Zenith601-Archive.digest.vol-af
December 28, 2008 - January 21, 2009
Zenith601-Archive.digest.vol-af
December 28, 2008 - January 21, 2009
cal flight, which departed Avon Park Executive Airport (AVO), Avon Park, Fl
orida about 1115. The personal flight was conducted under the provisions of
14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
According to a friend of the accident pilot, who was also a certificated ai
rcraft mechanic, he and the pilot flew together in the accident airplane im
mediately prior to the accident flight. The friend did not note any abnorma
lities with the performance of either the airplane or the pilot during thei
r flight, and upon returning to AVO, the friend disembarked the airplane an
d the accident passenger boarded.
Numerous witnesses observed the airplane flying in the local area around th
e time of the accident. One witness was outside talking with a neighbor whe
n he observed the airplane flying overhead. The airplane was initially flyi
ng southwest, and made a "very slight dip and turned to the right. Then the
airplane pulled up severely and started turning to the left." As the airpl
ane continued upward and banked to the left, something "shiny" exited from
the tail area of the airplane. The witness remarked to his neighbor, "What
the heck is he dumping," and the airplane then began to break apart. The wi
tness added that he did not hear any type of explosion and did not observe
any smoke or fire.
Another witness, who was also a certificated airline transport pilot, state
d that while outside working on his house he observed the accident airplane
flying overhead. He estimated that the airplane was flying at an altitude
about 1,200 feet above ground level, and did not note anything abnormal abo
ut its flight path. About 45 minutes after first seeing the airplane, he he
ard an abnormal engine sound that diverted his attention again back to it.
The witness stated that the engine sound was smooth, continuous, and sounde
d as if the engine was being "over-sped," as if the engine were at full pow
er and the airplane was in a high speed dive. When he looked up, he saw the
airplane pitching up and rolling into a steep left bank, and initially tho
ught that the pilot was attempting to perform a "barrel-roll or a slow roll
." From his position, he could see the bottom of the airplane, as well as b
oth wings, as the airplane traveled north. He additionally noted that while
the airplane was banking, both ailerons were "fluttering" at a high freque
ncy. The bank angle increased to almost 90 degrees, when the left wing of t
he airplane "folded back" and separated from the fuselage. The airplane the
n pivoted about the lateral axis 90 degrees, and the right wing then separa
ted from the fuselage along with a portion of the cabin. The wings "flutter
ed=94 or "twirled" to the ground, while the portion of the cabin
continued forward and down to the ground. He recalled hearing three distin
ct "thuds" as the pieces of the airplane impacted the ground.
The witness also reported that during the breakup, the airplane released wh
at initially looked like "confetti," which he later determined to be painte
d chips of dope from the airplane=92s fabric covered wings.
The weather conditions reported at Bartow Municipal Airport (BOW), Bartow,
Florida, located about 24 nautical miles west of the accident site, at 1152
, included winds from 020 degrees at 9 knots, gusting to 15 knots, 20 statu
te miles visibility, clear skies, a temperature of 16 degrees Celsius (C),
a dewpoint of 6 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 30.21 inches of merc
ury.
The pilot held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane sin
gle engine land and sea, airplane multiengine land, and instrument airplane
. He also held a flight instructor certificate with ratings for airplane si
ngle engine, airplane multiengine, and instrument airplane. His most recent
FAA second class medical certificate was issued on June 2, 2008.
Examination of the pilot=92s most recent logbook, which began on May 3, 200
1, revealed that he had logged 7,126 total hours of flight experience, 12 h
ours of which were in the accident airplane make and model.
According to records provided by the FAA, the accident airplane was manufac
tured in 1946. According to maintenance records, the airplane=92s most rece
nt annual inspection was completed on May 9, 2008. At the time of the inspe
ction, the airplane had accumulated 2,588 total hours of operation.
The in-flight breakup occurred over a residential community built around a
golf course. Portions of wreckage were found along a wreckage path that was
3,100 feet long, and oriented on a magnetic heading about 020 degrees. The
first pieces of wreckage, found at the most southern end of the wreckage p
ath, included both aft cabin windows. Paint chips, inspection panels, and v
arious personal effects from inside the airplane were located further along
the wreckage path, with the right wing being the next most substantial com
ponent located.
The right wing was located about 2,000 feet from the aft cabin windows, alo
ng the wreckage path. The wing was lodged in the ground, oriented perpendic
ular to the terrain. The wing remained largely intact, and was separated fr
om the fuselage at the wing root, just inboard of the leading edge fuel tan
k. The wing spar remained intact to a point about 1-foot inboard of the win
g root, where it separated from the remainder of the airplane's structure.
Ten of the right wing's 17 inspection port covers were dislodged, and locat
ed at various points along the wreckage path in an inverted or "popped" pos
ition. All of the displaced covers had, with one exception, come from the w
ing root, leading edge, and outboard edge, while the inspection covers from
the center and trailing edge portions remained in place.
The left wing was located about 900 feet beyond the left wing, along the wr
eckage path. The left wing spar was fractured at a similar location as the
right wing spar. Several of the inspection port covers were dislodged, but
did not display any discernable pattern as was observed on the right wing.
The inboard portions of both wing spars were forwarded to the National Tran
sportation Safety Board Materials Laboratory for further examination.
The main portion of wreckage came to rest about 200 feet beyond the left wi
ng, along the wreckage path. The nose, cabin, and aft portion of fuselage e
xhibited extensive crush damage, and its entirety was contained with an are
a about 10 by 10 feet. The cabin was severely compromised, and the seat pan
, where both occupants were located, was found about 125 feet north of the
main wreckage. The empennage, horizontal and vertical stabilizers remained
largely intact, but separated from the remainder of the fuselage, and was c
o-located with the main wreckage. The propeller was lodged in a shallow imp
act crater, and remained attached to the engine at the propeller flange. Ch
ordwise scratching and burnishing was present on both blades.
Aileron and rudder control continuity was traced from the flight control su
rfaces to the control "mixing" bellcrank, normally located just aft of the
main spar carrythrough. Separations of the aileron control push-pull tubes
were noted at both wing roots, and the elevator push-pull tube was separate
d about 1-foot forward its bellcrank.
Index for Dec2008 | Index of months
-------
-Thoughts?----
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 2008
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: NTSB report
At 06:29 PM 12/28/2008, you wrote:
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
I have one thought about the Ercoupe and Zodiac in-flight
failures. It stems from the comments by observers that the engine
changed pitch just before the breakup.
I remember a report about a Zodiac that made vibration sounds (over a
power plant?) and the pilot managed to get it to stop with radical
roll maneuvering. I wonder if other pilots experiencing unusual
vibration sounds might first suspect something wrong with the
engine. If so, they might try changing throttle or other engine
settings to make the noise go away.
I have absolutely no confidence that my notion is correct. All I
hope to accomplish with writing this comment is to alert Zodiac XL
drivers to the possibility of airframe vibrations and to consider
something like the deep roll rather than changing engine settings to
deal with such noise. It may help, or it may not.
Paul
XL getting close
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601 problems
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 28, 2008
"The forward sweep is an artifact of the 3 degree forward tilt of the spar and
the wing dihedral. If you raise the nose until the spar is vertical you will see
no forward sweep." Bryan
I will not post to this again. I meant no assault - to anyone. David
David, you should keep at it. The forward sweep of the wing in cruise attitude
changes the way the air flows over the ailerons. In otherwords, spanwise airflow
over a forward-swept wing is the reverse of a conventional swept wing. The
fact that the sweep is so slight and can change with flight attitude may be
an important factor for the LAA and NTSB to consider in determining how and when
the ailerons that did unzip, unzipped since the airflow across them reverses
while leveling off after a climb. Correct?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221565#221565
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/forward_swept_wing_aerodynamics_920.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 601 problems
I had not even thought of that Sabrina. It is definitely possible - might c
ouple to slack control system cabling or yielded brackets...
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Sabrina wrote:
From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems
Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 12:12 AM
"The forward sweep is an artifact of the 3 degree forward tilt of the spar
and the wing dihedral. If you raise the nose until the spar is vertical you
will
see no forward sweep." Bryan
=93I will not post to this again. I meant no assault - to anyone.=94 David
David, you should keep at it. The forward sweep of the wing in cruise attit
ude
changes the way the air flows over the ailerons. In otherwords, spanwise
airflow over a forward-swept wing is the reverse of a conventional swept wi
ng.
The fact that the sweep is so slight and can change with flight attitude ma
y be
an important factor for the LAA and NTSB to consider in determining how and
when
the ailerons that did unzip, unzipped since the airflow across them reverse
s
while leveling off after a climb. Correct?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221565#221565
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/forward_swept_wing_aerodynamics_920.jpg
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601 problems
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Dec 29, 2008
Sabrina,
In your recent email you mention "may be an important factor for the LAA and NTSB
to consider in determining how and when the ailerons that did unzip, unzipped...
" As I recall, your gussets were developed with this issue in mind.
To your knowledge, is the potential for "unzip" suspected to exist only in aircraft
with piano hinge ailerons or in the hingeless type as well?
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221629#221629
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2008
To my knowledge no one has done that any way other than new ailerons. God only
knows what adding another variable to the aileron would do and sort of defeat
the purpose of using the original design.
--------
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=221642#221642
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NTSB report
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Dec 29, 2008
Walt,
That was quite a graphic and informative report. I, too have wondered if some
of the unusual aircraft movements observed prior to the loss of the XL's in question
might have been actions taken by the pilot to dampen flutter.
Interestingly enough, most Ercoupes originally had balanced ailerons - from what
I read the balance weighed almost 4 pounds and hung off the bottom of the aileron.
They have been removed from most ercoupes as a alternate means of compliance
with a 1947 AD that required reinforcement of the lower ailerons skins
because of the weight of the device.
I suspect if one were to run around with a cable tensionometer and check the aircraft
sitting on the ramp at the local airport they would find most did not have
the cable tension set correctly. I have participated in over 50 annuals over
the years and never seen a mechanic check the cable tension with such a device.
Unless they are really loose they get only a cursory inspection.
We had a case a number of years ago where an ercoupe on the field was damaged after
it got away from the owner who was trying to hand prop it because of a dead
battery. They had to pull the wings and when they went to disconnect the control
cables they found that the cable turnbuckles were secured with brass safety
wire (not in use for many years) one of which had broken and allowed the
turnbuckle to back off to where it was held on by only a couple of threads.
If not for the damage on the ground that required disassembly it would have let
go in the air.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221644#221644
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Dec 29, 2008
I agree with Gig.
However, your government publishes a book, AC-43.13-1B that shows Acceptable Methods,
Techniques, and Practices - Aircraft Inspection and Repair. You might
get some formula for the patch there. You have a copy if you are using Kitlog
under, Resources, Advisory Circulars. I bought a printed copy from Jeppsen,
and find it quite handy to have around to answer some of the more obscure questions
I have.
Myself, I'd just re-skin the ailerons.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221650#221650
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: lack of firm information
Date: Dec 29, 2008
I'm seeing a lot of communication suggesting that one sort of change or
another should be made to the 601XLs immediately. The problem is, I don't
think we have enough information to know if a given change is a good one or
not. For all we know, some changes may actually make things worse.
I strongly recommend waiting until we have enough information to know what the
problem really is before making changes. A healthy discussion at a
knowledgable technical level is a good thing, and may ultimately lead to
identifying the problem(s).
That's my 75 cents worth for this morning (25 cents just won't buy as much as
it once did).
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: lack of firm information
Absolutely. Remember the demo is still going strong after many, many hours
of flight at or near gross.
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Jim Belcher wrote:
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: lack of firm information
Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 12:51 PM
I'm seeing a lot of communication suggesting that one sort of change or
another should be made to the 601XLs immediately. The problem is, I don't
think we have enough information to know if a given change is a good one or
not. For all we know, some changes may actually make things worse.
I strongly recommend waiting until we have enough information to know what
the
problem really is before making changes. A healthy discussion at a
knowledgable technical level is a good thing, and may ultimately lead to
identifying the problem(s).
That's my 75 cents worth for this morning (25 cents just won't buy as
much as
it once did).
--
====================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
=======================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
=======================
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: lack of firm information
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2008
BINGO !!!!! We have a winner.
No Not Archive
z601(at)anemicaardvark.co wrote:
> The problem is, I don't
> think we have enough information to know if a given change is a good one or not.
> --
--------
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=221684#221684
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Yuba City Probable cause released
From: "dougsire" <dsire(at)imt.net>
Date: Dec 29, 2008
NTSB released the probable cause for the 11/06 AMD accident in Yuba City. The
smoking gun is....In-flight structural failure of the horizontal stabilizer and
wings for undetermined reasons.
Doug Sire
Billings, MT
--------
Doug Sire 601XL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221698#221698
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2008
That makes things clear as mud. The one useful bit of info i gout out of it was
this. "no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces was apparent." That would
seem to be NTSB speak that rules out flutter.
That and they didn't rule out abrupt control input. Just that they couldn't see
it on radar.
--------
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=221705#221705
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2008
From: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: NTSB report
Tim,
-
-- I agree with what you said about A&P's and experimental aircraft own
ers failing to-check control cable tension during annual or 100 hour insp
ections.
-
-- I have an idea that I would like to put forth for all 601XL & HD own
ers on the list who have completed and are flying their airplane in the Uni
ted States (overseas owners could do the same thing in their area if intere
sted). I will buy a cable tension gauge that can be used on the 601XL & HD,
and mail it out to anyone who wants to check their control cables to see i
f they meet the specifications called for by Zenith.-When the person who
has the gauge-through testing-and adjusting their cables (please do the
testing/adjusting ASAP), that person mails the tensionometer-off to the
next person on the list (at their expense). I'll maintain-the list of who
would like to check their cables and-inform whomever has the gauge where
to send it next. I only ask that whenever the gauge is mailed to the next
person, I be informed so we don't loose track of there the gauge is.-I'll
also make a lightweight padded shipping box inwhich the meter can be
shipped.
-
-----If I get at least 10 interested individuals, I order the gau
ge and get things moving. The kit could also include the cable tensions rec
ommeded by Zenith for the-XL & HD, plus instruction on how to properly sa
fety wire the turnbuckles. And the checking of cable tension might also be
added to everyones annual inspection checklist.
-
----Is anyone interested?-
-
Walt in Ohio
601XL/w/Jabiru 3300A
working on fuselage------
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Tim Juhl wrote:
From: Tim Juhl <juhl(at)avci.net>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: NTSB report
Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 12:14 PM
Walt,
That was quite a graphic and informative report. I, too have wondered if s
ome
of the unusual aircraft movements observed prior to the loss of the XL's in
question might have been actions taken by the pilot to dampen flutter.
Interestingly enough, most Ercoupes originally had balanced ailerons - from
what I read the balance weighed almost 4 pounds and hung off the bottom of
the
aileron. They have been removed from most ercoupes as a alternate means of
compliance with a 1947 AD that required reinforcement of the lower ailerons
skins because of the weight of the device.
I suspect if one were to run around with a cable tensionometer and check th
e
aircraft sitting on the ramp at the local airport they would find most did
not
have the cable tension set correctly. I have participated in over 50 annua
ls
over the years and never seen a mechanic check the cable tension with such
a
device. Unless they are really loose they get only a cursory inspection.
We had a case a number of years ago where an ercoupe on the field was damag
ed
after it got away from the owner who was trying to hand prop it because of
a
dead battery. They had to pull the wings and when they went to disconnect
the
control cables they found that the cable turnbuckles were secured with bra
ss
safety wire (not in use for many years) one of which had broken and allowed
the
turnbuckle to back off to where it was held on by only a couple of threads.
If
not for the damage on the ground that required disassembly it would have le
t go
in the air.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221644#221644
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "T. Graziano" <tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
Date: Dec 29, 2008
The separation of the wings and horizontal stabilizer was in a downward
direction
...the possibility of an abrupt control input cannot be excluded. This
airplane is very responsive in pitch control. One of the handling quality
characteristics designed by the
airplane's manufacturer is that movement of the control stick produces large
and rapid changes in pitch attitude."
FWIW. I believe abrupt up elevator input caused horizontal stab downward
failure. Causes extreme nose down pitch and extreme neg gs on wing
resulting in wing failure in downward
direction. Saw this on a T-28A at the Crash Lab at March AFB many years ago
during aircraft accident investigation course.
Tony Graziano
601XL; N493TG; 454 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 4:50 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
>
> That makes things clear as mud. The one useful bit of info i gout out of
> it was this. "no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces was
> apparent." That would seem to be NTSB speak that rules out flutter.
>
> That and they didn't rule out abrupt control input. Just that they
> couldn't see it on radar.
>
> --------
> 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=221705#221705
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601 problems
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2008
Tim, I have never seen a photo of an unzipped flex hinge.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221740#221740
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fun Video!
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: Dec 29, 2008
Check out this video.
This has little to do with airplanes directly.
But if you find CNC machining or machinery interesting and you like Joe, you might
enjoy watching this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMS8wWOD0HE
I will post more; that have to do with aircraft, parts and specifically Corvair
stuff and such as they become available. Smile
To nights project is to film the Machine cutting a pair of Corvair Heads.
Should be fun. :)
Enjoy,
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221755#221755
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2008
From: John Smith <zenithlist(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: NTSB report
Walter,=0A=0AI think your idea of share cable tension gauge is great.- It
allows the gauge to be more-accessible, and, hopefully, more planes to b
e correctly tensioned.- Put me in your list.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A______________
__________________=0AFrom: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>=0ATo: zenit
h601-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Monday, December 29, 2008 4:58:23 PM=0ASubj
ect: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: NTSB report=0A=0A=0ATim,=0A=0A-- I agree w
ith what you said about A&P's and experimental aircraft owners failing to
-check control cable tension during annual or 100 hour inspections. =0A
=0A-- I have an idea that I would like to put forth for all 601XL & HD
owners on the list who have completed and are flying their airplane in the
United States (overseas owners could do the same thing in their area if int
erested). I will buy a cable tension gauge that can be used on the 601XL &
HD, and mail it out to anyone who wants to check their control cables to se
e if they meet the specifications called for by Zenith.-When the person w
ho has the gauge-through testing-and adjusting their cables (please do
the testing/adjusting ASAP), that person mails the tensionometer-off to t
he next person on the list (at their expense). I'll maintain-the list of
who would like to check their cables and-inform whomever has the gauge wh
ere to send it next. I only ask that whenever the gauge is mailed to the ne
xt person, I be informed so we don't loose track of there the gauge is.-I
'll also make a lightweight padded shipping box inwhich the meter can be sh
ipped.=0A=0A-----If I get at least 10 interested individuals, I o
rder the gauge and get things moving. The kit could also include the cable
tensions recommeded by Zenith for the-XL & HD, plus instruction on how to
properly safety wire the turnbuckles. And the checking of cable tension mi
ght also be added to everyones annual inspection checklist.=0A=0A---
-Is anyone interested?-=0A=0AWalt in Ohio=0A601XL/w/Jabiru 3300A=0Awork
ing on fuselage------=0A=0A--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Tim Juhl =0A=0AWalt,=0AThat was quite a graphic and informa
tive report. I, too have wondered if some=0Aof the unusual aircraft moveme
nts observed prior to the loss of the XL's in=0Aquestion might have been ac
tions taken by the pilot to dampen flutter.=0A=0AInterestingly enough, mos
t Ercoupes originally had balanced ailerons - from=0Awhat I read the balanc
e weighed almost 4 pounds and hung off the bottom of the=0Aaileron. They h
ave been removed from most ercoupes as a alternate means of=0Acompliance wi
th a 1947 AD that required reinforcement of the lower ailerons=0Askins beca
use of the weight of the device.=0A=0AI suspect if one were to run around w
ith a cable tensionometer and check the=0Aaircraft sitting on the ramp at t
he local airport they would find most did not=0Ahave the cable tension set
correctly. I have participated in over 50 annuals=0Aover the years and nev
er seen a mechanic check the cable tension with such a=0Adevice. Unless th
ey are really loose they get only a cursory inspection.=0A=0AWe had a case
a number of years ago where an ercoupe on the field was damaged=0Aafter it
got away from the owner who was trying to hand prop it because of a=0Adead
battery. They had to pull the wings and when they went to disconnect the
=0Acontrol cables they found that the cable turnbuckles were secured with
brass=0Asafety wire (not in use for many years) one of which had broken and
allowed the=0Aturnbuckle to back off to where it was held on by only a cou
ple of threads. If=0Anot for the damage on the ground that required disass
embly it would have let go=0Ain the air.=0A=0ATim=0A=0A--------=0A_________
_____=0ACFII=0AChamp L16A flying=0AZodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A=0AWorking on fu
selage=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matron
ics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221644#221644=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0A=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: AS5 Rivets
From: "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at>
Date: Dec 30, 2008
I think I saw a post on this but cant find the answer using the search function.
Can anyone advise where the 3 AS 5 rivets are packed? as I have looked through
all the obvious to me places and nothing.
Thanks and happy new year!
Kev
--------
Austria .............
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221765#221765
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2008
From: "Iberplanes IGL" <iberplanes(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AS5 Rivets
same here, a complete kit should have 25/30 of them.
bye.
2008/12/30 K Dilks
>
> I think I saw a post on this but cant find the answer using the search
> function.
> Can anyone advise where the 3 AS 5 rivets are packed? as I have looked
> through all the obvious to me places and nothing.
>
>
> Thanks and happy new year!
>
> Kev
>
> --------
> Austria .............
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221765#221765
>
>
--
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: Ordered
Engine: Jabiru 3300
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2008
From: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: NTSB report
John,
-
- You're the first on the list. Hope to get at least 9 more interested bu
ilders. Send me you e-mail address for the list, and when I get enough inte
rested builders (10), I ask you-for your mailing address.- Walt.
--- On Tue, 12/30/08, John Smith wrote:
From: John Smith <zenithlist(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: NTSB report
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 12:51 AM
Walter,
-
I think your idea of share cable tension gauge is great.- It allows the g
auge to be more-accessible, and, hopefully, more planes to be correctly t
ensioned.- Put me in your list.
From: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 4:58:23 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: NTSB report
Tim,
-
-- I agree with what you said about A&P's and experimental aircraft own
ers failing to-check control cable tension during annual or 100 hour insp
ections.
-
-- I have an idea that I would like to put forth for all 601XL & HD own
ers on the list who have completed and are flying their airplane in the Uni
ted States (overseas owners could do the same thing in their area if intere
sted). I will buy a cable tension gauge that can be used on the 601XL & HD,
and mail it out to anyone who wants to check their control cables to see i
f they meet the specifications called for by Zenith.-When the person who
has the gauge-through testing-and adjusting their cables (please do the
testing/adjusting ASAP), that person mails the tensionometer-off to the
next person on the list (at their expense). I'll maintain-the list of who
would like to check their cables and-inform whomever has the gauge where
to send it next. I only ask that whenever the gauge is mailed to the next
person, I be informed so we don't loose track of there the gauge is.-I'll
also make a lightweight padded shipping box inwhich the meter can be
shipped.
-
-----If I get at least 10 interested individuals, I order the gau
ge and get things moving. The kit could also include the cable tensions rec
ommeded by Zenith for the-XL & HD, plus instruction on how to properly sa
fety wire the turnbuckles. And the checking of cable tension might also be
added to everyones annual inspection checklist.
-
----Is anyone interested?-
-
Walt in Ohio
601XL/w/Jabiru 3300A
working on fuselage------
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Tim Juhl wrote:
From: Tim Juhl <juhl(at)avci.net>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: NTSB report
Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 12:14 PM
Walt,
That was quite a graphic and informative report. I, too have wondered if s
ome
of the unusual aircraft movements observed prior to the loss of the XL's in
question might have been actions taken by the pilot to dampen flutter.
Interestingly enough, most Ercoupes originally had balanced ailerons - from
what I read the balance weighed almost 4 pounds and hung off the bottom of
the
aileron. They have been removed from most ercoupes as a alternate means of
compliance with a 1947 AD that required reinforcement of the lower ailerons
skins because of the weight of the device.
I suspect if one were to run around with a cable tensionometer and check th
e
aircraft sitting on the ramp at the local airport they would find most did
not
have the cable tension set correctly. I have participated in over 50 annua
ls
over the years and never seen a mechanic check the cable tension with such
a
device. Unless they are really loose they get only a cursory inspection.
We had a case a number of years ago where an ercoupe on the field was damag
ed
after it got away from the owner who was trying to hand prop it because of
a
dead battery. They had to pull the wings and when they went to disconnect
the
control cables they found that the cable turnbuckles were secured with bra
ss
safety wire (not in use for many years) one of which had broken and allowed
the
turnbuckle to back off to where it was held on by only a couple of threads.
If
not for the damage on the ground that required disassembly it would have le
t go
in the air.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221644#221644
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: AS5 Rivets
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Dec 30, 2008
Check the inventory list that Zenith sends with each kit. It will tell you where
AS5 rivets are used. Then look in the boxes containing parts associated with
that component.
I found one of the most helpful things was to go down the inventory list while
checking things in and mark the location of each item. I put a code on each
box with magic marker and similarly wrote the part number in a conspicuous part
of the paper wrapping each piece of sheet metal. So far it has worked pretty
good.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221795#221795
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: AS5 Rivets
Date: Dec 30, 2008
On Tuesday 30 December 2008 10:55, Tim Juhl wrote:
>
> Check the inventory list that Zenith sends with each kit. It will tell you
> where AS5 rivets are used. Then look in the boxes containing parts
> associated with that component.
All of mine were in a single zip lock bag, not associated with any particular
assembly. I believe that bag was in a cardboard container labeled "hardware."
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
From: "leinad" <leinad(at)hughes.net>
Date: Dec 30, 2008
I just checked the NTSB database and didn't see the report. Where are you guys
reading this? Could someone post a link?
dougsire wrote:
> NTSB released the probable cause for the 11/06 AMD accident in Yuba City. The
smoking gun is....In-flight structural failure of the horizontal stabilizer
and wings for undetermined reasons.
