Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:33 AM - Re: Zenith701801-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 03/17/13 (AJR)
2. 07:04 AM - Re: Re: Zenith701801-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 03/17/13 (David L. Orr)
3. 07:19 AM - Re: A65 701 (MacDonald Doug)
4. 08:07 AM - Re: A65 701 (John Marzulli)
5. 10:52 AM - Slats & vgs (frank goodnight)
6. 11:59 AM - Re: Slats & vgs (MacDonald Doug)
7. 12:20 PM - Re: Slats & vgs (Roger Venables)
8. 04:09 PM - Re: Slats & vgs (frank goodnight)
9. 11:25 PM - Re: A65 701 (pdelano@telus.net)
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: Zenith701801-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 03/17/13 |
Hi guys
I have a friend who is looking at buying a scratch built ch-701..
This aircraft has a A65 Continental engine rated at 65 hp and engine is 74
years old.
The engine dry weights 175 lbs so it would be beyond the maximum engine
weight
allowed for the 701.. with prop , oil, exhaust, mount, etc it would be well
over the
maximum engine weight for the 701 recommended..Also the engine has to be
hand
propped as it has no electric start..The aircraft does not fall in the
ultralight category
for Canada so is under the homebuilt experimental category..Cruise on this
engine is 2150
rpm and redline is 2300.. The 65 hp engine does not seem to be much power
for a ch701
Am I missing something here..I would appreciate and thoughts or suggestions
on this
aircraft..Also what would be the minimum HP required and suggested for this
aircraft.
AJR
-----Original Message-----
From: Zenith701801-List Digest Server
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:30 AM
Subject: Zenith701801-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 03/17/13
*
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete Zenith701801-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the Zenith701801-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 13-03-17&Archive=Zenith701801
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 13-03-17&Archive=Zenith701801
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Zenith701801-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Sun 03/17/13: 0
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
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: Zenith701801-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 03/17/13 |
The below information is from Tony Riley, him and his dad had a 701 with a A65.
I went with a C-85-12 on my 701 still in the build stage.
Good Luck
David L. Orr
Information from Tony:
My Dad personally recomends that a person unless they've already purchased their
powerplant, should buy an 85HP Continental... However, for the most part, our
701 flies nicely on the 65... The key is to get as much RPM therefore potential
HP out of the powerplant... Our current homemade prop is a 60" diameter,
so with the extended nose gear and short prop, there is decent ground Clearance...
As mentioned the face/width is fairly wide, so decent pull... On takeoff
at full power we are getting 2800RPM out of our 65 powerplant... My dad, who
made the prop, is not sure the pitch of course... but here is a reference point...
He has over 10,000 hours flying time, between commercial bush flying and
private aircraft, including aerobatics back in the day.... He was a private
instructor for several years, he has been a Licensed AMO- Aircraft Maintenance
including Structural repair for over 20 years... He currently still instructs
on our 701 as an ultralight instructor, and does tailwheel checkouts on his
scratch built Clipped Wing Acro Cuby...
He said on a 65HP powerplant, you should typically run a 43-44 Pitch
and on an 85HP powerplant, run a 44-46 pitch prop... The previous wood prop that
we first had on our 701 in the beginning was about 68-70 diameter wood prop
with a 43 pitch... With that prop, we were getting full power 2500RPM out of
the 65... Near the end of the lifespan of that prop, we had to chop the tips,
which brought us down to a 62" prop...
Our original specs were:
Light one passenger, colder temps
800 FPM
Gross 1100lbs max
Hot Day
325-330 FPM
Cruise Avg. 70mph, bearing in mind that we have an open cowl and no aerodynamic
fairings on the wing struts which make a difference
Our friend with fairings on the struts, an enclosed cowl, with a 100hp 912 Rotax,
and he does run the Leading edge STOL Slots, gets a Cruise AVG. of 84MPH
I would guess that on an average summer day, with 1.5 to 2 hours of fuel on board,
and my Dad 170lbs and myself 220lbs, that we would get 500fpm estimate...
