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

601 nose gear
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

meltonoso(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:53 am Post subject: 601 nose gear

From Alan Melton (meltonoso(at)cox.net (meltonoso(at)cox.net)).  Our airplane likewise landed nose heavy, resulting in excessive wear on the plastic block through which the strut runs, and ultimately  warping of the firewall.  Our solution, which so far seems to be working very well, is to use no more than half flaps and a 60 knot airspeed on final.  The result is much less nose drop on landing.    

        [quote][b]

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:01 am Post subject: 601 nose gear

That sounds great for solving the crash-down nose gear problem on landing.  However, I wonder what such a high speed with limited flaps does to the landing distance over an obstacle or just the required runway length with or without an obstacle on the landing approach.



 Paul

 XL awaiting (STILL) engineering changes 



 

 At 05:53 AM 10/27/2009, you wrote:



 [quote]From Alan Melton (meltonoso(at)cox.net (meltonoso(at)cox.net)).  Our airplane likewise landed nose heavy, resulting in excessive wear on the plastic block through which the strut runs, and ultimately  warping of the firewall.  Our solution, which so far seems to be working very well, is to use no more than half flaps and a 60 knot airspeed on final.  The result is much less nose drop on landing.  

 

  	  Quote: 	
		  

[/b] 	
[b]

mhubel

Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 141

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:31 am Post subject: Re: 601 nose gear

As a lot of 601s are flying with minimal problem, I don't think there will be a major engineering change coming. 



I did however observe a tendency to land with the nose too low initially. I noted that the trim tab could not trim out all forces on final with full flaps. I did two things. I changed the angle of the stabilizer from zero to 1 degree nose up which is the center of the range in the drawings. Secondly and more significantly, I added a spring on the elevator control cable to compensate for the weight of the elevator. 



With the trim tab not having to lift the weight of the elevator, it then had enough range to trim with full flaps. This makes it much easier to land with a proper nose high position and reduces the chance you will stress on the nose wheel

.

While I don't have carefully measured landing numbers yet, this results is a lot of runway ahead.

_________________
Mark Hubelbank
N708HU
CH601XL
Jabiru 3300
Rotec TBI 40-3 carb
Sensenich ground adj prop.
240 hr TAF
Pictures at photo.hubbles.com

jfowler120(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:56 am Post subject: 601 nose gear

It really has little effect, assuming a properly  planned approach.  We operate off a 3000' runway and I normally turn off  halfway down.  This isn't a STOL aircraft so I would consider that  acceptable performance.

  

 Karl

 [quote]   ---

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:20 am Post subject: 601 nose gear

I wonder if you and I are on the same planet.



The designer of the CH601XL, Chris Heintz, has reduced the maximum 

takeoff weight as a result of all the problems.  He has promised, 

through his son and president of Zenith Aircraft Company, a series of 

engineering changes including aileron mass balancing and control 

system sensitivity adjustment.



I don't know how many XLs are actually flying, but all the ones I 

have personal contact or knowledge of are gounded.  This includes my 

own XL, another one based in my local area, and the two XLs in 

California that were in commercial service before the NTSB letter was 

issued.  I know there are a few flying, but only the most aggressive 

owners are still flying in the face of acknowledged design 

flaws.  Whether this is 10 or 20 or 100 XLs still not grounded I 

cannot determine.  If you have some accurate statistics on how many 

are still flying please let me know.  In particular, I would like to 

know if any of the XLs in commercial service are available 

now.  These are the ones a potential XL pilot could get dual time in 

to prepare for their own plane's first flight.



Paul

XL awaiting engineering changes

At 06:32 AM 10/27/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  As a lot of 601s are flying with minimal problem, I don't think 

there will be a major engineering change coming.

Doug.Norman(at)sportaviat
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:42 am Post subject: 601 nose gear

Paul, certainly you and I aren't on the same sheet of music. You're

certainly entitled to believe anything you want, but your characterization

of a grounded fleet doesn't stack up to my experience. Not even a little. 



I continue to fly mine. And, while I've inspected it more aggressively and

continually, I use the airplane often. I've had no problems, nor have I had

any indications of potential problems. I'm approaching 500 hrs on the

airplane. And, even though an AMD airplane, I know every rivet and bolt on

it (I suppose I could say this was a good outcome from this brouhaha). 



