Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

VG's
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jpspencer(at)cableone.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:45 pm Post subject: VG's

Hmmm...lots of theory and heavy thinking on vg's  going on here lately. Not being one to get TOO deep into the theory I can offer  this: I am one of the renegades who removed the slats In favor of the vg's and  believe me I will never go back. The improvement in flying qualities alone(much  more stable and predictable at low speed/safer) made the change worth it  not to mention a much more efficient airplane(pull the power back, go the same  speed on less gas) with no real world loss in STOL capability. As to the  lessened drag for approach angle-all one has to do is slip the thing and that  slab side will bring it out of the sky like a freight train. And all the  verbiage about increased load on the wing at stall is, from a practical  standpoint, just a bunch of crap...don't forget this thing is  supposedly stressed for 6 G. I can't imagine ever being able to get  anything like that much gustload on it at any speed anywhere near a one G  stall-it would turn itself inside out. Similiar situation for maneuvering  speed...it's kinda like, so what?-that is, assuming the pilot is competent  enough to not be hauling ass and snatching the stick around in heavy gusts.  (Doubtful in some cases, admittedly) Furthermore, I can't measure any  reduction on one G stall speed on mine...that, if at all present, is minute and  of no consequence and merely incidential to the real benefit of vastly improved  low speed flying qualities and increased efficiency with no real world loss/gain  of STOL capability. 

 I have spent a lifetime in the air in everything  from absolute junk to widebodies and feel fairly well qualified to evaluate  the merits of a such a straight forward change as slats/vg/701. I spent some 40  hours at flight test slats vs. vg's and when it was all down on paper the  decision to cut the slat brackets off was easy. It was the right thing to do for  me.(I did find that vg placement was critical) For those with doubts I  would offer that it isn't the right thing for you so don't do it. I'm not  selling anything here and don't care what you do with your money.

 This list has some highly experienced/well  qualified folks on it and I highly respect your qualifications...but I do  wonder if any of the recent naysayer posters have a shred of experience with  701/slat/vgs. As is so often the case on this list, I suspect the ones  yelling the loudest have the least first hand experience with what it is they  are talking about, much less some 40 hours objective flight test. I personally  don't know of anybody who went vg's going back to slats on the 701. They  generally are the real world types and have little interest in neverending  talk/handwringing about theory that has very little if any real practical  application when dealing with the 701. 

 I feel sure the theorists will have something to  say about this...but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

  

 Joe

   [quote][b]

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: VG's

Joe, First of all I want to thank you for taking the time to explain your results. I am the builder and test pilot of an 801. My take on this is the 701 / 801 has a very similar wing and with that a similar leading edge. The slat profile is ALOT different then the blunt nose of the wing. By removing the slats doesn't that create a completely different airfoil?  Don't get me wrong, I am looking for some additional speed in my "beast" and I can attest  to the fact that a ton of horsepower doesn't do it. My opinion is that the 801 hits a wall around 105-110 mph and it is like dragging a parachute to get through that wall. I guess my question is,,,before I glue and / or rivet alot of  VG's on my toy has anyone flown a 701 /801 without slats and VG's. ?  I would hate to make my plane uglier and then have to fill/ repaint the spots where the VG's were. All feedback is welcome.... Thanks in advance.

Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



-- "Joe Spencer" <jpspencer(at)cableone.net> wrote:

