Zenith-Archive.digest.vol-jd
November 08, 2009 - November 26, 2009
> Questions For Discussion
>
> 1. The FAA is saying that the E-AB guys should use the AMD fixes How will
we get these drawings and parts?/ I am not a customer of AMD I bought a kit
from the boys in Mexico MO. Anybody on the list have any contact with the
Zenith in Mexico MO?? I'm assuming they are doing the changes for AMD and
are the ones really doing the drawings and making the parts??
>
> 2. The AMD Letter refers to the EU/UK LAA mass balance weights drawings
and I've read that. However, the LAA doc also calls for a carry through spar
mod that AMD makes no mention of. SOOOOOO are we gonna have to do the carry
through mod or not???
>
> 3. The AMD docs say the plane should be placarded per the November 2009
bulletin. So how do the E-AB guys get that bulletin?
>
> What a mess. I think its poor planning and PR and engineering practice to
point to a EU / UK LAA document that is not drawn and managed by the
designer / manufacturer, and not at least discuss WHY you are NOT saying we
should do everything in this document but only do part of it.
>
> Zenith /AMD may not feel the spar mod is needed but at least say that or
SAY SOMETHING! To be mute on the issue is NOT ACCEPTABLE!!
>
> I'm ready, willing and able to do any mod to my nearly complete 601XL but
I want words from Zenith as to their reasoning behind only implementing part
of the LAA letter and not all of it
>
> Zenith NOW IS THE TIME TO SPEAK UP!!! Every day you waste not addressing
these questions devalues my aircraft, your investment in the 601 / 650
program and the Zenith Aircraft company.
>
> I believe that no matter what problems may exists with the 601 /650 they
are all fixable and we can have a safe respected airplane, but that requires
the factory and designer to step up and say something
>
> Larry Whitlow
> 601XL Jabiru 3300
> N69102 (reserved)
> I was about 90% done but now I apparently have more to do
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271718#271718
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "leinad" <leinad(at)hughes.net> |
Doug,
You say the FAA has no hold over us Experimental builders, but as I haven't completed
my build and the FAA has to inspect it and grant an airworthiness certificate
for it, it seams like they do have at least some hold over us EAB guys.
Dan
Doug.Norman(at)sportaviat wrote:
> AMD is the manufacturer for the SLSA version. The SLSA is the only version
> which the FAA has any hold over; and even that is indirect. Owners of SLSA
> airplanes are required (by law) to pay attention to SA/Ds issued by their
> manufacturer. It's not a suggestion for us. For SLSAs, the issuance of a
> SA/D by their airplane's manufacturer is the same as an issuance of an AD by
> the FAA for a standard airplane.
>
> By hitch-hiking on the AMD Safety Alert/Directive, the FAA can push the
> Zodiac experimental community to pay attention - they can't force their
> attention; but if they could, they would. The FAA is couching E-AB and ELSA
> adherence to the AMD SA/D as an airworthiness issue which you ignore at your
> peril. They can't force you, but if you have an incident, and you have not
> made the changes, then (their reasoning is that) you knowingly operated your
> aircraft in a non-airworthy condition - which is against the FARs.
>
> I suspect that Zenith will publish the AMD pages as the design which Zenith
> customers should use. And, Zenith will probably make kits available for the
> retrofit.
>
> Best of luck,
> Doug Norman, CFI, AGI
> AMD Zodiac N601DN
>
> --
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271724#271724
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug - SportAviation" <Doug.Norman(at)sportaviation.aero> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
That's an excellent point. I don't know what a DAR would do given the
current facts and circumstances.
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of leinad
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 3:03 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650
Doug,
You say the FAA has no hold over us Experimental builders, but as I haven't
completed my build and the FAA has to inspect it and grant an airworthiness
certificate for it, it seams like they do have at least some hold over us
EAB guys.
Dan
Doug.Norman(at)sportaviat wrote:
> AMD is the manufacturer for the SLSA version. The SLSA is the only version
> which the FAA has any hold over; and even that is indirect. Owners of SLSA
> airplanes are required (by law) to pay attention to SA/Ds issued by their
> manufacturer. It's not a suggestion for us. For SLSAs, the issuance of a
> SA/D by their airplane's manufacturer is the same as an issuance of an AD
by
> the FAA for a standard airplane.
>
> By hitch-hiking on the AMD Safety Alert/Directive, the FAA can push the
> Zodiac experimental community to pay attention - they can't force their
> attention; but if they could, they would. The FAA is couching E-AB and
ELSA
> adherence to the AMD SA/D as an airworthiness issue which you ignore at
your
> peril. They can't force you, but if you have an incident, and you have not
> made the changes, then (their reasoning is that) you knowingly operated
your
> aircraft in a non-airworthy condition - which is against the FARs.
>
> I suspect that Zenith will publish the AMD pages as the design which
Zenith
> customers should use. And, Zenith will probably make kits available for
the
> retrofit.
>
> Best of luck,
> Doug Norman, CFI, AGI
> AMD Zodiac N601DN
>
> --
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271724#271724
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
> I was thinking of the same questions. I'm a plans builder, and have never
> had any dealings with AMD. Why is the FAA acting as if AMD is the
> manufacturer? Why aren't the recommendations coming out of Zenith instead
> of AMD? My airframe is also almost complete.
Because the FAA can't deal with Zenith for much of anything. The FAA *can*
deal with AMD, as the manufacturer of the SLSA version (*not* Zenith). As
far as the FAA is concerned, for the SLSA, AMD *is* the manufacturer.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tooling holes |
| From: | "djluscher" <djluscher(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the guidance. To be clear, many of the rudder ribs have flanges 2 degree
open. Do you mean a 7-degree relief or bevel on the rib form is a good
number to get a 92 degree flange or do you mean I should bevel form blocks 7-degrees
closed beyond the desired flange angle (5 degrees total bevel in this case?)
I see 10-deg net called out in the construction standards from Zenith,
but am anxious to hear what angle has proven to work best in practice.
thanks again,
DJ
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
> Hi DJ,
> Tooling holes are generally found on the centerline, but just be careful
> that that hole doesn't interfere with
> points of attachment etc. Presuming the holes will be used to sandwich
> the rib between forms and center flanged holes.
> You only need one every foot or so. The vise you use to grip while
> hammering flanges will provide a better hold at small ends.
> Don't forget to add the 7-degree over bend angle.
>
> Larry McFarland 602HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
> djluscher wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Hi Group,
> > I'm just starting to build CH750 from plans and am making form blocks for
the rudder ribs. The plans only indicate the location for tooling holes on the
nose rib. The others are unspecified and I was seeking some advice/assurance
on using two or three 1/4" holes on the center line of each rib to hold blanks
between the form blocks. On the narrow end of the ribs these holes will be
within an inch of the flange.
> >
> > Is this OK? Any rules of thumb for drilling holes in small ribs?
> > thanks in advance,
> > DJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 71693#271693
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271737#271737
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | roger lambert <n601ap(at)gmail.com> |
A Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) is an information tool
that alerts, educates, and makes recommendations to the aviation community.
SAIBs contain non-regulatory information and guidance that does not meet the
criteria for an Airworthiness Directive (AD).
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tooling holes |
| From: | "kmccune" <kmccune(at)somtel.net> |
I don't think the location of the tooling holes are that critical in the rear rudder
ribs as they are just a way to clamp the form around the rib blank. But
then I'm I lovely down town Chicago, getting ready for a 10 day Fabtech trade
show marathon.... :( so I don't have my prints handy, though they are 701 prints,they
may have helped.
Kevin
--------
History is a great teacher if you take time to study it.
Steve Bennett
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271746#271746
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "spitfire55" <spitfire55(at)shaw.ca> |
The drawing for the new wing mod are now on Zenith's web site!
Bill
--------
William Studdy CH 250 Built,Flying,Sold
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271757#271757
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JohnDRead(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Polishing a CH710 |
Hello List;
I am considering polishing my CH701. Does anyone have a
suggestion for materials and technique?
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Chapman <pchap(at)primus.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
At 21:33 08-11-09, you wrote:
>
>Go to the ZAC website, all the mod info is on there.
There's a massive number of changes!
As a brief initial summary:
(Note I may be wrong somewhere as I'm doing this quickly and am not
personally involved with an XL)
SPARS (or at least, p1 of the Zenair Upgrade)
- main spar top cap - L angle extrustion, for about half span
(and some bolts in place of rivets)
- doubler for the main spar web at the wing root (with a spacer)
- rear spar doubler around the aileron pushrod cutout
- doubler plate for rear spar channel inboard
- rear spar top cap - L angle for full span
CENTER SECTION (p2 of the Zenair Upgrade)
- center spar top cap doubler
- additional L doubler for center spar top cap
- new heavier front wing uprights
- 4 heavy L angle uprights on center spar to brace it
- web doubler for spar at wing attach bolts (and shims)
WINGS & FUSELAGE (p3 of the Zenair Upgrade)
- new style support channel for aileron bell crank
- L angles to reinforce the rib with bell crank (2 on top, 2 on bottom)
- angles to brace the forward fuselage around the wing uprights (Z
angle to the front, L angle to the aft)
- gussets to brace the top of the wing uprights (front and aft)
- longer angles around seat pan cutouts
- new thicker rear wing attach plates
- more rivets inboard between spar and wing skin
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Hi Peter,
Your list of changes only considers the drawings currently posted as
AMD changes. There's a lot more to be done to meet Chris Heintz's
requirements including aileron mass balance, control system
sensitivity change, and I have no idea what else.
If you read the 7 page Q&A you will see there are a bunch of changes
in the "Package" not included in the 3 pages of drawings.
Still, I am glad the whole thing is coming to a conclusion. I intend
to install all the changes on my plane.
Paul
XL awaiting engineering changes.
At 07:30 PM 11/8/2009, you wrote:
>There's a massive number of changes!
>
>As a brief initial summary:
>(Note I may be wrong somewhere as I'm doing this quickly and am not
>personally involved with an XL)
>
>
>SPARS (or at least, p1 of the Zenair Upgrade)
>
>- main spar top cap - L angle extrustion, for about half span
>(and some bolts in place of rivets)
>- doubler for the main spar web at the wing root (with a spacer)
>
>- rear spar doubler around the aileron pushrod cutout
>- doubler plate for rear spar channel inboard
>- rear spar top cap - L angle for full span
>
>
>CENTER SECTION (p2 of the Zenair Upgrade)
>- center spar top cap doubler
>- additional L doubler for center spar top cap
>
>- new heavier front wing uprights
>- 4 heavy L angle uprights on center spar to brace it
>- web doubler for spar at wing attach bolts (and shims)
>
>
>WINGS & FUSELAGE (p3 of the Zenair Upgrade)
>- new style support channel for aileron bell crank
>- L angles to reinforce the rib with bell crank (2 on top, 2 on bottom)
>
>- angles to brace the forward fuselage around the wing uprights (Z
>angle to the front, L angle to the aft)
>- gussets to brace the top of the wing uprights (front and aft)
>
>- longer angles around seat pan cutouts
>
>- new thicker rear wing attach plates
>
>- more rivets inboard between spar and wing skin
>
>
>Peter Chapman
>Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jlatimer1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Polishing a CH710 |
John,
Go to this address
http://www.nuvitechemical.com/procedures_html.asp?ProcedureTitle=Metal%20Polishing%20Non-Clad%20Sheet%20Metal%20Procedures
If your a member of EAA, they have a short video on their help for homebuilders.
I'm using Nuvite on my HDS and so far am really happy with the looks.
Jerry
ch601 HDS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jlatimer1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Polishing a CH710 |
John,
There was also this thread on zenith.aero.
http://www.zenith.aero/forum/topics/polishing-1
Hope this helps.
Jerry
---- JohnDRead(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hello List;
> I am considering polishing my CH701. Does anyone have a
> suggestion for materials and technique?
>
> John Read
> CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
>
> Phone: 303-648-3261
> Fax: 303-648-3262
> Cell: 719-494-4567
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "lwhitlow" <ldwhitlow(at)comcast.net> |
Here's the link to the mods
http://www.zenithair.com/news/ntsb-astm-4-09a.html
OK That was faster than I expected.
I do have sympathy for what Chris said in his answer to Question 2 about non-disclosure
per NTSB rules and he mentions they are being sued as reasons they have
not spoken much on the matter. I was un-aware anyone had started legal action.
OK so a few of my questions have been addressed well, but a few have gotten more
cloudy
I note the EXTENSIVE spar mods both in the wing and in the center section, and
do wonder about how much weight is getting put in here??
The drawings are great but has this been done on an actual 601?? are there pictures
yet?? I know this is hot off the presses but have they actually replaced
these parts on a completed aircraft?
And of course the hard to pin down "is it flutter or not issue?" OK so we beef
it up to prevent it. Great! Chris addresses it in Question 8 that yes Weights
are now going to be used. But unless I'm looking through it I see no drawings
of the weights. I have the LAA drawings but I really would like it if a set
would come from Zenith and the people who know the aircraft. Are we supposed
to use the LAA drawings???
I wonder how long it will be before we can get the upgrade kits in hand?? I never
did the final close on my wings so I'm pretty good there but some of the spar
work is gonna be a pain in the butt on a mostly finished fuselage..
Small price to pay I suppose...
Larry Whitlow
601XL Jabiru 3300 Sensenich Composite prop
N69102 (Reserved)
90% done with the first build
0% done with the mods
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271784#271784
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stanley A Challgren <challgren(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Polishing a CH710 |
John:
I used Nuvite for my previous 601 and am using it again on my 701. I
recommend it highly.
I will get a packet of information to you tomorrow.
Stan
On Nov 8, 2009, at 20:43 , JohnDRead(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hello List;
> I am considering polishing my CH701. Does anyone
> have a suggestion for materials and technique?
>
> John Read
> CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
>
> Phone: 303-648-3261
> Fax: 303-648-3262
> Cell: 719-494-4567
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch> |
I just had a quick look through the modification drawings and already have a question
that someone might be able to answer:
Drawing 6-ZU-1, Part 6-ZU-1-2, Wing Root Doubler
This doubler is installed on front side of spar root, which results in a 0,063"
thicker overall spar root. Does this match the center spar in the fuselage with
its original width? Or is the distance between the spar caps in the fuselage
somewhat flexible?
Anyway: I will implement all modifications (although some of them are a real pain
in the ..., even on my still incomplete XL) .
Finally I like how Zenair is laying open their documentation, in particular the
load test report to ultimate load from Sep 09!
Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
http://www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL/Main.html
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271832#271832
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Fund Raiser List of Contributors - Please Make A Contribution |
Today!
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way
of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for
the Lists.
Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors
(LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems
at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment
tool as your typical magazine subscription!
Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is
fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
how the Lists have helped you!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
Hi Martin,
I'm not sure of the answer to your question, but I will take a guess.
The existing structure is pretty tight in the mating area. Perhaps
it will be loosened in the process of following the instructions we
don't yet have. Also, perhaps this opening is the reason for
replacing the current wing uprights with parts 6-ZU-2-4. This could
make room for a wider spar carry through.
Paul
XL - used to be complete, but now there is more fun to have . . .
At 12:42 AM 11/9/2009, you wrote:
>I just had a quick look through the modification drawings and
>already have a question that someone might be able to answer:
>
>Drawing 6-ZU-1, Part 6-ZU-1-2, Wing Root Doubler
>This doubler is installed on front side of spar root, which results
>in a 0,063" thicker overall spar root. Does this match the center
>spar in the fuselage with its original width? Or is the distance
>between the spar caps in the fuselage somewhat flexible?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
> And of course the hard to pin down "is it flutter or not issue?" OK so we
> beef it up to prevent it. Great! Chris addresses it in Question 8 that
> yes Weights are now going to be used. But unless I'm looking through it I
> see no drawings of the weights. I have the LAA drawings but I really would
> like it if a set would come from Zenith and the people who know the
> aircraft. Are we supposed to use the LAA drawings???
Yes. The AMD safety alert specifically says that the LAA instructions are to
be followed for the aileron balance weights only.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Dominguez <bill_dom(at)yahoo.com> |
I have noticed the same thing. The spar root is now .063 thicker but the spacers
remain the same. It would be easy to add a small .063 plate to the spacer however,
this would make the center spar rear web to move a little backward and
a little up, possibly necessitating a shim between the bottom flange of the center
spar rear web and the floor. For planes that have their center spar already
drilled to the fuselage, this might not be an option because the already drilled
holes might no longer match.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://sites.google.com/site/billplane/
________________________________
From: Martin Pohl <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch>
Sent: Mon, November 9, 2009 3:42:49 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: wing mod
I just had a quick look through the modification drawings and already have a question
that someone might be able to answer:
Drawing 6-ZU-1, Part 6-ZU-1-2, Wing Root Doubler
This doubler is installed on front side of spar root, which results in a 0,063"
thicker overall spar root. Does this match the center spar in the fuselage with
its original width? Or is the distance between the spar caps in the fuselage
somewhat flexible?
Anyway: I will implement all modifications (although some of them are a real pain
in the ..., even on my still incomplete XL) .
Finally I like how Zenair is laying open their documentation, in particular the
load test report to ultimate load from Sep 09!
Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
http://www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL/Main.html
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271832#271832
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FAA SAIB & Insurance |
| From: | "kkinney" <kkinney(at)fuse.net> |
I'm a beginner when it comes to aircraft insurance, so pardon me if this is a stupid
question.
Has anyone checked with their insurer to see if they're covered until they have
applied the modifications?
If so, what insurer have you checked with?
Regards,
Kevin Kinney
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271885#271885
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: lwhitlow <ldwhitlow
(at)comcast.net>=0ATo: zenith-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Mon, November 9, 2009
12:48:45 AM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650=0A=0A--> Z
enith-List message posted by: "lwhitlow" =0A=0AHere'
s the link to the mods=0A=0Ahttp://www.zenithair.com/news/ntsb-astm-4-09a.h
tml=0A=0AOK- That was faster than I expected.- =0A=0AI do have sympathy
for what Chris said in his answer to Question 2 about non-disclosure per N
TSB rules and he mentions they are being sued as reasons they have not spok
en much on the matter. I was un-aware anyone had started legal action.=0A
=0AOK so a few of my questions have been addressed well, but a few have got
ten more cloudy=0A=0AI note the EXTENSIVE spar mods both in the wing and in
the center section, and do wonder about how much weight is getting put in
here??- =0A=0AThe drawings are great but has this been done on an actual
601?? are there pictures yet??- I know this is hot off the presses but ha
ve they actually replaced these parts on a completed aircraft?- =0A=0AAnd
of course the hard to pin down "is it flutter or not issue?"- OK so we b
eef it up to prevent it. Great!- Chris addresses it in Question 8 that ye
s Weights are now going to be used.- But unless I'm looking through it-
I see no drawings of the weights. I have the LAA drawings but I really wou
ld like it if a set would come from Zenith and the people who know the airc
raft.- Are we supposed to use the LAA drawings???- =0A=0AI wonder how l
ong it will be before we can get the upgrade kits in hand??- I never did
the final close on my wings so I'm pretty good there but some of the spar w
ork is gonna be a pain in the butt on a mostly finished fuselage..=0A=0ASma
ll price to pay I suppose...=0A=0A=0ALarry Whitlow=0A601XL Jabiru 3300 Sens
enich Composite prop=0AN69102 (Reserved)=0A=0A90% done with the first build
=0A0% done with the mods=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Aht
tp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271784#271784=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
How -about the poor bastard thats been flying for years ,and hsa a ton of
money and time in his aircraft,-- I found about the the FAA notice Sun
day one day after it was put out .I also found a fix from zenith the same d
ay that they, are already doing it ?-Joe N101HD/601xl RAM=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_
_______________________________=0AFrom: lwhitlow <ldwhitlow(at)comcast.net>=0A
ubject: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650=0A=0A--> Zenith-List messa
ge posted by: "lwhitlow" =0A=0AHere's the link to th
e mods=0A=0Ahttp://www.zenithair.com/news/ntsb-astm-4-09a.html=0A=0AOK- T
hat was faster than I expected.- =0A=0AI do have sympathy for what Chris
said in his answer to Question 2 about non-disclosure per NTSB rules and he
mentions they are being sued as reasons they have not spoken much on the m
atter. I was un-aware anyone had started legal action.=0A=0AOK so a few of
my questions have been addressed well, but a few have gotten more cloudy=0A
=0AI note the EXTENSIVE spar mods both in the wing and in the center sectio
n, and do wonder about how much weight is getting put in here??- =0A=0ATh
e drawings are great but has this been done on an actual 601?? are there pi
ctures yet??- I know this is hot off the presses but have they actually r
eplaced these parts on a completed aircraft?- =0A=0AAnd of course the har
d to pin down "is it flutter or not issue?"- OK so we beef it up to preve
nt it. Great!- Chris addresses it in Question 8 that yes Weights are now
going to be used.- But unless I'm looking through it- I see no drawings
of the weights. I have the LAA drawings but I really would like it if a se
t would come from Zenith and the people who know the aircraft.- Are we su
pposed to use the LAA drawings???- =0A=0AI wonder how long it will be bef
ore we can get the upgrade kits in hand??- I never did the final close on
my wings so I'm pretty good there but some of the spar work is gonna be a
pain in the butt on a mostly finished fuselage..=0A=0ASmall price to pay I
suppose...=0A=0A=0ALarry Whitlow=0A601XL Jabiru 3300 Sensenich Composite pr
op=0AN69102 (Reserved)=0A=0A90% done with the first build=0A0% done with th
e mods=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matron
========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Roberts <broberts103(at)gvtc.com> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: FW: LAA Mod - Aileron Balance question] |
I have seen the docs and read the various reports and notices.
I am glad to see the repairs (upgrades?) coming from Zenith although
I expect they were released primarily in reaction to the Arkansas
incident and that is too bad.
Regarding the LAA mod to Mass balance the ailerons, CH says in
Question #8 of his Q&A that we should balance them per the LAA
design just because it will make flutter concerns a thing of the
past.... The LAA says in their Mod/162B/004 under the
applicability section (#2) that the counterweight design is not
suitable for flexible skin hinged ailerons.
I expect to hear more from Zenith but, at this point, is it logical
that per both instructions, only "piano hinged" ailerons should be
balanced?
Bill Roberts
N723R (Reserved)
building 601xl 6-6415
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 601 hds/hd wanted to buy!!! desperate!!! |
| From: | "wmiller" <wcmill67(at)yahoo.ca> |
Hi guys:
Great site, just discovered it. I live in Calgary Ab, Canada and have been
looking to buy a HDS now for several months. although these planes are plentiful
in the States, there are not many that come up for sale in Canada. I thought I
might have better luck tossing out a thread to this group to see if anyone knows
of aircraft for sale. I have placed several ads on Barnstormers but have had
little luck. My budget is around 30K give or take. I will list in order of
priority what I am after, but will probably be interested in almost any
combination. would also prefer a Canadian registered plane (importing is
possible but troublesome)but once again would import for the right airplane.
Here it goes!!!
HDS TAILDRAGGER with a Rotax-Lycoming-Continental
HDS TALDRAGGER Corvair
HDS " " " Subaru
HD TAILDRAGGER
Would also take a Nose wheel if it had a Rotax-cont-Lycoming
So basicly am looking for a tailwheel plane with a non-automotive type
engine........But hey, can't be picky. So iam willing to entertain just about
anything!!!!!
Cheers!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271908#271908
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Meketa <georgesautorepair(at)sbcglobal.net> |
unsubsribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Victor Menkal <vmenkal(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Low cost polishing |
Hi John. Been mucking about with polishing for a while. Found
Mothers Mag and Aluminum polish is a great low cost alternative to
Nubrite. Pretty decent results without the cost, fuss and time
of nubrite. You wont get the mirror finish as with Nubrite but
folks still have to put on their shades before entering my shop.
Happy Polishing
Vic
CH750 Whitehorse Yukon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low cost polishing |
| From: | Carlos Sa <carlossa52(at)gmail.com> |
I use Mother's too, it works well.
I tried Rolite, but didn't like it.
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
2009/11/9 Victor Menkal
> Hi John. Been mucking about with polishing for a while. Found
> Mothers Mag and Aluminum polish is a great low cost alternative to Nubrite.
> Pretty decent results without the cost, fuss and time of nubrite.
> You wont get the mirror finish as with Nubrite but folks still have to put
> on their shades before entering my shop.
>
> Happy Polishing
>
> Vic
> CH750 Whitehorse Yukon
>
> *
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "annken100" <annken100(at)aol.com> |
Hey Folks,
We are certainly being given a lot of information in a short period of time and
it can be overwhelming. We all have some work ahead of us. That said, I am
excited about the upgrades being offered by Zenith. I feel that the modifications
take an already great airplane and make it that much better.
