Hey Rick,

Got a chance to putz around your website tonight.  It looks great.  Hope to
get back and explore it a little more over the weekend.  Why don't you go
ahead and see what the factory thinks.  If RANS is interested in working
with us there is a lot we can do.  If you have time, please test the waters
over at kitfox too.

I'll initiate a mid-night strategic "post and run" campaign on some of the
other lists. It seems like there really is A LOT of lurkers if you pay
attention.

Also, I realize that your site is a commercial one, and therefore you are
probably much more interested in content related to the bottom-line, but
maybe we can get a few of the enthusiasts with purely personal RANS sites
to post the URL for our group one their sites.  If you are interested in
including it, it is:

http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/theRANSlist

ONELIST also provides some neat graphic buttons as gif files which link to
the subscription page as well.

Take Care,
-Brian


At 06:27 PM 5/26/1999 PDT, you wrote:
>From: "Rick Bowen" <rollnloop@...>
>
>
>Hi folks,
>been away from the old computer the last few days-too busy even to work on
>the plane.(HERESY!!)
>Brian, I do talk to the factory on occasion-have a long term relationship
>with Randy and Paula from my days as a partner in B&B Sport Aviation, one of
>RANS' best and most dedicated dealers.(o.k, a little free spam-so shoot me
>:0)
>I will see what I can accomplish there in regards to letting people know
>about the RANS list.
>Also, if you like I can try to get in touch with the person in charge at the
>kitfox list, to make some sort of non-offensive blurb on line.
>let me know if I should run with it,unless you have made a move the last few
>days.
>                               keepon building!
>                                       Rick
>                                       S-6 "super"
>
>

I was checking some mail tonight, and stumbled across this very complete
report submitted to the ZENITH aircraft list, and thought others may
appreciate it too.  If you don't, well it said "FLUFF" and you opened it
anyway!  :P

NOTE:  I laughed a little when a see that some are now referring to the
S-16 as "the new RANS RV-Killer."  see below...

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

Time: 04:37:51 PM PST US
From: James Brigman <jbrigman@...>
Subject: Zenith-List: JKB's SnF '99 Report

--> Zenith-List message posted by: James Brigman <jbrigman@...>

The "aye's" have it, so here's my blurbage on Sun 'n Fun 1999.
                    jkb 5/22/99

Introduction:

I volunteered to be the Zenith Aircraft on-site "guinea pig" this year and
do some work on my own kit (a 601HDS) at Sun 'n Fun. I'd be working on the
fuselage, with hopes of getting an
entire fuse cleco'ed together to show. I worked long hours each day of the
show, but did not succeed in reaching
that goal. This was a very busy show, with many hours spent talking with
our kitbuilding brethren who are still in
the decision making stage. But the questions this year were intelligent and
insightful, and you could tell the people
were getting to the serious part of their thought process. We had one
fellow join us and help w/clecos on the
center wing skeleton. He ended up buying an empennage kit at the show.
(Best of luck to him and I hope he's joined the list!)
If the show was any indication, we ought to be seeing several new folks pop
up on the list, hopefully soon.

I was "classified" as a volunteer TO the Sun 'n Fun show, so my formal
attachment was to the "how-to" demo tents. However, this year I was
"stationed" in the ZAC vendor tent. It was an oversize tent with three
large tables, one of which I used to build on. I had plenty of room, but
we had to do without an air compressor this year. This was a challenge, but
we made do OK with my little cordless drill and hand tools. In the
end, I believe this was a clear testament to prospective customers that you
indeed CAN build a 601 with hand tools!

I ended up working on the firewall, framing in the center wing section and
"roughing in" the landing gear boxes. I also ended up rebuilding my
own center wing spar, which was in sorry shape when I started and much
improved later on. If anyone needs, I can provide something like my own
version of a step-by-step procedure for doing the gear boxes and slides
that served me well at SnF. I never got anywhere close to getting an
entire fuselage cleco'ed together, as this was simply far too ambitious a
goal for only 8 days work. And I slowed down significantly when it
came to doing the gear boxes because I kept screwing up the gear slides. I
also ruined my center wing rear ZEE by absent-mindedly drilling THREE
holes in the last rib rear flange instead of the FOUR hole dictated by the
inboard rear zee doubler plate. But these are recoverable problems,
they just take time (and a little more money) to correct.

Other Builders

I ran into several folks there who have completed Zodiacs! Jim Hoak of GA
was there and assisting in the SnF sheetmetal demo tent. He brought a
beautiful photo log of his building process and was an invaluable and
expert consultant. One gentleman DID fly in with his recently completed
Zodiac, but he stayed only two days and I didn't get to meet him. But I can
tell you he was walking 3 ft off the ground and smiling from
ear-to-ear. One gentleman joined us who is researching engines for his
Zodiac and another was buying instruments for his kit. I'd guess I met a
good 15-20 of us in varying stages of construction on his kit, some with
the list and some not on the list. Everyone seems to be very sharp,
motivated and creative when it comes to building their Zodiac! Keep up the
good work guys and we're going to be up to our ears in beautiful
Zodiacs!

I think there were three Zodiacs at SnF '99 this year, not counting the one
brought by ZAC. One was a for-sale built by a group of kids as a
project. I couldn't get any detail on the third one. The folks who did come
in their 601's seemed to stay for a short time. But I found it rare
that anyone (besides volunteers and vendors) stayed the entire week:
everyone seems to rush in for the weekend and rush out on Tuesday, then
you get a second wave of show-goers Wednesday-Saturday. By  Saturday, the
crowds get much thinner, but because they are obligated to stay, you
don't miss out on any "vendor action" if you come late. But if you do come
late, you do miss out on some of the show planes that aren't
obligated to stay. I saw most of the show planes leave by Thursday, with
only the most dedicated remaining through Saturday. This was fine by me:
the hot water and water pressure of the showers just got better and better
each day! :-)

We (Zodiac Builders) are still somewhat poorly represented at Sun and Fun.
I don't mean to say this to lay any guilt trips on anyone: it's just
a perplexing thing to get over when you're trying to choose a 601 to build
and you never see any completed examples. It really makes someone
who's trying to choose a kit to build wonder if there are very, very few
601's out there. You've got to get a builder list for your state or join
the mailing list to get a good idea of how many builders there are out
there. Anyway, those of you finishing your kits, if you are thinking about
going to SnF 2000, please do: it'd be GREAT to see you there.

Zenith Aircraft:

Chris Heintz flew down the new STOL 801, and this plane was a SHOW STOPPER.
There was a constant wad of potential customers eyeing the
plane, touching the fittings, gazing at the engine, inspecting the
interior. The STOL 801 was the hit of the show. After all, for the
price, there was nothing else at the show that could touch it: a 4-seater
1000lb load "sky-jeep" at less than 25% of the cost of any
comparable certified plane, and less than the cost of any similar kit plane
(if there are really any similar). The instrument panel was
fitted in standard day/night VFR with the usual "six pack" of nav
instruments, transponder, radio, intercom and engine instruments. It's a
very roomy four seat plane with a generous baggage area also. The 801
sports a very high level of pre finish: there are many components which
are already pre formed and Roger D. was able to put together a rudder
skeleton in about an hour. The 801 is a BIG plane, one of the largest
ZAC kits I've ever seen, so it needs a high level of pre finish to meet the
predicted 700 hour assembly time.

Roger Dubbert flew in his STOL 701. He's applied an interior upholstery kit
to his plane you've just GOT to see. It's beautiful and provided the
plane with a beautiful, professional touch. Nick Heintz flew the 601 tail
dragger demonstrator to the show with the new front tilting canopy
modification. Let me tell you that the modification is elegant and very
functional. It looks like a very nice XL-style upgrade for us HDS
builders. It appeared to me very easy to retrofit even to a completed 601:
aluminum "arms" extending out from the front side edges of the
canopy forward to hinges on the fuselage, with attach points between the
hinge and canopy for the gas lift struts. They also had a very nice
weatherstripping around the bottom edge of the canopy that looked like it
did a good job of sealing out weather. It was a very clean retrofit
that attracted a LOT of attention from builders and prospectives alike.

ZAC has a new info kit out, and it's sharp. The new video has better images
of all the planes and even includes a blurb on the Gemini. It's
still the familiar 3-ring binder/videotape combo, but remains one of the
best values out there in an info kit. Get one if you are still in the
decision making phase and a ZAC product is on your short list.

Speaking of the Gemini, I was almost beat to death this year with questions
about this fascinating plane. For some reason, people would
make a beeline right towards me, stop and ask "How about that
Gemini-anything happening on this?" I really couldn't tell how serious
the questioner would be, but if only 10% of these guys were serious,
that'll still be a LOT of people wanting a twin engine kitplane. I
happen to agree with ZAC that they should have done the 801 first (there
was still a lot more interest there than in the Gemini) but it looks
like they could sell a LOT of the twin engine kitplanes if/when they get
this plane ready for production. Chris hinted around about possible mods
to the airfoil and fuselage that could improve the form and function of the
plane. I admire Chris for NOT using the public as unwitting beta
testers: he had the courage to tell people that nothing was being done on
the Gemini because of the 801: a very respectable answer from a
responsible engineer. This made me feel comfortable about our choice of
vendor. Each year you see a LOT of "vaporware" at shows like Sun 'n Fun.

