 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rdewees(at)mindspring.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject: Tri gear vs tailwheel test flight |
 |
|
| Quote: |
>>
>>
>
>>> Listers-- I hope this won't be too boring to you veteran Zenith
>>> pilots out there but I got a chance to fly a friend's brand new
>>> 601HDS registered as N201MS. It's powered by a Continental A 75-8
>>> (75 hp) motor and is a tri gear model. I thought it might be
>>> interesting to those who have flown one, but not both wheel
>>> configurations of Zenith 601s if I shared my reactions. I wrote
>>> this review after flying N201MS for two hours. I think my hours
>>> were number 10 and 11, so it's a brand new bird! Mike Stewart was
>>> kind enough to ask me to help fly off the Phase One hours since he
>>> has watched me tweak my HDS/Jab 3300 taildragger for over 150
>>> hours. He has also owned or built over 60 airplanes and did the
>>> first flight on my 601HDS so he knows his stuff! The original
>>> post was to our Yahoo group called: 601_HD-HDS. There are more
>>> pictures and information posted there. The group was set up for
>>> Georgia area Zenith drivers to communicate but it is open to
>>> everyone. I am sure my experience will not be the same as everybody
>>> else's but I just call them the way I see them-- One additional
>>> note-- the aileron stiffness I noticed is now completely gone.
>>> Mike found a binding bearing and fixed it so it's effortless to use
>>> ailerons now. He says that when I get out of his plane next time I
>>> will head for mine and pick up the shears to put hinges on my
>>> ailerons. We will see-
>>> -----------
>>> Zenair N601TD wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi fellow Zenith drivers and builders-- I did take Mike Stewart up on
>>>> his offer to help fly off phase I hours on N201MS and yesterday I put
>>>> almost 2 hours flight in the perky red bird. Mike missed his career
>>>> as a test pilot as he had nailed all the critical flight numbers
>>>> right
>>>> on the button, which made the flight a lot less "experimental" for me
>>>> than it could have been.
>>>> First of all it's tempting to think that a Zenith 601 HDS is a
>>>> 601HDS, etc. NOT SO! I'm sure there is a lot of variation within
>>>> identically configured planes of any model but there was a lot more
>>>> difference than I expected between Mike's HDS tri gear and my HDS
>>>> taildragger. I was to see for myself as the flight progressed.
>>>> To recap Mike's configuration it's a VERY light 601HDS (speed wing)
>>>> that actually came out lighter than Chris Heintz' prototype at 569
>>>> pounds. It's powered by a Continental A 75-8 non- electric motor
>>>> swinging a 60X58 pitch Tennessee prop. That's 8 inches more pitch
>>>> than my Jabiru 3300 120 hp motor is pulling! Mike and Tennessee
>>>> Propellers came up with that configuration after looking at
>>>> performance charts and projected cruse speeds for the A 65(at)2300 rpm.
>>>> Tennessee actually sent a 58 inch pitch rather than the 57 that was
>>>> agreed upon. In spite of this optomistic task for the little A75, A
>>>> digital tachometer confirmed 2260 static rpm with the prop. It easily
>>>> cruses at 2300 at altitude and gives a bit more, but not much at full
>>>> throttle.
>>>> Back to the flight-- Mike told me that the right brake was very easy
>>>> to depress when using right rudder because of the toe brake setup of
>>>> the Heintz's flyers and he was right. The A75 is a torquey little
>>>> engine that requires noticable right rudder to offset the "P" factor
>>>> on taxiing for takeoff. The mechanical brakes are similar to mine but
>>>> seem more effective. Mike told me to accelerate to 65/70 mph, apply a
>>>> little back pressure and let it rotate. Best climb speed seems to be
>>>> between 85 and 90. This gives about 650 to 800 fpm climb rate out of
>>>> our turf strip. This is certainly adequate but not terribly
>>>> thrilling, altho it sure got up to altitude in a dependable and
>>>> reassuring manner. The A75 sounds throaty and powerful both on the
>>>> ground and in the plane. Mike used larger exhaust pipes on the
>>>> manifolds and we think it may be the reason for the nice exhaust
>>>> note. Several on the ground thought it was an 0320 rather than a
>>>> "cub" motor. Mike liked that!
