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

Questions

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

joe(at)kfiz.com
Guest

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: Questions

Hi Everyone,



I have a few questions and a comment:



I'm not sure how you guys do the FAA data base searches, but is there a way 

to look for something that is common to all 4 accident airplanes, such as 

type of engine, 2 or 3 blade prop, wing baggage compartment, etc? 

Conventional stick or mid stick? If all 4 had the same engine, is it 

possible that at a certain RPM it sets up a vibration of some sort? Is it 

possible to to overcontrol the airplane using a center stick? Is the 

wreckage still available for inspection and can we hire someone with 

credentials to go out and look at it?



Many years ago, I built a Prostar PT-2 homebuilt. The wing was simmilar to 

my 601 XL with aluminum ribs and skin, roughly the same size and thickness. 

The novel thing about the PT was the fact that the skin was bonded first to 

the ribs with a 3M automotive type 2 face tape, then riveted with the same 

kind of rivets we use! the adhesive took a mild set at first, and with age 

was almost indestructable! I had to remove an inboard rib and it took me an 

entire afternoon with a razor blade and laquer thinner!



So I called 3M to find out what kind of tape adhesives they have on the 

market now. They have over 100 types to choose from in any thickness and 

strength. They have some types that are used for aluminum construction, and 

all are on a roll of 2 face tape in any width you want!



So why not use this 3M adhesive two face tape between the ribs and the wing 

skin? It wouldn't change any stiffness or flexability issues with the 

design, it would only hold the parts together better.



Joe in Oshkosh

601 XL

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 9:28 am Post subject: Re: Questions

The quick answer is it is doubtful that they all had the same engine. One was an AMD built SLSA and the other two EXP-AB.

 	  joe(at)kfiz.com wrote: 	
		  Hi Everyone,



I have a few questions and a comment:



I'm not sure how you guys do the FAA data base searches, but is there a way 

to look for something that is common to all 4 accident airplanes, such as 

type of engine, 2 or 3 blade prop, wing baggage compartment, etc? 

Conventional stick or mid stick? If all 4 had the same engine, is it 

possible that at a certain RPM it sets up a vibration of some sort? Is it 

possible to to overcontrol the airplane using a center stick? Is the 

wreckage still available for inspection and can we hire someone with 

credentials to go out and look at it?

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

n787xl(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 4:24 pm Post subject: Questions

Everyone

 

 Because the 601xl has no provision to counterbalance the ailerons as 90% of the production aircraft do that use cables to actuate the ailerons, they have a fairly large danger of aileron flutter, Especially if the cables are not tight.  Ref:  EAA Article "Control Surface Fllutter Problems" by Tony Bingelis, Sport Aviation 7/78.

 

 Check it out.

 

 JES

 601xl builder.

 

  

 --

klr12(at)psu.edu
Guest

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: Questions

Then every high wing Cessna in the world, not to mention high wing 

Pipers, have the same problem.

Get over it people! Stop looking for a problem that doesn't exist. 

You're not building the friggin' Shuttle here!

                                                                                                              

K.L. Rupert

                                                                                                              

A&P/IA

                                                                                                             

601XL Builder

n787xl(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: Questions

KLR

 

 High wing Cessnas are counter balanced, see back of aileron, all low wing pipers are, I can't  speak to High wing Pipers.  All RV's are and haven't tried to look at others.  All I hope to do is to  get people to look at the literature which clearly calls for balancing.  If you don't want to get educated so be it.

 

 Congrads on your A&P and IA.  I will not bore you on my collection, its not necessary or cool.

 

 JES

 RV6A builder and flying

 601XL builder

 

   

  

 --

skyguynca

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 128

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: Questions

I really and truely hope that is A&P/IA really  isn't saying that Cessna and Piper control surfaces are not balanced! Please  tell me I am misreading this post!!!!!!!!

  

  

 David Mikesell

23597 N. Hwy 99

Acampo, CA 95220

209-224-4485

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

www.skyguynca.com

 [quote]   ---

n787xl(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: Questions

Scary huh!!

 

 I think he was serious.  Makes you want to build an experimental doesn't it so you can inspect your own.  Thank God they are not all that way.

 

 Unbalanced control surfaces are not good, especially when cable driven.

 

 James Schultz

 Placerville, CA

 

   530 621-1301

 

  

 --

TxDave

Joined: 22 Jul 2006
Posts: 168
Location: Temple, TX

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: Questions

Gee!! I wonder how that factory demo plane has survived all these years without balanced ailerons. I guess the Heintz family has just been lucky, huh? I know...maybe we should call and warn them they're flying a death trap!

(SERIOUS SARCASM INTENDED)



"A Brief Note from Zenith Aircraft Company: 

We are pleased to report that our red and white factory demonstrator Zodiac XL (N9601Z) is now six years old and has logged over 1,000 hours.  The aircraft has crisscrossed the United States dozens of times through all kinds of conditions. We fly well over 300 demo flights per year in this aircraft; that's over 1,800 passengers over the last 6 years. Additionally, over 15,000 people have taken a seat in this aircraft over the years at different shows and fly-ins, as well as at the factory. The plane flies as well today as it did when it was new; we feel very fortunate being the kit manufacturer for such a fine aircraft. The fact that our demo plane still looks and performs as well as it does is a testament to the design's integrity and robustness."



Dave Clay

klr12(at)psu.edu
Guest

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:25 am Post subject: Questions

Maybe that statement was painted with too wide a brush. I was referring 

to to the older ragwing Cessna's and pipers and although they are 

statically balanced, they are not dynamically balanced as the newer 

models are. My apologies.

