed down
on the turf, flattening the front fork. I made several passes at the
runway, using every bit of skill I had gleaned from 3,000+ hours of
flying everything from ultralights on up. When it slowed down the nose
raised, the tail dropped and it became so sluggish it was virtually
uncontrollable! Very unsafe, at least in my airplane!
I now have it mounted immediately behind the pilot/copilot seats, so
that one can use it as a head rest. I also moved the battery forward
to the front of the firewall to try to move the seriously aft CG
forward. Now it flies OK, but I'd be really concerned about the
placement of your BRS!
The only thing I had changed in the tail to move the CG backward was X
braces made of L angle aluminum as an anti-oil-canning thing, but this
probably wasn't of too much consequence. Basically the placement of my
"safety" chute almost became a "killer" chute.
I hate to admit how stupid and arrogant I was regarding the CG, but if
it saves someone else from making the same mistake, what the
heck........
What was unsafe in my plane MIGHT be safe in yours, but be very very
careful!
If you keep it like tht, be awfully sure of your weights and your
calculations regarding the CG!
----- Original Message -----
From: Les Goldner <mailto:lgold@quantum-associates.com>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:11 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
Thanks guys for the advice regarding sending pics through matronics.
I have attached two pictures taken during the construction of N67MG that
show the reinforcement to the baggage compartment back wall used to
support my BRS chute. The reinforcement consists of some big gussets
with Ls on their sides, and horizontal Ls top and bottom. The heavy
vertical Ls close to the center hold the chute.
Also, see the full-height cargo door on the pilot side of the
compartment in the pictures. I can get my 20# folding bike through this
door and have cargo nets forward of the door so nothing heavy falls to
the back.
Rgds,
Les
_____
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 1:57 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
The file and photo share is fine (but takes time) if you want the item
to stay around forever. But for one-offs you can also just attach
=C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93reasonable=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D sized files to your
posts.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Randall J. Hebert
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 2:43 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
Do Not Archive
This is from the list FAQ
There is more there but this should help get you started
****************************
*** File and Photo Share ***
****************************
With the Matronics Email List File and Photo Share you can share
pictures
and other data with members of the List without having to forward a
copy of it to everyone. To share your Files and Photos, simply email
them to:
pictures@matronics.com
!! ==> Please including the following information with each
submission:
1) Email Lists that they are related to.
2) Your Full Name.
3) Your Email Address.
4) One line Subject description.
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic.
6-x) One-line Description of each photo or file
Randall J Hebert
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
Just send the picture as a regular attachment to your e-mail. It will
either appear as a regular attachment on a link will be added at the
bottom of the message. If the picture/file is large (more than 100,000
to 300,000 bytes or 100 to 300 kB) you might resize it.
~,
_____
g=C3=93=9C
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
1-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List
tronics.com
www.matronics.com/contribution
____________________________________________________________
Click to find airline tickets for your next trip.
<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2242/fc/Ioyw6i4uHo5hzMV7ojQt0ttMf
pAes12gcoU18FsLa1WX80DfHwI6U6/>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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: | BRS balance issue |
Bob,
I don't understand why our 701 balance is so different.
My 701 with a Rotax 100-HP (old style mount) and a BRS behind the baggage
compartment weights 654#. My empty CG is 373-mm behind the front of the
slats. (500-mm is max.). My weight and balance sheet (an Excel spread sheet)
is attached. I did the W&B twice to make certain it was OK. I have had up to
40# of baggage, 400# of people, and 20-gal of fuel in the plane (plus the
20# of tools, see below) with no problems. In fact, the plane flies really
well with no tendency to go nose-up. The elevator trim usually stays mid
position and I have not had to add VGs for slow flight.
FYI, my battery is on the fire wall and, just to play it safe, I keep 20# of
spare parts and tools in a 6" aluminum tube under my feet mid-way between
the peddles and the seat. However, based upon your problems, I plan get to a
really accurate weighing at the Cafe' HQ. in Santa Rosa Ca.
