Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:14 AM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Rick Lindstrom)
2. 06:24 AM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (purplemoon99@bellsouth.net)
3. 06:26 AM - Zenith-reactions to the NTSB. (Beckman, Rick)
4. 06:28 AM - Re: War time rationing, etc. (jaybannist@cs.com)
5. 07:29 AM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Jay Maynard)
6. 07:42 AM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to... (Jay Maynard)
7. 07:50 AM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to the NTSB. (Jay Maynard)
8. 08:51 AM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to t (Gig Giacona)
9. 09:08 AM - Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to... (JohnDRead@aol.com)
10. 09:12 AM - Re: Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions ... (JohnDRead@aol.com)
11. 09:53 AM - WW intake for 601 question (601corvair)
12. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: War time rationing, etc. (Gary Gower)
13. 10:28 AM - Re: Lets all get a grip here........ (Rich Simmons)
14. 03:34 PM - Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks. (Juan Vega)
15. 05:21 PM - New Zeland XL Safety Recommendation - Continuing Airworthiness Notice (T. Graziano)
16. 05:22 PM - Re: Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions ... (T. Graziano)
17. 06:12 PM - Discussions about the 601XL (lwhitlow)
18. 06:33 PM - Re: Discussions about the 601XL (jaybannist@cs.com)
19. 06:38 PM - Re: Discussions about the 601XL (steve)
20. 06:43 PM - Re: Discussions about the 601XL (lwhitlow)
21. 07:08 PM - serial number (Carlos Sa)
22. 08:42 PM - Re: Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to t (Paul Mulwitz)
23. 09:06 PM - Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks. (Paul Mulwitz)
24. 09:20 PM - Re: Discussions about the 601XL (Paul Mulwitz)
25. 09:24 PM - Re: serial number (Paul Mulwitz)
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
Hi, Ron.
Your $0.02 is worth so much more than that, you've just stated a very well-reasoned
and clear assessment of the 601 issue. And I'm using the word "issue" because
it is exactly that, we seem to have elements of a lynch-mob mentality at
play here that appears to feed on itself instead of hard facts.
Throw around words like "problem" and "flutter" in cyberspace enough times, and
it becomes accepted as fact. As far as I know, there still have been no concrete
findings from any reliable source about a single source of the 601 crashes.
We tend to lose sight of the big picture sometimes here, which is that everybody
involved; builder, pilot, manufacturer, insurer, or passenger; ALL would
like to put this matter to rest and get back to building and flying.
Personally, I'm appalled that so many here, people I've considered good cyber-friends
in the past, have indulged in name calling, character assassination, outright
threats, and other forms of rudeness over this matter. There's been no
shortage of chest-thumping and posturing either, and although it might feel good
at the moment, it can be very damaging long term. Words are powerful, and
they do have meaning. And these messages stay with us long after the "send" button
is pressed.
Do we really want to impugn the integrity of a fine light aircraft manufacturer
that is working hard on this, and alienate them? If so, what will we do for factory
support? True, it's frustrating not to hear anything from them while the
chatter reaches a fever pitch on the list, but I think they're wise in only
releasing information that's solidly researched and confirmed. In my opinion,
there are a few folks here who owe the Heintz family a large apology. We all trusted
them enough to buy their airplane kit, and trust our lives to it. Let's
trust them a bit more to address this issue in their usual conservative, scientific
manner.
Those who think the risk of flying their 601s is currently too great have voluntarily
grounded them, which is wise in my opinion. Those who don't, haven't. This
is OK, too. Every time we strap on an airplane, we go through a new risk analysis
session, and make decisions accordingly. My own 601XL lost its hangar
space last fall, so I moved it to my shop for some upgrades in the meantime. Until
I can find another hangar for it, it will remain AOG. But I was flying it
regularily even while this debate was already hot and heavy, as it's proven its
airworthiness time and time again, and still shows zero signs of any sort of
incipent design flaw after encountering all sorts of weather and turbulence.
Let's not forget that builder care, pilot technique, and accumulated airframe stresses
might also play some huge parts here. Loose or oversized spar bolts, rough
handling of the stick at high airspeeds, unauthorized aerobatics, or improper
airframe materials all seem to go unnoticed here while the emphasis centers
on aileron flutter (which although likely, has still not been proven to the
point of requiring mods beyond keeping proper cable tension).
I certainly don't want any more crashes and fatalities. No one does. Everyone who
has a 601, or loves someone who flies one, has a dog in this fight. But, please,
let's not let our fear and uncertainty result in biting the hands that feed
us while we await the hard data. Let's not demonize those who should be our
staunchest allies, because only through working as a team will we resolve this
in the shortest order. To do otherwise only drags things out, and stifles the
free exchange of crucial information.
Sorry this was so long, gang.
Rick Lindstrom
Zenvair N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ronald Steele <rsteele@rjsit.com>
>Sent: Apr 22, 2009 8:42 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions
to the NTSB.
>
>
>A. List a bunch of crashes with no known causes.
>B. Tell us how terrible flutter is
>C. Tell us that it's important to keep the cables tensioned to avoid
>flutter
>D. Tell us that's not good enough solution to avoid flutter.
>E. Ground fleet.
>
>Notice there is no connection between A and anything else.
>This is post/ad-hoc reasoning.
>Plus, the NTSB must be aware of further engineering testing taking
>place on the design. Putting out a report like this when other real
>data will be available shortly raises my eyebrows. And, this further
>testing may actually tie all these pieces together.
>
>I want this problem fixed as bad as anyone else.
>I also think this report is a sloppy, poorly reasoned waste of tax
>dollars.
>
>Is flutter the problem? As the report states there is circumstantial
>evidence. I don't pretend to know, and based on this report any
>engineer worth his education wouldn't accept it as a statement of fact
>either.
>
>You may posit that circumstantial evidence is enough to ground the
>fleet. Obviously others disagree. I'm not flying yet (or any time
>soon) so my horse really isn't in that race. But I will say this.
>Making any engineering changes based on such a report is foolhardy.
>You could as easily give people false confidence in an otherwise
>flawed design as actually fix the problem.
>
>I'm not making any judgement about anybody's decision to fly or not.
>That's personal. I do think the Heintz's response is reasonable and
>criticizing the way they are handling this off the mark.
>
>That's my $.02 worth - and it's all your getting :-)
>
>Ron
>do not archive
>
>
>On Apr 22, 2009, at 9:28 PM, ihab.awad@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Ronald Steele <rsteele@rjsit.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I think one of the issues here is that the NTSB report appears to be
>>> internally inconsistent.
>>
>> In the spirit of soliciting information rather than challenging your
>> assertion: I'm sure you've come to this conclusion carefully. Since
>> you seem to have read it closely and since it's important to have
>> several eyes on something to pick it apart, could you list exactly
>> which items you find inconsistent, with page numbers and stuff?
>>
>> Ihab
>>
>> --
>> Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
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: | Zenith-reactions to the NTSB. |
Excellent post, Rick, and I could not agree more!!!
Rick Beckman
Zodie Rocket XL
N-52EB
Wheels up soon!
Zenith-List message posted by: Rick Lindstrom
Your $0.02 is worth so much more than that, you've just stated a very well-reasoned
and clear assessment of the 601 issue. And I'm using the word "issue" because
it is exactly that, we seem to have elements of a lynch-mob mentality at
play here that appears to feed on itself instead of hard facts.
Throw around words like "problem" and "flutter" in cyberspace enough times, and
it becomes accepted as fact. As far as I know, there still have been no concrete
findings from any reliable source about a single source of the 601 crashes.
