Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:19 AM - Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (steveadams)
2. 06:30 AM - Re: Meeting LSA Criteria (Pete Krotje)
3. 06:42 AM - Re: Insurance coverage? (ALAN BEYER)
4. 07:04 AM - Re: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (Juan Vega)
5. 07:04 AM - Re: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (Juan Vega)
6. 07:04 AM - Re: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (Frank Roskind)
7. 07:14 AM - Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (Gig Giacona)
8. 07:16 AM - Re: Zenith-List WHAT A SHAME (cleonard52@comcast.net)
9. 07:41 AM - Re: Re: Zenith-List WHAT A SHAME (Jay Maynard)
10. 07:42 AM - Re: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (Jay Maynard)
11. 07:58 AM - Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (Gig Giacona)
12. 08:15 AM - Re: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (Jay Maynard)
13. 08:55 AM - Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (DaveG601XL)
14. 09:29 AM - Re: Insurance coverage? (ashontz)
15. 09:31 AM - Re: Insurance coverage? (ashontz)
16. 09:34 AM - Re: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (T. Graziano)
17. 09:36 AM - Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (Gig Giacona)
18. 09:41 AM - Re: Zenith-List WHAT A SHAME (William Dominguez)
19. 09:41 AM - Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (Gig Giacona)
20. 11:09 AM - Re: Re: Insurance coverage? (Gary Gower)
21. 11:36 AM - First Flight (Sort Of) (sdthatcher)
22. 11:46 AM - Insurance renewal (LarryMcFarland)
23. 11:53 AM - Re: First Flight (Sort Of) (William Dominguez)
24. 11:54 AM - Re: First Flight (Sort Of) (Andrewlieser)
25. 12:20 PM - Re: Insurance coverage? (n85ae)
26. 12:23 PM - Re: Insurance coverage? (n85ae)
27. 12:36 PM - Re: Insurance renewal (Frank Roskind)
28. 12:45 PM - Re: First Flight (Sort Of) (n801bh@netzero.com)
29. 12:50 PM - Re: First Flight (Sort Of) (sdthatcher)
30. 12:52 PM - Re: First Flight (Sort Of) (sdthatcher)
31. 01:57 PM - Re: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (Bryan Martin)
32. 02:03 PM - Re: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (Bryan Martin)
33. 03:44 PM - Re: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned (Juan Vega)
34. 06:10 PM - Re: Insurance renewal (TImothy Shankland)
35. 10:37 PM - Re: Insurance coverage? (MaxNr@aol.com)
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: food for thought for those overly concerned |
I'm trying to envision some commonality between the wing failures. I was reading
a little sidebar in Kitplanes magazine about AVEMCO's experience with LSA's
thus far. One of the things they said was that overall pilot experience made
little difference in predicting risk because many of the LSA flying qualities
are quite different than common certified aircraft. Time in type was a much better
predictor of risk. Then looking at these accidents, there are a lot of differences;
experimentals, factory built (from 2 different factories with some
differences in materials and construction techniques), brand new planes, older
planes, new pilots, very experienced pilots, planes with extensive modifications
to the design, different phases of flight etc. However, there does seem to
be a few common themes. First, those accidents that were witnessed had some reports
of attitude changes prior to the breakup. Secondly, (correct me if I'm
wrong) but it seems most of the pilots, regardless of their overall experience,
were fairly new to the 601. I have never flown a 601, but it seems to me most
likely that there is some flying quality of the 601 (i.e.- low stick force/G
combined with a lot of elevator authority) that allows pilots used to a more
conventional aircraft to overcontrol the aircraft under certain conditions and
literally pull the wings off. If I was building a 601 I would build to plans,
spring the $100 or so to get an instrument to measure cable tension, inspect
control attachments frequently for slop, make the changes that CH recommended,
and get a lot of transition training before attempting to fly the 601. With that
I would feel comfortable with the design.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183274#183274
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Meeting LSA Criteria |
Paul,
You are correct that the POH should include the information showing
compliance to the LSA rule. Taking a step back - the FAA considers each
E-AB plane a unique aircraft and as such looks to the manufacturer (not the
kit manufacturer but the person who's name is on the data plate) to produce
the POH and include the performance and weight numbers for his aircraft
discovered in Phase 1 testing.
All the data that would show compliance to the LSA parameters should be
noted in the aircraft log during initial Phase 1 testing. Vh is one very
important speed and must be 120 knots or less. If your log shows 121 or
more your plane is not LSA eligible. Vsi is another important one for LSA.
45 knots is maximum.
There is a good FAA advisory circular that is great help in sorting out the
necessary documentation during the initial flight testing. EAA's flight
advisors can help as well to make sure your log and ultimately your POH
shows compliance to the LSA parameters.
Pete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:37 PM
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
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: Insurance coverage? |
Hi Larry,=0A-=0AI have an HDS that has been in the air for 3 1/2 years wi
th about 350 Hrs. on it.- I thought about taking off the moving hull a fe
w times but have not.- A friend of mine with an older RV 6 broke a nose g
ear and slowly flipped it over and did $35,000 worth of damage to it.- Th
at made me decide to keep all coverage on my plane.- All it takes is an e
ngine out and an off field landing to do a lot of expensive damage to it.
- It would be-hard for me to cover the cost to replace what I have.-
That is just my thought,-but if I was "Rich" I might have just liability.
=0AAL from Oshkosh=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: LarryMcFarland <la
rry@macsmachine.com>=0ATo: zenith-list <zenith-list@matronics.com>=0ASent:
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:08:56 PM=0ASubject: Zenith-List: Insurance covera
ne.com>=0A=0A=0AHi guys,=0A=0AIn discussing insurance with others at our ai
rport, I find that only a =0Afew carry hull coverage.- Most, with excepti
on to the jet owners, just =0Acarry liability insurance.- After a few sho
rt years, the hull is paid =0Afor in premiums.- Liability runs $300 to $6
00 and hull coverage takes it =0Ato $1400.00 or more. Any thoughts pro or c
on on the full coverage?=0A=0ALarry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Dralle, List
======
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: food for thought for those overly concerned |
BINGO! you hit the nail on the HEAD!
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: steveadams <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
>Sent: May 15, 2008 9:14 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned
>
>
>I'm trying to envision some commonality between the wing failures. I was reading
a little sidebar in Kitplanes magazine about AVEMCO's experience with LSA's
thus far. One of the things they said was that overall pilot experience made
little difference in predicting risk because many of the LSA flying qualities
are quite different than common certified aircraft. Time in type was a much better
predictor of risk. Then looking at these accidents, there are a lot of differences;
experimentals, factory built (from 2 different factories with some
differences in materials and construction techniques), brand new planes, older
planes, new pilots, very experienced pilots, planes with extensive modifications
to the design, different phases of flight etc. However, there does seem to
be a few common themes. First, those accidents that were witnessed had some
reports of attitude changes prior to the breakup. Secondly, (correct me if I'm
wrong) but it seems most of the pilots, regardless o
!
> f their overall experience, were fairly new to the 601. I have never flown a
601, but it seems to me most likely that there is some flying quality of the 601
(i.e.- low stick force/G combined with a lot of elevator authority) that allows
pilots used to a more conventional aircraft to overcontrol the aircraft under
certain conditions and literally pull the wings off. If I was building a
601 I would build to plans, spring the $100 or so to get an instrument to measure
cable tension, inspect control attachments frequently for slop, make the changes
that CH recommended, and get a lot of transition training before attempting
to fly the 601. With that I would feel comfortable with the design.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183274#183274
>
>
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: food for thought for those overly concerned |
BINGO! you hit the nail on the HEAD!
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: steveadams <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
>Sent: May 15, 2008 9:14 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned
>
>
>I'm trying to envision some commonality between the wing failures. I was reading
a little sidebar in Kitplanes magazine about AVEMCO's experience with LSA's
thus far. One of the things they said was that overall pilot experience made
little difference in predicting risk because many of the LSA flying qualities
are quite different than common certified aircraft. Time in type was a much better
predictor of risk. Then looking at these accidents, there are a lot of differences;
experimentals, factory built (from 2 different factories with some
differences in materials and construction techniques), brand new planes, older
planes, new pilots, very experienced pilots, planes with extensive modifications
to the design, different phases of flight etc. However, there does seem to
be a few common themes. First, those accidents that were witnessed had some
reports of attitude changes prior to the breakup. Secondly, (correct me if I'm
wrong) but it seems most of the pilots, regardless o
!
> f their overall experience, were fairly new to the 601. I have never flown a
601, but it seems to me most likely that there is some flying quality of the 601
(i.e.- low stick force/G combined with a lot of elevator authority) that allows
pilots used to a more conventional aircraft to overcontrol the aircraft under
certain conditions and literally pull the wings off. If I was building a
601 I would build to plans, spring the $100 or so to get an instrument to measure
cable tension, inspect control attachments frequently for slop, make the changes
that CH recommended, and get a lot of transition training before attempting
to fly the 601. With that I would feel comfortable with the design.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183274#183274
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: food for thought for those overly concerned |
While I haven't flown a 601, I have flown taylrocrafts, which have similar
weight and flying speeds (although slower at cruise), if not similar handli
ng. A taylorcraft at cruise handles much like a 152, warrior or even a Col
t at cruise. At slower speeds the differences are huge. I stlll think the
variations among aircraft at cruise speeds is not as serious as the variat
ion among aircraft near stall speed. In the cases of the wing failure acci
dents there is no reason to believe the planes were in slow flight, and eve
ry reason to believe they weren't. The thing that makes a much lighter air
craft a little trickier to handle near stall speed is how quickly it slows
down because of the low speed involved, and lack of momentum. At cruise th
ere should be less difference in how to handle a very responsive LSA and an
y other very responsive aircraft. Further, if you are overstressing the ai
rcraft, you are also experiencing a fair number of g's yourself. This woul
d be very evident to an experienced pilot. the handling would have to be s
o squirrelly that a pilot could touch a contol and exceed g force limits fr
om a cruise in order to get the kinds of crashes we saw. This seems unlike
ly.
I have read three plausible, although in one case, unlikely scenarios descr
ibed in posts. Flutter, which has been beaten to death, and which I think
is not likely, pilots deliberately exceeding design parameters, which seems
likely in at least one case, and incipeinet cracks progressing to failure,
which theory does a good job of explaining how an airplane in straight and
level cruise suffers a wing failure. The incipient crakcs might have been
initiated by exceeding design parameters, or through an as yet unexplained
mechanism. I would bet that there are other explanations for the crashes,
but I don't recall reading them here. There is, in addition, one implicit
theory that pilots exceed design parameters unintentionally be pushing for
ward too rapidly on the stick. This is implicit in the message to reduce e
vevator travel. I find it hard to believe that experienced pilots might do
something like that, although the forward puch might have been unintentina
l, such as in response to a sneeze. Unfortunately we lack cockpit sneeze r
ecorders.
What can you do to avoid all of the scenarios? To avoid flutter install yo
ur controls correctly, without slack. To avoid overstressing the aircraft
deliverately, don't. To avoid the excessive down elevator, install the sto
ps recommended. The best way to deal with incipient cracks is detection.
Inspection could help, but maybe there is where some additional thought wou
ld help.> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: food for thought for those overly conce
rned> From: dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 06:14:38 -0700
eadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>> > I'm trying to envision some commonali
ty between the wing failures. I was reading a little sidebar in Kitplanes m
agazine about AVEMCO's experience with LSA's thus far. One of the things th
ey said was that overall pilot experience made little difference in predict
ing risk because many of the LSA flying qualities are quite different than
common certified aircraft. Time in type was a much better predictor of risk
. Then looking at these accidents, there are a lot of differences; experime
ntals, factory built (from 2 different factories with some differences in m
aterials and construction techniques), brand new planes, older planes, new
pilots, very experienced pilots, planes with extensive modifications to the
design, different phases of flight etc. However, there does seem to be a f
ew common themes. First, those accidents that were witnessed had some repor
ts of attitude changes prior to the breakup. Secondly, (correct me if I'm w
rong) but it seems most of the pilots, regardless o!> f their overall exper
ience, were fairly new to the 601. I have never flown a 601, but it seems t
o me most likely that there is some flying quality of the 601 (i.e.- low st
ick force/G combined with a lot of elevator authority) that allows pilots u
sed to a more conventional aircraft to overcontrol the aircraft under certa
in conditions and literally pull the wings off. If I was building a 601 I w
ould build to plans, spring the $100 or so to get an instrument to measure
cable tension, inspect control attachments frequently for slop, make the ch
anges that CH recommended, and get a lot of transition training before atte
mpting to fly the 601. With that I would feel comfortable with the design.>
> > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewto
===============> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack
1.
http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: food for thought for those overly concerned |
Excellent post Steve,
Until further information from the accident develops I'd suggest, and will implement
myself if I ever get flying, the following.
Reduce Vne to 170 MPH.
Reduce Va & Vfe by 5 to 10 MPH.
Install the Elevator Stop Modification.
Perform no maneuvers that exceed 2G +/-
For new 601 pilots: Receive 10-20 hours of dual in a 601 before acting as PIC.
None of these actions will in any way reduce the utility of your aircraft and will
add a huge margin of safety.
steveadams wrote:
> I'm trying to envision some commonality between the wing failures.
--------
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=183287#183287
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List WHAT A SHAME |
THE SUBJECTS, FOR THE MOST PART, THAT ARE DISCUSED ON THIS LIST ARE RIDICULOUS.
THIS LIST , IN THE PAST USED TO BE A GREAT SOURCE OF INFORMATION. NOW IT IS
FOR THE MOST PART A WASTE OF TIME.
ASKING SOME ONE ON THIS LIST A TECHNICAL QUESTION IS LIKE ASKING A 1ST GRADER HOW
TO DO CALCULUS. HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU KNOW IF THE ANSWER YOU GOT BACK
WAS ACCURATE, OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD GET YOU KILLED.
IF YOU INTEND TO BUILD A SAFE AIRPLANE, THERE ARE ONLY A FEW PLACES YOU SHOULD
GO FOR TECHNICAL ANSWERS.
ZENITH
FAA {LOTS OF INFO HERE}
OEM
HINTS ON HOW TO GET A PARTICULAR JOB DONE ARE GREAT. WOULD IT NOT BE GREAT IF THIS
LIST BECAME A GOOD SOURCE ON HOW TO BUILD ZENITH AIRCRAFT? IT USED TO BE.
CHARLES
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Zenith-List Digest Server <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> *
>
> ==================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ==================================================
>
> Today's complete Zenith-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the Zenith-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 0
> 8-05-14&Archive=Zenith
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 08
> -05-14&Archive=Zenith
>
>
> ================================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ================================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>THE SUBJECTS, FOR THE MOST PART, THAT ARE DISCUSED ON THIS LIST ARE RIDICULOUS.
THIS LIST , IN THE PAST USED TO BE A GREAT SOURCE OF INFORMATION.
