---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 03/09/06: 36 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:01 AM - Re: Tach problem (Zed Smith) 2. 05:01 AM - Re: Aileron Trim (Michel Therrien) 3. 06:58 AM - Re: Unstable Tach (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 4. 08:11 AM - Re: Franklin Engines? (shilocom@mcmsys.com) 5. 08:48 AM - Re: Stabilizer Skin (Chuck & Lana Maggart) 6. 10:21 AM - Re: Franklin Engines (John Anderson) 7. 11:14 AM - Drilling plastic lens (Don Mountain) 8. 11:22 AM - Re: Franklin Engines (Don Mountain) 9. 11:30 AM - Re: Drilling plastic lens (BrownTool@aol.com) 10. 11:35 AM - Re: Drilling plastic lens (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 11. 12:04 PM - Re: Drilling plastic lens (Robert Schoenberger) 12. 12:47 PM - Re: Drilling plastic lens (Randy L. Thwing) 13. 01:44 PM - Re: Drilling plastic lens (cgalley) 14. 01:48 PM - Re: Drilling plastic lens () 15. 01:57 PM - Re: Drilling plastic lens (Geoff Heap) 16. 03:23 PM - Insurance (Chuck Deiterich) 17. 04:19 PM - Re: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. (Bill+Rose) 18. 04:19 PM - Re: Franklin Engines? (Bill+Rose) 19. 04:45 PM - Re: Franklin Engines? (n801bh@netzero.com) 20. 06:09 PM - Re: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. (LarryMcFarland) 21. 06:52 PM - Re: Unstable Tach (Tim & Diane Shankland) 22. 07:35 PM - Re: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. (Mike Sinclair) 23. 07:35 PM - Re: Franklin Engines? (Randy L. Thwing) 24. 08:36 PM - Re: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. (JAPhillipsGA@aol.com) 25. 08:36 PM - Re: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. (Thilo Kind) 26. 08:39 PM - Re: Franklin Engines? (Jimbo) 27. 09:13 PM - Crimping tool (LHusky@aol.com) 28. 09:32 PM - Re: Crimping tool (Zodie Rocket) 29. 09:49 PM - Re: Crimping tool (Paul Mulwitz) 30. 09:49 PM - Re: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. (Zodie Rocket) 31. 10:01 PM - Re: Crimping tool (Zodie Rocket) 32. 10:01 PM - Re: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. (Gary Gower) 33. 10:10 PM - Re: Crimping tool (LHusky@aol.com) 34. 10:19 PM - Re: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. (Mike Sinclair) 35. 10:32 PM - crimping tool (George Swinford) 36. 11:52 PM - Re: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. (Thilo Kind) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:01:54 AM PST US From: Zed Smith Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Tach problem --> Zenith-List message posted by: Zed Smith This may NOT be a cure. A previous installation of my 912 had a tach problem....found that the bundle of wire from engine to firewall, including Oil Temp, Oil Press, CHT, Tach, etc, was "near" the top left rear spark plug wire. "Near" in this case was about 3mm (three millimeters), a mistake by the builder. There was enough induced voltage from the plug wire, at various RPM settings, to interfere with the AC being sent to the tach that the whole mess was totally un-reliable. The pulses to the plug added "extra" pulses to the tach leads, or were exactly in phase at times and had a cancelling effect on the tach pulses. Whatever. It didn't work. Moved/separated stuff in the bundle. Cured the problem. All cases are different, results not typical, batteries not included, some assembly required, consult your doctor. do not archive Regards, Zed/701/912/905/etc ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:01:54 AM PST US From: Michel Therrien Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Aileron Trim --> Zenith-List message posted by: Michel Therrien I don't have measurements, but I describe how I did on my website. I made a mockup aileron to test various installations before making an opening in my aileron. http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601/chowings4.htm The tab is effective for the purpose you identified, but the airplane should be fairly balanced first (it is not enough effective to correct major balance problems and you probably do not want to use too much aileron deflection just for keeping the plane straight). >From my picture, it appears the tab is 420 mm wide. I do believe that the tab will be more effective if installed inboard of the wing than at the outboard end of the wing. The tab acts to move the aileron up or down, not the wing. I think that if installed at the outboard end, the tab has more power to act on the position of the wing (arm) while it does have the same effect on the aileron than if it is on the inboard end (more cancellation of effect). But, this being said, I'm not an ingineer... Real ingineers, you're welcome to shoot or support this therory! Michel PS: I also had a heavy left wing problem. I corrected it by making a new rear spar attachment plate on which I offset the hole. The new plate was matched drilled with the old plate installed on a drilling jig (a piece of plywood with two guides at 90 degrees). It took a long evening to remove the wing, remove the rear plate, drill a new plate, install it, and readjust the incidence of the wing root fairing (remove rivets, position, redrill, install a few additional rivets.) To check the incidence, I attached plastic blocs on a level. On each bloc, I tapped holes and installed screws. The front bloc fits under the front spar. The rear bloc fits under the rear spar. By adjusting the screws to get the level straight on one wing, I was able to compare the level of the second wing. I was also able to confirm that there is no twist in the wings. It is also easy to calculate the exact incidence of the wing (calculate the height difference of the screws, consider the height of the rear spar relative to the front spar - from the rib template, apply sinus law or something like that). --- john H wrote: > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "john H" > > > Hi List > I am going to retrofit my 601HHD with an aileron > trim to balance out my > heavy left wing when flying solo. Does anyone have > drawings as how to do > this? I will be using the RAC servo with external > trim tab. Was wondering > how far back from the trailing edge to mount the > servo? Left or right wing > preference? Size of the trim tab and any other > helpful info and drawings. > > Thanks > John > > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------- Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601 http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:58:58 AM PST US Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Unstable Tach From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Sometimes (quite often actually) the coils go bad (low resisatnce on the primary side...It usually frys the $300 ignitor chip too so you need to check this out before your next flight). I could how this might cause it...Check your primary coil resistance, should be about 1.1 ohms I believe. Try swapping just the coils and see if the problem follows the coil. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim & Diane Shankland Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 6:11 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Unstable Tach --> Zenith-List message posted by: Tim & Diane Shankland --> I remember this being discussed in the past but I have not been able to locate anything with the search engine. I have a Status Suburu and a VDO tach. Above 3000 RPM's the tach become unstable, jumping 1000 RPM's or more at a time. I have tried some filtering on the line with no success. When I switch the tach to the secondary ignition it is stable. I was hoping someone had solved this before, so I have to cart my Tectronics scope out to the shop and try to track this down. Tim Shankland ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:11:49 AM PST US From: shilocom@mcmsys.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Franklin Engines? --> Zenith-List message posted by: shilocom@mcmsys.com IMHO the polock engines are not near the quality of the old american engines, but are the same basic engine, but a lot of changes in manufacture etc. Buy the old heavy case engines if you have a choice. Bob U. >--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill+Rose" > > Franklins are made in Poland from the original drawings. They've been >around about as long as Continental or Lycoming. Don't know if they're >related to the radials. The Polish do good work, but there's more data >available for the Jabiru, at about the same price. Already looked into them- >factor in cowl and mount availability. > Bill > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Don Mountain" >To: "Zenith" >Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:02 PM >Subject: Zenith-List: Franklin Engines? > > >> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain >> >> Whats the scoop on these Franklin engines? Who makes them? How long have >> they been around? Where are they made? Are they any good? Does anybody >> have one flying? Are they any relation to the old Franklin radial engines >> made many years ago? >> >> Don Mountain >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:48:31 AM PST US From: "Chuck & Lana Maggart" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Stabilizer Skin --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Chuck & Lana Maggart" I had a similar problem with a skin that appeared too short to wrap around. After talking to Nick, he told me to wrap the skins BEFORE adding the tip ribs. It worked just fine. The newer instructions also say to do this on page 7 of 12 for dwg.6T2A, rev. 2/28/05. Chuck Maggart 601XL nearly finished ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:21:18 AM PST US From: "John Anderson" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Franklin Engines --> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Anderson" Hi Group, Just to add to Ray's comment on the Franklin's smoothness. I have been privileged to own three Stinsons. They were all extremely smooth and no squawks in 720 hours. I noticed that Franklin now is producing 0235s. I bet it is a lot smoother than my Hd 601 Lycoming 0235. I know it is a lot less expensive at $7000. Bet it's not any stronger. John Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Murphy" Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 5:13 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Franklin Engines > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Ray Murphy" > > My Stinson 108-3 had a Franklin Engine. It was a 6 cyl. and 165 hp. Without a doubt, it was the smoothest piston engine I've ever flown behind. > > Ray Murphy > Bandon, OR > 601 XL wannabe > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 11:14:54 AM PST US From: Don Mountain Subject: Zenith-List: Drilling plastic lens --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain I am getting ready to drill some 3/16" diameter holes through the plastic lens for the headlights on my 601 XL. What should I use? I have tried drilling holes in plastic before and had normal bits with a tip angle of 118 degrees grab and split the plastic. Is there a better solution? Don Mountain --------------------------------- Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 11:22:03 AM PST US From: Don Mountain Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Franklin Engines --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain They don't seem to have much of a presence in the United States market. I looked at their web page after someone else here mentioned the apparent cheap price. And that someone down in Georgia sells them. Thats a little far to go for parts from Iowa. And I never see any parts advertised for them. I think I will let someone else take the plunge first and put one in a 601 XL. Don John Anderson wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by: "John Anderson" Hi Group, Just to add to Ray's comment on the Franklin's smoothness. I have been privileged to own three Stinsons. They were all extremely smooth and no squawks in 720 hours. I noticed that Franklin now is producing 0235s. I bet it is a lot smoother than my Hd 601 Lycoming 0235. I know it is a lot less expensive at $7000. Bet it's not any stronger. John Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Murphy" Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 5:13 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Franklin Engines --------------------------------- Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 11:30:12 AM PST US From: BrownTool@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Drilling plastic lens --> Zenith-List message posted by: BrownTool@aol.com In a message dated 3/9/2006 1:15:42 PM Central Standard Time, mountain4don@yahoo.com writes: --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain I am getting ready to drill some 3/16" diameter holes through the plastic lens for the headlights on my 601 XL. What should I use? I have tried drilling holes in plastic before and had normal bits with a tip angle of 118 degrees grab and split the plastic. Is there a better solution? Don Mountain Don and Zenith Listers, My company and most of the other kit aircraft tool suppliers sell drill bits specifically designed to drill plastics, plexiglas, and similar materials. The key factor is to have no "rake" on the cutting edge of the drill bit which prevents "grabbing" in these types of materials. Ours can be found on our website at: http://www.browntool.com/productselect.asp?ProductID=635 As always, feel free to contact me off list with any technical application issues. Take care, Michael Brown Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co. 2536 S.E. 15th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73129 USA 405-688-6888 Fax 405-688-6555 browntool@aol.com www.browntool.com ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:48 AM PST US Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Drilling plastic lens From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" There are special flexi glass drill bits...These have a much steeper angle...Or you can grind and old drill bit to look like a pencil and it works pretty well...Warm the plastic to 100F...in front of your shop heater. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Mountain Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:12 AM Subject: Zenith-List: Drilling plastic lens --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain I am getting ready to drill some 3/16" diameter holes through the plastic lens for the headlights on my 601 XL. What should I use? I have tried drilling holes in plastic before and had normal bits with a tip angle of 118 degrees grab and split the plastic. Is there a better solution? Don Mountain --------------------------------- Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:31 PM PST US From: "Robert Schoenberger" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Drilling plastic lens --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Robert Schoenberger" It's nice to see another pro monitoring our list and offering advice. Thanks Mike. Robert Schoenberger 701 do not archive. ----- Original Message ----- From: Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 2:28 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Drilling plastic lens > --> Zenith-List message posted by: BrownTool@aol.com > > > In a message dated 3/9/2006 1:15:42 PM Central Standard Time, > mountain4don@yahoo.com writes: > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain > > I am getting ready to drill some 3/16" diameter holes through the plastic > lens for the headlights on my 601 XL. What should I use? I have tried > drilling holes in plastic before and had normal bits with a tip angle of > 118 degrees > grab and split the plastic. Is there a better solution? > > Don Mountain > > > Don and Zenith Listers, > > My company and most of the other kit aircraft tool suppliers sell drill > bits > specifically designed to drill plastics, plexiglas, and similar materials. > The key factor is to have no "rake" on the cutting edge of the drill bit > which > prevents "grabbing" in these types of materials. > > Ours can be found on our website at: > > http://www.browntool.com/productselect.asp?ProductID=635 > > As always, feel free to contact me off list with any technical application > issues. > > Take care, > > Michael Brown > > Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co. > 2536 S.E. 15th Street > Oklahoma City, OK 73129 > USA > > 405-688-6888 > Fax 405-688-6555 > browntool@aol.com > www.browntool.com > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 12:47:58 PM PST US From: "Randy L. Thwing" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Drilling plastic lens --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy L. Thwing" >From the archives: The two most common twist drill types off the shelf are: 1. High speed steel, 118 degree point angle, standard chisel point. 2. Cobalt steel, 135 degree point angle, split point. The standard chisel point tends to "walk" when started into work without center punching. The split point is considered self centering and center punching for hole location is not required. Cobalt steel is high speed steel with 6 to 8 percent cobalt added which makes it more wear resistant, giving more holes between sharpenings. Although either type works well in standard materials, for the small price difference, I always buy the cobalt split points. For a detailed article on drill point geometry, including altering drills to drill plexiglass, try this link: http://www.newmantools.com/machines/drillpoint.html Randy L. Thwing, do not archive, again ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:44:56 PM PST US From: "cgalley" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Drilling plastic lens --> Zenith-List message posted by: "cgalley" Use a Unibit! Works great. No grab. Cy Galley - Chair, AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair A Service Project of Chapter 75 EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC EAA Sport Pilot ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Mountain" Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 1:11 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Drilling plastic lens > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain > > I am getting ready to drill some 3/16" diameter holes through the plastic > lens for the headlights on my 601 XL. What should I use? I have tried > drilling holes in plastic before and had normal bits with a tip angle of > 118 degrees grab and split the plastic. Is there a better solution? > > Don Mountain > > > --------------------------------- > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:48:38 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Drilling plastic lens --> Zenith-List message posted by: Try a brand new 3-point bit with high speed and light pressure and masking tape on the back side. Also make certain that the plastic is supported by a wood block to spread out the pressure from the drill. Ed Moody II Rayne, LA 601XL waiting on kit > I am getting ready to drill some 3/16" diameter holes through the plastic lens for the headlights on my 601 XL. What should I use? I have tried drilling holes in plastic before and had normal bits with a tip angle of 118 degrees grab and split the plastic. Is there a better solution? > > Don Mountain > > > --------------------------------- > Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 01:57:09 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Drilling plastic lens From: "Geoff Heap" --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Geoff Heap" "frank.hinde(at)hp.com" suggested a very sharp drillpoint angle. Thats what I would do. However, you can find that angle on center drills which are cheap and I always have plenty of them around. I would use a #2 center drill which has a body dia of 3/16. I would take it almost all the way through and then turn the part around and finish drilling it from the back. That way you don't risk a breakout. Try a test part first. There is a good chance that the steep angle on the center drill will act the way Frank said and drill a good hole from one side only Geoff Heap Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20668#20668 ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 03:23:46 PM PST US From: "Chuck Deiterich" Subject: Zenith-List: Insurance --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Chuck Deiterich" I just called my insurance company (Falcon) and asked what the changes would be if I started flying as a Sport Pilot instead of a Private Pilot (not getting my medical renewed). He answer was no change in cost or coverage. I just did my bi-annual in my CH 701, what a hoot. The CFI enjoyed it too. Chuck D. N701TX do not archive ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 04:19:27 PM PST US From: "Bill+Rose" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill+Rose" ----- Original Message ----- From: "LarryMcFarland" Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 4:56 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. > --> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland > Larry- Trying to Scotch any speculation. What does Zenith recommend for static testing? Bill >> >> > Concerned as well but, > I'd not recommend speculation on anything until facts are in. It's got > to be something as simple as > an incorrectly fastened or fabricated spar. The people investigating > will be able to easily see > what gave it up in the first place. Incorrect assembly will > differentiate itself from outright failure as > strongly as a fatigued part or incorrect material, bolts etc. The > people that do these investigations are better at > it than we are and are seeing a lot more of it these days. I'd predict > it's not going to be as hard as it sounds, > but will take a little more time. > > From the perspective of one that's blissfully retired going on 3 years > now. > > Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com > do not archive > > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 04:19:27 PM PST US From: "Bill+Rose" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Franklin Engines? --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill+Rose" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill+Rose" Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Franklin Engines? > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill+Rose" >Everyone missed my main point- once again, >Already looked into them- >FACTOR IN COWL AND MOUNT AVAILABILITY!!!!!!!!! > Bill > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Don Mountain" > To: "Zenith" > Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:02 PM > Subject: Zenith-List: Franklin Engines? > > >> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Don Mountain >> >> Whats the scoop on these Franklin engines? Who makes them? How long >> have >> they been around? Where are they made? Are they any good? Does anybody >> have one flying? Are they any relation to the old Franklin radial >> engines >> made many years ago? >> >> Don Mountain >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 04:45:22 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Franklin Engines? --> Zenith-List message posted by: "n801bh@netzero.com" IMHO the polock engines are not near the quality of the old american engines, but are the same basic engine, but a lot of changes in manufacture etc. Buy the old heavy case engines if you have a choice. Bob U. >--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill+Rose" ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// I could be wrong here but, When I tried to buy a new a 6 cyl 350 cu in 220 hp Franklin for my 801 from the distributor in Colorado a few years back I was told by him that Frankiln was going out of businees and altho he could sell me one of his last ones he had in stock he said "good luck on finding parts later". Like I said this guy might have been full of you know what. do not archive Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com IMHO the polock engines are not near the quality of the old american engines, but are the same basic engine, but a lot of changes in manufacture etc. Buy the old heavy case engines if you have a choice. Bob U. -- Zenith-List message posted by: "Bill+Rose" naumuk@allte l.net ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// I could be wrong here but, When I tried to buy a newa 6 cyl 350 cu in 220 hpFranklin for my 801from the distributor in Colorado a few years back I was told by him that Frankiln was going out of businees and altho he could sell me one of his last ones he had in stock he said "good luck on finding parts later". Like I said this guy might have been full of you know what. do not archive BenHaas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 06:09:54 PM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. --> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland As far as I know, Zenith doesn't suggest a process or method for static testing wings or spars. Few builders would know what to do with static testing if they were furnished and required as in Finland the U.K. and other places. I'd not encourage anyone to suggest that FAA should consider it either! If built, loaded and flown within specifications, the engineering drawings and guidance by the designer should take care of that. Doesn't mean you can't think for yourself, but I'd only static test something I introduced that wasn't covered well enough by the design. Larry McFarland - 601HDS do not archive Bill+Rose wrote: >Larry- > Trying to Scotch any speculation. What does Zenith recommend for static >testing? > Bill > > >>Concerned as well but, >>I'd not recommend speculation on anything until facts are in. It's got >>to be something as simple as >>an incorrectly fastened or fabricated spar. The people investigating >>will be able to easily see >>what gave it up in the first place. Incorrect assembly will >>differentiate itself from outright failure as >>strongly as a fatigued part or incorrect material, bolts etc. The >>people that do these investigations are better at >>it than we are and are seeing a lot more of it these days. I'd predict >>it's not going to be as hard as it sounds, >>but will take a little more time. >> >>From the perspective of one that's blissfully retired going on 3 years >>now. >> >> Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com >> do not archive >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 06:52:03 PM PST US From: Tim & Diane Shankland Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Unstable Tach --> Zenith-List message posted by: Tim & Diane Shankland Thanks for the suggestions, I all ready have tried resistors, either no effect or no tach, I'll check the coil although the engine only has about 6 hours on it and I haven't flown it yet. And I will check for inductive coupling and maybe swap the coils. Tim Shankland Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: >--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > >Sometimes (quite often actually) the coils go bad (low resisatnce on the >primary side...It usually frys the $300 ignitor chip too so you need to >check this out before your next flight). > >I could how this might cause it...Check your primary coil resistance, >should be about 1.1 ohms I believe. > >Try swapping just the coils and see if the problem follows the coil. > >Frank > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim & Diane >Shankland >Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 6:11 PM >To: Zenith List >Subject: Zenith-List: Unstable Tach > >--> Zenith-List message posted by: Tim & Diane Shankland >--> > >I remember this being discussed in the past but I have not been able to >locate anything with the search engine. I have a Status Suburu and a VDO >tach. Above 3000 RPM's the tach become unstable, jumping 1000 RPM's or >more at a time. I have tried some filtering on the line with no success. > >When I switch the tach to the secondary ignition it is stable. I was >hoping someone had solved this before, so I have to cart my Tectronics >scope out to the shop and try to track this down. > >Tim Shankland > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:12 PM PST US From: Mike Sinclair Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. --> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair For what it's worth, and from what I understand from working in the commercial aviation & general aviation airplane building business for quite a few years, and from general bull sessions with many friends and co-workers in both sectors, plus numerous articles and films I've seen showing this kind of testing, a static test is a test of destruction. This testing is a process to find at what point the structure will fail. So I suspect that if you don't want to invest the money to buy (and build) a second airframe and set of wings that will be destroyed in the process of testing, any thought of doing a true static test is a mental excercise only. And therefore probably not very productive. Surely you don't want to try bending your wings to the point that they might possibly fail, and then put those same wings on your airplane. I also don't believe you are going to want a bunch of lard butts standing on your wing just to show how strong it is in negative g's, and then again, go put those same wings on an airplane you intend to fly. I sugest that if you have any concerns about the actual failing point of these structures, then you contact the designer about any testing he may have done along these lines. Mike Sinclair LarryMcFarland wrote: > --> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland > > As far as I know, Zenith doesn't suggest a process or method for static > testing wings or spars. > Few builders would know what to do with static testing if they were > furnished and required as in Finland > the U.K. and other places. I'd not encourage anyone to suggest that > FAA should consider it either! > > If built, loaded and flown within specifications, the engineering > drawings and guidance by the designer > should take care of that. Doesn't mean you can't think for yourself, > but I'd only static test something > I introduced that wasn't covered well enough by the design. > > Larry McFarland - 601HDS > > Bill+Rose wrote: > > >Larry- > > Trying to Scotch any speculation. What does Zenith recommend for static > >testing? > > Bill ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:12 PM PST US From: "Randy L. Thwing" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Franklin Engines? --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy L. Thwing" I have two Franklin engines, a A-120 60 hp two cylinder and a A-235 125 hp four cylinder. The 60 is what I call a "Syracuse" (US made) Franklin and the 125 is a PZL (Polish) made Franklin. I have "heard" the following, I have no idea if it is really true or not: I would like to know the true story myself: PZL is the Polish aerospace Company that bought out Franklin after they went out of business in the US in the early 1970's. Pratt & Whitney recently purchased PZL itself or their engine divisions. Pratt & Whitney has no interest in continuing to produce piston engines, so the Franklin line may languish. That's the last I heard, and have no idea what if any is true. I am a Franklin fan and I hope they continue in production. Regards, Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas do not archive > I could be wrong here but, When I tried to buy a newa 6 cyl 350 cu in 220 hpFranklin for my 801from the distributor in Colorado a few years back I was told by him that Frankiln was going out of businees and altho he could sell me one of his last ones he had in stock he said "good luck on finding parts later". Like I said this guy might have been full of you know what. > > do not archive > BenHaas ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 08:36:49 PM PST US From: JAPhillipsGA@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. --> Zenith-List message posted by: JAPhillipsGA@aol.com >From a XL assembler and driver who takes his best friends up, his Wife and Son up and Grandson up, that flew 2.3 hours last Saturday and will probably exceed that this week end, yes the wings crumpling up on a XL and killing a couple fellows really concerns me and the fact that no one has much to offer as answers concerns me as well. This list should be for more than for beating which dammed scotch bright pad to use to death or how many fuel pumps between the tanks, in the wing root, behind the firewall and in front of the firewall equals a vapor lock ! Some of you guys are engineers and airplane designers. Frank has 10,000 hours on every plane there is and some of you all even more. Get in here and give us XL'ers your best shot. Screw waiting for some egg head from the NTSB. I want to fly this weekend. Who has some ideas that we who are actually flying XLs can employ to make our birds more safe this weekend ? Anybody care to speculate what failed and what we could be looking at while NTSB takes another coffee break and delivers their "guess" six months from now. Yes, I'm in a piss mood, 72 hours without tobacco and an airplane that the wings may fall off. Do Not Archive. ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 08:36:49 PM PST US From: "Thilo Kind" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Thilo Kind" Hi Mike, static testing does not need to be destructive. In many countries static testing up to the design load is required by the authorities for experimentals. For that, the wing is turned up side down and mounted to a jig (or you might also turn the whole plane upside down). Next, the wing is then loaded with sandbags up to the designed wing loads. In a 601 HDs, that would be 6 g or 3 times gross weight per wing. Destructive testing is required, if you want to know the ultimate load. Airbus just did it with a wing from their new A 380. I don't know the load, but they bend the wing tip 7 m (21") before breaking it. Happy building / flying Thilo Kind > --- Ursprngliche Nachricht --- > Von: Mike Sinclair > An: zenith-list@matronics.com > Betreff: Re: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. > Datum: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:24:03 -0600 > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair > > For what it's worth, and from what I understand from working in the > commercial > aviation & general aviation airplane building business for quite a few > years, > and from general bull sessions with many friends and co-workers in both > sectors, > plus numerous articles and films I've seen showing this kind of testing, a > static test is a test of destruction. This testing is a process to find at > what > point the structure will fail. So I suspect that if you don't want to > invest > the money to buy (and build) a second airframe and set of wings that will > be > destroyed in the process of testing, any thought of doing a true static > test is > a mental excercise only. And therefore probably not very productive. > Surely you > don't want to try bending your wings to the point that they might possibly > fail, > and then put those same wings on your airplane. I