Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:42 AM - Re: 9 Hour X-Country, engine purred, cables loosened! (ashontz)
2. 09:13 AM - Spreading fear about the XL (Jeff)
3. 09:28 AM - Re: Spreading fear about the XL (steve)
4. 01:18 PM - 601 XL Landing distance (Darryl Legg)
5. 02:34 PM - Re: 601 XL Landing distance (Juan Vega)
6. 02:45 PM - Re: 601 XL Landing distance (Bryan Martin)
7. 02:52 PM - Re: 601 XL Landing distance (Jay Maynard)
8. 03:39 PM - Re: Spreading fear about the XL (kmccune)
9. 05:49 PM - Re: Wing fitting / W.W. Corvair (John Smith)
10. 06:13 PM - Re: Wing fitting / W.W. Corvair (jaybannist@cs.com)
11. 06:52 PM - Re: Spreading fear about the XL (Roger & Lina Hill)
12. 07:10 PM - Re: Wing fitting / W.W. Corvair (dingfelder)
13. 07:32 PM - Re: Spreading fear about the XL (Bryan Martin)
14. 08:41 PM - Re: Spreading fear about the XL (Roger & Lina Hill)
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: 9 Hour X-Country, engine purred, cables loosened! |
Excellent example. Same here. You have to pull on them pretty good too. And without
stretching them first they can become quite slack too.
Ron Lendon wrote:
> Scott,
>
> Great report.
>
> The only experience I have with keeping cables under consistent tension is my
guitar strings. I have been restringing guitars for many years and what I do
is bring them all in to tune then stretch them slightly by pulling them away
from the finger board. Then I re-tune and for the most part they stay in tune.
Experience has taught me that without the stretching step I chase the tune
of the guitar for about a week before it settles in. I would imagine this also
applies to cables but haven't found the documentation that states so.
>
> YMMV
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215853#215853
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: | Spreading fear about the XL |
Friends, neighbors, and fellow Zenith Enthusiasts,
I have received multiple off-list communications about the
unexplained XL crashes. We now have folks not part of the Zenith community
spreading "information" about the accidents. As I reported on this list
then, a group of LSA competitors advanced negative information about the XL
in person at the September 2007 Zenith Gathering in Winchester, Virginia.
For my part, I have not heard anything conclusive from the entities looking
at the design, including the Zenith Builder's Analysis Group, Zenith, the
NTSB, and European Governments, with two exceptions. One is the cable
tension advisory and the other is the European action. Neither tells us
what is happening unless you believe that insufficient cable tension is the
proper explanation. Others have failed to find any design problem despite
an extensive review. ZAC conducted a second static load test with
acceptable results. But the impact of all the discussion is becoming clear.
In the Second November Issue, 2008 of Trade-A-Plane, there are three kits
for sale and a completed aircraft. See page 87. Some advertisements have
appeared on this list. Locally, some builders are making the decision to
stop work on their projects. While all losses of human life are mourned
without reservation, especially losses that need not occur, I believe that
we all seek a rational explanation for these events if one exists, not
speculation about what the facts we know might mean.
So let me call on ZAC, the NTSB, the ZBAG, and all other
investigators with the standing to make valid conclusions, to report
whatever they have found or not found at this time in order to limit the
fear of the 601 XL that is currently spreading through the community. They
must speak up now before more damage based on fear is done to our community.
Please correct me if anyone with standing has provided a full
explanation of the events that are causing these concerns about the XL.
Jeff Davidson
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: Spreading fear about the XL |
Jeff
Excellent response.
Im about to fly my 601XL and have concerns.
Steve W.
N 9554 Z
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 10:12 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Spreading fear about the XL
Friends, neighbors, and fellow Zenith Enthusiasts,
I have received multiple off-list communications about the
unexplained XL crashes. We now have folks not part of the Zenith
community spreading "information" about the accidents. As I reported on
this list then, a group of LSA competitors advanced negative information
about the XL in person at the September 2007 Zenith Gathering in
Winchester, Virginia. For my part, I have not heard anything conclusive
from the entities looking at the design, including the Zenith Builder's
Analysis Group, Zenith, the NTSB, and European Governments, with two
exceptions. One is the cable tension advisory and the other is the
European action. Neither tells us what is happening unless you believe
that insufficient cable tension is the proper explanation. Others have
failed to find any design problem despite an extensive review. ZAC
conducted a second static load test with acceptable results. But the
impact of all the discussion is becoming clear. In the Second November
Issue, 2008 of Trade-A-Plane, there are three kits for sale and a
completed aircraft. See page 87. Some advertisements have appeared on
this list. Locally, some builders are making the decision to stop work
on their projects. While all losses of human life are mourned without
reservation, especially losses that need not occur, I believe that we
all seek a rational explanation for these events if one exists, not
speculation about what the facts we know might mean.
So let me call on ZAC, the NTSB, the ZBAG, and all other
investigators with the standing to make valid conclusions, to report
whatever they have found or not found at this time in order to limit the
fear of the 601 XL that is currently spreading through the community.
They must speak up now before more damage based on fear is done to our
community.