We tend to lose sight of the big picture sometimes here, which is that everybody
involved; builder, pilot, manufacturer, insurer, or passenger; ALL would
like to put this matter to rest and get back to building and flying.
Personally, I'm appalled that so many here, people I've considered good cyber-friends
in the past, have indulged in name calling, character assassination, outright
threats, and other forms of rudeness over this matter. There's been no
shortage of chest-thumping and posturing either, and although it might feel good
at the moment, it can be very damaging long term. Words are powerful, and
they do have meaning. And these messages stay with us long after the "send" button
is pressed.
Do we really want to impugn the integrity of a fine light aircraft manufacturer
that is working hard on this, and alienate them? If so, what will we do for factory
support? True, it's frustrating not to hear anything from them while the
chatter reaches a fever pitch on the list, but I think they're wise in only
releasing information that's solidly researched and confirmed. In my opinion,
there are a few folks here who owe the Heintz family a large apology. We all trusted
them enough to buy their airplane kit, and trust our lives to it. Let's
trust them a bit more to address this issue in their usual conservative, scientific
manner.
Those who think the risk of flying their 601s is currently too great have voluntarily
grounded them, which is wise in my opinion. Those who don't, haven't. This
is OK, too. Every time we strap on an airplane, we go through a new risk analysis
session, and make decisions accordingly. My own 601XL lost its hangar
space last fall, so I moved it to my shop for some upgrades in the meantime. Until
I can find another hangar for it, it will remain AOG. But I was flying it
regularily even while this debate was already hot and heavy, as it's proven its
airworthiness time and time again, and still shows zero signs of any sort of
incipent design flaw after encountering all sorts of weather and turbulence.
Let's not forget that builder care, pilot technique, and accumulated airframe stresses
might also play some huge parts here. Loose or oversized spar bolts, rough
handling of the stick at high airspeeds, unauthorized aerobatics, or improper
airframe materials all seem to go unnoticed here while the emphasis centers
on aileron flutter (which although likely, has still not been proven to the
point of requiring mods beyond keeping proper cable tension).
I certainly don't want any more crashes and fatalities. No one does. Everyone who
has a 601, or loves someone who flies one, has a dog in this fight. But, please,
let's not let our fear and uncertainty result in biting the hands that feed
us while we await the hard data. Let's not demonize those who should be our
staunchest allies, because only through working as a team will we resolve this
in the shortest order. To do otherwise only drags things out, and stifles the
free exchange of crucial information.
Rick Lindstrom
Zenvair N42KP
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: War time rationing, etc. |
Gary,
During WWII, 4F was a classification of physical condition that meant that
person was not physically qualified to serve in the armed forces. As an
aside, in my home town, most of the 4F guys were older; and most of them
spent a lot of time doing heavy duty odd jobs for ladies whose husbands
were serving in the military.=C2-
During that war, there was rationing of a lot of things that were vital to
the war effort, including a lot of food items (meat, sugar, butter, chees
e), gasoline, tires, etc.=C2- Every car had a square sticker with a sing
le letter, stuck on the windshield. As I recall, ours was a "C". The class
ification determined how much gasoline and other automotive related stuff
one could purchase.=C2- In the cartoon, the "A" sticker was the lowest
allotment, I think only about 4 gallons per week. There was also a 40 mph
speed limit on all highways to save on gasoline and wear and tear on tire
s. We had a 1941 Chrysler that had to last until the war was over.=C2-
I can remember a couple of times, Mother ran out of gas before we got hom
e and we had to push it a couple of blocks to home.=C2- Because my fathe
r was serving in the Marine Corps, my mother could shop at the commissary
at the local Army Air Corps air field. She still had to use her allotted
food ration stamps to buy a lot of things. =C2- We younger boys REALLY
suffered.=C2- We couldn't get bubble gum, nor caps for our cap guns !!.
One of my uncles was in charge of anythi
ng related to photography at the Pentagon.=C2- He sent us a 16mm project
or and a lot of military training films for our entertainment. Many of tho
se films were animated cartoons like the Bugs Bunny one. One of my favorit
es was about the elements of camoflage featuring an animated camelion. Ano
ther of my favorites was about loose lips (ie: "loose lips sink ships") an
d rumors.=C2- This one started out with someone talking about the "balmy
weather" which eventually turned into a rumor about a bombing raid.
At my elementary school we had weekly air raid drills.=C2- We were not
at all likely to be a bombing target, so I think it was mostly to stress
the fact that we were at war.=C2- We saved and donated the "tin foil"
from chewing gum wrappers (to be used as chat dropped from airplanes) and
bought 10 cent war bond stamps. The stamps were pasted in a little book.
=C2- When the book was full, we could trade it for a real war bond. We
also had a "victory garden" in our back yard to save food for our troops.
We were at war and EVERYONE participated in one way or another.
Jay Bannister
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:59 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Lets all get a grip here........
Sincerely I dont know, but will like to know,=C2- saw that cartoon lots
of times as a kid (translated to spanish, of course).
=C2-
Saludos
=0
A
Gary Gower
do not archive.
--- On Wed, 4/22/09, jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com> wrote:
From: jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Lets all get a grip here........
I think I saw this one when it first came out. Bet a lot of you don't know
what the "4F" on Bugs' heart means or what an "A" ration sticker is about
.
Do not archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Roskind <frankroskind@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 3:14 pm
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Lets all get a grip here........
I think I found the real cause of the inflight breakups-gremlins: http://w
ww.youtube.com/watch?v=D1xqrdtJs8w
Do not archive
Rediscover Hotmail=C2=AE: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. Ch
eck it out.
& Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
ator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
arget=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Li
st
=nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
======3
D========================
=====
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:42:23PM -0400, Ronald Steele wrote:
> I want this problem fixed as bad as anyone else.
> I also think this report is a sloppy, poorly reasoned waste of tax dollars.
I think there are only a few people with their heads firmly planted...in the
sand that don't think there's a problem here somewhere. With that said, I'm
coming around to the idea that the NTSB's recommendation bears only passing
resemblance to reality.
I agree that the NTSB's accident investigators and scientists are the class
of the world. However, I wasn't aware that the Board itself was composed of
three political appointees. They didn't reach their conclusion in a vacuum,
but they may not haveunderstood all of the words in their agency's accident
reports, either. Unless you know what flutter is and how it happens, the
statement "no oscillatory overloading of control surfaces was present" may
not mean anything to you.
I continue to believe there's some fire under all of the smoke. It's the
NTSB's job to Do Something when a pattern of crashes appears. They Did
Something. Whether it's the right Something will be more apparent when the
Heintz' report is done.
Lots of folks have seized on aileron flutter as the cause. Something has to
explain the fact that N158MD's left aileron departed the aircraft before
anything else. If not flutter, what? Facts are inconvenient things, some
times.
Until the naysayers can explain why N158MD fell out of the sky - and no,
it's not builder error on a factory aircraft, and it's not pilot error
(would a 79-year-old man who's taking his wife on her first flight in the
new airplane wring it out? No!), so that leaves only other, less easily
digested explanations.
Until we find those explanations, there will still be a cloud over the type
- and with justification.
--
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 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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to...
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:29:57AM -0400, JohnDRead@aol.com wrote:
> The problem with zbaggers is that even though they have hired a
> "professional engineer" they still keep spouting hearsay and inuendo which
> is just clouding any issues that Zenith aircraft MAY or may not have. As I
> have said before, if you "know " so much about what is wrong with the 601
> why do you not design your own airplanes and leave Zenith aircraft to
> those of us who are comfortable with the designs of a person of the
> stature and experience of Chris Heintz.