 Hmmm...lots of theory and heavy thinking on vg's going on here lately. Not being one to get TOO deep into the theory I can offer this: I am one of the renegades who removed the slats In favor of the vg's and believe me I will never go back. The improvement in flying qualities alone(much more stable and predictable at low speed/safer) made the change worth it not to mention a much more efficient airplane(pull the power back, go the same speed on less gas) with no real world loss in STOL capability. As to the lessened drag for approach angle-all one has to do is slip the thing and that slab side will bring it out of the sky like a freight train. And all the verbiage about increased load on the wing at stall is, from a practical standpoint, just a bunch of crap...don't forget this thing is supposedly stressed for 6 G. I can't imagine ever being able to get anything like that much gustload on it at any speed anywhere near a one G stall-it would turn itself inside out. Similiar situation for maneuvering speed...it's kinda like, so what?-that is, assuming the pilot is competent enough to not be hauling ass and snatching the stick around in heavy gusts. (Doubtful in some cases, admittedly) Furthermore, I can't measure any reduction on one G stall speed on mine...that, if at all present, is minute and of no consequence and merely incidential to the real benefit of vastly improved low speed flying qualities and increased efficiency with no real world loss/gain of STOL capability. 

 I have spent a lifetime in the air in everything from absolute junk to widebodies and feel fairly well qualified to evaluate the merits of a such a straight forward change as slats/vg/701. I spent some 40 hours at flight test slats vs. vg's and when it was all down on paper the decision to cut the slat brackets off was easy. It was the right thing to do for me.(I did find that vg placement was critical) For those with doubts I would offer that it isn't the right thing for you so don't do it. I'm not selling anything here and don't care what you do with your money.

 This list has some highly experienced/well qualified folks on it and I highly respect your qualifications..but I do wonder if any of the recent naysayer posters have a shred of experience with 701/slat/vgs. As is so often the case on this list, I suspect the ones yelling the loudest have the least first hand experience with what it is they are talking about, much less some 40 hours objective flight test. I personally don't know of anybody who went vg's going back to slats on the 701. They generally are the real world types and have little interest in neverending talk/handwringing about theory that has very little if any real practical application when dealing with the 701. 

 I feel sure the theorists will have something to say about this...but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

  

 Joe

 	  Quote: 	
		  



====================================

">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

====================================

tronics.com

====================================

www.matronics.com/contribution

====================================



	
 



_____________________________________________________________

Become a pharmacy assistant.  Click here to start your career now.

   [quote][b]

kmccune

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: VG's

Thanks for the comments Joe,

 I believe that you are correct in the case of who yells the loudest. It is also a shame that more people don't speak up, who have done this.  



Ben read the linked article form Mr Heintz 



http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/design/slats-vs-vg-design.html

_________________
â€œAlways do what you are afraid to do.â€
R.W. Emerson (1803-1882)

"Real freedom is the sustained act of being an individual." WW - 2009

"Life is a good deal...it's worth it" Feb 1969
Dorothy McCune

John Bolding

Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 281

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:20 pm Post subject: VG's

JOE,     And to think that you have accused me,  FACE TO FACE  I  might add, of being able (and willing) to stir this pot at will,  I  hereby turn over my stick to the new leader. And who would have thought such a  mild mannered dude from upper Mississippi as yourself would have risen to such  heights.!!!  Come visit!

 LO&SLO   John Bolding

  

 do not archive, please



 [quote]   ---

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: VG's

Thanks Kevin for the link... I did read the article from Chris and it is about what I thought he would say. I will keep my slats on and take the "slight" reduction in speed  in trade for the excellent STOL traits of my 801. The next test I will probably try is to get some wide helicopter tape and seal up the gap between the slats and the top and botom of the wing, esentially making it a  wider chord without the air leaking through the slot and still maintaining the sleeker leading edge provided by the slats. I will post results after the test. If ya don't hear back from me it didn't work right. :<). 

do not archive

Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



-- "kmccune" <kmccune(at)somtel.net> wrote:

--> Zenith-List message posted by: "kmccune" <kmccune(at)somtel.net>



Thanks for the comments Joe,

I believe that you are correct in the case of who yells the loudest. It is also a shame that more people don't speak up, who have done this.  



Ben read the linked article form Mr Heintz 



http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/design/slats-vs-vg-design.html



--------

Kevin

N701DZ Reserved





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewto================================================================================================bsp;        - MATRONICS WEB FORU================================================sp;                       &nb===============================================

 



_____________________________________________________________

Click to begin your health care training online.  Request info today.

