Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:40 AM - Re: Substituting 020 for 016 (Joe Spencer)
2. 05:38 AM - Re: Substituting 020 for 016 (Robert Pelland)
3. 06:42 AM - Re: Substituting 020 for 016 (John Bolding)
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: Substituting 020 for 016 |
hmmm...
Sorry for the double post; the list sent my reply back as
rejected/returned mail so I sent it again. Now I see it decided to post
both. Technology. Or maybe pilot error? Admin please delete one.
Thanks
Joe
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: Substituting 020 for 016 |
Joe, Stan, JG, and others,
I think it might be time to bring this thread to an end, since we have
reached the point where it sounds like we are just beating a dead horse.
As I previously mentioned, we all know that when it's comes to aircraft
" light is right ", however, when I first responded to the original
post, I gave my personal opinion ( "hello" if memory serves me
correctly, this still is an experimental ) and not the road, or the
option, that everyone should choose.
Personally I live in the boondock's, and I could not have purchased any
6061 T6 in .016 if my life had depended on it, since none of it is
available locally, and on disability, there was no way I could not
afford to have it shipped to me from afar. Secondly since I have
slightly increased the wingspan, my 701 actually has a lower wing
loading then most of you, and lastly, I did not paint the airplane, so I
got my 30 lbs back.
I completely understand, and appreciate the fact that most of you have
chosen to follow the building instructions to the letter, and for that I
commend you, ( we will not address those who have chosen to remove the
slats and use VG's ) but by the same token, that same consideration
should be given to those who have deviated from the normal building
procedure.
Fly safe fellows,,,
Robert
The 701 & 750 scratch
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Spencer
To: Zenith701801-List@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 11:25 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Substituting 020 for 016
>Joe:
>I did not use a 1 X 4 which is a great idea but did find near the end
of
Right, Stan...there must be all sorts of ways to handle the 016 skins
w/o damage besides resorting to 020.
that minimum weight and least drag are all important...Bolding and JG
got it right
Best
Joe
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: Substituting 020 for 016 |
Robert,
You are ABSOLUTELY correct that this is "experimental" aircraft and we
have a lot of latitude to change as we see fit.
You are certainly free to do as you wish, I'm just trying to point out
the downsides of your approach to those that might not know how muddy
the swamp is.
I also gave my thoughts on weight because I've witnessed a BUNCH of
builders that put in thousands of hours building a beautiful airplane
but it was waaay overweight and the builder was disappointed in the
flying qualities. As Spencer says you might be looking for something
that looks good in the hangar and not care if it is a pig to fly, your
choice.
I remember a Spezio TwoHoler that became a OneHoler because of the
weight. Couldn't even take his 110# wife.
Award winning aircraft but it was a DOG in the air.
When I was building my Glasair I was putting in a Ford V6 with Blanton
redrive, Jeff Ackland (of Turbine Legend fame) was doing the same combo,
(Jeff works a LOT faster than I do) he called one Sat. morning after
test flights and yelled "STOP THE PRESSES" the extra weight of the Ford
KILLED the performance of the Glasair. He installed an 0-360, I put in
an 0-320. He saved me a yr of work .
Going the other way I know a guy that had a good flying Teenie Two with
1600cc VW, he took out the VW and put in a 084 4 cyl.generator engine,
35# lighter but only 3/4 the HP. Guess what, performance stayed the
SAME except for fuel burn which was 20% less.
As far as ending the thread I don't think so, I have not run into many
newbies that do much homework before asking questions, hence in the next
few days we'll have a couple of new guys ask about slats Vs VG's.
We'll go thru this again I'm sure.
LO&SLO John
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Pelland
To: zenith701801-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Substituting 020 for 016
Joe, Stan, JG, and others,
I think it might be time to bring this thread to an end, since we have
reached the point where it sounds like we are just beating a dead horse.
As I previously mentioned, we all know that when it's comes to aircraft
" light is right ", however, when I first responded to the original
post, I gave my personal opinion ( "hello" if memory serves me
correctly, this still is an experimental ) and not the road, or the
option, that everyone should choose.
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! --
|