Well I hope that some of this information is helpful,
Tony
-----Original Message-----
>From: AJR <ajroseca@nf.sympatico.ca>
>Sent: Mar 18, 2013 4:32 AM
>To: zenith701801-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith701801-List: Re: Zenith701801-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 03/17/13
>
>
>Hi guys
>I have a friend who is looking at buying a scratch built ch-701..
>This aircraft has a A65 Continental engine rated at 65 hp and engine is 74
>years old.
>The engine dry weights 175 lbs so it would be beyond the maximum engine
>weight
>allowed for the 701.. with prop , oil, exhaust, mount, etc it would be well
>over the
>maximum engine weight for the 701 recommended..Also the engine has to be
>hand
>propped as it has no electric start..The aircraft does not fall in the
>ultralight category
>for Canada so is under the homebuilt experimental category..Cruise on this
>engine is 2150
>rpm and redline is 2300.. The 65 hp engine does not seem to be much power
>for a ch701
>Am I missing something here..I would appreciate and thoughts or suggestions
>on this
>aircraft..Also what would be the minimum HP required and suggested for this
>aircraft.
>AJR
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Zenith701801-List Digest Server
>Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:30 AM
>To: Zenith701801-List Digest List
>Subject: Zenith701801-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 03/17/13
>
>*
>
>=================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
>=================================================
>
>Today's complete Zenith701801-List Digest can also be found in either of the
>two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
>in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
>and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
>of the Zenith701801-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
>such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
>HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 13-03-17&Archive=Zenith701801
>
>Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 13-03-17&Archive=Zenith701801
>
>
>===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
>===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Zenith701801-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sun 03/17/13: 0
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Today's Message Index:
>----------------------
>
>
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 |
|
I thought the max engine weight for the 701 was 200 lbs.- The A65 should
be okay but would be a bit underpowered for its weight.- =0A=0AAs for the
701 not falling into the Ultralight category, if it has a registered gross
weight of 1200lbs or less, it can be flown by an Ultralight pilot regardle
ss of whether the plane is registered as an ultralight or not.- In fact,
an ultralight pilot can fly a certified aircraft in there were very many wi
th gross weights below 1200lbs and stall speeds below 45 MPH in the landing
configuration.- I think there is a certain model of Piper Vagabond with
an A65 that fits within the Canadian Ultralight rules.=0A=0AIf the 701 is r
egistered as an Amateur Built it is better off anyway.- The plane has had
to go through the MDRA inspection process so is therefore probably a bette
r aircraft.- There are minimum equipment requirements for Amateur Built A
ircraft which don't apply to ultralights but these are not major issues.-
The biggest problem would be maintaining the ELT.- Us Canadians can stil
l use the 121.5 ELTs for the time being so this isn't a major deal breaker
either.- Additionally, an Amateur Built aircraft requires a maintenance s
chedule and an annual inspection but likewise, these issues only make the p
lane better.- The annual can be signed off by the owner of the aircraft (
Canada doesn't have the Builder Certificate like the US).=0A=0AFrom what yo
u are describing, it sounds like the biggest issue would be the A65 being a
little underpowered for the weight of the plane.- The best bet would be
for the prospective purchaser to go for a test flight.- If the A65 is goi
ng to work, great.- If not, then the purchase price could be adjusted to
compensate for the fact that the plane will need to be re-engined.- Peopl
e will argue against my opinion but it is hard to beat a 912 Rotax in the 7
01.- Yes, they are expensive but they do the job they are intended to do
better than the competition.- I have the 80 HP 912 and it's great on whee
ls.- You would probably need the 100hp to fly two up on floats.- I've h
eard of 701s on wheels cruising consistently in the high 90s (MPH) with the
100 HP engine which is much better that my 85 MPH with the 80 HP.- I sup
pose it comes down to what the intended mission of the plane will be.=0A=0A
Hope this info has helped.=0A=0A=0ADoug M=0A701 from scratch (Amateur Built
)=0A=0ANW Ontario, Canada=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A Fr
om: AJR <ajroseca@nf.sympatico.ca>=0ATo: zenith701801-list@matronics.com
=0ASent: Monday, March 18, 2013 6:32:01 AM=0ASubject: Zenith701801-List: Re
: Zenith701801-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 03/17/13=0A =0A--> Zenith701801-List m
essage posted by: "AJR" <ajroseca@nf.sympatico.ca>=0A=0AHi guys=0AI have a
friend who is looking at buying a scratch built ch-701..=0AThis aircraft ha
s a A65 Continental engine rated at 65 hp and engine is 74 years old.=0AThe
engine dry weights 175 lbs so it would be beyond the maximum engine weight
=0Aallowed for the 701.. with prop , oil, exhaust, mount, etc it would be w
ell over the=0Amaximum engine weight for the 701 recommended..Also the engi
ne has to be hand=0Apropped as it has no electric start..The aircraft does
not fall in the ultralight category=0Afor Canada so is under the homebuilt
experimental category..Cruise on this engine is 2150=0Arpm and redline is 2
300..- The 65 hp engine does not seem to be much power for a ch701=0AAm
I missing something here..I would appreciate and thoughts or suggestions on
this=0Aaircraft..Also what would be the minimum HP required and suggested
for this aircraft.=0AAJR
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 |
|
On the 100HP Rotax I get 85MPH cruise at 5100RPM, 87 @5300.
