Group Activity

[Wayne Paul]

I have been off this group for over a year. Previously this was a very
active group; however, there has been very few messages since I returned.
It may be due to my service provider, or maybe with the passing of a few key
members the overall activity has significantly diminished.

The main reason for this message is to get some feedback on whether this is
still a viable Homebuilt Aircraft forum.

Respectfully,

Wayne
HP-16 "6F"
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>I have been off this group for over a year. Previously this was a very active
>group; however, there has been very few messages since I returned. It may be
>due to my service provider, or maybe with the passing of a few key members the
>overall activity has significantly diminished.

It's not your service provider, and it's not just this group. For a variety of
reasons, the Usenet is in a serious general decline. There are a few
exceptions, like rec.aviation.soaring.

[Richard[_8_]]

On 9/21/2011 12:11 PM, vaughn wrote:
> "Wayne > wrote in message
> ...
>> I have been off this group for over a year. Previously this was a very active
>> group; however, there has been very few messages since I returned. It may be
>> due to my service provider, or maybe with the passing of a few key members the
>> overall activity has significantly diminished.
>
> It's not your service provider, and it's not just this group. For a variety of
> reasons, the Usenet is in a serious general decline. There are a few
> exceptions, like rec.aviation.soaring.
>
>

True enough, but this was, and could still be a viable forum.

[Wayne Paul]

Thank you for the responses.

I have also noticed a very significant decline in the activity on my Yahoo
hp-gliders news group. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hp-gliders) There has
also been a massive decline in number of visits to the Schreder Sailplane
Designs website. (http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder)

Maybe this is all a sign of the times and we are becoming a society where
people no longer develop the skills and self confidence to build or repair
thing. This is definitely true in the world of Amateur Radio where
homebuilt system were common and now seldom exist.

Again, thank you for the replies.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F" W7ADK
http://www.soaridaho.com/


"Richard" wrote in message
...

On 9/21/2011 12:11 PM, vaughn wrote:
> "Wayne > wrote in message
> ...
>> I have been off this group for over a year. Previously this was a very
>> active
>> group; however, there has been very few messages since I returned. It may
>> be
>> due to my service provider, or maybe with the passing of a few key
>> members the
>> overall activity has significantly diminished.
>
> It's not your service provider, and it's not just this group. For a
> variety of
> reasons, the Usenet is in a serious general decline. There are a few
> exceptions, like rec.aviation.soaring.
>
>

True enough, but this was, and could still be a viable forum.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
m...

Thank you for the responses.

I have also noticed a very significant decline in the activity on my Yahoo
hp-gliders news group. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hp-gliders) There has
also been a massive decline in number of visits to the Schreder Sailplane
Designs website. (http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder)

Maybe this is all a sign of the times and we are becoming a society where
people no longer develop the skills and self confidence to build or repair
thing. This is definitely true in the world of Amateur Radio where
homebuilt system were common and now seldom exist.

Again, thank you for the replies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would too like to see this group make a come-back. There are many ideas
to be discussed.

In order to begin, those who would come around would need to agree to shun
undesirables who would rather see the group destroyed, such a MX-ed up. I
don't know if that is possible.

You game to try? Got an initial thread subject?

-- Jim in NC

[Jeff R.[_3_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> You game to try? Got an initial thread subject?
>
> -- Jim in NC
>

I'll bite.
If you were interested in building a Zenith CH-701 (or similar), would you go for the leading edge wing slats(as designed), or dispense with them and use vortex generators instead?

--
Jeff R.
Sydney Australia

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jeff R." wrote in >

I'll bite.
If you were interested in building a Zenith CH-701 (or similar), would you
go for the leading edge wing slats(as designed), or dispense with them and
use vortex generators instead?

--
That's a pretty big change to make on something so very important. If you
ask me, get a plane plan or kit designed for your intended mission, then
change little things like how high to put the seat.

My greatest fear in making that decision would be to find out you do not
have good enough aileron control at low speed, too high of stall speeds, and
possibly change the center of lift enough to make it out of control in parts
of the flight envelope. You would be a test pilot.

Get a real aeronautical engineer familiar with small planes before you go
with that change, if you ask me.

-- Jim in NC

[Scott[_7_]]

On 9-21-2011 17:36, Wayne Paul wrote:
> Thank you for the responses.

>
> Maybe this is all a sign of the times and we are becoming a society
> where people no longer develop the skills and self confidence to build
> or repair thing.

Or maybe, things have gotten SO expensive and folks have changed hobbies
to something cheaper?

This is definitely true in the world of Amateur Radio
> where homebuilt system were common and now seldom exist.

Not in my house! ;) In the past 5 years or so, I've built transverters
for 222, 902, 1296 and 10 GHz for myself. Built transverters for 222,
902, 1296, 2304, and 3456 for others to help them get on the upper
bands. Build my own antennas as well. Last commercial rig I bought was
back in about 2003 or 2004.

Scott
N0EDV
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com


>
> Again, thank you for the replies.
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 "6F" W7ADK
> http://www.soaridaho.com/
>
>

[Jeff R.[_3_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
> "Jeff R." wrote in >
>
> I'll bite.
> If you were interested in building a Zenith CH-701 (or similar), would you
> go for the leading edge wing slats(as designed), or dispense with them and
> use vortex generators instead?
>
> --
> That's a pretty big change to make on something so very important. If you
> ask me, get a plane plan or kit designed for your intended mission, then
> change little things like how high to put the seat.
>
> My greatest fear in making that decision would be to find out you do not
> have good enough aileron control at low speed, too high of stall speeds, and
> possibly change the center of lift enough to make it out of control in parts
> of the flight envelope. You would be a test pilot.
>
> Get a real aeronautical engineer familiar with small planes before you go
> with that change, if you ask me.
>
> -- Jim in NC

Thanks Jim.
Its a well-trodden path, with enthusiastic proponents on both sides.

Slats seem to work great within a very narrow window, but with weight, drag, complexity and cost penalties.
VGs seem (!) to do almost as well with little downside.
It difficult to find a definitive answer. Each side seems too committed to their solution to be impartial.

Sigghhh.
I guess I keep looking for builders who've done it.

--
Jeff R.

[Harry K]

On Sep 21, 9:26*am, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> I have been off this group for over a year. *Previously this was a very
> active group; however, there has been very few messages since I returned.
> It may be due to my service provider, or maybe with the passing of a few key
> members the overall activity has significantly diminished.
>
> The main reason for this message is to get some feedback on whether this is
> still a viable Homebuilt Aircraft forum.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Wayne
> HP-16 "6F"http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F

There was a time about a year ago IIRC when usenet forums seemed to
just drop dead. rec.autos.driving used to be a very active forum. It
went from active to dead in about a week, just as this forum did at
about the same time. Other forums not so much but stills show a
decline.

People using other media now?

Harry K

[Wayne Paul]

"Harry K" wrote in message
...


There was a time about a year ago IIRC when usenet forums seemed to
just drop dead. rec.autos.driving used to be a very active forum. It
went from active to dead in about a week, just as this forum did at
about the same time. Other forums not so much but stills show a
decline.

People using other media now?

Harry K

_________________

Harry,

I think you may have broken the code. Take for example Bob Kuykendall's
HP-24 project. He use to update his progress regularly on his website
(http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24/) As you can see, there was a seven month
laps between updates. However, I've been following his progress on
Facebook.
(http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/HP-24-Sailplane-Project/200931354951) and
Brad's page. (http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100000118564546).

Most likely what is occurring with the HP-24 is being replicated with other
projects. I know it is even true on my website. (http://www.soaridaho.com)
It seems that it is a lot easier to add pictures to a Facebook album
(http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1013748896907.2002338.1020588508&type=1)
than update a webpage.

The problem with Facebook is that by its' nature posting are limited to whom
you have defined as "friends".

Wayne

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
m...
>
> People using other media now?

There are actually multiple reasons, not the least of which was ISP's such as
AOL and WorldNet shutting down Usenet access to their customers. This happened
about the same time that Google opened the door to spammers, and then looked the
other way as the groups became flooded with spam.

Vaughn

[Dan Thomas]

On Sep 21, 11:14 am, Richard > wrote:

> True enough, but this was, and could still be a viable forum.

No, not as long as the insulting flamers have access to it. Lack of
moderation allows a few nasty folks to destroy a group, and the decent
people go to homebuiltairplanes.com

Dan

[Wayne Paul]

Dan,

All the flames wars is the reason I left the list. At the time it seemed
that you couldn't ask a question of any kind without being called an idiot.
I came back a few weeks ago to see if the behavior still exists. What I
found was inactivity.

Wayne
HP-14 N990
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


"Dan Thomas" wrote in message
...

On Sep 21, 11:14 am, Richard > wrote:

> True enough, but this was, and could still be a viable forum.

No, not as long as the insulting flamers have access to it. Lack
moderation allows a few nasty folks to destroy a group, and the decent
people go to homebuiltairplanes.com

Dan

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jeff R." wrote

Thanks Jim.
Its a well-trodden path, with enthusiastic proponents on both sides.

A- Well there you go. Since this site has been inactive, I had not gone
elsewhere to see this discussed

Slats seem to work great within a very narrow window, but with weight, drag,
complexity and cost penalties.
VGs seem (!) to do almost as well with little downside.
It difficult to find a definitive answer. Each side seems too committed to
their solution to be impartial.

Sigghhh.
I guess I keep looking for builders who've done it.

Interesting. What does Chris have to say on the subject? (as if I need to
ask<g>.)

