Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:28 AM - Re: Re: NTSB Final Report Available (David Downey)
2. 06:21 AM - Re: NTSB Final Report Available (ashontz)
3. 07:09 AM - Re: Another forced landing (LarryMcFarland)
4. 07:13 AM - Re: Rudder Spar Dent, no big deal (Bill Naumuk)
5. 07:18 AM - Workshop Space / Shed Construction (Tom Lutz)
6. 07:27 AM - Re: Re: NTSB Final Report Available (David Downey)
7. 07:29 AM - Re: Another forced landing (Tom Lutz)
8. 07:37 AM - Re: Rudder Spar Dent, no big deal (David Downey)
9. 08:02 AM - Re: Workshop Space / Shed Construction (Edward Moody II)
10. 08:24 AM - Re: Another forced landing (Bryan Martin)
11. 08:53 AM - Re: NACA scoops (Roger Venables)
12. 10:16 AM - Re: Re: NACA scoops (Edward Moody II)
13. 10:44 AM - Re: Workshop Space / Shed Construction (Bill Naumuk)
14. 10:46 AM - Did I miss something????? ()
15. 10:53 AM - Re: Did I miss something????? (Bill Naumuk)
16. 10:53 AM - Re: Rudder Spar Dent, no big deal (ZodieRocket)
17. 11:22 AM - Re: NTSB Final Report Available (Tim Juhl)
18. 11:58 AM - Interior sidewalls (Dr. Andrew Elliott)
19. 12:15 PM - Re: Did I miss something????? (David Downey)
20. 12:32 PM - Re: Rudder Spar Dent, no big deal (Bill Naumuk)
21. 12:32 PM - Re: Did I miss something????? (Bill Naumuk)
22. 01:47 PM - Re: Interior sidewalls (John Bolding)
23. 02:08 PM - Re: Interior sidewalls (Edward Moody II)
24. 02:42 PM - Re: xxx Re: Interior sidewalls (John Bolding)
25. 03:49 PM - LPS 3 As Corrosion Inhibitor (Timothy Croy)
26. 04:23 PM - Re: LPS 3 As Corrosion Inhibitor (Ben52425@aol.com)
27. 04:28 PM - Re: LPS 3 As Corrosion Inhibitor (Tim Juhl)
28. 04:46 PM - Re: Interior sidewalls (Bryan Martin)
29. 04:55 PM - Re: Workshop Space / Shed Construction (William Dominguez)
30. 07:32 PM - Re: Another forced landing (Ron Lendon)
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: | Re: NTSB Final Report Available |
the thing that has bothered me all along since reading that the holes in the separated
components were elongated is that those A4s are unlikely to have that
effect on the structure before the heads pop off. Look at the bearing vs shear
for the parts and it looks to me like (some of) the structure was possibly double
drilled? That would have the dreaded "zipper effect" in teh event of the
right overload.
Also Andy, the 787 wing failed right on the money just above the 1.5 - that is
hwere it MUST fail for the certification. On the other hand, when the A380 wing
failed at 1.38 and they decided they could implement a design fix into the
certified plane without repeating the wing testing - now that is where my shorts
pucker up.
do not archive
ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
This is plausible. The only problem here is that this was built from a kit, correct,
unless the builder replaced something.
I was watching a video the other day of the stress test of a 777s wings. They had
it up to 1.5 times design max load before the rivets along the top of the wing
ripped out. The engineers said this was the expected mode of failure and were
glad it reach 1.5 times max design. Possibly the rivets pulled out of the
spar caps for some reason. If it was a kit though, the spar would have been built
by Zenith. Maybe this guy had one of those pre-drilled skins, and the skin
didn't match up with the ribs correctly and consequently his edge distances sucked,
but he went ahead with it anyway and the wing failed due to poor construction
practices due to going ahead with misaligned pre-drilled holes and rib
center lines? That's the most likely explanation if it was build from a kit. That
or he used Home Depot pop-rivets instead of aircraft grade pulled rivets.
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
> Terry,
> The thing I see so often and would question, is whether the cap angles
> were of the correct material. Too often people ask if the spar cap angles
> can be bought from local sources like Farm & Fleet. The fact that the
> wing is considerably thinner and that so many have questioned the
> material for this particular part of construction suggests that perhaps
> the builder(s) may have made a seriously bad assumption. I'd doubt FAA
> investigators would even check material type and strength.
>
> Simple adherence to material and bolt call outs would not get you to
> failure of a spar structure with any of the excess weights below.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> do not archive
>
> Terry Phillips wrote:
>
> > Lots of things of interest here.
> >
> > * 1st, the probable cause, structural failure of the wings for
> > undetermined reasons, is troubling. But, the fire damage to the
> > aluminum structure destroyed any evidence that might have told
> > why the collapse occurred.
> > * 2nd, with an estimated takeoff weight of 1326 lbs, the aircraft
> > was 26 lbs over the stated gross of 1300 lbs. The gross
> > currently listed for 601XL's on the Zenith website is 1320 lbs.
> > * 3rd, this may have been the first flight of the airplane with
> > two persons on board. If so, the extra 200 lb load may have been
> > enough to collapse the wings.
> > * 4th, it is not clear whether the builder, Mr. Hooker, flew the
> > airplane beyond the 40 hr. requirement. The total hours on the
> > airframe is not given.
> > * 5th, while it is not explicitly stated, it appears that this
> > aircraft was built from a kit, not from plans. That should
> > remove the possibility that the wing spars were poorly
> > constructed by the builder. It does not preclude damage to the
> > spars during or prior to construction.
> > * 6th, I find no mention in the report of the use of "hardware
> > store" bolts in the spars which has been suggested in some posts
> > to this group or of loose bolts.
> > * 7th, the empty weight of the aircraft is given as 754.5 lbs
> > which is about 60 lbs greater than the 695 lbs listed for the
> > 601/Jab 3300 on the Zenith website. It would be enlightening to
> > know where the 60 lbs comes from. The dual brakes are one item.
> > My conclusion is that we should be very rigorous in evaluating
> > the weight/benefit ratio of anything we add to the basic
> > airframe. I'm curious what empty weights others builders have
> > ended up with.