My plane has the larger mains, slats and bare struts. Prop the is the
factory default 3-bladed Warp Drive pitched at 11.5 degrees.
YMMV
John Marzulli
http://MarzulliPhoto.net/
http://701Builder.blogspot.com/
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:19 AM, MacDonald Doug <dougsnash@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I thought the max engine weight for the 701 was 200 lbs. The A65 should
> be okay but would be a bit underpowered for its weight.
>
> As for the 701 not falling into the Ultralight category, if it has a
> registered gross weight of 1200lbs or less, it can be flown by an
> Ultralight pilot regardless of whether the plane is registered as an
> ultralight or not. In fact, an ultralight pilot can fly a certified
> aircraft in there were very many with gross weights below 1200lbs and stall
> speeds below 45 MPH in the landing configuration. I think there is a
> certain model of Piper Vagabond with an A65 that fits within the Canadian
> Ultralight rules.
>
> If the 701 is registered as an Amateur Built it is better off anyway. The
> plane has had to go through the MDRA inspection process so is therefore
> probably a better aircraft. There are minimum equipment requirements for
> Amateur Built Aircraft which don't apply to ultralights but these are not
> major issues. The biggest problem would be maintaining the ELT. Us
> Canadians can still use the 121.5 ELTs for the time being so this isn't a
> major deal breaker either. Additionally, an Amateur Built aircraft
> requires a maintenance schedule and an annual inspection but likewise,
> these issues only make the plane better. The annual can be signed off by
> the owner of the aircraft (Canada doesn't have the Builder Certificate like
> the US).
>
> From what you are describing, it sounds like the biggest issue would be
> the A65 being a little underpowered for the weight of the plane. The best
> bet would be for the prospective purchaser to go for a test flight. If the
> A65 is going to work, great. If not, then the purchase price could be
> adjusted to compensate for the fact that the plane will need to be
> re-engined. People will argue against my opinion but it is hard to beat a
> 912 Rotax in the 701. Yes, they are expensive but they do the job they are
> intended to do better than the competition. I have the 80 HP 912 and it's
> great on wheels. You would probably need the 100hp to fly two up on
> floats. I've heard of 701s on wheels cruising consistently in the high 90s
> (MPH) with the 100 HP engine which is much better that my 85 MPH with the
> 80 HP. I suppose it comes down to what the intended mission of the plane
> will be.
>
> Hope this info has helped.
>
> Doug M
> 701 from scratch (Amateur Built)
> NW Ontario, Canada
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* AJR <ajroseca@nf.sympatico.ca>
> *To:* zenith701801-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Monday, March 18, 2013 6:32:01 AM
> *Subject:* Zenith701801-List: Re: Zenith701801-List Digest: 0 Msgs -
> 03/17/13
>
>
> Hi guys
> I have a friend who is looking at buying a scratch built ch-701..
> This aircraft has a A65 Continental engine rated at 65 hp and engine is 74
> years old.
> The engine dry weights 175 lbs so it would be beyond the maximum engine
> weight
> allowed for the 701.. with prop , oil, exhaust, mount, etc it would be
> well over the
> maximum engine weight for the 701 recommended..Also the engine has to be
> hand
> propped as it has no electric start..The aircraft does not fall in the
> ultralight category
> for Canada so is under the homebuilt experimental category..Cruise on this
> engine is 2150
> rpm and redline is 2300.. The 65 hp engine does not seem to be much power
> for a ch701
> Am I missing something here..I would appreciate and thoughts or
> suggestions on this
> aircraft..Also what would be the minimum HP required and suggested for
> this aircraft.
> AJR
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
Hi,
I haven't had my 701 long enough to know what I like , or dislike about it or
what I want to put on it -- Fairings etc-- .Don't plan on doing anything to it
anytime soon
just fly it until i get to know it good enough to know what if anything I want
to change.
Right now it's stock with a 100 hp rotax.
Having said that , it seems as if the people that have replaced the slats with
VGs
are really happy with the change. as it is cheap and easy to do I may want to
try it.
I would like to know what the change does to the cg? Are the slats considered to
be part of the wing chord? where is the range without the slats.Does it move
from where it was the the slats? May seem simple to some of you but it has me
somewhat confused.
Thanks for any thoughts you may have
Frank
Fayetteville ,AR
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 |
|
Frank, first off let me say that I am one of those stubborn 701 owners who
feel that if I'd wanted a plane without slats, I would have built something
other than a 701.=0A=0AAccording to Chris Heintz (at an Oshkosh forum), th
e slats are part of the chord of the wing.- The airfoil shape (I forget t
he number) includes the slat.- The airfoil without the slat is an "untest
ed" airfoil which he never intended to be flown.- Chris further claimed t
hat air is not supposed to be flowing through the slot unless the wing is a
t a fairly high angle of attack and thus should have minimal drag while in
cruise.- Chris claimed slats are essentially the best high lift device th
at can be installed on this class of aircraft in a simple and light fashion
.=0A=0AAll of Chris's statements aside, it is undeniable that many 701 owne
rs have chosen to remove their slats and install VGs and have seen a 5-10 M
PH increase in cruise speed.- I suspect the removal of the slat has reduc
ed the effective chord of the wing and thus increased the aspect ratio of t
he wing.- Therefore, a 701 minus the slats essentially has a smaller wing
than one with slats.- Smaller wing equals less drag equals more speed.
- Problem is, the wing sans slat looses much of its STOL capability.- W
hen you add the VGs, you recover much (not quite all) of the lost STOL capa
bility.- The increased speed of a 701 with VGs instead of slats does not
come from the VGs, it comes from the removal of wing area, weight, and drag
.- The VGs are only a band-aid to repair the STOL capabilities lost by re
moval of the slats.=0A=0AAs for the changes to the CofG with the slats remo
ved, the slats are fairly close to the CofG of the plane so their removal s
hould have minimal effect.- Since the center of lift theoretically moves
aft when the slats are removed at the same time as the Cof G moves aft, the
total change to how the plane responds is supposedly very little.- Thus,
you get the typical response from 701 owners who elect to remove their sla
ts saying they notice very little negative effect and the big positive effe
ct of the increased speed or economy (depending on how you choose to fly).
