Zenith601-List Archive Browser

Zenith601-Archive.digest.vol-ae
November 28, 2008 - December 28, 2008

I agree with you. The government and company examiners seem to have done a great job of accumulating and reporting the facts. I don't have enough experience to know what happens next, but I presume the same experts that collected the facts will participate in discussions that result in "Probable Cause" determination and report. I would prefer to wait for that determination before getting involved in any discussion over the facts. I don't think I read anything in the factual stuff that should lead to any action on our (owner/builder) part. Perhaps we could inspect our planes for lack of rubber shock absorbers on the landing gear. Also, those with dual controls might take a close look at the control rod tightness. Beyond that, it seems to me most of the information is specific to the accident airplane. When the time does come, my preference is for email - on the list. Email gives us a chance to review what we say before hitting the send button. If nothing else, it gets the grammar and spelling to a high quality level. I think we can all wait just a little longer . . . Paul XL getting close At 03:27 PM 11/28/2008, you wrote: >The NTSB and FAA should be applauded for such a thorough >examination. Does anyone want to discuss the report in an open forum >rather than via PM or e-mail? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: NTSB Report - - Yuba City AMD 601XL S-LSA from (11/04/2006_
From: "PLAV8R" <donald.j.dennehey(at)seagate.com>
Date: Nov 28, 2008
Patrick, PLEASE NOTE:The issues you have pointed out of the aircraft were there at the time of the purchase of the aircraft and soon after. Not at the time of the accident. -------- Donald J. Dennnehey Jr. donald.j.dennehey(at)seagate.com Prior Lake, Minnesota Cessna 175 N7656M Cessna 140 N90123 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=216771#216771 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: What Listers Have Been Saying
Wow! Many of the members making a List Support Contribution this year have been using the Comments field to leave a personal message about the Lists. Thank you! I have included a number of them below. Please read over a few and see if you perhaps can echo some of the same sentiments regarding the value of the Lists to you... There is only a couple more days left for this year's List Fund Raiser and we're still way behind previous years. If you've been waiting until the last minute to show your support, Now is the Time! Please make your Contribution and pick up a great gift at the same time! By Credit Card or Paypal: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or By Personal Check: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore, CA 94550-7227 Thank you in advance!! Matt Dralle Email List and Forums Administrator Here is some of the great feedback members have been including along with their personal Contributions this year... Over the years, the info I have received from the RV-List has saved me thousands of dollars, and dozens of hours of time by helping me avoid bad purchases, pointing me at vendors with low prices and excellent support, and providing solutions to the typical head scratchers that you run into. Kevin H Valuable service. Best List(s) on the Internet! George A Please accept this token not as an indicator of what this list has been worth to me this past year. Lew G Great information and entertainment. Tim V Thanks again for another great year of service. This project would be beyond me if it were not for the list. Moreover, the friendships I have found are worth their weight in GOLD! Robert B Great support you provide to all the subscribers! Freddie H Read it every day. PF B Thanks for your excellent management of the Matronics Lists! Your services are head and shoulders above the rest. James M Without the "List", there would be no Kolb "community". Bill T Thanks, Matt, for a great service! I've been monitoring and using the lists since 1999. Richard D Thanks for such a terrific site and for all the work and effort you put into it. John R A great service year after year. John D ..another year of fantastic service. Jerry B This list is a great resource. Arden A Great list. James M Lists were a great help while building HRII N561FS. John S Great resources for both the beginner and experienced. George R Good service. Gary G The List is an invaluable resource! William C AeroElectric list is a great source of info and learning! Janice J Thank you, Matt for being there for us making it all happen on the List for so many years - Great JOB! Sam S Thank you for providing a great venue. You definitely hit the nail on the head with your solicitation asking if readers look forward to receiving the email digests. I certainly do and when I move from a dreamer to a builder, I expect the anticipation will only increase. Joe S Thanks for a Perfect working list. Hans-Peter R Great List Bryan K Such a great selection of valuable forums! David G Nice job! Walt E Good resource... Robert P Thank you for another great year! Scott S I could not do this without you... Robert D I believe I've been a list member for over a decade now. Thanks for the service! Tim L Great List Hendrik W ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)primus.ca>
Subject: Re: To drag the tail or not.
Date: Nov 29, 2008
Ivor, If you go with the trike approach, and considering your description of rough field you plan to visit, I would recommend beefing up the upper nosegear bearing support area. I'd make it of heavier guage, with significantly more stiffening to prevent the buckling that has happened to a number of us. Tailwinds. Dave Austin 601HDS - 912 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2008
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: To drag the tail or not.
Dave Do you have any descriptions and/or photos or links to such of the beefing up that you mention? I'm committed to the trike, but I would like to access some of the back country strips in western MT. Terry >Ivor, >If you go with the trike approach, and considering your description of >rough field you plan to visit, I would recommend beefing up the upper >nosegear bearing support area. I'd make it of heavier guage, with >significantly more stiffening to prevent the buckling that has happened to >a number of us. >Tailwinds. >Dave Austin 601HDS - 912 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: "T. Graziano" <tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: To drag the tail or not.
Date: Nov 29, 2008
I do believe the updated current dwgs for the 601XL show "beef ups" to the upper bearing support firewall top stiffener, 6B7-1. (I found the flange cracked, probably from the beating it received from the pounding of the 6G2-3 nose strut stop plate, at about 300 landings) I also believe the nose gear firewall support channel 6B8-7 support structure has been beefed up at the upper and lower bearing support areas I have subsequently beefed up these areas.. (The dwg package I built from was dated 06/03). As to nose or tail dragger - I went to 600x6 main and nose wheels/tires/brakes with an 801 nose fork. When I ordered my kit, I asked Zenith to supply the bigger wheels etc so I would have a larger rough field footprint. My farm field is pretty rough. I probably lose a few knots in cruise, but only a few at the airspeeds that the XL flies (but I did take it to 195 mph IAS in Phase one) The major downside is a weight gain of probably 8 - 12 lbs. Tony Graziano 601XL/Jab; N493TG; 448 hrs ----- Original Message ----- From: Terry Phillips To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 8:48 AM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: To drag the tail or not. Dave Do you have any descriptions and/or photos or links to such of the beefing up that you mention? I'm committed to the trike, but I would like to access some of the back country strips in western MT. Terry Ivor, If you go with the trike approach, and considering your description of rough field you plan to visit, I would recommend beefing up the upper nosegear bearing support area. I'd make it of heavier guage, with significantly more stiffening to prevent the buckling that has happened to a number of us. Tailwinds. Dave Austin 601HDS - 912 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: "Dave Austin" <daveaustin2(at)primus.ca>
Subject: Re: To drag the tail or not.
Date: Nov 29, 2008
Terry, Mine was a 1993 edition and the upper bearing "Z" piece buckled along its length - no pics. I straightened it out and added an "L" piece at each end on the diagonal. That helped, but did not really solve the problem. I think the firewall must be distorting to a degree, which causes the twist. I'd put a 40 thou "L" across against the firewall underneath the "Z" a 25 thou "L" along the front of the "Z" piece, taking it round the corner to stiffen the diagonal shape. If I recall the "Z" piece is only 25 thou. I'd go 40 thou. Dave Austin 601HDS - 912 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: To drag the tail or not.
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Nov 29, 2008
see attached... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=216870#216870 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/6oz_of_beef_183.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: A.F.RUPP(at)att.net
Subject: Re: To drag the tail or not.
Date: Nov 29, 2008
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: To drag the tail or not.
Date: Nov 29, 2008
On Saturday 29 November 2008 10:14, Sabrina wrote: > > see attached... > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=216870#216870 > > > Attachments: > > http://forums.matronics.com//files/6oz_of_beef_183.jpg > I'm not sure where the problem lies, but attempting to access the attachment resulted in an error. At first I thought it was the double slash "//" after the .com, but i tried making it a single slash, and still got an error. ============================================= 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: A.F.RUPP(at)att.net
Subject: Re: To drag the tail or not.
Date: Nov 29, 2008
Terry, On the XL updates 3rd edition 2nd revision Aug 25, 05 drawings or later the nose gear and firewall is beefed up. Zenith did this in case the aircraft is used for instruction. Al Rupp 601XL Corvair Dave Do you have any descriptions and/or photos or links to such of the beefing up that you mention? I'm committed to the trike, but I would like to access some of the back country strips in western MT. Terry Ivor, If you go with the trike approach, and considering your description of rough field you plan to visit, I would recommend beefing up the upper nosegear bearing support area. I'd make it of heavier guage, with significantly more stiffening to prevent the buckling that has happened to a number of us. Tailwinds. Dave Austin 601HDS - 912 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Filling the rivet centre
...and the rivet is the original engineered piece it was developed to be wi th no variation due to varying degrees of shank to head work hardening... David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Thu, 11/27/08, eddies wrote: From: eddies <eddie.seve(at)clarity.com> Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Filling the rivet centre Date: Thursday, November 27, 2008, 6:06 PM If the look of the domed rivets bothers you, then you can always dimple the understructure and skins, then use a standard nose piece on your riveter to produce a flush finish, of course you still have a hole, but the appearance is quite nice. Eddie =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Last "Official" Day Of The List Fund Raiser!
Dear Listers, Its November 30th and that means three things:.. 1) Today I am now officially 45 years old... 2) It marks that last "official" day of this year's List Fund Raiser! 3) Its the last day I will be bugging everyone for a whole year! If you use the Lists and enjoy the content and the no-advertising, no-spam, and no-censorship way in which they're run, please make a Contribution today to support their continued operation and upkeep. Your $20 or $30 goes a long way to keep the List bills paid. I will be posting the List of Contributors next week so make sure your name is on it! Thank you to everyone that has made a Contribution so far this year! It is greatly appreciated. http://www.matronics.com/contribution Best regards, Matt Dralle Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LHusky(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 30, 2008
Subject: Wing Jigs
I need to borrow or buy a set of wing jigs. I had a pair but sent them to a guy and now I can not locate him. To be honest, I cannot even remember his name. I really need a set for a couple of weeks. If anyone has a set, email me off line. Thanks, Larry Husky Madras, Oregon **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 01, 2008
From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: questions about Michelin S38 tires for CH601HDS
Hi Roy, I have a 1300 lb gross limit on the plane. Very seldom fly loaded past 1250 lbs. The S-83 tire load-rating is very conservative, probably greater by 50%, because they are used on two wheel motor scooters and a tire failure (i.e. liability) would put the rider on the ground rather quickly. The tires I use are the same and I'd consider the rating adequate for any HDS. They have 125 hours on them with no perceptible wear. The S-83 (not S38) is a very high quality tire with good sidewalls and fit for the Matco 4 x 8 wheel. Do use inner tubes with the bent stems to assure that you're not dependent on a tubeless assembly. I initially had problems with the tube stems during assembly because the edges of the wheel stem holes were sharp and I had to round edges off and add a 1/16th x 1-1/2 diameter rubber washer with an I.D, the size of the stem. Beyond that and pressuring back up to 24 lbs each since cold weather, I've had no problems. see links, http://www.macsmachine.com/images/gear/full/tubetireandwasher.gif http://www.macsmachine.com/images/gear/full/tubewasherassy.gif http://www.macsmachine.com/images/gear/full/pantforkbracketrh.gif Note the fit of the tire and proportions, which are very good for this wheel. (Disregard the pant fork bracket as it's changed that to a better design) I think you'll like these tires, Larry McFarland Roy Thoma wrote: > Larry, > > I have a set of Michelin S38 tires for my CH601HDS and have delayed > installing them because the max load rating of is 375 lbs. I'm curious > if the S38's you use have the same max load rating? Obviously 3 x 375 > is 1125lbs, 75lbs less than the recommended gross weight for the HDS > and 175lbs than the gross weight for my HDS. > > What is the gross weight for your HDS? Are there standard margins for > tires that make you comfortable to exceed the max load rating of the > tires? Is there something else I'm missing? > > I hope this does not sound like I'm criticizing your choice to use > these tires; I am interested in using them also. I admire the work you > did building and flying your HDS. Thanks for your > continued contributions to the community. Feel free to post my > question and your answer to the Matronics site if you feel it is > appropriate. > > Regards, > > Roy Thoma > > N601RT: 2002 CH601HDS, nose gear, Rotax 912ULS, All electric, IFR > equipped, 1080hrs ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Aileron flutter
From: "Rexwinkle" <scottrexwinkle(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 01, 2008
Has anyone experienced aileron/wing flutter. What were your indications? Where was it felt? In the stick? In the floor? If you could please share your experiences with me I would appreciate it. Thank you, Scott Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217218#217218 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: labeling parts for painting
From: "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at>
Date: Dec 01, 2008
Hi all , after one week now I need to start putting some primer paint on the rudder and stab parts for final riveting. My question is how do you keep track of the parts to make sure they go back in the right place?? I was thinking of tying small labels to each part but how do you do this? Thanks for any ideas. kev -------- Austria ............. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217285#217285 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graeme@cole" <graeme(at)coletoolcentre.com.au>
Subject: Re: labeling parts for painting
Date: Dec 02, 2008
KEV JUST GROUP THE PARTS as you dissasemble. then debur and prime. THEY WILL USUALLY ONLY GO BACK TOGETHER ONE WAY HOLES ONLY LINE UP ONE WAY BUT IT SAVES TIME IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA WHERE THEY GO Graemecns ----- Original Message ----- From: "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 4:06 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: labeling parts for painting > > Hi all , after one week now I need to start putting some primer paint on > the rudder and stab parts for final riveting. > My question is how do you keep track of the parts to make sure they go > back in the right place?? I was thinking of tying small labels to each > part but how do you do this? > Thanks for any ideas. > kev > > -------- > Austria ............. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217285#217285 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 7:59 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: labeling parts for painting
Hi Kev, You can use felt tipped "Permanent Markers" such as Sharpies to make any marks you want on aluminum. The marks are easily removed with lacquer thinner. Paul XL getting close At 10:06 PM 12/1/2008, you wrote: > >Hi all , after one week now I need to start putting some primer >paint on the rudder and stab parts for final riveting. > My question is how do you keep track of the parts to make sure > they go back in the right place?? I was thinking of tying small > labels to each part but how do you do this? > Thanks for any ideas. >kev > >-------- >Austria ............. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: labeling parts for painting
Paul you must be using epoxy primer. The Sharpie ink will wash right off al ong with the rattle can primer! Here at Boeing we use the Sharpie to mark b ecasue even if washed with acetone, it always leaves a faint mark that can usually be read later... David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/2/08, Paul Mulwitz wrote: From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: labeling parts for painting Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 4:13 AM Hi Kev, You can use felt tipped "Permanent Markers" such as Sharpies to make any marks you want on aluminum. The marks are easily removed with lacquer thinner. Paul XL getting close At 10:06 PM 12/1/2008, you wrote: > > Hi all , after one week now I need to start putting some primer paint on the rudder and stab parts for final riveting. > My question is how do you keep track of the parts to make sure they go back in the right place?? I was thinking of tying small labels to each par t but how do you do this? > Thanks for any ideas. > kev > > -------- > Austria ............. =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: Debo Cox <sky_ranger161(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: labeling parts for painting
Hey Kev, I made some little tags and wired them with very fine wire through an end rivet hole. With these I could hold them up to paint, and hang them when I'm finished. Another way would be to write names on the table (or whatever you're painting on). Then just set each piece after painting in it's labeled spot. Hope this helps. Debo Cox Nags Head, NC Scratchbuilt XL/Corvair www.mykitlog.com/debo ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: labeling parts for painting
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Kevin, I used a Sharpie and marked letters or numbers.? I would put them on the inside, near? where things need to match up, but out of the area to be primed.? Many times I would mark two places to be sure of the right orientation.? I still have "A", "B", "C" and "1". "2", "3" marks in various places (not visible) on the airframe.? If markings would be visible when complete, I used "GooGone" or "GoofOff"? to easily remove the marks. (Those type products also work great to remove the paper ZAC parts labels, including the glue residue.)? If the whole part was to be painted, I did what Debo did and marked the underlying cardboard beside the part. Jay in Dallas -----Original Message----- From: K Dilks <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at> Sent: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:06 am Subject: Zenith601-List: labeling parts for painting Hi all , after one week now I need to start putting some primer paint on the rudder and stab parts for final riveting. My question is how do you keep track of the parts to make sure they go back in the right place?? I was thinking of tying small labels to each part but how do you do this? Thanks for any ideas. kev -------- Austria ............. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217285#217285 ________________________________________________________________________ Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron flutter
From: "Rexwinkle" <scottrexwinkle(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 02, 2008
I have purchased plans for a Zodiac CH 601 XL S/N: 6-7391. I am trying to gather information on this potential problem that I have been reading about and determine whether or not to proceed. All of the post that I have read talk about the cable tensions and what may happen if they are not correct. I am wondering what the warning signs of aileron flutter are, if any. If I am flying along are there going to be symptoms that I should recognize so that I can land the aircraft and rectify the problem before it becomes catastrophic? Have there been any design changes in the aircraft as a result of these accidents? As for your other questions, yes I am trying to turn up talk. I don't really know what you mean by opposition but I would have to guess no, and I do not work for any newspaper, magazine, website or any other type of periodical. Any help that I can get would be greatly appreciated. Scott Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217353#217353 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Aileron flutter
Hi Scott, I understand your request to be a reasonable one from your perspective. The problem is there have been many unpleasant discussions and indeed experiences on this issue so many list members are overly sensitive. Let me try to give you a quick summary of the facts as I understand them. There have been a number of in flight structural failures on Zodiac XLs. Oddly, I believe most of them have occurred with two people aboard. The number of really suspicious ones is something between 3 and 5 world wide in the last few years. That accounts for perhaps one percent of the XLs flying. One of the suspicious accidents has just had a "Factual report" done by the NTSB. I am anxiously awaiting the "Probable Cause" report which should follow. There has been a lot of attention lately to aileron cable tension. With the latest "AD" from Europe and other notifications from other sources, all XL flyers and builders should be well aware of this issue. Time will tell if this makes any change in the accident rate. My knowledge of flutter is not authoritative, but I will give you the best answers I can. Flutter is a deadly problem in airplanes. It happens when one of the controls starts flapping like a flag in a high wind. In many cases this leads quickly to general structural failure. When flutter happens the pilot knows something is going on from both noise and vibration but he may not know what it is. The only thing he can do is change the flight situation very quickly and hope the flutter stops. The normal approach is to pull up to reduce airspeed but unloading the wings by entering a steep bank might also work. You must decide for yourself whether to go on with the XL. Some builders have quit while others have continued on. The Zodiac XL is an ideal design from many perspectives. The problem rate has been high enough to be alarming but low enough that it doesn't suggest that all XL flyers are taking an unreasonable risk. Good luck, Paul XL getting close At 08:44 AM 12/2/2008, you wrote: >I have purchased plans for a Zodiac CH 601 XL S/N: 6-7391. I am >trying to gather information on this potential problem that I have >been reading about and determine whether or not to proceed. All of >the post that I have read talk about the cable tensions and what may >happen if they are not correct. I am wondering what the warning >signs of aileron flutter are, if any. If I am flying along are >there going to be symptoms that I should recognize so that I can >land the aircraft and rectify the problem before it becomes >catastrophic? Have there been any design changes in the aircraft as >a result of these accidents? As for your other questions, yes I am >trying to turn up talk. I don't really know what you mean by >opposition but I would have to guess no, and I do not work for any >newspaper, magazine, website or any other type of periodical. Any >help that I can get would be greatly appreciated. > >Scott ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: Aileron flutter
Date: Dec 02, 2008
On Tuesday 02 December 2008 10:44, Rexwinkle wrote: > > > I have purchased plans for a Zodiac CH 601 XL S/N: 6-7391. I am trying to > gather information on this potential problem that I have been reading about > and determine whether or not to proceed. All of the post that I have read > talk about the cable tensions and what may happen if they are not correct. > I am wondering what the warning signs of aileron flutter are, if any. If I > am flying along are there going to be symptoms that I should recognize so > that I can land the aircraft and rectify the problem before it becomes > catastrophic? Have there been any design changes in the aircraft as a > result of these accidents? As for your other questions, yes I am trying to > turn up talk. I don't really know what you mean by opposition but I would > have to guess no, and I do not work for any newspaper, magazine, website > or any other type of periodical. Any help that I can get would be > greatly appreciated. Scott, this whole issue is in its infancy, as far as the Zenith 601XL is concerned. It is not certain that aileron flutter is at fault, although some things point that way. For instance, there have been accident(s) in which the aileron separated from the aircraft. That is a possible indicator of aileron flutter. A number of the aircraft not involved in accidents have been found to have improperly tensioned (too loose) control cables. That could be a cause of aileron flutter. But if there has been an official finding of aileron flutter in any of the accidents, I'm not aware of it. The most recent preliminary finding of the NTSB in the case of one accident (suspected by some to have been aileron flutter) cites so many things done incorrectly by the operator, that it is going to be difficult to fix the blame, IMHO. Sad, but that's how the report appears to read. Since the only firm indication of a problem that could point in this direction has been the loose control cables, the designer has released a service bulletin asking owners to check their cable tensions regularly, which they should probably have been doing anyway. That's more of a precautionary move than anything else. Without knowing what, if anything, in the design, is causing this spate of problems, it is probably premature to make design changes. Or too firm a set of judgements of any type. As for the rest of your question, the usual sign of aileron flutter is exactly that: the aileron begins moving rapidly on its own. I would expect to sense significant vibration in the airframe and the controls. What do you do if this happens? An obvious thing is to slow down, if you can do it quickly enough. Without energy being pumped into the system, it is going to be harder to sustain the flutter. Try to get into slow, straight and level flight, and land as soon as practical. As for whether or not you should proceed, all I can tell you is that I'm just starting on the kit, and I don't plan to stop based on these reports. They're just too fragmentary and inconclusive. Like you, I would like to know the cause of the problems, if there is a common cause, and what we can do to prevent it. ============================================= 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 02, 2008
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Aileron flutter
My only advice to date:- - Like any other homebuilt airplane.--Build to plans,- rig correcty,- do a good preflight every time,-fly the plane inside parameters and give a good mantainance.- - Also not to forget: Once you have it glying, Check the weather, and plan ca refully your gasoline range. - Enjoy your building and later your flying. - Saludos Gary Gower, Flying from Chapala, Mexico, - --- On Tue, 12/2/08, Rexwinkle wrote: From: Rexwinkle <scottrexwinkle(at)yahoo.com> Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Aileron flutter Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 11:44 AM I have purchased plans for a Zodiac CH 601 XL S/N: 6-7391. I am trying to gather information on this potential problem that I have been reading about and determine whether or not to proceed. All of the post that I have read talk about the cable tensions and what may happen if they are not correct. I am wondering what the warning signs of aileron flutter are, if any. If I am f lying along are there going to be symptoms that I should recognize so that I can land the aircraft and rectify the problem before it becomes catastrophic? Have there been any design changes in the aircraft as a result of these accidents? As for your other questions, yes I am trying to turn up talk. I don't really know what you mean by opposition but I would have to guess no, and I do not wo rk for any newspaper, magazine, website or any other type of periodical. An y help that I can get would be greatly appreciated. Scott Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217353#217353 =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2008
From: vvkidd(at)mindspring.com
Subject: Re: labeling parts for painting
Go to a local stationary store and purchase some tags with a short string attached. Label and attach to each part. I didn't find it to be a problem, I only painted the areas where the parts came together. I painted the entire aircraft in amjor parts: fuselege, wings, cowl, etc. This seemed to work well. Victor Kidd N922VK Charleston, WV, USA -----Original Message----- >From: K Dilks <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at> >Sent: Dec 2, 2008 1:06 AM >To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Zenith601-List: labeling parts for painting > > >Hi all , after one week now I need to start putting some primer paint on the rudder and stab parts for final riveting. > My question is how do you keep track of the parts to make sure they go back in the right place?? I was thinking of tying small labels to each part but how do you do this? > Thanks for any ideas. >kev > >-------- >Austria ............. > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217285#217285 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave VanLanen" <davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Angle Drill Attachments
Date: Dec 02, 2008
I'm planning to purchase an angle drill attachment for getting into tight spaces. I noticed that there are the "regular" right-angle drill attachments, and then there are snake right-angle drill attachments available as well. Has anyone used both a "regular" right-angle drill attachment and a snake right-angle drill attachment, and if so, which do you prefer? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 6-B-3 Rivet spacing on bottom skin
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Dec 02, 2008
I am scratch building and wanted to confirm my best guess on the rivet spacing on the bottom skin. It looks like the perimeter (longeron) edges spacing could remain a constant of 9.5mm. The other question is are the dimensions from front to back 235, 225, 245, 270 rivet centerlines? The next dimension 560 is the cutout edge and not the rivet centerline. The we have 400, 400, 400, 340 which appear to be on the rivet centerlines. I want to layout the entire bottom skin rivet holes and cutouts but am a little unclear of the actual dimensions shown on the print. If I make all the dimensions to the rivet hole centerlines then the 560 cutout will be more like 540, probably not a show stopper just don't want to make a mistake. The date on the print is 8/05 -------- 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=217441#217441 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Working table height
From: "BobTezyk" <bob(at)eaglesnestestates.org>
Date: Dec 02, 2008
I built my build table with replaceable vertical posts. Both the base and the top have sockets that will accept any length square tube I want. The plan is to put in shorter verticals when I get to the fuselage so I don't have to work at an uncomfortable height. I built mine out of steel but the same concept can be executed in wood. Note the jack screws that take the table off of it's wheels. Not only can I fine tune the height but I can level the table top with then as well. I use an air operated impact wrench to turn a socket which fits the nuts welded to the top of the all thread. The finished table was primed, painted and topped with 3/4 plywood and a replaceable Masonite skin. Some pictures are attached. Hope that helps. Regards, Bob Tezyk 601XL QB Working on the Wings. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217444#217444 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/bldtable09_954.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/bldtable06_167.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/bldtable05_125.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/bldtable04_473.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron flutter
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Dec 03, 2008
welcome Scott to XL building. Sorry if my first response sounded cold. As someone else said there is a person who has joined a lot of lists of late and its almost like a mass email message badmouthing the XL and all things Zenith. I for one think the XL is a great plane and am 3/4 the way through building. Am I going to continue, yes. why.. 1. The Hinze family believe it is safe, Chris lets his own kids fly in the planes he designed. what parent would not put the safety of their kids first. 2. the XL plane has been looked at intensely by a number of organizations FAA LAA RAA ect ect. if it passes their design criteria without a major change then to me thats going to be a great safety advertising and selling point. if they find something even better, as once the change is made it is been checked and safe to fly.. 3. reality check, I saw a Cesnna crashed the other day. all planes may crash if flown outside the design envelope. 4. Flutter.. saw it happen on a balanced C130 Aileron, plane nearly crashed . Build it fly it learn it and enjoy it. . Chris. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217462#217462 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 6-B-3 Rivet spacing on bottom skin
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Dec 03, 2008
That's my reading also. However if I stack all the dimensions +10mm for the rear rivet line spacing I get the total dimension of the length of the bottom skin. 235+225+245+270+560+400+400+400+340+10=1385 -------- 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=217465#217465 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: labeling parts for painting
From: "sdthatcher" <s_thatcher(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Dec 03, 2008
Hi Kevin, I used the Sharpie Method for marking parts but made the mistake of using it on surfaces that would later be polished. The especially embarrassing notes I had made on the fuselage skin included "This side up". Now when people look at the polished surface they see the faint letters "This side up" and immediately start laughing! -------- 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=217491#217491 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: labeling parts for painting
From: "stepinwolf" <robert.pelland(at)cgocable.ca>
Date: Dec 03, 2008
Scott, In the future you might want to use the " Dry Erasable markers " from Sharpie, that are sold for the White message boards. These can be easily erased with your finger, ( no need for any toxic liquids ) and they leave no marks on the surface after they have been removed. Robert -------- Live each day, as if it was your last Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217494#217494 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 6-B-3 Rivet spacing on bottom skin
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon(at)comcast.net>
Date: Dec 03, 2008
Just talked to Roger and I will be making the access hole 540mm rather than 560mm. Now all the numbers line up front to back. Also going to use 9mm edge spacing for the longeron rivet lines. -------- 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=217505#217505 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: labeling parts for painting
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 03, 2008
I use a set of number/letter stamps and stamp a label on the parts with a hammer. It is fast and legible through the paint. Take about 10 seconds per part. Regards, Jeff Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217508#217508 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Angle Drill Attachments
Date: Dec 03, 2008
Angle Drill AttachmentsDave- I picked up an HF corded right angle drill, not just an adaptor, on sale for $30. I keep broken drill bits for use with it for the really tight spaces. It works, but I wish the chuck was keyed- it's kind of hard to get a good grip on a chunk of drill bit with a keyless chuck. Sands your thumb and forefinger a bit. And the cord is a PIA, but you'll get your $30 worth of use out of it. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave VanLanen To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com ; zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:08 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Angle Drill Attachments I'm planning to purchase an angle drill attachment for getting into tight spaces. I noticed that there are the "regular" right-angle drill attachments, and then there are snake right-angle drill attachments available as well. Has anyone used both a "regular" right-angle drill attachment and a snake right-angle drill attachment, and if so, which do you prefer? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Priming the rivets and the outside skin.