Aw, cmon, John. The next thing you'll tell us is that the only reason Chris
Heintz does not take regular walks across Lake Geneva is because he doesn't
like having wet shoes!
Nobody's perfect. Not even Chris Heintz.
Until an explanation is found, everything is suspect. Even the aircraft's
design. Recognizing the facts is not hysteria. It's an essential component
of a calm, sober analysis of the problem and its resolution.
Until the facts can be explained, we'll continue to have to deal with the
fallout of 6 inflight breakups in 2 years. We don't have a choice in the
matter. We can't stick our heads...in the sand, no matter how much we wish
the problem will simply go away. It won't.
I'm not an aircraft designer. I'm a computer geek. I'm not going to presume
for a moment that aileron mass balances are the one and only answer. I'm not
qualified to make that call. However, when every aeronautical engineer I've
spoken with has said that cable tension alone is not sufficient to prevent
flutter, and when every bit of FAA guidance on the subject says that it's
not, I'm going to come to the conclusion that adding mass balances is a
Good Thing unless it's demonstrated conclusively to me that the Zodiac
design is not susceptible to it.
I don't know if that's the fix. That's why I, along with others, asked a
couple of engineers to look at the design and come up with recommendations.
I'm highly disappointed that there's a segment of the Zenith community that
has chosen to demonize those of us who saw a need for an independent look at
the design and put our own money where our mouths are, just as I'm
disappointed that ZBAG has chosen, so far, not to release the results that
it furnished to the NTSB. Neither action is helpful to the overall goal: to
make sure we have aircraft that are safe to fly throughout their entire
envelope.
--
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 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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to the NTSB.
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 09:13:22AM -0400, Rick Lindstrom wrote:
> I certainly don't want any more crashes and fatalities. No one does.
> Everyone who has a 601, or loves someone who flies one, has a dog in this
> fight. But, please, let's not let our fear and uncertainty result in
> biting the hands that feed us while we await the hard data. Let's not
> demonize those who should be our staunchest allies, because only through
> working as a team will we resolve this in the shortest order. To do
> otherwise only drags things out, and stifles the free exchange of crucial
> information.
I agree. While I was disappointed in the original response of the Heintz
family to the problems (and that's why I sent ZBAG money), they definitely
appear to be taking the problem seriously now. Browbeating them over the
issue isn't going to do anyone any good. I've since heard an independent
report of the 601 forum at Sun n Fun from someone I trust, and I'd have
joined the calls for one person to sit down and let others talk had I been
there.
We're all in this together, folks. We all want the same thing. Let's quit
beating each other up and see if we can't fix the problem.
--
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 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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to t
Paul,
When I first read your diatribe yesterday morning I decided to really think about
your post before I replied. Im glad I did, because most of what I would have
said was said by others. But mainly because your responses to those posts, along
with the original post, show that you are at least somewhat skewed in your
thinking. Lets face it there are a lot of folks that would brag about their
ability to kill people with their bare hands in a forum such as this especially
when discussing a topic such as this. And since you admitted to being very emotional
in my dealings with the Heintz brothers, Sebastian and especially Matthew.
Im surprised they spent any time talking to you at all. I know I wouldnt
have in their position.
You have made the decision to ground your airplane and that is your right. If you
arent comfortable flying it then you most certainly shouldnt. But your overwhelming
belief that the NTSB is right and anything they say should be followed
without question shows that you know very little about the way government works
in general and the way aviation rules in particular are made. As has already
been made clear the NTSB isnt the final say in matters such as this and they
were never designed to be. And that is a good thing. It is called checks and
balances and you will see it throughout our government.
In one of your posts today you again show that you dont understand how the NTSB
process works. You seem to think there is some wall of separation between the
board members and the investigators. There isnt. The board members make their
decisions based on the reports of the NTSB investigators as well as outside data
that is available. In this case it seems they are completely ignoring their
investigators and relying heavily on outside data. I say this because the only
mention in any NTSB investigative report concerning flutter is in that there
is no direct evidence that it took place in the accident aircraft. Im not saying
that flutter did not happen. I am saying that I dont know and neither does
the NTSB.
The NTSB reports quotes several 601XL pilots that experienced what they described
as flutter. In all cases cited cables were not tensioned properly. The only
place where the NTSB letter says an accident 601XL may have experienced flutter
with properly tensioned cables is the Antelope Island accident in March of
this year. The builder, who was not flying the plane, states the aileron tension
was checked before first flight and again 6 flight hours before the accident.
I have two problems with this. First and foremost I am shocked that the board
is taking action based on an accident where the investigation is anywhere close
to finished. Second, and Im not making any statement about this individual
builder, but for him to say anything other than the cables were tensioned properly
would be was is known as A Statement Against Interest. And this would all
be fine but the NTSB letter seems to be using it as the basis for their position
that proper aileron tension is not enough to provide protection from flutter.
Another place where the NTSB report seems out of phase with the real world is the
first page where they mention in the footnote #2 that there are planes with
both hingeless and hinged ailerons. But, in the body they are saying that all
the planes are is essentially the same. This statement is absurd. To ignore the
fact that not a single hingeless aircraft has been involved in one of the accidents
makes me question the NTSBs decision process and motives. It also removes
what might well be the easiest and most practical fix for the problem, i.e.
Replace the hinged ailerons with the hingeless design.
Lets all remember how the hinged option came about in the first place. Many people
thought the hingeless design was weird or didnt trust it despite the testing
that is shown on the Zenith website. So Zenith caved and presented builders
with a hinged option. Time may prove that this was a fatal mistake on Zeniths
part. Think about this. The hingeless ailerons are stiffer than the hinged variety.
If a cable is loose allowing flutter to develop it is only logical to conclude
that the stiffer aileron is going to less susceptible to it and even if
it does develop easier to get under control. Anecdotal (hey if it is good enough
for the NTSB) reports bare this out because there are reports of loose cables
on hingeless models developing early stage flutter that was controlled by
pilot action.
The other issue that the NTSB seems to have an issue with the gradient of force
on the elevator. This has really never been much of an issue though Zenith did
provide the elevator stop modification to reduce over control. I cant speak
much on this because I have yet to be able to fly the 601XL in the parts of the
envelope where it might be an issue. But it is my view that this is a training
issue. There is precedent for the NTSB and the FAA to deal with this issue
via training. For more information on that Id suggest you Google SFAR 74.
Finally, Id like to point out that at one time the issue of the design strength
in general was questions. The only issue that the NTSB seemed to have was with
the Ultimate Design Load and that it may fall short of +6Gs but only slightly.
Easy fix, get out your plans if you are building or your log and POA if you
are flying. Take a pen and mark out +6Gs and write in +5Gs.
The following is for the builders only. Those of you that seem to have lost all faith in the design, designer and the company that sold you the plans; I see no option for you other than give up on the plane. There are those of you that will never be happy and life is to short to spend time building a plane you are not happy with. You will be out some money but stuff happens. And since lawsuits have been mentioned both here and in other places Id suggest you go back and read the CONDITIONS OF SALE AND WARNING NOTICE that not only you but also your spouse or next of kin signed when you bought your plans or kit. Heres a link: http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/data/601-price-orderform.pdf
--------
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=240913#240913
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to...
Well Jay;
The trick to walking "on" water is to know where the rocks are below
the surface!
I was not intending to infer the Chris Heintz is perfect either, no
body is BUT he has a good record in aviation engineering.
While six planes having a problem in two year is troublesome it is
quite a low failure rate. So far the only common failure is that something
caused the wings to separate, now as has been pointed out there are several
possible causes, pilot error; flying the aircraft outside design limits,
showing off and over speeding or overloading the airframe. Inadequate
construction. Inappropriate modifications, flutter, improper adjustment of control
cables and so on.
The zbaggers are not an "official" group so why are they not being
transparent with the alleged information they have? Let's see the
qualifications of those who claim to be doing structural analysis and verify their
calculations.
do not archive
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
**************Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the
web. Get the Radio Toolbar!
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000003)
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
...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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: | WW intake for 601 question |
Does anyone have a WW designed intake for the 601 series? I have questions
about a
measurement.- Thanks. I can be reached off list at:- airvair601 at yaho
o.com
phill hartig
=0A=0A=0A
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: War time rationing, etc. |
Thanks a lot Jay,
-
Great explanation,- I appreciate it very much.
-
I knew all of that as part of reading,-history books, from Mom and Dad, b
ut without that specific things as- 4F etc.--
-
I also remember Mom told us about the tin foil,- here also-Mexicans sen
t the tinfoil of the cigarette packages and chewing gum to send it over, he
re-was a very active campain to support of the Allieds (sp?).-
-
In fact Dad served in WW2--as a Tail Machine Gunner.
-
He always told us and in-parties (I loved all his histories, even in his
last years when I was adult) that he was very sad...- He trained a lot, r
ight now I cant remember how many-time-(months or years?) , when they w
ere ready and traveling in the train from the trainning camp to New York to
go to Europe, the war ended!
He wanted so much to be there...-
-
Thanks a lot once more.
-
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Do not archive.
--- On Thu, 4/23/09, jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com> wrote:
From: jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: War time rationing, etc.
Gary,
During WWII, 4F was a classification of physical condition that meant that
person was not physically qualified to serve in the armed forces. As an asi
de, in my home town, most of the 4F guys were older; and most of them spent
a lot of time doing heavy duty odd jobs for ladies whose husbands were ser
ving in the military.-
During that war, there was rationing of a lot of things that were vital to
the war effort, including a lot of food items (meat, sugar, butter, cheese)
, gasoline, tires, etc.- Every car had a square sticker with a single let
ter, stuck on the windshield. As I recall, ours was a "C". The classificati
on determined how much gasoline and other automotive related stuff one coul
d purchase.- In the cartoon, the "A" sticker was the lowest allotment, I
think only about 4 gallons per week. There was also a 40 mph speed limit on
all highways to save on gasoline and wear and tear on tires. We had a 1941
Chrysler that had to last until the war was over.- I can remember a coup
le of times, Mother ran out of gas before we got home and we had to push it
a couple of blocks to home.- Because my father was serving in the Marine
Corps, my mother could shop at the commissary at the local Army Air Corps
air field. She still had to use her allotted food ration stamps to buy a
lot of things. - We younger boys REALLY suffered.- We couldn't get bub
ble gum, nor caps for our cap guns !!.
One of my uncles was in charge of anything related to photography at the Pe
ntagon.- He sent us a 16mm projector and a lot of military training films
for our entertainment. Many of those films were animated cartoons like the
Bugs Bunny one. One of my favorites was about the elements of camoflage fe
aturing an animated camelion. Another of my favorites was about loose lips
(ie: "loose lips sink ships") and rumors.- This one started out with some
one talking about the "balmy weather" which eventually turned into a rumor
about a bombing raid.
At my elementary school we had weekly air raid drills.- We were not at al
l likely to be a bombing target, so I think it was mostly to stress the fac
t that we were at war.- We saved and donated the "tin foil" from chewing
gum wrappers (to be used as chat dropped from airplanes) and bought 10 cent
war bond stamps. The stamps were pasted in a little book.- When the book
was full, we could trade it for a real war bond. We also had a "victory ga
rden" in our back yard to save food for our troops.
We were at war and EVERYONE participated in one way or another.
Jay Bannister
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:59 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Lets all get a grip here........
Sincerely I dont know, but will like to know,- saw that cartoon lots of t
imes as a kid (translated to spanish, of course).
-
Saludos
Gary Gower
do not archive.
--- On Wed, 4/22/09, jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com> wrote:
From: jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Lets all get a grip here........
I think I saw this one when it first came out. Bet a lot of you don't know
what the "4F" on Bugs' heart means or what an "A" ration sticker is about.
Do not archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Roskind <frankroskind@HOTMAIL.COM>
Se nt: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 3:14 pm
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Lets all get a grip here........
#yiv1507071032 #AOLMsgPart_2_ea519373-350a-46d1-9dd6-25f4ac57c2f6 #yiv42706
6813 #AOLMsgPart_2_f5b4e2fa-c065-4dbe-a20a-4ae3d508887a .hmmessage P{margin
:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv1507071032 #AOLMsgPart_2_ea519373-350a-46d1-9dd6-25f4
ac57c2f6 #yiv427066813 #AOLMsgPart_2_f5b4e2fa-c065-4dbe-a20a-4ae3d508887a b
ody.hmmessage{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
I think I found the real cause of the inflight breakups-gremlins: http://ww
w.youtube.com/watch?v=D1xqrdtJs8w
Do not archive
Rediscover Hotmail=AE: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. Check
it out.
& Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
ator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
arget=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-Lis
t
=nofollow>http://forums.matronics.com
blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
ator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
t also available via the Web Forums!
ttp://forums.matronics.com
ibution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
=0A=0A=0A
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: Lets all get a grip here........ |
Finally,
Someone on this list said something worth while!
You know, he who talks most knows less than most listening!
Rich
601 XL
Frustrated
Wanting to buy my engine but . . .
patiently waiting!
I think I found the real cause of the inflight breakups-gremlins: http://ww
w.youtube.com/watch?v=D1xqrdtJs8w
Do not archive
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks. |
Paul,
kidding asside, I will fly your first flight for you if you want. it is a scarty
thing the first flight, if that is the concern, I will do it. i just need
to see the DAR report, the wing bolts propoerly torqued , the wired tensioned,
with that, I can do it. Ids the plane in Florida? the first three flightsd
should be just hops and brake burnins. then the second should be 50 ft up then
a controled glide to check the steering. then upa dn away for a once around.
let me know.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Apr 22, 2009 11:58 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Different Strokes for Different Folks.
>
>
>First let me apologize to Jay for not addressing one of his big
>points when I was more interested in going to dinner.
>
>The point is about why it is reasonable for each of us to reach
>different decisions given the same set of data. The reason is we are
>actually facing different sets of issues even though our planes look the same.
>
>For a S-LSA owner, the decision of whether to fly or ground your
>plane is based solely on the design and quality of the factory work
>and the NTSB finding. For a kit or scratch builder there are
>additional issues.
>
>A builder, like me, has to consider the risk associated with flying
>an otherwise unproven plane that was built by an amateur (me) to the
>best of his ability. That could produce a really nice airplane or a
>death trap. These variations are without even considering the
>engineering issues being so heavily discussed these days. In essence
>they are about the actual quality of the individual builder's work.
>
>If my plane were not grounded, I would be taking it in its maiden
>flight this week or next. Even without the whole NTSB/Zen* mess I
>would be doing the most dangerous thing I have ever done in my life
>when I take that plane in the air for the first time. S-LSA owners
>never face this sort of risk. Their planes are built by
>professionals, tested by factory test pilots and delivered with some
>amount of dual instruction to help the new owner do a nice
>comfortable job of transitioning to flying his new plane which has
>already been proven to be airworthy.
>
>Restated in neat sounding technological jargon: The risk profile for
>my plane's next flight is considerably higher than the next flight
>for Juan or Jay. This is true not matter what you might think of the
>NTSB and their finding.
