---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 03/12/08: 137 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:50:38 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Fuel thread sealant From: "steveadams" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:34:33 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "ashontz" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:36:02 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "ashontz" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:40:04 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "ashontz" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:42:11 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "ashontz" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:32:16 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: CH701 Folding Wings - anyone use this option? From: "mwpicard" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:51:36 AM PST US From: "John Short" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: brs chute ? 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:54:22 AM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" Subject: Zenith-List: 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 Sensornetics and Cummins Spinners 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 or 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:01:37 AM PST US From: ernie 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 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:02:14 AM PST US From: "Clyde Barcus" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Accident 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: Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:22 PM Subject: Zenith-List: Accident > > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:10:05 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Diamond Bends From: "Randall J. Hebert" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:24:57 AM PST US From: William Dominguez Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Accident 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:35:40 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "dfmoeller" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:43:46 AM PST US From: "John Short" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:44:55 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:46:14 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:50:12 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "MHerder" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:12 AM PST US From: Keith Ashcraft Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ________________________________ 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:12 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:11:44 AM PST US From: "John Bolding" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:17:59 AM PST US From: MacDonald Doug Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 wrote: > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:18:06 AM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Accident 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 > *To:* 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:32:13 AM PST US From: John Davis Subject: Zenith-List: Latest on Australian accident Divers locate Gold Coast ultralight crash bodies Posted 5 hours 48 minutes ago * *Map: *Main Beach 4217 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:45:06 AM PST US From: "John Bolding" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:52:33 AM PST US From: "Carlos Sa" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:04:07 AM PST US From: "Clyde Barcus" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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" Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:42 AM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident > > > 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" > To: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:09:23 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:15:40 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "Sabrina" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:15:56 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Pony Up!! From: "Beckman, Rick" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:24:14 AM PST US From: "Dave Austin" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:26:30 AM PST US From: ernie Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:36:19 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:49:27 AM PST US Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Diamond Bends From: "Randall J. Hebert" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:50:43 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "pavel569" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:53:06 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Sign-on for structural analysis From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:54:16 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:56:13 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Pony Up!! From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:05:37 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Regarding previously stated accidents (my 2 cents) From: Andrew Lieser 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:16:28 AM PST US From: John Davis Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:21:28 AM PST US From: Terry Phillips Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:25:30 AM PST US From: "kweiss18@cogeco.ca"@cogeco.ca Subject: re: Zenith-List: Sign-on for structural analysis I'm in. ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:54 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Sign-on for structural analysis From: "hansriet" I'm in. Hans van Riet Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169281#169281 ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 09:40:28 AM PST US From: "Clyde Barcus" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident I'm in. Clyde Barcus 601 XL, Continental Powered From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:20 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Sign-on for structural analysis From: "Martin Pohl" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:48:08 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Sign-on for structural analysis From: "PatrickW" I'm in. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169284#169284 ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 09:54:26 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: XL - success stories From: "KC7HFA" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:54:34 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:16:33 AM PST US From: "Larry Winger" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Sign-on for structural analysis I'm in. Larry Winger On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:50 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 49 ____________________________________ Time: 10:20:57 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Sign-on for structural analysis From: "delta42" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:21:32 AM PST US From: Juan Vega 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 >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 51 ____________________________________ Time: 10:23:52 AM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:24:49 AM PST US From: "Iberplanes IGL" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Sign-on for structural analysis Count me in. Bye Alberto Martin Iberplanes IGL http://www.iberplanes.es Igualada - Barcelona - Espaa ----- Original Message ----- From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:43:44 AM PST US From: "Iberplanes IGL" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 >>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 54 ____________________________________ Time: 10:46:49 AM PST US From: "Darrell Haas" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 wrote: > > I'm in. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169284#169284 > > ________________________________ Message 55 ____________________________________ Time: 10:52:08 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) From: "haven" The link is in the first post. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169312#169312 ________________________________ Message 56 ____________________________________ Time: 11:02:57 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Sign-on for structural analysis From: "pavel569" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:05:03 AM PST US From: Al Hays Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:10:36 AM PST US From: Debo Cox Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Sign-on for structural analysis I'm in. Debo Cox do not archive Larry Winger wrote: I'm in. Larry Winger On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:50 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 59 ____________________________________ Time: 11:19:56 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Sign-on for structural analysis From: "cookwithgas" _____*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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:39:30 AM PST US From: William Dominguez 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 61 ____________________________________ Time: 11:49:58 AM PST US From: Terry Phillips Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:57:48 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) From: "MHerder" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:00:20 PM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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 >>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 64 ____________________________________ Time: 12:17:58 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "Matt Ronics" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:18:21 PM PST US From: Juan Vega 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 > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:27:23 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Pony Up!! From: "JURU8878" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:29:42 PM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:38:07 PM PST US From: William Dominguez Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Sign-on for structural analysis I'm in. William Dominguez Zodiac 601XL Plans Miami Florida http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom ________________________________ Message 69 ____________________________________ Time: 12:47:13 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Liability Insurance From: "mwtucker" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:50:56 PM PST US From: "THOMAS SMALL" 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 71 ____________________________________ Time: 12:53:33 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "n85ae" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:56:54 PM PST US From: george may Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Pony Up!! 