---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 05/14/08: 48 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:21:08 AM PST US From: 601corvair Subject: Zenith-List: 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 " 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:40:29 AM PST US From: Tony Bonsell Subject: Zenith-List: Damper? 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:49:01 AM PST US From: Juan Vega 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 >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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:58:01 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? From: "ashontz" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:12:21 AM PST US From: "steve" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons (flutter & accidents) ??????????????????????????????????????????????? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Juan Vega" 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 >>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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:40:40 AM PST US From: Al Hays Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Damper? 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:03:55 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? From: "ashontz" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:20:55 AM PST US From: Jaybannist@cs.com Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:43:10 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance From: "TxDave" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:52:25 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:58:58 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:20:59 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance From: "William Dominguez" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:32:03 AM PST US From: Al Hays Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:40:25 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:41:44 AM PST US From: Jaybannist@cs.com Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:45 AM PST US From: Phil Maxson Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Aileron balance 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:34:37 AM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:41:03 AM PST US From: "Roberto Brito" Subject: Zenith-List: Aileron Balance 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:44:24 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:09:10 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:37:41 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:39:18 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:42:45 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:54:47 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:01:05 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance From: "William Dominguez" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:15:05 PM PST US From: Jaybannist@cs.com Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance 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 > > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 01:03:37 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance From: "William Dominguez" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:12:02 PM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:46:56 PM PST US From: Kevin Bonds Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" wrote: > > >> >> ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 01:58:21 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Insurance coverage? From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:08:02 PM PST US From: Jaybannist@cs.com Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:37:03 PM PST US From: george may Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:03:29 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Insurance coverage? From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:57:08 PM PST US From: Juan Vega 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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:57:08 PM PST US From: Juan Vega 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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:03:27 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:21:28 PM PST US From: "steve" 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" 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 >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:24:28 PM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:30:50 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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" >To: >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 >>>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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:32:02 PM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:44:36 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:47:09 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:57:25 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? From: "Ron Lendon" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:08:55 PM PST US From: "steve" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? Listed in the FAA registry ? Take a look. Amazing results... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Lendon" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:27:49 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance From: "William Dominguez" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:29:46 PM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:05:28 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance From: "William Dominguez" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:41 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.