>
>If you look at it from my point of view, the risk for my first flight
>is very close to unbearable. I have decided that after 4 years of
>building my plane it is going to be me at the controls for its first
>flight. That adds another whole area of risk for me because I am
>only marginally qualified to perform such a risky flight in the first
>place. When you add the new cloud of the NTSB ruling to my huge pile
>of risk it pushes me over the edge and I MUST ground my plane.
>
>I can easily see that the total risk presented to Jay and Juan is
>nearly trivial compared to mine. It seems quite reasonable for them
>to continue flying the same plane that has been working just fine for
>them up to now. Given their circumstances I might make the same decision.
>
>I hope this philosophical presentation helps us understand that
>indeed we are not all in the same boat.
>
>Paul
>XL grounded
>
>
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: | New Zeland XL Safety Recommendation - Continuing Airworthiness |
Notice
FYI. From Aero News Network. NZ Safety Recommendation
=B7 Avoid flight in severe turbulence
=B7 Avoid high speeds and/or severe manoeuvres
=B7 Aerobatics, if permitted for your aircraft, should not be
attempted.
I do not necessarily agree flutter is cause, (still suspect structural
over load due to stick input - remember the Zodiac is not aerobatic and
rapid stick inputs (easily done) can cause accelerated stall (or worse
if above Va). I keep my speed down to or below Va in turbulence. The
NZ recommendations are worth considering for any and all light aircraft
not specifically designed/stressed for aerobatics
Tony Graziano
XL/Jab3300; N493TG 485 hrs
-------------------
New Zealand Issues CAN For Zenith and Zenair CH601 Series A/C
Continuing Airworthiness Notice - 27-003, Zenith and Zenair CH601
Aircraft Series Safety Recommendation
The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand has issued a Continuing
Airworthiness Notice regarding the Zenith and Zenair CH601 series, "in
the interests of aviation safety."
Continuing Airworthiness Notices (CAN) are intended to alert, educate,
and make recommendations to the aviation community. A CAN contains
non-regulatory information and guidance that does not meet the criteria
for an Airworthiness Directive (AD). The inspections and practices
described in this CAN must still be carried out in accordance with the
applicable NZCAR Parts 21, 43 and 91. CAA's
Applicable to 'All Zenith and Zenair CH601 series aircraft', the
'Continuing Airworthiness Notice (CAN) is to advise operators of Zenith
and Zenair CH601 series aircraft that there have been six in-flight
structural breakups of Zodiac CH601 XL aircraft since 2006. It appears
that aerodynamic flutter is the likely cause of four of the USA
accidents and at least two accidents in Europe. The aircraft
manufacturer believes flight control flutter will not occur if the
control cables are correctly adjusted. Zenair Europe on behalf of Zenair
Ltd issued SB No. ZE-2008-01 dated 28 October 2008 requiring the
inspection of all control cables for correct tension to prevent
aerodynamic flutter.'
Background
The Civil Aviation Authority of the Netherlands issued Emergency
Airworthiness Directive NL-2008-003 on 24 October 2008 grounding all
Zodiac CH601 XL aircraft (both factory and homebuilt) as an interim
measure pending their investigation of a fatal accident on 14 September
2008, in which it appears the wing broke up in flight. Since the issue
of the Netherlands AD the National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) issued
urgent Safety Recommendation A-09-30, dated 14 April 2009 addressed to
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requesting the grounding of
all Zodiac CH601 XL aircraft in the USA due to six in-flight structural
breakups since 2006. The FAA are looking into concerns about all
versions of the Zodiac CH601 XL aircraft and have no immediate plans to
call for the aircraft to be grounded citing the aircraft manufacturer
has already told operators to inspect aileron control cable tensions.
The aircraft manufacturer believes aerodynamic flutter will not occur if
the control cables are correctly tensioned and has issued SB No.
ZE-2008-01 dated 28 October 2008 requiring the inspection of all control
cable for correct tension. They have also posted a letter on
http://www.zenithair.com/ from the designer that relates to the
in-flight breakups.
Recommendation
The CAA will continue to monitor the situation closely but in the
interim we advise owners of Zenith and Zenair CH601 series aircraft to
exercise all possible caution in the operation of their aircraft. In
particular the CAA recommends you observe the following:
a.. Avoid flight in severe turbulence
b.. Avoid high speeds and/or severe manoeuvres
c.. Aerobatics, if permitted for your aircraft, should not be
attempted.
Inspection of the control cables in accordance with Zenair Europe SB No.
ZE-2008-01 is strongly recommended. Although the Netherlands AD is not
yet mandatory in New Zealand, the Civil Aviation Authority is in contact
with the FAA and the Netherlands Authority, and a NZ AD may be issued in
the near future. In the interim we wish to draw your attention to the
Netherlands AD, the NTSB urgent Safety Recommendation and the SB issued
by Zenair Ltd.
The NZ CAA recommends the review of documents available from
http://www.zenithair.com/ .
FMI:
www.caa.govt.nz/Airworthiness_Directives/Continuing_Airworthiness_Notices
/CAN_27-003.pdfNew Zealand Issues CAN For Zenith and Zenair CH601 Series
A/C
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
...
Ditto
Tony Graziano
XL/Jab3300
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: JohnDRead@aol.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz
clan reactions ...
Well said Gig. do not archive
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
In a message dated 4/23/2009 9:52:15 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
wrgiacona@gmail.com writes:
<wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Paul,
When I first read your diatribe yesterday morning I decided to
really think about your post before I replied.
I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m glad I did, because most of what I would have
said was said by others. But mainly because your responses to those
posts, along with the original post, show that you are at least somewhat
skewed in your thinking. Let=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s face it there are
a lot of folks that would brag about their ability to kill people with
their bare hands in a forum such as this especially when discussing a
topic such as this. And since you admitted to being
=C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93=C3=A2=82=AC=C2very emotional in my dealings
with the Heintz brothers, Sebastian and especially
Matthew.=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m surprised they
spent any time talking to you at all. I know I
wouldn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t have in their position.
You have made the decision to ground your airplane and that is your
right. If you aren=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t comfortable flying it then
you most certainly shouldn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t. But your
overwhelming belief that the NTSB is right and anything they say should
be followed without question shows that you know very little about the
way government works in general and the way aviation rules in particular
are made. As has already been made clear the NTSB
isn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t the final say in matters such as this and
they were never designed to be. And that is a good thing. It is called
checks and balances and you will see it throughout our government.
In one of your posts today you again show that you
don=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t understand how the NTSB process works. You
seem to think there is some wall of separation between the board members
and the investigators. There isn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t. The board
members make their decisions based on the reports of the NTSB
investigators as well as outside data that is available. In this case it
seems they are completely ignoring their investigators and relying
heavily on outside data. I say this because the only mention in any NTSB
investigative report concerning flutter is in that there is no direct
evidence that it took place in the accident aircraft.
I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m not saying that flutter did not happen. I am
saying that I don=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t know and neither does the
NTSB.
The NTSB reports quotes several 601XL pilots that experienced what
they described as flutter. In all cases cited cables were not tensioned
properly. The only place where the NTSB letter says an accident 601XL
=C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93may=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D have experienced flutter
with properly tensioned cables is the Antelope Island accident in March
of this year. The builder, who was not flying the plane, states the
aileron tension was checked before first flight and again 6 flight hours
before the accident. I have two problems with this. First and foremost I
am shocked that the board is taking action based on an accident where
the investigation is anywhere close to finished. Second, and
I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2m not making any statement about this
individual builder, but for him to say anything other than the cables
were tensioned properly would be was is known as =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93A
Statement Against Interest.=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D And this would all be
fine but the NTSB letter seems to be using it as the basis for their
position that proper aileron tension is not enough to provide protection
from flutter.
