Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:10 AM - Fw: Re: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the 701. (Joemotis@aol.com)
2. 03:32 AM - Re: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! (David Downey)
3. 03:41 AM - Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? (kmccune)
4. 04:43 AM - Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? (dfmoeller)
5. 07:57 AM - Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? (mikef)
6. 09:04 AM - Re: Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? (Bryan Martin)
7. 09:23 AM - Re: Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? (Bryan Martin)
8. 09:43 AM - Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion (LarryMcFarland)
9. 04:32 PM - canopy gas struts (Southern Reflections)
10. 04:35 PM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (ashontz)
11. 05:22 PM - seat for 601 (Juan Vega)
12. 05:41 PM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (LarryMcFarland)
13. 06:00 PM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (Juan Vega)
14. 06:00 PM - Re: canopy gas struts (John Short)
15. 06:03 PM - Re: seat for 601 (robert stone)
16. 06:04 PM - Re: Re: 601 and wing failiers (Juan Vega)
17. 06:50 PM - Re: seat for 601 (Southern Reflections)
18. 07:05 PM - Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion (John Short)
19. 07:12 PM - Re: canopy gas struts (Southern Reflections)
20. 07:28 PM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (ashontz)
21. 07:31 PM - Re: seat for 601 (Juan Vega)
22. 07:40 PM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (ashontz)
23. 08:51 PM - Couple of questions gang (John Reinking)
24. 10:50 PM - Re: 601 and wing failiers (Matt Ronics)
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: Building on a budget - alternative engines for the |
701.
-----------------------------1198002874--
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification! |
the basic site link worked for me but the only link from the home page that worked
was the builders log page
raymondj <raymondj@frontiernet.net> wrote: DIV { MARGIN: 0px } Michael,
Just tried the link in your signature and it didn't work for me. Just an
FYI.
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best,
but prepare for the worst."
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Hilderbrand
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification!
Did Gus break-away from WW?
Do not archive.
Michael Hilderbrand
Derby, Kansas
Http://www.kansasflying.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Scott Thatcher <s_thatcher@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 12:34:35 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: N601EL receives E-LSA certification!
Hi Sammy,
I'll be doing Phase I testing up to the point of actual flight. Then I'm
going to let Gus Warren from http://FlyWithGus.com do the actual first
flight. After that, I'll run the numbers in flight myself. I was given a 5
hour fly-off using the Corvair engine. Not bad considering that the E-AB is
40 hours with a non-certified engine.
I guess the big difference between getting the certificate and actual
airworthiness boils down to how a person feels about getting into the plane
and flying it. I for one need to do a lot of "tweeking" before I do any
flying in it. I'm glad to hear that others aren't just ready to fly as soon
as their inspection is over... I thought I was the only one! I've got it to
the point where the controls are great, the instruments and gages all work,
but my Granddaughter just pushed in the baggage locker trying to get out and
I noticed that when I stepped on the step to get into the plane, the tail
started down.... So I will need to make some mods to the baggage locker to
keep it from sagging when pushed and I guess I'll have to get in from the
front of the plane! Also, for some reason the strobes don't work.
I haven't contacted the insurance company yet. Thanks for reminding me.
I'll keep everyone informed as to the numbers I'm getting and what hoops are
still needed to jump through. BTW, my plane came in at 774 lbs for a
corvair engine. Based on the weight of a Zenith using a Lycoming (800 lbs),
I feel pretty good about that number.
Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zenith-List Digest Server" <zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:59 AM
Subject: Zenith-List Digest: 49 Msgs - 12/17/07
Scott,
Congratulations from many and various aspects. Are you going to be
doing your own Phase I flight testing or are you going to have a test
pilot? Interested in
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? |
This is the part that has been confusing me, I thought I had a solid grasp on the
rules.... until my buddy started talking about registering his E-LSA. He won't
be done until spring so it was after the deadline. Now his challenger is a
pretty straight forward build. A little riveting, but he basically assembles
it, other then the fabric(yuck ;^) ) so maybe he still does have a choice?
Oh well I was mostly concerned about my situation anyway. It is a relief that others
are find the topic a little gray though... just for that one hair of mine,
holding onto sanity!
Kevin
psm(at)ATT.NET wrote:
>
> The choice of whether to have an E-LSA or E-AB certificate for a kit built plane
goes away next month. That means it won't be an issue after that time.
Starting in February, the only E-LSA certificates will be issued to planes which
are essentially identical to S-LSA planes manufactured by the same company.
I think of this kind of E-LSA as a bolt-together kit rather than the 51% style
kit we are all used to. I have no idea how any modifications can be done to
this style of plane, but it will probably be something like the STC process
used today for certified planes. Perhaps the STC will be replaced by some sort
of approval from the manufacturer of the plane rather than the FAA. I don't
know of any such planes available on the market today, but as they become available
(if they become available) some of these questions will get answered.