>>>> Flying is rather different from my taildragger. The first thing I
>>>> noticed was ground handling. It drives like a go-cart because of the
>>>> direct and positive linkage to the nosewheel. There isn't any need to
>>>> goose the throttle to throw the tail around like the taildragger
>>>> requires for tight turns. OTOH, the nice ground handling gives way to
>>>> sort of clunky rudder corrections in the air since the nosewheel is
>>>> resting on a rather stiff bearing on the firewall. There has been a
>>>> lot of discussion from Zenith drivers about changing this setup, but
>>>> it's simple, and seems to live on from model to model.
>>>> The ailerons were the next thing I wanted to compare, since Mike
>>>> installed hinges on his ailerons, rather than the "skin flex"
>>>> ailerons
>>>> on my HDS. Well, there is good news and bad news-- The ailerons are,
>>>> indeed easier to deflect on the ground and there is no self-centering
>>>> tendency as in the skin flex aileron. Since the plane is so new
>>>> (about 11 hours now) there is some friction in the linkage and minor
>>>> aileron corrections sometimes just remain deflected until the pilot
>>>> centers the stick again. I think this will improve with usage and
>>>> probably not be noticed as quickly by pilots who have not flown with
>>>> skin flexed ailerons.
>>>> The flight characteristics are very nice and reminiscent of my
>>>> taildragger. It's solid and feels like a heavier plane than it is.
>>>> OTOH when you lean it over for a mild turn it seems more in its
>>>> element. It cheerfully banks over and stays there unless you correct
>>>> the angle. The A75 is a little strained to maintain lift at steep
>>>> bank angles so the rpm drops a little bit but it returns immediately
>>>> when the wing starts suppling full lift again. You feel like Walter
>>>> Mitty chasing the Red Barron as you yank and bank it a bit. It's a
>>>> really nice combination of a trainer with great manners and an entry
>>>> level fighter plane. You never see it's fun personality till you feel
>>>> comfortable with the snappy handling. Wingovers and steep turns are
>>>> great, but we all agreed it's a bit lacking in power for a roll or
>>>> loop.
>>>> Mike was right on with his cruse and landing numbers, too. He got
>>>> 110 to 115 mph at 2300 rpm cruse and that's about what I saw. It
>>>> feels faster than that and the plane just seems to like those speeds
>>>> cause full throttle or 2250 rpm don't change it much up or down. Mike
>>>> weighs about 40 pounds more than I do so I was curious to sii if
>>>> the stall
>>>> speed would be different. He gets 51 mph power off and 47 ish power
>>>> on. I seemed to get similar numbers so it is Light Sport Aircraft
>>>> qualified. As expected, the big fat wing gives a lot of warning of
>>>> impending stalls. It gripes a bit, shakes a little, shakes more,
>>>> and finally breaks mildly into an increased rate of descent. No
>>>> tendancy to drop a wing at all. You would have to be
>>>> distracted by Angelina Jolie in the right seat to ignore the warnings
>>>> of a stall.
>>>> I was mildly anxious about the first landing at our 2500 foot turf
>>>> strip with a 8 knot tailwind so I went to Covington and Monroe
>>>> airports to get some landing experience. Mike suggested 100 on
>>>> downwind, 90 on base, and 80 on final, with a mild flare with power
>>>> and 60/65 at touchdown. These numbers sounded hot to me since I use
>>>> about 10 mph less in landing configuration on my taildragger.