Another place where the NTSB report seems out of phase with the real
world is the first page where they mention in the footnote #2 that there
are planes with both hingeless and hinged ailerons. But, in the body
they are saying that all the planes are
=C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93=C3=A2=82=AC=C2is essentially the
same.=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D This statement is absurd. To ignore the fact
that not a single hingeless aircraft has been involved in one of the
accidents makes me question the NTSB=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s decision
process and motives. It also removes what might well be the easiest and
most practical fix for the problem, i.e. Replace the hinged ailerons
with the hingeless design.
Let=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s all remember how the hinged option came
about in the first place. Many people thought the hingeless design was
weird or didn=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t trust it despite the testing that
is shown on the Zenith website. So Zenith caved and presented builders
with a hinged option. Time may prove that this was a fatal mistake on
Zenith=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s part. Think about this. The hingeless
ailerons are =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93stiffer=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D than the
hinged variety. If a cable is loose allowing flutter to develop it is
only logical to conclude that the stiffer aileron is going to less
susceptible to it and even if it does develop easier to get under
control. Anecdotal (hey if it is good enough for the
NTSB=C3=A2=82=AC=C2) reports bare this out because there are
reports of loose cables on hingeless models developing early stage
flutter that was controlled by pilot action.
The other issue that the NTSB seems to have an issue with the
gradient of force on the elevator. This has really never been much of
an issue though Zenith did provide the elevator stop modification to
reduce over control. I can=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2t speak much on this
because I have yet to be able to fly the 601XL in the parts of the
envelope where it might be an issue. But it is my view that this is a
training issue. There is precedent for the NTSB and the FAA to deal with
this issue via training. For more information on that
I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2d suggest you Google SFAR 74.
Finally, I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2d like to point out that at one
time the issue of the design strength in general was questions. The only
issue that the NTSB seemed to have was with the Ultimate Design Load and
that it may fall short of +6Gs but only slightly. Easy fix, get out your
plans if you are building or your log and POA if you are flying. Take a
pen and mark out =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93+6Gs=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D and
write in =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93+5Gs=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D.
The following is for the builders only. Those of you that seem to
have lost all faith in the design, designer and the company that sold
you the plans; I see no option for you other than give up on the plane.
There are those of you that will never be happy and life is to short to
spend time building a plane you are not happy with. You will be out some
money but stuff happens. And since lawsuits have been mentioned both
here and in other places I=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2d suggest you go back
and read the =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93CONDITIONS OF SALE AND WARNING
NOTICE=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D that not only you but also your spouse or
next of kin signed when you bought your plans or kit.
Here=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s a link:
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/data/601-price-orderform.pdf
--------
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=240913#240913=====
================
=======================
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
=======================
- List Contribution Web Site sp;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
===========
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: | Discussions about the 601XL |
I realize that all of engage in Armchair engineering and by posing some of these
questions, answers are going to com in all over the lot but.....
Lets get the talk going here. I'm not tryin to second guess the engineers and
Zenith while they work the issue but I think some opinions and observations could
do us all good to understand the implications of any change or fix
So My first question is, Almost every one notes that the 601XL is sensitive to
very sensitive in pitch, and per a revised drawing from Zenith we have an elevator
stop now.
But why not just change the cable geometry to decrease overall movement of the
elevator (think moving the cable attachments closer together either at the elevator
end or the sticks end or both)?? If this was done would you still have
enough control throw at the slow end of the speed range?? This would make it
less likely to create a large input that could damage structure.
Secondly Has a 601XL wing been static tested to destruction?? Are there pictures???
Where were the failure points?? I'm not saying simply beef up that point
but it would help all of us to understand what the failure mode looks like
so we could start to understand the forces at play here.
Enough questions to start with Lets all play nice with our answers.
Larry Whitlow
601XL N69102 (reserved)
Flying this Summer COUNT ON IT!!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=240969#240969
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: Discussions about the 601XL |
Larry,
I think you have the geometry wrong.? Moving the cable attach points closer to
the hinge line would make it MORE sensitive, not less. However, I really don't
think there is enough room to move the attach points further out, either at the
forward bellcrank or at the elevator horns.? I would settle for something that
would make it progressively harder to move the stick the further you move
it from neutral. That wouldn't reduce the elevator effectiveness, but it would
make it harder to move the stick to extreme positions, fore or aft.
Jay Bannister
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: lwhitlow <ldwhitlow@comcast.net>
Sent: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 8:11 pm
Subject: Zenith-List: Discussions about the 601XL
I realize that all of engage in Armchair engineering and by posing some of these
questions, answers are going to com in all over the lot but.....
Lets get the talk going here. I'm not tryin to second guess the engineers and
Zenith while they work the issue but I think some opinions and observations
could do us all good to understand the implications of any change or fix
So My first question is, Almost every one notes that the 601XL is sensitive to
very sensitive in pitch, and per a revised drawing from Zenith we have an
elevator stop now.
But why not just change the cable geometry to decrease overall movement of the
elevator (think moving the cable attachments closer together either at the
elevator end or the sticks end or both)?? If this was done would you still have
enough control throw at the slow end of the speed range?? This would make it
less likely to create a large input that could damage structure.
Secondly Has a 601XL wing been static tested to destruction?? Are there
pictures??? Where were the failure points?? I'm not saying simply beef up that
point but it would help all of us to understand what the failure mode looks like
so we could start to understand the forces at play here.
Enough questions to start with Lets all play nice with our answers.
Larry Whitlow
601XL N69102 (reserved)
Flying this Summer COUNT ON IT!!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=240969#240969
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Discussions about the 601XL |
Like a parallel of bungees ?
----- Original Message -----
From: jaybannist@cs.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Discussions about the 601XL
Larry,
I think you have the geometry wrong. Moving the cable attach points
closer to the hinge line would make it MORE sensitive, not less.
However, I really don't think there is enough room to move the attach
points further out, either at the forward bellcrank or at the elevator
horns. I would settle for something that would make it progressively
harder to move the stick the further you move it from neutral. That
wouldn't reduce the elevator effectiveness, but it would make it harder
to move the stick to extreme positions, fore or aft.
Jay Bannister
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: lwhitlow <ldwhitlow@comcast.net>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 8:11 pm
Subject: Zenith-List: Discussions about the 601XL
I realize that all of engage in Armchair engineering and by posing some
of these
questions, answers are going to com in all over the lot but.....
Lets get the talk going here. I'm not tryin to second guess the
engineers and
Zenith while they work the issue but I think some opinions and
observations
could do us all good to understand the implications of any change or fix
So My first question is, Almost every one notes that the 601XL is
sensitive to
very sensitive in pitch, and per a revised drawing from Zenith we have
an
elevator stop now.
But why not just change the cable geometry to decrease overall movement
of the
elevator (think moving the cable attachments closer together either at
the
elevator end or the sticks end or both)?? If this was done would you
still have
enough control throw at the slow end of the speed range?? This would
make it
less likely to create a large input that could damage structure.
Secondly Has a 601XL wing been static tested to destruction?? Are there
pictures??? Where were the failure points?? I'm not saying simply beef
up that
point but it would help all of us to understand what the failure mode
looks like
so we could start to understand the forces at play here.
Enough questions to start with Lets all play nice with our answers.
