Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:21 AM - Re: Meeting LSA Criteria (601corvair)
2. 06:40 AM - Damper? (Tony Bonsell)
3. 06:49 AM - Re: Re: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons (flutter & accidents) (Juan Vega)
4. 06:58 AM - Re: Damper? (ashontz)
5. 07:12 AM - Re: Re: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons (flutter & accidents) (steve)
6. 07:40 AM - Re: Damper? (Al Hays)
7. 08:03 AM - Re: Damper? (ashontz)
8. 08:20 AM - Aileron balance (Jaybannist@cs.com)
9. 08:43 AM - Re: Aileron balance (TxDave)
10. 08:52 AM - Re: Damper? (Gig Giacona)
11. 08:58 AM - Re: Damper? (ashontz)
12. 09:20 AM - Re: Aileron balance (William Dominguez)
13. 09:32 AM - Re: Re: Damper? (Al Hays)
14. 09:40 AM - Re: Damper? (ashontz)
15. 09:41 AM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Jaybannist@cs.com)
16. 10:26 AM - Re: Aileron balance (Phil Maxson)
17. 10:34 AM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Juan Vega)
18. 10:41 AM - Aileron Balance (Roberto Brito)
19. 10:44 AM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Jay Maynard)
20. 11:09 AM - Re: Aileron balance (ashontz)
21. 11:37 AM - Re: Damper? (Gig Giacona)
22. 11:39 AM - Re: Damper? (ashontz)
23. 11:42 AM - Re: Aileron balance (Gig Giacona)
24. 11:54 AM - Re: Aileron balance (Gig Giacona)
25. 12:01 PM - Re: Aileron balance (William Dominguez)
26. 12:15 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Jaybannist@cs.com)
27. 01:03 PM - Re: Aileron balance (William Dominguez)
28. 01:12 PM - Insurance coverage? (LarryMcFarland)
29. 01:46 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Kevin Bonds)
30. 01:58 PM - Re: Insurance coverage? (Gig Giacona)
31. 02:08 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Jaybannist@cs.com)
32. 02:37 PM - Re: Insurance coverage? (george may)
33. 03:03 PM - Re: Insurance coverage? (Gig Giacona)
34. 03:57 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Juan Vega)
35. 03:57 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Juan Vega)
36. 04:03 PM - Re: Insurance coverage? (Juan Vega)
37. 04:21 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (steve)
38. 04:24 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Jay Maynard)
39. 04:30 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Juan Vega)
40. 04:32 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Jay Maynard)
41. 05:44 PM - food for thought for those overly concerned (Juan Vega)
42. 05:47 PM - to the question what is flutter and Why it is not an issue in XL when flown properly (Juan Vega)
43. 05:57 PM - Re: Damper? (Ron Lendon)
44. 06:08 PM - Re: Re: Damper? (steve)
45. 06:27 PM - Re: Aileron balance (William Dominguez)
46. 06:29 PM - Re: Re: Damper? (LarryMcFarland)
47. 07:05 PM - Re: Aileron balance (William Dominguez)
48. 09:42 PM - Re: Meeting LSA Criteria (Paul Mulwitz)
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: Meeting LSA Criteria |
I believe what Jay wrote below is correct. It is my understanding that, in the
USA, any homebuilt aircraft registered after Jan 2008, must be registered an
E-AB. These Aircraft can be modified by the builder with the repair certificate,
or
anyone and signed off by an A&P, if the proper forms ( I think the 336 form),
are
filed to the FAA. The FAA may requires more testing etc. But, so long as the
noncertificated aircraft conforms to the SP rules, it can be flown under the SP
airman rating. There is lots of leeway to be legal with E-AB aircraft under the
SP
rule. With factory built certificated light sport aircraft, even if it is identical
to a kit
built version, which could be rented to the public and/or used in a flight school
the
rules are tighter and the restrictions on maintenance are greater. Some of this
confusion arises because some older certificated aircraft meet the SP airmans
restriction and because the FAA wanted to allow some grandfathering of aircraft.
But, that ship has sailed and I believe any homebuilder still building will end
up
in the E-AB and if it meets SP privileges it can be flown as such. If not, it
could
be modified to meet them, the forms filed, approved, and then flown under the
SP
rating. I could be wrong on this and would like to be enlightened. If I am,
as
Gilda Radner used to say OH, well never mind
Subject: RE: Meeting LSA Criteria
From: Jaybannist@cs.com
Date: Tue May 13 - 7:04 PM
Jeff,
A Sport Pilot can only fly an LSA, but the 601XL, registered E-AB, also qualifies
as an LSA. Therefore, a Sport Pilot can fly Phase I in an XL.
Jay in Dallas
"Jeff " <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>There are further considerations for instrument markings, etc., but here
is
>a question for you: May a Sport Pilot fly off Phase I of an AB Experimental
>?
>
>Jeff D.
>
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 |
|
Hi guys, I have a stupid question.
Back in the day, I used to ride motorcycles. Anyway, on a
particularily nasty kawi triple, it had a steering damper to minimize
the terrifying speed wobble that would try and kill you from time to
time. It looked like a tiny shock absorber.
How come they don't use these to damp out flutter in control surfaces?
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: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons (flutter & accidents) |
the gap seal will not work on a zenith design due to the gap being 2 inches. that
gap act as a balance to assist the aileron in movement. a gap seal may woork
on top of the aileron but the speed will be negligable.
JUan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>Sent: May 13, 2008 10:59 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons (flutter & accidents)
>
>
>The gap seals are strips of plastic attached to the wing ahead of the
>hinge on the bottom of the wing. They span the gap formed by the hinge
>line. The higher pressure on the bottom of the wing holds the strip
>against the surface to smooth the airflow and prevent leakage through
>the gap. The trailing edge of the strip is free to slide over the
>aileron as it moves.
>
>See: http://www.knots2u.com/cessna-gs.htm for example.
>
>On May 13, 2008, at 9:05 PM, ashontz wrote:
>
>>
>> I understand that, so how do these gap seals work?
>>
>
>
>--
>Bryan Martin
>N61BM, CH 601 XL,
>RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
>do not archive.
>
>
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 |
|
I actually thought about this too. Good point. I know I've seen them on the nose
wheels of Cessnas. I've had a nosewheel shimmy and shake while going down the
runway (like a shopping cart wheel) and it REALLY shook the plane hard too.
I turned around and took it back to the shop. The owner/rentee fixed it on the
spot, was a bad damper or connection or something.
tbonsell(at)luxuria.com wrote:
> Hi guys, I have a stupid question.
>
> Back in the day, I used to ride motorcycles. Anyway, on a
> particularily nasty kawi triple, it had a steering damper to minimize
> the terrifying speed wobble that would try and kill you from time to
> time. It looked like a tiny shock absorber.
>
> How come they don't use these to damp out flutter in control surfaces?
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183112#183112
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: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons (flutter & accidents) |
???????????????????????????????????????????????
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons (flutter &
accidents)
>
> the gap seal will not work on a zenith design due to the gap being 2
> inches. that gap act as a balance to assist the aileron in movement. a
> gap seal may woork on top of the aileron but the speed will be negligable.
>
> JUan
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>>Sent: May 13, 2008 10:59 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons (flutter &
>>accidents)
>>
>>
>>The gap seals are strips of plastic attached to the wing ahead of the
>>hinge on the bottom of the wing. They span the gap formed by the hinge
>>line. The higher pressure on the bottom of the wing holds the strip
>>against the surface to smooth the airflow and prevent leakage through
>>the gap. The trailing edge of the strip is free to slide over the
>>aileron as it moves.
>>
>>See: http://www.knots2u.com/cessna-gs.htm for example.
>>
>>On May 13, 2008, at 9:05 PM, ashontz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I understand that, so how do these gap seals work?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Bryan Martin
>>N61BM, CH 601 XL,
>>RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
>>do not archive.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Tony,
I remember being invited to test ride one of those in while
stationed in Japan when they were new on the market. My first and
only unintentional wheelie from the wicked power curve.
That must not be such a stupid question since I thought of the same
thing myself. I didn't give it much consideration after remembering
a few occasions of frozen (seized up) shock absorbers
on land vehicles. Those devices are used as well for sway dampening
for trailer hitches and shimmy control. The consequences of having
one stick or freeze up in flight would be more dire than on a ground
vehicle. However, I have not researched and don't know if they have
in fact been used on control services.
Al Hays
N5892H reserved
On May 14, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Tony Bonsell wrote:
>
> Hi guys, I have a stupid question.
>
> Back in the day, I used to ride motorcycles. Anyway, on a
> particularily nasty kawi triple, it had a steering damper to
> minimize the terrifying speed wobble that would try and kill you
> from time to time. It looked like a tiny shock absorber.
>
> How come they don't use these to damp out flutter in control surfaces?
>
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 |
|
How about a damper made of two pieces of nylon that clamp down on an aluminum plate
with springs under the bolt heads? That would be light and would never freeze
up or lose oil.
Al Hays wrote:
> Tony,
>
> I remember being invited to test ride one of those in while
> stationed in Japan when they were new on the market. My first and
> only unintentional wheelie from the wicked power curve.
>
> That must not be such a stupid question since I thought of the same
> thing myself. I didn't give it much consideration after remembering
> a few occasions of frozen (seized up) shock absorbers
> on land vehicles. Those devices are used as well for sway dampening
> for trailer hitches and shimmy control. The consequences of having
> one stick or freeze up in flight would be more dire than on a ground
> vehicle. However, I have not researched and don't know if they have
> in fact been used on control services.
>
> Al Hays
> N5892H reserved
>
> On May 14, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Tony Bonsell wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Hi guys, I have a stupid question.
> >
> > Back in the day, I used to ride motorcycles. Anyway, on a
> > particularily nasty kawi triple, it had a steering damper to
> > minimize the terrifying speed wobble that would try and kill you
> > from time to time. It looked like a tiny shock absorber.
> >
> > How come they don't use these to damp out flutter in control surfaces?
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183123#183123
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 |
|
OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance the
ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the ailerons.
Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture;
a REASON. PLEASE!
Jay in Dallas
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: Aileron balance |
Good question, Jay. On the EAA Web site there are a couple of good articles on
this topic by Tony Bingelis. He says, depending on the design, balancing may or
may not be necessary.
Dave Clay
Temple, TX
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183131#183131
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 |
|
I am curious. How is that any better than a cable running all the way to the horn
in the other wing that applies and releases pressure as needed?
ashontz wrote:
> How about a damper made of two pieces of nylon that clamp down on an aluminum
plate with springs under the bolt heads? That would be light and would never
freeze up or lose oil. It would just provide some consistant stiffness to the
actuator in both directions.
>
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183134#183134
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 |
|
I'm talking about a damper on each aileron horn, particularly in the push-tube
setup.
In the cable setup, the cable running to the other aileron doesn't provide any
damping, it's just a hookup to the other side. There may be some friction there,
but not like a damper would provide. What I'm talking about is a friction plate
as a damper which would help resist out of control high frequency movement
of the ailerons (flutter). The skin aileron hinge may be inadvertantly acting
as a damper in that it's a stiffer joint to move.
Gig Giacona wrote:
> I am curious. How is that any better than a cable running all the way to the
horn in the other wing that applies and releases pressure as needed?
>
>
>
> ashontz wrote:
> > How about a damper made of two pieces of nylon that clamp down on an aluminum
plate with springs under the bolt heads? That would be light and would never
freeze up or lose oil. It would just provide some consistant stiffness to the
actuator in both directions.
> >
>
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183137#183137
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: Aileron balance |
The reason is to avoid the type of flutter experienced by Roberto Brito. He did
balance his ailerons and have not experienced flutter again.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance the
ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the ailerons.
Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture;
a REASON. PLEASE!
>
> Jay in Dallas
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183140#183140
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 |
|
Do not archive.
Several aspects of that to consider.
1. It would make more resistance and therefore more force to be
carried by the cables and probably more frequent adjustment due to wear.
2. As I recall, shock absorbers usually give more resistance to
movement in one direction than the other. Push down with all your
weight on the front end of the Buick with worn out shocks and it will
bob up and down for awhile. Replace the shocks and you still push it
down easily but it will not bounce. The harder you try to push that
air and fluid through the orifice inside the shock the more
resistance it seem to have. Conversely, the harder you push
something on a nylon bearing surface, the less effect it will have on
controlling that movement.
3. The resistance, or dampening, provided by spring loading friction
would make the control feel heavier but probably be overcome easily
by a flutter condition.
4. Sounds like a handy way to keep linkage snug on a lawn tractor but
not up to the demands of flight controls.
Please don't take offense. Better to bounce these ideas around
before implementing them and being the test pilot.
On May 14, 2008, at 11:01 AM, ashontz wrote:
>
> How about a damper made of two pieces of nylon that clamp down on
> an aluminum plate with springs under the bolt heads? That would be
> light and would never freeze up or lose oil.
>
>
> Al Hays wrote:
>> Tony,
>>
>> I remember being invited to test ride one of those in while
>> stationed in Japan when they were new on the market. My first and
>> only unintentional wheelie from the wicked power curve.
>>
>> That must not be such a stupid question since I thought of the same
>> thing myself. I didn't give it much consideration after remembering
>> a few occasions of frozen (seized up) shock absorbers
>> on land vehicles. Those devices are used as well for sway dampening
>> for trailer hitches and shimmy control. The consequences of having
>> one stick or freeze up in flight would be more dire than on a ground
>> vehicle. However, I have not researched and don't know if they have
>> in fact been used on control services.
>>
>> Al Hays
>> N5892H reserved
>>
>> On May 14, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Tony Bonsell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi guys, I have a stupid question.
>>>
>>> Back in the day, I used to ride motorcycles. Anyway, on a
>>> particularily nasty kawi triple, it had a steering damper to
>>> minimize the terrifying speed wobble that would try and kill you
>>> from time to time. It looked like a tiny shock absorber.
>>>
>>> How come they don't use these to damp out flutter in control
>>> surfaces?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
>
> do not archive
>
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183123#183123
>
>
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 |
|
Has no one noticed I said, push-tube?
Al Hays wrote:
> Do not archive.