   [quote][b]

victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:07 am Post subject: VG's

Joe Spencer wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    I am one of the renegades who removed the slats In favor of the vg's 

 and believe me I will never go back. The improvement in flying 

 qualities alone(much more stable and predictable at low 

 speed/safer) made the change worth it not to mention a much more 

 efficient airplane(pull the power back, go the same speed on less 

 gas) with no real world loss in STOL capability.

 is minute and of no consequence and merely incidential to the real 

 benefit of vastly improved low speed flying qualities and increased 

 efficiency with no real world loss/gain of STOL capability.

 I spent some 40 hours at flight test slats vs. vg's and WHEN IT WAS 

 ALL DOWN ON PAPER


	


If you have real world test results, please post them (hopefully in a 

format that allows an easy numerical comparison). I would like to see 

what is the actual loss of STOL performance compared to what you get in 

return.



Bill

kmccune

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:59 am Post subject: Re: VG's

Ben,

Try this link, they taped up the gap. The result was that the slat appears to actuality become part of the cord. 

Give it a try, but be careful. Oh and like said, please post your results.



http://www.stolspeed.com/id/5

Jeyoung65(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:41 am Post subject: VG's

I am not a 701 person, but do have a question about removing the slats. Do  you just cover the slot between the wing and slat or do you just remove the  slat? Jerry of Ga.

  

  In a message dated 1/23/2008 5:52:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  n801bh(at)netzero.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  slat    profile is ALOT different then the blunt nose of the  wing. 	




Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 

  [quote][b]

jpspencer(at)cableone.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:10 am Post subject: VG's

Bill (and all),

 Per your request I went back and dug thru my notes  and came up with some figures for you. While I didn't bother to tabulate the  whole mess hopefully this will suffice for your purposes...

 CH 701, 912 ULS, 3 Blade Warp Drive set at 11  degrees. EW with slats 592, EW without slats 579, don't have the EWCG in front  of me but believe it was 12%MAC or close to that. All flights were made with the  same load, about 7 gallons gas, pilot, and a Wire Hair Terrier in the baggage  shelf. Tried to fly as close to 60 F as possible(some variation here but  minimal), and always at 1000 MSL in mostly smooth air. All speeds were taken  from a gps and 4 leg box pattern average and carefully flown. I flew first with  slats installed, then with no slats or vg's and finally with the vg's in 3  different positions(ended up with the vg's at 8% MAC-permanent position). My  plane at that time had round(not streamlined) lift struts installed. I found  that vg placement was important to predictable takeoff performance.

  Cruise speed at 5000rpm, slats installed,  84.0 mph

 Cruise speed at 5000rpm, no slats or vg's, 90.25  mph

 Cruise speed at 5000 rpm, vg's at 8% MAC, 90.25 mph  Note: I flew with the clean wing for that speed, installed the vg's(2 hours) and  went right back out and flew under near identical conditions and came up with an  identical speed for slats vs. clean. Real world I have found the cruise speed to  be more like 88-89 mph for varying load conditions, temps etc.; still an  increase of 4 to 5 mph over slats.

 For takeoff and landing measurements: I have a 250  foot strip with markers along the sides for judging distances used. While not  the best system it does work for my purposes and for real world evaluation, I  think. At any rate here in Mississippi we have to get by with what we've got so  there you have it. All measurements were done no wind and same load including  the terrier. All takeoffs and landings were what I call max effort.

 Takeoff distance with slats 60 feet average(see the  green one on utube)

 Takeoff distance without slats or vg's not  measured

 Takeoff distance with vg's at 8%MAC  60 feet  average Note: If it will make the naysayers happy I will apply a penalty of 10%  to the takeoff distance just to allow for whatever tolerances...even tho I  didn't come up with that in my measurements. That's a whole 6 feet. Like I said  somewhere before-who cares? 

