Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:58 AM - Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (Dave G.)
2. 03:15 AM - Re: Re: accident (David Downey)
3. 03:23 AM - Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (David Downey)
4. 04:22 AM - Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (ZodieRocket)
5. 05:49 AM - standing behind the product (chris Sinfield)
6. 06:43 AM - Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (Gig Giacona)
7. 07:03 AM - Re: Tow Bar (Dave Austin)
8. 07:52 AM - Re: Wing Sweep (David Brown)
9. 08:16 AM - Re: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (David Downey)
10. 08:22 AM - Re: Wing Sweep (ashontz)
11. 08:24 AM - Home made tow bar for the Zodiac601XL (robert stone)
12. 08:42 AM - Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (ashontz)
13. 09:07 AM - Re: 701 wing strut (JohnDRead@aol.com)
14. 09:45 AM - Re: Wing sweep and recent crashes (ashontz)
15. 09:47 AM - Fw: Re: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (David Downey)
16. 10:06 AM - Re: 701 wing strut (Gordon)
17. 10:43 AM - Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. (steveadams)
18. 11:00 AM - Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. (ashontz)
19. 11:01 AM - Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. (ashontz)
20. 11:03 AM - Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. (ashontz)
21. 11:05 AM - Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank (Maarten Versteeg)
22. 11:05 AM - Fw: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (ashontz)
23. 11:08 AM - Re: Misinformation, disinformation, and recent accidents (ashontz)
24. 11:10 AM - Re: 601 load tests (ashontz)
25. 11:28 AM - Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. (steveadams)
26. 11:44 AM - Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. (ashontz)
27. 11:51 AM - Re: Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank (n282rs@satx.rr.com)
28. 12:02 PM - Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. (steveadams)
29. 12:11 PM - Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. (ashontz)
30. 12:14 PM - 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks (dgardea(at)gmail.com)
31. 12:29 PM - Re: 601 load tests (steveadams)
32. 12:29 PM - Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks (Michael Valentine)
33. 12:29 PM - just a consideration (austria)
34. 12:30 PM - Re: 601 load tests (ashontz)
35. 12:31 PM - Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks (Tim Juhl)
36. 01:08 PM - Re: Re: 601 load tests (Kurt A. Schumacher)
37. 01:08 PM - Re: Re: Wing sweep and recent crashes (Gary Boothe)
38. 01:24 PM - Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks ()
39. 02:07 PM - Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks (dgardea(at)gmail.com)
40. 02:39 PM - Re: just a consideration (Kurt A. Schumacher)
41. 02:52 PM - Re: Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. (David Downey)
42. 02:58 PM - Re: just a consideration (Gary Boothe)
43. 03:28 PM - Just two links... there is not much room left for your safety (Kurt A. Schumacher)
44. 03:51 PM - 601 HD/HDS failures (Bill Naumuk)
45. 04:34 PM - Re: Just two links... there is not much room left for your safety (Juan Vega)
46. 04:34 PM - Re: just a consideration (Juan Vega)
47. 04:56 PM - Re: Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank (Jerry Hey)
48. 05:02 PM - Re: Grassroots Manufacturing (JohnDRead@aol.com)
49. 05:23 PM - Re: Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. (JohnDRead@aol.com)
50. 05:27 PM - Re: just a consideration (JohnDRead@aol.com)
51. 06:06 PM - Dual Stick weight in 601 (Ronald Steele)
52. 06:30 PM - Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. (ashontz)
53. 06:43 PM - Oil Canning (ZodieRocket)
54. 07:01 PM - Re: Re: 601 load tests (ZodieRocket)
55. 07:27 PM - Re: just a consideration (Matt Ronics)
56. 08:12 PM - Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks (PatrickW)
57. 08:38 PM - Re: Dual Stick weight in 601 (Edward Moody II)
58. 08:38 PM - Re: Re: Wing Sweep (Bryan Martin)
59. 09:07 PM - Re: Fw: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 (Bryan Martin)
60. 10:58 PM - Re: Dual Stick weight in 601 (Craig Payne)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
Sorry Mike, no I didn't. I went back and looked again, and cannot find any
reference to a 6g figure at all. In fact the only "g" reference I saw in the
letter says "The present Zodiac XL S-LSA model is stressed to an ultimate 3
g at 1,320 lbs."
Dave,
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Moore
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11
Listers:
Did anyone else note the "+6/-3" g listed in the new CH letter? All the
literature I reviewed/have in my pre-purchase info package lists the rating
as +/-6g. Am I missing something here?
M2
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 |
|
Mark - I couldn't see where the document you mentioned was attached. Could you
send it again please?
Tim
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112661#112661
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
I noted it and wondered the same...it is still there
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/specification.html
do not archive
Mike Moore <soarmoore2@yahoo.com> wrote: Listers:
Did anyone else note the "+6/-3" g listed in the new CH letter? All the literature
I reviewed/have in my pre-purchase info package lists the rating as +/-6g.
Am I missing something here?
M2
swater6 <waters.scott@comcast.net> wrote:
For those of you with access to the builders pages, there is a new letter from
Chris addressing the recent crashes. As a recap, he is still confident in the
design the testing that has been done but he is doing the testing again to confirm.
He also has some interesting note to those now flying.
Here is the link: http://www.zenithair.com/news/c-heintz-5-10-2007.html
--------
601 XL kit
Tail, control surfaces and 1 wing
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
AMD ZODIAC
PERFORMANCE
(AT GROSS)
CONTINENTAL 0-200 (100 HP)
SPECIFICATIONS (STANDARD)
CONTINENTAL 0-200 (100 HP)
CRUISE SPEED (TAS)
130 MPH
CABIN WIDTH
44 INCHES
STALL NO FLAPS (LSA)
51 MPH
EMPTY WEIGHT
770 LBS
STALL WITH FLAPS
44 MPH
GROSS WEIGHT
1320 LBS
RATE OF CLIMB
1,000 FPM
USEFUL LOAD
550 LBS
FUEL CAPACITY
30 GAL
DESIGN LOAD (ULT)
+6/-3 G
ENDURANCE
5.5 HRS
SERVICE CEILING
12,000 FT
RANGE (MILES)
715 MILES
WING AREA
132 SQ. FT
The +6 -3 spec is for the Continental 0-200 equipped SLSA available from
AMD.
The +-6G is for the Jabiru/ Rotax / lyc kit plane offered from Zenith
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
HYPERLINK
"mailto:president@can-zacaviation.com"president@can-zacaviation.com
HYPERLINK "http://www.can-zacaviation.com/"www.can-zacaviation.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Downey
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11
I noted it and wondered the same...it is still there
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/specification.html
do not archive
Mike Moore <soarmoore2@yahoo.com> wrote:
Listers:
Did anyone else note the "+6/-3" g listed in the new CH letter? All the
literature I reviewed/have in my pre-purchase info package lists the
rating as +/-6g. Am I missing something here?