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:04:23 PM PST US From: ernie Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 * 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:04:41 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "Matt Ronics" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:11:59 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Sign-on for structural analysis From: "flyingmike9" i am in Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169359#169359 ________________________________ Message 76 ____________________________________ Time: 01:16:06 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) From: "Matt Ronics" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:25:14 PM PST US From: "John Bolding" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Pony Up!! Good point !! Mississippi State comes to mind, they have and excellent aero engineering program. Sic'em guys John ----- Original Message ----- From: "JURU8878" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:36:16 PM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:36:34 PM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:47:08 PM PST US From: "Clyde Barcus" 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" Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:57 PM 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. 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:50:47 PM PST US From: "Larry Winger" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:54:08 PM PST US From: "Larry Winger" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:13:40 PM PST US From: Elden Jacobson Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident What, pray tell, is the point of your anti-government rant? Elden J. xl/3300 Paul Mulwitz 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:14:12 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) From: "Tim Juhl" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:28:03 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) From: "swater6" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:33:27 PM PST US From: 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 87 ____________________________________ Time: 02:34:07 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "swater6" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:34:21 PM PST US From: "Iberplanes IGL" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:41:28 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) From: "Sabrina" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:47:00 PM PST US From: "Iberplanes IGL" 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" Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:34 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:06:37 PM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:57 PM >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. 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:20:31 PM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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" >To: ; >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:34 PM >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >>>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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:27:08 PM PST US From: Jaybannist@cs.com 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 Rick Lindstrom 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 >>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" >>To: >>Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:57 PM >>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. 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:42:17 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) From: "MHerder" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:43:15 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz 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 96 ____________________________________ Time: 03:46:11 PM PST US From: Jay Maynard 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 97 ____________________________________ Time: 03:56:19 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:02:19 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:04:56 PM PST US From: "steve" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ___________________________________ Time: 04:08:32 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" 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 101 ___________________________________ Time: 04:13:33 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Accident > 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 ___________________________________ Time: 04:13:54 PM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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 ___________________________________ Time: 04:39:12 PM PST US From: "ZodieRocket" 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 104 ___________________________________ Time: 04:40:13 PM PST US From: rsteele@rjsit.com Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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 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 ___________________________________ Time: 04:40:44 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident From: "MHerder" 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 ___________________________________ Time: 04:45:46 PM PST US From: "Randy" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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: 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 ___________________________________ Time: 04:55:44 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) 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 108 ___________________________________ Time: 04:59:56 PM PST US From: "Southern Reflections" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Sign-on for structural analysis I am in Joe .. N101HD 601XL /RAM ----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Hays" Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:02 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 109 ___________________________________ Time: 05:02:41 PM PST US From: NYTerminat@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ___________________________________ Time: 05:20:58 PM PST US From: "Andrew Ackland" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 601 incident 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 ___________________________________ Time: 05:25:20 PM PST US From: "Southern Reflections" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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" 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 ___________________________________ Time: 05:38:05 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) From: "Tim Juhl" 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 ___________________________________ Time: 05:55:10 PM PST US From: Larry H Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ___________________________________ Time: 05:55:29 PM PST US From: "Clyde Barcus" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ___________________________________ Time: 06:01:33 PM PST US From: "Matt Stecher" Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ___________________________________ Time: 06:03:25 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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 ___________________________________ Time: 06:04:40 PM PST US From: Jay Maynard 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 118 ___________________________________ Time: 06:06:15 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) From: "mwtucker" 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 ___________________________________ Time: 06:12:10 PM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ___________________________________ Time: 06:14:17 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601 incident From: "swater6" 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 ___________________________________ Time: 06:17:51 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Sign-on for structural analysis From: "ashontz" 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 ___________________________________ Time: 06:44:03 PM PST US Subject: RE: Zenith-List: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash) From: "Randall J. Hebert" 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) --> 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" 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 ___________________________________ Time: 06:46:52 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Intrument Panel Trim From: "leinad" 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 ___________________________________ Time: 07:17:41 PM PST US From: "Gary Ray" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Intrument Panel Trim I used chrome colored plastic edge guard with self adhesive from the local auto supply house. ----- Original Message ----- From: "leinad" 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 ___________________________________ Time: 07:21:40 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ___________________________________ Time: 08:05:56 PM PST US From: "David Lautenschlager" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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 ___________________________________ Time: 08:14:30 PM PST US From: "George Swinford" Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ___________________________________ Time: 08:16:35 PM PST US From: "David Lautenschlager" Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Pony Up!! 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 ___________________________________ Time: 08:20:09 PM PST US From: ernie Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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, 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" > To: > 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 130 ___________________________________ Time: 09:10:24 PM PST US From: Terry Phillips Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ___________________________________ Time: 09:10:24 PM PST US From: Terry Phillips Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ___________________________________ Time: 09:24:47 PM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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 ___________________________________ Time: 09:43:49 PM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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 ___________________________________ Time: 09:59:55 PM PST US From: "T. Graziano" Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Accident 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 ___________________________________ Time: 10:15:03 PM PST US From: "steve" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:21 PM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >>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 ___________________________________ Time: 10:30:23 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith instrument panel trim From: "hansriet" 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 ___________________________________ Time: 10:30:27 PM PST US From: Steve Shuck Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Pony Up!! 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.