Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:55 AM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (raymondj)
2. 01:41 AM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (JG)
3. 04:08 AM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
4. 04:29 AM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (Gary Ray)
5. 05:17 AM - Hood Time for Sport Pilots (Paul Mulwitz)
6. 05:20 AM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (Kevin L. Rupert)
7. 05:23 AM - 701 Leveling (Brad Larson)
8. 06:05 AM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (Art Gibeaut)
9. 06:07 AM - Re: Leveling the 701 (Zed Smith)
10. 06:09 AM - Re: 601 Crash (Bill Steer)
11. 06:43 AM - Re: Flying CH601XL in LAX or SFO area (Gig Giacona)
12. 07:16 AM - Re: CH701 Rudder Tip Beacon/Strobe (Carlos Sa)
13. 07:19 AM - Re: 601 Crash (Gig Giacona)
14. 07:35 AM - Re: 601 Crash (kevinbonds@comcast.net)
15. 07:35 AM - Brass or Stainless Safety Wire (John Davis)
16. 07:39 AM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (Bill Steer)
17. 07:49 AM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (Trainnut01@aol.com)
18. 08:05 AM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (Steve Hulland)
19. 08:28 AM - Re: 601 Crash (Gig Giacona)
20. 09:28 AM - Brass or Stainless Safety Wire (MaxNr@aol.com)
21. 09:42 AM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (kevinbonds@comcast.net)
22. 09:43 AM - Re: 701 Leveling (Gordon)
23. 09:56 AM - Re: 701 Leveling (ronlee)
24. 10:01 AM - Re: Brass or Stainless Safety Wire (Kevin L. Rupert)
25. 10:14 AM - Re: 601 Crash (PatrickW)
26. 10:52 AM - British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Peter Chapman)
27. 12:00 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Juan Vega)
28. 12:02 PM - Re: 601 Crash (ashontz)
29. 12:08 PM - Re: 601 Crash (steveadams)
30. 12:10 PM - accident (Joe)
31. 12:19 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Jerry Hey)
32. 12:27 PM - Re: 601 Crash (ashontz)
33. 12:40 PM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (Juan Vega)
34. 12:41 PM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (Paul Mulwitz)
35. 12:51 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Paul Mulwitz)
36. 12:51 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Juan Vega)
37. 01:05 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Art Gibeaut)
38. 01:13 PM - Re: Canadian Fly-in (rick tedford)
39. 01:14 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (rickpitcher)
40. 01:17 PM - Re: Re: 601 Crash (David Downey)
41. 01:18 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (David Downey)
42. 01:48 PM - Maneuvering speed (George Swinford)
43. 01:54 PM - >Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Klaus Truemper)
44. 01:55 PM - Re: 601 Crash (ashontz)
45. 02:10 PM - Re: accident (Tom Henderson)
46. 02:20 PM - Re: accident (ashontz)
47. 02:25 PM - 601XL crash in Modesto CA last year (Mark Sherman)
48. 02:36 PM - Re: Bottom Rudder Bracket attachment (chris Sinfield)
49. 02:44 PM - Re: 601XL crash in Modesto CA last year (chris Sinfield)
50. 03:15 PM - Re: Re: 601XL crash in Modesto CA last year (Mark Sherman)
51. 03:53 PM - Re: accident (Paul Mulwitz)
52. 03:53 PM - Ultimate Load vs. Limit Load (Kurt A. Schumacher)
53. 04:04 PM - Re: Re: Bottom Rudder Bracket attachment (David Downey)
54. 04:18 PM - Re: accident (ihab.awad@gmail.com)
55. 04:39 PM - Re: accident (chris Sinfield)
56. 04:43 PM - Re: accident (Gig Giacona)
57. 04:45 PM - Fw: Re: Re: Bottom Rudder Bracket attachment (David Downey)
58. 04:45 PM - Re: accident (Kurt A. Schumacher)
59. 04:53 PM - Re: 601XL crash in Modesto CA last year (Ken Lilja)
60. 04:59 PM - Re: accident (Ken Lilja)
61. 05:53 PM - Re: accident (Kurt A. Schumacher)
62. 06:18 PM - Re: Ultimate Load vs. Limit Load (C Smith)
63. 06:23 PM - Re: Re: accident (Clyde Barcus)
64. 07:36 PM - Re: Tach wiring for Stratus (Bryan Martin)
65. 07:37 PM - Re: Re: accident (Paul Mulwitz)
66. 08:13 PM - Re: accident (NamesChangedTo...)
67. 08:14 PM - Re: Ultimate Load vs. Limit Load (Bryan Martin)
68. 08:32 PM - Re: Re: accident (David Mikesell)
69. 08:56 PM - Fw: Re: Bottom Rudder Bracket attachment (chris Sinfield)
70. 09:06 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Bryan Martin)
71. 09:22 PM - Re: accident (ashontz)
72. 09:24 PM - Re: Re: accident (Steve Shuck)
73. 09:43 PM - Load testing (MaxNr@aol.com)
74. 09:47 PM - Re: Re: accident (Bryan Martin)
75. 09:54 PM - Recent crashes (kevinbonds)
76. 10:50 PM - Bonanzas easily exceed structural limits (Randy L. Thwing)
77. 10:54 PM - Re: Recent crashes (kevinbonds)
78. 11:00 PM - Re: Re: accident (Mark Sherman)
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 |
|
I don't wish to be saved from myself by you or any other self appointed
judge of my skills and abilities. That goes double for any group of
bureaucrats or politicians. I prefer to rely on my own judgment and will
gladly bear the consequences of my decisions.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Afterfxllc@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:42 PM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601 Crash
I agree 100% there used to be checks and balances in place to help save
people from themselves in aviation like taking away ones medical if they
shouldn't fly. But now we have a lot of our seniors that simply shouldn't be
flying that are jumping up and down because of the new Sport pilot class. I
am at odds right now with a similar situation with a plane I helped build
and now I am not sure if the person should be flying it. When they take the
plane out for a taxi test for the first time and try and lift off in a plane
they are unfamiliar with it scares the hell out of me. Now I am afraid for
him but I can't stop him so I have to just watch and pry I guess. I just
think this is going to be happening more and more. I know it's hard to admit
it but some people are just not fit to fly but will do it anyway. And this
has nothing to do with the current crash it is simply a blanket statement.
I also am starting to wonder if this new class was a good idea at all.
Jeff
In each case, I believe the defect is found in the person(s) that
prepared the plane for flight or the pilot that exceeded his
Ability in impossible conditions. The defect is between the ears and so
far, I've heard nothing to indicate anything to the
contrary. Excess speed, missing bolts, bad weather, poor preflights or
what have you. These all play the major role in keeping
the wings on. Until "SLA" pilots modify thinking somewhat, they're going
to continue to loose wings and things with regularity.
The defect does not likely have anything to do with structural limits of
the thin Zenith wing. These generally exceed commercial
aircraft load limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
See what's free at AOL.com.
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 |
|
Asolutely spot on, Raymond!
That should be archived in bold print......
Tailwinds always,
JG
----- Original Message -----
From: raymondj
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 5:55 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: 601 Crash
I don't wish to be saved from myself by you or any other self
appointed judge of my skills and abilities. That goes double for any
group of bureaucrats or politicians. I prefer to rely on my own
judgment and will gladly bear the consequences of my decisions.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
do not archive
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 |
|
Then lets stop blaming the 601 for bad judgment and except the consequences
of others decisions.
I don't wish to be saved from myself by you or any other self appointed
judge of my skills and abilities. That goes double for any group of bureaucrats
or politicians. I prefer to rely on my own judgment and will gladly bear the
consequences of my decisions.
do not archive
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
That also applies to every part of a person's life.
This issue is fundamentally what is wrong with our form of government.
I suggest that we look in to an Opt Out Law that can be applied to
product liability, Soc Security, Union Dues, and every part of
government and other forms of herdisms. Strict Constituionally
Enumerated functions of government only.
That way the people that are individuals can live their lives as they
see fit and the liberal, (herd instinct, sky is falling, save me) crowd
would be able to live in their communes. Which side you are on is
probably determined before birth but it will later dictate your politics
and your entire life.
Gary Ray (that is all I have to say about that)
----- Original Message -----
From: raymondj
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 3:55 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: 601 Crash
I don't wish to be saved from myself by you or any other self
appointed judge of my skills and abilities. That goes double for any
group of bureaucrats or politicians. I prefer to rely on my own
judgment and will gladly bear the consequences of my decisions.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Afterfxllc@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:42 PM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601 Crash
I agree 100% there used to be checks and balances in place to help
save people from themselves in aviation like taking away ones medical if
they shouldn't fly. But now we have a lot of our seniors that simply
shouldn't be flying that are jumping up and down because of the new
Sport pilot class. I am at odds right now with a similar situation with
a plane I helped build and now I am not sure if the person should be
flying it. When they take the plane out for a taxi test for the first
time and try and lift off in a plane they are unfamiliar with it scares
the hell out of me. Now I am afraid for him but I can't stop him so I
have to just watch and pry I guess. I just think this is going to be
happening more and more. I know it's hard to admit it but some people
are just not fit to fly but will do it anyway. And this has nothing to
do with the current crash it is simply a blanket statement.
I also am starting to wonder if this new class was a good idea at
all.
Jeff
In each case, I believe the defect is found in the person(s) that
prepared the plane for flight or the pilot that exceeded his
Ability in impossible conditions. The defect is between the ears
and so
far, I've heard nothing to indicate anything to the
contrary. Excess speed, missing bolts, bad weather, poor
preflights or
what have you. These all play the major role in keeping
the wings on. Until "SLA" pilots modify thinking somewhat, they're
going
to continue to loose wings and things with regularity.
The defect does not likely have anything to do with structural
limits of
the thin Zenith wing. These generally exceed commercial
aircraft load limits.
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: | Hood Time for Sport Pilots |
I don't know the training requirements for sport pilot certificate,
but several listers have suggested there is no instrument training
requirement. If this is true, I think the training requirement
should be changed.
Several times I have found myself in perfectly legal VFR conditions
that were impossible to survive without flying on the gauges. The
rules for VMC are all about avoiding mid-air collisions and not about
controlling the airplane. When the world is all grey and you are
flying over calm water there is no visual reference at all outside
the plane unless you happen to see another airplane within a few
miles. This kind of weather is just as likely for a sport pilot to
run into as a private pilot.
I hope any instructor who trains beginners for sport pilot
certificates gives them at least a little bit of hood time. This
teaches them they can't fly without seeing something outside the
plane and might encourage them to read the books and take a few more
hours of basic instrument training which could save them in the worst
of the conditions they might encounter.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 11:39 AM 5/10/2007, you wrote:
>Do LSA certificated pilots do any of the hood time that PP do?
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 |
|
Yea, That's all well and good but as long as we keep electing the same
type of sheep herders, nothing is going to change. In the end, we
Americans get just exactly what we voted for.
Kevin Rupert
Lewistown, PA
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 |
|
Where do you place the level.... door threshold, wingroot, etc...?
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 |
|
Jeff, I'm sure you mean well, but do yourself a favor.
Save this Email someplace safe, until the day that you
are one of those despicably, incompetent,
bumble-headed, "Seniors" (they are all the same you
know) and then see if you feel the same way about this
topic.
On second thought, why don't you re-read it right now
and see if you detect a little hint of profiling,
discrimination, arrogance, and self-appointed
judgementalism. My experience has taught me that when
I want to express my opinion, I should do so in
writing. Then I can always re-read it before I hit the
"Send" button. Keeps me from saying stupid stuff to
the world. You might benefit from this technique also.
Please do not archive.
--- Afterfxllc@aol.com wrote:
> I agree 100% there used to be checks and balances in
> place to help save
> people from themselves in aviation like taking away
> ones medical if they
> shouldn't fly. But now we have a lot of our seniors
> that simply shouldn't be flying
> that are jumping up and down because of the new
> Sport pilot class. I am at
> odds right now with a similar situation with a plane
> I helped build and now I am
> not sure if the person should be flying it. When
> they take the plane out for
> a taxi test for the first time and try and lift off
> in a plane they are
> unfamiliar with it scares the hell out of me. Now I
> am afraid for him but I can't
> stop him so I have to just watch and pry I guess. I
> just think this is going
> to be happening more and more. I know it's hard to
> admit it but some people
> are just not fit to fly but will do it anyway. And
> this has nothing to do
> with the current crash it is simply a blanket
> statement.
> I also am starting to wonder if this new class was a
> good idea at all.
> Jeff
>
>
>
> In each case, I believe the defect is found in the
> person(s) that
> prepared the plane for flight or the pilot that
> exceeded his
> Ability in impossible conditions. The defect is
> between the ears and so
> far, I've heard nothing to indicate anything to the
> contrary. Excess speed, missing bolts, bad
> weather, poor preflights or
> what have you. These all play the major role in
> keeping
> the wings on. Until "SLA" pilots modify thinking
> somewhat, they're going
> to continue to loose wings and things with
> regularity.
> The defect does not likely have anything to do with
> structural limits of
> the thin Zenith wing. These generally exceed
> commercial
> aircraft load limits.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's
> free at http://www.aol.com.
>
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel
bargains.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
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: Leveling the 701 |
do not archive
For left-to-right just use the top front steel tubing of the cabin framework.
Tire pressure will normally do this.
I'm at the office, don't have plans at hand; this is from faulty memory.
If you need front-to-rear there is a notation, either on plans or in Assembly Manual,
as to the proper placement of a level atop the rear fuselage.
If you have a 'smart' electronic level you can put the instrument on top of the
rear fuselage as directed by ZAC.....then, when "level" per their instructions,
put the smart level on the cockpit floor forward of the seat and note the reading.
Write this value, in degrees, on the cockpit floor with a Sharpie. Nosewheel
inflation/deflation will get you to the same position, and it is easier
to check each time you may want to return to this "level" condition.
Regards,
Zed
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 |
|
Wouldn't the EAA be the "builder's advocacy group" you're talking about?
Wonder if they'd entertain the idea? Wouldn't hurt to ask.
Bill
kevinbonds wrote:
>
> us builders when it comes to these investigations. We need to organize
> a builders advocacy group to approach the NTSB or FAA, on our behalf,
> to see that we get accurate info such as pictures of attachment points
> etc. If there was a problem how would we get reliable information to
> fix it in this climate?
>
>
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flying CH601XL in LAX or SFO area |
Just for the record I received an e-mail from Mr. Archibald and the aircraft is
ELSA.
As I responded to him the FAA really should change the way they display that information
in the registration so we can tell the difference between ELSA and E-AB.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112228#112228
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: CH701 Rudder Tip Beacon/Strobe |
I built a prototype circuit to drive a LED rotating beacon. It works, but now I
would have to select the proper LEDs to get to the final version. Since I am
not flying anytime soon, I am leaving that for later... See attached pics.
The leds would replace the red lens withing the clear fairing.
--------
CH601-HD, plans
Montreal, Canada
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112230#112230
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img00014_155.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/beacon_prototype_2_955.jpg
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 |
|
I too was very disappointed with the report on the last 601 that suffered wing
separation. Some of that disappointment came from fact that we had been given
some information in this forum that the cause was incorrect or missing bolts at
the rear wing attachment point. When the report came out there was no mention
of the rear wing attachment point so we were left hanging.
But I was thinking about this last night and I feel these less than thorough investigations
are the price we pay for the fact that the FAA and NTSB don't issue
ADs for experimental aircraft.
This lack of ADs is probably a good thing because unlike type certified aircraft
each builder's plane will be different in some way and ADs in this situation
would be unworkable.
The EAA getting involved in accident investigations and then dispensing that knowledge
through a database of some sort seems to me the most logical alternative
to FAA/NTSB involvement.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112231#112231
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 |
|
I meant a representative from the 601XL community. Hope this goes through. I am
having trouble with my email.
kevin
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Bill Steer <steerr@bellsouth.net>
>
> Wouldn't the EAA be the "builder's advocacy group" you're talking about?
> Wonder if they'd entertain the idea? Wouldn't hurt to ask.
>
> Bill
>
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: | Brass or Stainless Safety Wire |
Should Brass or Stainless safety wire be used on my 601XL? I've looked
in AC43-13 and only found an a bit about using Brass for safetying
certain emergency type items that may need to be removed.
It seems like I've seen stainless in the 172 I've been renting so I
assume that would be fine ?
Thanks,
John Davis
Burnsville, NC
601 XL QB/Jabiru ?
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 |
|
Jeez. I'm one of those fumble-headed seniors and didn't take offense at
all. Matter of fact, I'm glad somebody's worried about the abilities of
some builders, not only for the flying aspect, but also for building.
How many of us have seen building practices that would best be described
as poor? We can offer advice but can't really do anything about it.
Responsible builders will avail themselves of the resources they need
for building and flying well. We can only wish the rest of them good
luck. That's what the EAA Tech Counselor and Flight Advisor programs
are all about, isn't it?
Bill
Do not archive
> Jeff, I'm sure you mean well, but do yourself a favor.
> Save this Email someplace safe, until the day that you
> are one of those despicably, incompetent,
> bumble-headed, "Seniors" (they are all the same you
> know) and then see if you feel the same way about this
> topic.
>
>
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 |
|
Igor Sikorski was quoted as saying that "in the early years of aviation
designers acted as their own test pilots which tended to weed out bad designers."
I think that must work for bad builders also.
Carroll
do not archive
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
Jeff,
You sound like one of those folks who think it is perfectly OK for some
bureaucrat being the only one who can judge who should have a medical and
who should not or who should or should not fly. I know a number of folks who
are in their 60's, 70's , 80' and even a few in their 90's who fly on a
regular basis. I myself am 62 and have been flying on a regular basis since
I was eight. I also controlled airplanes for 16 years, got shot at in them,
flew them into really serious WX in all types of climates, etc., etc. Many
of them still receive special issuance medical certificates and fly some
pretty high performance airplanes (not just fast, etc., but things like
JN-4's, DR-VII's, F4F's, etc.) Many have, like me, have dropped down to the
Sport Pilot level because it is to much of a hassle to get the special
issuance each year and do not fly high performance, night, IFR, etc.
anymore. The chances of me flying into IMC conditions any more are either
very slim or none - I suspect closer to none. That is because my experience,
knowledge and judgement will most likely not let it happen. That is my
choice. The guy who crashed the 601 on May 2nd was a new Sport Pilot (not
sure if that meant young or not) flying a very well built SLA into
conditions (if we can believe the WX reports) that probably included
embedded T-storm(s), rain, wind, etc. Very stupid and has nothing to do with
ability to get physical or having some bureaucrat saying he can or can not
get a medical. Besides, how many people fly and have been for decades
without a medical or pilot license. I cannot judge the right or wrong here,
but I can say. To allow the government to control our lives more than is
absolutely necessary is taking away freedom. If you want that, go somewhere
else and fly - especially where the government in all its wisdom taxes you
or dictates you out of flying and many of life's other pleasures. Be sure
to enjoy the loss of freedom and choice. OH, BTW, how old are you and how
much flying experiance do you have. Knowing that helps others judge the
wisdom of one's statements.*
*Do Not Archive
--
Semper Fi,
Steven R. Hulland
CH 600 Taildragger
Amado, AZ
This and all other incoming/outgoing email, attachments and replies scanned
prior to opening/sending and uses an external firewall to help insure virus
free email and attachments.
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 |
|
It is the fumble-headed seniors at my airport that are keeping me on the straight
and narrow as far as building practices go. About every third week I hear the
sound of three golf carts heading towards my hanger. Then in come 5 or 6 who
inspect everything I've done, drop a word or two of advice or praise, comment
on the hinge-less ailerons and then off they go.
I don't know if they are more interested in the airplane or the unusualness that
somebody under 70 is hanging out at the airport.
These guys, only one of which was ever a professional pilot, have forgotten more
about aviation than I will ever know. And while they will all admit they are
subject to the occasional "senior moment" most of them can still shoot an IFR
approach to minimum and not bat an eye.
Since they've known me since I was born and were all friends of my Grandfather,
who taught about half of them to fly, couldn't be happier to see a new generation
at the airport. Several have made a point of bringing their grandsons out
to my hanger trying to get them interested in building and flying.
P.S. They seem to think I'm doing an OK job because they've said that once N601WR
is flying they are going to be counting the hours so they'll know when I've
flown the 40 off so they can go up with me.
steerr(at)bellsouth.net wrote:
> Jeez. I'm one of those fumble-headed seniors and didn't take offense at
> all.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112250#112250
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: | Brass or Stainless Safety Wire |
I am not an A&P, just a pilot (retired). This is what I have seen on military
and commercial aircraft: Stainless is used on hardware to prevent movement or
backing off. I have seen brass used only on things that need to be secured
but can be broken if you're a little scared. Such things as door jettison
handles, the knob that you pull to "blow down" the landing gear, the guard that
covers a switch that is used to jettison something in flight. Also, its used to
prevent the safety pin on hand held aircraft fire extinguishers from falling
out. I agree that AC 43.13 should not be so vague on this issue. Good luck.
Bob Dingley
Pace,FL
XL/Lyc
**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
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: 701 Leveling |
see 7-F-15 Reference A and E, For side to side I check across the top of
the fuselage at point A
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Larson" <blarson@meridianhouse.com>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:22 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: 701 Leveling
>
> Where do you place the level.... door threshold, wingroot, etc...?
>
>
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: 701 Leveling |
This worked well for me.
The top of the fuselage is rounded a bit, so it is a little iffy as to where to
actually place the level. It seems that every time one places the level on top
of the plane, even though it is on the same spot it can rock a bit, and give
a different reading, frustrating. My solution was that once I determined the
proper level, was to then put a couple of rivets on the side of the fuselage,
a bit closer then four feet apart. Thearafter this is an easy benchmark to level
from with a four foot level. It is a convenient spot to check from in the future.
--------
Ron Lee
Tucson, Arizona
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112264#112264
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: Brass or Stainless Safety Wire |
I am an A&P. Use stainless.
K. Rupert
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 |
|
Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
Wing spar failed in plane crash
Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a ball of flames
were the victims of a break in the plane's wing structure, a report has revealed.
(11/05/2007 10:21:12)
http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle.aspx?sectionid=1084&articleid=2871416
The article says August, but this is the first I've heard of this one. Anybody
know anything more? How does the UK do their investigations?
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112266#112266
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: | British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>
>Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>
>Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>
>Wing spar failed in plane crash
>Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
Synopsis:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
Report:
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another accident,
it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
engineering input from the manufacturer.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
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: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
I have read the report, and while sad, it is apparent to me, people are getting
a little over confident with the plane (pulling the stick back too hard). The
only way for both spars to fold in my opinion is for the pilot to crank it back
too hard, which overconfidence can do. one flys into known IMC, one dodges
wires, one supposedly flys short of gas, one flys with known engine problems
per the report and the engine blows up, yet we blame the plane design.
Gott to do some rethinking as a pilot and treat the plane within its design parameters.
Having a high G utility rating, is no excuse to pull hard Gs with full
max load. even an extra 300 with high G tolerances, have warnings of flying
high Gs manauvers over a certain weight. Would they fly a censsna 152 the same
way?
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Chapman <pchapman@ionsys.com>
>Sent: May 11, 2007 1:51 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>
>At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>
>>
>>Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>>
>>Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>>Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>>
>>Wing spar failed in plane crash
>>Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>>TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>>ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>>structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>
>Synopsis:
>http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
>Report:
>http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
>
>Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
>pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>
>According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
>Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>
>Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another accident,
>it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
>engineering input from the manufacturer.
>
>
>Peter Chapman
>Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>
>
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 |
|
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/pic01/load_test03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html&h=238&w=350&sz=22&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=8hJ3XAie0BpeyM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dch601%2Bsandbags%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
How about we do it right. Everyone that's really interested in knowing chips in
$100 (need about 20 poeple) to build two wings (one for destroying and one for
max G testing and then disassmebly) and a test rig (not a whole fuselage), and
then load the shit out of it with sandbags and see what the results are. There's
gotta be a few retired guys here live live near each other than can work
together to get some wings made in a relatively short period of time and get
this done.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112279#112279
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 |
|
ashontz wrote:
> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/pic01/load_test03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html&h=238&w=350&sz=22&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=8hJ3XAie0BpeyM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dch601%2Bsandbags%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
>
> How about we do it right. Everyone that's really interested in knowing chips
in $100 (need about 20 poeple) to build two wings (one for destroying and one
for max G testing and then disassmebly) and a test rig (not a whole fuselage),
and then load the shit out of it with sandbags and see what the results are.
There's gotta be a few retired guys here who live near each other that can work
together to get some wings made in a relatively short period of time and get
this done. If they can build one at Oshkosh in 7 days, a few retired guys should
be able to put one together in a month or so and see what gives. literally.
Maybe Zenith would even be willing to donate and entire kit to Matronics for
the purpose of testing.
Uh, this has been done by Zenith already, both with a 601UL and 601xl. Why don't
you ask them for the results. It would save a lot of wasted effort.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112280#112280
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 |
|
I agree with Jerry. Does anyone know if a representitive from ZENITH ever
travels to inspect the wreckage from these various accidents? I think it
would make prudent business sense to have the designer travel to look at the
wreckage and report back to the builders! I'm not too concerned yet because
the accident rate for 601's in comparison to the number flying is very low.
I do like the idea of thickening the doubler plate and adding a bigger bolt.
If Zenith isn't interested in the idea, I wouldn't be against pooling some
money into a engineering review of the wing spar attachments. It may not be
needed, but it may make us feel more secure.
I'm sure the people at Zenith read these postings. Can we have someone from
the Company chime in here with answers to some of these postings?
Joe in Oshkosh
601 XL
Message 31
| 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: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
"pulling back on the stick to hard" should result in a stall (at
which point the wing unloads) not a wing failure. Am I wrong? Jerry
On May 11, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Juan Vega wrote:
> <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>
> I have read the report, and while sad, it is apparent to me, people
> are getting a little over confident with the plane (pulling the
> stick back too hard). The only way for both spars to fold in my
> opinion is for the pilot to crank it back too hard, which
> overconfidence can do. one flys into known IMC, one dodges wires,
> one supposedly flys short of gas, one flys with known engine
> problems per the report and the engine blows up, yet we blame the
> plane design.
> Gott to do some rethinking as a pilot and treat the plane within
> its design parameters. Having a high G utility rating, is no
> excuse to pull hard Gs with full max load. even an extra 300 with
> high G tolerances, have warnings of flying high Gs manauvers over a
> certain weight. Would they fly a censsna 152 the same way?
>
> Juan
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Chapman <pchapman@ionsys.com>
>> Sent: May 11, 2007 1:51 PM
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>> <pchapman@ionsys.com>
>>
>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>>> Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>>>
>>> Wing spar failed in plane crash
>>> Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>>> TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>>> ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>>> structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>>
>> Synopsis:
>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/
>> zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
>> Report:
>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI
>> %2005-07.pdf
>>
>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>>
>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>>
>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another
>> accident,
>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>>
>>
>> Peter Chapman
>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 32
| 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 |
|
steveadams wrote:
>
> ashontz wrote:
> > http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/pic01/load_test03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html&h=238&w=350&sz=22&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=8hJ3XAie0BpeyM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dch601%2Bsandbags%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
> >
> > How about we do it right. Everyone that's really interested in knowing chips
in $100 (need about 20 poeple) to build two wings (one for destroying and one
for max G testing and then disassmebly) and a test rig (not a whole fuselage),
and then load the shit out of it with sandbags and see what the results are.
There's gotta be a few retired guys here who live near each other that can work
together to get some wings made in a relatively short period of time and get
this done. If they can build one at Oshkosh in 7 days, a few retired guys should
be able to put one together in a month or so and see what gives. literally.
Maybe Zenith would even be willing to donate and entire kit to Matronics for
the purpose of testing.
>
>
> Uh, this has been done by Zenith already, both with a 601UL and 601xl. Why don't
you ask them for the results. It would save a lot of wasted effort.
Because we could see for ourselves. If I was retired, I'd do this.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112286#112286
Message 33
| 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 |
|
i think they already did this to one, call hientz and find out the resluts of the
load test.
-----Original Message-----
>From: ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org>
>Sent: May 11, 2007 3:25 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 Crash
>
>
>
>steveadams wrote:
>>
>> ashontz wrote:
>> > http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/pic01/load_test03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html&h=238&w=350&sz=22&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=8hJ3XAie0BpeyM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dch601%2Bsandbags%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
>> >
>> > How about we do it right. Everyone that's really interested in knowing chips
in $100 (need about 20 poeple) to build two wings (one for destroying and one
for max G testing and then disassmebly) and a test rig (not a whole fuselage),
and then load the shit out of it with sandbags and see what the results are.
There's gotta be a few retired guys here who live near each other that can
work together to get some wings made in a relatively short period of time and
get this done. If they can build one at Oshkosh in 7 days, a few retired guys
should be able to put one together in a month or so and see what gives. literally.
Maybe Zenith would even be willing to donate and entire kit to Matronics
for the purpose of testing.
>>
>>
>> Uh, this has been done by Zenith already, both with a 601UL and 601xl. Why don't
you ask them for the results. It would save a lot of wasted effort.
>
>
>Because we could see for ourselves. If I was retired, I'd do this.
>
>--------
>Andy Shontz
>CH601XL - Corvair
>www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112286#112286
>
>
Message 34
| 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 |
|
I'm all for finding answers to the structural question. However,
this is what the original designer probably already did. He is the
world's best expert on both this kind of aircraft design and this
particular design. The best way to approach this problem is to
recruit Chris (possibly through his heirs and pretenders) to take a
serious look at the current design and figure out why all these
planes are falling apart in flight.
Paul
XL fuselage
P.S. by "Pretenders" I mean all the designers who modify drawings
with Chris's name on them without adding their own name to the designer block.
At 12:07 PM 5/11/2007, you wrote:
>How about we do it right. Everyone that's really interested in
>knowing chips in $100 (need about 20 poeple) to build two wings (one
>for destroying and one for max G testing and then disassmebly) and a
>test rig (not a whole fuselage), and then load the shit out of it
>with sandbags and see what the results are. There's gotta be a few
>retired guys here who live near each other that can work together to
>get some wings made in a relatively short period of time and get
>this done. If they can build one at Oshkosh in 7 days, a few retired
>guys should be able to put one together in a month or so and see
>what gives. literally. Maybe Zenith would even be willing to donate
>and entire kit to Matronics for the purpose of testing.
Message 35
| 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: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
I think it depends on how fast you are going. The faster you go, the
harder it is to stall and the more load placed on the airframe when
you pull up hard.
I think this is part of the design issue when determining Vne.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 12:19 PM 5/11/2007, you wrote:
>"pulling back on the stick to hard" should result in a stall (at
>which point the wing unloads) not a wing failure. Am I wrong? Jerry
Message 36
| 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: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
You are not wrong, but almost right. You got to look at the mass of an object
relative to it changing direction abruptly. PLane going straight carrying 1320
Lbs, changes direction suddenly and the mass wants to keep going straight.
If the wings are fully loaded, they can't take the extreme angle so quickly at
max load, they will snap like a twig. same goes for any plane. remember 15
years ago the Malibu ADs. Peoople were transitioning from Bonanzas to Malibus
and the planes were crashing becuase the wings were snapping of. When they
stopped trying to blame the plane, they looked at the fact that most pilots were
not trained in flying the plane at high altitude and the result was pilots
exceeding the stresses of the plane at cruise. How so? Great example of Mass
loads on wings. The pilots were flying them in high altitudes where special
training is needed to fly a plane where the VNE (that speed where the wings want
to come off) and stall speed are with 10mph (or less) of each other. This
applies to the plane that wer are all building. The planes are designed with
certain stress envelopes. Everyone knows the zenith can take a licking and keep
on ticking, however, when you go outside of its gross envelope, you are asking
for trouble.
