Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:10 AM - Re: Zenith Tool kit (bcchurch)
2. 06:15 AM - Re: Zenith Tool kit (n801bh@netzero.com)
3. 09:59 AM - Re: Zenith Tool kit (Gary Gower)
4. 11:20 AM - Re: Top Longeron Gusset (7F3-3SP) (John Swartout)
5. 12:33 PM - Additional L angles in fuselage. (Harvey Richards)
6. 12:50 PM - Re: Top Longeron Gusset (7F3-3SP) (John Marzulli)
7. 12:54 PM - Re: Additional L angles in fuselage. (Keith Ashcraft)
8. 01:00 PM - Re: Additional L angles in fuselage. (Harvey Richards)
9. 01:15 PM - Re: Additional L angles in fuselage. (LarryMcFarland)
10. 01:31 PM - Re: Additional L angles in fuselage. (kmccune)
11. 01:38 PM - Re: Additional L angles in fuselage. (Harvey Richards)
12. 01:39 PM - Re: Additional L angles in fuselage. (Harvey Richards)
13. 01:44 PM - Re: Additional L angles in fuselage. (BokKat)
14. 05:38 PM - Re: Zenith Tool kit (JohnDRead@aol.com)
15. 06:11 PM - Re: Re: Additional L angles in fuselage. (LarryMcFarland)
16. 06:21 PM - Re: Re: Additional L angles in fuselage. (raymondj)
17. 07:52 PM - Re: Zenith Tool kit (Stefan)
18. 08:20 PM - Re: Re: Zenith Tool kit (Jake Crause)
19. 09:58 PM - Re: Top Longeron Gusset (7F3-3SP) (John Swartout)
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: Zenith Tool kit |
Howdy Jake,
I got my tools from different sources. No clear idea if I saved much money because
I got more / different items than what is included in the Zenith kit. I
think I did save a little money but spent more time. Picked up extra used clecos
from another builder - I think the number recommended by Zenith would be sufficient
but having extra is nice.
I was not impressed with the pneumatic rivet gun that I bought from Zenith. Mine
tended to have a recoil that made dinging components a real risk. I was given
a pneumatic riveter from Harbor Freight (ITEM 93458-1VGA) which I like much
better. The HF unit is only about $30 and has the same rivet head thread pitch
as the Zenith unit so I was able to use the Zenith-modified heads.
You might want to take the time to browse some sites like Avery, Brown Tools, Cleaveland,
etc. and see what's on sale. Harbor freight can have some good deals
too but their quality is not as high as others (but sufficient quality in my
opinion). Also, used tools sometimes show up on vansairforce.com in the classifieds
forum that can be a good deal.
Regards,
Ben
do not archive
--------
Ben Church
CH801
Racine, WI
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222544#222544
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: Zenith Tool kit |
If I had to buy stuff it would be three times as many cleco's as zenith
suggested but that was back we had to drill all 12,455 holes and I was a
bit anal at wanting the plane to be somewhat straight <G> I would get
twice as many ratchet straps for closing up the wing skins but that can
wait till ya get to that part and Walmart would probably have them on s
ale @ 4 for 14 bucks. Enjoy the build,,, it is a BLAST !!!!!!!
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- Jake Crause <jakecrause@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm about to buy the Zenith tool kit for use on a CH-801 and I have a co
uple of questions. Are the recommended quantities of Clecos sufficient
for the entire build? Those of you that skipped the tool kit from Zenit
h and sourced your own tools, do you feel you saved a decent amount of m
oney doing so? Thanks guys. Jake CrausePooler, GAwww.homebuiltairplanes
.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
____________________________________________________________
Click for online loan, fast & no lender fee, approval today
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/PnY6rx9LUB1ThomIBwDz1Cjr5
pskxzO5HtFRCoFdsuOQwC8O2nUBk/
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: Zenith Tool kit |
Hello Jake,
-
I dont know why...- is not important how much clecoes you buy or have in
your workshop,- sometimes we all run short of them once in a while...-
Every time myself, or a friend orders something from Spruce or Wicks, I ord
er a few...- This to save in shipping and import handling (expensive here
)...
For builders in USA,- is great to buy some used ones at the "fly market"
in EAA's -OSH and S&F.- Probably in other smaller fly ins or airshows h
ave this important booths for homebuilders...
-
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying (and building)-from Chapala. Mexico.
-
--- On Fri, 1/2/09, Jake Crause <jakecrause@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Jake Crause <jakecrause@yahoo.com>
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Zenith Tool kit
I'm about to buy the Zenith tool kit for use on a CH-801 and I-have a cou
ple of questions.-
-
Are-the recommended quantities of Clecos sufficient for the entire build?