Chip, of Czech Aircraft Works was there representing them as the only third
party approved to produce and sell Zodiac kits. If you are in
Europe and looking for some Zodiac purchase options, check these guys out.
They seem to do a great job and even offer a "fast-er" build kit
for the 601 series.

Tips and Tools

Well, this year I finally broke down and bought one: the "rivet fan spacing
tool". This is a little "accordian-like" tool that Chris
Boultinghouse has mentioned to you here on the list. I've been aware of
this tool for over two years now, but felt it was a bit "gimmicky" and
not really worth the $40 or so it costs. I paid $35 for mine at the show.
Boy, was I ever wrong. Whether you are scratch building or doing
the stock kit, BUY THIS TOOL. The ZAC guys got a bit of a joke out of it,
but they do these airplanes every day for a living: I don't. They
can do what the rivet fan tool does, in their heads. I can't. What this
tool will do for you is it lets you find a specified rivet pitch, and
then "flex" that pitch a little bit to add or subtract rivet positions as
desired. THIS IS AN INVALUABLE FUNCTION WHEN YOU ARE LAYING OUT THE
FIREWALL: I SPENT AN ENTIRE DAY JUST MARKING UP THE FIREWALL AND FINDING
WHERE THE RIVET HOLES GO. This little tool also generated a LARGE amount
of interest in the show-goers. People who stopped by to watch the building
process were immediately attracted to it and would pick it up
to see how it worked. I was surprised to find many, many builders out there
who had never seen this tool. (Doesn't everyone get the Wicks or
ACS catalogs and read them like magazines? ;-) I'm using this tool on many,
many sections of the plane and it's
allowing me to get MUCH better rivet lines than I could with only a
straightedge.

Nick started me out on the firewall the first day. The firewall is a
challenge: don't be disappointed if you get NO holes drilled the first
day you work on it. This is as it should be. Layout both sides of the
firewall first: you've got to make sure the rivet lines on both sides
share a hole and meet the clearance rules. I drilled only four holes the
first day to find all the rivet lines and didn't drill another hole in
the firewall until the evening of the next day.

After that, I moved on to the landing gear boxes. These were also a
challenge, and I ended up making a "jig" out of sheet metal with the
expert consultation of Larry, who helped me last year on the wings. He'd
done sheetmetal work before, and it showed. He came up with an idea for
two small "jigs" of sheetmetal to help position the slides on the ribs,
which turns out to be a critical measurement to make sure your plane
tracks straight down the runway!

After that, it was time to frame-in the center wing skeleton. I was ready
to mark/drill/cleco the wing skins when we ran out of time at the
show: I packed it in the morning of the last day (Saturday) just before it
started to rain, and I hi-tailed it back up I-4 toward Orlando and up
I-95 north out of FL. The traffic on I-95 is CONSTANT and was a challenge
all the way home to NC.

Let me confess this only once to my fellow listers: I broke down and bought
a spring loaded center punch at the show. There is a section in
the construction manual where Chris explicitly warns against using a scribe
or a center punch. But I found the center punch useful for laying
out holes on heavier, thicker aluminum pieces: on the spar, the .032 gear
box ribs and on the gear slides. I use Blue-Mol bits (132 degree
rake) in my little "toy" rechargeable drill, and the drill won't spin the
bit fast enough to prevent "walking", so the center punch really helped
me "home-in" when I had to hit the spots right on the dot. I don't dare use
the punch on thinner sheet pieces: I'm afraid it might deform the
thinner pieces beyond where the drill will make the hole. I only used it on
very thick brackets or the center wing spar.

BE CAREFUL when back drilling the rear wing ribs: you must use a square to
make sure your ribs are perfectly aligned in the vertical plane.
There was some warpage of the table at the booth and I ruined a couple:
fortunately I had extras, but this is an extremely expensive mistake if
you are having to buy more. Rear and front ribs both are fairly expensive
pieces to replace.

I bought a few clecos at the show with leftover cash. They go for .30/each
there, or $3 for a bag of 10. Most of the tool vendor prices
were within $1-$5 of each other. No one made any really bad money mistakes
buying tools at the show. These shows are excellent places to
stock up on tools and all the major vendors are always there. Be careful
buying instruments, though: I saw an extremely wide variation in prices
for the same type of instrument, from "used pulls" to yellow ticketed
items, I'd see prices vary by 3x or more. There were some awesome
bargains to be had, but buyer beware.

The T-shirt vendor from Arden, NC was there again and they NOW have an
iron-on for us Zodiac builders, a 601! Yay! I asked about a 701 and I
hope they noted the interest. I thanked them profusely for stocking the
Zodiac: this was the first year I'd seen "our" plane among the Titans,
RANS, Kitfox, Avid, etc.

I was able to sell some of my spare sheet aluminum at the "Fly Market": an
indoor consignment flea market for airplane parts. Let me say that I
was surprised and impressed at the professional manner in which the fly
market is run. And there are some very nice goodies you can find at the
fly market: I saw everything from entire planes (someone had a Kitfox and a
KR-2 "like" plane for sale there) to new engines, used radios and
instruments at the fly market, all at (usually) good prices. Sun 'n Fun
gets a 10% cut of the sales which doesn't hurt very badly and goes to
very good causes. If you've got good materials you just can't throw away
but don't need, put a cheap price on 'em and give the fly market a try.
(I don't know of OSH has one of these: anyone care to comment?)

Yelling "Fire" In A Crowded Airshow...

Of course the big news of the week was the fire that started in the public
parking "field" on Thursday. Somehow a spark (I don't know the
source) set off a brush fire in one of the nearby fields. Since Lakeland
was experiencing a drought, this presented a particularly serious
situation: the fire could have easily engulfed the entire show. The loss of
life and property would have been phenomenal.

The response by local authorities was incredible. FIrst, paradise city was
evacuated. With only a couple exceptions, PC vendors and attendees
were very cooperative and it took courage to just get up and walk away from
their booths and personal planes in the face of a fire. Secondly,
the day's airshows were canceled, and thirdly, the major fire response was
by air. The C-130-like (not sure of the tanker version's designator)
air tanker made several very low-and-slow flights dumping bay water on the
fire, and there were a flock of helicopters using these giant rubber
"bails" to dump several hundred gallons of water at a time on the flames.
They had the fire completely out in a couple hours and Paradise
City was repopulated by the late afternoon. But the impact to PC had some
mildly lasting effects: I don't know who left, but I heard several
vendors packed it in and left the show early. I know who was missing, but I
couldn't tell if they never came, or if they left early from the
fire. (I didn't get to PC before the Thursday event.)

Ultralight Vendors "Spy Report"

This report wouldn't be complete without some "spy facts" on other vendors.
Note: I have NO professional ties with ZAC or any other vendor.
Any information I report is my own opinion and not the opinion of ZAC,
Matronics or any other entities. I apologize in advance if I offend
anyone: I'm merely trying to tell what I see through the eyes of a
committed builder.

First, let me say that the surprise darling of Paradise City was there, the
"dreamwings" guys. If you haven't checked out this company, do so at
www.dreamwings.com. They have an amazing concept with some amazing claims:
a Part 103 legal plane with an airframe built of an epoxy-kevlar
composite? Unbelievable. And they are quoting extremely low prices and very
high performance figures for this future product. They were there
with a fuselage and two wing halves. Even though this company is not
shipping, they booked their entire production capacity for 1999 and also
6 advance sales into 2000. Keep in mind that they've got a very
sophisticated proposal on the boards with a very aggressive timetable. I
wish them the best of luck in their endeavor: if they make it to production
with their plane, it'll be a fascinating application of high
technology to a very efficient and low cost product.

One note about the "Dreamwings" aircraft: they sported a completely
prefabricated landing gear assembly that was an incredibly elegant
separately produced product: a pneumatic air cushion landing gear assembly
you can bolt-in to your plane in about 30 minutes. The second I saw 'em, I
wanted them
for the Zodiac. I was greatly intrigued by this product but I can't find a
speck of information on 'em. If any of you out there know what I'm
talking about, tell the rest of us on the list, And hurry before I have to
finish my gear slides! ;-)

The "big guys" of Paradise City were here again as usual: Titan, Kolb, TEAM
and Loehle all had big product display areas. I recognized even the
same demonstrator planes that had been present the year before, and Kolb
even has that same guy with the bushy beard who flies their planes each
year. Some of the young "punks" were back this year fighting for their
place in the sun: Flying K and Sky Raider were back with their
airplane like high wing ultralights. These new guys, plus the Kitfox Lite,
have set a new, higher standard for the 254-lb Part 103 legal
airplane: an ultralight that looks like, is equipped like, and flies like,
a "true" experimental tube-and-fabric plane. It's an amazing and
impressive achievement and one that is not to be missed by any showgoers.

SkyStar is formally retiring the older versions of the Kitfox and
re-christening them the "Outback" series. And their new ultralight
plane, the "Kitfox Lite" is selling like gangbusters. They had a show
special on the plane, a factory completed ultralight-legal Kitfox Lite
for $20,000. It's a beautiful little Tube-and-fabric machine that looks
like great fun in an ultralight. Keep in mind that approaching anything
like a VFR-level of instrumentation and radios will push this plane into
the Experimental category. Finished out, the Lite is within 12 lb. of
the legal UL limit of 254 lb.. In fact, I think it just barely makes it if
you add brakes and a padded seat.