>
> Doug Sire
> Billings, MT
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221806#221806
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2008
From: "Iberplanes IGL" <iberplanes(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 061115X01677&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 061115X01677&ntsbno=LAX07FA026&akey=1
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: Ordered
Engine: Jabiru 3300
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: AS5 Rivets
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Dec 30, 2008
I bought the complete kit back in 2006. The AS5 rivets were scattered amongst
the various components that they were a part of.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221832#221832
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Dec 30, 2008
I found it here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07FA026&rpt=fi
and the most interesting thing is at the end.
REASON FOR OCCURRENCE UNDETERMINED
Let's try to keep that in mind.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221871#221871
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Hand Riveter Heads
From: "dalemed" <dalemed(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 31, 2008
Is Zenith Aircraft Company the only source for riveter heads that will form the
A4 and A5 rivet heads properly?
I recently returned two heads to Zenith that I had originally purchased from them
about 30 years ago when I thought I would scratch build a CH250. I used these
in a standard hardware store hand riveter. I've used this old tool to set
some rivets on the 601XL/650 that I'm building now and I wasn't very happy with
the head that was being formed on the rivet. So, I decided to send them back
to Zenith and have them reworked. Even though I had them triple wrapped, they
broke out of the envelope and were lost. Zenith kindly sent me some new ones!
However, the new ones won't fit my old tool (the replacements are a smaller
diameter thread - the same as the thread on the pneumatic riveter I bought
from Zenith).
The Zenith factory now tells me they can't supply the thread size my old riveter
needs. So, I decided what the heck, I'll just buy a new riveter! I bought
one at the local Menards that looked like it would get me into tight places only
to discover when I got home that it uses the same thread size heads as my old
riveter!
So I'm now looking for another supplier of rivet heads, or a recommendation for
a good manual riveter that will take the same thread size heads as the Zenith
Pneumatic riveter.
Any recommendations will be appreciated!
--------
Dale
Flying Cessna 170B
Building Zenith CH650
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222000#222000
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 31, 2008
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Hand Riveter Heads
Hi Dale,
Have no fear. You can grind your own recesses in riveter nose pieces.
There are many ways to do this. Perhaps the best way is to use a
round grind stone or round cutter in a small rotary tool - a
"Dremel". I mounted my nose pieces in the 3 jaw chuck of my lathe
and turned the piece slowly while grinding the recess. You might do
the same thing using a drill instead of the lathe.
The only "Trick" is deciding when you have ground enough. This can
be done by testing the nose piece with actual rivet setting. If you
feel you have gone too far you can reduce the depth of the recess by
filing a flat zone off the end of the nose piece.
You may need to buy some new tools to accomplish this task. But,
isn't building the airplane mostly just a good excuse to buy new tools?
Good luck,
Paul
XL getting close
At 12:05 PM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
>
>Is Zenith Aircraft Company the only source for riveter heads that
>will form the A4 and A5 rivet heads properly?
>
>I recently returned two heads to Zenith that I had originally
>purchased from them about 30 years ago when I thought I would
>scratch build a CH250. I used these in a standard hardware store
>hand riveter. I've used this old tool to set some rivets on the
>601XL/650 that I'm building now and I wasn't very happy with the
>head that was being formed on the rivet. So, I decided to send them
>back to Zenith and have them reworked. Even though I had them
>triple wrapped, they broke out of the envelope and were
>lost. Zenith kindly sent me some new ones! However, the new ones
>won't fit my old tool (the replacements are a smaller diameter
>thread - the same as the thread on the pneumatic riveter I bought from Zenith).
>
>The Zenith factory now tells me they can't supply the thread size my
>old riveter needs. So, I decided what the heck, I'll just buy a new
>riveter! I bought one at the local Menards that looked like it
>would get me into tight places only to discover when I got home that
>it uses the same thread size heads as my old riveter!
>
>So I'm now looking for another supplier of rivet heads, or a
>recommendation for a good manual riveter that will take the same
>thread size heads as the Zenith Pneumatic riveter.
>
>Any recommendations will be appreciated!
>
>--------
>Dale
>Flying Cessna 170B
>Building Zenith CH650
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 31, 2008
From: "Ron Pollock" <ronpollock(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Hand Riveter Heads
I hope this isn't a foolish question but do you need separate dies for
A4 and A5? The A4 die I ground seems to also be the right one for the
A5 shafts but wouldn't have the right head profile (?).
Thanks, Ron in L.A. (Happy New Year!)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 31, 2008
From: "Stephen R. Look" <slook(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: Hand Riveter Heads
I use the manual riveter that Zenith sells. It has worked well and
the heads are already ground when you get it.
Steve
At 02:05 PM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
>
>So I'm now looking for another supplier of rivet heads, or a
>recommendation for a good manual riveter that will take the same
>thread size heads as the Zenith Pneumatic riveter.
Steve Look
Monticello, IL
www.ilrt66.com
"Dogs have owners, Cats have staff"
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 2 More fun videos :)
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: Dec 31, 2008
For those who are interested; I just posted two more videos.
The first one is of how we resurface the Head gasket area on the Corvair heads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xptR8V9T1NM
The second one is cutting out a rear starter bracket for our MagVair conversion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHNyFiEOZV4
I'm not really addicted to Joe Satriani; I just like instrumentals.
I'll try to change it up a bit in the future.
Enjoy :)
Happy New Year!
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222023#222023
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hand Riveter Heads
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 31, 2008
Yes they are different.
ronpollock(at)gmail.com wrote:
> I hope this isn't a foolish question but do you need separate dies for
> A4 and A5? The A4 die I ground seems to also be the right one for the
> A5 shafts but wouldn't have the right head profile (?).
>
> Thanks, Ron in L.A. (Happy New Year!)
--------
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=222028#222028
________________________________________________________________________________
From: NYTerminat(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 31, 2008
Subject: Re: Hand Riveter Heads
Dale
It would be a lot easier to re tap the treads in the rivet gun if you
already have the nose pieces from Zenith.
Bob Spudis
N701ZX
In a message dated 12/31/2008 12:22:55 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
psm(at)att.net writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz
Hi Dale,
Have no fear. You can grind your own recesses in riveter nose pieces.
There are many ways to do this. Perhaps the best way is to use a
round grind stone or round cutter in a small rotary tool - a
"Dremel". I mounted my nose pieces in the 3 jaw chuck of my lathe
and turned the piece slowly while grinding the recess. You might do
the same thing using a drill instead of the lathe.
The only "Trick" is deciding when you have ground enough. This can
be done by testing the nose piece with actual rivet setting. If you
feel you have gone too far you can reduce the depth of the recess by
filing a flat zone off the end of the nose piece.
You may need to buy some new tools to accomplish this task. But,
isn't building the airplane mostly just a good excuse to buy new tools?
Good luck,
Paul
XL getting close
At 12:05 PM 12/31/2008, you wrote:
>--> Zenith601-List message posted by: "dalemed"
>
>Is Zenith Aircraft Company the only source for riveter heads that
>will form the A4 and A5 rivet heads properly?
>
>I recently returned two heads to Zenith that I had originally
>purchased from them about 30 years ago when I thought I would
>scratch build a CH250. I used these in a standard hardware store
>hand riveter. I've used this old tool to set some rivets on the
>601XL/650 that I'm building now and I wasn't very happy with the
>head that was being formed on the rivet. So, I decided to send them
>back to Zenith and have them reworked. Even though I had them
>triple wrapped, they broke out of the envelope and were
>lost. Zenith kindly sent me some new ones! However, the new ones
>won't fit my old tool (the replacements are a smaller diameter
>thread - the same as the thread on the pneumatic riveter I bought from
Zenith).
>
>The Zenith factory now tells me they can't supply the thread size my
>old riveter needs. So, I decided what the heck, I'll just buy a new
>riveter! I bought one at the local Menards that looked like it
>would get me into tight places only to discover when I got home that
>it uses the same thread size heads as my old riveter!
>
>So I'm now looking for another supplier of rivet heads, or a
>recommendation for a good manual riveter that will take the same
>thread size heads as the Zenith Pneumatic riveter.
>
>Any recommendations will be appreciated!
>
>--------
>Dale
>Flying Cessna 170B
>Building Zenith CH650
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hand Riveter Heads
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Dec 31, 2008
Send in the heads you got from menards. I was not happy with the ones I tried
to grind myself so finally had them do it. Glad I did.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222084#222084
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 31, 2008
From: "Carlos Sa" <carlossa52(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Hand Riveter Heads
See this video posted by ZAC on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FfdJPOM51A
(It's also posted, with better quality, on zenith.aero )
Carlos
2008/12/31 dalemed
>
> Is Zenith Aircraft Company the only source for riveter heads that will form
> the A4 and A5 rivet heads properly?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: Hand Riveter Heads
Date: Dec 31, 2008
There is also a section on making and testing riveter heads in the Zenith
construction standards document in the builder's area on the Zenith site.
But it doesn't add much to what has already been posted.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Sa
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Hand Riveter Heads
See this video posted by ZAC on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FfdJPOM51A
(It's also posted, with better quality, on zenith.aero )
Carlos
2008/12/31 dalemed
Is Zenith Aircraft Company the only source for riveter heads that will form
the A4 and A5 rivet heads properly?
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Carby Air/Heat box
From: "Ianrat" <ianrat(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Dec 31, 2008
Up to the stage of setting up the carby on the 601XL using the Corvair.
Could any one give any dimensions of a Air/Heat box. I have seen the one on WW
site but if possible can i have any dimensions so as i can fabricate one. Or any
places to purchase one completed.
Thank you
Ianrat. :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222104#222104
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Carby Air/Heat box
From: "Ianrat" <ianrat(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Jan 01, 2009
Thank you Jay. That is the one that i have seen at the WW site.
I have already finished the cowling unfortunately (It came with the motor that
i purchased) and do not want to purchase another one.
Thank you
Ianrat
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222147#222147
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 01, 2009
Subject: Re: Carby Air/Heat box
I have the dimensions but I will have to go to the airport tomorrow and get
them or I could make you one if you like. They take some time to make but not
hard at all.
Jeff Garrett
Louisville Ky.
601XL N962T Aerolite Corvair 90%
601XL N524B Aerolite Corvair 155 Hrs
601XL N2257 Aerolite Corvair 225 Hrs
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/)
_www.project601xl.com_ (http://www.project601xl.com/)
www.aerolite.camstreams.com
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Hand Riveter Heads
From: "dalemed" <dalemed(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 01, 2009
Thank you, everyone, for the information and guidance. I guess I'll make my own
:)
--------
Dale
Flying Cessna 170B
Building Zenith CH650
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222183#222183
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
Date: Jan 01, 2009
See: http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html
The pictures shown near the top of the page show negative G static
load testing. Positive G load testing would be done with the airframe
upside down with the sandbags stacked on the bottom of the wings.
Positive G load testing is shown in some of the photos in the lower
part of the page.
On Jan 1, 2009, at 1:38 PM, David X wrote:
>
> I do not recall that ZAC ever did a negative G static test on this
> aircraft.
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NTSB report
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 01, 2009
David,
You forget that Zenith's official position as of November of 2007 was that you
did not need a tension gauge, that your fingers could do the walking.
So too, when asked, they would call out different tensions depending upon who you
talked to.
So, no wonder why so many aircraft are flying out there with improperly tensioned
cables. Who knows, is Zenith correct or Larry? Sometimes I wonder if Larry's
lower numbers make more sense.
Anyone who completed before 11/07 is neither cheap nor foolish, just following
what Zenith said.
I would be more afraid to fly an aircraft built to plans pages not signed off
by CH as some CZAW are, than fly an aircraft with lower cable tensions called
out by Larry and others.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222236#222236
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 01, 2009
David,
Which CZAW version do you have?
Is your rear spar attach lowered?
Is your center spar modified per the CZAW plans show above?
What is the thickness of your rear side skins?
Not protesting, just gathering information... :o)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222239#222239
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 01, 2009
I find my Zenith doth depend upon
A most auspicious star, whose influence
If now I court not, but omit, my fortunes
Will ever after droop. Here cease more questions.
(Tempest I.ii.217-220)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222242#222242
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 01, 2009
David, is your aircraft N601NJ, the one I saw at Air Venture 2005?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222269#222269
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NTSB report
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 01, 2009
Dear David Johnson,
N601NJ was at Air Venture 2005. Jim Pellien put it up for sale later that year
as an ELSA that is authorized for commercial flight training. I remember finding
it strange that a factory built aircraft was not certified as an S-LSA but
rather as an E-LSA.
Is this because it was not built to the same standards as the other CZAW S-LSA
aircraft imported into the US? Could this be a 4th version of CZAW that I missed?
I could not find your IA, AP, Repairman Light Sport Aircraft or Repairman Experimental
Aircraft Builder certificate.
Is this because E-LSA owners can get the RLSA certificate after attending the repairman
course--but not corporations, or is it because you did not build it,
CZAW did, so the REAR certificate was not available either?
This is a strange situation. It is not an S-LSA so you dont have to follow CZAW
standards for repair. It is an E-LSA, but since it is owned by a corporation,
and the airworthiness certificate allows for commercial operations, it must
be maintained by an IA/AP. Correct?
When you took the top skin off making it obvious that the skins are part of the
support structure, was that owner preventative maintenance or can just anyone
18 or over repair an E-LSA that is authorized for commercial flight training?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222286#222286
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/air_venture_2005_169.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NTSB report
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 01, 2009
Bryan,
Where an S-LSA is converted into an E-LSA, I was told that it could not be repaired
by just anyone.
The basis is 14 CFR 43.1.
First, there is a prior EU Airworthiness Certificate which is equivalent to a previously
issued FAA certificate so there is no experimental exemption for an
E-LSA previously certified as airworthy by an S-LSA mfg. 14 CFR 43.1(b)
Second, Part 43 applies to any aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate
in the light sport category EXCEPT where the products are not produced under
an FAA approval... without the double negative: Part 43 applies to all LSAs
where the part being installed or repaired was produced under an FAA approval.
Parts provided by Zenith or Can Zac would be exempt and could be installed or repaired
on an E-LSA by anyone over 18 assuming no commercial use.
Parts provided by CZAW or AMD would not be exempt.
Since the parts on the converted E-LSA were produced by CZAW, Part 43 applies and
an RLSA or higher is required to repair them. Correct?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222326#222326
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 02, 2009
From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: NTSB report.
Hi Gary,
Over-tight cables will result in worn pivot bearings and perhaps bent
wing rib supports for the bell cranks. Loose is not good either, but
the spec tends to carry tightness to a maximum which is as bad as over
tight. 25 to 30 lbs is tight for any cable, unless it is of considerable
length and is unsupported along its length. It is the unrestrained
weight of a cable that is considered a "player" in the flutter
discussions and
that's any cable with low enough tension to swing freely between its
ends. In most cases, you cannot get that with 25 to 30 lbs.
Easy enough to feel the difference if you think about it. A tension
gage might be more useful to avoid over tightening as loose is easy
to diagnose.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Gary Gower wrote:
> I am still building my 601 XL , now finishing the Fuselage, will
> start the wings soon...
>
> I will like to hear some good answers about simple questions:
> What will be more dangerous? To over tight the cables? Or to have
> the cables just a little loose (in the lower side of the tension
> specs)?
>
> Just wondering before I need a cable tension meter :-)
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower
> Flying from Chapala, Mexico
> 701 912S 230 hrs...
> 601XL Jab 3300 Tail done, fuselage almost ready, wings next.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: NTSB report
Date: Jan 02, 2009
Some CZAW built aircraft were shipped to this country and assembled
here by the distributer. They never had an AW certificate issued to
them in any country. They were registered here as ELSA under the "fat
ultralight" exemption. They were not converted from SLSA. Part 43
doesn't apply to these aircraft. Anyone can perform the maintenance on
them, an RLSA-I or higher is required to sign off the annual
inspection. These aircraft can be used for hire for the purpose of
flight instruction until January 31, 2010. If they are actually used
for hire for flight instruction they must also receive 100 hour
inspections conducted by the holder of an RLSA-M or higher certificate.
As for an SLSA converted to ELSA, it appears that you are correct in
that Part 43 does apply and an RLSA-M or higher is required for most
types of maintenance. According to the EAA, the FAA may propose new
rules to change this requirement for converted ELSAs.
>
>
>
> Bryan,
>
> Where an S-LSA is converted into an E-LSA, I was told that it could
> not be repaired by just anyone.
>
> The basis is 14 CFR 43.1.
>
> First, there is a prior EU Airworthiness Certificate which is
> equivalent to a previously issued FAA certificate so there is no
> experimental exemption for an E-LSA previously certified as
> airworthy by an S-LSA mfg. 14 CFR 43.1(b)
>
> Second, Part 43 applies to any aircraft issued a special
> airworthiness certificate in the light sport category EXCEPT where
> the products are not produced under an FAA approval... without the
> double negative: Part 43 applies to all LSAs where the part being
> installed or repaired was produced under an FAA approval.
>
> Parts provided by Zenith or Can Zac would be exempt and could be
> installed or repaired on an E-LSA by anyone over 18 assuming no
> commercial use.
>
> Parts provided by CZAW or AMD would not be exempt.
>
> Since the parts on the converted E-LSA were produced by CZAW, Part
> 43 applies and an RLSA or higher is required to repair them.
> Correct?
>
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NTSB report
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 02, 2009
Thank you Bryan... the problem is that CZAW registered the serial numbers and obtained
EU documents, and those same serial numbers show up here.
The FAA data base calls fat ultralight E-LSAs that had not been registered before:
"Experimental Operating Light Sport"
The FAA data base shows E-LSA's where the serial numbers were previously registered
as "Experimental Registered Prior"
I was told that a license was needed to maintain an "Experimental Registered Prior".
This is where the FAA and EAA are working on a solution to allow the owner
to perform their maintenance after the new regulations take place.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222406#222406
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 02, 2009
From: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: NTSB report
Thank you John. Walt.
--- On Thu, 1/1/09, John Smith wrote:
From: John Smith <zenithlist(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: NTSB report
Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 9:52 PM
Being cheap or foolish is irrelevant.- The important thing is the have th
e cables tensioned correctly anyway possible, and Walter is offering one-
method to do just that.
From: David X <dxj(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 1, 2009 1:22:40 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: NTSB report
I can't imagine why someone would spend so much money and time on such a th
ing as aircraft, yet not invest a few hundred in a cable tension meter (or
pay an AP to check the tensions). There's cheap, and then there's foolish.
zenithlist(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> Walter,
>-
>- I think your idea of share cable tension gauge is great.- It allows
the gauge to be more
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 02, 2009
From: "Ron Pollock" <ronpollock(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
As someone monitoring this discussion because of an interest in plans
building a 601 or equiv, I'd appreciate any opinions relative to my
position. Especially whether the 650 is susceptible to the same
issues. What would you do if you were just thinking of getting
started.
Thanks, Ron in L.A.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 02, 2009
From: Bill Pagan <pdn8r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
I'm comfortable with my choice and would not hesitate to do it again.
Bill Pagan
EAA Tech Counselor #4395
601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES)
--- On Fri, 1/2/09, Ron Pollock wrote:
From: Ron Pollock <ronpollock(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Friday, January 2, 2009, 4:27 PM
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
As someone monitoring this discussion because of an interest in plans
building a 601 or equiv, I'd appreciate any opinions relative to my
position. Especially whether the 650 is susceptible to the same
issues. What would you do if you were just thinking of getting
started.
Thanks, Ron in L.A.
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 02, 2009
ronpollock(at)gmail.com wrote:
> As someone monitoring this discussion because of an interest in plans
> building a 601 or equiv, I'd appreciate any opinions relative to my
> position. Especially whether the 650 is susceptible to the same
> issues. What would you do if you were just thinking of getting
> started.
>
> Thanks, Ron in L.A.
If you are a pilot, fly one. I did and bought the plans on the way home from the
airport. With plans building you need to put some time in almost every day
so plan your workspace.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222497#222497
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ron Pollock <ronpollock(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Jan 02, 2009
Thanks Ron. I'm plans building a 701 now so know the drill. Just took a liking
to the 601 and ran into a bunch of controversy I'm trying to sort out. Add to
that the new model and trying to sort that out. Guess my real question was whether
some here, if starting now, would build from 650 plans. I've gotten feedback
that they are almost mix & match.
I wasn't asking if anyone had regrets or would go non-Zenair. But I'm happy to
hear those happy with their 601s as from my position a little extra confidence
is required to start on.
Ron in L.A.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Lendon <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 7:49 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NTSB report.
From: "sdthatcher" <s_thatcher(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Jan 03, 2009
Although I certainly feel cables should be tight (within reason), especially in
light of having my cables loosen during a 600 mile flight last October, a loose
cable is less likely to vibrate than a tight one (cable frequency decreases
as cable tension decreases). A completely slack cable will generally never see
any induced vibrations (it's natural frequency is below any rotating equipment).
However, the loose cable may result in a potential flutter of the ailerons
which is less likely with a tight cable. It may have been my imagination, but
while flying over the mountains of NC last October with extremely loose cables
at a speed of about 100 mph, I was sure I noticed some small vibrations in
the ailerons. What alerted me to the looseness of the cables in flight was the
fact that I could move the stick about 1/2 inch either side of center without
any force being exerted on the stick. When I landed in Andrews, NC and checked
the cables, I noticed the balance cable was completely slack (it could be
moved up and down about 6-8 inches). I won't get into why the cables became
loose at this point since Ihab and I have discussed the geometry of the wing,
cable displacement, initial tightness, rib bending, etc., etc., in order to determine
the cause to no avail. If I discover a reason, I'll let everyone know.
But in the meantime, just make sure your cables are tight, just not too tight.
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
> Hi Gary,
> ...It is the unrestrained
> weight of a cable that is considered a "player" in the flutter
> discussions and
> that's any cable with low enough tension to swing freely between its
> ends. In most cases, you cannot get that with 25 to 30 lbs.
> Easy enough to feel the difference if you think about it. A tension
> gage might be more useful to avoid over tightening as loose is easy
> to diagnose.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
> Gary Gower wrote:
>
> > I am still building my 601 XL , now finishing the Fuselage, will
> > start the wings soon...
> >
> > I will like to hear some good answers about simple questions:
> > What will be more dangerous? To over tight the cables? Or to have
> > the cables just a little loose (in the lower side of the tension
> > specs)?
> >
> > Just wondering before I need a cable tension meter :-)
> >
> > Saludos
> > Gary Gower
> > Flying from Chapala, Mexico
> > 701 912S 230 hrs...
> > 601XL Jab 3300 Tail done, fuselage almost ready, wings next.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, EAA203 25 hours and climbing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222567#222567
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 03, 2009
ronpollock(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Thanks Ron. I'm plans building a 701 now so know the drill. Just took a liking
to the 601 and ran into a bunch of controversy I'm trying to sort out. Add to
that the new model and trying to sort that out. Guess my real question was
whether some here, if starting now, would build from 650 plans. I've gotten feedback
that they are almost mix & match.
>
> I wasn't asking if anyone had regrets or would go non-Zenair. But I'm happy to
hear those happy with their 601s as from my position a little extra confidence
is required to start on.
>
> Ron in L.A.
>
> --
Ron,
The XL is a well designed structure. Quite strong in my opinion and I have a bit
of experience in destroying structures, it was part of my job at Chrysler Engineering
back in the 70's.
The feeling I get from talking to the Heintz's is it, the 650, is just slight changes
from the several models they build worldwide to reduce the component count
and make a better plane. Either XL or 650 are pretty much the same from what
I see.
Much of the XL controversy sounds like our American press, full of supposition,
conjecture, and opinion. As far as any consistent contributing factors there
appears to be none currently.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222721#222721
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: W&B envelope CH601XL
From: "rans6andrew" <andrewcattell(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 04, 2009
The LAA, who usually go OTT with approvals and testing, publish a document called
a TAD for all amateur built aircraft. This document has some useful info regarding
weights, CoG limits, operating speeds etc. Generally the info within
the TAD will have been checked by a thorough flight test program performed on
the first completed example of the type to be completed.
For the 601XL see
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TADs/162B%20ZENAIR%20CH601-XL.pdf
where theCoG range is given as 300 to 520 mm aft of datum (datum is leading edge).
I hope that this is useful info.
Andrew.
--------
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222809#222809
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Elevator bias spring
Date: Jan 04, 2009
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Any suggestions on finding the details about the elevator bias spring -? CZAW drawing
6-BO-4CZ ?
Jay in Dallas
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elevator bias spring
From: "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch>
Date: Jan 05, 2009
Jay & Dave
Have a look at the attached drawing 6-BO-4CZ: This is the installation of the "elevator
bias spring" required by LAA UK on CZAW CH601XL.
Cheers Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222931#222931
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/6_bo_4cz_902.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2009
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: Elevator bias spring
Martin
Does the LAA require the bias spring on aircraft that have the full width
elevator trim tabs (i.e., as changed in updates 2005b)? Or is it only
required on aircraft with the original, narrower elevator trim tabs?
Thanks.
Terry
>Jay & Dave
>
>Have a look at the attached drawing 6-BO-4CZ: This is the installation of
>the "elevator bias spring" required by LAA UK on CZAW CH601XL.
>
>Cheers Martin
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elevator bias spring
From: "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch>
Date: Jan 05, 2009
Terry
Both full width elevator trim and elevator bias spring are required by UK LAA (see TADS: http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/TADs/162B%20ZENAIR%20CH601-XL.pdf).
I saw a flight test report that was issued by the test pilot of the UK LAA. He
wrote that the aircraft is not trimmable with full flaps extended, even with the
full width elevator trim.
Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222978#222978
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Elevator bias spring
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Jan 05, 2009
OK I cannot read the words about the size or strength of the spring required for
full flap, anyone expand on this? and
how is it different from other XL's as I thought the Idea of the full size trim
was so you can still do a circuit with full flaps and fly hands off with full
elevator trim.?
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223015#223015
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Canopy and Cold Weather (shipping) ?
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 05, 2009
Getting ready to order my canopy kit (650 style for XL).
