Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:03 AM - Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (steveadams)
2. 06:20 AM - Chat Room Reminder (George Race)
3. 08:44 AM - Re: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (John C Edwards)
4. 09:03 AM - Jabiru USA Engine Seminar..DO IT! (Jeffrey J Paris)
5. 12:19 PM - Re: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Juan Vega)
6. 02:04 PM - Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (ashontz)
7. 05:31 PM - Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Terry Phillips)
8. 06:10 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Juan Vega)
9. 07:10 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Ken Arnold)
10. 07:15 PM - Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (Sabrina)
11. 07:19 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Jay Maynard)
12. 07:21 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (Jay Maynard)
13. 08:04 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (Paul Mulwitz)
14. 08:16 PM - Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (Sabrina)
15. 08:34 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (Paul Mulwitz)
16. 08:52 PM - Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (Sabrina)
17. 09:02 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (Paul Mulwitz)
18. 09:47 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (T. Graziano)
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane |
I'm not building a 601, so this is just a comment from an outside observer regarding
testing. First off, I think testing is a good thing and should relieve a
lot of peoples anxiety, or possibly demonstrate an unforeseen design flaw. However,
the notion that you need to test the airframe with multiple different cable
tensions is ridiculous. Why stop there, why not also test one with a few
loose bolts, or maybe one built with unspecified rivets, over sized rivet holes,
or maybe with a few wasp nests in the trailing edge of one aileron. Test one
that has been abused with poor maintenence, aerobatics, and repeated overstressing
of the airframe. The airplane has specifications including rigging and
cable tensions. To expect them to test an airframe not built or flown to specification
is just silly. Build, rig, and fly your plane to specs and keep it that
way.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234804#234804
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: | Chat Room Reminder |
Live Chat Room every Monday evening around 8:00 EST
www.mykitairplane.com <blocked::http://www.mykitairplane.com/>
Click on the link on the page.
George
Do Not Archive
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
lb Airplane
Enough is enough is enough, delete, delete, delete, my finger is getting
sore!
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: | Jabiru USA Engine Seminar..DO IT! |
Dear Listers,FYI-Me and my Dad just spent a great weekend at Jabiru USA and
participated in a their=C2- Jabiru engine seminar.=C2- Let me tell you t
hat it was an outstanding experience and totally worth the trip to Shelbyvil
le, Tennessee.=C2- The people of Jabiru,=C2- Nick, Mark, Dana and Pete a
nd all the employees put on an excellent hands-on presentation, their operat
ion is top notch and the hospitality was generous and kind:=C2- These peop
le as individuals and a group are very enthusiastic, know the product inside
and out and are very passionate about aviation.(These people live and breat
h experimental amateur built aviation)And if your considering a Jabiru for y
our airplane project I highly recommend this powerplant.=C2- Why?=C2- be
cause we just purchased and picked up our second engine this past weekend; m
y continued confidence in the Jabiru product was only bolstered and reinforc
ed by attending the engine seminar.Moreover, by taking the class, reviewing
all the parts and there functions and actually rebuilding an engine on site
your knowledge and confidence level on this engine expands exponentially.
=C2- In addition, we met some really interesting fellow aircraft builders
and the=C2- exchange of ideas, thoughts and experience only adds to the va
lue of the experience.=C2- In a nutshell, it's hard not to make some frien
ds!=C2- Also, I was very impressed with the Jabiru Aircraft and the very s
exy Arion Lightning (Maybe a future project lurking ?) : Furthermore the Jab
iru USA facilities on the Shelbyville airport are excellent.HANDS UP! a grea
t experience and totally worth the price of admission.Cheers and CAVU,Jeff a
nd Peter Paris250 hours flying on a Zenith Zodiac CH601XL Jab 3300 and 1600
hours into building kit #A012 Europa Monowheel Classic that will be powerd b
y a Jab3300
------------------------------------------------------------
Photography School
Learn digital and video photography techniques, lighting and printing. Click
now.
http://tagline.excite.com/fc/FgElN1g44JhXbPVVNH1suI6BYNIttycAoegMcNcJq2xzHNu
ptLDDZSG06sw/
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
lb Airplane
Terry,
they have done it all. best ones are third party which haas been done. No one
believes them for some reason.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>Sent: Mar 15, 2009 12:50 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041
lb Airplane
>
>Thanks for the thought, Juan.
>
>Next time I'm in Vegas I'll be sure to check out the Bellagio black jack
>tables. I've always wanted to see the King in Vegas.
>
>Meanwhile, I do not understand something:
>
>Why you are not clamoring loudly for Zenair to do the tests to US specs to
>put ZBAG in our place!