After 110 hours flying, including trying to see if the nose would come down
in extreme nose-up/ idle stalls, I see no balance problems with my plane.
How much weight did you add to the plane with the structure you put in to
trying to stop the oil-canning? (I just glued on some very light wood "L"
moldings for this purpose).
Les
_____
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BokKat
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 6:41 AM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: Re: After 5 hours flight time, questions
Not a dumb question regarding CG issues at all! In inches (the DAR wanted
it figured out in inches) the CG was about at the 19 inch mark with 20 being
at the edge of the envelope. From 11 to 20 inches according to ZAC.
After the first almost disasterous flight, our EAA group including two A &
P's concluded that though the plane was withing the CG limits, albeit at
the edge, probably as one gets closer to the aft limit of the cg things get
a lot more critical. In fct, we carefully went over the plane and ran plumb
bobs where we all agreed the various weights might be, the fuel tanks, the
seats, etc. and they didn't agree 100% with numbers from the factory or
what another builder in northern Minn had used! An inch more or less makes
a small difference in overall W & B which gets more critical when you get
closer to the edge of the CG envelope! The moral of the story is to be
awfully careful as you approach the edge of the envelope.
"All the mods" in my airplane are ONLY the placement of X braces and their
rivets in the tail section, a mod that many people have done. This adds
pretty well no significant weight to the tail (a couple of pounds, maybe)
and no other mod was made to the entire airplace other than long range tanks
(four 10 gallon wing tanks instead of two) Othersise NO mods at all!
Standard kit!
My DAR was insistent that the CG be in the front half for the first flight!
He said his boss in the Minneapolis office insists on that. After working
the math for half the afternoon, we decided that the only way to get the CG
in the front half of the envelope would be to remove the BRS and even add a
few pounds of lead in the forward part of the cockpit, and only put 10
gallons of gas in the tanks. This would put the CG into the forward half.
I thought this was overkill as I had seen pictures of planes with a BRS
against the baggage comprtment bulkhead, although in retrospect those were
the earilier baggage compartments which were shorter than the extended one
that is now used. I thought I knew better than the DAR as my plane was
within the envelope so launched with the BRS on the baggage compartment
bulkhead, 20 gallons of gas, no lead, etc. With the cg in this position the
plane was almost uncontrollable at low speeds and almost ended up in
disaster! ;I escaped with only a bent nose fork and bruised ego!
It looks to me like your BRS will end up even behind mine, and unless your
engine mount is longer or a heavier engine you could be setting yourself up
for problems. But every airplane is a little bit different even though
they are standard kits and who knows? You might be OK!
I have a standard FWF package from Skyshops and a Rotax 912 S which
obviously would not balance that 25 - 30 pound BRS way back there in my
airplane. One can't beat the laws of physics, unfortunately. The laws of
physics almost beat ME, instead! Never again.
Which is why I'm cautioning anyone who contemplates putting their BRS way
back there. These airplanes are light and a few pounds way back there might
make quite a difference. If the builder has a heavier engine or longer
engine mount that I have, it might work out OK. Even with a 912 you MIGHT
get away with it, depending on all the other little factors involved in
building a plane, although being kits they are pretty well much the same.
But even your strengthening the fuselage in that area will shift the CG a
little bit back. Every little bit makes a difference on these light
airplanes.
I built a Starduster 2 before the 701 and they tend to have an aft CG at
best which had to be overcome by either a longer engine mount or a heavier
engine. I love power and aerobatics, so put on a heavier engine to kill
two birds with one rock! Hah!
After sending your pictures around to several other EAA'rs who have all
built at least one airplane including 2 A &P's and who have all inspected my
airplane before and after the first sort-of-flight and almost had the
opportunity to analyze the wreckage, the most poignant one I recieved back
is quoted:
This is BIG TROUBLE!
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: | CH701 Wing Leveler |
Les,
Thanks for the info. I still have my pictures of your installment, and will put
them to good use when I get to the point of installing my control equipment.