M2
swater6 <waters.scott@comcast.net> wrote:
For those of you with access to the builders pages, there is a new
letter from Chris addressing the recent crashes. As a recap, he is
_____
We won't tell. Get more on HYPERLINK
"http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http:/tv.yahoo.com/collections/265%0d
%0a"shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): HYPERLINK
"http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49980/*http:/tv.yahoo.com/collections/265%0d
%0a"Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List"http://www.matronics.com
/Navigator?Zenith-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
12:17 PM
12:17 PM
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: | standing behind the product |
"One thing Im sure about, not many companies in this industry will go that extra
step. But that is part of the reasons why you choose a Chris Heintz design,
you know in the end you can trust the man behind the design."
Well said Mark..
yes that is one of the main reasons and I was able to put this to the test this
even before I opened my kit. ( Forklift impaled the box) and the gang at Zenith
did all the claim paperwork. The factory even sent all the replacment parts
at their cost ,even though it was nothing to do with them 10 weeks before the
claim was finally paid.
Chris..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112715#112715
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
I'm looking at the cover page of my set of 601XL plans S# 4959.
"Design Load Factor (Ultimate): +/- 6 G @ 1,300 Lbs.
--------
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=112724#112724
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 |
|
I move mine (tricycle) backward by pulling on the rudder spar where it is
open, and steer with the rudder. Pull on the prop for forward. KISS.
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912, Spitfire Mk VIII
----- Original Message -----
From: "Timothy Croy" <twcroy@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 10:51 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Tow Bar
>
> Folks,
>
> Any recommendations for moving the 601 around to / from its hangar? I
> would guess a tow/push bar for the nose wheel would work, but haven't
> found one yet. I normally pull / push at the prop hub. Any ideas for
> an inexpensive, easy way to do this or make one would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
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 |
|
When I drew the string from spar tip to spar tip I had to make the same
adjustment described below. It still looks swept forward when the
fuselage is level, when you project the plane of the spar upward it
intersects the string.
Future N601EX
David W. Brown
Email: dbrown@avecc.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Laughlin
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 9:07 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Wing Sweep
<cookwithgas@hotmail.com>
I had to trim my rear spar tabs on the fuselage to bring the wings back
-
this is because the spar tabs were hitting the first rib, causing the
wings
to sweep forward a little. I test-fit the flaps before trimming the
tabs
and they were crazy-far away from the fuselage so it was a no-brainer to
trim them and move the rear of the wings closer to the fuselage which
takes
away the forward-sweep. I cut about 1/4" off the tabs.
I won't speculate about the latest crash. I saw a bit of misconception
being spread here on the internet (imagine that) and wanted to bring
back
some reality.
Scott Laughlin
N5SL, Wahoo, Nebraska
Getting Close
www.cooknwithgas.com
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: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
601XL SN 6406 3-15-06 Ed 3 Rev 3 sheet 6-X-1 says:
"Design Load Factor (Ultimate): +/- 6 G @1320 lbs"
do not archive
Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@suddenlink.net> wrote:
I'm looking at the cover page of my set of 601XL plans S# 4959.
"Design Load Factor (Ultimate): +/- 6 G @ 1,300 Lbs.
--------
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=112724#112724
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
photos & more.
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 |
|
When the plane is level (which means the wings are level), the wings are in fact
swept forward. If there was no dyhedral (even with the inclined spar), the wings
regardless of whether it was tilted back or forward 9 degrees would would
have no sweep. It's the dihedral in conjunction with the inclined main spar that
causes a slight sweep forward when the plane is level.
At what angle of attack does the plane fly at at cruise speed? 9 degrees. In that
case, the wings would have no sweep while in flight.
Even so, I don't think the sweep is too much of a problem no that I think about
it. I think the bigger issue is that personally, now that I think about it and
compare the XL to other planes, it doesn't have enough ribs in the wing. A RV
has ribs every 9 inches, even a Grumman Traveler has them every 15 inches where
as the XL has them at 21+ inches. Push on the skin on either of those wings
and they feel solid where as the XL feels a little anemic. A fellow builder
has remarked that a lot of guys go ahead and put false ribs in the eliminate oil-canning
in the wings because there's just such a large space between ribs that
it's almost a give you're going to get some oil-canning, particularly on the
lower skin. I think thats a major indication that it doesn't just need false
ribs, but actual ribs in those locations. It's showing an inherent weakness
in those areas. Slightly oil-canning or depression when pushed by hand is much
more significant distortion under flight loads. An oil can effect just with hand
pressure probably distorts the wing by half a millimeter. In flight conditions
that could have up to a lot more shifting of the structure. I think extra
ribs in there would be a good idea. The strength of the wing is reliant on the
ability of the skins to distribute the force. Allow that skin to move too much
and you have problems. Not enough ribs is as bad as oversized sloppy wholes
on a plane that has enough ribs.
dbrown(at)avecc.com wrote:
> When I drew the string from spar tip to spar tip I had to make the same
> adjustment described below. It still looks swept forward when the
> fuselage is level, when you project the plane of the spar upward it
> intersects the string.
>
> Future N601EX
> David W. Brown
> Email: dbrown@avecc.com
>
>
>
> --
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112742#112742
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: | Home made tow bar for the Zodiac601XL |
Members,
Attached are two pictures of the tow bar I made for my Zodiac601XL.
The axel on the tri-gear sticks out on both sides of the wheel pants
and the tow bar fits onto these two axel ends by spring action. The
part that fits onto the axel ends must be at least 1/8th inch thick and
of spring aluminum. The black strips you see on the inside are the soft
side of velcro to protect the paint on the wheel pants. I do not need a
tow bar to pull the aircraft out of the hanger but I do need it to move
the aircraft backwards into the hanger and this one works very well. I
will furnish more detailed information as to dementions, where to get
parts, etc for anyone who is interested.
Tracy Stone
Zodiac601XL
Harker Heights, Tx
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: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
I'm happy to see he's investigating it. I don't want to see any lawsuits come out
of it either. I hate that she-ite.
Personally, I think the wing could benefit from extra ribs. It's good to see that
he acknowledges that it is possible to break the plane (as any plane will break
under extreme conditions), I just think some extra ribs in there would do
wonders even for those extreme conditions, not that I intend to explore those
conditions.
Kevin Bonds wrote:
> Wow. CH is a good dude. I'm glad that the factory is being so proactive
> about this. This is responsible business practice and the sign of a smart
> designer. In our litigious society one is not accustomed to such public
> statements after an accident.
>
> Kevin Bonds
>
> Nashville TN
>
>
> 601XL Plans building.
>
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds
>
>
>
> do not archive DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> --
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112749#112749
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 wing strut |
Did you try calling the factory, they are very helpful.
John Read
do not archive
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing sweep and recent crashes |
Is this how you live your life, assuming that all 'professionals' are always correct
all of the time? That's a pretty dangerous mindset, and probably costs you
a lot over the years always relying on experts.
I'm not saying CH is a bad designer, but I wouldn't be so quick t assume that everyone
here is a dummy. At least one actual aeronautical engineer has chimed
in here and questioned the XL wing design.
[quote="gboothe(at)calply.com"]MAN! With all your theorizing, conjecturing and
armchair quarterbacking, you guys can take a half story and twist it 9 ways from
Sunday! Without knowing anything but a small portion of the facts you are willing
to question the basics of the CH designs!
What I think is really happening, is that some educated people are using this list
to expound their knowledge and education. If you dont like the 601XL designDONT
BUILD IT!!
As for me, I put my $$$ on Mr. Heintz. Im not building an XL, but I happen to think
the airplane is designed as is for a reasona reason I dont understand, because,
if I did, I would design and build my own! Heres a thought: If you dont
understand why the wing is swept forward, maybe Chris Heintz knows more than
you.
Dont bother telling me that an intelligent builder should question everything.
Am I willing to just blindly follow? Uh, yeah (see above).
My vote is that this is a useless thread that will do little or nothing to help
anyone.
Gary Boothe
Cool, CA
601 HDSTD, WW Conversion 90% done,
Tail done, wings done, working on c-section
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112756#112756
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
came through white last time...
do not archive
David Downey <planecrazydld@yahoo.com> wrote: Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:16:03
-0700 (PDT)
From: David Downey <planecrazydld@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11
601XL SN 6406 3-15-06 Ed 3 Rev 3 sheet 6-X-1 says:
"Design Load Factor (Ultimate): +/- 6 G @1320 lbs"
do not archive
Gig Giacona <wr.giacona@suddenlink.net> wrote:
I'm looking at the cover page of my set of 601XL plans S# 4959.
"Design Load Factor (Ultimate): +/- 6 G @ 1,300 Lbs.
--------
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=112724#112724
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
photos & more.
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Give spam the boot. Take control with tough spam protection
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 wing strut |
John,
I did just that and as you say -- "They were very helpful" as they
have been with every issue I've had. Rodger was aware of the problem
with the one piece strut that I have and said he would send me the part
necessary to convert to the two piece strut which will solve the
problem.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: JohnDRead@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 701 wing strut
Did you try calling the factory, they are very helpful.
John Read
do not archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. |
While I appreciate your effort to search for failures, if you look back a bit further
you will find no more 601 failures and 8 RV structural failures involving
VMC-IMC, hard pull-up after low passes over airports and fields, aerobatics,
improper construction, and 1 case that implied the pilot had overstressed the
aircraft on repeated occasions in the past, and it finally failed in relatively
benign conditions. While we need to ask questions, saying that the 601 "tends
to break up in flight" is quite a stretch of the imagination.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112761#112761
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. |
I did a close up inspection of an RV this weekend. The RV has ribs spaced 9 inches
apart for starters and no sweep.
p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att wrote:
> I just completed a search of the NTSB accident database. I was
> looking for fatal accidents involving 601XLs. I also included RVs so
> I could compare results for the two different families of kit
> planes. I am not sure how to interpret the results, but I am happy
> to report the data I found.
>
> For the period from January 1, 2005 I found 135 fatal accidents in
> the database where home built airplanes were involved. 23 involved
> either CH601 or RV and 3 involved CH601s. (one 601HDS was involved
> in a mid air collision, and one 601XL that was made by AMD had a
> breakup but was not included in the 135 accident count)
>
> There were three in flight structure failures for XLs (N10028,
> N158MD, N105RH) and only one for RVs (N43EM). There was an
> explanation that a service bulletin for the RV-3 involving wing
> weakness was not complied with for the RV-3 failure, but no
> explanation for any of the XL failures.
>
> The RV accidents seemed to be a random assortment of
> misadventures. One particularly notable problem with RVs was 4
> accidents related to formation flying. ALL OF THE FATAL ACCIDENTS
> WITH XL'S INVOLVED IN FLIGHT STRUCTURE FAILURES.
>
> I don't feel qualified to draw any firm conclusions from this little
> study. However, I feel some anecdotal comments are in order. The
> total number of fatal accidents for XLs compared to RVs seems to
> reflect the much larger number of RVs in the air. That leads to the
> conclusion that flying an XL is no more life threatening than flying
> an RV. However, the failure mode in the XL fatal accidents is
> alarming. Compared to RV fliers, XL fliers seem to be at a much
> higher risk of experiencing structural failure.
>
> I am afraid I don't have any action to recommend for XL owners. It
> would seem that ballistic parachutes might help us survive a
> structure failure, but the accidents seemed to happen at low
> altitudes where the ballistic 'chutes might not be much use.
>
> It would be nice if a design study could reveal the actual cause of
> the structure failures. That could lead to a design change which
> might reduce the chances of future fatalities. So far, there isn't
> even a clue about why the XL tends to break up in flight. There are
> many speculations, but not a single piece of evidence to support them.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112764#112764
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. |
I was going to mention this as well. The HD wings have a much shorter moment. Where
the range where the xl seems to be failing is right where the HD has a bolt
connection.
naumuk(at)alltel.net wrote:
> Paul-
> As long as everyone is speculating and since you've already found the
> sources, how many HD/HDS outboard wings have failed? A lister reported 0 for
> the 701, but that configuration isn't even close to the 601.
> The reason I ask is because there are 3 radical wing design differences
> between the XL and HD/HDS-
> 1. The shorter outboard wings and shorter distance to the attach points
> of the HD/HDS result in a shorter moment of arm and consequently less stress
> on the attach points and pull on the rivets spanwise.
> 2. HD/HDS wing spars have no fore or aft tip angle I'm aware of.
> 3. No flaps on the HD/HDS.
> To answer the first thought that comes to mind, yes, I'm trying to
> convince myself that this problem is restricted to the XL. The HD/HDS was
> notorious early on for nose gear problems, which I've done my best to
> compensate for with builder/Zenith upgrades. I doubt it, but if it turns out
> my outboards need attention, the time to address the problem is when they're
> 30" rather than 2000' off the ground.
>
> Bill Naumuk
> HDS Fuse/Corvair
> Townville, Pa
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112765#112765
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. |
steveadams wrote:
> While I appreciate your effort to search for failures, if you look back a bit
further you will find no more 601 failures and 8 RV structural failures involving
VMC-IMC, hard pull-up after low passes over airports and fields, aerobatics,
improper construction, and 1 case that implied the pilot had overstressed
the aircraft on repeated occasions in the past, and it finally failed in relatively
benign conditions. While we need to ask questions, saying that the 601 "tends
to break up in flight" is quite a stretch of the imagination.
The 601XL was introdued in 2001 I believe. That's probably the main reason you're
not seeing anymore failures further back, there's been more time for fatigue
to accumulate.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112766#112766
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank |
Hello Dave,
I should have looked in the harbor freight catalog first
before asking. Yes, this looks like the proper tool, that
actually allows you to roll in the beads in several
passes. It should work on the long flange and also on
both edges of the tank, including the curved sections.
I just had hoped the tool would be a little cheaper
since I only have to use it once, for one single size of
bead.
Regards,
Maarten
> Time: 02:36:50 PM PST US
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank
> From: "TxDave" <dclaytx2@HOTMAIL.COM>
>
>
> Harbor Freight sell a beading tool. I have no experience with it, but I think
other
> guys on this list have used it.
>
> http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=93364
>
> Dave Clay
> Temple, TX
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: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
So now we have two seperate claims from CH about load factor? One stating +6/-3
and another at +6/-6? Hhhhmmm. I doubt even the +6.
[quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]came through white last time...
do not archive
David Downey wrote: [quote]Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Downey
Subject: Re: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11
601XL SN 6406 3-15-06 Ed 3 Rev 3 sheet 6-X-1 says:
"Design Load Factor (Ultimate): +/- 6 G @1320 lbs"
do not archive
Gig Giacona wrote:
I'm looking at the cover page of my set of 601XL plans S# 4959.
"Design Load
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112767#112767
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: Misinformation, disinformation, and recent accidents |
thoroughly tested airframe
Is it?
steveadams wrote:
> As a builder of a CH640, I am following these accidents with interest, as there
are similar design characteristics of the 640 and 601. Reading through the
large number of posts on these accidents I am amazed. From a need to do structural
testing (been done), inadequate rivets, weak spar caps, dangerous forward
swept wings, weak attach points, Zenith "hiding" a known defect due to liability,
completely backwards disertations on Va speeds and weight, reading things
in the NTSB reports that aren't there, and armchair designers proposed modifications,
the amount of misinformation and disinformation is unbelievable. I only
hope that not many builders use this half baked information to make a bunch
of half baked modifications to a proven, thoroughly tested airframe and then
let an innocent person climb into the right seat.
>
> Steve Adams
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112768#112768
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: 601 load tests |
The wings picture looks like no more than 1,000 lbs on each wing, what's that 1.6
G?
[quote="zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca"]http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html (http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html)
To All please visit this link to see pictures of the 601?s load tests. We do not
need to destroy another plane in testing as one already has been done.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
www.ch601.org (http://www.ch601.org) / www.ch701.com (http://www.ch701.com)/ www.Osprey2.com (http://www.Osprey2.com)
7:34 PM
7:34 PM
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112771#112771
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. |
ashontz wrote:
>
> steveadams wrote:
> > While I appreciate your effort to search for failures, if you look back a bit
further you will find no more 601 failures and 8 RV structural failures involving
VMC-IMC, hard pull-up after low passes over airports and fields, aerobatics,
improper construction, and 1 case that implied the pilot had overstressed
the aircraft on repeated occasions in the past, and it finally failed in relatively
benign conditions. While we need to ask questions, saying that the 601
"tends to break up in flight" is quite a stretch of the imagination.
>
>
> The 601XL was introdued in 2001 I believe. That's probably the main reason you're
not seeing anymore failures further back, there's been more time for fatigue
to accumulate.
So what about the RV's tendancy to fail? If they have 9" spaced ribs and no forward
sweep, why do they fail with such regularity?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112773#112773
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. |
Do they. The guy that started this thread just stated that no structural failures
for the RV were noted.
If they do break up regularly, then I'd have to think it had something to do with
a narrower spar. The wing isn't as thick. Maybe that's the reason for more
ribs. If that's the case then there's a direct correlation between the number
of ribs and the strength of the wing, no? The wing is only as string as the vertical
component of the spar. If the spar can't twist to accommodate bending of
the wing, then the wing can't bend without the spar cap breaking. The thicker
the spar, the more vertical the spar and the more the spar is braced (ribs,
to keep the spar from twisting as well as keeping the skin from buckling) the
stronger the wing. The thing I really don't like about the inclined spar is that's
be pre-positioned to flop forward under stress. It's not carrying the stress
parallel to the spar, it's carrying that stress at an angle, translating the
force into a shear of the rivets that are trying to keep the spar in a NEAR
upright position. If it was upright, there would be very minimal shear on those
rivets, particularly the top rivets which would then be holding just tensional
forces to keep the top skin on. With the inclined spar you now have shear
and tension on those rivets. It's like a folding up a corrogated box. The box
is pretty strong when it's square, take it a little out of square and you start
to feel the strength diminishing rapidly. Not you need something laterally to
hold the box from moving sideways to contine to hold it's strength in a less
than 90 degree position. Not only that, but now what once was a vertical side
(spar) now has a bending moment in it due to the fact that it's being asked to
carrying a perdendicular force at an angle, instead of straight through the
material.
steveadams wrote:
>
> ashontz wrote:
> >
> > steveadams wrote:
> > > While I appreciate your effort to search for failures, if you look back a
bit further you will find no more 601 failures and 8 RV structural failures involving
VMC-IMC, hard pull-up after low passes over airports and fields, aerobatics,
improper construction, and 1 case that implied the pilot had overstressed
the aircraft on repeated occasions in the past, and it finally failed in relatively
benign conditions. While we need to ask questions, saying that the 601
"tends to break up in flight" is quite a stretch of the imagination.
> >
> >
> > The 601XL was introdued in 2001 I believe. That's probably the main reason
you're not seeing anymore failures further back, there's been more time for fatigue
to accumulate.
>
>
> So what about the RV's tendancy to fail? If they have 9" spaced ribs and no forward
sweep, why do they fail with such regularity?
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112774#112774
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: Rolled bead for fuel tank |
When you are finished with it, you could donate it to your local EAA tool crib.
It's tax deductable!
Randy Stout
San Antoino TX
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Maarten Versteeg <maarten.versteeg@swri.org>
To:zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank
Hello Dave,
I should have looked in the harbor freight catalog first
before asking. Yes, this looks like the proper tool, that
actually allows you to roll in the beads in several
passes. It should work on the long flange and also on
both edges of the tank, including the curved sections.
I just had hoped the tool would be a little cheaper
since I only have to use it once, for one single size of
bead.
Regards,
Maarten
> Time: 02:36:50 PM PST US
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank
> From: "TxDave" <dclaytx2@HOTMAIL.COM>
>
>
> Harbor Freight sell a beading tool. I have no experience with it, but I think
other
> guys on this list have used it.
>
> http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=93364
>
> Dave Clay
> Temple, TX
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. |
I found 8 RV structural failures with a quick search. My point is not that RV's
have a design problem, but that saying there is a tendancy for 601 wings to fail
is not accurate, It is also innacurate to say that RV's do not structurally
fail. You cannot base a hypothesis off an innacurate assumption, nor can you
assume that because a 601 has fewer ribs or carries loads differently than another
design that that is a flaw in the design.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112779#112779
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. |
Ok, it's not a flaw then, its' just that the 601XL DOESN'T carry the loads perpendicular
through the spar and a component of the load is thereby redistributed
through the skin rivets through shear to the top and bottom skins. It's not
a design flaw, it's just different, and not as strong as if the spar was truly
vertical.
Also, the RV is a 200 mph airplane and people tend to do more aerobatics in them.
If the XL was as far and more people used it the XL as an aerobatic plane,
the number of structural failuires in the XL would probably be higher than the
RV.
Mark Twain said there are 3 kinds of lies: Lie, Damned Lies, and statistics. Statistics
can be misinterpretted in all kinds of ways.
steveadams wrote:
> I found 8 RV structural failures with a quick search. My point is not that RV's
have a design problem, but that saying there is a tendancy for 601 wings to
fail is not accurate, It is also innacurate to say that RV's do not structurally
fail. You cannot base a hypothesis off an innacurate assumption, nor can you
assume that because a 601 has fewer ribs or carries loads differently than
another design that that is a flaw in the design.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112782#112782
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks |
I recently picked up the wing kit at ZAC along with the long range tanks. Having
completed the ailerons and flaps, I'm now moving onto the wings. Glad to be
back building again as my job had put a major delay in the project for the past
year. I see that the standard pre-built 601XL wing spar comes with a nose rib
angle at 1490 from the root for nose rib #4. This will interfere with the back
of the long range tank. I have seen a couple posts that say ZAC says this angle
should be cut off .. as opposed to removed. Any advice on the best way to
cut it off? I was thinking of using my dremel with a rotary wheel with scrap
underneath to protect the spar. I have been unable to contact ZAC yet as their
line has been busy most of the day. Any advice or previous experience on this
is appreciated.
Thanks,
Dave Gardea
601XL - Corvair - tail done, working on wings
--------
Dave Gardea
601XL - Corvair
working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112783#112783
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: 601 load tests |
The HD test was done with sandbags, the XL tests were done with bags of lead shot
to make it easier to distribute the weight more accurately. Admittedly, it
doesn't look as impressive.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112786#112786
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks |
I cut mine as close as possible with snips and then filed. I also added 2
ribs where the hat stiffener is - around 1700mm - at the end of the tank. I
think this is required if you go this route.
Michael in NH
do not archive
On 5/14/07, dgardea(at)gmail.com <dgardea@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> dgardea@gmail.com>
>
> I recently picked up the wing kit at ZAC along with the long range tanks.
> Having completed the ailerons and flaps, I'm now moving onto the wings. Glad
> to be back building again as my job had put a major delay in the project for
> the past year. I see that the standard pre-built 601XL wing spar comes with
> a nose rib angle at 1490 from the root for nose rib #4. This will interfere
> with the back of the long range tank. I have seen a couple posts that say
> ZAC says this angle should be cut off .. as opposed to removed. Any advice
> on the best way to cut it off? I was thinking of using my dremel with a
> rotary wheel with scrap underneath to protect the spar. I have been unable
> to contact ZAC yet as their line has been busy most of the day. Any advice
> or previous experience on this is appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave Gardea
> 601XL - Corvair - tail done, working on wings
>
> --------
> Dave Gardea
> 601XL - Corvair
> working on wings
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112783#112783
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | just a consideration |
I am a flight engineer with more than 30 years expierience, and I know that all
rudders must be balanced.
601 XL rudders (rudder, aileron, elevator) are not balanced. You have to attach
a lot of weight on the rudders for balancing to avoid shimming.
Maybe it is a reason for the seperaton of the wings in special conditions.
Just a consideration.
FS from AUT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112787#112787
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 load tests |
steveadams wrote:
> The HD test was done with sandbags, the XL tests were done with bags of lead
shot to make it easier to distribute the weight more accurately. Admittedly, it
doesn't look as impressive.
Ok, I'll buy that. Nice if they mentioned that there. I don't remember seeing it
stated.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112789#112789
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: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks |
Cut it with anything that does not damage the underlying spar. You can even use
snips although the material is a little thick and at an awkward angle. I scored
mine with a cutting wheel and then grabbed it at both ends with a couple
of pairs of pliers and snapped it off. I took a file to the edge to dress it.
Tim
--------
DO NOT ARCHIVE
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112790#112790
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: 601 load tests |
> The wings picture looks like no more than 1,000 lbs on each wing, what's
that 1.6 G?
Led shot. No doubt, these are certified bags with led shot as common in
small and medium aircraft load testing. Most substitutes as used by amateurs
have much more volume, and therefore cannot properly load at the right
locations.
The picture you are referencing must be
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/pic06/601structure-wings.jpg - indeed, this
does not look like a full load representing + 6 Gs (ultimate - remember: 3
seconds in the complete airframe lifetime) respective + 4 G (limit load).
Nobody said that. Pictures, just pictures of any load status in the test.
This picture series looks like randomly selected pictures from the load
test. Probably there are too many CZAW engineers and employees visible on
the other views.
If anybody from the Zenith Aircraft Company or Zenair Ltd. in Canada is
listening - or a good friend forwarding this to the CH family - please
ensure your specifications, on the Web, in the manuals and similar are
clarified. There will be people that will try to fly +/- 6 Gs, respective
+6/-4 Gs with your aircrafts. In addition, if they do not make it, a bunch
of people will continue or restart overstressing the list reader nerves with
repeated, unqualified information.
Regards,
-Kurt.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 8:10 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 load tests
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: Wing sweep and recent crashes |
Andy,
My point is that I have paid for a design from a proven aircraft designer, and
choose to follow his advice over everyone else's; especially your referenced "aeronautical
engineer." Who is this person? What has he designed? It's quite possible
to get a degree in Aeronautical Engineering and spend the next 30 years
designing air conditioning units for Boeing. The Air Force Academy graduates
a plethora of Aeronautical Engineers who spend the rest of their productive lives
flying commercially.
Many jumped in to criticize the supposed "forward sweep," but it took Scott Laughlin
to describe how that's really not the design of the wing.
Furthermore, I just read a post that advises more ribs!! For Heavens sake!! Do
you not see how dangerous it is to question the wing design? Do you see where
all this is leading? Do you really want some half informed builder to take the
advice of a non-descript lister?
Add to this the fact that NO ONE is more concerned about his design than the Designer.
He has proven this in His last letter to builders. Anyone who feels truly
qualified to question His design should contact Him and offer their services.
This List is no place to question the basic design of the manufacturer. I stand
by my statement that if you don't like this design, then don't build it! If all
you engineers and theorists want to discuss the pros and cons of a wing design
you should all meet for coffee at an internet caf on Saturday mornings.
Gary Boothe
Cool, CA
601 HDSTD, WW Conversion 90% done,
Tail done, wings done, working on c-section
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:44 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Wing sweep and recent crashes
Is this how you live your life, assuming that all 'professionals' are always correct
all of the time? That's a pretty dangerous mindset, and probably costs you
a lot over the years always relying on experts.
I'm not saying CH is a bad designer, but I wouldn't be so quick t assume that everyone
here is a dummy. At least one actual aeronautical engineer has chimed
in here and questioned the XL wing design.
[quote="gboothe(at)calply.com"]MAN! With all your theorizing, conjecturing and
armchair quarterbacking, you guys can take a half story and twist it 9 ways from
Sunday! Without knowing anything but a small portion of the facts you are willing
to question the basics of the CH designs!
What I think is really happening, is that some educated people are using this list
to expound their knowledge and education. If you dont like the 601XL designDONT
BUILD IT!!
As for me, I put my $$$ on Mr. Heintz. Im not building an XL, but I happen to think
the airplane is designed as is for a reasona reason I dont understand, because,
if I did, I would design and build my own! Heres a thought: If you dont
understand why the wing is swept forward, maybe Chris Heintz knows more than
you.
Dont bother telling me that an intelligent builder should question everything.
Am I willing to just blindly follow? Uh, yeah (see above).
My vote is that this is a useless thread that will do little or nothing to help
anyone.
Gary Boothe
Cool, CA
601 HDSTD, WW Conversion 90% done,
Tail done, wings done, working on c-section
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112756#112756
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: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks |
The angle can be scored deeply with an OLFA knife then simply broken off at the
score line. A little bit of filing/sanding smooth and you're ready to move on.
Dred
---- "dgardea(at)gmail.com" <dgardea@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I recently picked up the wing kit at ZAC along with the long range tanks. Having
completed the ailerons and flaps, I'm now moving onto the wings. Glad to be
back building again as my job had put a major delay in the project for the past
year. I see that the standard pre-built 601XL wing spar comes with a nose
rib angle at 1490 from the root for nose rib #4. This will interfere with the
back of the long range tank. I have seen a couple posts that say ZAC says this
angle should be cut off .. as opposed to removed. Any advice on the best way
to cut it off? I was thinking of using my dremel with a rotary wheel with scrap
underneath to protect the spar. I have been unable to contact ZAC yet as their
line has been busy most of the day. Any advice or previous experience on this
is appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave Gardea
> 601XL - Corvair - tail done, working on wings
>
> --------
> Dave Gardea
> 601XL - Corvair
> working on wings
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112783#112783
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks |
Thanks for the quick replies, guys. I appreciate the help and advice.
Regards,
Dave
do not archive
--------
Dave Gardea
601XL - Corvair
working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112801#112801
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 |
|
| Subject: | just a consideration |
Hallo FS,
Correct by rule of thumb. Then please consider balancing the flaps, new on
the XL, too. Incidentally, any rudder-like add-on can lead to shimmy and
later flutter. Face it - even with adding punctual counterweights to have
statically balanced rudders does not protect from torosional flutter of the
rudders. Once over, the story starts again.
Testing even this (relative simple) and low speed airframe would be much
more complex than just a static wing load. Should be done with and without
the aerodynamic influence...
>From all the interesting theories and ideas, we have seen here on the list
these days on design and static testing, I do not intend to go into the
dynamics of flutter here.
Under the line, every non-factory built aircraft should been taken to a
careful flight test program, including Vne+plus_some, CoG in the extremes...
And factory built aircraft should run over such a process on a regular
interval with the series production.
Grsse aus der Schweiz!
-Kurt.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of austria
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:30 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: just a consideration
I am a flight engineer with more than 30 years expierience, and I know that
all rudders must be balanced.
601 XL rudders (rudder, aileron, elevator) are not balanced. You have to
attach a lot of weight on the rudders for balancing to avoid shimming.
Maybe it is a reason for the seperaton of the wings in special conditions.
Just a consideration.
FS from AUT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112787#112787
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: NTSB search for breakup accidents. |
I know I said I would not comment any more but this is sort of a different comment:
The XL wing is plenty strong - otherwise it could not accumulate the thousands
of hours put on it since it started flying.
It is possible that it is a little more sensitive to all the possible conditions,
less than perfect workmanship, flight abuse, etc. I am virtually certain
that CH will definitely document the relative change in twist during the currently
planned series of limit then ultimate tests (I have not heard from him whether
they monitored that during the original testing). In the big world all static
airframe tests are monitored to collect all that type of data as it can
be an indicator of an opportunistic sensitivity in an otherwise robust design.
Again, CH is one of the people I have always admired - both for the stoutness
of his aircraft as well as his willingness to stand up and deliver "ugly" planes
that do what they were designed to do better than the competition. Whatever
he learns from the new round of testing will probably be disseminated as "un-spin-modified"
as could be hoped for.
ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
Ok, it's not a flaw then, its' just that the 601XL DOESN'T carry the loads perpendicular
through the spar and a component of the load is thereby redistributed
through the skin rivets through shear to the top and bottom skins. It's not
a design flaw, it's just different, and not as strong as if the spar was truly
vertical.
Also, the RV is a 200 mph airplane and people tend to do more aerobatics in them.
If the XL was as far and more people used it the XL as an aerobatic plane,
the number of structural failuires in the XL would probably be higher than the
RV.
Mark Twain said there are 3 kinds of lies: Lie, Damned Lies, and statistics. Statistics
can be misinterpretted in all kinds of ways.
steveadams wrote:
> I found 8 RV structural failures with a quick search. My point is not that RV's
have a design problem, but that saying there is a tendancy for 601 wings to
fail is not accurate, It is also innacurate to say that RV's do not structurally
fail. You cannot base a hypothesis off an innacurate assumption, nor can you
assume that because a 601 has fewer ribs or carries loads differently than
another design that that is a flaw in the design.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112782#112782
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?
---------------------------------
Give spam the boot. Take control with tough spam protection
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: | just a consideration |
Anybody run this by CH? I'm sure we could all come up with a dozen examples
of A/C without balanced control surfaces. My hat off to a 30 year Flight
Engineer, but the antique Pietenpol (1928) has no balanced surfaces. I'm
willing to bet that Vne has something to do with it, but, then, I'm not the
Designer of the aircraft.
Gary Boothe
Cool, CA
601 HDSTD, WW Conversion 90% done,
Tail done, wings done, working on c-section
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kurt A.
Schumacher
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:39 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: just a consideration
<Kurt.Schumacher@schumi.ch>
Hallo FS,
Correct by rule of thumb. Then please consider balancing the flaps, new on
the XL, too. Incidentally, any rudder-like add-on can lead to shimmy and
later flutter. Face it - even with adding punctual counterweights to have
statically balanced rudders does not protect from torosional flutter of the
rudders. Once over, the story starts again.
Testing even this (relative simple) and low speed airframe would be much
more complex than just a static wing load. Should be done with and without
the aerodynamic influence...
>From all the interesting theories and ideas, we have seen here on the list
these days on design and static testing, I do not intend to go into the
dynamics of flutter here.
Under the line, every non-factory built aircraft should been taken to a
careful flight test program, including Vne+plus_some, CoG in the extremes...
And factory built aircraft should run over such a process on a regular
interval with the series production.
Grsse aus der Schweiz!
-Kurt.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of austria
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:30 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: just a consideration
I am a flight engineer with more than 30 years expierience, and I know that
all rudders must be balanced.
601 XL rudders (rudder, aileron, elevator) are not balanced. You have to
attach a lot of weight on the rudders for balancing to avoid shimming.
Maybe it is a reason for the seperaton of the wings in special conditions.
Just a consideration.
FS from AUT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112787#112787
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: | Just two links... there is not much room left for your safety |
This is not a Zenair - just another, well-designed light aircraft - a
Partenavia P68C.
Start here. Carefully watch the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wY3Sb-C1BE
There is no abrupt change of flight path visible. The records later say 8
degrees...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 001214X44523&key=1
THE PLT WAS EXECUTING A HIGH SPEED PASS OVER THE RWY AT ABOUT 250 FT AGL.
THE PLT THEN BEGAN A RAPID PULL-UP & BOTH WINGS SEPARATED JUST OUTBOARD OF
THE ENG NACELLES. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SEQUENCE FROM A VIDEOTAPE REVEALED
THAT THE ACFT'S SPEED AT THE TIME OF THE WING SEPARATIONS WAS 220 KTS. VNE
FOR THE ACFT IS 193 KTS. IT WAS CALCULATED THAT, AT 220 KTS & AN 8 DEG
NOSE-UP PITCH, THE 'G' LOAD AT THE TIME OF THE WING SEPARATIONS WOULD HAVE
BEEN 8.3 G'S.
Pilots are killing pilots. Engineers and designers don't do it.
-Kurt.