We should all keep a positive outlook and move forward.
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271955#271955
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net> |
Yep-Ken , I'am so excited I've already wet my pants just thinking about h
ow much fun it's gona be tearing my plane apart,screwing up the paint,drill
ing out all those- rivets,and then I get to put it all back together.Oh i
t's going to be real fun,not to mention Paying for the up grades ,and the r
ivits ,and the paint and I'am sure that all the up grades will make my plan
e much stronger and much more safer. Isn't that the way it was supose to be
when I paid for it the frist time?? Do you think I'll be able to get more
money for it when I try to sell it? You would have to be a damm fool to by
a 601XL . My plane has the best of every thing in it . RAM eng,Sub 4 redriv
e,prince-P tip prop,tuned intake/with flowed heads,tuned exhast,ceramiccoat
ed inside and out,Terra raidos/wILS 2-min elect turn,LoranGPS, Parking brak
es,the list goes on and on....The only place I come up short is the WINGS a
nd FUSELAGE, but that no big deal is it Ken,Bet I be-lucky to get
$30,000- for such a GREAT plane you need to quit sniffing those covair e
xhast fumes!--- Joe N101HD=0A=0A=0A=0A----- Forwarded Message ----=0A
From: annken100 <annken100(at)aol.com>=0ATo: zenith-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent:
Mon, November 9, 2009 2:04:21 PM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: 601XL Upgrades=0A
Hey Folks,=0A=0AWe are certainly being given a lot of information in a shor
t period of time and it can be overwhelming.- We all have some work ahead
of us.- That said, I am excited about the upgrades being offered by Zeni
th.- I feel that the modifications take an already great airplane and mak
e it that much better.=0A=0AWe should all keep a positive outlook and move
forward.=0A=0AKen Pavlou=0A=0A--------=0A601 XL / Corvair=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARea
d this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p
=========================0A
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601XL Upgrades |
| From: | "annken100" <annken100(at)aol.com> |
Joe,
I'm truly sorry you are so upset about all of this. I hope lashing out at me makes
you feel better. I have $68,000 tied up in my plane and I too have all the
bells and whistles. I too have to rip apart my center spar box structure,
wings, and ailerons. Unlike you, I've accepted that my plane is worth crap at
this point. Then again, I didn't go the homebuilt route for resale value. If
everyone sticks together and incorporates the modifications we may see the resale
value of our planes increase after all the dust settles.
My thinking is not influenced by Corvair fumes as you suggest. I choose to be
practical and positive rather than negative and rude.
As a final note, I recommend you see a doctor about that pant wetting problem you
have.
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271975#271975
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL Upgrades |
Negative and rude; I think not!- Factual and to the point, YES....=0A-
=0AI didn't buy my for resale, either, but like everyone else I'm going to
=0Ahave to poor money into an empty hole.- At some point in your life=0Ay
ou've got to cut your losses and quit throwing money in that hole.=0A=0AAs
far as wetting my pants, I still have to blame that on you because=0Aif you
believe what you wrote, I've some ocean front property I'd like=0Ato sell
you in AR; you or anyone else.=0A=0AMaybe I'm just like Zenith and no one's
to blame.- It's just the slip=0Aof the pen and the slide rule.- But, u
nlike the big "Z" I get to pay for=0Atheir mistakes.- They- may well ha
ve a lot in common with the doctors=0Aand the lawyers.- The lawyers mista
kes are in jail and the doctors=0Abury theirs.- =0A=0AThanks again.=0A=0A
Joe=0AN101HD=0A=0AP.S.- Keep that PMA=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_____________________
___________=0AFrom: annken100 <annken100(at)aol.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@matroni
cs.com=0ASent: Mon, November 9, 2009 4:58:49 PM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: Re:
100(at)aol.com>=0A=0AJoe,=0A=0AI'm truly sorry you are so upset about all of t
his.- I hope lashing out at me makes you feel better.- I have $68,000 t
ied up in my plane and I too have all the bells and whistles.- I too have
to rip apart my center spar box structure, wings, and ailerons.- Unlike
you, I've accepted that my plane is worth crap at this point.- Then again
, I didn't go the homebuilt route for resale value.- If everyone sticks t
ogether and incorporates the modifications we may see the resale value of o
ur planes increase after all the dust settles.=0A=0AMy thinking is not infl
uenced by Corvair fumes as you suggest.- I choose to be practical and pos
itive rather than negative and rude.=0A=0AAs a final note, I recommend you
see a doctor about that pant wetting problem you have.=0A=0AKen Pavlou=0A
=0A--------=0A601 XL / Corvair=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:
=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271975#271975=0A=0A=0A
- - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [Fwd: FW: LAA Mod - Aileron Balance question] |
| From: | "leinad" <leinad(at)hughes.net> |
Or that the flex hinges have just become obsolete.
I'm still waiting for an answer to this one too.
Dan
[quote="broberts103"]
>
>
>
> I have seen the docs and read the various reports and notices.
> I am glad to see the repairs (upgrades?) coming from Zenith although I expect
they were released primarily in reaction to the Arkansas incident and that
is too bad.
>
> Regarding the LAA mod to Mass balance the ailerons, CH says in Question #8
of his Q&A that we should balance them per the LAA design just because it will
make flutter concerns a thing of the past.... The LAA says in their Mod/162B/004
under the applicability section (#2) that the counterweight design is not
suitable for flexible skin hinged ailerons.
>
> I expect to hear more from Zenith but, at this point, is it logical that per
both instructions, only "piano hinged" ailerons should be balanced?
>
> Bill Roberts
> N723R (Reserved)
> building 601xl 6-6415
> [b]
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=271996#271996
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 601XL Upgrades |
| From: | "annken100" <annken100(at)aol.com> |
Joe,
Cool, I've never been blamed for causing incontinence before. I'll have to write
that one down in my book of life's achievements!
All kidding aside, I understand you are angry and I see your point of view. But,
to put things in perspective I'll draw a comparison between our 601 and a
type certified aircraft. If the FAA issues an AD against a piper cherokee it
is the owner who shoulders the financial burden to comply. I've not heard of
Beechcraft, Mooney, Cessna, or Piper paying for AD compliance even when the AD
involves structural issues. A quick example would be the AD on piper tomahawk
wing spars which was mandatory. I don't recall piper paying for the inspection
or repair. This is why I don't expect zenith to pay for the mod kit. It
is what it is and I simply chose to skip the getting angry part.
Ken Pavlou
P.S. I'm sure the property you are offering is lovely, but I'm not interested.
Also, I don't know what "PMA" is, but I get the feeling it isn't "Parts Manufacturer
Approval "
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272010#272010
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dennis hettrick <dmhettrick(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
thank z-bag for any overconcern by feds
Date: Mon=2C 9 Nov 2009 07:20:18 -0800
From: georgesautorepair(at)sbcglobal.net
unsubsribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JohnDRead(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Polishing a CH710 |
Hi Stan;
Thanks for sending the Nuvite info. I have been trying Rolite
and the going is very slow!
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 11/8/2009 10:54:35 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
challgren(at)mac.com writes:
John:
I used Nuvite for my previous 601 and am using it again on my 701. I
recommend it highly.
I will get a packet of information to you tomorrow.
Stan
On Nov 8, 2009, at 20:43 , _JohnDRead(at)aol.com_ (mailto:JohnDRead(at)aol.com)
wrote:
Hello List;
I am considering polishing my CH701. Does anyone have a
suggestion for materials and technique?
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mversteeg <maarten.versteeg(at)swri.org> |
Hello Martin,
Yes, this is an aspect that confuses me too, the original wing spar
slides between
the front and back part of the center spar and this certainly doesn't
allow for a
0.063 Al wing root doubler. Just pushing it in wouldn't make the to
parts of the
spar lay flat on top of each other. If this stiffening of the wing spar
is required
then the two pieces of the center spar will need to be moved further
apart. This
can only be done when the two parts are detached at the top and removed at
least the from part is removed form the plane. I would say the only way to
properly install this is to remove the whole from part of the center
spar and make
a new one, with spacers that are 0.063 longer.
Looking at the front wing uprights that are now to be extrusions I am also
confused since the wing uprights that they replace were not wend to 90
degree so
I don't understand how a 90 part can replace the larger angle.
Clearly with these three drawings there are many questions remaining and an
instruction of how to install will be needed to clarify all of this.
- Maarten, 601xl plans build,
was somewhere halfway the fuselage but now ....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stanley A Challgren <challgren(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Polishing a CH710 |
John:
What are you using as a polisher. I have the cyclo that Nuvite
recommends and while expensive ($300+) I think it is worth it. Expect
about 50 hours of not exactly fun building to get the polishing done.
A paint job can cost over $5,000 so the cyclo looks cheap in
comparison. I did most of my 701 while I was building so only have
the wings to do while assembled.
Happy polishing.
Stan
On Nov 9, 2009, at 19:43 , JohnDRead(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hi Stan;
> Thanks for sending the Nuvite info. I have been trying
> Rolite and the going is very slow!
>
> John Read
> CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
>
> Phone: 303-648-3261
> Fax: 303-648-3262
> Cell: 719-494-4567
>
> In a message dated 11/8/2009 10:54:35 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, challgren(at)mac.com
> writes:
> John:
>
> I used Nuvite for my previous 601 and am using it again on my 701.
> I recommend it highly.
>
> I will get a packet of information to you tomorrow.
>
> Stan
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2009, at 20:43 , JohnDRead(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>> Hello List;
>> I am considering polishing my CH701. Does anyone
>> have a suggestion for materials and technique?
>>
>> John Read
>> CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
>>
>> Phone: 303-648-3261
>> Fax: 303-648-3262
>> Cell: 719-494-4567
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 601XL Upgrades |
Ken,PMA is Positive Mental Attitude,and I'am not going to tell you again..
seriously the whole thing is a big mess,and has been on going for a long ti
me,and I just got off this list,for about a year,-then yesterday I caught
wind of the FAA involvement. Now having read more on the subject,I see tha
t this was not a-over -night thing, I found the CH Hintz letter and the
QandAns ,Last night I was thinking where in the hell did all this-come f
rom ? out of the blue on a weekend? In short I now- Know. So I owe you a
apology ,and- the big Z-- too,.I dont think that they should pay for
the fix ,you're right about that, It is what it is-My plane is great to s
ay the very least..and oppimisium is contagius ,so I will order my fix kit
tomorrow- from those very nice people at Zenith ,make my plane better-
and -get on with my flying (and eternal building)- going to put your na
me on my email list,because your a nice guy and now I know some one that ha
s more
money in a 601 than ME... Thanks Joe N101HD 601XL=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A__________
______________________=0AFrom: annken100 <annken100(at)aol.com>=0ATo: zenith-l
ist(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Mon, November 9, 2009 9:00:24 PM=0ASubject: Zenit
00" =0A=0AJoe,=0A=0ACool, I've never been blamed for cau
sing incontinence before.- I'll have to write that one down in my book of
life's achievements!=0A=0AAll kidding aside, I understand you are angry an
d I see your point of view.- But, to put things in perspective I'll draw
a comparison between our 601 and a type certified aircraft.- If the FAA i
ssues an AD against a piper cherokee it is the owner who shoulders the fina
ncial burden to comply.- I've not heard of Beechcraft, Mooney, Cessna, or
Piper paying for AD compliance even when the AD involves structural issues
..- A quick example would be the AD on piper tomahawk wing spars which was
mandatory.- I don't recall piper paying for the inspection or repair.-
This is why I don't expect zenith to pay for the mod kit.- It is what it
is and I simply chose to skip the getting angry part.=0A=0AKen Pavlou=0A
=0AP.S.- I'm sure the property you are offering is lovely, but I'm not in
terested.- Also, I don't know what "PMA" is, but I get the feeling it isn
't "Parts Manufacturer Approval "=0A=0A--------=0A601 XL / Corvair=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtop
====
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JohnDRead(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Polishing a CH710 |
Hi Stan;
I am not familiar with the Cyclo, I went to Harbor Freight for
one of their variable speed units. It seems to work quite well. I have
been quoted $6,000+ locally for basic white. I like the idea of doing all of
the work in my shop and not having to take pieces to the painter. Will you
be painting the cowl and the other FG pieces?
I think the weight savings of polishing alone is worth the effort,
it just seems to go really slowly. May be I am in to much of a rush. I
have had a few replies that mention Mothers polish as a way to go. Nuvite does
seem the be the system of choice.
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 11/9/2009 8:17:52 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
challgren(at)mac.com writes:
John:
What are you using as a polisher. I have the cyclo that Nuvite recommends
and while expensive ($300+) I think it is worth it. Expect about 50 hours
of not exactly fun building to get the polishing done. A paint job can
cost over $5,000 so the cyclo looks cheap in comparison. I did most of my
701 while I was building so only have the wings to do while assembled.
Happy polishing.
Stan
On Nov 9, 2009, at 19:43 , _JohnDRead(at)aol.com_ (mailto:JohnDRead(at)aol.com)
wrote:
Hi Stan;
Thanks for sending the Nuvite info. I have been trying Rolite
and the going is very slow!
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 11/8/2009 10:54:35 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
_challgren(at)mac.com_ (mailto:challgren(at)mac.com) writes:
John:
I used Nuvite for my previous 601 and am using it again on my 701. I
recommend it highly.
I will get a packet of information to you tomorrow.
Stan
On Nov 8, 2009, at 20:43 , _JohnDRead(at)aol.com_ (mailto:JohnDRead(at)aol.com)
wrote:
Hello List;
I am considering polishing my CH701. Does anyone have a
suggestion for materials and technique?
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Polishing a CH710 |
Kitplanes did an article on polishing in November 2007 ("Dare To Be Bare").
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
JohnDRead(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:43 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Polishing a CH710
Hello List;
I am considering polishing my CH701. Does anyone have a
suggestion for materials and technique?
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net> |
When did they change the vne to 120 from 180----joe-----
--------------- -N101HD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jon Bateman <jonbateman(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
We are all in the same boat so to speak. My wings and fuselage are complete
and like most people I will be taking it apart to add the mods. The part I
am having trouble with is the belly-aching that went on before the mods wh
ere known=2C to the start of the new belly-aching now that we have them wi
thin our grasp. If we didn't want the answer we shouldn't ask the question.
I will gladly make the mods that zenith has laid out. If I feel the need
to play lawn darts I will head to WalMart and buy the game.
Jon B. plans built
Just a little farther out then last Friday.
Date: Mon=2C 9 Nov 2009 12:43:03 -0800
From: purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net
Subject: Fw: Zenith-List: 601XL Upgrades
Yep Ken =2C I'am so excited I've already wet my pants just thinking about h
ow much fun it's gona be tearing my plane apart=2Cscrewing up the paint=2Cd
rilling out all those rivets=2Cand then I get to put it all back together.
Oh it's going to be real fun=2Cnot to mention Paying for the up grades =2Ca
nd the rivits =2Cand the paint and I'am sure that all the up grades will ma
ke my plane much stronger and much more safer. Isn't that the way it was su
pose to be when I paid for it the frist time?? Do you think I'll be able to
get more money for it when I try to sell it? You would have to be a damm f
ool to by a 601XL . My plane has the best of every thing in it . RAM eng=2C
Sub 4 redrive=2Cprince-P tip prop=2Ctuned intake/with flowed heads=2Ctuned
exhast=2Cceramiccoated inside and out=2CTerra raidos/wILS 2-min elect turn
=2CLoranGPS=2C Parking brakes=2Cthe list goes on and on....The only place I
come up short is the WINGS and FUSELAGE=2C but that no big deal is it Ken
=2CBet I be lucky to get $30=2C000 for such a GREAT plane you need to quit
sniffing those covair exhast fumes! Joe N101HD
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: annken100 <annken100(at)aol.com>
Sent: Mon=2C November 9=2C 2009 2:04:21 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601XL Upgrades
Hey Folks=2C
We are certainly being given a lot of information in a short period of time
and it can be overwhelming. We all have some work ahead of us. That said
=2C I am excited about the upgrades being offered by Zenith. I feel that t
he modifications take an already great airplane and make it that much bette
r.
We should all keep a positive outlook and move forward.
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?pnbsp=3B * The Builder's Bookst
ore wwbsp=3B ==============
====
_________________________________________________________________
Bing brings you maps=2C menus=2C and reviews organized in one place.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&cre
a=TEXT_MFESRP_Local_MapsMenu_Resturants_1x1
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stanley A Challgren <challgren(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Polishing a CH710 |
John:
I should have mentioned that I documented just over 50 hours on
polishing the 601 but it was worth it. Total time spent cleaning and
polishing never exceeded five hours each year after we started flying
and most of that time was spent removing bugs. I will spend about the
same time on polishing the 701.
One surprise was the polisher getting filled with small bits of cloth
and junk. Now I vacuum it out every day or so in order to keep it
clean. The polishing also leaves the shop a mess so don't leave
anything out that might be damaged by polishing residue.
Happy polishing -- The shine does make you smile.
Stan
On Nov 9, 2009, at 20:35 , JohnDRead(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hi Stan;
> I am not familiar with the Cyclo, I went to Harbor
> Freight for one of their variable speed units. It seems to work
> quite well. I have been quoted $6,000+ locally for basic white. I
> like the idea of doing all of the work in my shop and not having to
> take pieces to the painter. Will you be painting the cowl and the
> other FG pieces?
> I think the weight savings of polishing alone is worth the
> effort, it just seems to go really slowly. May be I am in to much of
> a rush. I have had a few replies that mention Mothers polish as a
> way to go. Nuvite does seem the be the system of choice.
>
> John Read
> CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
>
> Phone: 303-648-3261
> Fax: 303-648-3262
> Cell: 719-494-4567
>
> In a message dated 11/9/2009 8:17:52 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, challgren(at)mac.com
> writes:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Ray" <davgray(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Polishing a CH710 |
John
Another suggestion for the daily bug removal, Nuvite makes a quick wipe
that they sell by the gallon. It works very fast work of cleaning the
bugs off the leading edges, it is inexpensive and goes a long way.
Don't let it freeze or it drops out of suspension.
Gary Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: JohnDRead(at)aol.com
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 10:43 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Polishing a CH710
Hello List;
I am considering polishing my CH701. Does anyone have
a suggestion for materials and technique?
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tooling holes |
| From: | "djluscher" <djluscher(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
Thanks, Larry and Kevin. It is appreciated. -D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272070#272070
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com> |
I think it was July. It was posted in one of the letters from CH.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272073#272073
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> |
ouch...
:O)
Jim, do you have your wings sealed up like many of us on the list?
How are we going to inspect the torque on those AN3/AN4 spar cap bolts? With my
airplane sitting outside, it will have hundreds of hours of stress on those
connections each year just sitting in the wind...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272087#272087
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
| From: | "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> |
I don't think worries of contract/civil liability were driving Zenith on Saturday...
it may have been another kind
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272088#272088
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stanley A Challgren <challgren(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Polishing a CH710 |
Gary:
I found bug removal on my 601HDS to be very easy. A towel soaked in
water easily removed the bugs after a flight. A dry towel to wipe off
the water after the bug removal finished the process. Never more than
5 minutes required. I don't think the nuvite bug removal fluid is
necessary.
Stan
601 HDS (Since sold)
On Nov 10, 2009, at 5:40 , Gary Ray wrote:
> John
>
> Another suggestion for the daily bug removal, Nuvite makes a quick
> wipe that they sell by the gallon. It works very fast work of
> cleaning the bugs off the leading edges, it is inexpensive and goes
> a long way. Don't let it freeze or it drops out of suspension.
>
> Gary Ray
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Belcher <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
On Tuesday 10 November 2009 10:00, Sabrina wrote:
>
> ouch...
>
> :O)
>
> Jim, do you have your wings sealed up like many of us on the list?
Yes. My preliminary examination of the draft modifications drawings makes me
believe that it will be necessary to remove the upper wing skins, and open
the ailerons.
> How are we going to inspect the torque on those AN3/AN4 spar cap bolts?
> With my airplane sitting outside, it will have hundreds of hours of stress
> on those connections each year just sitting in the wind...
I haven't gotten that far in my evaluation. I get the impression that some of
these solutions were put in rush mode, so they could be published. I note
that the drawings are marked "draft." (I used to mark mine "preliminary rough
draft," in the hopes people would get the message that they were for
discussion, not release.)
Probably as we evaluate some of these things, and find things that just don't
work, they need to be communicated back to Zenith, so the draft drawings get
corrected.
I suppose part of my annoyance is that I just riveted one of the rear seats in
place, and one of the front wing uprights. To that extent, I'm probably over
reacting. But I think some annoyance is justified.
--
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.
Do not drink and derive.
============================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Jim Belcher wrote:
The FAA, however, very likely will not let these aircraft be flown until
these
modifications are made. That means Zenith has not delivered everything
necessary to build a flying airplane (with the exceptions previously noted
).
This is a direct result of their design, not something the builders have
done. It is, in effect, a mandatory change at Zenith's instigation, even
though it is intended to make the FAA happy.
Jim,
I concur with most of your post, with the exception of the above underline
d statement.
Zenith has indeed delivered everything necessary to build a flying airplan
e, as
evidenced by the many Zodiac XLs that are flying and have been for years.
How
could that be if they did not deliver everything necessary?
One could say that Zenith did not properly anticipate how their design wou
ld be
implemented and how it would be flown. One could also fault Zenith's origi
nal
claim that it would withstand plus or minus 6 Gs. But to say that Zenith
did not
deliver a kit that could be made into a flying airplane is simply not true
. It is
true that, under the current circumstances, they are not (officially) flya
ble, but
that doesn't change the fact that they were once indeed flyable and flying
..
Jay Bannister
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
| From: | "hansriet" <hansinla(at)mac.com> |
The price that you paid at the time was for the parts that were included in the
kit at that time. You might argue that you would have chosen another kit-airplane
if you knew that the price would be higher (the difference for the new parts
in the upgrade kit). But, considering the relative minor difference, that
probably would be a stretch.
This is an inconvenient situation for all builders and buyers of Zodiacs. I think
the most we can wish for is that ZAC provides the parts in the upgrade kit
for close to cost price.
I'm just happy that I didn't close my left wing yet, that will save a LOT of time.
Hans van Riet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272109#272109
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
Hi Jim,
I believe your thinking is sound, but I come to
several different conclusions from yours. Part
of the reason for this is my own "Campaign" to
get exactly what we got the other day. As I have
said many times in many different places, I
wanted a competently engineered set of changes
that satisfied the NTSB requests. I couldn't
have asked for more than to have Chris actually
sponsor the changes. He may not be convinced
they are necessary, but still he applied his
extensive skill and experience to bring us a well designed upgrade package.
My argument to the Heintz folks started out and
always continued that they did not need to admit
any fault. All I wanted from them was a well
engineered upgrade package. They had "Design
responsibility" so they were the best source for
properly engineered changes. My thinking, and I
think theirs, was based on the idea that to admit
a design flaw made them liable to the activities
of every greedy lawyer in the world. That would
help nobody but the lawyers. The notion that
they could design and release improvements to the
design without admitting fault would get the
owners the needed (desired?) improvements without
automatically bringing on all the lawsuits. Your
logic that they are liable anyway may have some
merit, but it really doesn't accomplish anything
useful to blame Zenith for the problems. I don't
think they have "Deep pockets" like the big
manufacturers, so the lawyers are likely to
ignore the whole thing at this point. Especially
with the lack of "Fault" any lawyer considering
attacking Zenith is faced with a difficult case
with unlikely victory and the real likelihood
that there is no money to win at the end of the path.
I don't share your conclusion about the "Losses"
of the S-LSA owners either. They made a choice
to try one of the new type aircraft instead of
buying a part 23 certified plane. They benefited
from a much lower price for the same level of
performance. Now they have to pay a bit more
than they thought the price was. It sounds like
a lot of money to a plans or kit builder, but
when you measure the cost of a factory built
plane against the upgrade cost you will see it is
only a small percentage. These buyers have
simply bought into a more expensive version of
airplane ownership than the plans and kit builders.
I don't see why Zenith, or Zenair, or the current
European version of Zenair would refuse to sell
upgrade kits to anyone who wants one. That is
their business - selling airplane parts. The
changes are supposed to be limited to American
planes, but the chatter I have heard from other
owners in other countries is they want to make the changes to their planes too.