Thanks again,
Keith
*******************************************************************
________________________________________
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com [owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Les Goldner [lgold@quantum-associates.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 2:13 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith701801-List: CH701 Wing Leveler
Keith,
My Trio EZ autopilot worked great keeping the wings level and the plane
on-course. EZ a great product with good support. I took a 3000-mile round
trip flight into a lot of high-wind conditions without having to put my
hands on the stick except to adjust the trim tab and to land. Notice that I
used the past tense here because I no longer have good GPS input into the
EZ. When the EZ worked, I was using my Lowrance 1000 GPS output to control
it. Then I made a bad mistake by selling my Lowrance & purchasing a fancy
do-everything, AnyWhereMap GPS that operates on a Windows tablet PC.
AnyWhereMap assured me that their product would work with my EZ but it
doesn't! The plane now swings back and forth up to 15-degrees off-course
under the control of the AnyWhereMap. AnyWhereMap won't give me back my
money without hitting me with a hefty restocking fee. Its been 3-months
since I purchased the unit and they still haven't fixed the problem! (You
may want to consider putting this firm on your no-buy list).
Les
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Ashcraft, Keith - AES
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 6:32 PM
> To: zenith701801-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Zenith701801-List: CH701 Wing Leveler
>
> --> <Keith.Ashcraft@itt.com>
>
> Les Goldner,
> Since the matronics 601 group have been having the discussion
> on AutoPilots, how has your wing-leveler been working out
> with your 701?
> Any inverse-yaw actions?
>
> Just curious, and hope you are making sure that there is more
> air time under your tires than ground time :-)
>
> Keith
> CH701 -- scratch -- finishing up rear fuselage, ready to
> finish cabin sides, and work on forward fuselage.
> N 38.9940
> W 105.1305
> Alt. 9,100'
>
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be
> proprietary and are intended solely for the use of the
> individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
> received this e-mail in error please notify the sender.
> Please note that any views or opinions presented in this
> e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
> represent those of ITT Corporation. The recipient should
> check this e-mail and any attachments for the presence of
> viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage caused by
> any virus transmitted by this e-mail.
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
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 |
|
Hi Group,
Here are the test results of my fuel test as promised.
I have a CH701 with dual factory wing tanks that are connected together
by the gascolator. The are no fuel valves to manage fuel flow, only a
fuel cut off valve that is common to both tanks.
Today I clamped the fuel line and drained the right fuel tank
completely. After warm up and an extra long engine run up I climbed to
1500 feet. After reaching cruise and staying close to the airport I
released the clamp on the fuel line. This created an instant empty tank
in the fuel system. This should be no different than if I had run one
tank dry in flight. Once the clamp was released I continued to fly
around the airport for 20 minutes. I then replaced the clamp in flight
and landed. During the flight the engine performed perfectly normal with
no sign of fuel problems. I ran the engine at 5000 RPM during this test.
After landing and shutdown at the hangar I removed the tank drain
fitting and drained 1 quart of fuel from the previously empty tank. This
indicates that during flight fuel was consumed from the left tank and
some fuel also flowed from the left into the empty right tank. I would
think that given time the two tanks would even out and fuel would then
flow from both.
>From my flight test I am convinced that running one tank dry will not
create a safety of flight problem. Fuel will continue to flow from the
other tank. The only caveat is that both tanks must have nearly the same
pressure above the fuel. By nearly I mean less than 0.2 PSI difference.
I think I have that with the snorkle vents I installed.
While I had the right tank drained I calibrated my DIP tube. If any of
you have the Zenith factory tanks installed and are or plan on using
the J-AIR Universal FuelHawk fuel gauge, here is the relationship I have
found. The dip tube has a scale from 1 to 14 along the length of the
tube. The first gallon in the tank will not show on the gauge, the
second gallon will indicate one (1) on the scale. As you add each
additional gallon the indication will go up one (1). When you get to 9
gallons the gauge will indicate 8, when 10 gallons are in the tank it
will indicate 9 3/4 . When filled to the bottom of the filler neck the
gauge will indicate 13 and you will have 11 gallons in the tank. The
Zenith tanks can collectively hold 22 gallons, of course not all of that
is useable. I consider the last gallon off limits in each tank, so I
will continue to plan with 20 gallon.