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 |
|
| Subject: | 601 HD/HDS failures |
All-
Since I never did hear back about HD/HDS numbers, I checked them out
myself.
According the NTSB, there have been no reported catastrophic
structurally related failures back to 1980. Only one reported fatality,
attributed to mis-rigging.
Since I'll (Eventually, God willing I live that long) be strapping
my ass into an HDS, that's good enough for me.
Good building!
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Just two links... there is not much room left for your |
safety
Amen to that!
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Kurt A. Schumacher" <Kurt.Schumacher@schumi.ch>
>Sent: May 14, 2007 6:26 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Just two links... there is not much room left for your safety
>
>
>This is not a Zenair - just another, well-designed light aircraft - a
>Partenavia P68C.
>
>Start here. Carefully watch the video.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wY3Sb-C1BE
>There is no abrupt change of flight path visible. The records later say 8
>degrees...
>
>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 001214X44523&key=1
>
>THE PLT WAS EXECUTING A HIGH SPEED PASS OVER THE RWY AT ABOUT 250 FT AGL.
>THE PLT THEN BEGAN A RAPID PULL-UP & BOTH WINGS SEPARATED JUST OUTBOARD OF
>THE ENG NACELLES. RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SEQUENCE FROM A VIDEOTAPE REVEALED
>THAT THE ACFT'S SPEED AT THE TIME OF THE WING SEPARATIONS WAS 220 KTS. VNE
>FOR THE ACFT IS 193 KTS. IT WAS CALCULATED THAT, AT 220 KTS & AN 8 DEG
>NOSE-UP PITCH, THE 'G' LOAD AT THE TIME OF THE WING SEPARATIONS WOULD HAVE
>BEEN 8.3 G'S.
>
>Pilots are killing pilots. Engineers and designers don't do it.
>
>-Kurt.
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | just a consideration |
i dont recall a j3 cub having balanced surfaces,
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gary Boothe <gboothe5@comcast.net>
>Sent: May 14, 2007 5:57 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: just a consideration
>
>
>Anybody run this by CH? I'm sure we could all come up with a dozen examples
>of A/C without balanced control surfaces. My hat off to a 30 year Flight
>Engineer, but the antique Pietenpol (1928) has no balanced surfaces. I'm
>willing to bet that Vne has something to do with it, but, then, I'm not the
>Designer of the aircraft.
>
>
>Gary Boothe
>Cool, CA
>601 HDSTD, WW Conversion 90% done,
>Tail done, wings done, working on c-section
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kurt A.
>Schumacher
>Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:39 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: just a consideration
>
><Kurt.Schumacher@schumi.ch>
>
>Hallo FS,
>
>Correct by rule of thumb. Then please consider balancing the flaps, new on
>the XL, too. Incidentally, any rudder-like add-on can lead to shimmy and
>later flutter. Face it - even with adding punctual counterweights to have
>statically balanced rudders does not protect from torosional flutter of the
>rudders. Once over, the story starts again.
>
>Testing even this (relative simple) and low speed airframe would be much
>more complex than just a static wing load. Should be done with and without
>the aerodynamic influence...
>
>>From all the interesting theories and ideas, we have seen here on the list
>these days on design and static testing, I do not intend to go into the
>dynamics of flutter here.
>
>Under the line, every non-factory built aircraft should been taken to a
>careful flight test program, including Vne+plus_some, CoG in the extremes...
>And factory built aircraft should run over such a process on a regular
>interval with the series production.
>
>Grsse aus der Schweiz!
>
>-Kurt.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of austria
>Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:30 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: just a consideration
>
>
>I am a flight engineer with more than 30 years expierience, and I know that
>all rudders must be balanced.
>601 XL rudders (rudder, aileron, elevator) are not balanced. You have to
>attach a lot of weight on the rudders for balancing to avoid shimming.
>Maybe it is a reason for the seperaton of the wings in special conditions.
>Just a consideration.
>FS from AUT
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112787#112787
>
>
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: | Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank |
Maarten, after you use it, consider selling it to me. Jerry
On May 14, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Maarten Versteeg wrote:
> <maarten.versteeg@swri.org>
>
> Hello Dave,
>
> I should have looked in the harbor freight catalog first
> before asking. Yes, this looks like the proper tool, that
> actually allows you to roll in the beads in several
> passes. It should work on the long flange and also on
> both edges of the tank, including the curved sections.
> I just had hoped the tool would be a little cheaper
> since I only have to use it once, for one single size of
> bead.
>
> Regards,
> Maarten
>
>> Time: 02:36:50 PM PST US
>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank
>> From: "TxDave" <dclaytx2@HOTMAIL.COM>
>> Harbor Freight sell a beading tool. I have no experience with it,
>> but I think other
>> guys on this list have used it.
>> http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?
>> Itemnumber=93364
>> Dave Clay
>> Temple, TX
>
>
Jerry Hey STOL 701
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: Grassroots Manufacturing |
An excellent article. Unfortunately many of the armchair QBs will not
recognize most of the companies Chris Heintz has worked for and honed his skills
with. Flame on.
John Read
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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: NTSB search for breakup accidents. |
The bending strength of a wing is in the spar not the ribs, they only serve
to help shape the air over the airfoil. If you read Grassroots Manufacturing
by Chris Heintz you will see that he likes thick wings. Yes more ribs will
affect oil canning but not improve the span wise stiffness.
The stiffness of a spar is defined by the formula.
Stiffness = bd^3
the "d" or depth being very important.
John Read
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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: just a consideration |
Better not tell that to Piper cub fliers.
John Read
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Dual Stick weight in 601 |
Does anyone know the difference in weight going with the dual stick
option v.s. the single stick?
Ron
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: | Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. |
I beg to differ, they not only describe the airfoil, they also help keep the spars
aligned through the direct attach point, but more so through keeping the skin
profile in 'correct' through the various stations.
The ribs give the skin stiffness the same way guides on a fishing pole help distrubute
the fishing line force more evenly across the length of the rod. The more
guides, the better the performance of the rod and the more the stiffness of
the rod is utilized.
[quote="JohnDRead(at)aol.com"]The bending strength of a wing is in the spar not
the ribs, they only serve to help shape the air over the airfoil. If you read
Grassroots Manufacturing by Chris Heintz you will see that he likes thick wings.
Yes more ribs will affect oil canning but not improve the span wise stiffness.
The stiffness of a spar is defined by the formula.
? Stiffness = bd^3
the "d" or depth being very important.
John Read
See what's free at AOL.com (http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503).
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112852#112852
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 |
|
-----Original Message-----
it doesn't have enough ribs in the wing. A RV has ribs every 9 inches,
even a Grumman Traveler has them every 15 inches where as the XL has
them at 21+ inches. Push on the skin on either of those wings and they
feel solid where as the XL feels a little anemic. A fellow builder has
remarked that a lot of guys go ahead and put false ribs in the eliminate
oil-canning in the wings because there's just such a large space between
ribs that it's almost a give you're going to get some oil-canning,
particularly on the lower skin.
You are the builder and may do what you wish, but for those who think
this is necessary, think back, the 601XL wings are .025 while the 601HD
and UL had .016 wings. Chris knows the deflection in his designs, it is
his intentions to make a light plane capable of years of service. If you
have an oil canning issue then look to the fuselage bottom and install
sound proofing foam on the firewall and baggage compartment. This would
be the most effective noise reduction. To double up the ribs in a
tapered wing would be nothing short of a nightmare. A doable thing ,
just not worth the effort in my opinion, plus I believe this would fall
under the necessity of involving the designer.
Don=92t get me wrong guys, over the years I have changed quite a few
things, and I support making your plane a personalized unit. HOWEVER,
I=92m afraid that some may be getting out of hand here, IF you want to
modify your plane, go ahead you=92re the manufacturer, but remember you
are only going to be capable of personalizing it, I doubt very much you
will improve it.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
4:46 PM
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 load tests |
The 601XL is available in many countries and several of those countries
have had to have their gov reps witness and attest to the strength of a
601 with load tests. The XL has been tested several times, not just once
and the other countries have far more stringent rules then the U.S. does
and yet it has passed in all those other countries. IT will be tested
again in North America to ensure your piece of mind.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 load tests
The wings picture looks like no more than 1,000 lbs on each wing, what's
that 1.6 G?
[quote="zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca"]http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-
testing.html (http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html)
To All please visit this link to see pictures of the 601?s load tests.
We do not need to destroy another plane in testing as one already has
been done.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac 601XL C-GOXL, CH701 just started
www.ch601.org (http://www.ch601.org) / www.ch701.com
(http://www.ch701.com)/ www.Osprey2.com (http://www.Osprey2.com)
7:34 PM
7:34 PM
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112771#112771
4:46 PM
4:46 PM
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: just a consideration |
The KR series as designed does not balance the tail and several of the breed have
flown over 200mph (listed VNE). Not that I'd do it, but emperic evidence nonetheless.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112862#112862
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks |
Michael Valentine wrote:
> I also added 2 ribs where the hat stiffener is - around 1700mm - at the end of
the tank. I think this is required if you go this route.
Where did you find that information...?
I'm just now finishing one wing, and don't recall seeing any requirement for 2
more ribs. I *think* I have the most recent drawings.
I'd sure hate to button this thing up missing a couple of wing ribs...
Thanks,
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=112869#112869
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: Dual Stick weight in 601 |
Yes. Two sticks weigh approximately twice as much as one stick. (grin)
Non-smart-ass answer: The leverage seems about the same to me given the
length of the stick(s) and theit pivot points. My dual stick linkage
doesn't feel like it adds any significant resistance in and of itself.
They are probably very similar.
Dred
----- Original Message -----
From: Ronald Steele
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 8:04 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Dual Stick weight in 601
Does anyone know the difference in weight going with the dual stick
option v.s. the single stick?
Ron
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 |
|
Most RV's are 200 mph airplanes that weigh over 1600 lbs and can take a
180 hp engine. The Grumman Traveler is a four place 150 mph airplane
with a gross weight of 2200 lbs and an O-320 engine. Do you think that
might explain why they have more wing ribs than a 1320 lb, 130 mph
airplane designed to handle no more than 130 hp?
As far as wing sweep is concerned, take a good look at a Cessna Skyhawk.
Notice the straight leading edge and the tapered trailing edge? Would
anyone call the Cessna wing a forward swept wing? Many aircraft have
been built over the years with a similar planform and none of them are
considered forward swept wings. From a practical standpoint, a wing is
not considered swept unless both the leading edge and the mean chord
line are swept back or forward. Even if there is a small amount of sweep
to the CH601XL wing, it isn't enough to have a significant effect in the
flight envelope the plane operates in. The aerodynamic problems
associated with forward swept wings only show up when there is a
substantial amount of sweep and, usually, speeds well beyond the safe
limits of the CH601.
We're not building F-15s here, we're building lightweight sport
airplanes. I could build an airplane that would never break up under any
conceivable flight conditions, you could fly it through thunder storms,
hurricanes and even tornadoes. The only problem is, it would be so
damned heavy, you would need a GE-90 to get the thing off the ground.
>
> When the plane is level (which means the wings are level), the wings are in fact
swept forward. If there was no dyhedral (even with the inclined spar), the
wings regardless of whether it was tilted back or forward 9 degrees would would
have no sweep. It's the dihedral in conjunction with the inclined main spar
that causes a slight sweep forward when the plane is level.
>
> At what angle of attack does the plane fly at at cruise speed? 9 degrees. In
that case, the wings would have no sweep while in flight.
>
> Even so, I don't think the sweep is too much of a problem no that I think about
it. I think the bigger issue is that personally, now that I think about it
and compare the XL to other planes, it doesn't have enough ribs in the wing. A
RV has ribs every 9 inches, even a Grumman Traveler has them every 15 inches
where as the XL has them at 21+ inches. Push on the skin on either of those wings
and they feel solid where as the XL feels a little anemic. A fellow builder
has remarked that a lot of guys go ahead and put false ribs in the eliminate
oil-canning in the wings because there's just such a large space between ribs
that it's almost a give you're going to get some oil-canning, particularly on
the lower skin. I think thats a major indication that it doesn't just need false
ribs, but actual ribs in those locations. It's showing an inherent weakness
in those areas. Slightly oil-canning or depression when pushed by hand is much
more significant distortion under flight loads. A
n !
> oil can effect just with hand pressure probably distorts the wing by half a
millimeter. In flight conditions that could have up to a lot more shifting of
the structure. I think extra ribs in there would be a good idea. The strength
of the wing is reliant on the ability of the skins to distribute the force. Allow
that skin to move too much and you have problems. Not enough ribs is as bad
as oversized sloppy wholes on a plane that has enough ribs.
>
>
--
Bryan Martin
Zenith 601XL N61BM
Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
Do Not Archive
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: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 |
Two separate claims for two separate standards of airworthiness. What's
so odd about that? One's an Experimental Amateur Built and one has to
meet the consensus standards under Special LSA. Even a Cessna 150 has
two different load factors depending on which category you are operating
it under, Normal or Utility.
>
> So now we have two seperate claims from CH about load factor? One stating +6/-3
and another at +6/-6? Hhhhmmm. I doubt even the +6.
>
> [quote="planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co"]came through white last time...
> do not archive
> David Downey wrote: [quote]Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David Downey
> Subject: Re: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>
> 601XL SN 6406 3-15-06 Ed 3 Rev 3 sheet 6-X-1 says:
>
> "Design Load Factor (Ultimate): +/- 6 G @1320 lbs"
>
> do not archive
>
> Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> I'm looking at the cover page of my set of 601XL plans S# 4959.
>
> "Design Load
>> [b]
>
--
Bryan Martin
Zenith 601XL N61BM
Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Dual Stick weight in 601 |
> Does anyone know the difference in weight going with the dual stick option
v.s. the single stick?
7.1 vs. 2.7 pounds for a difference of 4.4
For the Y I weighed three parts: the torque tube, the Y stick and the rear
support bearing 6B17-3.
For the dual sticks I weighed the torque tube, support bearing, the two
sticks, the control connection tube, the threaded rods, the three aluminum
plates, the rod ends, the extruded L's and the hardware.
-- Craig
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! --
|