>
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
> do not archive
>
> [b]
:) :) :) [Laughing] [Laughing]
--------
Kevin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153064#153064
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? |
The below statement isn't quite correct. Anyone can perform work on an E-AB at
any time. Only the builder (there is a short course for E-AB builders that gives
them the right to inspect there own product) or an A&P can do the annual
condition inspection to maintain airworthiness.
Doug
[quote="kmccune"]Pasted from another post because I didn't want to high-jack it.
My question is the first, below.
**************
There are maintenance considerations. The builder of an EAB can do
anything he wants to the plane. If he sells it, the buyer must have
the original builder do the work, or an A&P. An E-LSA can be worked
on by anyone who takes a course (80 hours I think) in LSA
maintenance. This includes the builder - once it's registered as an
E-LSA he must have the maintenance cert' to work on the plane.
These are to completely different regulations, meant for different
purposes with different requirements. It's an extraordinary
coincidence that one can be registered as the other.
Ron
**************
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153069#153069
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: | Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? |
>> An E-LSA can be worked on by anyone who takes a course (80 hours I think) in
LSA maintenance. This includes the builder - once it's registered as an E-LSA
he must have the maintenance cert' to work on the plane.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153092#153092
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: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? |
=A721.193 Experimental certificates: general.
* * * * *
(e) In the case of a light-sport aircraft assembled from a kit to
be certificated in accordance with =A721.191 (i)(2), an applicant must
provide the following:
(1) Evidence that an aircraft of the same make and model was
manufactured and assembled by the aircraft kit manufacturer and issued
a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category.
(2) The aircraft=92s operating instructions.
(3) The aircraft=92s maintenance and inspection procedures.
(4) The manufacturer=92s statement of compliance for the aircraft
kit used in the aircraft assembly that meets =A721.190 (c), except that
instead of meeting =A721.190 (c)(7), the statement must identify
assembly
instructions for the aircraft that meet an applicable consensus
standard.
(5) The aircraft=92s flight training supplement.
=A721.190 Issue of a special airworthiness certificate for a light-sport
category aircraft.
(c) Manufacturer=92s statement of compliance for light-sport
category aircraft. The manufacturer=92s statement of compliance required
in
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section must''
(1) Identify the aircraft by make and model, serial number,
class,
date of manufacture, and consensus standard used;
(2) State that the aircraft meets the provisions of the identified
consensus standard;
(3) State that the aircraft conforms to the manufacturer=92s design
data, using the manufacturer=92s quality assurance system that meets the
identified consensus standard;
(4) State that the manufacturer will make available to any
interested person the following documents that meet the identified
consensus standard:
(i) The aircraft=92s operating instructions.
(ii) The aircraft=92s maintenance and inspection procedures.
(iii) The aircraft=92s flight training supplement.
(5) State that the manufacturer will monitor and correct safetyof-
flight issues through the issuance of safety directives and a continued
airworthiness system that meets the identified consensus standard;
(6) State that at the request of the FAA, the manufacturer will
provide unrestricted access to its facilities; and
If he bought the airplane as a kit, he will not be able to
certificate it as an E-LSA aircraft after January 31st 2008 unless the
company he bought the kit from has built a an airplane of the same
make and model and received an S-SLA certificate for it and will
provide a statement of compliance for that particular aircraft. I see
nothing on the Quad City Challenger web site that they intend to offer
E-LSA compliant kits. Your friend will probably have to certificate
his airplane as E-AB and prove he performed 51% of the building tasks.
On Dec 19, 2007, at 6:40 AM, kmccune wrote:
65.107
>
> This is the part that has been confusing me, I thought I had a solid
> grasp on the rules.... until my buddy started talking about
> registering his E-LSA. He won't be done until spring so it was after
> the deadline. Now his challenger is a pretty straight forward build.
> A little riveting, but he basically assembles it, other then the
> fabric(yuck ;^) ) so maybe he still does have a choice?
>
> Oh well I was mostly concerned about my situation anyway. It is a
> relief that others are find the topic a little gray though... just
> for that one hair of mine, holding onto sanity!
>
>
> Kevin
>
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: what IS the difference between E-SLA and E-AB? |
=A765.101 Eligibility requirements: General.
* * * * *
(b) This section does not apply to the issuance of a repairman
certificate (experimental aircraft builder) under =A765.104 or to a
repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) under =A765.107.
=A765.103 Repairman certificate: Privileges and limitations.
* * * * *
(c) This section does not apply to the holder of a repairman
certificate (light-sport aircraft) while that repairman is performing
work
under that certificate.
Anyone can work on an E-AB or E-LSA, no repairman certificates of any
kind are required for performing maintenance on experimental aircraft.
There is no course required for the repairman certificate for an E-AB,
it will be issued to the primary builder of the airplane. The holder
of the E-AB repairman certificate can sign off the annual inspections
of that aircraft, even after he sells it.
=A765.107 Repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft): Eligibility,
privileges, and limits.
(b) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft)
with an inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection on
a light-sport aircraft:
(1) That is owned by the holder;
(2) That has been issued an experimental certificate for
operating a light-sport aircraft under =A721.191 (i) of this chapter;
and
(3) That is in the same class of light-sport-aircraft for which the
holder has completed the training specified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of
this
section.
