Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:48 AM - Re: Re: 601XL Fuel System Questions (Malcolm Hunt)
2. 05:29 AM - Re: 601XL Fuel System Questions (annken100)
3. 09:47 AM - Re: Remote compass (Gig Giacona)
4. 09:52 AM - Re: Zenith Aero (Gig Giacona)
5. 10:02 AM - Re: Re: Remote compass (jaybannist@cs.com)
6. 11:13 AM - Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane? (Terry Phillips)
7. 11:13 AM - Re: Crankshaft update (Gary Gower)
8. 11:21 AM - Re: Crank shaft update (Lawrence Webber)
9. 12:09 PM - Re: Crank shaft update ()
10. 12:18 PM - Re: Crank shaft update (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
11. 12:25 PM - Re: Remote compass (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
12. 12:26 PM - Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Gig Giacona)
13. 12:57 PM - Re: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Juan Vega)
14. 01:02 PM - Re: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Jay Maynard)
15. 01:35 PM - Re: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (jaybannist@cs.com)
16. 01:41 PM - Re: Re: Remote compass (Phil Maxson)
17. 01:49 PM - Re: Re: Remote compass (Craig Payne)
18. 01:57 PM - Re: Remote compass (Gig Giacona)
19. 02:20 PM - Re: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Jay Maynard)
20. 02:53 PM - Re: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Gary Gower)
21. 03:17 PM - Re: Remote compass (Bill Naumuk)
22. 03:50 PM - Re: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Dave)
23. 04:05 PM - Re: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (passpat@aol.com)
24. 04:41 PM - Re: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Roger & Lina Hill)
25. 04:47 PM - Re: Re: 601XL Fuel System Questions (Roger & Lina Hill)
26. 04:51 PM - Re: Re: Zenith Aero (Roger & Lina Hill)
27. 05:00 PM - Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane? (Roger & Lina Hill)
28. 05:22 PM - Re: Re: Zenith Aero (JohnDRead@aol.com)
29. 05:47 PM - Re: Re: 601XL Fuel System Questions (Bryan Martin)
30. 07:15 PM - Re: Re: 601XL Fuel System Questions (Roger & Lina Hill)
31. 08:25 PM - Re: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (MaxNr@aol.com)
32. 08:25 PM - Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane? (Elden Jacobson)
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: 601XL Fuel System Questions |
Hi Kevin
What was the internal diameter of you return line and how did you connect to
tank (location)?
Best wishes
Malcolm Hunt
CH 601XL Plans builder in England
----- Original Message -----
From: "K Dilks" <kevin.dilks@liwest.at>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 7:01 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL Fuel System Questions
>
>
> In the UK a vapour return line is required by the gods.
> If you fit a 0.35 mm carb jet in the return fuel line it will relive the
> vapour pressure but only return a small amount per hour , approx 2 liters
> . This way you just return straight to your primary tank, left in my case
> and label the change valve to use left tank first. As you will change
> tanks to keep trim about every 1/2 hour then there will be no problem over
> flooding the return tank.
> This also help priming the system when empty as the pumps dont have to
> force the empty line air through the carb which may have enough fuel to
> close its needle valve, important if you forgetto change tanks in the
> air..................done that and have the T shirt! Doh! [Embarassed]
>
> Cheers
> Kevin
>
> --------
> Austria .............
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234315#234315
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601XL Fuel System Questions |
Hi Tracy,
The mechanical fuel pump on corvairs has been used in flight applications, however
it is prone to leaks. Considering that the stock mechanical pump is located
on top of the engine it certainly poses a fire risk being that it can leak on
hot engine components.
You also might want to rethink running pressurized lines through the cabin. You
are probably aware that the majority of corvair powered 601s are running Wynne's
dual fuel pump system on the firewall. I have this setup on my plane and
it works perfectly. I must say that I have yet to fly my plane so I can't speak
first-hand about how it works in the air. I can say that I've spoken to a
multitude of people running the dual electric fuel pump system and they report
that fuel delivery is more than adequate in all flight regimes. I've never
heard of any cases of vapor lock with this system either.
I agree with the other posts that simplicity is the best policy when it comes to
fuel systems.
Good Luck,
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234421#234421
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: Remote compass |
Yes the +/- 1 degree is in all axis.
One other thing to keep in mind is that there may also be magnetic fields that
are only there when the plane is powered up.
I think if you don't have the "bomb bay" access to the rear fuselage the best place
might well be the rear of the baggage area. Just keep in mind that it is
back there if you ever have to carry a load of magnets somewhere.
--------
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=234438#234438
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I really like the Zenith Aero site and it is a great way to keep up with other
builder's projects. But it is hardly a replacement for the Matronics type forum.
--------
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=234440#234440
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: Remote compass |
Or a "magnetic" personality in the right seat ?
Gig Giacona wrote:
Just keep in mind that it is
back there if you ever have to carry a load of magnets somewhere.
Do not archive
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: | Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane? |
At 09:51 AM 3/7/2009 +0100, Fran=E7ois Chapperon wrote:
>
>So you must know that last week , ZENAIR FRANCE (Michael Heintz) sent a
>601XL to a private laboratory in HAMBOURG (Germany) to have dynamic
>examination in an artificial speed room ( blowers)
>
>They also asked ZENAIR to have a dynamic gtest by loading wings , both
>sides, (intrados and extrados) with a charge of sand sacks .
>
>Yours,
>
>Fran=E7ois Chapperon
As Fran=E7ois points out, Zenair Europe have committed to conducting a
series
of load tests and ground vibration tests so that the German government will
lift the flight restrictions on German 601XL's.
Zenair's planned tests may be good news for all 601XL/650 owners whose
planes are registered as European ultralights at 450 kg (472.5 kg [1041 lb]
with BRS). The news is not so good for builders in the States and elsewhere
where the 601XL/650 is spec'd for 1320 lbs (600kg) @ +/- 6G, because Zenair
plans to test the 601XL wing to only the European ultralight spec for the
DAeC.
When I became aware of the upcoming German tests, I posted a message on the
ZBAG forum listing test requirements that I believed were important based
on what ZBAG's analyses have uncovered over the past 8 months. I then
exchanged several emails with Mat Heintz on the subject. The final outcome
followed Mat's initial reaction to my post: Zenair would only test to US
LSA standards "If we still have money left over after the completion of the
German tests." I think that means "No. We will not test to US specs." While
ZBAG's analysis is ongoing, enough has been learned to raise concerns about
the strength of the 601XL wing and the susceptibility of the 601XL to
flutter. Accordingly, ZBAG believes that we had to do something to
encourage Zenair to test the 601XL to US specs. Since Zenair is apparently
short on funds, ZBAG offered them $2500 so that they could afford to test
to US specs. The email with our offer is appended below. If you would like
to read my complete email exchange with Mat, let me know off line and I'll
send you a copy. If you'd like a primer on how to handle load test results,
see, e.g., http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-10int2.htm .
Why should you care? Well, one reason is that your various operational
limitation speeds, Vne, Va, Vc, etc., are a function of the wing strength.
If the wing is only good to +5G (say) rather than +6G, then Vne might well
be reduced from 160 mph to perhaps 150 or 140 mph and the gross weight
would also be reduced. The calculations are beyond me, but the correlation
between gross weight, load factors and Vne is clear. Reduce the wing load
rating and you must reduce the design airspeeds and gross weight.
Another reason is that ZBAG is convinced that flutter is a factor in many,
if not most, of the wing loss accidents. However, if Zenair tests a new
airframe with lots of friction and cables tensioned to specs, the system
stiffness could mask the tendency of the wings to flutter. That test would
be unrepresentative of the 601XL fleet that includes aircraft with many
flight hours and various levels of maintenance. Accordingly, we have asked
Zenair to test at several cable tensions. The extra cost to test the fully
instrumented airplane at three additional cable tensions would be very
little. My message to Zenair is appended below below.
