Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:37 AM - Re: Ailerons (ZodieRocket)
2. 08:50 AM - Re: Ailerons (japhillipsga@aol.com)
3. 09:53 AM - Re: Ailerons (Jeyoung65@aol.com)
4. 11:41 AM - Re: Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (Terry Phillips)
5. 12:29 PM - Fw: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 (Sabrina)
6. 03:45 PM - Re: Ailerons ()
7. 04:32 PM - Re: Ailerons (jaybannist@cs.com)
8. 05:29 PM - Re: Ailerons (JAPhillipsGA@aol.com)
9. 05:37 PM - Re: Ailerons (JAPhillipsGA@aol.com)
10. 09:18 PM - Re: Ailerons (Roger & Lina Hill)
11. 09:22 PM - Re: Ailerons (Roger & Lina Hill)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Problem is that in the XL the span for a push rod is quite large and you
have travel in a vertical as well as a horizontal range. With such a
run, to
make a system that can handle the load that the cables are capable of
you
would need to have a complicated bearing arrangement to support the push
rod
in both movements. I imagine that the system can be done safely with a
complete change in which the way the controls presently work, but just
adding a rod with a few fittings would not be able to handle the design
loads that the cables can handle for a safe conversion.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac CH650 C-GOXL, CH701 Rotax 912,
STOL CH750 Just started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com/ www.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger &
Lina
Hill
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Ailerons
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 for
<http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001> $10 or
less.
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
Roger, I like Mark. He's a great guy and he cooks good hamburgers, but my?opinion
on this subject is?just different than his. Whether the cables are "stronger"
than push rods is not the issue. They may or may not be, but it does not matter
because either system far exceeds the utility stress the XL air frame, wings?and
HS will endure.?The wings and HS will have already failed and ripped clear
and hit the ground long before either the push rod or cables fail. The reason
for rods over cable is aileron?flutter and harmonic dynamic resonance dampening.
If the issue is mere strength why not install 1/4 inch cables or 1/2 inch
cables as opposed to 1/8th? They certainly are "stronger" than the ones ZAC
has on their plans. What may be of concern is that?pointing at the product and
saying "there may be a better way"?stimulates anxiety even more that having
"mysterious" crashes where the wings fail for no particular observed reason.
My XL and I survived unexpected and unwelcome aileron
flutter with cables.?It maybe just me a another fellow who ever survived to tell
about it.?I built, own and fly a Zenith 601 XL that I am very proud of and
believe it (with modifications) to be the safest XL flying. Anybody interested
is welcome to come, see and compair. Best regards, Bill of Georgia
-----Original Message-----
From: ZodieRocket <zodierocket@hsfx.ca>
Sent: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 7:35 am
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Ailerons
Problem is that in the XL the span for a push rod is quite large and you have travel
in a vertical as well as a horizontal range. With such a run, to make a
system that can handle the load that the cables are capable of you would need
to have a complicated bearing arrangement to support the push rod in both movements.
I imagine that the system can be done safely with a complete change in
which the way the controls presently work, but just adding a rod with a few fittings
would not be able to handle the design loads that the cables can handle
for a safe conversion.
?
Mark Townsend? Alma, Ontario
Zodiac?CH650 C-GOXL, CH701 Rotax 912,
STOL CH750 Just started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com/ www.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger & Lina Hill
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Ailerons
?
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.
?
?
?
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less.
?
?
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
?
http://forums.matronics.com
http://forums.matronics.com
?
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
Bill, Just a question for me, did you install push-pull rods for the rudder
or elevator? I believe the big flutter problems is related to loose control.
