Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:56 AM - Re: Re: As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing to say case closed. (Iberplanes IGL)
2. 03:01 AM - Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group (Iberplanes IGL)
3. 04:41 AM - Re: Re: New Project Problems (David Downey)
4. 04:41 AM - Re: New Project Problems (ashontz)
5. 04:45 AM - Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group (David Downey)
6. 04:46 AM - Re: As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing to say case closed. (ashontz)
7. 04:51 AM - Re: FUEL SYSTEM QUESTION (kmccune)
8. 07:02 AM - Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group (Southern Reflections)
9. 07:23 AM - Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft (Scott Thatcher)
10. 07:30 AM - Re: FUEL SYSTEM QUESTION (M.Marcotte)
11. 07:40 AM - Re: Re: As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing to say case closed. (Iberplanes IGL)
12. 07:53 AM - Re: 701 First Flight (Jeffrey A Beachy)
13. 08:01 AM - Re: Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft (steve)
14. 08:03 AM - Zenith Builders Analysis Group (Scott Thatcher)
15. 08:33 AM - 601XL- how long?- till R.I.P. (Dave G.)
16. 08:42 AM - Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft (PatrickW)
17. 08:51 AM - Re: Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft (Jaybannist@cs.com)
18. 09:06 AM - Re: Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft (steve)
19. 09:06 AM - Re: FUEL SYSTEM QUESTION (Bill Steer)
20. 09:24 AM - canopy latch cable (leinad)
21. 09:33 AM - Re: canopy latch cable (Craig Payne)
22. 09:48 AM - Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group (lwhitlow)
23. 10:02 AM - Unintended Consequences, and this outside engineering Plan (lwhitlow)
24. 10:18 AM - Don't Give Up the CH601XL dREAM (PLAV8R)
25. 10:29 AM - Re: Unintended Consequences, and this outside engineering Plan (pavel569)
26. 10:31 AM - Re: Unintended Consequences, and this outside engineering Plan (Craig Payne)
27. 11:11 AM - I know this guy.............. (steve)
28. 11:19 AM - Re: FUEL SYSTEM QUESTION (Sabrina)
29. 11:24 AM - Re: I know this guy.............. (Aerolitellc@aol.com)
30. 11:38 AM - Re: Don't Give Up the CH601XL dREAM (sdthatcher)
31. 11:53 AM - Re: FUEL SYSTEM QUESTION (Gig Giacona)
32. 12:03 PM - Re: I know this guy.............. (Juan Vega)
33. 12:07 PM - Re: Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group (Terry Phillips)
34. 12:23 PM - Re: I know this guy.............. (David Downey)
35. 12:25 PM - Re: FUEL SYSTEM QUESTION (MaxNr@aol.com)
36. 12:26 PM - Re: Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group (Craig Payne)
37. 12:40 PM - Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group (lwhitlow)
38. 12:54 PM - Re: I know this guy............... (MaxNr@aol.com)
39. 01:14 PM - Re: Position of trailing edge - Flaps/Aileron (Paul Mulwitz)
40. 01:28 PM - Re: 601XL- how long?- till R.I.P. (john H)
41. 01:49 PM - Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group (ashontz)
42. 02:22 PM - Re: I know this guy.............. (steve)
43. 02:58 PM - Re: I know this guy.............. (Aerolitellc@aol.com)
44. 04:16 PM - Re: FUEL SYSTEM QUESTION (floyd wilkes)
45. 04:23 PM - Monday Evening Chat Reminder For Digesters (George Race)
46. 05:36 PM - Re: canopy latch cable (Bryan Martin)
47. 07:03 PM - Registration questions E-LSA (dstasch)
48. 07:18 PM - Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft (sdthatcher)
49. 07:19 PM - Re: Registration questions E-LSA (Craig Payne)
50. 07:21 PM - Re: Registration questions E-LSA (Paul Mulwitz)
51. 07:53 PM - Re: Registration questions E-LSA (Ronald Steele)
52. 08:11 PM - Re: Registration questions E-LSA (Bryan Martin)
53. 10:10 PM - Re: Registration questions E-LSA (dstasch)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing to say case |
closed.
Hi there,
I have seen the pictures of the spanish incident, and a partial report.
Seems to be a match-case with this one. I also asked Gary and William to
translate some parts into English.
Regarding the photos, still waiting authorization to publish on the site.
Sorry on this.
talk to you soon,
Alberto Martin
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Espaa
----- Original Message -----
From: "dfmoeller" <dfmoeller@austin.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:24 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing to say
case closed.
>
> Just asking, in all seriousness, because I've lost track; was the Spanish
> incident explained, or did that turn out not to be a wing fold?
>
> Doug
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179264#179264
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group |
I think engine choise vs vibrations should be included. E.g.. Rotax 912
and Jab3300.
Alberto Martin
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Espa=F1a
----- Original Message -----
From: Craig Payne
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:54 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Zenith Builders Analysis Group
My comments:
- I am not a lawyer. Although I can see some REMOTE possibility of the
engineer doing the analysis incurring some liability it is hard to see
how those paying him would. And any engineer worth his salt has been
designing real-world projects and already addressed the liability issue.
- I think the analysis should be informed by the load testing done to
date by Zenith's outside testing engineers. If at all possible the
formal reports from those tests should be obtained from Zenith
(possibly directly by the contracted engineer)
- If possible the engineer should be able to ask Zenith (preferably
Chris) questions during his investigation. Otherwise it is very likely
that he will finish his report with a conclusion of X and Zenith will
come back and say "but you didn't consider Y". Some kind of conversation
during the investigation would go a long way to ensure a useful outcome.
- I assume that when the hypothetical engineer hears about the events
motivating this project he will have his own ideas about what would make
sense in the statement of work. He (or she) has done this kind of thing
before, we have not. Your penultimate paragraph below basically says
this.
- I suspect the statement of work will have to be greatly cut back to
make this project affordable. The question is how limited can the
project be and still produce a useful result.
- You might want to point whoever does the work to the Zenith
Construction Standards document too.
We could just wait until Sabrina has her degree and exploit her
motivation. But I don't want to wait 2 years until she graduates from
MIT. J
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Phillips
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 10:50 PM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: Zenith-List: Zenith Builders Analysis Group
At 02:24 PM 4/25/2008 -0500, John Bolding wrote:
Jeff,
No deviation from my feeble point of view.
.....
Progress is slow on the engineering front, I'm gonna call Thurston and
see if he's interested in the project in case the academic doesn't pan
out. He may want something useful to do in his spare time.
Ya'll choose up a point man so if somebody says they are ready to do
it there won't be any fumbling around. I think it needs to be a 601 guy
in the middle of this as there might be some back and forth.
Progress is indeed slow. However, there is some that I can report.
Apparently it is finals time at Embry-Riddle, so the profs are pretty
busy. I have sent them links to the Yuba City photos, as well as, scans
of several of my wing drawings. We have tentatively arranged a phone
call on Thursday, May 1 to discuss the engineering evaluation of the
601XL wing. In preparation for that call, I have drafted a statement of
work that I will append to this message. I would invite comments,
suggestions, flames, whatever. I'll need a revised version before the
phone call.
I spoke with one of the 601XL builders who I was hoping could provide
a second signature on the bank account to provide a measure of fiscal
control for the project. He told me that he would not take that role
because he was concerned about potential liability. And, he more or less
told me that I was crazy if I took an active role. I guess I'm crazy. I
think someone has to take some initiative. It's either that, or walk
away from a year of work and a $16,000 investment. Because I do not have
the confidence I need in the aircraft at this time. However, his point
is well taken, and I'm considering the following steps to limit
liability exposure:
a.. Distribute the engineering report only to those "members" who
have supported the analysis financially.
b.. Require each "member" to sign a release and hold harmless form
that would be shamelessly plagiarized from the forms I had to sign for
ZAC and JabiruUSA.
c.. Initiate work on the analysis only after enough funding has been
received to fund the complete statement of work.
d.. If sufficient funds are not received within 4 weeks of the
initial request for funding, then all checks will be returned using a
SASE provided by each "member," and the analysis will not be done.
Again, I invite your comments, flames, whatever, on the above. It's
possible imposing the above conditions would decrease support so that
the analysis could not be made. If so, I would be happy to relinquish my
role to anyone who has a better idea to make the analysis happen. Let
me know if you are interested.
Draft Statement of Work:
Zenith Builders Analysis Group
Statement of Work for Zenith CH601XL Independent Engineering Analysis
Rev. 0
April 26, 2008
GOAL: The goal of this analysis is to analyze the wing design of the
CH601XL:
1.. To attempt to determine whether the structure, as designed, has
adequate strength to meet the published design loads of +6G and -3G.
2.. Assuming that the analysis shows that the structure, as designed
probably has adequate strength, then
3.. Evaluate the susceptibility of the flaps and ailerons to
flutter. If the analysis shows that flutter is a possible occurrence
when a CH601XL is flown within the design envelope, then evaluate
possible modifications to minimize or eliminate the flutter.
4.. Consider the effect of design options on the ability of the wing
to meet design standards:
1.. Hinged vs. skin flex hinge aileron attachment.
2.. Aileron trim tab option.
3.. Wing locker option.
4.. Landing light option.
5.. Thirty gallon vs. 24 gallon fuel tanks.
6.. ???
5.. Consider, to the extent possible given time and budget
constraints, the effect of typicalbuilder mistakes, e.g.,
1.. Wrong size or kind of rivets used at high stress location.
2.. Missing, loose, or wrong sized bolts.
3.. Mis-placed or wrong sized openings, e.g., the hole for the
aileron control rod, holes in ribs for wiring, fuel lines, pitot lines,
etc.
4.. Two or three piece nose skin
5.. ???
The first task will be to Review the information available about the
accidents which have occurred that may have involved in-flight breakup
of the aircraft structure. The purpose of this review is to discover
information that might guide the analysis of the wing.
At the completion of the investigation, the engineer will submit a
written report covering the results and recommendations, if any, for
changes to the aircraft design to reduce the possibility of in-flight
breakup.
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/
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Project Problems |
Hi Ron;
I am not the originator of the message but the shear values are simply the minimum
load transfer condition - and even then they only apply when the joint is
burr free and sheared up. Face to face friction due to clamping is a major transfer
component.
Usually, in certificated aircraft, when you see an ultimate failure, you usually
see rows of rivets popped intermingled with sheet failure in and out of those
rows of holes. The butts or heads of those rivets are many times still present
on one side of the other.
Design of a riveted joint involves knowing the bearing strength of the component(s)
to be joined and the shear and tension capabilities of the fastener. The
pattern and fastyener diameter is selected to give as nearly even a failure mode
split between fastener shear and sheet bearing. Since our fasteners depend
to a very great deal on the work hardening of the fastener during setting, the
hole size and quality are VERY important - and not many people care about that
anymore (or proper deburring) ...takes too long, is not critical, not building
SSTs, etc.
Ronald Steele <rsteele@rjsit.com> wrote: Coming from a structures background,
this seems completely backward, so I googled a bit and found that for aerospace
applications, bolted connections are usually designed with bolts in shear -
a no-no for structures. I'm a curious as to why. All the web pages I found that
might talk about this require a membership. Could you educate the group a
bit on why aerospace connections rely on shear rather than clamping pressure,
the norm for most applications?
do not archive
Ron
On Apr 27, 2008, at 12:28 AM, n801bh@netzero.com wrote:
The forces acting on that joint are in shear, not tension. A reamed hole is critical.
Period!!!!
do not archive
> Zenith told me that it isn't as much the bolt hole tolerance that is critical
but the clamping pressure of the bolt that is more important just like the prop.
They told me the same thing. But it is at odds with the requirement that the holes be precision reamed. On an RV-7 the equivalent holes are burnished. Ive attached a close-up of a shot of Lance Gingells RV-7a spar. He is making great progress: http://lancegingell.blogspot.com/
BTW: the only way I have found to get an accurate measurement on the hole sizes
is to use plug gauges. I bought a set from Grizzly but Zenith has been loaning
a handful of gauges near the correct size to other builders to check theirs.
-- Craig
_____________________________________________________________
Prepare for the unexpected. Click now to prepare a living trust.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Project Problems |
I wholely agree. The torque value/clamp force, has been dicussed here before. I
still think under enough cycles, that spr will move a bit if not reamed. Movement
leads to fatigue, leads to failure.
The plans call for reaming, yet they say it's not critical. Doesn't mkae sense,
particularly for that joint. Reaming is the way to go.
[quote="n801bh(at)netzero.com"]The forces acting on that joint are in shear, not
tension. A reamed hole is critical. Period!!!!
do not archive
> Zenith told me that it isn't as much the bolt hole tolerance that is critical
but the clamping pressure of the bolt that is more important just like the prop.
>
>
They told me the same thing. But it is at odds with the requirement that the holes be precision reamed. On an RV-7 the equivalent holes are burnished. I?ve attached a close-up of a shot of Lance Gingell?s RV-7a spar. He is making great progress: http://lancegingell.blogspot.com/
BTW: the only way I have found to get an accurate measurement on the hole sizes
is to use plug gauges. I bought a set from Grizzly but Zenith has been loaning
a handful of gauges near the correct size to other builders to check theirs.
-- Craig
_____________________________________________________________
Prepare for the unexpected. Click now to prepare a living trust. (http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2222/fc/Ioyw6i4tFu4ocgOCfRKhlYkj1yAtOR52JrXQfKa2BOX8dqxmt3hZpw/)
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179543#179543
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group |
do not archive
Terry;
Why +6 -3 G's? My current edition plans still show +/-6 G's.
Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net> wrote: At 02:24 PM 4/25/2008 -0500, John Bolding
wrote:
Jeff,
No deviation from my feeble point of view.
.....
Progress is slow on the engineering front, I'm gonna call Thurston and see if
he's interested in the project in case the academic doesn't pan out. He may want
something useful to do in his spare time.
Ya'll choose up a point man so if somebody says they are ready to do it there
won't be any fumbling around. I think it needs to be a 601 guy in the middle of
this as there might be some back and forth.
Progress is indeed slow. However, there is some that I can report. Apparently
it is finals time at Embry-Riddle, so the profs are pretty busy. I have sent
them links to the Yuba City photos, as well as, scans of several of my wing drawings.
We have tentatively arranged a phone call on Thursday, May 1 to discuss
the engineering evaluation of the 601XL wing. In preparation for that call,
I have drafted a statement of work that I will append to this message. I would
invite comments, suggestions, flames, whatever. I'll need a revised version before
the phone call.
I spoke with one of the 601XL builders who I was hoping could provide a second
signature on the bank account to provide a measure of fiscal control for the
project. He told me that he would not take that role because he was concerned
about potential liability. And, he more or less told me that I was crazy if I
took an active role. I guess I'm crazy. I think someone has to take some initiative.
It's either that, or walk away from a year of work and a $16,000 investment.
Because I do not have the confidence I need in the aircraft at this time.
However, his point is well taken, and I'm considering the following steps to
limit liability exposure:
Distribute the engineering report only to those "members" who have supported
the analysis financially.
Require each "member" to sign a release and hold harmless form that would be
shamelessly plagiarized from the forms I had to sign for ZAC and JabiruUSA.
Initiate work on the analysis only after enough funding has been received to
fund the complete statement of work.
If sufficient funds are not received within 4 weeks of the initial request for
funding, then all checks will be returned using a SASE provided by each "member,"
and the analysis will not be done.
Again, I invite your comments, flames, whatever, on the above. It's possible imposing
the above conditions would decrease support so that the analysis could
not be made. If so, I would be happy to relinquish my role to anyone who has a
better idea to make the analysis happen. Let me know if you are interested.
Draft Statement of Work:
Zenith Builders Analysis Group
Statement of Work for Zenith CH601XL Independent Engineering Analysis
Rev. 0
April 26, 2008
GOAL: The goal of this analysis is to analyze the wing design of the CH601XL:
To attempt to determine whether the structure, as designed, has adequate strength
to meet the published design loads of +6G and -3G.
Assuming that the analysis shows that the structure, as designed probably has
adequate strength, then
Evaluate the susceptibility of the flaps and ailerons to flutter. If the analysis
shows that flutter is a possible occurrence when a CH601XL is flown within
the design envelope, then evaluate possible modifications to minimize or eliminate
the flutter.
Consider the effect of design options on the ability of the wing to meet design
standards:
Hinged vs. skin flex hinge aileron attachment.
Aileron trim tab option.
Wing locker option.
Landing light option.
Thirty gallon vs. 24 gallon fuel tanks.
???
Consider, to the extent possible given time and budget constraints, the effect
of typicalbuilder mistakes, e.g.,
Wrong size or kind of rivets used at high stress location.
Missing, loose, or wrong sized bolts.
Mis-placed or wrong sized openings, e.g., the hole for the aileron control
rod, holes in ribs for wiring, fuel lines, pitot lines, etc.
Two or three piece nose skin
???
The first task will be to Review the information available about the accidents
which have occurred that may have involved in-flight breakup of the aircraft structure.
The purpose of this review is to discover information that might guide
the analysis of the wing.
At the completion of the investigation, the engineer will submit a written report
covering the results and recommendations, if any, for changes to the aircraft
design to reduce the possibility of in-flight breakup.
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/
Dave Downey
Harleysville (SE) PA
100 HP Corvair
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing to say case closed. |
"Matched case" meaning what, that it appears as though there was no bolt in the
rear spar?
Iberplanes wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have seen the pictures of the spanish incident, and a partial report.
> Seems to be a match-case with this one. I also asked Gary and William to
> translate some parts into English.
>
> Regarding the photos, still waiting authorization to publish on the site.
> Sorry on this.
>
> talk to you soon,
>
> Alberto Martin
> Iberplanes IGL
> http://www.iberplanes.es
> Igualada - Barcelona - Espa
> ---
--------
Andy Shontz
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179544#179544
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FUEL SYSTEM QUESTION |
Don't forget to give yourself a way to know that the alternator has quit, otherwise
the battery may not be of any use. Voltmeter, idiot light ect...
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179546#179546
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group |
Terry,I sent the email to Matt,no reply as of yet, just read your post,
and I 'am with this effort 100%, like I said before my plane is staying
on the ground untill this matter is solved. keep me in the loop....Joe
N101HD 601XL/RAM
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Phillips
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 12:49 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Zenith Builders Analysis Group
At 02:24 PM 4/25/2008 -0500, John Bolding wrote:
Jeff,
No deviation from my feeble point of view.
.....
Progress is slow on the engineering front, I'm gonna call Thurston
and see if he's interested in the project in case the academic doesn't
pan out. He may want something useful to do in his spare time.
Ya'll choose up a point man so if somebody says they are ready to do
it there won't be any fumbling around. I think it needs to be a 601 guy
in the middle of this as there might be some back and forth.
Progress is indeed slow. However, there is some that I can report.
Apparently it is finals time at Embry-Riddle, so the profs are pretty
busy. I have sent them links to the Yuba City photos, as well as, scans
of several of my wing drawings. We have tentatively arranged a phone
call on Thursday, May 1 to discuss the engineering evaluation of the
601XL wing. In preparation for that call, I have drafted a statement of
work that I will append to this message. I would invite comments,
suggestions, flames, whatever. I'll need a revised version before the
phone call.
I spoke with one of the 601XL builders who I was hoping could provide
a second signature on the bank account to provide a measure of fiscal
control for the project. He told me that he would not take that role
because he was concerned about potential liability. And, he more or less
told me that I was crazy if I took an active role. I guess I'm crazy. I
think someone has to take some initiative. It's either that, or walk
away from a year of work and a $16,000 investment. Because I do not have
the confidence I need in the aircraft at this time. However, his point
is well taken, and I'm considering the following steps to limit
liability exposure:
a.. Distribute the engineering report only to those "members" who
have supported the analysis financially.
b.. Require each "member" to sign a release and hold harmless form
that would be shamelessly plagiarized from the forms I had to sign for
ZAC and JabiruUSA.
c.. Initiate work on the analysis only after enough funding has been
received to fund the complete statement of work.
d.. If sufficient funds are not received within 4 weeks of the
initial request for funding, then all checks will be returned using a
SASE provided by each "member," and the analysis will not be done.
Again, I invite your comments, flames, whatever, on the above. It's
possible imposing the above conditions would decrease support so that
the analysis could not be made. If so, I would be happy to relinquish my
role to anyone who has a better idea to make the analysis happen. Let
me know if you are interested.
Draft Statement of Work:
Zenith Builders Analysis Group
Statement of Work for Zenith CH601XL Independent Engineering Analysis
Rev. 0
April 26, 2008
GOAL: The goal of this analysis is to analyze the wing design of the
CH601XL:
1.. To attempt to determine whether the structure, as designed, has
adequate strength to meet the published design loads of +6G and -3G.
2.. Assuming that the analysis shows that the structure, as designed
probably has adequate strength, then
3.. Evaluate the susceptibility of the flaps and ailerons to
flutter. If the analysis shows that flutter is a possible occurrence
when a CH601XL is flown within the design envelope, then evaluate
possible modifications to minimize or eliminate the flutter.
4.. Consider the effect of design options on the ability of the wing
to meet design standards:
1.. Hinged vs. skin flex hinge aileron attachment.
2.. Aileron trim tab option.
3.. Wing locker option.
4.. Landing light option.
5.. Thirty gallon vs. 24 gallon fuel tanks.
6.. ???
5.. Consider, to the extent possible given time and budget
constraints, the effect of typicalbuilder mistakes, e.g.,
1.. Wrong size or kind of rivets used at high stress location.
2.. Missing, loose, or wrong sized bolts.
3.. Mis-placed or wrong sized openings, e.g., the hole for the
aileron control rod, holes in ribs for wiring, fuel lines, pitot lines,
etc.
4.. Two or three piece nose skin
5.. ???
The first task will be to Review the information available about the
accidents which have occurred that may have involved in-flight breakup
of the aircraft structure. The purpose of this review is to discover
information that might guide the analysis of the wing.
At the completion of the investigation, the engineer will submit a
written report covering the results and recommendations, if any, for
changes to the aircraft design to reduce the possibility of in-flight
breakup.
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 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft |
Just a quick note for those who are concerned about flying their 601XL amid
the recent accident paranoia (I include me as well).
Use a Borescope: The 601XL that sustained vibration damage during a
descending turn and who has successfully repaired that damage has mentioned
that prior to his first flight, he used a borescope to inspect the inside of
the wing, spar and caps, and found them in excellent condition. He was
planning to fly shortly.
Nylon Flap Stop: Also, another reminder to be sure you have installed the
nylon flap stops as indicated in the plans. I have seen two aircraft without
them and one stated that he felt vibration in the wing during cruise flight!
The flaps should not exhibit any movement whatsoever when in the up position
and the nylon stop guarantees that condition will apply. Naturally, when you
lower the flaps, there is a certain amount of movement however the speed at
which you lower the flaps is (should be) significantly lower.
Getting ready for first flight this month!
Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, http://placestofly.com, EAA203
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FUEL SYSTEM QUESTION |
I would install a small alternator like this one
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/sdaltreg.php (only 4 pounds)
where the vacuum pump normally goes and connect it to a completely separate
electrical system for the second fuel pump and for a few critical electrical
flight instruments that would replace the normally vacuum-driven
instruments. I would install the minimum size battery that this alternator
will accept. You might want to add a tie-breaker that could connect your
two electrical systems together in case one of your alternators fails in
flight but keep in mind that the new alternator provides only 8 amps. This
is also a very nice back-up system for glass panels and with this
installation you would never need to install the mechanical pump.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Phillips" <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: FUEL SYSTEM QUESTION
>
> I would suggest that you adopt the philosophy advocated by Electric Bob of
> the Aeroelectric Connection. IIRC, Bob's basic premise is that you should
> wire your airplane so that the failure of the alternator will not result
in
> a life threatening situation. Consider his schematic Z-xx.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Misc_PDF/Zxx.pdf
>
> Notice that there is an endurance bus. The endurance bus should only power
> electrical loads that are necessary for survival. In Z-xx, the endurance
> bus powers the GPS, transponder, NAV/COM, turn coordinator, intercom, and
> the fuel boost pumps. During normal operation, the endurance bus is
powered
> by the alternator through a diode. In the event of an alternator failure,
> the pilot manually throws a switch to power the endurance bus from the
> battery. The diode blocks the power from flowing backwards to the main
> power bus.
>
> The idea is that you size your battery to provide however many minutes you
> believe you will need to land in the event of an alternator failure. Let's
> say the total load on the endurance bus is 15 amps. If you install, e.g.,
> an Odyssey 925 battery, the advertised capacity is 50 minutes with a 25
amp
> load. Since your endurance bus only draws 15 amps, you should be able to
> fly for ~83 minutes while you look for a place to land. Hopefully, with
> your GPS you would not have too much trouble flying to a suitable airport
> in 83 minutes. If you decide that you don't need your NAV/COM or turn
> coordinator while you are en route to the airport, you could switch those
> off until you get close to the airport and, thereby, increase your
endurance.
>
> Finally, you say your are doing, the two fuel boost pumps on separate
> circuits and fuses so that a short in one pump's power circuit would not
> disable the other pump.
>
> I'm a long way from doing that wiring myself, but Electric Bob's approach
> makes good sense to me. My Jabiru engine has a mechanical pump, but I am
> still putting a boost pump (and gascolator) in each wing.
>
> Terry
>
>
> At 06:25 PM 4/26/2008 -0700, you wrote:
> >Hi All
> >
> >I am just finishing up my 601XL with a O-200 engine from a Cessna
> >150. This engine does not have a mechanical fuel pump, so I have
> >installed two electric fuel pumps, with separate electrical lines.
Here's
> >my nagging problem. If I lose the electrics in the plane I will have no
> >fuel pressure. How would some of you handle this possible problem? When
> >I have the engine overhauled in a few years I plan to put a mechanical
> >pump on it, but till then?
>
>
> 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 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing to say case |
closed.
no, it was flying ok, Then a witness saw the plane folding both wings,
another one heard a noise and when it looked up saw the plane like the other
witness..
Ive asked Gary and William to translate something in English. Please, wait
until I get that done. I will publish photos as soon as I get the photo
release.
Alberto Martin
Iberplanes IGL
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Espaa
----- Original Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 1:44 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing to say
case closed.
>
> "Matched case" meaning what, that it appears as though there was no bolt
> in the rear spar?
>
>
> Iberplanes wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I have seen the pictures of the spanish incident, and a partial report.
>> Seems to be a match-case with this one. I also asked Gary and William to
>> translate some parts into English.
>>
>> Regarding the photos, still waiting authorization to publish on the site.
>> Sorry on this.
>>
>> talk to you soon,
>>
>> Alberto Martin
>> Iberplanes IGL
>> http://www.iberplanes.es
>> Igualada - Barcelona - EspaS
>> ---
>
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179544#179544
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 701 First Flight |
Congratulations on your first flight! Enjoy many wonderful hours in your
701. It's a blast to fly.
Jeff Beachy
N701N, 70 hours
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft |
ok, I give... What Flap stop ?????
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Thatcher" <s_thatcher@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 7:20 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft
> <s_thatcher@bellsouth.net>
>
> Just a quick note for those who are concerned about flying their 601XL
> amid the recent accident paranoia (I include me as well).
>
> Use a Borescope: The 601XL that sustained vibration damage during a
> descending turn and who has successfully repaired that damage has
> mentioned that prior to his first flight, he used a borescope to inspect
> the inside of the wing, spar and caps, and found them in excellent
> condition. He was planning to fly shortly.
>
> Nylon Flap Stop: Also, another reminder to be sure you have installed the
> nylon flap stops as indicated in the plans. I have seen two aircraft
> without them and one stated that he felt vibration in the wing during
> cruise flight! The flaps should not exhibit any movement whatsoever when
> in the up position and the nylon stop guarantees that condition will
> apply. Naturally, when you lower the flaps, there is a certain amount of
> movement however the speed at which you lower the flaps is (should be)
> significantly lower.
>
> Getting ready for first flight this month!
>
> Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
> 601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
> N601EL, http://placestofly.com, EAA203
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Zenith Builders Analysis Group |
Thanks Terry for taking an active part in this endeavor.
Here are some additional items that I feel need to be addressed as well.
1.. Smoking rivets (or elongated rivet holes in wing areas)
2.. Varying amounts of fuel (someone mentioned that a flutter was
observed in a different aircraft when fuel was 1/3 capacity)
3.. Missing nylon flap stop (inducing vibrations at cruise)
Thanks again for your efforts.
Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, http://placestofly.com, EAA203
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 601XL- how long?- till R.I.P. |
I have no idea how, why, or even IF the wings fold up on the 601 XL. But
it's the dominant subject on this builders newsgroup. I'm not suggesting it
shouldn't be but since Zenith has walked away from ALL their previous ideas
and designs. The CH100, CH-200, CH-300 etc. How long will it be be before
this question simply sinks the whole 601XL line?
I actually like the olders designs better, the 601 HD is my favorite. Those
thick, thick wings skip through turbulant air with very little bumping.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft |
sdthatcher wrote:
> The 601XL that sustained vibration damage during a
> descending turn and who has successfully repaired that damage has mentioned that
What vibration damage...?
This sounds like another data point.
And something we should add to the list of things to check.
Thanks,
Patrick
XL/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179580#179580
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft |
Steve,
See Drawing 6-S-3.
Jay in Dallas
"steve" <notsew_evets@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>ok, I give... What Flap stop ?????
>----- Original Message -----
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft |
OMG !
I love this website !!!
SW
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jaybannist@cs.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: The accident versus ready to fly aircraft
>
> Steve,
>
> See Drawing 6-S-3.
>
> Jay in Dallas
>
>
> "steve" <notsew_evets@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>ok, I give... What Flap stop ?????
>>----- Original Message -----
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FUEL SYSTEM QUESTION |
What George suggests can be done indirectly, with the endurance buss
normally fed through a diode bridge that derives it's feed from the
output side of the battery contactor, but with an switch-controlled
alternate feed directly from the battery (i.e., the input side of the
battery contactor). One fuel pump is then fed from the endurance buss.
See Figure Z1 of the Aeroeletric Connection publication, which uses a
fuselink for protecting the wire.
Bill
601HD Stratus N109BS
george may wrote:
> I'd insure one pump is feed directly from your battery(fused
> appropriately), while the other can run off of your electrical
> distribution buss. Typically loosing electrics implies loss of
> alternator. The battery will usually last about 1/2 hour with
> essentials. That should be enough to get you safey on the ground using
> the pump directly feeding off the battery.
>
> George May
> 601XL 912s
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | canopy latch cable |
I'm working on my canopy frame and I need to purchase the canopy latch cable.
Is this a throttle cable? If so, does someone either have a part number or some
specs. I've looked at some throttle cables on Summit Racing catalog, but not
sure what the best length would be.
Dan Dempsey
Plans building 601XL.
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179590#179590
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | canopy latch cable |
My factory supplied cable seems more like the brake or shifter cables on a
bicycle.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of leinad
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 10:22 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: canopy latch cable
I'm working on my canopy frame and I need to purchase the canopy latch
cable. Is this a throttle cable? If so, does someone either have a part
number or some specs. I've looked at some throttle cables on Summit Racing
catalog, but not sure what the best length would be.
Dan Dempsey
Plans building 601XL.
--------
Scratch building XL with Corvair Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179590#179590
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group |
Terry and others who want an outside engineering analysis.
I do understand your desire to be confident in the design and safety of the 601XL.
Like you I have a $17500 kit that I want to be able to fly safely.
But if you proceed with the analysis under the terms you have stated below, You
will destroy not only your own investment of both time and money but you will
destroy everyone else's investments in their aircraft as well, NO MATTER WHAT
THE ENGINEERING REPORT HAS TO SAY!!
Curious?? I'll explain.
If the analysis is done and a completed report exists then....
If the results of the report are only seen by the "contributors" A giant unanswered
question hangs over the aircraft, Is it OK??? Has a problem been found? Are
there modifications suggested?? This will weaken the "airplane shopping publics"
opinion of the aircraft, and perhaps be enough to make them choose another
aircraft with "less of an unknown factor". Even if the report says every things
A-OK, the very fact that its a secret, will deter buyers. If this choice
occurs enough times then Zenith ceases production and support of the 601XL or
perhaps ceases business all together. I'm sure we can all agree that this would
not be a desirable outcome.
Also a engineering report known only to some of the fleet of 601XL devalues them
all. Questions will arise? Do you know about the report? Have you made modifications
based on the report? Once again confusion and unknowns take over and
we all loose.
More importantly Lets say the report reveals something that should be addressed,
and you get your secret copy. Are you, ( a builder, a pilot, an aviation enthusiast)
actually going to let another pilot or builder fly a machine that you
know has a problem and NOT TELL HIM OR HER ABOUT IT!!! That's not what the
sport aviation community should be all about. Could you live with yourself knowing
you could have prevented a tragedy but did nothing because the other person
didn't contribute to the funding of this witch hunt. By the way what if some
people contribute less than others to the funding of this report??? Are you
only going to give them part of the data? Maybe the higher dollar contributors
get the data first and its held from the lower dollar contributors for a period
of time.
And of course if the report says "everything is fine" Now What? Its a secret,
so all of the bad things listed above still happen, and the shrill voices calling
for a redesign or "beef up" or whatever continue un-abated. AND WE ALL STILL
LOOSE.
The sport aviation community is about helping yourself and others fly enjoyably
and safely. A secret report will do none of that and quite possibly be the beginning
of the end of our hobby and pastime as we know it. I hope than my son
will be able to learn to fly and to build his own airplane someday. This has
all the earmarks of seriously damaging something that I dearly love to do.
Any crash or problem with a amateur built experimental aircraft affects us all.
If we don't take good care and be as responsible as we possibly can within the
rules currently in place, then the not so interested government WILL step in
and make things harder for all of us.
I seen posts recently with all sorts of speculation, guesses, critical observations,
and truly useful thoughts and suggestions, I think the discussion is valid
and useful as long as it is the open exchange of ideas and working towards
a common goal of a safe and fun airplane
But, I implore all of you to not give into fear and hysteria while we search for
a cause or problem. Statements like "As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing
to say case closed." have no place. We only know what we see in one set of pictures
and what limited reports that have been released by the FAA. Analyzing
such a limited data set takes time. The FAA has not stated a cause, the designer
of the aircraft has not sated a cause. The manufacturer of the kit has not
stated a cause, yet some people on this very forum want to put themselves above
all of those knowledgeable and qualified people and say that there is a problem
because they have managed to scrape together $18000 and buy a kit. It almost
makes the statement, "are you an engineer?? No but I stayed in a Holiday Inn
Express last night" seem reasonable.
I would rather take contributions up to send Sabrina to the finest aviation and
engineering schools in the world. Its people like her we need to be encouraging
if we want to be able to pursue our hobby and to pass on the joy of flight
to generations to come. We need younger people to be excited by piloting you own
aircraft, and to be able to afford to do it. Look around you own EAA Chapters.
How many up and comers do you have attending?
FUD Fear Uncertainty Doubt. These are not the characteristics you look for in
a pilot. Seems to me we need to address this before we move on to metallurgy
and tensile strength.
Larry Whitlow
Valparaiso IN
601XL Builder
Pilot since Age 15 Solo'ed on my 16th birthday Dad had to drive me to the Airport,
because I couldn't get my drivers license for another month
> ="Terry Phillips"]At 02:24 PM 4/25/2008 -0500,
>
> >>EDIT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179597#179597
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Unintended Consequences, and this outside engineering Plan |
I copied my post from another thread to a thread of its own to help us focus a
discussion on the merits of this outside engineering review. I apologize in advance
for the long post.
I hope everyone realizes that Zenith aircraft has a vested interest in making sure
the 601XL design is safe. I'm confident that everyone at the factory is as
concerned as we are and want to make sure they've done everything possible to
give us a safe aircraft. I've flown with Nick in the factory demonstrator, and
I cannot believe anyone would think for one second that Nick would continue
to take people flying in an aircraft that he or the rest of the staff at Zenith
thought was unsafe. There is to much at stake for that to happen
I do understand your desire to be confident in the design and safety of the 601XL.
Like you I have a $17500 kit that I want to be able to fly safely.
But if you proceed with the analysis under the terms you have stated below, You
will destroy not only your own investment of both time and money but you will
destroy everyone else's investments in their aircraft as well, NO MATTER WHAT
THE ENGINEERING REPORT HAS TO SAY!!
Curious?? I'll explain.
If the analysis is done and a completed report exists then....
If the results of the report are only seen by the "contributors" A giant unanswered
question hangs over the aircraft, Is it OK??? Has a problem been found? Are
there modifications suggested?? This will weaken the "airplane shopping publics"
opinion of the aircraft, and perhaps be enough to make them choose another
aircraft with "less of an unknown factor". Even if the report says every things
A-OK, the very fact that its a secret, will deter buyers. If this choice
occurs enough times then Zenith ceases production and support of the 601XL or
perhaps ceases business all together. I'm sure we can all agree that this would
not be a desirable outcome.
Also a engineering report known only to some of the fleet of 601XL devalues them
all. Questions will arise? Do you know about the report? Have you made modifications
based on the report? Once again confusion and unknowns take over and
we all loose.
