---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 04/24/04: 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:23:42 AM PST US From: "Philip A. C." Subject: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Philip A. C." 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:53:02 AM PST US 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." > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:20:01 AM PST US From: cummings@stingray.net Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:45:06 AM PST US 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:51:03 AM PST US From: Brett Hanley Subject: Zenith-List: why have a fuel selector? --> Zenith-List message posted by: Brett Hanley 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:48:37 AM PST US From: John Maselli - optonline Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash --> Zenith-List message posted by: John Maselli - optonline 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: 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." > > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:07:54 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: why have a fuel selector? From: Ray Montagne --> Zenith-List message posted by: Ray Montagne On 4/24/04 10:50 AM, "Brett Hanley" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:12:30 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Mitchell's 801 crash From: wizard-24@juno.com --> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:41:24 PM PST US From: "Lowell Metz" Subject: Zenith-List: 701 Lands off-field --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Lowell Metz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:00:17 PM PST US From: ZSMITH3rd@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:10:07 PM PST US From: "Roger Roy" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 Lands off-field Seal-Send-Time: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 18:10:12 -0400 --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Roger Roy" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:04:36 PM PST US From: "Cdngoose" <601xl@sympatico.ca> Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:18:56 PM PST US From: "Kevin W Bonds" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re:Header tanks, balance lines, etc --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Kevin W Bonds" > 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