This can be worn bolts, worn bearings or loose bolts as well as low cable
tension. As Mr. Townsend said a long rod can be subject to bending- not a big
problem and easy to correct with thicker walls or larger OD tubes. Jerry of GA
In a message dated 3/18/2009 10:55:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
japhillipsga@aol.com writes:
Roger, I like Mark. He's a great guy and he cooks good hamburgers, but my
opinion on this subject is just different than his. Whether the cables are
"stronger" than push rods is not the issue. They may or may not be, but it does
not matter because either system far exceeds the utility stress the XL air
frame, wings and HS will endure. The wings and HS will have already failed and
ripped clear and hit the ground long before either the push rod or cables
fail. The reason for rods over cable is aileron flutter and harmonic dynamic
resonance dampening. If the issue is mere strength why not install 1/4 inch
cables or 1/2 inch cables as opposed to 1/8th? They certainly are "stronger" than
the ones ZAC has on their plans. What may be of concern is that pointing at
the product and saying "there may be a better way" stimulates anxiety even
more that having "mysterious" crashes where the wings fail for no particular
observed reason. My XL and I s urvived unexpected and unwelcome aileron flutter
with cables. It maybe just me a another fellow who ever survived to tell
about it. I built, own and fly a Zenith 601 XL that I am very proud of and
believe it (with modifications) to be the safest XL flying. Anybody interested
is
welcome to come, see and compair. Best regards, Bill of Georgia
.
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or |
a 1041
At 07:15 PM 3/16/2009 -0700, Sabrina wrote:
>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 think that is probably true. What I do know is that the FAA rules
required flutter testing for certificated airplanes, so, obviously, flutter
is a problem that must be dealt with.
>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.
My understanding is the 180 km/hr (112 mph) comes from the German rules
which require GVT for planes that fly faster than 180 km/hr. Since the
601XL had not been vibration tested, the German response to the accidents
was to mandate reducing Vne to the 180 km/hr limit for untested aircraft.
The French decided to copy the Germans.
>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 =9Cacceptable=9D means of preventing flutter in
certified
>aircraft, does not mean that it does not work.
Actually, cable tension is acceptable and valuable. What is not acceptable
to the FAA for certificated airplanes is relying solely on cable tension.
Their view is that flutter is so dangerous that a multilayered defense is
required. I.e., cable tension, counterbalances, wing stiffness, etc. I
think that it works out that counterbalances are one of the most weight
efficient countermeasures.
>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.
Isn't it interesting that German microlight rules require both GVT and a
BRS? Regarding maneuvers, be sure to read the account "601XL
Flutter_Hinge-less_No_1.pdf" in the ZBAG files section. Good idea for
everyone to learn and practice such maneuvers. I like your AS-5 rivets.
I'll use those or solid rivets. And on the control horn too.
>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.
Take a look at the photos of the Sonex-Waiex counterbalance that is posted
on the ZBAG file section. A similar setup would probably be effective in
the 601XL. Bear in mind that there is not a lot of stress on the rear spar
way out on the wing. If analysis indicated a problem, one could always
install a doubler around the rear spar aperture.
>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.
That's a generous offer. I'm still hopeful that Zenair will change their
mind and agree to do the testing. They are already destroying the airframe
to do the DAeC tests. It would be so cheap and simple to combine the tests.
But there are other things to do besides destroying your XL.
>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.
I may be wrong, but I do not believe the angle of the spar attachment is
the critical variable. As I understand it, w.r.t. flutter, the critical
data produced by the GVT are the spring constants and dampening
coefficients. If the wing is oscillating, an unbalanced aileron will
necessarily be pivoting about its hinge point. When the stiffness and
spring constants of the aileron system (including the cables, linkages,
etc., produce an aileron vibrational frequency that matches the wing's
vibrational frequency, then the oscillations of the two components
reinforce each other and bad things can happen. The upshot is, in my
amateur opinion, a slight change in the wing attachment angle would not
have much effect on what GVT are designed to measure.
>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.
This is the key! Our engineer's 3D model requires GVT data to fine tune and
validate the model. Just as load tests are needed to prove the accuracy of
the wing strength calculations, the GVT data are needed for the 3D flutter
model.
>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.
I hope you are wrong. But time will tell the tale. I'm not optimistic about
help from the FAA. If Zenair will not do the GVT and share the data, we
need to look at the best way forward. Ideally, we could test an aircraft on
ZBAG's nickel. But, then we'd have to pay for the entire setup rather than
just piggybacking on the back of the DAeC test setup. That would double or
triple the cost. We have bounced that around a bit, but haven't gone very
far. One problem is that the testing resources are widely separated from
our engineering resources.
A more promising way is to incorporate all the changes mandated by the LAA,
and then adopt the LAA's operating limits. I would guess that would mean a
reduced gross, possible limitations on flying at gross with reduced fuel
loads, possibly reduced Vne, Vc, Va. But that's just a guess. We will have
to wait to see what the LAA requires. But at least the LAA is committed to
a flight test of the modified airplane. Hopefully it will include attempts
to excite flutter.
>Wishing you the best,
Like wise. I'm sure that this has been an educational project in ways that
you never anticipated. However, this is very much real world. You can do
everything right, and still get the wrong result. And, as was recently told
to me by an expert, an airplane can meet all the standards and still be
unsafe. The standards are an attempt to enumerate and specify 100 years of
aviation engineering knowledge and experience to produce safe airplanes.
But nothing built by humans is likely to be perfect, including those
regulations.
And when this is all done I'll buy you a soda at Oshkosh :-)
>Sabrina
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 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: Fwd: Re: Is Your CH601XL/650 a 1320 lb Airplane or a 1041 |
Strange world we live in... I have had the same parachute for 6 years now... I sent it in for repack yesterday and I am shocked to learn--it may not have deployed. A small piece of plastic in the case flap cracked and jammed the release cable. http://sabrinaaerospace.com/index.php?p=1_7_Photos
It brings home the point that we have to constantly check and recheck our aircraft
and equipment before we fly. I will never complain about "wasting" $55 on
a repack again. Only 30 cents a day for the best insurance around.
What would the cost be to GVT Tron Guy's XL?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235129#235129
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 |
|
About a week ago I dropped in at my friendly Airparts, and looked
through their stock, thinking in terms of pushpull tubes for my
ailerons. I pulled out some tubes ranging from 1-1/4 down to 3/4, and
then looked at SQUARE tubing as well. Pullin almost 12 feet of tube out
of the racks, none of them were particularly easy to bend by hand, and,
at the roughly 7 feet from bellcrank to fuselage skin, not of them had
any appreciable sag. I suppose there might be some harmonics in a piece
that long, but I very seriously doubt you'd get a tube to bend under
aileron pressure until very near mach one - in which case you then have
a very different concern. So, the plan is-- one length of pushpull rod
from bellcrank to fuselage skin, a 6 to 8 inch inner splice held by a
couple of AN=3 bolts, and an approx 21 inch tube from control stick to
the other end of the inner splice. And, if I can lay hands on the
appropriate size aluminum bar, and well-centered drilled and tapped
holes in the bar, threadad ball rod ends to allow for adjustment, with
locknuts to keep them that way. (And, square tubing even looks cool.)
Paul Rodriguez
----- Original Message -----
From: ZodieRocket<mailto:zodierocket@hsfx.ca>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Ailerons
Problem is that in the XL the span for a push rod is quite large and
you have travel in a vertical as well as a horizontal range. With such a
run, to make a system that can handle the load that the cables are
capable of you would need to have a complicated bearing arrangement to
support the push rod in both movements. I imagine that the system can be
done safely with a complete change in which the way the controls
presently work, but just adding a rod with a few fittings would not be
able to handle the design loads that the cables can handle for a safe
conversion.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac CH650 C-GOXL, CH701 Rotax 912,
STOL CH750 Just started
www.ch601.org<http://www.ch601.org/> /
www.ch701.com<http://www.ch701.com/>/
www.Osprey2.com<http://www.osprey2.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger &
Lina Hill
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:12 PM
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Ailerons
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
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
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
To: "zenith-list@matronics.com" <zenith-list@matronics.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 8:38 AM
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less<http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001>.
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 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 |
|
Paul,
Please don't get carried away with armchair engineering.? Remember, control cables
only have to resist tension forces.? A control rod or tube must resist compression
also.? The capacity of tubing in compression is based on the loads being
axial, with NO eccentricity.? ANY eccentricity introduces bending which can
lead to buckling failure. The capacity is dependent on the strength of the material,
the area of the section, the length, the radius of gyration (r) and the
slenderness ratio (length over r)? Also you must take into account the loss
of sectional area when you drill for fasteners. That can weaken it as a stiff
structural member. If you aren't capable of doing these calculations, by all
means - get qualified help.? This is just to critical to "eyeball".
Jay Bannister?