Larry Whitlow
601XL N69102 (reserved)
Flying this Summer COUNT ON IT!!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=240969#240969
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at
http://www.cs.com
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Discussions about the 601XL |
Thanks Jay Its tough to picture the geometry in my head I should have drawn it
out
Larry
jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> Larry,
>
> I think you have the geometry wrong. Moving the cable attach points closer
to the hinge line would make it MORE sensitive, not less. However, I really don't
think there is enough room to move the attach points further out, either at
the forward bellcrank or at the elevator horns. I would settle for something
that would make it progressively harder to move the stick the further you move
it from neutral. That wouldn't reduce the elevator effectiveness, but it would
make it harder to move the stick to extreme positions, fore or aft.
>
> Jay Bannister
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
> --
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=240975#240975
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
A few days ago there was a discussion about serial numbers.
Some were of the opinion that the builder assigns his/her own serial number.
I found the following text (my underline) in the "601 price order form"
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/data/601-price-orderform.pdf
2. This contract permits the buyer to build one (1) airplane (or part of it)
for recreational and educational purposes only. The type of aircraft and *the
Drawings serial number must be visibly marked on the vertical tail or
fuselage sides of the aircraft*.
Happy building
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
Montreal, Canada
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to t
Hi Gig,
Thank you for explaining a lot of your thinking
on this issue. I will "Reward" you with an
attempt at a reasonable response to your very
long post. I admit I didn't have the patience to
read the whole thing, but I read enough to get a good idea of your drift.
First let me say I hold no personal animosity
toward anyone in this whole mess. Perhaps this
is not quite true when it comes to the Heintz
clan, but a lot of that is my own problem. I
made a big mistake when I decided to build a
Zodiac XL because I was confused and lacked
precise reading and thinking on personal matters
relating to the Heintz clan. I thought I was
buying a kit designed by a world class engineer
and that the same person was the one running the
factory and would be available for consultation
during my building experience. I just didn't
notice that the Heintzes involved in all those
separate roles weren't the same person. That was
my mistake not theirs. Still, I feel a little
cheated because that was my highest priority in
selection of a model to build and I feel a little
cheated. I spent much of my working life as a
major league computer designer (i.e. engineer),
and I appreciate the way that kind of engineer thinks and works.
I will probably regret this next issue, but I
will hang my head out to be flamed and chopped
off anyway. This is a social group as well as a
builder's issue discussion group. I feel I owe
some of the group members an explanation even
though I know some other members will
misinterpret every word I write and find the whole passage a personal issue.
None of us are "Normal" average people. If we
were we wouldn't be building airplanes. Perhaps,
just perhaps, I am one of the most odd and
unusual people in the group. This individual
difference creates misunderstandings just because
we are so different from normal people and each
other. Sometimes it seems that you, Gig,
intentionally misunderstand every word I
write. Nearly all of your comments on my
statements are wrong. I don't really think you
do this on purpose and I hold no grudge against
you. I am just very frustrated.
I am going to give you a short bio of myself that
might help explain just why it is we just can't
understand each other. Besides the fact we are
both deeply involved in building a particular
airplane we are probably aliens to each
other. This just might be similar to the gender
gap covered by one of the greatest books I have
ever read: "Men are from Mars, Women are from
Venus" by Grey (I hope I remembered the spelling
and details of the book, but probably not.)
When I was a kid I watched war movies that
glorified the role of fighter pilots. After that
I wanted to be a fighter pilot when I grew up. I
have always thought of myself as a pilot first
and everything else second. I have not been very
successful at committing myself to this activity,
but that is changing now that I am retired from my working careers.
The comments about Hap Ki Do are exact and
true. Indeed, I know more ways to kill someone
with my bare hands with one blow than even I am
aware of. That is what Hap Ki Do is about. I
spent a few years going to classes several times
a week to learn this art. Fortunately, Hap Ki Do
is a defensive art and nearly completely useless
unless someone attacks you. My comments were
technical truth which I always try to put in my
posts and other publication writings. If not for
the emotional state I was in on Tuesday, I
probably would have realized those comments were
out of place and would (like much of my stuff) be
completely misinterpreted and recognized as
boasting rather than simple statements of
fact. I have studied other martial arts -
particularly combat style pistol shooting. I am
very skilled with a pistol - indeed the best shot
with a pistol I have ever met. When I go
shooting with friends at the firing range (I have
one in my front yard) they usually drop their
jaws in amazement as they start to realize what I
routinely do. This is simply who I am. I "Come
by it honestly". My father was a sniper and
Ranger in the US Army in World War II. I have
always identified myself as a "Warrior". My life
reflects that in many ways, but that is not all.
I spent 8 years on active duty in the USAF. The
first job I had as a computer programmer was in
the mass murder business. Indeed, I am a
bona-fide expert in the use of weapons of mass
destruction. I wrote the software used to target
all of the multiple warhead strategic missiles in
the Western World during a certain period of the
Cold War. This was indeed very honorable work
rather than the kind of stuff we can identify
with Saddam Hussein. The notion was called MAD -
Mutual Assured Destruction. It worked. We won
the Cold War without firing a single nuclear
weapon. That was what we all wanted to
accomplish. Still, if you misinterpret even a
small part of this particular period of my
history you will come up with the correct notion
that I am an experienced mass murderer. This is just who I am.
So, when I pointed out that I didn't kill either
of the boys, my thoughts were not about bragging
they were about explaining that it really was a
good thing that I didn't kill either of them. This is just who I am.
On the NTSB issue. I have tried and tried to
make my position crystal clear. Still you
continue to completely misinterpret my
writing. I thought I was a pretty good writer,
but I seem to never manage to get even a single
point across to you. I will try one last (I
hope) time to get this particular point across
because I believe it is the central issue to getting this mess resolved.
I don't believe the NTSB is correct from an
engineering or science stand point. Indeed, I
think they are wrong. That doesn't matter. I
think they are the most powerful force in this
arena. They said we need mass balancing. My
statement that we need to follow that ruling is a
political statement by me not a technical one at
all. By political, I mean the NTSB "Has the
Power" to say this with authority. I am not
saying anyone is forced to follow their edict
that all XLs should be grounded. I am saying
that their statement has a lot of political force
whether it is "Right" or not. That is a glimpse
into my view of what the word political
means. I'm sure I, once again, didn't manage to
get this difficult distinction across to you, Gig. But, I tried one more time.
I have been in the middle of a number of state
and national campaigns for political
candidates. Also, I am a certified election
observer. My views about what politics is all
about are probably quite different from yours.
From my perspective, politics is about who has
power and who doesn't. Once again, your world
and mine probably don't have much in common. I
think that is why you don't get anything I say correctly.
I give up.
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 08:50 AM 4/23/2009, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>When I first read your diatribe yesterday
>morning I decided to really think about your
>post before I replied. Im glad I did, because
>most of what I would have said was said by
>others. But mainly because your responses to
>those posts, along with the original post, show
>that you are at least somewhat skewed in your
>thinking. Lets face it there are a lot of
>folks that would brag about their ability to
>kill people with their bare hands in a forum
>such as this especially when discussing a topic
>such as this. And since you admitted to being
>very emotional in my dealings with the
>Heintz brothers, Sebastian and especially
>Matthew. Im surprised they spent any time
>talking to you at all. I know I wouldnt have in their position.
>
>You have made the decision to ground your
>airplane and that is your right. If you arent
>comfortable flying it then you most certainly
>shouldnt. But your overwhelming belief that
>the NTSB is right and anything they say should
>be followed without question shows that you know
>very little about the way government works in
>general and the way aviation rules in particular
>are made. As has already been made clear the
>NTSB isnt the final say in matters such as
>this and they were never designed to be. And
>that is a good thing. It is called checks and
>balances and you will see it throughout our government.