also don't believe you > are > going to want a bunch of lard butts standing on your wing just to show how > strong it is in negative g's, and then again, go put those same wings on > an > airplane you intend to fly. I sugest that if you have any concerns about > the > actual failing point of these structures, then you contact the designer > about > any testing he may have done along these lines. > > Mike Sinclair > > LarryMcFarland wrote: > > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: LarryMcFarland > > > > > As far as I know, Zenith doesn't suggest a process or method for static > > testing wings or spars. > > Few builders would know what to do with static testing if they were > > furnished and required as in Finland > > the U.K. and other places. I'd not encourage anyone to suggest that > > FAA should consider it either! > > > > If built, loaded and flown within specifications, the engineering > > drawings and guidance by the designer > > should take care of that. Doesn't mean you can't think for yourself, > > but I'd only static test something > > I introduced that wasn't covered well enough by the design. > > > > Larry McFarland - 601HDS > > > > Bill+Rose wrote: > > > > >Larry- > > > Trying to Scotch any speculation. What does Zenith recommend for > static > > >testing? > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten sparen: GMX SmartSurfer! Kostenlos downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:00 PM PST US From: Jimbo Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Franklin Engines? --> Zenith-List message posted by: Jimbo I believe that United Technologies sold the drawings and rights to P&W piston engines to PZL because UTC no longer wanted to provide spares for the old radials. Another iteresting historical note about Franklins is that they were used in a few automobiles, including the Tucker, which used a liquid-cooled version of the opposed six. --- "Randy L. Thwing" wrote: > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Randy L. Thwing" > > > I have two Franklin engines, a A-120 60 hp two > cylinder and a A-235 125 hp > four cylinder. The 60 is what I call a "Syracuse" > (US made) Franklin and > the 125 is a PZL (Polish) made Franklin. I have > "heard" the following, I > have no idea if it is really true or not: I would > like to know the true > story myself: > > PZL is the Polish aerospace Company that bought out > Franklin after they went > out of business in the US in the early 1970's. > Pratt & Whitney recently purchased PZL itself or > their engine divisions. > Pratt & Whitney has no interest in continuing to > produce piston engines, so > the Franklin line may languish. > > That's the last I heard, and have no idea what if > any is true. > > I am a Franklin fan and I hope they continue in > production. > > Regards, > > Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas do not archive > > > > > > I could be wrong here but, When I tried to buy a > newa 6 cyl 350 cu in 220 > hpFranklin for my 801from the distributor in > Colorado a few years back I was > told by him that Frankiln was going out of businees > and altho he could sell > me one of his last ones he had in stock he said > "good luck on finding parts > later". Like I said this guy might have been full of > you know what. > > > > do not archive > > > BenHaas > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 09:13:20 PM PST US From: LHusky@aol.com Subject: Zenith-List: Crimping tool --> Zenith-List message posted by: LHusky@aol.com I was just wondering if anyone out there has invented a handy tool to do the crimps. I am building a 601XL from plans and I have started the ribs for the rudder. I know there is something out there. Any information would be great. Larry Husky 601XL ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 09:32:04 PM PST US From: "Zodie Rocket" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Crimping tool --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Zodie Rocket" Try http://www.ch601.org/tools.htm You will find what your looking for there and much much more. Also Check out www.homebuilthelp.com for some pointers. Mark Townsend Can-Zac Aviation Ltd. president@can-zacaviation.com www.can-zacaviation.com -----Original Message----- I was just wondering if anyone out there has invented a handy tool to do the crimps. I am building a 601XL from plans and I have started the ribs for the rudder. I know there is something out there. Any information would be great. Larry Husky 601XL -- ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 09:49:15 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Crimping tool --> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz I received one of the Heintz "T" shaped crimping tools with my wing kit. It works really well once you figure out how to use it. I also use a little duck billed plier I made from some 1/8" aluminum glued as jaws to ordinary pliers to flatten crimps and adjust the shape in the opposite direction from the one caused by crimping. I don't remember where the design for the Heintz crimping tools is, but I think you can find it on the Zenith web site. It is just a couple of pieces of 1/4" round steel bars ground down to conical points and welded together. Good luck, Paul XL wings > >I was just wondering if anyone out there has invented a handy tool to do the >crimps. I am building a 601XL from plans and I have started the ribs for >the rudder. I know there is something out there. Any information would be >great. > >Larry Husky >601XL > ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 09:49:15 PM PST US From: "Zodie Rocket" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Zodie Rocket" Yup any man that has quit smoking is not worth being near for at least a month. Being a constantly quitting smoker I would suggest not flying during the first month of stress you are now under. Having said that I personally don't want to hear speculation on the 601 incident. I KNOW that Chris does testing on every model of plane he has ever built and he also builds in a safety factor that he will not claim to. Think, the 601XL has a rating of ultimate +/- 6G's I would bet my house that the actual ultimate is quite a bit higher. I hate to blame a builder, and there doesnt seem to be any other known situation acting upon this incident BUT we are talking about CHRIS HEINTZ here and I am dam sure it is not a structural design flaw. SO we need to wait for the donuts to be finished to find out what was omitted by the builder or what outside circumstance led to the incident. Bantering it about on this E-Mail list will resolve nothing and only stain a reputation of a designer that has never tarnished before, it will also end up in disrespect for the deceased with wild guesses of which I would not want to see. Their are many other XL's out there with multiple 100's of hours on them and no problems, I would suggest that your plane built to the designers specs is safer then 1/2 the 150's I ever strapped my butt into. Mark Townsend Can-Zac Aviation Ltd. president@can-zacaviation.com