-----Original Message-----
From: paulrod36@msn.com
About a week ago I dropped in at my friendly Airparts, and looked through
their stock, thinking in terms of pushpull tubes for my ailerons. I pulled out
some tubes ranging from 1-1/4 down to 3/4, and then looked at SQUARE tubing as
well. Pullin almost 12 feet of tube out of the racks, none of them were
particularly easy to bend by hand, and, at the roughly 7 feet from bellcrank to
fuselage skin, not of them had any appreciable sag. I suppose there might be
some harmonics in a piece that long, but I very seriously doubt you'd get a tube
to bend under aileron pressure until very near mach one - in which case you then
have a very different concern.? So, the plan is-- one length of pushpull
rod from bellcrank to fuselage skin, a 6 to 8 inch inner splice held by a couple
of AN=3 bolts, and an approx 21 inch tube from control stick to the other end of
the inner splice. And, if I can lay hands on the appropriate size aluminum bar,
and well-centered drilled and tapped holes in the bar, threadad ball? rod
ends to allow for adjustment, with locknuts to keep them that way.? (And,
square tubing even looks cool.)
?
Paul Rodriguez
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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 |
|
Jerry of Georgia, where are you? I'm Bill of Georgia. Call me and I'll be
happy and glad to show you my XL, what I have done in detail and let you fly
it, if you know how to fly. Call 478-731-9678 during the day. Best regards,
Bill of Georgia
In a message dated 3/18/2009 12:54:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Jeyoung65@aol.com writes:
Bill, Just a question for me, did you install push-pull rods for the rudder
or elevator? I believe the big flutter problems is related to loose control.
This can be worn bolts, worn bearings or loose bolts as well as low cable
tension. As Mr. Townsend said a long rod can be subject to bending- not a big
problem and easy to correct with thicker walls or larger OD tubes. Jerry of GA
In a message dated 3/18/2009 10:55:00 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
japhillipsga@aol.com writes:
Roger, I like Mark. He's a great guy and he cooks good hamburgers, but my
opinion on this subject is just different than his. Whether the cables are
"stronger" than push rods is not the issue. They may or may not be, but it does
not matter because either system far exceeds the utility stress the XL air
frame, wings and HS will endure. The wings and HS will have already failed and
ripped clear and hit the ground long before either the push rod or cables
fail. The reason for rods over cable is aileron flutter and harmonic dynamic
resonance dampening. If the issue is mere strength why not install 1/4 inch
cables or 1/2 inch cables as opposed to 1/8th? They certainly are "stronger" than
the ones ZAC has on their plans. What may be of concern is that pointing at
the product and saying "there may be a better way" stimulates anxiety even
more that having "mysterious" crashes where the wings fail for no particular
observed reason. My XL and I s urvived unexpected and unwelcome aileron flutter
with cables. It maybe just me a another fellow who ever survived to tell
about it. I built, own and fly a Zenith 601 XL that I am very proud of and
believe it (with modifications) to be the safest XL flying. Anybody interested
is
welcome to come, see and compair. Best regards, Bill of Georgia
.
____________________________________
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? _Make dinner for $10 or less_
(http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) .
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
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 |
|
Paul, what your describing has been done and the photo sequence of how is
somewhere out there on the web. Mark Townsend put it on 601.org some time back,
but then he removed it for what ever reason. I'm tired of beating this horse
so maybe somebody else can help you with Phase I & II of the XL Push Rod
saga. Best of luck, Bill
In a message dated 3/18/2009 6:47:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
paulrod36@msn.com writes:
About a week ago I dropped in at my friendly Airparts, and looked through
their stock, thinking in terms of pushpull tubes for my ailerons. I pulled out
some tubes ranging from 1-1/4 down to 3/4, and then looked at SQUARE tubing as
well. Pullin almost 12 feet of tube out of the racks, none of them were
particularly easy to bend by hand, and, at the roughly 7 feet from bellcrank to
fuselage skin, not of them had any appreciable sag. I suppose there might be
some harmonics in a piece that long, but I very seriously doubt you'd get a
tube to bend under aileron pressure until very near mach one - in which case
you then have a very different concern. So, the plan is-- one length of
pushpull rod from bellcrank to fuselage skin, a 6 to 8 inch inner splice held
by a
couple of AN=3 bolts, and an approx 21 inch tube from control stick to the
other end of the inner splice. And, if I can lay hands on the appropriate size
aluminum bar, and well-centered drilled and tapped holes in the bar,
threadad ball rod ends to allow for adjustment, with locknuts to keep them that
way. (And, square tubing even looks cool.)
Paul Rodriguez
----- Original Message -----
From: _ZodieRocket_ (mailto:zodierocket@hsfx.ca)
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Ailerons
Problem is that in the XL the span for a push rod is quite large and you
have travel in a vertical as well as a horizontal range. With such a run, to
make a system that can handle the load that the cables are capable of you would
need to have a complicated bearing arrangement to support the push rod in
both movements. I imagine that the system can be done safely with a complete
change in which the way the controls presently work, but just adding a rod with
a few fittings would not be able to handle the design loads that the cables
can handle for a safe conversion.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac CH650 C-GOXL, CH701 Rotax 912,
STOL CH750 Just started
_www.ch601.org_ (http://www.ch601.org/) / _www.ch701.com_
(http://www.ch701.com/) / _www.Osprey2.com_ (http://www.osprey2.com/)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger & Lina Hill
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Ailerons
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.
____________________________________
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? _Make dinner for $10 or less_
(http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001) .
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref="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)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
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 |
|
Paul;
Airparts? Do you mean "the" Airparts store in Kansas City?
I'm in Lawrence.
Roger
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
paulrod36@msn.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Ailerons
About a week ago I dropped in at my friendly Airparts, and looked through
their stock, thinking in terms of pushpull tubes for my ailerons. I pulled
out some tubes ranging from 1-1/4 down to 3/4, and then looked at SQUARE
tubing as well. Pullin almost 12 feet of tube out of the racks, none of them
were particularly easy to bend by hand, and, at the roughly 7 feet from
bellcrank to fuselage skin, not of them had any appreciable sag. I suppose
there might be some harmonics in a piece that long, but I very seriously
doubt you'd get a tube to bend under aileron pressure until very near mach
one - in which case you then have a very different concern. So, the plan
is-- one length of pushpull rod from bellcrank to fuselage skin, a 6 to 8
inch inner splice held by a couple of AN=3 bolts, and an approx 21 inch tube
from control stick to the other end of the inner splice. And, if I can lay
hands on the appropriate size aluminum bar, and well-centered drilled and
tapped holes in the bar, threadad ball rod ends to allow for adjustment,
with locknuts to keep them that way. (And, square tubing even looks cool.)
Paul Rodriguez
----- Original Message -----
From: ZodieRocket <mailto:zodierocket@hsfx.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:35 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Ailerons
Problem is that in the XL the span for a push rod is quite large and you
have travel in a vertical as well as a horizontal range. With such a run, to
make a system that can handle the load that the cables are capable of you
would need to have a complicated bearing arrangement to support the push rod
in both movements. I imagine that the system can be done safely with a
complete change in which the way the controls presently work, but just
adding a rod with a few fittings would not be able to handle the design
loads that the cables can handle for a safe conversion.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac CH650 C-GOXL, CH701 Rotax 912,
STOL CH750 Just started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com/ www.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger & Lina
Hill
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Ailerons
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.
_____
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner
<http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001> for $10 or
less.
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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 |
|
Mark;
Ok, forget the Aileron push rods. What about balancing the Ailerons? My
Sonerai had a simple way to balance the ailerons. The Ailerons run the full
length of the
wings right out to the tips. At the aileron tips, the tip itself extends
forward of the aileron and tucks into the fiber glass wing tip itself, this
forward tip is where the counterbrace mass is located. Simple and works.
Could it be used on the 601XL?
Roger
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ZodieRocket
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:36 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Ailerons
Problem is that in the XL the span for a push rod is quite large and you
have travel in a vertical as well as a horizontal range. With such a run, to
make a system that can handle the load that the cables are capable of you
would need to have a complicated bearing arrangement to support the push rod
in both movements. I imagine that the system can be done safely with a
complete change in which the way the controls presently work, but just
adding a rod with a few fittings would not be able to handle the design
loads that the cables can handle for a safe conversion.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac CH650 C-GOXL, CH701 Rotax 912,
STOL CH750 Just started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com/ www.Osprey2.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger & Lina
Hill
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:12 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Ailerons
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.
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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! --
|