 Landing distance with slats 180 feet

 Landing distance without slats or vg's not  measured

 Landing distance with vg's 150 feet Note: I never  was able to match ZAC figures for landing(140 feet I think it was) even tho I  often lock the brakes for rollout(skidout). The big difference for me with the  vg's is that the thing is so much more controllable at low speed allowing for a  helluva lot more precise approach/touchdown.I found the 701 with slats to be  fairly demanding when really slowed up(Roger at ZAC says fly 50 mph-kind of like  a Cessna150 I thought) and things can unravel fast close in.The vg's  cured a lot of that for me. Yes there is some flattening of the power off glide  angle but once again the slip is available for obstacles so I call that a  nonissue.

 The big deal with the vg's is improved lowspeed  handling, reduced buffet, and better fuel economy or higher cruise take your  pick.I would rather that nobody put vg's on because of anything I say...I did it  for me only and with no intention of ever getting involved in all this BS  discussion...but the 701 is a different animal from what most of us have ever  fooled with-the numbers are all so small that a huge percentage  increase/decrease amounts to nothing in the real world and well the thing has  such odd flight characteristics that unless one has first hand experience with  it then chances are he just really doesn't know what he's talking  about...transfer of knowledge/experience from other seemingly related   areas isn't necessarily as valid as one might think cause it's so  different, blah, blah, blah. At any rate, don't take my word for it do your own  testing and whatnot and make up your own mind. But don't knock it til  you've tried it. 

  

 Best to all,

 Joe

 BTW: The streamline lift struts make an even more  dramatic performance change than the vg's. Cruise speed goes up even more, climb  rate goes up, buffet decreases, and the glide angle is flattened out even  more(slip it man) and curiously nobody ever downs those. 

  

   [quote][b]

kmccune

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: Re: VG's

Joe,

Thank you for taking the time.



Kevin

frankroskind(at)HOTMAIL.C
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:47 am Post subject: VG's

this seems interesting.  Has anyone flown the 600 series with VG's?  Maybe you could get really good cruise and good short field performance.  Also, how do slats or VG's affect soft field performance?

  	  Quote: 	
		    From: jpspencer(at)cableone.net

To: Zenith-List(at)matronics.com

Subject: Zenith-List: VG's

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:07:29 -0600

     Bill (and all),

 Per your request I went back and dug thru my notes and came up with some figures for you. While I didn't bother to tabulate the whole mess hopefully this will suffice for your purposes...

 CH 701, 912 ULS, 3 Blade Warp Drive set at 11 degrees. EW with slats 592, EW without slats 579, don't have the EWCG in front of me but believe it was 12%MAC or close to that. All flights were made with the same load, about 7 gallons gas, pilot, and a Wire Hair Terrier in the baggage shelf. Tried to fly as close to 60 F as possible(some variation here but minimal), and always at 1000 MSL in mostly smooth air. All speeds were taken from a gps and 4 leg box pattern average and carefully flown. I flew first with slats installed, then with no slats or vg's and finally with the vg's in 3 different positions(ended up with the vg's at 8% MAC-permanent position). My plane at that time had round(not streamlined) lift struts installed. I found that vg placement was important to predictable takeoff performance.

  Cruise speed at 5000rpm, slats installed, 84.0 mph

 Cruise speed at 5000rpm, no slats or vg's, 90.25 mph

 Cruise speed at 5000 rpm, vg's at 8% MAC, 90.25 mph Note: I flew with the clean wing for that speed, installed the vg's(2 hours) and went right back out and flew under near identical conditions and came up with an identical speed for slats vs. clean. Real world I have found the cruise speed to be more like 88-89 mph for varying load conditions, temps etc.; still an increase of 4 to 5 mph over slats.

 For takeoff and landing measurements: I have a 250 foot strip with markers along the sides for judging distances used. While not the best system it does work for my purposes and for real world evaluation, I think. At any rate here in Mississippi we have to get by with what we've got so there you have it. All measurements were done no wind and same load including the terrier. All takeoffs and landings were what I call max effort.

 Takeoff distance with slats 60 feet average(see the green one on utube)

 Takeoff distance without slats or vg's not measured

 Takeoff distance with vg's at 8%MAC  60 feet average Note: If it will make the naysayers happy I will apply a penalty of 10% to the takeoff distance just to allow for whatever tolerances..even tho I didn't come up with that in my measurements. That's a whole 6 feet. Like I said somewhere before-who cares? 

 Landing distance with slats 180 feet

 Landing distance without slats or vg's not measured

 Landing distance with vg's 150 feet Note: I never was able to match ZAC figures for landing(140 feet I think it was) even tho I often lock the brakes for rollout(skidout). The big difference for me with the vg's is that the thing is so much more controllable at low speed allowing for a helluva lot more precise approach/touchdown.I found the 701 with slats to be fairly demanding when really slowed up(Roger at ZAC says fly 50 mph-kind of like a Cessna150 I thought) and things can unravel fast close in.The vg's cured a lot of that for me. Yes there is some flattening of the power off glide angle but once again the slip is available for obstacles so I call that a nonissue.

 The big deal with the vg's is improved lowspeed handling, reduced buffet, and better fuel economy or higher cruise take your pick.I would rather that nobody put vg's on because of anything I say...I did it for me only and with no intention of ever getting involved in all this BS discussion...but the 701 is a different animal from what most of us have ever fooled with-the numbers are all so small that a huge percentage increase/decrease amounts to nothing in the real world and well the thing has such odd flight characteristics that unless one has first hand experience with it then chances are he just really doesn't know what he's talking about...transfer of knowledge/experience from other seemingly related  areas isn't necessarily as valid as one might think cause it's so different, blah, blah, blah. At any rate, don't take my word for it do your own testing and whatnot and make up your own mind. But don't knock it til you've tried it. 

 Best to all,

 Joe

 BTW: The streamline lift struts make an even more dramatic performance change than the vg's. Cruise speed goes up even more, climb rate goes up, buffet decreases, and the glide angle is flattened out even more(slip it man) and curiously nobody ever downs those. 

 	  Quote: 	

arget=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

p://forums.matronics.com

blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution

Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail®-get your "fix". Check it out.  [quote][b]

lgold(at)quantum-associat
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:23 pm Post subject: VG's

Joe,

Do you know how much further back, if any, that you changed the center of

lift on your wing by removing the slats and how this impacts the allowed CG

for your 701?

Les  



[quote] --

DaveC

Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 14
Location: Alvin, TX

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: Re: VG's

 	  jpspencer(at)cableone.net wrote: 	
		  Bill (and all),

 Per your request I went back and dug thru my notes  and came up with some figures for you. While I didn't bother to tabulate the  whole mess hopefully this will suffice for your purposes...

 	




Thank you thank you thank you



Not just for the results of the VG trials, or for the bit about strut cleanup but for the reference to the 250' foot strip you use. I have been wondering how much land I need to set aside and improve for use as my airstrip and now I know some real world numbers. I now know that 240x40 (plus climb room on either end) should be realistic.

_________________
Dave
Alvin, Texas
CH-750 wanna-be building Wynne Corvair conversion

victorbravo(at)sbcglobal.
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:17 pm Post subject: VG's

Hey wait a minute... I didn't receive the message that starts with this 

paragraph below... does it contain the numbers or test results? I got 

several other messages but I didn't get the originalversion of this:

 	  Quote: 	
		   jpspencer(at)cableone.net wrote:

   

> Bill (and all),

>  Per your request I went back and dug thru my notes  and came up with some figures for you. While I didn't bother to tabulate the  whole mess hopefully this will suffice for your purposes...