If Zenair accepts our offer that be would terrific. The tests would be done
to LSA standards and Zenair wouldn't have to foot the whole bill. However,
since they have not even acknowledged our message in three days, it looks
like they may not accept the offer.
Every builder/owner of an 601XL/650 with a gross greater than 1041 lb has a
stake in this. The load tests that Zenair are planning are irrelevant to
your airplane! The GVT tests may be irrelevant to all 601XL/650's, unless
Zenair takes data at cable tensions lower than specified 30 lb.
This is important. If you would like to see Zenair test the 601XL to US
Specs, you might let them know. Tell the three Heintz brothers (listed
below) that you want them to accept ZBAG's offer to help test the 601XL/650
airframe to US Specs. If they get the message from enough of their
customers they might change their plans. Maybe. Time is short. If you care
about the 601XL/650 tests, let Zenair know today.
Thanks for listening.
Terry
P.S.
Why is it so important to do the tests to US specs now? Well, if you do the
tests in the sequence that Mat seems to favor:
* Test to DAeC limit load, unload, inspect
* Test to DAeC ultimate load, unload, inspect
* Test to ASTM limit load, unload, inspect
* Test to ASTM ultimate load, unload, inspect
And, the wing yields after the the DAeC ultimate test, that may argue
against using the same airframe for the ASTM tests. I'm awaiting an expert
opinion on this point. But you probably need two airframes, two test setup
expenses, etc.
But, if you use the following sequence:
* Test to DAeC limit load, unload, inspect
* Test to ASTM limit load, unload, inspect
* Test to DAeC ultimate load, unload, inspect
* Test to ASTM ultimate load, unload, inspect
And, the wing doesn't yield in the ASTM limit load test, but does yield
after the the DAeC ultimate test (a plausible outcome), one could probably
use the same airframe for the ASTM ultimate test. I'm awaiting an expert
opinion on this one also. But I think it is very likely that you could get
away with one airframe and one test set up.
The lesson is that, by cleverly combining the DAeC test with the ASTM US
specs test, you double the data for a 10 or 20% increase in test cost. If
you do them separately, you probably double the costs. If you want the data
you take the clever route.
>>Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:10:02 -0600
>>To: micheintz@gmail.com,"S. Heintz / Zenith Aircraft Co."
>><seb.heintz@zenithair.com>, "heintz_mat" <heintz_mat@yahoo.com>
>>From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>>Subject: ZBAG Offer to Help Zenair Pay for Ground Vibration and Load Tests
>>
>>Michael, Sebastien, and Mathieu
>>
>>In response to five accidents involving in-flight breakup of Zenith
>>601XL's the Zenith Builders Analysis Group (ZBAG) was formed in 2008 to
>>conduct independent engineering analyses of the Zenith 601XL airplane.
>>Since ZBAG began in May 2008, in-flight breakup is suspected in at least
>>three additional 601XL accidents. While ZBAG's analysis is ongoing,
>>enough has been learned to raise concerns about the strength of the 601XL
>>wing and the susceptibility of the airplane to flutter. Zenair recently
>>announced a series of tests on the 601XL in response to German Government
>>restrictions on 601XL operations. Mat Heintz has publicly stated that
>>Zenair will only test to US LSA standards "If we still have money left
>>over after the completion of the German tests."
>>
>>Since Zenair funding is apparently critical at this time, ZBAG is
>>stepping forward to help out.
>>
>>This message is a formal offer from ZBAG to Zenair to contribute $2500 to
>>Zenair to extend the German test series from the German requirements of
>>992 lbs gross to Zenair's US specifications of 1320 lbs @ 6G. Since ZBAG
>>funding will give the test results an implied approval by ZBAG the test
>>plan must meet the following conditions:
>> * The ground vibration test series should include measurements of the
>> control system vibration frequencies at 3 or more of cable tensions
>> below the specified tension of 30 lb +/- 5 lb. The range considered
>> should include 20 lb, 10 lb and a tension of near zero (i.e. slack
>> cables) that is still sufficient to produce an oscillatory response.
>> * We are concerned that the test plan may include only a single test
>> at 30 lbs tension in a high friction, brand new airframe. This will make
>> the GVT results irrelevant for real world 601XL's in the fleet.
>> * We have a documented instance of significant loosening of 601XL
>> cables during a short cross country flight.
>> * The UK LAA has raised an issue regarding handling of fuel in
>> the load calculations. Following the LAA's lead, the assumed fuel load
>> should be the case of MTOW with minimum fuel.
>> * The load test program must include loading to limit load factor
>> (4g), unloading and inspection of the wing for yielding and then a final
>> loading to ultimate load.
>> * The airframe must be correctly supported for the tests by the
>> engine mount, seats and tailplane. According to the LAA, in some earlier
>> tests on the 601XL, the airframe was supported directly by the center
>> spar which is an unrealistic condition that would bias the test results.
>> The support of the airframe for future testing should provide for
>> realistic loading of the center section and the uprights that shear the
>> loads into the fuselage sides.
>> * Two positive load cases should be done.
>> * PHAA (Positive High Angle of Attack). This condition is
>> representative of the VA / n1 condition. In this condition the wing
>> center of pressure is forward (i.e. the leading edge of the wing is
>> highly loaded) and the maximum forward chordwise components of drag load
>> are applied to the wing. The wing is simultaneously loaded with maximum
>> bending and shear loads. The airplane should be positioned in a high
>> angle of attack attitude (i.e. upside down with nose down).
>> * PLAA (Positive Low Angle of Attack). This condition is
>> representative of the VD / n1 condition. In this case the center of
>> pressure is aft and thus the wing is critical for symmetric torsion
>> together with maximum shear and bending. The airplane is positioned in a
>> low angle of attack attitude.
>> * There must be an independent review of the test plans.
>> xxxxxxxxxxxxx***, a xxxxxxxxxx professional aeronautical engineer - the
>> xxxxxxxxx equivalent to a US FAA DER, is working with ZBAG. You have
>> seen his reports and should be familiar with the quality of his work.
>> xxxxxxxxxx is extremely busy just now, but he would make time to perform
>> the review. The test plans would be released to xxxxxxxxx under a
>> confidentiality agreement.
>> * Zenair must share the test results with xxxxxxxxxxx under the
>> confidentiality agreement. xxxxxxxxxx could use the results of the
>> ground vibration analysis to validate his flutter analysis models, but
>> could not publish the test report.
>>ZBAG's sole intention in granting this funding to Zenair is to produce
>>information that we believe is crucial to saving the lives of 601XL
>>pilots and passengers who are flying their 601XL's at a gross weight of
>>1320 lbs. We sincerely hope that Zenair will accept our offer of
>>financial assistance to extend the current test series. If our $2500 is
>>insufficient to cover the cost of these tests, ZBAG will commit to an
>>broad based fund raising effort using all possible resources to
>>communicate with as many 601XL/650 builders and owners as possible to
>>raise whatever additional funds are needed. I will personally commit to a
>>contribution of $100.
>>
>>I look forward to your response.
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Terry Phillips
***The engineer asked that his name be removed from posts to the net.
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
Message 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: Crankshaft update |
Sorry Paul,- to late,- is like trying to stop a bell chime...-- :-)
- :-)- :-)
-
Saludos
Gary Gower
do not archive.