From: "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at>
Date: Dec 04, 2008
Does any one here etch prime the rivets before fitting? and does any one put the etch prime on the outside of the skins, especially along the rivet lines? These seem silly questions but as you can guess what I'm doing at the moment and want to start off well. Not sure where it will be parked so taking the worst case etc etc Thanks Kev Rudder and stab frame ready to paint..... -------- Austria ............. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217590#217590 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aileron flutter
From: "Rexwinkle" <scottrexwinkle(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2008
Actually in the US two of the crashes were factory built and two were home built. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217619#217619 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: Aileron flutter
Date: Dec 04, 2008
On Thursday 04 December 2008 10:13, Rexwinkle wrote: > > > Actually in the US two of the crashes were factory built and two were home > built. Which might, repeat, might, suggest the problem is one of maintenance rather than construction. ============================================= 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 04, 2008
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Aileron flutter
> On Thursday 04 December 2008 10:13, Rexwinkle wrote: > > Actually in the US two of the crashes were factory built and two were home > > built. > Which might, repeat, might, suggest the problem is one of maintenance rather > than construction. Might. Note also that the two factory aircraft were built by two different factories: one by AMD, one by CZAW. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL 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: Dec 04, 2008
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Aileron flutter
> The very slippery design can easily exceed all of the LSA limits imposed > on it - and under those conditions all bets are off. What LSA limits can it exceed? The only one that matters in this discussion is a Vh of 120 knots, and that's not a speed of anything other than regulatory interest. *ANY* airplane can exceed Vno easily; this is hardly limited to the Zodiac. I've never gotten close to Vne, even in a power-on descent in still air. The LSA limits aren't ones relating to structural strength; they're there to make sure the aircraft can be safely flown by pilots with limited experience. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL 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: Aileron flutter
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2008
jmaynard wrote: > > Might. Note also that the two factory aircraft were built by two different > factories: one by AMD, one by CZAW. And only God knows what how CZAW built them considering the financial issues that have come out about them. -------- 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=217631#217631 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 04, 2008
Subject: Re: Angle Drill Attachments
From: "Brian R. Wood" <brianrobertwood(at)gmail.com>
Personally I prefer 100 to 1 a purpose built air angle drill. I bought one used many years ago, and every time I use it I am reminded of how smart I was to have bought it (big grin). But they are expensive new, and not everyone has access to used ones at a good price. A snake drill gets in some tight places but it is very difficult to control because you have to use it one handed (because your other hand is holding the "mother-ship drill"). With a good helper it can be a good solution. The angle attachments I don't know about, I have never used one, but they look clumsy to me, and I am clumsy enough without help! Brian escreveu: > I'm planning to purchase an angle drill attachment for getting into tight > spaces. I noticed that there are the "regular" right-angle drill > attachments, and then there are snake right-angle drill attachments > available as well. Has anyone used both a "regular" right-angle drill > attachment and a snake right-angle drill attachment, and if so, which do > you > prefer? -- Brian R. Wood JH Manutencao Anapolis. Goias, Brazil ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Priming the rivets and the outside skin.
From: "countzero" <robyboy(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2008
Hello KD, I'm almost ready to prime and asking similar questions, I have the tail and wings at that stage now. The primer has a two month life once opened so I decided to shoot the rudder, stab and wings in one batch. When the parts are all fully primed, inside and out, I will coat all the mating surfaces with jointing compound before riveting. I've never heard of priming the rivets before, are you using wet primer for the rivets or letting it dry? Rob Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217654#217654 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Priming the rivets and the outside skin.
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2008
Just a data point. When I started the build process oh so many years ago I called one of the top aviation paint places over in Mena Arkansas to get a quote on paint and ask them what I should do during the build process to make the painting process cheaper/easier for them. After asking what kind of AL I was building with and me explaining the types of rivets that were being used they said don't do a thing to anyplace I wanted them to shoot paint and to clean up the Zinc Chromate as best I can before I bring them the plane. -------- 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=217664#217664 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Angle Drill Attachments
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2008
I bought a not to expensive air angle drill and use it often but there are still some places that the angle attachment really comes in handy. My only gripe about the angle attachment is there isn't any local source for the bits. -------- 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=217665#217665 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: All 601XL grounded in Netherlands
From: "rans6andrew" <andrewcattell(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2008
more from the LAA today: http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/HomePage/zenair.html not much extra info but I hear on the grape vine that they have found cause for concern the XL wing and are working on proving it. Watch this space. Andrew. 601UL heading for the paintshop anytime soon. -------- 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=217779#217779 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Main Gear Attachment Nut Torque...?
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 05, 2008
Does anyone know the correct torque value for the AN365-820 fiber lock nuts on the 1/2" Grade 8 bolts on the Main Gear Attachment bracket 6B11-4...? AC43.13-1B gives values on page 7-9, however I believe these values are for "metal against metal". In the case of the Main Gear Attachment, we have "Metal against Rubber". What have other builders done...? - Pat PS - The drawings specify that these nuts can be used, and the farm boy in me thinks that the fiber nut is better than the castle nut because a bolt WITHOUT a hole in it is going to be stronger than a bolt WITH a hole in it. But the torque question is still valid in any case. -------- Patrick 601XL/Corvair N63PZ (reserved) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217855#217855 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: All 601XL grounded in Netherlands
From: "FlyingMonkey" <palbertacanada(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 06, 2008
Terry Phillips wrote: > David > > Since 7/8" is thicker than 3/4", by reduced profile I didn't mean > "thinner". By profile, I meant the shape cut from the sheet aluminum, be it > 3/4" or 7/8" thick. Probably a poor choice of words. > > I don't actually know that the Grove gear is 7/8" thick. That's just the > thickness shown on the Grove website: > > http://www.groveaircraft.com/landing_gear.html > > Similarly, I haven't measured the thickness of my ZAC gear. But 6-G-3 gives > it as 3/4". > > I just checked the yield strength of the two alloys: 73,000 psi for the > 7075 vs. 40,000 psi for the 6061. It would appear that the Grove gear is > probably lighter only because it uses a higher strength alloy, which allows > for a smaller profile. Since > > weight = area * thickness * density > > Assuming the density of the two alloys is the same, and given the Grove > weight of 32.2 lbs and the ZAC weight of 43 lbs, I calculate that the area > of the Grove gear must be ~64% of the area of the ZAC gear. But one could > not achieve that small profile with 6061 because of its lower strength. > > Yeah, there are lots of ways to trim 10 or 20 lbs off the takeoff weight. > My wife suggests I start with the 20 lbs around my waist :-) > > Terry > > > > > If by "reduced" you mean thinner, the Grove gear is actually 1/8 inch > > thicker (if indeed it is 7/8" vs. ZAC 3/4". > > > > 10 lbs is significant. Every bit adds up. The paint might weight 3 to 4 > > lb/gallon after it dries. You can save some weight by replacing the > > electric flap motor with a pull lever. If you live in a warm climate, use > > a smaller battery and save a few lbs. The wheels make a big difference > > depending on what you choose etc. I'm sure there are a lot of weight > > saving tips out there. > > > > > > Terry Phillips wrote: > > > > > > The Grove website says that their 601XL gear is rated at 1320 lbs, and > > > weighs 32.2 lbs, which is about 10 lbs less than the ZAC gear (per > > 6-G-3). The Grove gear is 7/8" thick 7075-T6 while the ZAC gear is 3/4" > > 6061-T6, so the profile of the Grove gear must be significantly reduced > > from the ZAC profile. > > > > > > > > > > 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/ " Assuming the density of the two alloys is the same,..." They're not though-7075-T6 is an alloy of aluminum ( density of 2.7 grams per/cubic centimeter) and far more dense zinc ( 7.14 grams per cubic centimeter ), ....while 6061 is an alloy of 2.7 gram /cc aluminum and lighter Silicon ( 2.329 g/cc ) and magnesium ( 1.73 g/cc ) . Interesting discussion , though-and I don't know how far off those densities would alter your calculation, since I don't know how much of each different metal is alloyed with the aluminum -since the second digit is a zero (http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/mepages/aluminfo.php) in each case. == Terry Phillips wrote: > I was surprised that CZAW would > sell their 601XL for US use at 600 kg gross with a gear rated at 550 kg. > Apparently, they did not. The only CZAW 601XL in the US for which I had > definite landing gear information did have the composite gear. But I just > checked and that 601XL's gross was 1232 lbs, not 1320 As you may know, the 1232 pounds is the Canadian Advanced Ultralight maximum gross ( the spec that Chris H wrote when he was still making aircraft in Canada, his starting place in North America) . He wrote the Canadian aircraft regulation to meet his then new Zodiac HD , -the HD ul model met the original( 1991 ) Canadian Advanced Ultralight spec of 1058 pounds max gross , when the xl came out it arrived it met the Canadian spec increase to 1232 pounds. (1232 lbs = 560 kg ) ( scroll to bottom of list ) http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/general/CCARCS/advancedullist.htm With the standard 100-hp Rotax 912S engine a basic European Zodiac XL ULM weighs 265 kg. (585 lbs). European ultralight aircraft must comply to : A max gross weight of 450 kg, except in Germany and Finland it is 472.5 kg with rescue system. ( Amphibians are 50 kg higher ) The max empty weight in UK it is 265 kg , in Scandinavian countries it is 275 kg , in Germany it's 275 kg plus rescue system. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217884#217884 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: All 601XL grounded in Netherlands
From: "Thruster87" <alania(at)optusnet.com.au>
Date: Dec 06, 2008
LSA aircraft in Australia can go to 600kg MTOW which includes the 601xl Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217886#217886 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Riveting rudder hinge
From: "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at>
Date: Dec 06, 2008
Hi all , just riveting the rudder together and noticed I cant get the rivet gun on the rivets for the upper hinge brackets, also I see people leave them off until later but I cant find any reference to this. How do you rivet these 2 parts on? plane says A5 rivets Regards Kev -------- Austria ............. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217890#217890 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2008
From: vvkidd(at)mindspring.com
Subject: Zenith601-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/05/08
Patrick: Your thinking about the hole in the bolt and nut is sound to a point. However, the cotter pin in the bolt/nut assembly provides the necessary 'filler' to replace most of the nuts strength. The castle nut is there for a purpose, it is less prone to fail as a result of vibration. The gear attachment bolt difinitey receive lots of vibration. I would NOT use a fiber nut for the gear assembly. The castle nut is there for a purpose to prevent failure due to vibration. I drilled the gear attachment bolts and used castle nuts and the correct sized cotter pin. I called Zenith about the torque on the 1/2" nuts since it was metal to rubber, the answer was, we just tighten them up snug. Not much of an answer, so I looked up the torque value for the bolt/nut assembly (1/2" coarse thread bolt @ 110 ft lbs dry) and used that plus a bit of 'shady tree garage' logic, compress the rubber about 1/3 its thickness. By the way I did not use the supplied split heater hose in my assembly. I visited a local machine amd manufacturing shop for assistance. They supplied me with a replacement product that was much better than the heater hose, it was flat neoprene. Hope this helps. Victor Kidd N922VK e/w 300A Jabiru Flying when the Wx allows. Not too much lately though. Charleston, WV CRW > > >Subject: Zenith601-List: Main Gear Attachment Nut Torque...? >From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> > > >Does anyone know the correct torque value for the AN365-820 fiber lock nuts on >the 1/2" Grade 8 bolts on the Main Gear Attachment bracket 6B11-4...? > >AC43.13-1B gives values on page 7-9, however I believe these values are for "metal >against metal". In the case of the Main Gear Attachment, we have "Metal against >Rubber". > >What have other builders done...? > >- Pat > > >PS - The drawings specify that these nuts can be used, and the farm boy in me thinks >that the fiber nut is better than the castle nut because a bolt WITHOUT >a hole in it is going to be stronger than a bolt WITH a hole in it. But the torque >question is still valid in any case. > >-------- >Patrick >601XL/Corvair >N63PZ (reserved) > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217855#217855 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Riveting rudder hinge
From: "Ianrat" <ianrat(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Dec 06, 2008
I have used small bolts instead of the outer two rivets. Some plans were have a problem with the hinge becoming loose over time. If you can not get the rivet gun onto the rivet you can get a puller that has the sides ground back. Most tool suppliers will have these. Yes i did wait until i was able to fit the rudder to the fuselage before fitting the top hinges. Hope this helps you out Ianrat Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217895#217895 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/29092008179_180.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/29092008177_172.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/05/08
Date: Dec 06, 2008
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Victor, I disagree with your statement that "the cotter pin in the bolt/nut assembly provides the necessary 'filler' to replace most of the nuts strength."? I think you meant to say "the bolt's strenght", but it definitely does not.? The hole reduces the sectional area of the bolt and the only way to "fill" it would by welding. However, the hole is beyond the area where the strength is required, so it does not effect the clamping strength of the bolt. Another way to secure the nut would be to install a jamb nut. That one could be torqued to the proper amount for the bolt, without regard for the torque of the primary nut. Jay in Dallas -----Original Message----- From: vvkidd(at)mindspring.com Sent: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 6:39 am Subject: Zenith601-List: Zenith601-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/05/08 Patrick: Your thinking about the hole in the bolt and nut is sound to a point. However, the cotter pin in the bolt/nut assembly provides the necessary 'filler' to replace most of the nuts strength. The castle nut is there for a purpose, it is less prone to fail as a result of vibration. The gear attachment bolt difinitey receive lots of vibration. I would NOT use a fiber nut for the gear assembly. The castle nut is there for a purpose to prevent failure due to vibration. I drilled the gear attachment bolts and used castle nuts and the correct sized cotter pin. I called Zenith about the torque on the 1/2" nuts since it was metal to rubber, the answer was, we just tighten them up snug. Not much of an answer, so I looked up the torque value for the bolt/nut assembly (1/2" coarse thread bolt @ 110 ft lbs dry) and used that plus a bit of 'shady tree garage' logic, compress the rubber about 1/3 its thickness. By the way I did not use the supplied split heater hose in my assembly. I visited a local machine amd manufacturing shop for assistance. They supplied me with a replacement product that was much better than the heater hose, it was flat neoprene. Hope this helps. Victor Kidd N922VK e/w 300A Jabiru Flying when the Wx allows. Not too much lately though. Charleston, WV CRW > > >Subject: Zenith601-List: Main Gear Attachment Nut Torque...? >From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> > > >Does anyone know the correct torque value for the AN365-820 fiber lock nuts on >the 1/2" Grade 8 bolts on the Main Gear Attachment bracket 6B11-4...? > >AC43.13-1B gives values on page 7-9, however I believe these values are for "metal >against metal". In the case of the Main Gear Attachment, we have "Metal against >Rubber". > >What have other builders done...? > >- Pat > > >PS - The drawings specify that these nuts can be used, and the farm boy in me thinks >that the fiber nut is better than the castle nut because a bolt WITHOUT >a hole in it is going to be stronger than a bolt WITH a hole in it. But the torque >question is still valid in any case. > >-------- >Patrick >601XL/Corvair >N63PZ (reserved) > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217855#217855 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dirk Zahtilla" <ideaz1(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Riveting rudder hinge
Date: Dec 06, 2008
look here and see the video "pull riveting in tight places" it is quite simple. http://www.eaa.org/video/homebuilders.html?videoId=1858922506 Dirk > Hi all , > just riveting the rudder together and noticed I cant get the rivet gun on > the rivets for the upper hinge brackets, also I see people leave them off > until later but I cant find any reference to this. > How do you rivet these 2 parts on? plane says A5 rivets > > Regards > Kev > > -------- > Austria ............. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217890#217890 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Naumuk" <naumuk(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Riveting rudder hinge
Date: Dec 06, 2008
Kev- The reason you leave one set of hinges off is to make it easier to line them up with the fuse. Being as I'm the valedictorian of the school of hard knocks, take it from me-I highly recommend waiting. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dirk Zahtilla" <ideaz1(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 10:34 AM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Riveting rudder hinge > > > look here and see the video "pull riveting in tight places" it is quite > simple. http://www.eaa.org/video/homebuilders.html?videoId=1858922506 > > Dirk > >> Hi all , >> just riveting the rudder together and noticed I cant get the rivet gun on >> the rivets for the upper hinge brackets, also I see people leave them off >> until later but I cant find any reference to this. >> How do you rivet these 2 parts on? plane says A5 rivets >> >> Regards >> Kev >> >> -------- >> Austria ............. >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217890#217890 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy" <rpf(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/05/08
Date: Dec 06, 2008
Fiber nuts work fine in that application. I've had them on for over 230 hours and they have NOT vibrated loose. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: <vvkidd(at)mindspring.com> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 6:39 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Zenith601-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/05/08 > > > Patrick: > > Your thinking about the hole in the bolt and nut is sound to a point. > However, the cotter pin in the bolt/nut assembly provides the necessary > 'filler' to replace most of the nuts strength. The castle nut is there > for a purpose, it is less prone to fail as a result of vibration. The > gear attachment bolt difinitey receive lots of vibration. I would NOT use > a fiber nut for the gear assembly. The castle nut is there for a purpose > to prevent failure due to vibration. > > I drilled the gear attachment bolts and used castle nuts and the correct > sized cotter pin. I called Zenith about the torque on the 1/2" nuts since > it was metal to rubber, the answer was, we just tighten them up snug. Not > much of an answer, so I looked up the torque value for the bolt/nut > assembly (1/2" coarse thread bolt @ 110 ft lbs dry) and used that plus a > bit of 'shady tree garage' logic, compress the rubber about 1/3 its > thickness. By the way I did not use the supplied split heater hose in my > assembly. I visited a local machine amd manufacturing shop for > assistance. They supplied me with a replacement product that was much > better than the heater hose, it was flat neoprene. > > Hope this helps. > > Victor Kidd > N922VK e/w 300A Jabiru > Flying when the Wx allows. Not too much lately though. > Charleston, WV CRW > > >> >> >>Subject: Zenith601-List: Main Gear Attachment Nut Torque...? >>From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> >> >> >>Does anyone know the correct torque value for the AN365-820 fiber lock >>nuts on >>the 1/2" Grade 8 bolts on the Main Gear Attachment bracket 6B11-4...? >> >>AC43.13-1B gives values on page 7-9, however I believe these values are >>for "metal >>against metal". In the case of the Main Gear Attachment, we have "Metal >>against >>Rubber". >> >>What have other builders done...? >> >>- Pat >> >> >>PS - The drawings specify that these nuts can be used, and the farm boy in >>me thinks >>that the fiber nut is better than the castle nut because a bolt WITHOUT >>a hole in it is going to be stronger than a bolt WITH a hole in it. But >>the torque >>question is still valid in any case. >> >>-------- >>Patrick >>601XL/Corvair >>N63PZ (reserved) >> >> >>Read this topic online here: >> >>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217855#217855 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JohnDRead(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 06, 2008
Subject: Re: Riveting rudder hinge
Hi Kevin; I found that with many of the rivets that are close in I had to modify a hand riveter. I did this by grinding off the sides of the rivetter so I could get in close. The rudder is one of many places where the air riveter cannot get in close enough. I can send a picture if this would help John Read CH701 in Colorado Phone: 303-648-3261 Fax: 303-648-3262 Cell: 719-494-4567 In a message dated 12/6/2008 5:29:37 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at writes: --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "K Dilks" Hi all , just riveting the rudder together and noticed I cant get the rivet gun on the rivets for the upper hinge brackets, also I see people leave them off until later but I cant find any reference to this. How do you rivet these 2 parts on? plane says A5 rivets Regards Kev -------- Austria ............. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217890#217890 **************Stay in touch with ALL of your friends: update your AIM, Bebo, Facebook, and MySpace pages with just one click. The NEW AOL.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Main Gear Attachment Nut Torque...?
From: "GLJSOJ1" <gljno10(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 06, 2008
I did mine at 35 ft# and used the castle nuts. It did distort the extrusion some, but they are tight. There have been other post on this subject so might want to check the archives also. -------- 601XL N676L reserved ALMOST DONE CHESAPEAKE VA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217978#217978 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Main Gear Attachment Nut Torque...?
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 06, 2008
There was some discussion on this topic here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=52550&highlight=6b114 Since fiber lock nuts (as well as castle nuts) are specified on the plans, that's what I'll go with, along with "witness paint" to aid in future preflight inspections. I torqued them up to 35 ft-lbs for now. It felt like more would be too much. My original target torque was around 48 ft-lbs based on the average AC43 value converted to ft-lbs, assuming I read the chart correctly and assuming that it's applicable to Grade 8 bolts, which it may not be. Today my XL is standing on it's own gear for the first time. :) - Pat -------- Patrick 601XL/Corvair N63PZ (reserved) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217981#217981 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Date: Dec 06, 2008
Subject: Re: Main Gear Attachment Nut Torque...?
Here is a quote from a post by Jeff (Afterfxllc(at)aol.com) from Dec 3rd, 2007 (message #51120) in a thread titled "XL Landing gear nuts Torque": "Talked to zenith today and asked if we torque the landing gear nut to the specs or just snug and they said it can be torque to specs but good and tight is fine also. I told them I would tighten mine down until the angle just started to bend and give them the torque and they said they would post it in the updates. It's funny how so many have been built and the question has never come" -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of PatrickW Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 7:57 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Main Gear Attachment Nut Torque...? There was some discussion on this topic here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=52550&highlight=6b114 Since fiber lock nuts (as well as castle nuts) are specified on the plans, that's what I'll go with, along with "witness paint" to aid in future preflight inspections. I torqued them up to 35 ft-lbs for now. It felt like more would be too much. My original target torque was around 48 ft-lbs based on the average AC43 value converted to ft-lbs, assuming I read the chart correctly and assuming that it's applicable to Grade 8 bolts, which it may not be. Today my XL is standing on it's own gear for the first time. :) - Pat -------- Patrick 601XL/Corvair N63PZ (reserved) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217981#217981 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LSAPilot" <lsapilot(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: How much is your 601 costing to build?
Date: Dec 07, 2008
I thought I would see what everyone's expectations are on cost to build a 601XL. I am sitting on $40,199.00 with about 5k to go. My kit is complete, and I am working on the engine. I bought my kit in component packages. I am using a Corvair, which is relatively inexpensive to the other options out there. about $8k for the motor (built by someone else) and 3-4k more on FWF. Avionics are probably the largest option, I have a used Garmin 430/330/430 stack and a MGL Enigma EFIS that adds just over $10k to my base. I am sure those of you who scratch build are going to be way below this price, and the QB croud will be slightly higher. Jon Burns Little Elm, TX PS. This does not include shop tools, except for the tools from Zenith that I purchased with my Rudder kit, and a $200 crimper for avionics. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: How much is your 601 costing to build?
From: "GLJSOJ1" <gljno10(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 07, 2008
I'm about 21,000 for the airframe and the rests puts me about 35,000 plus total. I went with a O-200 that is used, hand held radio that is hard wired to the panel, dynon D100 and steam gages for rest and a used hand held Lawrence GPS. I also used the component kits from Zenith. Right now I'm waiting on insurance so I can take it to the airport. I put every option I could on the airframe, electric trim pitch and roll, four fuel tanks and baggage lockers with dual sticks. My wife calls it the MISTRESS, and it sure cost like one. -------- 601XL N676L reserved ALMOST DONE CHESAPEAKE VA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=218037#218037 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: cw4jasper(at)bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: How much is your 601 costing to build?
Date: Dec 07, 2008
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List of Contributors 2008
Dear Listers, This year's Fund Raiser has drawn to a close and I want to thank everyone that so generously made a contribution this year in support of the Matronics Email List and Forum operation. Your generosity keeps the wheels on this cart and I truly appreciate the many kind words of encouragement and financial reimbursement. If you haven't yet made a Contribution in support of this year's Fund Raiser, please feel free to do so. The great List Fund Raiser gifts will be available on the Contribution site for a little while longer, so hurry and make your Contribution today and still get your great gift! Once again, the URL for the Contribution web site is: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by personal check to: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 I would like to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ), Jon Croke of HomebuiltHELP ( http://www.homebuilthelp.com ) and Bob Nuckolls of AeroElectric ( http://www.aeroelectric.com ) for their extremely generous support during this year's Fund Raiser through the contribution of discounted merchandise. These are great guys that support the aviation industry and I encourage each and every Lister to have a look at their products. Thank you Andy, Jon and Bob!! Your support is very much appreciated! And finally, below you will find a web link to the 2008 List of Contributors current as of 12/7/08! Have a look at this list of names as *these* are the people that make all of these List services possible! I can't thank each of you enough for your support and great feedback during this year's Fund Raiser! THANK YOU! http://www.matronics.com/loc/2008.html I will be shipping out all of the gifts around the end of December. In most cases, gifts will be shipped via US Postal Service. Once again, thank you for making this year's List Fund Raiser successful! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: 601 Header Tank
Date: Dec 08, 2008
Hi Guys, My 601XL is having an O-200 on the front and since it came off a C150 it does not have a mechanical fuel pump (different cam end). Has anybody got any details of the HDS fuel system (which I understand includes a header tank)? I plan on using two fuel pumps in series (ala Corvair) and pump the wing tanks into the header tank. A diagram/photo would be good. Cheers Peter Wonthaggi Australia http://zodiac.cpc-world.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 07, 2008
From: mversteeg <maarten.versteeg(at)swri.org>
Subject: Re: Main Gear Attachment Nut Torque...?
Hello Patric, Sorry, I don't know the answer on your question. But concerning your argument that a fiber nut is better because a bolt without a hole is stronger then a bolt with a hole. I would agree that a bolt without a hole is stronger than a bolt with a hole, but I also think that the hole only affects the part of the bolt that doesn't matter. The hole in the bolt is below the grip range of the bolt, so the load on the hole is only the cotter pin. Regards, Maarten 601 XL, plans building, all aerodynamic surfaces done > Subject: Zenith601-List: Main Gear Attachment Nut Torque...? > From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> > > > Does anyone know the correct torque value for the AN365-820 fiber lock nuts on > the 1/2" Grade 8 bolts on the Main Gear Attachment bracket 6B11-4...? > > AC43.13-1B gives values on page 7-9, however I believe these values are for "metal > against metal". In the case of the Main Gear Attachment, we have "Metal against > Rubber". > > What have other builders done...? > > - Pat > > > PS - The drawings specify that these nuts can be used, and the farm boy in me thinks > that the fiber nut is better than the castle nut because a bolt WITHOUT > a hole in it is going to be stronger than a bolt WITH a hole in it. But the torque > question is still valid in any case. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <paulrod36(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Riveting rudder hinge
Date: Dec 08, 2008
John, several years ago somebody came up with a good fix-- They took a piece of half inch rod, drilled it slightly larger than the rivet stem, cut it about half an inch long, and then ground a 30 to 40 degree flat on one end. The idea was that you slip it on the rivet shaft with the angled flat to the puller, ran the shaft into the riveter nose, and pulled the rivet. The shaft then bends around the corner as you pull. I made one, and it worked well. Paul Rodriguez 601XL/Corvair ----- Original Message ----- From: JohnDRead(at)aol.com<mailto:JohnDRead(at)aol.com> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 5:45 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Riveting rudder hinge Hi Kevin; I found that with many of the rivets that are close in I had to modify a hand riveter. I did this by grinding off the sides of the rivetter so I could get in close. The rudder is one of many places where the air riveter cannot get in close enough. I can send a picture if this would help John Read CH701 in Colorado Phone: 303-648-3261 Fax: 303-648-3262 Cell: 719-494-4567 In a message dated 12/6/2008 5:29:37 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at writes: Hi all , just riveting the rudder together and noticed I cant get the rivet gun on the rivets for the upper hinge brackets, also I see people leave them off until later but I cant find any reference to this. How do you rivet these 2 parts on? plane says A5 rivets Regards Kev -------- Austria ............. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=217890#217890 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Stay in touch with ALL of your friends: update your AIM, Bebo, Facebookn=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000012">The NEW AOL.com. http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List m/Navigator?Zenith601-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Riveting rudder hinge
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 09, 2008
If you use bolts you will need to have access plates installed. A better way if you're worried about the rivets is to use Solids. They are MUCH stronger than A5's Regards, Jeff Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=218486#218486 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JohnDRead(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 09, 2008
Subject: Re: Riveting rudder hinge
If you are worried about strength why not use A6 rivets. If you use either bolts or solids you will need access to the inside of the rudder. John Read Phone: 303-648-3261 Fax: 303-648-3262 Cell: 719-494-4567 In a message dated 12/9/2008 9:28:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, n85ae(at)yahoo.com writes: --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "n85ae" If you use bolts you will need to have access plates installed. A better way if you're worried about the rivets is to use Solids. They are MUCH stronger than A5's Regards, Jeff Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=218486#218486 **************Stay in touch with ALL of your friends: update your AIM, Bebo, Facebook, and MySpace pages with just one click. The NEW AOL.com. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Riveting rudder hinge
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 10, 2008
You could use CherryMax expensive, but strong If you use solids you only need access when you put them in, but then you can close the rudder skin. Bolts, you will need permanent access. Unless you put in nutplates. I bought a rivet gun to shoot solids, and the better I get with it, more I find I use it. I made a test fixture with a hydraulic jack, and A5's really tear apart easily, always before the surrounding material. Solids generally tear out a hunk of material. I have never failed a solid, always the material the rivet is in fails first (that is with 6061 sheet) A5's are strong initially in sheer because of the steel core, but as soon as the structure deforms, the heads pop right off. Not very impressive in my opinion. Regards, Jeff Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=218736#218736 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Thrust line?
From: "heisan" <justin(at)expertron.co.za>
Date: Dec 11, 2008
Hi all, I will soon be the owner of a partially complete HDS kit, and am busy engine shopping. I have found an 80hp AeroVee engine that was removed from a HD. It flew the aircraft reasonably well, but take-off performance was really bad. I was considering buying the engine and fitting a reduction drive and in flight adjustable Ivo Prop to make the most out of the engine. Now the question is, how sensitive is the HDS to thrust line? I can keep the existing engine mount, which will move the thrust line up 130mm (5") from the standard position, or I can invest a bit more in a new engine mount. I see from the photo's on Zeniths website that there is at least one HD out there with a redrive and a high thrust line, so it can't be all bad? If anybody knows how good/bad a 130mm higher thrust line will be, I would appreciate any feedback! Thanks, Justin Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=218844#218844 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 11, 2008
From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: Thrust line?
Hi Heisan, I'd reconsider the 80-hp AeroVee on the HDS. 80-hp is marginal on the wing area of the HDS where the HD would only be adequate. I've a Subaru which delivers 100 hp and an a friends HD with the same engine setup could out climb the HDS making my aircraft feel completely anemic. I could go faster, but climb with 80-hp in an HDS isn't a good thing unless you intend to keep it under 650 lbs empty. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com heisan wrote: > > Hi all, > > I will soon be the owner of a partially complete HDS kit, and am busy engine shopping. > > I have found an 80hp AeroVee engine that was removed from a HD. It flew the aircraft reasonably well, but take-off performance was really bad. > > I was considering buying the engine and fitting a reduction drive and in flight adjustable Ivo Prop to make the most out of the engine. > > Now the question is, how sensitive is the HDS to thrust line? I can keep the existing engine mount, which will move the thrust line up 130mm (5") from the standard position, or I can invest a bit more in a new engine mount. > > I see from the photo's on Zeniths website that there is at least one HD out there with a redrive and a high thrust line, so it can't be all bad? > > If anybody knows how good/bad a 130mm higher thrust line will be, I would appreciate any feedback! > > Thanks, > Justin > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=218844#218844 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeyoung65(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 11, 2008
Subject: Re: Thrust line?
Justin, I would not move the thrust line up 5" without changing engine mount. It will change you aircraft stability. I do not know where the CG (that POINT were the aircarft will hang level on a string) is on a HDS. I think it is just below the thrust line so you would be moving it above the CG. Jerry of GA In a message dated 12/11/2008 3:36:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, justin(at)expertron.co.za writes: --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "heisan" Hi all, I will soon be the owner of a partially complete HDS kit, and am busy engine shopping. I have found an 80hp AeroVee engine that was removed from a HD. It flew the aircraft reasonably well, but take-off performance was really bad. I was considering buying the engine and fitting a reduction drive and in flight adjustable Ivo Prop to make the most out of the engine. Now the question is, how sensitive is the HDS to thrust line? I can keep the existing engine mount, which will move the thrust line up 130mm (5") from the standard position, or I can invest a bit more in a new engine mount. I see from the photo's on Zeniths website that there is at least one HD out there with a redrive and a high thrust line, so it can't be all bad? If anybody knows how good/bad a 130mm higher thrust line will be, I would appreciate any feedback! Thanks, Justin Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=218844#218844 **************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. The NEW ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thrust line?
From: "heisan" <justin(at)expertron.co.za>
Date: Dec 11, 2008
I am a bit worried about that. My empty weight should be well under 300lbs though. Also, the VP prop will allow me to climb at max continuous RPM (3400), so it will climb a lot better than a stock 80hp setup. The problem with the subies is the price. I have gotten quotes from RAM and Stratus, and both were ridiculous - once shipping and duties are added, they cost substantially more than a brand new 120hp Jab! The only cost effective engine I can lay my hands on is the VW. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=218904#218904 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thrust line?
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 11, 2008
heisan wrote: > > > The only cost effective engine I can lay my hands on is the VW. Check out a corvair. www.flycorvair.com -------- 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=218914#218914 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thrust line?
From: "heisan" <justin(at)expertron.co.za>
Date: Dec 11, 2008
Gig Giacona wrote: > > heisan wrote: > > > > > > The only cost effective engine I can lay my hands on is the VW. > > > Check out a corvair. www.flycorvair.com WW hasn't responded to any of my emails, but I am chatting to the guys at Aeromax now. Spares are a problem though, as no corvair cars were ever sold in South Africa, so all spares need to be imported. Cost is also very high for what you get (only 20% cheaper than a Jab 3300). I really want to pust that 120hp Jabiru in, but just can't afford it... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=218917#218917 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave VanLanen" <davevanlanen(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Grounding Of Fuel Senders
Date: Dec 11, 2008
I have attended a couple of forums at AirVenture on the subject of aircraft electrical systems, and the presenters have been consistent in recommending the routing of a return wire from every component to the universal ground bus, to help insure that there are no "ground loops" introduced into the system that can cause electrical problems. I personally think this is relatively cheap insurance against grounding issues, and I plan to follow this advice. However, with the VDO fuel senders, the sender is not designed to be isolated from the fuel tank / airframe because the inner mounting ring and mounting screws are in metal-to-metal contact with the fuel tank and sender case, and thus are also connected to the airframe by virture of the grounding strap installed from the fuel tank to the airframe. And even if the sender were to be isolated from the tank and airframe via use of shoulder washers under the mounting screws, there is no grounding lug on the case of the sending unit itself to attach a return wire to. Has anyone experienced any "ground loop" or other electrical issues with the senders when grounding via a mounting screw as instructed by ZAC? Has anyone figured out a simple way to isolate the sender from the airframe and install an attachment to the sender case for a return wire to the ground buss? Thanks, Dave Van Lanen 601XL - working on wings ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Grounding Of Fuel Senders
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2008
Connect a ground lead to it the sender, and run a return anyway. It might leave you scratching your head why, if the the thing is grounded anyway? It's a simple, safe practice thing to do. Which if you follow religiously will leave you with radios that are crystal clear, and an intercom with no noise, etc. The best way to avoid, electrical/avionics trouble in a plane, is simply pretend the entire airframe is made of plastic, and treat every electrical device accordingly. Regards, Jeff Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219057#219057 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Grounding Of Fuel Senders
Date: Dec 12, 2008
You should have separate ground leads for all of you avionics and other circuits in the cabin, that is where ground loops are most likely to cause problems. Grounding the lights and fuel senders in the wings to the airframe shouldn't cause any issues. On Dec 11, 2008, at 7:07 PM, Dave VanLanen wrote: > I have attended a couple of forums at AirVenture on the subject of > aircraft electrical systems, and the presenters have been consistent > in recommending the routing of a return wire from every component to > the universal ground bus, to help insure that there are no ground > loops introduced into the system that can cause electrical problems. > -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Attention Corvair Builders
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2008
To Whom it may concern: We have updated our website, www.magnificentmachine.com, with some technical articles that are aimed at answering the most common questions relating to our products and the Corvair. Also these articles address some of the more common engine issues and some of the ways in which we address them. This section is called Tech Talk and is where we will post all of our Products Testing Data. The articles are written by "Uncle Mike" because he is a far better writer than I am and his engine building experience goes far back to the days of Flat head engines and probably back to the days of wooden spokes though he won't admit it. Smile The First Forged 4340 crankshaft sample is now in an engine case with a cam shaft and will be running before too long. This engine will be equipped with our entirely NEW rotating assembly as well as the rest of our newest products. The first set of all aluminum Nikasil Cylinders will be installed and tested on this engine as well. We will have this engine at the upcoming Corvair College #13 being held In Livermore, CA. For further details of the Corvair College #13 event see www.flycorvair.com or www.flaglvk.com Thank you, -------- Brady McCormick Poulsbo, WA www.magnificentmachine.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219111#219111 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Project in EAA Newsletter
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2008
Short article and pictures of my XL project in local EAA newsletter. http://www.eaa25.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/eaa25812.pdf - Pat -------- Patrick 601XL/Corvair N63PZ (reserved) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219154#219154 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2008
This evening ... I took two pieces of .025 500mm long, riveted them with A4's at 40mm pitch. clamped the end of one in a vice, and grabbed the other piece with a pair of vice grips. One sharp tug unzipped the entire strip with very little effort .... Every single rivet head popped right off like butter. Riveted with the zenith hand riveter and zenith concave head. Food for thought. Regards, Jeff Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219159#219159 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2008
"riveted them with A4's at 40mm ... One sharp tug unzipped the entire strip... right off like butter." add the new "triangle and house aileron gussets," use A5 SS rivets on the gussets and try that again... ;O) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219169#219169 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2008
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
What new gussets? At 09:48 PM 12/12/2008, you wrote: >add the new "triangle and house aileron gussets," use A5 SS rivets >on the gussets and try that again... ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2008
I designed my aileron gussets in January, they were/are external, 6061-T6 and .060 w/A5 SS rivets. They were my response to the unzipping of 601 ailerons in light of an examination of in-flight video by myself, my IA and my test pilot. The inboard one looks like a triangle, the next outboard, like a house. Zenith has incorporated similar ones on the 650, I am told they are internal and thinner. I know some builders have ordered them and installed them on their 601s. Zenith has their own reasons for the design change. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219171#219171 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2008
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
Thanks Sabrina, Do you think the rest of us should consider adding these gussets? Do they apply equally to hingeless or hinge type ailerons? I still can't quite imagine exactly what these gussets do or where they go. Which rivets on the aileron can unzip? The Hinge area? On the ribs? Thanks, Paul XL getting close At 10:18 PM 12/12/2008, you wrote: >I designed my aileron gussets in January, they were/are external, >6061-T6 and .060 w/A5 SS rivets. > >They were my response to the unzipping of 601 ailerons in light of >an examination of in-flight video by myself, my IA and my test >pilot. The inboard one looks like a triangle, the next outboard, >like a house. > >Zenith has incorporated similar ones on the 650, I am told they are >internal and thinner. I know some builders have ordered them and >installed them on their 601s. Zenith has their own reasons for the >design change. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 12, 2008
I would rely upon Zenith and install their gussets per their specifications. CH knows what he is doing. If anyone has the new plans, maybe they could describe the 650 versions. The AMD safety alert seems to talk to this issue: http://www.newplane.com/Service_Letters_Bulletines/SAFETY_ALERT_october_29_2008.pdf Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219177#219177 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeyoung65(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 13, 2008
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
Jeff, when you tugged on the strip, what angle were your tug with the clamped piece? Or, was the rivet in shear or tension. Would expect the rivet heads to pop off if your tug was 90 degrees to the clamped part but if it was 180 degrees then there is a problem. Jerry of Ga DO NOT ARCHIVE In a message dated 12/12/2008 10:52:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, n85ae(at)yahoo.com writes: --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "n85ae" This evening ... I took two pieces of .025 500mm long, riveted them with A4's at 40mm pitch. clamped the end of one in a vice, and grabbed the other piece with a pair of vice grips. One sharp tug unzipped the entire strip with very little effort .... Every single rivet head popped right off like butter. Riveted with the zenith hand riveter and zenith concave head. Food for thought. Regards, Jeff Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219159#219159 **************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. The NEW ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <Z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
Date: Dec 13, 2008
It's Saturday, which means Zenith is closed, and I'mn trying to identify a part. Can any of you help me on this? The part in question are the AS5 rivets. Where are they likely to be packed? Are they identified specifically as AS5 rivets, or ? TIA. -- ============================================= 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 13, 2008
From: Cndmovn <cndmovn(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
Mine in a small ziplock plastic bag maybe 1" x 3" Label written in marker on bag On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Jim Belcher wrote: > > > > It's Saturday, which means Zenith is closed, and I'mn trying to identify a > part. Can any of you help me on this? > > The part in question are the AS5 rivets. Where are they likely to be > packed? > Are they identified specifically as AS5 rivets, or ? > > TIA. > > -- > ============================================= > 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: Thrust Line and engine choice
Date: Dec 13, 2008
From: hermanmullis(at)aol.com
Dear Justin, i am building an XL with a R1100 S BMW, but several of my friends have Bmers + a gearbox, on the HD. i just flew behind a Bmer on the HD in November and it is an excellent choic e! It should also do well on the HDS. Fuel Injected, Air and Oil cooled, >90 hp and stingy on fuel. Also, no need to change the thrust line! Got my engine from a crashed bike with 11000 km and the gearbox in the Cz Re p.=C2- Maybe you can find a BMW motocycle engine in South Africa? Best of luck! HKM ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2008
From: Terry Turnquist <ter_turn(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
As I am just finishing the wings, could someone at least describe the positioning of the aileron gussets? I'm too dense to visualize! Thanks. Terry Turnquist 601XL-Plans St. Peters MO I would rely upon Zenith and install their gussets per their specifications. CH knows what he is doing. If anyone has the new plans, maybe they could describe the 650 versions. The AMD safety alert seems to talk to this issue: http://www.newplane.com/Service_Letters_Bulletines/SAFETY_ALERT_october_29_2008.pdf Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219177#219177 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Dec 13, 2008
Did anyone ever determine how many of the aircraft that experienced wing loss in flight had hinged ailerons? Could it be that the hingeless design is less prone to the problems that are currently the focus of investigators? Sabrina, do you have any pictures of your installed aileron gussets? Tim -------- ______________ CFII Champ L16A flying Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A Working on fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219218#219218 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
Date: Dec 13, 2008
On Saturday 13 December 2008 10:45, Cndmovn wrote: > Mine in a small ziplock plastic bag maybe 1" x 3" Label written in marker > on bag Thanks! Armed with that information, I found them. You likely saved me an hour or two of fumbling, as I had no idea what size container I should seek. -- ============================================= 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: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 13, 2008
Tim, I am in Chicago, studying for finals. I do not have access to many post-build photos. Someone has to have the revised 6-W-2. Some of you have written to me off list and said you installed the new 650 gussets on your 601. What is the revision date of the new 6-W-2? Whose name is under the word "Aileron"? Do you have photos? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219232#219232 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thrust Line and engine choice
From: "heisan" <justin(at)expertron.co.za>
Date: Dec 13, 2008
I have been looking at all the various engine conversions out there. The BMW is certainly one of the nicest. Very good power to weight ratio, and (at least the oil heads) fairly easy to cool. Engines are also readily available here, but again the problem is cost. I went through the exercise of pricing a complete engine (base engine, overhaul, redrive, dual ignition, dual injection system, exhaust...), and came out at around USD 10k. Basically 3 times the price of a VW for 15% more power. (OK the BMW is half the weight too, which is a big plus.) Unfortunately, at the moment, my budget dictates a VW, so I am going to have to try and make it work... Justin Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219247#219247 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy" <rpf(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
Date: Dec 13, 2008
I checked Zenith website and they added (for the 650) a gusset to Rib 1 & 2. The stated reason was to reduce possible buckling when tied down in wind gusts. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:16 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip > > Tim, I am in Chicago, studying for finals. I do not have access to > many post-build photos. Someone has to have the revised 6-W-2. Some of > you have written to me off list and said you installed the new 650 gussets > on your 601. What is the revision date of the new 6-W-2? Whose name is > under the word "Aileron"? Do you have photos? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219232#219232 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 13, 2008
Randy, did you find pricing or drawings of the gussets on the webpage? Alex--you had indicated your aircraft was always kept in a hanger, correct? What did Zenith say in response to the photos of your piano hinged aileron skin buckling during flight? Did they mention the gussets? Did they mention what AMD will do after a report under Part B of their recent Safety Letter? Are you back in the air? How do you feel about the 111 MPH speed limit for the XL? (in Germany) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219278#219278 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 14, 2008
Well, my test was VERY unscientific, however ... You are right, it was essentially in tension. But, the heads tear off so easily, I was very unhappy. I repeated my simple test with A5's, and the ball end pulls through, but the heads do not pop off. This to my mind is ok. The rivets themself don't just break in half. Regards, Jeff Jeyoung65(at)aol.com wrote: > Jeff, when you tugged on the strip, what angle were your tug with the clamped piece? Or, was the rivet in shear or tension. Would expect the rivet heads to pop off if your tug was 90 degrees to the clamped part but if it was 180 degrees then there is a problem. Jerry of Ga DO NOT ARCHIVE > Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219310#219310 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thrust Line and engine choice
From: "dalemed" <dalemed(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 14, 2008
What's a good source for more information on the BMW engine conversions? -------- Dale Flying Cessna 170B Building Zenith 601XL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219314#219314 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 14, 2008
>From Alex's picture, it seems like the control rod is holding the aileron but the air is pushing up on the aileron at the aileron hinge portion and causing the kink we see. What force would that primarily be, tension or shear? Tension, correct? That large gap between the aileron and wing always looked funny when parked in a car next to the aircraft. Could it be that since the gap is no longer sealed by the hinge-less aileron skin, some sort of turbulence or pressure is created between the forward edge of the aileron and the rear spar, causing this flexing? The fact that the flexing is only noticeable at the inboard or next rib and not the outboard ribs seems to indicate that the control rod has some influence on the action. Please don't write to me at my @msn account. PM or write it here. Thanx Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219334#219334 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/alex_001_129.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: aero-BMW info
Date: Dec 15, 2008
From: hermanmullis(at)aol.com
Dale- There are no easy sources for the BMW conversion! i started with by looking at the old Zenith files. Then googled BMW aircraft and found lots of homebuilders in Europe with thes e engines. One of them led me to: www.takeoff-ul.de Which has an English translation but poorly done. =C2-They specialise in p ushers and are expensive! Here is another German source: http://www.silent-hektik.de/ They specialize in fuel injection and are also expensive! Finally, i spoke to sales at Woodcomp propellers in CZ, who told me about Bo ris Lange of Kostonice. Boris has a flight school in the Cz Rep which started with a crashed 601, wh ich he repaired. It's still flying and now has over +3000 hours with the Bmer engine (also a crash).=C2- i flew it also, over a year ago on a cold November day. It took 5 minutes of taxiing to get the oil temp up to normal! =C2- He now has 3 aircraft, all with Bmers, all with >1000 hours on the engines. Boris told me that his business depends on the BMW engines because his stude nts can't afford the fuel on the Rotax!! One of his students is now flying as a passenger pilot in Arizona! However, Boris speaks only Czech and Russian, so i had to get a German-Czech Translator. He built my gearbox. =C2-He has also built 20 more gearboxes for friends a nd clients. =C2-Including me. Up he recommends the R1150 R Bmer engine and you must send him the Brain box as well. Getting a good engine is the first problem, with all t he electrical! =C2-But no tranny or flywheel. Mine cost me 1000 u$d. =C2-It's a 2001 R1100 S. The 1200 series engines have more power but a new and more complicated Brain box and cannot be reprogrammed for flight! You must get a new one from SH above, since BMW will charge you an arm and a leg and is useless for flight! Boris does not make gearboxes for the 1200 because of this! =C2-He uses al l original BMW parts. Right off the bike! If you have access to metal shop you could probably make your own gearbox us ing a Rotax gearbox and a clutch! Another guy who is flying a Cherry, used a Hirth gearbox and a clutch from T ake-Off. The BMW engine is the only fuel injected, air cooled engine that you can lit erally, take off the bike and bolt on and fly without mods! Right now, i am cutting down the profile and moving the alternator in order to make it fit under the cowl,=C2- but Boris just cut the top of the cowl for his first conversion. =C2-Ugly, but cheap! The whole thing weighs about 80kg and produces >90 hp. So far, it's cost me ~5000 u$d for the engine, gearbox and prop. HKM ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thrust Line and engine choice
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: Dec 15, 2008
Justin, Look into the Corvair. You can build a Corvair for about the same price as the VW. More power not much more weight and there are dozens of flying examples. The Corvair is much smoother than the VW as well. Weight is less of an issue with the 601 than it would be for the 701. It's worth a look. If you have any trouble finding an engine let me know I have 30 of them. Parts are easy to find as well as reasonably priced. Just a thought. -------- Brady McCormick Poulsbo, WA www.magnificentmachine.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219478#219478 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thrust Line and engine choice
From: "MikeinPE" <mike@rent-smart.co.za>
Date: Dec 15, 2008
Hi Brady Here in South Africa it is a problem finding Corvairs. I will be interested in 1 of the 30 that you have sometime in 2009. Please let me know what I'm going to be in for costwise Regards Mike Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219486#219486 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thrust Line and engine choice
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: Dec 15, 2008
Mike, I have a customer in Johannesburg. (He bought one of my Prop hubs.) He and his friend Norman were talking about getting some Corvair Kits together. This would be a kit that comprised of all the Parts necessary to assemble the running engine. All the parts that require rebuilding or machining would already be done. I imagine it would cost about 6 to $8,000 (US) depending on options and upgrades. Shipping would be by container ship; so ordering ahead of time is a good idea. If you are interested you can contact me directly. It doesn't seem to be cost effective to send you a core engine because the shipping would be the same for a complete kit. Then you have to have all the parts shipped from their respective suppliers individually and the shipping cost alone would be prohibitive. -------- Brady McCormick Poulsbo, WA www.magnificentmachine.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219498#219498 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 16, 2008
"Without looking at my plans, doesn't the wing call for A5 rivets anyway?" Ashontz... A4 for the aft portion of the aileron piano hinge.... A4 are rated at 165/230 pounds, A5 are rated at 255/375 pounds, AS5 are rated at 750/1000 pounds. Correct? When the force is upward tension at one end, as opposed to shear across all the rivets in a row, does the full row of rivets give much support to the end rivet being tensioned, or once a tension of 1X to 2X of an A4 is reached and maintained, the connection will unzip? (Versus a shearing force across a row where each rivet adds strength to the connection and the force would have to be many times the shear limit of any one rivet for the connection to fail.) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219607#219607 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
unzip - a classic failure mode once the initial fastener fails and the stru cture goes into buckling. David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Sabrina wrote: From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 11:36 AM "Without looking at my plans, doesn't the wing call for A5 rivets anyway?" Ashontz... A4 for the aft portion of the aileron piano hinge.... A4 are rated at 165/230 pounds, A5 are rated at 255/375 pounds, AS5 are rated at 750/1000 pounds. Correct? When the force is upward tension at one end, as opposed to shear across all the rivets in a row, does the full row of rivets give much support to the end r ivet being tensioned, or once a tension of 1X to 2X of an A4 is reached and maintained, the connection will unzip? (Versus a shearing force across a r ow where each rivet adds strength to the connection and the force would have t o be many times the shear limit of any one rivet for the connection to fail.) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219607#219607 =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 16, 2008
My test pilot noticed flexing at the inboard portion of the ailerons where Alex's kink is. We did not know of Alex's kink at the time and did not think too much of it. This was on the maiden flight, 11 months and 1 day ago. However, once this video was reviewed by my IA before the next test flight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-ZcZPP18uk My IA noted the movement as well, and also noted the stress created at the point the rear spar connects the inboard-forward corner of the aileron. Zenith indicated we were the first to raise the issue. Zenith was informed that I had designed gussets and that they were or were about to be installed. Zenith proceeded to link to my videos from their web page. No mention was made of the internal 650 gussets to me at AirVenture and the exact issue was not raised again until a former European Zenith distributor raised a similar issue (which I can't talk about) recently in an e-mail, a person privy to the letter recently sent to CH by the European authorities. I have not seen the letter (some have asked off line.) The flexing, which was most pronounced on the down aileron, has not re-occured since installing the four gussets. Any opinions about the Hoerner wing tip sending air down or into the channel created by the aileron/spar gap, any opinions on whether the unsealed aileron hinge would amplify this effect, if any? http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-design.html The Germans did not impose a 111 MPH Vne for no reason at all, the left lane of the Autobahn would be quicker... Does anyone remember if the Factory Demonstrator has PH ailerons or not? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219647#219647 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeyoung65(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 16, 2008
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
No sure about other 601 plans but the 601HD 6-V-10 drawing dated 06-04 has "AN Rivet pitch 40" in the view for the Piano Hinged Aileron Option and for the hingless aileron "A4 rivets pitch 40 last I/B - O/B rivet use A5". It does not say what size AN rivets to use on the hinged system. Jerry of Ga In a message dated 12/16/2008 11:37:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, chicago2paris(at)msn.com writes: --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Sabrina" "Without looking at my plans, doesn't the wing call for A5 rivets anyway?" Ashontz... A4 for the aft portion of the aileron piano hinge.... A4 are rated at 165/230 pounds, A5 are rated at 255/375 pounds, AS5 are rated at 750/1000 pounds. Correct? When the force is upward tension at one end, as opposed to shear across all the rivets in a row, does the full row of rivets give much support to the end rivet being tensioned, or once a tension of 1X to 2X of an A4 is reached and maintained, the connection will unzip? (Versus a shearing force across a row where each rivet adds strength to the connection and the force would have to be many times the shear limit of any one rivet for the connection to fail.) . **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! cemailfooterNO62) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2008
From: John Davis <johnd@data-tech.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
Hi Sabrina, I just flew N130AW an AMD 601XL at The Flight school of Gwinnet (LZU) and it had the same kink in the ailerons. According to the mechanic they had showed photo's of the issue to the factory and they said it was nothing to worry about. That plane has a bit less than 200 hrs and has been in service for less than 2 yrs. So it seems like it may not be such an uncommon situation as Zenith led you to believe. Can you post a picture or drawing of the gussets you installed ? John Davis N601JD 601XL - Jab 3300 Finally ready for first flight Sabrina wrote: > > My test pilot noticed flexing at the inboard portion of the ailerons where Alex's kink is. We did not know of Alex's kink at the time and did not think too much of it. This was on the maiden flight, 11 months and 1 day ago. However, once this video was reviewed by my IA before the next test flight: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-ZcZPP18uk > > My IA noted the movement as well, and also noted the stress created at the point the rear spar connects the inboard-forward corner of the aileron. > > Zenith indicated we were the first to raise the issue. Zenith was informed that I had designed gussets and that they were or were about to be installed. Zenith proceeded to link to my videos from their web page. No mention was made of the internal 650 gussets to me at AirVenture and the exact issue was not raised again until a former European Zenith distributor raised a similar issue (which I can't talk about) recently in an e-mail, a person privy to the letter recently sent to CH by the European authorities. I have not seen the letter (some have asked off line.) > > The flexing, which was most pronounced on the down aileron, has not re-occured since installing the four gussets. > > Any opinions about the Hoerner wing tip sending air down or into the channel created by the aileron/spar gap, any opinions on whether the unsealed aileron hinge would amplify this effect, if any? http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-design.html > > The Germans did not impose a 111 MPH Vne for no reason at all, the left lane of the Autobahn would be quicker... > > Does anyone remember if the Factory Demonstrator has PH ailerons or not? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219647#219647 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bubble Canopy full assembly weight...
From: "GLJSOJ1" <gljno10(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 16, 2008
I have no idea, but I used a 15# figure to get a rough W&B so I could get some idea where to put my battery. As soon as I get my engine checked out and it passes compression test I'll be at the airport and see how close I was. -------- 601XL N676L reserved ALMOST DONE CHESAPEAKE VA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219671#219671 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2008
From: vvkidd(at)mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
I must have missed the location for the gussets. Would someone please help me out and give me some info on there design and location. Drawings? Victor Kidd N922VK Would be fying except for the present WV weather. -----Original Message----- >From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> >Sent: Dec 16, 2008 2:31 PM >To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip > > >My test pilot noticed flexing at the inboard portion of the ailerons where Alex's kink is. We did not know of Alex's kink at the time and did not think too much of it. This was on the maiden flight, 11 months and 1 day ago. However, once this video was reviewed by my IA before the next test flight: > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-ZcZPP18uk > >My IA noted the movement as well, and also noted the stress created at the point the rear spar connects the inboard-forward corner of the aileron. > >Zenith indicated we were the first to raise the issue. Zenith was informed that I had designed gussets and that they were or were about to be installed. Zenith proceeded to link to my videos from their web page. No mention was made of the internal 650 gussets to me at AirVenture and the exact issue was not raised again until a former European Zenith distributor raised a similar issue (which I can't talk about) recently in an e-mail, a person privy to the letter recently sent to CH by the European authorities. I have not seen the letter (some have asked off line.) > >The flexing, which was most pronounced on the down aileron, has not re-occured since installing the four gussets. > >Any opinions about the Hoerner wing tip sending air down or into the channel created by the aileron/spar gap, any opinions on whether the unsealed aileron hinge would amplify this effect, if any? http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-design.html > >The Germans did not impose a 111 MPH Vne for no reason at all, the left lane of the Autobahn would be quicker... > >Does anyone remember if the Factory Demonstrator has PH ailerons or not? > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219647#219647 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 16, 2008
Does anyone have the 650 plans with the gussets shown? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219708#219708 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Attention Corvair Builders
From: "FlyingMonkey" <palbertacanada(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 16, 2008
Brady wrote: > To Whom it may concern: > > We have updated our website, www.magnificentmachine.com, with some technical articles that are aimed at ..... I got a page load error on clicking your link-maybe it is the comma on the end of the url. I think this is the site: http://www.magnificentmachine.com/ Thanks for posting that info. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219710#219710 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Dec 16, 2008
Sabrina, The red & white factory demonstrator had hingeless ailerons. I have been communicating with a friend who is going the 650 route and he advised me that the gussets are 0.025 aluminum and slipped between the skin and the rib. They are installed using A4 rivets. Stated reason is to prevent damage due to flapping in the wind when the aircraft is parked outside. Caleb commented it was more of a problem with piano hinge ailerons inasmuch that the hingeless type offer more resistance to deflection. Tim -------- ______________ CFII Champ L16A flying Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A Working on fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219711#219711 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
I would have but the factory won't sell me (their registered builder) the 6 50 upgrade. (whine, sniffle) David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Sabrina wrote: From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 7:36 PM Does anyone have the 650 plans with the gussets shown? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219708#219708 =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ronald Steele <rsteele(at)rjsit.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
Date: Dec 16, 2008
Wow, did you to something to make them mad? Mine just came via UPS. You should be able to get them if ordered before the first of the year. The gussets are about 100mm - 110mm on a side. They are on the first and second aileron ribs. A right triangle on the first and an isosceles with the tip cut off on the second. There have been a lot of queries about the anti-oil canning angles. They are in line with the back of the wing locker and run parallel with the main spar. Ron On Dec 16, 2008, at 8:59 PM, David Downey wrote: > I would have but the factory won't sell me (their registered > builder) the 650 upgrade. (whine, sniffle) > > David L. Downey > Harleysville (SE) PA, USA > > > --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Sabrina wrote: > From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> > Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip > To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 7:36 PM > > > > Does anyone have the 650 plans with the gussets shown? > > > Read this topic online > > > _- > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > ====================== > _- > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > ====================== > _- > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > ====================== > _- > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 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: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 16, 2008
Is the main spar set the same as the 601XL? In other words, do they just twist the wing to bring it down two inches in the rear, or have they adjusted the main spar and side skin cut outs too? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219722#219722 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jon Croke" <Jon(at)joncroke.com>
Subject: Supplemental aileron gussets
Date: Dec 16, 2008
The drawings for the supplemental aileron gussets are available for viewing at www.zenair.org These will also be printed in the new newsletter. Looking for a few more good videos of building/flying for the next newsletter DVD.... Let me know what you liked/disliked in the last one! Thanks to all contributors that made that last one really fun to watch! Jon editor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 6:36 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip > > Does anyone have the 650 plans with the gussets shown? > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2008
From: Ronald Steele <rsteele(at)rjsit.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
I haven't looked at the existing plans (not that far along) but angle of the front spare is 83 degrees (where 0 is horizontal and 90 is vertical), leaning forward. This is measured where the top longeron is level. Without really studying them, I think the new plans are easier to read. Looks to me like there are more drawings and they are better annotated. This alone make the upgrade cost worth it to me. Ron On Dec 16, 2008, at 9:36 PM, Sabrina wrote: > > > Is the main spar set the same as the 601XL? > > In other words, do they just twist the wing to bring it down two > inches in the rear, or have they adjusted the main spar and side > skin cut outs too? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219722#219722 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
nope. they have simply taken the position that only the original buyer can get them as an upgrade. Since I am the registered owner/builder, now even t he original buyer cannot buy them as a discount. Since the wing is still ba sically the same as before, other than the incidence increase, I am not wil ling to cfough up the extra hundreds of dollars to get the 650 drawings. What really bugs me is that since you have to surrender your existing 601 s erial number to trade up, they are still only committed to support the cons truction of one plane - and a supposedly better aircraft at that... David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Ronald Steele wrote: From: Ronald Steele <rsteele(at)rjsit.com> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 9:22 PM Wow, did you to something to make them mad? -Mine just came via UPS. -Y ou should be able to get them if ordered before the first of the year. The gussets are about 100mm -- 110mm on a side. -They are on the first and second aileron ribs. -A right triangle on the first and an-isoscele s-with the tip cut off on the second. There have been a lot of queries about the anti-oil canning angles. -They are in line with the back of the wing locker and run parallel with the mai n spar. Ron On Dec 16, 2008, at 8:59 PM, David Downey wrote: I would have but the factory won't sell me (their registered builder) the 6 50 upgrade. (whine, sniffle) David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Sabrina wrote: From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 7:36 PM Does anyone have the 650 plans with the gussets shown? Read this topic online 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D href="3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"">http://www.matronics.com /contribution 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D href="3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List"">http://www.m atronics.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 href="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 =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 16, 2008
December 2008: "these gussets are recommended for the Zodiac CH601XL..." Thank you Zenith, thank you Jon. I still think an AS5 rivet or two on the inboard corner is not a bad idea if Zenith's "presumption" is incorrect. Did anyone notice that the diagram is a hingless aileron not a PH version, yet the paragraph refers to a hinged aileron. Is there a message here? Does anyone with 650 plans have a PH version of this diagram? http://www.zenair.org/nuke/MyDownloads/AileronLocks.pdf Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219737#219737 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 16, 2008
From: Ronald Steele <rsteele(at)rjsit.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
Ah, I see. This is policy I don't understand. I suppose they must have there reasons. You can still change the canopy. My real motivation was head room, and it wasn't really clear to me that all the addition headroom in the 650 was due to the canopy change. I'd be glad to answer any questions I can wrt the 650. As I said in another post, I think the new plans are a bit more clear. Ron On Dec 16, 2008, at 10:21 PM, David Downey wrote: > nope. they have simply taken the position that only the original > buyer can get them as an upgrade. Since I am the registered owner/ > builder, now even the original buyer cannot buy them as a discount. > Since the wing is still basically the same as before, other than the > incidence increase, I am not willing to cfough up the extra hundreds > of dollars to get the 650 drawings. > > What really bugs me is that since you have to surrender your > existing 601 serial number to trade up, they are still only > committed to support the construction of one plane - and a > supposedly better aircraft at that... > > David L. Downey > Harleysville (SE) PA, USA > > > --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Ronald Steele wrote: > From: Ronald Steele <rsteele(at)rjsit.com> > Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip > To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 9:22 PM > > Wow, did you to something to make them mad? Mine just came via > UPS. You should be able to get them if ordered before the first of > the year. > > The gussets are about 100mm - 110mm on a side. They are on the > first and second aileron ribs. A right triangle on the first and an > isosceles with the tip cut off on the second. > > There have been a lot of queries about the anti-oil canning angles. > They are in line with the back of the wing locker and run parallel > with the main spar. > > Ron > > > On Dec 16, 2008, at 8:59 PM, David Downey wrote: > >> I would have but the factory won't sell me (their registered >> builder) the 650 upgrade. (whine, sniffle) >> >> David L. Downey >> Harleysville (SE) PA, USA >> >> >> --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Sabrina wrote: >> From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> >> Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip >> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com >> Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 7:36 PM >> >> >> >> Does anyone have the 650 plans with the gussets shown? >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online >> >> >> >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> ====================== >> href="3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> = >> 3D >> ====================== >> href="3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List"">http://www.matronics.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 >> ====================== >> href="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 > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > ====================== > _- > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > ====================== > _- > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > ====================== > _- > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 3D > = > 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: Dec 17, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
They may be referring to it as a hinge because the "hingeless" version is a ctually what is called a "living hinge". David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/16/08, Sabrina wrote: From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 11:24 PM December 2008: "these gussets are recommended for the Zodiac CH601XL..." Thank you Zenith, thank you Jon. I still think an AS5 rivet or two on the inboard corner is not a bad idea i f Zenith's "presumption" is incorrect. Did anyone notice that the diagram is a hingless aileron not a PH version, yet the paragraph refers to a hinged aileron. Is there a message here? Does anyone with 650 plans have a PH version of this diagram? http://www.zenair.org/nuke/MyDownloads/AileronLocks.pdf Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219737#219737 =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Thrust Line and engine choice
From: "MikeinPE" <mike@rent-smart.co.za>
Date: Dec 17, 2008
Thank you for the info so far Brady. I have ordered William's book & waiting for it to be delivered. I will definitely contact you when it is time to get the engine. The components on your site looks like absolute quality. Regards Mike P.S Yes PE is Port Elizabeth Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=219833#219833 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 17, 2008
From: Bill Pagan <pdn8r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
Picked up another Corvair block and it is different than the one I already have.- Can someone tell me what the hole below the lifters are in the att ached photo? Bill Pagan EAA Tech Counselor #4395 601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES) =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 17, 2008
From: Bill Pagan <pdn8r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Corvair Block Question
Sorry thought I changed the subject line Bill Pagan EAA Tech Counselor #4395 601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES) --- On Wed, 12/17/08, Bill Pagan wrote: From: Bill Pagan <pdn8r(at)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip Date: Wednesday, December 17, 2008, 6:17 PM Picked up another Corvair block and it is different than the one I already have.- Can someone tell me what the hole below the lifters are in the att ached photo? Bill Pagan EAA Tech Counselor #4395 601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES) =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Corvair Block Question
From: "Brady" <brady(at)magnificentmachine.com>
Date: Dec 19, 2008
Bill, As Roy said on the other list, "it's an oil fill" but rather than plug it, why not just use it as your oil fill? you're going to need one any way. :) It's on the correct side and it will allow you to avoid modifying you valve cover. If you can make it work out for you it might be an advantage. Just a thought? -------- Brady McCormick Poulsbo, WA www.magnificentmachine.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220166#220166 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: ANGRY IN ENGLAND
From: "GBzodiflyer" <thehighflyer(at)aol.com>
Date: Dec 19, 2008
Here in england , we the xl owners and builders have been grounded now for around two months !!!!!!!. :x this has been brought about by various incidents around the world and most recently ,the netherlands incident , all have the same result , wings folding and people getting killed . our caa and laa has deemed it necessary to investigate the design ,along with other agency's around the world . If there is nothing wrong with our air frames ,because they are all the same , i have both czaw drgs and usa drgs . why are we waiting for chris heinz to reply to our LAA , with regard to some points of concern, If indeed he sees nothing wrong then why not at the very least acknowledge the fact that he has had the mail. do you guys in the states really think that you are exempt from this ? do you think that a reduction in mtow and vne is the answer as the Germans have done , because we dont . we have spent good money on these aircraft , all we ask for is some reasonable response . what do you guys in the USA and indeed any other really think . cmon. [b]HAPPY XMAS . [Wink] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220183#220183 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ANGRY IN ENGLAND
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 19, 2008
Merry Christmas Gary, First off, you have a beautiful airplane. I noticed that your aircraft does not have steps. What additional bracing across the mid-fuselage did you add to provide the stiffness lost without them? Do you think your rear spar attach points might flex more without the steps, than with them? In your post, I notice that you assert that the CZAW & USA craft are all the same, i have both czaw drgs and usa drgs Here, in the US, we have a tendency to build our aircraft to our own liking. Just as I have never seen an XL without steps, some have never seen one without a full width panel. We each incorporate our own personality into the aircraft. From skin thickness differences seen in some EU craft, to removal of some items, to the addition of others, our aircraft are not all the same and our NTSB and FAA recognize this. Why are we waiting for chris heinz to reply you ask, I have received several e-mails from source(s) involved in your LAA inquiry, as I am sure other builders have. These inquires focus on our modifications and the reasons for them. If all the aircraft that went down were all the same, I am sure CHs response would have come sooner. However, they are not, your own aircraft is a prime example of that. As an LAA inspector, you must have seen this time and time again. This list is populated more by builders than buyers of XLs, we have spent much more time than money, and are more patient than those who have invested only good money and not their heart and souls. As others have said before, let's not rush to judgment. Anger only breeds mistakes. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220261#220261 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/no_steps_119.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Bell" <rbe21716(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: 601 problems
Date: Dec 21, 2008
Well Hi all I wish every one a merry Christmas I would like to make a few observations 1/ OK lack of communication that's a problem ??? Chris and the boys need to let us know more 2/ if there isn't any problems come out and tell the customers that have spent there savings on there kits and that would be the end of the story for me 3/ if there is a problem tell us so we can fix it when its all said and done I want is to be able to put one of my children in the seat next to me and feel safe doing so 4/ so at the end of the day all I want is a yes or no either way I will be able to fix the problems and be happy doing so ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ANGRY IN ENGLAND
From: "Tim Juhl" <juhl(at)avci.net>
Date: Dec 20, 2008
Sabrina, you never cease to amaze me with your insights. I never thought of steps as bracing the fuselage, but how can they not? I believe that several builders have opted not to install the steps for one reason or another. To our friend Gary in England, if you read the archives on this and the Zenith site you will see that the subject has been covered again and again and indeed sometimes emotions have gotten a bit out of hand. While XL's are not grounded in the US, there is still concern and everyone involved with the design is anxiously awaiting final word on what more, if anything, needs to be done. For all our sakes I hope things are resolved soon. In the meantime have a happy xmas and a great new year! Tim -------- ______________ CFII Champ L16A flying Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A Working on fuselage Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220271#220271 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601 problems
From: "aerobat" <rhood2000(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2008
I think that deep down, as much as we love our XLs we all know there is a problem. Wings should not fall off aeroplanes, there must be many other types out there with incorrect cable tensions flying without dropping out of the sky. Rumour has it that the UK LAA have voiced their concern to the designer who appears to deny any problem. Unfortunately if something is not done history points to another XL wing failing in flight. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220324#220324 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601 problems
From: "aerobat" <rhood2000(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2008
Apologies if I've touched a raw nerve, you may have 100 percent confidence in your XL but a lot of owners that I've talked to do not. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220331#220331 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Herb Heaton" <Heatonhe36(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: 601 problems
Date: Dec 20, 2008
Mr. Aerobat, Are you, by any chance, familiar with the Bradley Aerobat? No insinuations...Just curious. Regards, Herb 601XL from plans ----- Original Message ----- From: aerobat<mailto:rhood2000(at)hotmail.com> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 2:00 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems > Apologies if I've touched a raw nerve, you may have 100 percent confidence in your XL but a lot of owners that I've talked to do not. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220331#220331 .matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220331#220331> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List m/Navigator?Zenith601-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601 problems
From: "aerobat" <rhood2000(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2008
Sorry, no connection whatsoever. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220338#220338 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ANGRY IN ENGLAND
From: "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks(at)liwest.at>
Date: Dec 21, 2008
To all from some one just started building. If you seriously think CH is going to say anything other than " there is no problem" then you are dreaming . If he did he would be then directly responsible and would be sued to the grave over the crashes involving suspect wings. Reality is that we must be thankful others may or may not find a problem but also come up with a fix. Lets all wait and hope any fix if needed is quick and easy. Merry Christmas and happy new year! Kev -------- Austria ............. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220390#220390 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: More on the XL grounding
From: "aerobat" <rhood2000(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
Since the grounding the UK have had their stress engineers and sophisticated computer software working very hard to address the situation. They have come across areas of concern that have been sent to the designer but as yet no reply is forthcoming. Is this because he does not want to acknowledge any potential problem for fear of being sued over several wing failures ? If there is a problem the sooner this is rectified the better - before another aeroplane for whatever causes has the wings drop off. Rumour has it that if the designer does not respond to the LAAs very fair questions then in consultation with the FAA and European authorities the XL will be limited worldwide to the German limitations of Max 450kg ( 990lb ) VNE 97kts and no baggage. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220499#220499 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
Let's see, Aerobat has posted a total of 6 times recorded in the Matronics database. And guess what every single post has been about. -------- 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=220509#220509 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2008
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
> Let's see, Aerobat has posted a total of 6 times recorded in the Matronics > database. And guess what every single post has been about. Indeed. His posts have the distinct odor of troll about them. Unless and until he provides some facts that demonstrate he's actually got a real interest in the Zodiac as an owner or pilot, I intend to ignore him, and suggest the rest of us do the same. We need facts, not uninformed speculation and rumor. If the weather ever clears in Minnesota, I'm going to go flying in my XLi, within the limits as set by the designer and factory, not as rumored by someone who shows no evidence that he's not, say, a competitor trying to destroy the Zodiac's reputation so he can sell more airplanes. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL 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: More on the XL grounding
From: "rans6andrew" <andrewcattell(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
aerobat is the only poster in this thread whose location is in the text below his name on the left side of the page. It says UK. Sounds good enough for me. Just to avoid confusion I am Andrew Cattell, I am located in the UK. I am building a 601UL. I have been told by the LAA (email end of November) that they don't have any concerns over the the UL and HD varients. They would not be drawn on what they might have found on the XL as it is not an issue for my build. Reading this thread, and the others related to apparent XL wing failures, together with what they have told me directly, I would think that the LAA has found something with the XL wing but are not releasing the information to the world at large until the designer has had time to comment. This would seem to be a reasonable courtesy. It is for this reason that the "rumour has it" is employed. I may be wrong, of course, but that's how it looks from my position. 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=220534#220534 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
From: "GBzodiflyer" <thehighflyer(at)aol.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
I have also heard this , but have not listed it because clearly all we get back for our concerns , is name calling , what is wrong with you people over there , we all have flying xl s, that we built . when u guys get grounded or have a restriction slapped on your aircraft maybe you will see it from our point of view I thought aviators and builders tended to stick together. there are no bad remarks from competitors here . if you are still building a fix is not to much of an issue , If your done and flying , or not at the moment , it could be major work to tear it down again . grow up the name callers . Gary Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220565#220565 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
Well for what it's worth, I'm an 801 builder anyway. So I wasn't even talking about ailerons when I made my post. Just A4's in general. I will not use them for anything that holds any real load in any case. They are very weak. A5's are significantly stronger. The published specs for the rivets - I would be very skeptical of in any case. Maybe they make the grade with the std heads. But sure don't seem to make the grade with the zenith concave rivet head/flush rivet system. I'd suggest if anybody doesn't believe me, that they make a few test assemblies, and then put on a tough pair of gloves and try to tear them apart by hand. You can quite easily. Ok, so that's NOT scientific, but to me they fail the "hmm, these ain't very strong ..." idiot's simple test. IF you have something like an aileron attached with them, then personally I'd be a bit worried. Regards, Jeff ashontz wrote: > Without looking at my plans, doesn't the wing call for A5 rivets anyway? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220576#220576 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
From: "dougsire" <dsire(at)imt.net>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
To our Zenith friends around the world, On behalf of all Americans who realize that the UK is not filled with commies, please accept our apologies for the occasional "Ugly American" rants you will find on these forums. If it is any consolation, these tirades are usually nondiscriminatory in who they try to offend. I too have seen a structural analysis of the 601XL wing which has given me enough concern that I won't go any further with my project without some structural enhancements. This topic has been beaten to death and beyond on these lists, and I think everyone has some level of concern, even if they won't admit it (remember folks, denial isn't just a river in Australia....). I can understand that it must be very frustrating to have a completed aircraft that you can't fly. We sympathize with you and hope for a speedy resolution. Doug Sire Billings, MT 601XL -------- Doug Sire 601XL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220587#220587 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
From: "pavel569" <pm569(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
Could you be more specific? dougsire wrote: > I too have seen a structural analysis of the 601XL wing which has given me enough concern that I won't go any further with my project without some structural enhancements. -------- 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=220599#220599 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ella" <rhodes1(at)copper.net>
Subject: 601XL Rudder
Date: Dec 22, 2008
Hi Does anyone know if a 601XL rudder will fit A CH701 Thanks Don 601XL ----- Original Message ----- From: "dougsire" <dsire(at)imt.net> Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 3:17 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: More on the XL grounding > > To our Zenith friends around the world, > > On behalf of all Americans who realize that the UK is not filled with > commies, please accept our apologies for the occasional "Ugly American" > rants you will find on these forums. If it is any consolation, these > tirades are usually nondiscriminatory in who they try to offend. > > I too have seen a structural analysis of the 601XL wing which has given me > enough concern that I won't go any further with my project without some > structural enhancements. > > This topic has been beaten to death and beyond on these lists, and I think > everyone has some level of concern, even if they won't admit it (remember > folks, denial isn't just a river in Australia....). I can understand > that it must be very frustrating to have a completed aircraft that you > can't fly. We sympathize with you and hope for a speedy resolution. > > Doug Sire > Billings, MT > 601XL > > -------- > Doug Sire 601XL > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220587#220587 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jeyoung65(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 22, 2008
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
JUST FOR MY INFORMATION: Have you tried this with a Cherry rivet? Not sure why Zenith elected to dome a countersunk rivet instead of using the dome rivet. Did you try the test using dome rivets? Jerry of Ga DO NOT ARCHIVE In a message dated 12/22/2008 2:30:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, n85ae(at)yahoo.com writes: --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "n85ae" Well for what it's worth, I'm an 801 builder anyway. So I wasn't even talking about ailerons when I made my post. Just A4's in general. I will not use them for anything that holds any real load in any case. They are very weak. A5's are significantly stronger. The published specs for the rivets - I would be very skeptical of in any case. Maybe they make the grade with the std heads. But sure don't seem to make the grade with the zenith concave rivet head/flush rivet system. I'd suggest if anybody doesn't believe me, that they make a few test assemblies, and then put on a tough pair of gloves and try to tear them apart by hand. You can quite easily. Ok, so that's NOT scientific, but to me they fail the "hmm, these ain't very strong ..." idiot's simple test. IF you have something like an aileron attached with them, then personally I'd be a bit worried. Regards, Jeff ashontz wrote: > Without looking at my plans, doesn't the wing call for A5 rivets anyway? . **************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. The NEW ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
dougsire wrote: > To our Zenith friends around the world, > > On behalf of all Americans who realize that the UK is not filled with commies, please accept our apologies for the occasional "Ugly American" rants you will find on these forums. If it is any consolation, these tirades are usually nondiscriminatory in who they try to offend. > > I too have seen a structural analysis of the 601XL wing which has given me enough concern that I won't go any further with my project without some structural enhancements. > > This topic has been beaten to death and beyond on these lists, and I think everyone has some level of concern, even if they won't admit it (remember folks, denial isn't just a river in Australia....). I can understand that it must be very frustrating to have a completed aircraft that you can't fly. We sympathize with you and hope for a speedy resolution. > > Doug Sire > Billings, MT > 601XL First, I don't give a crap where aerobat is from. I'll be honest that I didn't even look to see. What I did look at is that he has posted 6 times to the Matronics lists and they have all been attack posts. He has never posted with a question or answer about building or flying a CH design (or any other design for that matter). Second, where exactly did you see this information? Could it have been in a post from an anonymous poster like aerobat? By God man if you have information share it. -------- 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=220623#220623 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601XL Rudder
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
I think it would pretty safe to say, No. -------- 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=220624#220624 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2008
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
> I have also heard this , but have not listed it because clearly all we get > back for our concerns , is name calling , what is wrong with you people > over there , we all have flying xl s, that we built . when u guys get > grounded or have a restriction slapped on your aircraft maybe you will see > it from our point of view I thought aviators and builders tended to stick > together. there are no bad remarks from competitors here . if you are > still building a fix is not to much of an issue , If your done and flying > , or not at the moment , it could be major work to tear it down again . > grow up the name callers . Gary, you say "there are no bad remarks from competitors here" - but there have indeed been such in the past. There's been a lot of mud slung at the XL by folks who want to build up the competition and tear down the Zodiac. The rumor was that "the FAA will restrict the XL to 450 kg and 97 knots". First, we're talking about apples and oranges here: the American XL is different from the European XL. The European aircraft was not designed to a 600 kg max gross in the firstplace, due to the European equivalent to the light sport rule having that as a maximum limit. That leads to a lighter airframe requirement. My Zodiac has an empty weight of 850 pounds (385 kg). That would make it essentially impossible to fly with a 990 pound max gross, especially since I weigh 200 pounds. Further, the American XL was designed for a max gross of 1450 pounds (658 kg); its 1320 pound (600 kg) official max gross is an artifact of the US LSA rules. In the US, I don't know if the AD process applies to LSAs; if not, then such a directive would have to come from AMD for factory LSA such as mine, and I'm not at all sure they'd agree to it. My name, aircraft registration number, and ham radio callsign are all in the signature below. I stand behind my words, and it's easy to verify that I'm who I say I am and that I do indeed own and fly a Zodiac XLi, N55ZC. There have been lots of anonymous, or effectively anonymous, detractors posting on the list. Why won't they stand behind their words? Why won't they tell us who they are? That is severely damaging to their credibility. Yes, aviators stick together, and need to - but I have no reason to believe that "aerobat" is part of the community. There may be a problem with the Zodiac's structure, and if so, I have every confidence that Chris Heintz will own up to it and issue a fix. Until we get real information, however, speculation - especially on the basis of the Dutch grounding (and that they grounded the aircraft and promptly left on a month's vacation speaks volumes about their professionalism) - helps nobody. It doesn't help builders, it doesn't help owners, it doesn't help pilots, it doesn't help the authorities, and it doesn't help Zenair and its affiliated companies. The only folks it does help are the folks building aircraft and kits that compete with the Zodiac, and, as far as I'm concerned, they can damned well fend for themselves in the marketplace without the help of dirty tricks. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL 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: Dec 22, 2008
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
> On behalf of all Americans who realize that the UK is not filled with > commies, please accept our apologies for the occasional "Ugly American" > rants you will find on these forums. If it is any consolation, these > tirades are usually nondiscriminatory in who they try to offend. FWIW, I don't care where someone posts from. Uninformed speculation and rumormongering is harmful whether it comes from the UK, the US, or elsewhere. > I too have seen a structural analysis of the 601XL wing which has given me > enough concern that I won't go any further with my project without some > structural enhancements. The only structural analysis I've seen (the preliminary report from the ZBAG) shows that the wing is adequately designed to meet the stated loads. It's not as overbuilt as some, but the nature of light sport aircraft limits how much overbuilding is possible. > This topic has been beaten to death and beyond on these lists, and I think > everyone has some level of concern, even if they won't admit it (remember > folks, denial isn't just a river in Australia....). I can understand that > it must be very frustrating to have a completed aircraft that you can't > fly. We sympathize with you and hope for a speedy resolution. I agree. If my aircraft were grounded by some governmental official who couldn't be bothered to do his job instead of taking off on vacation and leaving nobody to resolve the issue, as the Dutch did, I'd be furious. However, I wouldn't be spreading derogatory rumors about it, especially without standing behind my words. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL 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: Dec 22, 2008
From: Elden Jacobson <eldenej(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
"I, too, have seen a structural analysis that has given me...concern..." I suspect nearly all of us would much appreciate an elaboration of this. - Elden Jacobson xl/3300 --- On Tue, 12/23/08, dougsire wrote: From: dougsire <dsire(at)imt.net> Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: More on the XL grounding Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 4:17 AM To our Zenith friends around the world, On behalf of all Americans who realize that the UK is not filled with commi es, please accept our apologies for the occasional "Ugly American" rants you will find on these forums. If it is any consolation, these tirades ar e usually nondiscriminatory in who they try to offend. I too have seen a structural analysis of the 601XL wing which has given me enough concern that I won't go any further with my project without some structural enhancements. This topic has been beaten to death and beyond on these lists, and I think everyone has some level of concern, even if they won't admit it (remember folks, denial isn't just a river in Australia....). I can understand that it must be very frustrating to have a completed aircraft that you can't fly . We sympathize with you and hope for a speedy resolution. Doug Sire Billings, MT 601XL -------- Doug Sire 601XL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220587#220587 =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: XL wing concerns
From: "europa2" <david_pitt(at)btinternet.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
Mine is one of 17 odd XLs grounded by the LAA in UK. There is a feeling that both Chris and Michael Heintz are reluctant to respond to our LAAs observations on the airframe? Do they intend to engage with them, thereby speeding up the investigation and hopefully, get the aircraft released for flight? Our concern is that the eventual outcome might be severe restrictions in the flight envelope; effectively reducing it to a single seater, limited in both range and payload! The aircrafts resale value would be greatly reduced, and I believe buyers would shun away from it Come on Chris!javascript:emoticon(':roll:') Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220635#220635 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2008
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
David, Who did you buy your plane from? Surely, Michael Heintz had nothing to do with it in any way. Why do you think he or Chris should come to your defense? If you bought your plane from Czech Aircraft Works, then you have a real problem since, as I understand it, they have gone bankrupt. If it was from Zenith, Zenair, or AMD, then you should be directing your complaints to them. Where ever did you folks get the notion that the Heintzs were responsible for your government's actions? Paul Camas, WA USA At 03:34 PM 12/22/2008, you wrote: >Mine is one of 17 odd XLs grounded by the LAA >in UK. There is a feeling that both Chris and >Michael Heintz are reluctant to respond to our >LAAs observations on the airframe? Do they >intend to engage with them, thereby speeding up >the investigation and hopefully, get the aircraft released for flight? >Our concern is that the eventual outcome might >be severe restrictions in the flight envelope; >effectively reducing it to a single seater, >limited in both range and payload! The >aircrafts resale value would be greatly >reduced, and I believe buyers would shun away from it > >Come on Chris!javascript:emoticon(':roll:') ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
From: "aerobat" <rhood2000(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
The reason my posts are all on the same subject is quite simple, I own a Czech 601XL. An aeroplane that I am extremely fond of, over the years I have had a dozen or more different types but the XL is my favourite. The only problem is wings keep falling off them and I really want to know why. I am just a fifteen thousand hour pilot with no in depth engineering knowledge but our UK LAA is a highly respected professional body and if they are worried about the wing then so am I. I treat this forum like when I go to the bar with my friends, we discuss things we have heard, not everything is a hard fact but but maybe passed on second hand and an awful lot of rumours do turn out to be fact. A lot of people here seem to suffer from head in the sand syndrome, all I want is a fix for the XL before it kills anyone else. If another one crashes and the designer is found to have received information from the LAA and ignored, it how much do you think he will be sued for ? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220645#220645 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2008
From: Ronald Steele <rsteele(at)rjsit.com>
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
I'm curious how long the LAA has been analyzing this problem. Have they found a problem in a few weeks that others have been spending months if not years searching for? If so I'm really impressed, and they won't confirm it. I'm just as concerned about this as anyone else, but this scenario just doesn't add up. My head isn't in the sand, but my BS meter is pegged. The more people vetting a design the better. The problem here is that the only people who actually have confirmed having done an analysis haven't found a problem. Ron On Dec 22, 2008, at 7:05 PM, aerobat wrote: > > > The reason my posts are all on the same subject is quite simple, I > own a Czech 601XL. > An aeroplane that I am extremely fond of, over the years I have had > a dozen or more different types but the XL is my favourite. > The only problem is wings keep falling off them and I really want to > know why. > I am just a fifteen thousand hour pilot with no in depth engineering > knowledge but our UK LAA is a highly respected professional body and > if they are worried about the wing then so am I. > I treat this forum like when I go to the bar with my friends, we > discuss things we have heard, not everything is a hard fact but but > maybe passed on second hand and an awful lot of rumours do turn out > to be fact. > A lot of people here seem to suffer from head in the sand syndrome, > all I want is a fix for the XL before it kills anyone else. > If another one crashes and the designer is found to have received > information from the LAA and ignored, it how much do you think he > will be sued for ? > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220645#220645 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
So it is your habit to walk into bars and say nothing but negatives and rumors about the key interest of the rest of the customers. Man, I bet you get beat up a lot. aerobat wrote: > The reason my posts are all on the same subject is quite simple, I own a Czech 601XL. > An aeroplane that I am extremely fond of, over the years I have had a dozen or more different types but the XL is my favourite. > The only problem is wings keep falling off them and I really want to know why. > I am just a fifteen thousand hour pilot with no in depth engineering knowledge but our UK LAA is a highly respected professional body and if they are worried about the wing then so am I. > I treat this forum like when I go to the bar with my friends, we discuss things we have heard, not everything is a hard fact but but maybe passed on second hand and an awful lot of rumours do turn out to be fact. > A lot of people here seem to suffer from head in the sand syndrome, all I want is a fix for the XL before it kills anyone else. > If another one crashes and the designer is found to have received information from the LAA and ignored, it how much do you think he will be sued for ? -------- 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=220652#220652 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
Date: Dec 22, 2008
This really doesn't sound like a company trying to avoid an issue: "Netherlands: At this point in time, Zenair is not allowed to inspect the wreckage of the accident aircraft (we asked); it is locked up and under the control of the Dutch aeronautical police and only the members of the Dutch CAA and of the Dutch Safety Board are permitted to inspect it. Zenair will make arrangements to carefully examine the aircraft remains as soon as permission to do so is granted." http://www.zenairulm.com/News/index_files/Page360.htm "For many owners of the presently grounded CH 601 XL in Europe, evidence of progress with the current investigation has been disappointingly slim for the last week. This is also the case for Zenair Europe. The response from Dutch authorities to our repeated inquiries has been consistent: "The investigation is on-going". Our offer to provide input has been politely declined, as has our request to inspect the accident aircraft, as has our offer to fly designer Chris Heintz to Holland to answer engineering questions. Other Civilian Aviation Authorities (CAA) have also attempted to obtain additional details, to no avail." http://www.zenairulm.com/News/index_files/Page447.htm And the LAA has written "The LAA has no reason to believe that the Zenair CH 601 XL wing is in any way structurally defective and, provided that the aircraft is flown within the limitations defined in the aircraft's Flight Manual, see no reason for it to fail." http://www.zenairulm.com/News/pdfdocs/UKGrounding.pdf -- Craig ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2008
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
> The reason my posts are all on the same subject is quite simple, I own a > An aeroplane that I am extremely fond of, over the years I have had a > dozen or more different types but the XL is my favourite. I'm really quite fond of mine, too. I'd damned well better be, since I'm on the hook for over $133,000 for it. Mine's N55ZC, and you can see pictures of me and it at the link in my .signature below. What's yours? > The only problem is wings keep falling off them and I really want to know > why. I don't think there's a single person on here who doesn't want to know the answer to that question. I certainly do. > I am just a fifteen thousand hour pilot with no in depth engineering > knowledge but our UK LAA is a highly respected professional body and if > they are worried about the wing then so am I. Why should we believe you when you won't tell us who you are? Why should I think the LAA has concerns? They're not saying anything in public. Do you have insider information? How can we be sure your source is credible? > I treat this forum like when I go to the bar with my friends, we discuss > things we have heard, not everything is a hard fact but but maybe passed > on second hand and an awful lot of rumours do turn out to be fact. An awful lot don't, too. What's the value of a rumor that's not backed up by any kind of information that would allow us to evaluate its accuracy? > A lot of people here seem to suffer from head in the sand syndrome, all I > want is a fix for the XL before it kills anyone else. Again, I doubt there's a single person on here who doesn't want to see a fix, ASAP. I certainly do not have my head in the sand on the subject. What I do have is a healthy respect for the aircraft and its design limitations. I don't fly aerobatics in it. I don't do sudden maneuvers of any kind in it. I don't exceed the limiting airspeeds, I keep it out of the yellow arc except when the air is absolutely smooth, and I slow down to maneuvering speed when I encounter any significant amount of turbulence. Aviation is about risk management. It's not about risk elimination. We cannot eliminate all risk, and believing to the contrary is wishful thinking at best. I mitigate the risks of flying my airplane by staying within the aircraft's limits and my own (and, as a 275-or-so-hour, non-instrument- rated private pilot, those are quite significant). I do that to the best of my ability, and I refuse to worry about the rest of it, because I cannot change it. It's known that there's no one common causal factor among the accidents. There is NOTHING ELSE KNOWN. PERIOD. Anything else is RAWEST SPECULATION. That's not head in the sand. It's a refusal to become paralyzed by risk. > If another one crashes and the designer is found to have received > information from the LAA and ignored, it how much do you think he will be > sued for ? And yet you think he'd IGNORE it in the light of that kind of liability? Just what kind of COMPLETE F***ING IDIOT DO YOU THINK HE IS???!!!! Get real. Better yet, tell us who the hell you are, or SHUT THE F*** UP! I've had it with anonymous fearmongers. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL 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: More on the XL grounding
From: "jmaynard" <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Date: Dec 22, 2008
rans6andrew wrote: > aerobat is the only poster in this thread whose location is in the text below his name on the left side of the page. It says UK. Sounds good enough for me. I just noticed this one from looking at the thread on the Matronics web site. My location is clearly displayed below my name on the left, as well, and it's also in my signature when I post from email (which is nearly all of them). Just for the sake of completeness, KFRM is the municipal airport in Fairmont, Minnesota, a small town about 120 miles southwest of Minneapolis, just north of the Iowa border. That enough for you? -------- Jay Maynard, K5ZC AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220671#220671 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2008
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: More on the XL grounding
Hi Jay If you would like to talk about this, give me a call, 406-961-5342. I'll be gone to Missoula much of tomorrow. I'm home tonight, tomorrow morning until 10 or so, and tomorrow evening. Terry > > > The reason my posts are all on the same subject is quite simple, I own a > > An aeroplane that I am extremely fond of, over the years I have had a > > dozen or more different types but the XL is my favourite. > >I'm really quite fond of mine, too. I'd damned well better be, since I'm on >the hook for over $133,000 for it. > >Mine's N55ZC, and you can see pictures of me and it at the link in my >.signature below. What's yours? > > > The only problem is wings keep falling off them and I really want to know > > why. > >I don't think there's a single person on here who doesn't want to know the >answer to that question. I certainly do. > > > I am just a fifteen thousand hour pilot with no in depth engineering > > knowledge but our UK LAA is a highly respected professional body and if > > they are worried about the wing then so am I. > >Why should we believe you when you won't tell us who you are? > >Why should I think the LAA has concerns? They're not saying anything in >public. Do you have insider information? How can we be sure your source is >credible? > > > I treat this forum like when I go to the bar with my friends, we discuss > > things we have heard, not everything is a hard fact but but maybe passed > > on second hand and an awful lot of rumours do turn out to be fact. > >An awful lot don't, too. What's the value of a rumor that's not backed up by >any kind of information that would allow us to evaluate its accuracy? > > > A lot of people here seem to suffer from head in the sand syndrome, all I > > want is a fix for the XL before it kills anyone else. > >Again, I doubt there's a single person on here who doesn't want to see a >fix, ASAP. I certainly do not have my head in the sand on the subject. > >What I do have is a healthy respect for the aircraft and its design >limitations. I don't fly aerobatics in it. I don't do sudden maneuvers of >any kind in it. I don't exceed the limiting airspeeds, I keep it out of the >yellow arc except when the air is absolutely smooth, and I slow down to >maneuvering speed when I encounter any significant amount of turbulence. > >Aviation is about risk management. It's not about risk elimination. We >cannot eliminate all risk, and believing to the contrary is wishful thinking >at best. I mitigate the risks of flying my airplane by staying within the >aircraft's limits and my own (and, as a 275-or-so-hour, non-instrument- >rated private pilot, those are quite significant). I do that to the best of >my ability, and I refuse to worry about the rest of it, because I cannot >change it. > >It's known that there's no one common causal factor among the accidents. >There is NOTHING ELSE KNOWN. PERIOD. Anything else is RAWEST SPECULATION. > >That's not head in the sand. It's a refusal to become paralyzed by risk. > > > If another one crashes and the designer is found to have received > > information from the LAA and ignored, it how much do you think he will be > > sued for ? > >And yet you think he'd IGNORE it in the light of that kind of liability? >Just what kind of COMPLETE F***ING IDIOT DO YOU THINK HE IS???!!!! > >Get real. Better yet, tell us who the hell you are, or SHUT THE F*** UP! > >I've had it with anonymous fearmongers. >-- >Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL 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 > 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: XL wing concerns
From: "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
Paul, > If you bought your plane from Czech Aircraft > Works, then you have a real problem since, as I > understand it, they have gone bankrupt. Just to make things clear: CZAW was the official contractor for Zenair until the end of 2006, i.e. all Zenair CH601XL-kits for Europe were delivered through CZAW. I contacted Zenair US in autumn 2005 to order my CH601XL and was redirected by them to CZAW ("kits in Europe are solely sold through CZAW"). However my serial number is a real Zenair number and my kit is a real Zenair kit. 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=220693#220693 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Hi Martin, Thanks for writing and clearing up my misunderstanding. Does the relationship between Zenair and CZAW mean you can get warranty service from Zenair? Also, I understood the European model XLs have several significant differences from the other ones. The only one I can identify is the landing gear being composite rather than solid aluminum. I thought there were empty weight and possibly gross weight differences as well. Paul At 12:32 AM 12/23/2008, you wrote: > >Paul, > > > > If you bought your plane from Czech Aircraft > > Works, then you have a real problem since, as I > > understand it, they have gone bankrupt. > > >Just to make things clear: CZAW was the official contractor for >Zenair until the end of 2006, i.e. all Zenair CH601XL-kits for >Europe were delivered through CZAW. > >I contacted Zenair US in autumn 2005 to order my CH601XL and was >redirected by them to CZAW ("kits in Europe are solely sold through >CZAW"). However my serial number is a real Zenair number and my kit >is a real Zenair kit. > >Martin > >-------- >Martin Pohl >Zodiac XL QBK >8645 Jona, Switzerland ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "europa2" <david_pitt(at)btinternet.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
It should be stressed that the CZAW production of Zenair aircraft, whether RTF or kit, were built under Zenair licence. However, at the end of 2006 Zenair and Czech Aircraft works (CZAW) mutually agreed to discontinue the manufacture of Zenair aircraft by CZAW . The build plans of the CZAW supplied XL kit, has Chris Heintz's copyright on the bottom of each page. Therefore, with regards to accidents involving the Zenair type aircraft, it is appropriate that Chris is involved in discussion with the appropriate aviation authority. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220699#220699 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
David, Chris has indeed been involved in accident investigations and supplemental structure testing for the XL. He has also issued some letters recommending actions by XL builders/owners. In particular, he has suggested a need to keep control cables tensioned properly. He has also mentioned that the design trade-off giving very good pitch control at low speeds has made it possible to cause damage with abrupt stick inputs at high speeds - particularly in the negative G direction. On the other hand, I understand Chris has been retired (in France) for several years now. I know there have been a number of engineering changes made to the XL since he retired. I must conclude there have been other engineers making design changes even though the drawings still show only his name. There are a number of engineers familiar with the XL design. They have been readily available for builder assistance, and I presume there has been plenty of engineering support for the various government led accident investigations. The only comments I have seen suggesting lack of engineering support for those investigations have come from people too ashamed of their identities to include their names along with their comments. Paul Camas, WA USA At 03:29 AM 12/23/2008, you wrote: >It should be stressed that the CZAW production of Zenair aircraft, >whether RTF or kit, were built under Zenair licence. >However, at the end of 2006 Zenair and Czech Aircraft works (CZAW) >mutually agreed to discontinue the manufacture of Zenair aircraft by CZAW . >The build plans of the CZAW supplied XL kit, has Chris Heintz's >copyright on the bottom of each page. Therefore, with regards to >accidents involving the Zenair type aircraft, it is appropriate that >Chris is involved in discussion with the appropriate aviation authority. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Hi David, After several years on this list and working daily on my own XL I am still confused by the various companies and people involved with this design. It seems I am not the only one. Recent posts have claimed CZAW was an agent for both Zenith and Zenair. These are two completely different companies which exist in two different countries. Zenair is the Canadian company that produces parts and kits designed originally by Chris Heintz and Zenith Aircraft Company is a USA company that also sells some of those same designs. I know there is a close relationship of some sort between Zenith and Zenair since I had to wait for Zenair to make a new wing spar for shipment to Zenith when I ordered a replacement wing kit. The remaining wing kit parts were manufactured at Zenith. I strongly suspect there never was a relationship between CZAW and Zenith but there was some sort of licensing agreement between CZAW and Zenair. I don't really understand the relationship between CZAW and either of the companies mentioned above. However, I don't believe they acted as an agent for them. Rather, I think CZAW produced airplanes based on the same CH designs (at least in some cases) and sold them primarily in Europe. I am also aware of at least one CZAW XL that was sold as a complete airplane to a list member in Virginia. There is similar confusion over the various members of the Heintz family. Chris is the original designer for the CHxxx line of aircraft. He is currently retired. He has 4 sons who currently make their fortune working with his designs. Sebastian Heintz and Nicholas Heintz both work for Zenith Aircraft Company in Mexico, Missouri. Michael Heintz is involved with a California company that acts as an agent for Zenith. There is another one whose name I can't quote who is involved with AMD in Georgia. Let me apologize if I am still confused over the various company names and locations and various members of the Heintz family involved with those companies. Some times I suspect they went out of their way to keep their customers confused over these questions. Paul XL getting close Camas, WA USA At 03:35 AM 12/23/2008, you wrote: >I'm in the UK, I bought my 601XL kit from CZAW, as they were the >European agents for Zenith. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "aerobat" <rhood2000(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
None of the UK CH601XLs are microlights, they all have MTOW of 560kg apart from two that appear to be 590kg. My own XL came from CZAW complete with it's detailed build drawings that have ZENITH AIRCRAFT in bold print, all rights reserved design by CHRIS HEINTZ and copyright 2002 Chris Heinz on every sheet apart from the few CZAW modifications ie undercarriage. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220707#220707 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Dec 23, 2008
Wow, I usually stay out of this stuff but come one guys. I have see 5 of you flame people, swearing there are differences between European and US XL's, then flame saying "your problem is with CZAW not Chris Heinz!" With all of this bickering I have see the US "Zenith is Magnificant and Perfect" attitude to a embarrassing point. You guys were wrong with your statements and when it was pointed out by other European owners you accepted it but after the brutal tongue bashing you gave the least you can do is admit you are wrong and APOLOGIZE. Yeah go ahead and flame me, I only have a few posts here. Yeah I sold my 601HD along time ago, but I bought a new set of plans and will build a new 601HD when I get around to it, but please don't let that stop you flame me too, it seems to be all you can do. You guys forget, this is a builders list. It is here for builders and if they have a problem this is the place to vent. Remember we are supposed to be supportive, not DEFENSIVE. None of us designed or sold Zenair, Zenith, CZAW or AMD products, but we all own or are building them. I have great compassion for the guys in Europe who are grounded. I can understand their anger and frustraition. What should have been said to the aerobat and the others who posted: Wow, that is news to me. Well if it is true hopefully it will get worked out soon. Being here in the USA we do not hear the same things, we can only read what is posted by Zenith. Where did you get your information? Is your plane built? Or still working on it? Well something to that effect, you get the idea. Instead what I saw was a immeadiate verbal attack to a fellow builder who has problems beyond his control and who is very frustraited and needed support and a positive response. Well you guys, it is close to Christmas and to a bright new year. Lets try a little friendship to people we don't know. Who knows someone might even show you the same when you need it. David M. Petaluma CA -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of aerobat Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:07 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns None of the UK CH601XLs are microlights, they all have MTOW of 560kg apart from two that appear to be 590kg. My own XL came from CZAW complete with it's detailed build drawings that have ZENITH AIRCRAFT in bold print, all rights reserved design by CHRIS HEINTZ and copyright 2002 Chris Heinz on every sheet apart from the few CZAW modifications ie undercarriage. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220707#220707 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "aerobat" <rhood2000(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
Excellent post Skyguy. Merry Christmas to you and your family. Happy flying. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220718#220718 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
thank you Dave. Have a blessed Christmas and a satisfying new year. David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/23/08, skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com wro te: From: skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com <skyguynca(at)skyguynca.com> Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 8:25 AM Wow, I usually stay out of this stuff but come one guys. I have see 5 of yo u flame people, swearing there are differences between European and US XL's, then flame saying "your problem is with CZAW not Chris Heinz!" With all of this bickering I have see the US "Zenith is Magnificant and Perfect" attitude to a embarrassing point. You guys were wrong with your statements and when it was pointed out by other European owners you accepted it but after the brutal tongue bashing you gave the least you can do is admit you are wrong and APOLOGIZE. Yeah go ahead and flame me, I only have a few posts here. Yeah I sold my 601HD along time ago, but I bought a new set of plans and will build a new 601HD when I get around to it, but please don't let that stop you flame me too, it seems to be all you can do. You guys forget, this is a builders list. It is here for builders and if they have a problem this is the place to vent. Remember we are supposed to be supportive, not DEFENSIVE. None of us designed or sold Zenair, Zenith, CZAW or AMD products, but we all own or are building them. I have great compassion for the guys in Europe who are grounded. I can understand their anger and frustraition. What should have been said to the aerobat and the others who posted: Wow, that is news to me. Well if it is true hopefully it will get worked ou t soon. Being here in the USA we do not hear the same things, we can only rea d what is posted by Zenith. Where did you get your information? Is your plan e built? Or still working on it? Well something to that effect, you get the idea. Instead what I saw was a immeadiate verbal attack to a fellow builder who has problems beyond his control and who is very frustraited and needed support and a positive response. Well you guys, it is close to Christmas and to a bright new year. Lets try a little friendship to people we don't know. Who knows someone might even show you the same when you need it. David M. Petaluma CA -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of aerobat Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:07 AM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns None of the UK CH601XLs are microlights, they all have MTOW of 560kg apart from two that appear to be 590kg. My own XL came from CZAW complete with it's detailed build drawings that have ZENITH AIRCRAFT in bold print, all rights reserved design by CHRIS HEINTZ and copyright 2002 Chris Heinz on every sheet apart from the few CZA W modifications ie undercarriage. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220707#220707 =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
> There is similar confusion over the various members of the Heintz family. > Chris is the original designer for the CHxxx line of aircraft. He is > currently retired. He has 4 sons who currently make their fortune working > with his designs. Sebastian Heintz and Nicholas Heintz both work for > Zenith Aircraft Company in Mexico, Missouri. Michael Heintz is involved > with a California company that acts as an agent for Zenith. There is > another one whose name I can't quote who is involved with AMD in Georgia. That's Mathieu Heintz. Who runs Zenair in Canada? I know that AMD gets quick build kits from them for completion and sale, as I watched two of them being delivered while I was at the AMD factory to take delivery of my airplane. Is that where Zenith gets their quick build kits, or do they start from parts and do their own assembly? I'd thought that Zenith was, basically, the US distributor for Zenair. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL 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: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
"The only significant change that I am aware of is that they have changed the angle of incidence of the wing by lowering the rear attachment point, but no structural change there." End Quote. CZAW did this 2" down--2 degree decalage change by TWISTING the main spars rather than re-setting the main carry through spar... Can the LAA find any static testing of this new twisted main spar anywhere in CZAW's books? I am sure the FAA and NTSB recognize this and that is why they contacted CZAW owners here in the U.S. The 650 changes the main spar set to match the new rear spar angle. When your LAA, through a former Zenith dealer, takes the time to repeatedly contact a 15 year old girl in the U.S. about the addition of SS A5 rivets on the inboard ailerons aft hinge portion attach points and requests more information each time, it means only one thing, they are very thorough. I applaud the LAA. They don't believe for one minute that this was ONLY significant change CZAW made. The AMD XLi and the Sabrina roll out at 850 pounds empty. As the Germans recently pointed out, how in the world do you EU CZAW owners get your aircraft to come in at the required EU weights? I have been sent photos showing .016 skin thicknesses on some CZAW aircraft kits where Zenith plans spec .025 Are there static tests of the .016 CZAW aircraft anywhere to be had? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220744#220744 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
> When your LAA, through a former Zenith dealer, takes the time to > repeatedly contact a 15 year old girl in the U.S. about the addition of SS > A5 rivets on the inboard ailerons aft hinge portion attach points and > requests more information each time, it means only one thing, they are > very thorough. It also means the 15-year-old in question has earned a significant amount of respect as an aeronautical engineer. Personally, I think it's well-deserved. > The AMD XLi and the Sabrina roll out at 850 pounds empty. My AMD XLi did, but it's one of the heavier ones due to the level of equipment installed. AMD's aircraft tend to be in the 750-800 pound range with more usual levels of equipment, or 790-850 with BRS parachutes (which mine does not have). > As the Germans recently pointed out, how in the world do you EU CZAW > owners get your aircraft to come in at the required EU weights? This is a really good question, to which I've never heard a definitive straight answer. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL 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: Dec 23, 2008
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
FYI: My 601 HD plans has .016 for the Rear Top and Rear Bottom skin at .016" (Ref: 6V-8 drawing dated 04/01) as well at the Wing Nose Skin and Wingtip Rear Top Skin ( Ref: 6V-9 dated 01/02) Jerry of Georgia In a message dated 12/23/2008 11:30:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net writes: --> Zenith601-List message posted by: Bryan Martin There may have been a change to the later versions of the Zenith plans where .016 skins have been changed to .025. In my early plans, every skin aft of the cabin area is .016 and so are the ailerons, all the other skins are .025. Some people were concerned about oil canning on the aft fuselage area and were considering using .025 or .020 instead of .016. I think that Zenith approved that modification. I seem to recall that Zenith may have changed the plans to include thicker skins on the aft fuselage area. How thick is the aluminum in that area on your plans? If there was a change in the plans, maybe the CZAW planes were built from earlier plans. I recall some builders were considering using the thicker aluminum because .016 was not readily available in their region. The only down side I can see of using thicker skins on the aft fuselage would be the extra weight and a small change in the CG that would need to be taken into account. On the other hand, using thicker skins on the control surfaces could have serious consequences. > > --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Sabrina" > > > I have been sent photos showing .016 skin thicknesses on some CZAW > aircraft kits where Zenith plans spec .025 Are there static tests > of the .016 CZAW aircraft anywhere to be had? > -- Bryan Martin N61BM, CH 601 XL, RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. do not archive. **************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. The NEW ________________________________________________________________________________
From: A.F.RUPP(at)att.net
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Dec 23, 2008
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
Sometimes aluminum structures that bend, change the rivet load from shear to tension. With A4's once you get a bit of bending, then your row of A4's become the aluminum equiv of velcro. A5's, and Solids do not do this. The laboratory perfect shear load, is rarely the case in real life. If you have a hinge holding an assembly on with A4's a hard shake might be all it takes to get the rivets to start popping. (flutter for example). Personally I think the rivets should be stronger than the metal that they are fastening. Somebody mentioned A5's are heavier? You could change every A4 to an A5 and the weight difference is probably less than what you gained eating over the holidays ... Regards, Jeff Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220763#220763 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Zodiac CH601XL "Problems"
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: jaybannist(at)cs.com
Here is my take on the Zodiac CH 601XL =9Cproblem=9D: Chris Heintz designed quite a number of airplanes; for factory assembly, kit construction and plans building.=C2- There are thousands of airplanes of his designs flying, including CH601XLs registered in the USA as LSA, E-LSA, EAB and an extremely confusing array of registration designations in other c ountries. =C2- There is a lot of discussion about whether the CZAW kits and airplanes are i dentical to the ones from the USA.=C2- There are those that claim that the y are identical...except blah, blah & blah.=C2- They simply can=99t be identical if there are exceptions.=C2- I suspect (another personal opin ion) that there are differences that observers either will not; or, more lik ely, can=99t recognize.=C2- For instance, can a builder tell the dif ference between 6061-T6 aluminum and 6061-Txx? Absolutely not.=C2- Can a b uilder tell the difference between the Avex rivets that Zenith supplies and substandard imitators?=C2- No.=C2- Yet these differences can be signific ant and can certainly effect the structural integrity of the airframe.=C2 - The same applies to the different angle of incidence of the wing.=C2- Is the angle of the wing spar center section changed or is the wing twisted to change the angle? (The latter is the case)=C2-=C2- Analyzing the weig ht differences and plain old common sense tells me that there are more diffe rences yet.=C2- In short, all CH601XLs are NOT identical, and claiming so is simply engaging in fantasy. European bu ilders have given the argument that Chris Heintz=99s name on all the d rawings as evidence that Heintz is totally responsible for their airplanes. However, they assert that the drawings are the same as those in the USA....e xcept for the added drawings by CZAW.=C2- Drawings supplied by CZAW with C hris Heintz name on all of them do NOT establish absolute responsibility for the finished product.=C2- That would require certification that the kit m aterials or the complete airplane strictly adheres to the requirements state d in those drawings, either by CZAW or the kit builder.=C2- CZAW obviously can=99t make that certification, and I don=99t know of any buil der that has the technical expertise nor the materials documentation to make that certification. Therefore, the owner / builder has the final responsibi lity for their airplane. As I recall, CZAW was started by an American in the Czech Republic as a prog ram to assist builders to quickly assemble Zodiac kits.=C2- CZAW then morp hed into a company that manufactured complete Zodiac airplanes and sold kits .=C2- It is unclear where the materials CZAW used actually originated. The Zenair - CZAW relationship ended for a reason.=C2- I don=99t know w hat that reason was, but I strongly suspect (my opinion strictly) that it wa s because the CZAW organization did not exercise adequate quality control, e specially over the materials they used and or supplied to kit builders. So why are CH601XLs crashing?=C2- Is there a design flaw? The design has b een verified sever al times over, through analysis and through testing.=C2- You can advance a ll sorts of convoluted arguments against this but the design simply does not have a flaw that causes a wing to fold.=C2- The XL design, as ALL aircraf t designs, is based on clearly stated operating limitations.=C2- Operating outside the design limitations of ANY aircraft subjects that aircraft to st ructural failure; and many of them have failed and crashed. =C2- So are there problems with the way pilots are operating? We all know the lim itations, but some pilots forget about them, or fly into bad climate situati ons, or have untenable equipment malfunctions, or simply choose to ignore th e limitations, because others have =9Cgotten away with it=9D. Are there problems with the materials used?=C2- I am personally confident in the materials supplied by Zenith.=C2- I do not have the same confidence in the materials supplied by CZAW. Summation (Definitely my opinion): The Zodiac CH601XL =9Cproblem =9D is not design.=C2- The =9CProblems=9D are: 1) The way some pilots choose to fly the airplane, either on purpose or acci dentally, 2) Possible substandard materials and unsound design changes (from CZAW) and , 3) Construction and maintenance errors on the part of builders/owners. These are highly personal opinions and not cold hard facts. A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all !!! Jay Bannister (alias Jay in Dallas) Zodiac CH 601XL N2630J =9CLil Bruiser=9D BTW, I have crashed in a Zodiac CH 601XLi (not mine).=C2- It had nothing to do with the design and the wings did not fall off. ________________________________________________________________________ Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: "Ron Pollock" <ronpollock(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
I'm curious to know if anyone would consider the larger holes drilled, say in using A5s in place of A4s, to cause the skin to be more prone to tearing. I thought on reviewing a fastener chart posted yesterday that even A4s weren't listed for .016" skin. Biggest was A3s. Thanks, Ron in L.A. On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:01 AM, n85ae wrote: > > Sometimes aluminum structures that bend, change the rivet load from > shear to tension. With A4's once you get a bit of bending, then your row > of A4's become the aluminum equiv of velcro. A5's, and Solids do not > do this. The laboratory perfect shear load, is rarely the case in real life. > > If you have a hinge holding an assembly on with A4's a hard shake might > be all it takes to get the rivets to start popping. (flutter for example). > > Personally I think the rivets should be stronger than the metal that they > are fastening. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601 problems
From: "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Aerobat (regardless of his/her motives) has to say his/her comment "there must be many other types out there with incorrect cable tensions flying without dropping out of the sky" seems to bear some merit. If cable tension was the single problem causing catastrophic failure then you would expect to see this alleged aileron flutter resulting in structural failure across numerous other types (both Zenith designs and other designs). Since I do not observe this I consider that maybe the XL is particularly susceptible to a failure mode resultant from aileron flutter. Furthermore, the potential for the wing folding incidents being exacerbated or caused by overloading thus should not be unique to the XL as many aircraft are often overloaded yet this does not appear to commonly lead to catastrophic failure. Does anyone agree with the above thinking? James Roberts BTW - Yes I do own a XL kit which I am in the process of building (although currently stopped awaiting clarity on the matter) and this can be seen on the South African distributors website. -------- Cell +27 83 675 0815 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220779#220779 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
a larger hole necessarily produces greater bearing strength as long as the edge distance is adequate. The recommended fastener sizes are for the desig n of a balanced joint - one that has approximately equal strength in shear (fastener failure in shear) and bearing (skin tear out) for the thinner ele ment assembled. That having been said, the rivet spacing is grossly above the the best bala nce spacing on not only the Zodiac but also most of the other designs on th e market. Also, as has been pointed out previously, adding the full complem ent is not unacceptable and has only a minor weight impact. I have always designed structure and repairs with the bearing failure as th e clear mode of failure. At least then you know the loads that the failure will propagate at in both pre and post buckled states to within a reasonabl e tolerance. The other way you have to assume that the structure is loading without local deflections that load the fasteners in unstable ways - zippe r mode. David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/23/08, Ron Pollock wrote: From: Ron Pollock <ronpollock(at)gmail.com> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 12:29 PM I'm curious to know if anyone would consider the larger holes drilled, say in using A5s in place of A4s, to cause the skin to be more prone to tearing. I thought on reviewing a fastener chart posted yesterday that even A4s weren't listed for .016" skin. Biggest was A3s. Thanks, Ron in L.A. On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:01 AM, n85ae wrote: > > Sometimes aluminum structures that bend, change the rivet load from > shear to tension. With A4's once you get a bit of bending, then your row > of A4's become the aluminum equiv of velcro. A5's, and Solids do not > do this. The laboratory perfect shear load, is rarely the case in real life. > > If you have a hinge holding an assembly on with A4's a hard shake might > be all it takes to get the rivets to start popping. (flutter for example) . > > Personally I think the rivets should be stronger than the metal that they > are fastening. > =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
May I correct this one: > CZAW did this 2" down--2 degree decalage change by TWISTING the main spars rather than re-setting the main carry through spar... Can the LAA find any static testing of this new twisted main spar anywhere in CZAW's books? The CZAW CH601XL has the main carry through spar reset by 2. The wings/main spar angles of the wings are similar to the Zenith version. The UK LAA has static wing loading tests of the CZAW CH601XL done by CZAW. The wings were tested all the way to wing failure. Cheers and Merry Christmas 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=220790#220790 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
Martin, what is left of the CZAW assembly guide on line shows a "9 degrees plywood spars" template. This agrees with what I have been told. This is the US XL set. If your plans show the 83 degree set or 7 degree template, please scan your 6-B-14 and post it today. Until I see a photo of a static test with the trailing edge down 2" I will not believe that a static test was ever conducted on the CZAW wing design. Feel free to supply photos. Please don't substitute in the 650 test photos. http://www.slovak-aircraft.eu/SINACO%20ZODIAC%20DVD/Zodiac%20XL%20photo%20assembly%20guides/fuselage/6-B-13.pdf Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220795#220795 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: A.F.RUPP(at)att.net
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Dec 23, 2008
All;, I don't normally say anything but seems to me we are not thinking through this. Look at your plans, does what you are saying make sense? If I do this what happens over there. What Sabrina is saying is if you drop the rear attach point down with out changing the uprights you are preloading the rivets on the spar cap and preloading the mid spar at the uprights just to get the nose down. Talk about zippers. Setting the flap upstop a little short and rigging in aileron droop to the flaps or changing the incidence on the horizontal stabilizer as Sabrina did will get the nose down without any stress on the airframe. It may slow you down but, depends what your desires are. Deviate from the engineer's design and you have built in a different airplane, don't call it his. Notice how Sabrina always goes back to the plans. That is CH's design. When you change the tension on your control cables you are rigging your controls I have heard some say they had "x" tension on this cable but the balance had something else. If you have different tension on the cables to a control you have a resistance on those cables or they would be the same unless you have rig pins in. NTSB investigations always have "interested parties" as part of an investigation. That is where they get their expertise from. I would assume any foreign investigation would be the same. Al Rupp 601XL Corvair power Almost done In Aircraft maintenance since 1944, mostly airline -------------- Original message from "Sabrina" : -------------- > "The only significant change that I am aware of is that they have changed the angle of incidence of the wing by lowering the rear attachment point, but no structural change there." End Quote. > CZAW did this 2" down--2 degree decalage change by TWISTING the main spars rather than re-setting the main carry through spar... Can the LAA find any static testing of this new twisted main spar anywhere in CZAW's books? > I am sure the FAA and NTSB recognize this and that is why they contacted CZAW owners here in the U.S. The 650 changes the main spar set to match the new rear spar angle. > When your LAA, through a former Zenith dealer, takes the time to repeatedly contact a 15 year old girl in the U.S. about the addition of SS A5 rivets on the inboard ailerons aft hinge portion attach points and requests more information each time, it means only one thing, they are very thorough. I applaud the > LAA. They don't believe for one minute that this was ONLY significant change > CZAW made. The AMD XLi and the Sabrina roll out at 850 pounds empty. As the > Germans recently pointed out, how in the world do you EU CZAW owners get your > aircraft to come in at the required EU weights? I have been sent photos > showing .016 skin thicknesses on some CZAW aircraft kits where Zenith plans spec > .025 Are there static tests of the .016 CZAW aircraft anywhere to be had? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
I will scan the CZAW drawing with the plywood spar template - however not today, the kids want to have time with their dad tonight :D. The online source you listed (http://www.slovak-aircraft.eu/) is not CZAW and does not seem to be related in any way to CZAW. The red CH601XL (http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html) is in fact a CZAW version of the CH601XL. The load test was performed at CZAW for the european certification of the airplane. I had limited access to the load test document which is available to the european aviation authorities. 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=220803#220803 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
I just got time to scan the drawing: 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=220805#220805 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
Martin, thank you for the post. I have been looking for that drawing for months! Notice that Christophe Heintz' name is not on plans. So too, the engine is pitched 3 degrees up while the wing is only pitched 2 degrees, the line of thrust of the engines no longer follow the main longerons. Ouch! Finally, do you agree that the following items, at the very least, would have to be changed on your aircraft to re-set the main spar? 6B-5-1s 57 degree angle changed 6B5-4 redesign 6B5-6 shifted The section A-A 3 degree pitch changed on 6-B-5 6B-5-2s 74 degree angle changed The geometry of 6B-17-5 changed 6B-18-1 redesigned 6B-18-3 redesigned The aileron balance cable fairlead placement changed 6-B-22 6W-1-1 the center spar web redesigned 6W-1-2 the rear center spar web redesigned 6B-11-2 CNC forward side skins cut to the new specs These are major modifications! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220807#220807 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
Thank you for the PDF Martin... I am so happy to see that CH's name is not on it. I misspoke about the firewall set, the 80 on your plans is the bottom angle. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220808#220808 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Date: Dec 23, 2008
On Tuesday 23 December 2008 09:13, Sabrina wrote: > When your LAA, through a former Zenith dealer, takes the time to repeatedly > contact a 15 year old girl in the U.S. about the addition of SS A5 rivets > on the inboard ailerons aft hinge portion attach points and requests more > information each time, it means only one thing, they are very thorough. > I applaud the LAA. They don't believe for one minute that this was ONLY > significant change CZAW made. The AMD XLi and the Sabrina roll out at 850 > pounds empty. As the Germans recently pointed out, how in the world do > you EU CZAW owners get your aircraft to come in at the required EU weights? > I have been sent photos showing .016 skin thicknesses on some CZAW > aircraft kits where Zenith plans spec .025 Are there static tests of the > .016 CZAW aircraft anywhere to be had? This is, I believe, a good and valid question. Another question one might ask is: "has any dynamic testing been done?" The failures we read of appear to have occurred under dynamic, not static, conditions. The aircraft were flying, not sitting in a hangar with snadbags on the wing. Flutter, if indeed this is what has happened, can be the result of resonance, which is a dynamic condition. I would like to see the results of relevant structural dynamic testing, as well as static structural testing. I don't believe that we, as individuals, have enough information than to do more than beat around the fringe of the situation. Only the FAA, similar national organizations, and Zenith have enough information to draw firm conclusions. I await their thinking on the subject. -- ============================================= Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue. ================================================ Jim B. Belcher Retired aerospace technical manager 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: Dec 23, 2008
Martin, Are any of these items changed as well on your version of the CZAW 601XL? 6B-5-1, 6B5-4, 6B5-6, 6B-5-2, 6B-18-1, 6B-18-3, 6W-1-1,6W-1-2, 6B-11-2 The attached loading test photos you directed me to sure looks like the original CZAW to me, the one with the high set rear spar attach, not the lowered trailing edge one required by the new wing set in your pdf. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220811#220811 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/601structure_wings_897.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/601structure_fuse1_103.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: radio selection help
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
Guys and Girls, Radio selection time.. My choices are the Microair M760 or the Icom 210?? I am looking at using the vox intercom in both as my pax intercom. The Microair M760 is an Aussie design and light weight, smaller and easier to install. The 210 will it also interface with the Garmon 495? anyone flying and using with these radios have an opinion?? Chris Sinfield Zodiac XL Sydney Australia Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220815#220815 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: radio selection help
Date: Dec 23, 2008
Why not the XCOM? -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris Sinfield Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:06 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: radio selection help Guys and Girls, Radio selection time.. My choices are the Microair M760 or the Icom 210?? I am looking at using the vox intercom in both as my pax intercom. The Microair M760 is an Aussie design and light weight, smaller and easier to install. The 210 will it also interface with the Garmon 495? anyone flying and using with these radios have an opinion?? Chris Sinfield Zodiac XL Sydney Australia Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220815#220815 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: radio selection help
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
Not flying yet but I went with the 210 because of the monitor of the standby freq. It pretty much gives you 2 radios in one and was a lot cheaper than the SL40 which has the same feature. As far as talking to the 495, I don't know. It is supposed to work with the 496 but it is a feature not supported by either Garmin or Icom. According to Stein at SteinAir it "should" work and is a one wire connection. -------- 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=220819#220819 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Subject: radio selection help
Date: Dec 23, 2008
BTW: the MGL radio is just beginning to ship. I don't know about Australia but all they are waiting for in the US is a letter from the FAA. The Australian dealer is: http://www.lightflying.com.au/ The specs are here: http://www.mglavionics.co.za/VHF10.htm Manual here: http://www.mglavionics.co.za/Docs/V10%20Transceiver%20manual.pdf PC simulator here: http://www.mglavionics.co.za/Software/VHF.exe It supports a superset of the Garmin SL-40 serial protocol. -- Craig -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris Sinfield Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:06 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: radio selection help Guys and Girls, Radio selection time.. My choices are the Microair M760 or the Icom 210?? I am looking at using the vox intercom in both as my pax intercom. The Microair M760 is an Aussie design and light weight, smaller and easier to install. The 210 will it also interface with the Garmon 495? anyone flying and using with these radios have an opinion?? Chris Sinfield Zodiac XL Sydney Australia Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220815#220815 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: 601 problems
James, I'd think if cable tension could become harmonic with the ailerons at a lesser tension than specified, the logical thing to do would be to place guides half or third the distance between ends to keep the cables from becoming a player in the harmonic situation. I don't use more than 25 lbs on any of my cables, but then it's a HDS and the conditions are slightly different. Seriously doubt cable tension has anything to do with inducing or enlarging the frequency of wing flutter, even in the XL, but there's nothing wrong with being on the safe side. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com Scotsman wrote: > > While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Aerobat (regardless of his/her motives) has to say his/her comment "there must be many other types out there with incorrect cable tensions flying without dropping out of the sky" seems to bear some merit. > > If cable tension was the single problem causing catastrophic failure then you would expect to see this alleged aileron flutter resulting in structural failure across numerous other types (both Zenith designs and other designs). Since I do not observe this I consider that maybe the XL is particularly susceptible to a failure mode resultant from aileron flutter. > > Furthermore, the potential for the wing folding incidents being exacerbated or caused by overloading thus should not be unique to the XL as many aircraft are often overloaded yet this does not appear to commonly lead to catastrophic failure. > > Does anyone agree with the above thinking? > > > James Roberts > > BTW - Yes I do own a XL kit which I am in the process of building (although currently stopped awaiting clarity on the matter) and this can be seen on the South African distributors website. > > -------- > Cell +27 83 675 0815 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220779#220779 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
Did I miss an attachment? David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/23/08, Sabrina wrote: From: Sabrina <chicago2paris(at)msn.com> Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 3:22 PM Thank you for the PDF Martin... I am so happy to see that CH's name is not on it. I misspoke about the firewall set, the 80 on your plans is the bottom angle. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220808#220808 =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 601 problems
...I keep mentioning the forward swept wing design - because it is real. David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/23/08, LarryMcFarland wrote: From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 5:17 PM James, I'd think if cable tension could become harmonic with the ailerons at a lesser tension than specified, the logical thing to do would be to place guides half or third the distance between ends to keep the cables from becoming a player in the harmonic situation. I don't use more than 25 lbs on any of my cables, but then it's a HDS and the conditions are slightly different. Seriously doubt cable tension has anything to do with inducing or enlarging the frequency of wing flutter, even in the XL, but there's nothing wrong with being on the safe side. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com Scotsman wrote: > > While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Aerobat (regardless of his/her motives) has to say his/her comment "there must be many other types out there with incorrect cable tensions flying without dro pping out of the sky" seems to bear some merit. > > If cable tension was the single problem causing catastrophic failure then you would expect to see this alleged aileron flutter resulting in structura l failure across numerous other types (both Zenith designs and other designs) . Since I do not observe this I consider that maybe the XL is particularly susceptible to a failure mode resultant from aileron flutter. > > Furthermore, the potential for the wing folding incidents being exacerbated or caused by overloading thus should not be unique to the XL as many aircraft are often overloaded yet this does not appear to commonly lead to catastrophic failure. > > Does anyone agree with the above thinking? > > > James Roberts > > BTW - Yes I do own a XL kit which I am in the process of building (although currently stopped awaiting clarity on the matter) and this can be seen on the South African distributors website. > > -------- > Cell +27 83 675 0815 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220779#220779 > > > =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 601 problems
From: "rans6andrew" <andrewcattell(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
I had been thinking along the same lines as Scotsman (who is from South Africa, apparently) and then I came around to comparing accident types and rates with other Zenair(ith) designs. I don't know how many 601XLs there are out there or indeed how many 601HDs there are or 601ULs there are. In the UK we currently have 20 XLs on the register, 28 ULs , 17 HD and 10 HDS models. So less than 30 % of the fleet is XL types. Is this typical of the ratio in the world as a whole? If it is, assuming that the same sort of people buy/build ULs, HDs, HDSs and XL varients, assuming that the same spread of pilot abilities, the same ratio of aerobatic wannabees buy each model and the same spread of builder competences we should be hearing about 3 times as many in flight break ups of the non XL types as XL types. We don't. In the UK we have had only one aircraft break up in flight, a UL, when it was observed to be beating up an airstrip and pulling up to avoid overhead power lines, with two people and significant fuel on board. The investigation suggested that the pilot was in the habit of this type of flying and the airframe was overstressed on this or on a previous occasion leading to the failure. This is the only non XL 601 in flight break up I have heard about. Where are the others? This line of thinking tells me that either I have missed something significant or that there is something peculiar to the XL. Please correct me if there is a fatal flaw in my reasoning. Oh, and feel free to flame me 'cos it seems to be par for the course if you post from the UK! Andrew - in the UK and building a 601UL. -------- 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=220843#220843 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2008
From: Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Zodiac CH601XL
Bravo, the truth is finally said! Juan -----Original Message----- >From: jaybannist(at)cs.com >Sent: Dec 23, 2008 12:06 PM >To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com, zenith601-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Zenith-List: Zodiac CH601XL "Problems" > >Here is my take on the Zodiac CH 601XL problem: > >Chris Heintz designed quite a number of airplanes; for factory assembly, kit construction and plans building. There are thousands of airplanes of his designs flying, including CH601XLs registered in the USA as LSA, E-LSA, EAB and an extremely confusing array of registration designations in other countries. > >There is a lot of discussion about whether the CZAW kits and airplanes are identical to the ones from the USA. There are those that claim that they are identical...except blah, blah & blah. They simply cant be identical if there are exceptions. I suspect (another personal opinion) that there are differences that observers either will not; or, more likely, cant recognize. For instance, can a builder tell the difference between 6061-T6 aluminum and 6061-Txx? Absolutely not. Can a builder tell the difference between the Avex rivets that Zenith supplies and substandard imitators? No. Yet these differences can be significant and can certainly effect the structural integrity of the airframe. The same applies to the different angle of incidence of the wing. Is the angle of the wing spar center section changed or is the wing twisted to change the angle? (The latter is the case) Analyzing the weight differences and plain old common sense tells me that there are more differences yet. In short, all CH601XLs are NOT identical, and claiming so is simply engaging in fantasy. > >European bu >ilders have given the argument that Chris Heintzs name on all the drawings as evidence that Heintz is totally responsible for their airplanes. However, they assert that the drawings are the same as those in the USA....except for the added drawings by CZAW. Drawings supplied by CZAW with Chris Heintz name on all of them do NOT establish absolute responsibility for the finished product. That would require certification that the kit materials or the complete airplane strictly adheres to the requirements stated in those drawings, either by CZAW or the kit builder. CZAW obviously cant make that certification, and I dont know of any builder that has the technical expertise nor the materials documentation to make that certification. Therefore, the owner / builder has the final responsibility for their airplane. > >As I recall, CZAW was started by an American in the Czech Republic as a program to assist builders to quickly assemble Zodiac kits. CZAW then morphed into a company that manufactured complete Zodiac airplanes and sold kits. It is unclear where the materials CZAW used actually originated. The Zenair - CZAW relationship ended for a reason. I dont know what that reason was, but I strongly suspect (my opinion strictly) that it was because the CZAW organization did not exercise adequate quality control, especially over the materials they used and or supplied to kit builders. > >So why are CH601XLs crashing? Is there a design flaw? The design has been verified sever >al times over, through analysis and through testing. You can advance all sorts of convoluted arguments against this but the design simply does not have a flaw that causes a wing to fold. The XL design, as ALL aircraft designs, is based on clearly stated operating limitations. Operating outside the design limitations of ANY aircraft subjects that aircraft to structural failure; and many of them have failed and crashed. > >So are there problems with the way pilots are operating? We all know the limitations, but some pilots forget about them, or fly into bad climate situations, or have untenable equipment malfunctions, or simply choose to ignore the limitations, because others have gotten away with it. > >Are there problems with the materials used? I am personally confident in the materials supplied by Zenith. I do not have the same confidence in the materials supplied by CZAW. > >Summation (Definitely my opinion): The Zodiac CH601XL problem is not design. The Problems are: > >1) The way some pilots choose to fly the airplane, either on purpose or accidentally, > >2) Possible substandard materials and unsound design changes (from CZAW) and, > >3) Construction and maintenance errors on the part of builders/owners. > >These are highly personal opinions and not cold hard facts. > >A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all !!! > >Jay Bannister (alias Jay in Dallas) >Zodiac CH 601XL N2630J Lil Bruiser > >BTW, I have crashed in a Zodiac CH >601XLi (not mine). It had nothing to do with the design and the wings did not fall off. > >________________________________________________________________________ >Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: radio selection help
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au>
Date: Dec 23, 2008
thanks for the input with the Xcom.. sounds like it was a bad batch of radios.. with the new Narco partnership I hope it goes well but now the radio will be pricer due to the US$ fluctuations I guess.. Randy With the XCOM was the VOX ok with 2 people and can you TX from both headsets if connected up?? See this is what we should use the energy.. keep building, keep flying within the limits.. glass half full / half empty??? I am so happy to have bought the XL as when it comes out the other end of all this it will be the most analyzed, scrutinized, looked over for got ya sized, plane that I will have every confidence in flying it once its finished.. look at the DC10 look it had problems that caused a few crashes, they found them and fixed them and now its a great DC10, KC 10, MD11 airframe flying all over the world. The XL will contine to fly, down under, here another left the nest last month and yet another XL will get airborne in the next few weeks, even if we do fly them upside down. Chris.. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220870#220870 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy" <rpf(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject: Re: radio selection help
Date: Dec 23, 2008
Chris, Yes, it works great with two people. It's comes with a toggle switch, mounted on the dash, to have the intercom on or off, or when you do have a passenger to switch it to isolate, if you wish. The passenger can transmit also. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield(at)yahoo.com.au> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:20 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: radio selection help > > > thanks for the input with the Xcom.. sounds like it was a bad batch of > radios.. with the new Narco partnership I hope it goes well but now the > radio will be pricer due to the US$ fluctuations I guess.. > > Randy > With the XCOM was the VOX ok with 2 people and can you TX from both > headsets if connected up?? > > See this is what we should use the energy.. keep building, keep flying > within the limits.. > > glass half full / half empty??? > I am so happy to have bought the XL as when it comes out the other end of > all this it will be the most analyzed, scrutinized, looked over for got ya > sized, plane that I will have every confidence in flying it once its > finished.. > > look at the DC10 look it had problems that caused a few crashes, they > found them and fixed them and now its a great DC10, KC 10, MD11 airframe > flying all over the world. > > The XL will contine to fly, down under, here another left the nest last > month and yet another XL will get airborne in the next few weeks, even if > we do fly them upside down. > > Chris.. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220870#220870 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XL wing concerns
From: "rans6andrew" <andrewcattell(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 24, 2008
does anyone know if the 650 uses the same wing/spar/fuselage structure as the 601XL? Andrew - usual details 601ul etc. -------- 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=220893#220893 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2008
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard(at)conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: 601 problems
> Oh, and feel free to flame me 'cos it seems to be par for the course if > you post from the UK! It hasnothing to do with posting fromt he UK, and everything to do with anonymously making nasty comments about the Zodiac. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL 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: 601 problems
From: "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za>
Date: Dec 24, 2008
Yes I am currently based in South Africa for about the last seven years but originally from Scotland. "It also seems to me that there is something about the XL that makes it more susceptible to in flight structure failures. I feel the number of failures is too high to be just random chance, but too low to indicate a simple design flaw" I am glad that I am not the only person who feels this way and I believe that the above quote summarised it nicely. To expand upon it I feel that aileron cable tension alone would be too "simple" a problem to be the only root cause of the in flight break ups otherwise similar numbers of failures would be observed in other types of aircraft. I sincerely hope that, collectively, the issue is resolved asap as I am feeling a bit miff at the moment with an expensive paperweight in my garage that I don't know whether or not to continue with (not forgetting the large financial outlay for the kit). I understand the frustrations of the UK guys as I am currently visiting family in the UK and was at a local airfield where one other builder has also left his project pending an outcome (in the same hangar another completed XL also sits grounded)...sad really. James Roberts -------- Cell +27 83 675 0815 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220924#220924 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2008
From: "Iberplanes IGL" <iberplanes(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 601 problems
same here (Spain) , but the right place to make comments such as the one made by our friend from the UK is the ZBAG yahoo group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZBAG/ Hope to see you there !! Bye. 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <paulrod36(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
Date: Dec 24, 2008
Jeff, somewhere in Zenith's literature, I forget where, they address the practice of making countersunk rivets domed, with the special-cut nose. It was to work harden the head of the rivet. Adds some strength. OPINON--Any guy who would go to the level of detail of figuring out how to develop more strength in a rivet, has probably extended that attention to detail to bigger things, like spars and attach points. Until somebody proves otherwise, I'll go along with CH. Paul Rodriguez 601XL/Corvair ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeyoung65(at)aol.com<mailto:Jeyoung65(at)aol.com> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 3:08 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip JUST FOR MY INFORMATION: Have you tried this with a Cherry rivet? Not sure why Zenith elected to dome a countersunk rivet instead of using the dome rivet. Did you try the test using dome rivets? Jerry of Ga DO NOT ARCHIVE In a message dated 12/22/2008 2:30:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, n85ae(at)yahoo.com writes: Well for what it's worth, I'm an 801 builder anyway. So I wasn't even talking about ailerons when I made my post. Just A4's in general. I will not use them for anything that holds any real load in any case. They are very weak. A5's are significantly stronger. The published specs for the rivets - I would be very skeptical of in any case. Maybe they make the grade with the std heads. But sure don't seem to make the grade with the zenith concave rivet head/flush rivet system. I'd suggest if anybody doesn't believe me, that they make a few test assemblies, and then put on a tough pair of gloves and try to tear them apart by hand. You can quite easily. Ok, so that's NOT scientific, but to me they fail the "hmm, these ain't very strong ..." idiot's simple test. IF you have something like an aileron attached with them, then personally I'd be a bit worried. Regards, Jeff ashontz wrote: > Without looking at my plans, doesn't the wing call for A5 rivets anyway? . ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mad=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000019">The NEW AOL.com. http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List m/Navigator?Zenith601-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <paulrod36(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: 601 problems
Date: Dec 24, 2008
You're not the only one..I've been putting the wings in place as a rough draft to figure out where the holes for cables, fuel lines and wires go, and once I get the temporary pins in, I see forward sweep. Not a whole lot, but it's there, and it's driving me nuts. With what we know about the spars and carry-through all being individually mated during manufacture, my original skepticism about sweep has turned to wonderment and consternation. If I pivot the wings back to the neutral position, I'm putting a load on the spar-to-carry-through joint, where ideally there shouldn't be any. Anybody got any ideas on this? Paul Rodriguez ----- Original Message ----- From: David Downey<mailto:planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems ...I keep mentioning the forward swept wing design - because it is real. David L. Downey Harleysville (SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/23/08, LarryMcFarland > wrote: From: LarryMcFarland > Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 5:17 PM LarryMcFarlandJames,I'd think if cable tension could become harmonic with the ailerons at a lesser tension than specified, the logical thing to do would be to place guides half or third the distance between ends to keepthe cables from becoming a player in the harmonic situation. I don't use more than 25 lbs on any of my cables, but then it's a HDS and the conditions are slightly different.Seriously doubt cable tension has anything to do with inducing or enlarging the frequency of wing flutter, even in the XL, but there's nothing wrong with being on the safe side.Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.comScotsman wrote:> --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Scotsman">> While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Aerobat(regardless of his/her motives) has to say his/her comment "there must bemany other types out there with incorrect cable tensions flying without droppingout of the sky" seems to bear some merit.>> If cable tension was the single problem causing catastrophic failure thenyou would expect to see this alleged aileron flutter resulting in structuralfailure across numerous other types (both Zenith designs and other designs). Since I do not observe this I consider that maybe the XL is particularlysusceptible to a failure mode resultant from aileron flutter.>> Furthermore, the potential for the wing folding incidents beingexacerbated or caused by overloading thus should not be unique to the XL as manyaircraft are often overloaded yet this does not appear to commonly lead tocatastrophic failure.>> Does anyone agree with the above thinking?>>> James Roberts>> BTW - Yes I do own a XL kit which I am in the process of building(although currently stopped awaiting clarity on the matter) and this can be seenon the South African distributors website.>> --------> Cell +27 83 675 0815>>>>> Read this topic online 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Geoff Eather" <geather(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: 601 problems
Date: Dec 25, 2008
Paul Doesn't wing sweep depend on the angle of the front spar? If you make the front spar vertical (by lifting the front wheel) then the sweep magically "disappears"!! - see pics ge _____ From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of paulrod36(at)msn.com Sent: 25 December, 2008 7:45 AM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems You're not the only one..I've been putting the wings in place as a rough draft to figure out where the holes for cables, fuel lines and wires go, and once I get the temporary pins in, I see forward sweep. Not a whole lot, but it's there, and it's driving me nuts. With what we know about the spars and carry-through all being individually mated during manufacture, my original skepticism about sweep has turned to wonderment and consternation. If I pivot the wings back to the neutral position, I'm putting a load on the spar-to-carry-through joint, where ideally there shouldn't be any. Anybody got any ideas on this? Paul Rodriguez ----- Original Message ----- From: David Downey <mailto:planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems ...I keep mentioning the forward swept wing design - because it is real. David L. Downey Harleysville (SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/23/08, LarryMcFarland wrote: From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 5:17 PM James, I'd think if cable tension could become harmonic with the ailerons at a lesser tension than specified, the logical thing to do would be to place guides half or third the distance between ends to keep the cables from becoming a player in the harmonic situation. I don't use more than 25 lbs on any of my cables, but then it's a HDS and the conditions are slightly different. Seriously doubt cable tension has anything to do with inducing or enlarging the frequency of wing flutter, even in the XL, but there's nothing wrong with being on the safe side. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com Scotsman wrote: > > While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Aerobat (regardless of his/her motives) has to say his/her comment "there must be many other types out there with incorrect cable tensions flying without dropping out of the sky" seems to bear some merit. > > If cable tension was the single problem causing catastrophic failure then you would expect to see this alleged aileron flutter resulting in structural failure across numerous other types (both Zenith designs and other designs). Since I do not observe this I consider that maybe the XL is particularly susceptible to a failure mode resultant from aileron flutter. > > Furthermore, the potential for the wing folding incidents being exacerbated or caused by overloading thus should not be unique to the XL as many aircraft are often overloaded yet this does not appear to commonly lead to catastrophic failure. > > Does anyone agree with the above thinking? > > > James Roberts > > BTW - Yes I do own a XL kit which I am in the process of building (although currently stopped awaiting clarity on the matter) and this can be seen on the South African distributors website. > > -------- > Cell +27 83 675 0815 > > > > > Read this topic online 3D=========================3 D=================== title='about:3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"' href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"'>http://www.matronics.com/co ntribution 3D=========================3 D=================== title='about:3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List"' href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List"'>http://www.matr onics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List 3D=========================3 D=================== href='3D"http://forums.matronics.com"'>http://forums.matronics.com 3D=========================3 D=================== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Merry Christmas!
Date: Dec 24, 2008
Merry Christmas to everyone on the Zenith list, from the mountains of far west Texas! ================================================ Jim B. Belcher BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science A&P/IA Instrument Rated Pilot General Radio Telephone Certificate ================================================ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas!
From: "cookwithgas" <cookwithgas(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 24, 2008
And Merry Christmas also from Snowy Omaha, Nebraska. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220999#220999 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 601 problems
nothing easy or simple. David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Wed, 12/24/08, paulrod36(at)msn.com wrote: From: paulrod36(at)msn.com <paulrod36(at)msn.com> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems Date: Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 3:45 PM You're not the only one..I've been putting the wings in place as a rough draft to figure out where the holes for cables, fuel lines and wires go, an d once I get the temporary pins in, I see forward sweep. Not a whole lot, but it's there, and it's driving me nuts. With what we know about the spars and carry-through all being individually mated during manufacture, my original skepticism about sweep has turned to wonderment and consternation. If I piv ot the wings back to the neutral position, I'm putting a load on the spar-to-carry-through joint, where ideally there shouldn't be any. Anybody got any ideas on this? - Paul Rodriguez ----- Original Message ----- From: David Downey To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems ...I keep mentioning the forward swept wing design - because it is real. David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/23/08, LarryMcFarland wrote: From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 5:17 PM James, I'd think if cable tension could become harmonic with the ailerons at a lesser tension than specified, the logical thing to do would be to place guides half or third the distance between ends to keep the cables from becoming a player in the harmonic situation. I don't use more than 25 lbs on any of my cables, but then it's a HDS and the conditions are slightly different. Seriously doubt cable tension has anything to do with inducing or enlarging the frequency of wing flutter, even in the XL, but there's nothing wrong with being on the safe side. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com Scotsman wrote: > > While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Aerobat (regardless of his/her motives) has to say his/her comment "there must be many other types out there with incorrect cable tensions flying without dro pping out of the sky" seems to bear some merit. > > If cable tension was the single problem causing catastrophic failure then you would expect to see this alleged aileron flutter resulting in structural failure across numerous other types (both Zenith designs and other designs) . Since I do not observe this I consider that maybe the XL is particularly susceptible to a failure mode resultant from aileron flutter. > > Furthermore, the potential for the wing folding incidents being exacerbated or caused by overloading thus should not be unique to the XL as many aircraft are often overloaded yet this does not appear to commonly lead to catastrophic failure. > > Does anyone agree with the above thinking? > > > James Roberts > > BTW - Yes I do own a XL kit which I am in the process of building (although currently stopped awaiting clarity on the matter) and this can be seen on the South African distributors website. > > -------- > Cell +27 83 675 0815 > > > Read this topic online 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D title='about:3D"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"' href='3D"http:/ /www.matronics.com/contribution"'>http://www.matronics.com/contribution 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D title='about:3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List"' href ='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List"'>http://www.matro nics.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 href='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 =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 601 problems
unfortunately the loads resolve structurally without regard to the lifting. .. A vertical shear web through the wing allows a zero sweep wing. That is a v ery major modification to the XL. David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Wed, 12/24/08, Geoff Eather wrote: From: Geoff Eather <geather(at)bigpond.net.au> Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems Date: Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 4:50 PM Paul - Doesn=92t wing sweep depend on the angle of the front spar? If you make the front spar vertical (by lifting th e front wheel) then the sweep magically =93disappears=94!! ' see pics - ge - - - From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-serv er(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of paulrod36(at)msn.com Sent: 25 December, 2008 7:45 AM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems - You're not the only one..I've been putting the wings in place as a rough draft to figure out wh ere the holes for cables, fuel lines and wires go, and once I get the temporary pins in, I see forward sweep. Not a whole lot, but it's there, and it's dri ving me nuts. With what we know about the spars and carry-through all being individually mated during manufacture, my original skepticism about sweep h as turned to wonderment and consternation. If I pivot the wings back to the neutral position, I'm putting a load on the spar-to-carry-through joint, wh ere ideally there shouldn't be any. Anybody got any ideas on this? - Paul Rodriguez ----- Original Message ----- From: David Downey Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems - ...I keep mentioning the forward swept wing design - because it is real. David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/23/08, LarryMcFarland wrote: From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 5:17 PM James, I'd think if cable tension could become harmonic with the ailerons at a lesser tension than specified, the logical thing to do would be to place guides half or third the distance between ends to -keep the cables from becoming a player in the harmonic situation. I don't use more than 25 lbs on any of my cables, but then it's a HDS and the conditions are slightly different. Seriously doubt cable tension has anything to do with inducing or enlarging the frequency of wing flutter, even in the XL, but there's nothing wrong with being on the safe side. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com Scotsman wrote: > > While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Aerobat (regardless of his/her motives) has to say his/her comment "there must be many other types out there with incorrect cable tensions flying without dro pping out of the sky" seems to bear some merit. > > If cable tension was the single problem causing catastrophic failure then you would expect to see this alleged aileron flutter resulting in structura l failure across numerous other types (both Zenith designs and other designs) . Since I do not observe this I consider that maybe the XL is particularly susceptible to a failure mode resultant from aileron flutter. > > Furthermore, the potential for the wing folding incidents being exacerbated or caused by overloading thus should not be unique to the XL as many aircraft are often overloaded yet this does not appear to commonly lead to catastrophic failure. > > Does anyone agree with the above thinking? > > > James Roberts > > BTW - Yes I do own a XL kit which I am in the process of building (although currently stopped awaiting clarity on the matter) and this can be seen on the South African distributors website. > > -------- > Cell-- +27 83 675 0815 > > > > > Read this topic online ------ - -3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3Dtitle='about:3D"ht tp://www.matronics.com/contribution"' href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/c ontribution"'>http://www.matronics.com/contribution3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3Dtitle='about:3D"ht tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List"' href='3D"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List"'>http://www. matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3Dhref='3D"http://forums.matronics. com"'>http://forums.matronics.com3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas!
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 24, 2008
Merry Christmas Jim... "Sabrina Ranch" is adjacent to KFST, partially within the West Texas SP. We are almost neighbors. Scott, did you get my card? Gig? Happy Holidays to all, Sabrina, Chicago with 50s predicted for this weekend! P.S. May Santa send everyone on the list two AS5 rivets and a whole lot of Christmas cheer! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221005#221005 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2008
From: John Smith <zenithlist(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Brake Line Anchors
I am about to run the hydraulic brake lines and wondering how other builder s run the tubes and how to anchor the brake tubes outside the fuselage-al ong the landing gear?- I suppose drilling holes in the landing gear to pu t in anchors isn't a good idea?=0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2008
From: Bill Pagan <pdn8r(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Brake Line Anchors
Lots of builders have used ADEL clamps and drilled/tapped into the landing gear.- Seems have ZAC approval. Bill Pagan EAA Tech Counselor #4395 601XL QBK/Corvair/N565BW (RES) --- On Wed, 12/24/08, John Smith wrote: From: John Smith <zenithlist(at)yahoo.com> Subject: Zenith601-List: Brake Line Anchors Date: Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 9:35 PM I am about to run the hydraulic brake lines and wondering how other builder s run the tubes and how to anchor the brake tubes outside the fuselage-al ong the landing gear?- I suppose drilling holes in the landing gear to pu t in anchors isn't a good idea? 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2008
From: Cory Emberson <bootless(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas, everyone, from the rainy East Bay of SF, CA! Jim Belcher wrote: > > Merry Christmas to everyone on the Zenith list, from the mountains of far west > Texas! > ================================================ > Jim B. Belcher > BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science > A&P/IA > Instrument Rated Pilot > General Radio Telephone Certificate > ================================================ > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas!
From: "aerobat" <rhood2000(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 25, 2008
And a very merry Christmas to one and all from England. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221022#221022 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LHusky(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 25, 2008
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas from the Snow and Ice covered Central Oregon area. Drive safely! Larry Husky Madras, Oregon 601XL and proud of it! In a message dated 12/25/2008 3:01:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, rhood2000(at)hotmail.com writes: --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "aerobat" And a very merry Christmas to one and all from England. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221022#221022 **************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2008
From: LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com>
Subject: Merry Christmas
Hi Guys, Our winter snow has everything white and the holidays are fully under way. Ive come to really appreciate the warmth of our friends here, our new twin grandsons Edgar and Cecil and family at home. And Toby my cat, but my mind wanders to images from 2500 feet, with the snow below and white overcast above. Last falls green patchwork of farms now looks like an arctic landscape. The half mile wide Mississippi between Iowa and Illinois draws sharp contrast of brown and white as ice flows pile up around small islands all the way to Muscatine. Lots of deer can easily be seen trailing through the woods. Winter birds soar around the dams and Ill have to keep an eye out for the occasional eagle that will pass. The cold air and open countryside are bleak but beautiful in winter and flying it is just the best. The Stratus Subaru in my 601 likes cold weather and it still sounds like a sweet sewing machine. I cant wait for the early winter wind to steady out and the MLI snowplow to cross in front of my hangar so it can begin again. To all of you who share this miracle of electronic conversation and debate, I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Quad Cities of northwestern Illinois. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com <http://www.macsmachine.com/> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "T. Graziano" <tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Brake Line Anchors
Date: Dec 25, 2008
John, Attached is how I did mine. I procured the 3M double sided automotive trim tape from the aeroplane parts section of the local WalMart. (I ran the brake lines through the center spar, adel clamped going in and coming out and with ribbed conduit to prevent any chaffing/interference. Grommet through the side skins. Tony Graziano Buchanan, Tn 601XL/Jab:N493TG; 454 hrs; 976 landings From: John Smith To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:35 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Brake Line Anchors I am about to run the hydraulic brake lines and wondering how other builders run the tubes and how to anchor the brake tubes outside the fuselage along the landing gear? I suppose drilling holes in the landing gear to put in anchors isn't a good idea? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Belcher <z601(at)anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas!
Date: Dec 25, 2008
On Wednesday 24 December 2008 20:00, Sabrina wrote: > > Merry Christmas Jim... "Sabrina Ranch" is adjacent to KFST, partially > within the West Texas SP. We are almost neighbors. Interesting. I'm about 5NM west, as the 601XL flies, from E38. KFST is perhaps 50 NM northeast. -- ============================================= 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: Merry Christmas
From: "GLJSOJ1" <gljno10(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Dec 25, 2008
Hi Larry Your words paint a beautiful picture, and then I look down and see your photo. I look forward to soon be flying again as I complete my airplane. Actually one of my first flying lessons many years ago was on a snowy day just like your photo, but here in Virginia. Merry Christmas to all on the list, and Happy new year. -------- 601XL N676L reserved ALMOST DONE CHESAPEAKE VA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221140#221140 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas!
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>
Date: Dec 25, 2008
Jim, As you approach KFST Rwy 21 from the North there are 4 orange markers visible from the air and a sign, future home of Sabrina Aerospace (aka Sabrina Aircraft Mfg)! Three acres are within the airport fence, the rest outside, due North of the airport and West of the river bed (dried up this time of year, just a meandering row of trees and shrubs) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221141#221141 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2008
From: bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: 601 problems
The apperant forward sweep of the XL wing is to small to significantly effect the aerodynamics of the aircraft. A much larger forward sweep is needed to cause any significant effect. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Downey" <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com> do you guys understand that lift and drag induced bending only see the structural sweep? Bryan Martin BSAE U of Michigan. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <paulrod36(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Brake Line Anchors
Date: Dec 26, 2008
Another guy in my hangar did this first, so I take no credit for the idea.. We "armored" the plastic tubes with lengths of 1/4 inch aluminum tubing, running it from secured points a few inches from the master cylinders, then bent the tubing as needed, until running it out the side and down the rear of the leg. A little flare at each end keeps the tubing from chafing. He used Adel clamps on his, but since I am using CZAW composite legs, I used a worm-drive band clamp at the top, courtesy of the aviation department at Ace Hardware, and a fabricated standoff at the bottom of the leg. Looks better than naked plastic tubing, and protects from rocks. It's easier if you run the plastic into the tubing before bending. To those who pointed out how to make the forward sweep "disappear". I ain't got no nosewheel, so it's back to carpentry and build me some blocks to lift the mains. Thanks. Paul Rodriguez ----- Original Message ----- From: John Smith<mailto:zenithlist(at)yahoo.com> To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:35 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: Brake Line Anchors I am about to run the hydraulic brake lines and wondering how other builders run the tubes and how to anchor the brake tubes outside the fuselage along the landing gear? I suppose drilling holes in the landing gear to put in anchors isn't a good idea? 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=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 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2008
From: David Downey <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 601 problems
the FSW is not an aerodynamic concern - it is a structural concern. ALL FSW built/designed from isotropic materials suffer from structural divergence with- bending due to increased AOA at the tip under those conditions. It is not a coincidence that the first "successful" FSW occurred in teh 90 wit h the advent of tailored structure courtesy of advanced composite materials - very highly anisotropic in nature. Only with those materials is it possi ble to desing any degree of FSW without a massive weight hit. The short lived Hansa bizjet is the only fsw comercial design extant. The g ermans tried during WWII but found that when the structure was befed enough to withstand the divergence issue, it was too heavy to offer any benefit. David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Fri, 12/26/08, bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net w rote: From: bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net <bryanmmartin(at)comcast.net> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems Date: Friday, December 26, 2008, 4:44 PM #yiv960487525 p {margin:0;}The apperant forward sweep of the XL wing is to small to significantly effect the aerodynamics of the aircraft. A much larg er forward sweep is needed to cause any significant effect. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Downey" <planecrazydld(at)yahoo.com> do you guys understand that lift and drag induced bending only see the stru ctural sweep? Bryan Martin BSAE U of Michigan. =0A=0A=0A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 2008
From: Walter Carey <careywf(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: NTSB report
Hi Everyone, - - Walt Carey here. Currently building a 601XL w/Jabiru 3300A in Beavercre ek, Ohio, on the outskirts of Dayton. Wings, control surfaces and vertical/ horizontal stabilizer complete. Fuselage 25%complete. And I'm going to fini sh it and fly it God willing. - - I've been following the discussions regarding the "suspect" wing failur es on the 601XL, and possible causes.-And I'm also-am aware of the advi sory that was published regarding improper control cable tension being the possible culprit. I personally think that's a good possibility and-recomm end that all Zennith builders get the word out to their fellow builders ASA P. No harm whatsoever in having the correct control cable tensions. Someone recently mentioned that the "suspect" wing failures are pecular to the 601 XL and 601 variants. Take a look at the following "preliminary" NTSB accide nt report on an Ercoupe: - NTSB Identification: ERA09FA087 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Saturday, December 13, 2008 in Sebring, FL Aircraft: ERCOUPE 415-D, registration: N99154 Injuries: 2 Fatal. 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 December 13, 2008 at 1206 eastern standard time, an Ercoupe 415-D, N9915 4, was destroyed during an in-flight breakup near Sebring, Florida. The cer tificated commercial pilot and the passenger were fatally injured. Visual m eteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the lo

November 28, 2008 - December 28, 2008

Zenith601-Archive.digest.vol-ae