NOW IT IS FOR THE MOST PART A WASTE OF TIME.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>ASKING SOME ONE ON THIS LIST A TECHNICAL QUESTION IS LIKE ASKING A 1ST GRADER
HOW TO DO CALCULUS. HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU KNOW IF THE ANSWER YOU GOT
BACK WAS ACCURATE, OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD GET YOU KILLED.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>IF YOU INTEND TO BUILD A SAFE AIRPLANE, THERE ARE ONLY A FEW PLACES YOU SHOULD
GO FOR TECHNICAL ANSWERS.</DIV>
<DIV> ZENITH</DIV>
<DIV> FAA {LOTS OF INFO HERE}</DIV>
<DIV> OEM</DIV>
<DIV>HINTS ON HOW TO GET A PARTICULAR JOB DONE ARE GREAT. WOULD IT NOT BE GREAT
IF THIS LIST BECAME A GOOD SOURCE ON HOW TO BUILD ZENITH AIRCRAFT? IT USED TO
BE.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>CHARLES</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Zenith-List Digest Server <zenith-list@matronics.com> <BR><BR>> * <BR>> <BR>> ================================================== <BR>> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive <BR>> ================================================== <BR>> <BR>> Today's complete Zenith-List Digest can also be found in either of the <BR>> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted <BR>> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes <BR>> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version <BR>> of the Zenith-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor <BR>> such as Notepad or with a web browser. <BR>> <BR>> HTML Version: <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&Vie
w=html
&Chapter 0 <BR>> 8-05-14&Archive=Zenith <BR>> <BR>> Text Version: <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 08 <BR>> -05-14&Archive=Zenith <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ================================================ <BR>> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive <BR>> ================================================ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ---------------------------------------------------------- <BR>> Zenith-List Digest Archive <BR>> --- <BR>> Total Messages Posted Wed 05/14/08: 48 <BR>> ---------------------------------------------------------- <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Today's Message Index: <BR>> ---------------------- <BR>> <BR>> 1. 06:21 AM - Re: Meeting LSA Criteria (601corvair) <BR>> 2. 06:40 AM - Damper? (Tony Bonsell) <BR>> 3. 06:49 AM - Re: Re: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons (flutter & accidents) <BR>> (Juan Vega) <BR>> 4.
06:58
AM - Re: Damper? (ashontz) <BR>> 5. 07:12 AM - Re: Re: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons
(flutter & accidents) <BR>> (steve) <BR>> 6. 07:40 AM - Re:
Damper? (Al Hays) <BR>> 7. 08:03 AM - Re: Damper? (ashontz) <BR>> 8. 08:20
AM - Aileron balance (Jaybannist@cs.com) <BR>> 9. 08:43 AM - Re: Aileron
balance (TxDave) <BR>> 10. 08:52 AM - Re: Damper? (Gig Giacona) <BR>> 11.
08:58 AM - Re: Damper? (ashontz) <BR>> 12. 09:20 AM - Re: Aileron balance
(William Dominguez) <BR>> 13. 09:32 AM - Re: Re: Damper? (Al Hays) <BR>>
14. 09:40 AM - Re: Damper? (ashontz) <BR>> 15. 09:41 AM - Re: Re: Aileron
balance (Jaybannist@cs.com) <BR>> 16. 10:26 AM - Re: Aileron balance (Phil
Maxson) <BR>> 17. 10:34 AM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Juan Vega) <BR>>
18. 10:41 AM - Aileron Balance (Roberto Brito) <BR>> 19. 10:44 AM - Re: Re:
Aileron balance (Jay Maynard) <BR>> 20. 11:09 AM - Re: Aileron balance (ashontz)
<BR>> 21. 11:37 AM - Re: Damper? (Gig Giac
ona) <
BR>> 22. 11:39 AM - Re: Damper? (ashontz) <BR>> 23. 11:42 AM - Re: Aileron
balance (Gig Giacona) <BR>> 24. 11:54 AM - Re: Aileron balance (Gig Giacona)
<BR>> 25. 12:01 PM - Re: Aileron balance (William Dominguez) <BR>> 26.
12:15 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Jaybannist@cs.com) <BR>> 27. 01:03 PM
- Re: Aileron balance (William Dominguez) <BR>> 28. 01:12 PM - Insurance
coverage? (LarryMcFarland) <BR>> 29. 01:46 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Kevin
Bonds) <BR>> 30. 01:58 PM - Re: Insurance coverage? (Gig Giacona) <BR>>
31. 02:08 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Jaybannist@cs.com) <BR>> 32. 02:37
PM - Re: Insurance coverage? (george may) <BR>> 33. 03:03 PM - Re: Insurance
coverage? (Gig Giacona) <BR>> 34. 03:57 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance
(Juan Vega) <BR>> 35. 03:57 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Juan Vega) <BR>>
36. 04:03 PM - Re: Insurance coverage? (Juan Vega) <BR>> 37. 04:21 PM -
Re: Re: Aileron balance (steve) <BR>> 38. 04:24 PM
- Re:
Re: Aileron balance (Jay Maynard) <BR>> 39. 04:30 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance
(Juan Vega) <BR>> 40. 04:32 PM - Re: Re: Aileron balance (Jay Maynard)
<BR>> 41. 05:44 PM - food for thought for those overly concerned (Juan Vega)
<BR>> 42. 05:47 PM - to the question what is flutter and Why it is not an
issue in <BR>> XL when flown properly (Juan Vega) <BR>> 43. 05:57 PM -
Re: Damper? (Ron Lendon) <BR>> 44. 06:08 PM - Re: Re: Damper? (steve) <BR>>
45. 06:27 PM - Re: Aileron balance (William Dominguez) <BR>> 46. 06:29
PM - Re: Re: Damper? (LarryMcFarland) <BR>> 47. 07:05 PM - Re: Aileron balance
(William Dominguez) <BR>> 48. 09:42 PM - Re: Meeting LSA Criteria (Paul
Mulwitz) <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________
Message 1 <BR>> _____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Time: 06:21:08 AM PST US <BR>> From: 601corvair <AIRVAIR601@YAHOO.COM><BR>>
Subject: Zenith-List: RE: Meeting LSA Crit
eria <
BR>> <BR>> I believe what Jay wrote below is correct. It is my understanding
that, in <BR>> the <BR>> USA, any homebuilt aircraft registered after
Jan 2008, must be registered an <BR>> E-AB. These Aircraft can be modified
by the builder with the repair <BR>> certificate, <BR>> or <BR>> anyone
and signed off by an A&P, if the proper forms ( I think the 336 form),
<BR>> are <BR>> filed to the FAA. The FAA may requires more testing etc.
But, so long as the <BR>> noncertificated aircraft conforms to the SP rules,
it can be flown under the SP <BR>> airman rating. There is lots of leeway
to be legal with E-AB aircraft under <BR>> the <BR>> SP <BR>> rule.
With factory built certificated light sport aircraft, even if it is <BR>>
identical <BR>> to a kit <BR>> built version, which could be rented to
the public and/or used in a flight <BR>> school <BR>> the <BR>> rules
are tighter and the restrictions on maintenance are
great
er. Some of <BR>> this <BR>> confusion arises because some older certificated
aircraft meet the SP airmans <BR>> restriction and because the FAA wanted
to allow some grandfathering of <BR>> aircraft. <BR>> <BR>> But,
that ship has sailed and I believe any homebuilder still building will <BR>>
end <BR>> up <BR>> in the E-AB and if it meets SP privileges it can be
flown as such. If not, it <BR>> could <BR>> be modified to meet them, the
forms filed, approved, and then flown under the <BR>> SP <BR>> rating.
I could be wrong on this and would like to be enlightened. If I am, <BR>>
as <BR>> Gilda Radner used to say OH, well never mind <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> Subject: RE: Meeting LSA Criteria <BR>> From: Jaybannist@cs.com
<BR>> Date: Tue May 13 - 7:04 PM <BR>> <BR>> Jeff, <BR>>
<BR>> A Sport Pilot can only fly an LSA, but the 601XL, registered E-AB,
also <BR>> qualifies <BR>> as an LSA. Theref
ore, a
Sport Pilot can fly Phase I in an XL. <BR>> <BR>> Jay in Dallas <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> "Jeff " <JEFFREY_DAVIDSON@EARTHLINK.NET>wrote: <BR>> <BR>>
> <BR>> >There are further considerations for instrument markings,
etc., but here <BR>> is <BR>> >a question for you: May a Sport Pilot
fly off Phase I of an AB <BR>> Experimental <BR>> >? <BR>> >
<BR>> >Jeff D. <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________
Message 2 <BR>> _____________________________________
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 06:40:29 AM PST US <BR>> From: Tony
Bonsell <TBONSELL@LUXURIA.COM><BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Damper? <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> Hi guys, I have a stupid question. <BR>> <BR>> Back in
the day, I used to ride motorcycles. Anyway, on a <BR>> particularily nasty
kawi triple, it had a steering damper to minimize <BR>> the terrifying speed
wobble that would try and kill you from time to
<BR>&g
t; time. It looked like a tiny shock absorber. <BR>> <BR>> How come they
don't use these to damp out flutter in control surfaces? <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
________________________________ Message 3 <BR>> _____________________________________
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 06:49:01 AM PST US <BR>>
From: Juan Vega <AMYVEGA2005@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List:
Re: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons (flutter & accidents) <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
the gap seal will not work on a zenith design due to the gap being 2 inches.
<BR>> that <BR>> gap act as a balance to assist the aileron in movement.
a gap seal may woork <BR>> on top of the aileron but the speed will
be negligable. <BR>> <BR>> JUan <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----
<BR>> >From: Bryan Martin <BRYANMMARTIN@COMCAST.NET><BR>> >Sent:
May 13, 2008 10:59 PM <BR>> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com <BR>>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinged VS Hingless
ailer
ons (flutter & accidents) <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >The gap seals are strips of plastic attached to the wing ahead of the <BR>> >hinge on the bottom of the wing. They span the gap formed by the hinge <BR>> >line. The higher pressure on the bottom of the wing holds the strip <BR>> >against the surface to smooth the airflow and prevent leakage through <BR>> >the gap. The trailing edge of the strip is free to slide over the <BR>> >aileron as it moves. <BR>> > <BR>> >See: http://www.knots2u.com/cessna-gs.htm for example. <BR>> > <BR>> >On May 13, 2008, at 9:05 PM, ashontz wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> >> <BR>> >> I understand that, so how do these gap seals work? <BR>> >> <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >-- <BR>> >Bryan Martin <BR>> >N61BM, CH 601 XL, <BR>> >RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. <BR>> >do not archive. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>>
; <BR>
> ________________________________ Message 4 <BR>> _____________________________________
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 06:58:01 AM PST US <BR>> Subject:
Zenith-List: Re: Damper? <BR>> From: "ashontz" <ASHONTZ@NBME.ORG><BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> I actually thought about this too. Good point. I know
I've seen them on the nose <BR>> wheels of Cessnas. I've had a nosewheel shimmy
and shake while going down the <BR>> runway (like a shopping cart wheel)
and it REALLY shook the plane hard too. <BR>> I turned around and took
it back to the shop. The owner/rentee fixed it on the <BR>> spot, was a bad
damper or connection or something. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> tbonsell(at)luxuria.com
wrote: <BR>> > Hi guys, I have a stupid question. <BR>> >
<BR>> > Back in the day, I used to ride motorcycles. Anyway, on a <BR>>
> particularily nasty kawi triple, it had a steering damper to minimize
<BR>> > the terrifying speed wobble that would
try a
nd kill you from time to <BR>> > time. It looked like a tiny shock absorber. <BR>> > <BR>> > How come they don't use these to damp out flutter in control surfaces? <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> Andy Shontz <BR>> <BR>> do not archive <BR>> <BR>> CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183112#183112 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 5 <BR>> _____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 07:12:21 AM PST US <BR>> From: "steve" <NOTSEW_EVETS@FRONTIERNET.NET><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons (flutter & accidents) <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ??????????????????????????????????????????????? <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Juan Vega" <AMYVEGA2005@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>> Sent: Wednesday, May 14,
2008 6
:46 AM <BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinged VS Hingless ailerons (flutter
& <BR>> accidents) <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > <BR>> > the
gap seal will not work on a zenith design due to the gap being 2 <BR>> >
inches. that gap act as a balance to assist the aileron in movement. a <BR>>
> gap seal may woork on top of the aileron but the speed will be negligable.
<BR>> > <BR>> > JUan <BR>> > <BR>> > -----Original
Message----- <BR>> >>From: Bryan Martin <BRYANMMARTIN@COMCAST.NET><BR>>
>>Sent: May 13, 2008 10:59 PM <BR>> >>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
<BR>> >>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Hinged VS Hingless
ailerons (flutter & <BR>> >>accidents) <BR>> >> <BR>>
>> <BR>> >>The gap seals are strips of plastic attached to
the wing ahead of the <BR>> >>hinge on the bottom of the wing. They span
the gap formed by the hinge <BR>> >>line
. The
higher pressure on the bottom of the wing holds the strip <BR>> >>against the surface to smooth the airflow and prevent leakage through <BR>> >>the gap. The trailing edge of the strip is free to slide over the <BR>> >>aileron as it moves. <BR>> >> <BR>> >>See: http://www.knots2u.com/cessna-gs.htm for example. <BR>> >> <BR>> >>On May 13, 2008, at 9:05 PM, ashontz wrote: <BR>> >> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> I understand that, so how do these gap seals work? <BR>> >>> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >>-- <BR>> >>Bryan Martin <BR>> >>N61BM, CH 601 XL, <BR>> >>RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive. <BR>> >>do not archive. <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>>
; <BR>
> ________________________________ Message 6 <BR>> _____________________________________
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 07:40:40 AM PST US <BR>> From:
Al Hays <ALHAYS@HICKORYHILLFARMSHEEP.COM><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List:
Damper? <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Tony, <BR>> <BR>> I remember being
invited to test ride one of those in while <BR>> stationed in Japan when they
were new on the market. My first and <BR>> only unintentional wheelie from
the wicked power curve. <BR>> <BR>> That must not be such a stupid question
since I thought of the same <BR>> thing myself. I didn't give it much
consideration after remembering <BR>> a few occasions of frozen (seized
up) shock absorbers <BR>> on land vehicles. Those devices are used as well
for sway dampening <BR>> for trailer hitches and shimmy control. The consequences
of having <BR>> one stick or freeze up in flight would be more dire
than on a ground <BR>> vehicle. However, I have no
t rese
arched and don't know if they have <BR>> in fact been used on control services.