> > * 8th, the reports gives the unusable fuel as 3 gal. I know I've
> > seen that number before, but I cannot seem to find it in the
> > information I have. A useful fuel load of 21 gal vs. 24 gal
> > makes me wish I had opted for the 30 gal tanks.
> > * 9th, the elongated rivet holes probably resulted from the forces
> > of impact. However, if they were a construction defect, is it
> > possible that they could have weakened the wing structure?
> >
> > In summary, lots of information here, but it would have been great if
> > they had identified the cause of the wing failure. Then we could make
> > sure that, at least, we try to correct any obvious shortcomings in the
> > design.
> >
> > Terry
> >
> >
>
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=104041#104041
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
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: NTSB Final Report Available |
You saw that video too then.
What do you mean by double drilled? Twice as many rivets installed?
[quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]the thing that has bothered me all along since
reading that the holes in the separated components were elongated is that those
A4s are unlikely to have that effect on the structure before the heads pop
off. Look at the bearing vs shear for the parts and it looks to me like (some
of) the structure was possibly double drilled? That would have the dreaded "zipper
effect" in teh event of the right overload.
Also Andy, the 787 wing failed right on the money just above the 1.5 - that is
hwere it MUST fail for the certification. On the other hand, when the A380 wing
failed at 1.38 and they decided they could implement a design fix into the
certified plane without repeating the wing testing - now that is where my shorts
pucker up.
do not archive
ashontz wrote:
This is plausible. The only problem here is that this was built from a kit, correct,
unless the builder replaced something.
I was watching a video the other day of the stress test of a 777s wings. They had
it up to 1.5 times design max load before the rivets along the top of the wing
ripped out. The engineers said this was the expected mode of failure and were
glad it reach 1.5 times max design. Possibly the rivets pulled out of the
spar caps for some reason. If it was a kit though, the spar would have been built
by Zenith. Maybe this guy had one of those pre-drilled skins, and the skin
didn't match up with the ribs correctly and consequently his edge distances sucked,
but he went ahead with it anyway and the wing failed due to poor construction
practices due to going ahead with misaligned pre-drilled holes and rib
center lines? That's the most likely explanation if it was build from a kit.
That or he used Home Depot pop-rivets instead of aircraft grade pulled rivets.
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
> Terry,
> The thing I see so often and would question, is whether the cap angles
> were of the correct material. Too often people ask if the spar cap angles
> can be bought from local sources like Farm & Fleet. The fact that the
> wing is considerably thinner and that so many have questioned the
> material for this particular part of construction suggests that perhaps
> the builder(s) may have made a seriously bad assumption. I'd doubt FAA
> investigators would even check material type and strength.
>
> Simple adherence to material and bolt call outs would not get you to
> failure of a spar structure with any of the excess weights below.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> do not archive
>
> Terry Phillips wrote:
>
> > Lots of things of interest here.
> >
> > * 1st, the probable cause, structural failure of the wings for
> > undetermined reasons, is troubling. But, the fire damage to the
> > aluminum structure destroyed any evidence that might have told
> > why the collapse occurred.
> > * 2nd, with an estimated takeoff weight of 1326 lbs, the aircraft
> > was 26 lbs over the stated gross of 1300 lbs. The gross
> > currently listed for 601XL's on the Zenith website is 1320 lbs.
> > * 3rd, this may have been the first flight of the airplane with
> > two persons on board. If so, the extra 200 lb load may have been
> > enough to collapse the wings.
> > * 4th, it is not clear whether the builder, Mr. Hooker, flew the
> > airplane beyond the 40 hr. requirement. The total hours on the
> > airframe is not given.
> > * 5th, while it is not explicitly stated, it appears that this
> > aircraft was built from a kit, not from plans. That should
> > remove the possibility that the wing spars were poorly
> > constructed by the builder. It does not preclude damage to the
> > spars during or prior to construction.
> > * 6th, I find no mention in the report of the use of "hardware
> > store" bolts in the spars which has been suggested in some posts
> > to this group or of loose bolts.
> > * 7th, the empty weight of the aircraft is given as 754.5 lbs
> > which is about 60 lbs greater than the 695 lbs listed for the
> > 601/Jab 3300 on the Zenith website. It would be enlightening to
> > know where the 60 lbs comes from. The dual brakes are one item.
> > My conclusion is that we should be very rigorous in evaluating
> > the weight/benefit ratio of anything we add to the basic
> > airframe. I'm curious what empty weights others builders have
> > ended up with.
> > * 8th, the reports gives the unusable fuel as 3 gal. I know I've
> > seen that number before, but I cannot seem to find it in the
> > information I have. A useful fuel load of 21 gal vs. 24 gal
> > makes me wish I had opted for the 30 gal tanks.
> > * 9th, the elongated rivet holes probably resulted from the forces
> > of impact. However, if they were a construction defect, is it
> > possible that they could have weakened the wing structure?
> >
> > In summary, lots of information here, but it would have been great if
> > they had identified the cause of the wing failure. Then we could make
> > sure that, at least, we try to correct any obvious shortcomings in the
> > design.
> >
> > Terry
> >
> >
>
>
>
--------
Andy 601XL/Corvair?
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49979/*http://tv.yahoo.com/) on Yahoo! TV.
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=104079#104079
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: Another forced landing |
Bryan,
Would you think these small parts would be worth having a couple of in a
travel kit?
I've been trying to compile a list of tools that would take care of
tubes, bearings, cotters etc and a spark plug or two.
Larry McFarland
do not archive
Bryan Martin wrote:
> <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>
> I was flying up to Midland from Ray airport yesterday (57D to 3BS) but
> just short of Frankenmouth, the engine suddenly started running rough
> and lost 500 RPM. My first thought was "Oh no, not again." I was in
> contact with Saginaw approach at the time for VFR flight following so
> I told them I had engine trouble and was going to land at Zehnder
> field (66G), which by this time was almost directly below me. I made a
> safe landing on the turf strip and parked the plane.