"Trikes" (powered delta wing kites) have come of age in the field of
ultralights. I'd estimate 50% of the vendors at PC were selling trikes
or trike engines. Trikes are "cheap" ($6k or so) and from what I can see,
some are quite fast: I'd estimate some trikes were cruising at an
impressive 50-60mph. But it is the rare trike that has any kind of
enclosure or environmental protection. So I saw at least one vendor
selling full body jumpsuits, helmets, gloves and booties for flying trikes
with.

The leading edge engine vendors seem to choose Paradise City to display
their wares. There were many engines shown there, but they seemed to be
2 and 4 cycle units aimed primarily at trike and parawing fliers. I didn't
see anything in PC that might be a serious option for us Zodiac
builders (except maybe the HKS?). Same for propeller and instrument
vendors. I saw a good little diversity of product, but nothing that
presented any new or innovative options for us, (Except maybe the
dreamwings landing gear assembly.)

Another popular low cost means for getting in the air is powered parawings
or paragliders. These cousins of the trikes were also present
in quantity. Although you didn't see as many vendors or as many of these
aircraft in the pattern, there was always one nearby ready to show it's
stuff. Tons of great vendors and good hardware. This is a robust market
with lots of innovation almost daily.

The constant stream of planes flying off the Ultralight strip is a sight to
behold: from 7 am till 5pm (show close), the ultralight guys (and some
experimental weight "cheaters") fly out of the strip, cutting a wide circle
over Paradise city, and back for a landing.


Experimental Vendors "Spy Report"

Avid was not there. I've heard conflicting reports on Avid, so I can't
really add anything more to that. I've heard they are going out of
business, then not. There's a big giant article on Avid in the most current
KITPLANES, so there must be some kind of life left in 'em, or
maybe Kieth Beveredge just had some old copy lying around he had to use
before he starts his SnF reports in a month or so.

There were TWO other aircraft companies there from the Czech Republic
besides the guys affiliated with ZAC. They brought lots of product and
seemed to have very good displays. I was able to watch them assemble their
booths before the show started, happily chattering away in their
native language. These guys are definitely the "upstarts" in the
Experimental world. They brought innovative designs with a very high
level of fit and finish.

RANS was present "in-force", but I didn't see their new RV-killer there,
the S-16 Shekari. I don't know if I just missed it or it never was
displayed. I saw their bikes and the usual S-6 and S-7 models on display.

SkyStar was there with the Kitfox Light and the re-christened "Outback".
They also had a sample of the new "Pulsar III" on display. The III is
the latest incarnation of the Pulsar, which they say, with a 914S engine
will cruise at or near the magic "200 mph" point. Check me on this,
though, I got that info third hand. (Don't worry, the Pulsar is STILL too
small for us big Zodiac builders to fit into...;-)

They guys who do the Italian "Storm" design were there with a nice display.
I'd gotten the impression that the storm is a "copy" of the 601 HDS
but I can't agree with that assertion: it's a low wing aluminum
side-by-side 2-seater, but that's about the extent of the commonality. The
"Storm" is a nice plane in it's own right. It's got plusses and minuses
over the 601's just like any other plane. The important thing to
see is that there are increasing numbers of kitplane vendors out there
building in sheetmetal, and the established companies (i.e.. ZAC) are
doing very well with sheetmetal aircraft designs. Not to knock
tube-and-fabric or composite: it's just my personal observation that
sheetmetal
kitplanes are doing well.

One evening when I was cruising the vendor booths, I happened by Van's RV's
and was fortunate enough to get to hear Dick VanGrunsven himself
telling a story about when a member of the "kitplane press" built an RV. It
took him longer than the stated time and this person referred to
the specs as "a lie". Dick was using the story to illustrate the difficulty
with pinning down "a number" on construction time because of the
differences in how people go about fabricating a kitplane. Dick's an
impressive fellow who communicates well: I could have listened to him
all evening, and it's too bad he doesn't come out and do some of the
seminars like Chris does. I hope one day he will! (Oops...I sure hope he's
not ALREADY done one and I'm exposing my ignorance here...;-)

The perennial two GlaStars were there: the "watery looking" one with the
water droplet paint job and the EAA "research" GlaStar. I'm glad to see
them back and they make great show stock, but once you've seen 'em there's
not any thing new to get from that. I wish some of these vendors would
get a clue and try to present new and fresh examples of their products each
year. (Made me proud of Chris for doing the CH2000 last year and the
STOL 801 this year.)

The Canards were there as always, and man are they impressive. Especially
the Velocity XL that gets brought in each year, with the leather interior
and all the goodies. It's an amazing and impressive plane. Just wish I had
the money to do a plane like that. But oopsie! I guess I'd have to spend
that money on a big nice HOUSE or my wife would divorce me, and she'd be
right too....

Guilty Secrets Confession Time: If any of you have seen John Monett's
"Reality Check", it's probably the only airplane you can find that might
possibly introduce "buyer remorse" in a 601 builder. This is an all
aluminum plans only kitplane that Mr. Monett says can be built for something
like $13k. This is an impressive and incredible claim, one that will really
interest the vast numbers of us poor-boy redneck pilots building their
own plane. I had to take a look-see for myself. I snuck away from the ZAC
tent and spent about 45 minutes looking this sweet little plane
over, hoping not to be caught looking by anyone who'd seen me at the ZAC
tent. This is an impressive little plane guys, and the specs are similar,
except for a few things that caught my attention:
         - you can't buy it as a kit, it's ONLY plans-built,
         - the cabin is narrower and looked a bit smaller.
         - You think we've got a small instrument panel, the RC's is about
half the frontal area.
         - while some specs were "larger" than the 601 (quoted cruise at
about 140 mph) some specs were "smaller"
         (gross weight capacity and climb rate)
         - this plane looks (to my eye) to be about 20% SMALLER than the
601's.
         - there are only, um, 2 or 3 of these planes flying, so it's still
unproven
So I went away with my fears of "buyer remorse" calmed. However, Mr. Monett
has an interesting plane here and I surely can't argue with the reason he
calls it "Reality Check": that it's $13k or so to finish. The plans cost
for this plane is high: I think it's $450 or so. I have NOT seen them myself.
I guess if they are awesome plans, it'd be worth the $$. I'd like to see
some one day. Please don't ask for any specs on this plane: there is a web
site out there for it if you go to one of the major search
engines and search on his name you ought to find it.

Show-Going Tips:

- there are more and more RV's than ever. Consider renting one if you don't
own one. You can still tent camp
just fine, but the tent areas fill up fast: I ended up having to listen to
generators until 10pm, when they
must go off per the rules.
- it's a LONG hike in from campgrounds: take VERY comfortable
walking/running shoes! If you have trouble walking
please don't let this stop you: I saw a ton of folks using those little
electric motorized chairs to scoot around
on. They are highly accepted and look just like "a part of the scenery".
- dress for summer but take a sweater, wind breaker or rain poncho for the
afternoon rains
- buying too much ice: it's $2 per bag!
- lemonade too expensive, at $2 per large cup!
- food and drink prices not bad, but NO REFILLS and that sucks.
- smoked turkey legs were great AND satisfied caveman urges to eat a big
piece of animal meat
- burgers, dogs and fries were all great, but a bit on the small side.
- you can "live on SnF grounds" for the week and not have to leave, but
lack of wide food variety and prices will
have you wanting to go out into lakeland for a restaurant meal at least once.
- One of the Florida EAA groups puts on a corn roast that'll thrill your
taste buds. They do it every night. It's
one of the BEST features of the show. I only went one night (near the end).
Next year I plan to be there as much
as possible.
- sunscreen w/bug repellent worked like a champ, and you really DO need it.
- For those of us with thinning hair or sensitive eyes, cap and sunglasses
are vital.

I am building a S-12 and would like to learn to fly one before I finish
building this one.......is there anyone in the Superior, Nebraska area
doing some training in the S-12 ?.......Mike

Hi folks,
been away from the old computer the last few days-too busy even to work on
the plane.(HERESY!!)
Brian, I do talk to the factory on occasion-have a long term relationship
with Randy and Paula from my days as a partner in B&B Sport Aviation, one of
RANS' best and most dedicated dealers.(o.k, a little free spam-so shoot me
:0)
I will see what I can accomplish there in regards to letting people know
about the RANS list.
Also, if you like I can try to get in touch with the person in charge at the
kitfox list, to make some sort of non-offensive blurb on line.
let me know if I should run with it,unless you have made a move the last few
days.
                                keepon building!
                                        Rick
                                        S-6 "super"


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Brian,

	 I am new to metal construction. Actually, I am new to
construction. Actually, I am new; period. But in my ignorant
opinion, I found it better to remove the plastic coating before
doing any work on the parts. The plastic coating seems to work
great as transport and store protection, but the moment you
start working on the parts, the plastic hurts more than it helps.
The problem becomes more hairy with the wing skins (LARGE), so
what I decided to do is work with latex gloves, so as not to leave
my messy fingerprints all over the place (even though the surfaces
are going to be painted), but for the most part to remove the
plastic as soon as I start working on a part. In other words,
from the original presentation of each part (aileron, flap, etc)
with silver clecos (3/32") everything has the plastic removed.
Also, if the plastic is in, when you drill, all the metal chips
find their way in the space between the plastic and the metal...
it becomes a mess sooooo fast. But then again, that's just me.
If anyboady disagrees with me, please know that you are wrong.