--- On Wed, 3/11/09, paulrod36@msn.com <paulrod36@msn.com> wrote:
From: paulrod36@msn.com <paulrod36@msn.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Crankshaft update
Sorry, guys, I meant to send that to Aerolitellc, and inadvertently put it
on the list. Disregard.
-
Paul Rodriguez
DO NO ARCHIVE
=0A=0A=0A
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: | Crank shaft update |
Hey PAULROD36 so you are getting your crank ion nitrided for 62.50 $ right?
Larry 601xl corvair chugger
From: paulrod36@msn.com
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Crank shaft update
Ref your Jan 2008 message=2C are you still doing crankshafts? I'm ready to
get mine done=2C and your price (at least=2C as of the date of your messag
e)=2C is HALF what Nitron charges.
Paul Rodriguez
----- Original Message -----
From: Aerolitellc@aol.com
Sent: Friday=2C January 25=2C 2008 11:56 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Crank shaft update
For those of you that have sent me your crankshafts I have added a new stat
us page to the web site for you to see the progress and at what stage your
crank is at. I have e mailed most of you with your customer #'S and will be
sending the rest of the customer #'S later today. We are using a number sy
stem to protect your privacy.
Aerolite has also learned that a price increase was coming that would have
doubled the price for Nitrideing but due to Aerolite's long relationship wi
th our Nitrider they have agreed to hold the current price for the foreseea
ble future. For those that just want to have your crank Nitrided without th
e machining done the price will be $125.00 + shipping for a 48 hour process
. Most nitrider's only process cranks for 24 hours and charge you more.
The new web page address is http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/Crankshaft_Stat
us.html
Thanks
Jeff
www.areoliteproducts.com
Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhr
ef="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_________________________________________________________________
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail=AE
.
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=TXT_MS
GTX_WL_HM_express_032009#colortheme
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: Crank shaft update |
Naw, I wish. According to Aerolite's Jan '08 posting on the List, their
charge (back then) was/is $125. Right now Nitron is charging $250. But I
haven't heard back from them yet, so I don't know what the current
charge, if they're even still doing them, is. I'll let you know what I
find out.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Webber<mailto:lawrencewebber@HOTMAIL.COM>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:21 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Crank shaft update
Hey PAULROD36 so you are getting your crank ion nitrided for 62.50 $
right?
Larry 601xl corvair chugger
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: paulrod36@msn.com<mailto:paulrod36@msn.com>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Crank shaft update
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:30:29 -0500
Ref your Jan 2008 message, are you still doing crankshafts? I'm ready
to get mine done, and your price (at least, as of the date of your
message), is HALF what Nitron charges.
Paul Rodriguez
----- Original Message -----
From: Aerolitellc@aol.com<mailto:Aerolitellc@aol.com>
To: corvaircraft@mylist.net<mailto:corvaircraft@mylist.net> ;
zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 11:56 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Crank shaft update
For those of you that have sent me your crankshafts I have added a
new status page to the web site for you to see the progress and at what
stage your crank is at. I have e mailed most of you with your customer
#'S and will be sending the rest of the customer #'S later today. We are
using a number system to protect your privacy.
Aerolite has also learned that a price increase was coming that
would have doubled the price for Nitrideing but due to Aerolite's long
relationship with our Nitrider they have agreed to hold the current
price for the foreseeable future. For those that just want to have your
crank Nitrided without the machining done the price will be $125.00 +
shipping for a 48 hour process. Most nitrider's only process cranks for
24 hours and charge you more.
The new web page address is
http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/Crankshaft_Status.html<http://www.aerolit
eproducts.com/Crankshaft_Status.html>
Thanks
Jeff
www.areoliteproducts.com<http://www.areoliteproducts.com/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Who's never won? Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL
Music.<http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=ao
lcmp00300000002548>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matron
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
ronics.com
ww.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for
Hotmail=AE. See
how.<http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=
TXT_MSGTX_WL_HM_express_032009#colortheme>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List<http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Zenith-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
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: Crank shaft update |
I don't get the list anymore for Aerolite but I have to gather 20 cranks to
run them and it was too hard with Indy Larry doing them also and I wasn't
making enough on them to fight about it but I asked him if he would combine
cranks since we use the same Nitrider but he is on WW's side and I being the enemy
he would have nothing to do with it. So much for the movement.......
I won't know for sure but I might have to do a batch for myself after SNF
and if I do I would be glad to add yours. Do you need it reworked or will you
have that done already?
Jeff
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
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: Remote compass |
Bill
Your whisky compass is night and day to the remote compass. The remote
compass will cancel interference that your whisky compass can't. As I have proven
in the now 3 installs right behind the firewall. I did have to move it
slightly on this install because of the landing light flasher I installed but it
is
still right behind the firewall.
Jeff
All-
FWIW-
According to my whiskey compass, the best place to level and avoid
magnetic interference between the D-100 and remote compass sender on my HDS is
the
baggage shelf. Nothing else comes close to being acceptable unless you used
non-magnetic cables. According to Dynon, you still have to be careful because
some stainless will still cause deflection.
I thought things were solved re: putting the sender in the wings until
Gig reminded me of the +/- 1degree sender/receiver alignment spec. In flight
wing deflection would bust it.
On my project I don't think I can do any better. If the installation
doesn't work out so be it- I'll carve a hole in my panel, mount my whiskey
compass and add another 3lbs.
Bill Naumuk
Townville, Pa.
HDS 601MG/Corvair 95%
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane |
Terry Phillips wrote:
>
>
>
> Another reason is that ZBAG is convinced that flutter is a factor in many, if
not most, of the wing loss accidents.
Terry now that you've made this statement in a public forum (someplace other than
ZBAG) I have to ask what ZBAG is basing this on? Was there some data in test
ZBAG had done that shows this. I realize that you guys own the data you paid
for and that you have shared or offered to share it with Zenith. But if you are
going to make statements like the one above you need to back it up as publicly
as you make it.
--------
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=234468#234468
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
lb Airplane
And I am convinced, Elvis lives in Vegas under an assumed name working at the bellagio
on the black Jack tables.
ZBAG is full of c&$% and they dont seem to have an understanding on reality.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>Sent: Mar 13, 2009 3:25 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb
Airplane
>
>
>
>Terry Phillips wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Another reason is that ZBAG is convinced that flutter is a factor in many,
if not most, of the wing loss accidents.
>
>
>Terry now that you've made this statement in a public forum (someplace other than
ZBAG) I have to ask what ZBAG is basing this on? Was there some data in test
ZBAG had done that shows this. I realize that you guys own the data you paid
for and that you have shared or offered to share it with Zenith. But if you
are going to make statements like the one above you need to back it up as publicly
as you make it.
>
>--------
>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=234468#234468
>
>
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
lb Airplane
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 03:55:04PM -0400, Juan Vega wrote:
> And I am convinced, Elvis lives in Vegas under an assumed name working at
> the bellagio on the black Jack tables. ZBAG is full of c&$% and they dont
> seem to have an understanding on reality.
Sorry, Juan...but until the possibility is ruled out, we have to take it
into account. Ignoring it is fully as dangerous as running around in
headless chicken mode. When multiple different aeronautical engineers say
that there's a possibility that flutter has been involved, we can't just
throw that out the window, no matter how much you want to pretend there's no
problem. We just don't know if there is a problem or not.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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 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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
lb Airplane
Sorry, Jay,? But your statement that "multiple different aeronautical engineers
say that there's a possibility that flutter has been involved" just doesn't
wash.? Exactly who are these engineers?? What are their names? How have they supposedly
reached this conclusion?? Without knowing specifics, this is simply
hearsay and adds nothing. It is simply pouring gasoline on the embers.? That?
gets favor on the ZBAG fourm, but here, it doesn't play well.? And I reject the
notion that I look and act like a headless chicken!.(And, yes, I do take that
as an insult).
