Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:50 AM - Re: Fuel thread sealant (steveadams)
2. 04:34 AM - Re: Accident (ashontz)
3. 04:36 AM - Re: Accident (ashontz)
4. 04:40 AM - Re: Accident (ashontz)
5. 04:42 AM - Re: Accident (ashontz)
6. 05:32 AM - CH701 Folding Wings - anyone use this option? (mwpicard)
7. 05:51 AM - Re: brs chute ? (John Short)
8. 05:54 AM - FW: Sun-N-Fun BBQ 08 (ZodieRocket)
9. 06:01 AM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (ernie)
10. 06:02 AM - Re: Accident (Clyde Barcus)
11. 06:10 AM - Diamond Bends (Randall J. Hebert)
12. 06:24 AM - Re: Accident (William Dominguez)
13. 06:35 AM - Re: Accident (dfmoeller)
14. 06:43 AM - Re: Diamond Bends (John Short)
15. 06:44 AM - Re: Accident (ashontz)
16. 06:46 AM - Re: Accident (ashontz)
17. 06:50 AM - Re: Accident (MHerder)
18. 06:51 AM - Re: Diamond Bends (Keith Ashcraft)
19. 06:51 AM - Re: Accident (ashontz)
20. 07:11 AM - Re: Diamond Bends (John Bolding)
21. 07:17 AM - Re: CH701 Folding Wings - anyone use this option? (MacDonald Doug)
22. 07:18 AM - Re: Accident (LarryMcFarland)
23. 07:32 AM - Latest on Australian accident (John Davis)
24. 07:45 AM - Re: Re: Accident (John Bolding)
25. 07:52 AM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Carlos Sa)
26. 08:04 AM - Re: Re: Accident (Clyde Barcus)
27. 08:09 AM - Re: Accident (ashontz)
28. 08:15 AM - Re: Accident (Sabrina)
29. 08:15 AM - Pony Up!! (Beckman, Rick)
30. 08:24 AM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Dave Austin)
31. 08:26 AM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (ernie)
32. 08:36 AM - Re: Accident (ashontz)
33. 08:49 AM - Re: Diamond Bends (Randall J. Hebert)
34. 08:50 AM - Re: Accident (pavel569)
35. 08:53 AM - Sign-on for structural analysis (ashontz)
36. 08:54 AM - Re: Accident (ashontz)
37. 08:56 AM - Re: Pony Up!! (ashontz)
38. 09:05 AM - Regarding previously stated accidents (my 2 cents) (Andrew Lieser)
39. 09:16 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (John Davis)
40. 09:21 AM - Re: Re: Accident (Terry Phillips)
41. 09:25 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (kweiss18@cogeco.ca)
42. 09:39 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (hansriet)
43. 09:40 AM - Re: Re: Accident (Clyde Barcus)
44. 09:42 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (Martin Pohl)
45. 09:48 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (PatrickW)
46. 09:54 AM - Re: XL - success stories (KC7HFA)
47. 09:54 AM - Re: Re: Accident (Paul Mulwitz)
48. 10:16 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (Larry Winger)
49. 10:20 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (delta42)
50. 10:21 AM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Juan Vega)
51. 10:23 AM - Re: Re: Accident (Juan Vega)
52. 10:24 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (Iberplanes IGL)
53. 10:43 AM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Iberplanes IGL)
54. 10:46 AM - Re: Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (Darrell Haas)
55. 10:52 AM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (haven)
56. 11:02 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (pavel569)
57. 11:05 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (Al Hays)
58. 11:10 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (Debo Cox)
59. 11:19 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (cookwithgas)
60. 11:39 AM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (William Dominguez)
61. 11:49 AM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (Terry Phillips)
62. 11:57 AM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (MHerder)
63. 12:00 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Rick Lindstrom)
64. 12:17 PM - Re: Accident (Matt Ronics)
65. 12:18 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Juan Vega)
66. 12:27 PM - Re: Pony Up!! (JURU8878)
67. 12:29 PM - Re: Re: Accident (David Downey)
68. 12:38 PM - Re: Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (William Dominguez)
69. 12:47 PM - Liability Insurance (mwtucker)
70. 12:50 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (THOMAS SMALL)
71. 12:53 PM - Re: Accident (n85ae)
72. 12:56 PM - Re: Re: Pony Up!! (george may)
73. 01:04 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (ernie)
74. 01:04 PM - Re: Accident (Matt Ronics)
75. 01:11 PM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (flyingmike9)
76. 01:16 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Matt Ronics)
77. 01:25 PM - Re: Re: Pony Up!! (John Bolding)
78. 01:36 PM - Re: Re: Accident (Bryan Martin)
79. 01:36 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Rick Lindstrom)
80. 01:47 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Clyde Barcus)
81. 01:50 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Larry Winger)
82. 01:54 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Larry Winger)
83. 02:13 PM - Re: Re: Accident (Elden Jacobson)
84. 02:14 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Tim Juhl)
85. 02:28 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (swater6)
86. 02:33 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) ()
87. 02:34 PM - Re: Accident (swater6)
88. 02:34 PM - Re: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Iberplanes IGL)
89. 02:41 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Sabrina)
90. 02:47 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Iberplanes IGL)
91. 03:06 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Rick Lindstrom)
92. 03:20 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Rick Lindstrom)
93. 03:27 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Jaybannist@cs.com)
94. 03:42 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (MHerder)
95. 03:43 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Paul Mulwitz)
96. 03:46 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Jay Maynard)
97. 03:56 PM - Re: Re: Accident (Paul Mulwitz)
98. 04:02 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Craig Payne)
99. 04:04 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (steve)
100. 04:08 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Craig Payne)
101. 04:13 PM - Re: Re: Accident (Craig Payne)
102. 04:13 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Rick Lindstrom)
103. 04:39 PM - 601 incident (ZodieRocket)
104. 04:40 PM - Re: Re: Accident (rsteele@rjsit.com)
105. 04:40 PM - Re: Accident (MHerder)
106. 04:45 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Randy)
107. 04:55 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) ()
108. 04:59 PM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (Southern Reflections)
109. 05:02 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (NYTerminat@aol.com)
110. 05:20 PM - Re: 601 incident (Andrew Ackland)
111. 05:25 PM - Re: Re: Accident (Southern Reflections)
112. 05:38 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Tim Juhl)
113. 05:55 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Larry H)
114. 05:55 PM - Re: 601 incident (Clyde Barcus)
115. 06:01 PM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (Matt Stecher)
116. 06:03 PM - Re: Re: Accident (Paul Mulwitz)
117. 06:04 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Jay Maynard)
118. 06:06 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (mwtucker)
119. 06:12 PM - Re: 601 incident (Jay Maynard)
120. 06:14 PM - Re: 601 incident (swater6)
121. 06:17 PM - Re: Sign-on for structural analysis (ashontz)
122. 06:44 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Randall J. Hebert)
123. 06:46 PM - Intrument Panel Trim (leinad)
124. 07:17 PM - Re: Intrument Panel Trim (Gary Ray)
125. 07:21 PM - Re: Intrument Panel Trim (Craig Payne)
126. 08:05 PM - Re: Re: Accident (David Lautenschlager)
127. 08:14 PM - Zenith instrument panel trim (George Swinford)
128. 08:16 PM - Re: Re: Pony Up!! (David Lautenschlager)
129. 08:20 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (ernie)
130. 09:10 PM - Re: Zenith instrument panel trim (Terry Phillips)
131. 09:10 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Terry Phillips)
132. 09:24 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Rick Lindstrom)
133. 09:43 PM - Re: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (Rick Lindstrom)
134. 09:59 PM - Re: Accident (T. Graziano)
135. 10:15 PM - Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) (steve)
136. 10:30 PM - Re: Zenith instrument panel trim (hansriet)
137. 10:30 PM - Re: Re: Pony Up!! (Steve Shuck)
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: Fuel thread sealant |
I used sealube on all my fuel line fittings and in mounting the fuel senders and
have had no leaks in 600 hours.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169183#169183
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 |
|
Because I was 40% through it before all this came to light. Did you want to refund
my money for me and do all the work on a 601HD to get me back to where I am
on this project?
Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> This a question to all you folks who are so skeptical of the design and safety
of the Zodiac CH 601XL:
>
> WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU BUILDING ONE???
>
> Jay in Dallas 601XL N2630J "Lil Bruiser"
> Do not archive
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169193#169193
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 |
|
Funny isn't it. They're the Nation Transportation SAFETY Board and you can't get
any safety clarity out of them. Typical gummint agency. Useless.
Kevin Bonds wrote:
> I understand. It just illustrates a key point. The whole problem is, we
> never get enough info from those friggin reports. They only seem to give
> enough info to get the imagination going. I wish we had some sort of
> investigative team, from the homebuilt community, that could get access
> to investigate these accidents and provide more info than the NTSB is
> willing to--in the interest of safety.
>
> Kevin
>
> swater6 wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Kevin,
> > I meant to paraphrase the content of the NTSB report in my description of
each accident. Sorry if it looks as though I was stating a conclusion, I only
meant to describe each in a few words based on the
> >
> >
>
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169194#169194
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 |
|
Plenty of structural analysis courses in engineering school.
Ever hear of John Hombolt? He's the lowly low level engineer that came up with
the concept of Lunar Orbit Rendevous. He had to break ranks and risk getting fired
to get a plausible idea some facetime to see the Apollo missions be successful
at landing on the moon rather than having a preposterous Atlas sized rocket
land backwards on the moon.
[quote="cndmovn(at)gmail.com"]Well said! There are sooooo many "arm chair engineers"
who have all the solutions....extra ribs, no long range tanks, BRS, no
wing lockers....
Planes crash all the time. It is a fact. If you look at the published stats,
design failure accounts for very few of the causes of crashes. Usually it is
the pilot error or weather related.
I am tired of all of the pretend engineers. If you are an aerospace engineer,
then you have the qualifications to post about the design. If not, you need to
proceed your post with "I have no qualifications to make this recommendation
but you guys should listen to me....."
I have a great deal of faith in Chris Hintz and his abilities. I think before
everyone posts, they need to ask themselves...what are my qualifications to question
the design"
Flame off.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:22 PM, wrote:
>
> This a question to all you folks who are so skeptical of the design and safety
of the Zodiac CH 601XL:
>
> WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU BUILDING ONE???
>
> Jay in Dallas 601XL N2630J "Lil Bruiser"
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
--
Paul Riedlinger
cndmovn@gmail.com (cndmovn@gmail.com)
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169196#169196
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 |
|
Exactly. Plus, we've already speculated he didn't do the ful design himself. Sometimes
success leads to hubris, leads to laziness, leads to failure.
[quote="skyguynca"]Paul, there really are sooooo many arm chair engineers with
solutions. Your right and I agree I believe Chris Henitz is a great designer.
Other designers have missed things and miscalculated so lets not forget we
are all human and he could have made a error. Me I look at the fact of so many
XL accidents versus very few HD and HDS accidents, maybe a flaw creeped in
on the new design?
> ---
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169197#169197
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: | CH701 Folding Wings - anyone use this option? |
Hi All,
I hope to have my CH701 on amphib floats flying by June and was hoping to use
the folding wing option to pull up on a beach near the ramp and "quickly and easily"
fold the wings before taxing up the ramp. Is this realistic? How easy
is it to fold the wings on a ch701 and must one drain the fuel and disconnect
several cables etc?
Thanks for any illuminating information
Martin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169203#169203
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 |
|
If you guys are talking about a 701 would you please forward this info to
me. I am right at the point of riveting the bag comp. and it would be a good
time to add any additional structure now.
John (Scratch building 701)
Kaufman, Tx
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracy" <pbuttles@charter.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 7:50 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: brs chute ?
>
> Thanks Les for the info ,you had emailed me your pics and i have beefed up
> the baggage panel
> but i would like to find out how big to make the cover,its for the round
> canister,and how deep the score has to be to make sure it will break
> through.if anybody has installed the type ,let me know
> Thanks
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FW: Sun-N-Fun BBQ 08 |
Webmasters Sun-N-Fun BBQ 08
Announcement! Registration is way behind! If your planning on going to
Sun-N-Fun please register, or we'll run out of food for you! We are
unable to make a run during the event for food and must have everything
before it starts to ensure a great time. PLEASE, PLEASE take a moment
and fill out the registration.
In the Past you folks have been great at registering and I have been
able to judge attendance so that we do not run out of food or have a
large waste. Please take a moment to include yourself in the
registration. It is fast and easy.
Jabiru USA <http://www.usjabiru.com/> Sensornetics
<http://www.sensornetics.com/> and Cummins Spinners
<http://www.cumminsspinners.com/> have all offered sponsorship for this
years event. Zenith Aircraft and Can-Zac Aviation has also donated for a
special gift to the first 50+ builders that arrive at the BBQ
pre-registered for the event. Don't miss out on this special gift
pre-register NOW.
Welcome to the 2008 BBQ sign up, Please take the time to visit
http://www.ch601.org <http://www.ch601.org/> or
<http://www.ch701.com/> http://www.ch701.com for the sign up sheet.
This will be for your name tag and will be your ticket for the cooks to
provide you with a great dinner. Plus this event is getting very large
and I need an idea on how much food to buy so that we feed everyone and
don't run out! Lets make it bigger this year, I have more give a ways,
the first 50 people ( + until gifts run out) with a pre-registered name
badge will receive a gift. Limit one per family please.
Thanks cdngoose
Sun-N-Fun BBQ 07 Bill Bodin won the Raffle for the Made to order Cummins
Spinner. This prize is custom made just for you! You tell us what prop
and engine you will be using and the Spinner will be made to order and
arrive at you door!
Don't Miss Sun-N-Fun 2008 Thursday April 10th 2008
All profits from the Clothing Promo-wear store have been donated to the
Sun-N-Fun BBQ. This store is setup for you the Builder who is proud to
be recognized as a Zenith Owner/Builder. Drop by the store and see if
you want anything for the Sun-N-Fun 08 show to point you out as a Zenith
builder/owner. It truly is one of the greatest ways to meet other
builders during the show.
2/6/2008 9:13 AM
2/18/2008 6:49 PM
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Hi,
The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should understand
what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are carried
by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the plane
out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
Do Not Archive.
E.
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman <pchapman@ionsys.com> wrote:
>
> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>
> >
> >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
> >
> >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
> >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
> >
> >Wing spar failed in plane crash
> >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
> >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
> >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
> >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>
> Synopsis:
>
> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
> Report:
>
> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
>
> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>
> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>
> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another accident,
> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>
>
> Peter Chapman
> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>
>
Message 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 |
|
Jay,
WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU BUILDING ONE???
Because I bought the kit before these problem came to light.I searched
the FAA archives before the purchase and didn't see of anything of
concern. Before I go any further, I know the risk involved with building
and flying, I am willing to accept reasonable risks. However, when a few
failures happen in a relatively short period of time showing a
possibility of a trend I think one should seek information. The reason
for speculation is the fact we will not get any information from the FAA
or Zenith anytime soon, that causes those of us that want to know to
pursue as much information as possible. That said: I do not believe they
have the facts yet, at the same time, if they have suspicions they are
not going to share that with us either, we are on our own. In my case, I
have a dream of offering the chance for my family ( Probably 6 or 7 will
be interested) to learn to fly at a very young age paying for nothing
but fuel. It is one thing to put my life on the line, it is quite
another when it comes to my adult Sons, Daughter and Grandchildren. I
still believe the 601 XL is a well designed aircraft, but that doesn't
mean I will stick my head in the sand and ignore this. There have been a
lot of designs over the years, certified and experimental, where
problems began show up sometime after several have been flying for a
while. Right now, I am debating whether or not to add a BRS System. I
spoke with them on Monday, that will cost $4350.00 including shipping
that does not include the required components to attach to parachute.
Then there is a weight penalty of 35 pounds and a loss of a portion of
the baggage compartment, that is a lot to consider, especially if it
turns out to be for nothing. I have no intention of putting my project
on hold, but if someone comes up with a way to strengthen the wing in
the meantime, you can bet I will do it.
Opinion given with all due respect.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Clyde Barcus
601 XL, Continental Powered
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jaybannist@cs.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:22 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Accident
>
>
>
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 |
|
Does anyone have a method to make the diamond bends on the baggage
compartment panels etc
Thanks
Randall Hebert
CH701 Plans building Tail done, working on wings
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 |
|
I made the decision to build the XL before all of this incidents occurred. I haven't
regret my decision and I continue building because I think that if there
is a flaw in the design, it will be discovered and a solution will be published
before I finish my plane.
IMHO, this discussions are an important part of the process of discovering whether
or not there is a flaw.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
This a question to all you folks who are so skeptical of the design and safety
of the Zodiac CH 601XL:
WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU BUILDING ONE???
Jay in Dallas 601XL N2630J "Lil Bruiser"
Do not archive
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I've got to throw my $.02 in here:
Every time one of these airplanes goes down with folded wings, the aviation community
takes a slightly dimmer view of experimentals in general and Zenith airplanes
in particular. The public already thinks we are crazy for flying homebuilts,
and whenever they hear of this sort of thing, it just confirms their suspicions.
(I'm just hoping my wife doesn't hear about this. She just had a friend
auger himself in, in an RV-10, and is taking a dim view of experimentals
in general.)
I do believe there is an issue here. Too many of the limited number of these planes
that exist, have gone down with folded wings for whatever reason; the task
now is to find out why. Speculation as to the cause, while running the risk
of fueling the flames of hysteria, is the first step in determining the root
cause, and as such, should not be stifled, but merely controlled. What I am
trying to say is that, blaming IMC or a bird strike for a wing fold (in at least
two cases), is inadequate. Those are some possible causes, out of many, but
those instances may just as easily have actually been caused by dynamic loading
within the envelope. If a dangerous situation exists, hiding from it by blaming
possible but vague causes is unacceptable; we should be correcting it,
not waiting for it to strike again. I personally find Andy's suggestions for
strengthening the wing to be very useful as food for thought. I also liked the
idea put forward during the last round of this debate, to place a doubler around
the aileron rod hole. I welcome other ideas about areas where the wing could
be strengthened.
If these were certificated planes, the FAA would be all over this, and the planes
would probably be grounded, but their exp. nature lets the FAA place their
priorities elsewhere. And the lack of info and depth in the NTSB investigations
is appalling.
Since we've all already invested heavily in this design, I really don't want to
start all over and build something else. I want to use this one, with whatever
fixes might be necessary if something is really amiss.
The experimental nature of this plane causes somewhat of a schizoid outlook on
this board. On the one hand, many here state that we should trust Chris' design
implicitly, and I fundamentally agree with them, but......others are very quick
to point out that we are the builders and ultimately responsible. Not exactly
a consistent message. Wherever the truth lies, I would like some peace
of mind that the wings I build will not fold, as this is the one biggest nightmares
we all have about flying (along with fears of a cockpit fire). In the certificated
aircraft industry, an engineer like Chris would have to have his design
signed-off by a stress man and a dynamic analyst before flying. Our rules
are much looser and errors do pop up, sometimes in unexpected places.
Yes, I am an engineer (albeit, not an aircraft structural one, but I have worked
in the aviation industry for many years, and have picked up a little info).
We are at the point where, this airplane design NEEDS to undergo a real flight
test program with strain gauges, accelerometers, load cells, and proper instrumentation.
If this has already been done, then I withdraw the comment, but would
like to see the results. Stacking sandbags on wings tells almost nothing
about dynamic responses - it may be adequate if no evidence of structural failures
exist, but we DO have some evidence now. I believe the only entity in a
position to do this is Zenith. I suspect many here may agree, and that is the
reason for the uproar.
The first step is for someone to do a complete survey of all wing fold instances,
for whatever reason, along with creation of a table listing all wing options,
changes, loading, flying conditions, etc. The only group that could do this
is Zenith since they have the contacts with the builders, and usually know which
options were installed.
I call on Zenith to put this to bed. I thought thats what they were planning the
last time, but was disappointed to see sandbags on wings - again.
One clarification here; I intend this in no way as criticism of Zenith, Chris,
or their aircraft. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this.
Doug
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169216#169216
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: Diamond Bends |
I made them on my brake. Just make each bend on top of the other it
doesn't have to much.