This past weekend I flew down to an airport with cheap fuel. While there,

two other 601XLs came in for the same reason. We had a nice gab session,

looked over each others' airplanes, and then went our separate ways. It was

delightful. And, this is typical -with different owners at different

airports.



Now, as to commercial use, that's a different story. The reduced weight

renders the airplane useless for dual (unless one gives lessons of 1/2 hour

or less). Besides, given the current "confused" state, one must acknowledge

to anyone who wants to fly what outstanding issues there are. How many want

to fly in the airplane now? The airplane has been rendered useless as a

rental. No dual + no rental = no commercial use (I guess I could tow

gliders).



Are these justified alarms? Yet another discussion. But, CH reduced the

weight and performance numbers NOT because of "acknowledged design flaws,"

but because of the hysteria and hand-wringing; and the need to come to a

workable understanding with the FAA to PREVENT the grounding of the fleet.



There will be a series of engineering changes coming (soon, I understand)

which will allow those who perform them to bring the performance numbers

back to where they were (and, to my thinking where they should be today).

There may not be a mass-balanced aileron in the mix (as it's not required);

but I can't say for sure. It wasn't in the set of things which were

discussed with me. Of course, I don't see the lack of mass-balanced ailerons

as an issue since the only uncontested facts on the table come from the

German engineering study; and we know what that showed. Assuming, for

argument, there are no aileron changes and you choose to alter your

airplane's design to include LAA-type mass-balanced ailerons, you'll be

explicitly going against the designer's design. That would be an interesting

choice. Me? I'll make whatever changes CH states should be made to bring the

performance numbers back up. After all, I own an SLSA. It's not a choice for

me. If I didn't have to make changes, would I? Probably not.



Ask yourself this question: what other LSA has had this level of scrutiny

and actual testing? Careful not to look to the LAA activities as

justification. Much of the posturing and requirements seem to be a

self-reinforcing, positive feeedback phenomenon. 



I sincerely hope you're able to complete and fly your airplane someday. I

hope you're not too angry with yourself for all the time you've lost.



All the best,

Doug Norman

N601DN



--

psm(at)ATT.NET
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:09 am Post subject: 601 nose gear

Hi Doug,



Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable post on the XL issues.  I 

agree with virtually all you said - at least on the level of fact vs. fiction.



I am happy for you.  You have chosen to fly your plane, and I support 

you in the freedom to make that choice.  I know there are lots of 

folks who have made the other decision and I support them on their 

choices too.  There are no guarantees in this world, and we all need 

to decide for ourselves how much risk we want to live with.  Zero 

risk is not a possibility in real life.



The only differences between your situation and mine are the builder 

of the plane (me vs. AMD) and the final decision on how to deal with 

the vague questions and equally vague answers available today.



I am not concerned with my "Loss of time" with my XL.  I never had a 

specific schedule for completion and flight of my plane.  The only 

issue in my mind is whether or not I will ever get to fly it.  I am 

comfortable with the current situation (although getting a bit 

impatient) and I can live with either outcome.



I have already started building my next plane.  It is a scratch build 

project on a Wittman Buttercup.  Its performance is very similar to 

the Zodiac XL (as you might expect with a maximum LSA) but there are 

no kits available.  I need to weld up a fuselage from steel tubes and 

complete the plane with fabric and much the same sort of instruments 

and controls as the Zodiac.  If I reach the point where I need 

avionics, engine, and other stuff that can be moved from the Zodiac 

to the Buttercup then I will decide whether to do that or buy new 

stuff.  That decision is probably many years away.  I hope I live that long.



I also have another plane to fly whenever I want.  It is a Tecnam 

Echo Super Deluxe that I leased last Spring for one year.  I had 

hoped this would be long enough to get past the Zodiac engineering 

impasse but now I am not sure.  If necessary I can obtain another 

plane or take some other steps to have something available for my 

flying.  Just because I have completed a Zodiac doesn't mean I have 

to ground myself because I grounded the Zodiac.



I wish you the best of luck in your flying and other endeavors.



Paul

XL awaiting engineering changes.