-
Those of you that skipped the tool kit from Zenith and sourced your own too
ls, do you feel you saved a decent amount of money doing so?-
-
Thanks guys.
-
Jake Crause
Pooler, GA
www.homebuiltairplanes.com
-
-
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
=0A=0A=0A
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: Top Longeron Gusset (7F3-3SP) |
Wow, that's a long time ago! I'm building an 801, but I assume that the
gusset is similar. I remember remaking those over and over again--but I
don't remember exactly why. (Probably because of the difficulty of
precisely positioning all twenty-some rivet holes to match up with the holes
I had already drilled in the longerons and cabin frame tubes.) I made
them of heavier stock than the pieces supplied (0.063 vs.
0.040)--because Chris put out a note advising builders to replace the top
channel (across the front edge of the rear fuselage top skin--at the top of
the door posts--with heavier material than the kit supplied, for structural
reasons, and I figured if the channel is heavier then the gussets that
attach it to the longerons and top cabin frame tubes should be heavier too.
I therefore made the gussets longer, long enough to reach an
additional longeron rivet, and filed down (tapered the thickness of) the
rear ends of the gussets so the rear top skin, which goes on top of the
gussets, would not be bent over a sharp thick edge at the rear end of the
gusset.
To answer your question, I would tend to assume that after 24 years, if the
structural design of the -701 was deficient, that would have been determined
by now. I don't think it would do any harm to make the gusset wider--enough
to pick up another rivet in the top channel, but it probably isn't
necessary. You may recall that an early prototype of the -801 crashed after
apparently shedding its wings in flight in California a few years ago. That
plane probably had the thinner top channel, (the advice to make it thicker
came out after that crash) and I believe it had the very heavy in-line
6-cylinder 210hp LOM engine and propeller, which would have exceeded the
fwf weight limit ZAC specifies now by at least 60 lbs, I'd estimate, and
would have required ballast in the tail to balance all that engine and prop
weight. Mind you, I am speculating here, but I assume the modification to
the top channel arose from that crash. I am not aware of any similar
structural failures in the -701. Use your best judgement.
John
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Curt Thompson <Curt.Thompson@verizon.net>wrote:
> John,
>
>
> I'm working on making "Top Longeron Gusset" (7F3-3SP) and I noticed the
> problems you posted a while back on the Zenith List. Do you think it would
> be a good idea to make that part about 100mm wide (rather than the 85mm in
> the plans)?
>
>
> Curt
>
> Plans building CH701
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: | Additional L angles in fuselage. |
I have seen where people have done the diagonal additional L bracing to cut down
on oil canning. I am at that stage and have been wondering what to do. Some
have gone with diagonals and some with complete X's between the Ls shown on the
plans. Would not going straight across,parallel to the Ls, shown on the plans
do the job. One could then tie them together with .025 gussets as already shown
on the plans. This would take less L angles, be lighter and cut the unsupported
distance in half also. Any thoughts? Thanks
--------
CH 701
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222628#222628
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: Top Longeron Gusset (7F3-3SP) |
I think what Curt is referring to is the issue I had with the top gusset and
rivet spacing.
http://701builder.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html
John Marzulli
http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/
http://marzulli.smugmug.com/
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
http://www.JohnMarzulli.net/
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Curt Thompson <Curt.Thompson@verizon.net>wrote:
> John,
>
>
> I'm working on making "Top Longeron Gusset" (7F3-3SP) and I noticed the
> problems you posted a while back on the Zenith List. Do you think it would
> be a good idea to make that part about 100mm wide (rather than the 85mm in
> the plans)?
>
>
> Curt
>
> Plans building CH701
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: Additional L angles in fuselage. |
That should work!! I put diagonals on my sides and plan on doing the parallel method
on my top and bottom, (sections right behind the baggage compartment)
Keith
CH701 -- scratch
N 38.9940
W 105.1305
Alt. 9,100'
________________________________
From: Harvey Richards <lisa.richards@ns.sympatico.ca>
Sent: Saturday, January 3, 2009 1:30:54 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Additional L angles in fuselage.
I have seen where people have done the diagonal additional L bracing to cut down
on oil canning. I am at that stage and have been wondering what to do. Some
have gone with diagonals and some with complete X's between the Ls shown on the
plans. Would not going straight across,parallel to the Ls, shown on the plans
do the job. One could then tie them together with .025 gussets as already shown
on the plans. This would take less L angles, be lighter and cut the unsupported
distance in half also. Any thoughts? Thanks
--------
CH 701
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222628#222628
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: Additional L angles in fuselage. |
Thanks Keith. Slight crimps with the fluting pliers to tighten the top edge of
the L are also supposed to cut down on noise.