<BR>> <BR>> Al Hays <BR>> N5892H reserved <BR>> <BR>> On May
14, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Tony Bonsell wrote: <BR>> <BR>> > <BR>> >
Hi guys, I have a stupid question. <BR>> > <BR>> > Back in the
day, I used to ride motorcycles. Anyway, on a <BR>> > particularily nasty
kawi triple, it had a steering damper to <BR>> > minimize the terrifying
speed wobble that would try and kill you <BR>> > from time to time. It
looked like a tiny shock absorber. <BR>> > <BR>> > How come they
don't use these to damp out flutter in control surfaces? <BR>> > <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 7 <BR>> _____________________________________
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 08:03:55 AM
PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? <BR>> From: "ashontz" <ASHONTZ@NBME.ORG><BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> How about a
dampe
r made of two pieces of nylon that clamp down on an aluminum <BR>> plate <BR>>
with springs under the bolt heads? That would be light and would never freeze
<BR>> up or lose oil. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Al Hays wrote: <BR>>
> Tony, <BR>> > <BR>> > I remember being invited to test ride
one of those in while <BR>> > stationed in Japan when they were new on
the market. My first and <BR>> > only unintentional wheelie from the wicked
power curve. <BR>> > <BR>> > That must not be such a stupid
question since I thought of the same <BR>> > thing myself. I didn't give
it much consideration after remembering <BR>> > a few occasions of frozen
(seized up) shock absorbers <BR>> > on land vehicles. Those devices are
used as well for sway dampening <BR>> > for trailer hitches and shimmy
control. The consequences of having <BR>> > one stick or freeze up in
flight would be more dire than on a ground <BR>> &
gt; ve
hicle. However, I have not researched and don't know if they have <BR>> >
in fact been used on control services. <BR>> > <BR>> > Al Hays <BR>>
> N5892H reserved <BR>> > <BR>> > On May 14, 2008, at 9:37
AM, Tony Bonsell wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > > <BR>>
> > <BR>> > > Hi guys, I have a stupid question. <BR>>
> > <BR>> > > Back in the day, I used to ride motorcycles. Anyway,
on a <BR>> > > particularily nasty kawi triple, it had a steering
damper to <BR>> > > minimize the terrifying speed wobble that would
try and kill you <BR>> > > from time to time. It looked like a tiny shock
absorber. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > How come they don't use these
to damp out flutter in control surfaces? <BR>> > > <BR>> >
> <BR>> > > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>>
Andy Shontz <BR>> <BR>> do not archive <B
R>>
<BR>> CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183123#183123 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 8 <BR>> _____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 08:20:55 AM PST US <BR>> From: Jaybannist@cs.com <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance the <BR>> ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the <BR>> ailerons. <BR>> Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture; <BR>> a REASON. PLEASE! <BR>> <BR>> Jay in Dallas <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 9 <BR>> _____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 08:43:10 AM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List:
Re: Ai
leron balance <BR>> From: "TxDave" <DCLAYTX2@HOTMAIL.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Good question, Jay. On the EAA Web site there are a couple of good articles on <BR>> this topic by Tony Bingelis. He says, depending on the design, balancing may or <BR>> may not be necessary. <BR>> <BR>> Dave Clay <BR>> Temple, TX <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183131#183131 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 10 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 08:52:25 AM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? <BR>> From: "Gig Giacona" <WRGIACONA@GMAIL.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I am curious. How is that any better than a cable running all the way to the <BR>> horn <BR>> in the other wing that applies and releases pressure as needed? <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ashontz wrote: <BR>> > How about a dam
per ma
de of two pieces of nylon that clamp down on an aluminum <BR>> plate with springs under the bolt heads? That would be light and would never <BR>> freeze up or lose oil. It would just provide some consistant stiffness to the <BR>> actuator in both directions. <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> W.R. "Gig" Giacona <BR>> 601XL Under Construction <BR>> See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183134#183134 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 11 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 08:58:58 AM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? <BR>> From: "ashontz" <ASHONTZ@NBME.ORG><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I'm talking about a damper on each aileron horn, particularly in the push-tube <BR>> setup. <BR>> <BR>> In the cable setup, the cable
runni
ng to the other aileron doesn't provide any <BR>> damping, it's just a hookup
to the other side. There may be some friction there, <BR>> but not like a
damper would provide. What I'm talking about is a friction plate <BR>> as
a damper which would help resist out of control high frequency movement <BR>>
of the ailerons (flutter). The skin aileron hinge may be inadvertantly acting
<BR>> as a damper in that it's a stiffer joint to move. <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> Gig Giacona wrote: <BR>> > I am curious. How is that any better
than a cable running all the way to the <BR>> horn in the other wing that
applies and releases pressure as needed? <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>>
> <BR>> > ashontz wrote: <BR>> > > How about a damper made
of two pieces of nylon that clamp down on an <BR>> aluminum <BR>> plate
with springs under the bolt heads? That would be light and would never <BR>>
freeze up or lose oil. It would just provide some
consis
tant stiffness to the <BR>> actuator in both directions. <BR>> > > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> Andy Shontz <BR>> <BR>> do not archive <BR>> <BR>> CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183137#183137 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 12 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 09:20:59 AM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> From: "William Dominguez" <BILL_DOM@YAHOO.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The reason is to avoid the type of flutter experienced by Roberto Brito. He did <BR>> balance his ailerons and have not experienced flutter again. <BR>> <BR>> William Dominguez <BR>> Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> Miami Florida <BR>> http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> <BR>> <BR>&
gt; Ja
ybannist(at)cs.com wrote: <BR>> > OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance the <BR>> ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the <BR>> ailerons. <BR>> Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture; <BR>> a REASON. PLEASE! <BR>> > <BR>> > Jay in Dallas <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183140#183140 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 13 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 09:32:03 AM PST US <BR>> From: Al Hays <ALHAYS@HICKORYHILLFARMSHEEP.COM><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Do not archive. <BR>> Several aspects of that to consider. <BR>> 1. It would make more resistance and therefore more force to be <BR>> carried by the cables and probably more frequ
ent ad
justment due to wear. <BR>> 2. As I recall, shock absorbers usually give more
resistance to <BR>> movement in one direction than the other. Push down with
all your <BR>> weight on the front end of the Buick with worn out shocks
and it will <BR>> bob up and down for awhile. Replace the shocks and you
still push it <BR>> down easily but it will not bounce. The harder you try
to push that <BR>> air and fluid through the orifice inside the shock the more
<BR>> resistance it seem to have. Conversely, the harder you push <BR>>
something on a nylon bearing surface, the less effect it will have on <BR>>
controlling that movement. <BR>> 3. The resistance, or dampening, provided
by spring loading friction <BR>> would make the control feel heavier but
probably be overcome easily <BR>> by a flutter condition. <BR>> 4. Sounds
like a handy way to keep linkage snug on a lawn tractor but <BR>> not
up to the demands of flight controls. <BR>> Please
don't
take offense. Better to bounce these ideas around <BR>> before implementing
them and being the test pilot. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On May 14, 2008, at
11:01 AM, ashontz wrote: <BR>> <BR>> > <BR>> > How about a damper
made of two pieces of nylon that clamp down on <BR>> > an aluminum plate
with springs under the bolt heads? That would be <BR>> > light and
would never freeze up or lose oil. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Al
Hays wrote: <BR>> >> Tony, <BR>> >> <BR>> >> I remember
being invited to test ride one of those in while <BR>> >> stationed
in Japan when they were new on the market. My first and <BR>> >>
only unintentional wheelie from the wicked power curve. <BR>> >> <BR>>
>> That must not be such a stupid question since I thought of the
same <BR>> >> thing myself. I didn't give it much consideration after
remembering <BR>> >> a few occasions of fr
ozen (
seized up) shock absorbers <BR>> >> on land vehicles. Those devices are
used as well for sway dampening <BR>> >> for trailer hitches and shimmy
control. The consequences of having <BR>> >> one stick or freeze
up in flight would be more dire than on a ground <BR>> >> vehicle. However,
I have not researched and don't know if they have <BR>> >> in
fact been used on control services. <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Al Hays
<BR>> >> N5892H reserved <BR>> >> <BR>> >> On May
14, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Tony Bonsell wrote: <BR>> >> <BR>> >>
<BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> Hi guys, I
have a stupid question. <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> Back in the
day, I used to ride motorcycles. Anyway, on a <BR>> >>> particularily
nasty kawi triple, it had a steering damper to <BR>> >>> minimize
the terrifying speed wobble that would try and
kill
you <BR>> >>> from time to time. It looked like a tiny shock absorber. <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> How come they don't use these to damp out flutter in control <BR>> >>> surfaces? <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >> <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > -------- <BR>> > Andy Shontz <BR>> > <BR>> > do not archive <BR>> > <BR>> > CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Read this topic online here: <BR>> > <BR>> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183123#183123 <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 14 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 09:40:25 AM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? <BR>> From: "ashontz" <ASHONTZ@NBME.ORG><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Has no one not
iced I
said, push-tube? <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Al Hays wrote: <BR>> > Do not
archive. <BR>> > Several aspects of that to consider. <BR>> > 1.
It would make more resistance and therefore more force to be <BR>> > carried
by the cables and probably more frequent adjustment due to wear. <BR>>
> 2. As I recall, shock absorbers usually give more resistance to <BR>>
> movement in one direction than the other. Push down with all your <BR>>
> weight on the front end of the Buick with worn out shocks and it will
<BR>> > bob up and down for awhile. Replace the shocks and you still push
it <BR>> > down easily but it will not bounce. The harder you try to
push that <BR>> > air and fluid through the orifice inside the shock the
more <BR>> > resistance it seem to have. Conversely, the harder you push
<BR>> > something on a nylon bearing surface, the less effect it will
have on <BR>> > controlling that movement. <BR>
> &
gt; 3. The resistance, or dampening, provided by spring loading friction <BR>>
> would make the control feel heavier but probably be overcome easily <BR>>
> by a flutter condition. <BR>> > 4. Sounds like a handy way to
keep linkage snug on a lawn tractor but <BR>> > not up to the demands
of flight controls. <BR>> > Please don't take offense. Better to bounce
these ideas around <BR>> > before implementing them and being the test pilot.
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > On May 14, 2008, at 11:01 AM,
ashontz wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > > <BR>> > >
<BR>> > > How about a damper made of two pieces of nylon that clamp
down on <BR>> > > an aluminum plate with springs under the bolt heads?
That would be <BR>> > > light and would never freeze up or lose oil.
<BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > Al Hays wrote: <BR>>
> > > Tony, <BR>> > > > <
BR>>
; > > > I remember being invited to test ride one of those in while <BR>>
> > > stationed in Japan when they were new on the market. My
first and <BR>> > > > only unintentional wheelie from the wicked power
curve. <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > That must not be such
a stupid question since I thought of the same <BR>> > > > thing
myself. I didn't give it much consideration after remembering <BR>> >
> > a few occasions of frozen (seized up) shock absorbers <BR>> >
> > on land vehicles. Those devices are used as well for sway dampening
<BR>> > > > for trailer hitches and shimmy control. The consequences
of having <BR>> > > > one stick or freeze up in flight would be
more dire than on a ground <BR>> > > > vehicle. However, I have not
researched and don't know if they have <BR>> > > > in fact been
used on control services. <BR>> > > > <B
R>>
> > > Al Hays <BR>> > > > N5892H reserved <BR>> > >
> <BR>> > > > On May 14, 2008, at 9:37 AM, Tony Bonsell wrote:
<BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > >>
<BR>> > > >> <BR>> > > >> Hi guys, I have a stupid
question. <BR>> > > >> <BR>> > > >> Back in
the day, I used to ride motorcycles. Anyway, on a <BR>> > > >>
particularily nasty kawi triple, it had a steering damper to <BR>> > >
>> minimize the terrifying speed wobble that would try and kill you <BR>>
> > >> from time to time. It looked like a tiny shock absorber.
<BR>> > > >> <BR>> > > >> How come they don't
use these to damp out flutter in control <BR>> > > >> surfaces?
<BR>> > > >> <BR>> > > >> <BR>> > >
>> <BR>> > > > <BR>> > >
<BR>&
gt; > > <BR>> > > -------- <BR>> > > Andy Shontz <BR>> > > <BR>> > > do not archive <BR>> > > <BR>> > > CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> > > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > Read this topic online here: <BR>> > > <BR>> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183123#183123 <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> Andy Shontz <BR>> <BR>> do not archive <BR>> <BR>> CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183146#183146 <BR>> <
BR>>
; <BR>> ________________________________ Message 15 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 09:41:44 AM PST US <BR>> From: Jaybannist@cs.com <BR>> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Not to start an argument, but I was referring to a CH 601XL. Roberto Brito's <BR>> airplane <BR>> is NOT a CH 601XL. Any problems he has with his airplanes has no more <BR>> to do with my XL than does a space shuttle. <BR>> <BR>> Jay in Dallas <BR>> Do Not Archive. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> "William Dominguez" <BILL_DOM@YAHOO.COM>wrote: <BR>> <BR>> > <BR>> >The reason is to avoid the type of flutter experienced by Roberto Brito. He did <BR>> balance his ailerons and have not experienced flutter again. <BR>> > <BR>> >William Dominguez <BR>> >Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> >Miami Florida <BR>> >http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>&
gt; >Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote: <BR>> >> OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance <BR>> the <BR>> ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the <BR>> ailerons. <BR>> Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture; <BR>> a REASON. PLEASE! <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Jay in Dallas <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >Read this topic online here: <BR>> > <BR>> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183140#183140 <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 16 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 10:26:45 AM PST US <BR>> From: Phil Maxson <PMAXPMAX@HOTMAIL.COM><BR>> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> There is so much speculation and conjecture on this list it is almost impos <BR>> sible for the average reader to wa
de thr
ough all the garbage to find the tr <BR>> uth. Two subject come to mind: FLUTTER
and WING STRENGTH. These subjects <BR>> have been discussed ad nausium
in the archives and now have a lives of thei <BR>> r own. <BR>> <BR>>
This is not more speculation or opinion. This is a statement about how I f <BR>>
ly and intend to fly. <BR>> <BR>> FLUTTER: I have never seen any
evidence that brings me to believe that any <BR>> CH601XL has ever experienced
flutter of the control surfaces during operati <BR>> on at speeds below
Vne. I am not worried about it and until Chris Heintz s <BR>> ays he is concerned.
I make this decision for myself, my family and my pas <BR>> sengers.
<BR>> <BR>> WING STRENGTH: I never seen any evidence that brings me
to believe that any <BR>> CH601XL has ever lost a wing due to structural failure
during operation wi <BR>> thin normal parameters (weight, correct G-loads
and speeds below Vne). I'm <BR>> not worried
about
it until Chris Hientz says he is concerned. I make this <BR>> decision for myself, my family and my passengers.Phil Maxson <BR>> 601XL/Corvair (150 Hours) <BR>> Northwest New Jersey <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 11:17:58 -0400> From: Jaybannist@cs.com> To: zenit <BR>> h-list@matronics.com> Subject: Zenith-List: Aileron balance> > --> Zenith-L <BR>> ist message posted by: Jaybannist@cs.com> > OK, I guess I missed something. <BR>> With all this e-talk about how to balance the ailerons, there has got to b <BR>> e a good reason one would want to balance the ailerons. Just what is that r <BR>> eason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture; a REASON. PLEASE!> > J <BR>> ay in Dallas <BR>> _________________________________________________________________ <BR>> Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. <BR>> http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGL
M_WL_R
efr <BR>> esh_messenger_052008 <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________
Message 17 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> Time: 10:34:37 AM PST US <BR>> From: Juan Vega <AMYVEGA2005@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> all: <BR>> <BR>> 1- noone knows yet what caaused
the accidents <BR>> 2- no one knows if flutter was an issue, its apparently
a hunch to some on this <BR>> site <BR>> 3- If it was flutter, were the
cables probably tensioned to 30 lbs. <BR>> <BR>> before you go down the
path of fixing a flutter issue, check to see if it really <BR>> the issue.
<BR>> <BR>> A thought is to build it to the plans. that means tesnion
your cables, and <BR>> check <BR>> the tension on a regular basis. <BR>>
No, cables are not a primative way to move or tension the ailerons, check
most <BR>> high performance turbine aircraft like
the TB
M or C-90, they use cables. they <BR>> just need to be built correctly. <BR>> <BR>> Juan <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message----- <BR>> >From: William Dominguez <BILL_DOM@YAHOO.COM><BR>> >Sent: May 14, 2008 12:18 PM <BR>> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com <BR>> >Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >The reason is to avoid the type of flutter experienced by Roberto Brito. He did <BR>> balance his ailerons and have not experienced flutter again. <BR>> > <BR>> >William Dominguez <BR>> >Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> >Miami Florida <BR>> >http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote: <BR>> >> OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance <BR>> the <BR>> ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the <BR>> ailerons. <BR>> Just what is that reason
? Not
speculation, not a guess, not conjecture; <BR>> a REASON. PLEASE! <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Jay in Dallas <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >Read this topic online here: <BR>> > <BR>> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183140#183140 <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 18 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 10:41:03 AM PST US <BR>> From: "Roberto Brito" <LENABETO@UOL.COM.BR><BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Aileron Balance <BR>> <BR>> Hi everybody, <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Here is the You Tube Video about my aileron balance. <BR>> <BR>> This is only a way for doing this, there are of course, other ways, for <BR>> example. <BR>> <BR>> I'll post some pictures to you all that need them. <BR>> <BR>> Please do not do this in your plane before talking to your Aeronautical <BR>> Engineer or other authority abou
t it.
<BR>> <BR>> I don't want to state hereby that it is the solution to the problem on <BR>> our Zodiacs, if any, because I'm not an aeronautical engineer. <BR>> <BR>> Well, when my Zodiac entered a little turbulence, the ailerons shook a <BR>> little and after towards I had the balance performed, it enters and <BR>> nothing happens, it became much better, more comfortable. <BR>> <BR>> I hope that all Zodiac Owners can solve this problem, if any. <BR>> <BR>> All of us know that Zodiac is a good plane, that it has a good <BR>> reputation, but it must do away with the crashes. <BR>> <BR>> To end up, I have a lot of respect regarding Heintz's family and I'm <BR>> confident that should the Zodiac have any problem they will solve it. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_D4bt0guvM <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Roberto Brito. <BR>> <BR>> Brasil. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Zodiac XL 601 w/ 190hrs <BR>> <BR>> Jab
iru 33
00 <BR>> <BR>> Enigma <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 19 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 10:44:24 AM PST US <BR>> From: Jay Maynard <JMAYNARD@CONMICRO.COM><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 01:32:07PM -0400, Juan Vega wrote: <BR>> > A thought is to build it to the plans. <BR>> <BR>> This is a common thread - but it doesn't explain the accidents in factory <BR>> aircraft....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to <BR>> the plans... <BR>> -- <BR>> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com <BR>> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net <BR>> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!) <BR>> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June) <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 20 <BR>> ___________________________
______
___ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 11:09:10 AM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List:
Re: Aileron balance <BR>> From: "ashontz" <ASHONTZ@NBME.ORG><BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> 1) to apparently tune out an resonant frequencies that could
allow for flutter. <BR>> <BR>> 2) when the plane bounces due to turbulence,
the non-balanced weight aft of the <BR>> hinge will flop up and down,
possibily inducing flutter. If it's balanced, the <BR>> entire aileron including
the balance, moves up or down in unison, not around <BR>> the pivot.
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote: <BR>> > OK, I guess
I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance the <BR>>
ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the <BR>>
ailerons. <BR>> Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess,
not conjecture; <BR>> a REASON. PLEASE! <BR>> > <BR>> > Jay
in Dallas <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>&g
t; And
y Shontz <BR>> <BR>> do not archive <BR>> <BR>> CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183162#183162 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 21 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 11:37:41 AM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? <BR>> From: "Gig Giacona" <WRGIACONA@GMAIL.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Yes and you probably need it even less with a push tube than cables. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ashontz wrote: <BR>> > Has no one noticed I said, push-tube? <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> W.R. "Gig" Giacona <BR>> 601XL Under Construction <BR>> See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183165#183
165 <B
R>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 22 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 11:39:18 AM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? <BR>> From: "ashontz" <ASHONTZ@NBME.ORG><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Maybe so, I was just responding to ways a damper could be implemented. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Gig Giacona wrote: <BR>> > Yes and you probably need it even less with a push tube than cables. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ashontz wrote: <BR>> > > Has no one noticed I said, push-tube? <BR>> > > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> Andy Shontz <BR>> <BR>> do not archive <BR>> <BR>> CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183167#183167 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ______________________________
__ Mes
sage 23 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 11:42:45 AM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> From: "Gig Giacona" <WRGIACONA@GMAIL.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Jay another assumption that is being made by some is that some or even all of <BR>> the <BR>> accident aircraft had only been flown within the design envelope. That has <BR>> not been proved and is very hard if not impossible to prove. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> jmaynard wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > This is a common thread - but it doesn't explain the accidents in factory <BR>> > aircraft....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to <BR>> > the plans... <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> W.R. "Gig" Giacona <BR>> 601XL Under Construction <BR>> See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here:
<BR>&g
t; <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183168#183168 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 24 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 11:54:47 AM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> From: "Gig Giacona" <WRGIACONA@GMAIL.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> DO NOT ARCHIVE but.... <BR>> <BR>> To add to my previous post because I hit the send button to soon. I'm sure that <BR>> someone is either thinking or will write that some of the accident pilots were <BR>> very experienced and safe pilots and I don't doubt that. <BR>> <BR>> But I've been around aircraft literally all of my 46 years and I've seen some <BR>> very <BR>> good, very experienced and usually very safe pilots do some VERY dumb things. <BR>> <BR>> I know one guy that was a retired Lt. Col. in the USAF with multi-thousands of <BR>> hours with not so much as a blip on his safet
y reco
rd who landed a Cessna <BR>> Citation <BR>> in a cow pasture to impress a lady. He had done all the weight and distance <BR>> calculations and knew he would have plenty of room to take off afterwords. <BR>> He didn't take into account though that it had rained the night before and as <BR>> he was stepping out of the plane he realized that the plane was sinking in the <BR>> mud. <BR>> <BR>> The moral of the story is that experience doesn't always rule out stupidity. <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> W.R. "Gig" Giacona <BR>> 601XL Under Construction <BR>> See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183169#183169 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 25 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 12:01:05 PM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <
BR>>
; From: "William Dominguez" <BILL_DOM@YAHOO.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I was just trying to answer his question as to why there is interest in <BR>> balancing <BR>> ailerons. Obviously not a good answer in his view for reasons he clearly <BR>> articulated. <BR>> <BR>> William Dominguez <BR>> Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> Miami Florida <BR>> http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> [quote="pmaxpmax(at)HOTMAIL.COM"]There is so much speculation and conjecture on <BR>> this list it is almost impossible for the average reader to wade through all <BR>> the garbage to find the truth. Two subject come to mind: FLUTTER and WING <BR>> STRENGTH. <BR>> These subjects have been discussed ad nausiumin the archives and now have <BR>> a lives of their own. <BR>> <BR>> This is not more speculation or opinion. This is a statement about how I fly <BR>> and intend to fly. <BR>> <BR>> FLUTTER: I have never seen any evidence
that b
rings me to believe that any <BR>> CH601XL <BR>> has ever experienced flutter
of the control surfaces during operation at <BR>> speeds below Vne. I
am not worried about it and until Chris Heintz says he is <BR>> concerned.
I make this decision for myself, my family and my passengers. <BR>> <BR>>
WING STRENGTH: I never seen any evidence that brings me to believe that any
<BR>> CH601XL <BR>> has ever lost a wing due to structural failure during
operation within normal <BR>> parameters (weight, correct G-loads and speeds
below Vne). I'm not worried <BR>> about it until Chris Hientz says he is
concerned. I make this decision for <BR>> myself, my family and my passengers.
<BR>> <BR>> PhilMaxson <BR>> 601XL/Corvair (150 Hours) <BR>>
Northwest New Jersey <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Date: Wed, 14 May
2008 11:17:58 -0400 <BR>> <BR>> > From: Jaybannist@cs.com <BR>>
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com <BR>> > Sub
ject:
Aileron balance <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to balance the <BR>> ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the <BR>> ailerons. <BR>> Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture; <BR>> a REASON. PLEASE! <BR>> > <BR>> > Jay in Dallas <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM anytime you're <BR>> online. <BR>> <BR>> > [b] <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> William Dominguez <BR>> Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> Miami Florida <BR>> http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183171#183171 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 26 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> T
ime: 1
2:15:05 PM PST US <BR>> From: Jaybannist@cs.com <BR>> Subject: RE: Zenith-List:
Re: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Andy, <BR>> <BR>>
Where is the evidence that ANY of this is needed? <BR>> <BR>> Jay in Dallas
<BR>> Do not archive <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> "ashontz" <ASHONTZ@NBME.ORG>wrote:
<BR>> <BR>> > <BR>> >1) to apparently tune out an resonant
frequencies that could allow for flutter. <BR>> > <BR>> >2)
when the plane bounces due to turbulence, the non-balanced weight aft of the
<BR>> hinge will flop up and down, possibily inducing flutter. If it's balanced,
the <BR>> entire aileron including the balance, moves up or down in
unison, not around <BR>> the pivot. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >Jaybannist(at)cs.com
wrote: <BR>> >> OK, I guess I missed something.
With all this e-talk about how to balance <BR>> the <BR>> ailerons, there
has got to be a good reason one would want to bal
ance t
he <BR>> ailerons. <BR>> Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not conjecture; <BR>> a REASON. PLEASE! <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Jay in Dallas <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >-------- <BR>> >Andy Shontz <BR>> > <BR>> >do not archive <BR>> > <BR>> >CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> >www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >Read this topic online here: <BR>> > <BR>> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183162#183162 <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 27 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 01:03:37 PM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> From: "William Dominguez" <BILL_DOM@YAHOO.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I know you are asking Andy but I'll try for a second time to answer your <BR>> question <BR>> since I didn't do a very
good j
ob the first time. <BR>> <BR>> There isn't a hard, smoking gun type of evidence of flutter. But there are <BR>> indications <BR>> that suggest there might be a flutter problem with the XL. I won't get <BR>> at what those indications are, they have been mentioned in many posts in this <BR>> list. Should there be a hard evidence of flutter before we implement any change <BR>> to our wings? absolutely. But in the meanwhile some of us would like to see <BR>> how the ailerons are balanced, just in case the evidence come and we need to <BR>> do that in the future. After all, is good learning. If you are the type of <BR>> person <BR>> who don't like to talk about thing that might or might not be needed in the <BR>> future, that is fine. But not everyone is the same. <BR>> <BR>> William Dominguez <BR>> Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> Miami Florida <BR>> http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
<BR>&
gt; > Andy, <BR>> > <BR>> > Where is the evidence that ANY of this
is needed? <BR>> > <BR>> > Jay in Dallas <BR>> > Do not archive
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > "ashontz" wrote: <BR>> >
<BR>> > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > 1) to
apparently tune out an resonant frequencies that could allow for <BR>> flutter.
<BR>> > > <BR>> > > 2) when the plane bounces due to turbulence,
the non-balanced weight aft of <BR>> the hinge will flop up and
down, possibily inducing flutter. If it's balanced, <BR>> the entire aileron
including the balance, moves up or down in unison, not around <BR>> the pivot.
<BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > Jaybannist(at)cs.com
wrote: <BR>> > > > OK, I guess I missed something. With all
this e-talk about how to balance <BR>> the ailerons, there has got to be a
good reason one would want to balance the <BR>> ai
lerons
. Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not <BR>> conjecture; <BR>> a REASON. PLEASE! <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Jay in Dallas <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > -------- <BR>> > > Andy Shontz <BR>> > > <BR>> > > do not archive <BR>> > > <BR>> > > CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> > > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > Read this topic online here: <BR>> > > <BR>> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183162#183162 <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> William Dominguez <BR>> Zodiac 601XL P
lans <B
R>> Miami Florida <BR>> http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183178#183178 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 28 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 01:12:02 PM PST US <BR>> From: LarryMcFarland <LARRY@MACSMACHINE.COM><BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Insurance coverage? <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Hi guys, <BR>> <BR>> In discussing insurance with others at our airport, I find that only a <BR>> few carry hull coverage. Most, with exception to the jet owners, just <BR>> carry liability insurance. After a few short years, the hull is paid <BR>> for in premiums. Liability runs $300 to $600 and hull coverage takes it <BR>> to $1400.00 or more. Any thoughts pro or con on the full coverage? <BR>> <BR>> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com <BR>>
<BR>&g
t; <BR>> ________________________________ Message 29 <BR>> ____________________________________
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 01:46:56 PM PST US <BR>>
From: Kevin Bonds <KEVINBONDS@COMCAST.NET><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List:
Re: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Jay <BR>> I may regret
entering this "discussion", but . . . If someone wants to <BR>> balance there
ailerons (as Roberto did), and test it. What is the <BR>> problem with that?
If you think his idea is dangerous for some reason, <BR>> please state
it and why. There are a lot of people contemplating <BR>> "improvments" (or
whatever you wish to call them). We should be here to <BR>> encourage them
to do these things safely by pointing out any errors in <BR>> thinking (such
as shock type dampers freezing up and such) that might <BR>> lead someone
to do something really dangerous. Shooting down ideas <BR>> simply because
you don't believe it is necessary is beside the po
int. <
BR>> Obviously Andy and some others (myself included) think it may be, or may
<BR>> prove to be, necessary to balancing the ailerons. I am not convinced
<BR>> there is a problem either, nor am I convinced there isn't. When you
see <BR>> hoof prints in Tennessee, think horses not zebras, unless the local
zoo <BR>> reports missing a zebra. <BR>> <BR>> Kevin Bonds <BR>>
<BR>> Jaybannist@cs.com wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > Andy, <BR>>
> <BR>> > Where is the evidence that ANY of this is needed? <BR>>
> <BR>> > Jay in Dallas <BR>> > Do not archive <BR>> >
<BR>> > <BR>> > "ashontz" <ASHONTZ@NBME.ORG>wrote: <BR>> > <BR>>
> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________
Message 30 <BR>> ____________________________________
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 01:58:21 PM PST US <BR>> Subject:
Zenith-List: Re: Insurance coverage? <BR>> From:
"Gig
Giacona" <WRGIACONA@GMAIL.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> It has always been my
plan to carry in motion hull insurance for the first year. <BR>> Mainly because
I don't want to eat the cost of my plane should something fail <BR>> during
the Phase I flights. <BR>> <BR>> That said there is a line of logic
that says you are personally safer if you <BR>> have <BR>> hull insurance.
The theory being if a problem happens you will be in the mind <BR>> set
that, "well the insurance company owns the airplane now" and do what is <BR>>
necessary to protect yourself and your passengers as opposed to protecting
the <BR>> airframe because the two might not always be the same. <BR>>
<BR>> As an example, if I were to install a BRS, I'd keep insurance on the
hull <BR>> forever. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> larry(at)macsmachine.com wrote:
<BR>> > Hi guys, <BR>> > <BR>> > In discussing insurance
with others at our airport, I find that only a <BR>
> &
gt; few carry hull coverage. Most, with exception to the jet owners, just <BR>> > carry liability insurance. After a few short years, the hull is paid <BR>> > for in premiums. Liability runs $300 to $600 and hull coverage takes it <BR>> > to $1400.00 or more. Any thoughts pro or con on the full coverage? <BR>> > <BR>> > Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> W.R. "Gig" Giacona <BR>> 601XL Under Construction <BR>> See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183187#183187 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 31 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 02:08:02 PM PST US <BR>> From: Jaybannist@cs.com <BR>> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Bill, <BR>> <BR>>
Just b
ecause it is mentioned on this forum doesn't give it any more validity <BR>>
than <BR>> "as seen on TV." Exactly what are "the indications that suggest
that there <BR>> might be a flutter problem with the XL"? Is it because someone
on the forum <BR>> said <BR>> so? Is it because Brito's airplane (NOT
an XL) had a flutter problem? <BR>> <BR>> I'm afraid that too many are
giving credence to, supporting and taking for <BR>> granted <BR>> some
of the things said on the forum that have absolutely no basis in fact: <BR>>
speculation, guess, extrapolation, armchair engineering and outright scare
<BR>> mongering. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I'm certainly not opposed to the
sharing of ideas and real knowledge, but I'm <BR>> really <BR>> getting
tired of the spurious scuttlebutt that is being passed off as valid <BR>>
information. <BR>> <BR>> Jay in Dallas <BR>> Do not archive <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> "William Dominguez" <BILL_DOM@YAH
OO.COM
>wrote: <BR>> <BR>> > <BR>> >I know you are asking Andy but I'll
try for a second time to answer your <BR>> question <BR>> since I didn't
do a very good job the first time. <BR>> > <BR>> >There isn't a
hard, smoking gun type of evidence of flutter. But there are <BR>> indications
<BR>> that suggest there might be a flutter problem with the XL. I won't
get <BR>> at what those indications are, they have been mentioned in many
posts in this <BR>> list. Should there be a hard evidence of flutter before
we implement any change <BR>> to our wings? absolutely. But in the meanwhile
some of us would like to see <BR>> how the ailerons are balanced, just
in case the evidence come and we need to <BR>> do that in the future. After
all, is good learning. If you are the type of <BR>> person <BR>> who don't
like to talk about thing that might or might not be needed in the <BR>>
future, that is fine. But not everyone is the same.