John (Scratch building 701)
Kaufman, Tx
----- Original Message -----
From: Randall J. Hebert
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:04 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Diamond Bends
Does anyone have a method to make the diamond bends on the baggage
compartment panels etc
Thanks
Randall Hebert
CH701 Plans building Tail done, working on wings
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 |
|
I'm willing to go in with like minded people to pay for some 3rd party analysis
of the design if it's reasonable.
Personally, I think extra ribs and no baggage lockers are in order.
barcusc(at)comcast.net wrote:
> Jay,
>
> WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU BUILDING ONE???
>
>
> Because I bought the kit before these problem came to light.I searched the
FAA archives before the purchase and didn't see of anything of concern. Before
I go any further, I know the risk involved with building and flying, I am willing
to accept reasonable risks. However, when a few failures happen in a
relatively short period of time showing a possibility of a trend I think one
should seek information. The reason for speculation is the fact we will not
get any information from the FAA or Zenith anytime soon, that causes those of
us that want to know to pursue as much information as possible. That said:
I do not believe they have the facts yet, at the same time, if they have suspicions
they are not going to share that with us either, we are on our own. In
my case, I have a dream of offering the chance for my family ( Probably 6 or
7 will be interested) to learn to fly at a very young age paying for nothing
but fuel. It is one thing to put my life on the line, it is quite another when
it comes to my adult Sons, Daughter and Grandchildren. I still believe the
601 XL is a well designed aircraft, but that doesn't mean I will stick my head
in the sand and ignore this. There have been a lot of designs over the years,
certified and experimental, where problems began show up sometime after several
have been flying for a while. Right now, I am debating whether or not
to add a BRS System. I spoke with them on Monday, that will cost $4350.00 including
shipping that does not include the required components to attach to parachute.
Then there is a weight penalty of 35 pounds and a loss of a portion
of the baggage compartment, that is a lot to consider, especially if it turns
out to be for nothing. I have no intention of putting my project on hold, but
if someone comes up with a way to strengthen the wing in the meantime, you
can bet I will do it.
>
> Opinion given with all due respect.
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> Clyde Barcus
> 601 XL, Continental Powered
>
>
> ---
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169219#169219
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 |
|
You better believe it. So do I.
[quote="bill_dom(at)yahoo.com"]
IMHO, this discussions are an important part of the process of discovering whether
or not there is a flaw.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
This a question to all you folks who are so skeptical of the design and safety
of the Zodiac CH 601XL:
WHY IN THE WORLD ARE YOU BUILDING ONE???
Jay in Dallas 601XL N2630J "Lil Bruiser"
Do not archive
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169220#169220
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 |
|
Thank you mwtucker,
I second that. There weren't as many cases of these XL's folding up when I started
my project. These are constructive threads, and placing our heads in the
sand doesn't make the issues go away. I want to look my wife, passenger and
children in straight in the eye and be able to say "I have throughly researched
ever facet of the design, I have strictly followed and abided by every drawing,
I have reviewed every incident that has happened and I have mitigated risk
in any way possible. " I want to be able to continue on to say "the design does
not exhibit any abnormalities or anomalies that would suggest that there is
a design flaw". Aside from that I am willing to accept the risks associated
with flying. Frankly I also understand that I am far more likely to kill myself
while flying by simply stalling at low altitude unintentionally rather than
having my wings fold up. But this is within MY control. A million things
could happen to me when I am flying and I can accept these risks. Let us not
forget, Mr Heintz is undoubtedly a phenomenal engineer. MANY phenomenal engineers
recently (9/23/99) sent a multi million dollar probe to mars to explore
the climate... With all of the millions of dollars that NASA had, an entire
team of the best of the best... the damn thing was a total loss. Why? Because
someone forgot to convert english to metric units. I am not concerned that
there ARE structural failures I AM concerned that there is a DISPROPORTIONATE
amount of them for the amt flying. All the numbers I posted and rattled around
in a prior post were just to try and figure out if the amount of incidents
aligned with the other major kit manufacturers.
mwtucker wrote:
> It is easy to try and second-guess a design based on some supposed facts from
media stories and eyewitnesses. Yes, its true that most of us are not aeronautical
engineers But I think that it is constructive to discuss the accidents,
keeping in mind that we may not know all the facts. That said, it does seem
that we may want to make note of the fact that wing structural failure seems
to be coming up as a common thread. Has wing structural failure been mentioned
in relation to accidents of other aircraft (even certified designs)? We all
know that flight into thunderstorms and/or loss of control can over-stress the
airframe and result in failure.
>
> But I must admit that I am a bit concerned about the supposed in-flight structural
failures on the 601XL. I know that Chris Heintz did a re-evaluation of
the wing structure and loading after two supposed in-flight wing failure accident
reports. But these were static load tests and would not expose any dynamic
problems related to flutter or torsional deflections that may lead to wing failure.
>
> I have attended the rudder workshop at Zenith and am getting pretty close to
making the commitment to go with a 601XL. I plan to ask them at Sun-n-Fun about
the wing issue, although I would imagine that they will not tell me anything
that I dont already know. Again, we dont want to jump to conclusions. I could
wait and go with a Vans S-12 or a RANS 19 But those are new designs and could
also have design problems. In fact, one of the reasons I was looking at
the 601 XL is that the designer is well-known and respected and the design has
been flying for awhile.
>
> Does anyone know if there are any similar structural failures on other AB aircraft?
Again, we are assuming that there was, in fact a structural wing failure.
I guess that we dont really know for sure.
>
> What type of flight testing has the 601XL design been through? Are there any
flight test requirements that subject the airframe to the limits of the loading?
I think the plane is rated to +/- 6 G? Does flight testing require that
to be demonstrated?
>
> As to Jays comment why are we building the 601XLs in light of the alleged in-flight
structural failures? I imagine that most people who are in the process
of building a 601XL started their kits before they were aware of the several
accidents in question.
>
> Some responses on the forum are suggesting that the aircraft will be fine as
long as it is flown properly In a 172, I once ran into clear-air turbulence over
the mountains of Pennsylvania and it scared me to death. There was nothing
I could do to prevent that incident. Can the 601XL survive an upset like that?
>
> Let me close in saying that we dont really know for sure about the potential
structural failures. Its possible that they could all be explained by airframe
failure due to loss of control by the pilot (e.g. birdstrike, flight into storm,
accidental rapid movement of the controls, etc.).
>
> Thanks, Mike
--------
One Rivet at a Time!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169222#169222
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: Diamond Bends |
Randall,
Here is a link to my Diamond bends. I used my "Daves special Brake" and jus
t did a little bit of bending at a time, and see what it looks like. The r
ear baggage is over-bent a little, so I need to try to relax the bend a lit
tle before I install it.
http://picasaweb.google.com/ch701builder/SN4765/photo#5137159758523453122
Good luck,
Keith
CH701 -- scratch
N 38.9947
W 105.1305
Alt. 9,100'
Randall J. Hebert wrote:
Does anyone have a method to make the diamond bends on the baggage compartm
ent panels etc
Thanks
Randall Hebert
CH701 Plans building Tail done, working on wings
--
*************************************
Keith Ashcraft
ITT Industries
Advanced Engineering & Sciences
5009 Centennial Blvd.
Colorado Springs, CO
80919
(719) 599-1787 -- work
(719) 332-4364 -- cell
keith.ashcraft@itt.com<mailto:keith.ashcraft@itt.com>
________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are in
tended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addr
essed. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ITT Corporati
on. The recipient should check this e-mail and any attachments for the pres
ence of viruses. ITT accepts no liability for any damage caused by any viru
s transmitted by this e-mail.
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 |
|
Well put.
dfmoeller wrote:
> I've got to throw my $.02 in here:
>
> Every time one of these airplanes goes down with folded wings, the aviation community
takes a slightly dimmer view of experimentals in general and Zenith airplanes
in particular. The public already thinks we are crazy for flying homebuilts,
and whenever they hear of this sort of thing, it just confirms their
suspicions. (I'm just hoping my wife doesn't hear about this. She just had a
friend auger himself in, in an RV-10, and is taking a dim view of experimentals
in general.)
>
> I do believe there is an issue here. Too many of the limited number of these
planes that exist, have gone down with folded wings for whatever reason; the
task now is to find out why. Speculation as to the cause, while running the risk
of fueling the flames of hysteria, is the first step in determining the root
cause, and as such, should not be stifled, but merely controlled. What I am
trying to say is that, blaming IMC or a bird strike for a wing fold (in at least
two cases), is inadequate. Those are some possible causes, out of many,
but those instances may just as easily have actually been caused by dynamic loading
within the envelope. If a dangerous situation exists, hiding from it by
blaming possible but vague causes is unacceptable; we should be correcting it,
not waiting for it to strike again. I personally find Andy's suggestions for
strengthening the wing to be very useful as food for thought. I also liked
the idea put forward during the last round of this debate, to place a doubler
around the aileron rod hole. I welcome other ideas about areas where the wing
could be strengthened.
>
> If these were certificated planes, the FAA would be all over this, and the planes
would probably be grounded, but their exp. nature lets the FAA place their
priorities elsewhere. And the lack of info and depth in the NTSB investigations
is appalling.
>
> Since we've all already invested heavily in this design, I really don't want
to start all over and build something else. I want to use this one, with whatever
fixes might be necessary if something is really amiss.
>
> The experimental nature of this plane causes somewhat of a schizoid outlook on
this board. On the one hand, many here state that we should trust Chris' design
implicitly, and I fundamentally agree with them, but......others are very
quick to point out that we are the builders and ultimately responsible. Not
exactly a consistent message. Wherever the truth lies, I would like some peace
of mind that the wings I build will not fold, as this is the one biggest nightmares
we all have about flying (along with fears of a cockpit fire). In the
certificated aircraft industry, an engineer like Chris would have to have his
design signed-off by a stress man and a dynamic analyst before flying. Our rules
are much looser and errors do pop up, sometimes in unexpected places.
>
> Yes, I am an engineer (albeit, not an aircraft structural one, but I have worked
in the aviation industry for many years, and have picked up a little info).
>
> We are at the point where, this airplane design NEEDS to undergo a real flight
test program with strain gauges, accelerometers, load cells, and proper instrumentation.
If this has already been done, then I withdraw the comment, but
would like to see the results. Stacking sandbags on wings tells almost nothing
about dynamic responses - it may be adequate if no evidence of structural failures
exist, but we DO have some evidence now. I believe the only entity in
a position to do this is Zenith. I suspect many here may agree, and that is the
reason for the uproar.
>
> The first step is for someone to do a complete survey of all wing fold instances,
for whatever reason, along with creation of a table listing all wing options,
changes, loading, flying conditions, etc. The only group that could do this
is Zenith since they have the contacts with the builders, and usually know
which options were installed.
>
> I call on Zenith to put this to bed. I thought thats what they were planning
the last time, but was disappointed to see sandbags on wings - again.
>
> One clarification here; I intend this in no way as criticism of Zenith, Chris,
or their aircraft. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this.
>
> Doug
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169223#169223
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: Diamond Bends |
Put it in a brake and bend it one way a few degrees, do the same thing
on the other diagonal and presto, Test pieces are a wonder here, you
don't want to over bend.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Randall J. Hebert
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:04 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Diamond Bends
Does anyone have a method to make the diamond bends on the baggage
compartment panels etc
Thanks
Randall Hebert
CH701 Plans building Tail done, working on wings
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: CH701 Folding Wings - anyone use this option? |
I am scratch building a 701 but am not yet flying.
Take my statements as such.
My understanding is that the 701 folding wing option
is more for seasonal storage rather than daily use.
You still have to manually disconnect everthing. That
includes the spar bolts, strut bolts, control
linkages, fuel lines, pitot lines, etc.
As it has been explained to me(by CANZAC), the option
was never intended for daily use.
Doug MacDonald
CH-701 Scratch builder
NW Ontario, Canada
Do Not Archive
--- mwpicard <mwpicard@gmail.com> wrote:
> <mwpicard@gmail.com>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I hope to have my CH701 on amphib floats flying by
> June and was hoping to use the folding wing option
> to pull up on a beach near the ramp and "quickly and
> easily" fold the wings before taxing up the ramp. Is
> this realistic? How easy is it to fold the wings on
> a ch701 and must one drain the fuel and disconnect
> several cables etc?
>
> Thanks for any illuminating information
>
> Martin
>
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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 |
|
Paul,
There are designers, engineers and aeronautical engineers of all types.
It doesn't take a high degree to analyze problems with a design.
It just isn't rocket science. The difference between the HD series and
the XL series is huge. Going from a 10 inch spar, 8-ft center section
and 7 foot wings to
a full length wing that has half the spar thickness may be a part of the
problem, but the folding action has more to do with structural rigidity
of the wing
at the fuselage and center spar wing attachments. One odd thing
suggests these planes had just a few hours on them. Another factor is
what percentage were
kits and how many were SLA. The question of who built them and what
common error or variation might have caused this series of mishaps.
There's more
to look at than just the design. I'd absolutely not vary from the plans
one bit. In fact, I'd pay more attention to fine detail to get it right.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
skyguynca@skyguynca.com wrote:
> Paul, there really are sooooo many arm chair engineers with solutions.
> Your right and I agree I believe Chris Henitz is a great designer.
> Other designers have missed things and miscalculated so lets not
> forget we are all human and he could have made a error. Me I look at
> the fact of so many XL accidents versus very few HD and HDS accidents,
> maybe a flaw creeped in on the new design?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Paul Riedlinger <mailto:cndmovn@gmail.com>
> *To:* zenith-list@matronics.com <mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:46 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Zenith-List: Accident
>
> Well said! There are sooooo many "arm chair engineers" who have
> all the solutions....extra ribs, no long range tanks, BRS, no wing
> lockers....
>
> Planes crash all the time. It is a fact. If you look at the
> published stats, design failure accounts for very few of the
> causes of crashes. Usually it is the pilot error or weather related.
>
> I am tired of all of the pretend engineers. If you are an
> aerospace engineer, then you have the qualifications to post about
> the design. If not, you need to proceed your post with "I have no
> qualifications to make this recommendation but you guys should
> listen to me....."
>
> I have a great deal of faith in Chris Hintz and his abilities. I
> think before everyone posts, they need to ask themselves...what
> are my qualifications to question the design"
>
> Flame off.
>
>
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: | Latest on Australian accident |
Divers locate Gold Coast ultralight crash bodies
Posted 5 hours 48 minutes ago
* *Map: *Main Beach 4217
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/maps/map.htm?lat=-27.9667&long=153.4333&caption=Main%20Beach%204217>
Police divers are working to recover the bodies of two men who were
aboard an ultralight plane which crashed off the Gold Coast last Friday.
An intensive search ended earlier today when private divers found the
wreckage.
Acting Inspector Barry Day says police had identified the likely
location of the plane and were preparing to check the area.
"We had planned for our dive squad to come to the Gold Coast Water
Police to commence the dive," he said.
"Some private divers who are friends of the family went out to that
location and dived on the site prior to our divers arriving and were
fortunate enough to locate the aircraft and confirm that it was in the
location."
Andrew Mitchell was the passenger in the plane.
His wife Anita has thanked everyone involved in the search.
"We've been overwhelmed by all the love and support we've received from
family and friends as well as the hundreds of prayers on our behalf from
our church family around this country," she said.
Police now believe the ultralight plane started breaking up during flight.
Pieces of the homemade Zennith Zodiac, including parts of the wing, nose
and windscreen -were recovered from the roofs of buildings near where it
plunged into the sea.
Personal items from the two men on board have also been found.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/12/2187919.htm?section=australia
Hopefully the plane can be recovered and perhaps CASA will do an in
depth investigation....
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 |
|
I've got no dog in this hunt as I'm building a 701, however, I mentioned a
year ago that if you XL guys are SERIOUS about getting to the bottom of this
then 3RD party analysis is your best bet. Zenith has shown they are
unwilling or not capable of anything other than redoing what they already
did and that proves nothing.
Many years ago the Adventurer Amphib had a wing failure and after ONE such
incident the builders got together and hired Martin Holman to do a flutter/
vibration/structure analysis. He found that with the wing tanks at a
certain % of fuel the wing had an unstable mode at a speed well within
cruise speeds, a fix was determined and life was good, at least as good as
the rest of the airplane which was a POS.
SOMEBODY needs to belly up to the bar and DO SOMETHING instead of just whine
and moan. Find an engineer capable of this project, pass the hat, send him
a set of drawings and see what shakes out. It ain't going away folks. The
FAA isn't going to help, the NTSB isn't going to help, the ball is on YOUR
side of the net.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:42 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident
>
> I'm willing to go in with like minded people to pay for some 3rd party
> analysis of the design if it's reasonable.
>
> Personally, I think extra ribs and no baggage lockers are in order.
>
>
> barcusc(at)comcast.net wrote:
>> Jay,
>>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Just an observation: the UK report is about a CH601-UL, not XL. The wing is
similar to the CH601-HD, which is a design different from the XL. The
pictures in the PDF show this clearly.
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
On 12/03/2008, ernie <ernieth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should
> understand what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
>
> Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are
> carried by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying
> the plane out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Well put John! I would be willing to contribute if enough guys jump in to
make it reasonable, if so, I also think we should approach Zenith for a
contribution. An independent evaluation like the one suggested by John is
the way to go, this issue needs to be put to rest and that cannot be done
with sandbags. I am sure the uncertainty will cause some to hold off buying
or go with another company.
Clyde Barcus
601 XL, Continental Powered
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Bolding" <jnbolding1@teleshare.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident
> <jnbolding1@teleshare.net>
>
> I've got no dog in this hunt as I'm building a 701, however, I mentioned
> a year ago that if you XL guys are SERIOUS about getting to the bottom of
> this then 3RD party analysis is your best bet. Zenith has shown they are
> unwilling or not capable of anything other than redoing what they already
> did and that proves nothing.
>
> Many years ago the Adventurer Amphib had a wing failure and after ONE such
> incident the builders got together and hired Martin Holman to do a
> flutter/ vibration/structure analysis. He found that with the wing tanks
> at a certain % of fuel the wing had an unstable mode at a speed well
> within cruise speeds, a fix was determined and life was good, at least
> as good as the rest of the airplane which was a POS.
>
> SOMEBODY needs to belly up to the bar and DO SOMETHING instead of just
> whine and moan. Find an engineer capable of this project, pass the hat,
> send him a set of drawings and see what shakes out. It ain't going away
> folks. The FAA isn't going to help, the NTSB isn't going to help, the
> ball is on YOUR side of the net.
>
> John
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:42 AM
> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident
>
>
>>
>> I'm willing to go in with like minded people to pay for some 3rd party
>> analysis of the design if it's reasonable.
>>
>> Personally, I think extra ribs and no baggage lockers are in order.
>>
>>
>> barcusc(at)comcast.net wrote:
>>> Jay,
>>>
>
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I suggested awhile back hiring a third party. How many people here are willing
to pony up some money. Get a quote divide by the number of people interested and
we'll see if that's reasonable for everyone. Then if we've got the money submit
it to someone who knows what they're doing.
John Bolding wrote:
> I've got no dog in this hunt as I'm building a 701, however, I mentioned a
> year ago that if you XL guys are SERIOUS about getting to the bottom of this
> then 3RD party analysis is your best bet. Zenith has shown they are
> unwilling or not capable of anything other than redoing what they already
> did and that proves nothing.
>
> Many years ago the Adventurer Amphib had a wing failure and after ONE such
> incident the builders got together and hired Martin Holman to do a flutter/
> vibration/structure analysis. He found that with the wing tanks at a
> certain % of fuel the wing had an unstable mode at a speed well within
> cruise speeds, a fix was determined and life was good, at least as good as
> the rest of the airplane which was a POS.
>
> SOMEBODY needs to belly up to the bar and DO SOMETHING instead of just whine
> and moan. Find an engineer capable of this project, pass the hat, send him
> a set of drawings and see what shakes out. It ain't going away folks. The
> FAA isn't going to help, the NTSB isn't going to help, the ball is on YOUR
> side of the net.
>
> John
>
>
> ---
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169245#169245
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I too bought the kit before the first major failure. I held off building the wings
until last.
Common sense would tell you to fly this aircraft in the Normal category until more
facts are in.
Explosions of header fuel tanks, be they 8 gallons or 1 gallon can lead directly
to spar failure and wing fold in any design.
An ejector canopy with a pilot parachute are an inexpensive option, just make sure
you have room to duck.
