Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:49 AM - Re: : Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_CHAPPERON?=)
2. 05:40 AM - Ailerons (roger lambert)
3. 06:44 AM - Re: Ailerons (William Dominguez)
4. 06:53 AM - Re: Ailerons (Sabrina)
5. 08:33 AM - Re: Ailerons (Jeyoung65@aol.com)
6. 09:12 AM - Zenith 701 project for sale (LarryMcFarland)
7. 09:12 AM - Re: Ailerons (Roger & Lina Hill)
8. 11:12 AM - Re: Ailerons (Peter Chapman)
9. 11:37 AM - Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 l (Gig Giacona)
10. 11:50 AM - Re: Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 l (Jay Maynard)
11. 01:25 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 l (Paul Mulwitz)
12. 02:20 PM - Re: Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 l (Jay Maynard)
13. 03:01 PM - Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (Gig Giacona)
14. 04:11 PM - Re: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 lb Airplane (Terry Phillips)
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: : Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
I made a mistake two days ago in saying 97mph as speed limit in France,
for
the 601 xl .
speed limit is 180km/h which gives 97 KNOTS and 112mph .
As I am equipped with parachute I made some speed test last W.E. at
220km/h(137 mph or 119 knots)=85 and more (240)
Not any vibrations occurred =85 weather conditions were smooth, no
turbulences
at all, and 5 two 10 knots wind .
French FAA said that restriction will be out as soon as German tests
would
give positive information=85.
Francois.
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 |
|
It has been stated:
Just because cable tension is not an acceptable
means of preventing flutter in certified aircraft, does not mean that
it does not work.
It should be noted that many certificated aircraft, including those flying
in Great Britain, have ailerons wihout external mass balanced ailerons.
These include Piper Cubs, Aeroncas and, I believe, Grumman Cheetahs and
Tigers.
It also should be noted that in no crash/incident reported to date did the
aileron cables fail, only that owners failed to maintain the cable tension.
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 |
|
The way I understand it is that cable tension does work in preventing flutt
er, but relying in cable tension alone is not acceptable by the FAA because
of the possibility of cable loosening up. This could be very critical if c
ables loosen up during the course of one flight, as already happened to a 6
01XL.
As I say, this is the way I understand it. Meaning, I could be wrong and an
d would like to be clarified.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Tue, 3/17/09, roger lambert <n601ap@gmail.com> wrote:
From: roger lambert <n601ap@gmail.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Ailerons
It has been stated:=0AJust because cable tension is not an acceptable
----- means of preventing- flutter in certified aircraft, does
not mean that
----- it does not work.-
-It should be noted that many certificated aircraft, including those flyi
ng in Great Britain, have ailerons wihout external mass balanced ailerons.
These include Piper Cubs, Aeroncas and, I believe, Grumman Cheetahs and Tig
ers.=0A=0AIt also should be noted that in no crash/incident reported to dat
e did the aileron cables fail, only that owners failed to maintain the cabl
e tension.=0A=0A
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 |
|
in the certified aircraft you mention, the design itself was proven to dampen flutter
at the speeds flown...
if the wing/control surface design had not been proven to dampen flutter without
cable tension, the aircraft would not have been certified...
with the XL, the only proven method I know of to control flutter is cable tension,
that, by itself, would not be sufficient in the certified aircraft world
this is why AMD, in light of the recent accidents, may be required to prove their
S-LSA's designs can resist flutter without the aid of cable tension, they are
not certified aircraft, but a close cousin...
cable tension works, but it also requires vigilance, hence the temporary speed
limits in Europe...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234965#234965
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 |
|
My understanding of control surface flutter is it can be caused by control
surfaces than can move without input forces. If they move upward due to ruff
air they will then be forced downward due to the air load on them. They are
then forced up ect until an input force is applied to stop the cycle. So be
sure to check your cable tension and looseness of all connection. Jerry of Ga
In a message dated 3/17/2009 8:47:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
bill_dom@yahoo.com writes:
The way I understand it is that cable tension does work in preventing
flutter, but relying in cable tension alone is not acceptable by the FAA because
of
the possibility of cable loosening up. This could be very critical if cables
loosen up during the course of one flight, as already happened to a 601XL.
As I say, this is the way I understand it. Meaning, I could be wrong and and
would like to be clarified.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Tue, 3/17/09, roger lambert <n601ap@gmail.com> wrote:
From: roger lambert <n601ap@gmail.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Ailerons
It has been stated:
Just because cable tension is not an acceptable
means of preventing flutter in certified aircraft, does not mean that
it does not work.
It should be noted that many certificated aircraft, including those flying
in Great Britain, have ailerons wihout external mass balanced ailerons. These
include Piper Cubs, Aeroncas and, I believe, Grumman Cheetahs and Tigers.
It also should be noted that in no crash/incident reported to date did the
aileron cables fail, only that owners failed to maintain the cable tension.
(http://www.matronics=======<br><br></font></b><font%20color=)
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
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: | Zenith 701 project for sale |
Hi guys,
Chapter 75 recently lost one of our charter members and I am posting the
sale of his Zenith 701 project. Wings, ailerons, lead edge slats,
stabilizer and elevator, ailerons, and rudder are all complete. Fuselage
construction was well under way. Special tools, riveter, air gun,
workbench, clecos, clamps and much more are included in this sale. He
had not purchased engine or instruments, but all else as described by
the sites pictures are included. Im coordinating assistance to buyer(s)
for viewing, inspection and handling or transport for the family, A link
provides a more complete descriptive. See link,
www.macsmachine.com/html/itemsforsale.htm
<http://www.macsmachine.com/html/itemsforsale.htm>
Thanks guys,
Larry McFarland
Do not archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Well I have to wonder, why not just use Push rods instead of cables for the
Ailerons? Then you never have to worry about cable slack.
I have them on my HDS 601 and they work perfectly.
Roger
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Jeyoung65@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Ailerons
My understanding of control surface flutter is it can be caused by control
surfaces than can move without input forces. If they move upward due to ruff
air they will then be forced downward due to the air load on them. They are
then forced up ect until an input force is applied to stop the cycle. So be
sure to check your cable tension and looseness of all connection. Jerry of
Ga
In a message dated 3/17/2009 8:47:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
bill_dom@yahoo.com writes:
The way I understand it is that cable tension does work in preventing
flutter, but relying in cable tension alone is not acceptable by the FAA
because of the possibility of cable loosening up. This could be very
critical if cables loosen up during the course of one flight, as already
happened to a 601XL.
As I say, this is the way I understand it. Meaning, I could be wrong and and
would like to be clarified.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Tue, 3/17/09, roger lambert <n601ap@gmail.com> wrote:
From: roger lambert <n601ap@gmail.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Ailerons
It has been stated:
Just because cable tension is not an acceptable
means of preventing flutter in certified aircraft, does not mean that
it does not work.
It should be noted that many certificated aircraft, including those flying
in Great Britain, have ailerons wihout external mass balanced ailerons.
These include Piper Cubs, Aeroncas and, I believe, Grumman Cheetahs and
Tigers.
It also should be noted that in no crash/incident reported to date did the
aileron cables fail, only that owners failed to maintain the cable tension.
<http://www.matronics=======%3cbr%3e%3cbr%3e%3c/font%3e%3c/b%3e%3cfont%20col
or=>
_____
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner
<http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001> for $10 or
less.
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 |
|
At 08:38 17-03-09, Roger wrote:
> It should be noted that many certificated aircraft, including
> those flying in Great Britain, have ailerons wihout external mass
> balanced ailerons. These include Piper Cubs, Aeroncas and, I
> believe, Grumman Cheetahs and Tigers.
>It also should be noted that in no crash/incident reported to date
>did the aileron cables fail, only that owners failed to maintain the
>cable tension.
Additional info:
- The Aeronca Champ: Vne of 129 or 135 mph (I've seen both??) --
significantly lower than 601's.
- The Grumman Tiger AA-5 does have an internal mass balance from the
ailerons in the wingtip, as does even the early AA-1 (according to an
illustrated parts manual online).
Nevertheless, it is still a little unclear at what speeds aircraft
(certificated or not) do not have mass balanced ailerons.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON
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: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
l
jmaynard wrote:
>
> Not always, Juan. Once again you ignore N158MD.
Zenith didn't build it either, AMD did. And AMD just finished with a audit from
the FAA that several others of the LSAs had to do.
--------
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=235005#235005
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 l
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:36:18AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
> jmaynard wrote:
> > Not always, Juan. Once again you ignore N158MD.
> Zenith didn't build it either, AMD did. And AMD just finished with a audit
> from the FAA that several others of the LSAs had to do.
My point exactly. Juan seems to think that the builder is often at fault in
the in-flight breakups, and he never explains how this one fits that model.
(His other answer is that it's pilots flying recklessly, and that's also far
from demonstrated in the case of N158MD.)
He keeps spouting that line, and ignoring the case that disproves it as an
absolute.
--
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 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: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or |
a 1041 l
Since none of us are experts in this area, it is not surprising that
we each might reach some wrong or even ridiculously wrong conclusions
about why these accidents happened.
Maybe some day we will all learn that there is a small change that
makes this all go away. Until then we will just have to be satisfied
with not knowing for sure what is happening.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 11:49 AM 3/17/2009, you wrote:
>He keeps spouting that line, and ignoring the case that disproves it as an
>absolute.
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 l
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 01:24:42PM -0700, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
> Maybe some day we will all learn that there is a small change that makes
> this all go away. Until then we will just have to be satisfied with not
> knowing for sure what is happening.
Agreed. We just don't know. To say that it's not a design issue implies more
knowledge than we have.
--
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 |
psm(at)att.net wrote:
> Maybe some day we will all learn that there is a small change that
> makes this all go away. Until then we will just have to be satisfied
> with not knowing for sure what is happening.
Maybe that change has already been made. Has there been an accident in an aircraft
that had the elevator stops added?
--------
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=235032#235032
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
Juan
Your note leaves me puzzled. Who has done it all? And, just exactly what
have they done? And which third party has done what?
It is important to be specific. Going back to my note to Michael,
Sebastien, and Mat, ZBAG asked that the test protocol for the DAeC be
expanded to include the following:
* 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.
* 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. ... under a
confidentiality agreement.
* Zenair must share the test results ... under the confidentiality
agreement.
ZBAG have looked far and wide, and we cannot find any evidence whatever
that GVT have ever been done on the 601XL/650. Zenair has not offered any
evidence that suggests their DAeC test protocol will include tests at low
levels of cable tension.
ZBAG have not found any evidence whatever that Zenair or anyone else has
done any load test on the 601XL/650 airframe at 1320 lbs gross at +6G.
Let's not even talk about the tests at PHAA and PLAA.
Perhaps the reason that no one believes "them" is that there is no evidence
on the public record to indicate that the tests have been done. Zenair has
not even released a test report for the 2007 tests, where "a complete set
of structural load tests on a production airframe" was transformed
(apparently) into a single test at -3G. I say "apparently" because, without
a test report, we can only go by the photos on the Zenair website. If
Zenair would release their test data like
Van, http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-10int2.htm Zenair would
probably find that people would believe that they have done the tests. As
long as Zenair treat the test data like a state secret, I fear that their
credibility problem will continue.
Juan, can I ask you to elaborate on just who has done what when? And then
tell us on what documentation you base your assertion? Thanks.
Seven days and counting since ZBAG offered to fund Zenair's tests to US
specs. Still no reply from Zenair.
Please, if you want to see the tests done, tell Michael, Sebastien, and
Mat: micheintz@gmail.com, seb.heintz@zenithair.com>, heintz_mat@yahoo.com .
It may not do any good. If you've already told them, tell them again. It's
the only hope we have.
Terry
At 02:15 PM 3/16/2009 -0500, Juan wrote:
>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
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/
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! --
|