<BR>&g
t; > <BR>> >William Dominguez <BR>> >Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> >Miami Florida <BR>> >http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote: <BR>> >> Andy, <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Where is the evidence that ANY of this is needed? <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Jay in Dallas <BR>> >> Do not archive <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> "ashontz" wrote: <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > 1) to apparently tune out an resonant frequencies that could allow for <BR>> flutter. <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > 2) when the plane bounces due to turbulence, the non-balanced weight aft of <BR>> the hinge will flop up and down, possibily inducing flutter. If it's balanced, <BR>> the entire aileron including the balance, moves up or down in unison, not around <BR>> the pivot
. <BR>
> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote: <BR>> >> > > OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to <BR>> balance <BR>> the ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to balance the <BR>> ailerons. Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not <BR>> conjecture; <BR>> a REASON. PLEASE! <BR>> >> > > <BR>> >> > > Jay in Dallas <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > -------- <BR>> >> > Andy Shontz <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > do not archive <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> >> > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > Read this topic online here: <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > http://forums.matronics.co
m/view
topic.php?p=183162#183162 <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >-------- <BR>> >William Dominguez <BR>> >Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> >Miami Florida <BR>> >http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >Read this topic online here: <BR>> > <BR>> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183178#183178 <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 32 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 02:37:03 PM PST US <BR>> From: george may <GFMJR_20@HOTMAIL.COM><BR>> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Insurance coverage? <BR>&
gt; <B
R>> <BR>> Larry-- <BR>> A Possible option ,kinda in between hull and no
hull, is to carry liabili <BR>> ty along with hull non moving. At least it
is then covered in the hanger. <BR>> <BR>> George May <BR>> 601XL 912s>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 15:08:56 -0500> From: larry@macsmachine. <BR>>
com> To: zenith-list@matronics.com> Subject: Zenith-List: Insurance
coverag <BR>> com>> > > Hi guys,> > In discussing insurance
with others at our airport, I <BR>> find that only a > few carry hull
coverage. Most, with exception to the je <BR>> t owners, just > carry
liability insurance. After a few short years, the hu <BR>> ll is paid >
for in premiums. Liability runs $300 to $600 and hull coverage <BR>> takes
it > to $1400.00 or more. Any thoughts pro or con on the full covera <BR>>
========================> _ <BR>> =====================> > >
<BR>> __________________________________________
______
_________________ <BR>> Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack <BR>> 1. <BR>> http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 33 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 03:03:29 PM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Insurance coverage? <BR>> From: "Gig Giacona" <WRGIACONA@GMAIL.COM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> That is exactly what I was planning to do after the first year. Mainly because <BR>> it is the only way I can get the carrier to cover the hanger. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> gfmjr_20(at)HOTMAIL.COM wrote: <BR>> > Larry-- <BR>> > A Possible option ,kinda in between hull and no hull, is to carry liability <BR>> along with hull non moving. At least it is then covered in the hanger. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> W.R. "Gig" Giacona <BR>> 601XL Unde
r Cons
truction <BR>> See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183197#183197 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 34 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 03:57:08 PM PST US <BR>> From: Juan Vega <AMYVEGA2005@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Maynard, <BR>> you stated- <BR>> ....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to <BR>> >> the plans... <BR>> <BR>> I say- <BR>> you are assuming the accident was from Flutter, no one has said any of the <BR>> accidents <BR>> were flutter, just speculation from a bunch of builders at this point. <BR>> <BR>> There are plans in the Zenith Newsletter for weights on ailerons. Allready <BR>> approved <BR>> By the C.H. himself. If you
want
to balance the ailerons to make them feel <BR>> lighter at higher speds, that
is what the weighting is for. Flutter should <BR>> not be an issue at all
when flown at cruise speed. I have my cables tensioned <BR>> according to
plans, and I believe you are all barking up the wrong tree. <BR>> Some guy
that saw tin canning and misstook it for flutter does not make for a <BR>>
reason <BR>> to speculate the flutter was a cuase of the accident. It may have
been <BR>> if the guys flying it 1- never retensioned their cables and
2- flew past <BR>> reasonable <BR>> parrameters. <BR>> <BR>> I am
done on this whole issue. You guys need to focus on having fun building <BR>>
your <BR>> planes again, if that is what you guys in this site are really
doing. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Juan <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----
<BR>> >From: Gig Giacona <WRGIACONA@GMAIL.COM><BR>> >Sent:
May 14, 2008 2:40 PM <BR>> >To: zenith-list@ma
tronic
s.com <BR>> >Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >Jay another assumption that is being made by some is that some or even all of <BR>> the accident aircraft had only been flown within the design envelope. That has <BR>> not been proved and is very hard if not impossible to prove. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >jmaynard wrote: <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> This is a common thread - but it doesn't explain the accidents in factory <BR>> >> aircraft....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to <BR>> >> the plans... <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >-------- <BR>> >W.R. "Gig" Giacona <BR>> >601XL Under Construction <BR>> >See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >Read this topic online here: <BR>> > <BR>> >http://forums.matronics.com/view
topic.
php?p=183168#183168 <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________
Message 35 <BR>> ____________________________________
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 03:57:08 PM PST US <BR>> From: Juan
Vega <AMYVEGA2005@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron
balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Maynard, <BR>> you stated- <BR>> ....unless
we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to <BR>> >>
the plans... <BR>> <BR>> I say- <BR>> you are assuming the accident
was from Flutter, no one has said any of the <BR>> accidents <BR>>
were flutter, just speculation from a bunch of builders at this point. <BR>>
<BR>> There are plans in the Zenith Newsletter for weights on ailerons. Allready
<BR>> approved <BR>> By the C.H. himself. If you want to balance
the ailerons to make them feel <BR>> lighter at higher speds, that is what
the weighting is for. Flutter should <BR>> not be
an is
sue at all when flown at cruise speed. I have my cables tensioned <BR>> according
to plans, and I believe you are all barking up the wrong tree. <BR>>
Some guy that saw tin canning and misstook it for flutter does not make for a
<BR>> reason <BR>> to speculate the flutter was a cuase of the accident.
It may have been <BR>> if the guys flying it 1- never retensioned their cables
and 2- flew past <BR>> reasonable <BR>> parrameters. <BR>> <BR>>
I am done on this whole issue. You guys need to focus on having fun building
<BR>> your <BR>> planes again, if that is what you guys in this site
are really doing. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Juan <BR>> <BR>> -----Original
Message----- <BR>> >From: Gig Giacona <WRGIACONA@GMAIL.COM><BR>>
>Sent: May 14, 2008 2:40 PM <BR>> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com <BR>>
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> > <BR>> >
<BR>> >Jay another assumption that is being ma
de by
some is that some or even all of <BR>> the accident aircraft had only been flown within the design envelope. That has <BR>> not been proved and is very hard if not impossible to prove. <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >jmaynard wrote: <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> This is a common thread - but it doesn't explain the accidents in factory <BR>> >> aircraft....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according to <BR>> >> the plans... <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >-------- <BR>> >W.R. "Gig" Giacona <BR>> >601XL Under Construction <BR>> >See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >Read this topic online here: <BR>> > <BR>> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183168#183168 <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 36 <BR>> _____________
______
_________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 04:03:27 PM PST US <BR>>
From: Juan Vega <AMYVEGA2005@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>> Subject: RE: Zenith-List:
Insurance coverage? <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> George and Larry, <BR>> what
I did was cover the hull cost to the replacement of the parts them selves. <BR>>
so I am not assuming full replacement value, but $45,000.00 to replace
the kit <BR>> in the event the thing was totaled, I am not out the kit costs.
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Juan <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----
<BR>> >From: george may <GFMJR_20@HOTMAIL.COM><BR>> >Sent: May 14,
2008 5:28 PM <BR>> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com <BR>> >Subject:
RE: Zenith-List: Insurance coverage? <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >Larry--
<BR>> > A Possible option ,kinda in between hull and no hull,
is to carry liability <BR>> along with hull non moving. At least it is then
covered in the hanger. <BR>> > <BR>> >G
eorge
May <BR>> >_________________________________________________________________ <BR>> >Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack 1. <BR>> >http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 37 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 04:21:28 PM PST US <BR>> From: "steve" <NOTSEW_EVETS@FRONTIERNET.NET><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I heard that the inferior rivets caused the wing to flutter which caused the <BR>> aileron to fall off which made the wing locker to open causing the rear spar <BR>> to crack which in turn caused the pilot to shit his pants. <BR>> FAA reports that the probable cause : pilot attempted to wipe his ass in <BR>> flight causing loss of control.... <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Juan V
ega" <
AMYVEGA2005@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:52 PM <BR>>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> >
<BR>> > Maynard, <BR>> > you stated- <BR>> > ....unless we're
assuming the factory didn't build it according to <BR>> >>> the
plans... <BR>> > <BR>> > I say- <BR>> > you are assuming
the accident was from Flutter, no one has said any of <BR>> > the accidents
were flutter, just speculation from a bunch of builders at <BR>> > this
point. <BR>> > There are plans in the Zenith Newsletter for weights
on ailerons. Allready <BR>> > approved By the C.H. himself. If you want
to balance the ailerons to make <BR>> > them feel lighter at higher speds,
that is what the weighting is for. <BR>> > Flutter should not be an issue
at all when flown at cruise speed. I have <BR>> > my cables tensioned
according to plans, and I believe you are all bark
ing <B
R>> > up the wrong tree. <BR>> > Some guy that saw tin canning and
misstook it for flutter does not make <BR>> > for a reason to speculate
the flutter was a cuase of the accident. It may <BR>> > have been if the
guys flying it 1- never retensioned their cables and 2- <BR>> > flew past
reasonable parrameters. <BR>> > <BR>> > I am done on this whole
issue. You guys need to focus on having fun <BR>> > building your planes
again, if that is what you guys in this site are <BR>> > really doing.
<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Juan <BR>> > <BR>> > -----Original
Message----- <BR>> >>From: Gig Giacona <WRGIACONA@GMAIL.COM><BR>>
>>Sent: May 14, 2008 2:40 PM <BR>> >>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
<BR>> >>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>>
>> <BR>> >> <BR>> >>Jay another assumption that
is being made by some is that some or even all <BR>&g
t; >
;>of the accident aircraft had only been flown within the design envelope. <BR>> >>That has not been proved and is very hard if not impossible to prove. <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >>jmaynard wrote: <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> This is a common thread - but it doesn't explain the accidents in <BR>> >>> factory <BR>> >>> aircraft....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according <BR>> >>> to <BR>> >>> the plans... <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >>-------- <BR>> >>W.R. "Gig" Giacona <BR>> >>601XL Under Construction <BR>> >>See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >>Read this topic online here: <BR>> >> <BR>> >>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php
?p=183
168#183168 <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >>
<BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>>
>> <BR>> >> <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 38 <BR>>
____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 04:24:28
PM PST US <BR>> From: Jay Maynard <JMAYNARD@CONMICRO.COM><BR>> Subject:
Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On Wed, May 14,
2008 at 05:05:08PM -0400, Jaybannist@cs.com wrote: <BR>> > Just because
it is mentioned on this forum doesn't give it any more <BR>> > validity
than "as seen on TV." Exactly what are "the indications that <BR>> >
suggest that there might be a flutter problem with the XL"? Is it because <BR>>
> someone on the forum said so? Is it because Brito's airplane (NOT an
XL) <BR>> > had a flutter problem? <BR>> <B
R>>
I can't speak to anyone else, but flutter seems to be a reasonable <BR>> explanation
for the Yuba City crash. What other explanations might there be <BR>>
for the missing aileron, with every rivet missing and the skins intact? As
I <BR>> said before, I'm not an aeronautical engineer, so if there's another
<BR>> explanation - and remember, this was a factory aircraft - I'm all
ears. <BR>> <BR>> > I'm afraid that too many are giving credence to,
supporting and taking for <BR>> > granted some of the things said on the
forum that have absolutely no basis <BR>> > in fact: speculation, guess,
extrapolation, armchair engineering and <BR>> > outright scare mongering.
<BR>> <BR>> This is not my intention, at least, and I'm sorry if it
comes across that <BR>> way. I'm genuinely interested to understand what's
going on in all phases of <BR>> this issue, and am learning quite a bit from
the discussions. <BR>> -- <BR>> Jay Maynard,
K5ZC
http://www.conmicro.com <BR>> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net <BR>> Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!) <BR>> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June) <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 39 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 04:30:50 PM PST US <BR>> From: Juan Vega <AMYVEGA2005@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> should have put the self cleaning ass wiper option, only avaialble on the QBK. <BR>> good deal for $399.99. <BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message----- <BR>> >From: steve <NOTSEW_EVETS@FRONTIERNET.NET><BR>> >Sent: May 14, 2008 7:18 PM <BR>> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com <BR>> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >I heard that the inferior rivets caused the wing to flutter which caused the <BR>> &g
t;aile
ron to fall off which made the wing locker to open causing the rear spar <BR>>
>to crack which in turn caused the pilot to shit his pants. <BR>> >FAA
reports that the probable cause : pilot attempted to wipe his ass in <BR>>
>flight causing loss of control.... <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>>
>----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >From: "Juan Vega" <AMYVEGA2005@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>>
>To: <ZENITH-LIST@MATRONICS.COM><BR>> >Sent:
Wednesday, May 14, 2008 3:52 PM <BR>> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron
balance <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >> <BR>> >>
Maynard, <BR>> >> you stated- <BR>> >> ....unless we're assuming
the factory didn't build it according to <BR>> >>>> the plans...
<BR>> >> <BR>> >> I say- <BR>> >> you are assuming
the accident was from Flutter, no one has said any of <BR>> >>
the accidents were flutter, just speculation from a
bunch
of builders at <BR>> >> this point. <BR>> >> There are plans
in the Zenith Newsletter for weights on ailerons. Allready <BR>> >> approved
By the C.H. himself. If you want to balance the ailerons to make <BR>>
>> them feel lighter at higher speds, that is what the weighting is
for. <BR>> >> Flutter should not be an issue at all when flown at cruise
speed. I have <BR>> >> my cables tensioned according to plans, and
I believe you are all barking <BR>> >> up the wrong tree. <BR>>
>> Some guy that saw tin canning and misstook it for flutter does not make
<BR>> >> for a reason to speculate the flutter was a cuase of the
accident. It may <BR>> >> have been if the guys flying it 1- never retensioned
their cables and 2- <BR>> >> flew past reasonable parrameters.