Engine vibration due to plug fouling can lead to an increased load on the airframe.
Compare the XL O-200A engine mount with the Cessna 150 mount.
Looking at XLs over the years, one notices the following:
Failure to twist the ailerons 2.5 degrees. (6-W-2)
Evidence of excessive flexing due to wind damage at the top of the aileron, inboard
attach point.
Failure to include an upper elevator stop (the shoe is often beyond 32 degrees).
(6-S-4)
Failure to center the flaps on the rear spar, they often rise too far above or
are set too far below the spar. (6-W-00)
Drilling too large of an aileron control rod hole, or placing it too low in the
rear spar near rib 7. (6-W-00)
Not having dL = dR (6-S-3). In light of recent events there is no excuse for
being anywhere near the +/- 50 mm tolerance allowed by the designer.
Failure to properly attach the rear spars including failure to set the top aft
edge of both to an equal distance below the longeron reference line; improper
use of shims between the 6B5-4 attach plate and the rear spar; the rear spar mounted
on the wrong side of the attach plate. (6-S-3)
Fly the factory Zenith, see how much elevator input they will allow you to use
in cruise flight before they turn white and take over the controls.
Remember, with the flaps in any position but up, even a Cessna 150 Aerobat is
NOT certified to intentionally experience ANY negative Gs.
What are people paying for XL insurance, $30,000 hull coverage and $1M liability?
My 150 comes in just over $600, whereas the quotes for the XL winged aircraft now
exceed $2,000, they wont insure Phase 1 for hull damage, they wont insure a
solo student pilot, or anyone without 10 hours of dual in the aircraft or 40
hours in type.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169248#169248
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Count me in, if it's reasonable.
Rick
Do not archive.
I suggested awhile back hiring a third party. How many people here are
willing to pony up some money. Get a quote divide by the number of
people interested and we'll see if that's reasonable for everyone. Then
if we've got the money submit it to someone who knows what they're
doing.
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
I agree with you Carlos, and the report also showed that it is of no use
to randomly increase the strength of anything until the weak link is
determined. Extra ribs and no baggage compartment would not have saved
that a/c. Nor would a ballistic parachute have saved the occupants.
There can be good hope that the Australian authorities will do as good
an investigation as the CAA in Britain did and then we will know.
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912, Spitfire Mk VIII
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Hello,
I think my point is maneuvering speed.
If your canopy is hit by a bird at 120 knots and you yank all the way back
on the controls you are in trouble.
This document is a good write up on what not to do with your CH601-<__>
plane.
Do not archive
E.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Carlos Sa <carlossa52@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just an observation: the UK report is about a CH601-UL, not XL. The wing
> is similar to the CH601-HD, which is a design different from the XL. The
> pictures in the PDF show this clearly.
>
> Carlos
> CH601-HD, plans
>
> On 12/03/2008, ernie <ernieth@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should
> > understand what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
> >
> > Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are
> > carried by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying
> > the plane out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
> >
> >
> *
>
> *
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Sabrina wrote:
>
> What are people paying for XL insurance, $30,000 hull coverage and $1M liability?
>
> My 150 comes in just over $600, whereas the quotes for the XL winged aircraft
now exceed $2,000, they wont insure Phase 1 for hull damage, they wont insure
a solo student pilot, or anyone without 10 hours of dual in the aircraft or 40
hours in type.
I'm guessing the more expensive insurance is due to the fact that it's a homebuilt.
I could be wrong, but just from an actuarial viewpoint that would make sense.
Personally, I'm my own hull insurance and will carry only liability.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169255#169255
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thanks to all regarding the diamond bend
I too have Dave's Brake but thought the second bend would be too
difficult an mess up the first
I should have tried it before asking.
Randall J Hebert
Randall J Hebert & Associates, Inc
Consulting Civil / Structural Engineers
Lafayette, Louisiana
PH 337-261-1976 - FX 337-261-1977
________________________________
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Bolding
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Diamond Bends
Put it in a brake and bend it one way a few degrees, do the same thing
on the other diagonal and presto, Test pieces are a wonder here, you
don't want to over bend.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Randall J. Hebert <mailto:randy@rjhebertassoc.com>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:04 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Diamond Bends
Does anyone have a method to make the diamond bends on the
baggage compartment panels etc
Thanks
Randall Hebert
CH701 Plans building Tail done, working on wings
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm in.
ashontz wrote:
> I suggested awhile back hiring a third party. How many people here are willing
to pony up some money. Get a quote divide by the number of people interested
and we'll see if that's reasonable for everyone. Then if we've got the money
submit it to someone who knows what they're doing.
--------
Pavel
CA
Zodiac XL N581PM (Reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169262#169262
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in.
Just post an "I'm in", no other comments for now, just to keep it a clean list
of responses.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169266#169266
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Here's a thread simply for signing up for a structural analysis
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169266#169266
pavel569 wrote:
> I'm in.
>
>
> ashontz wrote:
> > I suggested awhile back hiring a third party. How many people here are willing
to pony up some money. Get a quote divide by the number of people interested
and we'll see if that's reasonable for everyone. Then if we've got the money
submit it to someone who knows what they're doing.
>
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169267#169267
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm in.
I just created another thread for signing up too. I guess use either one or both.
We'll figure out how to arrange payment if it's not some ridiculous cost split
amongst hardly anyone.
Rick.Beckman(at)atk.com wrote:
> Count me in, if it's reasonable.
> Rick
> Do not archive.
>
>
>
> I suggested awhile back hiring a third party. How many people here are
> willing to pony up some money. Get a quote divide by the number of
> people interested and we'll see if that's reasonable for everyone. Then
> if we've got the money submit it to someone who knows what they're
> doing.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169268#169268
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Regarding previously stated accidents (my 2 cents) |
Hello everyone, relatively new to the group as previously posted and
anxiously awaiting the arrival of my rudder kit! What I've read here over
the last 2 days is all very relevant and, to me, very encouraging and
reassuring. Why???? You ask, because what I've read shows me that everyone
in here is very passionate and meticulous about this excellent aircraft we
all have decided to build. And I know that if everyone here exerts the same
amount of energy and attention to detail in their entire build process as
well as currency in their flying skills we all should not have much to worry
about. Believe me in no way am I implying that this was the downfall of our
fellow pilots, only that we are all guilty at times of taking "mental" time
off whether its appropriate at the time or not. Speaking from experience
these breaks whether driving, flying or working have very nearly cost me
dearly and because of them I have learned a lot. None of us are above making
a mistake (builders or Manufactures) rather we must analyze them and learn
from them. I choose to wait and allow the facts to speak for themselves and
TRUST that if it is truly an engineering flaw that the people at ZENITH
would not knowingly allow their customers to fly "unsafe" airplanes they
stamp their names to and that they would be actively pursuing possible fixes
to a problem should one even exist. I look forward to sharing in all of our
success stories for along time and to putting these issues behind us one way
or another.
Just my thoughts on the subject,
Andrew Lieser
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm In.
John Davis
Burnsville, NC
601 XL - Jab 3300
ashontz wrote:
>
> I'm in.
>
> Just post an "I'm in", no other comments for now, just to keep it a clean list
of responses.
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169266#169266
>
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Count me in.
I feel like I'm too far into this project to start over with a different
airplane. But, I'm at a point where I would not be comfortable inviting my
loved ones to join me for a flight (way down the road when I actually have
a flying airplane). This needs to be resolved, sooner rather than later.
Terry
At 08:06 AM 3/12/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>I suggested awhile back hiring a third party. How many people here are
>willing to pony up some money. Get a quote divide by the number of people
>interested and we'll see if that's reasonable for everyone. Then if we've
>got the money submit it to someone who knows what they're doing.
>
>
>John Bolding wrote:
> > I've got no dog in this hunt as I'm building a 701, however, I
> mentioned a
> > year ago that if you XL guys are SERIOUS about getting to the bottom of
> this
> > then 3RD party analysis is your best bet. Zenith has shown they are
> > unwilling or not capable of anything other than redoing what they already
> > did and that proves nothing.
> >
> > Many years ago the Adventurer Amphib had a wing failure and after ONE such
> > incident the builders got together and hired Martin Holman to do a
> flutter/
> > vibration/structure analysis. He found that with the wing tanks at a
> > certain % of fuel the wing had an unstable mode at a speed well within
> > cruise speeds, a fix was determined and life was good, at least as
> good as
> > the rest of the airplane which was a POS.
> >
> > SOMEBODY needs to belly up to the bar and DO SOMETHING instead of just
> whine
> > and moan. Find an engineer capable of this project, pass the hat,
> send him
> > a set of drawings and see what shakes out. It ain't going away
> folks. The
> > FAA isn't going to help, the NTSB isn't going to help, the ball is on YOUR
> > side of the net.
> >
> > John
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in.
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in.
Hans van Riet
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169281#169281
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm in.
Clyde Barcus
601 XL, Continental Powered
From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:51 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident
>
> Here's a thread simply for signing up for a structural analysis
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169266#169266
>
>
> pavel569 wrote:
>> I'm in.
>>
>>
>> ashontz wrote:
>> > I suggested awhile back hiring a third party. How many people here are
>> > willing to pony up some money. Get a quote divide by the number of
>> > people interested and we'll see if that's reasonable for everyone. Then
>> > if we've got the money submit it to someone who knows what they're
>> > doing.
>>
>
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169267#169267
>
>
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in.
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169282#169282
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169284#169284
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL - success stories |
I'm finding that most everyone says it looks like a production plane. Several of
the folks are considering building one or wish they could! They can't believe
the short field takeoffs or the 1200+ fpm climb and the stable platform.
--------
Ron Asbill
N601ZX - CH-601 XL
Jabiru 3300
Completed and Flying!~
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169293#169293
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
To my recollection, NASA has a long history of screwing up nearly
everything they ever did. I attribute this to the fact they are a
government bureaucracy, they buy most of their stuff from the lowest
bidder, and they have no profit motive to move them toward perfection
or even a satisfactory outcome. They are much more motivated by
political and publicity pressures than anything else. I would never
give even remote consideration to an offer to ride in a NASA space
craft. (These are also the guys who spend millions of our dollars
each year trying to develop a personal airplane that can fly itself
so the masses can enjoy personal flight without learning how to be a pilot.)
I agree that discussion of the facts and even some conjecture about
the XL design is healthy. Where I get concerned is when someone with
about zero qualifications as an aircraft designer offers one
ridiculous design change after another to fix problems that have not
even been indicated let alone established as fact. I realize most
readers of the list can tell when someone is making ridiculous
suggestions, but I am afraid there are some who might implement some
of those design changes and suffer the outcome.
I am convinced that Chris Heintz has done a wonderful job designing
this airplane. I am also convinced that any design changes
considered by a kit or plans builder should be approved by one of the
engineering support people readily available to us to consider such
changes. While this is not a perfect system, it is the only
reasonable one we have.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 06:47 AM 3/12/2008, you wrote:
>Let us not forget, Mr Heintz is undoubtedly a phenomenal
>engineer. MANY phenomenal engineers recently (9/23/99) sent a
>multi million dollar probe to mars to explore the climate... With
>all of the millions of dollars that NASA had, an entire team of the
>best of the best... the damn thing was a total loss. Why? Because
>someone forgot to convert english to metric units.
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in.
Larry Winger
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:50 AM, ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
>
> I'm in.
>
> Just post an "I'm in", no other comments for now, just to keep it a clean
> list of responses.
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169266#169266
>
>
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I don't own a Zenith or AMD (I actually own a Eurofox LSA) but for the good of
the sport...
I'm in
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169299#169299
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
All,
read the report. First to the guys looking for third party stress analysis, you
have it in the report, so save your money.
Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the manuavering
speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in high G load. As
I said before, and again reiterate: the plane is safe, its the pilot, you need
to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not there for to fill up
paper space in your POH!
Cruise speed is cruise speed. Manauvering speed is that! a speed at which the
plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the plane.
fly the plane by the numbers. This accident can happen to ANY aircraft not flown
by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300! in the EXTAR 300 POH it is clear, Accrobatics
limited to under a certain weight and speed.
Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers, this is plain
english.
Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers. Get too comfy, and
well, you know the rest.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: ernie <ernieth@gmail.com>
>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 8:56 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>Hi,
>The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should understand
>what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
>
>Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are carried
>by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the plane
>out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
>
>Do Not Archive.
>E.
>
>On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman <pchapman@ionsys.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>> >
>> >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>> >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>> >
>> >Wing spar failed in plane crash
>> >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>> >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>> >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>> >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>>
>> Synopsis:
>>
>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
>> Report:
>>
>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
>>
>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>>
>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>>
>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another accident,
>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>>
>>
>> Peter Chapman
>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
on my XL I am paying around $1500.00 per annum for $50,000 coverage on hull and
gen Liability.
Certainly cheaper than a Piper Arrow.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org>
>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 11:33 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident
>
>
>
>Sabrina wrote:
>>
>> What are people paying for XL insurance, $30,000 hull coverage and $1M liability?
>>
>> My 150 comes in just over $600, whereas the quotes for the XL winged aircraft
now exceed $2,000, they wont insure Phase 1 for hull damage, they wont insure
a solo student pilot, or anyone without 10 hours of dual in the aircraft or
40 hours in type.
>
>
>I'm guessing the more expensive insurance is due to the fact that it's a homebuilt.
I could be wrong, but just from an actuarial viewpoint that would make sense.
>
>Personally, I'm my own hull insurance and will carry only liability.
>
>--------
>Andy Shontz
>CH601XL - Corvair
>www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169255#169255
>
>
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
Count me in.
Bye
Alberto Martin
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Espaa
----- Original Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:50 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Sign-on for structural analysis
>
> I'm in.
>
> Just post an "I'm in", no other comments for now, just to keep it a clean
> list of responses.
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169266#169266
>
>
>
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Wheres the report? Can you submit the link? Please.
Thanks in advance.
Alberto Martin
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Espaa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
> All,
> read the report. First to the guys looking for third party stress
> analysis, you have it in the report, so save your money.
>
> Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the
> manuavering speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in high
> G load. As I said before, and again reiterate: the plane is safe, its
> the pilot, you need to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not
> there for to fill up paper space in your POH!
>
> Cruise speed is cruise speed. Manauvering speed is that! a speed at which
> the plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the
> plane.
>
> fly the plane by the numbers. This accident can happen to ANY aircraft
> not flown by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300! in the EXTAR 300 POH it is
> clear, Accrobatics limited to under a certain weight and speed.
>
> Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers, this
> is plain english.
>
> Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers. Get too
> comfy, and well, you know the rest.
>
> Juan
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: ernie <ernieth@gmail.com>
>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 8:56 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>>Hi,
>>The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should
>>understand
>>what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
>>
>>Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are
>>carried
>>by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the
>>plane
>>out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
>>
>>Do Not Archive.
>>E.
>>
>>On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman <pchapman@ionsys.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>>> >
>>> >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>>> >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>>> >
>>> >Wing spar failed in plane crash
>>> >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>>> >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>>> >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>>> >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>>>
>>> Synopsis:
>>>
>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
>>> Report:
>>>
>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
>>>
>>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
>>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>>>
>>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
>>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>>>
>>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another
>>> accident,
>>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
>>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Chapman
>>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in. Zenith could stand to lose a lot of money if people don't feel
good about their plane.
Darrell
On 3/12/08, PatrickW <pwhoyt@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'm in.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169284#169284
>
>
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
The link is in the first post.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169312#169312
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in.
--------
Pavel
CA
Zodiac XL N581PM (Reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169315#169315
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in.
On Mar 12, 2008, at 11:50 AM, ashontz wrote:
>
> I'm in.
>
> Just post an "I'm in", no other comments for now, just to keep it a
> clean list of responses.
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169266#169266
>
>
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in.
Debo Cox
do not archive
Larry Winger <larrywinger@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm in.
Larry Winger
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:50 AM, ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
I'm in.
Just post an "I'm in", no other comments for now, just to keep it a clean list
of responses.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169266#169266
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
_____*Scott Laughlin
______*Omaha, Nebraska
_______*6 0 1 X L / Corvair
________* Plans-Built (3/4" thk. Longerons)
_________*Used lots of Green Scotchbrite
__________*Finished & Flying Straight and True.
___________*48+ hours of flight - Permanent Grin.
____________* BRS safety pin removed.
_____________*Wings still attached.
_____________*I'm In.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169319#169319
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Juan,
The accident in the UK is of no concern to us and it is not what have prompted
this discussion. In this case it was concluded that the plane was overstressed
beyond its limits, furthermore, this plane was a 601UL so whatever happened there,
does not apply to us building or flying XL since the wing is completely
different.
The concern with the XL is that there have been 3 confirmed structural failures
and 2 unconfirmed ones. The difference between the XL wing failures and all the
others is that the XL incidents have been so far inconclusive.
Since the third accident last year, I've been searched and read lots of reports
about this type of failure in other airplanes. What I have found is that in all
the other cases, metallurgical analysis have proved that overstressing was
the cause. This included certificated as well as AB wing failure cases.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
All,
read the report. First to the guys looking for third party stress analysis, you
have it in the report, so save your money.
Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the manuavering
speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in high G load. As
I said before, and again reiterate: the plane is safe, its the pilot, you need
to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not there for to fill up
paper space in your POH!
Cruise speed is cruise speed. Manauvering speed is that! a speed at which the
plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the plane.
fly the plane by the numbers. This accident can happen to ANY aircraft not flown
by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300! in the EXTAR 300 POH it is clear, Accrobatics
limited to under a certain weight and speed.
Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers, this is plain
english.
Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers. Get too comfy, and
well, you know the rest.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: ernie
>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 8:56 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>Hi,
>The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should understand
>what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
>
>Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are carried
>by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the plane
>out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
>
>Do Not Archive.
>E.
>
>On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman
wrote:
>
>>
>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>> >
>> >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>> >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>> >
>> >Wing spar failed in plane crash
>> >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>> >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>> >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>> >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>>
>> Synopsis:
>>
>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
>> Report:
>>
>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
>>
>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>>
>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>>
>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another accident,
>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>>
>>
>> Peter Chapman
>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Message 61
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in.
At 08:50 AM 3/12/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I'm in.
>
>Just post an "I'm in", no other comments for now, just to keep it a clean
>list of responses.
>
>--------
>Andy Shontz
>CH601XL - Corvair
>www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169266#169266
>
>
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
Message 62
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
I don't think that this particular case has much to do with the incidents in question
but..... I think its interesting to note the differences in the report
provided in the UK versus what the NTSB provides. Hopefully the Aussies will
do such an in depth investigation without some sort of BS conclusion like....
"The probable cause is the pilots failure to avoid hitting the ground" Well no
shit. I'm glad my taxes fund such efforts.
--------
One Rivet at a Time!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169331#169331
Message 63
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Hi, Juan, et al.
I have it on pretty good authority that the failure modes we've recently seen strongly
suggest negative G loading of the wing and spar way beyond design limits.
This can be done with a sudden forward stick (down elevator) deflection.
Since there's 30 degrees of down elevator available in the 601, well more than
actually is needed, this can create negative G loading beyond limits causing
wing/spar deformation or even failure if done sharply.
The two obvious solutions are to fly the airplane as it was designed, and for extra
insurance, install an elevator stop that limits down travel to 15 degrees
or so. The 601 has all sorts of down elevator authority, perhaps to counteract
improper rear CG loading of the baggage compartment or lighter engines, but
way more than is actually needed in normal flight operations.
You can also make sudden turns in your car at high speeds, inducing loss of control
with fatal results. But we just don't do these things conciously. And I
suspect that the pilots in the 601s in question didn't do it consciously, either,
but as a response to a sudden in-flight emergency such as a bird strike.
Not to rain on anyone's parade here, but I'm gonna wait to see what the guys at
Zenith have to say before signing on to pay an outside source to review the
design.
Rick Lindstrom
N42KP Zenvair
-----Original Message-----
>From: Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 1:19 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com, zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>
>All,
>read the report. First to the guys looking for third party stress analysis, you
have it in the report, so save your money.
>
>Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the manuavering
speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in high G load.
As I said before, and again reiterate: the plane is safe, its the pilot, you
need to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not there for to fill up
paper space in your POH!
>
>Cruise speed is cruise speed. Manauvering speed is that! a speed at which the
plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the plane.