The 16 hour course for the LSA-I repairman certificate only applies to
the owner on an E-LSA. It allows the owner of an E-LSA to sign off the
annual inspection of any E-LSA that he owns. It gives him no
privileges of any kind for an S-LSA. At least a repairman certificate
LSA with maintenance rating is required to perform maintenance and
inspections on a S-LSA.
(c) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft)
with a maintenance rating may=97
(1) Approve and return to service an aircraft that has been
issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category
under
=A721.190 of this chapter, or any part thereof, after performing or
inspecting
maintenance (to include the annual condition inspection and the 100-hour
inspection required by =A791.327 of this chapter), preventive
maintenance,
or an alteration (excluding a major repair or a major alteration on a
product produced under an FAA approval);
(2) Perform the annual condition inspection on a light-sport
aircraft that has been issued an experimental certificate for
operating a
light-sport aircraft under =A721.191 (i) of this chapter; and
(3) Only perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and an
alteration on a light-sport aircraft that is in the same class of
light-sport
aircraft for which the holder has completed the training specified in
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) of this section. Before performing a major
repair, the
holder must complete additional training acceptable to the FAA and
appropriate to the repair performed.
The length of the course for the maintenance rating depends on the
type of LSA that it will be applied to. If the repairman intends to
work on more than one type of LSA, he will be required to take a
course for each type he intends to work on.
=A765.107 Repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft): Eligibility,
privileges, and limits.
(3) A repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft) with a
maintenance rating,
(i) Meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and
(ii) Complete a training course acceptable to the FAA on maintaining
the particular
class of light-sport aircraft for which you intend to exercise the
privileges of this rating.
The training course must, at a minimum, provide the following number
of hours of
instruction:
(A) For airplane class privileges--120-hours,
(B) For weight-shift control aircraft class privileges=97104 hours,
(C) For powered parachute class privileges=97104 hours,
(D) For lighter than air class privileges=9780 hours,
(E) For glider class privileges=9780 hours.
On Dec 19, 2007, at 7:42 AM, dfmoeller wrote:
<dfmoeller@austin.rr.com
> >
>
> The below statement isn't quite correct. Anyone can perform work on
> an E-AB at any time. Only the builder (there is a short course for
> E-AB builders that gives them the right to inspect there own
> product) or an A&P can do the annual condition inspection to
> maintain airworthiness.
>
> Doug
>
>
> [quote="kmccune"]Pasted from another post because I didn't want to
> high-jack it. My question is the first, below.
>
> **************
>
> There are maintenance considerations. The builder of an EAB can do
> anything he wants to the plane. If he sells it, the buyer must have
> the original builder do the work, or an A&P. An E-LSA can be worked
> on by anyone who takes a course (80 hours I think) in LSA
> maintenance. This includes the builder - once it's registered as an
> E-LSA he must have the maintenance cert' to work on the plane.
> These are to completely different regulations, meant for different
> purposes with different requirements. It's an extraordinary
> coincidence that one can be registered as the other.
>
> Ron
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion |
Randy,
Check out Rick Roberts 701 on his website www.n701rr.com as his is the
only Suzuki I know of right off. Very smart looking
profile etc. Has to be a good performer, and I suspect lighter, but he
should be able to give you that info.
Larry McFarland at www.macsmachine.com
AB_Summit wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm looking for more information on the Suzuki/Geo 1300 conversion in the 701.
I'm just wondering if any of you that have this combination flying, and what
your empty weight and useful load is.
>
> I'm also wondering what the difference in installed weight is between the Rotax
912 and the Suzuki engine, complete with radiators, etc.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Randy
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153022#153022
>
>
>
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: | canopy gas struts |
Hey Bob, and all ,received those 70# yesterday after noon,had to go to
the plane because I was worried they would be to strong,being that you
said the 60#worked great ,well so did the 70# . the 70's held the canopy
at a 45 degree angle with no problem,gave it a little push and over it
went and lached. thanks again , one nagging and on going problem from
the start FIXED, thanks to the help on this list Why would the big Z
use 40#? Joe N101HD 601XL/RAM
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 and wing failiers |
Is this the factory demo plane. It DOES NOT APPEAR to have the wing lockers. Personally,
I'm very suspicious of the wing lockers. Granted, they may be fine in
testing, but if the accident planes failed due to over stressing that would
be where the stress would accumulate most, right at the wing locker area. Skins
in tension are strong, skins in compression, or areas in compression where there
are no skins, like the wing locker, would be particularly prone to failure
first. If there is anything wrong with this design, I'd say this is it. I'd
have to guess the wing is considerable stronger without the wing locker. Eliminate
the locker and you eliminate one more stress point in an area that's already
fairly stressed as it is as well as being even more diminished in capacity
to deal with compression forces due to the locker. It would be interesting to
see if these wings that failed also had wing lockers. Seems as those the wong
locker idea is a carry-over from the 601HD wing locker, the difference though
is that the TRUE cantilever part of the wing on the HD is outboard of the wing
locker area due to the fact that the wing on the HD is a three part deal, the
8 foot center section and two 8' outboard panels, both of which are solid and
shorter and the wing locker is essentially part of the center wing section,
not part of the seperate and shorter wing panels.