>
>In one of your posts today you again show that
>you dont understand how the NTSB process
>works. You seem to think there is some wall of
>separation between the board members and the
>investigators. There isnt. The board members
>make their decisions based on the reports of the
>NTSB investigators as well as outside data that
>is available. In this case it seems they are
>completely ignoring their investigators and
>relying heavily on outside data. I say this
>because the only mention in any NTSB
>investigative report concerning flutter is in
>that there is no direct evidence that it took
>place in the accident aircraft. Im not saying
>that flutter did not happen. I am saying that I
>dont know and neither does the NTSB.
>
>The NTSB reports quotes several 601XL pilots
>that experienced what they described as flutter.
>In all cases cited cables were not tensioned
>properly. The only place where the NTSB letter
>says an accident 601XL may have
>experienced flutter with properly tensioned
>cables is the Antelope Island accident in March
>of this year. The builder, who was not flying
>the plane, states the aileron tension was
>checked before first flight and again 6 flight
>hours before the accident. I have two problems
>with this. First and foremost I am shocked that
>the board is taking action based on an accident
>where the investigation is anywhere close to
>finished. Second, and Im not making any
>statement about this individual builder, but for
>him to say anything other than the cables were
>tensioned properly would be was is known as A
>Statement Against Interest. And this would
>all be fine but the NTSB letter seems to be
>using it as the basis for their position that proper aileron tension is !
> not enough to provide protection from flutter.
>
>Another place where the NTSB report seems out of
>phase with the real world is the first page
>where they mention in the footnote #2 that there
>are planes with both hingeless and hinged
>ailerons. But, in the body they are saying that
>all the planes are is essentially the
>same. This statement is absurd. To ignore the
>fact that not a single hingeless aircraft has
>been involved in one of the accidents makes me
>question the NTSBs decision process and
>motives. It also removes what might well be the
>easiest and most practical fix for the problem,
>i.e. Replace the hinged ailerons with the hingeless design.
>
>Lets all remember how the hinged option came
>about in the first place. Many people thought
>the hingeless design was weird or didnt trust
>it despite the testing that is shown on the
>Zenith website. So Zenith caved and presented
>builders with a hinged option. Time may prove
>that this was a fatal mistake on Zeniths
>part. Think about this. The hingeless ailerons
>are stiffer than the hinged variety. If a
>cable is loose allowing flutter to develop it is
>only logical to conclude that the stiffer
>aileron is going to less susceptible to it and
>even if it does develop easier to get under
>control. Anecdotal (hey if it is good enough for
>the NTSB) reports bare this out because there
>are reports of loose cables on hingeless models
>developing early stage flutter that was controlled by pilot action.
>
>The other issue that the NTSB seems to have an
>issue with the gradient of force on the
>elevator. This has really never been much of an
>issue though Zenith did provide the elevator
>stop modification to reduce over control. I
>cant speak much on this because I have yet to
>be able to fly the 601XL in the parts of the
>envelope where it might be an issue. But it is
>my view that this is a training issue. There is
>precedent for the NTSB and the FAA to deal with
>this issue via training. For more information on
>that Id suggest you Google SFAR 74.
>
>Finally, Id like to point out that at one
>time the issue of the design strength in general
>was questions. The only issue that the NTSB
>seemed to have was with the Ultimate Design Load
>and that it may fall short of +6Gs but only
>slightly. Easy fix, get out your plans if you
>are building or your log and POA if you are
>flying. Take a pen and mark out +6Gs and write in +5Gs.
>
>The following is for the builders only. Those of
>you that seem to have lost all faith in the
>design, designer and the company that sold you
>the plans; I see no option for you other than
>give up on the plane. There are those of you
>that will never be happy and life is to short to
>spend time building a plane you are not happy
>with. You will be out some money but stuff
>happens. And since lawsuits have been mentioned
>both here and in other places Id suggest you
>go back and read the CONDITIONS OF SALE AND
>WARNING NOTICE that not only you but also
>your spouse or next of kin signed when you
>bought your plans or kit. Heres a link:
>http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/data/601-price-orderform.pdf
>
>--------
>W.R. "Gig" Giacona
>601XL Under Construction
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks. |
Hi Juan,
Thanks, but no thanks. I will fly my plane when it first goes up.
The plane is in Washington State - about 3,000 miles from Florida.
I wrote all that risk stuff to try to explain my new understanding of
why it was perfectly reasonable for some of us to reach the decision
to ground our plane while others are perfectly reasonable to not do
that. It was about how much risk we each already had before the NTSB
letter was released last week. The existing risk levels for the
first flight of a kit built plane are considerably higher than the
risks flying a factory plane that worked just fine the last time you flew it.
It looks like a significant portion of my frustration with this issue
has been solved by the trip to Sun n Fun I am currently enjoying. I
found a guy who wants to lease me a Tecnam P92 for 6 months at a
reasonable price. This will give me an S-LSA plane to fly while my
Zodiac is grounded. It will help me get my pilot skills honed and
also allow me to do cross country flights and carry passengers
immediately instead of waiting for the completion of phase I
testing. I get to fly a nice plane with no "Renter" flight
scheduling and no pressure to complete flights on cross countries
which always have rotten weather for the day of the return flight. I
am looking forward to it. It makes the grounding of my Zodiac a lot
easier for me to live with. The Zodiac will stay grounded until I am
satisfied the aileron and stick changes have been installed in my
plane. The lease takes the personal issue of grounding me as well as
the Zodiac away.
Best regards,
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 03:33 PM 4/23/2009, you wrote:
>Paul,
>kidding asside, I will fly your first flight for you if you want. it
>is a scarty thing the first flight, if that is the concern, I will
>do it. i just need to see the DAR report, the wing bolts propoerly
>torqued , the wired tensioned, with that, I can do it. Ids the plane
>in Florida? the first three flightsd should be just hops and brake
>burnins. then the second should be 50 ft up then a controled glide
>to check the steering. then upa dn away for a once around. let me know.
>
>Juan
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Discussions about the 601XL |
Hi Larry,
I think the answer to your elevator question is that it brings in the
"Law of unintended consequences".
While reducing the likelihood of a pilot induced wing separation your
change would also reduce the effectiveness of pilot control of pitch
- particularly at low speeds. One of the Zodiac's really great
features is that it doesn't lose control authority at near stall
speeds like most of the spam cans (part 23 planes) do.
I believe there are ways to fix the stick gradient problem without
impacting the low speed control authority. That seems like the ideal
choice to me.
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 06:11 PM 4/23/2009, you wrote:
>But why not just change the cable geometry to decrease overall
>movement of the elevator (think moving the cable attachments closer
>together either at the elevator end or the sticks end or both)??
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: serial number |
Hi Carlos,
There are two different serial numbers in your question. One
identifies the drawings you bought from Zenith and is used by them to
identify legitimate builders. The other goes on the metal data plate
for your plane and various government documents. It is the
identification made by the manufacturer (you) that identifies the
particular plane for your purposes.
Best regards,
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 06:59 PM 4/23/2009, you wrote:
>A few days ago there was a discussion about serial numbers.
>Some were of the opinion that the builder assigns his/her own serial number.
>I found the following text (my underline) in the "601 price order
>form"
><http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/data/601-price-orderform.pdf>http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/data/601-price-orderform.pdf
>
>2. This contract permits the buyer to build one (1) airplane (or
>part of it) for recreational and educational purposes only. The type
>of aircraft and the Drawings serial number must be visibly marked on
>the vertical tail or fuselage sides of the aircraft.
>
>
>Happy building
>
>Carlos
>CH601-HD, plans
>Montreal, Canada
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! --
|