> Several aspects of that to consider.
> 1. It would make more resistance and therefore more force to be
> carried by the cables and probably more frequent adjustment due to wear.
> 2. As I recall, shock absorbers usually give more resistance to
> movement in one direction than the other. Push down with all your
> weight on the front end of the Buick with worn out shocks and it will
> bob up and down for awhile. Replace the shocks and you still push it
> down easily but it will not bounce. The harder you try to push that
> air and fluid through the orifice inside the shock the more
> resistance it seem to have. Conversely, the harder you push
> something on a nylon bearing surface, the less effect it will have on
> controlling that movement.
> 3. The resistance, or dampening, provided by spring loading friction
> would make the control feel heavier but probably be overcome easily
> by a flutter condition.
> 4. Sounds like a handy way to keep linkage snug on a lawn tractor but
> not up to the demands of flight controls.
> Please don't take offense. Better to bounce these ideas around
> before implementing them and being the test pilot.
>
>
> On May 14, 2008, at 11:01 AM, ashontz wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > How about a damper made of two pieces of nylon that clamp down on
> > an aluminum plate with springs under the bolt heads? That would be
> > light and would never freeze up or lose oil.
> >
> >
> > Al Hays wrote:
> > > Tony,
> > >
> > > I remember being invited to test ride one of those in while
> > > stationed in Japan when they were new on the market. My first and
> > > only unintentional wheelie from the wicked power curve.
> > >
> > > That must not be such a stupid question since I thought of the same
> > > thing myself. I didn't give it much consideration after remembering
> > > a few occasions of frozen (seized up) shock absorbers
> > > on land vehicles. Those devices are used as well for sway dampening
> > > for trailer hitches and shimmy control. The consequences of having
> > > one stick or freeze up in flight would be more dire than on a ground
> > > vehicle. However, I have not researched and don't know if they have
> > > in fact been used on control services.
> > >
> > > Al Hays
> > > N5892H reserved
> > >
> > > On May 14, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Tony Bonsell wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Hi guys, I have a stupid question.
> > >>
> > >> Back in the day, I used to ride motorcycles. Anyway, on a
> > >> particularily nasty kawi triple, it had a steering damper to
> > >> minimize the terrifying speed wobble that would try and kill you
> > >> from time to time. It looked like a tiny shock absorber.
> > >>
> > >> How come they don't use these to damp out flutter in control
> > >> surfaces?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --------
> > Andy Shontz
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> > CH601XL - Corvair
> > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183123#183123
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183146#183146
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
Not to start an argument, but I was referring to a CH 601XL. Roberto Brito's airplane
is NOT a CH 601XL. Any problems he has with his airplanes has no more
to do with my XL than does a space shuttle.
Jay in Dallas
Do Not Archive.
"William Dominguez" <bill_dom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>The reason is to avoid the type of flutter experienced by Roberto Brito. He did
balance his ailerons and have not experienced flutter again.
>
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>
>Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
>> OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance the
ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the ailerons.
Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture;
a REASON. PLEASE!
>>
>> Jay in Dallas
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183140#183140
>
>
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 |
|
There is so much speculation and conjecture on this list it is almost impos
sible for the average reader to wade through all the garbage to find the tr
uth. Two subject come to mind: FLUTTER and WING STRENGTH. These subjects
have been discussed ad nausium in the archives and now have a lives of thei
r own.
This is not more speculation or opinion. This is a statement about how I f
ly and intend to fly.
FLUTTER: I have never seen any evidence that brings me to believe that any
CH601XL has ever experienced flutter of the control surfaces during operati
on at speeds below Vne. I am not worried about it and until Chris Heintz s
ays he is concerned. I make this decision for myself, my family and my pas
sengers.
WING STRENGTH: I never seen any evidence that brings me to believe that any
CH601XL has ever lost a wing due to structural failure during operation wi
thin normal parameters (weight, correct G-loads and speeds below Vne). I'm
not worried about it until Chris Hientz says he is concerned. I make this
decision for myself, my family and my passengers.Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair (150 Hours)
Northwest New Jersey
> Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 11:17:58 -0400> From: Jaybannist@cs.com> To: zenit
h-list@matronics.com> Subject: Zenith-List: Aileron balance> > --> Zenith-L
ist message posted by: Jaybannist@cs.com> > OK, I guess I missed something.
With all this e-talk about how to balance the ailerons, there has got to b
e a good reason one would want to balance the ailerons. Just what is that r
eason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture; a REASON. PLEASE!> > J
ay in Dallas
_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refr
esh_messenger_052008
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: Aileron balance |
all:
1- noone knows yet what caaused the accidents
2- no one knows if flutter was an issue, its apparently a hunch to some on this
site
3- If it was flutter, were the cables probably tensioned to 30 lbs.
before you go down the path of fixing a flutter issue, check to see if it really
the issue.
A thought is to build it to the plans. that means tesnion your cables, and check
the tension on a regular basis.
No, cables are not a primative way to move or tension the ailerons, check most
high performance turbine aircraft like the TBM or C-90, they use cables. they
just need to be built correctly.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>Sent: May 14, 2008 12:18 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance
>
>
>The reason is to avoid the type of flutter experienced by Roberto Brito. He did
balance his ailerons and have not experienced flutter again.
>
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>
>Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
>> OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance the
ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the ailerons.
Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture;
a REASON. PLEASE!
>>
>> Jay in Dallas
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183140#183140
>
>
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 |
|
Hi everybody,
Here is the You Tube Video about my aileron balance.
This is only a way for doing this, there are of course, other ways, for
example.
I'll post some pictures to you all that need them.
Please do not do this in your plane before talking to your Aeronautical
Engineer or other authority about it.
I don't want to state hereby that it is the solution to the problem on
our Zodiacs, if any, because I'm not an aeronautical engineer.
Well, when my Zodiac entered a little turbulence, the ailerons shook a
little and after towards I had the balance performed, it enters and
nothing happens, it became much better, more comfortable.
I hope that all Zodiac Owners can solve this problem, if any.
All of us know that Zodiac is a good plane, that it has a good
reputation, but it must do away with the crashes.
To end up, I have a lot of respect regarding Heintz's family and I'm
confident that should the Zodiac have any problem they will solve it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_D4bt0guvM
Roberto Brito.
Brasil.
Zodiac XL 601 w/ 190hrs
Jabiru 3300
Enigma
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: Aileron balance |
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 01:32:07PM -0400, Juan Vega wrote:
> A thought is to build it to the plans.
This is a common thread - but it doesn't explain the accidents in factory
aircraft....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to
the plans...
--
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 (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
1) to apparently tune out an resonant frequencies that could allow for flutter.
2) when the plane bounces due to turbulence, the non-balanced weight aft of the
hinge will flop up and down, possibily inducing flutter. If it's balanced, the
entire aileron including the balance, moves up or down in unison, not around
the pivot.
Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance the
ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the ailerons.
Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture;
a REASON. PLEASE!
>
> Jay in Dallas
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183162#183162
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 |
|
Yes and you probably need it even less with a push tube than cables.
ashontz wrote:
> Has no one noticed I said, push-tube?
>
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183165#183165
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 |
|
Maybe so, I was just responding to ways a damper could be implemented.