More importantly Lets say the report reveals something that should be addressed,
and you get your secret copy. Are you, ( a builder, a pilot, an aviation enthusiast)
actually going to let another pilot or builder fly a machine that you
know has a problem and NOT TELL HIM OR HER ABOUT IT!!! That's not what the
sport aviation community should be all about. Could you live with yourself knowing
you could have prevented a tragedy but did nothing because the other person
didn't contribute to the funding of this witch hunt. By the way what if some
people contribute less than others to the funding of this report??? Are you
only going to give them part of the data? Maybe the higher dollar contributors
get the data first and its held from the lower dollar contributors for a period
of time. And what if Zenith disagrees with these results or changes?? Who
are you going to trust???? If you say the outside engineer. Sell your kit
or plane now, because if something else happens after the report is out and mods
are made you really won't know who is correct.
And of course if the report says "everything is fine" Now What? Its a secret,
so all of the bad things listed above still happen, and the shrill voices calling
for a redesign or "beef up" or whatever continue un-abated. AND WE ALL STILL
LOOSE.
The sport aviation community is about helping yourself and others fly enjoyably
and safely. A secret report will do none of that and quite possibly be the beginning
of the end of our hobby and pastime as we know it. I hope than my son
will be able to learn to fly and to build his own airplane someday. This has
all the earmarks of seriously damaging something that I dearly love to do.
Any crash or problem with a amateur built experimental aircraft affects us all.
If we don't take good care and be as responsible as we possibly can within the
rules currently in place, then the not so interested government WILL step in
and make things harder for all of us.
I seen posts recently with all sorts of speculation, guesses, critical observations,
and truly useful thoughts and suggestions, I think the discussion is valid
and useful as long as it is the open exchange of ideas and working towards
a common goal of a safe and fun airplane
But, I implore all of you to not give into fear and hysteria while we search for
a cause or problem. Statements like "As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing
to say case closed." have no place. We only know what we see in one set of pictures
and what limited reports that have been released by the FAA. Analyzing
such a limited data set takes time. The FAA has not stated a cause, the designer
of the aircraft has not sated a cause. The manufacturer of the kit has not
stated a cause, yet some people on this very forum want to put themselves above
all of those knowledgeable and qualified people and say that there is a problem
because they have managed to scrape together $18000 and buy a kit. It almost
makes the statement, "are you an engineer?? No but I stayed in a Holiday Inn
Express last night" seem reasonable.
I would rather take contributions up to send Sabrina to the finest aviation and
engineering schools in the world. Its people like her we need to be encouraging
if we want to be able to pursue our hobby and to pass on the joy of flight
to generations to come. We need younger people to be excited by piloting your
own aircraft, and to be able to afford to do it. Look around you own EAA Chapters.
How many up and comers do you have attending?
FUD Fear Uncertainty Doubt. These are not the characteristics you look for in
a pilot. Seems to me we need to address this before we move on to metallurgy
and tensile strength.
///Flame suit on cause I know I'm gonna catch heat for this
Larry Whitlow
Valparaiso IN
601XL Builder
Pilot since Age 15 Solo'ed on my 16th birthday Dad had to drive me to the Airport,
because I couldn't get my drivers license for another month
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179600#179600
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Don't Give Up the CH601XL dREAM |
>From my post in another subject:
Juan,
Yes, lets get on with it. I am very sorry if someone took my postings as being
negative to Zenith or any of the fine members of this forum. I again say, don't
stop building, purchasing, or flying the Zodiac 601 XL. It is a dream aircraft
as you all know. I have the up-most respect for Chis Heinz and Zodiac. It is
obvious to me that these are men of integrity and are very committed to their
design, product, customers, and reputation. I would also feel that with the
information provided, builders may pay more attention to any changes or recommendations
based on the information that is available to them. Pilots should practice
due diligence prior to flight. Take a little extra time checking for any
"smoking" rivets in the undercarriage, inspecting the wing attachment fittings
( if possible), aileron hinges etc. It would take less time then this posting.
I am also sure that they (Zenith), along with the NTSB, are doing a thorough investigation
of these incidents. They may have seen many of these posts. I do have
faith in the NTSB and anyone associated with this aircraft. I have been waiting
one and a half years to hear some kind of conclusion to this accident. The
NTSB could very well be taxed of limited resources for investigations.
The NTSB could look at this forum and say "been there, seen that". However, with
what I have seen, there are many very conscientious members with an intimate
knowledge of the design and components and have come up with some very sound
theories based on a very limited amount of information (videos and a few pictures).
There are more eyes on this now. Someone may see something that others have
not seen (thinking outside the box).
I would consider the "armchair quarterbacks" as someone that has not participated
in the game. The game is still in play. There is no definite outcome yet. But
these fine people may very well have participated and/or have aided in the
resolution to problem that plagued us all.
Please don't stop building your dreams. This will all get figured out and we can
all feel at ease.
I am still waiting to hear if I can get access to the "Yuba City" aircraft and
procure better pictures, etc.
Regards, Don
--------
Donald J. Dennnehey Jr.
donald.j.dennehey@seagate.com
Prior Lake, Minnesota
Cessna 175 N7656M
Cessna 140 N90123
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179604#179604
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Unintended Consequences, and this outside engineering |
Plan
Well said Larry. I agree 100%.
--------
Pavel
CA
Zodiac XL N581PM (Reserved)
Tail, flaps, ailerons done, right wing on the table ....
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=179607#179607
Message 26