:P

Also, it looks like I finally got a hangar. The construction is
being finished, and I should be able to move in next week. For
some of you that might not be a great deal, but here in NJ (the
people's republic of NJ) hangar is a rare commodity, so if any
of you is around Princeton, NJ, you are invited to the move-in
celebration (time TBD) in Princeton Airport (39N). Brian, you
can't bring your F-18 or similar toy because jet operations have
been forbidden (sissy neighbours).

		 Bill


air2mud wrote:
>
> From: air2mud <air2mud@...>
>
> Hey Bill, Congratulations!
>
> At what point did you find it best to remove the protective sheeting from
> the aluminum?  Did you de-burr and drill with it on, or take it off first
> thing?
>
> Thanks,
> -Brian
> (Waving at my stack of parts when I can.)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ONElist:  where the world talks!
> http://www.onelist.com
> Join a new list today.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To see a RANS S-16 being built on-line goto:
> www.caip.rutgers.edu/~remus/S-16/main.html

Shawn,

	 You are right, more permanent protection is possible and
desirable. Primer-type substances (don't remember the name now,
but I could try to find out) would do a more permanent job. LPS-3,
nevertheless, is standard practice. My reasoning is that if they
consider it good enough for production planes (where the inside
of the wings is not primed), then it should be good enough for me.
Also, LPS-3 can be applied through the access panels, so you don't
need to open the wings every 2 years, and the 2 year period is for
(I assume) the strongest protection; if the plane is not based in
a salty environment, I would assume the protection would last
longer. I, for one, am going to use it.

		 Bill


"Reed, Shawn" wrote:
>
> From: "Reed, Shawn" <sreed@...>
>
> Bill
>
> The webpage states that LPS-3 only protects for up to two years.  I would
> think you'd want a more permanent solution inside a closed wing?  Or is this
> protection not required, and the LPS-3 is just for added initial protection?
>
> Shawn
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Where do some of the Internet's largest email lists reside?
> http://www.onelist.com
> At ONElist - the most scalable and reliable service on the Internet.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To see a RANS S-16 being built on-line goto:
> www.caip.rutgers.edu/~remus/S-16/main.html

I had heard about LPS3 (or a similar product) from some RV6ers out here a
few months ago.  The mentioned using it on production aircraft quite
regularly, and that they re-applied it through inspection panels and hinged
openings once a year.  Only problem reported is that the airplane looks
like a bag-o-donuts for a few flight hours when the stuff starts streaking
out the seams.

Appearently (Cessna I think) stopped priming the inside of its wings for a
stint during the mid-sixties and early seventies.  Some aircraft
experienced major corrosion, but that was the exception.  Most survived
just fine until now, and some owners keep them going using just such a
product as the LPS3.

I plan to alodine the aluminum (chemical conversion) and then use a VERY
light coat of zinc chromate or epoxy primer on the inside and a good
quality coat under paint on the outside.  Sherwin-Williams makes an epoxy
primer that comes highly recommended.  I'm working to get some cheap
through the contractor out here that services the Blue Angels.

Problem with all the chemicals and crap is the space and equipment
required, and environmental concerns.  Sure would be nice to tackle it with
a spray paint can!  Some of the RV6ers have used primers from the spray
cans (the get them at NAPA autoparts) and say they never will again.  Very
poor protection.

Anyway, good luck.
-Brian
(Saying 'goodbye' to my part pile at 0530 and 'hello/goodnight' at 2300 --
Building soon though!)

Hey Bill, Congratulations!

At what point did you find it best to remove the protective sheeting from
the aluminum?  Did you de-burr and drill with it on, or take it off first
thing?

Thanks,
-Brian
(Waving at my stack of parts when I can.)

Bill

The webpage states that LPS-3 only protects for up to two years.  I would
think you'd want a more permanent solution inside a closed wing?  Or is this
protection not required, and the LPS-3 is just for added initial protection?

Shawn

Gang,

	 I finally got the corrosion protection information. The
company that makes it is called LPS (http://lpslabs.com), and the
product is LPS-3. I already ordered 5 spray cans (11 oz. each) of
it and will be trying it this weekend. This is only for the
protection of the inside of the wings, the outsied is protected
by the primer and paint (incidentally, LPS-3 can be applied on
top of the paint also). So, without further delay, I should have
the right wing closed this weekend (left one still requires some
sweet talking and convincing).

		 Bill

"Reed, Shawn" wrote:
>
> From: "Reed, Shawn" <sreed@...>
>
> All,
>
> Thanks for the information on shipping.  As it stands right now, I'll let
> RANS use their shipping company, and request that the "package" be left at
> the local dock.  I'll then pick it up in a U-Haul and transport it home.
> I'll either then unpack it myself or have a Beer -N- unloading party.
>
> RANS got "the check" last Friday.  I've been given an expected ship date of
> June 30th.  This will be the longest 6 weeks of my life I'd imagine.  I hope
> to at least get the manuals soon.
>
> Congratulations Bill!  And thanks for the update.  How long do you expect
> the wing closing to take?  What's the next major step?
>
> Does anyone have an in at RANS to get more frequent updates on the prototype
> status?  Do they monitor this list?
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn
> sreed1@...
> http://members.home.net/sreed1
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ONElist members are using Shared Files in great ways!
> http://www.onelist.com
> Are you?  If not, see our homepage for details.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To see a RANS S-16 being built on-line goto:
> www.caip.rutgers.edu/~remus/S-16/main.html

All,

Thanks for the information on shipping.  As it stands right now, I'll let
RANS use their shipping company, and request that the "package" be left at
the local dock.  I'll then pick it up in a U-Haul and transport it home.
I'll either then unpack it myself or have a Beer -N- unloading party.

RANS got "the check" last Friday.  I've been given an expected ship date of
June 30th.  This will be the longest 6 weeks of my life I'd imagine.  I hope
to at least get the manuals soon.

Congratulations Bill!  And thanks for the update.  How long do you expect
the wing closing to take?  What's the next major step?

Does anyone have an in at RANS to get more frequent updates on the prototype
status?  Do they monitor this list?

Thanks,
Shawn
sreed1@...
http://members.home.net/sreed1

gang,

     I just finished inspecting my S-16 wings
with an EAA technical counselor. Summary of
his inspection:

+ Impressed by main spars and wing mating
   mechanism.
+ Liked very much the aileron push-pull
   control system, recommended to lubricate
   and inspect frequently the flap control
   teleflex wire.
+ Liked very much the modification to the
   routing of pitot-static lines that I did
   (i.e.: using aluminum tubing instead of
   urethane hoses, all descriptions are
   available to the asking - will be later
   in the webpage)
+ Warned about corrosion. Mentioned the
   existance of a substance to prevent corrosion
   (not a primer) that can be sprayed on the
   inside of the wing (preferably before
   closing), even over moving parts (bellcranks)
   and electrical wires. I will distribute the
   information as soon as he sends it to me.
+ After a brief optical inspection, he gave me
   his *go* recommendation to close the wings.
   All is OK, included the strobe light wiring
   (which I did through the alignment holes of
   the aft spars).

I will celebrate extensively during the
upcoming days. Do not expect any meaningful
answer from me in during the celebration
period (alcohol related).

     Bill Parodi

>
>Also, are there any recommendations for shipping?  Either company or in
>procedures used to off load the 1100lb box?

Hi Shawn,
Brian is right about letting RANS pick the shipper.
Have received several "big boxes" from them, and costs are usually at
least 1/2 what they would be without the RANS discount.
Also, what we have done a lot is to take a small flatbed trailer to the
shipping co. dock, let them load it on the trailer, then open the crate and
unload it right from the trailer after getting home.

                         have fun!,
                                        Rick


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Hi again Sean,

While not yet having to face your "Big Box" dilemma myself, I've heard of
three options which I'm considering for when the bigger components start
showing up.

1) Rent/borrow a forklift (and driver?)->  I've heard of some builders who
live down the road from a nursey and have rented the forklift and crew for
a morning.  If your building at an airport and there is an industrial park
located on the site they may have businesses which have one.  Or, maybe you
have a friend who does landscaping etc.  Worst case you might try
1-800-555-forklift from the yellow pages.

2) Low-Rider truck and 2"x12" planks->  You can arrange for the delivery to
be made to your house by a special truck which carries the cargo only a
foot or two above the road.  You often see them carry heavy cranes and such
down the highway.  This will also probably involve some extra expense, as
the orginal truck line will probably not have one and you will have to
arrange for the box to be transferred to a second carrier enroute.  When it
gets to the house, stick a couple of planks under it and PUUUSSSHHH!

3) Lift-Gate truck (not for the faint of heart)->  Contract for a truck
with a hydraulic elevator lift on its tail to make the delivery.  Buy some
STATIC, HIGH STRENGTH, rope or webbing (dynamic means it stretches and
certain nylon ropes will stretch unbelievably long right up until they snap
and kill your dog and other curious bystanders).  Start with the lift in
the full up position.  Tie the rope to the crate and the other end to a
pickup truck.  Pull the crate out onto the lift so a foot or two overhangs
the edge.  Use the lift to lower the crate end approx half way to the
ground and rest it on a solid object (pickup bed, very strong sawhorse,
etc.).  Anchor the crate where it is with the rope, and drive the delivery
truck out from under the crate while raising the lift slowly to meet the
other end as it exists the truck.  Stop when one end is supported on the
sawhorse and the other end is supported by the lift.  Now, lower the lift
end to the ground with the lift.  Ask the six good friends (with hold
harmless releases on file) who have so far prevented your own death and
dismemberment to lift the other end from the sawhorse and place it on the
ground.

Finally, The Ryder Truck plan! (my personal concoction)->  If you live
close to the center of a big city, chances are the carrier has a terminal
there.  They may even give you a substantial discount for picking it up at
their terminal.  So, I may rent a U-Haul or Ryder truck ($19 one day +
miles) and have the carrier forklift it onto the truck.  I can then drive
it home and open the crate ON THE TRUCK, unloading it piece by piece at my
leisure.



Good Luck, when are you expecting it?

-Brian

PS.

You would probably be best off with whatever shipper RANS can secure the
best discount with.  I used to manage the transporation for a chemical firm
in Chicago.  We had one customer who ordered a single drum from us about
once a month, and he arranged all his own shipping.  One day the bill came
to us by mistake -- it was huge!  By simply having the same carrier bill us
(we had a 65% discount in place with that carrier) and then passing the
discounted charge along to the customer we saved him alomost $700 a
shipment on a single drum.  His cost was close to $1,000 and ours was less
then $300 for the same delivery.  RANS probably has the similar discounts
available to them, unless maybe you can swing something better through your
work or a friend.




At 01:24 PM 5/11/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>From: "Reed, Shawn" <sreed@...>
>
>Also, are there any recommendations for shipping?  Either company or in
>procedures used to off load the 1100lb box?
>
>Thanks,
>Shawn Reed
>One of the newest S-16 builders.
>

Hi Shawn,

I don't know if they even have the #2 plane flying yet.  They had most of
the fuselage, tail, and cockpit built in December, but I didn't see any
wings.  RANS has a lot of other projects in the works.  I have noticed that
many of the extra parts that make the kit nice are starting to roll off the
line though.  For instance, the black molded piece which closes out the
rear of the baggage compartment is brand new and adds alot.  Molded cockpit
inserts and rear windows are rummored to be in the works too.


-Brian


At 01:24 PM 5/11/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>From: "Reed, Shawn" <sreed@...>
>
>Has anyone heard any recent updates on RANS S-16 Prototype #3 featuring the
>0-320?  Is it even flying yet?
>
>Also, are there any recommendations for shipping?  Either company or in
>procedures used to off load the 1100lb box?
>

Hello all,

Has anyone heard any recent updates on RANS S-16 Prototype #3 featuring the
0-320?  Is it even flying yet?

Also, are there any recommendations for shipping?  Either company or in
procedures used to off load the 1100lb box?

Thanks,
Shawn Reed
One of the newest S-16 builders.

1) I saw RANS is putting together a trip for builders (of the flying
variety) to Utah or Wyoming (I think?).  Anybody got any more info?

2) EAA did a test flight of the Shekari for a magazine article at
Sun-N-Fun.  Does anybody know when this is going to be published?


-Brian
Pensacola, Florida (S-16)

Gang,

     I will *hopefully* have my wings inspected tomorrow or during the weekend by
the local EAA technical counselor. If he gives me the go, I'll start riveting
the skins. Except for the pitot-static lines, their are assembled the way RANS
specifies. I'll keep everybody posted on the outcome of the inspection (I won't
be able to contain the tears of joy, after many months of pain, blood, seat,
blood, and tears, and then some more blood - metal work is an accident-prone
activity).

     Brian, remember how I told you that when in doubt, through the part away and
start over? I had to do so with front ribs #1 through #5 of my left wing to
accomodate the aluminum pitot static lines (the holes for the hoses were larger
than the holes for the tubes)... (sh)it happens... often.

     I'm holding my fingers and crossing my breath... we'll see how the
inspection goes.

         Bill Parodi

>From: air2mud <air2mud@...>
>Reply-To: theRANSlist@onelist.com
>To: "Reed, Shawn" <sreed@...>, theRANSlist@onelist.com
>Subject: Re: [theRANSlist] Shekari
>Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 23:44:24 -0500
>
>From: air2mud <air2mud@...>
>
>

>2) PITCH INPUTS: The controls are balanced well with respect to force (it
>may require 4  lbs to displace the stick fore and aft and an equal 4 lbs to
>move it side to side etc.), BUT it is presently in my opinion OVERSENSITIVE
>in the pitch axis.  A two inch deflection (of the stick) in roll is very
>smooth with a corespondingly smooth roll and good coordination with very
>little rudder (almost none) required.  A two inch deflection in pitch is
>IMPOSSIBLE without bringing the Windex to clean yourself off the canopy.
>
>It requires very, very small inputs of pitch to fly the plane well.  A 1.5
>inch deflection results in almost +/- 2Gs.  It is very sensitive.  Again
>this may not be a problem -- We want a sensitive plane!  That's why we got
>it!  But, it is out of balance with the ailerons and rudder inputs.  It
>also makes it difficult to smoothly pitch in the landing flair.  I plan to
>investigate ways to increase the throw required of the stick without
>providing any extra mechanical advantage (remember the 4 lbs, or whatever,
>of force is still well balanced).  Others I talked to at SNF who have flown
>the RANS Coyotes said that they are similarly rigged.

Hi list folks,
just thought I would jump in for a comment or two.
Have flown quite a bit in most of the Rans models,(no s-16 time yet,;(.
It's been my experience that most of them have the same "light pitch,heavier
roll" forces.The most sensitive being the S-10.
I recall a story told by Randy S. of giving a demo to an airline pilot in
the S-10,when the guy took the stick,he proceeded to push forward and send
the radio(methinks a handheld) through the canopy!
You DO get use to it, and believe me the aircraft all fly great.
                                        Have a great day!
                 Rick Bowen
                 S-6 "Super" 116 wing
                 Covering proceeding smoothly


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Shawn, did Randy give you a serial number on your kit?

As you may or may not know, we are a pretty small group right now.  Randy
said at SNF that there are less than 20 kits out there right now, and about
5 to 10 are actively building.  I think it's a great little plane!  I can't
wait to get it together!  It blows my mind that people aren't beating down
the doors to order one.

Anyway, we're trying to get together a builders group on the internet.
There has been a very good response so far in just the past few weeks after
SNF.  I will go ahead and set you up with a subscription.  You will still
have to reply to the automatic invitation you recieve for you to become a
list member.  You can remove yourself from the list anytime you want.

I saw in a SPORT AVIATION article last month that Richard Brand (ex CEO of
Circus-Circus Corp.) is building one for his children.  I think he lives in
Las Vegas.  Maybe if you make any trips up there you can contact him and
invite him in.  Based on the EAA article he seems to be a very active
builder and quite a craftsman.

-Brian (S-16)
Pensacola, FL

Shawn,

There is a gentleman named Bill Parodi from NJ who is closing out his wings
right now.  He has alot of technical experience in other fields and is
doing an incredible job of documenting his progress.  I had a chance to
meet him at SNF and feel very relieved that there is someone out there
blazing a trail.

You can view his progress on the web at:

http://www.caip.rutgers.edu/~remus/S-16/main.html


-Brian (S-16)
Pensacola, FL

Hi Shawn,

My control surface kit arrived about a month ago.  I'm in the middle of
Marine flight training right now, and am waiting another couple of weeks
for a break in my schedule before I start putting it together.  Looks like
it should go together real quick.  My biggest concern is corrosion proofing
before I start bolting things together.  There's not much need for it in
Hays, KS (or Phoenix for that matter) but I live on the coast of Florida,
and will be happy if my new car last more than a year or two with the salt
air!

I managed to snag a demo at Sun-N-Fun.  We visited the factory in December,
but they had just switched to the conventional gear and had not flight
tested it yet so a ride wasn't in the cards.  The ride at Sun-N-Fun though
was worth the trip!

It performs as advertised.  GPS was showing 140-145kts ground speed with
the 125hp.  Aerobatics were smooth, and the aircraft itself rides very
solidly (suprisingly so when compared to its weight and size).  Alot of
this is probably related to the high wing loading, but alot of credit is
also due to RANS for engineering a good little speedster.

Two things which did catch me off guard about the plane were the stall and
control inputs about the pitch axis.

1) STALL: The plane regardless of configuration or entry immediately
departs into a sharp left spiral.  There is very little (I could detect
none) aerodynamic warning.  There is no forward break, or tendency for the
aircraft to maintain heading for even the briefest moment -- the break is
immediate and definite to the left.  We were able to recover within less
than 90 degrees of rotation, but the lack of warning and strong rolling
tendency should be experienced many times at altitude before you begin
doing pattern work.  I plan to include an Angle of Attack Indicator (AOA)
or other stall warning devices.  Randy suggested several simple aerodynamic
fixes to accentuate the stall by buffeting the elevator.  I may try both
routes.

2) PITCH INPUTS: The controls are balanced well with respect to force (it
may require 4  lbs to displace the stick fore and aft and an equal 4 lbs to
move it side to side etc.), BUT it is presently in my opinion OVERSENSITIVE
in the pitch axis.  A two inch deflection (of the stick) in roll is very
smooth with a corespondingly smooth roll and good coordination with very
little rudder (almost none) required.  A two inch deflection in pitch is
IMPOSSIBLE without bringing the Windex to clean yourself off the canopy.

It requires very, very small inputs of pitch to fly the plane well.  A 1.5
inch deflection results in almost +/- 2Gs.  It is very sensitive.  Again
this may not be a problem -- We want a sensitive plane!  That's why we got
it!  But, it is out of balance with the ailerons and rudder inputs.  It
also makes it difficult to smoothly pitch in the landing flair.  I plan to
investigate ways to increase the throw required of the stick without
providing any extra mechanical advantage (remember the 4 lbs, or whatever,
of force is still well balanced).  Others I talked to at SNF who have flown
the RANS Coyotes said that they are similarly rigged.

How about you?  Flown it yet?  When are you scheduled for delivery?  Full
kit, or partial?  Are you any relation to Phil Reed of Skystar?



-Brian
Pensacola, FL





At 09:59 PM 5/4/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>Brian,
>
>Hello.  I just ordered a Shekari as well.  Have you already taken delivery?
>Have you had a demo ride yet?
>
>Shawn Reed
>Phoenix, AZ
>

Dear Leila Jylanki & Kyosti Salo (Finland, S-10),

Welcome to the list.  I've seen your S-10 on the RANS page now a couple of
times and it looks very impressive.  It is a pleasure to have experienced
builders (and flyers!) on the list.  Hopefully you can spare some of your
valuable time in the next few months to help us newcomers.  It will be very
interesting to here of your modifications and the places you have travelled
in your S-10.

Best Regards,
Brian Kaczorowski
Pensacola, Florida (USA)

Brian,

	 This is thre same posting, I erroneously sent it before
finishing it the last time.

         Yup. it is my intention to put the Lycoming 320, as a matter
of fact, I'm looking at a remanufactured AEIO-320 (aerobatic, fuel
injection), that run for around $19K.

         Also, last night I updated the webpage. It is not as "linked"
and nice as before, basically I just scanned my construction logbook
pages as opposed to re-typing them and redoing the drawings (I am
lazy). The webpage still is at:
http://www.caip.rutgers.edu/~remus/S-16/main.html

	 I will have the wings inspected this weekend (hopefully), but
as far as I am concerned the right one is done and the left one will
be in two days work. I did a modification to the left wing that you
might want to consider: RANS ships you urethane hoses for the
pitot-static lines. I didn't like this so I installed 1/4" aluminum
tubing, using urethane oses only for the last 6" or so (easily
replacebale through the access panel). I'll compile more on thislater
and post it out here.

	 I will definately be going to Oshkosh, I still have to
arrange the details. Can you get some time off from the boyscouts or
not? (hahahaha).

	 By the way, I received the fuselage the week before the last
one... it is huge. The box is like 1000 lbs. Among 6 people we could
not lift one end of it. I'll open it in a week or so, when my hangar
in Princeton (39N) is finished.

		 Bill


air2mud wrote:
>
> From: air2mud <air2mud@...>
>
> Bill, were you planning on using a 125HP or 160HP on your Shekari?
>
> According to this month's issue of Custom Planes RANS is presently testing
> the 160HP Lycomming on the #3 factory ship (Custom Planes - June 1999,
> p.10, "New Shekari Gear Option").  --  I wonder if RANS knows that THEY are
> presently testing the 160HP engine!?!  It will still be nice to see what the
> #2 and #3 ships look like this summer at Oshkosh.  Do plan to go?
>
> Here is some information I've pulled off of another forum on the recent
> Continental engine problems.  I will try to do some more research soon on
> any trends that have developed specifically in the IO-240 engines.
>
> -Brian

Brian,

	 Yup. it is my intention to put the Lycoming 320, as a matter
of fact, I'm looking at a remanufactured AEIO-320 (aerobatic, fuel
injection), that run for around $19K.

	 Also, last night I updated the webpage. It is not as "linked"
and nice as before, basically I just scanned my construction logbook
pages as opposed to re-typing them and redoing the drawings (I am
lazy). I will have the wings inspected this weekend (hopefully), but
as far as I am concerned the right one is done and the left one will
be in two days work. I did a modification to the left wing that you
might want to consider: RANS ships you urethane hoses for the
pitot-static lines. I didn't like this so I installed 1/4" aluminum
tubing, using urethane oses only for the last 6" or so (easily
replacebale through the access panel). I'll compile more on thislater
and post it out here.

air2mud wrote:
>
> From: air2mud <air2mud@...>
>
> Bill, were you planning on using a 125HP or 160HP on your Shekari?
>
> According to this month's issue of Custom Planes RANS is presently testing
> the 160HP Lycomming on the #3 factory ship (Custom Planes - June 1999,
> p.10, "New Shekari Gear Option").  --  I wonder if RANS knows that THEY are
> presently testing the 160HP engine!?!  It will still be nice to see what the
> #2 and #3 ships look like this summer at Oshkosh.  Do plan to go?
>
> Here is some information I've pulled off of another forum on the recent
> Continental engine problems.  I will try to do some more research soon on
> any trends that have developed specifically in the IO-240 engines.
>
> -Brian
>

Bill, were you planning on using a 125HP or 160HP on your Shekari?

According to this month's issue of Custom Planes RANS is presently testing
the 160HP Lycomming on the #3 factory ship (Custom Planes - June 1999,
p.10, "New Shekari Gear Option").  --  I wonder if RANS knows that THEY are
presently testing the 160HP engine!?!  It will still be nice to see what the
#2 and #3 ships look like this summer at Oshkosh.  Do plan to go?

Here is some information I've pulled off of another forum on the recent
Continental engine problems.  I will try to do some more research soon on
any trends that have developed specifically in the IO-240 engines.

-Brian

========== EXCERPT FROM FRIDAY APRIL 30th 1999 LANCAIR LIST ==============

I fly out of Smith Reynolds Airport (INT) in Winston Salem, NC.  Piedmont
Aviation operates out of this airport and are authorized Sales and Service for
Beechcraft.  Tuesday when I was going to my hanger, I saw 6 new Barons parked
on the ramp along with a couple of other planes with Continental Engines.  All
had the cowls off and were in various stages of disassembly.

I walked over to talk with the guy who looked to be in charge of all this and
learned that he was from Contential Factory and was  inspecting these planes
for the shaft problem.

Told him I was building a Lancair ES and was concerned about the problems I
had heard.  He took the time to explain the problem to me and showed me now
they checked out the cranks.

He said the problem started with a defect in the tool that inserts the counter
weights in the cranks, I think he said it had a small nick in the tool which
had the change of causing the crank to impart enough pressure to the nitrided
surface and possibly set up a stress crack.  According to him, they only
thought this problem went back 3 months, but decided to check the entire 1998
parts that went out.

The first thing they do is pull two cylinders on one side of the engine and do
a visual inspection.  If this show no problem they then do a specialized test
which looked like an ultra sound test that had to have values within a certain
range.  If the engine passed this test, there was no problem.  If it failed
this test, then the crank was removed and replaced.

I said this sounded very expensive to the owner and he said that Continential
was paying for the cost, plus he indicated that if the engine was "new",
don't know the definition of this, they intended to replace the engine.  I
know this is not an official statement from Contential, but this man seemed
very concerned about making sure the problems were corrected.  Said he had not
found any problems so far with the engines he had checked but I didn't get a
number from him.


Wayne Foster

>From: air2mud <air2mud@...>
>Reply-To: theRANSlist@onelist.com
>To: theRANSlist@onelist.com
>Subject: [theRANSlist] S-6 "SUPER"
>Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 21:47:48 -0500
>
>From: air2mud <air2mud@...>
>
>
>Rick,
>
>How's the plane comming together?  When you were kind enough to give
me
>some pre-purchase advice back in November you were at 400 hours and
within
>a few hours of covering!
>
>We made it through Hays, KS back in December but couldn't fly the
Shekari
>because they had just switched it over to the conventional gear.
After
>wrestling with it for a few weeks, I took the "leap of faith"
(according to
>Randy) and ordered up the control surface kit.
>
>I'm trying to get some job related items taken care of -- ejection
seat
>qualifications, drowning attempts, and the like, but should be
building in
>a week or two.
>
>The biggest concern right now is coating the skins and ribs first
with a
>good primer.  There is not much call for anything more than the thin
alclad
>coating in Kansas, so the factory hasn't been much help.  Living in
coastal
>Florida, and probably being assigned to a similar climate for the
next
>decade leads me to want a greater degreee of protection.
>
>From what I've heard there are only a few of us out here working on
the
>S-16 right now, but if you know of anybody else building anything
please
>send them over to the list!  You have to admit these forums are one
of the
>very best ways to 'work the bugs out' and I know being in the initial
>production run of anything there's bound to be some bugs.
>
>Welcome aboard.
>
>-Brian Kaczorowski
>Pensacola, FL
How ya doin' Brian?!
Yes, I am tickled that there is now a RANS list!
I was hoping someone could get a list started.Very happy to be a part.
Work continues on the "Super".I now have all the tail parts covered
and hope to start the fuselage covering in the next couple of weeks.
My biggest problem(like everybody's) is having the time to do the
work, but the plane itself is still easier to build than just about
anything else available.
Hey, glad to hear you are "taking the leap of faith". That s-16 sure
looks to be a hot rascal.I'm sure you will end up being very happy
with it.
There is a RV builders' list that has tons of good info on metal
primers, paints, techniques,etc.
That may be the place to get some answers to some of your Quest.
Let me know if you need there address, be glad to forward it to you.
And yes I will try to get everyone I know who is a RANS enthusiest to
sign on to the list.
Have a great day-now the fun begins!

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com

Rick,

How's the plane comming together?  When you were kind enough to give me
some pre-purchase advice back in November you were at 400 hours and within
a few hours of covering!

We made it through Hays, KS back in December but couldn't fly the Shekari
because they had just switched it over to the conventional gear.  After
wrestling with it for a few weeks, I took the "leap of faith" (according to
Randy) and ordered up the control surface kit.

I'm trying to get some job related items taken care of -- ejection seat
qualifications, drowning attempts, and the like, but should be building in
a week or two.

The biggest concern right now is coating the skins and ribs first with a
good primer.  There is not much call for anything more than the thin alclad
coating in Kansas, so the factory hasn't been much help.  Living in coastal
Florida, and probably being assigned to a similar climate for the next
decade leads me to want a greater degreee of protection.

From what I've heard there are only a few of us out here working on the
S-16 right now, but if you know of anybody else building anything please
send them over to the list!  You have to admit these forums are one of the
very best ways to 'work the bugs out' and I know being in the initial
production run of anything there's bound to be some bugs.

Welcome aboard.

-Brian Kaczorowski
Pensacola, FL

It appears that Continental has been having some very serious problems with
its larger engines.  This is something we may want to watch as the time
comes closer to install our own C-125s!

>>>
TCM EXPANDS CRANKSHAFT INSPECTION...

Teledyne Continental Motors (TCM) execs and engineers worked feverishly
last week and through the weekend on a new mandatory Service Bulletin
that will require some 2,200 nearly-new big-bore TCM engines to be
opened up for ultrasonic inspection of their crankshafts.  TCM told
AVweb that Critical Service Bulletin 99-3 will affect all 470-, 520- and
550-series engines with crankshafts manufactured between January 1 and
December 31, 1998.  Owners of engines with the affected crankshafts will
be required to have the #1 and #3 cylinders, pistons, connecting rods
and counterweights removed from the engine to expose the crankshaft.  An
ultrasonic inspection of the #2 and #5 crankshaft cheeks must then be
performed by designated TCM personnel.  TCM expects to release CSB 99-3
this week with a Priority Letter Airworthiness Directive from the FAA
due next week.

...IN A CLASSIC GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS SITUATION...
As AVweb reported last week, TCM is responding to seven failed cranks
that were manufactured last year.  All seven cranks failed in flight,
six of them in single-engine airplanes.  Thankfully, six of those
aircraft were able to make on-airport landings, while the seventh landed
off-airport but caused only minor injuries to the occupants.  That's the
good news.  The bad news is that TCM does not know how many other cranks
were damaged during the manufacturing process.  Based on earlier
inspections, it's likely that relatively few crankshafts were affected.
But with lives potentially at stake, neither TCM nor the FAA are willing
to bet on it.

...AS TCM SWIFTLY PUTS PROGRAM IN PLACE
TCM and the FAA decided that every crankshaft conceivably damaged would
have to be inspected, including 470-series engines.  CSB 99-3 will
identify all affected new and factory-rebuilt engines plus provide
instructions for determining the crankshaft manufacture date in field
overhauls.  TCM will pay for disassembly and reassembly and will do the
ultrasonic inspections without charge.  Operators will be asked to call
TCM toll-free at 1-888-200-7565 to provide information about their
engines and to schedule the ultrasonic inspection.  TCM also says it
will post a copy of CSB 99-3 on its Web site <http://www.tcmlink.com>.

    NOTE: AVweb's Newswire includes MUCH more detail on TCM's crankshaft
    inspection program, plus a description of the manufacturing problem
    that caused it and the inspection procedure itself.

<<<


-Brian

Hi Bill,

Sorry it has taken so long for me to get back to you.  I'm really in the
thick of it now - hence checking e-mail once a week at 11pm on Saturday
night.  Should see some relief in another two weeks.  They haven't managed
to drown me yet, and we've only "rolled" six so far from an API class of 38.

It was good to meet you, and see all your hard work at the air show.  I
haven't done much to mine yet.  Again, waiting for the next training pool
to start.  I did have a chance last weekend to do some serious research on
free list-serve providers.  The one that appears best is called
'onelist.com.'  They provide free serving, with the caveat that each post
will be forwarded with a three line advertisement at the bottom.  They will
also provide 5mb of server space, free of charge, for pictures and diagrams
you may wish to make public for the list members.

I added you as a member tonight.  There are currently four (4) members.
You, me, my wife (test account), and 'rum@...' (who I do not know
yet, HINT TO RUM: who may read this and send a introductory post).  Because
I worry about the time I will have available before graduation, I have not
advertised the list yet to anyone.  There are many RANS builders I know who
are "lurking" on other lists like the Kitfox and Zenith because there is no
RANS list (YET!).  We can expect membership (and traffic) to increase
greatly in a few weeks.  Please let me know what you think.

Before we go public, we may want to change the name.  I thought
'build-fly-rans' was descriptive and expedient, but something simpler such
as 'rans@onelist' or 'ranslist@onelist' may prove easier for builders to
find in the search engines.  Again, what do you think?

I attached yesterday's Lancair list to show you what kind of daily exchange
usually results from one of these forums.  The format you see is 'Digest,'
meaning I get all messages bundled together at midnight each day.  Onelist
supports digesting (which is a very nice feature) the default delivery mode
however will bounce each message to you as it is posted.  Also, you may
want to subscribe to your other e-mail account and cancel your rutgers
account membership to the list.  I found the interface at the server home
page (onelist.com) to be easy to use.  You can find the list at
recreation/airplanes/build-fly-rans.

Sorry to be all business today.  Not much time for much else besides sleep,
eat, and other trash.  I hope to get in there building with you soon.  Good
luck!  Send what you can to me and the list, and I will get back to you as
soon as I can.


-Brian






>Return-Path: <lancair.list-request@...>
>To: <lancair.list@...>
>From: lancair.list@... (Lancair)
>Reply-To: <lancair.list@...>
>Subject: lancair.list V1 #133
>Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 00:14:54 -0400
>
>lancair.list                   Sat, 24 Apr 1999          Volume 1 : Number
133
>
>In this issue:
>
>        N360ZR Flies!!!
>        hydraulic dump valve
>        320 SFB Center Section attachment
>         Continental Engines & how the WEB works
>        Re: 320 SFB Center Section attachment
>        Hydraulic manifold
>        Hydraulic manifold
>
>          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
>          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 02:12:08 -0400
>From: Rick Argente <RickArgente@...> (by way of Marvin Kaye
<marvkaye@...>)
>To: lancair.list@...
>Subject: N360ZR Flies!!!
>Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990423021208.03978100@...>
>
>Day ONE.
>After 6 1/2 years of building my Lancair 360 MkII and approximately 2,700
>man-hours of construction time, N360ZR finally took to the skies yesterday
>morning with Lancair's Chief Test Pilot, Don Goetz, at the controls.  What
>a rush!!!!!  Don flew N360ZR for about 20 minutes and came down to 10 feet
>of the active runway at 200 Knots for a victory fly-by.  What a sight to
>see!!!!  I was a very happy camper yesterday  :-)
>
>We had to make some adjustments to the cowling and plugged up some holes
>to get the CHT's lower.  On the next flight, CHT's were better but still
>needed some more changes and adjustments.   Don also cut a some hole on the
>lower cowling to allow more hot air to exit.  The seemed to do the trick,
>CHT's on the third flight were finally within acceptable levels.
>
>Boy, what a great plane to fly!!!!  It's definitely different from anything
>I've flown before.  I flew around the airport a couple of times, trying to
>get aquinted with my new baby!!  Ground speed was 199KTS!!!  He, he, he!!!
>Weeee....!!!
>
>Had the best good night sleep in months zzzzzzzzz
>
>More to follow...
>
>Day TWO.
>
>Checked out the airport manager and another individual who is a CFII  on
>the Lancair.  Everything went well and the airport manager picked-up flying
>the Lancair rather quickly.  Made a couple of very nice landings.
>
>On the fourth flight, while checking out the CFII, experienced
>unacceptable levels of vibration.  Had to cut the flight sort to inspect
>the engine,  CFII did two landings but he needs more work.  Checked plugs,
>wires, mag timimg, engine compression, mixture settings, etc.  More
>adjustments and modifications.  May need to send mags to shop for repairs.
>We shall test if any of our efforts solves and/or minimizes vibration
>tomorrow morning.
>
>Rick
>Lancair Pilot!!!
>
>
>[Way to go, Rick!!!  A big congratulations goes out to you on this
>momentous occasion.  Hopefully the vibration problem will turn out to be
>something minor and you can get on with your flight testing.  Be sure to
>keep us advised of your progress.
>
>I'll "Blue Sky" your Builders' List entry immediately.  Yahoo!!!
>
>    <Marv>   ]
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 07:09:18 -0600
>From: "Scott Dahlgren" <dahlgren@...>
>To: "___Lancair list" <lancair.list@...>
>Subject: hydraulic dump valve
>Message-ID: <NBBBIPBKBOKGEELJMONFKECJCHAA.dahlgren@...>
>
>on the subject of the hydraulic ball (dump) valve:
>
>I found a replacement dump valve in caster Carr (#49355K91) that had 1/4"
>npt and was rated for 2000 psi for $18.64 , or a stainless with full ports
>for $26.25 (49355k21). they both look like the original.
>
>it seems like there have been several parts in the hydraulic system that
>have failed beyond just the dump valve. Perhaps we could make a list of
>these and the recommended upgrades. I would be glad to compile a drawing
>showing these if members with flying aircraft could submit them. this would
>help us "ground" (grinding?) flyers.
>
>thanks,
>
>Scott
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 07:42:00 -0600
>From: "C.L.Keller" <clkeller@...>
>To: lancair.list@..., lancair.list@...
>Subject: 320 SFB Center Section attachment
>Message-ID: <372078A8.1E38@...>
>
>I'm facing the task of attaching the wing center section to the
>fuselage on my 320 SFB.  I've had the center section in place, checked
>and corrected all levels and alignments, and am now facing the job of
>gluing it in place.  The manual says to use Hysol on the glass-to-glass
>bond lines and forward load transfer pad (main spar), and micro on the
>foam pads.  My problem is that the forward glass-to-glass bond line,
>where the fuselage bottom overlaps the underside of the main spar,
>causes a very tight fit for the forward spar.  To get it in place the
>aft end of the center section has to be raised while the main spar is
>tucked under the fuselage bottom (remember, everything is up-side-down),
>then lowered while the spar cap slides forward on the load transfer
>pads.  Works fine, but if the load transfer pad and the spar cap have
>had Hysol applied, this motion will wipe the surface clean.  Once the
>center section is in place it is so tight there is no chance of raising
>it to create a gap above the load transfer pad to work Hysol into place.
> Can anyone who remembers having attached their center section offer
>suggestions or comments about how they managed it?
> 			 Charles Keller
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 09:43:18 -0500
>From: "Bill Gradwohl" <Bill@...>
>To: <lancair.list@...>
>Subject:  Continental Engines & how the WEB works
>Message-ID: <s72040d4.044@...>
>
>I hope everyone that subscribes to this list realizes that one or more =
>Internet
>"WEB crawlers" periodically scan the LML site and index every word. That's =
>how
>search engines manage to find everything in record time. They just read =
>the
>pre-prepared index of words and provide you with the hits in a few =
>seconds. =20
>=20
>The WEB crawlers do all the hard work behind the scene by methodically =
>scanning
>the majority of sites on the Internet for their contents. WEB crawlers =
>populate
>the various indices. The major search engines, Yahoo, Excite, AltaVista, =
>etc,
>each have their own schedule and list of Internet sites they will "crawl" =
>over
>every so often. That is why one search engine may not return the same =
>content
>that another will. WEB crawling takes a long time to make one circuit of =
>the
>entire Internet. Most search engines only scan a site when they are asked =
>to do
>so by the registered site owner. =20
>=20
>I mention this so that you all know that anyone wanting to know about
>Continental Engines by using a search engine will find references to the =
>LML
>eventually. It may take a few months for the WEB crawlers to have done =
>their
>work against the LML site, but sooner or later, what is said here will be
>available to search engines.=20
>=20
>This forum can provide positive and negative advertising for anything it =
>cares
>to tackle. If enough people are PO'd at Continental, then put it on the =
>record
>here. Anyone looking for information on Continentals products will tend to
>listen to us more so than anything Continental can devise in promotional
>advertising in any medium. =20
>=20
>If an individual threatens any major corporate entity with a law suit, =
>that has
>some limited effect - namely to enrich the attorney the case is assigned =
>to in
>order to bury it in paperwork for a few years. What do you do in the =
>interim -
>not fly? That one voice is very easy to silence.=20
>=20
>I'm willing to bet that if one were to scan the LML WEB servers access =
>logs, we
>would find that all the major component suppliers routinely visit the site =
>to
>see what's going on. Sooner or later someone at Continental with access to =
>more
>than a morse code key and a Western Union Telegraph pad will realize that =
>there
>is no way to shut us up once we've decide to fight back. The traditional =
>stall
>and avoid approach then starts to break down rapidly. =20
>=20
>If a class action is proposed, then the "class" of injured parties has to =
>be
>found first. The more people that sound off about a flawed product, poor =
>after
>the sale support, and an arrogant attitude to boot, the better. The =
>Internet is
>the world's new and expanding vehicle for anyone to speak his/her mind. =
>Take
>advantage of it. =20
>
>
>Bill Gradwohl
>IV-P Builder
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:35:52 -0700
>From: "Curtis Krouse" <ckrouse@...>
>To: "C.L.Keller" <clkeller@...>,
> <lancair.list@...>
>Subject: Re: 320 SFB Center Section attachment
>Message-ID: <001501be8dea$6af72cc0$85a2490c@ckrouse_ra.spk.hp.com>
>
>Charles,
>
>I just finished doing that a week ago.  I discovered a trick quite by
>accident.  It came from a friend who made a comment that ended up clicking
>in my head as to how to proceed with preventing the main spar and load
>transfer pad from wiping the hysol off.  Take a tongue depresser and break
>it in half.....lay it on the forward foam pad after you have smeared the
>micro on it...the ones that are next to the load transfer pads.   When you
>lay the belly pan on, and tilt it up to fit the lower forward edge under the
>bottom of the spar where the foam center foam pads are, the tongue depresser
>will prevent the upper edge of the main spar from wiping the load transfer
>pad.  After the belly pan is put in place, immediately slip the wooden
>tongue depressors out from the foam pads and then realign the belly pan to
>the markings that you make in the initial fit, then measure everything.  The
>micro sets up fast, so you need to get the sticks out immediately.   I
>spread hysol on the spar cap and on the load transfer pads where they mate
>and when I aligned everything and then weighted them down, I had quite a bit
>of hysol squeeze out which indicated that there was good coverage on the
>mating surfaces.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Curtis Krouse N753K
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 22:13:43 -0400
>From: Marvin Kaye <marvkaye@...>
>To: lancair.list@...
>Subject: Hydraulic manifold
>Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19990423221343.00a0ea40@...>
>
>ACS sells some AL manifolds that I thought would be perfect for the
>hydraulic system on my airplane... I was very surprised to see that they
>limit the pressure on these units to 150psi, which obviously obviates their
>use in this system.  Since I don't know what alloy they're made of, or
>their actual dimensions, I can see no reason to question their
>recommendation and court potential disaster.  My question is this... can
>anyone out there see any reason why I can't manufacture my own manifolds
>out of a piece of 1x1x3" 6061T6 with five 1/8NPT ports (one in the end and
>4 cross-drilled and tapped)?   The wall thickness at any port would far
>exceed the wall thickness of either the AL tubing which is being used,
>or even the AN fittings which tie everything together, and I would think
>that it should be more than capable of withstanding 1000psi, as that's
>not all that much pressure.  What say you?
>
>   <Marv>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 21:33:50 -0500
>From: Earl E Schroeder <earl_schroeder@...>
>To: lancair.list@...
>Subject: Hydraulic manifold
>Message-ID: <19990423.213354.10526.1.Earl_Schroeder@...>
>
>Marv,
>>My question is this... can
>>anyone out there see any reason why I can't manufacture my own manifolds
>>out of a piece of 1x1x3" 6061T6 with five 1/8NPT ports (one in the end
>and
>>4 cross-drilled and tapped)?
>
>IMO, this would be OK.  At GE we used similar blocks at even higher
>pressures.
>But, my question is: where are you using these?  I'm unable to see a use
>unless one wishes to tie in pressure guages or other devices not included
>in the kits...  A building buddy of mine would look at something like
>this that I would be adding and comment, "Hmmm, another five pound unit".
> I'd laugh but he made his point. <G>   Earl
>
>
>[My hydraulic power pack is located on the back of the firewall above
>the passenger footwell.  Consequently I've decided to swap the locations
>of the gear dump and fuel shutoff valves to the right and left sides of
>the nosegear tunnel respectively.  I _am_ including pressure gauges on my
>panel, and that's the reason I'd like to use manifolds.  I don't think the
>weight penalty is all that great (ACS says 1x1 weighs 1.17#/ft, so each
>of my little manifolds would only weigh about 4oz, and I really like the
>idea of eliminating the potential rat's nest that would result if I had
>to do the job strictly with AL tube and AN fittings.)
>
>Thanks for the advice.     <Marv>    ]
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of lancair.list V1 #133
>***************************
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>LML homepage:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
>
>