Let us know what you find out.

-- Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wayne Paul" wrote

No, not as long as the insulting flamers have access to it. Lack
moderation allows a few nasty folks to destroy a group, and the decent
people go to homebuiltairplanes.com

Dan
A- How about a few of us start using this and see what happens? Perhaps
some of the trolls have lost their easy access, and will leave us alone.

-- Jim in NC

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, not as long as the insulting flamers have access to it. Lack
> moderation allows a few nasty folks to destroy a group,

Flamers & trolls are basically attention seekers. Deny them the attention they
seek, and they will eventually dry up and blow away. The problem (OK, the
near-impossibility) is getting the entire group to "agree to ignore".

Vaughn

[Wayne Paul]

BTW, I didn't make the statement listed below.

"vaughn" wrote in message ...


"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, not as long as the insulting flamers have access to it. Lack
> moderation allows a few nasty folks to destroy a group,

Flamers & trolls are basically attention seekers. Deny them the attention
they
seek, and they will eventually dry up and blow away. The problem (OK, the
near-impossibility) is getting the entire group to "agree to ignore".

Vaughn

[Jim Logajan]

"Jeff R." > wrote:
> If you were interested in building a Zenith CH-701 (or similar), would
> you go for the leading edge wing slats(as designed), or dispense with
> them and use vortex generators instead?

I believe that the original Savannah Aircraft kit was first released with
leading slats, then they changed it to vortex generators because the latter
provided all the benefits of the former with no loss of STOL performance.
Here is an interesting web page describing tests done on Savannah:

http://www.stolspeed.com/slats-v-s-vgs

But the above is on a web site that appears to sell VGs. Here is what Chris
Heintz thinks of VGs vs slats for his 701:

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

[Jeff R.[_3_]]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message ...
> "Jeff R." > wrote:
>> If you were interested in building a Zenith CH-701 (or similar), would
>> you go for the leading edge wing slats(as designed), or dispense with
>> them and use vortex generators instead?
>
> I believe that the original Savannah Aircraft kit was first released with
> leading slats, then they changed it to vortex generators because the latter
> provided all the benefits of the former with no loss of STOL performance.
> Here is an interesting web page describing tests done on Savannah:
>
> http://www.stolspeed.com/slats-v-s-vgs
>
> But the above is on a web site that appears to sell VGs. Here is what Chris
> Heintz thinks of VGs vs slats for his 701:
>
> http://www.zenithair.com/stolch801/design/slats-vs-vg-design.html

....and that exactly demonstrates my dilemma.

Neither is impartial.
Who is right?

I'm inclined to trust Chris Heintz, as the engineer/innovator, but at the same time he has (had - he's retired) a significant financial attachment to L.E. slats. Not just on the 701, but right up to th 850.

On balance, I'm inclined to favour VGs (Piper Cub didn't need slats), but I'm put off Savannah just simply because of their unethical poaching of CH's designs.

I plan to cut the first stringers in about a year from now.

Maybe I could build retractable slats?

(joke)

--
Jeff R.

[Jeff R.[_3_]]

Thanks for your reply, Paul.
Some comments below in context...


"Paul Saccani" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:27:57 +1000, "Jeff R." > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I'm inclined to trust Chris Heintz, as the engineer/innovator, but at the same time he has (had - he's retired) a significant financial attachment to L.E. slats. Not just on the 701, but right up to th 850.
>
> Depends on your mission. The STOL performance of the 701 is such that
> most don't even need to use the flaps. The slats do dramatically
> steepen approach and departure, and if that's what you need....

Not so much need as "want".
Catch is, I also "want" a decent glide slope and fuel economy.
(yes, I know)


>
> I would note that unlike what CH states, the slatted wing does not act
> as though the chord is from the TE to the front of the slat, but
> rather, from the TE to the front of the wing. Which, if you look at
> the allowable %MAC for weight and balance, which uses the CH
> interpretation, those percentages are a little unusual compared with
> "regular" aeroplanes. Remeasure, using the front of the wing instead
> of the slat, and the %MAC values fall straight into the usual range.

Thanks for that.
I'd suspected as such, based partly on how well the de-slatted 701s seemed to perform.

>
>>On balance, I'm inclined to favour VGs (Piper Cub didn't need slats), but I'm put off Savannah just simply because of their unethical poaching of CH's designs.
>
> They didn't poach a CH design. They made a slavish copy of a
> legitimate 701 cousin design by Max Tudesco, who has had a long
> involvement with CH's companies, and was involved in the design of the
> 701. He didn't like some aspects of the design and went his own way,
> whilst also making licensed quick build kits of the 701. The scummy
> Italian company was buying quick build kits from his company, and
> simply measured one for CNC copies to be made.
>
> They are actually more unethical than your first thoughts.