I agree with you completely on the issue of CZAW
customers. They have a problem since I doubt AMD
will be able or willing to upgrade their
planes. They should be able to get upgrade
instructions and parts, but will need to pay a
local mechanic to make the changes. This must
include a certain premium for the mechanic to
become familiar with this particular style of
airplane building and obtain the specialized
tools such as the custom rivet
setters. Purchasers of experimental Zodiacs
built by others are in a similar fix. The rules
don't require a licensed mechanic to work on
their planes, but they probably don't have the
personal skills the builders had. I'm not sure
there is a really nice solution for them. They
may wind up paying the same price as the S-LSA
purchasers, but they didn't think they were
getting into that price range when they bought their used experimental plane.
I don't want to guess at the likely price for the
upgrade kits, but I feel the parts will be a
small amount of money. The more significant cost
is the labor to install the upgrade. I feel any
owner who was able to pay for his version of the
airplane will have no problem paying for the
additional parts. I just don't think it is
consistent with the agreements between plans and
kit builders and Zenith/Zenair for them to get
the parts for free. Perhaps AMD will have a
different situation since they sold airplanes
rather than parts in the first place.
I feel this is a big change in the "Landscape"
for all XL and 650 owners. I am hopeful the
beefed up design will prove to be a lot safer in
the future. If so, it will all be worth it.
Paul
XL ready to order upgrade kit.
At 07:47 AM 11/10/2009, you wrote:
>I've spent a couple of days thinking over the
>Zenith situation. It seems to me
>the problem splits into multiple piles: the LSA, the plans builders, and
>those building from kits.
>
>One of the seemingly hidden facts about LSAs is that the manufacturer can
>mandate a change to the aircraft at any time, and the owners are stuck. They
>must made the changes the manufacturer requires, and cannot make any changes
>without the manufacturer's concurrence. No field mods, no STCs.
>
>That's not just for Zenith, but for any aircraft with an LSA airworthiness
>certificate. I wondered how long it would be before some manufacturer
>announced a change or changes that really got to the owners. Still, I feel
>extremely sympathetic towards the owners of Zenith XL and 650 LSAs. Recourse
>or no recourse, this is a bum deal.
>
> I feel even more sympathetic towards the owners of the CZAW 601s, because I
>have a hunch they are in even more of a no-man's land. Any grounding or
>ungrounding must come from CZAW, or its successor, yet I suspect the FAA
>considers their aircraft equally grounded. I doubt Zenith will sell them
>anything, since they have made it plain they do not consider they have any
>liability for the CZAW aircraft. I don't know that I blame them for this;
>they didn't sell the aircraft of realize a profit.
>
>Those who built from plans are also very likely
>to have little recourse. After
>all, Zenith sold a set of plans which they are free to follow or not. It
>appears Zenith has, in effect, also supplied them with a free set of
>modification plans. Unfortunately, it adds to the cost and time, perhaps
>requiring extensive rework.
>
>Which brings me to the final category, those who bought a kit. Zenith
>indicated that this kit contained everything necessary to build a flying
>airplane, except the engine, paint, upholstery, and avionics. Whatever it may
>be called by Zenith, the fix kit is not a
>voluntary upgrade. Zenith can't
>claim this is some sort of design improvement; Chris Heintz has already said
>he doesn't feel it is necessary.
>
>The FAA, however, very likely will not let these
>aircraft be flown until these
>modifications are made. That means Zenith has not delivered everything
>necessary to build a flying airplane (with the exceptions previously noted).
>This is a direct result of their design, not something the builders have
>done. It is, in effect, a mandatory change at Zenith's instigation, even
>though it is intended to make the FAA happy.
>
>That leaves a lot of builders having invested a
>lot of time, and now they must
>invest more. My feeling is that Zenith should take a hard look at this
>situation, and do everything within their power to make these modifications
>available either free, or at cost. They'll be lucky if they aren't sued for
>time AND materials.
>
>I do not buy the argument that Mooney, Cessna, et al do not pay for
>Airworthiness Directives, service bulletins, and so on. While this is true
>for products that have been delivered for years, it has not always been true
>for products just delivered. Lycoming has paid for the replacement of engine
>parts recently delivered that proved to defective. Cessna paid for
>modifications to the early Cardinals, when they failed to fly correctly. One
>could find many more cases without searching too hard. The payment, of
>course, was to head off lawsuits, and (possibly) to preserve company image.
>
>A real issue is that Zenith is a small company, and may not be able to afford
>the same things as a Lycoming or a Cessna. I believe there needs to be a
>negotiation between 650 and XL builders, with all of Zenith's cards on the
>table. We need to see what they can afford. What level of insurance do they
>have? They are at fault; they need to give until it hurts, and then
>(possibly) give some more.
>
>If this does not happen, there is a very real
>danger of individual or combined
>lawsuits which do force Zenith from the aircraft business. I do not think
>(and I'm not an attorney) that Zenith's contract is likely to hold up under
>the circumstances which are present.
>
>This is my 25 cents worth for this morning, with
>the reminder, as always, that
>25 cents won't buy what it once would.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Jim,
I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not completed
your airplanes.
In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to create
a "legally" flying
airplane. I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign off a
newly completed
airplane without verifying that the mods had been done. The price you pai
d for your kit
included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the mods.
So I still don't
see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for fre
e.
My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get from Ze
nith
what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we pai
d for. We did
not pay for a package of parts to do modifications. Since we are the manu
facturers of our
airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods - defini
tely not smart,
but still an option.
Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will making
the mods require
another inspection in order to fly legally? Or does the builder just fly
off a five hour test
period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by the
builder, can the
owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period?
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Jay, from my perspective, they have not delivered to me everything I need
to
build a flyable airframe. It's very doubtful I could get a DAR or the FAA
to
sign off on this. One could argue that this is because is hasn't been
inspected yet, and this would be true. But I still don't have everything
I
need to make a flyable aircraft.
Once I make that argument, the door is open for people who have had flying
aircraft to make the same or similar points.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
| From: | "annken100" <annken100(at)aol.com> |
Jim's post made me think of a line that I read in the Zenith Condition of Sale
and Warning agreement that we all signed before we received our plans, kits, or
parts.
The line reads:
The Seller does not warrant that the aircraft as constructed by the buyer, or any
other person, will be airworthy, or will qualify for certification or
registration by aviation authorities, or will meet the requirement of the buyer.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but doesn't the above basically say that Zenith is not responsible
if the airplane doesn't fly, can't be registered, or doesn't meet your
needs?
If so the issues of the FAA not granting an airworthiness certificate, the plane
falling out of the sky, or having to pay for a mod kit all become unquestionably
the burden of the buyer.
I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because whether
or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court, it will ultimately
lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the 601/650 folks but for
everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272122#272122
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug - SportAviation" <Doug.Norman(at)sportaviation.aero> |
| Subject: | Zenith liability |
This is an interesting set of questions, and it goes to the heart of what it
means to build an E-AB airplane.
Isn't it the case that any person is free to design their own aircraft,
build it, and then fly it; regardless of their experience, education, or
talent? The inspection for an airworthiness cert is based not on an
assessment of the merits of the design, but on its execution using known
best-practices. The DAR's signature doesn't say that they have examined the
design and they concur with the expected performance profile. It says you
have used best practices, and that the assembly per se isn't likely to be
the reason for performance issues.
There's a reason why each builder is the manufacturer. It's your airplane!
It's your design. You may have taken advice from someone on what they might
do in similar circumstances; and those other 3rd parties might even offer to
help with certain manufacturing duties, but it is still your airplane.
I frankly can't see how a DAR could refuse given a workman-like execution.
They might initially (as we saw with Ed Moody's inspection); but they have
no real basis if E-AB means in what it is intended to mean. Not to get too
philosophical here, but in the US personal freedoms are what we're based on;
and this is an example of personal freedom.
Each of you ARE an airplane manufacturer; with all the rights, privileges,
and responsibilities that come with it. Zenith - your 3rd party advisor and
(possibly) your materiel supplier - has a recommendation for you having
spent their sweat and treasure to analyze and offer the suggestion. It's
yours to accept or reject - or something in between.
Demonstrably, CH has designed an airplane which is capable of flight.
Independent of what CH has done, each manufacturer has a duty to evaluate
the merits of the advise coming from CH through various channels, and then
act according to their own assessment. While designers would like builders
to follow their design, the most they can do is restrict the use of their
airplanes' names and nomenclature. John Monnet is known for that, and CH
doesn't want builders mucking with his designs. But each builder
(manufacturer) is free to do as they want. Don't the 601 builders using
Corvair engines call their airplanes something other than Zodiacs?
I don't think anyone is owed anything. Nor do I think they (Z/Z/A) are
liable for anything (lawyers will know whether there is any
fitness-for-purpose implied warranty - but if so, I would guess it goes to
whether the aluminum pieces can be assembled). However, the owners and
employees of Zenith, Zenair, and AMD are desirous of our business and want
to stay in business - they want to earn a living; thus they want to please
their customers. I would suspect that they will do what they must to
generate as much good will as they can while not driving themselves out of
business.
But I'm an AMD owner, not a manufacturer such as yourselves. I must turn to
AMD. They set my agenda just as each of you set your own - you just do it
for a smaller fleet. And, I'll be taking my Zodiac to AMD to have the
modifications - already have an appointment for the end of the month. And, I
will be paying for it. But, I can assure you, they won't be getting rich
doing the mods; even though is causes me some pain.
Now that I've gotten past the initial prick of the needle, I'm actually
looking forward to visiting with my friends up in Eastman, GA.
Best of luck to all,
Doug Norman
N601DN
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
Jim,
I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not completed
your airplanes.
In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to create a
"legally" flying
airplane. I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign off a
newly completed
airplane without verifying that the mods had been done. The price you paid
for your kit
included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the mods. So
I still don't
see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for free.
My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get from
Zenith
what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we paid
for. We did
not pay for a package of parts to do modifications. Since we are the
manufacturers of our
airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods -
definitely not smart,
but still an option.
Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will making
the mods require
another inspection in order to fly legally? Or does the builder just fly
off a five hour test
period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by the
builder, can the
owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period?
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Jay, from my perspective, they have not delivered to me everything I need to
build a flyable airframe. It's very doubtful I could get a DAR or the FAA to
sign off on this. One could argue that this is because is hasn't been
inspected yet, and this would be true. But I still don't have everything I
need to make a flyable aircraft.
Once I make that argument, the door is open for people who have had flying
aircraft to make the same or similar points.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Pagan <pdn8r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
Been reading the posts and really probably don't have a problem paying for
the upgade parts.- That being said, I don't think Z should profit from th
e upgrade kits.- Covering their costs, including handling shipping etc. s
eems to be the more appropriate remedy.
Bill Pagan
EAA Tech Counselor #4395
601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)
--- On Tue, 11/10/09, annken100 wrote:
From: annken100 <annken100(at)aol.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 2:04 PM
Jim's post made me think of a line that I read in the Zenith Condition of S
ale and Warning agreement that we all signed before we received our plans,
kits, or parts.
The line reads:
The Seller does not warrant that the aircraft as constructed by the buyer,
or any other person, will be airworthy, or will qualify for certification o
r
registration by aviation authorities, or will meet the requirement of the b
uyer.
Now, I'm no lawyer, but doesn't the above basically say that Zenith is not
responsible if the airplane doesn't fly, can't be registered, or doesn't me
et your needs?
If so the issues of the FAA not granting an airworthiness certificate, the
plane falling out of the sky, or having to pay for a mod kit all become unq
uestionably the burden of the buyer.
I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because wh
ether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court, it will u
ltimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the 601/650 fo
lks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272122#272122
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Zenith liability |
I hope all you people that are considering litigation are also considering
the implications of not having the manufacturer around to support the
aircraft in the future, this would result in all of our aircraft being worth
nil and therefore much much more than the relatively small amount that we
will pay for the mod kits.
If you have ever had to have a defective component replaced by the factory
you would know they are excellent in this regard and will happily send out a
replacement free of charge. I for one am happy to pay for my mod kit as I
definitely want to have the manufacturer around in the future. To suggest
that ZAC would sell the kits at a profit is completely ridiculous, this will
not happen the kits will be sold at cost. If you think you need to sue
because you have to drill a few holes and pop a few rivets, get a grip, get
over it and get on with life. Make the plane safe, fly within the
limitations and leave the manufacturer alone so the rest of can do the same.
Regards,
Greg Cox
Zenith Zodiac CH650, VH-ZDC
Sydney, Australia (Cecil Hills)
Email - greg@gas-n-go.com.au
Mobile - +61 43 000 2 333
Fax - +61 2 9823 9977
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug -
SportAviation
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 6:18 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
This is an interesting set of questions, and it goes to the heart of what it
means to build an E-AB airplane.
Isn't it the case that any person is free to design their own aircraft,
build it, and then fly it; regardless of their experience, education, or
talent? The inspection for an airworthiness cert is based not on an
assessment of the merits of the design, but on its execution using known
best-practices. The DAR's signature doesn't say that they have examined the
design and they concur with the expected performance profile. It says you
have used best practices, and that the assembly per se isn't likely to be
the reason for performance issues.
There's a reason why each builder is the manufacturer. It's your airplane!
It's your design. You may have taken advice from someone on what they might
do in similar circumstances; and those other 3rd parties might even offer to
help with certain manufacturing duties, but it is still your airplane.
I frankly can't see how a DAR could refuse given a workman-like execution.
They might initially (as we saw with Ed Moody's inspection); but they have
no real basis if E-AB means in what it is intended to mean. Not to get too
philosophical here, but in the US personal freedoms are what we're based on;
and this is an example of personal freedom.
Each of you ARE an airplane manufacturer; with all the rights, privileges,
and responsibilities that come with it. Zenith - your 3rd party advisor and
(possibly) your materiel supplier - has a recommendation for you having
spent their sweat and treasure to analyze and offer the suggestion. It's
yours to accept or reject - or something in between.
Demonstrably, CH has designed an airplane which is capable of flight.
Independent of what CH has done, each manufacturer has a duty to evaluate
the merits of the advise coming from CH through various channels, and then
act according to their own assessment. While designers would like builders
to follow their design, the most they can do is restrict the use of their
airplanes' names and nomenclature. John Monnet is known for that, and CH
doesn't want builders mucking with his designs. But each builder
(manufacturer) is free to do as they want. Don't the 601 builders using
Corvair engines call their airplanes something other than Zodiacs?
I don't think anyone is owed anything. Nor do I think they (Z/Z/A) are
liable for anything (lawyers will know whether there is any
fitness-for-purpose implied warranty - but if so, I would guess it goes to
whether the aluminum pieces can be assembled). However, the owners and
employees of Zenith, Zenair, and AMD are desirous of our business and want
to stay in business - they want to earn a living; thus they want to please
their customers. I would suspect that they will do what they must to
generate as much good will as they can while not driving themselves out of
business.
But I'm an AMD owner, not a manufacturer such as yourselves. I must turn to
AMD. They set my agenda just as each of you set your own - you just do it
for a smaller fleet. And, I'll be taking my Zodiac to AMD to have the
modifications - already have an appointment for the end of the month. And, I
will be paying for it. But, I can assure you, they won't be getting rich
doing the mods; even though is causes me some pain.
Now that I've gotten past the initial prick of the needle, I'm actually
looking forward to visiting with my friends up in Eastman, GA.
Best of luck to all,
Doug Norman
N601DN
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
Jim,
I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not completed
your airplanes.
In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to create a
"legally" flying
airplane. I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign off a
newly completed
airplane without verifying that the mods had been done. The price you paid
for your kit
included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the mods. So
I still don't
see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for free.
My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get from
Zenith
what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we paid
for. We did
not pay for a package of parts to do modifications. Since we are the
manufacturers of our
airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods -
definitely not smart,
but still an option.
Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will making
the mods require
another inspection in order to fly legally? Or does the builder just fly
off a five hour test
period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by the
builder, can the
owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period?
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Jay, from my perspective, they have not delivered to me everything I need to
build a flyable airframe. It's very doubtful I could get a DAR or the FAA to
sign off on this. One could argue that this is because is hasn't been
inspected yet, and this would be true. But I still don't have everything I
need to make a flyable aircraft.
Once I make that argument, the door is open for people who have had flying
aircraft to make the same or similar points.
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
> I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because
> whether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court, it
> will ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the
> 601/650 folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.
This is exactly why I'm not going to pursue legal action. It's possible to
win the battle and lose the war. Nobody at AMD is getting rich. If I were to
sue, only the lawyers would win. I'm satisfied with the proposals I've
heard; AMD's not going to be making any money off of the mods to my
airplane, or any other. OTOH, they're not going to be losing anything,
either.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
| From: | "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> |
I guess I am lucky that I have a legal team... (don't worry--no legal action is
planned)
our biggest liability they see are CH's November 2009 statements:
"my own professional opinion (that the design is sound)"
Based upon this statement, someone is going to fly a non-upgraded airplane built
to the original design. If that airplane were to crash and kill someone on
the ground, the authorities may step in and say that this subsequent crash was
negligent homicide, no longer an accident. I would not want to be the owner,
designer or the pilot landing nearby via parachute.
Even when we comply with the mods, the liabilities WE face are much greater than
any of us bargained for when we signed that waiver. Much of our liablity is
due to the "180 degree shift."
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272139#272139
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Swinford" <grs-pms(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
Well spoken, Greg!
George Swinford CH601HD, not finished, no dog in this fight.
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Cox
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:55 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
I hope all you people that are considering litigation are also
considering the implications of not having the manufacturer around to
support the aircraft in the future, this would result in all of our
aircraft being worth nil and therefore much much more than the
relatively small amount that we will pay for the mod kits.
If you have ever had to have a defective component replaced by the
factory you would know they are excellent in this regard and will
happily send out a replacement free of charge. I for one am happy to pay
for my mod kit as I definitely want to have the manufacturer around in
the future. To suggest that ZAC would sell the kits at a profit is
completely ridiculous, this will not happen the kits will be sold at
cost. If you think you need to sue because you have to drill a few holes
and pop a few rivets, get a grip, get over it and get on with life. Make
the plane safe, fly within the limitations and leave the manufacturer
alone so the rest of can do the same.
Regards,
Greg Cox
Zenith Zodiac CH650, VH-ZDC
Sydney, Australia (Cecil Hills)
Email - greg@gas-n-go.com.au
Mobile - +61 43 000 2 333
Fax - +61 2 9823 9977
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug -
SportAviation
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 6:18 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
This is an interesting set of questions, and it goes to the heart of
what it means to build an E-AB airplane.
Isn't it the case that any person is free to design their own
aircraft, build it, and then fly it; regardless of their experience,
education, or talent? The inspection for an airworthiness cert is based
not on an assessment of the merits of the design, but on its execution
using known best-practices. The DAR's signature doesn't say that they
have examined the design and they concur with the expected performance
profile. It says you have used best practices, and that the assembly per
se isn't likely to be the reason for performance issues.
There's a reason why each builder is the manufacturer. It's your
airplane! It's your design. You may have taken advice from someone on
what they might do in similar circumstances; and those other 3rd parties
might even offer to help with certain manufacturing duties, but it is
still your airplane.
I frankly can't see how a DAR could refuse given a workman-like
execution. They might initially (as we saw with Ed Moody's inspection);
but they have no real basis if E-AB means in what it is intended to
mean. Not to get too philosophical here, but in the US personal freedoms
are what we're based on; and this is an example of personal freedom.
Each of you ARE an airplane manufacturer; with all the rights,
privileges, and responsibilities that come with it. Zenith - your 3rd
party advisor and (possibly) your materiel supplier - has a
recommendation for you having spent their sweat and treasure to analyze
and offer the suggestion. It's yours to accept or reject - or something
in between.
Demonstrably, CH has designed an airplane which is capable of flight.
Independent of what CH has done, each manufacturer has a duty to
evaluate the merits of the advise coming from CH through various
channels, and then act according to their own assessment. While
designers would like builders to follow their design, the most they can
do is restrict the use of their airplanes' names and nomenclature. John
Monnet is known for that, and CH doesn't want builders mucking with his
designs. But each builder (manufacturer) is free to do as they want.
Don't the 601 builders using Corvair engines call their airplanes
something other than Zodiacs?
I don't think anyone is owed anything. Nor do I think they (Z/Z/A) are
liable for anything (lawyers will know whether there is any
fitness-for-purpose implied warranty - but if so, I would guess it goes
to whether the aluminum pieces can be assembled). However, the owners
and employees of Zenith, Zenair, and AMD are desirous of our business
and want to stay in business - they want to earn a living; thus they
want to please their customers. I would suspect that they will do what
they must to generate as much good will as they can while not driving
themselves out of business.
But I'm an AMD owner, not a manufacturer such as yourselves. I must
turn to AMD. They set my agenda just as each of you set your own - you
just do it for a smaller fleet. And, I'll be taking my Zodiac to AMD to
have the modifications - already have an appointment for the end of the
month. And, I will be paying for it. But, I can assure you, they won't
be getting rich doing the mods; even though is causes me some pain.
Now that I've gotten past the initial prick of the needle, I'm
actually looking forward to visiting with my friends up in Eastman, GA.
Best of luck to all,
Doug Norman
N601DN
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:16 PM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
Jim,
I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not
completed your airplanes.
In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to
create a "legally" flying
airplane. I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign
off a newly completed
airplane without verifying that the mods had been done. The price you
paid for your kit
included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the
mods. So I still don't
see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for
free.
My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get
from Zenith
what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we
paid for. We did
not pay for a package of parts to do modifications. Since we are the
manufacturers of our
airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods -
definitely not smart,
but still an option.
Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will
making the mods require
another inspection in order to fly legally? Or does the builder just
fly off a five hour test
period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by
the builder, can the
owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period?
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Jay, from my perspective, they have not delivered to me everything I
need to
build a flyable airframe. It's very doubtful I could get a DAR or the
FAA to
sign off on this. One could argue that this is because is hasn't been
inspected yet, and this would be true. But I still don't have
everything I
need to make a flyable aircraft.
Once I make that argument, the door is open for people who have had
flying
aircraft to make the same or similar points.
www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.
matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.
matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Listh
ttp://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Davcoberly(at)wmconnect.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
I feel the accident rate will increase once these mods are installed
because pilots will think they have a much tougher plane now and will abuse it
to
the point of failure was as now we're all very cautious now on how we fly.
Time will tell.
David Coberly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability. |
Confidence while flying our airplanes- will be the- winner...-
-
Saludos
Gary Gower.
--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Jay Maynard wrote:
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 2:35 PM
> I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because
> whether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court, it
> will ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the
> 601/650 folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.
This is exactly why I'm not going to pursue legal action. It's possible to
win the battle and lose the war. Nobody at AMD is getting rich. If I were t
o
sue, only the lawyers would win. I'm satisfied with the proposals I've
heard; AMD's not going to be making any money off of the mods to my
airplane, or any other. OTOH, they're not going to be losing anything,
either.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP---http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com- - ---http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM)- - - - - - - - - - - - (Yes, th
at's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
Hi Sabrina,
Your really good fortune is you don't have to pay the normal fees for
your legal team.
I am not a lawyer, but I think you comments are a little bit
harsh. Just as Zenith and friends have no liability to speak of we
don't either. I suppose your point about people on the ground
getting hurt is a good one, but I doubt anything we do regarding
airplane design would lead to criminal prosecution. For one thing
there is no "Criminal intent".
Still, I agree with your general comments. I hope all owners upgrade
their planes to the safest possible level. There may be room for
choosing which mods to install, but my latest thoughts came out while
explaining all this to one of my friends at the airport a few minutes
ago. We really don't have any idea why the accidents happened or
what the initial problem was in the accident chain, but all the
planes broke in the same place - the attachment of the wings to the
fuselage. That gives me enough of a clue that it is wise to beef up
that particular area including all the mods recommended by Chris.
Paul
XL ready to order mod kit.
P.S. I got an email from Shirley at ZAC that it will be a few weeks
before they are ready to quote and/or ship kits. Their engineers are
busy trying to put it all together. What she didn't say but I
guessed is that this completely blind-sided them as far as the
release timing goes.
At 12:42 PM 11/10/2009, you wrote:
>I guess I am lucky that I have a legal team...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "GLJSOJ1" <gljno10(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
Just got off the phone with Zenith. They are doing the mods on their aircraft
now and hope to post more information next week. Sebastian stated that they would
have the modifications ready as well as drawing and instructions for them.
My one question is with the doubler on the wing root how will it fit into the
center spar box??? He assured me it will fit, but very tight!
With my plane flying I ask about how the parts would go out. He said they will
work with people to get them out to who has the greatest need first IE flying
first, and builders next as each is ready.
I looked over the modification at lunch today and it will be a lot of work, but
nothing impossible.
Guess I won't be starting my second plane for a while!
--------
601XL N676L FLYING PHASE I
CHESAPEAKE VA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272157#272157
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Ray" <davgray(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
This is the way I see it also.
It seems everybody is pretty much on the same page on this one. The
best solution is the one that produces the best outcome.
What is being offered by CH, will serve the Owners, the FAA, Zenith and
hopefully puts this issue to rest.
For those of you apprehensive about the rebuild:
During my original construction, I nicked the top main spar cap after
the wing was closed when I was installing a nutplate for the access
hole.
After I stopped throwing up, I decided I had to dissemble the wing to
replace it.
I was surprised. The job was not that difficult. I built each wing in
3 weeks and it took 2 weeks to dissemble, repair and reassemble the
wing. Just take your time with each rivet as you carefully drill it
out.
A Technique for removing the solid rivets:
The spar cap solid rivets can be drilled just far enough to almost
remove the shop head then a light tap from the side with a chisel
removes the rest of the shop head, the rivet body is then lightly
driven out of the hole with a smaller drift punch without any chance of
damaging the holes. It all went very well. I did find a mass against
the opposite side from the drift punch helped a lot just don't damage
your spar caps with this mass.
Gary Ray
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Cox
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:55 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
I hope all you people that are considering litigation are also
considering the implications of not having the manufacturer around to
support the aircraft in the future, this would result in all of our
aircraft being worth nil and therefore much much more than the
relatively small amount that we will pay for the mod kits.
If you have ever had to have a defective component replaced by the
factory you would know they are excellent in this regard and will
happily send out a replacement free of charge. I for one am happy to pay
for my mod kit as I definitely want to have the manufacturer around in
the future. To suggest that ZAC would sell the kits at a profit is
completely ridiculous, this will not happen the kits will be sold at
cost. If you think you need to sue because you have to drill a few holes
and pop a few rivets, get a grip, get over it and get on with life. Make
the plane safe, fly within the limitations and leave the manufacturer
alone so the rest of can do the same.
Regards,
Greg Cox
Zenith Zodiac CH650, VH-ZDC
Sydney, Australia (Cecil Hills)
Email - greg@gas-n-go.com.au
Mobile - +61 43 000 2 333
Fax - +61 2 9823 9977
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug -
SportAviation
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 6:18 AM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
This is an interesting set of questions, and it goes to the heart of
what it means to build an E-AB airplane.
Isn't it the case that any person is free to design their own
aircraft, build it, and then fly it; regardless of their experience,
education, or talent? The inspection for an airworthiness cert is based
not on an assessment of the merits of the design, but on its execution
using known best-practices. The DAR's signature doesn't say that they
have examined the design and they concur with the expected performance
profile. It says you have used best practices, and that the assembly per
se isn't likely to be the reason for performance issues.
There's a reason why each builder is the manufacturer. It's your
airplane! It's your design. You may have taken advice from someone on
what they might do in similar circumstances; and those other 3rd parties
might even offer to help with certain manufacturing duties, but it is
still your airplane.
I frankly can't see how a DAR could refuse given a workman-like
execution. They might initially (as we saw with Ed Moody's inspection);
but they have no real basis if E-AB means in what it is intended to
mean. Not to get too philosophical here, but in the US personal freedoms
are what we're based on; and this is an example of personal freedom.
Each of you ARE an airplane manufacturer; with all the rights,
privileges, and responsibilities that come with it. Zenith - your 3rd
party advisor and (possibly) your materiel supplier - has a
recommendation for you having spent their sweat and treasure to analyze
and offer the suggestion. It's yours to accept or reject - or something
in between.
Demonstrably, CH has designed an airplane which is capable of flight.
Independent of what CH has done, each manufacturer has a duty to
evaluate the merits of the advise coming from CH through various
channels, and then act according to their own assessment. While
designers would like builders to follow their design, the most they can
do is restrict the use of their airplanes' names and nomenclature. John
Monnet is known for that, and CH doesn't want builders mucking with his
designs. But each builder (manufacturer) is free to do as they want.
Don't the 601 builders using Corvair engines call their airplanes
something other than Zodiacs?
I don't think anyone is owed anything. Nor do I think they (Z/Z/A) are
liable for anything (lawyers will know whether there is any
fitness-for-purpose implied warranty - but if so, I would guess it goes
to whether the aluminum pieces can be assembled). However, the owners
and employees of Zenith, Zenair, and AMD are desirous of our business
and want to stay in business - they want to earn a living; thus they
want to please their customers. I would suspect that they will do what
they must to generate as much good will as they can while not driving
themselves out of business.
But I'm an AMD owner, not a manufacturer such as yourselves. I must
turn to AMD. They set my agenda just as each of you set your own - you
just do it for a smaller fleet. And, I'll be taking my Zodiac to AMD to
have the modifications - already have an appointment for the end of the
month. And, I will be paying for it. But, I can assure you, they won't
be getting rich doing the mods; even though is causes me some pain.
Now that I've gotten past the initial prick of the needle, I'm
actually looking forward to visiting with my friends up in Eastman, GA.
Best of luck to all,
Doug Norman
N601DN
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 1:16 PM
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
Jim,
I guess the whole other category is you builders that have not
completed your airplanes.
In that case, I agree that you do not have everything you need to
create a "legally" flying
airplane. I can't imagine that any FAA inspector or DAR would sign
off a newly completed
airplane without verifying that the mods had been done. The price you
paid for your kit
included the parts you got, but not all the parts you need for the
mods. So I still don't
see where it is reasonable to expect Zenith to provide those parts for
free.
My airplane, like so many others, has flown legally; so we did get
from Zenith
what we needed to create a flying airplane. Once again, we got what we
paid for. We did
not pay for a package of parts to do modifications. Since we are the
manufacturers of our
airplanes, we have the option to continue flying without the mods -
definitely not smart,
but still an option.
Some other questions come to my mind: (all pertaining to E-AB) Will
making the mods require
another inspection in order to fly legally? Or does the builder just
fly off a five hour test
period and so note it in the logbook? If the airplane is not owned by
the builder, can the
owner do the mods and fly off a five hour test period?
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Jay, from my perspective, they have not delivered to me everything I
need to
build a flyable airframe. It's very doubtful I could get a DAR or the
FAA to
sign off on this. One could argue that this is because is hasn't been
inspected yet, and this would be true. But I still don't have
everything I
need to make a flyable aircraft.
Once I make that argument, the door is open for people who have had
flying
aircraft to make the same or similar points.
www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.
matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
www.aeroelectric.comwww.buildersbooks.comwww.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.
matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Listh
ttp://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
Ken I aggre with you 100%,let's get the -fix, fly our planes ,let zenith
keep builbing planes ,live our lives the best we can..remember most of us a
re no 'Spring Chicken" and life is to short to moan -and groan about a li
ttle more work and a little money, we've already done alot of work and spen
t alot of money. No body is perfect ,and nothing is perfect, that includes
Zenith ,so take adeep breath ,live and let live." -It is what it is!- R
ight Ken?--- Joe 601XL(been working on mine 5 years and it's flying)
=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: annken100 <annken10
0(at)aol.com>=0ATo: zenith-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Tue, November 10, 2009 2
:04:17 PM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability=0A=0A--> Zenith-List
message posted by: "annken100" =0A=0AJim's post made me
think of a line that I read in the Zenith Condition of Sale and Warning ag
reement that we all signed before we received our plans, kits, or parts.=0A
=0AThe line reads: =0A=0AThe Seller does not warrant that the aircraft as c
onstructed by the buyer, or any other person, will be airworthy, or will qu
alify for certification or=0Aregistration by aviation authorities, or will
meet the requirement of the buyer.=0A=0ANow, I'm no lawyer, but doesn't the
above basically say that Zenith is not responsible if the airplane doesn't
fly, can't be registered, or doesn't meet your needs?=0A=0AIf so the issue
s of the FAA not granting an airworthiness certificate, the plane falling o
ut of the sky, or having to pay for a mod kit all become unquestionably the
burden of the buyer.=0A=0AI hope people don't jump on the litigation bandw
agon too hastily because whether or not the above statement protects Zenith
or not in court, it will ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well
not only for the 601/650 folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or A
MD product.=0A=0AKen Pavlou=0A=0A--------=0A601 XL / Corvair=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
Read this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php
=========================0A
===
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "leinad" <leinad(at)hughes.net> |
Chris Heinz does say that the XL returns it's original flight values once the modifications
are installed.
Gig Giacona wrote:
> I think it was July. It was posted in one of the letters from CH.
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272173#272173
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch> |
Answer from Zenair:
Hi Martin,
You will also have to take the front and rear halves of the center spar
apart to install the doublers that go on top. When you do that, you will
reset the width of the center spar. All of this will be covered by the photo
guides. We are currently putting together all of the assembly information as
quickly as possible. All of this information will be posted on the website
as soon as its available.
Caleb Gebhardt
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
http://www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL/Main.html
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272174#272174
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lawrence Webber <lawrencewebber(at)HOTMAIL.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
Hi guys my 2 cents worth! The reason i got a 601xl kit was=2C i liked its
looks=2C its something doable=2C it keeps me out of the grog shops=2C it ke
eps my mind active=2C it allows me to do something with my hands and mind
=2C i am a slow builder=2C ive had my kit for 8 years=2Cyes its finally sta
rting to like like an xl=2C i have met a mostly great group of builders=2C
i have been introduced to most of the good people at zenith=2C i have alway
s been treated with respect from zenith reps. its my intent to obtain the
upgrade kit/kits as soon as possible=2C incorporate them=3B and get on with
the building of a fun project. For you folks that have finished aircraft
i wish i could wave a magic wand and solve your problem The reason Genera
l Aviation has had problems is because of lawyers and litigators. I do know
that with the upgrades i will have a safer and better aircraft and i still
look forward to my project in the air.
Larry Webber rhode island 601xl /corvair chugger
Date: Tue=2C 10 Nov 2009 15:05:17 -0800
From: purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability
Ken I aggre with you 100%=2Clet's get the fix=2C fly our planes =2Clet zen
ith keep builbing planes =2Clive our lives the best we can..remember most o
f us are no 'Spring Chicken" and life is to short to moan and groan about
a little more work and a little money=2C we've already done alot of work an
d spent alot of money. No body is perfect =2Cand nothing is perfect=2C that
includes Zenith =2Cso take adeep breath =2Clive and let live." It is what
it is! Right Ken? Joe 601XL(been working on mine 5 years and it's flyi
ng)
From: annken100 <annken100(at)aol.com>
Sent: Tue=2C November 10=2C 2009 2:04:17 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith liability
Jim's post made me think of a line that I read in the Zenith Condition of S
ale and Warning agreement that we all signed before we received our plans
=2C kits=2C or parts.
The line reads:
The Seller does not warrant that the aircraft as constructed by the buyer
=2C or any other person=2C will be airworthy=2C or will qualify for certifi
cation or
registration by aviation authorities=2C or will meet the requirement of the
buyer.
Now=2C I'm no lawyer=2C but doesn't the above basically say that Zenith is
not responsible if the airplane doesn't fly=2C can't be registered=2C or do
esn't meet your needs?
If so the issues of the FAA not granting an airworthiness certificate=2C th
e plane falling out of the sky=2C or having to pay for a mod kit all become
unquestionably the burden of the buyer.
I hope people don't jump on the litigation bandwagon too hastily because wh
ether or not the above statement protects Zenith or not in court=2C it will
ultimately lead to an end that doesn't bode well not only for the 601/650
folks but for everyone involved with a Zenith or AMD product.
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272122#272122
wwbsp=3B -Matt Dralle=2C =======
============
_________________________________________________________________
Bing brings you maps=2C menus=2C and reviews organized in one place.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&cre
a=TEXT_MFESRP_Local_MapsMenu_Resturants_1x1
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
| From: | "leinad" <leinad(at)hughes.net> |
Hey Paul,
Just a few thoughts. First, It wouldn't surprise me to see Aircraft Spruce offer
the upgrade kits for sale soon. They did just announce they are now the official
parts and materials supplier for Zenith.
Second, I'm glad your self imposed grounding is coming to an end. Given some of
the flak you've received for your stand I wonder if anyone is reconsidering
their criticism.
Dan
psm(at)att.net wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> I believe your thinking is sound, but I come to
> several different conclusions from yours. Part
> of the reason for this is my own "Campaign" to
> get exactly what we got the other day. As I have
> said many times in many different places, I
> wanted a competently engineered set of changes
> that satisfied the NTSB requests. I couldn't
> have asked for more than to have Chris actually
> sponsor the changes. He may not be convinced
> they are necessary, but still he applied his
> extensive skill and experience to bring us a well designed upgrade package.
>
> My argument to the Heintz folks started out and
> always continued that they did not need to admit
> any fault. All I wanted from them was a well
> engineered upgrade package. They had "Design
> responsibility" so they were the best source for
> properly engineered changes. My thinking, and I
> think theirs, was based on the idea that to admit
> a design flaw made them liable to the activities
> of every greedy lawyer in the world. That would
> help nobody but the lawyers. The notion that
> they could design and release improvements to the
> design without admitting fault would get the
> owners the needed (desired?) improvements without
> automatically bringing on all the lawsuits. Your
> logic that they are liable anyway may have some
> merit, but it really doesn't accomplish anything
> useful to blame Zenith for the problems. I don't
> think they have "Deep pockets" like the big
> manufacturers, so the lawyers are likely to
> ignore the whole thing at this point. Especially
> with the lack of "Fault" any lawyer considering
> attacking Zenith is faced with a difficult case
> with unlikely victory and the real likelihood
> that there is no money to win at the end of the path.
>
> I don't share your conclusion about the "Losses"
> of the S-LSA owners either. They made a choice
> to try one of the new type aircraft instead of
> buying a part 23 certified plane. They benefited
> from a much lower price for the same level of
> performance. Now they have to pay a bit more
> than they thought the price was. It sounds like
> a lot of money to a plans or kit builder, but
> when you measure the cost of a factory built
> plane against the upgrade cost you will see it is
> only a small percentage. These buyers have
> simply bought into a more expensive version of
> airplane ownership than the plans and kit builders.
>
> I don't see why Zenith, or Zenair, or the current
> European version of Zenair would refuse to sell
> upgrade kits to anyone who wants one. That is
> their business - selling airplane parts. The
> changes are supposed to be limited to American
> planes, but the chatter I have heard from other
> owners in other countries is they want to make the changes to their planes too.
>
> I agree with you completely on the issue of CZAW
> customers. They have a problem since I doubt AMD
> will be able or willing to upgrade their
> planes. They should be able to get upgrade
> instructions and parts, but will need to pay a
> local mechanic to make the changes. This must
> include a certain premium for the mechanic to
> become familiar with this particular style of
> airplane building and obtain the specialized
> tools such as the custom rivet
> setters. Purchasers of experimental Zodiacs
> built by others are in a similar fix. The rules
> don't require a licensed mechanic to work on
> their planes, but they probably don't have the
> personal skills the builders had. I'm not sure
> there is a really nice solution for them. They
> may wind up paying the same price as the S-LSA
> purchasers, but they didn't think they were
> getting into that price range when they bought their used experimental plane.
>
> I don't want to guess at the likely price for the
> upgrade kits, but I feel the parts will be a
> small amount of money. The more significant cost
> is the labor to install the upgrade. I feel any
> owner who was able to pay for his version of the
> airplane will have no problem paying for the
> additional parts. I just don't think it is
> consistent with the agreements between plans and
> kit builders and Zenith/Zenair for them to get
> the parts for free. Perhaps AMD will have a
> different situation since they sold airplanes
> rather than parts in the first place.
>
> I feel this is a big change in the "Landscape"
> for all XL and 650 owners. I am hopeful the
> beefed up design will prove to be a lot safer in
> the future. If so, it will all be worth it.
>
> Paul
> XL ready to order upgrade kit.
>
>
>
>
> At 07:47 AM 11/10/2009, you wrote:
>
> > I've spent a couple of days thinking over the
> > Zenith situation. It seems to me
> > the problem splits into multiple piles: the LSA, the plans builders, and
> > those building from kits.
> >
> > One of the seemingly hidden facts about LSAs is that the manufacturer can
> > mandate a change to the aircraft at any time, and the owners are stuck. They
> > must made the changes the manufacturer requires, and cannot make any changes
> > without the manufacturer's concurrence. No field mods, no STCs.
> >
> > That's not just for Zenith, but for any aircraft with an LSA airworthiness
> > certificate. I wondered how long it would be before some manufacturer
> > announced a change or changes that really got to the owners. Still, I feel
> > extremely sympathetic towards the owners of Zenith XL and 650 LSAs. Recourse
> > or no recourse, this is a bum deal.
> >
> > I feel even more sympathetic towards the owners of the CZAW 601s, because
I
> > have a hunch they are in even more of a no-man's land. Any grounding or
> > ungrounding must come from CZAW, or its successor, yet I suspect the FAA
> > considers their aircraft equally grounded. I doubt Zenith will sell them
> > anything, since they have made it plain they do not consider they have any
> > liability for the CZAW aircraft. I don't know that I blame them for this;
> > they didn't sell the aircraft of realize a profit.
> >
> > Those who built from plans are also very likely
> > to have little recourse. After
> > all, Zenith sold a set of plans which they are free to follow or not. It
> > appears Zenith has, in effect, also supplied them with a free set of
> > modification plans. Unfortunately, it adds to the cost and time, perhaps
> > requiring extensive rework.
> >
> > Which brings me to the final category, those who bought a kit. Zenith
> > indicated that this kit contained everything necessary to build a flying
> > airplane, except the engine, paint, upholstery, and avionics. Whatever it may
> > be called by Zenith, the fix kit is not a
> > voluntary upgrade. Zenith can't
> > claim this is some sort of design improvement; Chris Heintz has already said
> > he doesn't feel it is necessary.
> >
> > The FAA, however, very likely will not let these
> > aircraft be flown until these
> > modifications are made. That means Zenith has not delivered everything
> > necessary to build a flying airplane (with the exceptions previously noted).
> > This is a direct result of their design, not something the builders have
> > done. It is, in effect, a mandatory change at Zenith's instigation, even
> > though it is intended to make the FAA happy.
> >
> > That leaves a lot of builders having invested a
> > lot of time, and now they must
> > invest more. My feeling is that Zenith should take a hard look at this
> > situation, and do everything within their power to make these modifications
> > available either free, or at cost. They'll be lucky if they aren't sued for
> > time AND materials.
> >
> > I do not buy the argument that Mooney, Cessna, et al do not pay for
> > Airworthiness Directives, service bulletins, and so on. While this is true
> > for products that have been delivered for years, it has not always been true
> > for products just delivered. Lycoming has paid for the replacement of engine
> > parts recently delivered that proved to defective. Cessna paid for
> > modifications to the early Cardinals, when they failed to fly correctly. One
> > could find many more cases without searching too hard. The payment, of
> > course, was to head off lawsuits, and (possibly) to preserve company image.
> >
> > A real issue is that Zenith is a small company, and may not be able to afford
> > the same things as a Lycoming or a Cessna. I believe there needs to be a
> > negotiation between 650 and XL builders, with all of Zenith's cards on the
> > table. We need to see what they can afford. What level of insurance do they
> > have? They are at fault; they need to give until it hurts, and then
> > (possibly) give some more.
> >
> > If this does not happen, there is a very real
> > danger of individual or combined
> > lawsuits which do force Zenith from the aircraft business. I do not think
> > (and I'm not an attorney) that Zenith's contract is likely to hold up under
> > the circumstances which are present.
> >
> > This is my 25 cents worth for this morning, with
> > the reminder, as always, that
> > 25 cents won't buy what it once would.
> >
> >
>
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272183#272183
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the nice thoughts.
So far, nobody has said anything to me about the flak I got. Of
course, it was only a few people who gave me all the trouble. Most
of the people I know locally and most of the list members were very
supportive of me and my position. If I tried I could probably name
the 4 or 5 people who made all the personal attacks on me for my
position. And then there was one who was just angry with me and
complained about my choice of words . . .
I really do appreciate the sentiment.
Thanks again,
Paul
At 04:28 PM 11/10/2009, you wrote:
>Hey Paul,
>Just a few thoughts. First, It wouldn't surprise me to see Aircraft
>Spruce offer the upgrade kits for sale soon. They did just
>announce they are now the official parts and materials supplier for Zenith.
>Second, I'm glad your self imposed grounding is coming to an
>end. Given some of the flak you've received for your stand I wonder
>if anyone is reconsidering their criticism.
>Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Fund Raiser |
Dear Listers,
Just a reminder that November is the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser month. There
are some very nice incentive gifts to choose from as well!
Please make your Contribution today:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Reliable Kids Email.. |
| From: | "Taylor" <rozerfedrer09(at)gmail.com> |
There are many internet service providers, but for children special service providers are needed. While a child is working on net, parents are worried about what they are watching, is it ok or not all these worries are always in their minds. And at that time they need a special kind of service by which they can have command on their child internet activities. Dont worry now, just visit down to avail internet services for your children. Kidsemail.org (http://www.kidsemail.org/) helps you ensure that your child communicates with contacts approved by you. They offer these services at lowest possible costs. They offer free trial service for 30days, i.e. a month so that you may satisfied with services and decide to have it. So hurry up!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272289#272289
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rich Simmons <4RCSIMMONS(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
I would like to respond to the statement made by Mr. Bill. (For the kit builders!)
I cant keep quiet!
We need to see what they can afford. What level of insurance do they
have? They are at fault; they need to give until it hurts, and then
(possibly) give some more.
Bill, if I broke my arm in your yard stumbling over a twig claiming it was your
fault, would your statement still hold true?
This is the mentality that has run our medical fees into the ground in this great
country we live in. Lawyers just love it! Everyone wants to blame someone else
for their problems and then make some kind of gain from it. It appears that
the argument can go on forever as to whether the design needs/needed to be modified
or not.
Mr. Hinze has answered on the side of caution from external pressures. We have
watched it happen over the past 2 years. He believes in his design! He has done
pletny to prove it. HOw many of his family are flying in his design. Look how
many that are out there and don't have a problem! He and his family have been
flying it for how long?? Now comes the claim, "Let's bleed them!"
The problem lies with the old saying "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". After
all the sounding off over the past 2 years you can see who won!
Now comes the entitlement process! You owe me because . . . We are a country of
entitlement now and it is showing here on the list. Geese!
I have been just as frustrated as any of you folks out there. I have prolonged
my build partially for financial reasons (I wasn't born to a golden spoon!)and
then to see what happens with modifications.
I have an engine now and am looking forward to completing and flying MY aircraft.
If you look at the parts needed, I can see no more than a few hundred dollars and
then a few weeks of toil spreed out over a given period. I don't feel Zenith
owes me anything more than sharing their wisodom on the upgrades. I will probably
have most of my parts made before the talkers move on to something else
to continue their fussing.
In the work place things dont go right, you suck it up and keep on trucking! I
imagine there is not a sole on this list that doesnt have what it takes to purchase
said materials.
We chose the kit route to beat cost overrun! Here is a fee that is attached to
it! It wont be the last for our decision!
Now,
What did I Do on my airplane yesterday? I prepared my list for needed materials
for the upgrade, marked an air box location on the firewall and then the cabin
heat location.
Before I went in the house, I placed one of the cylinders and a head on the motorcycle
I am restoring, decided my feet were tired and then went into see my family.
Man this country is great!
O yea, I forgot! I slept well knowing there is a solution to the issues we have
seen come to where we are. Knowing that in about a year I will take my first
flight in a plane I built myself makes me a happy camper.
Rich
P.S
I do feel for the folks with the certified versions. They, have an issue! Expensive
one!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
Rich, you are right on the mark......Joe N101HD=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_____________
___________________=0AFrom: Rich Simmons <4RCSIMMONS(at)comcast.net>=0ATo: zen
ith-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Wed, November 11, 2009 8:30:38 AM=0ASubject:
Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability=0A=0A=0AI would like to respond to the s
tatement made by Mr. Bill.- (For the kit builders!)=0AI cant keep quiet!
=0A=0AWe need to see what they can afford. What level of insurance do they
=0A have? They are at fault; they need to give until it hurts, and the
n =0A (possibly) give some more.=0ABill, if I broke my arm in your yar
d stumbling over a twig claiming it was your fault, would your statement st
ill hold true?=0A=0AThis is the mentality that has run our medical fees int
o the ground in this great country we live in. Lawyers just love it! Everyo
ne wants to blame someone else for their problems and then make some kind o
f gain from it. It appears that the argument can go on forever as to whethe
r the design needs/needed to be modified or not.=0A=0AMr. Hinze has answere
d on the side of caution from external pressures. We have watched it happen
over the past 2 years. He believes in his design! He has done pletny to-
prove it. HOw many of his family are flying in his design. Look how many t
hat are out there and don't have a problem! He and his family have been fly
ing it for how long?? Now comes the claim, "Let's bleed them!"=0A=0AThe pro
blem lies with the old saying "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". After al
l the sounding off over the past 2 years you can see who won!=0A=0ANow come
s the entitlement process! You owe me because . . .- We are a country of
entitlement now and it is showing here on the list. Geese!=0A=0AI have been
just as frustrated as any of you folks out there. I have prolonged my buil
d partially for financial reasons (I wasn't born to a golden spoon!)and the
n to see what happens with modifications.=0A=0AI have an engine now and am
looking forward to completing and flying MY aircraft.=0A=0AIf you look at t
he parts needed, I can see no more than a few hundred dollars and then a fe
w weeks of toil spreed out over a given period. I don't feel Zenith owes me
anything more than sharing their wisodom on the upgrades. I will probably
have most of my parts made before the talkers move on to something else to
continue their fussing.=0A=0AIn the work place things dont go right, you su
ck it up and keep on trucking! I- imagine there is not a sole on this lis
t that doesnt have what it takes to purchase said materials.=0A=0AWe chose
the kit route to beat cost overrun! Here is a fee that is attached to it! I
t wont be the last for our decision!=0A=0ANow,=0AWhat did I Do on my airpla
ne yesterday? I prepared my list for needed materials for the upgrade, mark
ed an air box location on the firewall and then the cabin heat location.=0A
Before I went in the house, I placed one of the cylinders and a head on the
motorcycle I am restoring, decided my feet were tired and then went into s
ee my family.=0A=0AMan this country is great!=0A=0AO yea, I forgot! I slept
well knowing there is a solution to the issues we have seen come to where
we are. Knowing that in about a year I will take my first flight in a plane
I built myself makes me a happy camper.=0A=0ARich=0A=0AP.S=0AI do feel for
the folks with the certified versions. They, have an issue! Expensive one!
===============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | steve(at)cccparis.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
AMEN! THANKS Rich!
>
> Rich, you are right on the mark......Joe N101HD
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Rich Simmons <4RCSIMMONS(at)comcast.net>
> To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Wed, November 11, 2009 8:30:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
>
>
> I would like to respond to the statement made by Mr. Bill. (For the kit builders!)
> I cant keep quiet!
>
> We need to see what they can afford. What level of insurance do they
> have? They are at fault; they need to give until it hurts, and then
> (possibly) give some more.
> Bill, if I broke my arm in your yard stumbling over a twig claiming it was your
fault, would your statement still hold true?
>
> This is the mentality that has run our medical fees into the ground in this great
country we live in. Lawyers just love it! Everyone wants to
blame someone else for their problems and then make some kind of gain from it.
It appears that the argument can go on forever as to
whether the design needs/needed to be modified or not.
>
> Mr. Hinze has answered on the side of caution from external pressures. We have
watched it happen over the past 2 years. He believes
in his design! He has done pletny to prove it. HOw many of his family are flying
in his design. Look how many that are out there and don't
have a problem! He and his family have been flying it for how long?? Now comes
the claim, "Let's bleed them!"
>
> The problem lies with the old saying "The squeaky wheel gets the grease". After
all the sounding off over the past 2 years you can see
who won!
>
> Now comes the entitlement process! You owe me because . . . We are a country
of entitlement now and it is showing here on the list.
Geese!
>
> I have been just as frustrated as any of you folks out there. I have prolonged
my build partially for financial reasons (I wasn't born to a
golden spoon!)and then to see what happens with modifications.
>
> I have an engine now and am looking forward to completing and flying MY aircraft.
>
> If you look at the parts needed, I can see no more than a few hundred dollars
and then a few weeks of toil spreed out over a given
period. I don't feel Zenith owes me anything more than sharing their wisodom on
the upgrades. I will probably have most of my parts
made before the talkers move on to something else to continue their fussing.
>
> In the work place things dont go right, you suck it up and keep on trucking!
I imagine there is not a sole on this list that doesnt have
what it takes to purchase said materials.
>
> We chose the kit route to beat cost overrun! Here is a fee that is attached to
it! It wont be the last for our decision!
>
> Now,
> What did I Do on my airplane yesterday? I prepared my list for needed materials
for the upgrade, marked an air box location on the
firewall and then the cabin heat location.
> Before I went in the house, I placed one of the cylinders and a head on the motorcycle
I am restoring, decided my feet were tired and
then went into see my family.
>
> Man this country is great!
>
> O yea, I forgot! I slept well knowing there is a solution to the issues we have
seen come to where we are. Knowing that in about a year I
will take my first flight in a plane I built myself makes me a happy camper.
>
> Rich
>
> P.S
> I do feel for the folks with the certified versions. They, have an issue! Expensive
one!===============
>
____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe" <backstagelive(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability |
I have been going over these posts and would like to know if anyone knows
what the probable cause of the recent accident was. I'm sorry of I missed
it. Could the pilot, who I think it was posted that he was in his 70's, have
had a serious medical condition that could have overstressed the plane? If
that were the case, maybe we are getting way ahead of ourselves. I agree the
accident may have caused the Heinz family to announce the new changes way
ahead of their schedule. You can pull the wings off of ANY plane if the
pilot is incapacitated first.
If Zenith puts out the retrofit kit for free, they will be heroes in the
aviation industry. I am happy with purchasing the retrofit kit at the
manufacturer's cost. I would not be willing to buy it from Aircraft Spruce.
I believe it will be impossible for the company to send the parts for free.
As a builder and supporter of the company, I want them to stay in business
and support the builders for as long as possible. Providing the kits for
free may bankrupt the company.
I'm just as angry about this as all of you. I don't see any malice on the
part of the company. They have treated us well over the years and I believe
they have earned our trust and we need to support them through these hard
times. I'm not at the point yet where criticism of the company is called
for. These repairs will hurt some people more than others and I can
understand the frustrations on the part of pilots with finished airplanes. I
also understand when this is over and done with; we will have the very best
over engineered aircraft on the market.
God bless the pilot and the family members of the recent accident.
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "Zenair_Mathieu" <newplane(at)gmail.com> |
To all 601XL and 650 builders and aircraft owners. If you have a specific question
regarding the upgrade, I have started a Q&A on the Zenith.aero site. Post
your question there I will consult with Chris Heintz so that we can give you the
best possible answer. Please be specific about your questions.
Mathieu
http://www.zenith.aero/forum/topics/qa-safety-alert-and-saib
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272373#272373
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Zenair_Mathieu" <newplane(at)gmail.com> |
To all 601XL and 650 builders and aircraft owners. If you have a specific question
regarding the upgrade, I have started a Q&A on the Zenith.aero site. Post
your question there I will consult with Chris Heintz so that we can give you the
best possible answer. Please be specific about your questions.
Mathieu
http://www.zenith.aero/forum/topics/qa-safety-alert-and-saib
For details on the upgrade, please see:
http://www.zenith.aero/profiles/blogs/installing-the-upgrade-package
For news updates, please see:
http://zenithair.com/news/ntsb-astm-4-09a.html
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272374#272374
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 601/650 Airframe Upgrades, Grove Gear |
Here's what I just posted to the 601 list, I thought it should be here, too.
Hi, Gang!
I just had a good conversation with Sebastien at Zenith, and got a bit more information
that might be helpful when making decisions about the upcoming upgrades
to the Zenith 601/650 series.
First, Sebastien estimates that the full upgrade kit will run approximately $300,
not including shipping. This represents Zenith's costs in materials alone,
including hardware.
Second, Zenith estimates that the net weight increase will average between 5 and
6 pounds, once the old fasteners are removed, new components are installed,
and new fasteners are replaced.
Third, they've already started a blog with photos and video on "how to" accomplish
the upgrade. As you can imagine, this is an ongoing work in progress, so it's
being updated on a periodic basis. And yes, you can post your comments to
Zenith as well. Here'e the link:
http://www.zenith.aero/profiles/blogs/installing-the-upgrade-package
Personally speaking, 5 or 6 pounds is a lot less than I was imagining after looking
at the drawings, so maybe there's a bit less pressure to install the lighter
weight Grove gear. On the other hand, I can't think of a better time to do
it and get 10 more pounds of useful load, so I'm going to keep looking into the
logistics of a group buy. As has been posted previously here, the Grove gear
lists for $1347, and gun drilled brake lines adds another $100 per gear leg.
Robbie Grove said we could expect a 10 to 15 percent discount off of list if
we got 10 or so buyers together.
Don't forget that installing the Grove gear requires an adapter block to allow
the narrower Grove gear to fit snugly in the existing gear channel, and this is
manufactured by Zenair in Canada. I missed talking to them about cost and availability
earlier today, but will follow up tomorrow.
Frankly, I think this is all good news from Zenith, and they deserve a lot of credit
for delivering an enhancement that really strengthens the airframe, and
will give us enhanced peace of mind while flying. Kudos to Chris and sons for
stepping up to the challenge, and keeping the cost down to a bare minimum.
And before I forget, a big THANK YOU! to all of the veteran and current servicemen
and women in our Zenith family! Without their sacrifices, we would not have
the freedoms we take for granted today. Building and flying your own airplane
would be nothing more than a fanciful dream...
Rick Lindstrom
Zenvair 601 N42KP
...and proud parent of a US Marine.
-----Original Message-----
>From: steve(at)cccparis.com
>Sent: Nov 11, 2009 10:48 AM
>To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
>
>
>AMEN! THANKS Rich!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> |
Dear Mathieu,
My attorney just talked with the lead NTSB Investigator yesterday. They discussed
the Q&A posted on your web page. In particular, Chris statement that he was
bound to confidentiality... because the NTSB requires this...
In fact there is a blanket exception for all safety of flight issues.
My specific question: As to Zenith's timing in releasing the upgrade to the public,
when were you first aware of this exception?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272382#272382
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
What a GREAT way to ensure open communication with ZAC . I
take it your goal is to spend time in court instead of flying?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sabrina
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:08 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650
Dear Mathieu,
My attorney just talked with the lead NTSB Investigator yesterday. They discussed
the Q&A posted on your web page. In particular, Chris statement that he was
bound to confidentiality... because the NTSB requires this...
In fact there is a blanket exception for all safety of flight issues.
My specific question: As to Zenith's timing in releasing the upgrade to the public,
when were you first aware of this exception?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272382#272382
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Hi Craig,
My vote goes to give Sabrina a little room to maneuver here. She has
already said she has no intention to sue anybody. Still, I know she
is really upset about the fact that nobody found out about the
upcoming massive upgrade until the fatal accident last week. Perhaps
some warning would have kept some people she cares about on the ground . . .
Let's see what the response to her question is before we throw any
stones at anybody.
Paul
XL ready to order upgrade
At 05:18 PM 11/11/2009, you wrote:
>What a GREAT way to ensure open communication with ZAC . I
>take it your goal is to spend time in court instead of flying?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "Greg Cox" <service(at)eipdiesel.com.au> |
Paul,
Manoeuvre towards what?
I agree with Craig, questions such a Sabrina's serve no purpose except
to waste peoples time. If impending litigation is not the intension then
don't ask the question, if litigation is the intension then this is not
the place to ask such a question.
If you and Sabrina are suggesting an announcement by ZAC to state that
they were releasing an upgrade would in some way have encouraged those
who were still flying to cease doing so, I think this is a stretch. ZAC
did say they were reviewing the design. All persons operating these
aircraft would have to by now be aware of the accidents, if they then
decided to continue flying then they do so knowing the risk.
Kind regards,
Greg Cox
Sydney, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Mulwitz
Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2009 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650
Hi Craig,
My vote goes to give Sabrina a little room to maneuver here. She has
already said she has no intention to sue anybody. Still, I know she
is really upset about the fact that nobody found out about the
upcoming massive upgrade until the fatal accident last week. Perhaps
some warning would have kept some people she cares about on the ground .
. .
Let's see what the response to her question is before we throw any
stones at anybody.
Paul
XL ready to order upgrade
At 05:18 PM 11/11/2009, you wrote:
>What a GREAT way to ensure open communication with ZAC . I
>take it your goal is to spend time in court instead of flying?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> |
Greg,
The question has a valid purpose. I am sorry if you feel I wasted your time.
If they are not going to listen to their legal counsel's advice as indicated
in the 11/7 Q&A , then I figured they might answer the question. If they listen
to their lawyer, they will ignore my question. The question will determine
which they are doing. If they are listening to their lawyers, then I don't
think I will upgrade yet. Lawyers have a tendency to cause aircraft manuals
and weights to expand. I speak from experience100 pages and 860 pounds. Just
look at a Cessna 150 owners manual before and after the series of lawsuits in
the late 1970s.
I did not ask for CH to fix an airplane that he considers sound.
I was not informed of any proposed main spar mods when I visited Mexico this summer.
What about all those guys in England. They just incorporated the LAA mods and
now they might have to tear their airplanes apart again in 2010 if the LAA revisits
the issue.
I would like, from Zenith, a set of V speeds, G forces and gross weights the airplane,
as originally designed, can handle in light of all the information currently
available to Zenith.
I would not have flown in the factory demo nor the AMD this summer if I knew the
main spar was being upgraded.
My airplane will not be upgraded or flown until more is known.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272403#272403
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Hi Greg,
Thanks for the comment. I agree with you and I think we all agree
that litigation is not a path that gains anything for anybody except
the lawyers. On the other hand, there are other things at stake here
besides money.
When Chris announced he recommended a reduction in cruise speed and
gross weight around the time of Oshkosh, I took that to mean he
acknowledged a real need for engineering changes on the XL. Perhaps
I was the only one in the world who took it that way. His position
then and now also included the notion that there was nothing wrong
with the design.
Some people would like to know when the big guys (Chris, FAA, NTSB,
etc.) decided to go ahead with development of detailed design of
extensive nature for this plane. Even I was surprised at the extent
of the changes to the wing spars and spar carry-through that were
published Saturday. I expected a competent engineering effort to
"Fix" the aileron mass balance and control sensitivity questions. We
already have seen one pretty good design for the aileron change from
the LAA folks, and I heard somewhere that the sensitivity problem
would be fixed with a couple of springs or some such change.
What seems to have taken place is that the FAA folks along with Chris
and AMD decided to do extensive changes to the spar structure but
they didn't really want to tell the world about that effort. It took
another in-flight break-up to get the announcement made. I don't
think anybody is naive enough to miss the fact that the accident
happened on Friday and the announcement came on Saturday.
I think Sabrina is interested in digging into this particular aspect
of the whole mess. I am not quite as curious as she is, but I also
would like to get some idea of how the thought process and decision
process took place. This is not about litigation. It is about
getting a better understanding of what sort of people we are dealing with.
I think litigation would be a waste of time and money in this
case. There are no deep pockets for the lawyers to dip their greasy
fingers into. The only real outcome of extensive litigation would be
the demise of the Heintz family businesses, and I don't think any of
us really wants that outcome. It would hurt us all. Indeed I don't
think there is any real liability from a common sense point of
view. I believe everyone in this story had at least reasonable if
not noble intentions.
Many of us are angry for a lot of different but very good
reasons. Sabrina's point of view is about why people were allowed to
happily go along believing this whole mess was just about pilot
errors and maintenance problems. She believed that line and feels
betrayed. Other people are angry because of the personal financial
impacts. I am just annoyed by all the personal attacks I had to
endure to reach the outcome I wanted.
'nuff said . . .
Paul
XL ready to order upgrades.
At 08:18 PM 11/11/2009, you wrote:
>Paul,
>Manoeuvre towards what?
>I agree with Craig, questions such a Sabrina's serve no purpose except
>to waste peoples time. If impending litigation is not the intension then
>don't ask the question, if litigation is the intension then this is not
>the place to ask such a question.
>If you and Sabrina are suggesting an announcement by ZAC to state that
>they were releasing an upgrade would in some way have encouraged those
>who were still flying to cease doing so, I think this is a stretch. ZAC
>did say they were reviewing the design. All persons operating these
>aircraft would have to by now be aware of the accidents, if they then
>decided to continue flying then they do so knowing the risk.
>
>Kind regards,
>
>
>Greg Cox
>Sydney, Australia
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Funny how the guys who know the most (AMD and Zenith in the USA, Canada, Europe)
continue to fly in these terribly flawed aircraft.
If you won't fly planes from companies that listen to their lawyers then which
company will you select?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sabrina
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:07 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650
Greg,
The question has a valid purpose. I am sorry if you feel I wasted your time.
If they are not going to listen to their legal counsel's advice as indicated
in the 11/7 Q&A , then I figured they might answer the question. If they listen
to their lawyer, they will ignore my question. The question will determine
which they are doing. If they are listening to their lawyers, then I don't
think I will upgrade yet. Lawyers have a tendency to cause aircraft manuals
and weights to expand. I speak from experience100 pages and 860 pounds. Just
look at a Cessna 150 owners manual before and after the series of lawsuits in
the late 1970s.
I did not ask for CH to fix an airplane that he considers sound.
I was not informed of any proposed main spar mods when I visited Mexico this summer.
What about all those guys in England. They just incorporated the LAA mods and
now they might have to tear their airplanes apart again in 2010 if the LAA revisits
the issue.
I would like, from Zenith, a set of V speeds, G forces and gross weights the airplane,
as originally designed, can handle in light of all the information currently
available to Zenith.
I would not have flown in the factory demo nor the AMD this summer if I knew the
main spar was being upgraded.
My airplane will not be upgraded or flown until more is known.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272403#272403
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> |
Craig,
If the upgrade is lawyer driven, then we deserve better.
I would still like to see the new "numbers" for the original design.
Once all the smoke clears, I am hoping for a "light" version of the upgrade with
a de-rated airframe. That is the maneuvering Paul speaks of.
I love my lawyers! :O)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272409#272409
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
I'm confused by what you want. You don't want to fly in a plane without some
sort of upgrade. But you don't want the proposed upgrade. Since "light" is
in quotes I'm assuming you aren't worried about projected weight (reported
at 5-6 pounds by Sebastian via Rick Lindstrom). How will you know how much
is enough?
Anyway I don't think there will be another supported and tested solution.
Chris's Q&A seems clear to me. He wants to stop the damage to his companies,
family and customers by attacking all points at once. If you want the
"lightest" solution then there is the original design (although you may have
trouble getting insurance). If you know what solution you want then you can
do it yourself but I don't see it being blessed or tested by Zenith. The
last thing they want is multiple solutions and more FUD. For myself I have
already trusted my life to Chris's designs and will continue to do so.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sabrina
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:42 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650
Craig,
If the upgrade is lawyer driven, then we deserve better.
I would still like to see the new "numbers" for the original design.
Once all the smoke clears, I am hoping for a "light" version of the upgrade
with a de-rated airframe. That is the maneuvering Paul speaks of.
I love my lawyers! :O)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272409#272409
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Sabrina,
If you don't agree with CH's upgrade, then design and carry out your own
upgrade then spend your money testing your design. If yours is an
improvement on CH's then you should be able to market it and sell it to
other builders without any problems.
Regards,
Greg Cox
Zenith Zodiac CH650
Sydney, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sabrina
Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2009 4:42 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650
Craig,
If the upgrade is lawyer driven, then we deserve better.
I would still like to see the new "numbers" for the original design.
Once all the smoke clears, I am hoping for a "light" version of the upgrade
with a de-rated airframe. That is the maneuvering Paul speaks of.
I love my lawyers! :O)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272409#272409
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Hi Ben,
I would ask you and the other critics to give Sabrina a little room
to work here.
Perhaps you are unaware of the simple truth that her reasons for
building a plane are quite different from the rest of us. She didn't
do it for recreation. It was vocational training. For her, this
fiasco with the accidents and all the people involved in dealing with
the fallout is part of that training.
Since she almost let the cat out of the bag with her last comment, I
will "Spill the beans" on a few pieces of her personal
situation. Perhaps then you folks will leave her alone and let her
work her way through this whole mess. I think we all will benefit
from the results.
Sabrina's comment about loving her legal team is literally
true. Both of her parents are lawyers. (Neither one is a tort lawyer.)
With all of her accomplishments it is easy for most of us to forget
that she couldn't fly her own plane until recently because she was
too young to solo in the USA. Even now after having her plane flying
for a year or two she is still only 16 years old.
I personally feel lucky to have run across Sabrina in this (sometimes
nasty) little world of Zodiac builders. I think she will be very
famous in a few years. Indeed, she already is. I expect her
universe will be a lot larger than the one the rest of us have lived
in. Her current plan is to be a space ship designer when she grows up.
Paul
XL ready for upgrades
Unrepentant Sabrina fan
At 11:12 PM 11/11/2009, you wrote:
>The numbers you are looking for that Zenith used when you bought
>your kit should still be right there in the builder manual you read
>while building your Sabrina 1. If they did not satisfy you then
>maybe you should not have attemped this avenue of recreation.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jake Reyna <jakereyna(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
Having read SAIB CE-10-08 a number of times, I thought it would be
best to get legal advice from the many experts on the list.
The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
implicated the potential coupling of design and operational aspects of
the aircraft."
What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So, how does
that indicate there is a design flaw? It does indicate a flaw in
intelligent design and there is more evidence of that on this list.
The report goes onto state that "Our detailed review of available
flutter analysis reports was inconclusive." Once again, no evidence of
a design flaw, dammit!!
So, the FAA decides that the lack of evidence is proof enough to
mandate significant modifications. Is there anyone on this list that
believes that the FAA would prevail in a court of law? We are a
country of laws and somewhere in there is a presumption of innocence.
The FAA in this case is the prosecutor and I find it inconceivable
that any jury after looking at the lack of evidence would do anything
other than dismiss the case.
If there is to be any legal action, it should be against the FAA and NTSB.
Jake
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> |
Ben,
The reason I had my attorney contact the NTSB was for the purpose of offering my
airplane for destructive testing. My upgrades use aluminum, two part foam,
aluminum to gain additional strength and dampen harmonics. I am curious how strong
it really is. I don't know if they will use it, but the government does
have a key.
Paul, No need to respond.
In three years in high school I have not spent a single dime on the candy machine
or soda machine. I can't remember the last time I went clothes shopping.
When my grandfather passed away, rather than spending my inheritance, I donated
the entire amount to my school. When I worked this summer--my first paying
job, I donated my entire paycheck to charity.
My bedroom at school is larger than my bedroom at home. I am so lucky to have
such loving parents, caring teachers and the most amazing group of mentors.
I have it good, but I don't take anyone or anything for granted. I would not be
where I am if it were not for the guys on this list and those I have met in
the aviation community. I love all of you--you are part of my life and are helping
to shape me into who I am and who I will become. Thank you.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272442#272442
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Mikesell" <skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
I get the impression Jake you do not deal with the FAA often. In my job I
see and deal with them all the time. The FAA is a government office that
makes the determination based on regulations, not laws. There is one little
paragraph in the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that states " the pilot
in command may not operate a aircraft that is believed to be in a
unairworthy condition". The FAA and the NTSB "believe" the 601xl and the 650
to be in a unairworthy condition. The word "believe" give the FAA the right
to say you can not fly the 601xl and 650 under the guidance of the FAR's.
Now since this is a regulation and not a law you can go ahead and fly your
plane as much as you want. However be advised that the FAA can also suspend
your license at will for being "unsafe" and "endangering the public" because
that is also a judgement call given to the FAA under the FAR's.
You can fight both these in court and the only thing you will get is a very
very very high bill from your lawyer. Getting mad about what the FAA does
not work, sueing the FAA does not work either. The FAA has several offices
full of lawyers geared up for just these types of fights. While the FAA does
not always win, even if they loose and you win in court, think about all
the months or perhaps years you spend in court fighting the suspension of
your license or getting to fly your plane without mods...... or even the
amount of money you would spend to have 3 or 4 engineering firms back up
Chris's design in court (wont happen because they are afraid of liability
suits) or the money (we are talking more than $100,000.00) in attorney fees
to fight this case in open court.
We are all better off just making the upgrades and enjoying our planes.
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jake Reyna" <jakereyna(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:34 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: FAA SAIB CE-10-08
>
> Having read SAIB CE-10-08 a number of times, I thought it would be
> best to get legal advice from the many experts on the list.
>
> The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
> accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
> implicated the potential coupling of design and operational aspects of
> the aircraft."
>
> What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
> aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
> that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So, how does
> that indicate there is a design flaw? It does indicate a flaw in
> intelligent design and there is more evidence of that on this list.