>  

>

jpspencer(at)cableone.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: VG's

Thank you thank you thank you



Not just for the  results of the VG trials, or for the bit about strut cleanup but

for the  reference to the 250' foot strip you use. I have been wondering how

much land  I need to set aside and improve for use as my airstrip and now I know

some  real world numbers. I now know that 240x40 (plus climb room on either

end)  should be realistic.



 Dave

 I wouldn't consider 250' to be an adequate everyday strip.  I use it for testing, grins and such and it does have clearways on either  end so if over/under shot there is no damage. I would think at least 500'  minimum with clear approaches would be a comfortable, everyday  use minimum, and only then if the pilot is proficient. If I could get more  I would.

 Joe

   [quote][b]

jpspencer(at)cableone.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: VG's

Do you know how much further back, if any, that you changed the center  of

lift on your wing by removing the slats and how this impacts the allowed  CG

for your 701?

Les  



Les

 I don't know about the center of lift. The EWCG  moved from 12% to 14% MAC if I remember correctly but do not have the wt/bal  with me to verify. The cg will move aft tho that's for sure as the slats weighed  13#. I can't tell any difference in the way it flies, in that  respect.

 Joe

  

   [quote][b]

lgold(at)quantum-associat
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:56 am Post subject: VG's

Joe,

I give up! What does EWCG stand for?  (EW?)

 Les



 [quote]         From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com    [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joe    Spencer

Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:58 PM

To:    Zenith-List(at)matronics.com

Subject: Zenith-List:    VG's

   

   Do you know how much further back, if any, that you changed the center    of

lift on your wing by removing the slats and how this impacts the allowed    CG

for your 701?

Les  



Les

   I don't know about the center of lift. The EWCG    moved from 12% to 14% MAC if I remember correctly but do not have the wt/bal    with me to verify. The cg will move aft tho that's for sure as the slats    weighed 13#. I can't tell any difference in the way it flies, in that    respect.

   Joe

    

 	  Quote: 	
		  



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

	
[b]

ch701builder

Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 119
Location: N38.9947,W105.1305,ALT. 9,100'

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: VG's

I think that is refering to Empty Weight CG.

 Keith

 ************************************************************

 

 Les Goldner wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		     Joe,

 I give up! What does EWCG stand for? (EW?)

 Les

 

  	  Quote: 	
		     From:  owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com) [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Joe Spencer

 Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:58 PM

 To:  Zenith-List(at)matronics.com (Zenith-List(at)matronics.com)

 Subject: VG's

 

 

 Do you know how much further back, if any, that you changed the center of

 lift on your wing by removing the slats and how this impacts the allowed CG

 for your 701?

 Les  

 

 Les

 I don't know about the center of lift. The EWCG moved from 12% to 14% MAC if I remember correctly but do not have the wt/bal with me to verify. The cg will move aft tho that's for sure as the slats weighed 13#. I can't tell  any difference in the way it flies, in that respect.

 Joe

  

  	  Quote: 	
		  



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com

href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c

	
 



ttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

ics.com

.matronics.com/contribution



	
 	
 

 -- 

  *************************************     

************************************* 

Keith Ashcraft 

ITT Industries 

Advanced Engineering & Sciences 

5009 Centennial Blvd. 

Colorado Springs, CO 

                      80919 

(719) 599-1787 -- work 

(719) 332-4364 -- cell 

keith.ashcraft(at)itt.com (keith.ashcraft(at)itt.com) 

 

 

  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.

     [quote][b]

jpspencer(at)cableone.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:37 am Post subject: VG's

Joe,

I give up! What does EWCG stand for?  (EW?)

Les

  

  

 empty weight center of gravity

   [quote][b]

skyguynca

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 128

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: VG's

empty weight CG

  

 David Mikesell

230 Theresa Drive, #6

Cloverdale, CA  95425

209-224-4485

skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com (skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com)

www.skyguynca.com

 [quote]   ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum