Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:23 AM - Mitchell's 801 crash (Philip A. C.)
2. 05:53 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (Benford2@aol.com)
3. 06:20 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (cummings@stingray.net)
4. 09:45 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (Benford2@aol.com)
5. 10:51 AM - why have a fuel selector? (Brett Hanley)
6. 11:48 AM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (John Maselli - optonline)
7. 01:07 PM - Re: why have a fuel selector? (Ray Montagne)
8. 01:12 PM - Re: Mitchell's 801 crash (wizard-24@juno.com)
9. 02:41 PM - 701 Lands off-field (Lowell Metz)
10. 03:00 PM - Re: 701 Lands off-field (ZSMITH3rd@aol.com)
11. 03:10 PM - Re: 701 Lands off-field (Roger Roy)
12. 04:04 PM - Rudder pedal travel (Cdngoose)
13. 11:18 PM - Re: Re:Header tanks, balance lines, etc (Kevin W Bonds)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mitchell's 801 crash |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C." <paclimited@hotmail.com>
Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter it over
a two miles long trail?
This was not an airliner, it was a four-seater flown by a lawyer and his
daughters boyfriend. I doubt very much that they were carrying a warhead
with them, or that a terrorist slipped a bomb in their luggage, or even that
they were mistakenly blown out of the sky by a lost Hellfire missile.
No mention in the report of anything that could indicate a mid-air
collision, either.
Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it: you
lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever it
likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result. If the
airplane had broken down due to stress during manoeuvers exceeding its
limits, I still dont see how it could break down over such a wide area.
A plane ripping off at the seams, with all the rivets going
pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop? I have my doubts.
Think and think, the only thing I could contrive was the blender-mixer
effect: the engine mount gives up in a way that allows the mount and the
engine to fold over, and the prop chops down whatever it can reach in so
many tiny pieces.
Then, I learned that this particular plane was the one depicted on Zeniths
site in the article about Lom-engined 801s. I went to my computer, opened
the 801 folder, and started poring over the files and pictures. There is
one picture that pops out, the one with that long blue Lom engine sticking
out of the firewall.
You see that engine mount? I never liked it. The engine is held by four
mounting points, right? No, wrong. Look again. In engineering, thats what
is called a typical lack of redundancy: in this particular mount, the
forward attach points are attached, not to the airframe, but to the rear
attach points. These are held by welds working in tension. Cant see any
gusset plate. If one of these welds develops a crack, this attach point will
soon fail. And if this happens, your engine will not hang on three other
points, allowing you to hopefully limp back to ground: most of the weight
shifts to the two points on the other side, which in fact, as we have seen,
hold only on ONE point!
I am really curious to know what really happened to that plane. And Id like
to give a look at the recovered engine mount... Anybody knows more?
Philip
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mitchell's 801 crash |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
In a message dated 4/24/2004 6:24:31 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
paclimited@hotmail.com writes:
>
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C." <paclimited@hotmail.com>
>
> Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter it over
> a two miles long trail?
>
> This was not an airliner, it was a four-seater flown by a lawyer and his
> daughters boyfriend. I doubt very much that they were carrying a warhead
> with them, or that a terrorist slipped a bomb in their luggage, or even that
>
> they were mistakenly blown out of the sky by a lost Hellfire missile.
>
> No mention in the report of anything that could indicate a mid-air
> collision, either.
>
> Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it: you
> lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever it
> likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result. If the
> airplane had broken down due to stress during manoeuvers exceeding its
> limits, I still dont see how it could break down over such a wide area.
>
> A plane ripping off at the seams, with all the rivets going
> pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop? I have my doubts.
>
> Think and think, the only thing I could contrive was the blender-mixer
> effect: the engine mount gives up in a way that allows the mount and the
> engine to fold over, and the prop chops down whatever it can reach in so
> many tiny pieces.
>
> Then, I learned that this particular plane was the one depicted on Zeniths
> site in the article about Lom-engined 801s. I went to my computer, opened
> the 801 folder, and started poring over the files and pictures. There is
> one picture that pops out, the one with that long blue Lom engine sticking
> out of the firewall.
>
> You see that engine mount? I never liked it. The engine is held by four
> mounting points, right? No, wrong. Look again. In engineering, thats what
> is called a typical lack of redundancy: in this particular mount, the
> forward attach points are attached, not to the airframe, but to the rear
> attach points. These are held by welds working in tension. Cant see any
> gusset plate. If one of these welds develops a crack, this attach point will
>
> soon fail. And if this happens, your engine will not hang on three other
> points, allowing you to hopefully limp back to ground: most of the weight
> shifts to the two points on the other side, which in fact, as we have seen,
> hold only on ONE point!
>
> I am really curious to know what really happened to that plane. And Id like
> to give a look at the recovered engine mount... Anybody knows more?
>
> Philip
>
>
Don't get me started !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do not archive
Ben Haas N801BH
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mitchell's 801 crash |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: cummings@stingray.net
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Philip A. C. wrote:
> Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it: you
> lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever it
> likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result. If the
Not really what can happen if you go by the case that started the modern
style of investigation according to the NTSB, i.e. the V tail bonanza that
come apart midair. In that case it did much the same thing as this plane
and it resulted from so many things that there is now not just a single
reason they look for but rather a chain of events. It was titled the Saga
of Beech N801SB not sure of the N number. But, it essentially had the
tail fail, then the plane fell apart, and I mean everything, the wing spar
broke, engine ripped off, nothing survived. The pilot and the cadever he
carried was turned into jelly according to the safety seminar I attended
many years ago.
So yes, an inflight failure can result in a large wreckage field, though
there is a tremendous difference in speeds here that would make a person
wonder about the distance. It does show that it's not a nice neat thing
however when the airframe self destructs. I saw pictures of that Beech,
and it's absolutely amazing how little was left of it, even the cabin was
destroyed in the air.
--
Matthew P. Cummings
1974 Cessna 150L N10667
Moberly, MO (MBY)
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mitchell's 801 crash |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
In a message dated 4/24/2004 7:20:46 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
cummings@stingray.net writes:
> the case that started the modern
> style of investigation according to the NTSB, i.e. the V tail bonanza that
> come apart midair. In that case it did much the same thing as this plane
> and it resulted from so many things that there is now not just a single
> reason they look for but rather a chain of events. It was titled the Saga
> of Beech N801SB not sure of the N number. But, it essentially had the
> tail fail, then the plane fell apart, and I mean everything, the wing spar
> broke, engine ripped off, nothing survived. The pilot and the cadever he
> carried was turned into jelly according to the safety seminar I attended
> many years ago.
>
> So yes, an inflight failure can result in a large wreckage field, though
> there is a tremendous difference in speeds here that would
Here is a link to a newsgroup that brought this crash to my attention. I was
srarted by the heli pilot of the TV station that filmed the wreckage. Read
through it all, there was a link to the TV's vidio of it. I don't know if they
archive that footage. I was even going to buy the wreckage from the salvage
yard but the storage fees were over a thousand back then. Usually the NYSB
buttens up the report in a year but this one is not close to a final report. If
anyone knows late breaking nwes I wouls like to hear of it...
threadm=afcf2e7d.0303170638.4b6fbc0%40posting.google.com&rnum=9&
prev=/groups%3Fq%3D801%2Bcrash%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3D
Ben Haas N801BH
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | why have a fuel selector? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Brett Hanley <bretttdc@yahoo.com>
Why do we need to have the capacity to switch tanks
any way? What purpose does it serve? If the plane
that crashed had a system as per the plans there would
have been no loss of power. I am of the opinion that
the simpler the system has fewer failure modes. The
simpler system is lighter. The simpler system is less
expensive as well.
Think about it. How many or the recent crashes where
caused by improvements to the system?
Brett Hanley
701 plans built
San Jose, Costa Rica
__________________________________
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mitchell's 801 crash |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: John Maselli - optonline <jfmasell@optonline.net>
Hi Ben,
It's John Maselli i have to tend to agree with you and your theory. I
also remember pouring over the LOM pic's and remembering that about the only
thing i didn't like about the LOM engine was the fact that that engine mount
looked way to precarious out there in front of the fuselage. I had my
doubt's!
I still haven't made a desicion as to the engine. I liked the LOM but would
not use it. Lycoming or continental, subaru?, I'm not sure, but getting back
to the crash your theory sounds plausable.
Yours Truly
John Maselli
----- Original Message -----
From: <Benford2@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 4/24/2004 6:24:31 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
> paclimited@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
> >
> > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C."
<paclimited@hotmail.com>
> >
> > Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> > wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter it
over
> > a two miles long trail?
> >
> > This was not an airliner, it was a four-seater flown by a lawyer and his
> > daughters boyfriend. I doubt very much that they were carrying a warhead
> > with them, or that a terrorist slipped a bomb in their luggage, or even
that
> >
> > they were mistakenly blown out of the sky by a lost Hellfire missile.
> >
> > No mention in the report of anything that could indicate a mid-air
> > collision, either.
> >
> > Structural failure? Well, if you lose a wing, thats pretty much it: you
> > lose a wing, and you crash in a heap, with the wing falling wherever it
> > likes to. If part of the fuselage goes bye-bye, its the same result. If
the
> > airplane had broken down due to stress during manoeuvers exceeding its
> > limits, I still dont see how it could break down over such a wide area.
> >
> > A plane ripping off at the seams, with all the rivets going
> > pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop? I have my doubts.
> >
> > Think and think, the only thing I could contrive was the blender-mixer
> > effect: the engine mount gives up in a way that allows the mount and the
> > engine to fold over, and the prop chops down whatever it can reach in so
> > many tiny pieces.
> >
> > Then, I learned that this particular plane was the one depicted on
Zeniths
> > site in the article about Lom-engined 801s. I went to my computer,
opened
> > the 801 folder, and started poring over the files and pictures. There is
> > one picture that pops out, the one with that long blue Lom engine
sticking
> > out of the firewall.
> >
> > You see that engine mount? I never liked it. The engine is held by four
> > mounting points, right? No, wrong. Look again. In engineering, thats
what
> > is called a typical lack of redundancy: in this particular mount, the
> > forward attach points are attached, not to the airframe, but to the rear
> > attach points. These are held by welds working in tension. Cant see any
> > gusset plate. If one of these welds develops a crack, this attach point
will
> >
> > soon fail. And if this happens, your engine will not hang on three other
> > points, allowing you to hopefully limp back to ground: most of the
weight
> > shifts to the two points on the other side, which in fact, as we have
seen,
> > hold only on ONE point!
> >
> > I am really curious to know what really happened to that plane. And Id
like
> > to give a look at the recovered engine mount... Anybody knows more?
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >
>
> Don't get me started !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! do not archive
>
> Ben Haas N801BH
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: why have a fuel selector? |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Ray Montagne <ac6qj@earthlink.net>
On 4/24/04 10:50 AM, "Brett Hanley" <bretttdc@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Think about it. How many or the recent crashes where
> caused by improvements to the system?
>
Probably very few. The real cause is poor management of the system. To a
large degree, adherence to training and use of check lists (including
periodic review of the enroute check list - say every 15 minutes or so)
would avoid most problems with the exception of failure of the system.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Best Regards, Ray Montagne
Cupertino, CA
===========================================================================
Zenith Aircraft Zodiac CH-601-XL
Build Status: Rudder completed
Elevator Completed
Stabilizer Completed
Flaps Completed
Ailerons Completed
Right Wing Completed
Right Wing Tip Completed
Left Wing Completed
Right Wing Tip Completed
Fuselage Under Construction
NOTE: Heavy SPAM filters in place. Replies that do not include
the word 'Zenith' or 'Zodiac' will be rejected and will not
be viewable by me.
===========================================================================
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mitchell's 801 crash |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: wizard-24@juno.com
> Since I read about the Mitchell 801s crash in California, Ive been
> wondering: what on earth could happen to a plane that would scatter
> it over a two miles long trail?
I'm no NTSB investigator, but I am on a search & rescue team and have
responded to more light plane crashes than I care to remember. Only thing
I'll add to this subject is that you would be surprised how wreckage
scatters. Not unusual at all to have parts thrown over a mile or two.
Mike Fortunato
601XL
do not archive
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 701 Lands off-field |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Lowell Metz" <lowellmetz@earthlink.net>
Readers,
A little heads up for something to check on your pre-flight. This morning
with only 12.1 hours on my 701 / 912 UL-S and at 2,500 feet I hears the engine
change sound and then smelled hot fiberglass. I was 8 miles from an airport
but decided the prudent thing to do was to get out of the air and on to the ground
quickly. There was a stretch of road in an undeveloped part of a housing
development without houses and no electric or phone poles that I could see so
I dropped in for a nice ( I was paying a whole lot of attention ) landing. Right
in the town of North Port Florida. I had heard an Aircam call the airport
unicom that I was headed toward and knew he was behind me some distance so called
him on the radio. While I waited for him to find me I took the cowl off
to see what had caused the racket and discovered that the #1 exhaust stack cracked
and broke off right at the weld line of the stub stack to the pipe. My
EGT probe kept the pipe inside the cowl . The Aircam dropped in and flew me out
with the pipe. I TIG welded it back together and had a friend drive me back
to the plane. Three police cars were there waiting. I put the pipe on, re-cowled
it, and took off while the police secured both ends of the road. They were
great and didn't check for any paperwork and I didn't have to fill out any
reports.
1. The 701 can get in and out of pretty short places.
2. Check for exhaust cracks even when the engine is fairly new.
Lowell Metz
Venice, FL.
Do Not Archive
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 Lands off-field |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: ZSMITH3rd@aol.com
Regardless of the circumstances, I was under the impression that a 701 was
REQUIRED to land off-airport. Congrats on the cool head, quick thinking and
easy fix. Texas may not be within gliding distance, but I have a 900 ft
"dog-leg" strip you're welcome to use. The joke around here is that if you complete
three takeoffs and landings you qualify for a "Pucker Ribbon". Looks like you
got yours with only one landing!
Zed/701/R912/90.xx% do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 Lands off-field |
Seal-Send-Time: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:10:12 -0400
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Roger Roy" <Savannah174@msn.com>
Lowell, Thanks for the tip. I guess when one says Florida the "Sunshine State"
you can mean that literally. I my state of Massachusetts the police are there
waiting for you with a citation and all the beauracratic paperwork, anyway nice
job!
RJ
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rudder pedal travel |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Cdngoose" <601xl@sympatico.ca>
Can anyone on the list tell me the amount of travel the rudder pedals
take from neutral to full right and from neutral to full left on any
series of 601. I'm changing the design and need to calculate the arc of
the pedals for the brakes.
Thanks
Mark
601XL EJ 2.2L
Alma, Ontario
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:Header tanks, balance lines, etc |
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kevin W Bonds" <kbonds@worldshare.net>
> of us who learned flying Pipers, switching tanks is nothing new. I
> apologize in advance if I offend.
> Jeff Davidson
>
Jeff
No offense taken.
Kevin
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|