Does anybody have any experiences or horror stories regarding shipment of that
big plastic bubble in the winter? Does it stand up well to the rigors of being
bounced around on trucks & loading docks during the winter?
I live in MN.
Does anyone know the dimensions of the crate?
Thanks,
- Patrick
--------
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223026#223026
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Canopy and Cold Weather (shipping) ?
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Jan 05, 2009
shipping damage,you mean like this?
Zenith was great and sent replacements for all the broken stuff as the shipping
Co was at fault.. drove a forklift through the ends.
Chris.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223068#223068
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/shipping_crate_649.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: W&B 601XL
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 06, 2009
May also be worthwhile to know where people are mounting heavy items, like BRS
& batteries.
- Pat
--------
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223134#223134
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Corvair College # 13
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: Jan 06, 2009
Corvair College # 13 is now less than 2 weeks away!
For those of you that are in the Washington area, who are flying down commercial
and are some what less than interested in trying to "carry on" your engine &
parts; I am still willing to bring them down with me.
There is no charge for this service, I am going that way anyway. :)
I only say that because someone asked. :)
you must however bring it to me before hand :)
You can call me @ 1-866-606-4152
Or see my website for an address
I will be busy in the shop so If I don't answer just leave a message & I will return
your call during a break.
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223177#223177
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Ground vibration testing
Date: Jan 06, 2009
According to an article in the latest Kitplanes, the German government
requires ground vibration testing (GVT) before they will approve flight of
kits built in aircraft in Germany.
Assuming this to be true, it would suggest that the Czech version of the 601
has had GVT done. Does anyone know it this might also have been performed on
the US version?
My interest stems from resonance being a possible reason for flutter and other
failure modes. It does not sound as though Zenith has done GVT here. In
fairness, GVT may be impacted by differences in the specifics of changes in
different aircraft. However, it might be worthwhile to know if the basic
aircraft has any problems in this area.
======================================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, computer science
A&P/IA
General Radiotelephone Certificate
Retired Aerospace Technical Manager
======================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: W&B 601XL
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 06, 2009
Front fraking right?!?!
I'd hate to be in the right seat if you ever had to deploy the chute.
--------
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=223224#223224
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ground vibration testing
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 06, 2009
While it would be interesting to know what you are asking please keep in mind that
the Yuba City report pretty much ruled out flutter in that accident.
--------
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=223225#223225
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: Ground vibration testing
Date: Jan 06, 2009
On Tuesday 06 January 2009 16:55, Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> While it would be interesting to know what you are asking please keep in
> mind that the Yuba City report pretty much ruled out flutter in that
> accident.
True. But we may have more than one thing happening to cause accidents. I
still wonder about maintenance of some of the aircraft.
I have a lot of questions .... and very few answers. The Yuba City report
seems to say the aircraft came apart in the air for reasons other than
flutter, yet does not really establish what those reasons are.
That may suggest the reasons are subtile, and not easily determined.
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: Re: W&B 601XL
Date: Jan 06, 2009
It has already been tested and (as I recall) the pilot and passenger walked
away. Picture attached. Was it Poland or the Czech Republic?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gig Giacona
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 3:54 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: W&B 601XL
Front fraking right?!?!
I'd hate to be in the right seat if you ever had to deploy the chute.
--------
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=223224#223224
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2009
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: W&B 601XL
I believe it was Minnesota. See:
http://brsparachutes.com/files/Documents/Press%20Releases/PR%20Saves%20212-213.pdf
Terry
>It has already been tested and (as I recall) the pilot and passenger walked
>away. Picture attached. Was it Poland or the Czech Republic?
>
>-- Craig
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2009
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: W&B 601XL--Whoops
I need to read further down. It was Hungary.
Terry
>Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:21:39 -0700
>To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
>From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
>Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: Re: W&B 601XL
>
>I believe it was Minnesota. See:
>
>http://brsparachutes.com/files/Documents/Press%20Releases/PR%20Saves%20212-213.pdf
>
>Terry
>
>
>>It has already been tested and (as I recall) the pilot and passenger walked
>>away. Picture attached. Was it Poland or the Czech Republic?
>>
>>-- Craig
>
>
>Terry Phillips ZBAGer
>ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>Corvallis MT
>601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
>are done; working on the wings
>http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601XL chute survival
From: "dougsire" <dsire(at)imt.net>
Date: Jan 06, 2009
I think it may have been housed just aft of the firewall on the right side. A
recent post by Mathieu Heintz indicated that they were putting it there on European
XLs. The photo seems to show some rumpled skin in that area.
Doug Sire
--------
Doug Sire 601XL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223244#223244
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Ground vibration testing
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 06, 2009
We may...no strike that...We probably won't ever ever know what happens right before
the wings come off unless somebody just happens to have their EFIS recording
data or a camera running in the cockpit when an accident happens.
There is another scenario where we could find out what happens. A pilot with a
BRS. The problem with even that is that the pilot in question would have every
reason in the world to lie if they had been doing something that rips the wings
off.
The Yuba City report goes out of its way to NOT rule out the aircraft was over
stressed. There are several ways that can happen and not all of them are the pilots
fault. That's what I always thought it was and no supportable data has ever
been released that counters that position. Is the 601XL as strong as Cessna
172? No but neither is a motorcycle as strong as a Hummer.
--------
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=223269#223269
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: W&B 601XL
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 06, 2009
Terry Phillips wrote:
> I believe it was Minnesota.
Well they talk funny there too.
That is amazing. I can't put a screw in the canopy without causing a crack yet
this one can have a rocket go off inches away and not damage it.
Look at the gear on that thing. It pulled MANY G's on impact and yet the wings
stayed on.
--------
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=223272#223272
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: W&B 601XL
From: "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch>
Date: Jan 07, 2009
If anybody is interested in where the CZAW and european ULM versions have their
BRS installed, have a look at the ULM-drawings (6-UL-5).
I am not sure if the 600kg BRS-version would fit right behind the firewall? The
ULM version only needs the lighter 450kg parachute.
Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223301#223301
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/zenair_ulm_supplement_22_pages_111.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2009
From: "Iberplanes IGL" <iberplanes(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: W&B 601XL--Whoops
yeah, but the most impressive was the French XL Clone.
2009/1/7 Terry Phillips
>
> I need to read further down. It was Hungary.
>
> Terry
>
> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:21:39 -0700
>> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
>> From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
>> Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: Re: W&B 601XL
>>
>> I believe it was Minnesota. See:
>>
>>
>> http://brsparachutes.com/files/Documents/Press%20Releases/PR%20Saves%20212-213.pdf
>>
>> Terry
>>
>>
>>
>>> It has already been tested and (as I recall) the pilot and passenger
>>> walked
>>> away. Picture attached. Was it Poland or the Czech Republic?
>>>
>>> -- Craig
>>>
>>
>>
>> Terry Phillips ZBAGer
>> ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>> Corvallis MT
>> 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
>> are done; working on the wings
>> http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>>
>
>
> Terry Phillips ZBAGer
> ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
> Corvallis MT
> 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
> are done; working on the wings
> http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>
>
--
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: Ordered
Engine: Jabiru 3300
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Canopy and Cold Weather (shipping) ?
From: "skyridersbn" <skyridersbn(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 07, 2009
Hey Patrick. If you are worried about how well the canopy is packed and if it
can handle the bouncing of the shipment, take a look at the picture I have attached.
I just picked up my fuselage and canopy kit for my 650. I hauled it in
a single axle trailer. As a former truck driver, I can assure you, my trailer
bounces a ton more than any semi truck does. The crate is so well packaged,
the canopy sits on a mountain of paper and is encased with more paper. If you
are just now getting ready to order your canopy, it might be warmer weather
before you see it. I converted my 601 to the 650 just after it came out at Oshkosh.
I just NOW got my order. Hope you get yours faster than I got mine!
--------
Larry Hursh (N650LM Reserved)
CH601XL (Conversion to CH650)
Starting fuselage
will be Corvair Powered
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223330#223330
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn1255_206.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Received my 650 plans!!
From: "MikeinPE" <mike@rent-smart.co.za>
Date: Jan 07, 2009
Christmas present a little later than the 25th but I am ecstatic. Received the
plans yesterday. Building will be at a fairly slow pace as I am regularly out
of town. Now I feel much more a part of this list!!
Mike
Port Elizabeth
South Africa
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223375#223375
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: parts location
Date: Jan 07, 2009
One of the problems I continually have is finding the parts in all the
packing. This time, it's the 6W6-11 aileron bellcrank supports.
Does anyone recall where these may have been packed in their kit? If I haven't
located them today, my inclination is to simply order a second set, since
they will soon delay my progress.
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Received my 650 plans!!
From: "aerobat" <rhood2000(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 07, 2009
Congratulations Mike, good luck with the build.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223394#223394
________________________________________________________________________________
From: <rsteele(at)rjsit.com>
Subject: parts location
Date: Jan 07, 2009
Mine was in the box with the ribs.
Ron
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Zenith601-List: parts location
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Date: Wed, January 07, 2009 12:44 pm
One of the problems I continually have is finding the parts in all the
packing. This time, it's the 6W6-11 aileron bellcrank supports.
Does anyone recall where these may have been packed in their kit? If I
haven't
located them today, my inclination is to simply order a second set,
since
they will soon delay my progress.
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ella" <rhodes1(at)copper.net>
Subject: WARNING Tom Henderson
Date: Jan 07, 2009
Hi
In Dec 2007 I purchased a partial 601XL kit From a man named Tom
Henderson McMinnville Or. At first he sent a few parts which were high
quality but then he quit sending any thing and wont answer E-Mails or return
calls It has now been 13 months So every one should steer clear of this man
because he will take your money and never deliver the parts
Don 601XL Nc.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:04 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
>
> I found it here:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX07FA026&rpt=fi
>
> and the most interesting thing is at the end.
>
> REASON FOR OCCURRENCE UNDETERMINED
>
> Let's try to keep that in mind.
>
> --------
> Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
> WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
> Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
> http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221871#221871
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: WARNING Tom Henderson
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 07, 2009
I hate hearing about anyone getting ripped off. Have you contacted the authorities?
If it crossed state lines it was a federal offense. If the mail was used
in any way the postal inspectors love this sort of thing.
--------
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=223461#223461
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 07, 2009
Subject: Re: WARNING Tom Henderson
check the archives there is a lot about this guy.
Jeff Garrett
Louisville Ky.
601XL N962T Aerolite Corvair 90%
601XL N524B Aerolite Corvair 155 Hrs
601XL N2257 Aerolite Corvair 225 Hrs
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/)
_www.project601xl.com_ (http://www.project601xl.com/)
_www.aerolite.camstreams.com_ (http://www.aerolite.camstreams.com/)
Do not archive
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: W&B 601XL
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 07, 2009
Martin Pohl wrote:
> I am not sure if the 600kg BRS-version would fit right behind the firewall?
I'm considering mounting a BRS-1350 between the firewall and the instrument panel
of my 601XL with 650 canopy.
Here's pictures: http://picasaweb.google.com/Patrick.Hoyt/BRS#
When using the 650 canopy on the XL, I believe that the usual baggage compartment
location is no longer possible due to the 650 canopy covering what previously
would have been the frangible cover installed in a cutout of top skin. It
may be possible to mount the BRS behind the baggage compartment bulkhead, but
that would move the CG further much aft.
The challenge with putting the BRS up front is that it will displace depth behind
the panel, which will limit what can be put in the panel on the passenger's
side. To partially mitigate this, I fabricated a pan that allows the BRS to
sit lower. I plan to "fine tune" my CG with appropriate placement of the battery.
I'm interested in what other people are doing, particularly those who are installing
BRS's on 650's or XL's with 650 canopies.
- Pat
--------
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223481#223481
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2009
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: parts location
(Cant remember who posted, sorry)
-
It is important to double check all the packing with your Kit,- before se
nd it to the garbage... I am shure you will find everything sooner or later
.
-
In our city we have already built 4- CH 701 kits-and I am now about hal
f way building-a 601 XL- kit- and I can say with truth, that nothing
of this five kits parts were missing, not even a washer.- Just one or two
-parts did not had the paper label, but where easy to identify with the p
lans.
-
Just our personal experience, some other local builder of kits-for difere
nt airplanes, cant say the same.-
-
Here in Mexico. like for all-other builder in countries around the world,
is very important, because the shipping and import taxes are expensive and
paperwork is HUGE.- No Custom Agent will accept that the missing shipped
parts (sent later) have already paid their share, to dificult to explain a
nd impossible proof.
-
Saludos
Gary Gower
Buiding in Guadalajara, Mexico
Flying in Chapala. Mexico.
-
-
--- On Wed, 1/7/09, chris Sinfield wrote:
From: chris Sinfield <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: parts location
Date: Wednesday, January 7, 2009, 4:24 PM
they were wrapped in brown paper, loose in the shipping box ? both taped
together
Chris
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Tire Pressure
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Jan 07, 2009
What tire pressures are recommended for the standard Zenith issue Condor tires
?? Thanks
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223493#223493
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tire Pressure
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 08, 2009
According to page 6 of 6-G in the construction manual 50psi.
--------
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=223510#223510
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "T. Graziano" <tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Tire Pressure
Date: Jan 08, 2009
Per the AMD Zodiac 601XL POH for 500x5 4 ply tires the T.P. is 30 psig.
You can get the AMD XL POH on the Zenith web site.
Tony Graziano
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:39 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Tire Pressure
>
>
> What tire pressures are recommended for the standard Zenith issue Condor
> tires ?? Thanks
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223493#223493
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: parts location
Date: Jan 08, 2009
On Wednesday 07 January 2009 23:02, Gary Gower wrote:
> (Cant remember who posted, sorry)
>
> It is important to double check all the packing with your Kit, before send
> it to the garbage... I am shure you will find everything sooner or later.
> In our city we have already built 4 CH 701 kitsand I am now about half
> way buildinga 601 XL kit and I can say with truth, that nothing of this
> five kits parts were missing, not even a washer. Just one or twoparts did
> not had the paper label, but where easy to identify with the plans.
> Just our personal experience, some other local builder of kitsfor diferent
> airplanes, cant say the same.
> Here in Mexico. like for allother builder in countries around the world,
> is very important, because the shipping and import taxes are expensive and
> paperwork is HUGE. No Custom Agent will accept that the missing shipped
> parts (sent later) have already paid their share, to dificult to explain
> and impossible proof.
> Saludos
I've gone through the packing as I disposed of it. There simply isn't room to
unpack everything and inventory it at the start, which is what I had hoped to
do. I've gone through it several times, and checked the locations just
suggested by others on the list. I don't doubt the parts are there ....
somewhere. The problem is, I don't know where.
I would fault Zenith for not having a standardized location for parts in the
packing, so that one always looks for things in the same place. That place
should be on the inventory list they create, IMHO. But as far as shorting me
parts, I have no reason at present to suggest Zenith has done anything like
that. They seem honest, and above board.
But in my case, I've already spent 2+ hours looking for 4 parts worth a total
$16. For me, I can't imagine a scenario in which it wouldn't be cheaper and
quicker to replace the parts. When the others turn up later, I can either use
them on the next project, or offer them to someone else with the same
problem.
Shipping by anything other than FEDEX, UPS, or USPS is a large problem here in
far west Texas. It's 150 miles to a freight dock. However, at least I'm not
paying import duties or customs fees.
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tire Pressure
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 08, 2009
tonyplane(at)bellsouth.ne wrote:
> Per the AMD Zodiac 601XL POH for 500x5 4 ply tires the T.P. is 30 psig.
> You can get the AMD XL POH on the Zenith web site.
>
> Tony Graziano
>
> ---
That is correct for the 4 ply tires but according to the build manual the kit comes
with 6 ply tires.
--------
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=223545#223545
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: parts location
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 08, 2009
Well Jim, there is one guaranteed way to find the parts. Order their replacement.
:)
--------
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=223547#223547
________________________________________________________________________________
From: JohnDRead(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 08, 2009
Subject: Re: parts location
Jim;
I had a couple of instances of not being able to find parts that
were checked off on the Zenith check list. I called Zenith and they sent me the
parts no charge. Give it a try.
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 1/8/2009 8:57:35 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
z601(at)anemicaardvark.com writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: Jim Belcher
On Wednesday 07 January 2009 23:02, Gary Gower wrote:
> (Cant remember who posted, sorry)
>
> It is important to double check all the packing with your Kit, before send
> it to the garbage... I am shure you will find everything sooner or later.
> In our city we have already built 4 CH 701 kits and I am now about half
> way building a 601 XL kit and I can say with truth, that nothing of this
> five kits parts were missing, not even a washer. Just one or two parts
did
> not had the paper label, but where easy to identify with the plans.
> Just our personal experience, some other local builder of kits for diferent
> airplanes, cant say the same.
> Here in Mexico. like for all other builder in countries around the world,
> is very important, because the shipping and import taxes are expensive and
> paperwork is HUGE. No Custom Agent will accept that the missing shipped
> parts (sent later) have already paid their share, to dificult to explain
> and impossible proof.
> Saludos
I've gone through the packing as I disposed of it. There simply isn't room
to
unpack everything and inventory it at the start, which is what I had hoped
to
do. I've gone through it several times, and checked the locations just
suggested by others on the list. I don't doubt the parts are there ....
somewhere. The problem is, I don't know where.
I would fault Zenith for not having a standardized location for parts in the
packing, so that one always looks for things in the same place. That place
should be on the inventory list they create, IMHO. But as far as shorting me
parts, I have no reason at present to suggest Zenith has done anything like
that. They seem honest, and above board.
But in my case, I've already spent 2+ hours looking for 4 parts worth a
total
$16. For me, I can't imagine a scenario in which it wouldn't be cheaper and
quicker to replace the parts. When the others turn up later, I can either
use
them on the next project, or offer them to someone else with the same
problem.
Shipping by anything other than FEDEX, UPS, or USPS is a large problem here
in
far west Texas. It's 150 miles to a freight dock. However, at least I'm not
paying import duties or customs fees.
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
**************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
headlines. (http://news.aol.com?ncid=emlcntusnews00000002)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tire Pressure
Date: Jan 08, 2009
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
AMD says 30 psi.? ZAC says 50 psi.? I split the difference and use 40 psi.
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: T. Graziano <tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 9:03 am
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Tire Pressure
?
Per the AMD Zodiac 601XL POH for 500x5 4 ply tires the T.P. is 30 psig.
You can get the AMD XL POH on the Zenith web site.?
?
Tony Graziano?
?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>?
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:39 PM?
Subject: Zenith601-List: Tire Pressure?
?
> ?
>?
> What tire pressures are recommended for the standard Zenith issue Condor
> tires ?? Thanks?
>?
>?
>?
>?
> Read this topic online here:?
>?
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223493#223493?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
> ?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: AMD Notification Letter
From: "lwinger" <larrywinger(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 08, 2009
This just came in from Mathieu Heintz:
To all,
Please see the latest AMD notification letter at:
http://www.newplane.com/amd/CH2000_Service.html
Or direct link at:
http://www.newplane.com/amd/../Service_Letters_Bulletines/NOTICE%20January%207%202009.pdf
It is an extended version of the recent ZAC posting.
This Notification is very interesting as it raises the possibility of
potential airworthness problems if the aircraft controls are not
secured when the aircraft is parked in high winds.
Regards
Mathieu Heintz
--------
Larry Winger
Tustin, CA
Plans building 601XL/650 with Corvair
Control surfaces and wings complete
Fuselage 85% complete
www.mykitlog.com/lwinger
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223571#223571
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: parts location
Date: Jan 08, 2009
On Thursday 08 January 2009 10:36, Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> Well Jim, there is one guaranteed way to find the parts. Order their
> replacement. :)
It works that way at your house too?
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: W&B 601XL
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 08, 2009
alex_001 wrote:
> have a look
Thanks for sharing those, Alex.
- Pat
--------
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223581#223581
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 08, 2009
From: "Frank Derfler" <fderfler(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 601 Builders... some advice please..
Okay 601 builders, would you please throw a lifeline to this poor 601 pilot
who has never pulled a rivet in his life. I fly an AMD-Made 601XL that is
over two years old and has about 200 trouble-free hours.
This notification letter from AMD,
http://www.newplane.com/amd/../Service_Letters_Bulletines/NOTICE%20January%207%202009.pdf
<http://www.newplane.com/amd/../Service_Letters_Bulletines/NOTICE%20January%207%202009.pdf>says
that somebody, I guess an A&P in my case, should install "gussets" on each
aileron.
My quite uninformed question is... does this mean that someone (my A&P) has
to tear each aileron apart, fabricate the plates from aluminum of the
designated quality, rivet them in, and then return the skin to its previous
pristine form?
- Will the skin fit?
- How difficult is this in terms of "hours" an A&P might charge?
- What other questions should I ask? I don't know what I do not know.,
-- Frank Derfler, Islamorada, FL
--
Twitter! Follow me at http://Twitter.com/Fderfler
See my new Novel, "A Glint in Time" at http://GreatGuyBooks.com.
See my discussion of All the Guy Toys that aren't (clearly) illegal or
(blatantly) immoral at http://mostlyflying.com
Anybody who READS (anybody out there?) See www.greatguybooks.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tire Pressure
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Jan 08, 2009
Thank you all .I friend runs his Cessna 150 at 30psi nose and 28psi mains. So 30psi
should be in the ball park
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223592#223592
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601 Builders... some advice please..
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Jan 08, 2009
I just did that mode [very quick and easy as you only need to remove a few rivets
around both areas]and it took about a 1 hrs work.Keeping in mind I'm still
in the building process and the aileron was not painted or installed. Cheers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223595#223595
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Flap Control Tuibes
Date: Jan 09, 2009
Hi Guys,
I am presently fitting the flap motor and control tubes. What is the angle
of the flap control tube (6B19-1 and 2) relative to the flap control arm
(6B19-3)? I need to drill the holes for the bolts that hold all three pieces
together.
I don't have the wings built yet so is it worth waiting until the wings and
flaps are in place before drilling anything?
Cheers
Peter
601 XL
Wonthaggi Australia
http://zodiac.cpc-world.com Date: Jan 08, 2009
From: Leo Gates <leo(at)zuehlfield.com>
Subject: Re: Tire Pressure
Jay, ZAC says air to 2/3 rim above ground for the HD and HDS. (2/3 tire
rim distance to outside of tire) Of course that is 1200 lb gross vs
1320 for the XL. On my HDS I found 2/3 to be 18 psi. OK for unimproved
runway, I guess. I find 25 psi is just right. 50 psi seems a bit
overpressure to me.
--
Leo Gates
N601Z - CH601HDS TDO
Rotax 912UL
jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> AMD says 30 psi. ZAC says 50 psi. I split the difference and use 40 psi.
>
> Jay in Dallas
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: T. Graziano <tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 9:03 am
> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Tire Pressure
>
> >
>
> Per the AMD Zodiac 601XL POH for 500x5 4 ply tires the T.P. is 30
> psig. You can get the AMD XL POH on the Zenith web site.
>
> Tony Graziano
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thruster87"
> >
> To: >
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:39 PM
> Subject: Zenith601-List: Tire Pressure
>
> >
> >
> > What tire pressures are recommended for the standard Zenith issue
> Condor > tires ?? Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223493#223493
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Davcoberly(at)wmconnect.com
Date: Jan 08, 2009
Subject: Re: Flap Control Tuibes
Peter,
Yes, Zenith says you should wait until you have your wings mounted and flaps
installed before drilling your flap tube to get it all aligned first- so I am
waiting to drill mine. David Coberly
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: parts location
Date: Jan 09, 2009
On Thursday 08 January 2009 18:37, Ronald Steele wrote:
>
> I'm going to go in a complete different direction here. Sooner or
> later you are going to end up with a sheet metal bending break. It's
> one of those thing that most builders are going to need sooner or
> later. It may be for fabricating parts for your panel, fire wall
> forward stuff, or as in my case to remake parts you screwed up.
>
> I don't know what your are missing besides the bell crank support, but
> if doesn't look too complicated, you should think about getting a
> small cheap break. A break is under $100 and will let you fabricate a
> lot of parts, including the bell crank support in a few minutes. I'm
> a worry wart, always thinking I'm going to miss drill a hole and
> knowing I can make a new part quickly is a real stress reliever.
>
> So, my suggestion is a couple of 2/4ft sheets of 6061-t6 from ACS and
> a cheap break.
This is one of those coincidences that's somewhat amusing, Ron. I've had a
small ~4' sheet metal brake for over a year, just for this reason. And, by
chance, I'd ordered a couple of sheets of aluminum from Aircraft Spruce
yesterday.
Had I been thinking clearly (which I obviously wasn't), I'd also have ordered
some 1/8" aluminum to do the bellcrank supports. This whole thing is coming
at a time that I'm getting over a sequence of colds, so I'm focusing more on
getting ready than actual fabrication.
I, too, am something of a worry wart, although I prefer to think of it as
planning ahead. Obviously, I think your advice is good. :-)
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2009
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: parts location
Hi Jim
I think that your attitude is right on Re fab'ing your own bell crank
supports. However, I'm afraid that your brake won't do you any good,
because there is nothing to bend. The supports, 6W6-11, are made from 1" x
1.5" x .125" 6061-T6 angle extrusion. All you need to do is to buy the
extrusion, and then cut it to length then cut the corners off. Regarding
finding the parts, the parts in the kit are just two pieces of the angle
extrusion, cut to 55-mm length. They won't look like the drawing in 6W6
until you cut the corners off and drill the holes.
Good luck with your build.
Terry
>This is one of those coincidences that's somewhat amusing, Ron. I've had a
>small ~4' sheet metal brake for over a year, just for this reason. And, by
>chance, I'd ordered a couple of sheets of aluminum from Aircraft Spruce
>yesterday.
>
>Had I been thinking clearly (which I obviously wasn't), I'd also have ordered
>some 1/8" aluminum to do the bellcrank supports. This whole thing is coming
>at a time that I'm getting over a sequence of colds, so I'm focusing more on
>getting ready than actual fabrication.
>
>I, too, am something of a worry wart, although I prefer to think of it as
>planning ahead. Obviously, I think your advice is good. :-)
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: parts location
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 09, 2009
rsteele(at)rjsit.com wrote:
> Sooner or later you are going to end up with a sheet metal bending break.
I think a lot of us who started as kit builders ended up as scratch builders...
- Pat
--------
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223766#223766
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: parts location
Date: Jan 09, 2009
On Friday 09 January 2009 15:00, Terry Phillips wrote:
>
> Hi Jim
>
> I think that your attitude is right on Re fab'ing your own bell crank
> supports. However, I'm afraid that your brake won't do you any good,
> because there is nothing to bend. The supports, 6W6-11, are made from 1" x
> 1.5" x .125" 6061-T6 angle extrusion. All you need to do is to buy the
> extrusion, and then cut it to length then cut the corners off. Regarding
> finding the parts, the parts in the kit are just two pieces of the angle
> extrusion, cut to 55-mm length. They won't look like the drawing in 6W6
> until you cut the corners off and drill the holes.
Actually, that might have been easier for me to do than a brake job. I hate
standoff distances, etc with a passion. I can calculate them, but I just
don't have the flair to get them to turn out on first try, and usually waste
a fair amount of aluminum. I can't claim lack of experience - I think the
first time I used a brake was around 1965.
The fact that I didn't notice that they were cut from extrusion is further
evidence I'm not feeling all that well. It's a good thing I didn't start to
fab them!
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2009
From: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Hi everyone. While browsing the NTSB website today, I saw an accident repor
t (see below) that might be of interest to all aircraft owners that have-
front hinged canopies on the airplanes. This matter was discussed on this s
ite a few months ago and-and there were several suggestion for devices th
at would either lock the canopy down, or prevent it from opening in flight
more than a few inches. It appears that the-shape of the canopy is acting
as a lifting devise (like the wing), causing it to lift into the windstrea
m, resulting in-unacceptable drag and subsequent control problems.-A si
mple locking devide or restraining cable will alleviate this potential prob
lem. Walt in Dayton.---
-
-
-
-
NTSB Identification: WPR09LA075
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, January 06, 2009 in Casa Grande, AZ
Aircraft: Czech Aircraft Works Sport Cruiser, registration: N797BS
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed.
On January 6, 2009, at 1600 mountain standard time, a Czech Aircraft Works
Sport Cruiser, N797BS, made an emergency off field landing after the cockpi
t canopy popped opened in flight at Casa Grande Municipal Airport, Casa Gra
nde, Arizona. The sport pilot operated the airplane under the provisions of
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 91. The pilot was not injured,
and the airplane was substantially damaged. Visual meteorological condition
s prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed. The flight originated at Ca
sa Grande about 1600.
The pilot reported to the Safety Board investigator that the canopy popped
open shortly after takeoff, around 500 feet agl. The canopy is hinged in fr
ont of the cockpit and rotates upward when open. The pilot said he tried to
keep the canopy closed with his free hand but the canopy continued to rise
higher and higher. The pilot turned back to the airport and made an off fi
eld landing next to the airport wind sock.
-
End of report.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Date: Jan 09, 2009
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Walter,
I had the same thing happen in an AMD 601XLi, except that we were at cruise speed,
about 1500' AGL.? The nose went down 60 deg.? I was able to break the dive,
but could never get the nose up to level.? We hit the ground about 10 deg nose
down.? When I was able to work again on my XL, the first thing I did was to
install a canopy safety tether.? Drawing attached.
?The accident airplane had the new 650 style canopy latch.? My airplane has the
old style latches.
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 7:47 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Hi everyone. While browsing the NTSB website today, I saw an accident report (see
below) that might be of interest to all aircraft owners that have?front hinged
canopies on the airplanes. This matter was discussed on this site a few months
ago and?and there were several suggestion for devices that would either lock
the canopy down, or prevent it from opening in flight more than a few inches.
It appears that the?shape of the canopy is acting as a lifting devise (like
the wing), causing it to lift into the windstream, resulting in?unacceptable
drag and subsequent control problems.?A simple locking devide or restraining
cable will alleviate this potential problem. Walt in Dayton.???
?
?
?
?
NTSB Identification: WPR09LA075
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, January 06, 2009 in Casa Grande, AZ
Aircraft: Czech Aircraft Works Sport Cruiser, registration: N797BS
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any
errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On January 6, 2009, at 1600 mountain standard time, a Czech Aircraft Works Sport
Cruiser, N797BS, made an emergency off field landing after the cockpit canopy
popped opened in flight at Casa Grande Municipal Airport, Casa Grande, Arizona.
The sport pilot operated the airplane under the provisions of Title 14 Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 91. The pilot was not injured, and the airplane
was substantially damaged. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no
flight plan had been filed. The flight originated at Casa Grande about 1600.
The pilot reported to the Safety Board investigator that the canopy popped open
shortly after takeoff, around 500 feet agl. The canopy is hinged in front of
the cockpit and rotates upward when open. The pilot said he tried to keep
the canopy closed with his free hand but the canopy continued to rise higher and
higher. The pilot turned back to the airport and made an off field landing
next to the airport wind sock.
?
End of report.
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
> When I was able to work again on my XL,
How are you doing these days, anyway?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Date: Jan 09, 2009
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Jay,
I am walking nearly normally, but the foot and ankle are still a little swollen
and painful at times.? The ribs only bother me at night.? My eye damage is still
troublesome and might not return to normal.? I'd say that I'm about 95% and
doing about whatever I want to do.
Thanks for asking - Jay B.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Sent: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 8:30 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
> When I was able to work again on my XL,
How are you doing these days, anyway?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "leinad" <leinad(at)hughes.net>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Darryl,
I have the same problem with Sabrina's and occasionally other posts that are blank.
I emailed Matt Dralle about it once but didn't get any reply. I'm reading
these posts from the web forum, and not via email. Once in a while Sabrina
posts something that I can read, but 95% of her posts are blank. It's obvious
others are reading them because they post replies to her's.
Dan Dempsey
Darryl Legg wrote:
> why is it that I can't read Sabrina's posts? Have tried IE and Mozilla browsers.
weird.
> Darryl
>
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223834#223834
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Darryl Legg" <dlegg(at)tpg.com.au>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Thanks Dan,
Like you I can't see anything, but obviously others can. Can anyone help?
Darryl. :?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223842#223842
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
My comments are for those who are concerned, not just the casual reader or someone
surfing the Internet in the future. Zenith, Zenair, FAA, NTSB, LAA people
and countless builders subscribe to the list and receive all our posts via e-mail.
(Even Jim Irwin subscribes!) So join and subscribe, don't just be a
guest or a passive member.
So... I finished intersession week, met with a top Fermi Lab physicist for dinner
last night along with a King Air owner/pilot and we had an interesting discussion
about the slight forward sweep of the wings in cruise attitude....
as far as loosing parts, the aileron bell crank mount is one item you might not
mind loosing-- I redesigned it using Aircraft Spruce parts... and Gig is correct,
order the replacement and the original magically reappears... (nose gear
stop plate in my case.) As to the bell crank, I changed the geometry, beefed
up the rib, raised and shrunk the hole in the rear spar.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223873#223873
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Jan 10, 2009
On Saturday 10 January 2009 11:18, Sabrina wrote:
> as far as loosing parts, the aileron bell crank mount is one item you might
> not mind loosing-- I redesigned it using Aircraft Spruce parts... and Gig
> is correct, order the replacement and the original magically reappears...
> (nose gear stop plate in my case.) As to the bell crank, I changed the
> geometry, beefed up the rib, raised and shrunk the hole in the rear spar.
Would you be interested in sharing the reasoning behind your changes, and what
the specific changes were? I'm not a structures guy, but the bellcrank looks
beefy in comparison to that mount, and the reinforcement added to the rib.
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Darryl Legg" <dlegg(at)tpg.com.au>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Hi Sabrina,
I am a member, and subscribe, and still don't see why any-ones post can't be viewed.
Please tell.
Darryl.
:?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223881#223881
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Jim, no problem, just join the list so I can PM you... :o)
it us not the beef of the bellcrank as much as the geometry... the beef of the
rib and rear spar is another question...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223882#223882
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Darryl Legg" <dlegg(at)tpg.com.au>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Hi Sabrina,
I receive daily digests via e-mail and browse the forums occasionally, just today
noticing that your posts were blank. In fact, your post changed on the forum
just now, did you edit it? Very strange mate!
Darryl.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223886#223886
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Once Elden posted why keep the original?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223888#223888
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2009
From: Elden Jacobson <eldenej(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
You lost me on this one.
--- On Sun, 1/11/09, Sabrina wrote:
From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009, 2:23 AM
Once Elden posted why keep the original?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223888#223888
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: Carlos Sa <carlossa52(at)gmail.com>
Why not ????
2009/1/10 Sabrina
>
> Once Elden posted why keep the original?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223888#223888
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Jim, Elden, Jay, Carlos, please join the list as a registered user...
Jay, you can't change the subject line on a "mass-PM" only private PMs. The post
you complain about was not on the list until you and other "guests" posted it.
Those who subscribe have the context via the previous e-mails.
The only way I can reach a "guest" and stay within the list is through this mass
PM. Sorry.
I know there are e-mails, but I receive hundreds of e-mails and 99% go to spam
and never reach me.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223896#223896
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Jan 10, 2009
On Saturday 10 January 2009 13:21, Sabrina wrote:
>
> Jim, Elden, Jay, Carlos, please join the list as a registered user...
Sabrina, as best as I can tell, I joined the list as a registered user last
July. If I correctly understand how the list works, it won't forward email to
me unless I am registered. I still have the email on file from Matt welcoming
me.
Having said that, when I go to the list of users, I find neither my name nor
any of the psuedonyms I normally use. I'm going to email Matt and see if he
can clarify my status.
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Jan 10, 2009
On Saturday 10 January 2009 13:32, jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> Sabrina,
>
> I am a card-carrying, registered member of this list (NOT a "guest"), and I
> have no idea what a "PM" is, other than after noon, or what a "mass-PM" is.
I think a "PM" is a personal message. What I suspect is, at least in my case,
while I'm obviously a member, my name doesn't appear to be showing up in the
list of members. It looks as thought that's necessary to send me a personal
message with the information I requested. How the personal message mechanism
works, I don't know, but I found "tags" allowing the sending of personal
messages in the list of members.
This sounds like a typical software glitch. It may be that you, Elden, Carlos
and I for some reason don't show up in that list.
Sign. I remind myself sometimes that I was once one of the young turks who
wanted to computerize everything. Here we are, nearly 40 years later, and I
got my wish. Payback is a bummer.
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Now that that is cleared up, does anyone want to talk airplane?
XL Wing Concerns:
First concern I remember having in early 2006 was the size and placement of the
aileron push rod hole in the rear spar...
I don't think anyone would place that large of a hole (compared to the height of
the beam) that low in their floor joists...
Comments...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223918#223918
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Jan 10, 2009
On Saturday 10 January 2009 15:28, Sabrina wrote:
> Now that that is cleared up, does anyone want to talk airplane?
I think the problem is more postponed than cleared up, but we can hope.
> XL Wing Concerns:
>
> First concern I remember having in early 2006 was the size and placement of
> the aileron push rod hole in the rear spar...
>
> I don't think anyone would place that large of a hole (compared to the
> height of the beam) that low in their floor joists...
>
> Comments...
Drawing 6W7, dated 01/08, shows a 38mm (dia) hole at station 1995, centered
20mm from the rear spar edge. Unless somebody has changed the rules of math,
half of 38mm is 19mm, which would leave 1mm of rear spar material at the
bottom.
I find myself somewhat unwilling to cut a hole of this dimension at that
location. I wonder if anyone actually did this....
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
If you are going to change the location, you have to give up leverage (repositioning
the horn slightly) and/or align the bellcrank better...
when you reposition the bellcrank, you shift the aileron cables and the bellcrank
may bottom out on the rib's lightening holes. This may require a larger extruded
angle to reposition the bellcrank further away from the rib.
this repositions the aileron balance cable so it is not so close to 6B5-1, which
I never liked... the second fairlead mounted to 6B5-1 should be a hint that
something is amiss... see 6-B-22
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223923#223923
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Jan 10, 2009
On Saturday 10 January 2009 16:00, Sabrina wrote:
>
> If you are going to change the location, you have to give up leverage
> (repositioning the horn slightly) and/or align the bellcrank better...
>
> when you reposition the bellcrank, you shift the aileron cables and the
> bellcrank may bottom out on the rib's lightening holes. This may require a
> larger extruded angle to reposition the bellcrank further away from the
> rib.
>
> this repositions the aileron balance cable so it is not so close to 6B5-1,
> which I never liked... the second fairlead mounted to 6B5-1 should be a
> hint that something is amiss... see 6-B-22
This is disturbing. A reason for doing engineering is to find problems before
metal is cut and things are assembled. This design has been in the field for
several years, yet it does not appear this problem has been identified or
resolved.
If drawing 6W10 is to be believed, there is no reason to have the hole quite
this low in the rear spar. Is there, once the metal is assembled, the
potential to reduce the size of the hole?
The real problem would appear to be the configuration of the control horn on
the aileron. It might have been better structurallly to have the horn below
the aileron, and to have a bent pushrod that exited through the lower
aircraft skin. That would have required a slot in the skin, but I believe
this could be done with less structural impact.
That, however, would create slop in the pushrod motion, which is also
undesirable. I don't think the pushrod, as it is presently designed, would
work in this configuration.
I haven't gotten to the point of checking the location of the aileron balance
cable relative to 6B5-1. However, it looks like this part of the design dug a
nice little hole, which the designer(s) then kludged the rest of this part of
the control mechanism to fix.
I also wonder about putting some reinforcement along the bottom of the rear
spar, lapping the hole area. But it would still require moving the hole
upwards some. That 1mm dimension isn't going to cut it in any approach I can
imagine.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Stavt slep specifikace
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223927#223927
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Like this:
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223929#223929
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/original_horn_471.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2009
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Hi Jim
First, I know of no evidence that suggests failure in the rear spar at this
point. None-the-less, some folks have been concerned about this potential
weakness. I have seen quickbuild spars that have the hole very close to the
flange. See photo attached.
Andy Elliott expressed concern about this issue some time ago and suggested
a doubler for the bottom flange. See
http://members.cox.net/n601ge/drawings/rearspar.html
If you are concerned you might try Andy's idea.
Terry
>This is disturbing. A reason for doing engineering is to find problems
>before
>metal is cut and things are assembled. This design has been in the field for
>several years, yet it does not appear this problem has been identified or
>resolved.
>
>If drawing 6W10 is to be believed, there is no reason to have the hole quite
>this low in the rear spar. Is there, once the metal is assembled, the
>potential to reduce the size of the hole?
>
>The real problem would appear to be the configuration of the control horn on
>the aileron. It might have been better structurallly to have the horn below
>the aileron, and to have a bent pushrod that exited through the lower
>aircraft skin. That would have required a slot in the skin, but I believe
>this could be done with less structural impact.
>
>That, however, would create slop in the pushrod motion, which is also
>undesirable. I don't think the pushrod, as it is presently designed, would
>work in this configuration.
>
>I haven't gotten to the point of checking the location of the aileron balance
>cable relative to 6B5-1. However, it looks like this part of the design dug a
>nice little hole, which the designer(s) then kludged the rest of this part of
>the control mechanism to fix.
>
>I also wonder about putting some reinforcement along the bottom of the rear
>spar, lapping the hole area. But it would still require moving the hole
>upwards some. That 1mm dimension isn't going to cut it in any approach I can
>imagine.
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2009
From: Ronald Steele <rsteele(at)rjsit.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
I share your concern and was very careful making that hole, drilling a
little undersized and then filing.
However, look at where the hole is along the length of the spare. No
where near the full strength of the spar is needed that far from the
root. As long as you stay out of the flange I'm sure there is plenty
of strength remaining. You just want to sure not to cut into the
flange.
As far as beams go, if the beam was cut this much at the end, which is
pure shear and not in the middle, it wouldn't make any difference at
all. Ever look a how a steel building is bolted together? The
connector at the ends are always shallower than the beam being
connected.
Ron
On Jan 10, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Sabrina wrote:
>
>
> Now that that is cleared up, does anyone want to talk airplane?
>
> XL Wing Concerns:
>
> First concern I remember having in early 2006 was the size and
> placement of the aileron push rod hole in the rear spar...
>
> I don't think anyone would place that large of a hole (compared to
> the height of the beam) that low in their floor joists...
>
> Comments...
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223918#223918
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Jan 10, 2009
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Jim,
Are you saying that there was no engineering in the design of the 601XL?? The guy
that designed the XL is a dedicated aeronautical engineer who has thousands
of home built airplanes flying.? As far as I know, no home built XL has ever
failed for unknown reasons.? XLs have flown many, many
hours; and if built to the design and flown within the design
parameters, there have been no problems.? It is when the design has not
been followed and the airplane not flown within its intended regime
that problems develop. I know you are a smart guy, but there is no way you can
know everything that went into the engineering and design of the XL.? Smart builders
rely on the "smarts" of the designer and build it the way it was designed.
That's my OPINION and I'm sticking to it. ;>)
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Sent: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 4:35 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns
This is disturbing. A reason for doing engineering is to find problems before
metal is cut and things are assembled. This design has been in the field for
several years, yet it does not appear this problem has been identified or
resolved.
If drawing 6W10 is to be believed, there is no reason to have the hole quite
this low in the rear spar. Is there, once the metal is assembled, the
potential to reduce the size of the hole?
The real problem would appear to be the configuration of the control horn on
the aileron. It might have been better structurallly to have the horn below
the aileron, and to have a bent pushrod that exited through the lower
aircraft skin. That would have required a slot in the skin, but I believe
this could be done with less structural impact.
That, however, would create slop in the pushrod motion, which is also
undesirable. I don't think the pushrod, as it is presently designed, would
work in this configuration.
I haven't gotten to the point of checking the location of the aileron balance
cable relative to 6B5-1. However, it looks like this part of the design dug a
nice little hole, which the designer(s) then kludged the rest of this part of
the control mechanism to fix.
I also wonder about putting some reinforcement along the bottom of the rear
spar, lapping the hole area. But it would still require moving the hole
upwards some. That 1mm dimension isn't going to cut it in any approach I can
imagine.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
An ejector canopy could come in handy if the pilots do not have the skill to bring
the aircraft down without injury. (At least three pilots have done it with
the canopy unlatched.) So too, there are several reports of the XL flying
well once a canopy departs, it appears to rise up and over the aircraft without
damage.
Even as is, the stay-open canopy would make it easier to get out with an emergency
chute if a control/flying surface is ever flown/leveraged off the craft.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223931#223931
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Jan 10, 2009
On Saturday 10 January 2009 17:23, jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Are you saying that there was no engineering in the design of the 601XL??
> The guy that designed the XL is a dedicated aeronautical engineer who has
> thousands of home built airplanes flying.? As far as I know, no home built
> XL has ever failed for unknown reasons.? XLs have flown many, many hours;
> and if built to the design and flown within the design
> parameters, there have been no problems.? It is when the design has not
> been followed and the airplane not flown within its intended regime
> that problems develop. I know you are a smart guy, but there is no way you
> can know everything that went into the engineering and design of the XL.?
> Smart builders rely on the "smarts" of the designer and build it the way it
> was designed.
>
> That's my OPINION and I'm sticking to it. ;>)
I do think the guy is a smart engineer, but I think even smart engineers can
have oversights. I also know how easy it is to get something into a design,
and keep changing other things later to acommodate an earlier decision.
I'm not saying this is the cause of any failures. I'm saying this particular
thing isn't very good design, no matter who did it. All of us make mistakes;
Chris Heinz is no exception. I have a lot of confidence in the overall
design, but that doesn't mean everything is perfect.
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Date: Jan 10, 2009
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Sabrina,
I thoroughly resent the implication that I crashed because of a lack of skill when
the canopy of the airplane I was flying came open.? The other pilot in the
airplane was a CFII.? Surely he didn't lack adequate skill.? I firmly believe
that our combined skill is the very reason that we are both alive today. You
were not in that cockpit and have absolutely no basis for your crass comment and,
again, I thoroughly resent it.
You are definitely now on my sh..it list ! !
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Sent: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 5:23 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
An ejector canopy could come in handy if the pilots do not have the skill to
bring the aircraft down without injury. (At least three pilots have done it
with the canopy unlatched.) So too, there are several reports of the XL flying
well once a canopy departs, it appears to rise up and over the aircraft without
damage.
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
It is when the design has not been followed and the airplane not flown within its
intended regime that problems develop.
I thoroughly resent the implication that I crashed because of a lack of skill when
the canopy of the airplane I was flying came open.
This was just sent to me
I noticed that the right hand canopy latch had come loose and the rail was up about
2 inches. I pointed it out to Dennis. We were in sight of a private airfield,
but Dennis decided he was going to re-latch it - in the air! In doing so,
the latch on my side came loose and the canopy immediately shot up to about 50
deg., and the nose went down about 60 deg. I immediately pulled the power completely
off.
I am sorry Jay, but I dont see how opening a canopy in flight near an airport rather
than landing immediately is a design flaw. As much as I would like to blame
it on the AMD POH, I dont see anywhere where it calls for power completely
off in that high drag situation.
Please reconsider placing me on your special list.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223944#223944
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2009
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
If I recall correctly from back then, others were adding a doubler about 18
" long to the spar to attempt to compensate for the poor location of the pa
ssthrough.
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Sat, 1/10/09, Jim Belcher wrote:
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 4:42 PM
On Saturday 10 January 2009 15:28, Sabrina wrote:
> Now that that is cleared up, does anyone want to talk airplane?
I think the problem is more postponed than cleared up, but we can hope.
> XL Wing Concerns:
>
> First concern I remember having in early 2006 was the size and placement
of
> the aileron push rod hole in the rear spar...
>
> I don't think anyone would place that large of a hole (compared to the
> height of the beam) that low in their floor joists...
>
> Comments...
Drawing 6W7, dated 01/08, shows a 38mm (dia) hole at station 1995, centered
20mm from the rear spar edge. Unless somebody has changed the rules of math
,
half of 38mm is 19mm, which would leave 1mm of rear spar material at the
bottom.
I find myself somewhat unwilling to cut a hole of this dimension at that
location. I wonder if anyone actually did this....
--
====================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
=======================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
=======================
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Paul, all...
What do you think about an XL canopy that can be ejected?
Is it needed?
The mod costs less than $40 (two MS17985-414 quick release pins and one foot of
4130 square tubing) but the pair of goggles needed, just in case, cost about
$30 each for a total of $100 and 14 ounces of added weight, total.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223955#223955
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
> Monday morning quarterbacking is great!? At about pattern altitude, canopy
> pops fully open, nose goes down 60+ degrees, 100 mph & increasing, headset
> ripped off your head, cruise power,.? What would you do?
*sigh*
People, we need to remember, when disucssing these things, that people we
know and consider friends have been right in the middle of the kinds of
failures we're discussing, and refrain from casting aspersions on the
abilities of folks who have been there and done that.
We can and should learn from others' experiences...but we should not say
we'd have done things differently in the heat of the moment - because
there's just no way to know. Sometimes, what the book says we should do and
what we think we will do as we're sitting in front of the computer don't
correspond to what we actually wind up doing when the canopy comes open.
As for me, I make certain to double check the security of the (in my case,
new-style) canopy latch on both sides before taxi, and again before takeoff,
as a result of Jay's accident. I've also given careful consideration to how
I'll handle that occurrence. Even so, I'm not going to sit here and say that
he screwed up. I suggest none of us are the position to do so.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Sabrina and others,
Whilst a good idea in concept the reality I think would not work for the following
reasons:
1 would the canopy miss or take out the fin/ rudder?
2 would you be able to take your hands off the controlls that you are fighting
to pull the lever/ pins?
although more tseting would need to be carried out its not a bad Idea if we can
work out the issues.
Remember 2 things.. there are photos of the XL flying with the canopy open. So
it will fly, given the right combination of factors( without the right combinations
of Airspeed/ throttle/ angle of attack it wont fly and thats a fact ..
So what are these combiations?? sounds like a summer research job for an up and
comming Areo Engineer and test pilot and test plane ?? and if you are not
any of these types, "dont try this at home "
Chris
Sydney
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223970#223970
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2009
From: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Jay,
-
-- Other than the 60 degree nose down after the canopy opened in flight
, did the aircraft experience any other unusual-flight characteristics, i
e: vibrations, shudder, excess g-forces, etc? Just wondering. Walt in Dayto
n.
--- On Fri, 1/9/09, jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com <jaybannist(at)cs.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 9:15 PM
Walter,
I had the same thing happen in an AMD 601XLi, except that we were at cruise
speed, about 1500' AGL.- The nose went down 60 deg.- I was able to bre
ak the dive, but could never get the nose up to level.- We hit the ground
about 10 deg nose down.- When I was able to work again on my XL, the fir
st thing I did was to install a canopy safety tether.- Drawing attached.
-The accident airplane had the new 650 style canopy latch.- My airplane
has the old style latches.
Jay in Dallas
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 7:47 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Hi everyone. While browsing the NTSB website today, I saw an accident repor
t (see below) that might be of interest to all aircraft owners that have-
front hinged canopies on the airplanes. This matter was discussed on this s
ite a few months ago and-and there were several suggestion for devices th
at would either lock the canopy down, or prevent it from opening in flight
more than a few inches. It appears that the-shape of the canopy is acting
as a lifting devise (like the wing), causing it to lift into the windstrea
m, resulting in-unacceptable drag and subsequent control problems.-A si
mple locking devide or restraining cable will alleviate this potential prob
lem. Walt in Dayton.---
-
-
-
-
NTSB Identification: WPR09LA075
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, January 06, 2009 in Casa Grande, AZ
Aircraft: Czech Aircraft Works Sport Cruiser, registration: N797BS
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors.
Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been
completed.
On January 6, 2009, at 1600 mountain standard time, a Czech Aircraft Works
Sport Cruiser, N797BS, made an emergency off field landing after the cockpi
t canopy popped opened in flight at Casa Grande Municipal Airport, Casa Gra
nde, Arizona. The sport pilot operated the airplane under the provisions of
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 91. The pilot was not injured,
and the airplane was substantially damaged. Visual meteorological condition
s prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed. The flight originated at Ca
sa Grande about 1600.
The pilot reported to the Safety Board investigator that the canopy popped
open shortly after takeoff, around 500 feet agl. The canopy is hinged in fr
ont of the cockpit and rotates upward when open. The pilot said he tried to
keep the canopy closed with his free hand but the canopy continued to rise
higher and higher. The pilot turned back to the airport and made an off fi
eld landing next to the airport wind sock.
-
End of report.
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
Paul, I always value your opinion...
I never fly without a parachute, my 150 has ejector doors. The biggest concern
is getting knocked out by the craft itself be it a canopy, strut or tail feathers.
There was a recent NASA report issued on the need for self-deploying parachutes.
Chris, you are correct...
Not only would it be hard to explain why you ejected the canopy and then landed,
but it was one of the hardest parts to build and that fact alone would freeze
my hand as I reached for the pins. Hopefully that would not be the case with
a test pilot or if the engine also failed. I don't believe it can fly with
that much drag with a failed engine.
This brings up the POH. Normally, when you have an emergency landing, every POH
I have seen tells you to release the canopy or doors at some point just before
landing/crashing. My POH does not recommend releasing the canopy because
if it pops up, the aircraft could become uncontrollable without thrust.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223982#223982
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/9_137.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2009
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
...you had better be pretty sure that it will clear the horizontal and vert
ical stabs once jetisoned...
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Sat, 1/10/09, Sabrina wrote:
From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 8:37 PM
Paul, all...
What do you think about an XL canopy that can be ejected?
Is it needed?
The mod costs less than $40 (two MS17985-414 quick release pins and one fo
ot
of 4130 square tubing) but the pair of goggles needed, just in case, cost
about
$30 each for a total of $100 and 14 ounces of added weight, total.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223955#223955
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Jan 10, 2009
OK 2 things
1. by all means release the canopy prior to impact in an out landing BUT ONLY
IF YOU HAVE A STRAP/ROPE STOPPING IT FROM RISING.
Jay has a great design.. our XLs in Australia all have to have such a strap/ rope
with sailing clete preventing it from rising more than 2 inches.. also helps
to close the canopy when sitting in the plane, also a wind stopper with the
canopy open on the ground.
2 the canopy is so thin that it can be broken with the hand, head if you have crashed.
Make sure you are strapped in and your head set does not come close to
the roof when in flight and in turbulence. (dont ask)
I will add that due to Jays experience with the canopy open we have all become
more aware now of what to do if it ever comes open on me. I owe you a beer for
the newfound knowledge. Now for the person who had the canopy open and flying
pictures, can he post the airspeed/ power settings?? AMD XL POH as 60 knots
and about 1 foot raised how did they come up with this did they test this?
why re invent the wheel if this is a tested statement??
Chris
Sydney
I have kept the older canopy latches as my POH says to fly and land not try to
open the other latch.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223991#223991
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2009
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy.
Hello Sabrina,
-
I consider that ejectable canopy is a bad idea, I will try to explain it as
short as possible,-- The ejected canopy can hit and serious damage, or
destroy the Rudder!-- Even that is plexiglass, has lots of metal parts
in the structure.-
-
Lets remember what happened to the door that-opened/loosed in a 701 recen
tly.-
The airplane almost loosed the stabilator...
-
All airplanes needs the empenage to keep them flying... At least the ZAC on
es, I know Rogalos and Paraglaiders dont :-)- :-)
-
One thing I consider very important is Check List(s) in all airplanes,- (
I remember) from simple Hang Gliders (Are you hooked?), -to the Space Shu
ttle pilots,- WE MUST go though-all of them, not just by memory.
My Instructor was very Serious about this! (and with everything he teached
me).
-
In all-airplanes that have canopies, doors, windows that can open (C-152
for example), baggage compartment lids, etc.- A very important point is t
hat the pilot in command (Us) make sure that they are ALL perfectly closed
before take off...-
-
In my 701, everytime I have a passenger I double check that his seat belt i
s buckled and adjusted and the door latch is completly closed. I plan to do
the same every take off with the 601 XL's canopy latch... (hope this year)
.
-
Just my personal point of view.-
-
Saludos
Gary Gower.
A-Old Pilot friend of mine-told me when I just had my Pilot Licence:-
"Fly every time the same as if your Instructor was in your right seat".
--- On Sat, 1/10/09, Sabrina wrote:
From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 8:37 PM
Paul, all...
What do you think about an XL canopy that can be ejected?
Is it needed?
The mod costs less than $40 (two MS17985-414 quick release pins and one fo
ot
of 4130 square tubing) but the pair of goggles needed, just in case, cost
about
$30 each for a total of $100 and 14 ounces of added weight, total.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=223955#223955
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2009
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy.
Hello Jay M.
-
Just a very short comment: You are right,- Jay B and Pilot did the best t
hing, they managed to land and are alive...-
-
One thing very important for ALL of us is to try to keep calm in any type o
f personal emergency situation...- if Fear and Desparation are winning, C
lear Mind is loosing...
Easy to-say but hard to do in "that" moment.
-
Jay B.- Thank you very much for your experience, hope all of us learn som
ething from this list that can help us in the future to come.-
-
Saludos
Gary Gower
I remeber an old local saying with motorcycles:- "Only the ones that dont
ride, will not-fall..." (translated from Spanish).
Keep safe, but not too much to not enjoy life... :-)
--- On Sat, 1/10/09, Jay Maynard wrote:
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 8:52 PM
> Monday morning quarterbacking is great!? At about pattern altitude, canop
y
> pops fully open, nose goes down 60+ degrees, 100 mph & increasing,
headset
> ripped off your head, cruise power,.? What would you do?
*sigh*
People, we need to remember, when disucssing these things, that people we
know and consider friends have been right in the middle of the kinds of
failures we're discussing, and refrain from casting aspersions on the
abilities of folks who have been there and done that.
We can and should learn from others' experiences...but we should not say
we'd have done things differently in the heat of the moment - because
there's just no way to know. Sometimes, what the book says we should do and
what we think we will do as we're sitting in front of the computer
don't
correspond to what we actually wind up doing when the canopy comes open.
As for me, I make certain to double check the security of the (in my case,
new-style) canopy latch on both sides before taxi, and again before takeoff
,
as a result of Jay's accident. I've also given careful consideration to
how
I'll handle that occurrence. Even so, I'm not going to sit here and say
that
he screwed up. I suggest none of us are the position to do so.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: canopy construction sequence
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Jan 11, 2009
Hi all
finished my Christmas house building and now back into XL plane building.
I started on the canopy (old one not 650) and now up to the 6-C-3 section but that
appears to be ahead and shows mostly finished pictures.
Should I be using 6-C-3a,b,c,d before plain just 6-C-3??
Chris.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224010#224010
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: canopy construction sequence
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 11, 2009
Yes... and page 1 of 12 of 6-C-3A is very important. If you move the canopy more
forward than 190mm you can gain some head room, but then you have to shorten
the 9416K12 gas spring struts so the canopy does not hit up against 6C1-4 when
fully open.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224035#224035
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Date: Jan 11, 2009
On Saturday 10 January 2009 19:40, jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> Bryan,
>
> Monday morning quarterbacking is great!? At about pattern altitude, canopy
> pops fully open, nose goes down 60+ degrees, 100 mph & increasing, headset
> ripped off your head, cruise power,.? What would you do?
Jay, I sympathize. Having totaled an aircraft in the 1970s, I can look back
and see what I could have done differently. Whether any other options were
open to you guys, you would know better than I.
At the time, though, I did the best I could. I'm sure you guys did the same.
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2009
Subject: This list
I just wanted to post here.
Jeff Garrett
Louisville Ky.
601XL N962T Aerolite Corvair 90%
601XL N524B Aerolite Corvair 155 Hrs
601XL N2257 Aerolite Corvair 225 Hrs
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/)
_www.project601xl.com_ (http://www.project601xl.com/)
_www.aerolite.camstreams.com_ (http://www.aerolite.camstreams.com/)
Do not archive
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2009
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Open canopy accident
Larry,
I really wasn't trying to throw stones at Jay I was simply trying to inform
folks that the 601 can be flown with the Canopy open and not to freak out if
it happens and pics don't lie. So if Jay or you think I was somehow directing
it directly at them so be it. I just know that if anyone brings up that it
can be flown with it open Jay gets upset so why comment on it? I to am glad he
didn't get hurt and walked away and it is true that the 601 in the pic's
wasn't a AMD and it didn't have a 0-200 and it had different color paint but I
still stand behind what I said and that is that if the aircraft wasn't over
gross and was within proper CG it should have been stable with the canopy open
provide the plane didn't get too slow. I'm not even gonna comment on your
rudeness though Mr. Hursh
Jeff Garrett
Louisville Ky.
601XL N962T Aerolite Corvair 90%
601XL N524B Aerolite Corvair 155 Hrs
601XL N2257 Aerolite Corvair 225 Hrs
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/)
_www.project601xl.com_ (http://www.project601xl.com/)
_www.aerolite.camstreams.com_ (http://www.aerolite.camstreams.com/)
Do not archive
Mr Garrett,
What you don't seem to understand is that Jay has possibly posted to the
wrong forum. I believe he is posting to a response from the Zenith 601 forum,
correct Jay? (Isn't that the forum you are banned from Mr Garrett?) Either
way, I found your reply to Jay as being very crass and without any
compassion. You wasn't there so you have NO CLUE as to what to do or what should
have
been done differently. Each and every circumstance is different. Sure the
POH can give you a possible corrective course of action, but NOTHING is for
certain and since you wasn't there, you have no idea as to what you should do
or what you would have done differently. Why is it that you seemed to want to
chastise Jay for mentioning it? All I can say to end this mess is THANK GOD
Jay and his CFI II was able to get the plane on the ground. I'll leave you
with this one final thought Mr Garrett - My father used to tell me, "If you
can't say anything nice to someone, it's just best to keep your mo!
uth SHUT and your eyes and ears OPEN. You learn more that way". :)
--------
Larry Hursh (N650LM Reserved)
CH650 (Converted from CH601XL)
Starting fuselage
will be Corvair Powered
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: canopy construction sequence
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 11, 2009
Building the Canopy...
A problem I noticed in mid-2006...
How do people feel about page 12 of 12 in 6-C-3A where it tells you to grind a
slot in the 7/8" .058 4130 tube?
Can anyone find in their version of the PLANS where this slot is mentioned? 6-C-2
I did not do it, I thought it would take away from any roll over protection. The
.009 of clearance was enough. 3/4 OD tube inside a 7/8 4130 tube with .058
walls.
Comments?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224085#224085
________________________________________________________________________________
From: <paulrod36(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy.
Date: Jan 11, 2009
Gentlemen, sometimes reductio ad absurdam really does get to the heart
of the matter:
1: Canopy came open.
2: Aircraft was not reduced to rubble.
3: Occupants walked away.
4: Nobody unhappy with item 3.
and, 5: We learned it can be done. 'nuff said.
If some guy flying through severe turbulence hits a bird, which trashes
his canopy, goes into a spin, loses his prop to over speed, , regains
control in time to clip a high tension wire, which rips off his rudder,
slashes through a tree, locks up his brakes blows both tires, and stops
6 inches away from a station wagon full of nuns, I ain't gonna tell him
he should have done such-and-such! Nothing outweighs the phrase, "I(we)
made it!"
Paul Rodriguez
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Gower<mailto:ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy.
Hello Jay M.
Just a very short comment: You are right, Jay B and Pilot did
the best thing, they managed to land and are alive...
One thing very important for ALL of us is to try to keep calm in
any type of personal emergency situation... if Fear and Desparation are
winning, Clear Mind is loosing...
Easy to say but hard to do in "that" moment.
Jay B. Thank you very much for your experience, hope all of us
learn something from this list that can help us in the future to come.
Saludos
Gary Gower
I remeber an old local saying with motorcycles: "Only the ones
that dont ride, will not fall..." (translated from Spanish).
Keep safe, but not too much to not enjoy life... :-)
--- On Sat, 1/10/09, Jay Maynard wrote:
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: In-flight opening of front
hinged canopy
To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 8:52 PM
> Monday morning quarterbacking is great!? At about pattern altitude,
canopy
> pops fully open, nose goes down 60+ degrees, 100 mph & increasing,
headset
> ripped off your head, cruise power,.? What would you do?
*sigh*
People, we need to remember, when disucssing these things, that people
we
know and consider friends have been right in the middle of the kinds of
failures we're discussing, and refrain from casting aspersions on the
abilities of folks who have been there and done that.
We can and should learn from others' experiences...but we should not say
we'd have done things differently in the heat of the moment - because
there's just no way to know. Sometimes, what the book says we should do
and
what we think we will do as we're sitting in front of the computer
don't
correspond to what we actually wind up doing when the canopy comes open.
As for me, I make certain to double check the security of the (in my
case,
new-style) canopy latch on both sides before taxi, and again before
takeoff,
as a result of Jay's accident. I've also given careful consideration to
how
I'll handle that occurrence. Even so, I'm not going to sit here and say
that
he screwed up. I suggest none of us are the position to do so.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List"http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com">
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution">
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: canopy construction sequence
From: "leinad" <leinad(at)hughes.net>
Date: Jan 11, 2009
When I started building my canopy I wasn't aware that the slots were allowed.
When adjusting the final length of the rear hoop I got quite frustrated with how
hard it was to move the aluminum hoop in the steel tubing of the canopy frame.
Just about then I found Zenith was recommending the slot. If for nothing
else it makes assembly, disassembly and adjustment many time easier. I don't
think it had much (if any) a negative impact on the structural integrity. Here's
a link to a photo detail of the slot.
http://daniel.dempseyfamily.us/zodiac/canopy/pilotside.htm
Dan Dempsey
Sabrina wrote:
> Building the Canopy...
>
> A problem I noticed in mid-2006...
>
> How do people feel about page 12 of 12 in 6-C-3A where it tells you to grind
a slot in the 7/8" .058 4130N tube?
>
> Can anyone find in their version of the PLANS where this slot is mentioned?
6-C-2
>
> I did not do it, I thought it would take away from any roll over protection.
The .009 of clearance was enough. 3/4 OD tube inside a 7/8 4130N tube with .058
walls.
>
> Comments?
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224118#224118
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2009
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
I'm not sure this would work. what effect do you think the turtle deck
opening might have as far as drag or would you just cover up the opening? I would
be to afraid it would smack the rudder and then you might be even worse off.
I think a better solution would be a ejection seat then you would go straight
thru the canopy.
BTW that last part was a joke
Jeff Garrett
Louisville Ky.
601XL N962T Aerolite Corvair 90%
601XL N524B Aerolite Corvair 155 Hrs
601XL N2257 Aerolite Corvair 85 Hrs think it's right this time
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/)
_www.project601xl.com_ (http://www.project601xl.com/)
_www.aerolite.camstreams.com_ (http://www.aerolite.camstreams.com/)
Do not archive
Paul, all...
What do you think about an XL canopy that can be ejected?
Is it needed?
The mod costs less than $40 (two MS17985-414 quick release pins and one
foot of 4130 square tubing) but the pair of goggles needed, just in case, cost
about $30 each for a total of $100 and 14 ounces of added weight, total.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 11, 2009
Subject: Some videos of us flying
After switching from the front starter kit to the Aerolite rear system we
flew from Louisville Ky to spend the night with Bill Clapp then on to Englewood
Fl. The flight was great.
Here are the #'s
Voltage was 14 volts steady
Oil pressure was steady 40 lbs
Cht's were 125-130 steady and 200-225 climb
Egt 1050 steady
Oil temp 60 degrees OAT were 255 before the cooler and 190-200 after cooler
(with my new fiberglass baffles installed but had some air loss so should see
10 degree drop after sealing.)
Here are some youtube links
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyx2nalW9gs_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyx2nalW9gs)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC4fF0uTuxQ_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC4fF0uTuxQ)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEbz-AK3YU0_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEbz-AK3YU0)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JPnUcicz7k_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JPnUcicz7k)
Jeff Garrett
Louisville Ky.
601XL N962T Aerolite Corvair 90%
601XL N524B Aerolite Corvair 155 Hrs
601XL N2257 Aerolite Corvair 225 Hrs
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/)
_www.project601xl.com_ (http://www.project601xl.com/)
_www.aerolite.camstreams.com_ (http://www.aerolite.camstreams.com/)
Do not archive
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: canopy construction sequence
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Jan 11, 2009
These slots were already cut on my kit [bought 12 mths ago]which made it easy to
adjust the bow. If you had to rely on it for roll over protection I think you
would come out second best.I made a gusset which spans the two turtle deck bows
at the bottom and it is very sturdy now.Cheers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224157#224157
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2009
From: "Frank Derfler" <fderfler(at)gmail.com>
Subject: 601 Builders... some advice please
A few days ago I posted a note asking for some insight into the gusset mods
for the 601XLs ailerons. I received several nice replies from various folks
including a detailed estimation of the work involved from George
Smith. (Thanks again, George)
I also received a nice note from Mathieu Heintz and he asked me to share it
as widely as possible. So, feel free to re-post.
In his note below, Mathieu is referring to the notification of the aileron
mod (gusset plates) described in this Service Letter from AMD at this link:
http://www.newplane.com/amd/../Service_Letters_Bulletines/NOTICE%20January%207%202009.pdf>
Hi Frank ,
Notifications are not mandatory. If you see any deformation at the
ailerons, it is wise to install the supplementary gussets. The gussets
are very easy to install. They are sandwiched between the skin and
rib. Remove a few rivets, install the bracket, drill holes into the
bracket and rivet. The Zenith Aircraft demo aircraft which has more
than 1,500 hours does not have these brackets.
Hope this will help.
Regards
Mathieu Heintz
Zenair
-- ----- ---------
Twitter! Follow me at http://Twitter.com/Fderfler
See my new Novel, "A Glint in Time" at http://GreatGuyBooks.com.
See my discussion of All the Guy Toys that aren't (clearly) illegal or
(blatantly) immoral at http://mostlyflying.com
Anybody who READS (anybody out there?) See www.greatguybooks.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2009
I really hate to agree with Jeff but I'd say if the canopy was ejected I'd have
to think the odds are pretty high that it would hit the tail and do God only
knows what.
That said I too have thought about an ejectable canopy but it would only be used
if I Had a chute and was ejecting the canopy to bail out.
--------
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=224210#224210
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
From: "stepinwolf" <robert.pelland(at)cgocable.ca>
Date: Jan 12, 2009
When I first started looking for a rivet puller, I shied away from the gun that
was being offered by Zenith because I had heard from builders on this List, that
there was many instances of cracking in the casings. As a replacement I decided
to go with a gun that was being offered by ACS ( see pic below ) however
it is starting to look like this was not my best decision.
I had difficulty with the setup instructions ( Chinese instructions ) and for the
life of me I still have not been able to get the oil level correct. The instructions
state that the unit should be filled with oil up to the top of the frame,
without showing where exactly what they consider as being the top or the
exact filling level is.
My second mistake was purchasing two guns so as not to have to continually swap
out the two tips. As it stands, when I do get one of the (at)#$%&* things to
work, it won't pull more then a dozen or so rivets, before me being obliged to
open up the air cylinder and start fidgeting with the oil level again.
I am basically a neat person, and I can't live with the constant spewing of oil
out the front, or the back stem catcher, and ending up on my freshly made parts,
or my work table for that matter. I am now in the process of trying to look
for a replacement, but all the suppliers seem to have the same low cost gun.
The list of resellers I checked with is rather extensive and includes, but is
not limited to, The Yard, ATS, Browns, Cleavland, US Tools, all registered trademarks
etc, and a few more I will not mention.
My question to the List is this, is the rivet gun being sold by all of these suppliers
the same gun. I have looked as best as I can, and every last one is showing
what looks to be the exact same unit on their web-page, with the only difference
being the color or the pricing. The cases are identical, the same tips,
the same nose pieces, hell they even the same triggering mechanism, and the
only difference so far is prices, that are anywhere between 40$, to a 140$.
For those of you who have used any of the above guns, are you aware of any difference
in quality of these guns, or is it a " find the peanut under the shell
" type of situation for me to get a proper replacement that will work,
Thank's to all of you who will take the time to respond to my concerns.
Bob, the Scratch builder
Three Rivers,
Quebec.
--------
Live each day, as if it was your last
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224233#224233
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rivet_gun_901.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2009
Gig is correct.
I designed my canopy for loss of control/flying surface. I was more worried about
it hitting my head than the tail feathers. The only time it would be tried
with the canopy up would be combined with an engine failure. Having said that,
I hear that a few side hinge canopies have departed, all without tail feather
damage. With the new 180 day repack rule (was 120) and the Sky Catcher BRS
failure, I like my pair of backpack chutes even more.
Off to my first class in Quantum Physics!
P.S. Frank: the factory demo has flex hinges, how many flex hinges have failed:
0 Why mess with perfection.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224234#224234
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 12, 2009
Subject: Re: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
Bob,
I have never used that type of gun but I have other guns and none require
filling with oil. If you drain all the oil they will more than likely work just
fine. I think the oil is just a few drops daily but I could be wrong about
your gun but odds are if it is getting oil everywhere it probably shouldn't be
in the gun. Try it and let us know what happened.
Jeff Garrett
Louisville Ky.
601XL N962T Aerolite Corvair 90%
601XL N524B Aerolite Corvair 155 Hrs
601XL N2257 Aerolite Corvair 85 Hrs
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/)
_www.project601xl.com_ (http://www.project601xl.com/)
_www.aerolite.camstreams.com_ (http://www.aerolite.camstreams.com/)
Do not archive
I had difficulty with the setup instructions ( Chinese instructions ) and
for the life of me I still have not been able to get the oil level correct. The
instructions state that the unit should be filled with oil up to the top of
the frame, without showing where exactly what they consider as being the top
or the exact filling level is.
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
Hi Bob,
After completing (nearly?) my XL, I have accumulated a lot of rivet
puller experience. Fortunately, my first purchase of a powered
puller was guided by this list. I bought the Harbor Freight lower
priced air powered puller and eventually bought another one. These
cost around $25 each on sale and maybe $30 or $40 at regular price.
I have my Harbor Freight pullers equipped with a custom built nose
piece to form the Heintz style shop head. I didn't like the standard
shaped heads because I tended to set the rivets at a slight angle
rather than flush with the metal piece. The pieces I made are
similar in most dimensions to the regular ones but about 1/2 inch
flat on the front to make it easier to get them flush to the metal.
I have heard about pullers that have some sort of oil reservoir. The
Harbor Freight ones don't. You just put a few drops of oil in the
air hose intake each day.
I also have several hand powered pullers. They all work fine. I
tend to use either the powered or hand puller for A4 rivets but for
A5s the powered puller definitely gets used more often.
Good luck,
Paul
XL getting close
At 08:20 AM 1/12/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>When I first started looking for a rivet puller, I shied away from
>the gun that was being offered by Zenith because I had heard from
>builders on this List, that there was many instances of cracking in
>the casings. As a replacement I decided to go with a gun that was
>being offered by ACS
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2009
From: Terry Turnquist <ter_turn(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
Bob, most of the rivet pullers are actually pneumatic/hydraulic. To oil the unit,
you must remove the bottom cover and pull out the large piston with a pliers.
Then fill the puller w/ air tool oil through the piston stem opening just to
the top of the opening. This completes the hydraulics of the tool. Then grease
the walls of the tank and replace the plunger and cover. Thereafter a few drops
of oil into the air inlet before use each day will suffice. There is also
a measurement for the head to be adjusted using one of the tools provided. This
seems to be crucial to the operation. Hope this helps.
Terry Turnquist
601XL-Plans
St. Peters MO
Hi Bob,
After completing (nearly?) my XL, I have accumulated a lot of rivet
puller experience. Fortunately, my first purchase of a powered
puller was guided by this list. I bought the Harbor Freight lower
priced air powered puller and eventually bought another one. These
cost around $25 each on sale and maybe $30 or $40 at regular price.
I have my Harbor Freight pullers equipped with a custom built nose
piece to form the Heintz style shop head. I didn't like the standard
shaped heads because I tended to set the rivets at a slight angle
rather than flush with the metal piece. The pieces I made are
similar in most dimensions to the regular ones but about 1/2 inch
flat on the front to make it easier to get them flush to the metal.
I have heard about pullers that have some sort of oil reservoir. The
Harbor Freight ones don't. You just put a few drops of oil in the
air hose intake each day.
I also have several hand powered pullers. They all work fine. I
tend to use either the powered or hand puller for A4 rivets but for
A5s the powered puller definitely gets used more often.
Good luck,
Paul
XL getting close
At 08:20 AM 1/12/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>When I first started looking for a rivet puller, I shied away from
>the gun that was being offered by Zenith because I had heard from
>builders on this List, that there was many instances of cracking in
>the casings. As a replacement I decided to go with a gun that was
>being offered by ACS
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2009
From: John Davis <johnd@data-tech.com>
Subject: N601JD First Flight
N601JD my 601XL with a Jabiru 3300 took to the air for the first time
last Friday at Avery County Airport (7A8) in Spruce Pine, NC. Its a
quickbuild kit that I started in April 07.
The obligatory Youtube video is at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIVt40B5dLc. Its short and a bit shaky so
be careful if you get motion sickness :-)
The flight went well with only a couple of minor squawks:
1. Need to add a stop to the throttle @ low RPMS to prevent the engine
from stopping when the throttle is pulled too far back to idle. The US
Jabiru guys recommend a small cable stop added to the throttle cable at
the carb to prevent this.
2. Aileron trim is wired backwards, Oops, didn't notice a real need for
the aileron trim though
3. Experiment with my Sensenich Ground adjustable prop and also
re-jetting the Bing carb to maximize performance. CHTs and EGTs looked
good though, perhaps I wont have to spend too much time messing with
cooling issues.
Woo hoo, now only 38 more hours till the end of Phase 1...
If only I had remembered to turn on my in cockpit video recorder, I'll
do that next time...once the darned weather clears up again.
Thanks to all the list members who helped with questions during the
build process.
Thanks,
John Davis
Burnsville, NC
N601JD - 601XL/Jab 3300
Now Flying!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
From: "stepinwolf" <robert.pelland(at)cgocable.ca>
Date: Jan 12, 2009
Hi Fellows, I had not expected so much feedback, nor so soon, but I am glad to
hear of all your experiences.
I must first apologize for mis-speaking earlier when I stated that the gun was
purchased from ACS. I went through all my invoices, and found the Harbor Freight
invoice ID'ing the gun. It is the Central Pneumatic model # 93458, and the
exact same model however that ACS is offering.
As for the oil management, I have a very complete, ( and very expensive I must
ad ) set of more then a half dozen " Chicago Pacific ) air tools, and like most
of you responders, and few drops in the air intake, is more then enough to keep
them in excellent shape.
However I had never used any rivet gun before, and followed the instructions that
were given in the manual to the best of my knowledge, and hence the filling
of the tool. Check the pic of the instructions in the user manual below.
This evening I will pour out any remaining oil, and give both of them another try.
Bob the 701 & 750 Scratch
Terry, when I fill the piston stem opening to the top, no sooner that I re-insert
the diaphragm into the gun, the oil comes squirting out the air exhaust hole
in the front ( check rag ) of the canister or air cylinder.., and also out the
rear into the stem holder.
I will also give this another try.
--------
Live each day, as if it was your last
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224302#224302
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/oil_level_181.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2009
From: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
Bob,
-
- I bought the rivet puller that Zenith sells and it hasn't given me a pr
oblem at all. Just a few drops of oil once in a while, with no oil splatter
/spray at all. Finished the wings and tail feathers, w/about 25% of fuselag
e complete. Walt in Dayton.
--- On Mon, 1/12/09, stepinwolf wrote:
From: stepinwolf <robert.pelland(at)cgocable.ca>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 11:20 AM
When I first started looking for a rivet puller, I shied away from the gun
that
was being offered by Zenith because I had heard from builders on this List,
that
there was many instances of cracking in the casings. As a replacement I dec
ided
to go with a gun that was being offered by ACS ( see pic below ) however it
is
starting to look like this was not my best decision.
I had difficulty with the setup instructions ( Chinese instructions ) and f
or
the life of me I still have not been able to get the oil level correct. The
instructions state that the unit should be filled with oil up to the top of
the
frame, without showing where exactly what they consider as being the top or
the
exact filling level is.
My second mistake was purchasing two guns so as not to have to continually
swap
out the two tips. As it stands, when I do get one of the (at)#$%&* things t
o
work, it won't pull more then a dozen or so rivets, before me being obliged
to open up the air cylinder and start fidgeting with the oil level again.
I am basically a neat person, and I can't live with the constant spewing of
oil out the front, or the back stem catcher, and ending up on my freshly ma
de
parts, or my work table for that matter. I am now in the process of trying
to
look for a replacement, but all the suppliers seem to have the same low cos
t
gun. The list of resellers I checked with is rather extensive and includes,
but
is not limited to, The Yard, ATS, Browns, Cleavland, US Tools, all register
ed
trademarks etc, and a few more I will not mention.
My question to the List is this, is the rivet gun being sold by all of thes
e
suppliers the same gun. I have looked as best as I can, and every last one
is
showing what looks to be the exact same unit on their web-page, with the on
ly
difference being the color or the pricing. The cases are identical, the sam
e
tips, the same nose pieces, hell they even the same triggering mechanism, a
nd
the only difference so far is prices, that are anywhere between 40$, to a 1
40$.
For those of you who have used any of the above guns, are you aware of any
difference in quality of these guns, or is it a " find the peanut under the
shell " type of situation for me to get a proper replacement that will
work,
Thank's to all of you who will take the time to respond to my concerns.
Bob, the Scratch builder
Three Rivers,
Quebec.
--------
Live each day, as if it was your last
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224233#224233
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rivet_gun_901.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2009
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: N601JD First Flight
Congratulations, John!
Enjoy your new airplane.
Terry
>N601JD my 601XL with a Jabiru 3300 took to the air for the first time last
>Friday at Avery County Airport (7A8) in Spruce Pine, NC. Its a quickbuild
>kit that I started in April 07.
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: N601JD First Flight
Date: Jan 12, 2009
On Monday 12 January 2009 12:29, John Davis wrote:
>
> N601JD my 601XL with a Jabiru 3300 took to the air for the first time
> last Friday at Avery County Airport (7A8) in Spruce Pine, NC. Its a
> quickbuild kit that I started in April 07.
>
Congratulations!
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2009
Sabrina wrote:
> Sky Catcher BRS failure
Any details on how it failed? Did it not deploy? Or get snagged on something?
Thanks,
- Pat
--------
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224326#224326
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 12, 2009
I have one I found on ebay that has been working good for me. Search for: NEW
AIR POP RIVET GUN
The company is Great-Tools.
I modified the nose pieces myself, follow link below to learn how:
http://mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=rlendon&project=113&category=0&log=10097&row=674
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224375#224375
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 12, 2009
Subject: Fwd: Packing and moving a 601xl
From: Cndmovn <cndmovn(at)gmail.com>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cndmovn <cndmovn(at)gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:27 PM
Subject: Packing and moving a 601xl
Here is a handy tip. If you have to move/store a 601xl they fit perfectly
into a 16ft POD storage unit. I hung my wings on the sides via the cargo
straps I used to pull the wing skin down. I tied the tail up in with the
eyelet in the unit at the rear and blocked the wheels to the floor. I also
used a cargo strap to pull the main wheel down to the floor at the front.
There was 2" to spare between the wheel and the door on the unit.
Cheers!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dirk Zahtilla" <ideaz1(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
Date: Jan 12, 2009
God you guys are something else. I have an original "Pop Rivet" brand hand
rivet tool I bought for about 4 bucks in about 1973 and after all those
years of misc. use I've built 2 planes with at least as many rivets as the
601 and will build my 601 with it as well.
Or maybe I can discuss all the ramifications of the ramistat ad infinitum...
Geez!
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy. BRS Comment
From: "cookwithgas" <cookwithgas(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 12, 2009
Gary you are so right. I have a BRS installed in my 601XL and it terrifies me
to think that I would actually pull it! I mean there is a solid fuel rocket right
behind my head that is bigger than any hobby rocket I could imagine shooting
up in the air! Then there is the fact that it has not been tested in the
exact configuration the way I installed it. I do, however keep the safety pin
pulled when I fly.
Yes, Gary - right on. The very LAST resort. One other scary thing- when I was
sitting in my garage a long time ago just after installing the handle (no rocket)
I was imagining I was in trouble and trying to see what it would be like
to actually pull the handle, so I got myself all worked up and convinced that
I was going down and I reached down and gave it a yank and almost pulled my wrist
out of joint - I hadn't removed the pin! A simple mistake and my fictitious
save didn't happen!
Fly safe and have fun!
Scott Laughlin
601XL/Corvair
120 Hours
www.cooknwithgas.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224406#224406
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 13, 2009
Subject: Corvair distributor hold down
I have had these distributor hold downs made and if anyone wants one please
send me a message off list and I will get your information.
They are made from 304 stainless and come with the self locking nut and
washer.
I myself check the distributor before every flight and don't like the wire
hold downs that Chevy used on the corvair so I had these made and as far as I
know they weren't copied from anyone because I would have bought one if they
were available. Auto Zone sells one for like $15.00 but this one is much
stronger and won't rust.
Here are some pics of it.
Jeff Garrett
Louisville Ky.
601XL N962T Aerolite Corvair 90%
601XL N524B Aerolite Corvair 155 Hrs
601XL N2257 Aerolite Corvair 85 Hrs
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/)
_www.project601xl.com_ (http://www.project601xl.com/)
_www.aerolite.camstreams.com_ (http://www.aerolite.camstreams.com/)
Do not archive
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
From: "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at>
Date: Jan 13, 2009
Although I have only done the tail feathers, I am well happy with the ZAC supplied
gun , smooth and quiet.
Run 2.5 bar for A4 and 3.2 bar for the A5 rivets, through the compressors regulator.
Cheers
kev :)
--------
Austria .............
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224438#224438
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: N601JD First Flight
From: "sdthatcher" <s_thatcher(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Jan 13, 2009
I really enjoyed the enthusiasm of your family when you landed. It was a great
video and that airport at Spruce Pine looks great. I have my plane over in Andrews,
NC. Hope to see you some time.
And Jay sure is good at noticing the not so obvious (runway departure and approach).
He'd be a great detective. I missed that runway thing completely!
johnd(at)data-tech.com wrote:
> N601JD my 601XL with a Jabiru 3300 took to the air for the first time
> last Friday at Avery County Airport (7A8) in Spruce Pine, NC. Its a
> quickbuild kit that I started in April 07.
>
> The obligatory Youtube video is at
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIVt40B5dLc. Its short and a bit shaky so
> be careful if you get motion sickness :-)
>
> The flight went well with only a couple of minor squawks:
> 1. Need to add a stop to the throttle @ low RPMS to prevent the engine
> from stopping when the throttle is pulled too far back to idle. The US
> Jabiru guys recommend a small cable stop added to the throttle cable at
> the carb to prevent this.
> 2. Aileron trim is wired backwards, Oops, didn't notice a real need for
> the aileron trim though
> 3. Experiment with my Sensenich Ground adjustable prop and also
> re-jetting the Bing carb to maximize performance. CHTs and EGTs looked
> good though, perhaps I wont have to spend too much time messing with
> cooling issues.
>
> Woo hoo, now only 38 more hours till the end of Phase 1...
>
> If only I had remembered to turn on my in cockpit video recorder, I'll
> do that next time...once the darned weather clears up again.
>
> Thanks to all the list members who helped with questions during the
> build process.
>
> Thanks,
> John Davis
> Burnsville, NC
> N601JD - 601XL/Jab 3300
> Now Flying!!!!
--------
Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, EAA203 25 hours and climbing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224450#224450
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2009
From: "Frank Derfler" <fderfler(at)gmail.com>
Subject: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Sabrina -
Thanks for your observation that the factory demo has flex hinges. That is
important to note.
Regarding your "easily removable" canopy, I'm surprised no one has injected
the idea of its value in a water landing. Since I fly over water 90% of the
time it entered my head. At one time my personal POH included popping the
latch before attempting an emergency water landing. But, I later re-wrote
that when I discussed the noise, the change of attitude, and the distraction
with a guy who regularly opened the 601 canopy as a simulated emergency
condition. (THAT part of my personal POH says, "As Slow As You Can Go")
So now my emergency water landing procedure says get the canopy open first
thing. But, depending on the attitude, that could be challenging.
I submit that being able to jettison the canopy quickly after an emergency
landing could be a good thing. On the other hand, the whole canopy ejection
and bailing out with a seatpack chute on strikes me as ummm... less
valuable. (Yes, I know the Skycatcher guy did it and I do not know how!)
Sabrina, thanks for your great ideas. Quantum physics, eh? Be prepared for
lots of Heisenberg jokes.
Frank Derfler
AMD-made 601XL with 160 hours
Marathon in the Florida Keys
--
Twitter! Follow me at http://Twitter.com/Fderfler
See my new Novel, "A Glint in Time" at http://GreatGuyBooks.com.
See my discussion of All the Guy Toys that aren't (clearly) illegal or
(blatantly) immoral at http://mostlyflying.com
Anybody who READS (anybody out there?) See www.greatguybooks.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 13, 2009
Subject: Re: Some videos of us flying
Scott
We had a 20 knot head wind the whole way but at 2700 we average 132 to 135
MPH prop pitch at 10.5 degrees and timing set at 28 degrees points and 30
degrees electronic we flew for about 6.5 hours but some of the flight was at 2500
rpm's to let the oil cool from the long climb at gross (wanted to play it
safe with the new engine). As you know the rear starter is new but we now have
over 200 combined hrs on it on 3 different aircraft 1 of which is Bill Clapps
KR with almost 100 hrs on it so I still had a bit of a pucker factor for the
first leg of the flight but wanted as much distance from the ground as I
could get and 7500 is where we cruised. The last leg of the flight was at 2500
and if I did it again today I would have no problem flying at 1500 to have more
fun.
Jeff
Enjoyed the videos and specs during flight. I made my flight from West Palm
Beach to NC so was about the same distance. How long did you take to
complete the trip? The Corvair sounded great, even if it wasn't my friend
William's. I noticed that your tach read 2700? Since I flew pretty much at the
same
tach setting, I was wondering at what speed you were generally flying?
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
From: "stepinwolf" <robert.pelland(at)cgocable.ca>
Date: Jan 13, 2009
A big thank you to all who responded to my call for help.
Yesterday evening I was able to find, and correct the problem with my rivet gun.
As was mentioned in a previous response, the defect was with the large O-ring
on the piston at the top of the handle. it has an O-ring at the rear to seal
the oil, and both guns had O-rings that were dried out and hardened.
This is why the gun was quitting after a dozen or so rivets, because the oil was
leaking pass the O-ring into the stem catcher. Now it is working great, with
no oil leaks.
There was however one casualty in all this and that is my second gun. While I
was rebuilding the first one on the bench I casually pulled the trigger to check
how far back the piston was pulling, and when it evacuated the air from the
lower canister, it blow the spring from my second gun off the bench, and was
never to be seen again.
Bob the 701 & 750 scratch
Three Rivers, Quebec
--------
Live each day, as if it was your last
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224494#224494
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscf1006_1280x768_154.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2009
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Hello Frank,
-
That is a good point,- I personally avoid flying over the lake(s) or over
the sea farther from gliding distance of the shore, or over towns or citie
s.
-
When emergency landing on water there is a big chance to end with the airpl
ane wheels up (mainly landing gear drag on the water or other causes),,,-
in this case opening the canopy will be almost impossible.-- How to pu
sh the area of the cabin against the resistance of the water?.
-
Where do you fly?-Why so much- time over water?
-
in normal flying-person with-no ocean or gulf crossing, -the chances
of flying over water (outside gliding distance), and that the engine will f
ail in that precise time, are very low statitically,- This to justify-t
o have a cabin eject mechanism that can accidentally be pulled by a passeng
er.- We all give Young Eagles flights, and kids are kids...
-
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala Lake, Mexico. (over the dry side :-)
"What is not installed, will not fail"
--- On Tue, 1/13/09, Frank Derfler wrote:
From: Frank Derfler <fderfler(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 7:54 AM
Sabrina --
Thanks for your observation that the factory demo has flex hinges. -That
is important to note. -
Regarding your "easily removable" canopy, I'm surprised no one has injected
the idea of its value in a water landing. -Since I fly over water 90% of
the time it entered my head. -At one time my personal POH included poppi
ng the latch before attempting an emergency water landing. - But, I later
re-wrote that when I discussed the noise, the change of attitude, and the
distraction with a guy who regularly opened the 601 canopy as a simulated e
mergency condition. -(THAT part of my personal POH says, "As Slow As You
Can Go") - So now my emergency water landing procedure says get the canop
y open first thing. -But, depending on the attitude, that could be challe
nging. -
-I submit that being able to jettison the canopy quickly after an emergen
cy landing could be a good thing. -On the other hand, the whole canopy ej
ection and bailing out with a seatpack chute on strikes me as ummm... less
valuable. -(Yes, I know the Skycatcher guy did it and I do not know how!)
-
Sabrina, thanks for your great ideas. -Quantum physics, eh? -Be prepare
d for lots of Heisenberg jokes. -
Frank Derfler-
AMD-made 601XL with 160 hours-
Marathon in the Florida Keys-
--
Twitter! Follow me at http://Twitter.com/Fderfler
See my new Novel, "A Glint in Time" at http://GreatGuyBooks.com.
See my discussion of -All the Guy Toys that aren't (clearly) illegal or (
blatantly) immoral at http://mostlyflying.com -
Anybody who READS (anybody out there?) See www.greatguybooks.com
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
From: "chuck_maggart" <cmaggart(at)sprintmail.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2009
Bob, I used the Zenith supplied rivet puller without any problems at all. They
warn you that the case may crack if you use too high of an air pressure. I ended
up using a few pounds higher (at the compressor) than they recommended to
get the 5/32 stems to snap.
Chuck
finished and ready to fly
--------
Chuck Maggart
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224544#224544
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 13, 2009
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
you can sweep with a magnetic "broom".- You can also get down on the floo
r and look obliquely across the floor: everything else is "taller" than you
r eye so they stand out.
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Tue, 1/13/09, stepinwolf wrote:
From: stepinwolf <robert.pelland(at)cgocable.ca>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Need help & consuling on Rivet puller
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 11:23 AM
A big thank you to all who responded to my call for help.
Yesterday evening I was able to find, and correct the problem with my rivet
gun. As was mentioned in a previous response, the defect was with the larg
e
O-ring on the piston at the top of the handle. it has an O-ring at the rea
r to
seal the oil, and both guns had O-rings that were dried out and hardened.
This is why the gun was quitting after a dozen or so rivets, because the oi
l
was leaking pass the O-ring into the stem catcher. Now it is working great
,
with no oil leaks.
There was however one casualty in all this and that is my second gun. Whil
e I
was rebuilding the first one on the bench I casually pulled the trigger to
check
how far back the piston was pulling, and when it evacuated the air from the
lower canister, it blow the spring from my second gun off the bench, and wa
s
never to be seen again.
Bob the 701 & 750 scratch
Three Rivers, Quebec
--------
Live each day, as if it was your last
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224494#224494
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscf1006_1280x768_154.jpg
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy. BRS Comment
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2009
My original - and perhaps too brief - question was pertaining to the actual failure
mode of the BRS.
We hear all about the BRS "saves". I have not heard much about any BRS failures,
and it is those that we who are installing BRS's should examine.
I am in the process of installing a BRS in my XL, and am trying to do everything
I can up front to stack the odds in my favor in the unlikely event that I or
a passenger would ever have to pull that handle.
- Patrick
--------
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224584#224584
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Canopy and Cold Weather (shipping) ?
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2009
> regarding shipment of that big plastic bubble in the winter?
I'll find out soon enough. I ordered my canopy last week, and it shipped today.
We're in a cold snap right now, and it isn't going to get above zero for a few
days. Was -21 below zero (F) at my house this morning. [Shocked]
So if my canopy arrives safely, it should lend confidence to others who are wondering
about how well that bubble survives shipping in winter...
- Patrick:
--------
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224592#224592
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy. BRS Comment
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2009
PatrickW wrote:
> My original - and perhaps too brief - question was pertaining to the actual failure
mode of the BRS.
>
> We hear all about the BRS "saves". I have not heard much about any BRS failures,
and it is those that we who are installing BRS's should examine.
>
> I am in the process of installing a BRS in my XL, and am trying to do everything
I can up front to stack the odds in my favor in the unlikely event that I
or a passenger would ever have to pull that handle.
>
> - Patrick
Patrick if you are talking about the Skycatcher failure. First the plane was in
a flat spin. Second there was some talk that the BRS was not properly mounted.
Remember this was a prototype plane not a production version.
--------
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=224631#224631
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Canopy and Cold Weather (shipping) ?
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2009
PatrickW wrote:
>
> > regarding shipment of that big plastic bubble in the winter?
>
> I'll find out soon enough. I ordered my canopy last week, and it shipped today.
>
> We're in a cold snap right now, and it isn't going to get above zero for a few
days. Was -21 below zero (F) at my house this morning. [Shocked]
>
> So if my canopy arrives safely, it should lend confidence to others who are wondering
about how well that bubble survives shipping in winter...
>
> - Patrick
Really Really Really Really don't try to do any work mounting the canopy until
it is about 90 degrees warmer.
--------
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=224632#224632
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 14, 2009
You guys are too funny!
When I was building my canopy frame, I was amazed how tinkering with one side would
often release the other side.
I would lock one side, leave the other up. In attempting to lock the remaining
side the original side would sometimes release due to movement of the release
cable. That scared me.
Has anyone else split the release mechanism on the canopy so both the left and
right side need to be released independently?
This way, one has 4 "disengagements" before release, accidental or whatnot.
I prefer this to the single "disengagement" of the 650. Attempting to re-latch
one side necessarily unlatches the other since it is a solid arm. Correct?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224723#224723
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Hi Sabrina,
In my case, I left a little slack in the release cables. There is
still plenty of movement when you rotate the control knob to release
both latches, but it isn't so tight as to do the nasty stuff you talked about.
I also got lucky with the placement of the rotating knob for the
release. It fit kind-of tight so when it is nearly closed it takes a
little extra force to "Click" into place. That also means it takes
some extra force to get it started in the latch opening cycle.
Have fun,
Paul
P.S. Watch out for jumping electrons.
At 08:50 AM 1/14/2009, you wrote:
>I would lock one side, leave the other up. In attempting to lock
>the remaining side the original side would sometimes release due to
>movement of the release cable. That scared me.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: <paulrod36(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Date: Jan 14, 2009
When I was scratch-building my canopy, after several iterations I wound
up using two barrel bolts, which I made spring-loaded, to slide over and
snap into two notches in some 3/16 steel t-bar stock. I haven't flow it
yet, but after you release the turning handle, you can hear the barrel
bolts snap in place. I think it will hold.
Paul Rodriguez
----- Original Message -----
From: Sabrina<mailto:chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 10:50 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
>
You guys are too funny!
When I was building my canopy frame, I was amazed how tinkering with
one side would often release the other side.
I would lock one side, leave the other up. In attempting to lock the
remaining side the original side would sometimes release due to movement
of the release cable. That scared me.
Has anyone else split the release mechanism on the canopy so both the
left and right side need to be released independently?
This way, one has 4 "disengagements" before release, accidental or
whatnot.
I prefer this to the single "disengagement" of the 650. Attempting to
re-latch one side necessarily unlatches the other since it is a solid
arm. Correct?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224723#224723
.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224723#224723>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
m/Navigator?Zenith601-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: In-flight opening of front hinged canopy
Date: Jan 14, 2009
I have the old style canopy latches. I have never had one side of m
canopy unlatch as I was trying to latch the other. There is a bit of
slack in the cable that needs to be taken up before the canopy will
unlatch. The two sides latch up independently of each other.
If I was going to use the new style latch, I would definitely alter
the design to allow each side to latch independently of the other. All
it would take is slots on one end of the tie bars linking the latch
hooks to the torque tube and springs pulling each hook towards the
latched position.
On Jan 14, 2009, at 11:50 AM, Sabrina wrote:
> When I was building my canopy frame, I was amazed how tinkering with
> one side would often release the other side.
>
> I would lock one side, leave the other up. In attempting to lock
> the remaining side the original side would sometimes release due to
> movement of the release cable. That scared me.
>
> Has anyone else split the release mechanism on the canopy so both
> the left and right side need to be released independently?
>
> This way, one has 4 "disengagements" before release, accidental or
> whatnot.
>
> I prefer this to the single "disengagement" of the 650. Attempting
> to re-latch one side necessarily unlatches the other since it is a
> solid arm. Correct?
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "aerobat" <rhood2000(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2009
This is from the Dutch safety board
http://www.safetyboard.nl/publications/dsb/intermediate_warning_accident_with_mla.pdf
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224869#224869
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: VNE what is it on the XL?
From: "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at>
Date: Jan 15, 2009
ZAC site is 180 mph /290kmh
On my plans 162/ 260 kmh
Any other sources ?
That is a big difference so what is the real figure ?, I feel it is the lower one
on the plans, so why ZAC say different?
Kev
Kit arrived November 21
Rudder, stab, elevator, flaps done. Finishing ailerons....wait to see if balance
mod is coming!
--------
Austria .............
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224873#224873
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
> I wonder where the Dutch folks got this information. All the actual
> accident reports I have read indicated structural failure for unknown
> reasons. Apparently, the Dutch folks have different reports that indicate
> overload and flutter. Or perhaps they are just making up these facts . . .
They appear to have oulled it out of their...uhm...thin air.
The good news is that they're at least back from vacation.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: VNE what is it on the XL?
> ZAC site is 180 mph /290kmh
> On my plans 162/ 260 kmh
AMD has it as 140 knots, or 161.1 MPH. I don't know why the ZAC site has the
higher figure, or why it was lowered. OTOH, I've never had mine over 125
KIAS, even in a power-on descent. The AMD Vno (top of the green arc) is 108
knots, or 124.3 MPH.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
> Or perhaps they did a "real" investigation, real actual dynamic stress
> analysis thru computer animations
If so, why didn't they say so? They probably didn't have time in the few
days since they got back from vacation.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at>
Date: Jan 15, 2009
What good is the data from the GPS in relation to previous over stressing of the
frame?
Yes it broke in level flight but it could well have been over stressed many times
before and finally something went.
Bit like and engine blowing up because 50 ours ago it was run low on oil and
suffered accelerated wear.
Sad but I suspect a similar outcome as the Yuba city crash .....undetermined cause.
My 2 cents
Kev
--------
Austria .............
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224889#224889
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: VNE what is it on the XL?
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2009
My original plans said 180 mph. At the same time the website said 180.
The current plans say 162. When I fly it will be 162 in my plane.
The plans are the plans and the website is marketing and doesn't get changed very
often. Go with the plans.
--------
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=224890#224890
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2009
Has there been any official investigation that stated the flutter was the cause?
If so I haven't seen it. The one official investigation that I have seen (Yuba
City) specifically ruled out flutter.
This paragraph...
"Some investigations of these accidents revealed that the overload of the wings
had different probable causes, for instance flutter in one or both wings."
Should be replaced with...
"An investigation of one of these accidents revealed that the overload of the wings
caused the accident, and rumors have mentioned possibilities for instance
flutter in one or both wings but was ruled out in the one accident investigated."
--------
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=224893#224893
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2009
The Dutch are reasonable people. The report is a "warning", that the plane
was not doing anything unusual and the wing simply broke off.
Seems pretty obvious to me what they're saying.
Regards,
Jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224897#224897
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
> The Dutch are reasonable people. The report is a "warning", that the plane
> was not doing anything unusual and the wing simply broke off.
>
> Seems pretty obvious to me what they're saying.
You are, however, assuming they're competent. Their conduct of this
investigation very strongly suggests otherwise, from their departure on
vacation at its very beginning to their utter ignoring of other
investigations and their refusal to allow people who actually know things to
participate. The final straw is their statement on the potential cause
which, so far, is totally unsupported by any facts or even any documentation
of their conjectures.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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: "David Mikesell" <skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com>
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
Date: Jan 15, 2009
Jay, I have all Zeniths plans and have built and flown the 601HD and a big
fan of Zenith planes so please do not think that I am bashing.
Now they did not list anything but the gps to give reference how they knew
the plane was straight and level. I sure they did stress calculations and
measurements and tons of stuff they did not list because it has nothing to
do with publishing the conclusion.
Lets not "read into" what is not there oh and if you know what day they came
back from vacation and how many days they took off please list it and your
source.
Lets try to leave comments like that out of they conversation for their is
no proof they just came back adn that they have been on vacation since the
accident.
How ever they have posted their report and I understand that the "601XL
Club" (oh and i have 601XL plans too) is not happy with the findings. Well
you have the right to challenge them with the Dutch investigating
authorities, but you do not have the right to slander them and make
statements insinuating that they did not do a investigation because they
were on vacation and now just making stuff up to put in their "officail"
report.
David M.
Petaluma, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Maynard" <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings
>
>> Or perhaps they did a "real" investigation, real actual dynamic stress
>> analysis thru computer animations
>
> If so, why didn't they say so? They probably didn't have time in the few
> days since they got back from vacation.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
> but you do not have the right to slander them and make statements
> insinuating that they did not do a investigation because they were on
> vacation and now just making stuff up to put in their "officail" report.
Sorry. Until they show their work, all we have to go on is their bald
statements - and that includes their statement that they would not be able
to do anything for some time after grounding the entire fleet because they
were going on vacation. We would not stand for that in the US; I have no
idea why the Europeans put up with it. In any event, that greatly harms
their credibility, because it is so completely unprofessional of them.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 15, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
> The AMD planes (I believe) have Continental engines, piano hinge ailerons,
> and dual sticks.
This is correct.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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: Jeyoung65(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 15, 2009
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
>From the report it would appear that the wing was not bent or broken just
the attachments to the fuselage. As I have a 601HD I do not know how the 601
XL
wings are attached. Does anyone know what they are talking about "upper and
lower reinforcement of the right hand wing main spar"? Are these parts of th
e
fuselage (my: 6F-6-1 and -3)? Jerry of Ga DO NOT ARCHIVE
"The right hand wing folded up and backwards in flight, whereby the upper
lining of the wing hit
the upper side of the fuselage, behind the canopy.
=B7 The right hand wing did not break.
=B7 The upper reinforcement of the right hand wing main spar had been buckl
ed
and twisted,
slightly forward of the wing-fuselage attachment.
=B7 The lower reinforcement of the right wing main spar had been twisted ju
st
in front of the wingfuselage
attachment."
In a message dated 1/15/2009 10:59:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: "David Mikesell"
Jay, I have all Zeniths plans and have built and flown the 601HD and a big
fan of Zenith planes so please do not think that I am bashing.
.
**************Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2009
jmaynard wrote:
> The final straw is their statement on the potential cause
> which, so far, is totally unsupported by any facts or even any documentation
> of their conjectures.
This is what they said in the Preliminary Conclusion, perhaps your version
of English and mine are vastly different. It still reads the same to me, but
maybe I'm a dummy ...?
Jeff
The investigation conducted by the Dutch Safety Board into the cause of this accident
is ongoing.
Nevertheless the Board, with regard to the seven similar accidents elsewhere in
the world, and in
anticipation of the definitive outcome of its investigation of this accident, holds
the opinion that it is
appropriate to warn all those who are directly or indirectly involved in the operation
of this type of
aircraft for the apparent risks in doing so.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224921#224921
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2009
How many wing failures in the US where the original builder/mfg installed the wings
as flown on the day of the crash where there is no finding of pilot error
or unauthorized maintenance?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224946#224946
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 15, 2009
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
I have said all along it was flutter and I still believe and (Hope) it is. I
also believe it is exaggerated when the cable tensions are not correct. I
adjusted the one I flew back to Florida and found the tension to be 15 lbs and
if anyone wants to know it took 31/2 turns of all 3 turnbuckles to gain 32 lbs
on the cables. I didn't measure the fine tuning of the balance cable.
I will tell you that there was no difference whatsoever in the feel of the
stick after the adjustment. Even though I knew they were right when we departed
for Fl. you can bet your sweet ass I had my eye on the right aileron and it
was in the back of my mind. I think the push pull tube is a great idea and it
takes out the possibility of the cables being loose. Most don't have access
to a cable tension meter and will just arbitrarily tighten them which could
be just as bad.
I don't know if balancing them will help or not but I wish they would have
done that on the new 650 because it would have been the perfect time to do it.
Along with adding push pull tubes. I am not of the opinion that all of the
aircraft were over stressed either. If it had been 1 or 2 maybe but it would
seem to me from watching testing of a wing until it failed there is some major
distortion before it gives way to the stress and I just don't see where that
would have gone un noticed during a pre flight. To say only the attach
points of the wings were stressed with no other signs anywhere I just don't see.
I also don't think that Zenith could ever take any position other than there
isn't a problem because any other position would have attorneys beating down
there door and we certainly don't want to see that. I am building them and
will continue to build them and support them. That said, I am adding cherry max
rivets to the first 3 aileron attach holes and making sure to have the
proper cable tension at all times.
These are my opinions and even though I have built 3 601's I am not saying I
know anymore about this subject than the scratch builder on his first plane
so take what I say as just that another opinion.
Jeff Garrett
Louisville Ky.
601XL N962T Aerolite Corvair 90%
601XL N524B Aerolite Corvair 155 Hrs
601XL N2257 Aerolite Corvair 85 Hrs
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/)
_www.project601xl.com_ (http://www.project601xl.com/)
_www.aerolite.camstreams.com_ (http://www.aerolite.camstreams.com/)
Do not archive
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "dougsire" <dsire(at)imt.net>
Date: Jan 15, 2009
Jeff,
What type of Cherrymax rivets are you using? I'm planning on using solid or Cherrymax
in some areas, but I'm a bit confused by the different types (Aluminum,
Monel, INCO).
Thanks,
Doug Sire
Billings, MT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224964#224964
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2009
skyguynca wrote:
> I sure they did stress calculations and
> measurements and tons of stuff they did not list because it has nothing to
> do with publishing the conclusion.
>
> Lets not "read into" what is not there oh and if you know what day they came
> back from vacation and how many days they took off please list it and your
> source.
>
> Lets try to leave comments like that out of they conversation for their is
> no proof they just came back adn that they have been on vacation since the
> accident.
>
> How ever they have posted their report and I understand that the "601XL
> Club" (oh and i have 601XL plans too) is not happy with the findings. Well
> you have the right to challenge them with the Dutch investigating
> authorities, but you do not have the right to slander them and make
> statements insinuating that they did not do a investigation because they
> were on vacation and now just making stuff up to put in their "officail"
> report.
>
> David M.
> Petaluma, CA
>
> ---
First I'm with both of the Jay's these guys need to show their work if they are
going to make a statement that this or any plane is unsafe.
As far as slandering them them. They are the ones doing the slandering by not basing
their statements on facts that they are willing to provide. Hell, they don't
even tell what kind of GPS was in the plane. For all we know it was some
$50 special with accuracy of +/- 1000ft. I don't know that is the case but this
quarter ass report sure didn't tell me otherwise.
--------
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=224976#224976
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
Date: Jan 15, 2009
I pretty much agree with most of the criticism I'm reading here of the report.
Read superficially, it sounds as though one is being given a real report with
facts. Read carefully, particularly with some knowlege of what facts there
are, it reads like a poorly researched way of closing the discussion,
substituting careful grammer and sentence structure for thorough analysis.
I'm forced to wonder if the author(s) weren't under pressure to get something
out, having a lot of catchup to do after returning from vacation.
Please understand I'm not picking on some one government - this sort of thing
happens all over. There are times to put a subject to sleep with carefully
chosen words, because it does not merit too much examination, and the author
is running out of time. Heck, I've done it!
But this isn't one of those times. We really need international cooperation,
and more detailed information than we are being given.
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "aerobat" <rhood2000(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2009
This is from the Zenair Europe site
Neither the preliminary accident report nor the Dutch grounding-orders makes reference
to the wreckage of PH-4B6. Although for the last three months, Zenair
has received no word of new findings from the Dutch Safety Board, factory representatives
were recently permitted to inspect the remains of the accident aircraft.
Upon careful first-hand examination, we feel sufficient new evidence comes
to light that suggests a very different sequence of events than the one proposed
by witnesses. The investigation is on-going and we do not know what is
currently being considered by investigators, nevertheless, we remain puzzled as
to why the official position has not been revised and why the grounding orders
remain unchanged.
Three observations in particular seem especially significant. This is what we saw:
1) The leading edge D-cells of both wings of the accident aircraft display remarkable
similarities: From root to tip, the front skins of both wings show even
and continuous impact damage consistent with straight-on impact. The main landing
gear and nose gear strut were undamaged (one wheel fairing actually remains
attached). This, along with the nature of the overall damage suggests that
the aircraft likely contacted the water straight-on, but more upside down (wheels
pointing up) than right-side up.
2) In the area where it passes through the fuselage, the aileron control cable
of the wing that supposedly failed in the air is still cleanly threaded through
its plastic fairlead which is still firmly riveted (paint is not even cracked)
to the fuselage side. The aileron belcranks of both wings are undamaged and
still properly secured. In other accidents where a wing was known to have folded
in flight, aileron control cables ripped through the thin fuselage sides (in
the direction of the folding wing) and the aileron belcranks were torn loose
from the wing structure.
3) At the rear spar attachment location, the fuselage tab was intact, as was the
attachment bolt. It is the rear spar web which failed, but not as we have seen
in other accidents where the failure has been attributed to static overload.
In this case, the remaining portion of the spar channel and doubler (a washer-like
piece still attached under the tight bolt-joint) shows evidence of failure
from bending and tearing - rather than from straight up, down or out shear
forces.
Considered together (the even crushing of both wings, the absence of aileron cables
ripping through the aluminum fuselage sides and intact belcranks, and the
failure mode of the wings rear attachment point), the wreckage seems to tell
its own story as to the configuration of the aircraft just prior to impact
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224986#224986
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: My Corvair Engine Arrived!
From: "jonaburns" <lsapilot(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 15, 2009
To my delight, a nice guy in a truck from Yellow Transportation helped me unload
a crate with my name on it.
Of course, I knew what was inside, but since it is less than a month since Christmas,
(and we still have our decorations up) I pretended to be surprised to find
a shiny "new" Corvair engine gently strapped inside.
Here are a couple of pics...
My plane is going to need to go to the airport soon!
Jon Burns
Little Elm, Tx
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225011#225011
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0052_844.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0049_191.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0043_774.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2009
dougsire wrote:
>
> What type of Cherrymax rivets are you using? I'm planning on using solid or
Cherrymax in some areas, but I'm a bit confused by the different types (Aluminum,
Monel, INCO).
>
Doug - For what it's worth, you might be better off to buy a rivet gun and
use solids. The Cherrymax rivets are good rivets, no doubt. But they are
so costly you won't shoot very many before you have out spent the cost
of a gun. I bought a gun, and shot a lot of solids using a hammer with
a polished head as a bucking bar at pretty low cost. I've bought a couple
bucking bars now, as I find it is more convenient. Solids are easy to
shoot with just a little practice.
The AD solids are stronger than the CherryMax as well, and you can buy
them by the pound really cheap.
Regards,
Jeff Hays
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225102#225102
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2009
From: "Frank Derfler" <fderfler(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Dutch XL crash finding
A couple of quick observations...
1. Based on my career experience as a Washington DC bureaucrat, that notice
reads like something written by one person with little coordination and less
preparation. My government-trained antenna says , "Pure amateur result from
a staff guy under pressure" He's really got nothing to backup anything.
2. Based on my observations of my own GPS systems (Garmin 196 and Garmin
396) even when the antennas are sitting motionless on the back deck of my
house, the GPS-derived altitude is all over the place. And, of course, when
flying they show ground speed. So, I have a hard time putting a lot of
faith in the GPS record to determine the altitude variations, air speed, and
G-loading of the aircraft in the few seconds before the accident.
Would some "Dutch rolls" (pardon the pun) show up on a GPS record? (Don't
go off on that, it's mostly a bad joke)
I file the Dutch notice under trivial distractions not helpful to the
question.
-- Frank Derfler
Flying an AMD-made 601XL over the Florida Keys
--
Twitter! Follow me at http://Twitter.com/Fderfler
See my new Novel, "A Glint in Time" at http://GreatGuyBooks.com.
See my discussion of All the Guy Toys that aren't (clearly) illegal or
(blatantly) immoral at http://mostlyflying.com
Anybody who READS (anybody out there?) See www.greatguybooks.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2009
From: mversteeg <maarten.versteeg(at)swri.org>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List Digest: 39 Msgs - 01/15/09
Hello Jon,
Looks great such a shiny 'new' engine. Could you provide us with some
additional
information: manufacturer, weight, time since delivery and price (if not
too private).
Regards,
Maarten, 601xl, 6484
Plans building, wings completed, just started on fuselage
> Subject: Zenith601-List: My Corvair Engine Arrived!
> From: "jonaburns" <lsapilot(at)hotmail.com>
>
>
> To my delight, a nice guy in a truck from Yellow Transportation helped me unload
> a crate with my name on it.
>
> Of course, I knew what was inside, but since it is less than a month since Christmas,
> (and we still have our decorations up) I pretended to be surprised to find
> a shiny "new" Corvair engine gently strapped inside.
>
> Here are a couple of pics...
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Cowling winterization plate
I need to do something to make my O-200 happier in the winter. I haven't
seen oil temperatures above 140 F since it got cold around here. that's
making me nervous about not boiling the condensation out of the oil.
The O-200, at least in the AMD Zodiac, does not have an oil cooler to cover
up. That means I need to restrict airflow through the cowling. I've spoken
to an owner in Crookston, Minnesota, and he recommended that I first make a
plate to cover the air exit from the bottom of the cowling, and then add
plates at the inlet only if that doesn't do enough. I've got no problems
with that plan in general. The question I have, however, is simple: How do I
attach the plate?
The forward end would need to attach somewhere inside the lower cowl,
forward of the opening. That's easily enough done: holes in the cowl itself,
and rivnuts in the plate. The fun comes in attaching the rear of the plate
to the firewall. Suggestions? More rivnuts at the bottom of the firewall
itself, or are there better ideas?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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: Cowling winterization plate
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2009
The TCM manual allows you to run at 4 quarts of oil rather than 6. That will
increase your oil temp. Steep climbs at full power will do the same. Modifying
an S-LSAs does not sound like the answer. Another option: Royco has a flight
ready preservative oil that fights the corrosion you are worried about.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225208#225208
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
Hi Jay,
First, I would stay away from rivnuts. They have a horrible
reputation for spinning in their holes so you can't unfasten the
screws later on. If you feel you must use threaded fasteners, then
you should learn about nut-plates or just use bolts and nuts.
You might do a lot better to use ordinary pulled rivets. I suggest
you practice a little at installing them and drilling them out when
you want them to be gone. To be consistent with the construction of
the plane you should use Avex rivets (get a fellow Zenith builder to
donate a handful of them - we all have lots of extras). For
something like these air baffles you would probably be ok with
hardware store rivets. Perhaps 1/8" aluminum short or medium length.
You might start with .025 or .016 6061-T6 sheet metal and drill first
with #40 pilot drill and then line-drill with #30 for the 1/8"
rivets. (Line drilling is when you drill through both connecting
sheets at the same time. This gets the holes perfectly lined up.)
I'd suggest leaving the firewall alone and using the skin behind the
firewall for your new baffle attachment.
Good luck,
Paul
XL getting close
Good luck,
Paul
At 05:39 PM 1/16/2009, you wrote:
>
>I need to do something to make my O-200 happier in the winter. I haven't
>seen oil temperatures above 140 F since it got cold around here. that's
>making me nervous about not boiling the condensation out of the oil.
>
>The O-200, at least in the AMD Zodiac, does not have an oil cooler to cover
>up. That means I need to restrict airflow through the cowling. I've spoken
>to an owner in Crookston, Minnesota, and he recommended that I first make a
>plate to cover the air exit from the bottom of the cowling, and then add
>plates at the inlet only if that doesn't do enough. I've got no problems
>with that plan in general. The question I have, however, is simple: How do I
>attach the plate?
>
>The forward end would need to attach somewhere inside the lower cowl,
>forward of the opening. That's easily enough done: holes in the cowl itself,
>and rivnuts in the plate. The fun comes in attaching the rear of the plate
>to the firewall. Suggestions? More rivnuts at the bottom of the firewall
>itself, or are there better ideas?
>--
>Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
> The TCM manual allows you to run at 4 quarts of oil rather than 6. That
> will increase your oil temp.
My engine likes to run about 4-1/2 quarts anyway...mor than that just gets
blown out the breather.
> Steep climbs at full power will do the same.
That's how I'm getting up to 140. :-)
> Modifying an S-LSA???s does not sound like the answer.
This is with permission of AMD; they want a drawing of whatever I come up
with so they can offer it as an option.
> Another option: Royco has a flight ready preservative oil that fights the
> corrosion you are worried about.
That might not be a bad idea at all.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2009
"I am adding cherry max rivets to the first 3 aileron attach holes" Jeff
Great idea... at least one, maybe 10 more with gussets...
Of course, if I were offered a set of free flex hinge ailerons, they would be on
my aircraft before the next flight...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225212#225212
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/gussets_679.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2009
Do you have CHT and EGT gauges? What are they reading?
Rather than closing off the exit, changing the lower cowl's lip will dramatically
change the air flow.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225214#225214
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/exit_150.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
> Do you have CHT and EGT gauges? What are they reading?
They're normal: CHTs in the mid to upper 200s, dropping below the 200 F
yellow line when I power back for maneuvers (I'm working on a CFI-SP); EGTs
are in the 1300s, and can easily be raised with a little leaning. It's just
the oil temperature that's worrying me.
> Rather than closing off the exit, changing the lower cowl's lip will
> dramatically change the air flow.
True...but my goal is to have something that can easily be installed and
removed as necessary, similar to the winterization plates on other aircraft.
What would be really nice is if it had cowl flaps...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
I've been trying to think of non-destructive ways to block off the
air flow out of your cowl.
One idea is to take some sheet metal, or if you must poster-board,
and tape it temporarily in place with good old duct tape. You can
cut a sheet to size and slide it into the cowl exit hole and then
tape the front in place. Then tape the back to the cabin floor.
This might not give a good final fix for your winter cooling issue,
but it might lead to a good one.
Paul
XL getting close
At 07:11 PM 1/16/2009, you wrote:
> > Rather than closing off the exit, changing the lower cowl's lip will
> > dramatically change the air flow.
>
>True...but my goal is to have something that can easily be installed and
>removed as necessary, similar to the winterization plates on other aircraft.
>What would be really nice is if it had cowl flaps...
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
> One idea is to take some sheet metal, or if you must poster-board, and
> tape it temporarily in place with good old duct tape. You can cut a sheet
> to size and slide it into the cowl exit hole and then tape the front in
> place. Then tape the back to the cabin floor.
Cabin floor? The only thing at the back of the cowl exit is the firewall.
Still, you've hit on how I plan to dummy it up, although I plan to use
something besides duct tape that will come off without leaving a residue
behind. Ain't no way I'm gonna ever use duct tape on my airplane.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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: Cowling winterization plate
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2009
There is at least one oil sump blanket that is STC'd for the O-200A in flight.
Use that and then pre-heat your oil with a plug in dip stick heater that is
removed before flight.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225221#225221
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2009
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
> There is at least one oil sump blanket that is STC'd for the O-200A in
> flight. Use that and then pre-heat your oil with a plug in dip stick
> heater that is removed before flight.
I've got a Tanis on my engine, and use it religiously when the temperature
is below 40 F. It includes an oil sump heater. Do you think blocking off the
sump alone will get the temperature back up?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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: "T. Graziano" <tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
Date: Jan 16, 2009
If you do use any riv-nuts, what I do is to install them with loctite 262,
or equilivant, around the head/O.D. Has worked for me.
"............I would stay away from rivnuts. They have a horrible
reputation for spinning in their holes so you can't unfasten the
screws later on. If you feel you must use threaded fasteners, then
you should learn about nut-plates or just use bolts and
nuts................"
Tony Graziano
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
Try 200 mph tape from Wal*Mart. This is the stuff NASCAR racers use
for the same sort of thing. I also use a lot of it while building my
XL. It only looks like duct tape. Duck brand is the best, in my
opinion, and Wal*mart has it. If there is any problem removing the
adhesive, just use a little lacquer thinner on a rag to wipe it off.
The cabin floor is attached to the bottom of the fire wall. This
would be a nice place to tape the aft end of a sheet of metal to hold
it in place for a test flight.
In no event would I drill holes in the firewall. That is just asking
for trouble - not to mention dull drill bits.
I was thinking two or three sheets taped in place in the corners and
middle of the cowl exit hole would work well. You can adjust the
size of each piece to get the amount of cooling reduction you
want. After you have found a nice size opening to have for your own
personal climate you can rivet some aluminum in the same place.
Paul
At 07:28 PM 1/16/2009, you wrote:
>Cabin floor? The only thing at the back of the cowl exit is the firewall.
>Still, you've hit on how I plan to dummy it up, although I plan to use
>something besides duct tape that will come off without leaving a residue
>behind. Ain't no way I'm gonna ever use duct tape on my airplane.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 16, 2009
the original sump blankets were asbestos, the new ones? most cannot be flown...
it should keep your heat in, there are auto dipstick heaters in varying wattages,
pick the one that works best... just remove it before flight...
as for duct tape, I have seen ferry permits signed off with duct taped repairs
after a bird strike... if it falls off, it won't hurt anyone, same for the styrofoam...
at KPWK, many a plane was winterized with duct tape...
www.redgreen.com :o)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225226#225226
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 16, 2009
Subject: webcam is up
I hope to get a lot done tonight.... hope to light up the panel and run the
brake lines.
_www.aerolite.camstreams.com_ (http://www.aerolite.camstreams.com)
Jeff
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2009
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
Only use lacquer thinner or acetone if the finish can take it...don't ask h
ow I know these things...
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Cowling winterization plate
Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 10:43 PM
...If there is any problem removing the adhesive, just use a little lacque
r thinner on
a rag to wipe it off.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 17, 2009
To get duct tape adhesive off your paint... take a strip of the same type of duct
tape, take a knife and scrape off the adhesive, form that adhesive into a little
ball, use that ball on your painted surface, it picks up the old adhesive
like magic. My grandpa, God rest his soul, used to call it the "Hair of the
Dog that bit me." And yes, he liked Red Green a lot too, what would you expect
from someone born and raised in Green Bay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225293#225293
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2009
From: Terry Turnquist <ter_turn(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Duct tape removal
There's a product called "GOO GONE" which works great. Test on paint before using.
Get it at Hobby shops like Michael's etc.
To get duct tape adhesive off your paint... take a strip of the same type of duct
tape, take a knife and scrape off the adhesive, form that adhesive into a little
ball, use that ball on your painted surface, it picks up the old adhesive
like magic. My grandpa, God rest his soul, used to call it the "Hair of the
Dog that bit me." And yes, he liked Red Green a lot too, what would you expect
from someone born and raised in Green Bay.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225293#225293
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 17, 2009
Jay has an S-LSA.
I can't imagine AMD approving any appliance for the engine that has not been STC'd
as to that engine. Just their changing out the FAA-PMA spark plugs for Auto
plugs required a lot of testing and analysis that Jay is not in the position
to do re: a non-STC'd oil sump blanket.
You are correct in pointing out that just because it is STC'd does not mean an
IA or AP can install it on the S-LSA, only AMD can approve such an installation.
Their exhaust configuration my not allow for such an installation.
It is different story for the airframe--they built it and could approve anything.
Question, can Jay put oil additives in an S-LSA that are not on the approved list
of lubricants from AMD?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225312#225312
________________________________________________________________________________
From: <paulrod36(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Cowling winterization plate
Date: Jan 17, 2009
Right on, Paul---I used rivnuts for the forward upper skin, and, 78
rivnuts leter, found that almost 1/4th of them spun. There;s a little
protrusion on each one that allegedly digs into the side of the hole and
is supposed to hold it. It don't. 78 nut plates later, a guy suggested
dipping each rivnut in epoxy or Proseal to keep them from spinning. Ah,
yes, the sequence of life:
1. You have a problem.
2. You come up with a solution.
3. It's the wrong solution.
4. You correct the solution.
5. Some guy comes along with an easier solution.
Paul Rodriguez
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Mulwitz<mailto:psm(at)att.net>
To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Cowling winterization plate
>
Hi Jay,
First, I would stay away from rivnuts. They have a horrible
reputation for spinning in their holes so you can't unfasten the
screws later on. If you feel you must use threaded fasteners, then
you should learn about nut-plates or just use bolts and nuts.
You might do a lot better to use ordinary pulled rivets. I suggest
you practice a little at installing them and drilling them out when
you want them to be gone. To be consistent with the construction of
the plane you should use Avex rivets (get a fellow Zenith builder to
donate a handful of them - we all have lots of extras). For
something like these air baffles you would probably be ok with
hardware store rivets. Perhaps 1/8" aluminum short or medium length.
You might start with .025 or .016 6061-T6 sheet metal and drill first
with #40 pilot drill and then line-drill with #30 for the 1/8"
rivets. (Line drilling is when you drill through both connecting
sheets at the same time. This gets the holes perfectly lined up.)