Hehe
International intrigue'n'all.

>
>>I plan to cut the first stringers in about a year from now.
>
> As I recall, the stringers are all in the forward cabin, and all need
> solid rivets. You may find it worthwhile to buy those and the main
> spars from Zenith, with the solid riveting done.
>
> If you intend to build as per the edition 5, 7th revision, you will
> find that some items, such as the spar caps, are non-standard custom
> extrusions for Zenith. They will sell you a spar complete, but not
> the components to make the main spar.

Still not decided on full kit or build from plans.
I rather fancy myself at metalwork, but the cost of the raw materials makes the CNC cut kit awfully attractive.

Now, if the US dollar would just oblige my falling down again...



>
> Personally, I'm happier using the slightly thicker alternative...
>
>>Maybe I could build retractable slats?
>>
>>(joke)
>
> Well, it has been done, but the company was bought out, I'm not sure
> if they are in production again. PegaSTOL was the old company.

Yup. Saw that, and like the idea (lots) but the weight?


>
> Most people don't know this, but at one time (late eighties), CH was
> recommending that some CH701 use VGs attached to the slat!

!
Seems a bit greedy.
I take it that didn't work... (?)


>
> What you lose if you use VG instead of slats, besides the steepness of
> approach and departure, is the "stall" controllability. With the
> slatted 701, you can go way on the wrong side of the lift/drag curve,
> so you no longer have enough lift to stay up, but aileron remains
> effective and there is no wing drop. It just gets "mushy". Sans
> slats, with VG, you get a conventional stall, and wing drop. Nothing
> nasty, but a little faster, with a little less control.

Yes, and this is the main reason I'd like to retain the slats.


>
> Now, the slats are great, but there is an awful lot of drag, and you
> end up with an engine out glide ratio about the same as a helicopter,
> 4:1. It'll cost you fuel to haul their weight around, and fuel to
> counter their drag. IIRC, they weigh around 12 kg.

12kg.
Hnh.
I have main courses at dinner bigger than that.
(anecdote edited for the sake of propriety)
Still, the drag is a real bummer.
I still don't know how much long distance stuff I'll be doing - I hope a lot - but then I suspect that good STOL will also be a significant factor in my dream "trip-around-Australia".

Endurance - economy - STOL?
Helluva balancing act.

>
> Having said that, I'm leaving mine on for the moment.
>
> With an EA81 and a 68" 3 blade warp drive at 16.5°, mine does 70 kts @
> 13 litres an hour, @4,000 RPM for the engine, 1,820 RPM for the prop.

Hmmm.
None too shabby.
75hp? That enough for good STOL two-up?
How's the rate of climb?

>
> In due course, I plan to fair my struts, but you could order the strut
> material for the 750, which is in an aerofoil shape, and save yourself
> a lot of bother.

Fair them rather than remove them?
Do you need the extra square feet, considering what you said above about the slat's contribution to total chord?


>
> VG for the elevator is a very good idea - you can get those from
> Zenair.
>
> I'm thinking of removing the slats and the entire mixer system and
> control for the flaps. If you look at the skyfox versus the kitfox,
> they removed the mixer system entirely - at CASAs request - and
> performance was still satisfactory.
>
> If you look at the 750 mixer, you will see that it is a much more
> elegant design. As I say, I am contemplating deleting the 701 mixer,
> but if I decide that flap is still necessary, I will install a 750
> style mixer, which is far more elegant and lighter too.
>
> Also, having the elevator bell crank bracket on the aileron torque
> tube sucks. I have a part 35 engineered solution, where the bracket
> is mounted on a fitting that is fixed to the airframe, and allows the
> torque tube to rotate inside it. This gets rid of the elevator cable
> tension issue, where the aileron and elevator interfere with each
> other.

Thanks again for all that Paul.
It's good to toss this stuff around.
(just had a quick look at your page at Zenith...)

--
Jeff R.



>
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul Saccani
> Perth, Western Australia.

[Wayne Paul]

Back when I was MUCH younger I flew A3-B Skywarriors.
(http://www.soaridaho.com/Naval_Pictures/A3B_CVA-64_12-Aug-64.jpg)
It had aerodynamically actuated slats. They slid in and out using rollers
on a track. When sitting on the deck gravity would cause them to extend.
At normal cruising flight speeds the air resistance would push them in.
They popped out at high angles of attack. The system worked pretty well;
however, heaven forbid that one of them got stuck in while the other
extended!

Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


"Paul Saccani" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:32:53 +1000, "Jeff R." > wrote:

>Thanks for your reply, Paul.
>Some comments below in context...
>
>
>"Paul Saccani" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:27:57 +1000, "Jeff R." > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm inclined to trust Chris Heintz, as the engineer/innovator, but at the
>>>same time he has (had - he's retired) a significant financial attachment
>>>to L.E. slats. Not just on the 701, but right up to th 850.
>>
>> Depends on your mission. The STOL performance of the 701 is such that
>> most don't even need to use the flaps. The slats do dramatically
>> steepen approach and departure, and if that's what you need....
>
>Not so much need as "want".
>Catch is, I also "want" a decent glide slope and fuel economy.
>(yes, I know)

Indeed. VG are a good compromise.

>>>I plan to cut the first stringers in about a year from now.
>>
>> As I recall, the stringers are all in the forward cabin, and all need
>> solid rivets. You may find it worthwhile to buy those and the main
>> spars from Zenith, with the solid riveting done.
>>
>> If you intend to build as per the edition 5, 7th revision, you will
>> find that some items, such as the spar caps, are non-standard custom
>> extrusions for Zenith. They will sell you a spar complete, but not
>> the components to make the main spar.
>
>Still not decided on full kit or build from plans.
>I rather fancy myself at metalwork, but the cost of the raw materials makes
>the CNC cut kit awfully attractive.

IIRC, it was about four grand for all the aluminium sheet in my one.
But I suspect that ordinary prices would be a good deal higher.

>Now, if the US dollar would just oblige my falling down again...

Better take a good look at shipping costs and duties.

>> Well, it has been done, but the company was bought out, I'm not sure
>> if they are in production again. PegaSTOL was the old company.
>
>Yup. Saw that, and like the idea (lots) but the weight?

No idea. I don't know how their mechanism works. I've thought it
might be worth trying Tiger Moth slot style spring loading and cable
locking. They get pushed back at speed, but pop out as you slow down.
Locking is done to prevent accidental asymmetric extension - it
aggravates any tendency to a spin.

>> Most people don't know this, but at one time (late eighties), CH was
>> recommending that some CH701 use VGs attached to the slat!
>
>!
>Seems a bit greedy.
>I take it that didn't work... (?)

It did, but it was only for some, which had a high drag at cruise
speeds. The VG was a quick fix, but the location of the slat was
changed as a general fix.

It's just an interesting piece of trivia.

>> What you lose if you use VG instead of slats, besides the steepness of
>> approach and departure, is the "stall" controllability. With the
>> slatted 701, you can go way on the wrong side of the lift/drag curve,
>> so you no longer have enough lift to stay up, but aileron remains
>> effective and there is no wing drop. It just gets "mushy". Sans
>> slats, with VG, you get a conventional stall, and wing drop. Nothing
>> nasty, but a little faster, with a little less control.
>
>Yes, and this is the main reason I'd like to retain the slats.

Well, it is experimental, after all.... I'd stick with the slats
first off, though you might want to consider redesigning the slat
brackets so that they can be removed and re-instated, rather than
using the wing without slats but still with the brackets, as per CH
advice. I don't know if the brackets create a great mischief or not,
but going with his recommendation seems a safe bet. Myself, I plan on
keeping them and tuft testing to see how much of a mischief they
make. I might use them for fences, that way, if the mission needs it,
I can put the slats back on.

>
>12kg.
>Hnh.
>I have main courses at dinner bigger than that.
>(anecdote edited for the sake of propriety)

Baggage compartment is limited to 18 kg, it's a fairly significant
weight for a little aeroplane.

>Still, the drag is a real bummer.
>I still don't know how much long distance stuff I'll be doing - I hope a
>lot - but then I suspect that good STOL will also be a significant factor
>in my dream "trip-around-Australia".

It's a big country - plenty of space to land.

>Endurance - economy - STOL?
>Helluva balancing act.
>>
>> Having said that, I'm leaving mine on for the moment.
>>
>> With an EA81 and a 68" 3 blade warp drive at 16.5°, mine does 70 kts @
>> 13 litres an hour, @4,000 RPM for the engine, 1,820 RPM for the prop.
>
>Hmmm.
>None too shabby.
>75hp?

100 HP.

> That enough for good STOL two-up?
>How's the rate of climb?

I can't answer either of those yet. 600 fpm is the figure that comes
to mind.

>> In due course, I plan to fair my struts, but you could order the strut
>> material for the 750, which is in an aerofoil shape, and save yourself
>> a lot of bother.
>
>Fair them rather than remove them?

Well, I do need them to keep the wings on.... ;)

>Do you need the extra square feet, considering what you said above about
>the slat's contribution to total chord?

Struts... The standard ones are round 4130 tube. The parasite drag
of each sides struts is almost as much as the whole wing. The 750
uses aerofoil section aluminium extrusions. For the tube, you put
thin fairings on them to reduce the drag.

For the other idea, I reckon foam inserts could be shoved in the slots
to reduce drag, either with or without VGs. Then you could remove
them after long distance cruising to investigate off the beaten track.
Less aggravation than taking the slats on and off, plus you could take
the slats with you on a long trip. That would probably weigh less
than a retractable slat and be less likely to create mischief.