>
> I didn't have any tools with me so I called my dad in Midland and told
> him to bring some tools and come get me. After he arrived we spent
> about an hour troubleshooting the engine. The first thing I noticed is
> that the plug in the #1 cylinder came out wet with fuel, like it
> hadn't been firing. Then we checked for spark on that wire and
> determined that it was good. Then we checked for compression by
> turning over the prop while holding my fingers over the plug holes. I
> noticed that the compression on #1 seemed low. Then I did what I
> should have done in the first place and removed the valve rocker
> cover. That's when I found one of the push rods for #1 laying loose in
> the head. Then I saw that the snap ring that held the rockers in place
> had broken and allowed the rocker to move sideways until the push rod
> dropped out of its socket in the rocker. I found pieces of the broken
> snap ring in the valve cover along with one of the shim washers and
> pieces of two spring washers that had also disintegrated. The shim
> washer was damaged on one side where it had ground against the broken
> snap ring.
>
> We spent the next few hours driving around Bay City looking for parts.
> Try finding internal parts for a 1986 Subaru engine at an auto parts
> store. The Subaru dealer said they could get the parts but it would
> take a week. We finally gave up for the day and I borrowed a car to
> drive home. I called Ron at Ram Performance the next day and he said
> he could mail out the parts right away but on a Friday that meant the
> parts probably wouldn't get to me until at least Monday. I didn't want
> to leave the plane tied down 60 miles from home over the weekend, so I
> started driving around looking for enough of the parts to at least
> jury rig the engine for the trip back to my home field. I finally
> found someone who had the snap rings.
>
> I drove back up to Frankenmouth to work on the plane. I put the
> damaged shim washer back on with undamaged side facing the snap ring
> and wrapped some safety wire around the rocker shaft where the spring
> washers had been just to take up some of the slop. I put it all back
> together and fired it up. It ran as smooth as it normally did. I took
> it up for a trip around the pattern and it seemed to run just fine.
> Then I returned the car to Midland and we drove back down so I could
> fly the plane home. The flight back to Ray was uneventful. Now I just
> have to wait for the parts from RAM so I can make a permanent repair.
> At least I don't need a new engine like the last time.
>
>
> --Bryan Martin
> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
> do not archive.
>
>
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: Rudder Spar Dent, no big deal |
Tom-
Good engineers are conditioned to continually ask "What's wrong with
this picture?" The problem is, when there's an anomoly, they
instinctively shift to "Find root cause" mode and don't quit until they
identify and rectify the problem. This is time consuming. From your
first string of posts, I'd say you can throw the 400hr build time out
the window.
What you have to do to make the best use of time spent is approach
anomolies the same way as you would MRB.
(For those of you who don't know what Material Review Board is, it's
a joint engineering/quality assurance decision of whether non-conforming
parts coming off a production line are usable as-is, usable with rework,
or should be scrapped).
Eventually, you'll gain the experience to make the call on your own
90% of the time. For the other 10%, you'll have to rely on outside
sources.
1. If a lister is reliable (i.e. has a flying project with 100's of
hours on it or has already worked around an anomoly to the satisfaction
of Zenith, EAA, or the FAA) and offers a suggestion, how can you bring
up the question of hindsight? He's already been there, done that!
2. You're an engineer. Decide for yourself whether a better approach
than what Mexico, Mo. recommends hasn't been offered. Were you aware
that one of the guys on the HH DVD was the President of Zenair, Canada?
Did you stop to think about what you were trying to achieve? I'm
deburring a hole. I want to knock off the burrs while at the same time
taking off as little of the "Good" metal as possible. With a shallower
cut angle, a 1/2" drill might fit the application better. Think about
it!
From personal experience, I advise that you don't get complacent but
at the same time you don't automatically reject suggestions from sources
other than Mexico, Mo. No matter how careful you are, sooner or later,
you will fail a construction step and have to rebuild. Just trying to
cushion the blow.
Good building!
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Lutz
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Rudder Spar Dent, no big deal
Fritz,
I appreciate the point of view you and Juan hold, as well as the other
views that have been presented to me. As a first time aircraft builder
and a person who has experience with unrelated mission critical
hardware, it is in my character to question minute defects and pursue
them to the fullest extent that I can until a resolution is found. I
can have no question that the structural integrity of the airplane I am
building is 100%.
That being said, I realize this was a small defect, and that it was
probably not a problem, but I wanted a answers from several independent
sources before I drew any conclusions. Hind-sight is 20/20, and guess
what? You guys are the ones with hind-sight, not me!
THANK YOU ALL for responding to my seemingly worthless question. As a
first time builder, it means a lot. So far I have been thoroughly
impressed with the support of both ZAC and this online community.
I've decided, after pressing out the small dent, to finish the rudder
without adding an additional doubler.
Cheers,
Tom
On 3/30/07, Big Gee <taffy0687@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom-- you making a mountain out of mole hill---- no big deal= do
nothing, just build the rudder. ZAC has to be careful how they word
things due to the nature of their business.
Fritz
Tom Lutz <tommylutz@gmail.com> wrote:
I just received a response from a ZAC engineer that looked at the
photos. He said that the dent is not a big deal, but if I am concerned
about it, I can install another doubler in that area. Of course, these
are recommendations, and each situation is unique. If you encounter a
similar situation, you are best off seeking advice specific to your
situation. The following disclaimer at the end of the ZAC e-mail I
received illustrates this pretty well:
"Technical Support Disclaimer: While we strive to ensure that the
advice/information provided through our support is correct, Zenith
Aircraft Company does not accept any responsibility for errors or
omissions. Any advise or information that Zenith Aircraft Company gives
you via any form of communication is not a guarantee that it will
correct your problem. It is only offered as assistance to you. Zenith
Aircraft Company will not be held responsible for any loss or damage as
a result of our advise or information supplied. "
As always, take advice with a grain of salt, no matter what source
it is from. I also learned that ZAC does NOT recommend using a 1/2"
drill bit to debur holes, as is presented in the metalworking 101 DVD.
I plan to continue construction as-is. Adding a doubler in that
location would mean popping the dent out, which I am not sure I can do
without causing additional damage.
Tom
On 3/30/07, Tom Lutz <tommylutz@gmail.com > wrote:
BTW I am not an "anal engineer." I am an electrical engineer
that happens to be "anal." Thought I'd clarify before any of you got
the wrong ideas.
On 3/30/07, Tom Lutz <tommylutz@gmail.com > wrote:
A preliminary response from a Zenith engineer indicated that
you are probably right. I was told that unless it is a deep scratch or
it busts through the material, it is most likely OK. Being the anal
engineer that I am, I sent photos over for a more thorough evaluation.
I should be hearing back by close-of-business today.
On 3/30/07, Juan Vega < amyvega2005@earthlink.net > wrote:
amyvega2005@earthlink.net >
if this is the main rudder spar, its kind of hazzy, just
build it it does not look bad, the rudder is so over built a ding is
nominal.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Lutz < tommylutz@gmail.com>
>Sent: Mar 29, 2007 10:52 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Rudder Spar Dent
>
>Grrrr....mad at myself for either (1) not noticing this
upon shipment OR (2)
>causing it myself somehow, unknowingly.
>
>I plan on contacting ZAC tomorrow to show them the
pictures. It is a smooth
>dent, about 4mm in width. I don't like where it is (~220mm
from top of
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
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: | Workshop Space / Shed Construction |
Ok, so I've decided against a shipping container because my neighbors don't
like it and I think it won't be enough room.
I would like to put up a large shed in my backyard. I like the fabric idea,
but I personally want something more permanent (i.e. metal or wood).
I'm looking to you guys for recommendations on the following:
-width/height/length: I saw a 16'x16' shed at the local lumber store (84
lumber). Looks like enough space but not enough vertical clearance (beams
going overhead ~6.5')
-get plans, buy a kit, or buy pre-fab? The shed I saw locally came with all
the lumber needed, but building one from scratch may be more economical.
This one was ~$2300.
-recommended manufacturer / distributors (I'm in North NJ if that makes a
difference).
Thanks!
Tom
CH701 - Rudder skeleton fully clecoed
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: NTSB Final Report Available |
I see all those videos - since I have worked for Boeing for 20+ years in the Materials
Engineering department.
The usual source of elongated or double drilled holes in structure is a mis-rig
during the skin drill out. When the rigging is restored to the correct twist
or lack of twist, the holes end up mis aligned between the structure and overlying
skin(s). In the case where adequate edge distance is still available for
a larger fastener, the error is usually corrected by correcting the rigging
and re-drillign the same holes such that the new larger diameter picks up the
full diameter of the mis-aligned holes. This leaves circular, properly sized holes
through the stack that can be fastened by the appropriate oversized fastener.
In the even that there is adequate edge distance for the larger fastener,
at some point the failure mode will shift to a tear out or "bearing failure"
along the fastener row - the "zipper effect". As long as the fastener edge distance
is OK the loads at fail will be greater than the original mode unles the
original mode was bearing failure to start with.
When they say that the holes were elongated, I hear "not completely cleaned out
to the larger diameter in all components" - a recipe for a low failure.
do not archive
ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
You saw that video too then.
What do you mean by double drilled? Twice as many rivets installed?
[quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]the thing that has bothered me all along since
reading that the holes in the separated components were elongated is that those
A4s are unlikely to have that effect on the structure before the heads pop
off. Look at the bearing vs shear for the parts and it looks to me like (some
of) the structure was possibly double drilled? That would have the dreaded "zipper
effect" in teh event of the right overload.
Also Andy, the 787 wing failed right on the money just above the 1.5 - that is
hwere it MUST fail for the certification. On the other hand, when the A380 wing
failed at 1.38 and they decided they could implement a design fix into the certified
plane without repeating the wing testing - now that is where my shorts
pucker up.
do not archive
ashontz wrote:
This is plausible. The only problem here is that this was built from a kit, correct,
unless the builder replaced something.
I was watching a video the other day of the stress test of a 777s wings. They had
it up to 1.5 times design max load before the rivets along the top of the wing
ripped out. The engineers said this was the expected mode of failure and were
glad it reach 1.5 times max design. Possibly the rivets pulled out of the
spar caps for some reason. If it was a kit though, the spar would have been built
by Zenith. Maybe this guy had one of those pre-drilled skins, and the skin
didn't match up with the ribs correctly and consequently his edge distances sucked,
but he went ahead with it anyway and the wing failed due to poor construction
practices due to going ahead with misaligned pre-drilled holes and rib
center lines? That's the most likely explanation if it was build from a kit. That
or he used Home Depot pop-rivets instead of aircraft grade pulled rivets.
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
> Terry,
> The thing I see so often and would question, is whether the cap angles
> were of the correct material. Too often people ask if the spar cap angles
> can be bought from local sources like Farm & Fleet. The fact that the
> wing is considerably thinner and that so many have questioned the
> material for this particular part of construction suggests that perhaps
> the builder(s) may have made a seriously bad assumption. I'd doubt FAA
> investigators would even check material type and strength.
>
> Simple adherence to material and bolt call outs would not get you to
> failure of a spar structure with any of the excess weights below.
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> do not archive
>
> Terry Phillips wrote:
>
> > Lots of things of interest here.
> >
> > * 1st, the probable cause, structural failure of the wings for
> > undetermined reasons, is troubling. But, the fire damage to the
> > aluminum structure destroyed any evidence that might have told
> > why the collapse occurred.
> > * 2nd, with an estimated takeoff weight of 1326 lbs, the aircraft
> > was 26 lbs over the stated gross of 1300 lbs. The gross
> > currently listed for 601XL's on the Zenith website is 1320 lbs.
> > * 3rd, this may have been the first flight of the airplane with
> > two persons on board. If so, the extra 200 lb load may have been
> > enough to collapse the wings.
> > * 4th, it is not clear whether the builder, Mr. Hooker, flew the
> > airplane beyond the 40 hr. requirement. The total hours on the
> > airframe is not given.
> > * 5th, while it is not explicitly stated, it appears that this
> > aircraft was built from a kit, not from plans. That should
> > remove the possibility that the wing spars were poorly
> > constructed by the builder. It does not preclude damage to the
> > spars during or prior to construction.
> > * 6th, I find no mention in the report of the use of "hardware
> > store" bolts in the spars which has been suggested in some posts
> > to this group or of loose bolts.
> > * 7th, the empty weight of the aircraft is given as 754.5 lbs
> > which is about 60 lbs greater than the 695 lbs listed for the
> > 601/Jab 3300 on the Zenith website. It would be enlightening to
> > know where the 60 lbs comes from. The dual brakes are one item.
> > My conclusion is that we should be very rigorous in evaluating
> > the weight/benefit ratio of anything we add to the basic
> > airframe. I'm curious what empty weights others builders have
> > ended up with.
> > * 8th, the reports gives the unusable fuel as 3 gal. I know I've
> > seen that number before, but I cannot seem to find it in the
> > information I have. A useful fuel load of 21 gal vs. 24 gal
> > makes me wish I had opted for the 30 gal tanks.
> > * 9th, the elongated rivet holes probably resulted from the forces
> > of impact. However, if they were a construction defect, is it
> > possible that they could have weakened the wing structure?
> >
> > In summary, lots of information here, but it would have been great if
> > they had identified the cause of the wing failure. Then we could make
> > sure that, at least, we try to correct any obvious shortcomings in the
> > design.
> >
> > Terry
> >
> >
>
>
>
--------
Andy 601XL/Corvair?
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49979/*http://tv.yahoo.com/) on Yahoo! TV.
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=104079#104079
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
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: Another forced landing |
Speaking of forced landings...I think I'll go do one today.
http://www.aeroclubalbatross.org/images/sweetred_lg.jpg
For those of you that haven't experienced flying in a glider, I highly
recommend it. I have ASEL and glider ratings. I haven't been flying power
too much lately, but I have learned much about flying around without an
engine, how the wind affects your pattern, L/D with headwinds, etc, that I
am sure I will perform much better next time I practice power-off landings.
I still consider myself a novice at best, but there are definitely things I
learned from gliding that I would never have learned (or not as quickly)
from a purely ASEL point-of-view. Only problem now is I have to practice my
go-arounds....not used to doing those anymore.
Tom
On 3/31/07, LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bryan,
> Would you think these small parts would be worth having a couple of in a
> travel kit?
> I've been trying to compile a list of tools that would take care of
> tubes, bearings, cotters etc and a spark plug or two.
>
> Larry McFarland
> do not archive
>
> Bryan Martin wrote:
> > <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
> >
> > I was flying up to Midland from Ray airport yesterday (57D to 3BS) but
> > just short of Frankenmouth, the engine suddenly started running rough
> > and lost 500 RPM. My first thought was "Oh no, not again." I was in
> > contact with Saginaw approach at the time for VFR flight following so
> > I told them I had engine trouble and was going to land at Zehnder
> > field (66G), which by this time was almost directly below me. I made a
> > safe landing on the turf strip and parked the plane.
> >
> > I didn't have any tools with me so I called my dad in Midland and told
> > him to bring some tools and come get me. After he arrived we spent
> > about an hour troubleshooting the engine. The first thing I noticed is
> > that the plug in the #1 cylinder came out wet with fuel, like it
> > hadn't been firing. Then we checked for spark on that wire and
> > determined that it was good. Then we checked for compression by
> > turning over the prop while holding my fingers over the plug holes. I
> > noticed that the compression on #1 seemed low. Then I did what I
> > should have done in the first place and removed the valve rocker
> > cover. That's when I found one of the push rods for #1 laying loose in
> > the head. Then I saw that the snap ring that held the rockers in place
> > had broken and allowed the rocker to move sideways until the push rod
> > dropped out of its socket in the rocker. I found pieces of the broken
> > snap ring in the valve cover along with one of the shim washers and
> > pieces of two spring washers that had also disintegrated. The shim
> > washer was damaged on one side where it had ground against the broken
> > snap ring.
> >
> > We spent the next few hours driving around Bay City looking for parts.
> > Try finding internal parts for a 1986 Subaru engine at an auto parts
> > store. The Subaru dealer said they could get the parts but it would
> > take a week. We finally gave up for the day and I borrowed a car to
> > drive home. I called Ron at Ram Performance the next day and he said
> > he could mail out the parts right away but on a Friday that meant the
> > parts probably wouldn't get to me until at least Monday. I didn't want
> > to leave the plane tied down 60 miles from home over the weekend, so I
> > started driving around looking for enough of the parts to at least
> > jury rig the engine for the trip back to my home field. I finally
> > found someone who had the snap rings.
> >
> > I drove back up to Frankenmouth to work on the plane. I put the
> > damaged shim washer back on with undamaged side facing the snap ring
> > and wrapped some safety wire around the rocker shaft where the spring
> > washers had been just to take up some of the slop. I put it all back
> > together and fired it up. It ran as smooth as it normally did. I took
> > it up for a trip around the pattern and it seemed to run just fine.
> > Then I returned the car to Midland and we drove back down so I could
> > fly the plane home. The flight back to Ray was uneventful. Now I just
> > have to wait for the parts from RAM so I can make a permanent repair.
> > At least I don't need a new engine like the last time.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --Bryan Martin
> > N61BM, CH 601 XL,
> > RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
> > do not archive.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Rudder Spar Dent, no big deal |
I agree with Bill;
I am in the process of having a 1/4" counterbore re-worked to change the angle
from 180 to 170. I want to try this as a finger spun deburring tool. The advantage
is that I can put whatever pilot diameter in it to keep it centered.
Bill Naumuk <naumuk@alltel.net> wrote:
Tom-
Good engineers are conditioned to continually ask "What's wrong with this
picture?" The problem is, when there's an anomoly, they instinctively shift to
"Find root cause" mode and don't quit until they identify and rectify the problem.
This is time consuming. From your first string of posts, I'd say you can
throw the 400hr build time out the window.
What you have to do to make the best use of time spent is approach anomolies
the same way as you would MRB.
(For those of you who don't know what Material Review Board is, it's a joint
engineering/quality assurance decision of whether non-conforming parts coming
off a production line are usable as-is, usable with rework, or should be scrapped).
Eventually, you'll gain the experience to make the call on your own 90% of
the time. For the other 10%, you'll have to rely on outside sources.
1. If a lister is reliable (i.e. has a flying project with 100's of hours
on it or has already worked around an anomoly to the satisfaction of Zenith,
EAA, or the FAA) and offers a suggestion, how can you bring up the question of
hindsight? He's already been there, done that!
2. You're an engineer. Decide for yourself whether a better approach than
what Mexico, Mo. recommends hasn't been offered. Were you aware that one of the
guys on the HH DVD was the President of Zenair, Canada? Did you stop to think
about what you were trying to achieve? I'm deburring a hole. I want to knock
off the burrs while at the same time taking off as little of the "Good" metal
as possible. With a shallower cut angle, a 1/2" drill might fit the application
better. Think about it!
From personal experience, I advise that you don't get complacent but at the
same time you don't automatically reject suggestions from sources other than
Mexico, Mo. No matter how careful you are, sooner or later, you will fail a
construction step and have to rebuild. Just trying to cushion the blow.
Good building!
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Lutz
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Rudder Spar Dent, no big deal
Fritz,
I appreciate the point of view you and Juan hold, as well as the other views that
have been presented to me. As a first time aircraft builder and a person who
has experience with unrelated mission critical hardware, it is in my character
to question minute defects and pursue them to the fullest extent that I can
until a resolution is found. I can have no question that the structural integrity
of the airplane I am building is 100%.
That being said, I realize this was a small defect, and that it was probably not
a problem, but I wanted a answers from several independent sources before I
drew any conclusions. Hind-sight is 20/20, and guess what? You guys are the
ones with hind-sight, not me!
THANK YOU ALL for responding to my seemingly worthless question. As a first time
builder, it means a lot. So far I have been thoroughly impressed with the
support of both ZAC and this online community.
I've decided, after pressing out the small dent, to finish the rudder without adding
an additional doubler.
Cheers,
Tom
On 3/30/07, Big Gee <taffy0687@yahoo.com> wrote: Tom-- you making a mountain
out of mole hill---- no big deal= do nothing, just build the rudder. ZAC
has to be careful how they word things due to the nature of their business.
Fritz
Tom Lutz <tommylutz@gmail.com> wrote:
I just received a response from a ZAC engineer that looked at the photos.
He said that the dent is not a big deal, but if I am concerned about it, I can
install another doubler in that area. Of course, these are recommendations,
and each situation is unique. If you encounter a similar situation, you are best
off seeking advice specific to your situation. The following disclaimer at
the end of the ZAC e-mail I received illustrates this pretty well:
"Technical Support Disclaimer: While we strive to ensure that the advice/information
provided through our support is correct, Zenith Aircraft Company does
not accept any responsibility for errors or omissions. Any advise or information
that Zenith Aircraft Company gives you via any form of communication is not
a guarantee that it will correct your problem. It is only offered as assistance
to you. Zenith Aircraft Company will not be held responsible for any loss or
damage as a result of our advise or information supplied. "
As always, take advice with a grain of salt, no matter what source it is from.
I also learned that ZAC does NOT recommend using a 1/2" drill bit to debur
holes, as is presented in the metalworking 101 DVD.
I plan to continue construction as-is. Adding a doubler in that location would
mean popping the dent out, which I am not sure I can do without causing additional
damage.
Tom
On 3/30/07, Tom Lutz <tommylutz@gmail.com > wrote: BTW I am not an "anal engineer."
I am an electrical engineer that happens to be "anal." Thought I'd
clarify before any of you got the wrong ideas.
On 3/30/07, Tom Lutz <tommylutz@gmail.com > wrote: A preliminary response from
a Zenith engineer indicated that you are probably right. I was told that
unless it is a deep scratch or it busts through the material, it is most likely
OK. Being the anal engineer that I am, I sent photos over for a more thorough
evaluation. I should be hearing back by close-of-business today.
if this is the main rudder spar, its kind of hazzy, just build it it does not look
bad, the rudder is so over built a ding is nominal.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Lutz < tommylutz@gmail.com>
>Sent: Mar 29, 2007 10:52 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Rudder Spar Dent
>
>Grrrr....mad at myself for either (1) not noticing this upon shipment OR (2)
>causing it myself somehow, unknowingly.
>
>I plan on contacting ZAC tomorrow to show them the pictures. It is a smooth
>dent, about 4mm in width. I don't like where it is (~220mm from top of
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
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: | Re: Workshop Space / Shed Construction |
I'm currently working on the fuselage in a workshop room which is 15' x
20'. When I have to hang the engine mount and engine on the front, that
20' dimension is going to be a bit on the puny side of comfortable, even
with the rudder off. Still at that amount of space accompanied by some
juggling of bandsaw, scotchbrite lathe etc. it will work. Hindsight
tells me that 25' to 30' in length would be just peachy. The 15' width
has been adequate. The rafters are 8' from the floor and that's been
fine too.
Dred
601XL/Jabiru/canopy
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: Another forced landing |
I think it would be a good idea to have some of the small hard to
find parts in the plane on long cross country trips. Of course you
can't carry spares for everything and this sort of rare failure might
never happen again. One of the downsides to having such an engine in
your plane is that some of the internal parts are not readily
available at your local airport maintenance facility. I'm going to
get a couple spares for these items and throw them in with my spare
fuses and dzus fasteners and such. I'd like to get an illustrated
parts list for this engine, that would make it a little easier to
find some of these parts.
> <larry@macsmachine.com>
>
> Bryan,
> Would you think these small parts would be worth having a couple of
> in a travel kit?
> I've been trying to compile a list of tools that would take care of
> tubes, bearings, cotters etc and a spark plug or two.
>
> Larry McFarland
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
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 |
|
Dred
Nice job. Where did you get those scoops from?
Roger
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Edward Moody II
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Rudder Spar Dent
I couldn't see it with the big red circle. As others told you, it was no big
deal but I could tell that it was bugging you as it would have bugged me.
You made an excellent fix without going overboard at all. True, some other
guy's plane will fly just fine and nobody will know whether or not he
straightened out his dings. So what? You know you took time to do it to your
satisfaction. Cool huh?
Looky what I did today.... farted around for almost four hours to do Naca
scoops and eyeball vent mounts
Dred
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: | Re: RE: NACA scoops |
The molded NACA scoops came from Zenith with the kit. The cutouts were
made with a template that I made using some scrap .25" aluminum. The
eyeball vents are made by ACS Products Co. model # 10680 available from
Aircraft Spruce item # 05-00779. The scat hose adaptors are also from AS
item # 13-00833. The flathead allen socket #8-32 scres are stainless and
came form Bolt Depot online. Thanks for the kind words,
Dred
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Venables
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 10:50 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: RE: NACA scoops
Dred
Nice job. Where did you get those scoops from?
Roger
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: Workshop Space / Shed Construction |
Tom-
Whatever you figure the minimum space you'll need, double it and
you'll still come up short!
My 14x28 garanger still isn't going to do it when it comes time to
do the rigging. Warned Ma I was going to have to take over the main
garage for a couple of weeks and got looks that would kill. Made a
compromise. Her truck gets the garanger while I'm rigging and my car
sits out in the driveway.
You do what you have to!
do not archive
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Lutz
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 10:18 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Workshop Space / Shed Construction
Ok, so I've decided against a shipping container because my neighbors
don't like it and I think it won't be enough room.
I would like to put up a large shed in my backyard. I like the fabric
idea, but I personally want something more permanent ( i.e. metal or
wood).
I'm looking to you guys for recommendations on the following:
-width/height/length: I saw a 16'x16' shed at the local lumber store
(84 lumber). Looks like enough space but not enough vertical clearance
(beams going overhead ~6.5')
-get plans, buy a kit, or buy pre-fab? The shed I saw locally came
with all the lumber needed, but building one from scratch may be more
economical. This one was ~$2300.
-recommended manufacturer / distributors (I'm in North NJ if that
makes a difference).
Thanks!
Tom
CH701 - Rudder skeleton fully clecoed
Message 14
| 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: | Did I miss something????? |
Ok, I was looking at the prices for the 601XL on the web page from
Zenith.
The price list was last up dated on the 8th of March.
My question...NO WHERE, and I mean no where do I see a price for a ROTAX
engine..... na-da, nope zilch....No pricing for a firewall forward
package for the ROTAX either? So whatzz-sup with that?? Zenith is now
in bed with Jabiru only? They featured a FWF package and pricing of the
engine for the 3300.
The spec's are still there as far as figuring performance and payload
for the ROTAX, but no pricing for the ROTAX.
Did I miss some big announcement or something?
Bill in central Florida
Message 15
| 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: Did I miss something????? |
Bill-
They're redoing the website. Until they get things around, nothing
seems to work.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: allpro2@bellsouth.net
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Did I miss something?????
Ok, I was looking at the prices for the 601XL on the web page from
Zenith.
The price list was last up dated on the 8th of March.
My question...NO WHERE, and I mean no where do I see a price for a
ROTAX engine..... na-da, nope zilch....No pricing for a firewall forward
package for the ROTAX either? So whatzz-sup with that?? Zenith is now
in bed with Jabiru only? They featured a FWF package and pricing of the
engine for the 3300.
The spec's are still there as far as figuring performance and payload
for the ROTAX, but no pricing for the ROTAX.
Did I miss some big announcement or something?
Bill in central Florida
Message 16
| 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 Spar Dent, no big deal |
Just to ensure proper representation. I am the President of Can-Zac
Aviation Ltd. Zenair is a different facility altogether and it=92s
president Is Chris Heintz. Though, Zenair has removed itself from the
sales aspect of the business, it still is a manufacturing facility and
research center. Can-Zac Aviation is the Canadian sales and Canadian
Builders Support center.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
HYPERLINK
"mailto:president@can-zacaviation.com"president@can-zacaviation.com
HYPERLINK "http://www.can-zacaviation.com/"www.can-zacaviation.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Naumuk
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Rudder Spar Dent, no big deal
2. Were you aware that one of the guys on the HH DVD was the
President of Zenair, Canada?
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
--
3/30/2007 1:15 PM
--
3/30/2007 1:15 PM
Message 17
| 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: NTSB Final Report Available |
I wonder if Mark has any more light to shed on this..... that said, when I took
the rudder class from Mark and David at CanZac, Mark told me that the XL uses
three times the number of rivets required to meet the design strength. One
would think you would have to do a lousy job of installing the majority of rivets
to create conditions for a failure so catastrophic. I would think there would
have been plenty of clues visable on a walk around like weeping or protruding
rivets. Like everyone else, I would like to know whether the rear spar bolts
were indeed installed and tight when all this happened.
As to the LE separation - if the fuel tanks contained enough gas their weight against
the inside of the skin would likely tear the LE off on impact. I saw
a stinson flip on it's back during landing once and both wing tanks ripped out
and went bouncing down the runway.
Tim
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=104131#104131
Message 18
| 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: | Interior sidewalls |
Gang:
I am considering alternatives to upholstered sidewalls, and am not a
great fan of black ABS. I was thinking of using 1.5 or 2 mm aircraft
plywood for this, probably stained somewhat darker than the natural
birch finish. Was even thinking of a 1 mm overlay for the panel just
for looks. Anyone tried wood before? Any luck? Any other alternatives
to upholstery or plastic that people have tried?
Thanks,
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE (reserved)
601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building...
Message 19
| 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: Did I miss something????? |
is that why the parts database doesn't work?
Bill Naumuk <naumuk@alltel.net> wrote: Bill-
They're redoing the website. Until they get things around, nothing seems
to work.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: allpro2@bellsouth.net
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Did I miss something?????
Ok, I was looking at the prices for the 601XL on the web page from Zenith.
The price list was last up dated on the 8th of March.
My question...NO WHERE, and I mean no where do I see a price for a ROTAX engine.....
na-da, nope zilch....No pricing for a firewall forward package for the
ROTAX either? So whatzz-sup with that?? Zenith is now in bed with Jabiru only?
They featured a FWF package and pricing of the engine for the 3300.
The spec's are still there as far as figuring performance and payload for the
ROTAX, but no pricing for the ROTAX.
Did I miss some big announcement or something?
Bill in central Florida
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
Message 20
| 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: Rudder Spar Dent, no big deal |
Mark-
I stand corrected. My point was, you've "Been there, done that".
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: ZodieRocket
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 1:52 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Rudder Spar Dent, no big deal
Just to ensure proper representation. I am the President of Can-Zac
Aviation Ltd. Zenair is a different facility altogether and it=92s
president Is Chris Heintz. Though, Zenair has removed itself from the
sales aspect of the business, it still is a manufacturing facility and
research center. Can-Zac Aviation is the Canadian sales and Canadian
Builders Support center.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Naumuk
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:13 AM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Rudder Spar Dent, no big deal
2. Were you aware that one of the guys on the HH DVD was the
President of Zenair, Canada?
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
--
3/30/2007 1:15 PM
--
3/30/2007 1:15 PM
Message 21
| 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: Did I miss something????? |
Dave-
Ask Zenith.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: David Downey
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Did I miss something?????
is that why the parts database doesn't work?
Bill Naumuk <naumuk@alltel.net> wrote:
Bill-
They're redoing the website. Until they get things around,
nothing seems to work.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: allpro2@bellsouth.net
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Did I miss something?????
Ok, I was looking at the prices for the 601XL on the web page from
Zenith.
The price list was last up dated on the 8th of March.
My question...NO WHERE, and I mean no where do I see a price for a
ROTAX engine..... na-da, nope zilch....No pricing for a firewall forward
package for the ROTAX either? So whatzz-sup with that?? Zenith is now
in bed with Jabiru only? They featured a FWF package and pricing of the
engine for the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
Message 22
| 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: Interior sidewalls |
Yep, have done several panels using burl walnut veneer over alum. Pretty
expensive but when you're this far into the program...... I Really like
the look and will use it on my 701, nice idea for side panels , might
try that as well. John
Was even thinking of a 1 mm overlay for the panel just for looks.
Anyone tried wood before? Any luck? Any other alternatives to
upholstery or plastic that people have tried?
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
Message 23
| 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: Interior sidewalls |
Andy, my two cents is this: if you do use wood, seal it as well as if it
were there for structural purposes. The sunlight under a bubble canopy
will not be kind to wood over time. That said, it would be atractive,
I'm sure.
Dred
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Andrew Elliott
To: Zenith-List Digest Server
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 1:57 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Interior sidewalls
Gang:
I am considering alternatives to upholstered sidewalls, and am not a
great fan of black ABS. I was thinking of using 1.5 or 2 mm aircraft
plywood for this, probably stained somewhat darker than the natural
birch finish. Was even thinking of a 1 mm overlay for the panel just
for looks. Anyone tried wood before? Any luck? Any other alternatives
to upholstery or plastic that people have tried?
Thanks,
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE (reserved)
601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building...
Message 24
| 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: Interior sidewalls |
Ah... Ed's right , forgot that part, used about 10 brushed coats of
Spar Varnish with UV inhibitor, wet sanded between each one 'till it
came out flat. All the planes were hangered but when we were at airshows
or on the beach we covered the panel with a towel, just sold the Pacer
that I did about 15 yrs ago and it still looked new. It's a BUNCH of
work however.
JB
----- Original Message -----
From: Edward Moody II
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 3:09 PM
Subject: xxx Re: Zenith-List: Interior sidewalls
Andy, my two cents is this: if you do use wood, seal it as well as if
it were there for structural purposes. The sunlight under a bubble
canopy will not be kind to wood over time. That said, it would be
atractive, I'm sure.
Dred
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Andrew Elliott
To: Zenith-List Digest Server
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 1:57 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Interior sidewalls
Message 25
| 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: | LPS 3 As Corrosion Inhibitor |
Has anyone used the LPS 3 product for corrosion protection instead of
zinc chromate, etc.? An A&P mentioned I could use it in the fuselage
to protect the metal (I fly in FL). The metal overlap areas have been
painted with zinc chromate. For the cockpit, I'm considering painting
it in time.
Any advice / thoughts appreciated.
Thanks,
Tim
Message 26
| 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: LPS 3 As Corrosion Inhibitor |
TIM
I USED LPS 3 IN MY 182 FOR 24YRS. IN FLOR.DOES A GOOD JOB
THE BAD SIDE OF IT THAT IT SEEPS THROUGH THE SEAMS
GOOD NEWS IT DOING IT, S. JOB TO KEEP OUT THE CORROSION.
GOING TO DO IT IN MY 601
BEN
**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 27
| 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: LPS 3 As Corrosion Inhibitor |
I used LPS3 in limited situations on my Cessna. It penetrates well and then sets
up. It would work if you had direct access to the areas to be protected.
Products like ACF 50 are designed to be used for whole airplane corrosion protection
and will find it's way into the nooks and crannys. Needs to be renewed
every few years. One drawback is that it seeps from the seams for awhile after
application.
Tim Juhl
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=104175#104175
Message 28
| 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: Interior sidewalls |
I glued padding to the sidewalls and glued leather over that. I got
the leather hide on eBay.
On Mar 31, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Dr. Andrew Elliott wrote:
> Gang:
>
> I am considering alternatives to upholstered sidewalls, and am not
> a great fan of black ABS. I was thinking of using
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Message 29
| 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: Workshop Space / Shed Construction |
I built a shed of my own design using 2x4 lumber, plywood siding and shingle
roof. It is anchored over a concrete floor. The shed size is 8x20 due to space
limitations in the area of the patio where I need it. In my case, I have
a one car garage that I going to be using for storing the subassemblies already
made, leaving the shed only for building.
Before I started, I did lots of research and considered many options but
my main issue issues with all commercially available sheds was not finding
one with the exact dimension that I needed and doted with a full width frontal
door, so my no compromise solution was to build it myself.
My take is that an ideal shed for building an airplane should have:
- A concrete floor.
- Have a wide front door.
- Big enough to build an airplane but small enough to fit where you want to
place it
- Have good insulation (aluminum sheds are very bad at this)
My recommendation would be to buy one if it meet the characteristics above and
is within your budget. Otherwise, build it yourself from scratch and save
some money. Mine took 9 days of full time work to build.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami, Florida
Tom Lutz <tommylutz@gmail.com> wrote: Ok, so I've decided against a shipping container
because my neighbors don't like it and I think it won't be enough room.
I would like to put up a large shed in my backyard. I like the fabric idea,
but I personally want something more permanent ( i.e. metal or wood).
I'm looking to you guys for recommendations on the following:
-width/height/length: I saw a 16'x16' shed at the local lumber store (84 lumber).
Looks like enough space but not enough vertical clearance (beams going
overhead ~6.5')
-get plans, buy a kit, or buy pre-fab? The shed I saw locally came with all the
lumber needed, but building one from scratch may be more economical. This
one was ~$2300.
-recommended manufacturer / distributors (I'm in North NJ if that makes a difference).
Thanks!
Tom
CH701 - Rudder skeleton fully clecoed
Message 30
| 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: Another forced landing |
Wow Bryan, I hope to see you at the meeting Thursday.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=104207#104207
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! --
|