Gig Giacona wrote:
> Yes and you probably need it even less with a push tube than cables.
>
>
>
> ashontz wrote:
> > Has no one noticed I said, push-tube?
> >
>
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183167#183167
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: | Re: Aileron balance |
Jay another assumption that is being made by some is that some or even all of the
accident aircraft had only been flown within the design envelope. That has
not been proved and is very hard if not impossible to prove.
jmaynard wrote:
>
>
> This is a common thread - but it doesn't explain the accidents in factory
> aircraft....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to
> the plans...
>
>
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183168#183168
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
DO NOT ARCHIVE but....
To add to my previous post because I hit the send button to soon. I'm sure that
someone is either thinking or will write that some of the accident pilots were
very experienced and safe pilots and I don't doubt that.
But I've been around aircraft literally all of my 46 years and I've seen some very
good, very experienced and usually very safe pilots do some VERY dumb things.
I know one guy that was a retired Lt. Col. in the USAF with multi-thousands of
hours with not so much as a blip on his safety record who landed a Cessna Citation
in a cow pasture to impress a lady. He had done all the weight and distance
calculations and knew he would have plenty of room to take off afterwords.
He didn't take into account though that it had rained the night before and as
he was stepping out of the plane he realized that the plane was sinking in the
mud.
The moral of the story is that experience doesn't always rule out stupidity.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183169#183169
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: Aileron balance |
I was just trying to answer his question as to why there is interest in balancing
ailerons. Obviously not a good answer in his view for reasons he clearly articulated.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
[quote="pmaxpmax(at)HOTMAIL.COM"]There is so much speculation and conjecture on
this list it is almost impossible for the average reader to wade through all
the garbage to find the truth. Two subject come to mind: FLUTTER and WING STRENGTH.
These subjects have been discussed ad nausiumin the archives and now have
a lives of their own.
This is not more speculation or opinion. This is a statement about how I fly
and intend to fly.
FLUTTER: I have never seen any evidence that brings me to believe that any CH601XL
has ever experienced flutter of the control surfaces during operation at
speeds below Vne. I am not worried about it and until Chris Heintz says he is
concerned. I make this decision for myself, my family and my passengers.
WING STRENGTH: I never seen any evidence that brings me to believe that any CH601XL
has ever lost a wing due to structural failure during operation within normal
parameters (weight, correct G-loads and speeds below Vne). I'm not worried
about it until Chris Hientz says he is concerned. I make this decision for
myself, my family and my passengers.
PhilMaxson
601XL/Corvair (150 Hours)
Northwest New Jersey
> Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 11:17:58 -0400
> From: Jaybannist@cs.com
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Aileron balance
>
>
> OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance the
ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the ailerons.
Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture;
a REASON. PLEASE!
>
> Jay in Dallas
>
>
Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM anytime you're online.
> [b]
--------
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183171#183171
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
Andy,
Where is the evidence that ANY of this is needed?
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
"ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
>
>1) to apparently tune out an resonant frequencies that could allow for flutter.
>
>2) when the plane bounces due to turbulence, the non-balanced weight aft of the
hinge will flop up and down, possibily inducing flutter. If it's balanced, the
entire aileron including the balance, moves up or down in unison, not around
the pivot.
>
>
>Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
>> OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance the
ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the ailerons.
Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture;
a REASON. PLEASE!
>>
>> Jay in Dallas
>
>
>--------
>Andy Shontz
>
>do not archive
>
>CH601XL - Corvair
>www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183162#183162
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
I know you are asking Andy but I'll try for a second time to answer your question
since I didn't do a very good job the first time.
There isn't a hard, smoking gun type of evidence of flutter. But there are indications
that suggest there might be a flutter problem with the XL. I won't get
at what those indications are, they have been mentioned in many posts in this
list. Should there be a hard evidence of flutter before we implement any change
to our wings? absolutely. But in the meanwhile some of us would like to see
how the ailerons are balanced, just in case the evidence come and we need to
do that in the future. After all, is good learning. If you are the type of person
who don't like to talk about thing that might or might not be needed in the
future, that is fine. But not everyone is the same.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> Andy,
>
> Where is the evidence that ANY of this is needed?
>
> Jay in Dallas
> Do not archive
>
>
> "ashontz" wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > 1) to apparently tune out an resonant frequencies that could allow for flutter.
> >
> > 2) when the plane bounces due to turbulence, the non-balanced weight aft of
the hinge will flop up and down, possibily inducing flutter. If it's balanced,
the entire aileron including the balance, moves up or down in unison, not around
the pivot.
> >
> >
> > Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> > > OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance
the ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the
ailerons. Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture;
a REASON. PLEASE!
> > >
> > > Jay in Dallas
> >
> >
> > --------
> > Andy Shontz
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> > CH601XL - Corvair
> > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183162#183162
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183178#183178
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Insurance coverage? |
Hi guys,
In discussing insurance with others at our airport, I find that only a
few carry hull coverage. Most, with exception to the jet owners, just
carry liability insurance. After a few short years, the hull is paid
for in premiums. Liability runs $300 to $600 and hull coverage takes it
to $1400.00 or more. Any thoughts pro or con on the full coverage?
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
Jay
I may regret entering this "discussion", but . . . If someone wants to
balance there ailerons (as Roberto did), and test it. What is the
problem with that? If you think his idea is dangerous for some reason,
please state it and why. There are a lot of people contemplating
"improvments" (or whatever you wish to call them). We should be here to
encourage them to do these things safely by pointing out any errors in
thinking (such as shock type dampers freezing up and such) that might
lead someone to do something really dangerous. Shooting down ideas
simply because you don't believe it is necessary is beside the point.
Obviously Andy and some others (myself included) think it may be, or may
prove to be, necessary to balancing the ailerons. I am not convinced
there is a problem either, nor am I convinced there isn't. When you see
hoof prints in Tennessee, think horses not zebras, unless the local zoo
reports missing a zebra.
Kevin Bonds
Jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> Where is the evidence that ANY of this is needed?
>
> Jay in Dallas
> Do not archive
>
>
> "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance coverage? |
It has always been my plan to carry in motion hull insurance for the first year.
Mainly because I don't want to eat the cost of my plane should something fail
during the Phase I flights.
That said there is a line of logic that says you are personally safer if you have
hull insurance. The theory being if a problem happens you will be in the mind
set that, "well the insurance company owns the airplane now" and do what is
necessary to protect yourself and your passengers as opposed to protecting the
airframe because the two might not always be the same.
As an example, if I were to install a BRS, I'd keep insurance on the hull forever.
larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> In discussing insurance with others at our airport, I find that only a
> few carry hull coverage. Most, with exception to the jet owners, just
> carry liability insurance. After a few short years, the hull is paid
> for in premiums. Liability runs $300 to $600 and hull coverage takes it
> to $1400.00 or more. Any thoughts pro or con on the full coverage?
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183187#183187
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
Bill,
Just because it is mentioned on this forum doesn't give it any more validity than
"as seen on TV." Exactly what are "the indications that suggest that there
might be a flutter problem with the XL"? Is it because someone on the forum said
so? Is it because Brito's airplane (NOT an XL) had a flutter problem?
I'm afraid that too many are giving credence to, supporting and taking for granted
some of the things said on the forum that have absolutely no basis in fact:
speculation, guess, extrapolation, armchair engineering and outright scare mongering.
I'm certainly not opposed to the sharing of ideas and real knowledge, but I'm really
getting tired of the spurious scuttlebutt that is being passed off as valid
information.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
"William Dominguez" <bill_dom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I know you are asking Andy but I'll try for a second time to answer your question
since I didn't do a very good job the first time.
>
>There isn't a hard, smoking gun type of evidence of flutter. But there are indications
that suggest there might be a flutter problem with the XL. I won't get
at what those indications are, they have been mentioned in many posts in this
list. Should there be a hard evidence of flutter before we implement any change
to our wings? absolutely. But in the meanwhile some of us would like to see
how the ailerons are balanced, just in case the evidence come and we need to
do that in the future. After all, is good learning. If you are the type of person
who don't like to talk about thing that might or might not be needed in the
future, that is fine. But not everyone is the same.
>
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>
>Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
>> Andy,
>>
>> Where is the evidence that ANY of this is needed?
>>
>> Jay in Dallas
>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>> "ashontz" wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > 1) to apparently tune out an resonant frequencies that could allow for flutter.
>> >
>> > 2) when the plane bounces due to turbulence, the non-balanced weight aft of
the hinge will flop up and down, possibily inducing flutter. If it's balanced,
the entire aileron including the balance, moves up or down in unison, not around
the pivot.
>> >
>> >
>> > Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
>> > > OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance
the ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the
ailerons. Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture;
a REASON. PLEASE!
>> > >
>> > > Jay in Dallas
>> >
>> >
>> > --------
>> > Andy Shontz
>> >
>> > do not archive
>> >
>> > CH601XL - Corvair
>> > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Read this topic online here:
>> >
>> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183162#183162
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>--------
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183178#183178
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Insurance coverage? |
Larry--
A Possible option ,kinda in between hull and no hull, is to carry liabili
ty along with hull non moving. At least it is then covered in the hanger.
George May
601XL 912s> Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 15:08:56 -0500> From: larry@macsmachine.
com> To: zenith-list@matronics.com> Subject: Zenith-List: Insurance coverag
com>> > > Hi guys,> > In discussing insurance with others at our airport, I
find that only a > few carry hull coverage. Most, with exception to the je
t owners, just > carry liability insurance. After a few short years, the hu
ll is paid > for in premiums. Liability runs $300 to $600 and hull coverage
takes it > to $1400.00 or more. Any thoughts pro or con on the full covera
========================> _
=====================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack
1.
http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance coverage? |
That is exactly what I was planning to do after the first year. Mainly because
it is the only way I can get the carrier to cover the hanger.
gfmjr_20(at)HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
> Larry--
> A Possible option ,kinda in between hull and no hull, is to carry liability
along with hull non moving. At least it is then covered in the hanger.
>
>
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183197#183197
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
Maynard,
you stated-
....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to
>> the plans...
I say-
you are assuming the accident was from Flutter, no one has said any of the accidents
were flutter, just speculation from a bunch of builders at this point.
There are plans in the Zenith Newsletter for weights on ailerons. Allready approved
By the C.H. himself. If you want to balance the ailerons to make them feel
lighter at higher speds, that is what the weighting is for. Flutter should
not be an issue at all when flown at cruise speed. I have my cables tensioned
according to plans, and I believe you are all barking up the wrong tree.
Some guy that saw tin canning and misstook it for flutter does not make for a reason
to speculate the flutter was a cuase of the accident. It may have been
if the guys flying it 1- never retensioned their cables and 2- flew past reasonable
parrameters.
I am done on this whole issue. You guys need to focus on having fun building your
planes again, if that is what you guys in this site are really doing.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>Sent: May 14, 2008 2:40 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance
>
>
>Jay another assumption that is being made by some is that some or even all of
the accident aircraft had only been flown within the design envelope. That has
not been proved and is very hard if not impossible to prove.
>
>
>jmaynard wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is a common thread - but it doesn't explain the accidents in factory
>> aircraft....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to
>> the plans...
>>
>>
>
>
>--------
>W.R. "Gig" Giacona
>601XL Under Construction
>See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183168#183168
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
Maynard,
you stated-
....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to
>> the plans...
I say-
you are assuming the accident was from Flutter, no one has said any of the accidents
were flutter, just speculation from a bunch of builders at this point.
There are plans in the Zenith Newsletter for weights on ailerons. Allready approved
By the C.H. himself. If you want to balance the ailerons to make them feel
lighter at higher speds, that is what the weighting is for. Flutter should
not be an issue at all when flown at cruise speed. I have my cables tensioned
according to plans, and I believe you are all barking up the wrong tree.
Some guy that saw tin canning and misstook it for flutter does not make for a reason
to speculate the flutter was a cuase of the accident. It may have been
if the guys flying it 1- never retensioned their cables and 2- flew past reasonable
parrameters.
I am done on this whole issue. You guys need to focus on having fun building your
planes again, if that is what you guys in this site are really doing.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>Sent: May 14, 2008 2:40 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance
>
>
>Jay another assumption that is being made by some is that some or even all of
the accident aircraft had only been flown within the design envelope. That has
not been proved and is very hard if not impossible to prove.
>
>
>jmaynard wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is a common thread - but it doesn't explain the accidents in factory
>> aircraft....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to
>> the plans...
>>
>>
>
>
>--------
>W.R. "Gig" Giacona
>601XL Under Construction
>See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183168#183168
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Insurance coverage? |
George and Larry,
what I did was cover the hull cost to the replacement of the parts them selves.
so I am not assuming full replacement value, but $45,000.00 to replace the kit
in the event the thing was totaled, I am not out the kit costs.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: george may <gfmjr_20@HOTMAIL.COM>
>Sent: May 14, 2008 5:28 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Insurance coverage?
>
>
>Larry--
> A Possible option ,kinda in between hull and no hull, is to carry liability
along with hull non moving. At least it is then covered in the hanger.
>
>George May
>_________________________________________________________________
>Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack 1.
>http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
I heard that the inferior rivets caused the wing to flutter which caused the
aileron to fall off which made the wing locker to open causing the rear spar
to crack which in turn caused the pilot to shit his pants.
FAA reports that the probable cause : pilot attempted to wipe his ass in
flight causing loss of control....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance
>
> Maynard,
> you stated-
> ....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to
>>> the plans...
>
> I say-
> you are assuming the accident was from Flutter, no one has said any of
> the accidents were flutter, just speculation from a bunch of builders at
> this point.
> There are plans in the Zenith Newsletter for weights on ailerons. Allready
> approved By the C.H. himself. If you want to balance the ailerons to make
> them feel lighter at higher speds, that is what the weighting is for.
> Flutter should not be an issue at all when flown at cruise speed. I have
> my cables tensioned according to plans, and I believe you are all barking
> up the wrong tree.
> Some guy that saw tin canning and misstook it for flutter does not make
> for a reason to speculate the flutter was a cuase of the accident. It may
> have been if the guys flying it 1- never retensioned their cables and 2-
> flew past reasonable parrameters.
>
> I am done on this whole issue. You guys need to focus on having fun
> building your planes again, if that is what you guys in this site are
> really doing.
>
>
> Juan
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>>Sent: May 14, 2008 2:40 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance
>>
>>
>>Jay another assumption that is being made by some is that some or even all
>>of the accident aircraft had only been flown within the design envelope.
>>That has not been proved and is very hard if not impossible to prove.
>>
>>
>>jmaynard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a common thread - but it doesn't explain the accidents in
>>> factory
>>> aircraft....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according
>>> to
>>> the plans...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>--------
>>W.R. "Gig" Giacona
>>601XL Under Construction
>>See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183168#183168
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 05:05:08PM -0400, Jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> Just because it is mentioned on this forum doesn't give it any more
> validity than "as seen on TV." Exactly what are "the indications that
> suggest that there might be a flutter problem with the XL"? Is it because
> someone on the forum said so? Is it because Brito's airplane (NOT an XL)
> had a flutter problem?
I can't speak to anyone else, but flutter seems to be a reasonable
explanation for the Yuba City crash. What other explanations might there be
for the missing aileron, with every rivet missing and the skins intact? As I
said before, I'm not an aeronautical engineer, so if there's another
explanation - and remember, this was a factory aircraft - I'm all ears.
> I'm afraid that too many are giving credence to, supporting and taking for
> granted some of the things said on the forum that have absolutely no basis
> in fact: speculation, guess, extrapolation, armchair engineering and
> outright scare mongering.
This is not my intention, at least, and I'm sorry if it comes across that
way. I'm genuinely interested to understand what's going on in all phases of
this issue, and am learning quite a bit from the discussions.
--
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 (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
should have put the self cleaning ass wiper option, only avaialble on the QBK.
good deal for $399.99.
-----Original Message-----
>From: steve <notsew_evets@frontiernet.net>
>Sent: May 14, 2008 7:18 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance
>
>
>I heard that the inferior rivets caused the wing to flutter which caused the
>aileron to fall off which made the wing locker to open causing the rear spar
>to crack which in turn caused the pilot to shit his pants.
>FAA reports that the probable cause : pilot attempted to wipe his ass in
>flight causing loss of control....
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:52 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance
>
>
>>
>> Maynard,
>> you stated-
>> ....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to
>>>> the plans...
>>
>> I say-
>> you are assuming the accident was from Flutter, no one has said any of
>> the accidents were flutter, just speculation from a bunch of builders at
>> this point.
>> There are plans in the Zenith Newsletter for weights on ailerons. Allready
>> approved By the C.H. himself. If you want to balance the ailerons to make
>> them feel lighter at higher speds, that is what the weighting is for.
>> Flutter should not be an issue at all when flown at cruise speed. I have
>> my cables tensioned according to plans, and I believe you are all barking
>> up the wrong tree.
>> Some guy that saw tin canning and misstook it for flutter does not make
>> for a reason to speculate the flutter was a cuase of the accident. It may
>> have been if the guys flying it 1- never retensioned their cables and 2-
>> flew past reasonable parrameters.
>>
>> I am done on this whole issue. You guys need to focus on having fun
>> building your planes again, if that is what you guys in this site are
>> really doing.
>>
>>
>> Juan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>>>Sent: May 14, 2008 2:40 PM
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance
>>>
>>>
>>>Jay another assumption that is being made by some is that some or even all
>>>of the accident aircraft had only been flown within the design envelope.
>>>That has not been proved and is very hard if not impossible to prove.
>>>
>>>
>>>jmaynard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a common thread - but it doesn't explain the accidents in
>>>> factory
>>>> aircraft....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according
>>>> to
>>>> the plans...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--------
>>>W.R. "Gig" Giacona
>>>601XL Under Construction
>>>See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183168#183168
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 06:52:03PM -0400, Juan Vega wrote:
> you are assuming the accident was from Flutter, no one has said any of
> the accidents were flutter, just speculation from a bunch of builders at
> this point.
I'm making no assumptions other than, at this point, flutter is a possible
explanation for the crash. If it's not, that's fine, but why isn't it?
> Flutter should not be an issue at all when flown at cruise speed. I have
> my cables tensioned according to plans, and I believe you are all barking
> up the wrong tree.
I'm going to assume that that will be true of my aircraft when I take
delivery, as well; it's not reasonable to expect that AMD would screw up
somthing that's that vital. Is that enough to guarantee that flutter will
not be an issue? The folks at AMD have tested the aircraft through a
complete Part 23 flight test program, which includes dives to Vne; is that
enough to demonstrate that there will be no flutter?
If that's the case, how can we explain the neatly missing aileron on the
Yuba City aircraft?
> Some guy that saw tin canning and misstook it for flutter does not make
> for a reason to speculate the flutter was a cuase of the accident. It may
> have been if the guys flying it 1- never retensioned their cables and 2-
> flew past reasonable parrameters.
I'm not aware of someone that mistook tin canning for flutter. What I recall
started that discussion was the picture of the wing with the aileron not
attached, no rivets present, and no skin torn. How could that happen?
> I am done on this whole issue. You guys need to focus on having fun
> building your planes again, if that is what you guys in this site are
> really doing.
I'm not so patiently awaiting AMD to finish building mine. Wen I take
delivery, I'm going to put at least 20 (and probably more, the way my plans
have changed) hours on it in the first week or two. I wouldn't do that if I
thought it was going to kill me. Even so, I think I, and everyone here, is
entitled to understand the problem - whatever it may be - and what it would
take to fix 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 (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | food for thought for those overly concerned |
This is from a manual on Vne, and how it effects structure and flutter"
Q- I like flying my aircraft fast. If I stay below Vne, I wont have to worry about
structural failure, right?
A- Vne is assessed at or near MTOW with the cg within the fore and aft limits for
the aircraft's specified category; it does not apply if weight, manoeuvring
loads or cg position are outside the specified limits. As a maximum airspeed
it applies only in smooth atmospheric conditions, for gentle control movements
and symmetrical aerodynamic loads; even gusts associated with mild turbulence
or control surface movements greater than perhaps a few degrees travel will lead
to some nasty surprises, if operating close to but below Vne. At high speed
the controls are very effective with a probability of over-control applying
extreme loads to the structures. Asymmetric aerodynamic loads such as combined
rolling and pitching reduce the maximum airframe load allowable by perhaps 30%.
Take care because some aircraft control systems provide an inadequate feedback
of the load being exerted i.e. a high load can be applied with a relatively
low stick force.
If an aircraft is operated within its specified flight envelope and weight and
balance, observing the limiting accelerations and control movements; and maintaining
airspeeds commensurate with atmospheric conditions; then the only possibilities
of inflight structural failure relate to:
improper modification, repair or even repainting of the structure,
excessive free play in control surface hinges, torque tubes or control circuits,
cumulative strain in ageing aircraft eroding the designed safety margin,
failure to comply with the requirements of airworthiness notices and directives,
or just poor care and maintenance of the airframe.
Flight at airspeeds outside the designed flight envelope (or when applying inappropriate
control loads in a high-speed descent or, indeed, at any time) is high
risk and can lead to airframe failure.
Be aware: deliberately exceeding Vne is the realm of the test pilot who always
wears a parachute! The following text is an extract from an RA-Aus accident investigation
report:
"(Witnesses) observed the aircraft in a steep dive at what appeared to be full
power. The port wing appeared to detach from the aircraft ...
That wing had the attach points intact but had pulled the mountings out of the
top of the cockpit. This action would have released the door, which landed close
to the wing. The wings were intact but the ailerons were detached. There was
no delamination of the fibreglass structure. The ailerons were not mass balanced.
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | to the question what is flutter and Why it is not an issue |
in XL when flown properly
1.4 Perilous aerodynamic reactions to excessive speed: flutter and other booby
traps
Wing structures are akin to a 'tuning fork' extending from the fuselage. When a
tuning fork is tapped the fork vibrates at a particular frequency, the stiffer
the structure the higher its 'natural' frequency. The natural frequency of a
wing or tailplane structure may apply a limiting airspeed to flight operations
related to structural instabilities: flutter and wing divergence.
When airflow around a wing or control surface is disturbed by aerodynamic reactions
or pilot inputs (a test pilot might just 'tap' the control column), the structure's
elastic reactions may combine as an oscillation or vibration of the
structure (possibly evident as a buzz in the airframe) which will quickly damp
itself out at normal cruise speeds. At some higher speed the critical flutter
speed where the oscillations are in phase with the natural frequency of the
structure, the oscillations will not damp out but will resonate, rapidly increasing
in amplitude. (Pushing a child on a swing is an example of phase relationships
and amplification). This condition is flutter and, unless airspeed is
very quickly reduced by throttle closure, the severe vibrations will cause wing,
aileron or empennage control surface separation within a very few seconds.
The following paragraph is an extract from an article by William P. Rodden appearing
in the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Science and Technology; it provides a succinct
description of flutter:
"Flutter (aeronautics) An aeroelastic self-excited vibration with a sustained
or divergent amplitude, which occurs when a structure is placed in a flow of sufficiently
high velocity. Flutter is an instability that can be extremely violent.
At low speeds, in the presence of an airstream, the vibration modes of an
aircraft are stable; that is, if the aircraft is disturbed, the ensuing motion
will be damped. At higher speeds, the effect of the airstream is to couple
two or more vibration modes such that the vibrating structure will extract energy
from the airstream. The coupled vibration modes will remain stable as long
as the extracted energy is dissipated by the internal damping or friction of
the structure. However a critical speed is reached when the extracted energy equals
the amount of energy that the structure is capable of dissipating, and a
neutrally stable vibration will persist. This is called the flutter speed. At
a higher speed, the vibration amplitude will diverge, and a structural failure
will result."
Inertia has a role in flutter development requiring that control surfaces ailerons,
elevators, rudder be mass balanced (i.e. the centre of gravity of the control
surface coincides with the hinge line) to limit the mass moment of inertia.
It may be acceptable for the control surface to be over-balanced, i.e. the
cg is slightly forward of the hinge line. Mass balancing of the control surfaces
will prevent them fluttering but the possibility for wing [for example] flexing/twisting
flutter may still exist.
The critical flutter airspeed [or something akin to it] may eventuate well below
Vne if wear in control surface hinges, slop in actuating rods/cables/cranks/torque
tubes, water or ice inside control surfaces or absorbed within a foam core,
mud outside, faulty trim tabs, additional surface coatings applied after
balancing or other system disturbances exist which alter the structure's reactions.
Article from:
AUA, INc.
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Andy,
Are you using an alias? Are you a US Certificated Pilot? Do you have and engineering
degree or are you a student like the rest of us?
The reason I ask these questions is I like to know who I'm listening to. You have
been a very active participant in many of the discussions and you appear to
be redesigning your airplane. If I am to consider your proposals I would really
like to know more about you.
What say you?
do not archive
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183218#183218
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Listed in the FAA registry ?
Take a look. Amazing results...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Lendon" <rlendon@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:54 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper?
>
> Andy,
>
> Are you using an alias? Are you a US Certificated Pilot? Do you have and
> engineering degree or are you a student like the rest of us?
>
> The reason I ask these questions is I like to know who I'm listening to.
> You have been a very active participant in many of the discussions and you
> appear to be redesigning your airplane. If I am to consider your
> proposals I would really like to know more about you.
>
> What say you?
>
> do not archive
>
> --------
> Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
> Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
> http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183218#183218
>
>
>
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
I goes both ways, just because some of you say there's nothing wrong doesn't make
it so. The thing is, nobody know what caused 5 XLs to fold or break a wing
in mid flight. Some people suspect the design, others are convinced of pilot error
or something unrelated to the design. But the problem we are having here
is, those who are convinced in nothing wrong with the design are getting frustrated
and angry because they cannot impose their position to those who disagree.
I believe in the possibility that there's nothing wrong, but so far, I'm not convinced.
Before you ask me why I'm still building an airplane that might have
a design issue I'll give you my answer, I'm confident that this issue, whatever
it is, will eventually be resolved.
If as you say you are getting tired of this posts, you have 2 options; ignore the
posts or suggest the poster to go the ZBAG yahoo group and continue there.
I wont recommend to leave this list since there still lots of good information
here in other threads.
I'm William and I approve this message.
William Dominguez
yada yada 601XL... plans..
you know the rest
Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Just because it is mentioned on this forum doesn't give it any more validity
than "as seen on TV." Exactly what are "the indications that suggest that there
might be a flutter problem with the XL"? Is it because someone on the forum
said so? Is it because Brito's airplane (NOT an XL) had a flutter problem?
>
> I'm afraid that too many are giving credence to, supporting and taking for granted
some of the things said on the forum that have absolutely no basis in fact:
speculation, guess, extrapolation, armchair engineering and outright scare
mongering.
>
> I'm certainly not opposed to the sharing of ideas and real knowledge, but I'm
really getting tired of the spurious scuttlebutt that is being passed off as
valid information.
>
> Jay in Dallas
> Do not archive
>
>
>
> "William Dominguez" wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > I know you are asking Andy but I'll try for a second time to answer your question
since I didn't do a very good job the first time.
> >
> > There isn't a hard, smoking gun type of evidence of flutter. But there are
indications that suggest there might be a flutter problem with the XL. I won't
get at what those indications are, they have been mentioned in many posts in
this list. Should there be a hard evidence of flutter before we implement any
change to our wings? absolutely. But in the meanwhile some of us would like to
see how the ailerons are balanced, just in case the evidence come and we need
to do that in the future. After all, is good learning. If you are the type of
person who don't like to talk about thing that might or might not be needed in
the future, that is fine. But not everyone is the same.
> >
> > William Dominguez
> > Zodiac 601XL Plans
> > Miami Florida
> > http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
> >
> >
> >
> > Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> > > Andy,
> > >
> > > Where is the evidence that ANY of this is needed?
> > >
> > > Jay in Dallas
> > > Do not archive
> > >
> > >
> > > "ashontz" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1) to apparently tune out an resonant frequencies that could allow for
flutter.
> > > >
> > > > 2) when the plane bounces due to turbulence, the non-balanced weight aft
of the hinge will flop up and down, possibily inducing flutter. If it's balanced,
the entire aileron including the balance, moves up or down in unison, not
around the pivot.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> > > > > OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance
the ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance
the ailerons. Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not
conjecture; a REASON. PLEASE!
> > > > >
> > > > > Jay in Dallas
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------
> > > > Andy Shontz
> > > >
> > > > do not archive
> > > >
> > > > CH601XL - Corvair
> > > > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Read this topic online here:
> > > >
> > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183162#183162
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --------
> > William Dominguez
> > Zodiac 601XL Plans
> > Miami Florida
> > http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183178#183178
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183220#183220
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Ron,
I'd recommend you stay the course and not change anything shown by the
drawings. The changes that have been proposed are all contentious without
approval from Zenith. The vast majority of the 601s flying today will
be flying years from now if they were built to the drawings. Trust the
designer, not
the instinct to arbitrarily strengthen or complicate things suggested by
others. You don't have a reason to become a test pilot for anyone!
Larry McFarland
601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Ron Lendon wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> Are you using an alias? Are you a US Certificated Pilot? Do you have and engineering
degree or are you a student like the rest of us?
>
> The reason I ask these questions is I like to know who I'm listening to. You
have been a very active participant in many of the discussions and you appear
to be redesigning your airplane. If I am to consider your proposals I would
really like to know more about you.
>
> What say you?
>
> do not archive
>
> --------
> Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
> Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
> http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
>
>
>
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aileron balance |
Correction,
I made a typo and before anybody start making fun. I don't go both ways, I meant
to say "It goes both ways.." in the beginning of the first paragraph.
William Dominguez wrote:
> I goes both ways, just because some of you say there's nothing wrong doesn't
make it so. The thing is, nobody know what caused 5 XLs to fold or break a wing
in mid flight. Some people suspect the design, others are convinced of pilot
error or something unrelated to the design. But the problem we are having here
is, those who are convinced in nothing wrong with the design are getting frustrated
and angry because they cannot impose their position to those who disagree.
>
> I believe in the possibility that there's nothing wrong, but so far, I'm not
convinced. Before you ask me why I'm still building an airplane that might have
a design issue I'll give you my answer, I'm confident that this issue, whatever
it is, will eventually be resolved.
>
> If as you say you are getting tired of this posts, you have 2 options; ignore
the posts or suggest the poster to go the ZBAG yahoo group and continue there.
I wont recommend to leave this list since there still lots of good information
here in other threads.
>
> I'm William and I approve this message.
>
> William Dominguez
> yada yada 601XL... plans..
> you know the rest
>
>
>
> Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> > Bill,
> >
> > Just because it is mentioned on this forum doesn't give it any more validity
than "as seen on TV." Exactly what are "the indications that suggest that there
might be a flutter problem with the XL"? Is it because someone on the forum
said so? Is it because Brito's airplane (NOT an XL) had a flutter problem?
> >
> > I'm afraid that too many are giving credence to, supporting and taking for
granted some of the things said on the forum that have absolutely no basis in
fact: speculation, guess, extrapolation, armchair engineering and outright scare
mongering.
> >
> > I'm certainly not opposed to the sharing of ideas and real knowledge, but I'm
really getting tired of the spurious scuttlebutt that is being passed off as
valid information.
> >
> > Jay in Dallas
> > Do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> > "William Dominguez" wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I know you are asking Andy but I'll try for a second time to answer your
question since I didn't do a very good job the first time.
> > >
> > > There isn't a hard, smoking gun type of evidence of flutter. But there are
indications that suggest there might be a flutter problem with the XL. I won't
get at what those indications are, they have been mentioned in many posts in
this list. Should there be a hard evidence of flutter before we implement any
change to our wings? absolutely. But in the meanwhile some of us would like
to see how the ailerons are balanced, just in case the evidence come and we need
to do that in the future. After all, is good learning. If you are the type
of person who don't like to talk about thing that might or might not be needed
in the future, that is fine. But not everyone is the same.
> > >
> > > William Dominguez
> > > Zodiac 601XL Plans
> > > Miami Florida
> > > http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> > > > Andy,
> > > >
> > > > Where is the evidence that ANY of this is needed?
> > > >
> > > > Jay in Dallas
> > > > Do not archive
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "ashontz" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) to apparently tune out an resonant frequencies that could allow for
flutter.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) when the plane bounces due to turbulence, the non-balanced weight
aft of the hinge will flop up and down, possibily inducing flutter. If it's balanced,
the entire aileron including the balance, moves up or down in unison,
not around the pivot.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> > > > > > OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to
balance the ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance
the ailerons. Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not
conjecture; a REASON. PLEASE!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jay in Dallas
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --------
> > > > > Andy Shontz
> > > > >
> > > > > do not archive
> > > > >
> > > > > CH601XL - Corvair
> > > > > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Read this topic online here:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183162#183162
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------
> > > William Dominguez
> > > Zodiac 601XL Plans
> > > Miami Florida
> > > http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183178#183178
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--------
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183229#183229
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Meeting LSA Criteria |
Hi Jay,
I am afraid you and some of the other guys are missing the whole
point on this issue. The FAA is not in the business of measuring
airspeed, stall speed, or any other quality of experimental
airplanes. They are a bunch of paper pushing bureaucrats.
Critical qualities of E-AB airplanes are taken from the printed
matter associated with the plane. In case of speeds, weights, and
other stuff that determines whether a plane qualifies as an LSA the
place to look is probably the POH. It isn't very important if the
information in the POH really matches the aircraft.
For example. if the POH says the sea level cruise speed at maximum
continuous power is 120 Knots calibrated airspeed, then it is. If it
says the stall speed clean is 45 knots, then it is.
The really important thing for builders interested in having their
planes qualify as LSA is to make sure their POH and other documents
describe a plane that meets the definition.
The issue is different for planes that have documents showing a
quality that doesn't meet the LSA definition. If such documents are
associated with the plane, then it doesn't qualify and can't be made
to qualify. It is all about the paper work.
I can't guess whether the FAA would care if a plane in phase 1
testing qualifies as an LSA or not. If a Sport Pilot is crazy enough
to perform test flights in such a poorly documented plane, then
probably the FAA bureaucrats don't have any paperwork to cite if they
want to give the pilot a hard time. I suspect it is more likely they
don't want to be involved in such trivial flight test issues at all.
Paul
XL fuselage
do not archive
At 03:36 PM 5/13/2008, you wrote:
>
>What is missing in the question is whether the airplane was past the
>40-hour test period or not. If it is past the test period, then I
>agree: It can't then be changed to meet the criteria. However, it
>is totally unreasonable to expect an amateur builder to be able to
>set a ground-adjustable prop (or choose a fixed pitch prop) that
>will, without a doubt, make the airplane fly below 138mph. As Gig
>has pointed out, reasonableness is not a characteristic of the Feds;
>but I really don't believe they intended to create a Catch 22. Then
>again, how are they going to know (or even care) what you have
>adjusted during the testing period? You might adjust the carb, the
>stabilizer attitude, tire pressure, or the prop pitch to get them
>right. What's the difference?
>
>Jay in Dallas
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|