---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 05/14/07: 60 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:58:10 AM PST US From: "Dave G." Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:15:24 AM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: accident 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:23:32 AM PST US From: David Downey 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:22:34 AM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:49:15 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: standing behind the product From: "chris Sinfield" "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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:43:21 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 From: "Gig Giacona" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:03:13 AM PST US From: "Dave Austin" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Tow Bar 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:52:36 AM PST US Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Wing Sweep From: "David Brown" 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:16:39 AM PST US From: David Downey 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:22:53 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Wing Sweep From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:24:18 AM PST US From: "robert stone" Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:42:54 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:07:37 AM PST US From: JohnDRead@aol.com 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 http://www.aol.com. ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 09:45:13 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Wing sweep and recent crashes From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:47:18 AM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Fwd: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 came through white last time... do not archive David Downey wrote: Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 08:16:03 -0700 (PDT) From: David Downey 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:06:20 AM PST US From: "Gordon" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:43:05 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. From: "steveadams" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:00:48 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:01:49 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:03:33 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:05:42 AM PST US From: Maarten Versteeg 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" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:05:45 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Fwd: Re: New letter from Chris Heintz!! 5/11 From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:08:44 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Misinformation, disinformation, and recent accidents From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:10:41 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 load tests From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:28:13 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. From: "steveadams" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:44:27 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:51:39 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Rolled bead for fuel tank From: n282rs@satx.rr.com 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 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" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:02:11 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. From: "steveadams" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:11:53 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:14:23 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks From: "dgardea(at)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 31 ____________________________________ Time: 12:29:15 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 load tests From: "steveadams" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:29:23 PM PST US From: "Michael Valentine" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:29:53 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: just a consideration From: "austria" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:30:44 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 load tests From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:31:30 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks From: "Tim Juhl" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:08:36 PM PST US From: "Kurt A. Schumacher" Subject: RE: 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? 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:08:36 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:24:22 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:07:30 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks From: "dgardea(at)gmail.com" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:39:59 PM PST US From: "Kurt A. Schumacher" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:52:24 PM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:58:01 PM PST US From: "Gary Boothe" 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 Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 43 ____________________________________ Time: 03:28:56 PM PST US From: "Kurt A. Schumacher" 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 44 ____________________________________ Time: 03:51:04 PM PST US From: "Bill Naumuk" Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:34:16 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Just two links... there is not much room left for your safety Amen to that! Juan -----Original Message----- >From: "Kurt A. Schumacher" >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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:34:22 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: RE: Zenith-List: just a consideration i dont recall a j3 cub having balanced surfaces, -----Original Message----- >From: Gary Boothe >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 > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:56:00 PM PST US From: Jerry Hey Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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: > > > 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" >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:02:09 PM PST US From: JohnDRead@aol.com Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:23:18 PM PST US From: JohnDRead@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:27:35 PM PST US From: JohnDRead@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: just a consideration Better not tell that to Piper cub fliers. John Read ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. ________________________________ Message 51 ____________________________________ Time: 06:06:21 PM PST US From: Ronald Steele 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 52 ____________________________________ Time: 06:30:28 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: NTSB search for breakup accidents. From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:43:57 PM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" Subject: Zenith-List: Oil Canning -----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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:01:42 PM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:27:54 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: just a consideration From: "Matt Ronics" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:12:28 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL outboard spar and long range tanks From: "PatrickW" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:38:16 PM PST US From: "Edward Moody II" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:38:29 PM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Wing Sweep 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:07:20 PM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:58:45 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: 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? 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.