>> Also, having the elevator bell crank bracket on the aileron torque
>> tube sucks. I have a part 35 engineered solution, where the bracket
>> is mounted on a fitting that is fixed to the airframe, and allows the
>> torque tube to rotate inside it. This gets rid of the elevator cable
>> tension issue, where the aileron and elevator interfere with each
>> other.
>
>Thanks again for all that Paul.
>It's good to toss this stuff around.
>(just had a quick look at your page at Zenith...)

That saves me suggesting that you join Zenith Aero, though I don't
recognise your name on the new members list.

Those photos are pretty rough, I've taken some better ones, but
haven't put them up yet.
--
Cheers,
Paul Saccani
Perth, Western Australia.

[Wayne Paul]

I think the A3 link is fixed and it should work .

Wayne > wrote:
> Back when I was MUCH younger I flew A3-B Skywarriors.
> http://www.soaridaho.com/Naval_Pictures/A3B_CVA-64_12-Aug-64.jpg
> It had aerodynamically actuated slats. They slid in and out using rollers
> on a track. When sitting on the deck gravity would cause them to extend.
> At normal cruising flight speeds the air resistance would push them in.
> They popped out at high angles of attack. The system worked pretty well;
> however, heaven forbid that one of them got stuck in while the other
> extended!
> Wayne
> http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F
> "Paul Saccani" wrote in message
> ...
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 16:32:53 +1000, "Jeff R." > wrote:
> >Thanks for your reply, Paul.
> >Some comments below in context...
> >
> >
> >"Paul Saccani" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:27:57 +1000, "Jeff R." > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I'm inclined to trust Chris Heintz, as the engineer/innovator, but at the
> >>>same time he has (had - he's retired) a significant financial attachment
> >>>to L.E. slats. Not just on the 701, but right up to th 850.
> >>
> >> Depends on your mission. The STOL performance of the 701 is such that
> >> most don't even need to use the flaps. The slats do dramatically
> >> steepen approach and departure, and if that's what you need....
> >
> >Not so much need as "want".
> >Catch is, I also "want" a decent glide slope and fuel economy.
> >(yes, I know)
> Indeed. VG are a good compromise.
> >>>I plan to cut the first stringers in about a year from now.
> >>
> >> As I recall, the stringers are all in the forward cabin, and all need
> >> solid rivets. You may find it worthwhile to buy those and the main
> >> spars from Zenith, with the solid riveting done.
> >>
> >> If you intend to build as per the edition 5, 7th revision, you will
> >> find that some items, such as the spar caps, are non-standard custom
> >> extrusions for Zenith. They will sell you a spar complete, but not
> >> the components to make the main spar.
> >
> >Still not decided on full kit or build from plans.
> >I rather fancy myself at metalwork, but the cost of the raw materials makes
> >the CNC cut kit awfully attractive.
> IIRC, it was about four grand for all the aluminium sheet in my one.
> But I suspect that ordinary prices would be a good deal higher.
> >Now, if the US dollar would just oblige my falling down again...
> Better take a good look at shipping costs and duties.
> >> Well, it has been done, but the company was bought out, I'm not sure
> >> if they are in production again. PegaSTOL was the old company.
> >
> >Yup. Saw that, and like the idea (lots) but the weight?
> No idea. I don't know how their mechanism works. I've thought it
> might be worth trying Tiger Moth slot style spring loading and cable
> locking. They get pushed back at speed, but pop out as you slow down.
> Locking is done to prevent accidental asymmetric extension - it
> aggravates any tendency to a spin.
> >> Most people don't know this, but at one time (late eighties), CH was
> >> recommending that some CH701 use VGs attached to the slat!
> >
> >!
> >Seems a bit greedy.
> >I take it that didn't work... (?)
> It did, but it was only for some, which had a high drag at cruise
> speeds. The VG was a quick fix, but the location of the slat was
> changed as a general fix.
> It's just an interesting piece of trivia.
> >> What you lose if you use VG instead of slats, besides the steepness of
> >> approach and departure, is the "stall" controllability. With the
> >> slatted 701, you can go way on the wrong side of the lift/drag curve,
> >> so you no longer have enough lift to stay up, but aileron remains
> >> effective and there is no wing drop. It just gets "mushy". Sans
> >> slats, with VG, you get a conventional stall, and wing drop. Nothing
> >> nasty, but a little faster, with a little less control.
> >
> >Yes, and this is the main reason I'd like to retain the slats.
> Well, it is experimental, after all.... I'd stick with the slats
> first off, though you might want to consider redesigning the slat
> brackets so that they can be removed and re-instated, rather than
> using the wing without slats but still with the brackets, as per CH
> advice. I don't know if the brackets create a great mischief or not,
> but going with his recommendation seems a safe bet. Myself, I plan on
> keeping them and tuft testing to see how much of a mischief they
> make. I might use them for fences, that way, if the mission needs it,
> I can put the slats back on.
> >
> >12kg.
> >Hnh.
> >I have main courses at dinner bigger than that.
> >(anecdote edited for the sake of propriety)
> Baggage compartment is limited to 18 kg, it's a fairly significant
> weight for a little aeroplane.
> >Still, the drag is a real bummer.
> >I still don't know how much long distance stuff I'll be doing - I hope a
> >lot - but then I suspect that good STOL will also be a significant factor
> >in my dream "trip-around-Australia".
> It's a big country - plenty of space to land.
> >Endurance - economy - STOL?
> >Helluva balancing act.
> >>
> >> Having said that, I'm leaving mine on for the moment.
> >>
> >> With an EA81 and a 68" 3 blade warp drive at 16.5°, mine does 70 kts @
> >> 13 litres an hour, @4,000 RPM for the engine, 1,820 RPM for the prop.
> >
> >Hmmm.
> >None too shabby.
> >75hp?
> 100 HP.
> > That enough for good STOL two-up?
> >How's the rate of climb?
> I can't answer either of those yet. 600 fpm is the figure that comes
> to mind.
> >> In due course, I plan to fair my struts, but you could order the strut
> >> material for the 750, which is in an aerofoil shape, and save yourself
> >> a lot of bother.
> >
> >Fair them rather than remove them?
> Well, I do need them to keep the wings on.... ;)
> >Do you need the extra square feet, considering what you said above about
> >the slat's contribution to total chord?
> Struts... The standard ones are round 4130 tube. The parasite drag
> of each sides struts is almost as much as the whole wing. The 750
> uses aerofoil section aluminium extrusions. For the tube, you put
> thin fairings on them to reduce the drag.
> For the other idea, I reckon foam inserts could be shoved in the slots
> to reduce drag, either with or without VGs. Then you could remove
> them after long distance cruising to investigate off the beaten track.
> Less aggravation than taking the slats on and off, plus you could take
> the slats with you on a long trip. That would probably weigh less
> than a retractable slat and be less likely to create mischief.
> >> Also, having the elevator bell crank bracket on the aileron torque
> >> tube sucks. I have a part 35 engineered solution, where the bracket
> >> is mounted on a fitting that is fixed to the airframe, and allows the
> >> torque tube to rotate inside it. This gets rid of the elevator cable
> >> tension issue, where the aileron and elevator interfere with each
> >> other.
> >
> >Thanks again for all that Paul.
> >It's good to toss this stuff around.
> >(just had a quick look at your page at Zenith...)
> That saves me suggesting that you join Zenith Aero, though I don't
> recognise your name on the new members list.
> Those photos are pretty rough, I've taken some better ones, but
> haven't put them up yet.
> --
> Cheers,
> Paul Saccani
> Perth, Western Australia.