<BR>> >> <BR>> >> I am done on this whole issue. You guys
need to focus on having fun <BR>> >> build
ing yo
ur planes again, if that is what you guys in this site are <BR>> >> really
doing. <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Juan <BR>>
>> <BR>> >> -----Original Message----- <BR>> >>>From:
Gig Giacona <WRGIACONA@GMAIL.COM><BR>> >>>Sent: May 14, 2008
2:40 PM <BR>> >>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com <BR>> >>>Subject:
Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>>
<BR>> >>>Jay another assumption that is being made by some
is that some or even all <BR>> >>>of the accident aircraft had
only been flown within the design envelope. <BR>> >>>That has not
been proved and is very hard if not impossible to prove. <BR>> >>>
<BR>> >>> <BR>> >>>jmaynard wrote: <BR>> >>>>
<BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>>> This is a common thread
- but it doesn't explain the accidents in <BR>&
gt; &g
t;>>> factory <BR>> >>>> aircraft....unless we're assuming the factory didn't build it according <BR>> >>>> to <BR>> >>>> the plans... <BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>>-------- <BR>> >>>W.R. "Gig" Giacona <BR>> >>>601XL Under Construction <BR>> >>>See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>>Read this topic online here: <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183168#183168 <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >>> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> &
gt;>
; <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> ________________________________ Message 40 <BR>> ____________________________________
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 04:32:02 PM PST US
<BR>> From: Jay Maynard <JMAYNARD@CONMICRO.COM><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List:
Re: Aileron balance <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at
06:52:03PM -0400, Juan Vega wrote: <BR>> > you are assuming the accident
was from Flutter, no one has said any of <BR>> > the accidents were flutter,
just speculation from a bunch of builders at <BR>> > this point. <BR>>
<BR>> I'm making no assumptions other than, at this point, flutter
is a possible <BR>> explanation for the crash. If it's not, that's fine, but
why isn't it? <BR>> <BR>> > Flutter should not be an issue at all when
flown at cruise speed. I have <BR>> > my cables tensioned according
to plans, and I believe you are all barking <BR>>
> u
p the wrong tree. <BR>> <BR>> I'm going to assume that that will be true
of my aircraft when I take <BR>> delivery, as well; it's not reasonable to
expect that AMD would screw up <BR>> somthing that's that vital. Is that enough
to guarantee that flutter will <BR>> not be an issue? The folks at AMD
have tested the aircraft through a <BR>> complete Part 23 flight test program,
which includes dives to Vne; is that <BR>> enough to demonstrate that
there will be no flutter? <BR>> <BR>> If that's the case, how can we explain
the neatly missing aileron on the <BR>> Yuba City aircraft? <BR>> <BR>>
> Some guy that saw tin canning and misstook it for flutter does not
make <BR>> > for a reason to speculate the flutter was a cuase of the
accident. It may <BR>> > have been if the guys flying it 1- never retensioned
their cables and 2- <BR>> > flew past reasonable parrameters. <BR>>
<BR>> I'm not aware of someone that mistook t
in can
ning for flutter. What I recall <BR>> started that discussion was the picture of the wing with the aileron not <BR>> attached, no rivets present, and no skin torn. How could that happen? <BR>> <BR>> > I am done on this whole issue. You guys need to focus on having fun <BR>> > building your planes again, if that is what you guys in this site are <BR>> > really doing. <BR>> <BR>> I'm not so patiently awaiting AMD to finish building mine. Wen I take <BR>> delivery, I'm going to put at least 20 (and probably more, the way my plans <BR>> have changed) hours on it in the first week or two. I wouldn't do that if I <BR>> thought it was going to kill me. Even so, I think I, and everyone here, is <BR>> entitled to understand the problem - whatever it may be - and what it would <BR>> take to fix it. <BR>> -- <BR>> Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com <BR>> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net <BR>> Fairmo
nt, MN
(FRM) (Yes, that's me!) <BR>> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March,
delivery 2 June) <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message
41 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Time: 05:44:36 PM PST US <BR>> From: Juan Vega <AMYVEGA2005@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>>
Subject: Zenith-List: food for thought for those overly concerned
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> This is from a manual on Vne, and how it
effects structure and flutter" <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Q- I like flying my
aircraft fast. If I stay below Vne, I wont have to worry <BR>> about <BR>>
structural failure, right? <BR>> <BR>> A- Vne is assessed at or near
MTOW with the cg within the fore and aft limits <BR>> for <BR>> the aircraft's
specified category; it does not apply if weight, manoeuvring <BR>> loads
or cg position are outside the specified limits. As a maximum airspeed <BR>>
it applies only in smooth atmospheric conditio
ns, fo
r gentle control movements <BR>> and symmetrical aerodynamic loads; even gusts
associated with mild turbulence <BR>> or control surface movements greater
than perhaps a few degrees travel will lead <BR>> to some nasty surprises,
if operating close to but below Vne. At high speed <BR>> the controls are
very effective with a probability of over-control applying <BR>> extreme
loads to the structures. Asymmetric aerodynamic loads such as combined <BR>>
rolling and pitching reduce the maximum airframe load allowable by perhaps 30%.
<BR>> Take care because some aircraft control systems provide an inadequate
feedback <BR>> of the load being exerted i.e. a high load can be applied
with a relatively <BR>> low stick force. <BR>> <BR>> If an aircraft
is operated within its specified flight envelope and weight and <BR>> balance,
observing the limiting accelerations and control movements; and <BR>>
maintaining <BR>> airspeeds commensurate with atm
ospher
ic conditions; then the only possibilities <BR>> of inflight structural failure
relate to: <BR>> improper modification, repair or even repainting of the
structure, <BR>> excessive free play in control surface hinges, torque tubes
or control circuits, <BR>> <BR>> cumulative strain in ageing aircraft
eroding the designed safety margin, <BR>> failure to comply with the requirements
of airworthiness notices and directives, <BR>> <BR>> or just poor
care and maintenance of the airframe. <BR>> Flight at airspeeds outside
the designed flight envelope (or when applying <BR>> inappropriate <BR>>
control loads in a high-speed descent or, indeed, at any time) is high <BR>>
risk and can lead to airframe failure. <BR>> <BR>> Be aware: deliberately
exceeding Vne is the realm of the test pilot who always <BR>> wears a
parachute! The following text is an extract from an RA-Aus accident <BR>> investigation
<BR>> report: <BR>> <BR>> "(Wit
nesses
) observed the aircraft in a steep dive at what appeared to be full <BR>> power.
The port wing appeared to detach from the aircraft ... <BR>> <BR>>
That wing had the attach points intact but had pulled the mountings out of the
<BR>> top of the cockpit. This action would have released the door, which
landed close <BR>> to the wing. The wings were intact but the ailerons were
detached. There was <BR>> no delamination of the fibreglass structure. The
ailerons were not mass <BR>> balanced. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
________________________________ Message 42 <BR>> ____________________________________
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 05:47:09 PM PST US <BR>> From:
Juan Vega <AMYVEGA2005@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: to the question
what is flutter and Why it is not an issue <BR>> in XL when flown properly
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> 1.4 Perilous aerodynamic reactions to excessive
speed: flutter and other booby <BR>> traps <B
R>>
Wing structures are akin to a 'tuning fork' extending from the fuselage. When
a <BR>> tuning fork is tapped the fork vibrates at a particular frequency,
the stiffer <BR>> the structure the higher its 'natural' frequency. The natural
frequency of a <BR>> wing or tailplane structure may apply a limiting
airspeed to flight operations <BR>> related to structural instabilities: flutter
and wing divergence. <BR>> <BR>> When airflow around a wing or control
surface is disturbed by aerodynamic <BR>> reactions <BR>> or pilot
inputs (a test pilot might just 'tap' the control column), the <BR>> structure's
<BR>> elastic reactions may combine as an oscillation or vibration of
the <BR>> structure (possibly evident as a buzz in the airframe) which will
quickly damp <BR>> itself out at normal cruise speeds. At some higher speed
the critical flutter <BR>> speed where the oscillations are in phase with
the natural frequency of the <BR>> structure, th
e osci
llations will not damp out but will resonate, rapidly <BR>> increasing <BR>>
in amplitude. (Pushing a child on a swing is an example of phase relationships
<BR>> and amplification). This condition is flutter and, unless airspeed
is <BR>> very quickly reduced by throttle closure, the severe vibrations
will cause wing, <BR>> aileron or empennage control surface separation within
a very few seconds. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The following paragraph is
an extract from an article by William P. Rodden <BR>> appearing <BR>> in
the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Science and Technology; it provides a succinct
<BR>> description of flutter: <BR>> <BR>> "Flutter (aeronautics) An aeroelastic
self-excited vibration with a sustained <BR>> or divergent amplitude,
which occurs when a structure is placed in a flow of <BR>> sufficiently
<BR>> high velocity. Flutter is an instability that can be extremely violent.
<BR>> At low speeds, in the presence of an a
irstre
am, the vibration modes of an <BR>> aircraft are stable; that is, if the aircraft
is disturbed, the ensuing motion <BR>> will be damped. At higher speeds,
the effect of the airstream is to couple <BR>> two or more vibration modes
such that the vibrating structure will extract <BR>> energy <BR>> from
the airstream. The coupled vibration modes will remain stable as long <BR>>
as the extracted energy is dissipated by the internal damping or friction
of <BR>> the structure. However a critical speed is reached when the extracted
energy <BR>> equals <BR>> the amount of energy that the structure is
capable of dissipating, and a <BR>> neutrally stable vibration will persist.
This is called the flutter speed. At <BR>> a higher speed, the vibration
amplitude will diverge, and a structural failure <BR>> will result." <BR>>
<BR>> Inertia has a role in flutter development requiring that control
surfaces <BR>> ailerons, <BR>> elevators, rudde
r be m
ass balanced (i.e. the centre of gravity of the control <BR>> surface coincides
with the hinge line) to limit the mass moment of inertia. <BR>> It may
be acceptable for the control surface to be over-balanced, i.e. the <BR>> cg
is slightly forward of the hinge line. Mass balancing of the control surfaces
<BR>> will prevent them fluttering but the possibility for wing [for example]
<BR>> flexing/twisting <BR>> flutter may still exist. <BR>> <BR>>
The critical flutter airspeed [or something akin to it] may eventuate well
below <BR>> Vne if wear in control surface hinges, slop in actuating <BR>>
rods/cables/cranks/torque <BR>> tubes, water or ice inside control surfaces
or absorbed within a foam core, <BR>> mud outside, faulty trim tabs,
additional surface coatings applied after <BR>> balancing or other system disturbances
exist which alter the structure's <BR>> reactions. <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> Article from: <BR>> AUA, INc. <BR>&
gt; <B
R>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 43 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 05:57:25 PM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? <BR>> From: "Ron Lendon" <RLENDON@COMCAST.NET><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Andy, <BR>> <BR>> Are you using an alias? Are you a US Certificated Pilot? Do you have and <BR>> engineering <BR>> degree or are you a student like the rest of us? <BR>> <BR>> The reason I ask these questions is I like to know who I'm listening to. You <BR>> have <BR>> been a very active participant in many of the discussions and you appear to <BR>> be redesigning your airplane. If I am to consider your proposals I would really <BR>> like to know more about you. <BR>> <BR>> What say you? <BR>> <BR>> do not archive <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI <BR>> Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) <BR>> http://www.mykitlog.com/rlen
don <B
R>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183218#183218 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 44 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 06:08:55 PM PST US <BR>> From: "steve" <NOTSEW_EVETS@FRONTIERNET.NET><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Listed in the FAA registry ? <BR>> <BR>> Take a look. Amazing results... <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Ron Lendon" <RLENDON@COMCAST.NET><BR>> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:54 PM <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > <BR>> > Andy, <BR>> > <BR>> > Are you using an alias? Are you a US Certificated Pilot? Do you have and <BR>> > engineering degree or are you a student like the rest of us? <BR>> > <BR>> > The reason I ask these questions is I like
to kno
w who I'm listening to. <BR>> > You have been a very active participant in many of the discussions and you <BR>> > appear to be redesigning your airplane. If I am to consider your <BR>> > proposals I would really like to know more about you. <BR>> > <BR>> > What say you? <BR>> > <BR>> > do not archive <BR>> > <BR>> > -------- <BR>> > Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI <BR>> > Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) <BR>> > http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Read this topic online here: <BR>> > <BR>> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183218#183218 <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 45 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 06:27:49 PM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron balance <BR>> From: "William Dominguez" <BILL_DOM@Y
AHOO.C
OM><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I goes both ways, just because some of you say there's
nothing wrong doesn't <BR>> make <BR>> it so. The thing is, nobody
know what caused 5 XLs to fold or break a wing <BR>> in mid flight. Some people
suspect the design, others are convinced of pilot <BR>> error <BR>>
or something unrelated to the design. But the problem we are having here <BR>>
is, those who are convinced in nothing wrong with the design are getting
<BR>> frustrated <BR>> and angry because they cannot impose their position
to those who disagree. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I believe in the possibility
that there's nothing wrong, but so far, I'm not <BR>> convinced. <BR>>
Before you ask me why I'm still building an airplane that might have <BR>>
a design issue I'll give you my answer, I'm confident that this issue, whatever
<BR>> it is, will eventually be resolved. <BR>> <BR>> If as you
say you are getting tired of this posts, you have 2
option
s; ignore <BR>> the <BR>> posts or suggest the poster to go the ZBAG yahoo
group and continue there. <BR>> I wont recommend to leave this list since
there still lots of good information <BR>> here in other threads. <BR>>
<BR>> I'm William and I approve this message. <BR>> <BR>> William Dominguez
<BR>> yada yada 601XL... plans.. <BR>> you know the rest <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote: <BR>> > Bill, <BR>> >
<BR>> > Just because it is mentioned on this forum doesn't give it any
more validity <BR>> than "as seen on TV." Exactly what are "the indications
that suggest that there <BR>> might be a flutter problem with the XL"?
Is it because someone on the forum <BR>> said so? Is it because Brito's airplane
(NOT an XL) had a flutter problem? <BR>> > <BR>> > I'm afraid
that too many are giving credence to, supporting and taking for <BR>> granted
<BR>> some of the things said on the forum th
at hav
e absolutely no basis in fact: <BR>> speculation, guess, extrapolation, armchair
engineering and outright scare <BR>> mongering. <BR>> > <BR>>
> I'm certainly not opposed to the sharing of ideas and real knowledge, but
I'm <BR>> really getting tired of the spurious scuttlebutt that is being
passed off as <BR>> valid information. <BR>> > <BR>> > Jay in Dallas
<BR>> > Do not archive <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>>
> "William Dominguez" wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> >
> <BR>> > > <BR>> > > I know you are asking Andy but
I'll try for a second time to answer your <BR>> question <BR>> since I didn't
do a very good job the first time. <BR>> > > <BR>> > >
There isn't a hard, smoking gun type of evidence of flutter. But there are <BR>>
indications that suggest there might be a flutter problem with the XL.
I won't <BR>> get at what those indications are, t
hey ha
ve been mentioned in many posts in <BR>> this list. Should there be a hard evidence of flutter before we implement any <BR>> change to our wings? absolutely. But in the meanwhile some of us would like to <BR>> see how the ailerons are balanced, just in case the evidence come and we need <BR>> to do that in the future. After all, is good learning. If you are the type of <BR>> person who don't like to talk about thing that might or might not be needed in <BR>> the future, that is fine. But not everyone is the same. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > William Dominguez <BR>> > > Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> > > Miami Florida <BR>> > > http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote: <BR>> > > > Andy, <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Where is the evidence that ANY of this is needed? <BR>> > > > <BR>> > >
; >
Jay in Dallas <BR>> > > > Do not archive <BR>> > > > <BR>>
> > > <BR>> > > > "ashontz" wrote: <BR>> >
> > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > >
> > <BR>> > > > > 1) to apparently tune out an resonant
frequencies that could allow for <BR>> flutter. <BR>> > > >
> <BR>> > > > > 2) when the plane bounces due to turbulence,
the non-balanced weight aft <BR>> of the hinge will flop up and down, possibily
inducing flutter. If it's <BR>> balanced, <BR>> the entire aileron
including the balance, moves up or down in unison, not <BR>> around the pivot.
<BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > >
> > Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote: <BR>> > > > > > OK,
I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to <BR>> balance
<BR>> the ailerons, there has got to be a good
reason
one would want to balance <BR>> the ailerons. Just what is that reason? Not speculation, not a guess, not <BR>> conjecture; a REASON. PLEASE! <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > Jay in Dallas <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > -------- <BR>> > > > > Andy Shontz <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > do not archive <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> > > > > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > Read this topic online here: <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183162#183162 <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> >
>
> > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > -------- <BR>> > > William Dominguez <BR>> > > Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> > > Miami Florida <BR>> > > http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > Read this topic online here: <BR>> > > <BR>> > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183178#183178 <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>>
; <BR>
> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183220#183220 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 46 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 06:29:46 PM PST US <BR>> From: LarryMcFarland <LARRY@MACSMACHINE.COM><BR>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Damper? <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Ron, <BR>> I'd recommend you stay the course and not change anything shown by the <BR>> drawings. The changes that have been proposed are all contentious without <BR>> approval from Zenith. The vast majority of the 601s flying today will <BR>> be flying years from now if they were built to the drawings. Trust the <BR>> designer, not <BR>> the instinct to arbitrarily strengthen or complicate things suggested by <BR>> others. You don't have a reason to become a test pilot for anyone! <BR>> <BR>> Larry McFarland <BR>> 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com <BR
>>
<BR>> Ron Lendon wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> > Andy, <BR>> > <BR>> > Are you using an alias? Are you a US Certificated Pilot? Do you have and <BR>> engineering <BR>> degree or are you a student like the rest of us? <BR>> > <BR>> > The reason I ask these questions is I like to know who I'm listening to. You <BR>> have been a very active participant in many of the discussions and you appear <BR>> to be redesigning your airplane. If I am to consider your proposals I would <BR>> really like to know more about you. <BR>> > <BR>> > What say you? <BR>> > <BR>> > do not archive <BR>> > <BR>> > -------- <BR>> > Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI <BR>> > Corvair Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-) <BR>> > http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 47 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR
>>
<BR>> <BR>> Time: 07:05:28 PM PST US <BR>> Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Aileron
balance <BR>> From: "William Dominguez" <BILL_DOM@YAHOO.COM><BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> Correction, <BR>> <BR>> I made a typo and before anybody
start making fun. I don't go both ways, I meant <BR>> to say "It goes both
ways.." in the beginning of the first paragraph. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
William Dominguez wrote: <BR>> > I goes both ways, just because some of
you say there's nothing wrong doesn't <BR>> make it so. The thing is, nobody
know what caused 5 XLs to fold or break a wing <BR>> in mid flight. Some
people suspect the design, others are convinced of pilot <BR>> error or something
unrelated to the design. But the problem we are having here <BR>>
is, those who are convinced in nothing wrong with the design are getting <BR>>
frustrated <BR>> and angry because they cannot impose their position to
those who disagree. <BR>> <BR>> > <BR>>
> I
believe in the possibility that there's nothing wrong, but so far, I'm not <BR>>
convinced. Before you ask me why I'm still building an airplane that might
have <BR>> a design issue I'll give you my answer, I'm confident that this
issue, whatever <BR>> it is, will eventually be resolved. <BR>> >
<BR>> > If as you say you are getting tired of this posts, you have 2 options;
ignore <BR>> the posts or suggest the poster to go the ZBAG yahoo group
and continue there. <BR>> I wont recommend to leave this list since there
still lots of good information <BR>> here in other threads. <BR>> >
<BR>> > I'm William and I approve this message. <BR>> > <BR>>
> William Dominguez <BR>> > yada yada 601XL... plans.. <BR>> >
you know the rest <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > Jaybannist(at)cs.com
wrote: <BR>> > > Bill, <BR>> > > <BR>>
> > Just because it is mentioned on this forum
doesn'
t give it any more validity <BR>> than "as seen on TV." Exactly what are "the
indications that suggest that there <BR>> might be a flutter problem with
the XL"? Is it because someone on the forum <BR>> said so? Is it because Brito's
airplane (NOT an XL) had a flutter problem? <BR>> <BR>> > >
<BR>> > > I'm afraid that too many are giving credence to, supporting
and taking for <BR>> granted some of the things said on the forum that have
absolutely no basis in <BR>> fact: speculation, guess, extrapolation, armchair
engineering and outright scare <BR>> mongering. <BR>> > > <BR>>
> > I'm certainly not opposed to the sharing of ideas and real knowledge,
but <BR>> I'm <BR>> really getting tired of the spurious scuttlebutt
that is being passed off as <BR>> valid information. <BR>> > >
<BR>> > > Jay in Dallas <BR>> > > Do not archive <BR>>
> > <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR
>>
> > "William Dominguez" wrote: <BR>> > > <BR>> > > <BR>>
> > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > I know you
are asking Andy but I'll try for a second time to answer your <BR>> question
since I didn't do a very good job the first time. <BR>> > > > <BR>>
> > > There isn't a hard, smoking gun type of evidence of flutter.
But there are <BR>> indications that suggest there might be a flutter
problem with the XL. I won't <BR>> get at what those indications are, they
have been mentioned in many posts in <BR>> this list. Should there be a hard
evidence of flutter before we implement any <BR>> change to our wings? absolutely.
But in the meanwhile some of us would like <BR>> to see how the
ailerons are balanced, just in case the evidence come and we need <BR>> to
do that in the future. After all, is good learning. If you are the type <BR>>
of person who don't like to talk about thing that
might
or might not be needed <BR>> in the future, that is fine. But not everyone is the same. <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > William Dominguez <BR>> > > > Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> > > > Miami Florida <BR>> > > > http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote: <BR>> > > > > Andy, <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > Where is the evidence that ANY of this is needed? <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > Jay in Dallas <BR>> > > > > Do not archive <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > "ashontz" wrote: <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > 1) to apparently tune out an resonant frequenci
es tha
t could allow for <BR>> flutter. <BR>> > > > > > <BR>>
> > > > > 2) when the plane bounces due to turbulence, the non-balanced
weight <BR>> aft of the hinge will flop up and down, possibily inducing
flutter. If it's <BR>> balanced, <BR>> the entire aileron including
the balance, moves up or down in unison, <BR>> not around the pivot. <BR>>
> > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> >
> > > > Jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote: <BR>> > > > > >
> OK, I guess I missed something. With all this e-talk about how to <BR>>
balance the ailerons, there has got to be a good reason one would want to
<BR>> balance <BR>> the ailerons. Just what is that reason? Not speculation,
not a guess, not <BR>> conjecture; a REASON. PLEASE! <BR>> > >
> > > > <BR>> > > > > > > Jay in Dallas <BR>>
> > > > > <BR>> > > &
gt; &g
t; > <BR>> > > > > > -------- <BR>> > > > > > Andy Shontz <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > do not archive <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > CH601XL - Corvair <BR>> > > > > > www.mykitlog.com/ashontz <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > Read this topic online here: <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183162#183162 <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > >
<BR>&g
t; > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > > <BR>> > > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > -------- <BR>> > > > William Dominguez <BR>> > > > Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> > > > Miami Florida <BR>> > > > http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > Read this topic online here: <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183178#183178 <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > > <BR>> > > <BR>> > <BR
>>
<BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> William Dominguez <BR>> Zodiac 601XL Plans <BR>> Miami Florida <BR>> http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183229#183229 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ________________________________ Message 48 <BR>> ____________________________________ <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Time: 09:42:41 PM PST US <BR>> From: Paul Mulwitz <PSM@ATT.NET><BR>> Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Meeting LSA Criteria <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Hi Jay, <BR>> <BR>> I am afraid you and some of the other guys are missing the whole <BR>> point on this issue. The FAA is not in the business of measuring <BR>> airspeed, stall speed, or any other quality of experimental <BR>> airplanes. They are a bunch of paper pushing bureaucrats. <BR>> <BR>> Critical qualities of E-AB airplanes are taken from the printed <BR>> matter associated with th
e plan
e. In case of speeds, weights, and <BR>> other stuff that determines whether
a plane qualifies as an LSA the <BR>> place to look is probably the POH. It
isn't very important if the <BR>> information in the POH really matches the
aircraft. <BR>> <BR>> For example. if the POH says the sea level cruise
speed at maximum <BR>> continuous power is 120 Knots calibrated airspeed,
then it is. If it <BR>> says the stall speed clean is 45 knots, then it is.
<BR>> <BR>> The really important thing for builders interested in having
their <BR>> planes qualify as LSA is to make sure their POH and other documents
<BR>> describe a plane that meets the definition. <BR>> <BR>>
The issue is different for planes that have documents showing a <BR>> quality
that doesn't meet the LSA definition. If such documents are <BR>> associated
with the plane, then it doesn't qualify and can't be made <BR>> to qualify.
It is all about the paper work. <BR>> <BR>
> I
can't guess whether the FAA would care if a plane in phase 1 <BR>> testing
qualifies as an LSA or not. If a Sport Pilot is crazy enough <BR>> to perform
test flights in such a poorly documented plane, then <BR>> probably the
FAA bureaucrats don't have any paperwork to cite if they <BR>> want to give
the pilot a hard time. I suspect it is more likely they <BR>> don't want to
be involved in such trivial flight test issues at all. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Paul <BR>> XL fuselage <BR>> do not archive <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
At 03:36 PM 5/13/2008, you wrote: <BR>> > <BR>> >What is missing
in the question is whether the airplane was past the <BR>> >40-hour
test period or not. If it is past the test period, then I <BR>> >agree:
It can't then be changed to meet the criteria. However, it <BR>> >is totally
unreasonable to expect an amateur builder to be able to <BR>> >set
a ground-adjustable prop (or choose a fixed pitch pro
p) tha
http:
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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: Zenith-List WHAT A SHAME |
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 02:13:12PM +0000, cleonard52@comcast.net wrote:
> HINTS ON HOW TO GET A PARTICULAR JOB DONE ARE GREAT. WOULD IT NOT BE GREAT
> IF THIS LIST BECAME A GOOD SOURCE ON HOW TO BUILD ZENITH AIRCRAFT? IT USED
> TO BE.
Please don't shout.
My hope is that this list would be useful to folks in all phases of owning a
Zenith aircraft, be they builders, pilots, or mechanics (or, as usual, some
combination of the three).
However, until we find an answer as to the reason for what everyone agrees
is an unusual rash of fatal accidents, that subject will continue to take up
a lot of list bandwidth - in *whatever* forum the aircraft are discussed.
This is simple human nature: we're all concerned about something that's,
quite frankly, killing Zodiac pilots.
We're not going to stick our collective heads in the sand. We also don't
know everything, and asking questions is quite natural.
--
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 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: food for thought for those overly concerned |
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 07:11:28AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
> Reduce Vne to 170 MPH.
> Reduce Va & Vfe by 5 to 10 MPH.
> Install the Elevator Stop Modification.
> Perform no maneuvers that exceed 2G +/-
> For new 601 pilots: Receive 10-20 hours of dual in a 601 before acting as
> PIC.
Okkay, now this makes some sense. I'm not sure the Vne reduction will make
any practical difference, but it's a good thought.
I need to call AMD anyway; I'll ask if the elevator stop modification is
going in my aircraft.
--
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 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: food for thought for those overly concerned |
The Vne reduction is there because Vne was mentioned in one of Chris H's letters
concerning the failures. The point of all the temporary changes is to address
issues the designer mentioned and increase the safety margin.
If I need to fly faster than 170 I'll fly something other than a 601XL. If I need
to pull more than 2Gs I'll go fly a Pitts.
The exception to this is the dual time. That just makes good sense and I was going
to do it from day one any way. I did it when I've gotten checked out in every
airplane I ever flew. Why stop now?
jmaynard wrote:
> Okkay, now this makes some sense. I'm not sure the Vne reduction will make
> any practical difference, but it's a good thought.
>
> I need to call AMD anyway; I'll ask if the elevator stop modification is
> going in my aircraft.
> --
>
--------
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=183293#183293
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: food for thought for those overly concerned |
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 07:55:26AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
> The Vne reduction is there because Vne was mentioned in one of Chris H's
> letters concerning the failures. The point of all the temporary changes is
> to address issues the designer mentioned and increase the safety margin.
The main reason I think reducing Vne won't make any pracical difference is
that I don't think the aircraft will exceed 170 MPH in a screaming dive,
anyway, at least not if built to LSA standards. I could be wrong; I don't
particularly intend to find out. (Aside from asking how AMD managed to do
that so I won't...but I suspect they pointed the nose more or less straight
down.)
> If I need to fly faster than 170 I'll fly something other than a 601XL. If
> I need to pull more than 2Gs I'll go fly a Pitts.
I don't intend to do either, period. I'm somewhat susceptible to motion
sickness, and pulling much in the way of positive Gs is one sure way to set
it off.
> The exception to this is the dual time. That just makes good sense and I
> was going to do it from day one any way. I did it when I've gotten checked
> out in every airplane I ever flew. Why stop now?
True. I'll have a minimum of 8 hours of Zodiac dual before I ever fly mine
as PIC, and more wouldn't hurt.
--
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 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: food for thought for those overly concerned |
FYI, according to my 2006 dated drawings, Vne is listed as 160 MPH.
do not archive
--------
David Gallagher
601 XL, working on final assembly.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183298#183298
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance coverage? |
If you built it, you should be your own hull insurance. The savings in premiums
could easily pay for materials. I intend to only get liability ins.
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
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183299#183299
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: Insurance coverage? |
This is about the only hull coverage I'd get in case someone plows into it while
it's sitting at the ramp. Even then, I'm not sure how needed it really is, more
the principal of the matter.
[quote="gfmjr_20(at)HOTMAIL.COM"]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
601XL 912s
> Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 15:08:56 -0500
> From: larry@macsmachine.com
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> 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
>
>
>
>
> &=====================
>
> ================
>
>
>
>
>
Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack 1.
Learn more.
> [b]
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183300#183300
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned |
My XL will EASILY EXCEED Vne in a SHALLOW dive at max rpm (during Phase
one I took it, in VERY gradual steps in CALM air, to 195mph IAS. Have
not taken it to red line since)
I have no idea what the terminal velocity is and do not plan on finding
out.
My XL is probably one of the draggiest" XLs with no wheel fairings and
bigger tires/wheels/brakes (6x600s)
I built the airframe from a stock kit following the plans.
Also, you can easily go past the "white" line with full flaps.
Tony Graziano
601XL/Jab3300;N493TG; 374 hrs of fun flying in the XL/Jab3300. It is a
tough bird and easy to fly.
---------------------------------
"The main reason I think reducing Vne won't make any pracical difference
is
that I don't think the aircraft will exceed 170 MPH in a screaming dive,
anyway, at least not if built to LSA standards. I could be wrong; I
don't
particularly intend to find out. (Aside from asking how AMD managed to
do
that so I won't...but I suspect they pointed the nose more or less
straight
down.)"
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: food for thought for those overly concerned |
Really, mine show 180 mph, but are 1st Edition 04/02.
Taking that into account I may drop my Vne further. maybe as low as 155 mph. Not
that I'll ever get to that speed but the Vne is there for more than just a don't
go over this number kind of thing. If I were to go over the Vne it would
trigger me doing what for all intents is an annual on the airplane.
DaveG601XL wrote:
> FYI, according to my 2006 dated drawings, Vne is listed as 160 MPH.
>
> do not archive
--------
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=183302#183302
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List WHAT A SHAME |
What is really a shame with this list is that some of its members don't know how
to disagree civilly.
William
> *
> THE SUBJECTS, FOR THE MOST PART, THAT ARE DISCUSED ON THIS LIST ARE RIDICULOUS.
THIS LIST , IN THE PAST USED TO BE A GREAT SOURCE OF INFORMATION. NOW IT IS
FOR THE MOST PART A WASTE OF TIME.
>
> ASKING SOME ONE ON THIS LIST A TECHNICAL QUESTION IS LIKE ASKING A 1ST GRADER
HOW TO DO CALCULUS. HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU KNOW IF THE ANSWER YOU GOT BACK
WAS ACCURATE, OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD GET YOU KILLED.
>
> IF YOU INTEND TO BUILD A SAFE AIRPLANE, THERE ARE ONLY A FEW PLACES YOU SHOULD
GO FOR TECHNICAL ANSWERS.
> ZENITH
> FAA {LOTS OF INFO HERE}
> OEM
> HINTS ON HOW TO GET A PARTICULAR JOB DONE ARE GREAT. WOULD IT NOT BE GREAT IF
THIS LIST BECAME A GOOD SOURCE ON HOW TO BUILD ZENITH AIRCRAFT? IT USED TO BE.
> CHARLES
> --
--------
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=183305#183305
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: food for thought for those overly concerned |
I don't know about the AMD version but I know two 601XLs that have in fact either
made it to the Vne or exceeded it.
jmaynard wrote:
>
> The main reason I think reducing Vne won't make any pracical difference is
> that I don't think the aircraft will exceed 170 MPH in a screaming dive,
> anyway, at least not if built to LSA standards. I could be wrong; I don't
> particularly intend to find out. (Aside from asking how AMD managed to do
> that so I won't...but I suspect they pointed the nose more or less straight
> down.)
>
--------
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=183306#183306
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: Insurance coverage? |
Hello Gig,
This is an advice in the best of my good intention, nothing against your post,
but here is what is the world wide criteria:
In case of emergency landing NEVER EVER think of saving the airplane (first)...
FLY IT down always, keep your normal approach speed always, and land as
if you were landing in a 1st class golf course... Remember the place we chooses
to make the landing was our best option.
Trying to save the airplane (even the landing gear), gets instictive reaction
to slow the plane (pull the joke), the result: a low altitude stall and SMASH!
even if it not spin. Mostly with fatal results or very serious injury.
This INCLUDING totaling the precious airplane that seconds before we were comited
to save.
People (included us, the passenger and people in the land) are first, then our
loved airplane.
We sometimes read something like this in the "Yellow News" : "The pilot lost
control of the airplane and nearly missed a family in a picnic area and crashed
to the trees...
The most probable thing was that he was in an emergency landing in full control,
but at last moment saw them, veered and gave his life for them....
Saludos
Gary Gower
Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com> wrote:
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 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | First Flight (Sort Of) |
On May 9th it was scheduled to be a flight around the pattern but the tachometer
decided to stop working just as Gus got to the runway so we settled for a short
hop just above the runway for 1000 feet or so. Gus mentioned several things
to be taken care of, especially the fast idle and the possible lack of charging
from the alternator.
But this was the day I waited for... First Flight. If it leaves the ground, it's
a first flight, regardless of the distance. Once several of the fixes have
been made (notably the tachometer -- got one from Phil Maxson as he was already
upgrading his panel to EFIS), either Gus or I will make that First pattern
run.
The engine sounded good and a 757 pilot buddy of mine says the engine sounded like
a P51 he had heard recently (his hearing is not what it used to be :-).
The video could never thank everyone who has helped me to get to this point but
needless to say the kind words, encouragement, support, help and enthusiasm of
everyone I know is priceless!
Thank you.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Dr3fmtFyTZQ
(not the best quality but I'm also learning what mode to use when making these
videos)
Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, http://placestofly.com, EAA203
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183318#183318
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Insurance renewal |
Hi guys,
The posts from each of you were very useful. It helped me continue full
coverage insurance and decide when the aircrafts log-time reaches the
300-hour mark. I was informed that each year, as I renew, the added
hours help bring the insurance rate down. This has been the case for
the 115 hours accrued. Liability is nearer $600 with $350 added for
non-moving hull insurance brings it to $950 and full coverage, down from
$1525.00 in 2004, is now $1400.00 at 115 hours. The cost will bottom
out, but be approximately cut in half by the time I renew past the
300-hour mark.
Thanks again for the input.
Larry McFarland
601HDS with Stratus Subaru at www.macsmachine.com
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: First Flight (Sort Of) |
Congratulations Scott, that was quite a long hop. How much is the empty weight?
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
sdthatcher wrote:
> On May 9th it was scheduled to be a flight around the pattern but the tachometer
decided to stop working just as Gus got to the runway so we settled for a
short hop just above the runway for 1000 feet or so. Gus mentioned several things
to be taken care of, especially the fast idle and the possible lack of charging
from the alternator.
>
> But this was the day I waited for... First Flight. If it leaves the ground,
it's a first flight, regardless of the distance. Once several of the fixes have
been made (notably the tachometer -- got one from Phil Maxson as he was already
upgrading his panel to EFIS), either Gus or I will make that First pattern
run.
>
> The engine sounded good and a 757 pilot buddy of mine says the engine sounded
like a P51 he had heard recently (his hearing is not what it used to be :-).
>
> The video could never thank everyone who has helped me to get to this point but
needless to say the kind words, encouragement, support, help and enthusiasm
of everyone I know is priceless!
>
> Thank you.
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=Dr3fmtFyTZQ
> (not the best quality but I'm also learning what mode to use when making these
videos)
>
> Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
> 601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
> N601EL, http://placestofly.com, EAA203
--------
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=183322#183322
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: First Flight (Sort Of) |
Congrats! Plane looks awesome!
Don Not Archive
--------
Andrew Lieser
S/N 6-7045
http://websites.expercraft.com/andrewlieser
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183323#183323
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: Insurance coverage? |
Carry $65K on my Kitfox, because that's what I invested in it.
I landed it really nicely on a gusty day, and in less time than it takes to
type this I ended up doing a 270 degree turn, off the runway and right
to the edge of an embankment. Had I not mashed on the brakes at
the last second I would have reverse taxied off the edge of the
embankment and who knows how messed up my plane would have
been. Also luck my prop didn't hit anything on the way.
Just wish I hadn't done it lunchtime on a Saturday in front of the
airport restaraunt.
This COULD easily have been a - Boy am I glad I got insurance
situation.
That extra $1000 per year sure sucks though ...
Jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183327#183327
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: Insurance coverage? |
Here's a great example of how simple it is to wreck your pride and joy
This was a previous Oshkosh Grand Champion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STgFaZG-S1c
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183328#183328
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: | Insurance renewal |
Please be careful in buying hull insurance. Consider the case of a plane w
orth $75,000, insured for $50,000, with a $5,000 deductible. If the plane
suffers an engine failure, and lands with the prop not turning, it could ca
use $30,000 in damage to the aircraft. The insurance company will look at
the plane, and realize it can sell the engine for $15,000, and the radios f
or $15,000. Instead of fixing the plane, they will total it, and pay you $
45,000. They will receive $30,000 for the radios and engine, and another $
5,000 for the scrap value of the rest. It will cost the isnurance company
$10,000, instead of $30,000, and you will be out an airplane worth 75K with
only 45K in hand. There are a lot of traps like that, and you would do we
ll to read a lot of AOPA and EAA stuff on insurance, and to talk to an atto
rney BEFORE you insure.> Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 13:43:21 -0500> From: larry
@macsmachine.com> To: zenith-list@matronics.com> Subject: Zenith-List: Insu
acsmachine.com>> > > Hi guys,> > The posts from each of you were very usefu
l. It helped me continue full > coverage insurance and decide when the airc
rafts log-time reaches the > 300-hour mark. I was informed that each year,
as I renew, the added > hours help bring the insurance rate down. This has
been the case for > the 115 hours accrued. Liability is nearer $600 with $3
50 added for > non-moving hull insurance brings it to $950 and full coverag
e, down from > $1525.00 in 2004, is now $1400.00 at 115 hours. The cost wil
l bottom > out, but be approximately cut in half by the time I renew past t
he > 300-hour mark.> > Thanks again for the input.> > Larry McFarland> 601H
==================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack
1.
http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner
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: | Re: First Flight (Sort Of) |
A BIG congrats to you..... The grin will last for days too....
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "sdthatcher" <s_thatcher@bellsouth.net> wrote:
t>
On May 9th it was scheduled to be a flight around the pattern but the ta
chometer decided to stop working just as Gus got to the runway so we se
ttled for a short hop just above the runway for 1000 feet or so. Gus men
tioned several things to be taken care of, especially the fast idle and
the possible lack of charging from the alternator.
But this was the day I waited for... First Flight. If it leaves the gro
und, it's a first flight, regardless of the distance. Once several of t
he fixes have been made (notably the tachometer -- got one from Phil Ma
xson as he was already upgrading his panel to EFIS), either Gus or I wil
l make that First pattern run.
The engine sounded good and a 757 pilot buddy of mine says the engine so
unded like a P51 he had heard recently (his hearing is not what it used
to be :-).
The video could never thank everyone who has helped me to get to this po
int but needless to say the kind words, encouragement, support, help and
enthusiasm of everyone I know is priceless!
Thank you.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Dr3fmtFyTZQ
(not the best quality but I'm also learning what mode to use when making
these videos)
Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, http://placestofly.com, EAA203
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183318#183318
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
_____________________________________________________________
Don't be the shame of your neighborhood. Click here for info on how to h
ave a beautiful, green lawn.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4vAW0jESzbgXSbiEU6f
vda33CoiGE5baPW8GRVtwue0veFuS/?count=1234567890
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: First Flight (Sort Of) |
William,
--------
Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, http://placestofly.com , EAA203
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183334#183334
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: First Flight (Sort Of) |
Thanks Andrew. Where in Chicago do you fly from? I used to live in Wilmette and
I flew out of Palwaukee.
Scott
Do Not Archive
--------
Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, http://placestofly.com , EAA203
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=183335#183335
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: food for thought for those overly concerned |
A 601XL is definitely capable of exceeding 170 MPH. The dive angle
needed to do this is not that steep either. Testing to Vne should be
part of the Phase 1 flight test program. In fact, Vne is usually
defined as not more than 90% of the maximum speed the aircraft has
been test flown to. To claim a Vne of 180 MPH, the aircraft must be
flown to 200 MPH at some point in the test flight program and it is
not too difficult to do this.
On May 15, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Jay Maynard wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 07:55:26AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
>> The Vne reduction is there because Vne was mentioned in one of
>> Chris H's
>> letters concerning the failures. The point of all the temporary
>> changes is
>> to address issues the designer mentioned and increase the safety
>> margin.
>
> The main reason I think reducing Vne won't make any pracical
> difference is
> that I don't think the aircraft will exceed 170 MPH in a screaming
> dive,
> anyway, at least not if built to LSA standards. I could be wrong; I
> don't
> particularly intend to find out. (Aside from asking how AMD managed
> to do
> that so I won't...but I suspect they pointed the nose more or less
> straight
> down.)
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: | Re: food for thought for those overly concerned |
One good thing to note about that is that the person at the controls
rarely gets motion sickness even if that person would normally be
inclined to get it as a passenger.
On May 15, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Jay Maynard wrote:
>
> I don't intend to do either, period. I'm somewhat susceptible to
> motion
> sickness, and pulling much in the way of positive Gs is one sure way
> to set
> it off.
>>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: food for thought for those overly concerned |
Vne is 160 on mine as per specs.
It easily goes to that at 5500 ft and at full rpm. easily. I think that is the
main issue with the plane. It can hit "hull speed" pretty darn quick, and
people need to keep in mind, Altitude, speed, DA, weight and manauvering speed.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>Sent: May 15, 2008 12:33 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: food for thought for those overly concerned
>
>
>Really, mine show 180 mph, but are 1st Edition 04/02.
>
>Taking that into account I may drop my Vne further. maybe as low as 155 mph. Not
that I'll ever get to that speed but the Vne is there for more than just a
don't go over this number kind of thing. If I were to go over the Vne it would
trigger me doing what for all intents is an annual on the airplane.
>
>
>DaveG601XL wrote:
>> FYI, according to my 2006 dated drawings, Vne is listed as 160 MPH.
>>
>> do not archive
>
>
>--------
>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=183302#183302
>
>
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: Insurance renewal |
I've been thinking about the insurance angle ever since I started paying it two
years ago. I carry liability and hull coverage. The hull coverage is about 60%
of the cost. Now I plans built my 601HD so I asked the insurance agent up at
OSH last year what happens if I bend my airplane, who is going to fix it. He
said the insurance company would pay me to fix it and if that cost was too high
they would scrap it. Now my point is I built the plane once I don't really
want to build it again even if someone is paaying me for it. I Iook at hull insurance
as insuring my past, I paid for and built the plane and there are no debts
so if I lose it I'm out an airplane but incur no additional cost. Now liability
insures my future. If I mess up and do somethink that gets me sued that
can affect the rest of my life. So I'm seriously looking at dropping the hull
insurance next year.
Tim Shankland
LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
Hi guys,
The posts from each of you were very useful. It helped me continue full
coverage insurance and decide when the aircrafts log-time reaches the
300-hour mark. I was informed that each year, as I renew, the added
hours help bring the insurance rate down. This has been the case for
the 115 hours accrued. Liability is nearer $600 with $350 added for
non-moving hull insurance brings it to $950 and full coverage, down from
$1525.00 in 2004, is now $1400.00 at 115 hours. The cost will bottom
out, but be approximately cut in half by the time I renew past the
300-hour mark.
Thanks again for the input.
Larry McFarland
601HDS with Stratus Subaru at www.macsmachine.com
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: Insurance coverage? |
I got what I think was a good deal from AVEMCO couple of years back on a
certified four seater. Insurance was required by the county airport commission.
They even wanted to be named as coinsured on the hull to cover their hangar. I
got a big deductible on in-motion and the county was happy. I paid about $1K or
less for all. When rating me, they fixated on my retrac and multi time though
this was a fixed gear single. I only had maybe 100 hr in type 35 years prior.
I may have been cut a good deal for lots of experience, good training and a
spotless record. Later, a hurricane destroyed the plane in its hangar and
AVEMCO came through with a big check, hauled it away and I didn't even have to
sweep out the hangar. Full coverage was a good deal for me.
Bob Dingley
Pace FL 601XL Do not archive
**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
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! --
|