www.can-zacaviation.com do not archive. -----Original Message----- From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JAPhillipsGA@aol.com Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:34 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. --> Zenith-List message posted by: JAPhillipsGA@aol.com >From a XL assembler and driver who takes his best friends up, his Wife and Son up and Grandson up, that flew 2.3 hours last Saturday and will probably exceed that this week end, yes the wings crumpling up on a XL and killing a couple fellows really concerns me and the fact that no one has much to offer as answers concerns me as well. This list should be for more than for beating which dammed scotch bright pad to use to death or how many fuel pumps between the tanks, in the wing root, behind the firewall and in front of the firewall equals a vapor lock ! Some of you guys are engineers and airplane designers. Frank has 10,000 hours on every plane there is and some of you all even more. Get in here and give us XL'ers your best shot. Screw waiting for some egg head from the NTSB. I want to fly this weekend. Who has some ideas that we who are actually flying XLs can employ to make our birds more safe this weekend ? Anybody care to speculate what failed and what we could be looking at while NTSB takes another coffee break and delivers their "guess" six months from now. Yes, I'm in a piss mood, 72 hours without tobacco and an airplane that the wings may fall off. Do Not Archive. -- -- ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 10:01:18 PM PST US From: "Zodie Rocket" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Crimping tool --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Zodie Rocket" The crimping tool is also outlined in your builders manual that you received with your plans. Mark Townsend Can-Zac Aviation Ltd. president@can-zacaviation.com www.can-zacaviation.com -----Original Message----- I don't remember where the design for the Heintz crimping tools is, but I think you can find it on the Zenith web site. It is just a couple of pieces of 1/4" round steel bars ground down to conical points and welded together. Good luck, Paul XL wings -- ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 10:01:18 PM PST US From: Gary Gower Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. --> Zenith-List message posted by: Gary Gower Is great you gave up smoking... Congratulations, we (me at least) can handle your mood in exchange of better life... And your wings from your XL will not fell off. I am sure. Enjoy your wonderfull airplane! Saludos Gary Gower 701 912S Building a 601 XL Hope to having soon Flying feom Chapala, Mexico. JAPhillipsGA@aol.com wrote: --> Zenith-List message posted by: JAPhillipsGA@aol.com >From a XL assembler and driver who takes his best friends up, his Wife and Son up and Grandson up, that flew 2.3 hours last Saturday and will probably exceed that this week end, yes the wings crumpling up on a XL and killing a couple fellows really concerns me and the fact that no one has much to offer as answers concerns me as well. This list should be for more than for beating which dammed scotch bright pad to use to death or how many fuel pumps between the tanks, in the wing root, behind the firewall and in front of the firewall equals a vapor lock ! Some of you guys are engineers and airplane designers. Frank has 10,000 hours on every plane there is and some of you all even more. Get in here and give us XL'ers your best shot. Screw waiting for some egg head from the NTSB. I want to fly this weekend. Who has some ideas that we who are actually flying XLs can employ to make our birds more safe this weekend ? Anybody care to speculate what failed and what we could be looking at while NTSB takes another coffee break and delivers their "guess" six months from now. Yes, I'm in a piss mood, 72 hours without tobacco and an airplane that the wings may fall off. Do Not Archive. --------------------------------- Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments. ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 10:10:54 PM PST US From: LHusky@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Crimping tool --> Zenith-List message posted by: LHusky@aol.com Thanks for all the replies. I have seen the tool Zenith either sells or wants you to build. I know someone with that tool, but I would like something more in the line of a pair of pliers. There are a lot of crimps coming up and I know there is something out there that will work. I see in the tools section of 601.org, there is a nice pair of needle nose pliers with 3 pieces of rod. Looks like it would work great, but there is no specific's on what size rod to use etc. I did find a tool that looks like it would do the job on Aircraft Spruce. The part number is 12-00500. If you guys that have already built your ribs, could go and look at this tool and tell me if you think it would work, I would appreciate it. Most of my parts are CNC'd and are wonderful, so I want to do this right. Let me know what you think and I am open to any suggestions. Larry ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 10:19:02 PM PST US From: Mike Sinclair Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. --> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair Thilo Appreciate the response. And I do have a definite appreciation about testing a large aircraft wing to ultimate load. I watched the test videos of taking the Boeing 777 wing to failure. I don't remember the total flex at the tip, but when the wing let go it was explosive! I am curious about the process of testing all experimental aircraft for design load in the other countries though and have a couple of questions about this process. Are there standards for placement of the sand bags to distribute the load over the whole wing and for how the structure is secured before the test? Are there varying standards for the different designs? Do the designers have any input on this testing, and if not, how are testing standards dictated? How thoroughly is the post load tested wing inspected? And what would concern me here is that inspecting a completed wing after the test would be very difficult in most cases as the wing has been closed up, and some internal failures could go undetected. Is there then any required x-ray or other inspection required to ensure that the wing is really safe. And finally, does any of the designers testing of structural strength to ultimate failure get considered. I'm sure that I have seen pictures somewhere of a Zenith wing being tested by a very heavy looking load of sandbags. Can't say what aircraft the wing was off off, but would have a concern that someone could get a little overzealous on loading sandbags and cause some damage, that undetected, could have very serious consequences. For myself, I guess I'm pretty much stuck with taking Zeniths word on the design limits of the airplane, and then just making sure that I get nowhere near those limits, but do get a little nervous when a bureaucracy