>
>fly the plane by the numbers. This accident can happen to ANY aircraft not flown
by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300! in the EXTAR 300 POH it is clear, Accrobatics
limited to under a certain weight and speed.
>
>Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers, this is
plain english.
>
>Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers. Get too comfy,
and well, you know the rest.
>
>Juan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ernie <ernieth@gmail.com>
>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 8:56 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>>Hi,
>>The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should understand
>>what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
>>
>>Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are carried
>>by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the plane
>>out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
>>
>>Do Not Archive.
>>E.
>>
>>On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman <pchapman@ionsys.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>>> >
>>> >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>>> >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>>> >
>>> >Wing spar failed in plane crash
>>> >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>>> >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>>> >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>>> >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>>>
>>> Synopsis:
>>>
>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
>>> Report:
>>>
>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
>>>
>>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
>>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>>>
>>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
>>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>>>
>>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another accident,
>>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
>>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Chapman
>>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Message 64
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
psm(at)att.net wrote:
> To my recollection, NASA has a long history of screwing up nearly
> everything they ever did.
Well, hopefully Paul will lend his considerable talents to NASA to assist in the
fixing the myriad of challenges that would be simple for Paul to fix.
As to the XL wing issue, if there has been stronger builder defense for such a
suspect design in experimental aviation history, I do not know. Maybe there were
droves of BD-5 kit owners in the mid-70's with undying support for Jim Bede
(but none in the late 70s). RV builders on the other hand asked immediate serious
questions on RV wing and nosegear problems.
Christ Heinz is without a doubt a great designer. Nonetheless, should third-party
or Zenith analysis conclude that there is a design problem, Zenith would likely
sink given the financial burden addressing the issue would cost the company
(i.e. providing replacement parts etc). If they didn't produce them at no/low-cost,
lawsuit would surely ensue. Thus not a lot of impetus for Zenith to
go digging into the issue.
Even Van has been reluctant to address his nosegear issues (i.e. nosegear 'catching'
and flipping planes). But he has.
In the meantime, let's just keep having this same discussion on the XL wing as
the planes go in every few months under questionable circumstances.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169337#169337
Message 65
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
William,
to say the incident post is dispositive is frankly misguided. A zenith crashed
based on the same situation that occured in the other cases. Read the report,
and stick to flying and enjoying a great plane that is very well desinged, I
will.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 2:36 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>Juan,
>
>The accident in the UK is of no concern to us and it is not what have prompted
this discussion. In this case it was concluded that the plane was overstressed
beyond its limits, furthermore, this plane was a 601UL so whatever happened
there, does not apply to us building or flying XL since the wing is completely
different.
>
>The concern with the XL is that there have been 3 confirmed structural failures
and 2 unconfirmed ones. The difference between the XL wing failures and all
the others is that the XL incidents have been so far inconclusive.
>
>Since the third accident last year, I've been searched and read lots of reports
about this type of failure in other airplanes. What I have found is that in
all the other cases, metallurgical analysis have proved that overstressing was
the cause. This included certificated as well as AB wing failure cases.
>
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>
>
>All,
>read the report. First to the guys looking for third party stress analysis, you
have it in the report, so save your money.
>
>Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the manuavering
speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in high G load.
As I said before, and again reiterate: the plane is safe, its the pilot, you
need to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not there for to fill up
paper space in your POH!
>
>Cruise speed is cruise speed. Manauvering speed is that! a speed at which the
plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the plane.
>
>fly the plane by the numbers. This accident can happen to ANY aircraft not flown
by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300! in the EXTAR 300 POH it is clear, Accrobatics
limited to under a certain weight and speed.
>
>Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers, this is
plain english.
>
>Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers. Get too comfy,
and well, you know the rest.
>
>Juan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ernie
>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 8:56 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>>Hi,
>>The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should understand
>>what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
>>
>>Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are carried
>>by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the plane
>>out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
>>
>>Do Not Archive.
>>E.
>>
>>On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman
> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>>>
>
>>> >
>>> >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>>> >
>>> >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>>> >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>>> >
>>> >Wing spar failed in plane crash
>>> >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>>> >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>>> >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>>> >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>>>
>>> Synopsis:
>>>
>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
>>> Report:
>>>
>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
>>>
>>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
>>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>>>
>>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
>>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>>>
>>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another accident,
>>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
>>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter Chapman
>>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Message 66
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I would offer this suggestion. Many engineering colleges would take this offer
as a real world problem and probably give answers for probably next to nothing.
while students might be running the numbers, they would be reviewed and overlooked
by professors that have the qualifications to do such work. I'm an aero
engineer with a BS ans MS in aeronautics and did certain instances like this
while in my undergrad work. Like I said, I bet most engineering colleges would
jump on this for next to nothing.
Just another option to think about.
v/r,
Jud
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169339#169339
Message 67
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Sorry to keep fueling the argument, but, in addition to the "committee" that reviews
the design and the static testing that proves the assumptions, all of the
majors that I have worked for in 35 years fatigue test the crap out of wing
designs at the very least. Having built several of those test wings as well as
having participated in failure analysis, I am just left with a "bad feeling"
that there is some crazy little sensitivity to a particular flight load, however
transient, whether caused by intentional horsing of the aircraft or gust loads
in flight, or...
....In the certificated aircraft industry, an engineer like Chris would have to
have his design signed-off by a stress man and a dynamic analyst before flying.
Our rules are much looser and errors do pop up, sometimes in unexpected places....
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Message 68
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
Message 69
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Liability Insurance |
I'm new to the experimental arena... How much can I expect to pay for a decent
liability policy? I am a Private Pilot with about 100 hours. I intend to build
a 601XL and fly it as a LSA pilot.
How much liability coverage is "standard"?
Thanks in advance,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169345#169345
Message 70
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
> I have it on pretty good authority that the failure modes we've
recently seen strongly suggest negative G loading of the wing and spar
way beyond design limits.
You wouldn't want to back this up with some actual sources? facts?
design reviews? published reports? Anything at all to suggest that this
is no more than pissin' in the wind??? Didn't think so.
do not archive because the sky is falling!
Message 71
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hmm...
I worked as an assembly technician on the NASA UARS project which
launched on shuttle flight STS-48, I'll just bluntly state you don't know
what you're talking about.
Almost every NASA project is something completely new, the
standards are extremely high, much more so than the aircraft industry.
Go get yourself a job on one of these projects, and get NASA certified
in your skill, and I guarantee you'll be talking much differently. They
DO have failures, but considering what a space flight entails, not very
many.
The fact is when they don't have failures, which is most of the time you
don't hear about it much. When they do have failures, they do make the
news in a big way. A lot of people want risk free, cheap space flight.
The fact is, it is a VERY dangerous business. So considering how well
they do, I'd say they aren't screwing "everything" up.
If you don't believe me, take one of your electronics assemblies down
to the local paint shop and put it in a paint shaker for an hour and then
turn it on and see if it still works. Oh, not to mention after you baked
it in an oven, and then a refrigerated vacuum.
Sorry if this is a rant, but I know how hard a lot of people in the Space
industry work.
Jeff
> To my recollection, NASA has a long history of screwing up nearly
> everything they ever did. I attribute this to the fact they are a
> government bureaucracy, they buy most of their stuff from the lowest
> bidder, and they have no profit motive to move them toward perfection
> or even a satisfactory outcome. They are much more motivated by
> political and publicity pressures than anything else. I would never
> give even remote consideration to an offer to ride in a NASA space
> craft. (These are also the guys who spend millions of our dollars
> each year trying to develop a personal airplane that can fly itself
> so the masses can enjoy personal flight without learning how to be a pilot.)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169346#169346
Message 72
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
There is an ongoing add in Sport aviation from an MIT degreed aeronautical
engineer that will analyze structures
George May
601XL 912s> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Pony Up!!> From: judson.rupert@navy.m
il> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:24:17 -0700> To: zenith-list@matronics.com> >
I would offer this suggestion. Many engineering colleges would take this of
fer as a real world problem and probably give answers for probably next to
nothing. while students might be running the numbers, they would be reviewe
d and overlooked by professors that have the qualifications to do such work
. I'm an aero engineer with a BS ans MS in aeronautics and did certain inst
ances like this while in my undergrad work. Like I said, I bet most enginee
ring colleges would jump on this for next to nothing.> > Just another optio
n to think about.> > v/r,> Jud> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > htt
========================> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging.-You IM, we g
ive.
Message 73
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
It is a very similar aircraft, flow beyond its limits.
I believe it makes very good reading even if the wing is different.
everyone should read it if they fly a 601-<__> that they built.
Do not archive
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:36 AM, William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Juan,
>
> The accident in the UK is of no concern to us and it is not what have
> prompted this discussion. In this case it was concluded that the plane was
> overstressed beyond its limits, furthermore, this plane was a 601UL so
> whatever happened there, does not apply to us building or flying XL since
> the wing is completely different.
>
> The concern with the XL is that there have been 3 confirmed structural
> failures and 2 unconfirmed ones. The difference between the XL wing failures
> and all the others is that the XL incidents have been so far inconclusive.
>
> Since the third accident last year, I've been searched and read lots of
> reports about this type of failure in other airplanes. What I have found is
> that in all the other cases, metallurgical analysis have proved that
> overstressing was the cause. This included certificated as well as AB wing
> failure cases.
>
> William Dominguez
> Zodiac 601XL Plans
> Miami Florida
> http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>
> *Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>* wrote:
>
>
> All,
> read the report. First to the guys looking for third party stress
> analysis, you have it in the report, so save your money.
>
> Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the
> manuavering speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in high G
> load. As I said before, and again reiterate: the plane is safe, its the
> pilot, you need to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not there
> for to fill up paper space in your POH!
>
> Cruise speed is cruise speed. Manauvering speed is that! a speed at which
> the plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the
> plane.
>
> fly the plane by the numbers. This accident can happen to ANY aircraft not
> flown by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300! in the EXTAR 300 POH it is clear,
> Accrobatics limited to under a certain weight and speed.
>
> Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers, this
> is plain english.
>
> Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers. Get too
> comfy, and well, you know the rest.
>
> Juan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: ernie
> >Sent: Mar 12, 2008 8:56 AM
> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
> >
> >Hi,
> >The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should
> understand
> >what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
> >
> >Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are
> carried
> >by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the
> plane
> >out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
> >
> >Do Not Archive.
> >E.
> >
> >On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
> >> >
> >> >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
> >> >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
> >> >
> >> >Wing spar failed in plane crash
> >> >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
> >> >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
> >> >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
> >> >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
> >>
> >> Synopsis:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
> >> Report:
> >>
> >>
> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
> >>
> >> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
> >> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
> >> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
> >> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
> >> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
> >>
> >> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
> >> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
> >>
> >> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another
> accident,
> >> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 74
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co wrote:
> Having built several of those test wings as well as having participated in failure
analysis, I am just left with a "bad feeling" that there is some crazy
little sensitivity to a particular flight load, however transient, whether caused
by intentional horsing of the aircraft or gust loads in flight, or...
>
...or possibly (as I've mentioned before) some crazy little design issue that is
not tolerant of subtle variances in building technique. While totally conjecture,
it could explain why some structures will never have a problem whereas
others may experience failure, irrespective of flying technique.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169355#169355
Message 75
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sign-on for structural analysis |
i am in
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169359#169359
Message 76
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
tigerrick(at)mindspring.c wrote:
>
>
> Not to rain on anyone's parade here, but I'm gonna wait to see what the guys
at Zenith have to say before signing on to pay an outside source to review the
design.
>
>
While considering the 601Xl and 701, I called Zenith on exactly this. This was
after they did the negative G load static testing.
When I called, I was told that Nick was the only one who would speak on this issue,
and that Nick would call me when he was available. Very professional, Nick
called me back and answered all my questions. To summarize the discussion,
the underlying message was "testing complete, mission accomplished, don't worry
about it."
This did not allay my concerns and I chose the 701. I would would have built the
601HD concern-free but reasoned that the speed of the 601HD/S over the 701
was not significant (for my purposes) and that I like the short-field performance
of the 701, video assistance, etc, over the HD designs.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169361#169361
Message 77
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Good point !! Mississippi State comes to mind, they have and excellent
aero engineering program. Sic'em guys
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "JURU8878" <judson.rupert@navy.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:24 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Pony Up!!
>
> I would offer this suggestion. Many engineering colleges would take this
> offer as a real world problem and probably give answers for probably next
> to nothing. while students might be running the numbers, they would be
> reviewed and overlooked by professors that have the qualifications to do
> such work. I'm an aero engineer with a BS ans MS in aeronautics and did
> certain instances like this while in my undergrad work. Like I said, I
> bet most engineering colleges would jump on this for next to nothing.
>
> Just another option to think about.
>
> v/r,
> Jud
>
>
Message 78
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The 601XL is rated for a maximum of +/-4G flight load limit, the +/-6G
is the design load limit. Flight load limit is the maximum load the
airplane should ever experience in flight, exceeding the design load
limit may result in structural failure.
This is a common point of confusion because most factory built aircraft
use the flight load limit in the flight manuals but most amateur built
aircraft kit makers use the design load limit in their sales literature.
If someone does get confused on this point and flys the plane to the
design load limit, there is a real risk of structural failure.
mwtucker wrote:
>
>
> What type of flight testing has the 601XL design been through? Are there any
flight test requirements that subject the airframe to the limits of the loading?
I think the plane is rated to +/- 6 G? Does flight testing require that
to be demonstrated?
>
--
Bryan Martin
Zenith 601XL N61BM
Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive
Do Not Archive
Message 79
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Jeez, Thomas. Who put bitch flakes in your bowl this morning?
Because of my close association with a certain aviation periodical, and my promise
not to steal anybody's thunder prematurely, I've commented as far as I can.
All I can say (right now) is that the powers that be at Zenith are very aware of
this issue, have devoted significant resources to precisely identify the failure
mode, and will most likely be going public with their findings in short order.
To heap scorn on Zenith, assume they're doing nothing, and commit to taking the
design to an outside engineer for validation is premature, in my opinion. The
Zenith guys have no shortage of professional concern and integrity, and need
to be given the chance to respond.
In the mean time, it would serve us all well to take a deep breath, chill, and
give those wing tips a good shake during preflight if we have any reservations
about flying.
"Pissing in the wind?" I await your apology.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: THOMAS SMALL <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 11:47 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>
>> I have it on pretty good authority that the failure modes we've recently seen
strongly suggest negative G loading of the wing and spar way beyond design limits.
>
>You wouldn't want to back this up with some actual sources? facts? design reviews?
published reports? Anything at all to suggest that this is no more than
pissin' in the wind??? Didn't think so.
>
>do not archive because the sky is falling!
Message 80
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Rick,
Yours is a thoughtful response and I suspect there could be some truth in
it, however, that is the type of information I want to hear from the
designer. If this post came from Zenith I would have a whole different
perspective. If there is the chance that is the most likely reason you would
think they would advise or suggest a maximum degree of down travel on heavy
installations like the Continental or Corvair engines.
Clyde Barcus
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lindstrom" <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
> <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>
>
> I have it on pretty good authority that the failure modes we've recently
> seen strongly suggest negative G loading of the wing and spar way beyond
> design limits. This can be done with a sudden forward stick (down
> elevator) deflection. Since there's 30 degrees of down elevator available
> in the 601, well more than actually is needed, this can create negative G
> loading beyond limits causing wing/spar deformation or even failure if
> done sharply.
>
> The two obvious solutions are to fly the airplane as it was designed, and
> for extra insurance, install an elevator stop that limits down travel to
> 15 degrees or so. The 601 has all sorts of down elevator authority,
> perhaps to counteract improper rear CG loading of the baggage compartment
> or lighter engines, but way more than is actually needed in normal flight
> operations.
>
>
>
Message 81
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Rick,
I understand that you want to wait "to see what the guys at Zenith have to
say before signing on to pay an outside source to review the design." My
concern is that they apparently feel they have said everything there is to
say.
Do you know for a fact that they are going to say anything more on the
subject, other than "testing complete, mission accomplished, case closed"?
Larry Winger
Do Not Archive
Message 82
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Asked and answered before I sent "Send". Should have checked my inbox.
Larry Winger
Do Not Archive
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Larry Winger <larrywinger@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rick,
>
> I understand that you want to wait "to see what the guys at Zenith have
> to say before signing on to pay an outside source to review the design." My
> concern is that they apparently feel they have said everything there is to
> say.
>
> Do you know for a fact that they are going to say anything more on the
> subject, other than "testing complete, mission accomplished, case closed"?
>
> Larry Winger
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
Message 83
| 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 |
|
What, pray tell, is the point of your anti-government rant?
Elden J.
xl/3300
Paul Mulwitz <psm@ATT.NET> wrote:
To my recollection, NASA has a long history of screwing up nearly
everything they ever did. I attribute this to the fact they are a
government bureaucracy, they buy most of their stuff from the lowest
bidder, and they have no profit motive to move them toward perfection
or even a satisfactory outcome. They are much more motivated by
political and publicity pressures than anything else. I would never
give even remote consideration to an offer to ride in a NASA space
craft. (These are also the guys who spend millions of our dollars
each year trying to develop a personal airplane that can fly itself
so the masses can enjoy personal flight without learning how to be a pilot.)
I agree that discussion of the facts and even some conjecture about
the XL design is healthy. Where I get concerned is when someone with
about zero qualifications as an aircraft designer offers one
ridiculous design change after another to fix problems that have not
even been indicated let alone established as fact. I realize most
readers of the list can tell when someone is making ridiculous
suggestions, but I am afraid there are some who might implement some
of those design changes and suffer the outcome.
I am convinced that Chris Heintz has done a wonderful job designing
this airplane. I am also convinced that any design changes
considered by a kit or plans builder should be approved by one of the
engineering support people readily available to us to consider such
changes. While this is not a perfect system, it is the only
reasonable one we have.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 06:47 AM 3/12/2008, you wrote:
>Let us not forget, Mr Heintz is undoubtedly a phenomenal
>engineer. MANY phenomenal engineers recently (9/23/99) sent a
>multi million dollar probe to mars to explore the climate... With
>all of the millions of dollars that NASA had, an entire team of the
>best of the best... the damn thing was a total loss. Why? Because
>someone forgot to convert english to metric units.
---------------------------------
Message 84
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
This is getting interesting. The few hints Rick provided help make sense out of
some of the other information that has surfaced.
Rick, care to tell me which periodical I should subscribe to?
Tim
do not archive
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169373#169373
Message 85
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Rick,
Thanks for the update. Please let us know when you can share more.
For those of you that don't read Kitplanes magazine, Rick is the one that built
the first XL from a quickbuild kit and did a great eight series report on the
build last year. You also may have seen it at Sun-n-Fun last year.
I think he's got some credibility as someone with potential inside info. While
I know we all want info now (me too), I can understand why Zenith would want
to be fully prepared before commenting publicly. (Although I hope the response
and info is better than last time)
Now, Maybe Mark Townsend from can-zac can chime in too???? please???
PS. I'm still planning on making a lot of aluminum chips in my basement this weekend....
[Laughing]
--------
601 XL kit N596SW reserved
Tail, control surfaces and both wings complete. Now working on fuselage
www.scottwaters.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169376#169376
Message 86
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
You know I really try to stay out of these he said she said things. We all
need to remember this is not a personal issue, it is a design issue. The HD
and HDS have had a great success story with no problems. The XL is showing a
higher number of problems in a much shorter time. That alone would warrant
investigation by the FAA if it was certified, so people asking questions and
wondering is not out of line at all, so there should be no flaming or
personal attacks for people just wantting to be reassured that their
investment won't kill them. Now I want one person, and only one person on
here to explain to me how someone can state that the airplane was flown
beyond its designed manuvering speed when the people on the airplane itself
died. Come on now unless you have some holy than thou power and sit on the
right hand of God............NO ONE CAN TALK TO DEAD PEOPLE. I was on
several investigations for the US Army concerning helicopter accidents. The
rule of thumb for all investigations civil and or military is "if you can
not find a definite iron clad cause, then it must be pilot error". I have
alwasy thought that was unfair, because we have on several occasions found
minor things that as a whole could have caused a accident but the leader of
the investigation team deemed it unimportant as a whole and called it pilot
error. I am sure this happens with the FAA and NTSB on experimental crashes.