[quote="ggower_99(at)yahoo.com"]One thing that gives me trust in the design are
the lots of hours that some of the older 601 XL have already acumulated. Not
mentioning the previous 601 series (HD; HDS, UL).
The factory prototype has the same wings since his first flight and is a plane
that is flying every day as a demo, also travels a lot to Fly ins and Aviation
events...
I am also waiting for the results of the investigations of this accidents, I
dont know how long they might take to be released, mean time, I will continue
building and will fly mine when finished.
Yes, I am extra carefull with our building process and double check every step,
I want to be sure that I build it safe in my side.
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala, Mexico
701 912S Flying
601 XL Jab 3300 building.
annken100 wrote:
The issue of wing failures and the safety of the 601 design has been hashed out,
debated, speculated on, and generally beaten to death in previous threads. A
simple search of the archives will bring you up to speed.
Not being a structural, mechanical, or aeronautical engineer, I can't say with
any authority that the design is safe or unsafe. However, the few past wing failures
appear to be a result of pilot error or ambiguous mechanical defects. No
one knows for sure.
The conclusion I draw is that the 601 is safe based on the ample number of planes
that are flying that haven't had wing failures. Considering that most 601's
are assembled by amateur airplane Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153162#153162
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 |
|
Guys,
I am 6 '2" and fit in the Flight crafter made seats well, however I have flown
with some people who are smaller and they need extra padding. Has any one made
any seating pads they might want to sell? back rest and seat base. Shoot me
a picture of what you have. Looking for some seat cushons for someone under
5;9.
Juan
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: 601 and wing failiers |
Hi Andy,
Minor corrections are needed here. On the HD and HDS, the wings are
thick, so the corresponding size of the spars is responsible for the
strength of the wing.
On the wing lockers, the HD and HDS lockers are also located in the
wings, but have little to do with the strength of the structures. The
XL has the thinner
wing and spar that needs to support the same airframe weight and often
larger engines. Having cantilevered a thinner and longer section to the
fuselage does place more leverage on the bolted center spar and
attaching structure. This is what has made flight loading or incorrect
attachment or lack of proper bolting much more critical to the safety of
the aircraft. The strength of the wing is not affected by lockers as
the wings appear to have folded at fuselage connections.
Wing skins that form the D-section with the front spar and to a lesser
degree, the rear spar are the load bearing members and the skins only
serve to box it up and lock up the geometry for flight.
Zenith has posted pictures of the load testing, and essentially proves
the structure valid to published values. Only poor piloting or
construction can undo that argument, so I'd not be inclined to worry
about the wings.
Larry McFarland at www.macsmachine.com
ashontz wrote:
>
> Is this the factory demo plane. It DOES NOT APPEAR to have the wing lockers.
Personally, I'm very suspicious of the wing lockers. Granted, they may be fine
in testing, but if the accident planes failed due to over stressing that would
be where the stress would accumulate most, right at the wing locker area. Skins
in tension are strong, skins in compression, or areas in compression where
there are no skins, like the wing locker, would be particularly prone to failure
first. If there is anything wrong with this design, I'd say this is it. I'd
have to guess the wing is considerable stronger without the wing locker. Eliminate
the locker and you eliminate one more stress point in an area that's already
fairly stressed as it is as well as being even more diminished in capacity
to deal with compression forces due to the locker. It would be interesting
to see if these wings that failed also had wing lockers. Seems as those the wong
locker idea is a carry-over from the 601HD wing loc!
> ker, the difference though is that the TRUE cantilever part of the wing on the
HD is outboard of the wing locker area due to the fact that the wing on the
HD is a three part deal, the 8 foot center section and two 8' outboard panels,
both of which are solid and shorter and the wing locker is essentially part
of the center wing section, not part of the seperate and shorter wing panels.
>
> [quote="ggower_99(at)yahoo.com"]One thing that gives me trust in the design are
the lots of hours that some of the older 601 XL have already acumulated.
Not mentioning the previous 601 series (HD; HDS, UL).
>
> The factory prototype has the same wings since his first flight and is a plane
that is flying every day as a demo, also travels a lot to Fly ins and Aviation
events...
>
> I am also waiting for the results of the investigations of this accidents,
I dont know how long they might take to be released, mean time, I will continue
building and will fly mine when finished.
> Yes, I am extra carefull with our building process and double check every
step, I want to be sure that I build it safe in my side.
>
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower
> Flying from Chapala, Mexico
> 701 912S Flying
> 601 XL Jab 3300 building.
>
> annken100 wrote:
>
> The issue of wing failures and the safety of the 601 design has been hashed out,
debated, speculated on, and generally beaten to death in previous threads.
>
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
>
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: 601 and wing failiers |
LArry,
my understanding and we can have Sebastian verify, is that the XL wing spar is
the same as the other models, however they turned it forward with top side liening
toward the wing front. That results in the wing slightly forward swept.
SAme wings. different foil tapering on trailing edge and leading as well.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
>Sent: Dec 19, 2007 8:39 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601 and wing failiers
>
>
>Hi Andy,
>Minor corrections are needed here. On the HD and HDS, the wings are
>thick, so the corresponding size of the spars is responsible for the
>strength of the wing.
>On the wing lockers, the HD and HDS lockers are also located in the
>wings, but have little to do with the strength of the structures. The
>XL has the thinner
>wing and spar that needs to support the same airframe weight and often
>larger engines. Having cantilevered a thinner and longer section to the
>fuselage does place more leverage on the bolted center spar and
>attaching structure. This is what has made flight loading or incorrect
>attachment or lack of proper bolting much more critical to the safety of
>the aircraft. The strength of the wing is not affected by lockers as
>the wings appear to have folded at fuselage connections.
>Wing skins that form the D-section with the front spar and to a lesser
>degree, the rear spar are the load bearing members and the skins only
>serve to box it up and lock up the geometry for flight.
>
>Zenith has posted pictures of the load testing, and essentially proves
>the structure valid to published values. Only poor piloting or
>construction can undo that argument, so I'd not be inclined to worry
>about the wings.
>
>Larry McFarland at www.macsmachine.com
>
>ashontz wrote:
>>
>> Is this the factory demo plane. It DOES NOT APPEAR to have the wing lockers.
Personally, I'm very suspicious of the wing lockers. Granted, they may be fine
in testing, but if the accident planes failed due to over stressing that would
be where the stress would accumulate most, right at the wing locker area. Skins
in tension are strong, skins in compression, or areas in compression where
there are no skins, like the wing locker, would be particularly prone to failure
first. If there is anything wrong with this design, I'd say this is it. I'd
have to guess the wing is considerable stronger without the wing locker. Eliminate
the locker and you eliminate one more stress point in an area that's already
fairly stressed as it is as well as being even more diminished in capacity
to deal with compression forces due to the locker. It would be interesting
to see if these wings that failed also had wing lockers. Seems as those the wong
locker idea is a carry-over from the 601HD wing l
!
> oc!
>> ker, the difference though is that the TRUE cantilever part of the wing on
the HD is outboard of the wing locker area due to the fact that the wing on the
HD is a three part deal, the 8 foot center section and two 8' outboard panels,
both of which are solid and shorter and the wing locker is essentially part
of the center wing section, not part of the seperate and shorter wing panels.
>>
>> [quote="ggower_99(at)yahoo.com"]One thing that gives me trust in the design
are the lots of hours that some of the older 601 XL have already acumulated.
Not mentioning the previous 601 series (HD; HDS, UL).
>>
>> The factory prototype has the same wings since his first flight and is a
plane that is flying every day as a demo, also travels a lot to Fly ins and Aviation
events...
>>
>> I am also waiting for the results of the investigations of this accidents,
I dont know how long they might take to be released, mean time, I will continue
building and will fly mine when finished.
>> Yes, I am extra carefull with our building process and double check every
step, I want to be sure that I build it safe in my side.
>>
>>
>> Saludos
>> Gary Gower
>> Flying from Chapala, Mexico
>> 701 912S Flying
>> 601 XL Jab 3300 building.
>>
>> annken100 wrote:
>>
>> The issue of wing failures and the safety of the 601 design has been hashed
out, debated, speculated on, and generally beaten to death in previous threads.
>>
>>
>>
>> --------
>> Andy Shontz
>> CH601XL - Corvair
>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: canopy gas struts |
Because there cheaper if I had to guess.
----- Original Message -----
From: Southern Reflections
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 6:30 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: canopy gas struts
Hey Bob, and all ,received those 70# yesterday after noon,had to go to
the plane because I was worried they would be to strong,being that you
said the 60#worked great ,well so did the 70# . the 70's held the canopy
at a 45 degree angle with no problem,gave it a little push and over it
went and lached. thanks again , one nagging and on going problem from
the start FIXED, thanks to the help on this list Why would the big Z
use 40#? Joe N101HD 601XL/RAM
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: seat for 601 |
Juan,
I have the same problem with the exception, most of my height is in my
legs (High wasted) so when I sit in the ZodiacXL seat I can't see over the
instrument panel. I have made up some devices to elevate the seat and will
take dome digital pictures tomorrow and send them to you.
Bob Stone
Harker Heights, Tx
ZodiacXL w/Jabiru 3300
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 7:21 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: seat for 601
>
> Guys,
> I am 6 '2" and fit in the Flight crafter made seats well, however I have
> flown with some people who are smaller and they need extra padding. Has
> any one made any seating pads they might want to sell? back rest and seat
> base. Shoot me a picture of what you have. Looking for some seat cushons
> for someone under 5;9.