>
> The report goes onto state that "Our detailed review of available
> flutter analysis reports was inconclusive." Once again, no evidence of
> a design flaw, dammit!!
>
> So, the FAA decides that the lack of evidence is proof enough to
> mandate significant modifications. Is there anyone on this list that
> believes that the FAA would prevail in a court of law? We are a
> country of laws and somewhere in there is a presumption of innocence.
> The FAA in this case is the prosecutor and I find it inconceivable
> that any jury after looking at the lack of evidence would do anything
> other than dismiss the case.
>
> If there is to be any legal action, it should be against the FAA and NTSB.
>
> Jake
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LINLARMAYES(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
Looks like another one went down yesterday. see
_http://www.villageronline.com/story/1586318.html_
(http://www.villageronline.com/story/1586318.html)
In a message dated 11/12/2009 9:16:54 A.M. Central Standard Time,
skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "David Mikesell"
I get the impression Jake you do not deal with the FAA often. In my job I
see and deal with them all the time. The FAA is a government office that
makes the determination based on regulations, not laws. There is one
little
paragraph in the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that states " the
pilot
in command may not operate a aircraft that is believed to be in a
unairworthy condition". The FAA and the NTSB "believe" the 601xl and the
650
to be in a unairworthy condition. The word "believe" give the FAA the
right
to say you can not fly the 601xl and 650 under the guidance of the FAR's.
Now since this is a regulation and not a law you can go ahead and fly your
plane as much as you want. However be advised that the FAA can also
suspend
your license at will for being "unsafe" and "endangering the public"
because
that is also a judgement call given to the FAA under the FAR's.
You can fight both these in court and the only thing you will get is a
very
very very high bill from your lawyer. Getting mad about what the FAA does
not work, sueing the FAA does not work either. The FAA has several offices
full of lawyers geared up for just these types of fights. While the FAA
does
not always win, even if they loose and you win in court, think about all
the months or perhaps years you spend in court fighting the suspension of
your license or getting to fly your plane without mods...... or even the
amount of money you would spend to have 3 or 4 engineering firms back up
Chris's design in court (wont happen because they are afraid of liability
suits) or the money (we are talking more than $100,000.00) in attorney
fees
to fight this case in open court.
We are all better off just making the upgrades and enjoying our planes.
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jake Reyna" <jakereyna(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:34 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: FAA SAIB CE-10-08
>
> Having read SAIB CE-10-08 a number of times, I thought it would be
> best to get legal advice from the many experts on the list.
>
> The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
> accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
> implicated the potential coupling of design and operational aspects of
> the aircraft."
>
> What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
> aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
> that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So, how does
> that indicate there is a design flaw? It does indicate a flaw in
> intelligent design and there is more evidence of that on this list.
>
> The report goes onto state that "Our detailed review of available
> flutter analysis reports was inconclusive." Once again, no evidence of
> a design flaw, dammit!!
>
> So, the FAA decides that the lack of evidence is proof enough to
> mandate significant modifications. Is there anyone on this list that
> believes that the FAA would prevail in a court of law? We are a
> country of laws and somewhere in there is a presumption of innocence.
> The FAA in this case is the prosecutor and I find it inconceivable
> that any jury after looking at the lack of evidence would do anything
> other than dismiss the case.
>
> If there is to be any legal action, it should be against the FAA and
NTSB.
>
> Jake
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
David,
You are so right. Remember Bob Hoover's nightmare episode with the FAA ?
Even though it was TOTALLY unfair and not within the law, the bureaucrat
s and their "judicial" system never gave in. The politically-appointed he
ad of the FAA had to override the bureaucracy and personally straighten it
out. It is a shame, but our government can coerce us, bully us and outrig
ht force us into doing what we otherwise might not do. "Better off"? Giv
en the state of our present government, probably so. This leaves a lot un
said, but I am going to leave it at that.
Jay Bannister
om>
I get the impression Jake you do not deal with the FAA often. In my job
I
see and deal with them all the time. The FAA is a government office that
makes the determination based on regulations, not laws. There is one littl
e
paragraph in the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that states " the pilo
t
in command may not operate a aircraft that is believed to be in a
unairworthy condition". The FAA and the NTSB "believe" the 601xl and the
650
to be in a unairworthy condition. The word "believe" give the FAA the righ
t
to say you can not fly the 601xl and 650 under the guidance of the FAR's.
Now since this is a regulation and not a law you can go ahead and fly your
plane as much as you want. However be advised that the FAA can also suspen
d
your license at will for being "unsafe" and "endangering the public" becau
se
that is also a judgement call given to the FAA under the FAR's.
You can fight both these in court and the only thing you will get is a ver
y
very very high bill from your lawyer. Getting mad about what the FAA does
not work, sueing the FAA does not work either. The FAA has several offices
full of lawyers geared up for just these types of fights. While the FAA do
es
not always win, even if they loose and you win in court, think about all
the months or perhaps years you spend in court fighting the suspension of
your license or getting to fly your plane without mods...... or even the
amount of money you would spend to have 3 or 4 engineering firms back up
Chris's design in court (wont happen because they are afraid of liability
suits) or the money (we are talking more than $100,000.00) in attorney fee
s
to fight this case in open court.
We are all better off just making the upgrades and enjoying our planes.
David M
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
Hi Jake,
Before I try to answer your questions about the FAA language I want
to make it perfectly clear that I am not agreeing with what they said
-- just interpreting the language. My years as an engineer qualify
me to do that but they don't qualify me to have a professional
opinion as to the design strength or flaws of the design.
The FAA in its language is saying they believe there is indeed a
design flaw. They also say there is not a single root cause of the
accidents. That can be interpreted to mean the design flaw is not so
big as to be fatal by itself but requires "Activation" by operational
events (e.g. pilot actions or loose cables, etc.) to produce an accident.
Your other statements suggest you suffer from the same kind of
thinking that got me so angry at Sun n Fun when M. Heintz made it
clear that it wasn't good enough that the NTSB felt there were
problems with the XL. They still needed to convince HIM there was a
problem. He said this after saying he is not an engineer and not
qualified to be sure of the design validity.
The whole point is that we each as owners have reasonable power to
control our own destiny with experimental airplanes. On the other
hand the government agencies (NTSB and FAA) don't have any
requirement to prove anything to us. They make their own decisions
based on their operating methods and principles and take action
accordingly. We are best advised to accept their decisions without
trying to assert we know better than they do and they can't rule over us.
Let us not forget they are the government. It is their job to make
decisions and to exercise power over activities in this country. As
such, they have very large sticks to enforce their decisions.
One last piece of wisdom from somewhere I can't exactly
remember: "You can't fight city hall".
Paul
XL ready for updates
At 06:34 AM 11/12/2009, you wrote:
>The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
>accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
>implicated the potential coupling of design and operational aspects of
>the aircraft."
>
>What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
>aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
>that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So, how does
>that indicate there is a design flaw?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA SAIB CE-10-08 |
No, Thats the Nov 6th accident...
LINLARMAYES(at)aol.com wrote:
> Looks like another one went down yesterday. see
> http://www.villageronline.com/story/1586318.html
>
> In a message dated 11/12/2009 9:16:54 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com writes:
>
>
>
> I get the impression Jake you do not deal with the FAA often. In
> my job I
> see and deal with them all the time. The FAA is a government
> office that
> makes the determination based on regulations, not laws. There is
> one little
> paragraph in the FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations) that states "
> the pilot
> in command may not operate a aircraft that is believed to be in a
> unairworthy condition". The FAA and the NTSB "believe" the 601xl
> and the 650
> to be in a unairworthy condition. The word "believe" give the FAA
> the right
> to say you can not fly the 601xl and 650 under the guidance of the
> FAR's.
>
> Now since this is a regulation and not a law you can go ahead and
> fly your
> plane as much as you want. However be advised that the FAA can
> also suspend
> your license at will for being "unsafe" and "endangering the
> public" because
> that is also a judgement call given to the FAA under the FAR's.
>
> You can fight both these in court and the only thing you will get
> is a very
> very very high bill from your lawyer. Getting mad about what the
> FAA does
> not work, sueing the FAA does not work either. The FAA has several
> offices
> full of lawyers geared up for just these types of fights. While
> the FAA does
> not always win, even if they loose and you win in court, think
> about all
> the months or perhaps years you spend in court fighting the
> suspension of
> your license or getting to fly your plane without mods...... or
> even the
> amount of money you would spend to have 3 or 4 engineering firms
> back up
> Chris's design in court (wont happen because they are afraid of
> liability
> suits) or the money (we are talking more than $100,000.00) in
> attorney fees
> to fight this case in open court.
>
>
> We are all better off just making the upgrades and enjoying our
> planes.
>
> David M
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jake Reyna" <jakereyna(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:34 AM
> Subject: Zenith-List: FAA SAIB CE-10-08
>
>
> >
> > Having read SAIB CE-10-08 a number of times, I thought it would be
> > best to get legal advice from the many experts on the list.
> >
> > The FAA states: "After the review we made a determination that these
> > accidents did not clearly indicate a single root cause. Instead, it
> > implicated the potential coupling of design and operational
> aspects of
> > the aircraft."
> >
> > What exactly does "the potential coupling of design and operational
> > aspects of the aircraft" mean. Ignorant me seems to think it means
> > that the operational aspects are controlled by the pilot. So,
> how does
> > that indicate there is a design flaw? It does indicate a flaw in
> > intelligent design and there is more evidence of that on this list.
> >
> > The report goes onto state that "Our detailed review of available
> > flutter analysis reports was inconclusive." Once again, no
> evidence of
> > a design flaw, dammit!!
> >
> > So, the FAA decides that the lack of evidence is proof enough to
> > mandate significant modifications. Is there anyone on this list that
> > believes that the FAA would prevail in a court of law? We are a
> > country of laws and somewhere in there is a presumption of
> innocence.
> > The FAA in this case is the prosecutor and I find it inconceivable
> > that any jury after looking at the lack of evidence would do
> anything
> > other than dismiss the case.
> >
> > If there is to be any legal action, it should be against the FAA
> and NTSB.
> >
> > Jake
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ========================; nbsp; (And Get Some AWESOME
> FREE to find Gifts tric re b k you for p;
> -Matt Dralle, List ======================== the ties Day
> ================================================ -
> MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
> =================================================
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: upgrade decisions |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Jim,
While I agree with Chris that these mods are not really necessary, we now
have them on the table. That makes them more or less mandatory, not nece
ssarily from an engineering standpoint, but certainly from a regulatory,
insurance and liability standpoint.
The original airframe was designed as a whole. You wouldn't have consider
ed leaving out some of the rivets, because they somehow looked redundant,
would you ? These mods have also been designed as a whole. I personally
would not try to second guess the designer nor the reason for each separa
te part of the mods. I would instead guess that they are all a part of a
structural system, not individual "area" upgrades, assignable to a partic
ular questionable area.
Just my quarters worth (formerly two cents).
Jay Bannister.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601a(at)anemicaardvark.com>
I haven't had a lot of free time the last few days, but what time I have
had,
I've spent trying to decide which of these modifications are useful, and
which are not. Do I really want to do any of them, all of them, or some of
them? Somehow, I needed to get my ideas down, and think through my decisio
ns.
To this end, I have created a decision tree in Open Office calc. I'm tryin
g to
trade off possible risks against benefits. What is worth doing? Anything?
Everything? Nothing? My mind is by no means made up on things, but in the
interest of exchanging ideas, I have posted the tree here for downloading:
http://www.anemicaardvark.com/Z601XL/XLUpgrade.xls
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JohnDRead(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Just do it and live happily ever after! Lets not involve lawyers.
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 11/11/2009 10:43:03 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
chicago2paris(at)msn.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Sabrina"
Craig,
If the upgrade is lawyer driven, then we deserve better.
I would still like to see the new "numbers" for the original design.
Once all the smoke clears, I am hoping for a "light" version of the
upgrade with a de-rated airframe. That is the maneuvering Paul speaks of.
I love my lawyers! :O)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272409#272409
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JohnDRead(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
The flames are getting higher!
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 11/12/2009 12:22:38 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
greg@gas-n-go.com.au writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Greg Cox" <greg@gas-n-go.com.au>
Sabrina,
If you don't agree with CH's upgrade, then design and carry out your own
upgrade then spend your money testing your design. If yours is an
improvement on CH's then you should be able to market it and sell it to
other builders without any problems.
Regards,
Greg Cox
Zenith Zodiac CH650
Sydney, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sabrina
Sent: Thursday, 12 November 2009 4:42 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650
Craig,
If the upgrade is lawyer driven, then we deserve better.
I would still like to see the new "numbers" for the original design.
Once all the smoke clears, I am hoping for a "light" version of the upgrade
with a de-rated airframe. That is the maneuvering Paul speaks of.
I love my lawyers! :O)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272409#272409
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> |
I must admit that the Zenith upgrade videos on their factory demo are good.
I can't wait to see the center spar ones.
I would really like to see the spar cap change out in person, esp. if anyone is
solid riveting the new spar cap.
I am driving from Chicago to Miami the weekend before Christmas and back the weekend
after Christmas. If anyone, by that time, has their upgrade kit in hand
and aircraft apart along the route, I would love to be a second pair of hands
for a few hours.
I don't have enough free time to do anything on my airplane until Spring Break.
By that time we should have a couple dozen flying and proving the new design.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272535#272535
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <mh(at)HODGES.INFO> |
| Subject: | XL/650 new airworthiness certificates suspended |
>From the EAA News hot off the presses. Just in case you haven't seen it.
Unprecedented Action
FAA grounds Zodiac 601XL and 605 S-LSA until compliance with AMD Safety
Alert
For the first time in history, the FAA has suspended issuance of any new
airworthiness certificates for an entire fleet of special light-sport
aircraft (S-LSA) - the Zodiac CH601XL and CH650 - and the FAA will not issue
airworthiness certificates to experimental light-sport aircraft (E-LSA) and
amateur built versions of CH601XL and CH605 aircraft until modified in a
manner consistent with the manufacturer's safety alert is performed.
http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-11-12_safety_alert.asp
Mitch Hodges
N601MH (HDS)
Wings under perpetual construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mack Kreizenbeck" <aprazer(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Sabrina, Sabrina,
Chris's statement that he was bound to confidentiality, because the NTSB
requires it, can be substantiated by what happened to the controllers after
the Boston helicopter accident. Remember, they were excluded from the
hearings, because they went public -- stating that the controller was
wrongly accused for the accident.
Now, I'm sure that if your attorney discussed this point with NSTB's
attorneys instead of one of their investigators, this confidentiality clause
would have been confirmed.....
What is this world coming to? One cannot defend oneself!
You now say you will not modify your plane if the Heinz family base their
decisions on their lawyers advise.
Do you realize what you are asking for?
I've watched this trash talking for well over a year -- so much so that I,
as well as others, have grown very tired of it.
Many of you have been crying for a fix and now that you have it -- you don't
like it.
I suppose that you all want egg in your beer as well.
Mack Kreizenbeck
601XL/3300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Some Very Nice Comments... |
Dear Listers,
I've been getting some really nice comments from Listers along with their List
Support Contributions. I've shared some of them below. Please read them over
and see what your fellow Listers think of the Lists and Forums.
Please make a Contribution today to support the continued upgrade and operation
of these services.
There are lots of sweet gifts available, so browse the extensive selection and
pickup a nice item along with your qualifying Contribution.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you in advance for your generous support! It is very much appreciated!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
----------- What Listers Are Saying About The Lists -----------
Few things in life bring more usefulness than the List. This
is worth every penny!
Stephen T.
I have enjoyed the list for way too many years, but continue
to get closer to flying my project with the help of listers.
C.L.
Thanks for this List. It's been a great source of encouragement
and information.
Arden A.
Great service!
Gerald T.
It's always interesting reading the lists and I've gotten some
good help from the issues and answers there.
Steve T.
Been a member of the List for 12 years. Keep up the good work.
John H.
Great Site!
Harry M.
Great source of information...
Martin H.
Thanks for providing this great service!
Jeff P.
I continue to get and give information through these lists.
Ralph C.
This is a wonderful resource!
Warren H.
This is what inernet was meant for, sharing information and
experience. Michael W.
Thanks for making such a good list!
Fred D.
Thanks for running a great service!
Michael F.
I really appreciate it.
Dan H.
Thanks for the great service.
Michael L.
Thanks for maintaining this great resource.
John C.
Your sites have been a great resourses and an introduction
to many competent aircraft designers and fabricators.
Jon M.
Thanks for all that you do to maintain the Matronics forums
and for the personal help that you have been to me in
answering my questions regarding the use of the forums.
William B.
[The List] helped me get flying, fly off my test hours and
make my systems better. Ralph C.
The Universe is a better place because of you.
Eric J.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jake Reyna <jakereyna(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | What doesn't kill you .... |
It is unfortunate that another Zodiac Pilot has died and in a very twisted morbid
way, has set the last nail in the coffin. My views haven't changed, but reading
some of the conversations with Mathieu, I realise it is time to move on,
deal with the issue and have the fleet flying in 2010.
For those of you looking for retribution, expecting ZAC to provide the upgrade
parts at no cost, grow up!, take some personal responsibility. I sometimes forget
we live in America, the land of entitlement and lawyers.
What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. Like the Phoenix, XL/650's will rise
again and rightly reclaim it's place as one of the best aircraft in it's category.
Obtw, Winter is quickly approaching and you no longer need to look for that project
to pass the time.
Jake
I be drillin out some rivets.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> |
The FAA made it clear yesterday. They want these upgrades included in every 601XL
winged aircraft. Their use of the word "consistent" allows some reasonable
substitutions. CH is clearly not enthusiastic about the modifications, the FAA
is. That is good enough for me. However, I am not about to conduct any
upgrade until numerous test flights of a large assortment of XL winged aircraft
are conducted.
My question was legitimate. If a main spar modification was on the drawing board
back in 2005, I would really be upset--as should you. If they were drawn
up in 2009, OK, let's move on. I am just curious.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272668#272668
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What doesn't kill you .... |
| From: | "vayuwings" <vayuwings(at)cox.net> |
Until the upgrade kit is available I guess I have a moment to reply on this forum
and suggest maybe a little patience is needed here.
I would like to suggest to the above poster to slowly curl his pointed finger back
toward his palm and allow others to be the judge of their own level of maturity
and self-responsibility - a little space is needed for some who are analyzing
and questioning this Fed-induced requirement for their aircraft - with No
proven cause of anything except poor pilot, maintainance or building issues.
Hundreds of flying Zodiacs with thousands of hours proves that. It reminds me
of the lame laptop excuse the two NW pilots used for sleeping for over an hour-
100%, not 97 or 93, but 100% oblivious to anything in this universe - now these
same Feds, who mysteriously seem to believe the pilots, want to have new
regulations about laptop use, not fatigue. OMG.
And, tho you and I may live in America, many on this list do not, and for them
considering shipping, customs, and who knows what else (I surely don't, I live
in the States), etc. this could prove to be a much bigger inconvenience for them
than it is for us.
Also living in the desert SW I look forward to fall/winter, my flying seasons,
and never have needed (until now) a project other than, should we fly to the Grand
Canyon and camp and hike, or fly down to Baja this year?
Here's hoping the Zodiac will 'rise again' - but history shows much effort and
time is always needed for these things.
Dave
XL 71EK
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272735#272735
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "leinad" <leinad(at)hughes.net> |
EAA posted the following on their web sight:
For the first time in history, the FAA has suspended issuance of any new airworthiness
certificates for an entire fleet of special light-sport aircraft (S-LSA)
- the Zodiac CH601XL and CH650 - and the FAA will not issue airworthiness certificates
to experimental light-sport aircraft (E-LSA) and amateur built versions
of CH601XL and CH650 aircraft until modified in a manner consistent with
the manufacturers safety alert is performed.
Does any know what "until modified in a manner consistent with the manufacturers
safety alert is performed" means. The first thing you read when look at the
AMD safety alert is that all work must be done by a certified air craft mechanic.
That does sit well when you're building your own plane from scratch.
Dan
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272751#272751
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
If you are the builder then you can do all the work yourself. The AMD's however
are built by the factory, assembled and delivered so you have to have a LSA mechanics
rating or a A&P.
David M.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of leinad
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 6:00 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650
EAA posted the following on their web sight:
For the first time in history, the FAA has suspended issuance of any new airworthiness
certificates for an entire fleet of special light-sport aircraft (S-LSA)
- the Zodiac CH601XL and CH650 - and the FAA will not issue airworthiness certificates
to experimental light-sport aircraft (E-LSA) and amateur built versions
of CH601XL and CH650 aircraft until modified in a manner consistent with
the manufacturers safety alert is performed.
Does any know what "until modified in a manner consistent with the manufacturers
safety alert is performed" means. The first thing you read when look at the
AMD safety alert is that all work must be done by a certified air craft mechanic.
That does sit well when you're building your own plane from scratch.
Dan
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272751#272751
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
| From: | "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> |
Dan,
You raise a good point.
The "must be pre-approved by" part of the SA would bother me more than the "performed
by an FAA Certified..." part.
I was told in 2008 that once certified as airworthy, I could not "repair" my aircraft
until I turned 18 since it was an E-LSA.
Part 43.1 excludes experimental aircraft under (b) but then includes LSAs under
(d). It does away with most of the record keeping for E-LSAs, but seems to
require a repairman/inspection certificate that is only available to those 18
and older. So far, all maintenance, repairs and inspections have been done by
my IA.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272760#272760
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
HI Dan,
The AMD planes are S-LSA. They require a
licensed mechanic to do just about anything -
just like a type certificated plane. That
wouldn't apply to any form of experimental plane
- either E-LSA or E-AB. This has nothing to do
with this particular change - just the way it is
for planes like that. I'm sure the change
package issued by ZAC (when they finish it) will
not call for a licensed mechanic to do the changes.
I don't know, but I guess the "Consistent"
business is up to the DAR. I suspect
experimental planes will still have lee-way to do
things differently from the documented
procedure. For example, you might decide to use
hard rivets instead of bolts on your additional
spar cap. I suspect any DAR would be happy with
that (assuming the work quality is OK). Deciding
not to add the new spar cap would probably not be consistent.
Paul
XL ready to order update kit
At 05:59 PM 11/13/2009, you wrote:
>For the first time in history, the FAA has
>suspended issuance of any new airworthiness
>certificates for an entire fleet of special
>light-sport aircraft (S-LSA) - the Zodiac
>CH601XL and CH650 - and the FAA will not issue
>airworthiness certificates to experimental
>light-sport aircraft (E-LSA) and amateur built
>versions of CH601XL and CH650 aircraft until
>modified in a manner consistent with the
>manufacturers safety alert is performed.
>
>Does any know what "until modified in a manner
>consistent with the manufacturers safety
>alert is performed" means. The first thing you
>read when look at the AMD safety alert is that
>all work must be done by a certified air craft
>mechanic. That does sit well when you're building your own plane from scratch.
>
>Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Hi Sabrina,
You are probably better informed than me on this point, but I thought
anybody could work on experimental planes. The license and repairman
certificate stuff is all about signing off condition inspections
rather than performing repairs and maintenance.
Paul
At 07:21 PM 11/13/2009, you wrote:
>I was told in 2008 that once certified as airworthy, I could not
>"repair" my aircraft until I turned 18 since it was an E-LSA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
You are correct Paul. You must hold the repairman's certificate for the
experimental you purchased to do the annual condition inspection. All other
maintenance can be done by the owner. However the E_LSA is not the same as a
E_AB. All LSA aircraft regardless of the S or E you must have a LSA
repairman's certificate or a A&P. However the owner or anyone else may work
on any aircraft in the USA whether they build it or not, fixed wing or
helicopter if the work is supervised and appropriately signed off in
aircraft historicals by the supervising A&P or A or P or IA. Now that means
that Sabrina can do her own work as long as a A or A&P or IA is willing to
sign off the entry for the work Sabrina did. That is how some A&Ps get there
work experience to take the test for the A&P. In the regs it allows this and
by the way. The regs also say that supervision is not the person standing
over you while you do it. The supervising person must be able to be reached,
even by phone, during the work. The supervising person however must visually
inspect all work done before it is covered up and a final inspection before
returning the aircraft to service or test flight.
David M.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650
Hi Sabrina,
You are probably better informed than me on this point, but I thought
anybody could work on experimental planes. The license and repairman
certificate stuff is all about signing off condition inspections
rather than performing repairs and maintenance.
Paul
At 07:21 PM 11/13/2009, you wrote:
>I was told in 2008 that once certified as airworthy, I could not
>"repair" my aircraft until I turned 18 since it was an E-LSA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Afterfxllc(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FAA grounds 601 and 650 |
Ok I have figured out how to fix my 601 and it only took a few hours......
And I applied full right rudder to keep it flying straight. Now if I lose a
wing I can pinwheel to earth.
last step is to apply caster wheels to the main gear.
I plan on starting the mods tomorrow and will video it if all goes as
planned.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Thomas <garythomas8708(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | musings about zenith lawsuit, corvair |
While digging around, I think I found the lawsuit that Zenith referred to:
www.modbee.com/local/story/901152.html
It's the 2006 crash out in California of a 601 that was bought from the bui
lder. -Apparently there would have been some resolution by Nov4th, but I
didn't see any follow up.
Zenith said the plane had been altered and improperly used. -I don't reca
ll the story but thought that this was the one that went into bad weather.
-Anyone remember?
Anyway, I must say that I hate all the talk about lawyers and lawsuits. -
I also hate the media repetition about the NTSB view about "design flaws th
at cause the wings to flutter and break". -I don't recall the NTSB ever d
efinitively concluding this from any other their crash investigations at th
e time and now it appears that their hasty viewpoint has been proven wrong.
-We must remember that the Heintz sons fly the airplane.
Anyway, with all that, the number of crashes is sobering. -Even if bad bu
ilding, bad maintenance and bad flying were the causes (that's my belief),
I wonder why our planes appear to be more susceptible to this than other pl
anes. -I have been telling myself that the planes are strong enough, but
perhaps they don't have an extra margin to protect them against these sins.
-It's my belief that the proposed changes will provide this margin.
Reading between the lines of Chris Heintz' statement, he does not believe t
his is necessary from an engineering standpoint, but that it is necessary i
n order to quell the uncertainty. -Maybe that's why every item has been c
overed from the aileron rod all the way back to the seat that stitches the
wing into the fuselage. -I plan to make every single change recommends an
d I hope that others do too. -That way we all get back to flying and over
time see no more of these accidents until this all becomes a distant memor
y.
Let's all get back to getting on with each other again.
As an aside, I had the pleasure of spending this last weekend at one of Wil
liam Wynne's corvair colleges in South Carolina. -The technical expertise
is matched by the enthusiasm and good company. -I am an evangelist for t
his engine and recommend these colleges for anyone thinking about using one
in their airplane. -The highlight for me is catching the roar and the sm
ell of burnt fuel as I stand behind a engine that is being freshly run in.
-I even got nostalgic after catching the smell of a particularly grimy co
re engine that was in the process of being torn down before being cleaned a
nd rebuilt.
Gary-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Pagan <pdn8r(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EAA info to Tech Counselors Re: XL |
Received the below from EAA regarding the XL.=C2- Answers some questions
being asked about who can perform the upgrades.
=C2-
Dear EAA Technical Counselor;
=C2-
I=99m sure you are all aware that there have been a number of acciden
ts involving Zenith CH 601XL and related aircraft in which the aircraft suf
fered an in-flight structural failure or breakup.=C2-=C2- This situatio
n has resulted in the FAA=99s issuance of Special Airworthiness Infor
mation Bulletin (SAIB) CE-10-08 and the release by Aircraft Manufacturing &
Design LLC (AMD) of a safety alert dated November 7th, 2009.
=C2-
Chris Heinz, designer of the CH 601XL and CH 650 aircraft issued a Question
and Answer document addressing the issue in which he urges all owners/oper
ators of these aircraft to comply with the AMD service directive even if th
ey are not required by regulation to do so.=C2- The following is a quote
from the Q&A document;
=C2-
=9COwners of an SLSA (AMD-built) Zodiac must comply with the factory-
issued Safety Alert. Owners of a self-built =9CExperimental=9D
Zodiac are officially the manufacturer of their aircraft and are therefore
technically free to install (or not) the upgrades. As the designer of the a
ircraft, I am strongly urging all owners who operate their CH 601 XL/CH 650
to install the upgrades now being proposed before the next flight. You, mo
re than anyone, know how damaging and demoralizing the doubts and questions
regarding the aircraft have been; how they have affected the confidence th
at many have in the design. Stronger airplanes and better prepared pilots s
hould help us all restore the reputation and desirability of these airplane
s you have put so much of yourself into. If for no other reason, install th
e =9CUpgrade Package=9D to maximize resale value of your projec
t: I anticipate that the cost of the Upgrade will be much lower that the in
crease in resale
value=9D.
=C2-
EAA urges you to share this info with builders and owners/operators of Zeni
th CH 601XL and CH 650 in your area.=C2- You may also wish to make them a
ware of the independent analysis of the design, as well as the drawings out
lining the upgrade outlined in the AMD safety alert.=C2- Be sure to remin
d owners of the SLSA aircraft that they are required to comply with the saf
ety directive.=C2- While owners of ELSA and amateur-built versions of the
design are not specifically required to comply with the safety directive,
you should remind them that they are required to maintain and operate their
aircraft in a condition for safe operation and the safety of flight issues
pointed out in the safety directive must be addressed in some fashion.=C2
- Note that Chris Heinz strongly urges owners of experimental versions of
the aircraft to install the upgrades.=C2- EAA concurs with this recommen
dation.
=C2-
You may wish to remind owners of the experimental-certificated aircraft tha
t the safety directive=99s requirement for an A&P mechanic make the m
odifications only applies to the SLSA versions of the aircraft.=C2- Owner
s of the experimental aircraft are not bound by this requirement and are fr
ee to perform the upgrade themselves.
=C2-
EAA will continue to post updates on this issue on our website, www.eaa.org
.=C2- Encourage builders, owners and operators of these aircraft to visit
the website often for new developments.=C2- The current story can be see
n here.
=C2-
Thanks for your continued dedication to your fellow EAA members.
=C2-
Regards,
=C2-
Joe
=C2-
Joe Norris
EAA 113615 Lifetime
Homebuilders Community Manager
=C2-
EAA=94The Spirit of Aviation
Bill Pagan
EAA Tech Counselor #4395
601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EAA info to Tech Counselors Re: XL |
| From: | "leinad" <leinad(at)hughes.net> |
Paul,
I think you're going by old news. The document you are referring to (the one to
tech counselors) also says that Experimental builders are free to incorporate
the changes or not, as the builder is the "manufacturer". The FAA has since
said they will issue no new airworthiness certificates on planes of the 601xl
design until the AMD modifications are complied with Experimental or otherwise.
It seams clear Zenith is not interperetting these rulings the way I am, or they
wouldn't be about to sell kits to all sorts of builders and owners. I just wish
the ruling were more explicit that the experimental builder doesn't have to
comply with the "must be done by an FAA certified mechanic" and "must be approved"
by parts of the AMD safety alert. I don't find vague words like "consistent
with" helpful when I'm about to undergo a couple month effort the FAA could
use to deny my airworthiness certificate on a technicality.
I think I may ask for the EAA's help in getting the FAA to clarify their language.
Dan
[quote="pdn8r(at)yahoo.com"]Received the below from EAA regarding the XL. Answers
some questions being asked about who can perform the upgrades.
Dear EAA Technical Counselor;
Im sure you are all aware that there have been a number of accidents involving Zenith CH 601XL and related aircraft in which the aircraft suffered an in-flight structural failure or breakup. This situation has resulted in the FAAs issuance of Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (mhtml:{AFEFE507-23AC-4B51-A138-6B0DECDA139E}mid://00000003/!x-usc:http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/(LookupSAIBs)/CE-10-08?OpenDocument) (SAIB) CE-10-08 and the release by Aircraft Manufacturing & Design LLC (AMD) of a safety alert dated November 7th, 2009 (mhtml:{AFEFE507-23AC-4B51-A138-6B0DECDA139E}mid://00000003/!x-usc:http://www.newplane.com/amd_downloads/SAFETY%20ALERT%20November%207%202009.pdf).
Chris Heinz, designer of the CH 601XL and CH 650 aircraft issued a Question and Answer document (mhtml:{AFEFE507-23AC-4B51-A138-6B0DECDA139E}mid://00000003/!x-usc:http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/qa-chris-heintz-1a.pdf) addressing the issue in which he urges all owners/operators of these aircraft to comply with the AMD service directive even if they are not required by regulation to do so. The following is a quote from the Q&A document;
Owners of an SLSA (AMD-built) Zodiac must comply with the factory-issued Safety
Alert. Owners of a self-built Experimental Zodiac are officially the manufacturer
of their aircraft and are therefore technically free to install (or not)
the upgrades. As the designer of the aircraft, I am strongly urging all owners
who operate their CH 601 XL/CH 650 to install the upgrades now being proposed
before the next flight. You, more than anyone, know how damaging and demoralizing
the doubts and questions regarding the aircraft have been; how they have
affected the confidence that many have in the design. Stronger airplanes and better
prepared pilots should help us all restore the reputation and desirability
of these airplanes you have put so much of yourself into. If for no other reason,
install the Upgrade Package to maximize resale value of your project: I
anticipate that the cost of the Upgrade will be much lower that the increase
in resale value.
EAA urges you to share this info with builders and owners/operators of Zenith CH 601XL and CH 650 in your area. You may also wish to make them aware of the independent analysis (mhtml:{AFEFE507-23AC-4B51-A138-6B0DECDA139E}mid://00000003/!x-usc:http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/doc369.pdf) of the design, as well as the drawings outlining the upgrade (mhtml:{AFEFE507-23AC-4B51-A138-6B0DECDA139E}mid://00000003/!x-usc:http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/6-ZU-1-2-3%20NOV%208.pdf) outlined in the AMD safety alert. Be sure to remind owners of the SLSA aircraft that they are required to comply with the safety directive. While owners of ELSA and amateur-built versions of the design are not specifically required to comply with the safety directive, you should remind them that they are required to maintain and operate their aircraft in a condition for safe operation and the safety of flight issues pointed out in the safety directive must be addressed in some fashion. Note that Chris Heinz strongly urges owners of experimental versions of the aircraft to install the upgrades. EAA concurs with this recommendation.
You may wish to remind owners of the experimental-certificated aircraft that the
safety directives requirement for an A&P mechanic make the modifications only
applies to the SLSA versions of the aircraft. Owners of the experimental aircraft
are not bound by this requirement and are free to perform the upgrade themselves.
EAA will continue to post updates on this issue on our website, www.eaa.org (mhtml:{AFEFE507-23AC-4B51-A138-6B0DECDA139E}mid://00000003/!x-usc:http://www.eaa.org/). Encourage builders, owners and operators of these aircraft to visit the website often for new developments. The current story can be seen here (mhtml:{AFEFE507-23AC-4B51-A138-6B0DECDA139E}mid://00000003/!x-usc:http://www.eaa.org/news/2009/2009-11-09_Zodica%20Issued%20Alert.asp).
Thanks for your continued dedication to your fellow EAA members.
Regards,
Joe
Joe Norris
EAA 113615 Lifetime
Homebuilders Community Manager
EAAThe Spirit of Aviation
Bill Pagan EAA Tech Counselor #4395
601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)
> [b]
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272813#272813
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Part 5 is up on the zenith.aero site and I have questions |
| From: | "lwhitlow" <ldwhitlow(at)comcast.net> |
The attachment of the new angle to the wing spar is up and now I'm curious.
The released drawings show 6-ZU-1-1 being attached by AN3 or AN4 bolts yet the
pics on segment 5 show solid rivets being used
Questions
1 Are solid rivets the way this is going to be done?? I have never driven a solid
rivet and don't have any of the tools. With something as critical as the wing
spar I'm not sure this is the correct place to learn this skill.
2. Can these rivets be set using a squeezer?? I could rent one of those and would
feel better about the quality of my work here.
3. What happened to the bolt idea?? Why was it changed?? Just curious I'm not
thinking anything bad is going on here.
I think the Zenith boys are making things a good as they can right now. I'm very
happy with the flow of info and whats going on so far.
It could have happened sooner but at least were moving now.
It appears that my decision NOT to rivet the top wing skins on was spot on, but
I'm concerned about the seats. The bottom edge of my seats is riveted in from
the bottom, through the landing gear channel. Are we gonna have to drop the
gear to remove the seat pan to work on the center section or will there be enough
room to do the work with these still riveted at the back?
I got more but lets let these simmer for a bit
Larry Whitlow
601XL Jabiru 3300
It will fly the only question is when
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272817#272817
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Part 5 is up on the zenith.aero site and I have questions |
Hi Larry,
I think it is premature to worry about installing the changes on home
built planes now.
I understand ZAC is working very hard to put together a kit and
instructions for us to use when installing the changes. I also
understand the information released so far as the AMD update is not
complete. It covers a number of changes but the stuff I have seen
doesn't cover control system and aileron mass balance changes. I
don't know what else in the "Package" has been left out of the AMD
package. Remember the primary plan is for AMD owners to return their
planes to the factory for upgrade. For those who don't, there is
still the requirement for licensed mechanics to do the changes. The
AMD package just isn't designed for home builder use.
Shirley (the gal in charge of nearly everything at ZAC including
sales and answering the phone) informed me it would be several weeks
before the upgrade kit was ready for distribution. For my money and
time, I think I will continue to build my next plane until the kit is in hand.
Paul
XL ready to order upgrade kit
P.S. On the solid rivet question, I suspect several RV builders in
your local EAA chapter will be happy to help with the few rivets we
need on the spars. They have to install about 30,000 of those little
things on an RV. Failing that, the bolt option might work out better
if you don't have equipment and experience with bucking rivets. The
obvious problem with bolts is the question someone raised a few days
ago about inspecting the nuts to see they are still tight after the
wing is closed up.
At 08:57 AM 11/14/2009, you wrote:
>
>The attachment of the new angle to the wing spar is up and now I'm curious.
>
>The released drawings show 6-ZU-1-1 being attached by AN3 or AN4
>bolts yet the pics on segment 5 show solid rivets being used
>
>Questions
>
>1 Are solid rivets the way this is going to be done?? I have never
>driven a solid rivet and don't have any of the tools. With something
>as critical as the wing spar I'm not sure this is the correct place
>to learn this skill.
>
>2. Can these rivets be set using a squeezer?? I could rent one of
>those and would feel better about the quality of my work here.
>
>3. What happened to the bolt idea?? Why was it changed?? Just
>curious I'm not thinking anything bad is going on here.
>
>I think the Zenith boys are making things a good as they can right
>now. I'm very happy with the flow of info and whats going on so far.
>
>It could have happened sooner but at least were moving now.
>
>It appears that my decision NOT to rivet the top wing skins on was
>spot on, but I'm concerned about the seats. The bottom edge of my
>seats is riveted in from the bottom, through the landing gear
>channel. Are we gonna have to drop the gear to remove the seat pan
>to work on the center section or will there be enough room to do the
>work with these still riveted at the back?
>
>I got more but lets let these simmer for a bit
>
>Larry Whitlow
>601XL Jabiru 3300
>It will fly the only question is when
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Part 5 is up on the zenith.aero site and I have questions |
| From: | Carlos Sa <carlossa52(at)gmail.com> |
As Paul suggested, RV builders can help.
I built my (HD) spar with the help of two local RV builders. We did squeeze
the rivets we could reach with the squeezer we had available and did the
rest the conventional RV way (bucking bar and riveting gun).
I suggest you post your questions on Matt's blog, he has been answering
them.
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
2009/11/14 lwhitlow
>
> The attachment of the new angle to the wing spar is up and now I'm curious.
>
> The released drawings show 6-ZU-1-1 being attached by AN3 or AN4 bolts yet
> the pics on segment 5 show solid rivets being used
>
> Questions
>
> 1 Are solid rivets the way this is going to be done?? I have never driven
> a solid rivet and don't have any of the tools. With something as critical as
> the wing spar I'm not sure this is the correct place to learn this skill.
>
> 2. Can these rivets be set using a squeezer?? I could rent one of those
> and would feel better about the quality of my work here.
>
> 3. What happened to the bolt idea?? Why was it changed?? Just curious I'm
> not thinking anything bad is going on here.
>
> I think the Zenith boys are making things a good as they can right now.
> I'm very happy with the flow of info and whats going on so far.
>
> It could have happened sooner but at least were moving now.
>
> It appears that my decision NOT to rivet the top wing skins on was spot on,
> but I'm concerned about the seats. The bottom edge of my seats is riveted
> in from the bottom, through the landing gear channel. Are we gonna have to
> drop the gear to remove the seat pan to work on the center section or will
> there be enough room to do the work with these still riveted at the back?
>
> I got more but lets let these simmer for a bit
>
> Larry Whitlow
> 601XL Jabiru 3300
> It will fly the only question is when
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Part 5 is up on the zenith.aero site and I have questions |
| From: | "lwhitlow" <ldwhitlow(at)comcast.net> |
Hi Paul
By the way thanks for all the useful info you have passed along in the past couple
of weeks!!
I'm gonna have to disagree that its premature to be concerned about the home built
planes now. I've been avoiding closing up areas that were likely to need changes
(wings) and now that center section work is needed I have to stop in the
cabin area and remove some parts to gain access. My time is important to me
and without a timely delivery of the mod kit parts, I'm stopped from making progress.
I can get useful work done, in prepping the areas that will be affected
by the mods. I just want to make sure I'm working off of the best information
available.
Paul, I don't think you are saying that Zenith is more concerned about the AMD
planes. The AMD planes are no more important than mine or yours or anyone elses,
and they will all require the same mods, so all of the how and why and changes
will apply to everyone. I don't think the guys at Zenith are worried about
AMD and how it will get done. We should be all equal here. It would be a terrible
move on Zenith's part to get parts and procedures to AMD ahead of getting
them to the home builders. Home builders are the basis for Zenith to make the
kits for the AMD planes. It's the same plane, we are all in the same boat, First
come first serve. I've got a Credit card ready as soon as Shirley will take
it to get the mod parts here.
Besides I think the kit of mod parts is soon to come. Search You-Tube there's a
video put up by Zenith of the mod parts, they just haven't linked it to the
blog yet. I'm happy with their pace here, but notes as they go along with the
prototype mods would be great. It helps those of us who want to keep moving
understand the issues we are going to face and to make arrangements to get this
mandatory work done. My goal has always been to get this bird to Oshkosh in
2010 and that is still within reach easily, I just want to keep making progress.
And the rivet question, My EAA chapter here is oddly absent RV builders. There
might be one I think but..... ITs mostly the Rag and tube or Rag and wood crowd
(Purists :D ) around here There's a glass or two and a few Zenith guys (
HD and HDS all flying! ) I'm the only metal and Zenith builder here. The guys
are great and have been a great help but the metal crowd is not large here!!
I still cannot call this an upgrade. While I welcome the changes and expect a stronger
airframe, Its not an upgrade if its required. Its a safety of flight modification,
but no one wants to call it that. I don't care if they call it cosmetic
changes, just bend and cut some metal, make me some drawings and get it
in a box with my name on it
Larry Whitlow
601XL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272826#272826
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Part 5 is up on the zenith.aero site and I have |
questions
Hi Larry
Thanks for the kind words. I try to be helpful as much as I can.
I think there is a little confusion about the organization of the
various Heintz related companies. As I understand it (now, as
opposed to my first impressions) there is no relationship at all
between AMD and Zenith. AMD manufactures S-LSA Zodiacs along with
several other models. Most of their models aren't even offered by
Zenith. There is a third company, Zenair, that is tied to both
Zenith and AMD. They are responsible for the design work and produce
spars for Zenith as well as an unknown (by me) quantity of other
parts for Zenith and AMD.
Zenair is a Canadian company currently run by Matt Heintz. Zenith is
an American company run by Sebastian Heintz. The other two Heintz
brothers are involved in Europe (Nick) and California (Michael). Of
course, they all have a common father, Chris, and I'm sure they work
together to make the world right. Chris is retired and living in
France. I think we all owe him a great debt for all the work he did
on this problem several years after he retired. There was nobody
else in the world even remotely as well qualified as him to be
responsible for this work.
I understand your rush to complete your plane. I wish you
luck. Unfortunately, I'm afraid making Oshkosh next year is overly
optimistic. After finishing the airframe you still need to deal with
engine, instruments, upholstery, exterior finish, and a bunch of
other things. Also, before going to Oshkosh you will need to
complete phase I flight testing - a process that will surely take
many months and most people I have queried respond it takes about a year.
Good luck,
Paul
XL ready to order upgrade kit.
At 10:32 AM 11/14/2009, you wrote:
>Paul, I don't think you are saying that Zenith is more concerned
>about the AMD planes. The AMD planes are no more important than mine
>or yours or anyone elses, and they will all require the same mods,
>so all of the how and why and changes will apply to everyone. I
>don't think the guys at Zenith are worried about AMD and how it will
>get done. We should be all equal here. It would be a terrible move
>on Zenith's part to get parts and procedures to AMD ahead of getting
>them to the home builders. Home builders are the basis for Zenith to
>make the kits for the AMD planes. It's the same plane, we are all in
>the same boat, First come first serve. I've got a Credit card ready
>as soon as Shirley will take it to get the mod parts here.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Part 5 is up on the zenith.aero site and I have questions |
| From: | "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au> |
ALL
Well as someone who is past the wings and fuse stage, I can tell you thee is still
plenty to do whilst waiting
Spend a couple of weeks doing your Electrical / wiring diagrams , start running
wires, start making the seats and covers. That will take a few weeks
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272840#272840
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Hi Guys,
While waiting for my upgrade bits, I have been thinking of incorporating an
iPod socket to work with the Icom A210. Anybody know of a suitable wiring
diagram?
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://zodiac.cpc-world.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Part 5 is up on the zenith.aero site and I have questions |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com> |
I was told (on the phone with Zenith Friday) that there are some errors in the
current drawings and the I would not have to drive any solid rivets to do the
modifications.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272849#272849
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Icom A210/iPod |
>
>Hi Guys,
>
>While waiting for my upgrade bits, I have been thinking of incorporating an
>iPod socket to work with the Icom A210. Anybody know of a suitable wiring
>diagram?
>
>Cheers
>
>Peter
>Wonthaggi Australia
>http://zodiac.cpc-world.com
Good question, Peter.
I'd like to know if the A210 has this capability. The cable connection
diagram, step 6, shows 3 pins to auxilliary audio 1, 2, & 3 from an "audio
control panel", but I cannot find anything in the documentation or even in
the sales brochure that mentions this capability. I suspect that you'll
need to go to the manufacturer to find out just what can be connected. I
looked at the PS Engineering PMA9000EX control panel, but at $1900 USD,
it's too pricey for me. More reasonable is the Sigtronics 200S, which
allows the connection to the A210 for "only" $199, or $279 for stereo. I've
attached an installation doc. Let us know what you decide to do. I've got
an A210 in the garage that I'm definitely planning to use in my 601.
Terry
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Balancing the ailerons and working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Part 5 is up on the zenith.aero site and I have questions |
| From: | "lwhitlow" <ldwhitlow(at)comcast.net> |
Well I'm a lot farther along than that
The panel in in and wired, the engine is mounted, wired hooked up and except for
a fuel line and oil in the crankcase ready to run. I've got the interior underway.
All of the surfaces are ready to mount. Canopy is done and off to the side
waiting for final assembly
I really only have the exterior brake lines and that's not a big job. My plan WAS
to use the time over the holidays to get everything mounted except the wings,
Haul it over to the airport to fit the wings and then be ready to taxi test
I really only had 6-8 weeks of part time work to get done.
No biggie on time here I still have plenty to get the mods done and get it signed
off and fly off the test time before Oshkosh. I'm probably gonna polish it
now and paint later. But if I have the time...
I just found Matt's Q&A and it looks like a lot of these questions are already
asked and answered. I'm just happy the clouds are clearing over the 601
Larry
Very Optimistic
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272859#272859
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Part 5 is up on the zenith.aero site and I have questions |
| From: | "lwhitlow" <ldwhitlow(at)comcast.net> |
Things are looking up!! Thanks Gig!!
Larry
Gig Giacona wrote:
> I was told (on the phone with Zenith Friday) that there are some errors in the
current drawings and the I would not have to drive any solid rivets to do the
modifications.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272860#272860
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Part 5 is up on the zenith.aero site and I have questions |
| From: | "lwhitlow" <ldwhitlow(at)comcast.net> |
Ohh Kind sir
All i have left in the interior is the seats Electrical is 99% done I do have
to cut install and rig the control cables but they would be in the way right
now with the center section mod so I'll hold on those. I'm gonna pull the sticks
and the center section console tomorrow to start opening up the area.
I was closer to the finish line but now I'm still close its just moved a little
farther down the road
Larry
Very Optimistic
chris Sinfield wrote:
> ALL
> Well as someone who is past the wings and fuse stage, I can tell you thee is
still plenty to do whilst waiting
> Spend a couple of weeks doing your Electrical / wiring diagrams , start running
wires, start making the seats and covers. That will take a few weeks
> Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272861#272861
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Terry,
I have left a connection for the "Audio" out of the wiring loom for this. I
don't want an extra intercom. Icom have this already.
One quick and dirty I've seen is to wire the iPod output to the mike socket.
Cheers
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Phillips
Sent: Sunday, 15 November 2009 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Icom A210/iPod
>-->
>
>Hi Guys,
>
>While waiting for my upgrade bits, I have been thinking of
>incorporating an iPod socket to work with the Icom A210. Anybody know
>of a suitable wiring diagram?
>
>Cheers
>
>Peter
>Wonthaggi Australia
>http://zodiac.cpc-world.com
Good question, Peter.
I'd like to know if the A210 has this capability. The cable connection
diagram, step 6, shows 3 pins to auxilliary audio 1, 2, & 3 from an "audio
control panel", but I cannot find anything in the documentation or even in
the sales brochure that mentions this capability. I suspect that you'll need
to go to the manufacturer to find out just what can be connected. I looked
at the PS Engineering PMA9000EX control panel, but at $1900 USD, it's too
pricey for me. More reasonable is the Sigtronics 200S, which allows the
connection to the A210 for "only" $199, or $279 for stereo. I've attached an
installation doc. Let us know what you decide to do. I've got an A210 in the
garage that I'm definitely planning to use in my 601.
Terry
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Balancing the ailerons and working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Not all that bad! |
| From: | "Ken" <hror1(at)pld.com> |
Today I decided I might as well bite the bullet and dig into the task ahead. I
unskinned the wings on my XL, pushed the spar rivets out and removed the top
spar piece as Parts 3&4 of the upgrade installation series on Zeniths website
demonstrates. I have to admit, it wasn't as bad as I had anticipated. The fist
wing took me 5 hours and the second only 3.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272975#272975
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Contributions Down By 21%... |
Dear Listers,
As of today, contributions to the Matronics List Fund Raiser are lagging behind
last year at this time by 21%. I have a fund raiser each year simply to cover
my operating costs for the Lists. I *do not* accept any advertising income
to support the Lists and rely solely on the contributions of members to keep the
expenses paid.
I run all of my own servers and they are housed here locally, and the Internet
connection is a commercial-grade, T1 connection with public address space. I
also maintain a full backup system that does nightly backups of all List-related
data so that in the event of a server crash or worse, all of the Lists and
the many years of List archive data could be restored onto a new server in a matter
of hours.
All of this costs a fair amount of money, not to mention a significant amount of
my personal time as well. I have a Fund Raiser each year to cover these costs
and I ask that members that feel they receive a benefit from my investments,
make a modest contribution each year to support the continued operation and
upgrade of these services.
If you enjoy the Lists, please make a contribution today. I also offer some incentive
gifts for larger contribution levels. At the Contribution Web Wite, you
can use a credit card, Paypal, or personal check to show your support for the
continuation of these services:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Zenith : More rework! |
| From: | "Beckman, Rick" <Rick.Beckman(at)atk.com> |
Paul, I whole heartedly agree. I am nearly finished with
this project and I was wondering what else could possibly get in my way
to forego its completion. Alas, in step the Big Guys and say if you want
a Pink Slip, comply. So, here I go again. I only thought I was
finished, or thereabouts. It's a shame to have to scar my Mistress. I
just hope touch-up paint will do the trick. Oh, well...
Tres Digitos
Paul R
Breathlessly awaiting the opportunity to gain more building and
re-building experience
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wade Jones" <wjones(at)brazoriainet.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: AVIATE: 2009 Edwards AFB Open House |
----- Original Message -----
From: Jean Lokey
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 12:35 AM
Subject: Fw: AVIATE: 2009 Edwards AFB Open House
Thought you might enjoy seeing these planes.
Jean Lokey
Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
No one comes to the Father except through Me."
--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Jean Smith wrote:
From: Jean Smith <biggieja(at)cox.net>
Subject: AVIATE: 2009 Edwards AFB Open House
To: Undisclosed-Recipient(at)yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 10:59 AM
I thought this was so exciting. When I was about 17, I
remember seeing the
P-38 that had twin tails and thought that was so amazing. They
would fly over our house and I would watch till they disappeared.
This is so worth watching to the very end.
Subject: AVIATE: 2009 Edwards AFB Open House
AWESOME ROZ
I NEVER KNEW HOW B-ONE GOT IT'S NICKNAME BEFORE.
=============
I don't know what that (BUY) button at the bottom does -- but
don't do it -- just scroll down for several dozen beautiful aircraft
shots.
Cheers,
D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howdy,
Those who like airplanes will enjoy
this collection. Scan near the end
to view some T-6 Texan photos.
Click here:
http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1a/Edwards09/Edwards09.html
Enjoy ....
If it weren't for the United States military,
there'd be NO United States of America .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11/15/09 19:50:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Race" <mykitairplane(at)mrrace.com> |
www.mykitairplane.com <http://www.mykitairplane.com/>
Click on the Chat Room link at the top of the page.
George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Moore <soarmoore2(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: AVIATE: 2009 Edwards AFB Open House |
Marvelous photos of a wide history of old to new airplanes. Nice to be able
to enjoy seeing them without suffering the heat. Edwards is a desert base.
..
--- On Mon, 11/16/09, Wade Jones wrote:
From: Wade Jones <wjones(at)brazoriainet.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Fw: AVIATE: 2009 Edwards AFB Open House
Date: Monday, November 16, 2009, 6:21 AM
-
----- Original Message -----
From: Jean Lokey
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 12:35 AM
Subject: Fw: AVIATE: 2009 Edwards AFB Open House
Thought you might enjoy seeing these planes.
Jean Lokey
Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
No one comes to the Father except through Me."
--- On Sun, 11/15/09, Jean Smith wrote:
From: Jean Smith <biggieja(at)cox.net>
Subject: AVIATE: 2009 Edwards AFB Open House
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2009, 10:59 AM
#yiv1165177293 UNKNOWN {
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
#yiv1165177293 UNKNOWN {
FONT-FAMILY:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
#yiv1165177293 #yiv1009610222 #yiv1009610222 P.MsoNormal {
MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;}
#yiv1165177293 #yiv1009610222 LI.MsoNormal {
MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;}
#yiv1165177293 #yiv1009610222 DIV.MsoNormal {
MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman";FONT-SIZE:12pt;}
#yiv1165177293 #yiv1009610222 A:link {
COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}
#yiv1165177293 #yiv1009610222 SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}
#yiv1165177293 #yiv1009610222 A:visited {
COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}
#yiv1165177293 #yiv1009610222 SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR:blue;TEXT-DECORATION:underline;}
#yiv1165177293 #yiv1009610222 SPAN.EmailStyle18 {
FONT-FAMILY:Arial;COLOR:navy;}
#yiv1165177293 UNKNOWN {
MARGIN:1in 1.25in;}
#yiv1165177293 #yiv1009610222 DIV.Section1 {
}
- I thought this was so exciting.-- When I was about 17, I remember s
eeing the
P-38 that had twin tails and thought that was so amazing.- They would fly
over our house and I would watch till they disappeared.
This-is so worth watching to the very end.
-
-
-
-
-
Subject: AVIATE: 2009 Edwards AFB Open House
-
AWESOME ROZ
I NEVER KNEW HOW B-ONE GOT IT'S NICKNAME BEFORE.
=============
I don't know what that (BUY) button at the bottom does -- but don't do it -
- just scroll down for several dozen beautiful aircraft shots.
-
Cheers,
D
-
-
-
Howdy,
-
Those who like airplanes will enjoy
this collection.- Scan near the end
to view some T-6 Texan photos.
-
Click here:
http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1a/Edwards09/Edwards09.html
-
Enjoy ....
If it weren't for the United States military,
there'd be NO United States of America .
-
Release Date: 11/15/09 19:50:00
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith : More rework! |
Hey Rick,Is that aPrinceP-tip prop I see on ypor bird?=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2
-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- Joe 601XL=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A___________
_____________________=0AFrom: "Beckman, Rick" <Rick.Beckman(at)atk.com>=0ATo:
zenith-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Mon, November 16, 2009 9:07:15 AM=0ASubje
ct: Zenith-List: Zenith : More rework!=0A=0A=0A=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2
-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- Paul, I who
le heartedly agree. I am nearly finished with this project and I was wonder
ing what else could possibly get in my way to forego its completion. Alas,
in step the Big Guys and say if you want a Pink Slip, comply. So, here I go
again. I only thought =C2-I was finished, or thereabouts. It=99s a
shame to have to scar my Mistress. I just hope touch-up paint will do the
trick. Oh, well=0A=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-
=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- Tres Digitos=0A=C2-=0A=C2-
=0APaul R=0ABreathlessly awaiting the opportunity to gain more building and
re-building experience
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Zenith : More rework! |
| From: | "Beckman, Rick" <Rick.Beckman(at)atk.com> |
ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIFllcywgc2lyLCDigJh0aXMgaXQgaXMuDQoNCiANCg0KICAgICAgICAg
ICAgICAgIERvIG5vdCBhcmNoaXZlDQoNCiANCg0KRnJvbTogb3duZXItemVuaXRoLWxpc3Qtc2Vy
dmVyQG1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20gW21haWx0bzpvd25lci16ZW5pdGgtbGlzdC1zZXJ2ZXJAbWF0cm9u
aWNzLmNvbV0gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIHB1cnBsZW1vb245OUBiZWxsc291dGgubmV0DQpTZW50OiBN
b25kYXksIE5vdmVtYmVyIDE2LCAyMDA5IDEwOjAyIEFNDQpUbzogemVuaXRoLWxpc3RAbWF0cm9u
aWNzLmNvbQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFplbml0aC1MaXN0OiBaZW5pdGggOiBNb3JlIHJld29yayEN
Cg0KIA0KDQpIZXkgUmljayxJcyB0aGF0IGFQcmluY2VQLXRpcCBwcm9wIEkgc2VlIG9uIHlwb3Ig
YmlyZD8gICAgICAgICAgIEpvZSA2MDFYTA0KDQo
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icom A210/iPod |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com> |
The guys at SteinAir talked me into a PM3000 intercom because of the lack of inputs
on an A210. Of course I needed the Dynon180, Garmin 496 and iPod to go in.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273194#273194
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Icom A210/iPod |
If you didn't buy it yet I have an unused new PM3000 that I would sell at a
reduced price. Mine has the voice recorder feature.
PS Engineering PM3000 4 place intercom w/voice recorder (non-TSO'd) P/N
11933 $470 (list $540)
www.ps-engineering.com/docs/PM3000_DS.pdf
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gig Giacona
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 1:57 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Icom A210/iPod
The guys at SteinAir talked me into a PM3000 intercom because of the lack of
inputs on an A210. Of course I needed the Dynon180, Garmin 496 and iPod to
go in.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273194#273194
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Icom A210/iPod |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com> |
craig(at)craigandjean.com wrote:
> If you didn't buy it yet I have an unused new PM3000 that I would sell at a
> reduced price. Mine has the voice recorder feature.
>
> PS Engineering PM3000 4 place intercom w/voice recorder (non-TSO'd) P/N
> 11933 $470 (list $540)
> www.ps-engineering.com/docs/PM3000_DS.pdf
>
> -- Craig
>
> --
Bought and installed.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273200#273200
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | What's My Contribution Used For? |
Dear Listers,
Some have asked, "What's my Contribution used for?" and that's a good question.
Here are just a few examples of what your direct List support enables. It provides
for the very expensive, commercial-grade T1 Internet connection used on
the List insuring maximum performance and minimal contention when accessing List
services. It pays for the regular system hardware and software upgrades enabling
the highest performance possible for services such as the Archive Search
Engine, List Browser, and Forums. It pays for narly 20 years (yeah, I really
said *20* years) worth of online archive data available for instant random search
and access. And, it offsets the many hours spent writing, developing, and
maintaining the custom applications that power this List Service such as the List
Browse, Search Engine, Forums, and Wiki.
But most importantly, your List Contribution enables a forum where you and your
peers can communicate freely in an environment that is free from moderation,
censorship, advertising, commercialism, SPAM, and computer viruses. How many places
on the Internet can you make all those statements these days?
It is YOUR CONTRIBUTION that directly enables these many aspects of these valuable
List services. Please support it today with your List Contribution. Its one
of the best investments you can make in your Sport...
List Contribution Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Ray" <davgray(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith liability--Correction |
I re-read a previous post of mine and found an error.
I refered to the 'shop head' of the rivet when actually it should read
'factory head'. The 'factory head' has a small dimple that
centers your drill on the rivet while you are drilling the head off.
More care would be needed to drill the shop head off since it does not
have a center dimple.
The shop head is the side that was deformed when the rivet was
originally set.
At any rate the Zenith Builders and Flyers site blog
http://www.zenith.aero/profiles/blogs/part-3-installing-the-upgrade
Part 3: Installing the "Upgrade Package" to our Zodiac CH 601 XL:
Drilling out the top inboard main wing spar
has the solid rivet removal technique covered in detail.
PS In keeping with good journalistic procedures, notice my retractions
are published weeks later,
in smaller type, on the back pages and after it doesn't matter any more.
Gary Ray Working on the Zenith upgrade
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Ray
To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith liability
A Technique for removing the solid rivets:
The spar cap solid rivets can be drilled just far enough to almost
remove the shop head then a light tap from the side with a chisel
removes the rest of the shop head, the rivet body is then lightly
driven out of the hole with a smaller drift punch without any chance of
damaging the holes. It all went very well. I did find a mass against
the opposite side from the drift punch helped a lot just don't damage
your spar caps with this mass.
Gary Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | picture of an old experimental vehicle |
| From: | Carlos Sa <carlossa52(at)gmail.com> |
a bit out of topic, but worth clicking:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_200911109_apollo11.html
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: picture of an old experimental vehicle |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com> |
Boy, NASA is really going to a lot of trouble to keep that old story that they
went to the moon alive, aren't they?
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273590#273590
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | EAA Experimenter |
All-
Extensive Zenith coverage in this month's issue.
Bill Naumuk
Townville, Pa.
HDS N601MG/Corvair 95%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Afterfxllc(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Zenith 601xl mods |
Gang
I will pretty much have 1 wing done today and have documented every hour on
video and I am in the process of uploading it to you tube but the clips
can't be any longer than 10 min's so I will have well over 100 when I am
finished.
here are the ones I have uploaded so far and will post as I get more
finished.
Jeff
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKNZ0uy2VF4_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKNZ0uy2VF4)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdcwWsMLF1s_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdcwWsMLF1s)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BumV5n-40A_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BumV5n-40A)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muqpgbb3QAM_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muqpgbb3QAM)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE3aXHf1mBI_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE3aXHf1mBI)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXXhWCNzWaE_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXXhWCNzWaE)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM4JsPPpkaY_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM4JsPPpkaY)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97dP7x1xtE_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97dP7x1xtE)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75qkgfmvPUo_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75qkgfmvPUo)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK7qYtAnXa4_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK7qYtAnXa4)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvXsrVs7Cs_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvXsrVs7Cs)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMOGWk4Ym0U_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMOGWk4Ym0U)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASbdRci-5E_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASbdRci-5E)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Zenith 601xl mods |
| From: | "Beckman, Rick" <Rick.Beckman(at)atk.com> |
Hi, Jeff, I would like to know where you obtained the prints/parts for
the upgrade modifications. I have not started on mine, yet. I think your
videos will help. Thanks!
Rick
Gang
I will pretty much have 1 wing done today and have documented every hour
on video and I am in the process of uploading it to you tube but the
clips can't be any longer than 10 min's so I will have well over 100
when I am finished.
here are the ones I have uploaded so far and will post as I get more
finished.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Afterfxllc(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith 601xl mods |
Rick I don't want to say how or where I got the parts from but I will tell
you it wasn't from Zenith. Some of the parts I had to make myself and
others are the same parts used on the airframe in other places. :)
I am uploading 20 new videos tonight and will post them as soon as they are
done. They aren't the best but I hope it helps others out.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net" <purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith 601xl mods |
Great of you to do this I'll be following along Thankd- Joe N101HD=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: "Afterfxllc(at)aol.com" <Aft
erfxllc(at)aol.com>=0ATo: zenith-list(at)matronics.com; zenith601-list(at)matronics.
com=0ASent: Thu, November 19, 2009 3:51:25 PM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: Zenit
h 601xl mods=0A=0AGang=0A=0AI will pretty much have 1 wing done today and h
ave documented every hour on video and I am in the process of uploading it
to you tube but the clips can't be any longer than 10 min's so I will have
well over 100 when I am finished. =0A=0Ahere are the ones I have uploaded s
o far and will post as I get more finished.=0A=0AJeff=0A=0Ahttp://www.youtu
be.com/watch?v=wKNZ0uy2VF4=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdcwWsMLF1s
=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BumV5n-40A=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/wa
tch?v=Muqpgbb3QAM=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE3aXHf1mBI=0Ahttp:/
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXXhWCNzWaE=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w
M4JsPPpkaY=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97dP7x1xtE=0Ahttp://www.yout
ube.com/watch?v=75qkgfmvPUo=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK7qYtAnXa
4=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvXsrVs7Cs=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/w
atch?v=ZMOGWk4Ym0U=0Ahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASbdRci-5E=0A=0A
-========================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dee Young <henrysfork1(at)msn.com> |
I am new to the list and know nothing about the Zenair. I have a chance to
pick up a partially built CH 250. I would very much appreciate your thought
s on this models flight characteristics?
Thanks
Dee
Date: Thu=2C 19 Nov 2009 17:10:38 -0800
From: purplemoon99(at)bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zenith 601xl mods
Great of you to do this I'll be following along Thankd Joe N101HD
From: "Afterfxllc(at)aol.com" <Afterfxllc(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thu=2C November 19=2C 2009 3:51:25 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Zenith 601xl mods
Gang
I will pretty much have 1 wing done today and have documented every hour on
video and I am in the process of uploading it to you tube but the clips ca
n't be any longer than 10 min's so I will have well over 100 when I am fini
shed.
here are the ones I have uploaded so far and will post as I get more finish
ed.
Jeff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKNZ0uy2VF4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdcwWsMLF1s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BumV5n-40A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muqpgbb3QAM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE3aXHf1mBI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXXhWCNzWaE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM4JsPPpkaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97dP7x1xtE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75qkgfmvPUo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK7qYtAnXa4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpvXsrVs7Cs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMOGWk4Ym0U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fASbdRci-5Ewww.buil=======
========
_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: I wanted simpler=2C now it's simpler. I'm a rock star.
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?h=myidea?ocid=P
ID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_myidea:112009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith 601xl mods |
I commend Jeff for making the videos available. I suspect that they will be
very useful.
However, I think that everyone should be reminded that the drawings shown
on the web site are clearly marked "DRAFT."
To me, that translates to:
"SUBJECT TO CHANGE! Do not build anything until you get the final
drawings, or be prepared to take it all apart and rebuild so that your
aircraft will comply with the final drawings."
Of course this is only essential for S-LSA's & E-AB projects that still
need their air worthiness certificates. So far I haven't seen anything from
the FAA that says already approved E-AB aircraft are required to implement
the recommendations. Strongly recommended, but not required.
I doubt it will be too long before the drawings are finalized, but only
Zenair knows for sure.
Terry
>Rick I don't want to say how or where I got the parts from but I will tell
>you it wasn't from Zenith. Some of the parts I had to make myself and
>others are the same parts used on the airframe in other places. :)
>
>I am uploading 20 new videos tonight and will post them as soon as they
>are done. They aren't the best but I hope it helps others out.
>
>Jeff
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Balancing the ailerons and working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Afterfxllc(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith 601xl mods |
I agree with you and I have been in constant contact with Roger and if mine
has to be changed so does his right? Even Roger says it is still in draft
form. I won't close the wing but I have the same parts he does installed
and do you really think he would install something at the factory that would
have to be changed and then put it on video for us to watch?
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith 601xl mods |
I have no idea what Roger would or would not do.
I only know that, to me, "DRAFT" means "DRAFT."
You pays your money and you takes your chances. If your anxious to be 1st,
go for it.
I'm not in that big a hurry. I'll wait for the drawings to be "FINAL," then
I'll know that, what I build will, at least, meet the DAR's expectation.
Again, I commend you for making the videos available.
Terry
>I agree with you and I have been in constant contact with Roger and if
>mine has to be changed so does his right? Even Roger says it is still in
>draft form. I won't close the wing but I have the same parts he does
>installed and do you really think he would install something at the
>factory that would have to be changed and then put it on video for us to
>watch?
>
>
>Jeff
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done;
Balancing the ailerons and working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Just A Few Days Left; Still Trailing Last Year... |
Dear Listers,
There are just a few more days left of this year's List Fund Raiser! Response
has been very good, but still well behind last year. If you've been waiting until
the last minute to make your contribution and maybe even pick up a great
gift, now might be good time to show your support!
Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists
and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions
during this Fund Raiser.
Please make a Contribution today!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Upper Engine Mount Question |
| From: | "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za> |
Morning List, I am trying to finish up the upper engine mounts on my XL and specifically
with reference to attachment to the firewall and upper longeron.
When I look at my plans etc I see that it is an old version of the engine mount
that the plans etc provide instructions for. Mine is the triangular shaped newer
one. Does anyone have the specs for the positions of any/all bolts/rivet
holes that need to be made in the mount?
Many thanks in advance
James
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273931#273931
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Afterfxllc(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Upper Engine Mount Question |
ask and you shall receive
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Upper Engine Mount Question |
Be careful with this drawing 6-B-6 the engine mounting hole positions were
not correct for my aircraft, I back drilled through the firewall.
Regards,
Greg Cox
Zenith Zodiac CH650, VH-ZDC
Sydney, Australia (Cecil Hills)
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, 20 November 2009 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Upper Engine Mount Question
ask and you shall receive
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Upper Engine Mount Question |
| From: | "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za> |
Sorry can't see any attachment...j
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273937#273937
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Upper Engine Mount Question |
| From: | "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za> |
Greg can you send a picture?
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273946#273946
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Upper Engine Mount Question |
And the fit in that area in general is very tight. In particular between the
nuts on the vertical bolts into the longeron and the rivets through the side
skin and the longeron. If you can stagger the bolt and rivet positions.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Cox
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 3:44 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Upper Engine Mount Question
Be careful with this drawing 6-B-6 the engine mounting hole positions were
not correct for my aircraft, I back drilled through the firewall.
Regards,
Greg Cox
Zenith Zodiac CH650, VH-ZDC
Sydney, Australia (Cecil Hills)
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, 20 November 2009 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Upper Engine Mount Question
ask and you shall receive
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Upper Engine Mount Question |
I forwarded Jeff's message directly to your e-mail address. Also sometimes
Matronics places a link at the bottom of the message to the attachment. Or
you can go to the web-based thread ("Read this topic online here") and there
will be a link and thumbnail for the attachment.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scotsman
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 4:47 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Upper Engine Mount Question
Sorry can't see any attachment...j
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273937#273937
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Upper Engine Mount Question |
James, I got a bounce on your e-mail address:
james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za
SMTP error from remote mail server after RCPT
TO::
host mailgateza.computershare.co.za [196.14.50.3]:
550 5.7.1 Unknown recipient was
submitted by host <166.70.13.232>. Sender address was
.
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
------ The body of the message is 147334 characters long; only the first
------ 106496 or so are included here.
Return-path:
Received: from mta1.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.65])
by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from )
id 1NBUjJ-0003rr-Vn
for james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:44:58
-0700
Received: from delld820craig (craig-payne.dsl.xmission.com [166.70.39.121])
by mta1.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E487E1289E0
for ; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:44:38
-0700 (MST)
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: FW: Zenith-List: Upper Engine Mount Question
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:44:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01CA69B5.541D3DC0"
Thread-Index: Acppy2qH1xImae5GSdyjUkhrWQF/SQAJHC0Q
Content-Language: en-us
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0016_01CA69B5.541D3DC0"
------=_NextPart_001_0016_01CA69B5.541D3DC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sending direct.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig Payne [mailto:craig(at)craigandjean.com]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 7:47 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Upper Engine Mount Question
I forwarded Jeff's message directly to your e-mail address. Also sometimes
Matronics places a link at the bottom of the message to the attachment. Or
you can go to the web-based thread ("Read this topic online here") and there
will be a link and thumbnail for the attachment.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scotsman
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 4:47 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Upper Engine Mount Question
Sorry can't see any attachment...j
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273937#273937