>>>> As usual Mike's numbers were very close and the first landing I set
>>>> up at Covington would have been impossibly high in my plane. The
>>>> nosegear configuration seems to settle into a solid descent angle
>>>> without picking up speed and high approaches are almost always
>>>> recoverable. I noticed up to 1500 fpm descent at 1800 rpm and the
>>>> airspeed seemed nailed to the gauge. As you would expect, the speed
>>>> will bleed off pretty fast as you rotate to a flare with these
>>>> approach angles and you would be right. I added power and it rounded
>>>
>>>> nicely and made an acceptable aquaintance with runway 10 at Covington
>>>> at about 60 indicated airspeed. I opened the throttle and watched out
>>>> for the right brake interaction with the rudder pedal and rotated
>>>> in a
>>>> few hundred feet. The torque factor wasn't as bad as from dead start
>>>> but it still needed right rudder. It climbed better than out of
>>>> Lenora and I saw up to 1000 feet at times. After a few more landings
>>>> at Covington and Monroe I felt better about landing at Lenora and had
>>>> no problem at all getting back into Lenora.
>>>> All in all it's a great plane! It's different from mine, but 45
>>>> less horsepower is bound to make any plane feel different. The
>>>> biggest
>>>> change I noticed was the descent angle with power off. It has a very
>>>> solid and predictable glide angle for landings that Mike says is
>>>> almost identical to the Piper Pacer. I haven't flown a Pacer but
>>>> bet I
>>>> would like it. The rudder pedals will remain stiff due to the
>>>> nosewheel linkage and the ailerons will certainly loosten up. BTW
>>>> Mike
>>>> installed a mechanical trim tab on the elevator and it's awesome!
>>>> Half
>>>> inch movement on the tab sets it up for climb or cruse and takes off
>>>> almost all stick pressure.
>>>> Mike and I discussed the dramatic landing differences between our
>>>> planes and decided that maybe the nosewheel disturbs the airflow
>>>> under the flat belly of the plane. It does make for a better trainer
>>>> or transition plane than the taildragger because speed management
>>>> isn't much of an issue. Just to prove this I made a flight in my
>>>> taildragger later in the afternoon and came in hot and high because I
>>>> didn't bleed off speed on the downwind as I should have. Slipping the
>>>> tailwheel HDS just lets it gain speed even as it increases it's
>>>> descent rate, and you get the momentum right back as soon as you take
>>>> the crab angle out. Not so in Mike's plane.
>>>> Mike is getting a little bored with flying off the rest of his 40
>>>> hours of Phase I because he us used to high performance planes that
>>>> cruse about 80 miles an hour faster than his little HDS but for the
>>>> rest of us it's a refreshing little plane with nice manners and
>>>> surprising performance for it's power.
>>>> What will Mike's Aircraft Factory come up with next?
>>>> Ron DeWees
>>>> N601TD
>>>>
>
|
| | - 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 |
|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
34.57 KB |
| Viewed: |
135 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: Tri gear vs tailwheel test flight |
|
|
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the great flight report. It sounds like a really nice plane.
I do wonder, however, about your comment regarding stall speed and
being qualified as LSA. The 51 mph sounds OK, but I would have
thought the performance should be tested at full gross weight. I
gathered from your report that you were probably flying solo and a
couple hundred pounds under gross.
Best regards,
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 07:08 PM 9/11/2006, you wrote:
| Quote: | Mike
weighs about 40 pounds more than I do so I was curious to sii if the stall
speed would be different. He gets 51 mph power off and 47 ish power
on. I seemed to get similar numbers so it is Light Sport Aircraft qualified.
|
---------------------------------------------
Paul Mulwitz
32013 NE Dial Road
Camas, WA 98607
---------------------------------------------
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rdewees(at)mindspring.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:25 am Post subject: Tri gear vs tailwheel test flight |
|
|
Hi Paul,
Yes, It's solo-- (has to be for the first 40 hours) and WELL under
gross. Turns out that the plane's gross weight is more than twice it's
empty weight . 569 empty and 1200 at gross. That's pretty amazing for
a 75 hp plane!
Ron
Paul Mulwitz wrote:
| Quote: |
<p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net>
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the great flight report. It sounds like a really nice plane.
I do wonder, however, about your comment regarding stall speed and
being qualified as LSA. The 51 mph sounds OK, but I would have
thought the performance should be tested at full gross weight. I
gathered from your report that you were probably flying solo and a
couple hundred pounds under gross.
Best regards,
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
|
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