Jay Bannister
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Sorry, Juan...but until the possibility is ruled out, we have to take it
into account. Ignoring it is fully as dangerous as running around in
headless chicken mode. When multiple different aeronautical engineers say
that there's a possibility that flutter has been involved, we can't just
throw that out the window, no matter how much you want to pretend there's no
problem. We just don't know if there is a problem or not.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Remote compass |
I built my plane before the "bomb-bay" door drawings came out. When I installed
the remote compass for my Dynon D-180, I made myself a small access panel as
far back in the plane as I could. The limiting factor was how far my arms could
reach toward the front of the plane to pull the wires through and mount them
securely. I used non-magnetic washers to shim the front of the remote sender
so it was level with the dynon unit. It wasn't very hard.
Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
Northwest New Jersey
------Original Message------
From: Gig Giacona
Sent: Mar 13, 2009 12:45 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Remote compass
Yes the +/- 1 degree is in all axis.
One other thing to keep in mind is that there may also be magnetic fields that
are only there when the plane is powered up.
I think if you don't have the "bomb bay" access to the rear fuselage the best
place might well be the rear of the baggage area. Just keep in mind that it is
back there if you ever have to carry a load of magnets somewhere.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR <http://www.peoamerica.net/N601WR>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234438#234438 <http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234438#234438>
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
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: Remote compass |
Do you think you got it within one degree on all three axis? That seems like
an excessively tight spec.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil Maxson
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Remote compass
I built my plane before the "bomb-bay" door drawings came out. When I
installed the remote compass for my Dynon D-180, I made myself a small
access panel as far back in the plane as I could. The limiting factor was
how far my arms could reach toward the front of the plane to pull the wires
through and mount them securely. I used non-magnetic washers to shim the
front of the remote sender so it was level with the dynon unit. It wasn't
very hard.
Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
Northwest New Jersey
------Original Message------
From: Gig Giacona
Sent: Mar 13, 2009 12:45 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Remote compass
Yes the +/- 1 degree is in all axis.
One other thing to keep in mind is that there may also be magnetic fields
that are only there when the plane is powered up.
I think if you don't have the "bomb bay" access to the rear fuselage the
best place might well be the rear of the baggage area. Just keep in mind
that it is back there if you ever have to carry a load of magnets somewhere.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
<http://www.peoamerica.net/N601WR>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234438#234438
<http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234438#234438>
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
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: Remote compass |
craig(at)craigandjean.com wrote:
> Do you think you got it within one degree on all three axis? That seems like
> an excessively tight spec.
>
> -- Craig
>
> --
I don't know about Phil but I made the spec and it wasn't even hard to do. The
panel is 90 degrees to the longerons and the floor of the fuselage is 3 degrees
from being parallel with the longerons.
I just made a mount that was 3 degrees the other way and poof it is level.
I did, of course check this with a digital level and I was 0.2 off but I and the
Dynon can live with that.
--------
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=234485#234485
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
lb Airplane
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 04:33:13PM -0400, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> Sorry, Jay,? But your statement that "multiple different aeronautical
> engineers say that there's a possibility that flutter has been involved"
> just doesn't wash.? Exactly who are these engineers?? What are their
> names? How have they supposedly reached this conclusion??
I've had more than a couple aeronautical engineers point me to an FAA
advisory circular that says that cable tension alone is not sufficient to
ensure the absence of flutter. That's the basis for their conclusion, along
with the fact that the left aileron of N158MD departed the aircraft before
anything else.
> Without knowing specifics, this is simply hearsay and adds nothing. It is
> simply pouring gasoline on the embers.? That? gets favor on the ZBAG
> fourm, but here, it doesn't play well.?
I was given the advice in confidence, and not given permission to pass along
the names of the people involved. When I get a moment tomorrow (I'm about to
go off to a meeting), I'll post the AC reference involved.
> And I reject the notion that I look and act like a headless chicken!.(And,
> yes, I do take that as an insult).
I wasn't directing that at you, actually; I was directing it at the people
who are saying the design is unsafe and we should ground the fleet
immediately, running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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 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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
lb Airplane
Is like when a reckless- guy- states that he laid his girlfriend,- ev
en if not, is almost impoosible for her to convince everyone that he didnt.
..-
-
I will say "recklessly" that at least two or 3 of this guys are "working" f
or the competiors...
Note that I said NO names- :-)- :-)- :-)
-
Saludos
Gary Gower,
"If you fear to Fly... Drive"
Do not archive.
--- On Fri, 3/13/09, jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com> wrote:
From: jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1
041 lb Airplane
Sorry, Jay,- But your statement that "multiple different aeronautical eng
ineers say that there's a possibility that flutter has been involved" just
doesn't wash.- Exactly who are these engineers?- What are their names?
How have they supposedly reached this conclusion?- Without knowing specif
ics, this is simply hearsay and adds nothing. It is simply pouring gasoline
on the embers.- That- gets favor on the ZBAG fourm, but here, it doesn
't play well.- And I reject the notion that I look and act like a headles
s chicken!.(And, yes, I do take that as an insult).
Jay Bannister
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Sorry, Juan...but until the possibility is ruled out, we have to take it
into account. Ignoring it is fully as dangerous as running around in
headless chicken mode. When multiple different aeronautical engineers say
that there's a possibility that flutter has been involved, we can't just
throw that out the window, no matter how much you want to pretend there's n
o
problem. We just don't know if there is a problem or not.
--
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
=0A=0A=0A
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: | Re: Remote compass |
Jeff-
Rather than belabor the point, the back of the baggage shelf seems
to meet Dynon installation criteria, and it's not like I have to buy
anything extra. I can use the extra room up front for my encoder
installation, anyway.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Afterfxllc@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Remote compass
Bill
Your whisky compass is night and day to the remote compass. The remote
compass will cancel interference that your whisky compass can't. As I
have proven in the now 3 installs right behind the firewall. I did have
to move it slightly on this install because of the landing light flasher
I installed but it is still right behind the firewall.
Jeff
All-
FWIW-
According to my whiskey compass, the best place to level and
avoid magnetic interference between the D-100 and remote compass sender
on my HDS is the baggage shelf. Nothing else comes close to being
acceptable unless you used non-magnetic cables. According to Dynon, you
still have to be careful because some stainless will still cause
deflection.
I thought things were solved re: putting the sender in the wings
until Gig reminded me of the +/- 1degree sender/receiver alignment spec.
In flight wing deflection would bust it.
On my project I don't think I can do any better. If the
installation doesn't work out so be it- I'll carve a hole in my panel,
mount my whiskey compass and add another 3lbs.
Bill Naumuk
Townville, Pa.
HDS 601MG/Corvair 95%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
A Good Credit Score is 700 or
Abo/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3
Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62"> See yours in
just 2 easy steps!
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
lb Airplane
On the other hand you've offered no reason not to wonder what might be
happening with these aircraft. All the studies so far have not found any
problem, I don't think that's any reason to stop looking.
In the late sixties, BMW re-engineered their motorcycles. The new one
promptly developed a repuation for fatal wobbles. BMW and it's engineers
denied any problem, and engineering studies found no issue. But the wobbles
kept happening. They blamed all sorts of things, the riders, manitenance,
poorly designed accessories and mods, tires. Eventually the problem was
tracked down by a group of dedicated owners and BMW modified the design.
They denied there was ever a problem of course and the change was simply a
modification to lessen the chance of it happening if somone happened to set
up the bike wrong. Or it was a marginal design, take your pick.
I don't know if there is a problem or not, but looking for one is not going
to hurt anybody. Denying that one could possibly exist and trying to shut up
anybody else wondering? What a stupid attitude that would be, if anyone was
to actually act that way.
Do Not Archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a
1041 lb Airplane
>
> And I am convinced, Elvis lives in Vegas under an assumed name working at
> the bellagio on the black Jack tables.
> ZBAG is full of c&$% and they dont seem to have an understanding on
> reality.
>
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
lb Airplane
Its a well known fact there is no cure for STUPID whats wrong with research and
fact finding petty name calling is NONE PRODUCTIVE we are all looking for common
ground here lets let the process complete.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <d.goddard@ns.sympatico.ca>
Sent: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 7:46 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041
lb Airplane
?
On the other hand you've offered no reason not to wonder what might be happening
with these aircraft. All the studies so far have not found any problem, I don't
think that's any reason to stop looking.?
?
In the late sixties, BMW re-engineered their motorcycles. The new one promptly
developed a repuation for fatal wobbles. BMW and it's engineers denied any problem,
and engineering studies found no issue. But the wobbles kept happening.
They blamed all sorts of things, the riders, manitenance, poorly designed accessories
and mods, tires. Eventually the problem was tracked down by a group of
dedicated owners and BMW modified the design. They denied there was ever a problem
of course and the change was simply a modification to lessen the chance
of it happening if somone happened to set up the bike wrong. Or it was a marginal
design, take your pick.?
?
I don't know if there is a problem or not, but looking for one is not going to
hurt anybody. Denying that one could possibly exist and trying to shut up anybody
else wondering? What a stupid attitude that would be, if anyone was to actually
act that way.?
?
Do Not Archive.?
?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>?
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:55 PM?
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041
lb Airplane?
?
>?
> And I am convinced, Elvis lives in Vegas under an assumed name working at > the
bellagio on the black Jack tables.?
> ZBAG is full of c&$% and they dont seem to have an understanding on > reality.?
>?
?
?
?
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
lb Airplane
Hey, I was cured !!!!!
(At least that's what the ducktor said.huh,,doctor)
Roger
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of passpat@aol.com
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a
1041 lb Airplane
Its a well known fact there is no cure for STUPID whats wrong with research
and fact finding petty name calling is NONE PRODUCTIVE we are all looking
for common ground here lets let the process complete.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave <d.goddard@ns.sympatico.ca>
Sent: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 7:46 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a
1041 lb Airplane
On the other hand you've offered no reason not to wonder what might be
happening with these aircraft. All the studies so far have not found any
problem, I don't think that's any reason to stop looking.
In the late sixties, BMW re-engineered their motorcycles. The new one
promptly developed a repuation for fatal wobbles. BMW and it's engineers
denied any problem, and engineering studies found no issue. But the wobbles
kept happening. They blamed all sorts of things, the riders, manitenance,
poorly designed accessories and mods, tires. Eventually the problem was
tracked down by a group of dedicated owners and BMW modified the design.
They denied there was ever a problem of course and the change was simply a
modification to lessen the chance of it happening if somone happened to set
up the bike wrong. Or it was a marginal design, take your pick.
I don't know if there is a problem or not, but looking for one is not going
to hurt anybody. Denying that one could possibly exist and trying to shut up
anybody else wondering? What a stupid attitude that would be, if anyone was
to actually act that way.
Do Not Archive.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a
1041 lb Airplane
>
> And I am convinced, Elvis lives in Vegas under an assumed name working at
> the bellagio on the black Jack tables.
> ZBAG is full of c&$% and they dont seem to have an understanding on >
reality.
>
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: 601XL Fuel System Questions |
Speaking of dual electric pumps, if you don't have dual batteries running
them, then you will have a big problem if your alternator shorts and drains
your battery down. You should have a second isolated battery, charged via a
diode from the main battery, to keep the second fuel pump running in the
event of a total electrical power loss (the same goes for backup ignition
for those of us without a magneto ignition)
Personally, I prefer one mechanical pump and one electric one...Makes me
feel safer in the air (sense of false security????).
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Payne
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:05 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL Fuel System Questions
In general William Wynne says junk the mechanical Corvair pump. He has seen
plenty of reliability issues. Search his web site.
So with no mechanical pump you will want a back-up electrical pump and a
largish battery. So make sure you choose pumps (primary and backup) which
will pass fuel when not pumping. As to over-pressuring it depends on the
carb. The aerocarb is intended for gravity feed and doesn't like any pump.
The Ellison TBI can take some pump pressure, see the Ellison site.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of crvsecretary
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:03 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL Fuel System Questions
Gentlemen:
Thank you very much for the replies - THIS is the fellowship of building !
Since I have the fuel selector, I'll install it...but I really liked the
simplicity of ball valves. I will NOT install a return line - again,
keeping with simplicity. I will, however, put the pumps in the wing roots
to keep the entire system under pressure and I'll firesleeve EVERYTHING
forward of the firewall.
One last question: I'll be installing a Corvair with a mechanical fuel pump.
Do I abandon it and just go with the electric pumps? or put it in series
inline to the carb? Will this cause an over-pressure condition at the carb?
Thank you again, everyone.
Tracy
--------
Zenith 601XL N458XL (reserved)
Naugatuck, CT
Tail Complete; working on wings
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234390#234390
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 |
|
Matronics.....There is no substitute !!!!
I really like the Zenith Aero site and it is a great way to keep up with
other builder's projects. But it is hardly a replacement for the Matronics
type forum.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
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: | Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane? |
As long as I=92m sending emails=85
This statement (below) does not apply to the zenith line directly, I
have
been told by the factory that the Vne of their planes is not a
structural
failure speed, it is the speed to which the factory has already tested
the
plane in flight and knows it to be safe to operate it to that speed
limit.
They also told me they don=92t know the actual structural Vne of
failure, they
do those test or perform those calculations.
They also told me that the 601 HDS is stressed to 9 Gs, but they only
state
it to be 6 Gs because they don=92t want folks using it for aerobatics (
for
liability reasons).
Roger
Why should you care? Well, one reason is that your various operational
limitation speeds, Vne, Va, Vc, etc., are a function of the wing
strength.
If the wing is only good to +5G (say) rather than +6G, then Vne might
well
be reduced from 160 mph to perhaps 150 or 140 mph and the gross weight
would
also be reduced. The calculations are beyond me, but the correlation
between
gross weight, load factors and Vne is clear. Reduce the wing load rating
and
you must reduce the design airspeeds and gross weight.
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Phillips
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:08 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041
lb
Airplane?
At 09:51 AM 3/7/2009 +0100, Fran=E7ois Chapperon wrote:
So you must know that last week , ZENAIR FRANCE (Michael Heintz) sent a
601XL to a private laboratory in HAMBOURG (Germany) to have dynamic
examination in an artificial speed room ( blowers)
They also asked ZENAIR to have a dynamic gtest by loading wings , both
sides, (intrados and extrados) with a charge of sand sacks .
Yours,
Fran=E7ois Chapperon
As Fran=E7ois points out, Zenair Europe have committed to conducting a
series
of load tests and ground vibration tests so that the German government
will
lift the flight restrictions on German 601XL's.
Zenair's planned tests may be good news for all 601XL/650 owners whose
planes are registered as European ultralights at 450 kg (472.5 kg [1041
lb]
with BRS). The news is not so good for builders in the States and
elsewhere
where the 601XL/650 is spec'd for 1320 lbs (600kg) @ +/- 6G, because
Zenair
plans to test the 601XL wing to only the European ultralight spec for
the
DAeC.
When I became aware of the upcoming German tests, I posted a message on
the
ZBAG forum listing test requirements that I believed were important
based on
what ZBAG's analyses have uncovered over the past 8 months. I then
exchanged
several emails with Mat Heintz on the subject. The final outcome
followed
Mat's initial reaction to my post: Zenair would only test to US LSA
standards "If we still have money left over after the completion of the
German tests." I think that means "No. We will not test to US specs."
While
ZBAG's analysis is ongoing, enough has been learned to raise concerns
about
the strength of the 601XL wing and the susceptibility of the 601XL to
flutter. Accordingly, ZBAG believes that we had to do something to
encourage
Zenair to test the 601XL to US specs. Since Zenair is apparently short
on
funds, ZBAG offered them $2500 so that they could afford to test to US
specs. The email with our offer is appended below. If you would like to
read
my complete email exchange with Mat, let me know off line and I'll send
you
a copy. If you'd like a primer on how to handle load test results, see,
e.g., http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-10int2.htm .
Why should you care? Well, one reason is that your various operational
limitation speeds, Vne, Va, Vc, etc., are a function of the wing
strength.
If the wing is only good to +5G (say) rather than +6G, then Vne might
well
be reduced from 160 mph to perhaps 150 or 140 mph and the gross weight
would
also be reduced. The calculations are beyond me, but the correlation
between
gross weight, load factors and Vne is clear. Reduce the wing load rating
and
you must reduce the design airspeeds and gross weight.
Another reason is that ZBAG is convinced that flutter is a factor in
many,
if not most, of the wing loss accidents. However, if Zenair tests a new
airframe with lots of friction and cables tensioned to specs, the system
stiffness could mask the tendency of the wings to flutter. That test
would
be unrepresentative of the 601XL fleet that includes aircraft with many
flight hours and various levels of maintenance. Accordingly, we have
asked
Zenair to test at several cable tensions. The extra cost to test the
fully
instrumented airplane at three additional cable tensions would be very
little. My message to Zenair is appended below below.
If Zenair accepts our offer that be would terrific. The tests would be
done
to LSA standards and Zenair wouldn't have to foot the whole bill.
However,
since they have not even acknowledged our message in three days, it
looks
like they may not accept the offer.
Every builder/owner of an 601XL/650 with a gross greater than 1041 lb
has a
stake in this. The load tests that Zenair are planning are irrelevant to
your airplane! The GVT tests may be irrelevant to all 601XL/650's,
unless
Zenair takes data at cable tensions lower than specified 30 lb.
This is important. If you would like to see Zenair test the 601XL to US
Specs, you might let them know. Tell the three Heintz brothers (listed
below) that you want them to accept ZBAG's offer to help test the
601XL/650
airframe to US Specs. If they get the message from enough of their
customers
they might change their plans. Maybe. Time is short. If you care about
the
601XL/650 tests, let Zenair know today.
Thanks for listening.
Terry
P.S.
Why is it so important to do the tests to US specs now? Well, if you do
the
tests in the sequence that Mat seems to favor:
* Test to DAeC limit load, unload, inspect
* Test to DAeC ultimate load, unload, inspect
* Test to ASTM limit load, unload, inspect
* Test to ASTM ultimate load, unload, inspect
And, the wing yields after the the DAeC ultimate test, that may argue
against using the same airframe for the ASTM tests. I'm awaiting an
expert
opinion on this point. But you probably need two airframes, two test
setup
expenses, etc.
But, if you use the following sequence:
* Test to DAeC limit load, unload, inspect
* Test to ASTM limit load, unload, inspect
* Test to DAeC ultimate load, unload, inspect
* Test to ASTM ultimate load, unload, inspect
And, the wing doesn't yield in the ASTM limit load test, but does yield
after the the DAeC ultimate test (a plausible outcome), one could
probably
use the same airframe for the ASTM ultimate test. I'm awaiting an expert
opinion on this one also. But I think it is very likely that you could
get
away with one airframe and one test set up.
The lesson is that, by cleverly combining the DAeC test with the ASTM US
specs test, you double the data for a 10 or 20% increase in test cost.
If
you do them separately, you probably double the costs. If you want the
data
you take the clever route.
<seb.heintz@zenithair.com>, "heintz_mat" <heintz_mat@yahoo.com>
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
Subject: ZBAG Offer to Help Zenair Pay for Ground Vibration and Load
Tests
Michael, Sebastien, and Mathieu
In response to five accidents involving in-flight breakup of Zenith
601XL's
the Zenith Builders Analysis Group (ZBAG) was formed in 2008 to conduct
independent engineering analyses of the Zenith 601XL airplane. Since
ZBAG
began in May 2008, in-flight breakup is suspected in at least three
additional 601XL accidents. While ZBAG's analysis is ongoing, enough has
been learned to raise concerns about the strength of the 601XL wing and
the
susceptibility of the airplane to flutter. Zenair recently announced a
series of tests on the 601XL in response to German Government
restrictions
on 601XL operations. Mat Heintz has publicly stated that Zenair will
only
test to US LSA standards "If we still have money left over after the
completion of the German tests."
Since Zenair funding is apparently critical at this time, ZBAG is
stepping
forward to help out.
This message is a formal offer from ZBAG to Zenair to contribute $2500
to
Zenair to extend the German test series from the German requirements of
992
lbs gross to Zenair's US specifications of 1320 lbs @ 6G. Since ZBAG
funding
will give the test results an implied approval by ZBAG the test plan
must
meet the following conditions:
* The ground vibration test series should include measurements of the
control system vibration frequencies at 3 or more of cable tensions
below
the specified tension of 30 lb +/- 5 lb. The range considered should
include
20 lb, 10 lb and a tension of near zero (i.e. slack cables) that is
still
sufficient to produce an oscillatory response.
* We are concerned that the test plan may include only a single test
at 30 lbs tension in a high friction, brand new airframe. This will make
the
GVT results irrelevant for real world 601XL's in the fleet.
* We have a documented instance of significant loosening of 601XL
cables during a short cross country flight.
* The UK LAA has raised an issue regarding handling of fuel in the
load calculations. Following the LAA's lead, the assumed fuel load
should be
the case of MTOW with minimum fuel.
* The load test program must include loading to limit load factor
(4g), unloading and inspection of the wing for yielding and then a final
loading to ultimate load.
* The airframe must be correctly supported for the tests by the engine
mount, seats and tailplane. According to the LAA, in some earlier tests
on
the 601XL, the airframe was supported directly by the center spar which
is
an unrealistic condition that would bias the test results. The support
of
the airframe for future testing should provide for realistic loading of
the
center section and the uprights that shear the loads into the fuselage
sides.
* Two positive load cases should be done.
* PHAA (Positive High Angle of Attack). This condition is
representative of the VA / n1 condition. In this condition the wing
center
of pressure is forward (i.e. the leading edge of the wing is highly
loaded)
and the maximum forward chordwise components of drag load are applied to
the
wing. The wing is simultaneously loaded with maximum bending and shear
loads. The airplane should be positioned in a high angle of attack
attitude
(i.e. upside down with nose down).
* PLAA (Positive Low Angle of Attack). This condition is
representative of the VD / n1 condition. In this case the center of
pressure
is aft and thus the wing is critical for symmetric torsion together with
maximum shear and bending. The airplane is positioned in a low angle of
attack attitude.
* There must be an independent review of the test plans.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx***, a xxxxxxxxxx professional aeronautical engineer - the
xxxxxxxxx equivalent to a US FAA DER, is working with ZBAG. You have
seen
his reports and should be familiar with the quality of his work.
xxxxxxxxxx
is extremely busy just now, but he would make time to perform the
review.
The test plans would be released to xxxxxxxxx under a confidentiality
agreement.
* Zenair must share the test results with xxxxxxxxxxx under the
confidentiality agreement. xxxxxxxxxx could use the results of the
ground
vibration analysis to validate his flutter analysis models, but could
not
publish the test report.
ZBAG's sole intention in granting this funding to Zenair is to produce
information that we believe is crucial to saving the lives of 601XL
pilots
and passengers who are flying their 601XL's at a gross weight of 1320
lbs.
We sincerely hope that Zenair will accept our offer of financial
assistance
to extend the current test series. If our $2500 is insufficient to cover
the
cost of these tests, ZBAG will commit to an broad based fund raising
effort
using all possible resources to communicate with as many 601XL/650
builders
and owners as possible to raise whatever additional funds are needed. I
will
personally commit to a contribution of $100.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Terry Phillips
***The engineer asked that his name be removed from posts to the net.
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are
done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
Message 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 |
|
So what is your point? do not archive
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 3/13/2009 10:53:29 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
wrgiacona@gmail.com writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
I really like the Zenith Aero site and it is a great way to keep up with
other builder's projects. But it is hardly a replacement for the Matronics type
forum.
--------
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=234440#234440
**************Need a job? Find employment help in your area.
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000005)
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: 601XL Fuel System Questions |
You can put a fuse or fusible link in the output of the alternator so
it will isolate itself from the battery if it ever shorts out.
On Mar 13, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Roger & Lina Hill wrote:
> >
>
>
> Speaking of dual electric pumps, if you don't have dual batteries
> running
> them, then you will have a big problem if your alternator shorts and
> drains
> your battery down. You should have a second isolated battery,
> charged via a
> diode from the main battery, to keep the second fuel pump running in
> the
> event of a total electrical power loss (the same goes for backup
> ignition
> for those of us without a magneto ignition)
>
> Personally, I prefer one mechanical pump and one electric
> one...Makes me
> feel safer in the air (sense of false security????).
>
> Roger
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: 601XL Fuel System Questions |
Fusible Link, Good idea, but other things can drain your battery too, just
not as fast as the alternator (you leave the landing lights on). All that
ready has to happen is the alternator stop charging the battery for some
reason, if your in the air you might not notice the voltage drop until it's
too late and suddenly the engine stops. If you have a backup battery, then
you just switch the secondary pump on and keep going (in level flight). Of
course, you still have no power for the radios and such (but I always carry
a handheld radio on board too).
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Martin
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: 601XL Fuel System Questions
You can put a fuse or fusible link in the output of the alternator so
it will isolate itself from the battery if it ever shorts out.
On Mar 13, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Roger & Lina Hill wrote:
<hills@sunflower.com
> >
>
>
> Speaking of dual electric pumps, if you don't have dual batteries
> running
> them, then you will have a big problem if your alternator shorts and
> drains
> your battery down. You should have a second isolated battery,
> charged via a
> diode from the main battery, to keep the second fuel pump running in
> the
> event of a total electrical power loss (the same goes for backup
> ignition
> for those of us without a magneto ignition)
>
> Personally, I prefer one mechanical pump and one electric
> one...Makes me
> feel safer in the air (sense of false security????).
>
> Roger
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
I prefer to deal in facts rather than insults, but its not as much fun. This
is serious business. Look at several in flight breakups. Oakdale CA two years
ago, Yuba City, CA Nov 06 and Polk City, FL last year.
It has been alleged that they were caused by improper control inputs. Oakdale
happened in the traffic pattern with a 17,000+ hour CFI. Polk City was as the
pilot was about to join the published arrival route for Sun N Fun (100KTS and
1200 feet). Yuba City happened in ideal weather as a mature, experienced
pilot was giving his wife her first ride in a new airplane. The story goes, if
you
believe the allegations that while in straight and level cruise, this pilot
impulsively made an excessive and abrupt control input that caused the tail to
break off. The NTSB's Probable Cause is rich in data but a bit vague.
Aileron flutter has never been proven by the NTSB. It seems to be an area
worthy of investigation. The design has never been tested for this to my
knowledge. Why do I think that flutter is a possibility?
1. ZBAG (Terry Phillips did the leg work) has compiled first person flutter
reports. They are available at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZBAG/files/ click
on "601XL Flutter Compendium." Flutter has occurred in the ailerons.
2. Examination of my plans by a retired Aerodynamicist that I know. He tells
me that a control surface with its entire mass aft of the hinge is prone to
flutter. I told him that proper cable tension was required. No, I will not tell
you how to reach Ron, he's retired and he will not submit to cross
examination. He does have an awesome C.V. and I take his word as the truth. In
fact, he
made a flat statement that "If the CG of the surface is ahead of the hinge,
flutter cannot happen!" He did like the design.
3. Sonex and Thorp T-18 have almost identical ailerons. Except that they are
balanced. They have never had issues despite their higher speeds.
It is welcomed news that a French airframe is to be tested in a wind tunnel.
A first. It could lead to redesigned ailerons. I also want to see what breaks
when it is load tested. Perhaps using CH's approved material substitutions can
somewhat fix things if needed. (Zenair News #129 Mar/Apr 2002) I wish them
good luck.
Bob Dingley
601XL/Lyc starting wings
Do not archive
**************
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane? |
I am deeply grateful, Terry, for all of this work. If there is an agreement
to test to U.S. standards, and additional funds need to be raised, I, too,
will contribute $100.
-
Elden Jacobson
xl, 3300
--- On Sat, 3/14/09, Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net> wrote:
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
Subject: Zenith-List: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb A
irplane?
At 09:51 AM 3/7/2009 +0100, Fran=E7ois Chapperon wrote:
-
So you must know that last week , ZENAIR FRANCE (Michael Heintz) sent a 601
XL to a private laboratory in HAMBOURG (Germany) to have dynamic examinatio
n in an artificial speed room ( blowers)
They also asked ZENAIR to have a dynamic gtest by loading wings , both side
s, (intrados and extrados) with a charge of sand sacks .
Yours,
Fran=E7ois Chapperon
As Fran=E7ois points out, Zenair Europe have committed to conducting a seri
es of load tests and ground vibration tests so that the German government w
ill lift the flight restrictions on German 601XL's.
Zenair's planned tests may be good news for all 601XL/650 owners whose plan
es are registered as European ultralights at 450 kg (472.5 kg [1041 lb] wit
h BRS). The news is not so good for builders in the States and elsewhere wh
ere the 601XL/650 is spec'd for 1320 lbs (600kg) @ +/- 6G, because Zenair p
lans to test the 601XL wing to only the European ultralight spec for the DA
eC.
When I became aware of the upcoming German tests, I posted a message on the
ZBAG forum listing test requirements that I believed were important based
on what ZBAG's analyses have uncovered over the past 8 months. I then excha
nged several emails with Mat Heintz on the subject. The final outcome follo
wed Mat's initial reaction to my post: Zenair would only test to US LSA sta
ndards "If we still have money left over after the completion of the German
tests." I think that means "No. We will not test to US specs." While ZBAG'
s analysis is ongoing, enough has been learned to raise concerns about the
strength of the 601XL wing and the susceptibility of the 601XL to flutter.
Accordingly, ZBAG believes that we had to do something to encourage Zenair
to test the 601XL to US specs. Since Zenair is apparently short on funds, Z
BAG offered them $2500 so that they could afford to test to US specs. The e
mail with our offer is appended below. If you would like to read my
complete email exchange with Mat, let me know off line and I'll send you a
copy. If you'd like a primer on how to handle load test results, see, e.g.
, http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-10int2.htm- .