In simple terms the amount of fuel in the tank is the dip number + 1
gallon, so long as the number is at or below 8. Then 9 3/4 is 10 gallons
and 13 is 11 gallons. The tank design has a sloped top which accounts
for the non linear behavior at the nearly full point.
Happy flying,
Bob Kissell N701UB
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 |
|
Bob,
Thanks for sharing this very valuable info with the group.
My engineering background led me to believe all-along that, unless the empty
tank (for some unimaginable reason) had a vacuum pulling fuel up, an empty
tank could not stop fuel from flowing from the full one.
Thanks again,
Les
_____
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 2:59 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Fuel Tests
Hi Group,
Here are the test results of my fuel test as promised.
I have a CH701 with dual factory wing tanks that are connected together by
the gascolator. The are no fuel valves to manage fuel flow, only a fuel cut
off valve that is common to both tanks.
Today I clamped the fuel line and drained the right fuel tank completely.
After warm up and an extra long engine run up I climbed to 1500 feet. After
reaching cruise and staying close to the airport I released the clamp on the
fuel line. This created an instant empty tank in the fuel system. This
should be no different than if I had run one tank dry in flight. Once the
clamp was released I continued to fly around the airport for 20 minutes. I
then replaced the clamp in flight and landed. During the flight the engine
performed perfectly normal with no sign of fuel problems. I ran the engine
at 5000 RPM during this test. After landing and shutdown at the hangar I
removed the tank drain fitting and drained 1 quart of fuel from the
previously empty tank. This indicates that during flight fuel was consumed
from the left tank and some fuel also flowed from the left into the empty
right tank. I would think that given time the two tanks would even out and
fuel would then flow from both.
>From my flight test I am convinced that running one tank dry will not create
a safety of flight problem. Fuel will continue to flow from the other tank.
The only caveat is that both tanks must have nearly the same pressure above
the fuel. By nearly I mean less than 0.2 PSI difference. I think I have that
with the snorkle vents I installed.
While I had the right tank drained I calibrated my DIP tube. If any of you
have the Zenith factory tanks installed and are or plan on using the J-AIR
Universal FuelHawk fuel gauge, here is the relationship I have found. The
dip tube has a scale from 1 to 14 along the length of the tube. The first
gallon in the tank will not show on the gauge, the second gallon will
indicate one (1) on the scale. As you add each additional gallon the
indication will go up one (1). When you get to 9 gallons the gauge will
indicate 8, when 10 gallons are in the tank it will indicate 9 3/4 . When
filled to the bottom of the filler neck the gauge will indicate 13 and you
will have 11 gallons in the tank. The Zenith tanks can collectively hold 22
gallons, of course not all of that is useable. I consider the last gallon
off limits in each tank, so I will continue to plan with 20 gallon.
In simple terms the amount of fuel in the tank is the dip number + 1 gallon,
so long as the number is at or below 8. Then 9 3/4 is 10 gallons and 13 is
11 gallons. The tank design has a sloped top which accounts for the non
linear behavior at the nearly full point.
Happy flying,
Bob Kissell N701UB
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 |
|
Thanks Bob, I have the exact same setup as you do and have been concerned
since the subject was raised.
Your research and test has put this concern to rest once and for all.
Thanks again,
George
N73EX - FLYING
_____
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 5:59 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Fuel Tests
Hi Group,
Here are the test results of my fuel test as promised.
I have a CH701 with dual factory wing tanks that are connected together by
the gascolator. The are no fuel valves to manage fuel flow, only a fuel cut
off valve that is common to both tanks.
Happy flying,
Bob Kissell N701UB
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! --
|