The airplanes are not certified so one investigator is sent, he takes 40 or
so pictures and writes a report the same night and to save tax dollars and
his time says "pilot error". Not on any of the accidents did the FAA use the
option of a structual inspection to determine how the failure happened.
David Mikesell
Cloverdale, CA 95425
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
> William,
> to say the incident post is dispositive is frankly misguided. A zenith
> crashed based on the same situation that occured in the other cases. Read
> the report, and stick to flying and enjoying a great plane that is very
> well desinged, I will.
>
> Juan
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 2:36 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>>Juan,
>>
>>The accident in the UK is of no concern to us and it is not what have
>>prompted this discussion. In this case it was concluded that the plane was
>>overstressed beyond its limits, furthermore, this plane was a 601UL so
>>whatever happened there, does not apply to us building or flying XL since
>>the wing is completely different.
>>
>>The concern with the XL is that there have been 3 confirmed structural
>>failures and 2 unconfirmed ones. The difference between the XL wing
>>failures and all the others is that the XL incidents have been so far
>>inconclusive.
>>
>>Since the third accident last year, I've been searched and read lots of
>>reports about this type of failure in other airplanes. What I have found
>>is that in all the other cases, metallurgical analysis have proved that
>>overstressing was the cause. This included certificated as well as AB wing
>>failure cases.
>>
>>William Dominguez
>>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>>Miami Florida
>>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>>
>>
>>Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net> wrote: --> Zenith-List message
>>posted by: Juan Vega
>>
>>All,
>>read the report. First to the guys looking for third party stress
>>analysis, you have it in the report, so save your money.
>>
>>Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the
>>manuavering speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in high
>>G load. As I said before, and again reiterate: the plane is safe, its
>>the pilot, you need to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not
>>there for to fill up paper space in your POH!
>>
>>Cruise speed is cruise speed. Manauvering speed is that! a speed at which
>>the plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the
>>plane.
>>
>>fly the plane by the numbers. This accident can happen to ANY aircraft
>>not flown by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300! in the EXTAR 300 POH it is
>>clear, Accrobatics limited to under a certain weight and speed.
>>
>>Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers, this
>>is plain english.
>>
>>Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers. Get too
>>comfy, and well, you know the rest.
>>
>>Juan
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: ernie
>>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 8:56 AM
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should
>>>understand
>>>what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
>>>
>>>Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are
>>>carried
>>>by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the
>>>plane
>>>out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
>>>
>>>Do Not Archive.
>>>E.
>>>
>>>On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman
>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>> >
>>>> >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>>>> >
>>>> >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>>>> >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>>>> >
>>>> >Wing spar failed in plane crash
>>>> >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>>>> >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>>>> >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>>>> >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>>>>
>>>> Synopsis:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
>>>> Report:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
>>>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>>>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>>>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>>>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>>>>
>>>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
>>>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>>>>
>>>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another
>>>> accident,
>>>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>>>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
>>>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter Chapman
>>>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 87
| 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 |
|
FYI if you're not looking at the "British 601 Crash" , go there and look towards
the bottom at a message from Rick Lindstrom. He has some insight......
--------
601 XL kit N596SW reserved
Tail, control surfaces and both wings complete. Now working on fuselage
www.scottwaters.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169378#169378
Message 88
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Waiting the same here, slow but complete. This is an example, in spanish of
an RV 4 stalling after take off due to pilot error. Both dead.
http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/0829B046-4C00-4D3E-B378-40F06DA29314/32986/2007_045_A1.pdf
As soon as I get the report on the XL crash in Barcelona, Ill post it in
english. BTW DGAC is like the NTSB
Bye
Alberto Martin
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Espaa
----- Original Message -----
From: "MHerder" <michaelherder@beckgroup.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:55 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
> I don't think that this particular case has much to do with the incidents
> in question but..... I think its interesting to note the differences in
> the report provided in the UK versus what the NTSB provides. Hopefully
> the Aussies will do such an in depth investigation without some sort of BS
> conclusion like....
>
> "The probable cause is the pilots failure to avoid hitting the ground"
> Well no shit. I'm glad my taxes fund such efforts.
>
> --------
> One Rivet at a Time!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169331#169331
>
>
>
Message 89
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Of the 5 down in 2 years, are they not suspected to be: explosion first, mid-air
strike, weather, explosion first, and possible weather (Hooker 2006: airplane
flown from pre-buy to new home by ferry pilot near weather so severe, he had
to divert. Rivet holes on leading edge elongated during that flight or during
the last flight?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8GcFqTpYM
(XL Looping without inverted fuel/oil system)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169383#169383
Message 90
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Sorry to say but I would rather prefer a "neutral" opinion.
BTW, those articles were really nice, and thank to them I decide and bought
an XL instead of a Sonex
Alberto Martin
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Espaa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lindstrom" <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
> <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>
> Jeez, Thomas. Who put bitch flakes in your bowl this morning?
>
> Because of my close association with a certain aviation periodical, and my
> promise not to steal anybody's thunder prematurely, I've commented as far
> as I can.
>
> All I can say (right now) is that the powers that be at Zenith are very
> aware of this issue, have devoted significant resources to precisely
> identify the failure mode, and will most likely be going public with their
> findings in short order.
>
> To heap scorn on Zenith, assume they're doing nothing, and commit to
> taking the design to an outside engineer for validation is premature, in
> my opinion. The Zenith guys have no shortage of professional concern and
> integrity, and need to be given the chance to respond.
>
> In the mean time, it would serve us all well to take a deep breath, chill,
> and give those wing tips a good shake during preflight if we have any
> reservations about flying.
>
> "Pissing in the wind?" I await your apology.
>
> Rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: THOMAS SMALL <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 11:47 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have it on pretty good authority that the failure modes we've recently
>>> seen strongly suggest negative G loading of the wing and spar way beyond
>>> design limits.
>>
>>You wouldn't want to back this up with some actual sources? facts? design
>>reviews? published reports? Anything at all to suggest that this is no
>>more than pissin' in the wind??? Didn't think so.
>>
>>do not archive because the sky is falling!
>
>
>
Message 91
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Thanks, Clyde. You make a very good point about engine weights.
As a fellow 601 XL flyer with a Corvair motor, I too would like to hear something
"official" from Zenith. But I do know that they're working on it.
>From the results of my own flight testing, we changed the incidence on the horizontal
stab (with Zenith's blessing) to offset the lack of up elevator authority
near stall in flare.
Without that change, and with a "heavy" motor, there was an excess of down elevator
and a shortage of up. It was obvious, even to me, that if the stick was
suddenly jammed forward at cruise, the results would be immediate and not good
at all for the airframe nor occupants. After flight testing the original configuration,
it doesn't take much imagination at all to see how jamming the stick
forward at cruise could pitch the fuselage up and away from the wings.
This doesn't necessarily indicate a design flaw, since the 601 can be equipped
with a wide variety of powerplants. But it does underscore the need for us, as
builders, to make sure we get the CG right and pay attention to how much junk
we stick fore and aft during construction.
Most likely, I'll wander out to the hanger and come up with some sort of temporary
"soft stop" on the stick, limiting forward travel unless pushed really hard.
Maybe one of those fat rubber bungies will work as a safeguard, until Zenith
releases their findings with something definitive that we can review and implement
if needed.
rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: Clyde Barcus <barcusc@comcast.net>
>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 12:44 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>
>Rick,
>
>Yours is a thoughtful response and I suspect there could be some truth in
>it, however, that is the type of information I want to hear from the
>designer. If this post came from Zenith I would have a whole different
>perspective. If there is the chance that is the most likely reason you would
>think they would advise or suggest a maximum degree of down travel on heavy
>installations like the Continental or Corvair engines.
>
>
>Clyde Barcus
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rick Lindstrom" <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:57 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>
>> <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>>
>
>>
>> I have it on pretty good authority that the failure modes we've recently
>> seen strongly suggest negative G loading of the wing and spar way beyond
>> design limits. This can be done with a sudden forward stick (down
>> elevator) deflection. Since there's 30 degrees of down elevator available
>> in the 601, well more than actually is needed, this can create negative G
>> loading beyond limits causing wing/spar deformation or even failure if
>> done sharply.
>>
>> The two obvious solutions are to fly the airplane as it was designed, and
>> for extra insurance, install an elevator stop that limits down travel to
>> 15 degrees or so. The 601 has all sorts of down elevator authority,
>> perhaps to counteract improper rear CG loading of the baggage compartment
>> or lighter engines, but way more than is actually needed in normal flight
>> operations.
>>
>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 92
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
You're right, Alberto, in a perfect world we would all be without any sort of bias
when addressing these issues. I'm just not yet convinced that an outside
engineering evaluation is needed at this point.
I was just trying to provide a little more information, just another piece of the
puzzle. However, my own experience with Zenith has been nothing but positive,
and I know for a fact that they're hard on the case.
I'm glad you liked the series, and congratulations on your purchase decision.
I would be the last person to claim that the Zenith 601 is the greatest airplane
in the world, but it IS a nice flying, economical little two seater that is
perfect for leaving your blues on the ground.
Have fun building!
rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: Iberplanes IGL <iberplanes@gmail.com>
>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 1:44 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>
>Sorry to say but I would rather prefer a "neutral" opinion.
>
>BTW, those articles were really nice, and thank to them I decide and bought
>an XL instead of a Sonex
>
>Alberto Martin
>Iberplanes IGL
>http://www.iberplanes.es
>Igualada - Barcelona - Espaa
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Rick Lindstrom" <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>; <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:34 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>
>> <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>>
>> Jeez, Thomas. Who put bitch flakes in your bowl this morning?
>>
>> Because of my close association with a certain aviation periodical, and my
>> promise not to steal anybody's thunder prematurely, I've commented as far
>> as I can.
>>
>> All I can say (right now) is that the powers that be at Zenith are very
>> aware of this issue, have devoted significant resources to precisely
>> identify the failure mode, and will most likely be going public with their
>> findings in short order.
>>
>> To heap scorn on Zenith, assume they're doing nothing, and commit to
>> taking the design to an outside engineer for validation is premature, in
>> my opinion. The Zenith guys have no shortage of professional concern and
>> integrity, and need to be given the chance to respond.
>>
>> In the mean time, it would serve us all well to take a deep breath, chill,
>> and give those wing tips a good shake during preflight if we have any
>> reservations about flying.
>>
>> "Pissing in the wind?" I await your apology.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: THOMAS SMALL <tjs22t@verizon.net>
>>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 11:47 AM
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have it on pretty good authority that the failure modes we've recently
>>>> seen strongly suggest negative G loading of the wing and spar way beyond
>>>> design limits.
>>>
>>>You wouldn't want to back this up with some actual sources? facts? design
>>>reviews? published reports? Anything at all to suggest that this is no
>>>more than pissin' in the wind??? Didn't think so.
>>>
>>>do not archive because the sky is falling!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 93
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Chris Heintz himself has cautioned that sudden, full deflection of the stick, either
fore or aft, at cruise speed, is likely to overstress the structure. The
full elevator travel is there specifically for slow speed control. The Zodiac
stick is NOT a computer game joy stick.
Jay in Dallas
Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Thanks, Clyde. You make a very good point about engine weights.
>
>As a fellow 601 XL flyer with a Corvair motor, I too would like to hear something
"official" from Zenith. But I do know that they're working on it.
>
>>From the results of my own flight testing, we changed the incidence on the horizontal
stab (with Zenith's blessing) to offset the lack of up elevator authority
near stall in flare.
>
>Without that change, and with a "heavy" motor, there was an excess of down elevator
and a shortage of up. It was obvious, even to me, that if the stick was
suddenly jammed forward at cruise, the results would be immediate and not good
at all for the airframe nor occupants. After flight testing the original configuration,
it doesn't take much imagination at all to see how jamming the stick
forward at cruise could pitch the fuselage up and away from the wings.
>
>This doesn't necessarily indicate a design flaw, since the 601 can be equipped
with a wide variety of powerplants. But it does underscore the need for us,
as builders, to make sure we get the CG right and pay attention to how much junk
we stick fore and aft during construction.
>
>Most likely, I'll wander out to the hanger and come up with some sort of temporary
"soft stop" on the stick, limiting forward travel unless pushed really hard.
Maybe one of those fat rubber bungies will work as a safeguard, until Zenith
releases their findings with something definitive that we can review and implement
if needed.
>
>rick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Clyde Barcus <barcusc@comcast.net>
>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 12:44 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>>
>>Rick,
>>
>>Yours is a thoughtful response and I suspect there could be some truth in
>>it, however, that is the type of information I want to hear from the
>>designer. If this post came from Zenith I would have a whole different
>>perspective. If there is the chance that is the most likely reason you would
>>think they would advise or suggest a maximum degree of down travel on heavy
>>installations like the Continental or Corvair engines.
>>
>>
>>Clyde Barcus
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Rick Lindstrom" <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:57 PM
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>>
>>> <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> I have it on pretty good authority that the failure modes we've recently
>>> seen strongly suggest negative G loading of the wing and spar way beyond
>>> design limits. This can be done with a sudden forward stick (down
>>> elevator) deflection. Since there's 30 degrees of down elevator available
>>> in the 601, well more than actually is needed, this can create negative G
>>> loading beyond limits causing wing/spar deformation or even failure if
>>> done sharply.
>>>
>>> The two obvious solutions are to fly the airplane as it was designed, and
>>> for extra insurance, install an elevator stop that limits down travel to
>>> 15 degrees or so. The 601 has all sorts of down elevator authority,
>>> perhaps to counteract improper rear CG loading of the baggage compartment
>>> or lighter engines, but way more than is actually needed in normal flight
>>> operations.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 94
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
If a statement from Zenith is going to be made, it should be made as soon as possible,
not in the next months issue of "XXXXXX" So this is the only reason
I am a little skeptical of such statement, not to say that it isn't or couldn't
be true. I believe that Zenith could and would do better than that.
The exception to this instant notification obligation would be if a recent accident
or incident confirmed without a doubt that an ordinary and undamaged airframe
was simply overstressed or flown out of its limits leading to its demise.
( Like perhaps recent findings in the AMD case)
Mr. Heintz has openly acknowledged that the elevator has a large amount of control
authority that should not be abused. You can feel this when you fly it.
If I was a manufacturer looking to quiet the uproar in the builder community
one solution would be to "fix" something i.e. limit the control surface auththority.
Especially if I felt that the entire amount of authority was not required. This
would probably be good practice anyway, but leaving the full range of authority
would not make the design bad either, just more prone to abuse. I could kill
myself with a hammer just as easily as an airplane.. It is how you use it.
Such a statement and fix from the manufacturer would do two things 1) Hopefully
stop people from folding up their wings, which isn't really a good thing when
you are trying to sell planes and 2) Provide a fix for those who like to
fix things for the sake of "fixing them" broken or unbroken.
It would be a way for a manufacturer to solve the problem without having to accept
the liabilities that problems bring.
This is just my 2 cents on what I suspect such an article would say if it truly
existed.
As another poster suggested that we should state disclaimers that if we post information
and we are not aeronautical enigneers so hear I go.
DISCLAIMER:
I AM NOT AN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT, DON'T
MODIFY YOUR DESIGN, YOU SHOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, I HAVE NO CREDENTIALS, AND FINALLY
I AM NOT EVEN THAT SMART
SERIOUSLY THOUGH GUYS, UNLESS YOU ARE AN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER LETS NOT THROW AROUND
SUGGESTED FIXES TO PROBLEMS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN CONFIRMED. TO CLARIFY, IN
NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM AM I SUGGESTING THAT ANYONE SHOULD MODIFY THEIR CONTROL
DEFLECTIONS.
swater6 wrote:
> Rick,
> Thanks for the update. Please let us know when you can share more.
>
> For those of you that don't read Kitplanes magazine, Rick is the one that built
the first XL from a quickbuild kit and did a great eight series report on the
build last year. You also may have seen it at Sun-n-Fun last year.
>
> I think he's got some credibility as someone with potential inside info. While
I know we all want info now (me too), I can understand why Zenith would want
to be fully prepared before commenting publicly. (Although I hope the response
and info is better than last time)
>
> Now, Maybe Mark Townsend from can-zac can chime in too???? please???
>
> PS. I'm still planning on making a lot of aluminum chips in my basement this
weekend.... [Laughing]
:D :D [Laughing]
--------
One Rivet at a Time!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169399#169399
Message 95
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
I don't know exactly what can happen if you hit a bird, but I believe
it can be an absolute catastrophe. The birds in question are not
sparrows, they are 20 pounds or more of blood, guts, claws, and bone
along with a few feathers.
I have seen videos of what a bird can do to a huge jet engine. Let
me just say it is fatal for both the bird and the engine.
I suspect anyone who hits a large bird in a small plane with a
plastic canopy at 120 knots will probably be killed instantly by the
impact. Consider being hit by a frozen turkey at that speed and you
get the idea.
I think the only way to safely deal with this issue is to watch
carefully for birds and avoid hitting them. I understand the best
way to avoid a head-on collision with a bird is to pull up since they
always dive.
Paul
XL fuselage
At 08:23 AM 3/12/2008, you wrote:
>I think my point is maneuvering speed.
>If your canopy is hit by a bird at 120 knots and you yank all the
>way back on the controls you are in trouble.
Message 96
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:34:00PM -0800, Rick Lindstrom wrote:
> All I can say (right now) is that the powers that be at Zenith are very
> aware of this issue, have devoted significant resources to precisely
> identify the failure mode, and will most likely be going public with their
> findings in short order.
How short? Can I expect an answer before I take delivery of my AMD Zodiac
XLi in late May or early June? Will they have it in time to implement the
fix on my aircraft?
> To heap scorn on Zenith, assume they're doing nothing, and commit to
> taking the design to an outside engineer for validation is premature, in
> my opinion. The Zenith guys have no shortage of professional concern and
> integrity, and need to be given the chance to respond.
Even a simple "We understand there are concerns, and are having the design
reviewed by an outside professional" (or whatever applies) would help
immensely.
> In the mean time, it would serve us all well to take a deep breath, chill,
> and give those wing tips a good shake during preflight if we have any
> reservations about flying.
Will this, in fact, reveal the problem in time to avoid a failure?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)
Message 97
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Eldon,
I was responding to the notion, posted by another list member, that
all the millions of dollars spent by NASA on engineering means they
do good work. That is a preposterous notion considering the results
they have had.
Perhaps you remember the Hubble Space Telescope? That was completely
wasted for years until NASA dispatched a shuttle mission to replace
the final stage of the optics chain. It seems they didn't bother to
consider the lenses would be operating in a vacuum rather than in air.
And then there was the recent solar wind collector mission that was
ruined because they installed a three pin electronic component
backwards in the circuit used to open the parachute on reentry.
NASA history is full of such stupid mistakes.
I will accept responsibility for an anti-NASA rant. As to the
government in general, I remain somewhat more neutral. I am not an
anarchist, but I do believe bureaucracies are inherently poor at
doing anything - especially anything that requires creativity. I
also understand they are necessary for some functions.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 02:09 PM 3/12/2008, you wrote:
>What, pray tell, is the point of your anti-government rant?
>
>Elden J.
>xl/3300
Message 98
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
BTW: the additional structural load test done last year was done by an
independent outsider:
"In order to make absolutely certain nothing is missed, an independent
structural engineer will confirm the findings of these rigorous tests."
http://www.zenithair.com/news/c-heintz-5-10-2007.html
Now you may say that it wasn't really independent since Zenith was paying
for it. But I have a hard time believing a professional would put his names
on a report if he didn't believe it. Ignoring personal integrity, think of
his liability as an independent structural engineer.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Maynard
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:34:00PM -0800, Rick Lindstrom wrote:
> All I can say (right now) is that the powers that be at Zenith are very
> aware of this issue, have devoted significant resources to precisely
> identify the failure mode, and will most likely be going public with their
> findings in short order.
How short? Can I expect an answer before I take delivery of my AMD Zodiac
XLi in late May or early June? Will they have it in time to implement the
fix on my aircraft?
> To heap scorn on Zenith, assume they're doing nothing, and commit to
> taking the design to an outside engineer for validation is premature, in
> my opinion. The Zenith guys have no shortage of professional concern and
> integrity, and need to be given the chance to respond.
Even a simple "We understand there are concerns, and are having the design
reviewed by an outside professional" (or whatever applies) would help
immensely.
> In the mean time, it would serve us all well to take a deep breath, chill,
> and give those wing tips a good shake during preflight if we have any
> reservations about flying.
Will this, in fact, reveal the problem in time to avoid a failure?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)
Message 99
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Oh contrare. I hit a RedTail hawk once. I saw him, he saw me. We "both"
pulled up. My aircraft shuddered but the hawk lost out.
What bird are you speaking of when you typed 20 pounds ?
SeaGull might be 3 to 5 pounds and full of anchovies...
....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
> I don't know exactly what can happen if you hit a bird, but I believe it
> can be an absolute catastrophe. The birds in question are not sparrows,
> they are 20 pounds or more of blood, guts, claws, and bone along with a
> few feathers.
>
> I have seen videos of what a bird can do to a huge jet engine. Let me
> just say it is fatal for both the bird and the engine.
>
> I suspect anyone who hits a large bird in a small plane with a plastic
> canopy at 120 knots will probably be killed instantly by the impact.
> Consider being hit by a frozen turkey at that speed and you get the idea.
>
> I think the only way to safely deal with this issue is to watch carefully
> for birds and avoid hitting them. I understand the best way to avoid a
> head-on collision with a bird is to pull up since they always dive.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
>
> At 08:23 AM 3/12/2008, you wrote:
>>I think my point is maneuvering speed.
>>If your canopy is hit by a bird at 120 knots and you yank all the way back
>>on the controls you are in trouble.
>
>
>
Message 100
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Re: pilot error. I've attached a picture of my license plate.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
skyguynca@skyguynca.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
You know I really try to stay out of these he said she said things. We
all
need to remember this is not a personal issue, it is a design issue. The
HD
and HDS have had a great success story with no problems. The XL is
showing a
higher number of problems in a much shorter time. That alone would
warrant
investigation by the FAA if it was certified, so people asking questions
and
wondering is not out of line at all, so there should be no flaming or
personal attacks for people just wantting to be reassured that their
investment won't kill them. Now I want one person, and only one person
on
here to explain to me how someone can state that the airplane was flown
beyond its designed manuvering speed when the people on the airplane
itself
died. Come on now unless you have some holy than thou power and sit on
the
right hand of God............NO ONE CAN TALK TO DEAD PEOPLE. I was on
several investigations for the US Army concerning helicopter accidents.
The
rule of thumb for all investigations civil and or military is "if you
can
not find a definite iron clad cause, then it must be pilot error". I
have
alwasy thought that was unfair, because we have on several occasions
found
minor things that as a whole could have caused a accident but the leader
of
the investigation team deemed it unimportant as a whole and called it
pilot
error. I am sure this happens with the FAA and NTSB on experimental
crashes.
The airplanes are not certified so one investigator is sent, he takes 40
or
so pictures and writes a report the same night and to save tax dollars
and
his time says "pilot error". Not on any of the accidents did the FAA use
the
option of a structual inspection to determine how the failure happened.
David Mikesell
Cloverdale, CA 95425
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
<amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>
> William,
> to say the incident post is dispositive is frankly misguided. A
zenith
> crashed based on the same situation that occured in the other cases.
Read
> the report, and stick to flying and enjoying a great plane that is
very
> well desinged, I will.
>
> Juan
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 2:36 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>>Juan,
>>
>>The accident in the UK is of no concern to us and it is not what have
>>prompted this discussion. In this case it was concluded that the plane
was
>>overstressed beyond its limits, furthermore, this plane was a 601UL so
>>whatever happened there, does not apply to us building or flying XL
since
>>the wing is completely different.
>>
>>The concern with the XL is that there have been 3 confirmed structural
>>failures and 2 unconfirmed ones. The difference between the XL wing
>>failures and all the others is that the XL incidents have been so far
>>inconclusive.
>>
>>Since the third accident last year, I've been searched and read lots
of
>>reports about this type of failure in other airplanes. What I have
found
>>is that in all the other cases, metallurgical analysis have proved
that
>>overstressing was the cause. This included certificated as well as AB
wing
>>failure cases.
>>
>>William Dominguez
>>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>>Miami Florida
>>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>>
>>
>>Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net> wrote: --> Zenith-List message
>>posted by: Juan Vega
>>
>>All,
>>read the report. First to the guys looking for third party stress
>>analysis, you have it in the report, so save your money.
>>
>>Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past
the
>>manuavering speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in
high
>>G load. As I said before, and again reiterate: the plane is safe,
its
>>the pilot, you need to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are
not
>>there for to fill up paper space in your POH!
>>
>>Cruise speed is cruise speed. Manauvering speed is that! a speed at
which
>>the plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in
the
>>plane.
>>
>>fly the plane by the numbers. This accident can happen to ANY
aircraft
>>not flown by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300! in the EXTAR 300 POH it
is
>>clear, Accrobatics limited to under a certain weight and speed.
>>
>>Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers,
this
>>is plain english.
>>
>>Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers. Get too
>>comfy, and well, you know the rest.
>>
>>Juan
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: ernie
>>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 8:56 AM
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should
>>>understand
>>>what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
>>>
>>>Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are
>>>carried
>>>by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying
the
>>>plane
>>>out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
>>>
>>>Do Not Archive.
>>>E.
>>>
>>>On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman
>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>> >
>>>> >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>>>> >
>>>> >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>>>> >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>>>> >
>>>> >Wing spar failed in plane crash
>>>> >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>>>> >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in
a
>>>> >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>>>> >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>>>>
>>>> Synopsis:
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul
__g_yoxi.cfm
>>>> Report:
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-
07.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a
low
>>>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>>>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>>>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>>>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are
bent...
>>>>
>>>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a
Czech
>>>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>>>>
>>>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another
>>>> accident,
>>>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>>>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also
includes
>>>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter Chapman
>>>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 101
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
> It seems they didn't bother to consider the lenses would be operating in a vacuum
rather than in air.
Not true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
"Working backwards from images of point sources, astronomers determined that the
conic constant of the mirror was 1.01324, instead of the intended 1.00230. The
same number was also derived by analyzing the null correctors (instruments
which accurately measure the curvature of a polished surface) used by Perkin-Elmer
to figure the mirror, as well as by analyzing interferograms obtained during
ground testing of the mirror.
A commission headed by Lew Allen, director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, was
established to determine how the error could have arisen. The Allen Commission
found that the null corrector used by Perkin-Elmer had been incorrectly assembled.
Its field lens had then been wrongly spaced by 1.3 mm.[16]
During the polishing of the mirror, Perkin-Elmer had analyzed its surface with
two other null correctors, both of which (correctly) indicated that the mirror
was suffering from spherical aberration. These tests were specifically designed
to eliminate the possibility of major optical aberrations. Against written
quality guidelines, the company ignored these test results as it believed that
the two null correctors were less accurate than the primary device which was
reporting that the mirror was perfectly figured.
The commission blamed the failings primarily on Perkin-Elmer. Relations between
NASA and the optics company had been severely strained during the telescope construction
due to frequent schedule slippage and cost overruns. NASA found that
Perkin-Elmer had not regarded the telescope mirror as a crucial part of their
business and were also secure in the knowledge that NASA could not take its
business elsewhere once the polishing had begun. While the commission heavily
criticized Perkin-Elmer for these managerial failings, NASA was also criticized
for not picking up on the quality control shortcomings such as relying totally
on test results from a single instrument.[17]"
-- Craig
Message 102
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Hi, Jay.
>Will this, in fact, reveal the problem in time to avoid a failure?
Well, I may be obtuse, but I'm not convinced that there is a "problem" when the
airplane is flown within its design limits.
You're absolutely right that an official response (of any sort) is needed, and
now would not be too soon.
Thinking about this a bit more, upon suddenly having a canopy full of bird, most
of us would jam the stick forward to try to avoid a collision. Which would
be dumb, given the givens.
rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 2:42 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:34:00PM -0800, Rick Lindstrom wrote:
>> All I can say (right now) is that the powers that be at Zenith are very
>> aware of this issue, have devoted significant resources to precisely
>> identify the failure mode, and will most likely be going public with their
>> findings in short order.
>
>How short? Can I expect an answer before I take delivery of my AMD Zodiac
>XLi in late May or early June? Will they have it in time to implement the
>fix on my aircraft?
>
>> To heap scorn on Zenith, assume they're doing nothing, and commit to
>> taking the design to an outside engineer for validation is premature, in
>> my opinion. The Zenith guys have no shortage of professional concern and
>> integrity, and need to be given the chance to respond.
>
>Even a simple "We understand there are concerns, and are having the design
>reviewed by an outside professional" (or whatever applies) would help
>immensely.
>
>> In the mean time, it would serve us all well to take a deep breath, chill,
>> and give those wing tips a good shake during preflight if we have any
>> reservations about flying.
>
>Will this, in fact, reveal the problem in time to avoid a failure?
>--
>Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
>http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
>Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
>AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)
>
>
Message 103
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
-----Original Message-----
Now, Maybe Mark Townsend from can-zac can chime in too???? please???
--------
601 XL kit N596SW reserved
Tail, control surfaces and both wings complete. Now working on fuselage
Ok, I have been requested to chime in here. So here it goes.
One of my deciding factors of choosing the 601 series many years ago was
the safety and great characteristics that came with the Heintz designs.
On top of that I also was vested in the honesty and sincerity of the
designer and his companies ethics.
Whenever there has been any problem in the past, Zenith has done the
right thing in the information or in rectifying the problem. As we have
seen with the 601HD's splice plates and other issues.
With all this in mind I chose the 601 series knowing that my children
are going to learn on my plane. Then the 701 because the wife thought it
was cute! ( of course she is a little off, she married me didn't she!)
Over the last few days we have read about changing the wing, adding
ribs, doubling spars and many more idea's that are not to the designers
instructions and are not approved modifications. Nor are they offered by
a Aeronautical Engineer, rather they are a human instinct to believe
that more is better. I feel that the more is better is likely part of
the problem we possibly face.
When I was flying a 601HD the elevator controls were more then adequate
and the HD series was so slow it would be a hell of an event to even try
to get into trouble in any way. With the nose pointed straight down it
was a challenge to get near the Vne, I was never able to pass it.
The 601XL is not that, though it is an easy plane to learn in and fly
and with a combined 1000's of hours in the fleet of flying 601XL's out
there ( over a 1000 in the demonstrator alone and another 700 in William
Wynnes, many with Gus at the controls)it is hard to believe that we have
a wing failure issue. One big difference in the XL over it's
predecessors is speed and maneuverability, we asked for this and it is a
nice upgrade. However we still have the same tail that was present in
the previous series, this allows us to have great handling at lower
speeds with a large elevator authority. Nevertheless, it possibly could
cause us problems at the other end of the scale with high speed and
sudden stick thrusts towards the panel. But these control maneuvers
would be outside the design parameters of the plane.
Add to this the fact that we are installing Rotax 912's to Lyc 0-235's
and we have another range that has to be considered and respected, once
again we also need to pay attention to certain paperwork that governs
how we maneuver and load our planes.
Zenith of course is aware of this latest incident, after all it was the
Zenith Dealer in Australia. A bird strike in this incident seems like
the most plausible answer for the start of the incident at this moment
and we'll know more later I am sure.
In the next week or so an official announcement will be forthcoming from
the designer Chris Heintz and Zenith, I will post that letter to this
list as soon as I have it. In the mean time my 601XL is almost ready for
it's test runs and I plan on flying mine.
On a parting note, I have watched 601's doing aerobatics and all sorts
of stunts on youtube. IF your not trained to do these maneuvers in the
load restrictions of the aircraft then please don't. Fly your 601XL in
it's design criteria and enjoy it.
I wish to ask you folks to rationalize your response, don't stop asking
questions, discuss the issues and be civil. An official response is
forthcoming. But to discuss design changes to the plane without the
facts or knowledge is a waste of everyone's time.
I am not going to enter further discussions on this issue, Chris Heintz
will do that. For you new builders, keep going the few who are overly
fired up will be tempered later with the letter from the designer.
For the ones who are wanting to carry this thread further, do so after
the letter from Chris Heintz. I will be happy to discuss what he has to
say.
I hope to be able to post the letter before the middle of next week.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
Message 104
| 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 |
|
NASA didn't build the flawed mirror in Hubbble, Perkin Elmer did. They
didn't design or build the solid rocket booster of Shuttle shame. One
does have to wonder what the contracts for testing looked like on that
mirror.
NASA has designed AND built an incredible number of very successful
spacecraft, pushing the limits of known engineering on nearly every one.
Some failures for sure, but overall an outstanding success rate in my
opinion.
Ron
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
Hi Eldon,
I was responding to the notion, posted by another list member, that
all the millions of dollars spent by NASA on engineering means they
do good work. That is a preposterous notion considering the results
they have had.
Perhaps you remember the Hubble Space Telescope? That was completely
wasted for years until NASA dispatched a shuttle mission to replace
the final stage of the optics chain. It seems they didn't bother to
consider the lenses would be operating in a vacuum rather than in air.
And then there was the recent solar wind collector mission that was
ruined because they installed a three pin electronic component
backwards in the circuit used to open the parachute on reentry.
NASA history is full of such stupid mistakes.
I will accept responsibility for an anti-NASA rant. As to the
government in general, I remain somewhat more neutral. I am not an
anarchist, but I do believe bureaucracies are inherently poor at
doing anything - especially anything that requires creativity. I
also understand they are necessary for some functions.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 02:09 PM 3/12/2008, you wrote:
>What, pray tell, is the point of your anti-government rant?
>
>Elden J.
>xl/3300
Message 105
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I think that you can get the point about what I was trying to say. If you don't
like NASA, then substitute the name of a successful agency/company followed
by an accident that they made. I don't think it is a " a preposterous notion"
that NASA has a team of intelligent folks who do for the most part good work.
(some who may or may not find themselves in a love triangle wearing diapers
while driving to Florida to kill their husbands mistress). Burt Rutan has
also done an incredible in his quest for space. Burt Rutan and his space team
AND NASA both do good work. And both have made mistakes. Please tell me who
has done a better job with space exploration besides NASA?
psm(at)att.net wrote:
> Hi Eldon,
>
> I was responding to the notion, posted by another list member, that
> all the millions of dollars spent by NASA on engineering means they
> do good work. That is a preposterous notion considering the results
> they have had.
>
> Perhaps you remember the Hubble Space Telescope? That was completely
> wasted for years until NASA dispatched a shuttle mission to replace
> the final stage of the optics chain. It seems they didn't bother to
> consider the lenses would be operating in a vacuum rather than in air.
>
> And then there was the recent solar wind collector mission that was
> ruined because they installed a three pin electronic component
> backwards in the circuit used to open the parachute on reentry.
>
> NASA history is full of such stupid mistakes.
>
> I will accept responsibility for an anti-NASA rant. As to the
> government in general, I remain somewhat more neutral. I am not an
> anarchist, but I do believe bureaucracies are inherently poor at
> doing anything - especially anything that requires creativity. I
> also understand they are necessary for some functions.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
> do not archive
>
>
> At 02:09 PM 3/12/2008, you wrote:
>
>
> > What, pray tell, is the point of your anti-government rant?
> >
> > Elden J.
> > xl/3300
> >
> >
>
--------
One Rivet at a Time!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169414#169414
Message 106
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Doesn't the factory plane have over 1000 hours on it???
I know they fly that thing in all kinds of wind and turbulence, like the day
I had my demo ride. I believe if the plane is built properly and flown
within it's design limits, it will probably out last it's builder.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jaybannist@cs.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
> Chris Heintz himself has cautioned that sudden, full deflection of the
> stick, either fore or aft, at cruise speed, is likely to overstress the
> structure. The full elevator travel is there specifically for slow speed
> control. The Zodiac stick is NOT a computer game joy stick.
>
> Jay in Dallas
>
Message 107
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
LOL
David Mikesell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:05 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
Re: pilot error. I've attached a picture of my license plate.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
skyguynca@skyguynca.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
You know I really try to stay out of these he said she said things. We all
need to remember this is not a personal issue, it is a design issue. The HD
and HDS have had a great success story with no problems. The XL is showing a
higher number of problems in a much shorter time. That alone would warrant
investigation by the FAA if it was certified, so people asking questions and
wondering is not out of line at all, so there should be no flaming or
personal attacks for people just wantting to be reassured that their
investment won't kill them. Now I want one person, and only one person on
here to explain to me how someone can state that the airplane was flown
beyond its designed manuvering speed when the people on the airplane itself
died. Come on now unless you have some holy than thou power and sit on the
right hand of God............NO ONE CAN TALK TO DEAD PEOPLE. I was on
several investigations for the US Army concerning helicopter accidents. The
rule of thumb for all investigations civil and or military is "if you can
not find a definite iron clad cause, then it must be pilot error". I have
alwasy thought that was unfair, because we have on several occasions found
minor things that as a whole could have caused a accident but the leader of
the investigation team deemed it unimportant as a whole and called it pilot
error. I am sure this happens with the FAA and NTSB on experimental crashes.
The airplanes are not certified so one investigator is sent, he takes 40 or
so pictures and writes a report the same night and to save tax dollars and
his time says "pilot error". Not on any of the accidents did the FAA use the
option of a structual inspection to determine how the failure happened.
David Mikesell
Cloverdale, CA 95425
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
> William,
> to say the incident post is dispositive is frankly misguided. A zenith
> crashed based on the same situation that occured in the other cases. Read
> the report, and stick to flying and enjoying a great plane that is very
> well desinged, I will.
>
> Juan
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 2:36 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>>Juan,
>>
>>The accident in the UK is of no concern to us and it is not what have
>>prompted this discussion. In this case it was concluded that the plane was
>>overstressed beyond its limits, furthermore, this plane was a 601UL so
>>whatever happened there, does not apply to us building or flying XL since
>>the wing is completely different.
>>
>>The concern with the XL is that there have been 3 confirmed structural
>>failures and 2 unconfirmed ones. The difference between the XL wing
>>failures and all the others is that the XL incidents have been so far
>>inconclusive.
>>
>>Since the third accident last year, I've been searched and read lots of
>>reports about this type of failure in other airplanes. What I have found
>>is that in all the other cases, metallurgical analysis have proved that
>>overstressing was the cause. This included certificated as well as AB wing
>>failure cases.
>>
>>William Dominguez
>>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>>Miami Florida
>>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>>
>>
>>Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net> wrote: --> Zenith-List message
>>posted by: Juan Vega
>>
>>All,
>>read the report. First to the guys looking for third party stress
>>analysis, you have it in the report, so save your money.
>>
>>Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the
>>manuavering speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in high
>>G load. As I said before, and again reiterate: the plane is safe, its
>>the pilot, you need to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not
>>there for to fill up paper space in your POH!
>>
>>Cruise speed is cruise speed. Manauvering speed is that! a speed at which
>>the plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the
>>plane.
>>
>>fly the plane by the numbers. This accident can happen to ANY aircraft
>>not flown by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300! in the EXTAR 300 POH it is
>>clear, Accrobatics limited to under a certain weight and speed.
>>
>>Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers, this
>>is plain english.
>>
>>Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers. Get too
>>comfy, and well, you know the rest.
>>
>>Juan
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: ernie
>>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 8:56 AM
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should
>>>understand
>>>what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
>>>
>>>Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are
>>>carried
>>>by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the
>>>plane
>>>out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
>>>
>>>Do Not Archive.
>>>E.
>>>
>>>On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman
>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>> >
>>>> >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>>>> >
>>>> >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>>>> >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>>>> >
>>>> >Wing spar failed in plane crash
>>>> >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>>>> >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>>>> >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>>>> >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>>>>
>>>> Synopsis:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
>>>> Report:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
>>>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>>>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>>>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>>>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>>>>
>>>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
>>>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>>>>
>>>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another
>>>> accident,
>>>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>>>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
>>>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter Chapman
>>>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 108
| 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: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I am in Joe .. N101HD 601XL /RAM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Hays" <alhays@hickoryhillfarmsheep.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Sign-on for structural analysis
> <alhays@hickoryhillfarmsheep.com>
>
> I'm in.
> On Mar 12, 2008, at 11:50 AM, ashontz wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm in.
>>
>> Just post an "I'm in", no other comments for now, just to keep it a
>> clean list of responses.