Why should you care? Well, one reason is that your various operational limi
tation speeds, Vne, Va, Vc, etc., are a function of the wing strength. If t
he wing is only good to +5G (say) rather than +6G, then Vne might well be r
educed from 160 mph to perhaps 150 or 140 mph and the gross weight would al
so be reduced. The calculations are beyond me, but the correlation between
gross weight, load factors and Vne is clear. Reduce the wing load rating an
d you must reduce the design airspeeds and gross weight.
Another reason is that ZBAG is convinced that flutter is a factor in many,
if not most, of the wing loss accidents. However, if Zenair tests a new air
frame with lots of friction and cables tensioned to specs, the system stiff
ness could mask the tendency of the wings to flutter. That test would be un
representative of the 601XL fleet that includes aircraft with many flight h
ours and various levels of maintenance. Accordingly, we have asked Zenair t
o test at several cable tensions. The extra cost to test the fully instrume
nted airplane at three additional cable tensions would be very little. My m
essage to Zenair is appended below below.
If Zenair accepts our offer that be would terrific. The tests would be done
to LSA standards and Zenair wouldn't have to foot the whole bill. However,
since they have not even acknowledged our message in three days, it looks
like they may not accept the offer.
Every builder/owner of an 601XL/650 with a gross greater than 1041 lb has a
stake in this. The load tests that Zenair are planning are irrelevant to y
our airplane! The GVT tests may be irrelevant to all 601XL/650's, unless Ze
nair takes data at cable tensions lower than specified 30 lb.
This is important. If you would like to see Zenair test the 601XL to US Spe
cs, you might let them know. Tell the three Heintz brothers (listed below)
that you want them to accept ZBAG's offer to help test the 601XL/650 airfra
me to US Specs. If they get the message from enough of their customers they
might change their plans. Maybe. Time is short. If you care about the 601X
L/650 tests, let Zenair know today.
Thanks for listening.
Terry
P.S.
Why is it so important to do the tests to US specs now? Well, if you do the
tests in the sequence that Mat seems to favor:
Test to DAeC limit load, unload, inspect
Test to DAeC ultimate load, unload, inspect
Test to ASTM limit load, unload, inspect
Test to ASTM ultimate load, unload, inspect And, the wing yields after the
the DAeC ultimate test, that may argue against using the same airframe for
the ASTM tests. I'm awaiting an expert opinion on this point. But you proba
bly need two airframes, two test setup expenses, etc.
But, if you use the following sequence:
Test to DAeC limit load, unload, inspect
Test to ASTM limit load, unload, inspect
Test to DAeC ultimate load, unload, inspect
Test to ASTM ultimate load, unload, inspect And, the wing doesn't yield in
the ASTM limit load test, but does yield after the the DAeC ultimate test (
a plausible outcome), one could probably use the same airframe for the ASTM
ultimate test. I'm awaiting an expert opinion on this one also. But I thin
k it is very likely that you could get away with one airframe and one test
set up.
The lesson is that, by cleverly combining the DAeC test with the ASTM US sp
ecs test, you double the data for a 10 or 20% increase in test cost. If you
do them separately, you probably double the costs. If you want the data yo
u take the clever route.
hair.com>, "heintz_mat" <heintz_mat@yahoo.com>
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
Subject: ZBAG Offer to Help Zenair Pay for Ground Vibration and Load Tests
Michael, Sebastien, and Mathieu
In response to five accidents involving in-flight breakup of Zenith 601XL's
the Zenith Builders Analysis Group (ZBAG) was formed in 2008 to conduct in
dependent engineering analyses of the Zenith 601XL airplane. Since ZBAG beg
an in May 2008, in-flight breakup is suspected in at least three additional
601XL accidents. While ZBAG's analysis is ongoing, enough has been learned
to raise concerns about the strength of the 601XL wing and the susceptibil
ity of the airplane to flutter. Zenair recently announced a series of tests
on the 601XL in response to German Government restrictions on 601XL operat
ions. Mat Heintz has publicly stated that Zenair will only test to US LSA s
tandards "If we still have money left over after the completion of the Germ
an tests."
Since Zenair funding is apparently critical at this time, ZBAG is stepping
forward to help out.
This message is a formal offer from ZBAG to Zenair to contribute $2500 to Z
enair to extend the German test series from the German requirements of 992
lbs gross to Zenair's US specifications of 1320 lbs @ 6G. Since ZBAG fundin
g will give the test results an implied approval by ZBAG the test plan must
meet the following conditions:
The ground vibration test series should include measurements of the control
system vibration frequencies at 3 or more of cable tensions below the spec
ified tension of 30 lb +/- 5 lb. The range considered should include 20 lb,
10 lb and a tension of near zero (i.e. slack cables) that is still suffici
ent to produce an oscillatory response.
We are concerned that the test plan may include only a single test at 30 lb
s tension in a high friction, brand new airframe. This will make the GVT re
sults irrelevant for real world 601XL's in the fleet.
We have a documented instance of significant loosening of 601XL cables duri
ng a short cross country flight.
The UK LAA has raised an issue regarding handling of fuel in the load calcu
lations. Following the LAA's lead, the assumed fuel load should be the case
of MTOW with minimum fuel.
The load test program must include loading to limit load factor (4g), unloa
ding and inspection of the wing for yielding and then a final loading to ul
timate load.
The airframe must be correctly supported for the tests by the engine mount,
seats and tailplane. According to the LAA, in some earlier tests on the 60
1XL, the airframe was supported directly by the center spar which is an unr
ealistic condition that would bias the test results. The support of the air
frame for future testing should provide for realistic loading of the center
section and the uprights that shear the loads into the fuselage sides.
Two positive load cases should be done.
PHAA (Positive High Angle of Attack). This condition is representative of t
he VA / n1 condition. In this condition the wing center of pressure is forw
ard (i.e. the leading edge of the wing is highly loaded) and the maximum fo
rward chordwise components of drag load are applied to the wing. The wing i
s simultaneously loaded with maximum bending and shear loads. The airplane
should be positioned in a high angle of attack attitude (i.e. upside down w
ith nose down).
PLAA (Positive Low Angle of Attack). This condition is representative of th
e VD / n1 condition. In this case the center of pressure is aft and thus th
e wing is critical for symmetric torsion together with maximum shear and be
nding. The airplane is positioned in a low angle of attack attitude.
There must be an independent review of the test plans. xxxxxxxxxxxxx***, a
xxxxxxxxxx professional aeronautical engineer - the xxxxxxxxx equivalent to
a US FAA DER, is working with ZBAG. You have seen his reports and should b
e familiar with the quality of his work. xxxxxxxxxx is extremely busy just
now, but he would make time to perform the review. The test plans would be
released to xxxxxxxxx under a confidentiality agreement.
Zenair must share the test results with xxxxxxxxxxx under the confidentiali
ty agreement. xxxxxxxxxx could use the results of the ground vibration anal
ysis to validate his flutter analysis models, but could not publish the tes
t report. ZBAG's sole intention in granting this funding to Zenair is to pr
oduce information that we believe is crucial to saving the lives of 601XL p
ilots and passengers who are flying their 601XL's at a gross weight of 1320
lbs. We sincerely hope that Zenair will accept our offer of financial assi
stance to extend the current test series. If our $2500 is insufficient to c
over the cost of these tests, ZBAG will commit to an broad based fund raisi
ng effort using all possible resources to communicate with as many 601XL/65
0 builders and owners as possible to raise whatever additional funds are ne
eded. I will personally commit to a contribution of $100.
I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Terry Phillips
***The engineer asked that his name be removed from posts to the net.
Terry Phillips- ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons ar
e done; working on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
=0A=0A=0A
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! --
|