--
Android Usenet Reader
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk

[Richard Isakson]

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...

>Back when I was MUCH younger I flew A3-B Skywarriors.
>http://www.soaridaho.com/Naval_Pictures/A3B_CVA-64_12-Aug-64.jpg)
snip
Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


Wayne,

You may be interested, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station recently obtained an
A-3 and they're going to put it on a stick outside the main base with the
two A-6s.

Also the Seaplane Base has acquired a PBY and has it on display next to a
PBY museum. It's worth seeing just to see the technology that was the state
of the art in the 30's.

Rich Isakson

[Jim Logajan]

"Jeff R." > wrote:
> but I'm put off Savannah just simply because of their unethical
> poaching of CH's designs.

Just FYI: Eric Giles, the fellow who created Skykits Corporation (the U.S.
agent or distribution company for the ICP Savannah) appears to be
redirecting sales to another U.S. company he created called World Aircraft
that will sell a Max Tedesco design. If you go to the Skykits website:

http://www.skykits.com/

You can see where it redirects.

A rather lengthy tale that claims to explain the origin of both the 701 and
Savannah is posted here, and presumably why Giles shifted from ICP to
Tedesco:

http://www.stolspeed.com/origins-701-savannah

[Wayne Paul]

Rich,

Thank you for the update.

Several years ago during a VAH-10 reunion we tried to get the ball rolling
for placing an A-3 on a stick. After that I got a bit out of touch with the
progress. However, I sure hope that it is either a the bomber, or tanker
version and NOT one of the *******ized EW contraptions covered with all
kinds of antenna bubbles. (The EW things were based at Alameda, not
Whidbey.)

The PBY at the Seaplane Base will also be cool. In my early tours at
Whidbey there were P5Ms at the seaplane base. If they had one of those on
display, people would be surprised as to their size. (I was an navigation
observer during a couple P5M squadron ORIs. It seemed like it took for ever
for them to get airborne!)

The designer of the glider that I fly was quite famous in the PBY community.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Schreder/Richard_Schreder_Biography.html

Wayne
Schreder HP-14 N990
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F



"Richard Isakson" wrote in message ...

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...

>Back when I was MUCH younger I flew A3-B Skywarriors.
>http://www.soaridaho.com/Naval_Pictures/A3B_CVA-64_12-Aug-64.jpg)
snip
Wayne
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F


Wayne,

You may be interested, Whidbey Island Naval Air Station recently obtained an
A-3 and they're going to put it on a stick outside the main base with the
two A-6s.

Also the Seaplane Base has acquired a PBY and has it on display next to a
PBY museum. It's worth seeing just to see the technology that was the state
of the art in the 30's.

Rich Isakson

[Morgans[_2_]]

Yes, and this is the main reason I'd like to retain the slats.

How about using outboard wing only ailerons (might need to make them bigger)
and keep the slats on the aileron portion, only?

-- Jim in NC

[Tom De Moor]

In article >,
says...
>
> Back when I was MUCH younger I flew A3-B Skywarriors.
> (http://www.soaridaho.com/Naval_Pictures/A3B_CVA-64_12-Aug-64.jpg)
> It had aerodynamically actuated slats. They slid in and out using rollers
> on a track. When sitting on the deck gravity would cause them to extend.
> At normal cruising flight speeds the air resistance would push them in.
> They popped out at high angles of attack. The system worked pretty well;
> however, heaven forbid that one of them got stuck in while the other
> extended!
>
> Wayne
> http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F
>
>

The Socata Rallye is a French SEP aircraft which also features moveable
and automatic retracting slats. The design started in the 60's and
soldiered on to quite recentely. There are still Rallyes (now renamed
Kolibri's) made in Poland.

However most Rallye's get old and notably the movable slats cause lots
of maintenance problems. In Europe one can find Rallye -officially
airworthy- in quantity for no money. They will however suck money
afterwards...

http://www.flyrallye.com/Rallye_FAQs/rallye_faqs.html

I think that STOL is overrated, most pilots don't need it. Bush piloting
is good when there is bush. Very few bush to be found in Europ, landing
a bush plane on a 2000 ft grass field is a bit overkill.

When STOL-airborn you suddenly are confronted with a slow aircraft
guzzeling gas. Here we pay AvGas 2.3-2.7 EUr per liter (10 to 15US$ per
USG. For that price we want to move quite a bit faster than we drive a
car :-)

Greetings,


Tom De Moor

[Scott[_7_]]

On 9-25-2011 04:40, Morgans wrote:
> Yes, and this is the main reason I'd like to retain the slats.
>
> How about using outboard wing only ailerons (might need to make them
> bigger) and keep the slats on the aileron portion, only?
>
> -- Jim in NC
>
>
>
>
Oh, like on the Globe Swift from the 1940s? Wonderful airplanes! :)

Hard to find a good view of them, but this one shows it if you look
closely...

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=globe+swift+gc-1b&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=580&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=nNCTEf8LhLZ1fM:&imgrefurl=http://www.globe-swift.de/seite2.html&docid=Ac7QIvqdRTZvRM&w=550&h=373&ei=Lyl_TqP2FOjXmAWxvoCjBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=118&vpy=174&dur=744&hovh=167&hovw=212&tx=141&ty=101&page=11&tbnh=167&tbnw=212&start=73&ndsp=7&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:73

And a bit better view...

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=globe+swift+gc-1b&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=580&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=IM_gm8FOtie2PM:&imgrefurl=http://www.airliners.net/photo/Globe-GC-1B-C145-Swift/1906883/L/%26sid%3D467a58c8626c44738a7301bd36411c4b&docid=ZeejAp2LkFHKPM&w=1024&h=695&ei=Lyl_TqP2FOjXmAWxvoCjBQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=479&page=26&tbnh=167&tbnw=236&start=170&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:170&tx=142&ty=91

And finally, from the top side...

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=globe+swift+gc-1b&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=580&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=IAZbPDajso3-FM:&imgrefurl=http://animekensei.com/anime/saginaw-wings-www-saginawwings-com.html&docid=gt_U-ZJ8NN_xhM&w=700&h=434&ei=Lyl_TqP2FOjXmAWxvoCjBQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=421&page=28&tbnh=167&tbnw=279&start=182&ndsp=6&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:182&tx=96&ty=37


Scott

[Morgans[_2_]]

> How about using outboard wing only ailerons (might need to make them
> bigger) and keep the slats on the aileron portion, only?
>
> -- Jim in NC
>
Oh, like on the Globe Swift from the 1940s? Wonderful airplanes! :)

A:
Yep that was 'zacary what I had in mind!

-- Jim in NC