At 09:33 AM 10/27/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Paul, certainly you and I aren't on the same sheet of music. You're

certainly entitled to believe anything you want, but your characterization

of a grounded fleet doesn't stack up to my experience. Not even a little.



I continue to fly mine. And, while I've inspected it more aggressively and

continually, I use the airplane often. I've had no problems, nor have I had

any indications of potential problems. I'm approaching 500 hrs on the

airplane. And, even though an AMD airplane, I know every rivet and bolt on

it (I suppose I could say this was a good outcome from this brouhaha).



This past weekend I flew down to an airport with cheap fuel. While there,

two other 601XLs came in for the same reason. We had a nice gab session,

looked over each others' airplanes, and then went our separate ways. It was

delightful. And, this is typical -with different owners at different

airports.



Now, as to commercial use, that's a different story. The reduced weight

renders the airplane useless for dual (unless one gives lessons of 1/2 hour

or less). Besides, given the current "confused" state, one must acknowledge

to anyone who wants to fly what outstanding issues there are. How many want

to fly in the airplane now? The airplane has been rendered useless as a

rental. No dual + no rental = no commercial use (I guess I could tow

gliders).



Are these justified alarms? Yet another discussion. But, CH reduced the

weight and performance numbers NOT because of "acknowledged design flaws,"

but because of the hysteria and hand-wringing; and the need to come to a

workable understanding with the FAA to PREVENT the grounding of the fleet.



There will be a series of engineering changes coming (soon, I understand)

which will allow those who perform them to bring the performance numbers

back to where they were (and, to my thinking where they should be today).

There may not be a mass-balanced aileron in the mix (as it's not required);

but I can't say for sure. It wasn't in the set of things which were

discussed with me. Of course, I don't see the lack of mass-balanced ailerons

as an issue since the only uncontested facts on the table come from the

German engineering study; and we know what that showed. Assuming, for

argument, there are no aileron changes and you choose to alter your

airplane's design to include LAA-type mass-balanced ailerons, you'll be

explicitly going against the designer's design. That would be an interesting

choice. Me? I'll make whatever changes CH states should be made to bring the

performance numbers back up. After all, I own an SLSA. It's not a choice for

me. If I didn't have to make changes, would I? Probably not.



Ask yourself this question: what other LSA has had this level of scrutiny

and actual testing? Careful not to look to the LAA activities as

justification. Much of the posturing and requirements seem to be a

self-reinforcing, positive feeedback phenomenon.



I sincerely hope you're able to complete and fly your airplane someday. I

hope you're not too angry with yourself for all the time you've lost.



All the best,

Doug Norman

N601DN

jfowler120(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:37 am Post subject: 601 nose gear

Paul,

  

 This is pretty silly.

  

 There appear to be very few who share your opinions  and I would suspect, but do not know, that very few have stopped flying the  XL because of an overinflated one-size-fits-all report that was, rightfully,  ignored by the FAA.  The verbiage in that NTSB report was, itself, highly  suspect (observers on the ground seeing aileron flutter in an aircraft at  pattern altitude, and so forth.  What nonsense).

  

 Every airplane has design characteristics that any  competent pilot needs to learn and work around to fly any airplane  successfully -- and correctly.  The adverse yaw characteristics of the F-4  are an example -- potentially fatal if ignored, so you don't ignore than  design aspect.  I have seen far too many posts on this forum from  people who deliberately exceed various design limits.  That is flat  dumb.  The pilot adapts to the airplane, not the other way around.  If  adaptation is not feasible, then it is a bad airplane.  The XL is not  a bad airplane.

  

 I would suspect that most or all of the Zenith  changes in aircraft limitations are inspired by lawyers, not  engineers.  There are things you simply should not do with this  design.  The nose whack-down phenomena is an example.  Yes, it is  a design weakness -- so you work around it.  You, BTW, don't let the nose  touch down in a cocked position -- something which should be pretty  obvious.  That is not a design weakness, per se, it's a pilot  weakness.  

  

 Our airplane flies just fine.  We have had no  problems, other than those I have previously noted.  We have always flown  within limits, including the original design limits.  It is probably  possible to do Mach 1 in the XL -- after you rip the wings off in a 90 degree  full power dive from 10 grand.  There won't be much left, but it is not a  design flaw.

  

 Maybe you should sell your kit as is and move on to  something else.