I'd suggest leaving the firewall alone and using the skin behind the
firewall for your new baffle attachment.
Good luck,
Paul
XL getting close
Good luck,
Paul
At 05:39 PM 1/16/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>I need to do something to make my O-200 happier in the winter. I
haven't
>seen oil temperatures above 140 F since it got cold around here.
that's
>making me nervous about not boiling the condensation out of the oil.
>
>The O-200, at least in the AMD Zodiac, does not have an oil cooler to
cover
>up. That means I need to restrict airflow through the cowling. I've
spoken
>to an owner in Crookston, Minnesota, and he recommended that I first
make a
>plate to cover the air exit from the bottom of the cowling, and then
add
>plates at the inlet only if that doesn't do enough. I've got no
problems
>with that plan in general. The question I have, however, is simple:
How do I
>attach the plate?
>
>The forward end would need to attach somewhere inside the lower cowl,
>forward of the opening. That's easily enough done: holes in the cowl
itself,
>and rivnuts in the plate. The fun comes in attaching the rear of the
plate
>to the firewall. Suggestions? More rivnuts at the bottom of the
firewall
>itself, or are there better ideas?
>--
>Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI
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>
>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
m/Navigator?Zenith601-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 17, 2009
Sabrina,
Are those your gussets on the outside of the skin? I read the print that the gussets
were inside the skin. They are represented by a hidden line and that usually
indicates behind the outer material.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225426#225426
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 17, 2009
Good point Ron...
see attached...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225430#225430
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/gussetsv2_466.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rear Elevator trim deflection
From: "Ianrat" <ianrat(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Jan 18, 2009
In the plans on page 6-T-6 the up and down deflection of the trim tab is stated
as 20 up and 40 down how ever in the pictures that came on the CD that came with
the plans it states 30 up and 30 down.
I am aware of the new limits for the rear elevator put out from Zenith but has
there been any changes to the trim deflection.
Any suggestions.
Thank you
Ianrat
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225447#225447
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: VEDIO AND AUDIO RECORDING
From: "GLJSOJ1" <gljno10(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 18, 2009
Hi all
I am looking for a way to record my first flights and wondering how to get the
audio to pick up more than just engine noise. There is a something called a "patch
cord cockpit voice recorder"pn: 13-01456. Any body out there using this
or have other ideas
thanks
Glenn
--------
601XL N676L reserved
ALMOST DONE
CHESAPEAKE VA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225576#225576
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Elevator trim deflection
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 18, 2009
No changes that I'm aware of. The prints are what I follow and mine are dated
8/05 for 6T6. The on-line builder site updates don't state any changes either
for the trim tab 20 degrees up and 40 degrees down.
>From what I've learned about things the prints and a cross check of the print
updates are what you need to follow. If you find a mistake or can't quite determine
the answer, post a note here or call Zenith for help.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225588#225588
________________________________________________________________________________
From: N1BZRich(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 18, 2009
Subject: Re: VEDIO AND AUDIO RECORDING
In a message dated 1/18/2009 9:24:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
gljno10(at)hotmail.com writes:
patch cord cockpit voice recorder
Glenn,
Here is a suggestion that I have used while doing phase one testing on
several different experimental aircraft, including the 601XL that the EAA
chapter in Williamsburg (Chapter 156) built. Get yourself a voice activated
digital recorder and a lapel microphone. The one I have came from Radio Shack
about four years ago. Place the lapel mic (they are very small) in one of the
ear cups of your headset. Turn on the recorder in the voice activation mode
and be sure the aircraft intercom is also on. Now anything that you hear in
your headset will activate the digital recorder. I suggest you also "talk to
yourself" to record any test data (engine data or flight data) that you want
to record during the flight for later playback and test analysis.
And yes, there is also a patch cord adapter that we used in fighters (I
flew F-4s for 28 years, so this was many years ago). When we wanted to
record an air to air engagement we carried a small tape recorder in the G suit
pocket and turned on the tape recorder before each engagement. Being able to
replay each engagement before the debriefing helped us remember specific things
we wanted to debrief.
Blue Skies,
Buz Rich
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: N1BZRich(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 18, 2009
Subject: Re: VEDIO AND AUDIO RECORDING
Glenn,
Let me add one more comment to my last message since your subject line
mentioned Video and audio recording. Of course, my previous comments had to
do with audio recording. As to video recording, I recommend not trying to do
any video recording if you are thinking about any kind of hand held camera.
Your hands will be busy enough just flying the airplane during any testing.
So keep the hands on the stick and throttle. Now if you have a helmet
mounted camera or something that you can set up that you don't have to touch during
the flight - OK.
Blue Skies,
Buz Rich
EAA Flight Advisor and Technical Counselor
Williamsburg, VA EAA chapters 156 and 1377
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Aileron gussets
From: "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at>
Date: Jan 18, 2009
Hi all ,
maybe I am missing something here but is there any reason why not to fit the gussets
on the out side of the skin? I would add 2 more rivets on the open sides
to pull up the skins.
I have seen this on big planes .
Kev
--------
Austria .............
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225622#225622
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Elevator trim deflection
From: "Ianrat" <ianrat(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Jan 19, 2009
On the disk under the section 6-T-6 the first page is a copy of the plans. It is
dated the 08/05 the same as the printed copy. That is why i asked if there was
any updated info. Due to the time difference from the USA to Australia i thought
i would try the forum instead of waiting until Zenith opens next week.
Thank you
Ian Ratcliffe
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225632#225632
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: VEDIO AND AUDIO RECORDING
From: "GLJSOJ1" <gljno10(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 19, 2009
Thanks everyone
I just read the article in sport aviation and was really thinking that was the
way to go. Does that also pick up when I key the mike button to transmit? If
so that's perfect
I plan to hard mount the camera over the baggage area and turn it on before I start
the engine and turn it off when I shut it down.
Thanks again
Glenn
--------
601XL N676L reserved
ALMOST DONE
CHESAPEAKE VA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225726#225726
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Rear Elevator trim deflection
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 19, 2009
FYI,
I don't use the CD. I always get the most current information from the Zenith builders
website. I have just started work on the fuselage and just printed out
all the 6B pdf files from the web site. I check that and the print updates
list when I start a new section of the build.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225780#225780
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2009
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: VEDIO AND AUDIO RECORDING
Hi, Glenn.
When we needed cockpit audio for aviation marketing videos, that's exactly what
we did. A small Radio Shack bullet mike taped into the earcup and plugged into
our camera worked perfectly, getting both the radio transmissions and the attenuated
cockpit background noise.
If you can hear yourself transmit via the comm radio's sidetone, it will be picked
up by the mike as well.
Good luck!
Rick Lindstrom
First Light Media
-----Original Message-----
>From: GLJSOJ1 <gljno10(at)hotmail.com>
>Sent: Jan 19, 2009 1:39 PM
>To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: VEDIO AND AUDIO RECORDING
>
>
>Thanks everyone
>
>I just read the article in sport aviation and was really thinking that was the
way to go. Does that also pick up when I key the mike button to transmit? If
so that's perfect
>
>I plan to hard mount the camera over the baggage area and turn it on before I
start the engine and turn it off when I shut it down.
>Thanks again
>
>Glenn
>
>--------
>601XL N676L reserved
>ALMOST DONE
>CHESAPEAKE VA
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225726#225726
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Time to paint ?
From: "dhonabach" <don(at)pcperfect.com>
Date: Jan 19, 2009
I just finished flying off my 40 hours on my 601HDS and everything is performing
well. I'm starting to seriously think about painting and while I understand
the core process (from reading), it is hard to just get a straight answer on what
paint brands and produts to use with an HVLP gun that is geared for our 6061-T6
planes.
For those that painted, do you have any product recommendations? Also, any tips?
Thanks!
Don Honabach
601HDS - N601DX
Tempe, AZ
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225817#225817
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 20, 2009
Subject: Re: Time to paint ?
I am going to use a paint made by stewart systems, it is stc'd and best of
all it is water based so you don't have to worry about breathing in the harmful
paint fumes.
The cost to paint a 601 is around $900.00 and that includes the primer and
etch for the aluminum.
here is there website _http://www.stewartsystems.aero/_
(http://www.stewartsystems.aero/)
and here are some you tube video's showing how easy it is to spray.
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI6G1cPX7gs&feature=channel_page_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI6G1cPX7gs&feature=channel_page)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDoveEeQdfw&feature=channel_page_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDoveEeQdfw&feature=channel_page)
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3EDMqgRQxw&feature=channel_page_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3EDMqgRQxw&feature=channel_page)
Hope this helps
Jeff Garrett
Louisville Ky.
601XL N962T Aerolite Corvair 90%
601XL N524B Aerolite Corvair 155 Hrs
601XL N2257 Aerolite Corvair 85Hrs
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/)
_www.project601xl.com_ (http://www.project601xl.com/)
_www.aerolite.camstreams.com_ (http://www.aerolite.camstreams.com/)
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2009
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Time to paint ?
Hi Don,
I feel your pain.
Painting aluminum is a very tricky process. The problem is the oxide
that forms almost immediately when the aluminum is exposed to
air. It will keep any paint from sticking.
There are a couple of ways to successfully get paint on
aluminum. Both are reasonably expensive and require a bit of
skill. No matter which way you go you should get some practice on
some aluminum which is less important to you than your airplane
before tackling the big job. Just like painting steel, several very
thin coats work better than one thick one.
The classic approach is to use two products called (I hope) Alumiprep
and Alodine. These are chemical treatments that remove the oxide and
leave a thin layer of ceramic material suitable for holding paint.
The other way to start is to use a self-etch primer. This is a paint
that includes an acid to etch its way through the oxide. It is
generally easy to use but a bit expensive. The stuff I used is about
$20 per quart. I haven't done my whole plane yet but probably would
need about a gallon of the stuff to cover it.
After either of the above processes you need a separate primer and
top coat. The primer used these days is a two part epoxy based
material the runs about $100 per gallon. It is very easy to use and
covers very nicely. I use this stuff to protect steel parts without
any top coat.
For the top coat you can use either acrylic or polyurethane based
product which also is a two part system. For any two part system you
must mix carefully measured paint and hardener and let them sit for
about 20 minutes before use. I have been using the acrylic for many
reasons including cost and safety. The polyurethane is capable of
producing a higher luster and is offered in more colors, but it is
extremely toxic and has a reputation for being difficult to
apply. The acrylic is more of an industrial grade automotive paint
that is relatively easy to use. It is used by most paint shops for
utility grade jobs, while the urethane is used for the expensive fancy jobs.
You need to find the automotive paint store in your area that
supplies all the good paint shops.
In any case these are industrial grade materials which are way too
dangerous for casual use. They require safety equipment including
masks and gloves and careful handling. Read and heed the MSDSs. If
you approach this task casually you could end up crippled or dead.
You can use either a normal or HVLP spray system for this job. The
HVLP is preferred because of higher paint percentage on your project
while the overspray from the older systems wastes a lot of paint.
Good luck,
Paul
XL getting close
At 08:56 PM 1/19/2009, you wrote:
>
>I just finished flying off my 40 hours on my 601HDS and everything
>is performing well. I'm starting to seriously think about painting
>and while I understand the core process (from reading), it is hard
>to just get a straight answer on what paint brands and produts to
>use with an HVLP gun that is geared for our 6061-T6 planes.
>
>For those that painted, do you have any product recommendations?
>Also, any tips?
>
>Thanks!
>Don Honabach
>601HDS - N601DX
>Tempe, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: No Canopy Gas Struts on 650 Canopy for XL...?
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Jan 20, 2009
Got my "650 Canopy Kit for XL" the other day.
I uncrated it, and inventoried the contents. Everything checked off on the paper
list was accounted for as it came out of the crate.
There are no canopy gas struts. It's not that these are "missing" - they're not
even on the pick list to begin with. They don't ship with the fuselage component
kit.
My first thought was that they were no longer needed with the new canopy, but when I started looking on the Zenith website (for example: http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/608/60935.jpg ), I started seeing other pieces in the pictures that were also not included, like the green nyloil rub plates in the attached picture (below) of the 650 fuselage at Oshkosh.
Question 1: I can't be the first builder to encounter this. What have the rest
of you folks putting the 650 canopy on the XL done...? What else do I need
to get that isn't included in the kit?
Question 2: Another builder told me that Todd's was now making the new canopies, and that they shipped "unrolled". My 650 canopy (1/8" thick) arrived "rolled". There's no indication of a part number on it, but 65C3-3/65C3-4 is checked on the pick list. Here's a picture of the one I received: http://picasaweb.google.com/Patrick.Hoyt/PatsZodiac601XL#5293187921366289970 Did I get the correct canopy? I'm pretty sure I did, but I don't have anything to compare it against, so I don't know and am interested in what other builders at my stage are encountering.
Thanks,
- Pat
--------
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225834#225834
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/1_157.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2009
From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: Time to paint ?
Hi Don,
I painted my HDS after flying for a year and it was a long process
getting it clean enough to paint.
The paints most likely to serve best are acrylic enamel or urethane. The
acrylic enamel is the least costly
and easiest to do. Certainly closest to the urethane paints that
dominate most of the high end aircraft.
I did a water base urethane that required a lot of process and took from
April thru November to complete.
It's flame proof and the water captures the binders that would otherwise
seek out your lungs and suffocate you.
The paint has held up well with a small exception where a fuel fitting
leaked and took a bit of paint with it.
This also makes the point that touch up is just as complicated and
painful with urethane as the original process.
You need a lot of control to duplicate the original work.
The acrylic enamel is a simpler process, recommended by the Bingilis
books and sticks to anything. It also
isn't as fussy about process so long as you concern yourself about
flammability of this kind of paint.
Dupont for the acrylic enamel and Aircraft Finishing Systems is for
water-based urethane. I believe they have
revised and simplified the process for painting the water-base urethane
since I painted.
If you need process and paint history, I've a long bit in my journal
part 10, April thru November and a page that
describes a home made paint booth and page on part handling wings and
things in process.
See link,
www.macsmachine.com/html/paint.htm
Good luck,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
dhonabach wrote:
>
> I just finished flying off my 40 hours on my 601HDS and everything is performing
well. I'm starting to seriously think about painting and while I understand
the core process (from reading), it is hard to just get a straight answer on
what paint brands and produts to use with an HVLP gun that is geared for our
6061-T6 planes.
>
> For those that painted, do you have any product recommendations? Also, any tips?
>
> Thanks!
> Don Honabach
> 601HDS - N601DX
> Tempe, AZ
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225817#225817
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Time to paint ?
From: "pavel569" <pm569(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 20, 2009
No tips here, but congratulations, Don.
dhonabach wrote:
> I just finished flying off my 40 hours on my 601HDS and everything is performing
well. I'm starting to seriously think about painting and while I understand
the core processes (from reading), it is hard to just get a straight answer
on what paint brands and products to use with a HVLP gun that is geared for our
6061-T6 planes.
>
> For those that painted, do you have any product recommendations? Also, any tips?
>
> Thanks!
> Don Honabach
> 601HDS - N601DX
> Tempe, AZ
--------
Pavel
CA
Zodiac XL N581PM (Reserved)
Stratus Subaru EA-81
Tail, flaps, ailerons, wings done, fuselage is on the table ....
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225850#225850
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "rans6andrew" <andrewcattell(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 20, 2009
see latest on LAA website. Looks as if they are going to detail what they have
found fairly soon. I guess they have found something or the grounding would
be lifted now.
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/
front page news items.
Andrew
who got his 601UL fuselage back from the paintshop at the weekend.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225853#225853
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 20, 2009
rans6andrew wrote:
> see latest on LAA website. Looks as if they are going to detail what they have
found fairly soon. I guess they have found something or the grounding would
be lifted now.
>
> http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/
>
> front page news items.
>
>
YOu got that from this?
> Update - Zenair Incident - 19th Jan 2009
>
> LAA Engineering has been in close and productive contact with the designer, Chris
Heintz, and we are nearing the end of our investigation. Members of the
LAA Engineering Team will be meeting with Zenair Europe in the very near future
to discuss some outstanding issues and move towards getting the type back in
the air.
You are obviously better at reading between the lines than I am.
--------
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=225860#225860
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "T. Graziano" <tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
Date: Jan 20, 2009
The "discussion of "outstanding issues" with Zenith Europe "might" be that
their (Zenith Europe) interpretation of the physical evidence indicates the
wings were probably still attached at time of impact.
See below:
Tony Graziano
XL/Jab: N493TG; 462 hrs
--------------------------------------
Update - Zenair Incident - 19th Jan 2009
LAA Engineering has been in close and productive contact with the designer,
Chris Heintz, and we are nearing the end of our investigation. Members of
the LAA Engineering Team will be meeting with Zenair Europe in the very near
future to discuss some outstanding issues and move towards getting the type
back in the air.
ZENAIR EUROPE NEWS
Update of January 9, 2009
Neither the preliminary accident report nor the Dutch grounding-orders makes
reference to the wreckage of PH-4B6. Although for the last three months,
Zenair has received no word of new findings from the Dutch Safety Board,
factory representatives were recently permitted to inspect the remains of
the accident aircraft. Upon careful first-hand examination, we feel
sufficient new evidence comes to light that suggests a very different
sequence of events than the one proposed by witnesses. The investigation is
on-going and we do not know what is currently being considered by
investigators, nevertheless, we remain puzzled as to why the official
position has not been revised and why the grounding orders remain unchanged
Three observations in particular seem especially significant. This is what
we saw:
1) The leading edge D-cells of both wings of the accident aircraft display
remarkable similarities: From root to tip, the front skins of both wings
show even and continuous impact damage consistent with straight-on impact.
The main landing gear and nose gear strut were undamaged (one wheel fairing
actually remains attached). This, along with the nature of the overall
damage suggests that the aircraft likely contacted the water straight-on,
but more upside down (wheels pointing up) than right-side up.
2) In the area where it passes through the fuselage, the aileron control
cable of the wing that supposedly failed in the air is still cleanly
threaded through its plastic fairlead which is still firmly riveted (paint
is not even cracked) to the fuselage side. The aileron belcranks of both
wings are undamaged and still properly secured. In other accidents where a
wing was known to have "folded" in flight, aileron control cables ripped
through the thin fuselage sides (in the direction of the folding wing) and
the aileron belcranks were torn loose from the wing structure.
3) At the rear spar attachment location, the fuselage tab was intact, as was
the attachment bolt. It is the rear spar web which failed, but not as we
have seen in other accidents where the failure has been attributed to static
overload. In this case, the remaining portion of the spar channel and
doubler (a washer-like piece still attached under the tight bolt-joint)
shows evidence of failure from bending and tearing - rather than from
straight "up", "down" or "out" shear forces.
Considered together (the even crushing of both wings, the absence of aileron
cables "ripping" through the aluminum fuselage sides and intact belcranks,
and the failure mode of the wing's rear attachment point), the wreckage
seems to tell its own story as to the configuration of the aircraft just
prior to impact
.----- Original Message -----
From: "rans6andrew" <andrewcattell(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:10 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
>
>
> see latest on LAA website. Looks as if they are going to detail what they
> have found fairly soon. I guess they have found something or the
> grounding would be lifted now.
>
> http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/
>
> front page news items.
>
> Andrew
>
> who got his 601UL fuselage back from the paintshop at the weekend.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225853#225853
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "rans6andrew" <andrewcattell(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 20, 2009
actually I am privvy to a bit little more than you could read between the lines
but I have been prevented from spilling the beans for "tact and diplomacy" reasons.
Given the nature of the suspected problems I have been quite frustrated
that nobody has been allowed to put the preliminary LAA investigation findings
up on here. Even if they turn out to be wrong, preventing any further accidents
until the proof is found would have been worth the inconvenience of a short
grounding, IMHO.
I did try to make a few of the members of this group think about the situation
by highlighting the differences between the in-flight break up rates of the 601HD,
HDS and UL models and the 601XL situation. I hoped that this would show
them that something is not quite right with the XL and that it probably goes beyond
aileron cable tension issues. This was posted under Re: 601 problems on
23 Dec 2008.
If I have been wrong, flame me, I have tried to do what I think is right.
Andrew.
--------
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225868#225868
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Macs Machine Website
From: "MHerder" <michaelherder(at)beckgroup.com>
Date: Jan 20, 2009
Larry... Are you out there, your site is acting up. I use it frequently, I have
to compliment the your awesome website, it truly is a valuable resource for
those of us who aspire to become airborne! Any idea as to when it may be back
up. I am a little befuddled about a step and everytime I have a question and
something doesn't look quite right I usually answer the question within 5 minutes
of tinkering around and looking at your pics. Thanks for all of your hard
work.
Before beginning a new step I usually take a look at your site, some pics etc,
then look at the drawings for specifics and then your site. Sometimes it just
helps to have a picture (the fancy new xl drawings have pics) but for us HD and
HDS folks, Macs website is our fancy schmancy photo manual.
Again, I can't thank you enough for such a thoughoulghly usefull website.
--------
One Rivet at a Time!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225895#225895
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
Date: Jan 20, 2009
On Tuesday 20 January 2009 11:37, rans6andrew wrote:
>
>
> actually I am privvy to a bit little more than you could read between the
> lines but I have been prevented from spilling the beans for "tact and
> diplomacy" reasons. Given the nature of the suspected problems I have been
> quite frustrated that nobody has been allowed to put the preliminary LAA
> investigation findings up on here. Even if they turn out to be wrong,
> preventing any further accidents until the proof is found would have been
> worth the inconvenience of a short grounding, IMHO.
>
> I did try to make a few of the members of this group think about the
> situation by highlighting the differences between the in-flight break up
> rates of the 601HD, HDS and UL models and the 601XL situation. I hoped
> that this would show them that something is not quite right with the XL and
> that it probably goes beyond aileron cable tension issues. This was posted
> under Re: 601 problems on 23 Dec 2008.
Andrew, your logic was understood. The problem we may face is that the 601XLs
here in the U.S. are not all necessarily built to the same standards as the
601XLs in the U.K. and Europe.
I'm not sure here that we can throw all XLs and XL accidents into the same
category.
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2009
From: Jimbo <jimandmandy(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Time to paint ?
I have painted many cars with acrylic enamel. It does take a little practice but
is simple to use and the skills are not that difficult to master. Dupont Centari
without the toxic optional urethane conversion hardener is my paint of choice.
As long as you stick to solid colors and not metallic, pearl, mica, etc.
it is very forgiving.
Etching primer seems like the simple way to go as far as adhesion is concerned.
Acid + chromic wash on a completed structure could leak chemicals inside closed
structure and, if a water based topcoat is not used, risk moisture under rivets
and seams, causing problems with the topcoat.
Jim
--- On Tue, 1/20/09, LarryMcFarland wrote:
From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Time to paint ?
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2009, 7:14 AM
Hi Don,
I painted my HDS after flying for a year and it was a long process getting it
clean enough to paint.
The paints most likely to serve best are acrylic enamel or urethane. The
acrylic enamel is the least costly
and easiest to do. Certainly closest to the urethane paints that dominate most
of the high end aircraft.
I did a water base urethane that required a lot of process and took from April
thru November to complete.
It's flame proof and the water captures the binders that would otherwise
seek out your lungs and suffocate you.
The paint has held up well with a small exception where a fuel fitting leaked
and took a bit of paint with it.
This also makes the point that touch up is just as complicated and painful with
urethane as the original process.
You need a lot of control to duplicate the original work.
The acrylic enamel is a simpler process, recommended by the Bingilis books and
sticks to anything. It also
isn't as fussy about process so long as you concern yourself about
flammability of this kind of paint.
Dupont for the acrylic enamel and Aircraft Finishing Systems is for water-based
urethane. I believe they have
revised and simplified the process for painting the water-base urethane since I
painted.
If you need process and paint history, I've a long bit in my journal part
10, April thru November and a page that
describes a home made paint booth and page on part handling wings and things in
process.
See link,
www.macsmachine.com/html/paint.htm
Good luck,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
dhonabach wrote:
>
> I just finished flying off my 40 hours on my 601HDS and everything is
performing well. I'm starting to seriously think about painting and while I
understand the core process (from reading), it is hard to just get a straight
answer on what paint brands and produts to use with an HVLP gun that is geared
for our 6061-T6 planes.
> For those that painted, do you have any product recommendations? Also, any
tips?
>
> Thanks!
> Don Honabach
> 601HDS - N601DX
> Tempe, AZ
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225817#225817
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron gussets
From: "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at>
Date: Jan 20, 2009
Nobody got an opinion on this? Amazing.
kev
--------
Austria .............
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225960#225960
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
From: "rans6andrew" <andrewcattell(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jan 21, 2009
[/quote]
Andrew, your logic was understood. The problem we may face is that the 601XLs
here in the U.S. are not all necessarily built to the same standards as the
601XLs in the U.K. and Europe.
I'm not sure here that we can throw all XLs and XL accidents into the same
category.
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
=================================================[/quote]
the thing is: at the moment nobody seems to know if the European and US 601XLs
are built to the same standards. Until the investigation findings are made public
the only way YOU can tell if YOUR aircraft is one of the bad ones is by having
it come apart in flight. Not a way of finding out that I would choose.
Andrew.
--------
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225964#225964
________________________________________________________________________________
From: a.f.rupp(at)att.net
Subject: Re: Aileron gussets
Date: Jan 21, 2009
Kevin
I put gussets on the outside. Real easy to do, looks O.K. But it is easy to open
a couple of rivets and slip them under the skin and close it up also. I think
it is worth doing no matter which way.
Al Rupp
New York
-------------- Original message from "K Dilks" : --------------
>
> Nobody got an opinion on this? Amazing.
> kev
>
> --------
> Austria .............
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225960#225960
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron gussets
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Jan 21, 2009
Al,
Do you have piano hinge or flex hinge ailerons?
Did you add them per the Zenith plans aft of the aileron hinge or did you tie the
aft aileron hinge portion to the ribs?
Did you use A4 or AS5 rivets on the inboard aft attach rivet position?
Sabrina
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225985#225985