                                                                                                                 

KLR

skyguynca

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 128

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 5:43 am Post subject: Questions

I did not say the 601 had to have them, my comment was how a A&P with a IA 

thinks Cessna 150, 152,172,182,205,206,210, etc doesn't have a balanced 

control surface?



David Mikesell

23597 N. Hwy 99

Acampo, CA 95220

209-224-4485

skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com

www.skyguynca.com

---

rsteele(at)rjsit.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: Questions

(first post to this forum - working on xl rudder kit)



I'm assuming you mean the surfaces are statically balanced.  Could  

you describe mechanically how that works.  I just flew in a 182 today  

and I'll be darned if I can see how it's done.  All  I can think of  

is a some sort of counter weight attached to the  control linkage  

inside the wing.  This seems like an iffy way to do static balancing  

as you have the slop in the control linkage that could contribute to  

flutter.  Other than the control linkage there is nothing that  

extends forward of the aileron hinge that could account for a counter  

weight.



If the you are talking about dynamic balance, I'm not real sure how  

you could know how it's balanced without access to Cessna's design  

and testing documents?  I guess the same goes for the 601XL.



Ron

On May 21, 2007, at 9:39 AM, David Mikesell wrote:



[quote] 

 <skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com>



 I did not say the 601 had to have them, my comment was how a A&P  

 with a IA thinks Cessna 150, 152,172,182,205,206,210, etc doesn't  

 have a balanced control surface?



 David Mikesell

 23597 N. Hwy 99

 Acampo, CA 95220

 209-224-4485

 skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com

 www.skyguynca.com

 ---

skyguynca

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 128

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: Questions

Hi Ron,



If you take the 182 aileron and move it with the trailing edge full up and 

then look inside the gap between the wing and the aileron at the lower edge 

at the front of the aileron you should see a lead bar about 5/8 of a in tall 

and about 1/2 wide riveted there, that is the counter balance.



David Mikesell

23597 N. Hwy 99

Acampo, CA 95220

209-224-4485

skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com

www.skyguynca.com

---

rsteele(at)rjsit.com
Guest

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: Questions

Cool, I'll take a look during my next pre-flight (I'm a student).

Thanks for the reply.



Ron



On May 21, 2007, at 10:48 PM, David Mikesell wrote:



[quote] 

 <skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com>



 Hi Ron,



 If you take the 182 aileron and move it with the trailing edge full  

 up and then look inside the gap between the wing and the aileron at  

 the lower edge at the front of the aileron you should see a lead  

 bar about 5/8 of a in tall and about 1/2 wide riveted there, that  

 is the counter balance.



 David Mikesell

 23597 N. Hwy 99

 Acampo, CA 95220

 209-224-4485

 skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com

 www.skyguynca.com

 ---

joe(at)kfiz.com
Guest

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 7:51 am Post subject: Questions

Hi Everyone.



I have a few questions.



I'm up to the fuel and electrical system for my 601 XL. Why does the fuel 

system tee off to the two different fuel pumps? Wouldn't it be better to go 

from the gasolator to the electric fuel pump to the mechanical pump to the 

engine? The parts count would be less. Is it safer to run them in paralell 

like the plans call for? I've never trusted T fittings and you could 

eliminate 2 of them by running them together.



What size wire are you using for different items like the fuel pump, nav 

lights, battery cable, etc? I'm ordering everything I need today. I 

appreciate any help. Thanks.



Anyone featuring electrical wiring on their personal WebPages with pictures?



Joe in Oshkosh

601 XL

bryanmmartin

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1018

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: Questions

A non operating fuel pump will restrict the flow of fuel to some degree. 

Sucking fuel through this restriction, under some circumstances, can 

lead to vapor lock. With the pumps in parallel, each pump has an 

unrestricted supply of fuel and there's less chance of vapor lock.

The facet fuel pumps will run on a 5 Amp circuit so 18 AWG wire will 

work. For most circuits, find out what the steady state current draw is, 

add at least 50% and choose a wire and fuse appropriately. The length of 

the wire run may be a factor in choosing the right size wire. (Rule of 

thumb: no more than 3% voltage drop over the length of the wire.) There 

are aircraft wire size calculators on the web that may help. For your 

battery cable, you will probably need at least #4 wire. If the battery 

is in the tail for balance purposes, you will probably need #2 wire.



Although there is no requirement to, I would recommend you use aircraft 

grade Tefzel wire, at least in the cabin area. If something does short 

out and burn, tefzel won't give off toxic smoke.



Joe wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 Hi Everyone.

 

 I have a few questions.

 

 I'm up to the fuel and electrical system for my 601 XL. Why does the 

 fuel system tee off to the two different fuel pumps? Wouldn't it be 

 better to go from the gasolator to the electric fuel pump to the 

 mechanical pump to the engine? The parts count would be less. Is it 

 safer to run them in paralell like the plans call for? I've never 

 trusted T fittings and you could eliminate 2 of them by running them 

 together.

 

 What size wire are you using for different items like the fuel pump, nav 

 lights, battery cable, etc? I'm ordering everything I need today. I 

 appreciate any help. Thanks.

 

 Anyone featuring electrical wiring on their personal WebPages with 

 pictures?

 


	


-- 

Bryan Martin

Zenith 601XL N61BM

Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive

Do Not Archive

_________________
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
do not archive.

amyvega2005(at)earthlink.
Guest

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 12:51 pm Post subject: Questions

the rule I was told is run the tanks to the tank selector, then gascolator, then the pump.

GC cleans any debrise before going to pump.



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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