>
> Juan
>
>
>
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: 601 and wing failiers |
for the ecception of the engine falling off of one, I believe the 601 pilots need
to be cognisant of Cruise speed versus Manauvering speed. And G loading on
a full weighted plane versus light weighted. Two guys in a fully loaded plane
at cruise speed yanking and banking are asking for trouble. Manauveriung at
103 mph or below and I have spun the plane, done wing overs, tail slid, no problems.
You will never catch me crankin and Bankin like that with full load of
gas and a fellow fatman.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
>Sent: Dec 19, 2007 8:39 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601 and wing failiers
>
>
>Hi Andy,
>Minor corrections are needed here. On the HD and HDS, the wings are
>thick, so the corresponding size of the spars is responsible for the
>strength of the wing.
>On the wing lockers, the HD and HDS lockers are also located in the
>wings, but have little to do with the strength of the structures. The
>XL has the thinner
>wing and spar that needs to support the same airframe weight and often
>larger engines. Having cantilevered a thinner and longer section to the
>fuselage does place more leverage on the bolted center spar and
>attaching structure. This is what has made flight loading or incorrect
>attachment or lack of proper bolting much more critical to the safety of
>the aircraft. The strength of the wing is not affected by lockers as
>the wings appear to have folded at fuselage connections.
>Wing skins that form the D-section with the front spar and to a lesser
>degree, the rear spar are the load bearing members and the skins only
>serve to box it up and lock up the geometry for flight.
>
>Zenith has posted pictures of the load testing, and essentially proves
>the structure valid to published values. Only poor piloting or
>construction can undo that argument, so I'd not be inclined to worry
>about the wings.
>
>Larry McFarland at www.macsmachine.com
>
>ashontz wrote:
>>
>> Is this the factory demo plane. It DOES NOT APPEAR to have the wing lockers.
Personally, I'm very suspicious of the wing lockers. Granted, they may be fine
in testing, but if the accident planes failed due to over stressing that would
be where the stress would accumulate most, right at the wing locker area. Skins
in tension are strong, skins in compression, or areas in compression where
there are no skins, like the wing locker, would be particularly prone to failure
first. If there is anything wrong with this design, I'd say this is it. I'd
have to guess the wing is considerable stronger without the wing locker. Eliminate
the locker and you eliminate one more stress point in an area that's already
fairly stressed as it is as well as being even more diminished in capacity
to deal with compression forces due to the locker. It would be interesting
to see if these wings that failed also had wing lockers. Seems as those the wong
locker idea is a carry-over from the 601HD wing l
!
> oc!
>> ker, the difference though is that the TRUE cantilever part of the wing on
the HD is outboard of the wing locker area due to the fact that the wing on the
HD is a three part deal, the 8 foot center section and two 8' outboard panels,
both of which are solid and shorter and the wing locker is essentially part
of the center wing section, not part of the seperate and shorter wing panels.
>>
>> [quote="ggower_99(at)yahoo.com"]One thing that gives me trust in the design
are the lots of hours that some of the older 601 XL have already acumulated.
Not mentioning the previous 601 series (HD; HDS, UL).
>>
>> The factory prototype has the same wings since his first flight and is a
plane that is flying every day as a demo, also travels a lot to Fly ins and Aviation
events...
>>
>> I am also waiting for the results of the investigations of this accidents,
I dont know how long they might take to be released, mean time, I will continue
building and will fly mine when finished.
>> Yes, I am extra carefull with our building process and double check every
step, I want to be sure that I build it safe in my side.
>>
>>
>> Saludos
>> Gary Gower
>> Flying from Chapala, Mexico
>> 701 912S Flying
>> 601 XL Jab 3300 building.
>>
>> annken100 wrote:
>>
>> The issue of wing failures and the safety of the 601 design has been hashed
out, debated, speculated on, and generally beaten to death in previous threads.
>>
>>
>>
>> --------
>> Andy Shontz
>> CH601XL - Corvair
>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: seat for 601 |
Bob, could you send me a pict. or just post it,can't see over the
dash......Did you seemy post on the 70#? If not they worked great....Joe
N101HD 601XL/RAM "Don't Mess WIth Texas"
----- Original Message -----
From: "robert stone" <rstone4@hot.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: seat for 601
>
> Juan,
> I have the same problem with the exception, most of my height is in my
> legs (High wasted) so when I sit in the ZodiacXL seat I can't see over the
> instrument panel. I have made up some devices to elevate the seat and
> will take dome digital pictures tomorrow and send them to you.
>
> Bob Stone
> Harker Heights, Tx
> ZodiacXL w/Jabiru 3300
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
> To: "Zodiac Forum" <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 7:21 PM
> Subject: Zenith-List: seat for 601
>
>
>>
>> Guys,
>> I am 6 '2" and fit in the Flight crafter made seats well, however I have
>> flown with some people who are smaller and they need extra padding. Has
>> any one made any seating pads they might want to sell? back rest and
>> seat base. Shoot me a picture of what you have. Looking for some seat
>> cushons for someone under 5;9.