>>
>> --------
>> Andy Shontz
>> CH601XL - Corvair
>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169266#169266
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 109
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Just don't pull up too much or your wings ma fail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In a message dated 3/12/2008 6:44:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, psm@att.net
writes:
I think the only way to safely deal with this issue is to watch
carefully for birds and avoid hitting them. I understand the best
way to avoid a head-on collision with a bird is to pull up since they
always dive.
Paul
XL fuselage
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
Message 110
| 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 |
|
At last, the voice of reason. The XL problem does not trouble me as I am
building an HD, but it is a pain in the ass to see all the responses to an
"accident" when no one has the full facts.
Speculation only stirs up the water, when no one has the full facts. If the
XL has such a major design fault there would have been a response or an
urgent AD from Zenith.
Fly it within limits, and avoid the hovering pelicans (or should it be
vultures) and you should be OK.
Andy Ackland in the UK
20% done with 150% to go.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ZodieRocket
Sent: 13 March 2008 00:36
Subject: Zenith-List: 601 incident
-----Original Message-----
Now, Maybe Mark Townsend from can-zac can chime in too???? please???
--------
601 XL kit N596SW reserved
Tail, control surfaces and both wings complete. Now working on fuselage
Ok, I have been requested to chime in here. So here it goes.
One of my deciding factors of choosing the 601 series many years ago was
the safety and great characteristics that came with the Heintz designs.
On top of that I also was vested in the honesty and sincerity of the
designer and his companies ethics.
Whenever there has been any problem in the past, Zenith has done the
right thing in the information or in rectifying the problem. As we have
seen with the 601HD's splice plates and other issues.
With all this in mind I chose the 601 series knowing that my children
are going to learn on my plane. Then the 701 because the wife thought it
was cute! ( of course she is a little off, she married me didn't she!)
Over the last few days we have read about changing the wing, adding
ribs, doubling spars and many more idea's that are not to the designers
instructions and are not approved modifications. Nor are they offered by
a Aeronautical Engineer, rather they are a human instinct to believe
that more is better. I feel that the more is better is likely part of
the problem we possibly face.
When I was flying a 601HD the elevator controls were more then adequate
and the HD series was so slow it would be a hell of an event to even try
to get into trouble in any way. With the nose pointed straight down it
was a challenge to get near the Vne, I was never able to pass it.
The 601XL is not that, though it is an easy plane to learn in and fly
and with a combined 1000's of hours in the fleet of flying 601XL's out
there ( over a 1000 in the demonstrator alone and another 700 in William
Wynnes, many with Gus at the controls)it is hard to believe that we have
a wing failure issue. One big difference in the XL over it's
predecessors is speed and maneuverability, we asked for this and it is a
nice upgrade. However we still have the same tail that was present in
the previous series, this allows us to have great handling at lower
speeds with a large elevator authority. Nevertheless, it possibly could
cause us problems at the other end of the scale with high speed and
sudden stick thrusts towards the panel. But these control maneuvers
would be outside the design parameters of the plane.
Add to this the fact that we are installing Rotax 912's to Lyc 0-235's
and we have another range that has to be considered and respected, once
again we also need to pay attention to certain paperwork that governs
how we maneuver and load our planes.
Zenith of course is aware of this latest incident, after all it was the
Zenith Dealer in Australia. A bird strike in this incident seems like
the most plausible answer for the start of the incident at this moment
and we'll know more later I am sure.
In the next week or so an official announcement will be forthcoming from
the designer Chris Heintz and Zenith, I will post that letter to this
list as soon as I have it. In the mean time my 601XL is almost ready for
it's test runs and I plan on flying mine.
On a parting note, I have watched 601's doing aerobatics and all sorts
of stunts on youtube. IF your not trained to do these maneuvers in the
load restrictions of the aircraft then please don't. Fly your 601XL in
it's design criteria and enjoy it.
I wish to ask you folks to rationalize your response, don't stop asking
questions, discuss the issues and be civil. An official response is
forthcoming. But to discuss design changes to the plane without the
facts or knowledge is a waste of everyone's time.
I am not going to enter further discussions on this issue, Chris Heintz
will do that. For you new builders, keep going the few who are overly
fired up will be tempered later with the letter from the designer.
For the ones who are wanting to carry this thread further, do so after
the letter from Chris Heintz. I will be happy to discuss what he has to
say.
I hope to be able to post the letter before the middle of next week.
Mark Townsend
Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
president@can-zacaviation.com
www.can-zacaviation.com
Message 111
| 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 |
|
Would Dread be willing manage the money for us ? we all know him, and he
would be a good netural party....Joe N101HD 601XL/RAM
----- Original Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11:06 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident
>
> I suggested awhile back hiring a third party. How many people here are
> willing to pony up some money. Get a quote divide by the number of people
> interested and we'll see if that's reasonable for everyone. Then if we've
> got the money submit it to someone who knows what they're doing.
>
>
> John Bolding wrote:
>> I've got no dog in this hunt as I'm building a 701, however, I
>> mentioned a
>> year ago that if you XL guys are SERIOUS about getting to the bottom of
>> this
>> then 3RD party analysis is your best bet. Zenith has shown they are
>> unwilling or not capable of anything other than redoing what they already
>> did and that proves nothing.
>>
>> Many years ago the Adventurer Amphib had a wing failure and after ONE
>> such
>> incident the builders got together and hired Martin Holman to do a
>> flutter/
>> vibration/structure analysis. He found that with the wing tanks at a
>> certain % of fuel the wing had an unstable mode at a speed well within
>> cruise speeds, a fix was determined and life was good, at least as good
>> as
>> the rest of the airplane which was a POS.
>>
>> SOMEBODY needs to belly up to the bar and DO SOMETHING instead of just
>> whine
>> and moan. Find an engineer capable of this project, pass the hat, send
>> him
>> a set of drawings and see what shakes out. It ain't going away folks.
>> The
>> FAA isn't going to help, the NTSB isn't going to help, the ball is on
>> YOUR
>> side of the net.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> ---
>
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169245#169245
>
>
>
Message 112
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
RE: Bird strike - in my area we see a lot of geese, ducks and swans. Any one of
them can do a lot of damage. As I said in a different thread, a guy at our
airport had a turkey-sized hole punched in the wing of his Beech Sundowner that
resulted in the wing being scrapped.
When surprised, Raptors often fold their wings and drop but other birds just do
what they can to get out of the way and can't really be predicted (former biologist.)
Regarding the factory demonstrator... didn't they build the wings and fuselage
sides back then using 0.016 skins? Current XL's should be even stronger.
Tim
Do not archive
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169428#169428
Message 113
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
I personally wished ALL these posts would just stop about accidents and death.
I've been deleting most all of them as I can see this is going nowhere fast.
If my wife was to ever get on line and actually read some of these postings,
do you THINK I will ever get her into my aircraft OR let me take any of my grand-kids
for a ride?? NO. Let it go guys until there is some actual ANSWERS and
quit putting so much conjecture into it.
Thank you in advance of this consideration.
Larry H
skyguynca@skyguynca.com wrote:
LOL
David Mikesell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Payne"
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:05 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
Re: pilot error. I've attached a picture of my license plate.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
skyguynca@skyguynca.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
You know I really try to stay out of these he said she said things. We all
need to remember this is not a personal issue, it is a design issue. The HD
and HDS have had a great success story with no problems. The XL is showing a
higher number of problems in a much shorter time. That alone would warrant
investigation by the FAA if it was certified, so people asking questions and
wondering is not out of line at all, so there should be no flaming or
personal attacks for people just wantting to be reassured that their
investment won't kill them. Now I want one person, and only one person on
here to explain to me how someone can state that the airplane was flown
beyond its designed manuvering speed when the people on the airplane itself
died. Come on now unless you have some holy than thou power and sit on the
right hand of God............NO ONE CAN TALK TO DEAD PEOPLE. I was on
several investigations for the US Army concerning helicopter accidents. The
rule of thumb for all investigations civil and or military is "if you can
not find a definite iron clad cause, then it must be pilot error". I have
alwasy thought that was unfair, because we have on several occasions found
minor things that as a whole could have caused a accident but the leader of
the investigation team deemed it unimportant as a whole and called it pilot
error. I am sure this happens with the FAA and NTSB on experimental crashes.
The airplanes are not certified so one investigator is sent, he takes 40 or
so pictures and writes a report the same night and to save tax dollars and
his time says "pilot error". Not on any of the accidents did the FAA use the
option of a structual inspection to determine how the failure happened.
David Mikesell
Cloverdale, CA 95425
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Vega"
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
> William,
> to say the incident post is dispositive is frankly misguided. A zenith
> crashed based on the same situation that occured in the other cases. Read
> the report, and stick to flying and enjoying a great plane that is very
> well desinged, I will.
>
> Juan
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: William Dominguez
>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 2:36 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>>Juan,
>>
>>The accident in the UK is of no concern to us and it is not what have
>>prompted this discussion. In this case it was concluded that the plane was
>>overstressed beyond its limits, furthermore, this plane was a 601UL so
>>whatever happened there, does not apply to us building or flying XL since
>>the wing is completely different.
>>
>>The concern with the XL is that there have been 3 confirmed structural
>>failures and 2 unconfirmed ones. The difference between the XL wing
>>failures and all the others is that the XL incidents have been so far
>>inconclusive.
>>
>>Since the third accident last year, I've been searched and read lots of
>>reports about this type of failure in other airplanes. What I have found
>>is that in all the other cases, metallurgical analysis have proved that
>>overstressing was the cause. This included certificated as well as AB wing
>>failure cases.
>>
>>William Dominguez
>>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>>Miami Florida
>>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>>
>>
>>Juan Vega wrote: --> Zenith-List message
>>posted by: Juan Vega
>>
>>All,
>>read the report. First to the guys looking for third party stress
>>analysis, you have it in the report, so save your money.
>>
>>Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the
>>manuavering speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in high
>>G load. As I said before, and again reiterate: the plane is safe, its
>>the pilot, you need to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not
>>there for to fill up paper space in your POH!
>>
>>Cruise speed is cruise speed. Manauvering speed is that! a speed at which
>>the plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the
>>plane.
>>
>>fly the plane by the numbers. This accident can happen to ANY aircraft
>>not flown by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300! in the EXTAR 300 POH it is
>>clear, Accrobatics limited to under a certain weight and speed.
>>
>>Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers, this
>>is plain english.
>>
>>Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers. Get too
>>comfy, and well, you know the rest.
>>
>>Juan
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: ernie
>>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 8:56 AM
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should
>>>understand
>>>what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
>>>
>>>Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are
>>>carried
>>>by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the
>>>plane
>>>out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
>>>
>>>Do Not Archive.
>>>E.
>>>
>>>On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman
>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>> >
>>>> >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
>>>> >
>>>> >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
>>>> >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
>>>> >
>>>> >Wing spar failed in plane crash
>>>> >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
>>>> >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
>>>> >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
>>>> >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
>>>>
>>>> Synopsis:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
>>>> Report:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
>>>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
>>>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
>>>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
>>>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
>>>>
>>>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
>>>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
>>>>
>>>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another
>>>> accident,
>>>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
>>>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
>>>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter Chapman
>>>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Message 114
| 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 incident |
Mark,
>From my perspective, that is all I really wanted! If you look back you will
not see any anger or any disrespect aimed at Zenith by me, I was simply of
the opinion they had completed their test and that was it. They have great
customer service, everyone I have spoken to has demonstrated the same
customer oriented attitude and I think the 601 XL is just the type of plane
I want. Providing, of course, one is able to make a necessary evasive
maneuver or through some unexpected turbulence while reducing speed without
ripping the wings off. You stated they are concerned and looking for
answers, if they are why wouldn't I be? The post by Rick and now you gives
me a measure of comfort. If I would have known they were still "active"
beyond the sandbag test I would have simply sat back and waited, which is
exactly what I am going to do now.
Regards:
Clyde Barcus
----- Original Message -----
From: "ZodieRocket" <zodierocket@hsfx.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:35 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: 601 incident
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Now, Maybe Mark Townsend from can-zac can chime in too???? please???
>
> --------
> 601 XL kit N596SW reserved
> Tail, control surfaces and both wings complete. Now working on fuselage
>
> Ok, I have been requested to chime in here. So here it goes.
>
> One of my deciding factors of choosing the 601 series many years ago was
> the safety and great characteristics that came with the Heintz designs.
> On top of that I also was vested in the honesty and sincerity of the
> designer and his companies ethics.
>
> Whenever there has been any problem in the past, Zenith has done the
> right thing in the information or in rectifying the problem. As we have
> seen with the 601HD's splice plates and other issues.
>
> With all this in mind I chose the 601 series knowing that my children
> are going to learn on my plane. Then the 701 because the wife thought it
> was cute! ( of course she is a little off, she married me didn't she!)
>
> Over the last few days we have read about changing the wing, adding
> ribs, doubling spars and many more idea's that are not to the designers
> instructions and are not approved modifications. Nor are they offered by
> a Aeronautical Engineer, rather they are a human instinct to believe
> that more is better. I feel that the more is better is likely part of
> the problem we possibly face.
>
> When I was flying a 601HD the elevator controls were more then adequate
> and the HD series was so slow it would be a hell of an event to even try
> to get into trouble in any way. With the nose pointed straight down it
> was a challenge to get near the Vne, I was never able to pass it.
>
> The 601XL is not that, though it is an easy plane to learn in and fly
> and with a combined 1000's of hours in the fleet of flying 601XL's out
> there ( over a 1000 in the demonstrator alone and another 700 in William
> Wynnes, many with Gus at the controls)it is hard to believe that we have
> a wing failure issue. One big difference in the XL over it's
> predecessors is speed and maneuverability, we asked for this and it is a
> nice upgrade. However we still have the same tail that was present in
> the previous series, this allows us to have great handling at lower
> speeds with a large elevator authority. Nevertheless, it possibly could
> cause us problems at the other end of the scale with high speed and
> sudden stick thrusts towards the panel. But these control maneuvers
> would be outside the design parameters of the plane.
>
> Add to this the fact that we are installing Rotax 912's to Lyc 0-235's
> and we have another range that has to be considered and respected, once
> again we also need to pay attention to certain paperwork that governs
> how we maneuver and load our planes.
>
> Zenith of course is aware of this latest incident, after all it was the
> Zenith Dealer in Australia. A bird strike in this incident seems like
> the most plausible answer for the start of the incident at this moment
> and we'll know more later I am sure.
>
> In the next week or so an official announcement will be forthcoming from
> the designer Chris Heintz and Zenith, I will post that letter to this
> list as soon as I have it. In the mean time my 601XL is almost ready for
> it's test runs and I plan on flying mine.
>
> On a parting note, I have watched 601's doing aerobatics and all sorts
> of stunts on youtube. IF your not trained to do these maneuvers in the
> load restrictions of the aircraft then please don't. Fly your 601XL in
> it's design criteria and enjoy it.
>
> I wish to ask you folks to rationalize your response, don't stop asking
> questions, discuss the issues and be civil. An official response is
> forthcoming. But to discuss design changes to the plane without the
> facts or knowledge is a waste of everyone's time.
>
> I am not going to enter further discussions on this issue, Chris Heintz
> will do that. For you new builders, keep going the few who are overly
> fired up will be tempered later with the letter from the designer.
>
> For the ones who are wanting to carry this thread further, do so after
> the letter from Chris Heintz. I will be happy to discuss what he has to
> say.
>
> I hope to be able to post the letter before the middle of next week.
>
>
> Mark Townsend
> Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.
> president@can-zacaviation.com
> www.can-zacaviation.com
>
>
>
Message 115
| 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: Sign-on for structural analysis |
I'm in.
Matt Stecher
Katy, TX
XL-Vair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169284#169284
Message 116
| 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 |
|
Actually, I could do that, but it would be illegal for me to give you
any details since they are still highly classified. The short answer
is the US military space program. For a longer and already
declassified answer take a look at WWW.NRO.MIL. Pay particular
attention to the project called "Corona".
The only thing I will say is that I have personal knowledge of some
of the things done there, and I don't believe there were any
significant stupid mistakes like the kind common at NASA. It was,
however, still a government operation but without much of the
bureaucracy that cripples most of the government.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 04:38 PM 3/12/2008, you wrote:
>I think that you can get the point about what I was trying to
>say. If you don't like NASA, then substitute the name of a
>successful agency/company followed by an accident that they
>made. I don't think it is a " a preposterous notion" that NASA has
>a team of intelligent folks who do for the most part good
>work. (some who may or may not find themselves in a love triangle
>wearing diapers while driving to Florida to kill their husbands
>mistress). Burt Rutan has also done an incredible in his quest for
>space. Burt Rutan and his space team AND NASA both do good
>work. And both have made mistakes. Please tell me who has done a
>better job with space exploration besides NASA?
Message 117
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:11:20PM -0800, Rick Lindstrom wrote:
> >Will this, in fact, reveal the problem in time to avoid a failure?
> Well, I may be obtuse, but I'm not convinced that there is a "problem"
> when the airplane is flown within its design limits.
I was referring to your suggestion to rock the wingtips during preflight. If
there's a structural weakness that would result in a failure, would this
procedure reveal it?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)
Message 118
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Thanks, Rick Lindstrom for your encouraging post regarding the 601XL alleged in-flight
wing failures. I am very encouraged that Zenith may be communicating
with us soon.... This is the best news... I hope it comes to pass and that the
Zenith response is comprehensive.
I am planning to ask about it at Sun-n-Fun... Maybe we'll hear something before
then?
Thanks for your input.
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169437#169437
Message 119
| 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 incident |
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 07:35:57PM -0500, ZodieRocket wrote:
> On a parting note, I have watched 601's doing aerobatics and all sorts
> of stunts on youtube. IF your not trained to do these maneuvers in the
> load restrictions of the aircraft then please don't. Fly your 601XL in
> it's design criteria and enjoy it.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not buying my XLi to do
aerobatics or other fancy flying in. I'm looking for a good, LSA-legal
cross-country cruiser, and I think the Zodiac more than qualifies.
> I wish to ask you folks to rationalize your response, don't stop asking
> questions, discuss the issues and be civil. An official response is
> forthcoming. But to discuss design changes to the plane without the
> facts or knowledge is a waste of everyone's time.
Well, I'm not able to make design changes, unless I can talk AMD into it -
something I really, really doubt. I just don't want to discover Vfo
firsthand.
(Vfo: the speed at which the wings fall off)
> I hope to be able to post the letter before the middle of next week.
I await the message with bated breath.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)
Message 120
| 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 incident |
Mark,
Your post is now blank. Did you remove it? I sure would like to hear your input.
Scott
--------
601 XL kit N596SW reserved
Tail, control surfaces and both wings complete. Now working on fuselage
www.scottwaters.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169442#169442
Message 121
| 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: Sign-on for structural analysis |
No offense Dave (Downey), but this is one guy I've been looking forward to hearing
a 'Aye' from.
Scott, hope to meet you one day at an Oshkosk or something. I have a trim tab servo
you might be interested in too. :)
cookwithgas wrote:
> _____*Scott Laughlin
> ______*Omaha, Nebraska
> _______*6 0 1 X L / Corvair
> ________* Plans-Built (3/4" thk. Longerons)
> _________*Used lots of Green Scotchbrite
> __________*Finished & Flying Straight and True.
> ___________*48+ hours of flight - Permanent Grin.
> ____________* BRS safety pin removed.
> _____________*Wings still attached.
> _____________*I'm In.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169444#169444
Message 122
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
I cooked a 20# turkey last Christmas, but I don't think they fly (LOL)
Larry H said it BEST
Give It A Rest
Randall J Hebert
Randall J Hebert & Associates, Inc
Consulting Civil / Structural Engineers
Lafayette, Louisiana
PH 337-261-1976 - FX 337-261-1977
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of steve
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
--> <notsew_evets@frontiernet.net>
Oh contrare. I hit a RedTail hawk once. I saw him, he saw me. We
"both"
pulled up. My aircraft shuddered but the hawk lost out.
What bird are you speaking of when you typed 20 pounds ?
SeaGull might be 3 to 5 pounds and full of anchovies...
....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
> I don't know exactly what can happen if you hit a bird, but I believe
it
> can be an absolute catastrophe. The birds in question are not
sparrows,
> they are 20 pounds or more of blood, guts, claws, and bone along with
a
> few feathers.
>
> I have seen videos of what a bird can do to a huge jet engine. Let me
> just say it is fatal for both the bird and the engine.