--------
CH 701
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222635#222635
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: Additional L angles in fuselage. |
Keith and Harvey,
Diagonals are strongly recommended and I've also seen strips of duct
tape used as an effective means of knocking down the noise as well.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
Keith Ashcraft wrote:
> That should work!! I put diagonals on my sides and plan on doing the
> parallel method on my top and bottom, (sections right behind the
> baggage compartment)
>
> Keith
> CH701 -- scratch
> N 38.9940
> W 105.1305
> Alt. 9,100'
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Harvey Richards <lisa.richards@ns.sympatico.ca>
> *To:* zenith701801-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 3, 2009 1:30:54 PM
> *Subject:* Zenith701801-List: Additional L angles in fuselage.
>
> <lisa.richards@ns.sympatico.ca <mailto:lisa.richards@ns.sympatico.ca>>
>
> I have seen where people have done the diagonal additional L bracing
> to cut down on oil canning. I am at that stage and have been wondering
> what to do. Some have gone with diagonals and some with complete X's
> between the Ls shown on the plans. Would not going straight
> across,parallel to the Ls, shown on the plans do the job. One could
> then tie them together with .025 gussets as already shown on the
> plans. This would take less L angles, be lighter and cut the
> unsupported distance in half also. Any thoughts? Thanks
>
> --------
> CH 701
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> *=====
>
> *
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: Additional L angles in fuselage. |
Maybe I'm blind, as others have told me this, but I can not find any oil canning
bracing in the plans. So I was planning on x bracing. What page is this one?
Thanks
Kevin
do not archive
Harvey Richards wrote:
> I have seen where people have done the additional diagonal L bracing to cut down
on oil canning. I am at that stage and have been wondering what to do. Some
have gone with diagonals and some with complete X's between the Ls shown on
the plans. Would not going straight across,parallel to the Ls, shown on the plans
do the job. One could then tie them together with .025 gussets as already
shown on the plans. This would take less L angles, be lighter and cut the unsupported
distance in half also. Any thoughts? Thanks
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222641#222641
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: Additional L angles in fuselage. |
Thanks also Larry. I can see the advantage of diagonal L angles for bracing strength
but believed,maybe mistakenly, that the L angles were only to provide stiffness
to the unsupported sheet metal. I was looking for a reason why the diagonal
was better as there may be something I'm missing.
--------
CH 701
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222644#222644
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: Additional L angles in fuselage. |
There is none shown on the plans Kevin thats why I'm unsure
--------
CH 701
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222645#222645
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: Additional L angles in fuselage. |
I put X's in them, though maybe a single diagonal would be enough. Even
slipping as much as possible I've had no oil canning at all, except the
bottom hatch which was cured by putting in an X brace.
I'm not sure how everyone else does it, though when I looked for photos on
the internet most that I saw seemed to have X braces.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harvey Richards" <lisa.richards@ns.sympatico.ca>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 2:30 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Additional L angles in fuselage.
> <lisa.richards@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
> I have seen where people have done the diagonal additional L bracing to
> cut down on oil canning. I am at that stage and have been wondering what
> to do. Some have gone with diagonals and some with complete X's between
> the Ls shown on the plans. Would not going straight across,parallel to the
> Ls, shown on the plans do the job. One could then tie them together with
> .025 gussets as already shown on the plans. This would take less L angles,
> be lighter and cut the unsupported distance in half also. Any thoughts?
> Thanks
>
> --------
> CH 701
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222628#222628
>
>
>
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: Zenith Tool kit |
Hi Jake;
The Zenith tool kit is reasonable with reservations. I did not
buy the air drill from them I found a Sioux air drill on sale, I thought
Zeniths price for it rather high. There are nowhere near enough clecos. I have
double the number of 3/32 and 1/8. It is often handy to leave a slat or a flap
unriveted for a while hence the extras.You will also need a few, say ten, 3/16
clecos when you fit the slats to the wings. My EAA Advisor also sugested
that when I needed to test bolt parts together that I not use the bolts that are
in the hardware kit but to buy a box of 25 3/16 nuts bolts and washers. He
did not like the idea of using the "real" bolts during the building phase. I
found a chip chaser to be handy. I bought a right angle drill kit this I found
indispensable in the tight corners of the wings and fuselage. I also bought
a bunch more #20 #30 and #40 drills. I originally thought I would sharpen
dull drills, it is not worth it. One of each size in 6 inch and 12 inch length
is very useful too. You can never have enough tools! Well I have rambled on
enough.
do not archive
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 1/2/2009 9:42:06 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
jakecrause@yahoo.com writes:
I'm about to buy the Zenith tool kit for use on a CH-801 and I have a couple
of questions.