Please correct me if anyone with standing has provided a
full explanation of the events that are causing these concerns about the
XL.
Jeff Davidson
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: | 601 XL Landing distance |
Hi pilots,
Just trying to get a real world idea of landing/take off distances required for
a 601 XL at sea level. ZAC states 500ft with a Jab engine, but is this really
conservative? Come on you bush pilots, can a landing/take off really be done
safely in a shorter distance?
Darryl.
do not archive
601 XL/Jabiru
getting there
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215896#215896
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: 601 XL Landing distance |
200 ft does it for me, and i am at sea level, KSPG @ 8ft MSL.
51mph Vx, 70 Vy.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Darryl Legg <dlegg@tpg.com.au>
>Sent: Nov 23, 2008 4:17 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: 601 XL Landing distance
>
>
>Hi pilots,
>Just trying to get a real world idea of landing/take off distances required for
a 601 XL at sea level. ZAC states 500ft with a Jab engine, but is this really
conservative? Come on you bush pilots, can a landing/take off really be done
safely in a shorter distance?
>Darryl.
>do not archive
>601 XL/Jabiru
>getting there
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215896#215896
>
>
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: 601 XL Landing distance |
I wouldn't call 500 feet conservative for a 601XL. At gross weight and
no wind with standard sea level conditions, I'd call 500 feet of
runway the bare minimum. Under more favorable conditions, you can
probably get by with less. I would prefer to have at least 1000 feet
to work with, I doubt if I've ever used more than 1500.
On Nov 23, 2008, at 4:17 PM, Darryl Legg wrote:
>
> Hi pilots,
> Just trying to get a real world idea of landing/take off distances
> required for a 601 XL at sea level. ZAC states 500ft with a Jab
> engine, but is this really conservative? Come on you bush pilots,
> can a landing/take off really be done safely in a shorter distance?
> Darryl.
> do not archive
> 601 XL/Jabiru
> getting there
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: 601 XL Landing distance |
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 05:44:56PM -0500, Bryan Martin wrote:
> I wouldn't call 500 feet conservative for a 601XL. At gross weight and no
> wind with standard sea level conditions, I'd call 500 feet of runway the
> bare minimum. Under more favorable conditions, you can probably get by with
> less. I would prefer to have at least 1000 feet to work with, I doubt if
> I've ever used more than 1500.
I consider 1000 feet the minimum possible, and that's with maximum effort.
Anything under that is gravy. This goes double at max gross. It doesn't love
runways as much as, say, a Mooney, but do NOT underestimate the distance
required.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
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: Spreading fear about the XL |
The same guy has posted the following to 4 websites that I frequent. I posted
some comments about waiting for the out come and not jumping to conclusions, how
many hours that have been flown on this aircraft ect...
Here is the post.
" The CH601 XL apparently sports a failure mode that has caused one of its wings
to 'fold up' on at least seven occasions.
After such a case transpired in The Netherlands as well - killing both
occupants - the local authorities grounded all CH601 XL aircraft until
further notice."
It sound nice and is followed and ended with concern, but the exact same verb-age
was used in all the posts that I saw. Sounds a little fishy to me.
You most all, know that I'm not a 601 guy, but bad/misleading info just burns my
A$$.
I would fly in a Ch601 without any more care then getting in my truck... well depending
on the pilot. ;^)
In my opinion, that does not count for much in the big picture, the CH601 is an
excellent design and as safe as any. My gut tells me that the incidents were
caused by pilot error or extenuating circumstances, or both.
OK... back off my soap box. And just go fly your 601!
I'm still building my 701 so the jokes on me, anyway :^)
Kevin
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=215904#215904
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: Wing fitting / W.W. Corvair |
Do you remember how much vertical movement the rear spar can move relative
the rear spar attach plate?- My completed wings seem to be quite rigid at
the spars and I wonder if I can still adjust the wing pitch by moving rear
spar vertically when I bolt the wings.- Also, how do you measure the win
g pitch angle and at what location?=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_________________________
_______=0AFrom: dingfelder <ding@tbscc.com>=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com
=0ASent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 1:50:05 PM=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List:
Wing fitting / W.W. Corvair=0A=0A=0AWade,=0A----------
- Based on my experience, do NOT cut all the way back to the co-ordinates
shown in the plans. I would recommend leaving a minimum of 1/2 inch extra,
probably more, on your initial cut. Support your wing in some fashion, and
gradually mark and trim as you approach spar bolt alignment. Use the fusel
age side as a marker guide, mark, slide the wing out, trim and do it again
as you sneak up on the final position. If I recall correctly, the final gap
needs to be about 4mm for the rubber root moulding to fit well. Taper grou
nd 5/16" pins or hardware grade bolt shanks are ideal to help align the spa
r bolt holes as you get close. It took me about three or four hours to trim
each wing skin. Also, as part of this process, you need to-establish -
the rear spar final position vertically and laterally. Zenith wants a minim
um of 12mm edge distance (preferrably more)-on the rear spar bolt.-Use
a smaller bolt when-drilling the first hole, so you
still have room to tweak it.-Ideally, the centerline of the flap hinge p
in will align with the center-of the flap actuator shaft, though-"close
" is OK, as long as both sides are identically positioned relative to the f
uselage.=0A----------- On a separate note, I couldn't
be more satisfied with my W.W.-Corvair. The components that William prod
uces are first class in both design and manufacture, and-will-allow you
to produce a quality powerplant that performs exceptionally in the 601 / X
L. I'm still in early Phase one testing, and have no hard performance numbe
rs yet, but this plane-is all I hoped for, and more.-=0A--- -
-- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- -
-- --- --- --- --- --- Lynn Dingfelder=0A
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- -
-- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- 601 /
=========================0A
==================0A=0A=0A=0A
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: Wing fitting / W.W. Corvair |
John,?
As I recall, my wings were fairly rigid in the wing pitch direction.? As it turned
out, that didn't make any difference, because they already conformed to the
pitch angle dimensions given on page 6-S-3 of the drawings, without any adjustment.?
I suppose you could move the rear spar up or down 1/4" or so, but not
much more than that.? If you have crossed your Ts and dotted your Is during construction,
I don't think you will have any problem.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: John Smith <zenithlist@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 7:48 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Wing fitting / W.W. Corvair
Do you remember how much vertical movement the rear spar can move relative the
rear spar attach plate?? My completed wings seem to be quite rigid at the spars
and I wonder if I can still adjust the wing pitch by moving rear spar vertically
when I bolt the wings.? Also, how do you measure the wing pitch angle and
at what location?
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: | Spreading fear about the XL |
Howdy all;
My A&P was looking over my 601HDS and commented that the ailerons were not
counterbalanced. He said this can lead to aileron flutter. My Sonerai had
balanced ailerons, can someone comment on if the 601XL has balanced ailerons
and if not, could this result in wing flutter?
Roger
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 11:13 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Spreading fear about the XL
Friends, neighbors, and fellow Zenith Enthusiasts,
I have received multiple off-list communications about the
unexplained XL crashes. We now have folks not part of the Zenith community
spreading "information" about the accidents. As I reported on this list
then, a group of LSA competitors advanced negative information about the XL
in person at the September 2007 Zenith Gathering in Winchester, Virginia.
For my part, I have not heard anything conclusive from the entities looking
at the design, including the Zenith Builder's Analysis Group, Zenith, the
NTSB, and European Governments, with two exceptions. One is the cable
tension advisory and the other is the European action. Neither tells us
what is happening unless you believe that insufficient cable tension is the
proper explanation. Others have failed to find any design problem despite
an extensive review. ZAC conducted a second static load test with
acceptable results. But the impact of all the discussion is becoming clear.
In the Second November Issue, 2008 of Trade-A-Plane, there are three kits
for sale and a completed aircraft. See page 87. Some advertisements have
appeared on this list. Locally, some builders are making the decision to
stop work on their projects. While all losses of human life are mourned
without reservation, especially losses that need not occur, I believe that
we all seek a rational explanation for these events if one exists, not
speculation about what the facts we know might mean.
So let me call on ZAC, the NTSB, the ZBAG, and all other
investigators with the standing to make valid conclusions, to report
whatever they have found or not found at this time in order to limit the
fear of the 601 XL that is currently spreading through the community. They
must speak up now before more damage based on fear is done to our community.
Please correct me if anyone with standing has provided a full
explanation of the events that are causing these concerns about the XL.
Jeff Davidson
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: Wing fitting / W.W. Corvair |
John,
I concur with what Jay said. This was basically adjusted
when you used the "fixture" to set the relative spar locations.
Lynn Corry, PA
601 XL / Corvair
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: Spreading fear about the XL |
The 601XL does not have balanced ailerons. If the control cables are
tensioned properly, this is not a problem. If the cables are way too
loose, there is a risk of flutter.
On Nov 23, 2008, at 9:50 PM, Roger & Lina Hill wrote:
> Howdy all;
>
> My A&P was looking over my 601HDS and commented that the ailerons
> were not counterbalanced. He said this can lead to aileron
> flutter. My Sonerai had
> balanced ailerons, can someone comment on if the 601XL has balanced
> ailerons and if not, could this result in wing flutter?
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: | Spreading fear about the XL |
Well, why not just add a counterbalance to the 601XL and get rid of the
flutter questions?
My sonerai had a simple method, it just had a weight ahead of the aileron
hinge at the wing tip. Though, this would mean having making a modification
to the wing tip. On the sonerai, it was a fiber glass wing tip so it was no
Problem adding it.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Martin
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2008 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Spreading fear about the XL
The 601XL does not have balanced ailerons. If the control cables are
tensioned properly, this is not a problem. If the cables are way too
loose, there is a risk of flutter.
On Nov 23, 2008, at 9:50 PM, Roger & Lina Hill wrote:
> Howdy all;
>
> My A&P was looking over my 601HDS and commented that the ailerons
> were not counterbalanced. He said this can lead to aileron
> flutter. My Sonerai had
> balanced ailerons, can someone comment on if the 601XL has balanced
> ailerons and if not, could this result in wing flutter?
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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! --
|