run by some that know little, but have the need to feel important, gets involved. Guess that was more than a couple of questions, but when you get started it is kind of hard to stop sometimes. Bet that if I took a little longer I could come up with a few more. Still waiting for the wind to die down a bit so I can go get in some more air time! Mike Thilo Kind wrote: > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Thilo Kind" > > Hi Mike, > > static testing does not need to be destructive. In many countries static > testing up to the design load is required by the authorities for > experimentals. For that, the wing is turned up side down and mounted to a > jig (or you might also turn the whole plane upside down). Next, the wing is > then loaded with sandbags up to the designed wing loads. In a 601 HDs, that > would be 6 g or 3 times gross weight per wing. > > Destructive testing is required, if you want to know the ultimate load. > Airbus just did it with a wing from their new A 380. I don't know the load, > but they bend the wing tip 7 m (21") before breaking it. > > Happy building / flying > > Thilo Kind ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 10:32:28 PM PST US From: "George Swinford" Subject: Zenith-List: crimping tool --> Zenith-List message posted by: "George Swinford" I have had very good results using Cleaveland Tool's FP-200 fluting pliers. I don't know the current price, but the most recent catalog I have lists them at $33. George Swinford Do not archive ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 11:52:29 PM PST US From: "Thilo Kind" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Thilo Kind" Hi Mike, can't say, that I am an expert on the regs in other countries - my 601 HDS was built, inspected, and registrated in the good ol' US. However, in the meantime I relocated to Germany (with plane) and have contact to local builders here. Also looked into the local regs, since the building itch is back again and I might build another plane. When building an airplane here in Germany, you will first get approval from the authorities through the OUV, which is the equivalent of the EAA. Next you have to submit the stress calculation, which you might obtain through the designer or have an aeronautical engineer do that. During the building process there will be three inspections (before closing stuff up). The final inspection will include the load test. For that, sandbags are loaded evenly onto the wing. I guess, some cardbord, foam, etc. can be used to protect the wing's surface. Before loading the sandbags, the height of the wingtip above ground is measured. The total load is a result of the max g and the gross weight of the plane. The height of the wing tip is measured under load. There are limits on the allowable flex, depending on wing span, construction method, etc. After de-loading the wing, the height is measured again. The wing is not inspected any further using x-ray or similar. If height of wing tip before and after loading is the same for a metal wing like on the Zodiacs I wouldn't be concerned about any internal damage. >From what I understand, the inspectors doing the pre-closing inspections and the load tests are not with the LBA (the equivalent of the FAA). Those people are real airplane guys and thus pretty okay. Guess, like the DAR's in the US. The problem seems more the paperwork with the buerocrats. I believe, Peter is still monitoring the list. He is currently building a 601 HDS in the southern part of Germany. Maybe he can chime in a bit... Thilo Kind > --- Ursprngliche Nachricht --- > Von: Mike Sinclair > An: zenith-list@matronics.com > Betreff: Re: Zenith-List: Tragic Accident - more stupid conjecture. > Datum: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:18:46 -0600 > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: Mike Sinclair > > Thilo > > Appreciate the response. And I do have a definite appreciation about > testing a > large aircraft wing to ultimate load. I watched the test videos of taking > the > Boeing 777 wing to failure. I don't remember the total flex at the tip, > but when > the wing let go it was explosive! I am curious about the process of > testing all > experimental aircraft for design load in the other countries though and > have a > couple of questions about this process. Are there standards for placement > of the > sand bags to distribute the load over the whole wing and for how the > structure > is secured before the test? Are there varying standards for the different > designs? Do the designers have any input on this testing, and if not, how > are > testing standards dictated? How thoroughly is the post load tested wing > inspected? And what would concern me here is that inspecting a completed > wing > after the test would be very difficult in most cases as the wing has been > closed > up, and some internal failures could go undetected. Is there then any > required > x-ray or other inspection required to ensure that the wing is really safe. > And > finally, does any of the designers testing of structural strength to > ultimate > failure get considered. I'm sure that I have seen pictures somewhere of a > Zenith > wing being tested by a very heavy looking load of sandbags. Can't say what > aircraft the wing was off off, but would have a concern that someone could > get a > little overzealous on loading sandbags and cause some damage, that > undetected, > could have very serious consequences. For myself, I guess I'm pretty much > stuck > with taking Zeniths word on the design limits of the airplane, and then > just > making sure that I get nowhere near those limits, but do get a little > nervous > when a bureaucracy run by some that know little, but have the need to feel > important, gets involved. Guess that was more than a couple of questions, > but > when you get started it is kind of hard to stop sometimes. Bet that if I > took a > little longer I could come up with a few more. Still waiting for the wind > to die > down a bit so I can go get in some more air time! > > Mike > > Thilo Kind wrote: > > > --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Thilo Kind" > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > static testing does not need to be destructive. In many countries static > > testing up to the design load is required by the authorities for > > experimentals. For that, the wing is turned up side down and mounted to > a > > jig (or you might also turn the whole plane upside down). Next, the wing > is > > then loaded with sandbags up to the designed wing loads. In a 601 HDs, > that > > would be 6 g or 3 times gross weight per wing. > > > > Destructive testing is required, if you want to know the ultimate load. > > Airbus just did it with a wing from their new A 380. I don't know the > load, > > but they bend the wing tip 7 m (21") before breaking it. > > > > Happy building / flying > > > > Thilo Kind > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten sparen: GMX SmartSurfer! Kostenlos downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer