pchap(at)primus.ca
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:20 pm Post subject: Sport Cruiser vs 601XL |
 |
|
At 22:30 06-08-10, you wrote:
| Quote: | --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net>
Paul,
Sippin too many beers again in the barn or too many karate hits to the brain... The Chech plane is an exact replica, save for a face lift. |
No way.
I don't know much about the Sport Cruiser but they actually changed a lot of it from the 601.
The tail assembly is a totally new design. The nose gear is different. The rear fuselage seems to be completely worked over, as it has a different profile (at the bottom, not just the turtledeck), different corners, different rivet lines. They claim the fuselage to be 2" wider. They did some changes with the wings -- at least the flap attachment design is different and they use stringers in the wings.
Are there elements of the 601 design heritage still in the Sport Cruiser? Yes, in the general wing & center fuselage design, the firewall, the wing lockers, the canopy lift design, the general shape of the cockpit, and so on.
The Sport Cruiser is certainly based on the 601 when one gets down to the core structural design, but even then, was built stronger. To pinch something off the ZBAG group list, Terry Philips wrote the following based on a series of photos comparing structures that someone else took:
| Quote: | The SC wing structure is very similar to the 601XL, but there are significant differences (from memory--hopefully most of this is correct): - The spar caps at the root are 50% thicker than the 601XL [my note: well, .040" vs .032" the photo captions said, so it isn't quite 50%]
- The spar caps appear to be tapered to thinner and narrower as one moves out the wing, avoiding the step changes in thickness common to the 601XL
- The wing has two Z-angle stringers top and one bottom running most of the length of the wing
- The wing spar web and top and bottom spar cap angles are made from a single piece of metal [my note: the web bends to form the cap rather than being rivetted on, for whatever that is worth]
- The spar caps of the center spar are 50% thicker [my note: 3/8" in center section vs. 1/4"]
- They use a pair of triangular braces to react the bending moment imposed on the center spar because it is not normal to the wing
- The ailerons and flaps are hinged very differently than the simple piano hinges on the 601XL
- I do no know if the aileron are counterbalanced
- The airleron control rod is under the wing, rather than passing through a hole in the rear spar
- You mentined the push-pull airleron control rods--I had forgotten them
The fuselage structure looks to be more similar to an RV than to the 601XL.
In my opinion, the major difference is that the 601XL was designed to be easily scratch built, whereas the SC was designed to only be sold as a kit with factory manufactured parts such as the tapered spar caps and 12 ft long one-piece spar web-spar cap angles. |
[My addition: Rear spar attachment plate .093" vs .063" on the 601]
[My addition: Uprights around the wing attachment .063" vs .040" on the 601]
The dimensions are of course for the traditional 601 XL before the post-structural failure upgrades.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