>>
>> Juan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo conversion |
Larry:
Do you have an email address for Rick? I am seriously thinking this is the
way I will go for the power plant and would like to contact him directly for
more info.
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryMcFarland" <larry@macsmachine.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Empty weight/Useful load of 701/1.3L Geo
conversion
>
> Randy,
> Check out Rick Roberts 701 on his website www.n701rr.com as his is the
> only Suzuki I know of right off. Very smart looking
> profile etc. Has to be a good performer, and I suspect lighter, but he
> should be able to give you that info.
>
> Larry McFarland at www.macsmachine.com
>
> AB_Summit wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I'm looking for more information on the Suzuki/Geo 1300 conversion in the
>> 701. I'm just wondering if any of you that have this combination flying,
>> and what your empty weight and useful load is.
>>
>> I'm also wondering what the difference in installed weight is between the
>> Rotax 912 and the Suzuki engine, complete with radiators, etc.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Randy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153022#153022
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: canopy gas struts |
Matt why didn't this orginal message come up on the list? Joe N101HD
----- Original Message -----
From: Southern Reflections
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 7:30 PM
Subject: canopy gas struts
Hey Bob, and all ,received those 70# yesterday after noon,had to go to
the plane because I was worried they would be to strong,being that you
said the 60#worked great ,well so did the 70# . the 70's held the canopy
at a 45 degree angle with no problem,gave it a little push and over it
went and lached. thanks again , one nagging and on going problem from
the start FIXED, thanks to the help on this list Why would the big Z
use 40#? Joe N101HD 601XL/RAM
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: 601 and wing failiers |
I thought I saw the wing lockers in the HD in the center spar. My bad. Still, they're
shorter wing panels.
Anyway, I'm done over analyzing the XL wing, but personally, I won't install the
wing lockers. Something about it from a "seat of your pants" engineering style,
it just looks "not right" to me. I also think making some other changes like
the 15 gallon tanks which puts a nose rib out of alignment with a rear rib,
especially in conjunction with a wing locker and a nose skin made of shorter
skins is asking for trouble. Any one of them are their own isn't a problem (except
the wing locker in my opinion), but combine all three and it's a potential
recipe for disaster.
I plan on completing my wings with no wing locker, 12 gallon tanks, and only one
change, a two piece nose skin instead of one full 12 foot span and have the
two over lap two rib stations. That's simply so that if I ever have to get to
the tanks it'll be a little easier, plus it'll be easier fitting and forming shorter
nose skins.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153192#153192
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: seat for 601 |
thanx Bob I appreciate it. Attached is a picture of my son (4 yrs old) and I flying
to Crystal river for icecream. This is why I built this plane.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Southern Reflections <purplemoon99@bellsouth.net>
>Sent: Dec 19, 2007 9:47 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: seat for 601
>
>
>Bob, could you send me a pict. or just post it,can't see over the
>dash......Did you seemy post on the 70#? If not they worked great....Joe
>N101HD 601XL/RAM "Don't Mess WIth Texas"
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "robert stone" <rstone4@hot.rr.com>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 9:04 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: seat for 601
>
>
>>
>> Juan,
>> I have the same problem with the exception, most of my height is in my
>> legs (High wasted) so when I sit in the ZodiacXL seat I can't see over the
>> instrument panel. I have made up some devices to elevate the seat and
>> will take dome digital pictures tomorrow and send them to you.
>>
>> Bob Stone
>> Harker Heights, Tx
>> ZodiacXL w/Jabiru 3300
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>> To: "Zodiac Forum" <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 7:21 PM
>> Subject: Zenith-List: seat for 601
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Guys,
>>> I am 6 '2" and fit in the Flight crafter made seats well, however I have
>>> flown with some people who are smaller and they need extra padding. Has
>>> any one made any seating pads they might want to sell? back rest and
>>> seat base. Shoot me a picture of what you have. Looking for some seat
>>> cushons for someone under 5;9.
>>>
>>> Juan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: 601 and wing failiers |
I thought I read in one of the reports that they observed some S bends in the spar
in what sounded like some distance from the root. I could be wrong though.
Again, being that they don't give any real specifics or photos it's hard to say
what they were actually looking at. Like you say, the wing is thinner and yet
has to support the same airframe if not a little more so there is more stress
there.
Just out of curiosity, you may want to go back and read one of those NTSB narratives
that describes the spar in more detail, it sounded like the S-bend in the
spar was further out. I could be wrong. Then again, you can't even tell if it
occurred pre or post crash. I'm just speculating, not to scare anyone or anything,
just as a heads up. I think the wing is plenty strong, but enough things
can be done to it, possibly in conjunction, that can take away from that that's
good to be aware of. I'm going to pass on the wing locker.
[quote="larry(at)macsmachine.com"]Hi Andy,
Minor corrections are needed here. On the HD and HDS, the wings are
thick, so the corresponding size of the spars is responsible for the
strength of the wing.