>
> I suspect anyone who hits a large bird in a small plane with a plastic
> canopy at 120 knots will probably be killed instantly by the impact.
> Consider being hit by a frozen turkey at that speed and you get the
idea.
>
> I think the only way to safely deal with this issue is to watch
carefully
> for birds and avoid hitting them. I understand the best way to avoid
a
> head-on collision with a bird is to pull up since they always dive.
>
> Paul
> XL fuselage
>
>
> At 08:23 AM 3/12/2008, you wrote:
>>I think my point is maneuvering speed.
>>If your canopy is hit by a bird at 120 knots and you yank all the way
back
>>on the controls you are in trouble.
>
>
>
Message 123
| 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: | Intrument Panel Trim |
Could someone suggest a good method for trimming the edge at the top of the instrument
panel (glare shield)? I can't find any information in the plans other
than the pictures in the canopy section of the photo guide. It looks like Zenith
is using rubber hose to trim theirs. I can't tell how it's attached.
I've considered a number of ideas, from splitting a piece of aluminum tubing pre-bent
to the shape of the panel, to using a wood.
Are their safety concerns to be aware of? Some of my switches and instruments
get pretty close to the edge. The top skin sticks out per the plans, (I think
it's about 3/4").
Dan Dempsey
(plans building 601XL)
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169450#169450
Message 124
| 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: Intrument Panel Trim |
I used chrome colored plastic edge guard with self adhesive from the local
auto supply house.
----- Original Message -----
From: "leinad" <leinad@hughes.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:44 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Intrument Panel Trim
>
> Could someone suggest a good method for trimming the edge at the top of
the instrument panel (glare shield)? I can't find any information in the
plans other than the pictures in the canopy section of the photo guide. It
looks like Zenith is using rubber hose to trim theirs. I can't tell how
it's attached.
> I've considered a number of ideas, from splitting a piece of aluminum
tubing pre-bent to the shape of the panel, to using a wood.
> Are their safety concerns to be aware of? Some of my switches and
instruments get pretty close to the edge. The top skin sticks out per the
plans, (I think it's about 3/4").
> Dan Dempsey
> (plans building 601XL)
>
> --------
> Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169450#169450
>
>
> --
1:27 PM
>
>
Message 125
| 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: | Intrument Panel Trim |
My approach has been to eliminate the lip. No matter how it is encased I'm
not wild about having a thin metal edge in front of my skull. I'm using a 3
inch wide band of neoprene sandwiched between the top skin and the
instrument panel which provides shade for the panel. One problem with my
solution is that towards the center of the panel where the band is almost
level it droops a bit. I believe that a loop of spring wire clamped by the
panel and skin, spanning about 5-6 inches and extending out 2 inches from
the panel will support that broad span of neoprene. I believe the Spruce
part number is 05-00600.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of leinad
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:44 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Intrument Panel Trim
Could someone suggest a good method for trimming the edge at the top of the
instrument panel (glare shield)? I can't find any information in the plans
other than the pictures in the canopy section of the photo guide. It looks
like Zenith is using rubber hose to trim theirs. I can't tell how it's
attached.
I've considered a number of ideas, from splitting a piece of aluminum tubing
pre-bent to the shape of the panel, to using a wood.
Are their safety concerns to be aware of? Some of my switches and
instruments get pretty close to the edge. The top skin sticks out per the
plans, (I think it's about 3/4").
Dan Dempsey
(plans building 601XL)
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169450#169450
Message 126
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I to would be willing to contribute to an independent study if enough people
were involved. I have a 601xl project about 90 % complete, with wing
lockers and dual 12 gallon tanks which were the options available in May
2004. I don't remember any wing failures at that time or I might not have
selected the 601xl.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:07 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident
I suggested awhile back hiring a third party. How many people here are
willing to pony up some money. Get a quote divide by the number of people
interested and we'll see if that's reasonable for everyone. Then if we've
got the money submit it to someone who knows what they're doing.
John Bolding wrote:
> I've got no dog in this hunt as I'm building a 701, however, I mentioned
a
> year ago that if you XL guys are SERIOUS about getting to the bottom of
this
> then 3RD party analysis is your best bet. Zenith has shown they are
> unwilling or not capable of anything other than redoing what they already
> did and that proves nothing.
>
> Many years ago the Adventurer Amphib had a wing failure and after ONE such
> incident the builders got together and hired Martin Holman to do a
flutter/
> vibration/structure analysis. He found that with the wing tanks at a
> certain % of fuel the wing had an unstable mode at a speed well within
> cruise speeds, a fix was determined and life was good, at least as good
as
> the rest of the airplane which was a POS.
>
> SOMEBODY needs to belly up to the bar and DO SOMETHING instead of just
whine
> and moan. Find an engineer capable of this project, pass the hat, send
him
> a set of drawings and see what shakes out. It ain't going away folks.
The
> FAA isn't going to help, the NTSB isn't going to help, the ball is on YOUR
> side of the net.
>
> John
>
>
> ---
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169245#169245
Message 127
| 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: | Zenith instrument panel trim |
On my HD instrument panel I have the usual projection of the upper
forward skin, resulting in a deadly-looking edge facing the occupants.
I slit a piece of soft 5/16 inch aluminum tubing to trim the edge and
held the tubing in place with a few U-shaped aluminum clips riveted to
the skin. I used a reinforced cutoff wheel in a Dremel tool to slit the
aluminum tubing.
I covered the aluminum tubing with resilient foam tubing which is sold
in some medical pharmacies as an aid to people who are hampered by
stroke or arthritis. It is intended to be slipped over pens, utensils
etc to allow such things to be gripped more easily. It has a 5/16 ID and
1 inch OD . I made some effort to find a source of continuous lengths
of this tubing, but finally settled for the one foot lengths I could buy
locally. I glued 4 lengths together with contact cement and slit the
resulting 4-foot tube to fit over the aluminum tubing.
The foam tubing is a light tan color. I painted it with SEM brand
"Color Coat" paint, sold at auto paint stores for use on plastic car
interior surfaces. The seams between the 12 inch lengths are barely
visible. The result is a neat looking edge treatment which won't slice
my skull open if I'm thrown into it.
I hope this offers some ideas.
George Swinford
Message 128
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm in.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:54 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Pony Up!!
I'm in.
I just created another thread for signing up too. I guess use either one or
both. We'll figure out how to arrange payment if it's not some ridiculous
cost split amongst hardly anyone.
Rick.Beckman(at)atk.com wrote:
> Count me in, if it's reasonable.
> Rick
> Do not archive.
>
>
>
> I suggested awhile back hiring a third party. How many people here are
> willing to pony up some money. Get a quote divide by the number of
> people interested and we'll see if that's reasonable for everyone. Then
> if we've got the money submit it to someone who knows what they're
> doing.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169268#169268
Message 129
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
David,I think you are right about our government and how they handle GA
accidents.
And I too try to stay out of these things, but I find this an good starting
point because of how the facts with this accident are handled by the UK's
FAA.
To answer your question.
Did you mean Maneuvering speed or V never to exceed?
Maneuvering speed is designed to be flown beyond in smooth air. We all fly
past the designed maneuvering speed (VA). So I think you might have meant,
how could anyone know while flying faster than maneuvering speed, the pilot
applied greater control inputs to over stress the airframe, if the people in
airplane are dead? This was determined in great detail in the report, and is
an easy read IMO. Much better than you would ever get from our government
since GA problems like this would never be handled in such a professional
manner like this report did.
do not archive
e.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 4:05 PM, <skyguynca@skyguynca.com> wrote:
>
> You know I really try to stay out of these he said she said things. We
> all
> need to remember this is not a personal issue, it is a design issue. The
> HD
> and HDS have had a great success story with no problems. The XL is showing
> a
> higher number of problems in a much shorter time. That alone would warrant
> investigation by the FAA if it was certified, so people asking questions
> and
> wondering is not out of line at all, so there should be no flaming or
> personal attacks for people just wantting to be reassured that their
> investment won't kill them. Now I want one person, and only one person on
> here to explain to me how someone can state that the airplane was flown
> beyond its designed manuvering speed when the people on the airplane
> itself
> died. Come on now unless you have some holy than thou power and sit on the
> right hand of God............NO ONE CAN TALK TO DEAD PEOPLE. I was on
> several investigations for the US Army concerning helicopter accidents.
> The
> rule of thumb for all investigations civil and or military is "if you can
> not find a definite iron clad cause, then it must be pilot error". I have
> alwasy thought that was unfair, because we have on several occasions found
> minor things that as a whole could have caused a accident but the leader
> of
> the investigation team deemed it unimportant as a whole and called it
> pilot
> error. I am sure this happens with the FAA and NTSB on experimental
> crashes.
> The airplanes are not certified so one investigator is sent, he takes 40
> or
> so pictures and writes a report the same night and to save tax dollars and
> his time says "pilot error". Not on any of the accidents did the FAA use
> the
> option of a structual inspection to determine how the failure happened.
>
> David Mikesell
> Cloverdale, CA 95425
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
> To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:15 PM
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>
> >
> > William,
> > to say the incident post is dispositive is frankly misguided. A zenith
> > crashed based on the same situation that occured in the other cases.
> Read
> > the report, and stick to flying and enjoying a great plane that is very
> > well desinged, I will.
> >
> > Juan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
> >>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 2:36 PM
> >>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> >>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
> >>
> >>Juan,
> >>
> >>The accident in the UK is of no concern to us and it is not what have
> >>prompted this discussion. In this case it was concluded that the plane
> was
> >>overstressed beyond its limits, furthermore, this plane was a 601UL so
> >>whatever happened there, does not apply to us building or flying XL
> since
> >>the wing is completely different.
> >>
> >>The concern with the XL is that there have been 3 confirmed structural
> >>failures and 2 unconfirmed ones. The difference between the XL wing
> >>failures and all the others is that the XL incidents have been so far
> >>inconclusive.
> >>
> >>Since the third accident last year, I've been searched and read lots of
> >>reports about this type of failure in other airplanes. What I have found
> >>is that in all the other cases, metallurgical analysis have proved that
> >>overstressing was the cause. This included certificated as well as AB
> wing
> >>failure cases.
> >>
> >>William Dominguez
> >>Zodiac 601XL Plans
> >>Miami Florida
> >>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
> >>
> >>
> >>Juan Vega <amyvega2005@earthlink.net> wrote: --> Zenith-List message
> >>posted by: Juan Vega
> >>
> >>All,
> >>read the report. First to the guys looking for third party stress
> >>analysis, you have it in the report, so save your money.
> >>
> >>Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the
> >>manuavering speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in
> high
> >>G load. As I said before, and again reiterate: the plane is safe, its
> >>the pilot, you need to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not
> >>there for to fill up paper space in your POH!
> >>
> >>Cruise speed is cruise speed. Manauvering speed is that! a speed at
> which
> >>the plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the
> >>plane.
> >>
> >>fly the plane by the numbers. This accident can happen to ANY aircraft
> >>not flown by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300! in the EXTAR 300 POH it is
> >>clear, Accrobatics limited to under a certain weight and speed.
> >>
> >>Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers,
> this
> >>is plain english.
> >>
> >>Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers. Get too
> >>comfy, and well, you know the rest.
> >>
> >>Juan
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>>From: ernie
> >>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 8:56 AM
> >>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> >>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
> >>>
> >>>Hi,
> >>>The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should
> >>>understand
> >>>what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL
> >>>
> >>>Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are
> >>>carried
> >>>by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the
> >>>plane
> >>>out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far.
> >>>
> >>>Do Not Archive.
> >>>E.
> >>>
> >>>On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:
> >>>>
> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert
> >>>> >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Wing spar failed in plane crash
> >>>> >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT
> >>>> >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a
> >>>> >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing
> >>>> >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)
> >>>>
> >>>> Synopsis:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm
> >>>> Report:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low
> >>>> pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.
> >>>> Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any
> >>>> airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress
> >>>> allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...
> >>>>
> >>>> According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech
> >>>> Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another
> >>>> accident,
> >>>> it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some
> >>>> analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes
> >>>> engineering input from the manufacturer.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter Chapman
> >>>> Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 130
| 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: Zenith instrument panel trim |
Thank you George. You've come up with a really elegant solution to a
distant (for me) problem that I have, never-the-less, been worrying about.
I like it.
Terry
do not archive
At 08:10 PM 3/12/2008 -0800, you wrote:
>On my HD instrument panel I have the usual projection of the upper forward
>skin, resulting in a deadly-looking edge facing the occupants. I slit a
>piece of soft 5/16 inch aluminum tubing to trim the edge and held the
>tubing in place with a few U-shaped aluminum clips riveted to the skin. I
>used a reinforced cutoff wheel in a Dremel tool to slit the aluminum tubing.
>
>I covered the aluminum tubing with resilient foam tubing which is sold in
>some medical pharmacies as an aid to people who are hampered by stroke or
>arthritis. It is intended to be slipped over pens, utensils etc to allow
>such things to be gripped more easily. It has a 5/16 ID and 1 inch OD . I
>made some effort to find a source of continuous lengths of this tubing,
>but finally settled for the one foot lengths I could buy locally. I glued
>4 lengths together with contact cement and slit the resulting 4-foot tube
>to fit over the aluminum tubing.
>
>The foam tubing is a light tan color. I painted it with SEM brand "Color
>Coat" paint, sold at auto paint stores for use on plastic car interior
>surfaces. The seams between the 12 inch lengths are barely visible. The
>result is a neat looking edge treatment which won't slice my skull open if
>I'm thrown into it.
>
>I hope this offers some ideas.
>
>George Swinford
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
Message 131
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
I have seen lots of photos of the original and last year's load testing.
See, e.g.,
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html
But I do not recall ever seeing the report from the "independent structural
engineer." Has this report been published anywhere? Does any one have a
link? Thanks.
Terry
At 04:59 PM 3/12/2008 -0600, you wrote:
>BTW: the additional structural load test done last year was done by an
>independent outsider:
>
>"In order to make absolutely certain nothing is missed, an independent
>structural engineer will confirm the findings of these rigorous tests."
>http://www.zenithair.com/news/c-heintz-5-10-2007.html
>
>Now you may say that it wasn't really independent since Zenith was paying
>for it. But I have a hard time believing a professional would put his names
>on a report if he didn't believe it. Ignoring personal integrity, think of
>his liability as an independent structural engineer.
>
>-- Craig
Terry Phillips
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
Message 132
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Nah, shaking the wingtips would reveal nothing about any inherent design flaws,
but if there was any sort of fretting or looseness due to undertorqued attach
bolts, you'd most likely hear and feel it.
Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, my primary flight instructor always said
to give the wingtip a good shake, if for no other reason than to feel better about
the integrity of the wing and spar. I still do it out of habit to this day
during preflight, no matter what the airplane or spar structure.
Maybe some day I'll actually find a loose wing attachment. Sorry if my comment
muddied the waters of the current discussion.
rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 6:01 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:11:20PM -0800, Rick Lindstrom wrote:
>> >Will this, in fact, reveal the problem in time to avoid a failure?
>> Well, I may be obtuse, but I'm not convinced that there is a "problem"
>> when the airplane is flown within its design limits.
>
>I was referring to your suggestion to rock the wingtips during preflight. If
>there's a structural weakness that would result in a failure, would this
>procedure reveal it?
>--
>Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
>http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
>Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
>AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)
>
>
Message 133
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Mike, I have no idea what Zenith will say, but I do know that they're aware of
the need to address the issue in short order. I'm pretty confident that we'll
hear something official well before Sun 'n' Fun.
If not, we can always beat them up there. At least we'll have something interesting
to discuss, right?
rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: mwtucker <mwtucker@windstream.net>
>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 6:03 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>
>
>Thanks, Rick Lindstrom for your encouraging post regarding the 601XL alleged in-flight
wing failures. I am very encouraged that Zenith may be communicating
with us soon.... This is the best news... I hope it comes to pass and that
the Zenith response is comprehensive.
>
>I am planning to ask about it at Sun-n-Fun... Maybe we'll hear something before
then?
>
>Thanks for your input.
>
>Mike
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169437#169437
>
>
Message 134
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Just my two cents.
I too am curious about the Australian aircraft accident investigation
board findings, but I have confidence in the structural integrity of my
XL that I built from a kit and flew on its maiden flight ---------------
as long as I fly it in its RECOMMENDED FLIGHT ENVELOPE.
I now have 357 hours and over 700 take-offs/landings on my
601XL/Jab3300. It has wing lockers and aux tanks. I flew it once in a
gradual build up of runs in calm air to +8% over Vne or 195 MPH IAS in
Phase I, in a shallow dive at max recommended RPM. (some have
speculated the XL could NEVER reach 200 mph -------- YES it can easily!!
.... and even go faster ... before it possibly breaks up)
I have flow in gusty teeth chattering conditions (make sure you have a
tight seat belt and slow down to Va.) with no problems. The XL can be
flown in these conditions, but does require more attention like any
other airplane.
Once in Phase I testing, I was holding it in a stall buffet trying to
get it to break (was in a buffeting stall condition for an extended
period of time) when it abruptly pitched nose straight down (negative
Gs) from I suspect a gust that stalled the Horiz stab. If my seat belt
had not been secured, I am sure I would have been thrown through the
canopy. I have done probably close to a hundred or more stalls during
airwork exercises at most flight conditions/flap settings/power settings
and find the XL to be benign in the stall. I find the airplane to be
easy to fly also.
I believe I can induce catastrophic structural damage to my XL (and
most other airplanes) if I were to apply sudden full stick deflections
at high speed or going to Vne in a dive and applying abrupt near max
control deflections for a rolling, turning pullout. - NO, I am not going
to try it.
There are a lot of hawks, eagles, buzzards in my part of Tennessee. I
look very carefully below 2000 ft for birds, as I suspect a canopy
strike would be a BAD problem in the XL, ........ or in
C-150/172/182/Piper etc.
Tony Graziano
Buchanan, Tn
N493TG
Message 135
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) |
Once in my 43 years of aviating I did find a sloppy main spar bolt. It
really wasnt the bolt, but "wear" in the hole.
I now, always move the wing tip on a preflight, especially forward and aft.
I ve seen pilots shake the wing tip loke crazy. But, if you gently move the
tip up and down, forward and aft there should be zero slop.
When I first installed the wings on my 601 XL I didnt install the drag spar
bolt. Totally amazed how flimsy the wing was without this one bolt. I
think if the drag spar attach broke or came apart, there would be a real
problem flying...
Steve
Still painting and found more fish eye holes today....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lindstrom" <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
> <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>
> Nah, shaking the wingtips would reveal nothing about any inherent design
> flaws, but if there was any sort of fretting or looseness due to
> undertorqued attach bolts, you'd most likely hear and feel it.
>
> Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, my primary flight instructor always
> said to give the wingtip a good shake, if for no other reason than to feel
> better about the integrity of the wing and spar. I still do it out of
> habit to this day during preflight, no matter what the airplane or spar
> structure.
>
> Maybe some day I'll actually find a loose wing attachment. Sorry if my
> comment muddied the waters of the current discussion.
>
> rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
>>Sent: Mar 12, 2008 6:01 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 03:11:20PM -0800, Rick Lindstrom wrote:
>>> >Will this, in fact, reveal the problem in time to avoid a failure?
>>> Well, I may be obtuse, but I'm not convinced that there is a "problem"
>>> when the airplane is flown within its design limits.
>>
>>I was referring to your suggestion to rock the wingtips during preflight.
>>If
>>there's a structural weakness that would result in a failure, would this
>>procedure reveal it?
>>--
>>Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
>>http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
>>Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
>>AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 136
| 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: Zenith instrument panel trim |
it's not cheap but ACS has a glareshield kit: 11-02995
Hans
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169500#169500
Message 137
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm In.
I'm in.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ashontz
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:54 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Pony Up!!
I'm in.
I just created another thread for signing up too. I guess use either one or
both. We'll figure out how to arrange payment if it's not some ridiculous
cost split amongst hardly anyone.
Rick.Beckman(at)atk.com wrote:
> Count me in, if it's reasonable.
> Rick
> Do not archive.
>
>
>
> I suggested awhile back hiring a third party. How many people here are
> willing to pony up some money. Get a quote divide by the number of
> people interested and we'll see if that's reasonable for everyone. Then
> if we've got the money submit it to someone who knows what they're
> doing.
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169268#169268
---------------------------------
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! --
|