>
>All Zenair need do is test to US specs, showing that the design does meet
>the 1320 lb @ 6G spec, independently verified, and release complete GVT
>test data per ZBAG's offer, and that will show ZBAG. And Zenair can do it
>on ZBAG's nickel!
>
>And, while you are clamoring, you why don't you ask Zenair to publish their
>load test protocol and results like Van does?
>
>http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-10int2.htm
>
>Then I can go back to building. Truly, nothing would make me happier.
>
>Have a great day
>
>Terry
>
>At 03:55 PM 3/13/2009 -0400, Juan 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.
>>
>>Juan
>
>
>Terry Phillips ZBAGer
>ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>Corvallis MT
>601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
>are done; waiting on the wings
>http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane |
I'd donate $100 to see a real 601XL tested to US standards.
[quote="eldenej(at)yahoo.com"]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
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234891#234891
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
lb Airplane
Sabrina, thank you for bringing the SR-20 to this discussion.
The SR-20 is an ideal example to illustrate what we are talking about with
the GVT tests. A adequate response is a bit little long, so please bear
with me.
First of all, the SR-20 is a certificated airplane. As such, it is subject
to FAR 23.629 Flutter. See http://tinyurl.com/cbjwo8 What does 23.629
teach us? Here is most of the text:
* (a) It must be shown by the methods of paragraph (b) and either
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, that the airplane is free from
flutter, control reversal, and divergence for any condition of operation
within the limit V-n envelope and at all speeds up to the speed specified
for the selected method. In addition=97
* (1) Adequate tolerances must be established for quantities which
affect flutter, including speed, damping, mass balance, and control system
stiffness; and
* (2) The natural frequencies of main structural components must be
determined by vibration tests or other approved methods.
* (b) Flight flutter tests must be made to show that the airplane is
free from flutter, control reversal and divergence and to show that=97
* (1) Proper and adequate attempts to induce flutter have been made
within the speed range up to VD;
* (2) The vibratory response of the structure during the test
indicates freedom from flutter;
* (3) A proper margin of damping exists at VD; and
* (4) There is no large and rapid reduction in damping as VD is
approached.
* (c) Any rational analysis used to predict freedom from flutter,
control reversal and divergence must cover all speeds up to 1.2 VD.
* (d) Compliance with the rigidity and mass balance criteria (pages
4'12), in Airframe and Equipment Engineering Report No. 45 (as corrected)
=93Simplified Flutter Prevention Criteria=94 (published by the Federal
Aviation
Administration) may be accomplished to show that the airplane is free from
flutter, control reversal, or divergence if=97
* (1) VD/MD for the airplane is less than 260 knots (EAS) and less
than Mach 0.5,
* (2) The wing and aileron flutter prevention criteria, as
represented by the wing torsional stiffness and aileron balance criteria,
are
* limited in use to airplanes without large mass concentrations
(such as engines, floats, or fuel tanks in outer wing panels) along the
* wing span, and
* (3) The airplane=97
* (i) Does not have a T-tail or other unconventional tail
configurations;
* (ii) Does not have unusual mass distributions or other
unconventional design features that affect the applicability of the
criteria, and
* (iii) Has fixed-fin and fixed-stabilizer surfaces.
* (e) ....
* (f) Freedom from flutter, control reversal, and divergence up to
VD/MD must be shown as follows:
* (1) For airplanes that meet the criteria of paragraphs (d)(1)
through (d)(3) of this section, after the failure, malfunction, or
disconnection of any single element in any tab control system.
* (2) For airplanes other than those described in paragraph (f)(1)
of this section, after the failure, malfunction, or disconnection of any
single element in the primary flight control system, any tab control
system, or any flutter damper.
Section (a) is pretty straightforward it must be shown that flutter does
not occur within the V-n envelope (see, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/c3opnj ).
Per (a)(2), the natural frequencies of the main structural components must
be determined. This is to be done by ground vibration testing (GVT). To
obtain the natural frequencies, the GVT must be done at a variety of
conditions, including various levels of cable tension.
The absence of flutter must be proven by flight tests (b) and by either (c)
or (d).
As I understand it, rational analysis, as in (c), includes 3D flutter
modeling by finite element models. Note that, 3D modeling requires the
frequency data from the GVT for final validation. So, we come back to the
requirement for GVT.
Ah, but there is an out, (d) offers the simplified methods in A&E Report
No. 45 (which is available in the ZBAG file section). Unfortunately, ZBAG
have determined that the 601XL ailerons do not meet the A&E Report No. 45
criteria. But don't take my word for it. Get the report and do the
calculations yourself. Report back on what you find. I have no idea whether
or not the SR-20 control surfaces meet the criteria.
Finally, note what (f) (2) would require of the 601XL were it a
certificated aircraft: The aircraft must be free of flutter "after the
failure, malfunction, or disconnection of any single element in the primary
flight control system." I.e., don't just loosen those cables! Disconnect
them and still have no flutter! Ask yourself why the FAA would impose
that requirement.
Obviously, Sabrina, the above discussion does not rule out springs in the
control system. I agree with Bryan that the SR-20 springs are probably
designed to automatically coordinate the rudders with the ailerons. In any
case, the attached page from the SR-20 Maintenance Manual clearly shows how
the SR-20 (and almost every other all-metal certificated airplane, and many
if not most all-metal experimental airplanes) protect against flutter. Yep,
it's a counterbalance. There appear to be ~10 mass balance weights on the
SR-20 aileron. If you are interested, the SR-20 aileron maintenance pdf
downloads automatically from: http://tinyurl.com/dn5ggy .
Why does the FAA require all that testing? Because even the best designs by
the best engineers often require fine tuning before they function as
intended. It is unlikely that Cirrus' went into production with their first
draft SR-20 control system design. Probably the production design evolved
as they learned more from GVT and modeling. Do I want to see experimentals
& LSA's subject to the same rules as certificated airplanes? Most
definitely not! But when experience shows something is wrong, the FAA's
rules and reasoning can help lead us to a solution.
Does the 601XL need an aileron mass balance? A good set of GVT plus a 3D
model would probably answer that question.
ZBAG has the 3D model. Zenair is committed to GVT for the DAeC. ZBAG's
offer to cooperate is on the table. All we need is Zenair's agreement to
cooperate--and the GVT data.
It all depends on Zenair and Zenair's customers. If enough of you write to
Michael, Sebastien, and Mat Heintz, we may yet be able to convince them
that Zenair should do the tests needed to properly evaluate flutter
tendencies of the 601XL. And don't forget ZBAG's offer to pay for the tests!
The email addresses are: micheintz@gmail.com,"S. Heintz / Zenith Aircraft
Co." <seb.heintz@zenithair.com>, "heintz_mat" <heintz_mat@yahoo.com>
If you feel strongly about testing, why not match my pledge of an extra
$100, just in case ZBAG's $2500 isn't enough for Zenair? If you're against
testing, please share your rationale with the rest of the list.
Thanks.
Terry
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041
>lb Airplane
>From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
>Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:16:12 -0700
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Sender: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>X-Spam-Flag: YES
>X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.29 required=5.00
>tests=LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT,BAYES_20,SPF_PASS,OTHER
> version=3.2.1
>X-Spam-Level: *****
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (1.0) on mail.rkymtn.net
>
>
>Cirrus have rudders interconnected to the ailerons with springs.
>
>Cessna's have spring tensioned rudder cables.
>
>A lot of engineering was done on this issue in 2007:
>
>http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/UNDER/CIRRUS/CIRRUS-009.pdf
>
>If ZBAG is using an Australian engineer, he should have ready access to
>all this data... maybe $2500 is enough, maybe not...
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234669#234669
>
>
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; waiting on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or |
a 1041 lb Airplane
Terry,
you are missing the point that Zenith is not the manufacturer of the plane, we
are. We are the responsible builders. The sr 20 is dispositve of this issue
as this plane is designed to fly below 180 mph. Sr 20 is not its a high performance
plane. apples, oranges.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>Sent: Mar 16, 2009 8:23 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Fwd: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041
lb Airplane
>
>Sabrina, thank you for bringing the SR-20 to this discussion.
>
>The SR-20 is an ideal example to illustrate what we are talking about with
>the GVT tests. A adequate response is a bit little long, so please bear
>with me.
>
>First of all, the SR-20 is a certificated airplane. As such, it is subject
>to FAR 23.629 Flutter. See http://tinyurl.com/cbjwo8 What does 23.629
>teach us? Here is most of the text:
> * (a) It must be shown by the methods of paragraph (b) and either
>paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, that the airplane is free from
>flutter, control reversal, and divergence for any condition of operation
>within the limit V-n envelope and at all speeds up to the speed specified
>for the selected method. In addition
> * (1) Adequate tolerances must be established for quantities which
>affect flutter, including speed, damping, mass balance, and control system
>stiffness; and
> * (2) The natural frequencies of main structural components must be
>determined by vibration tests or other approved methods.