On the wing lockers, the HD and HDS lockers are also located in the
wings, but have little to do with the strength of the structures. The
XL has the thinner
wing and spar that needs to support the same airframe weight and often
larger engines. Having cantilevered a thinner and longer section to the
fuselage does place more leverage on the bolted center spar and
attaching structure. This is what has made flight loading or incorrect
attachment or lack of proper bolting much more critical to the safety of
the aircraft. The strength of the wing is not affected by lockers as
the wings appear to have folded at fuselage connections.
Wing skins that form the D-section with the front spar and to a lesser
degree, the rear spar are the load bearing members and the skins only
serve to box it up and lock up the geometry for flight.
Zenith has posted pictures of the load testing, and essentially proves
the structure valid to published values. Only poor piloting or
construction can undo that argument, so I'd not be inclined to worry
about the wings.
Larry McFarland at www.macsmachine.com
ashontz wrote:
>
>
> Is this the factory demo plane. It DOES NOT APPEAR to have the wing lockers.
Personally, I'm very suspicious of the wing lockers. Granted, they may be fine
in testing, but if the accident planes failed due to over stressing that would
be where the stress would accumulate most, right at the wing locker area. Skins
in tension are strong, skins in compression, or areas in compression where
there are no skins, like the wing locker, would be particularly prone to failure
first. If there is anything wrong with this design, I'd say this is it. I'd
have to guess the wing is considerable stronger without the wing locker. Eliminate
the locker and you eliminate one more stress point in an area that's already
fairly stressed as it is as well as being even more diminished in capacity
to deal with compression forces due to the locker. It would be interesting
to see if these wings that failed also had wing lockers. Seems as those the wong
locker idea is a carry-over from the 601HD wing loc!
> ker, the difference though is that the TRUE cantilever part of the wing on
the HD is outboard of the wing locker area due to the fact that the wing on the
HD is a three part deal, the 8 foot center section and two 8' outboard panels,
both of which are solid and shorter and the wing locker is essentially part
of the center wing section, not part of the seperate and shorter wing panels.
>
> [quote="ggower_99(at)yahoo.com"]One thing that gives me trust in the design
are the lots of hours that some of the older 601 XL have already acumulated.
Not mentioning the previous 601 series (HD; HDS, UL).
>
> The factory prototype has the same wings since his first flight and is a
plane that is flying every day as a demo, also travels a lot to Fly ins and Aviation
events...
>
> I am also waiting for the results of the investigations of this accidents,
I dont know how long they might take to be released, mean time, I will continue
building and will fly mine when finished.
> Yes, I am extra carefull with our building process and double check every
step, I want to be sure that I build it safe in my side.
>
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower
> Flying from Chapala, Mexico
> 701 912S Flying
> 601 XL Jab 3300 building.
>
> annken100 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The issue of wing failures and the safety of the 601 design has been hashed
out, debated, speculated on, and generally beaten to death in previous threads.
> >
> >
> >
> > --------
> > Andy Shontz
> > CH601XL - Corvair
> > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153195#153195
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: | Couple of questions gang |
Two questions maybe you can help explain to me:
1. Have seen numerous mentions of the 601 being 'draggy'. While I
do understand what drag is, what in the aircrafts' design contributes to
this drag?
2. Have downloaded a number of homemade fixes for problems encountered
by other builders, or simply improvements in the 601s'
characteristics. Would any of you mind mentioning things you've done
to make the aircraft less draggy? I appreciate it.
And no, building has ground to a halt until my "builders nestegg" and
the market go back up (hope it isn't too long....)
Merry Christmas to all of you, blue skies, and a silent nod to those who
protect us.
John Reinking
Woodinville, WAA
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 and wing failiers |
I'll flog the dead horse with my take. I chose to build a 701 instead of 601XL
over this issue. I considered a 601HD but found that the 701 was close enough
to 601HD speeds to suit my needs. I've previously built a canard composite.
The issue I have with the 601XL failures is simply that they are not adequately
defined. My talk with Sebastian didn't help this concern.
My totally unsubstantiated theory is that the design, as it currently exists, is
intolerant of some combination of builder error. A failure to design in enough
"builder error tolerances" may explain why most 601XLs will fly forever (and
test well with sandbags) and a few will catastrophically fail. Who knows if
you might make just the right combination of fatal flaws when building your
601XL.
Even in the event of pilot error, when reviewing other fleet aircraft, wings just
don't seem to come off as often as with the 601XL. I am not arguing that the
Rutan canard is a superior aircraft, but there has simply not been an airframe
failure in the canard fleet, even though 2000+ airframes have been built
by amateur builders. So long as builders have *attempted* to place all the layers
of fiberglass on, and balanced the surfaces, none have failed the structure
in flight (even well past VNE). There is a tremendous amount of "margins for
error" designed into the Rutan canard. I don't think such a margin exists
in the 601XL spar/wing design.
My opinions only.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153214#153214
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! --
|