=0A=0AI am trying to present as balanced a point of view here as I can.-
As I've stated, I have no intention of removing my slats.- I can understa
nd the urge to remove slats though given the potential increase in speed fo
r negligible negative side effect.- John Gilpen (sp?) from Australia has
done a bunch of flight testing and supposedly has an extensive website (www
.stolspeed.com I think) documenting his experiences with 701s and Savannahs
flying without slats.- While I have not looked at his site (as I don't p
lan on removing my slats) many people claim it has great information.- On
e caveat to keep in mind is that JG sells VG kits for 701s and Savannahs so
view his information with a critical eye.- This being said, however, he
seems to have many satisfied customers so you will have to decide for yours
elf.=0A=0AI hope my little ramble about slats vs VGs has been of some use a
nd I have provided the balanced opinion I was attempting to present.=0A=0AD
oug M=0A701 from scratch=0ANW Ontario, Canada=0A=0A=0A=0A__________________
______________=0A From: frank goodnight <frank.goodnight@att.net>=0ATo: zen
ith701801-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:52:11 PM=0A
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Slats & vgs=0A =0A=0AHi,=0AI haven't had my 701
long enough to know what I like , or dislike about it or-=0Awhat I want
to put on it -- Fairings etc-- .Don't plan on doing anything to it anytime
soon=0Ajust fly it until i get to know it good enough to know what if anyth
ing I want to change.=0ARight now it's stock with a 100 hp rotax.=0A- Hav
ing said that , it seems as if the people that have replaced the slats with
VGs=0Aare really happy with the change. as it is cheap and easy to do I ma
y want to try it.=0AI would like to know what the change does to the cg? Ar
e the slats considered to be part of the wing chord? where is the range wit
hout the slats.Does it move from where it was the the slats? May seem simpl
e to some of you but it has me somewhat confused.=0AThanks for any thoughts
you may have=0AFrank=0AFayetteville ,AR
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 |
|
Doug
Thanks, this is the best (and most balanced!) discourse that I have seen on
this perennially occurring topic
Like you I do no t plan on removing the slats but I have added vg's to the
elevator as suggested by Zenith (yes, there is a place for vg's on the 701!)
Roger
From: owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith701801-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of MacDonald
Doug
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Slats & vgs
Frank, first off let me say that I am one of those stubborn 701 owners who
feel that if I'd wanted a plane without slats, I would have built something
other than a 701.
According to Chris Heintz (at an Oshkosh forum), the slats are part of the
chord of the wing. The airfoil shape (I forget the number) includes the
slat. The airfoil without the slat is an "untested" airfoil which he never
intended to be flown. Chris further claimed that air is not supposed to be
flowing through the slot unless the wing is at a fairly high angle of attack
and thus should have minimal drag while in cruise. Chris claimed slats are
essentially the best high lift device that can be installed on this class of
aircraft in a simple and light fashion.
All of Chris's statements aside, it is undeniable that many 701 owners have
chosen to remove their slats and install VGs and have seen a 5-10 MPH
increase in cruise speed. I suspect the removal of the slat has reduced the
effective chord of the wing and thus increased the aspect ratio of the wing.
Therefore, a 701 minus the slats essentially has a smaller wing than one
with slats. Smaller wing equals less drag equals more speed. Problem is,
the wing sans slat looses much of its STOL capability. When you add the
VGs, you recover much (not quite all) of the lost STOL capability. The
increased speed of a 701 with VGs instead of slats does not come from the
VGs, it comes from the removal of wing area, weight, and drag. The VGs are
only a band-aid to repair the STOL capabilities lost by removal of the
slats.
As for the changes to the CofG with the slats removed, the slats are fairly
close to the CofG of the plane so their removal should have minimal effect.
Since the center of lift theoretically moves aft when the slats are removed
at the same time as the Cof G moves aft, the total change to how the plane
responds is supposedly very little. Thus, you get the typical response from
701 owners who elect to remove their slats saying they notice very little
negative effect and the big positive effect of the increased speed or
economy (depending on how you choose to fly).
I am trying to present as balanced a point of view here as I can. As I've
stated, I have no intention of removing my slats. I can understand the urge
to remove slats though given the potential increase in speed for negligible
negative side effect. John Gilpen (sp?) from Australia has done a bunch of
flight testing and supposedly has an extensive website (www.stolspeed.com I
think) documenting his experiences with 701s and Savannahs flying without
slats. While I have not looked at his site (as I don't plan on removing my
slats) many people claim it has great information. One caveat to keep in
mind is that JG sells VG kits for 701s and Savannahs so view his information
with a critical eye. This being said, however, he seems to have many
satisfied customers so you will have to decide for yourself.
I hope my little ramble about slats vs VGs has been of some use and I have
provided the balanced opinion I was attempting to present.
Doug M
701 from scratch
NW Ontario, Canada
_____
From: frank goodnight <frank.goodnight@att.net>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:52:11 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Slats & vgs
Hi,
I haven't had my 701 long enough to know what I like , or dislike about it
or
what I want to put on it -- Fairings etc-- .Don't plan on doing anything to
it anytime soon
just fly it until i get to know it good enough to know what if anything I
want to change.