> * (b) Flight flutter tests must be made to show that the airplane is
>free from flutter, control reversal and divergence and to show that
> * (1) Proper and adequate attempts to induce flutter have been made
>within the speed range up to VD;
> * (2) The vibratory response of the structure during the test
>indicates freedom from flutter;
> * (3) A proper margin of damping exists at VD; and
> * (4) There is no large and rapid reduction in damping as VD is
>approached.
> * (c) Any rational analysis used to predict freedom from flutter,
>control reversal and divergence must cover all speeds up to 1.2 VD.
> * (d) Compliance with the rigidity and mass balance criteria (pages
>412), in Airframe and Equipment Engineering Report No. 45 (as corrected)
>Simplified Flutter Prevention Criteria (published by the Federal Aviation
>Administration) may be accomplished to show that the airplane is free from
>flutter, control reversal, or divergence if
> * (1) VD/MD for the airplane is less than 260 knots (EAS) and less
>than Mach 0.5,
> * (2) The wing and aileron flutter prevention criteria, as
>represented by the wing torsional stiffness and aileron balance criteria, are
> * limited in use to airplanes without large mass concentrations
>(such as engines, floats, or fuel tanks in outer wing panels) along the
> * wing span, and
> * (3) The airplane
> * (i) Does not have a T-tail or other unconventional tail
>configurations;
> * (ii) Does not have unusual mass distributions or other
>unconventional design features that affect the applicability of the
>criteria, and
> * (iii) Has fixed-fin and fixed-stabilizer surfaces.
> * (e) ....
> * (f) Freedom from flutter, control reversal, and divergence up to
>VD/MD must be shown as follows:
> * (1) For airplanes that meet the criteria of paragraphs (d)(1)
>through (d)(3) of this section, after the failure, malfunction, or
>disconnection of any single element in any tab control system.
> * (2) For airplanes other than those described in paragraph (f)(1)
>of this section, after the failure, malfunction, or disconnection of any
>single element in the primary flight control system, any tab control
>system, or any flutter damper.
>Section (a) is pretty straightforward it must be shown that flutter does
>not occur within the V-n envelope (see, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/c3opnj ).
>Per (a)(2), the natural frequencies of the main structural components must
>be determined. This is to be done by ground vibration testing (GVT). To
>obtain the natural frequencies, the GVT must be done at a variety of
>conditions, including various levels of cable tension.
>
>The absence of flutter must be proven by flight tests (b) and by either (c)
>or (d).
>
>As I understand it, rational analysis, as in (c), includes 3D flutter
>modeling by finite element models. Note that, 3D modeling requires the
>frequency data from the GVT for final validation. So, we come back to the
>requirement for GVT.
>
>Ah, but there is an out, (d) offers the simplified methods in A&E Report
>No. 45 (which is available in the ZBAG file section). Unfortunately, ZBAG
>have determined that the 601XL ailerons do not meet the A&E Report No. 45
>criteria. But don't take my word for it. Get the report and do the
>calculations yourself. Report back on what you find. I have no idea whether
>or not the SR-20 control surfaces meet the criteria.
>
>Finally, note what (f) (2) would require of the 601XL were it a
>certificated aircraft: The aircraft must be free of flutter "after the
>failure, malfunction, or disconnection of any single element in the primary
>flight control system." I.e., don't just loosen those cables! Disconnect
>them and still have no flutter! Ask yourself why the FAA would impose
>that requirement.
>
>Obviously, Sabrina, the above discussion does not rule out springs in the
>control system. I agree with Bryan that the SR-20 springs are probably
>designed to automatically coordinate the rudders with the ailerons. In any
>case, the attached page from the SR-20 Maintenance Manual clearly shows how
>the SR-20 (and almost every other all-metal certificated airplane, and many
>if not most all-metal experimental airplanes) protect against flutter. Yep,
>it's a counterbalance. There appear to be ~10 mass balance weights on the
>SR-20 aileron. If you are interested, the SR-20 aileron maintenance pdf
>downloads automatically from: http://tinyurl.com/dn5ggy .
>
>Why does the FAA require all that testing? Because even the best designs by
>the best engineers often require fine tuning before they function as
>intended. It is unlikely that Cirrus' went into production with their first
>draft SR-20 control system design. Probably the production design evolved
>as they learned more from GVT and modeling. Do I want to see experimentals
>& LSA's subject to the same rules as certificated airplanes? Most
>definitely not! But when experience shows something is wrong, the FAA's
>rules and reasoning can help lead us to a solution.
>
>Does the 601XL need an aileron mass balance? A good set of GVT plus a 3D
>model would probably answer that question.
>
>ZBAG has the 3D model. Zenair is committed to GVT for the DAeC. ZBAG's
>offer to cooperate is on the table. All we need is Zenair's agreement to
>cooperate--and the GVT data.
>
>It all depends on Zenair and Zenair's customers. If enough of you write to
>Michael, Sebastien, and Mat Heintz, we may yet be able to convince them
>that Zenair should do the tests needed to properly evaluate flutter
>tendencies of the 601XL. And don't forget ZBAG's offer to pay for the tests!
>
>The email addresses are: micheintz@gmail.com,"S. Heintz / Zenith Aircraft
>Co." <seb.heintz@zenithair.com>, "heintz_mat" <heintz_mat@yahoo.com>
>
>If you feel strongly about testing, why not match my pledge of an extra
>$100, just in case ZBAG's $2500 isn't enough for Zenair? If you're against
>testing, please share your rationale with the rest of the list.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Terry
>
>
>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041
>>lb Airplane
>>From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
>>Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:16:12 -0700
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Sender: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>>X-Spam-Flag: YES
>>X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.29 required=5.00
>>tests=LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT,BAYES_20,SPF_PASS,OTHER
>> version=3.2.1
>>X-Spam-Level: *****
>>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (1.0) on mail.rkymtn.net
>>
>>
>>Cirrus have rudders interconnected to the ailerons with springs.
>>
>>Cessna's have spring tensioned rudder cables.
>>
>>A lot of engineering was done on this issue in 2007:
>>
>>http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/UNDER/CIRRUS/CIRRUS-009.pdf
>>
>>If ZBAG is using an Australian engineer, he should have ready access to
>>all this data... maybe $2500 is enough, maybe not...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234669#234669
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Terry Phillips ZBAGer
>ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>Corvallis MT
>601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
>are done; waiting on the wings
>http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or |
a 1041 lb Airplane
I suggest $1,000 each. That will get someone's attention and stop all this
nonsense.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan Vega" <amyvega2005@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or
a 1041 lb Airplane
>
> Terry,
> you are missing the point that Zenith is not the manufacturer of the
> plane, we are. We are the responsible builders. The sr 20 is dispositve
> of this issue as this plane is designed to fly below 180 mph. Sr 20 is
> not its a high performance plane. apples, oranges.
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
> Juan
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>>Sent: Mar 16, 2009 8:23 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Fwd: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or
>>a 1041 lb Airplane
>>
>>Sabrina, thank you for bringing the SR-20 to this discussion.
>>
>>The SR-20 is an ideal example to illustrate what we are talking about with
>>the GVT tests. A adequate response is a bit little long, so please bear
>>with me.
>>
>>First of all, the SR-20 is a certificated airplane. As such, it is subject
>>to FAR 23.629 Flutter. See http://tinyurl.com/cbjwo8 What does 23.629
>>teach us? Here is most of the text:
>> * (a) It must be shown by the methods of paragraph (b) and either
>>paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, that the airplane is free from
>>flutter, control reversal, and divergence for any condition of operation
>>within the limit V-n envelope and at all speeds up to the speed specified
>>for the selected method. In addition
>> * (1) Adequate tolerances must be established for quantities which
>>affect flutter, including speed, damping, mass balance, and control system
>>stiffness; and
>> * (2) The natural frequencies of main structural components must
>> be
>>determined by vibration tests or other approved methods.
>> * (b) Flight flutter tests must be made to show that the airplane is
>>free from flutter, control reversal and divergence and to show that
>> * (1) Proper and adequate attempts to induce flutter have been
>> made
>>within the speed range up to VD;
>> * (2) The vibratory response of the structure during the test
>>indicates freedom from flutter;
>> * (3) A proper margin of damping exists at VD; and
>> * (4) There is no large and rapid reduction in damping as VD is
>>approached.
>> * (c) Any rational analysis used to predict freedom from flutter,
>>control reversal and divergence must cover all speeds up to 1.2 VD.
>> * (d) Compliance with the rigidity and mass balance criteria (pages
>>412), in Airframe and Equipment Engineering Report No. 45 (as corrected)
>>Simplified Flutter Prevention Criteria (published by the Federal
>>Aviation
>>Administration) may be accomplished to show that the airplane is free from
>>flutter, control reversal, or divergence if
>> * (1) VD/MD for the airplane is less than 260 knots (EAS) and less
>>than Mach 0.5,
>> * (2) The wing and aileron flutter prevention criteria, as
>>represented by the wing torsional stiffness and aileron balance criteria,
>>are
>> * limited in use to airplanes without large mass concentrations
>>(such as engines, floats, or fuel tanks in outer wing panels) along the
>> * wing span, and
>> * (3) The airplane
>> * (i) Does not have a T-tail or other unconventional tail
>>configurations;
>> * (ii) Does not have unusual mass distributions or other
>>unconventional design features that affect the applicability of the
>>criteria, and
>> * (iii) Has fixed-fin and fixed-stabilizer surfaces.
>> * (e) ....
>> * (f) Freedom from flutter, control reversal, and divergence up to
>>VD/MD must be shown as follows:
>> * (1) For airplanes that meet the criteria of paragraphs (d)(1)
>>through (d)(3) of this section, after the failure, malfunction, or
>>disconnection of any single element in any tab control system.
>> * (2) For airplanes other than those described in paragraph (f)(1)
>>of this section, after the failure, malfunction, or disconnection of any
>>single element in the primary flight control system, any tab control
>>system, or any flutter damper.
>>Section (a) is pretty straightforward it must be shown that flutter does
>>not occur within the V-n envelope (see, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/c3opnj ).
>>Per (a)(2), the natural frequencies of the main structural components must
>>be determined. This is to be done by ground vibration testing (GVT). To
>>obtain the natural frequencies, the GVT must be done at a variety of
>>conditions, including various levels of cable tension.
>>
>>The absence of flutter must be proven by flight tests (b) and by either
>>(c)
>>or (d).
>>
>>As I understand it, rational analysis, as in (c), includes 3D flutter
>>modeling by finite element models. Note that, 3D modeling requires the
>>frequency data from the GVT for final validation. So, we come back to the
>>requirement for GVT.
>>
>>Ah, but there is an out, (d) offers the simplified methods in A&E Report
>>No. 45 (which is available in the ZBAG file section). Unfortunately, ZBAG
>>have determined that the 601XL ailerons do not meet the A&E Report No. 45
>>criteria. But don't take my word for it. Get the report and do the
>>calculations yourself. Report back on what you find. I have no idea
>>whether
>>or not the SR-20 control surfaces meet the criteria.
>>
>>Finally, note what (f) (2) would require of the 601XL were it a
>>certificated aircraft: The aircraft must be free of flutter "after the
>>failure, malfunction, or disconnection of any single element in the
>>primary
>>flight control system." I.e., don't just loosen those cables! Disconnect
>>them and still have no flutter! Ask yourself why the FAA would impose
>>that requirement.
>>
>>Obviously, Sabrina, the above discussion does not rule out springs in the
>>control system. I agree with Bryan that the SR-20 springs are probably
>>designed to automatically coordinate the rudders with the ailerons. In any
>>case, the attached page from the SR-20 Maintenance Manual clearly shows
>>how
>>the SR-20 (and almost every other all-metal certificated airplane, and
>>many
>>if not most all-metal experimental airplanes) protect against flutter.
>>Yep,
>>it's a counterbalance. There appear to be ~10 mass balance weights on the
>>SR-20 aileron. If you are interested, the SR-20 aileron maintenance pdf
>>downloads automatically from: http://tinyurl.com/dn5ggy .
>>
>>Why does the FAA require all that testing? Because even the best designs
>>by
>>the best engineers often require fine tuning before they function as
>>intended. It is unlikely that Cirrus' went into production with their
>>first
>>draft SR-20 control system design. Probably the production design evolved
>>as they learned more from GVT and modeling. Do I want to see experimentals
>>& LSA's subject to the same rules as certificated airplanes? Most
>>definitely not! But when experience shows something is wrong, the FAA's
>>rules and reasoning can help lead us to a solution.
>>
>>Does the 601XL need an aileron mass balance? A good set of GVT plus a 3D
>>model would probably answer that question.
>>
>>ZBAG has the 3D model. Zenair is committed to GVT for the DAeC. ZBAG's
>>offer to cooperate is on the table. All we need is Zenair's agreement to
>>cooperate--and the GVT data.
>>
>>It all depends on Zenair and Zenair's customers. If enough of you write to
>>Michael, Sebastien, and Mat Heintz, we may yet be able to convince them
>>that Zenair should do the tests needed to properly evaluate flutter
>>tendencies of the 601XL. And don't forget ZBAG's offer to pay for the
>>tests!
>>
>>The email addresses are: micheintz@gmail.com,"S. Heintz / Zenith Aircraft
>>Co." <seb.heintz@zenithair.com>, "heintz_mat" <heintz_mat@yahoo.com>
>>
>>If you feel strongly about testing, why not match my pledge of an extra
>>$100, just in case ZBAG's $2500 isn't enough for Zenair? If you're against
>>testing, please share your rationale with the rest of the list.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Terry
>>
>>
>>
>>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a
>>>1041
>>>lb Airplane
>>>From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
>>>Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:16:12 -0700
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Sender: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>>>X-Spam-Flag: YES
>>>X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.29 required=5.00
>>>tests=LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT,BAYES_20,SPF_PASS,OTHER
>>> version=3.2.1
>>>X-Spam-Level: *****
>>>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (1.0) on mail.rkymtn.net
>>>
>>>
>>>Cirrus have rudders interconnected to the ailerons with springs.
>>>
>>>Cessna's have spring tensioned rudder cables.
>>>
>>>A lot of engineering was done on this issue in 2007:
>>>
>>>http://www.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/UNDER/CIRRUS/CIRRUS-009.pdf
>>>
>>>If ZBAG is using an Australian engineer, he should have ready access to
>>>all this data... maybe $2500 is enough, maybe not...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234669#234669
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Terry Phillips ZBAGer
>>ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>>Corvallis MT
>>601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
>>are done; waiting on the wings
>>http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>
>
>
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: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
Terry,
I am approaching this from a different perspective than you. It was suggested
at AirVenture 2005 that I build an airplane as a learning experience. I looked
at the RV, the Midget Mustang and the Zenith. At the time I committed to
the XL kit, there had been no wing failures. Whereas I learned a lot during
the build, including budgeting and time management, I never imagined that I would
be sending a test pilot up in an aircraft I built after someone had just
died in a similar design, time and time again. I have grown up a lot in the
past 14 months. I am now 44 months into this process. (6 to decide which aircraft,
22 to build, 2 to certify, 14 planning flights.) I am only 188+ months
old.
Flutter will occur in any aircraft with unbalanced control surfaces if you go fast
enough.
I like the French number of 112 MPH released last week. I had heard a similar
number given for a potential onset of flutter in the XL design without more.
Maybe your 3D program was the source of the number, I don't know, it sounds reasonable.
To go faster than 112 MPH, what do we need to do? Either balance the control
surfaces or maintain cable tension. Just because cable tension is not an acceptable
means of preventing flutter in certified aircraft, does not mean that
it does not work.
We clearly have to train XL pilots on how to properly slow down to 112 when flutter
starts. Personally, I like my idea of adding AS5 rivets on the inboard aileron
attach points, it may give you that extra second or two to slow down.
So too, I would not advise anyone to get into any experimental aircraft without
an emergency parachute, BRS or not.
I don't think the currently designed rear spar and piano hinge aileron can handle
the extra stress of mounting counter balance weights. I would rather slow
my aircraft down than counter-balance the ailerons at this point in time. Your
3D models should help us with that.
I am so used to flying in a C150L that 112 does not sound that bad to me.
If it would save a single life, I would offer my airplane up for destructive testing
but I have incorporated so many modifications that I don't know what good
it would do.
I strongly believe in 3D modeling and encourage you to spend your money that way
rather than requesting further testing of a European version of our XL. Ground
vibration testing of an airplane with its wing spars set at a different angle
than mine, gives me no useful data. NONE.
At this point my airplane has completed its speed tests and I can't imagine having
it fly faster than 112 MPH for the foreseeable future. I would appreciate
you sharing your 3D model results as to Vne for optimally tensioned, unbalanced
ailerons and what that optimal tension would be.
Zenair's lawyers will never let them test beyond what is mandated no matter how
much money you throw in. Your best bet is to persuade the FAA to have AMD
GVT one of their 601XLs.
Wishing you the best,
Sabrina
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234921#234921
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: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a |
1041 lb Airplane
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 09:08:27PM -0400, Juan Vega wrote:
> you are missing the point that Zenith is not the manufacturer of the
> plane, we are. We are the responsible builders.
Not always, Juan. Once again you ignore N158MD.
--
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 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: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a |
1041
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 07:15:03PM -0700, Sabrina wrote:
> Zenair's lawyers will never let them test beyond what is mandated no
> matter how much money you throw in. Your best bet is to persuade the FAA
> to have AMD GVT one of their 601XLs.
N55ZC is available for GVT, any time, anywhere.
--
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 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: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or |
a 1041
Hi Sabrina,
What is your normal cruise speed? I have heard of XL's with normal
cruise considerably higher than 112 MPH. If I remember correctly,
the standard with Jabiru engine is 138.
Paul
do not archive
At 07:15 PM 3/16/2009, you wrote:
>my airplane has completed its speed tests and I can't imagine having
>it fly faster than 112 MPH for the foreseeable future.
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: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
the LSA speed limit is 138... (120 knots)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234929#234929
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: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or |
a 1041
Actually, that is not even close to a true statement.
The LSA definition calls for a maximum indicated (actually
calibrated) airspeed of 138 mph at sea level and maximum continuous
power. From a simplistic point of view this might be considered
level cruise speed. It would be quite reasonable for a legal LSA to
go considerably faster than this if extra power is applied or if not
in level flight.
The issue of maximum continuous power is really slippery. For E-AB
airplanes this is specified by the aircraft manufacturer - not the
engine maker. There is no rule that says you must operate your plane
at or below this number. For example, you might decide your engine
should be limited to 2800 rpm if the outside air temperature is above
90 degrees F but you could still reasonably run it at 3200 rpm for
long periods of time if the OAT is lower. Given these numbers is
the RPM for maximum continuous power 2800 or 3200? The practical
answer is to use whatever number makes your plane qualify as LSA.
The other obvious issue is how you choose to measure your speed. The
LSA limit is calibrated airspeed, but for most purposes TAS is more
useful. True airspeed is almost always higher than indicated - often
15 to 20 percent higher.
I know I am not being totally reasonable here. My point is that 112
mph might be a very restrictive speed for an XL. I have recently
seen even lower maximum speeds called for by European governments (97 mph?).
The good news - there are no cops with radar guns checking up on
us. Therefore, there is no practical speed limit.
Paul
do not archive
At 08:15 PM 3/16/2009, you wrote:
>the LSA speed limit is 138... (120 knots)
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: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
I guess radar and mode S don't count...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234936#234936
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: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or |
a 1041
That only counts if the ATC guy remembers to bring his slide rule to
work and gets permission from his union steward to calculate your
indicated airspeed . . .
At 08:50 PM 3/16/2009, you wrote:
>I guess radar and mode S don't count...
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: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or |
a 1041
For what its worth:
I consider my cruising speed for cross country to be 105 kts IAS (about
120mph). If I wish to conserve fuel for just enjoying the sky then I
usually cruise between 90 - 100 kts IAS. If I push it up to my max
cruising RPM it is 115 kts, but fuel usage goes up too much. It will do 120
kts IAS WOT. It does not have wheel fairings, but has 600x6 tires/wheels
with an 801 nose fork, so it is a little more "draggy" than a standard XL
The Max IAS I have taken it to has been 195 MPH IAS in a shallow dive at
3300 RPM on my Jab at about 1150 lbs weight. This was in calm air with
gradual approach to that IAS which is 8% above my Vne of 180 MPH at 1300 lbs
during my Phase I testing. My Vne at 1320 # is 160 MPH
I have flown it at Va in turbulence such that my headset would not remain on
my head unless I held it on.
My airplane has wing lockers and the hingeless ailerons. My LH aileron has
a trim tab.
My airplane is also equipped with a wing removal device (it may also remove
the horiz stab first), AKA a stick (actually two of them - one on each side)
Tony Graziano
601XL/Jab3300A, kit built in my barn, Ser 6-5342; N493TG; 474 enjoyable hrs;
1041 landings, with over 150 rough field landings.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or
a 1041
>
> Actually, that is not even close to a true statement.
>
> The LSA definition calls for a maximum indicated (actually calibrated)
> airspeed of 138 mph at sea level and maximum continuous power. From a
> simplistic point of view this might be considered level cruise speed. It
> would be quite reasonable for a legal LSA to go considerably faster than
> this if extra power is applied or if not in level flight.
>
> The issue of maximum continuous power is really slippery. For E-AB
> airplanes this is specified by the aircraft manufacturer - not the engine
> maker. There is no rule that says you must operate your plane at or below
> this number. For example, you might decide your engine should be limited
> to 2800 rpm if the outside air temperature is above 90 degrees F but you
> could still reasonably run it at 3200 rpm for long periods of time if the
> OAT is lower. Given these numbers is the RPM for maximum continuous
> power 2800 or 3200? The practical answer is to use whatever number makes
> your plane qualify as LSA.
>
> The other obvious issue is how you choose to measure your speed. The LSA
> limit is calibrated airspeed, but for most purposes TAS is more useful.
> True airspeed is almost always higher than indicated - often 15 to 20
> percent higher.
>
> I know I am not being totally reasonable here. My point is that 112 mph
> might be a very restrictive speed for an XL. I have recently seen even
> lower maximum speeds called for by European governments (97 mph?).
>
> The good news - there are no cops with radar guns checking up on us.
> Therefore, there is no practical speed limit.
>
>
> Paul
> do not archive
>
>
> At 08:15 PM 3/16/2009, you wrote:
>>the LSA speed limit is 138... (120 knots)
>
>
>
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! --
|