It is a tough plane, but I would not crank the stick around with full gas and two
people. If it was lighter it would stall, but with more stuff inside it, the
wings will start to complain. We are flying a sport pilot rated arecraft that
is robust, not an EXTRA 300.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jerry Hey <jerryhey@earthlink.net>
>Sent: May 11, 2007 3:19 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>
>"pulling back on the stick to hard" should result in a stall (at
>which point the wing unloads) not a wing failure. Am I wrong? Jerry
>
>
>On May 11, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Juan Vega wrote:
>
>> <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>>
>> I have read the report, and while sad, it is apparent to me, people
>> are getting a little over confident with the plane (pulling the
>> stick back too hard). The only way for both spars to fold in my
>> opinion is for the pilot to crank it back too hard, which
>> overconfidence can do. one flys into known IMC, one dodges wires,
>> one supposedly flys short of gas, one flys with known engine
>> problems per the report and the engine blows up, yet we blame the
>> plane design.
>> Gott to do some rethinking as a pilot and treat the plane within
>> its design parameters. Having a high G utility rating, is no
>> excuse to pull hard Gs with full max load. even an extra 300 with
>> high G tolerances, have warnings of flying high Gs manauvers over a
>> certain weight. Would they fly a censsna 152 the same way?
>>
>> Juan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Peter Chapman <pchapman@ionsys.com>
>>> Sent: May 11, 2007 1:51 PM
>>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>>
>>> <pchapman@ionsys.com>
>>>
>>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>>>> Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>>>>
>>>> Wing spar failed in plane crash
>>>> Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>>>> TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>>>> ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>>>> structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>>>
>>> Synopsis:
>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/
>>> zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
>>> Report:
>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI
>>> %2005-07.pdf
>>>
>>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
>>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>>>
>>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
>>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>>>
>>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another
>>> accident,
>>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
>>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Chapman
>>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 37
| 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: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Yes Jerry, unfortunately you are wrong. With the right
combination of speed, weight at gross, and severe
enough pull-up, the airframe/wing failure will occur
before the stall.
Do not archive.
--- Jerry Hey <jerryhey@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <jerryhey@earthlink.net>
>
> "pulling back on the stick to hard" should result in
> a stall (at
> which point the wing unloads) not a wing failure. Am
> I wrong? Jerry
>
>
>
> On May 11, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Juan Vega wrote:
>
> > <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
> >
> > I have read the report, and while sad, it is
> apparent to me, people
> > are getting a little over confident with the plane
> (pulling the
> > stick back too hard). The only way for both spars
> to fold in my
> > opinion is for the pilot to crank it back too
> hard, which
> > overconfidence can do. one flys into known IMC,
> one dodges wires,
> > one supposedly flys short of gas, one flys with
> known engine
> > problems per the report and the engine blows up,
> yet we blame the
> > plane design.
> > Gott to do some rethinking as a pilot and treat
> the plane within
> > its design parameters. Having a high G utility
> rating, is no
> > excuse to pull hard Gs with full max load. even an
> extra 300 with
> > high G tolerances, have warnings of flying high Gs
> manauvers over a
> > certain weight. Would they fly a censsna 152 the
> same way?
> >
> > Juan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Peter Chapman <pchapman@ionsys.com>
> >> Sent: May 11, 2007 1:51 PM
> >> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was:
> 601 Crash)
> >>
>
> >> <pchapman@ionsys.com>
> >>
> >> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
> >>
> <pwhoyt@yahoo.com>
> >>>
> >>> Just got an email alert of another one that went
> down in the UK.
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit
> Alert
> >>> Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
> >>>
> >>> Wing spar failed in plane crash
> >>> Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM
> PDT
> >>> TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted
> to the ground in a
> >>> ball of flames were the victims of a break in
> the plane's wing
> >>> structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007
> 10:21:12)
> >>
> >> Synopsis:
> >>
>
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/
>
> >> zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
> >> Report:
> >>
>
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI
>
> >> %2005-07.pdf
> >>
> >> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a
> hard pull up from a low
> >> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
> >> Still one can always question how much extra
> margin one has in any
> >> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield
> and Ultimate stress
> >> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if
> the wings are bent...
> >>
> >> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601
> UL, built from a Czech
> >> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
> >>
> >> Given the frustration voiced here with the US
> FAA, over another
> >> accident,
> >> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB
> report provides some
> >> analysis of the nature of the structural failure,
> that also includes
> >> engineering input from the manufacturer.
> >>
> >>
> >> Peter Chapman
> >> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
that gives answers, not web links.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
Message 38
| 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: Canadian Fly-in |
Hello Zodie : I plan on being at Brampton Sat & Sun . Please include me
for a room , preferably single occupancy , for Sat night . Will fly or
drive ( subject to the weather )
I will pay with M/C .
cheers
Rick Tedford
----- Original Message -----
From: ZodieRocket
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 10:23 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Canadian Fly-in
The first message bounced so I am re-sending this one.
The RAA Toronto Chapter is pleased to host the Zenith Zip 2007 Fly-in
at the Brampton airport, Ontario, on May 19-21 (21 rain date). This
event will appeal to all Zenith aircraft owners/enthusiasts, as well as
to everyone who =93would rather be flying=94!
Come and celebrate with us your passion for aviation!!
Some of the activities planned over the weekend:
=B7 BBQ Saturday and Sunday
=B7 Computer aided flight planning workshop
=B7 Technical discussions/workshops
=B7 Rudder workshop by Can-Zac Aircraft
=B7 Several exhibits by the sponsors
=B7 Tire-kicking, war stories, making new friends
=B7 Dinner and social evening Saturday night
=B7 Under-the-wing camping
=B7 Possibly more, suggestions welcome
If you plan on staying overnight and attend the dinner and social, we
can benefit from a group rebate at a local hotel. Please contact me and
indicate your intention:
? Supper/social saturday night
? Room for 1 night
? Room for 2 nights
Zenith Zip 2007 Fly-in
Event Schedule
Friday
Non-structured activities
Arrival of some of the participant
BFC to allocate tie downs
Saturday
1000-2100 Show and tell on the field
1130-1400 BBQ burgers, sausages, hot dogs (RAA hangar)
1200-1800 Fly Market
1400-1530 Computer aided flight planning by Chris Basham (RAA
Clubhouse)
Review of existing software packages and
demonstration
1400-1800 Rudder workshop by CanZac (RAA hangar)
1530-1730 Lycoming & alternative engine seminar
1830-2100 BBQ Dinner by =93BBQ Brigade=94 (RAA hangar)
Sunday
0830-1030 Breakfast (at BFC Wing Flight Grille)
1000-1530 Fly Market
1000-1800 Rudder workshop by CanZac (RAA hangar)
1000-1200 Scratch built seminar (RAA Clubhouse)
1130-1330 BBQ Lunch (RAA hangar)
1300-1600 Zenith roundtable discussions on building, maintenance
& flying
Monday
Rain date
Contact info:
Pierre Tanguay
pierre12@magma.ca
(613) 687-0037
Alain Ouellet aouellet@icecanada.com
(905) 458-5424
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
10:34 AM
9:07 AM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
5/6/2007 9:07 AM
Message 39
| 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: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
[quote="JerryHey"]"pulling back on the stick to hard" should result in a stall
(at
which point the wing unloads) not a wing failure. Am I wrong? Jerry
I noticed that we are talking about a 601-"UL" here.
These are built a lot lighter than the "HD"'s and "XL"'s in order to qualify as
an "ultralight" in some Europeon countries. They have a gross weight of 1050
lbs. The "HD" is rated @1200 and the "XL" @ 1320.
If these guys DID pull out too hard while going too fast, the lighter "UL" wing
would be the most likely to be overloaded and the first to let go.
Rick
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112297#112297
Message 40
| 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 |
|
I am strapped too tight right now for that - but, if I were doing this I would
also want to measure the effect of sloppy/nonexistant/axial scratch generating
deburring and oversized fastener holes of the failure mode and loads.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/pic01/load_test03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html&h=238&w=350&sz=22&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=8hJ3XAie0BpeyM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dch601%2Bsandbags%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
How about we do it right. Everyone that's really interested in knowing chips in
$100 (need about 20 poeple) to build two wings (one for destroying and one for
max G testing and then disassmebly) and a test rig (not a whole fuselage), and
then load the shit out of it with sandbags and see what the results are. There's
gotta be a few retired guys here live live near each other than can work
together to get some wings made in a relatively short period of time and get
this done.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112279#112279
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
Message 41
| 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: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
that is what maneuvering speed is all about...
"pulling back on the stick to hard" should result in a stall (at
which point the wing unloads) not a wing failure. Am I wrong? Jerry
On May 11, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Juan Vega wrote:
>
>
> I have read the report, and while sad, it is apparent to me, people
> are getting a little over confident with the plane (pulling the
> stick back too hard). The only way for both spars to fold in my
> opinion is for the pilot to crank it back too hard, which
> overconfidence can do. one flys into known IMC, one dodges wires,
> one supposedly flys short of gas, one flys with known engine
> problems per the report and the engine blows up, yet we blame the
> plane design.
> Gott to do some rethinking as a pilot and treat the plane within
> its design parameters. Having a high G utility rating, is no
> excuse to pull hard Gs with full max load. even an extra 300 with
> high G tolerances, have warnings of flying high Gs manauvers over a
> certain weight. Would they fly a censsna 152 the same way?
>
> Juan
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Peter Chapman
>> Sent: May 11, 2007 1:51 PM
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>>
>>
>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>>> Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>>>
>>> Wing spar failed in plane crash
>>> Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>>> TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>>> ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>>> structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>>
>> Synopsis:
>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/
>> zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
>> Report:
>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI
>> %2005-07.pdf
>>
>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>>
>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>>
>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another
>> accident,
>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>>
>>
>> Peter Chapman
>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
Message 42
| 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: | Maneuvering speed |
Remember (probably from ground school) maneuvering speed, or Va? Below
this speed an abrupt maneuver or gust will cause the wing to stall
rather than suffer structural damage. Also, the lighter the weight (for
a particular airplane) the lower Va becomes. For a Cessna 150M at 1600
pounds, Va is 97Kt. For the same airplane at 1300 pounds Va is only
88KT.
The design vertical gust velocity is (or at least was) pegged at 30 feet
per second. There is no rule requiring thunderstorms to observe this
limit.
George
Message 43
| 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: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Hi,
Each airplane has a maneuvering speed, which depends on payload.
Typically, gross weight is assumed for published numbers, which
are then used throughout the payload range. This is conservative
and generally agreed upon practice.
When the plane flies at or below the maneuvering speed, then
the aircraft will stall before the wings or any other component,
for example, the motor mount, can become overloaded due to full
deflection of control surfaces.
Now above the maneuvering speed, all bets are off. Thus,
it is very important that the plane is at or below maneuvering speed
when anything like severe turbulence is encountered or high G pull ups
are contemplated.
The following website has a nice discussion about maneuvering speed:
http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Lift/Page12.html
The website also supplies a formula for the maneuvering speed. For my
601 HDS plane, which allows for
+-6Gs, the maneuvering speed is 2.4 (= square root of 6)
times the stall speed. Due to the wingroot fairings, the stall speed
is about 42 kts, so maneuvering speed is 103kts. To be on the safe side,
I never exceed 90 kts
when encountering turbulence or other high G situations.
From the Zenith website, the 601 XL also has +-6 G as ultimate load
factor, and stall speed is listed at
51 mph, which is 44 kts. Thus the maneuvering speed is 105 kts. Here,
too, I would try to be conservative
and stay quite a bit below that figure in turbulence or sudden pull ups.
Happy flying,
Klaus Truemper
--
Klaus Truemper
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science
University of Texas at Dallas
Erik Jonsson School of Engineering and
Computer Science EC31
P.O. Box 830688
Richardson, TX 75083-0688
(972) 883-2712
klaus@utdallas.edu
www.utdallas.edu/~klaus
Message 44
| 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 |
|
I'd like to see what a Piper Cherokee wing looks like in comparison.
[quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]I am strapped too tight right now for that -
but, if I were doing this I would also want to measure the effect of sloppy/nonexistant/axial
scratch generating deburring and oversized fastener holes of
the failure mode and loads.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/pic01/load_test03.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html&h 38&w=350&sz 2&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=8hJ3XAie0BpeyM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dch601%2Bsandbags%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
How about we do it right. Everyone that's really interested in knowing chips in $100 (need about 20 poeple) to build two wings (one for destroying and one for max Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48254/*http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/_ylc=X3oDMTI5MGx2aThyBF9TAzIxMTU1MDAzNTIEX3MDMzk2NTQ1MTAzBHNlYwNCQUJwaWxsYXJfTklfMzYwBHNsawNQcm9kdWN0X3F1ZXN0aW9uX3BhZ2U-?link=list&sid=396545469)from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112303#112303
Message 45
| 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 |
|
Guys, if you re-read all the accident reports, you'll find that it appears
the aircraft operating limitations were exceeded in nearly every case (speculation
yes, but based on preliminary reports). I hate to break it to you, but if
you yank back on a fully loaded C150, something's going to break.
This discussion is starting to sound a lot like the US media treats any shocking
incident. If a kid shoots up a classroom, it's the gunmakers fault. Smokers
are dying like flies, and it's the cigarrette companies fault. I don't
really like guns or cigarrettes myself, but it's the idiot on the other end of
them that is to blame for any problems they create. When did we stop thinking
for ourselves in this country?
If an aircraft comes down because the pilot did something the designer said
not to do (pull high G's at high gross weight), it's the pilot's fault and problem.
The poor aircraft company shouldn't even be brought into it. (See discussions
earlier this week regarding frivolous law suits, etc.)
DO NOT ARCHIVE
I agree with Jerry. Does anyone know if a representitive from ZENITH ever
travels to inspect the wreckage from these various accidents? I think it
would make prudent business sense to have the designer travel to look at the
wreckage and report back to the builders! I'm not too concerned yet because
the accident rate for 601's in comparison to the number flying is very low.
I do like the idea of thickening the doubler plate and adding a bigger bolt.
If Zenith isn't interested in the idea, I wouldn't be against pooling some
money into a engineering review of the wing spar attachments. It may not be
needed, but it may make us feel more secure.
I'm sure the people at Zenith read these postings. Can we have someone from
the Company chime in here with answers to some of these postings?
Joe in Oshkosh
601 XL
Message 46
| 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 |
|
These incidents are probably akin to a newly wed couple wearing out their bedsprings;
a little too much enthusiasm.
Still it would be nice to see a video of a CH601 being stressed tested to failure
with some metrics.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112307#112307
Message 47
| 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: | 601XL crash in Modesto CA last year |
I have read some posts in the past that seem to question the lack of detail on
the NTSB report of this crash. So, although it seemed clear to me about the wing
attach bolts, I thought I would go back and read it again. These are some
NTSB quotes and my understanding of them.
"The Federal Aviation Administration airworthiness inspector that responded to
the site noted that the wings remained attached to the center section carry-through
spar via their respective main spar bolts."
"The airframe inspection revealed that the wings remained attached at their respective
wing root attachment to center carry-through spar."
"The main wing aft attach points remained secured to the fuselage in the normal
manner."
It seems real clear that the wing attach bolts were installed and tight, by the
first two quotes. The third quote says to me that the wing attach points were
secured in the "normal manner", the only way the NTSB would know what the normal
manner is, would be to look at the prints for building the airplane or have
the information given to them from the kit manufacture. As I understand it,
a representative of Zenith, did look at the aircraft after the crash. The normal
manner to me means the proper AN bolts, the proper layout and the correct
quantity, as depicted on the drawings.
If there was a bolt missing, or the wrong type of bolts installed, it would not
meet the "normal manner" of installation. So while the report doesn't come right
out and say the correct number of bolts and the correct grade was installed,
I would guess that if one or more bolts was missing or some cheep grade 2
bolts were installed the report wouldn't say the wing was secured in the normal
manner.
Even if the wing was secured with grade 2, hardware store bolts, this was not the
point of failure. The wing was. As indicated by the following quote.
"Investigators noted that both wings and the associated main spars showed deformation
about the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical axes of the wing with multiple
"S" bends and twists in the main spars."
The NTSB determined that the probable cause of this accident was the structural
failure of the wings for undetermined reasons.
What we really want to know is the undetermined reason for the wing failure. Which
we will never know because of the thermal destruction of the wings because
of the post crash fire. I don't think pictures of the attach points of the
wing would help us much.
This report, along with the one in the UK tells me that when the 601 is put in
an extreme load, for what ever reason, that the wings are the first thing to give
up. If you make the wings stronger then something else will break first.
You can chase the failure point forever.
I'm building a 701, with a 15 year history no in-flight catastrophic failures to
date. Elongated wing attach bolt holes in a 9g aerobatic maneuver was documented
however. Along with the rear wing attach bolt holes ripped out when a 701
bounced on landing and ran into a ditch, very abrupt stop.
Not that I wouldn't build a 601. It would be my first choice for a low wing airplane.
Just not what my flying needs call for now.
Mark S.
701/912ULS
Message 48
| 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: Bottom Rudder Bracket attachment |
Hi Gang
Got up in the middle of the night down here and rang Zenith about the wording of
the 6 holes. Yes it is a mistake on the plans and there should only be 4 rivet
holes in the second row behind the tiedown point.
The 6 will be replaced with 4 on the next plans update.
Chris
Down Under..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112310#112310
Message 49
| 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: 601XL crash in Modesto CA last year |
You can read it 2 ways..
I read it as the bolts were there on the main spar but not on the aft attachment
point. as it just said the attachment point remained attached to the fuse..
very different wording to the main spar paragraph.. Also this aircraft was NOT
in any turbulance but in the circut area..
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112311#112311
Message 50
| 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: 601XL crash in Modesto CA last year |
Chris.
How could the bolts be missing and the wing aft attach pont remain secured to the
fuselage. This is refering to the wing attach point not the fuselage attach
point.
Mark S.
do not archive
----- Original Message ----
From: chris Sinfield <chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 2:44:04 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL crash in Modesto CA last year
You can read it 2 ways..
I read it as the bolts were there on the main spar but not on the aft attachment
point. as it just said the attachment point remained attached to the fuse..
very different wording to the main spar paragraph.. Also this aircraft was NOT
in any turbulance but in the circut area..
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112311#112311
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
Message 51
| 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 |
|
Hi Tom,
In general, I agree with you on this point. If people are indeed
exceeding the limits of these airplanes then failures are the
expected result.
Unfortunately, we don't know if the design limits were exceeded or
not. What we do know is that a lot of planes are disintegrating in
flight. Furthermore, they all seem to be Zodiac XLs. I haven't
heard any reports of similar failures in any other model of
LSA. Maybe they have been occurring and I just haven't heard about
them. That is part of the reason I wrote to the experts at EAA to
ask if these accidents seem to be out of the ordinary. They haven't
responded to me yet.
This situation reminds me of a similar experience with V-tail
Bonanzas. Those planes had a long history of in-flight structural
failures. For decades, Beechcraft and others said it was simply a
case of poor pilots exceeding the Vne of the plane and pulling up too
hard causing the tail to fall off. The pilots in question couldn't
defend their skills since they were all dead. Then after decades of
this same failure occurring again and again they came out with a
design change reinforcing the tail section of these planes. After
that the break-ups came to an abrupt end. To my knowledge there has
not been another one since.
I don't know how to proceed with this whole situation. I know I am
alarmed and facing flight testing of my XL which will probably be
completed within a few months. I don't want to bring any lawyers
into this or have any lawsuits. I just want to know if there is a
design flaw and how it can be fixed if there is one.
I don't like all the speculation. I don't like people thinking there
is a fatal design flaw in my airplane. Similarly, I don't like all
the accident reports and I really don't like speculation that it is
all the fault of the dead pilots. I wish there was a practical way
to find out the real truth of this matter.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 02:09 PM 5/11/2007, you wrote:
> Guys, if you re-read all the accident reports, you'll find that
> it appears the aircraft operating limitations were exceeded in
> nearly every case (speculation yes, but based on preliminary
> reports). I hate to break it to you, but if you yank back on a
> fully loaded C150, something's going to break.
> This discussion is starting to sound a lot like the US media
> treats any shocking incident. If a kid shoots up a classroom, it's
> the gunmakers fault. Smokers are dying like flies, and it's the
> cigarrette companies fault. I don't really like guns or
> cigarrettes myself, but it's the idiot on the other end of them
> that is to blame for any problems they create. When did we stop
> thinking for ourselves in this country?
> If an aircraft comes down because the pilot did something the
> designer said not to do (pull high G's at high gross weight), it's
> the pilot's fault and problem. The poor aircraft company shouldn't
> even be brought into it. (See discussions earlier this week
> regarding frivolous law suits, etc.)
Message 52
| 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: | Ultimate Load vs. Limit Load |
Dear friends,
Somewhat wondering about the mentioned +-6G for the CH 601 HDS quoted here
on the list here these hours. Ok, the
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/601-hds.html says for the Super ZODIAC CH
601 HDS (lower table, full MTOM)
DESIGN LOAD FACTOR (ultimate) +/- 6 "G"
Here what JAR 23 / FAR 23 define for limit and ultimate load:
...limit loads are the maximum loads to be expected in service [i.e. the
highest load expected in normal operations] and ultimate loads are limit
loads multiplied by a safety factor [of 1.5]. The structure must be able to
support limit loads without detrimental, permanent deformation. At any load
up to limit loads, the deformation may not interfere with safe operation.
The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure for at
least three seconds...
Let us now extend ZAC datasheet accordingly:
DESIGN LOAD FACTOR (ultimate) +/- 6 "G"
SUSTAINED LOAD FACTOR (limit) +/- 4 "G"
Aha. This looks different now. The CH 601 HDS is for sure not an aerobatic
category aircraft (starts at +6.0/-4.0 limit load) - despite whatever
maneuvers seen on Youtube. Then, it is cannot qualified to the utility
category, e.g. training aircraft with spin certification (+4.4/-2.2 limit
load). The same is true for other 601 models; the 601 XL comes with similar
numbers. All 601 models are excellent standard category aircraft if operated
well within the limits.
Please review your aircraft OPS manual, Pilot's Manual - and correct
accordingly in case only ultimate numbers are printed.
What does this mean to you as a customer - and then to you as the pilot in
command?
Correct: You never exceed the sustained limit load factor in flight! The
safety factor is _really_ used to cover additional gust loads and is not
available to the pilot control inputs, e.g. when a G meter is available.
Everything beyond limit load can (and often will) lead to detrimental,
permanent deformation. This will not make you falling from the skies yet.
However, if you _are_ going to ultimate load, there are probably just three
seconds left up there, plus some more to follow the other 9.81 m/s2 always
in place. However, in this case you do better arrange a structural engineer
to review your plane.
Then, please keep in mind that the sustained load factor only applies to a
factory new airplane. Any repairs, ageing, unreported and unrecorded abuse,
and poor maintenance - to which an aircraft has been exposed since leaving
the factory - may (and will) decrease the strength, the structural integrity
at least considerably.
This is aviation standard, not related to the pilots age or license - and
not limited to Chris Heintz' designs.
Fly safe!
-Kurt.
SportAviation of Switzerland
www.sportaviation.ch
EAS Webmaster (Experimental Aviation of Switzerland)
www.experimental.ch
PS. On behalf of the EAS we have witnessed the stress test on the new CZAW
SportCruiser, done earlier this year under the engineering guidance of the
British PFA following a CS-VLA process to qualify as a kit plane in the UK,
and subsequently in many other European countries. The same happened to
various extents over the last eight years with the Chris Heintz designed
aircraft - many pictures shown at the ZAC have been taken in the Czech
Republic.
Message 53
| 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: Bottom Rudder Bracket attachment |
Hi Chris;
Please remind me of the aircraft under review here. Thanks.
do not archive
Hi Gang
Got up in the middle of the night down here and rang Zenith about the wording of
the 6 holes. Yes it is a mistake on the plans and there should only be 4 rivet
holes in the second row behind the tiedown point.
The 6 will be replaced with 4 on the next plans update.
Chris
Down Under..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112310#112310
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Building a website is a piece of cake.
Message 54
| 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 |
|
On 5/11/07, Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I wish there was a practical way
> to find out the real truth of this matter.
Here's an off-the-wall idea --
Perhaps a radio controlled version of the aircraft could be built. It
could be instrumented with video cameras and some basic telemetry,
loaded with sandbags but minimal fuel to minimize the risk of
post-crash fire that would destroy the evidence, then progressively
tested to failure over the desert somewhere, with inspections between
each loading condition.
Given the whacky RC stuff some folks are doing, what with giant scale,
turbojet engines, retracts, flaps, spoilers and on-board video
cameras, it's really not much of a stretch to imagine doing this with
equipment off the shelf.
Ihab
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
Message 55
| 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 |
|
If you look at the british crash report
it shows it was an 601 UL factory built NOT an XL and and also the old wing design..
Plese keep to the facts.. and it does make a good read so download the report and
dont up load your wings..
Chris..
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112326#112326
Message 56
| 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 |
|
Paul, your definition of "a lot" seems to be different than mine or you know about
some accidents that I don't.
I know of only 2 XLs that have failed in this way. The California crash that has
been mentioned today and this most recent accident in Texas.
Can you point me towards info on any others?
p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att wrote:
>
>
> SNIP
>
> What we do know is that a lot of planes are disintegrating in
> flight. Furthermore, they all seem to be Zodiac XLs.
SNIP
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112330#112330
Message 57
| 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: Bottom Rudder Bracket attachment |
David Downey <planecrazydld@yahoo.com> wrote: Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:03:09 -0700
(PDT)
From: David Downey <planecrazydld@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Bottom Rudder Bracket attachment
Hi Chris;
Please remind me of the aircraft under review here. Thanks.
do not archive
Hi Gang
Got up in the middle of the night down here and rang Zenith about the wording of
the 6 holes. Yes it is a mistake on the plans and there should only be 4 rivet
holes in the second row behind the tiedown point.
The 6 will be replaced with 4 on the next plans update.
Chris
Down Under..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112310#112310
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Building a website is a piece of cake.
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 58
| 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 |
|
> I wish there was a practical way to find out the real truth of this
matter.
Start with that:
Make your kit/aircraft supplier showing non-misleading specifications:
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/specification.html
LOAD FACTOR (G) limit +/- 4
(DESIGN LOAD FACTOR (G) ultimate +/- 6)
Or better follow CZAW, e.g. on http://www.czaw.cz/sportcruiser.htm#airframe
"G" limit load factor +4 / -2
Everything else - including what ZAC actually shows for the XL - must be
considered misleading. I am just an engineer, and not a lawyer.
Because _if_ your XL is heavy and _if_ you fly beyond the limit load factor
- for a very short time - life might become short as troubles are coming up
very fast.
Good Luck!
-kurt.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: accident
Message 59
| 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: 601XL crash in Modesto CA last year |
Looking at the plans, the rear attach fitting that is */part of the
wing/* is the rear channel 6W7-1, root doubler 6W7-2 and 6W7-3 hinge
doubler. /*There is no separate attach fitting*/ as in the PA28
Cherokee series. The inboard end of the spar / channel assembly is the
wing's attach fitting. On the fuselage, the attach point is the 6B5-4
attach plate. There are no bolts involved with these assemblies until
you mount the wing to the fuselage. To me, the fact that the aft
"attach points" remained attached to the fuselage indicates that they
did not experience much stress. A missing or loose rear attach bolt
both would allow the wing to twist in response the aerodynamic center of
pressureaileron and flap deflection. If the airfoil has a 20 degree range of
angle of attack between no lift and stall, a change due to twist of only
1 or 2 degrees might lead to a divergent twisting moment.
The main spar is designed to resist vertical loads. The rear attach is
designed to prevent twisting of the wing and drag forces trying to push
the wing back.
/*My personal read*/ is that the rear attach bolt worked loose and lead
to divergent twisting moment of the wing. This would lead to over
stress and failure. Try twisting a paper towel tube.
The PA28 Cherokee series has an "I" beam spar. As I remember, there are
about 12 bolts in the top cap and 8 bolts in the lower web. There is a
single bolt attach fitting at the leading edge sub spar and rear spar.
This arrangement is used from the Cherokee 140 up to the Dakota. I can
not recall if there was any extra strengthening in this area as gross
weight increased. The Dakota has more than twice the weight and power
of our 601's.
I did pick up the wreckage of a Decathlon that broke up in the air due
to a crack in the seat back...... you never know.
Ken Lilja
(As for aerobatics in these planes, A good pilot may get away with it.
A great pilot would not try it. Also, perfect read Kurt!)
>
> "The Federal Aviation Administration airworthiness inspector that responded to
the site noted that the wings remained attached to the center section carry-through
spar via their respective main spar bolts."
>
> "The airframe inspection revealed that the wings remained attached at their respective
wing root attachment to center carry-through spar."
>
> "The main wing aft attach points remained secured to the fuselage in the normal
manner."
>
>
Message 60
| 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 |
|
Did we not learn about maneuvering speed, load factors, stall speeds,
turbulence and weight and balance in ground school?
We can't complain if the thing comes apart if we ignore the rules.
Ken Lilja
Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
>
>
>> I wish there was a practical way to find out the real truth of this
>>
> matter.
>
> Start with that:
>
> Make your kit/aircraft supplier showing non-misleading specifications:
> http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/specification.html
>
> LOAD FACTOR (G) limit +/- 4
> (DESIGN LOAD FACTOR (G) ultimate +/- 6)
>
> Or better follow CZAW, e.g. on http://www.czaw.cz/sportcruiser.htm#airframe
>
> "G" limit load factor +4 / -2
>
> Everything else - including what ZAC actually shows for the XL - must be
> considered misleading. I am just an engineer, and not a lawyer.
>
> Because _if_ your XL is heavy and _if_ you fly beyond the limit load factor
> - for a very short time - life might become short as troubles are coming up
> very fast.
>
> Good Luck!
>
> -kurt.
>
>
Message 61
| 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 |
|
> We can't complain if the thing comes apart if we ignore the rules.
Cannot agree more!
Anyway, I like to point out again, that the +/-6 G shown by ZAC >>>are<<<
misleading! For example, compare with an Extra EA-300 where the specs sheet
says "FAA Certified Load Factor +/- 10 Gs" - numbers I assume you can fly
safely 6.6 Gs - or really 10 Gs, aside all the other issues coming up then.
...making use of the ZAC listed +/-6 will lead to structural deformations or
worst case a failure. Not because of any specific design flaws - just due to
having a nice marketing number.
-Kurt.
---
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Lilja
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: accident
Did we not learn about maneuvering speed, load factors, stall speeds,
turbulence and weight and balance in ground school?
We can't complain if the thing comes apart if we ignore the rules.
Ken Lilja
<snip>
Message 62
| 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: | Ultimate Load vs. Limit Load |
Thank you for bringing some rational and factual information to this long
misunderstood and misquoted engineering quality.
The other interesting aspect of this thread is how one day certain people
(Not poster Kurt) say they can do anything they want with an experimental
aircraft, a few weeks later and they're all about design standards and
limitations. Now lets try to keep the discussion in the realm of adult
discourse, not childish sarcasm and personal attacks.
CS
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Kurt A. Schumacher
Subject: Zenith-List: Ultimate Load vs. Limit Load
--> <Kurt.Schumacher@schumi.ch>
Dear friends,
Somewhat wondering about the mentioned +-6G for the CH 601 HDS quoted here
on the list here these hours. Ok, the
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/601-hds.html says for the Super ZODIAC CH
601 HDS (lower table, full MTOM)
DESIGN LOAD FACTOR (ultimate) +/- 6 "G"
Here what JAR 23 / FAR 23 define for limit and ultimate load:
...limit loads are the maximum loads to be expected in service [i.e. the
highest load expected in normal operations] and ultimate loads are limit
loads multiplied by a safety factor [of 1.5]. The structure must be able to
support limit loads without detrimental, permanent deformation. At any load
up to limit loads, the deformation may not interfere with safe operation.
The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure for at
least three seconds...
Let us now extend ZAC datasheet accordingly:
DESIGN LOAD FACTOR (ultimate) +/- 6 "G"
SUSTAINED LOAD FACTOR (limit) +/- 4 "G"
Aha. This looks different now. The CH 601 HDS is for sure not an aerobatic
category aircraft (starts at +6.0/-4.0 limit load) - despite whatever
maneuvers seen on Youtube. Then, it is cannot qualified to the utility
category, e.g. training aircraft with spin certification (+4.4/-2.2 limit
load). The same is true for other 601 models; the 601 XL comes with similar
numbers. All 601 models are excellent standard category aircraft if operated
well within the limits.
Please review your aircraft OPS manual, Pilot's Manual - and correct
accordingly in case only ultimate numbers are printed.
What does this mean to you as a customer - and then to you as the pilot in
command?
Correct: You never exceed the sustained limit load factor in flight! The
safety factor is _really_ used to cover additional gust loads and is not
available to the pilot control inputs, e.g. when a G meter is available.
Everything beyond limit load can (and often will) lead to detrimental,
permanent deformation. This will not make you falling from the skies yet.
However, if you _are_ going to ultimate load, there are probably just three
seconds left up there, plus some more to follow the other 9.81 m/s2 always
in place. However, in this case you do better arrange a structural engineer
to review your plane.
Then, please keep in mind that the sustained load factor only applies to a
factory new airplane. Any repairs, ageing, unreported and unrecorded abuse,
and poor maintenance - to which an aircraft has been exposed since leaving
the factory - may (and will) decrease the strength, the structural integrity
at least considerably.
This is aviation standard, not related to the pilots age or license - and
not limited to Chris Heintz' designs.
Fly safe!
-Kurt.
Message 63
| 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 |
|
Chris
I read the post again, you are partially right, it is listed as a 601 UL,
but it also states it was kit built.
Clyde Barcus
601 XL, Continental Powered
Wings, Tail & Engine Complete
Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 6:38 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: accident
> <chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
>
> If you look at the british crash report
> it shows it was an 601 UL factory built NOT an XL and and also the old
> wing design..
> Plese keep to the facts.. and it does make a good read so download the
> report and dont up load your wings..
>
> Chris..
> Do not archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112326#112326
>
>
>
Message 64
| 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: Tach wiring for Stratus |
I used a couple of signal diodes. One side of each diode goes to an
ignition coil and the other side to the tach. I don't recall at the
moment which electrode I connected to the coils but if you try it out on
one coil and it doesn't work, just turn it around and it will. I got the
diodes at Radio Shack. I think they were 1N4001 diodes but any small
signal diode will work.
Bill Steer wrote:
>
> A question for those of you who are using steam guages and the
> dual-ignition Stratus engine... Mikal says to attach the tach lead to
> the negative side of the coil. How is that best done for the dual
> ignition setup? Would a DPDT switch work, one side for switching the
> ignition and the other side for switching the tach?
--
Bryan Martin
Zenith 601XL N61BM
Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
Do Not Archive
Message 65
| 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 |
|
Hi Gig,
I thought I have heard of 4 breakups in the last year or so, but when
I went searching for details I ran into computer problems. (The NTSB
search page is still loading after an hour of SLOW data transfer). I
did find 3 references in old emails I had on my PC.
N105RH 2/08/2006 Oakdale,CA Traffic pattern inflight breakup
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060217X00209&key=1
N158MD 11/4/2006 Yuba City, CA in flight breakup (explosion?)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 061115X01677&key=1
N10028 5/2/2007 Canadien, TX in flight breakup (IMC?)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 070509X00539&key=1
I intend to keep looking once the computer starts cooperating a
little better. I will post anything interesting I find.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 04:43 PM 5/11/2007, you wrote:
>
>Paul, your definition of "a lot" seems to be different than mine or
>you know about some accidents that I don't.
>
>I know of only 2 XLs that have failed in this way. The California
>crash that has been mentioned today and this most recent accident in Texas.
>
>Can you point me towards info on any others?
>
Message 66
| 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 |
|
Jay-ZUZ Friggin!! Can I bother you girls with some facts?
My apologies to any actual women out there.
Yes, Chris did respond to the California accident where the wings folded - http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/cheintz-ntsb-lax06la105.pdf
Here's the NTSB report - http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 060217X00209&ntsbno=LAX06LA105&akey=1
The rear channel pulled through the fuse support.
In short, there was no problem with the stabilizer section.
The Mitchell 801 accident can be found at - http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 030312X00321&ntsbno=LAX03FA102&akey=1
I hate to trouble with you with more facts but the Mitchel 801 used a LOM engine
which exceeded the max engine weight. Chris derated max G's and reduced V(a)
on that aircraft.
Art Mitchell sold the machine to the crash pilot. And yes, there was THC in both
the pilot and passengers bloodstreams.
A pothead pulled some stunts and overstressed the attachments. I dare anyone to
prove there has been even 1 more instance when the stabilizer fell off a Zenith
aircraft.
And with regards to Zenith not saying anything, why would anyone put make a statement
that might be contradicted by an official conclusion? And if you're not
familiar with a forensic tear down, they are often attended by a representative
of both the airframe and engine companies. Just because the company doesn't
say something, it doesn't mean they aren't actively involved in and concerned
with an the investigation.
Since we're experimental, you can beef up any parts you want. Before you do, you
should have a thorough understanding of materials and stress analysis. The
most common effect is that you simply shift the stress to a different area that
wasn't designed to handle it.
Care for an example? Consider lightening holes. A novice might consider eliminating
them to make the wing rib stronger. But they would really be making it
weaker.
Ok, what if a novice knew this and decided to make the lightening hole bigger?
This is a bad idea because it makes the rib weaker.
Sometimes things are the way they are for a good reason. Before you go making
a serious adjustment, such as in the stabilizer attachment, could you at least
run run it past an engineering student? And while you're at it, ask if they
would bet their entire families life on their opinion.
Facts can only hurt you if you profit from the fallacy.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112361#112361
Message 67
| 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: Ultimate Load vs. Limit Load |
Technically, the 601 series won't qualify for the normal category either
since it will have either an Experimental Amateur Built airworthiness
certificate or one or the LSA certificates. The normal, utility, and
aerobatic categories only apply to an aircraft with a normal
airworthiness certificate. But it is correct to say that the 601 has
flight load limits somewhere in between those for a normal and utility
category aircraft.
That being said, you make a very good point about the safe operation of
the 601 series. I cringe inside every time I read a post that asserts
that the 601 is rated for 6 Gs and then compares this favorably with
aerobatic aircraft. There is a lot of confusion about this subject
because factory built aircraft operating handbooks generally state the
load limit in terms of the flight load factor but it is common practice
in the homebuilt industry to state the load limit in terms of the design
load factor. I hope your post helps clear up some of the confusion.
Kurt A. Schumacher wrote:
>
> Dear friends,
>
> ...
>
> DESIGN LOAD FACTOR (ultimate) +/- 6 "G"
> SUSTAINED LOAD FACTOR (limit) +/- 4 "G"
>
> Aha. This looks different now. The CH 601 HDS is for sure not an aerobatic
> category aircraft (starts at +6.0/-4.0 limit load) - despite whatever
> maneuvers seen on Youtube. Then, it is cannot qualified to the utility
> category, e.g. training aircraft with spin certification (+4.4/-2.2 limit
> load). The same is true for other 601 models; the 601 XL comes with similar
> numbers. All 601 models are excellent standard category aircraft if operated
> well within the limits.
>
> ...
>
--
Bryan Martin
Zenith 601XL N61BM
Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
Do Not Archive
Message 68
| 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 |
|
I thought there were 3 in a very short period and 14 months is really short.
Maybe it is something to look into.
David Mikesell
23597 N. Hwy 99
Acampo, CA 95220
209-224-4485
skyguynca@skyguynca.com
www.skyguynca.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: accident
> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>
> Hi Gig,
>
> I thought I have heard of 4 breakups in the last year or so, but when I
> went searching for details I ran into computer problems. (The NTSB search
> page is still loading after an hour of SLOW data transfer). I did find 3
> references in old emails I had on my PC.
>
> N105RH 2/08/2006 Oakdale,CA Traffic pattern inflight breakup
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060217X00209&key=1
>
> N158MD 11/4/2006 Yuba City, CA in flight breakup (explosion?)
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 061115X01677&key=1
>
> N10028 5/2/2007 Canadien, TX in flight breakup (IMC?)
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 070509X00539&key=1
>
> I intend to keep looking once the computer starts cooperating a little
> better. I will post anything interesting I find.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
>
> At 04:43 PM 5/11/2007, you wrote:
>><wr.giacona@suddenlink.net>
>>
>>Paul, your definition of "a lot" seems to be different than mine or you
>>know about some accidents that I don't.
>>
>>I know of only 2 XLs that have failed in this way. The California crash
>>that has been mentioned today and this most recent accident in Texas.
>>
>>Can you point me towards info on any others?
>>
>
>
>
Message 69
| 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: Fwd: Re: Bottom Rudder Bracket attachment |
Its a Zodiac XL..
Do not archive.
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112366#112366
Message 70
| 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: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Not if you are flying faster than maneuvering speed. If the initial
reports are true, this plane had just performed a diving maneuver to a
low pass and was probably exceeding Va by a good margin.
Famous last words: "Hey y'all watch this!"
Jerry Hey wrote:
>
> "pulling back on the stick to hard" should result in a stall (at which
> point the wing unloads) not a wing failure. Am I wrong? Jerry
>
--
Bryan Martin
Zenith 601XL N61BM
Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
Do Not Archive
Message 71
| 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 |
|
Yes, those 3 and then this most recent one. That's 4. Even though it could be totally
the pilots fault, I'd still be more comfortable with soe new testing.
There's tons of 1975 Cessna 150s that have been beat to shit by student pilots
over the years that are still flying without shedding a wing. What's the difference
between them and thes new by comparison 601s. The 601 is rated for +-6G.
A 150, something like +3.8 and -1.8 G.
p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att wrote:
> Hi Gig,
>
> I thought I have heard of 4 breakups in the last year or so, but when
> I went searching for details I ran into computer problems. (The NTSB
> search page is still loading after an hour of SLOW data transfer). I
> did find 3 references in old emails I had on my PC.
>
> N105RH 2/08/2006 Oakdale,CA Traffic pattern inflight breakup
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060217X00209&key=1
>
> N158MD 11/4/2006 Yuba City, CA in flight breakup (explosion?)
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 061115X01677&key=1
>
> N10028 5/2/2007 Canadien, TX in flight breakup (IMC?)
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 070509X00539&key=1
>
> I intend to keep looking once the computer starts cooperating a
> little better. I will post anything interesting I find.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
>
>
> At 04:43 PM 5/11/2007, you wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Paul, your definition of "a lot" seems to be different than mine or
> > you know about some accidents that I don't.
> >
> > I know of only 2 XLs that have failed in this way. The California
> > crash that has been mentioned today and this most recent accident in Texas.
> >
> > Can you point me towards info on any others?
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112371#112371
Message 72
| 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 |
|
I find it interesting how Zodie Rocket has been so quiet during all this
discussion.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Mikesell" <skyguynca@skyguynca.com>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: accident
> <skyguynca@skyguynca.com>
>
> I thought there were 3 in a very short period and 14 months is really
> short. Maybe it is something to look into.
>
> David Mikesell
> 23597 N. Hwy 99
> Acampo, CA 95220
> 209-224-4485
> skyguynca@skyguynca.com
> www.skyguynca.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Mulwitz" <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:36 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: accident
>
>
>> <p.mulwitz@worldnet.att.net>
>>
>> Hi Gig,
>>
>> I thought I have heard of 4 breakups in the last year or so, but when I
>> went searching for details I ran into computer problems. (The NTSB
>> search page is still loading after an hour of SLOW data transfer). I did
>> find 3 references in old emails I had on my PC.
>>
>> N105RH 2/08/2006 Oakdale,CA Traffic pattern inflight breakup
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060217X00209&key=1
>>
>> N158MD 11/4/2006 Yuba City, CA in flight breakup (explosion?)
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 061115X01677&key=1
>>
>> N10028 5/2/2007 Canadien, TX in flight breakup (IMC?)
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 070509X00539&key=1
>>
>> I intend to keep looking once the computer starts cooperating a little
>> better. I will post anything interesting I find.
>>
>> Paul
>> XL fuselage
>>
>>
>>
>> At 04:43 PM 5/11/2007, you wrote:
>>><wr.giacona@suddenlink.net>
>>>
>>>Paul, your definition of "a lot" seems to be different than mine or you
>>>know about some accidents that I don't.
>>>
>>>I know of only 2 XLs that have failed in this way. The California crash
>>>that has been mentioned today and this most recent accident in Texas.
>>>
>>>Can you point me towards info on any others?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 73
| 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 |
|
A lot of discussion about loads on aircraft structures. It may be of
interest to see an example of load testing. Click on this link, then click on "Load
testing." This plane was developed by one of the members of my EAA chapter.
Smaller than a 601XL, but same construction and made of 6061. This prototype was
destroyed in its hangar by hurricane Ivan in 2004. The fuselage survives on
the wall of the Indust Tech shop at Pensacola Jr College. It still looks
airworthy if you stand back 10 feet. I'm not pushing this plane, but thought some
pictures may be of interest.
Bob Dingley
Pace, FL
XL/Lyc Do not archive Click here: Welcome to the home of the Thatcher
CX4
**************************************
See what's free at
http://www.aol.com.
Message 74
| 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 |
|
You are comparing apples to oranges. The published load factor for the
Cessna 150 is the FLIGHT load factor, the published load factor for the
CH601 is the DESIGN load factor. The design load factor is 1.5 times the
flight load factor so the FLIGHT load factor of the 601 is +-4 G NOT +-
6G. The C-150 is certificated in the utility category so it's flight
load factor is +4.4 -2.2 G, so it's actually a bit stronger in positive
G loading. It also has much more drag so it's harder to build up enough
speed to put you at high risk of structural damage during abrupt maneuvers.
ashontz wrote:
>
> Yes, those 3 and then this most recent one. That's 4. Even though it could be
totally the pilots fault, I'd still be more comfortable with soe new testing.
>
> There's tons of 1975 Cessna 150s that have been beat to shit by student pilots
over the years that are still flying without shedding a wing. What's the difference
between them and thes new by comparison 601s. The 601 is rated for +-6G.
A 150, something like +3.8 and -1.8 G.
>
>
--
Bryan Martin
Zenith 601XL N61BM
Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
Do Not Archive
Message 75
| 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 |
|
This is total speculation on my part, I may be wrong but, didn't all of
these accidents happen near the airport (in the circuit). Could all of these
planes have been using/deploying flaps at the time of the failure? The one
in the UK could have been making a "short field" take off with some amount
of flaps. The others seem to be on approach as best I can tell/remember. The
XL is the first from ZAC to use flaps, but the wing spar and rear attach
configuration hasn't changed. Again total speculation but these seem to be
common threads.
How could so much twisting happen without the rear attachment coming
disconnected? The question is was the rear attachment the first point to
fail? If so, maybe it should be beefed up or maybe we should consider making
changes to the speed at which flaps can be deployed?
As far as the load testing goes, could there be an aerodynamic affect
(possibly brought on by flap deployment) that could not be accounted for
with sandbags? If I were flying right now I would be extra careful about
this until it is figured out. I don't care what some of you guys say; I
would hope that even abrupt moves would not result in such catastrophic
failures. I would expect damage yes, bent wings etc. I've seen bent wings on
certified planes caught in very violent turbulence. I once landed at an
airport seconds after a Cessna that had fallen from 10,000ft to 5000ft in an
instant, then again down to 3000 a few seconds later, with the very
experienced pilot suddenly having no control at all. My friend and I had
come in from the other direction at about 3000ft. Everyone on the plane was
white as a ghost and in tears. The plane had noticeably bent and damaged
wings. It was probably totaled--but they stayed on.
As far as the NTSB reports, they don't sound very concise to me. Through all
of the official mumbo jumbo speak; I get the impression that the
investigations are done hastily and not a lot is quantified.
As they say "Asbestos suit on".
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Plans building.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris Sinfield
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 4:44 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL crash in Modesto CA last year
<chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
You can read it 2 ways..
I read it as the bolts were there on the main spar but not on the aft
attachment point. as it just said the attachment point remained attached to
the fuse.. very different wording to the main spar paragraph.. Also this
aircraft was NOT in any turbulance but in the circut area..
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112311#112311
Message 76
| 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: | Bonanzas easily exceed structural limits |
Hello Listers:
To add some perspective to the discussion, attached is a scan of an
article from The American Bonanza Society magazine. I and a Pal who
monitors this list both own early Bonanzas (1948 & 1950 Models). This
article contains so many aspects about Bonanza ownership that we constantly
refer to it regarding our aircraft. Bonanzas are extrememly "clean"
aircraft in flight. When in level flight, if you just lower the nose, they
develope speed at a tremendous rate. If you then jerk back on the yoke to
recover, you can easily exceed the design limitations of the airframe. That
is probably what happened to the aircraft in the attached article. Other
aspects of this article include:
Note everyone worries about the V tails, but it was the wings and wing spar
carrythroughs that suffered damage from this high speed dive pullout.
When asked why we won't join the ABS, it's because we have so little in
common with the moneyed owners such as featured in this article.
Need a IO-550 conversion, just wave the money wand and it happens.
Need a complete structural repair with new avionics, paint & tip tanks, just
go out and whistle it up!
Total before paint etc. is 88 grand, no problem.
Anyway, that is why My Pal & myself are involved with ZA & RV's
Whenever hanger discussions turn to glass cockpits, expensive conversions,
anything top level, we refer to this article and jokingly wave the "money
wand" and say "hey just put it in", and have a good laugh as we are so far
removed from this author.
Back to the structural failure. Note that this author estimates that his
pullout from the icing induced dive exceeded 8 g's. I am just pointing out
that this same set of circumstances can probably happen in any aircraft.
Best regards,
Randy L. Thwing, Las Vegas
Message 77
| 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 |
|
I read CH's letter after the Cali crash. He states that hundreds of these
designs have been flying--some for more than 20 years. This is true to an
extent. I have the utmost respect for him, but my concern is with the XL
which I do not think has been around that long, and I'm not sure how many
examples of it are flying. The success of his designs, certainly speaks well
of his skills as a designer but doesn't guarantee that some gremlin can't
exist in one of his newest designs.
Look, I'm not trying to find fault, I'm just trying to be diligent and
consider the worst case scenario in my planning. So worst case scenario;
there is a design flaw or a fault in a published number. How do we rule out
that possibility? In the event we can't, what changes do we make?
Does the UL in the UK have flaps? Have there been any cases of damaged wings
during abrupt maneuvers that didn't come off? How abrupt were those
maneuvers? Or is it like coming to the edge of a cliff there is either no
damage or rapid, irreversible advance toward the catastrophic. Can we do
something to at least slow it down long enough so that someone might live to
tell about it?
Kevin Bonds
Nashville TN
601XL Plans building.
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 78
| 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 |
|
Mr. No Name.
I read the NTSB report you listed and the nice letter from Chris H. I don't see
where either says the rear channel pulled through. If I missed it, please point
it out to me. The final NTSB report said the wing failed with both main
and rear attach points secure. I must be missing something.
Mark S. ( not scared to post my name)
701/912ULS
----- Original Message ----
From: NamesChangedTo... <n61601@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 8:12:30 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: accident
Jay-ZUZ Friggin!! Can I bother you girls with some facts?
My apologies to any actual women out there.
Yes, Chris did respond to the California accident where the wings folded - http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/cheintz-ntsb-lax06la105.pdf
Here's the NTSB report - http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 060217X00209&ntsbno=LAX06LA105&akey=1
The rear channel pulled through the fuse support.
In short, there was no problem with the stabilizer section.
The Mitchell 801 accident can be found at - http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 030312X00321&ntsbno=LAX03FA102&akey=1
I hate to trouble with you with more facts but the Mitchel 801 used a LOM engine
which exceeded the max engine weight. Chris derated max G's and reduced V(a)
on that aircraft.
Art Mitchell sold the machine to the crash pilot. And yes, there was THC in both
the pilot and passengers bloodstreams.
A pothead pulled some stunts and overstressed the attachments. I dare anyone to
prove there has been even 1 more instance when the stabilizer fell off a Zenith
aircraft.
And with regards to Zenith not saying anything, why would anyone put make a statement
that might be contradicted by an official conclusion? And if you're not
familiar with a forensic tear down, they are often attended by a representative
of both the airframe and engine companies. Just because the company doesn't
say something, it doesn't mean they aren't actively involved in and concerned
with an the investigation.
Since we're experimental, you can beef up any parts you want. Before you do, you
should have a thorough understanding of materials and stress analysis. The
most common effect is that you simply shift the stress to a different area that
wasn't designed to handle it.
Care for an example? Consider lightening holes. A novice might consider eliminating
them to make the wing rib stronger. But they would really be making it
weaker.
Ok, what if a novice knew this and decided to make the lightening hole bigger?
This is a bad idea because it makes the rib weaker.
Sometimes things are the way they are for a good reason. Before you go making
a serious adjustment, such as in the stabilizer attachment, could you at least
run run it past an engineering student? And while you're at it, ask if they
would bet their entire families life on their opinion.
Facts can only hurt you if you profit from the fallacy.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112361#112361
http://farechase.yahoo.com/
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! --
|