Right now it's stock with a 100 hp rotax.
Having said that , it seems as if the people that have replaced the slats
with VGs
are really happy with the change. as it is cheap and easy to do I may want
to try it.
I would like to know what the change does to the cg? Are the slats
considered to be part of the wing chord? where is the range without the
slats.Does it move from where it was the the slats? May seem simple to some
of you but it has me somewhat confused.
Thanks for any thoughts you may have
Frank
Fayetteville ,AR
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 |
|
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your answer. Hope I get a couple from people that have replaced the
slats to tell how things go.
Frank
do not archive
________________________________
From: MacDonald Doug <dougsnash@yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, March 18, 2013 1:59:42 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith701801-List: Slats & vgs
Frank, first off let me say that I am one of those stubborn 701 owners who feel
that if I'd wanted a plane without slats, I would have built something other
than a 701.
According to Chris Heintz (at an Oshkosh forum), the slats are part of the chord
of the wing. The airfoil shape (I forget the number) includes the slat. The
airfoil without the slat is an "untested" airfoil which he never intended to be
flown. Chris further claimed that air is not supposed to be flowing through the
slot unless the wing is at a fairly high angle of attack and thus should have
minimal drag while in cruise. Chris claimed slats are essentially the best high
lift device that can be installed on this class of aircraft in a simple and
light fashion.
All of Chris's statements aside, it is undeniable that many 701 owners have
chosen to remove their slats and install VGs and have seen a 5-10 MPH increase
in cruise speed. I suspect the removal of the slat has reduced the effective
chord of the wing and thus increased the aspect ratio of the wing. Therefore,
a
701 minus the slats essentially has a smaller wing than one with slats. Smaller
wing equals less drag equals more speed. Problem is, the wing sans slat looses
much of its STOL capability. When you add the VGs, you recover much (not quite
all) of the lost STOL capability. The increased speed of a 701 with VGs instead
of slats does not come from the VGs, it comes from the removal of wing area,
weight, and drag. The VGs are only a band-aid to repair the STOL capabilities
lost by removal of the slats.
As for the changes to the CofG with the slats removed, the slats are fairly
close to the CofG of the plane so their removal should have minimal effect.
Since the center of lift theoretically moves aft when the slats are removed at
the same time as the Cof G moves aft, the total change to how the plane responds
is supposedly very little. Thus, you get the typical response from 701 owners
who elect to remove their slats saying they notice very little negative effect
and the big positive effect of the increased speed or economy (depending on how
you choose to fly).
I am trying to present as balanced a point of view here as I can. As I've
stated, I have no intention of removing my slats. I can understand the urge to
remove slats though given the potential increase in speed for negligible
negative side effect. John Gilpen (sp?) from Australia has done a bunch of
flight testing and supposedly has an extensive website (www.stolspeed.com I
think) documenting his experiences with 701s and Savannahs flying without
slats. While I have not looked at his site (as I don't plan on removing my
slats) many people claim it has great information. One caveat to keep in mind
is that JG sells VG kits for 701s and Savannahs so view his information with a
critical eye. This being said, however, he seems to have many satisfied
customers so you will have to decide for yourself.
I hope my little ramble about slats vs VGs has been of some use and I have
provided the balanced opinion I was attempting to present.
Doug M
701 from scratch
NW Ontario, Canada
________________________________
From: frank goodnight <frank.goodnight@att.net>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 12:52:11 PM
Subject: Zenith701801-List: Slats & vgs
Hi,
I haven't had my 701 long enough to know what I like , or dislike about it or
what I want to put on it -- Fairings etc-- .Don't plan on doing anything to it
anytime soon
just fly it until i get to know it good enough to know what if anything I want
to change.
Right now it's stock with a 100 hp rotax.
Having said that , it seems as if the people that have replaced the slats with
VGs
are really happy with the change. as it is cheap and easy to do I may want to
try it.
I would like to know what the change does to the cg? Are the slats considered
to be part of the wing chord? where is the range without the slats.Does it move
from where it was the the slats? May seem simple to some of you but it has me
somewhat confused.
Thanks for any thoughts you may have
Frank
Fayetteville ,AR
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 |
|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 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! --
|