  

 Karl

  

     

 [quote]   ---

tigerrick(at)mindspring.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:15 am Post subject: 601 nose gear

I agree, Karl.



Paul's choice of verbiage "...crash-down nose gear problem on landing" is unfortunate, and inaccurate as well. (Sometimes I think he chooses his words just to raise my blood pressure!) But you have to remember that he's yet to fly his 601XL, so his supporting data is not coming from personal experience.



Yes, the nose wheel comes down immediately after the mains plant in a full stall landing with full flaps, especially if you have a heavier engine and have placed the main gear aft instead of forward on the gear legs (which I have).



The airplane really wants to keep flying, all the way down to about 45 mph, so when the wing finally runs out of lift, there's not much air going across the elevator to help keep the nose up. This is great for STOL performance and short strips, but we usually don't need to operate at this end of the flight envelope on a regular basis unless we have a REALLY short runway.



Personally, I keep a bit of power in all the way down final to touchdown, thereby reducing the sink rate. I'll still make the first turn-off, even with a bit more airspeed on final and partial flaps. Pulling power ALL the way off, deploying full flaps, and holding the airplane off of the runway to the bitter end WILL result in a firm arrival. But as you've correctly pointed out, this can be addressed in a variety of ways, all involving landing technique.



Rick Lindstrom

ZenVair N42KP



--

ter_turn(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:15 am Post subject: 601 nose gear

Gentlemen,  let's look at this from strictly a pragmatic viewpoint. All one has to do in the aviation community is mention the 601XL and you'll get a raised eyebrow or an expression of condolences. Whether or not this is justified is strictly a matter of opinion at this point. However,  the fact is that the airplane has an undesirable reputation which is not doing any of us any good. When CH releases a "fix" for the perceived problem I intend to make those changes so as to help salvage what will otherwise be a very unhappy financial outcome not to mention years of labor. Then if  someone mentions it again I can say "That problems been fixed". Hopefully at some point the bad reputation will be forgotten. 



Best wishes



Terry





________________________________

From: KARL POLIFKA <jfowler120(at)verizon.net>

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Tue, October 27, 2009 12:35:33 PM

Subject: Re: Re: 601 nose gear

Paul,

 

This is pretty silly.

 

There appear to be very few who share your opinions 

and I would suspect, but do not know, that very few have stopped flying the 

XL because of an overinflated one-size-fits-all report that was, rightfully, 

ignored by the FAA.  The verbiage in that NTSB report was, itself, highly 

suspect (observers on the ground seeing aileron flutter in an aircraft at 

pattern altitude, and so forth.  What nonsense).

 

Every airplane has design characteristics that any 

competent pilot needs to learn and work around to fly any airplane 

successfully -- and correctly.  The adverse yaw characteristics of the F-4 

are an example -- potentially fatal if ignored, so you don't ignore than 

design aspect.  I have seen far too many posts on this forum from 

people who deliberately exceed various design limits.  That is flat 

dumb.  The pilot adapts to the airplane, not the other way around.  If 

adaptation is not feasible, then it is a bad airplane.  The XL is not 

a bad airplane.

 

I would suspect that most or all of the Zenith 

changes in aircraft limitations are inspired by lawyers, not 

engineers.  There are things you simply should not do with this 

design.  The nose whack-down phenomena is an example.  Yes, it is 

a design weakness -- so you work around it.  You, BTW, don't let the nose 

touch down in a cocked position -- something which should be pretty 

obvious.  That is not a design weakness, per se, it's a pilot 

weakness.  

 

Our airplane flies just fine.  We have had no 

problems, other than those I have previously noted.  We have always flown 

within limits, including the original design limits.  It is probably 

possible to do Mach 1 in the XL -- after you rip the wings off in a 90 degree 

full power dive from 10 grand.  There won't be much left, but it is not a 

design flaw.

 

Maybe you should sell your kit as is and move on to 

something else.

 

Karl

 

    

---

z601a(at)anemicaardvark.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:23 am Post subject: 601 nose gear

On Tuesday 27 October 2009 12:35, KARL POLIFKA wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Paul,



 This is pretty silly.



 There appear to be very few who share your opinions and I would suspect,

 but do not know, that very few have stopped flying the XL because of an

 overinflated one-size-fits-all report that was, rightfully, ignored by the

 FAA.  The verbiage in that NTSB report was, itself, highly suspect

 (observers on the ground seeing aileron flutter in an aircraft at pattern

 altitude, and so forth.  What nonsense).


	


<snip>



I agree. Paul has the distinction of being the only person on this list whose 

posts hit a filter in my local server, and go straight to the trash. The only 

way I see them is if someone replies to them, and quotes them in the reply.



I probably should not say that, but this whole theme of some mysterious 

problem that requires we all ground our aircraft appears to be misinformed, 

and I for one don't care to see further posts on the subject. The simplest 

way is to filter out anyone who continually harps on that theme. Paul, or 

anyone else, is free to filter me in a similar manner.



If Zenith knew of a problem, I think we would have seen the fix long ago. We 

might see something so that it can be said a fix was offered to allow the 

performance quoted to be returned to the previously quoted numbers, but I 

seriously doubt (personal opinion again) it actually corrects anything.



My 25 cents worth, with the usual reminder that 25 cents won't buy what it 

once would.

-- 

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

                Do not archive.

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

                Jim B Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

     Retired aerospace technical manager



     Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.

         Do not drink and derive.

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

z601a(at)anemicaardvark.c
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:26 am Post subject: 601 nose gear

On Tuesday 27 October 2009 14:15, Terry Turnquist wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Gentlemen,  let's look at this from strictly a pragmatic viewpoint. All one

 has to do in the aviation community is mention the 601XL and you'll get a

 raised eyebrow or an expression of condolences. Whether or not this is

 justified is strictly a matter of opinion at this point. However,  the fact

 is that the airplane has an undesirable reputation which is not doing any

 of us any good. When CH releases a "fix" for the perceived problem I intend

 to make those changes so as to help salvage what will otherwise be a very

 unhappy financial outcome not to mention years of labor. Then if  someone

 mentions it again I can say "That problems been fixed". Hopefully at some

 point the bad reputation will be forgotten.


	


Terry, when I started flying, the Globe Swift had a really bad reputation, and 

sold very cheaply. This was due to the early Swifts being underpowered (85hp) 

and having accidents as a result. But that problem has been gone for years, 

people have forgotten about it, and Swifts sell at a premium.



I'm not convinced there is anything wrong with the XL design. But once the 

accident reports stop for a while, whatever the cause, I think people forget 

there was ever supposed to vbe a problem, and things will go back to normal.

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

                Do not archive.

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

                Jim B Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

     Retired aerospace technical manager



     Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.

         Do not drink and derive.

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

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:51 am Post subject: 601 nose gear

Hi Karl,



 I don't know where people like you get the idea I have a Zodiac XL kit.  I used up my last kit part around two years ago.  My plane is complete and nearly ready for certification.  It has been registered for around a year.  I did remove the wings last Spring to make room for a flying plane in my hangar.



 I don't think anyone has exact numbers of XLs that are currently grounded vs. those that are flying.  We all have anecdotal information.  To assume that the rest of the world has made the same decision as I or you have is just egotistical nonsense.



 If indeed you want me to sell my plane to you then please make an offer.  Any offer under $50,000 will not be considered since that is the value of brand new engine, avionics and other stuff in my plane.



 Paul

 XL awaiting engineering changes.



 

 At 10:35 AM 10/27/2009, you wrote:

 [quote]Maybe you should sell your kit as is and move on to something else.

  [b]

Thruster87

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 193
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:50 pm Post subject: Re: 601 nose gear

My original nose leg measured 0.080" wall thickness [came with the kit in 10/2007] which bent due to nose fork collapse.Received a new leg and it measures 0.060" wall thickness  which corresponds to the drawings specifications on the plans.Does anyone know if there was an up date of the nose leg wall thickness  ???? Cheers T87

aussiech650

Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 25
Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:55 pm Post subject: 601 nose gear

There is a complete listing of the drawing updates on the ZAC site in

builders resources.

http://www.zenithair.com?zodiac/xl/xl-up-drawings.html



I have attached the last 2 update lists.

Regards,

Greg Cox

Zenith Zodiac CH650, VH-ZDC

Sydney, Australia (Cecil Hills)



--

xl-update-4th-ed-1-08.pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

xl-update-4th-ed-1-08.pdf

Filesize:

30.93 KB

Downloaded:

902 Time(s)

xl-update-3rd-ed-3rd-rev-3-06.pdf

Description:

Download

Filename:

xl-update-3rd-ed-3rd-rev-3-06.pdf

Filesize:

24.29 KB

Downloaded:

917 Time(s)

Ron Lendon

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 685
Location: Clinton Twp., MI

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject: Re: 601 nose gear

My prints and a crosscheck to the builders website confirms the XL 6-G-1-1 Nose Gear Leg is 2" O.D. X .065" wall 4130N round seamless tubing.

6-G-1 01/08 NOSE GEAR STRUT ASSEMBLY

1. Spacers have been lengthened to 33.4mm for proper fit inside the bearing

seal.

2. Drain hole added to the bottom plate of Nose Gear Leg 6G1-1 also added

to Wheel Fork 6G1-2 and Fork Doubler 6G1-5.

3. plate welded to the top of 6G1-2 nose gear leg with 2 nuts welded to it has

been removed.

_________________
Ron Lendon
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
CH 601 XLB
N601LT - Flying
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Corvair Engine Prints:
https://sites.google.com/site/corvairenginedata/

Thruster87

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 193
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:47 pm Post subject: Re: 601 nose gear

 	  Ron Lendon wrote: 	
		  My prints and a crosscheck to the builders website confirms the XL 6-G-1-1 Nose Gear Leg is 2" O.D. X .065" wall 4130N round seamless tubing.

6-G-1 01/08 NOSE GEAR STRUT ASSEMBLY

1. Spacers have been lengthened to 33.4mm for proper fit inside the bearing

seal.

2. Drain hole added to the bottom plate of Nose Gear Leg 6G1-1 also added

to Wheel Fork 6G1-2 and Fork Doubler 6G1-5.

3. plate welded to the top of 6G1-2 nose gear leg with 2 nuts welded to it has

been removed. 	
What does it mean???  also added

to Wheel Fork 6G1-2 and Fork Doubler 6G1-5. statement number 2 Cheers

aussiech650

Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 25
Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:08 am Post subject: Re: 601 nose gear

I assume (you know what they say about that) they are saying they have drilled a hole in the base plate on the gear leg for drainage and therefore this would also require holes in the gear forks to allow that drainage to take place.

My CH650 leg only has one hole drilled in the bottom of the nose leg at the back just above the weld. I have added an item to my annual inspection checklist to ensure this hole is clear and spray some water dispersant in the hole.



Greg Cox

Sydney Australia

Thruster87

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 193
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:55 pm Post subject: Re: 601 nose gear

This is the way to go with the nose wheel fork  :The Storm 500’s gear has been developed to allow grass-field operation, and the direct linkage steering nosewheel, provide remarkably precise ground handling and steering.



The brakes are actuated by toe brake pedals which are attached to the rudder pedals. The master cylinders with reservoirs are connected to the pedals on the pilot side, and standard master cylinders are on the passenger side. No additional brake fluid reservoir is used. Brake lines are made of clear heavy duty nylon tubing. This makes it easy to bleed the brakes and very easy to install and remove the lines.



The nose gear is steering through a 22° degree arc each side of centre by the use of the rudder pedals. Steel 3/8 inch diameter rods connect the rudder pedals to the nose wheel. This gives the aircraft accurate and tight steering. The nose wheel design is unique in that it is very simple. The nose wheel strut is held in place with two large nylon bearings, impregnated with oil. The lower bearing is machined so that the strut "self centres" which also centres the rudder. The nose wheel is attached to a 3/4" inch thick aluminium wheel fork which is bolted to the nose strut. The nose strut is 2 inch diameter 4130N steel tubing. The result is an all around extra tough nose gear assembly which has no O rings, back-up rings or gaskets. Additionally, no shimming is required. Sounds familiar other then the 3/4" thick fork and 3/8" steering rods. I wonder if we can get a hold  off these forks??? Cheers T87

craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: 601 nose gear

Hmm, I've read this three times and don't see how it differs from the design on the ZAC aircraft (except maybe the 3/8 inch rods). What am I missing?



-- Craig



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-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