Are the recommended quantities of Clecos sufficient for the entire build?
Those of you that skipped the tool kit from Zenith and sourced your own
tools, do you feel you saved a decent amount of money doing so?
Thanks guys.
Jake Crause
Pooler, GA
www.homebuiltairplanes.com
========
(mip://027203e0/3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith701801-List")
========
(mip://027203e0/3D"http://forums.matronics.com")
========
(mip://027203e0/3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution")
========
**************Stay up-to-date on the latest news - from fashion trends to
celebrity break-ups and everything in between.
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: Additional L angles in fuselage. |
Harvey,
The angles provide a best way to reduce the large unsupported area and
help add to the structural integrity of the fuselage. Beyond that, the
addition of
duct tape strips broadly spaced will dampen the sound a lot. The first
three bays behind the seats are the worst and the rearmost is probably a
hard one to
get angle into, but worth it.
Larry
do not archive
Harvey Richards wrote:
>
> Thanks also Larry. I can see the advantage of diagonal L angles for bracing strength
but believed,maybe mistakenly, that the L angles were only to provide
stiffness to the unsupported sheet metal. I was looking for a reason why the diagonal
was better as there may be something I'm missing.
>
> --------
> CH 701
>
>
>
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: Additional L angles in fuselage. |
I don't recall seeing any discussion of the possibility of putting X creases
in the panels to increase stiffness. Am I missing something?
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst."
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryMcFarland" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Re: Additional L angles in fuselage.
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> Harvey,
> The angles provide a best way to reduce the large unsupported area and
> help add to the structural integrity of the fuselage. Beyond that, the
> addition of
> duct tape strips broadly spaced will dampen the sound a lot. The first
> three bays behind the seats are the worst and the rearmost is probably a
> hard one to
> get angle into, but worth it.
>
> Larry
> do not archive
>
> Harvey Richards wrote:
>> <lisa.richards@ns.sympatico.ca>
>>
>> Thanks also Larry. I can see the advantage of diagonal L angles for
>> bracing strength but believed,maybe mistakenly, that the L angles were
>> only to provide stiffness to the unsupported sheet metal. I was looking
>> for a reason why the diagonal was better as there may be something I'm
>> missing.
>>
>> --------
>> CH 701
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
1:10 PM
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: Zenith Tool kit |
Purchased the complete tool kit in September. ZAC has the new rivet gun now. Very
nice. Quantities of clecos different story. Purchased double the number from
Spruce (nice discount) and some more!
Stefan
www.ch750.ca
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222732#222732
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: Zenith Tool kit |
Steven, Ben, Gary, John, and Stefan,=0A=0AThanks for the input.- It's ver
y much appreciated.=0A=0A"...........ZAC has the new rivet gun now. Very ni
ce."=0A=0AStefan:- Is the new riveter you mentioned the one they show in
the kit photo here: http://www.zenithair.com/kit/tools/toolkit.html=0AOr ha
ve they gone to a different brand or model?- Thanks.=0A=0AJake Crause=0AP
ooler, GA=0Awww.homebuiltairplanes.com=0A=0A=0A
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: Top Longeron Gusset (7F3-3SP) |
Sorry---I erred in thinking Curt was writing me directly.
John S.
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:47 PM, John Marzulli <john.marzulli@gmail.com>wrote:
> I think what Curt is referring to is the issue I had with the top gusset
> and rivet spacing.
>
> http://701builder.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html
>
>
> John Marzulli
>
> http://www.GenevieveMarzulli.org/ <http://www.genevievemarzulli.org/>
> http://marzulli.smugmug.com/
> http://701Builder.blogspot.com/ <http://701builder.blogspot.com/>
> http://www.JohnMarzulli.net/ <http://www.johnmarzulli.net/>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Curt Thompson <Curt.Thompson@verizon.net>wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm working on making "Top Longeron Gusset" (7F3-3SP) and I noticed the
>> problems you posted a while back on the Zenith List. Do you think it would
>> be a good idea to make that part about 100mm wide (rather than the 85mm in
>> the plans)?
>>
>>
>>
>> Curt
>>
>> Plans building CH701
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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! --
|