Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:04 AM - Re: Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to (Paul Mulwitz)
2. 02:18 AM - Re: Read This (Paul Mulwitz)
3. 02:31 AM - Re: Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to t (Paul Mulwitz)
4. 04:36 AM - Re: Read This (Roger & Lina Hill)
5. 04:54 AM - Re: Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to t (Phil Maxson)
6. 05:35 AM - Re: Read This (Jimbo)
7. 05:54 AM - Tests show no flutter in Zodiac amatuer Aircraft (T. Graziano)
8. 05:55 AM - Re: Read This (Jay Maynard)
9. 06:11 AM - Zodiac flutter Testing (T. Graziano)
10. 07:28 AM - New Zenith Statement (Gig Giacona)
11. 08:47 AM - Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 (JetPilot)
12. 09:11 AM - Re: Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to tRe: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun (Edward Moody II)
13. 09:54 AM - My plans for flying my XL (macleod@eagle.ca)
14. 10:23 AM - Re: New Zenith Statement (Rick Lindstrom)
15. 10:55 AM - Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 (fgantt@texaviation.com)
16. 11:08 AM - Re: New Zenith Statement (Craig Payne)
17. 11:27 AM - Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 (Craig Payne)
18. 02:24 PM - Re: New Zenith Statement (Rick Lindstrom)
19. 02:48 PM - Re: New Zenith Statement (Craig Payne)
20. 03:05 PM - Re: My plans for flying my XL (Dave)
21. 03:19 PM - Re: New Zenith Statement (Rick Lindstrom)
22. 04:02 PM - Re: New Zenith Statement (JetPilot)
23. 04:03 PM - Re: New Zenith Statement (Craig Payne)
24. 04:18 PM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Craig Payne)
25. 04:24 PM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Cory Emberson)
26. 04:40 PM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Rick Lindstrom)
27. 04:48 PM - Re: New Zenith Statement (Rick Lindstrom)
28. 05:32 PM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Jay Maynard)
29. 06:17 PM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Ronald Steele)
30. 07:02 PM - Re: My plans for flying my XL (Jay Maynard)
31. 10:09 PM - Method of Mass Balancing (Rich Simmons)
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
Sorry Gig,
I have decided that your posts are not worth reading any more. They
just irritate me and waste my time.
You are the second member of this list to be programmed straight to
the trash in my email progam - Andy was the first. From now on,
don't expect any replies from me since I won't see your crap any more.
Good bye,
Paul
Do not archive
At 07:25 AM 4/24/2009, you wrote:
>Once you have taken the time to actually read what I posted I'll be
>happy to talk to you about it.
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 |
|
For what it is worth, I have been playing around with the aviation
insurance companies a lot lately.
I have had excellent service from Harvest Jones at the Falcon
insurance agency - the one who does the EAA insurance program. I got
rotten responses from Avemco. They don't seem at all astute in the
experimental airplane area, and I learned there is a real value to
having an agent between the airplane owner and the insurance
company. Avemco doesn't allow that. The agent acts as middle man
(woman?) and smooths over the rough spots that are sure to develop in
this game.
Today, Harvest did a great job on covering a lease of an LSA
including adding a student pilot to the package. Try that one with Avemco!
If anybody wants to contact her, try hjones@falconinsurance.com. She
is a real pro and nice to look at too. (I met her at Sun n Fun this
week for the second of the insurance policies. The first went very
smoothly with several emails and maybe a phone call or two).
Paul
XL grounded
At 08:00 AM 4/24/2009, you wrote:
>
>Insurance Rates Cut On Some LSAs
>
>
>Avemco raised some eyebrows last year when it set minimum transition
>training standards for those moving to LSAs. The company realized
>soon after it began insuring LSAs that the accident profile was
>different. Experienced, high-time pilots were wrecking LSAs at an
>alarming rate because they assumed, like the insurance company did,
>that they would be easy to get used to. The light wing loading and
>responsive controls of the little airplane caused problems for many
>experienced pilots so the company insisted that its customers take a
>minimum of five hours of dual with a qualified instructor on the
>type of airplane they were insuring and that they pass a flight
>review at the end of the training period. Lauerman said the accident
>rate has plummeted since then.
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan |
reactions to t
No, I am a retired engineer.
Let me apologize to all in the group, except Gig, for the post. I
was trying to help him to understand that there might be reasons why
he and I don't seem to be able to communicate. Those reasons were
mostly that we lack common experience that is needed for communication to work.
I will try to keep my future posts limited to facts and on-topic
opinions. That has always been my goal, but Gig got me at a weak
point. This whole week has been a real roller coaster ride for me
and, I presume, many other XL builders. I am truly sorry I added to
that stress for the other members of this group.
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 01:07 PM 4/24/2009, you wrote:
>Are you a great engineer?
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 |
|
Ya, when I told Avemco that my plane was in phase 1 flight test, they said
they would insure it, just not for
The first 10 hours of flight. so I went with Falcon.
Roger
_____
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:17 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Read This
For what it is worth, I have been playing around with the aviation insurance
companies a lot lately.
I have had excellent service from Harvest Jones at the Falcon insurance
agency - the one who does the EAA insurance program. I got rotten responses
from Avemco. They don't seem at all astute in the experimental airplane
area, and I learned there is a real value to having an agent between the
airplane owner and the insurance company. Avemco doesn't allow that. The
agent acts as middle man (woman?) and smooths over the rough spots that are
sure to develop in this game.
Today, Harvest did a great job on covering a lease of an LSA including
adding a student pilot to the package. Try that one with Avemco!
If anybody wants to contact her, try hjones@falconinsurance.com. She is a
real pro and nice to look at too. (I met her at Sun n Fun this week for the
second of the insurance policies. The first went very smoothly with several
emails and maybe a phone call or two).
Paul
XL grounded
At 08:00 AM 4/24/2009, you wrote:
Insurance Rates Cut On Some LSAs
Avemco raised some eyebrows last year when it set minimum transition
training standards for those moving to LSAs. The company realized soon after
it began insuring LSAs that the accident profile was different. Experienced,
high-time pilots were wrecking LSAs at an alarming rate because they
assumed, like the insurance company did, that they would be easy to get used
to. The light wing loading and responsive controls of the little airplane
caused problems for many experienced pilots so the company insisted that its
customers take a minimum of five hours of dual with a qualified instructor
on the type of airplane they were insuring and that they pass a flight
review at the end of the training period. Lauerman said the accident rate
has plummeted since then.
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 t
It takes months to build a house and minutes to burn it down.
I've been on this list for about nine years or so. I rarely post but read almost
every one of other people's posts. I've seen many self absorbed, Know-it-alls
come and go. Most people who come onto the list it is nice to see them come.
Others -- the very vocal few -- it would be good to see them go. Many of
you fine people I got to meet for the first time at Sun-n-Fun. It was a wonderful
time.
I always limit my posts to first-hand experience with things I have done and observed.
That is what I encourage you to do too. This list works best when we
focus on facts and experimentation. I want this valuable resource to remain valuable
to first time builders like I was 9 years ago. These latest emotional posts
are not adding to the knowledge base.
Phil Maxson
601XL/Corvair
170 hours
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
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 |
|
I hope this thread does not become an Avemco bash-fest. Ive been with them
for many years and you need to get quotes from them and an independent agen
t, too. Insurance markets change rapidly and what holds true today may be t
he complete opposite in six months.
My experiences with aircraft insurance brokers, in general, is that due to
the commission structure, that very small policies are a "bother". The othe
r negative is that, generally, a one year policy is just that, no changes a
llowed for one year. Avemco is more flexible.
I just want everyone to try both direct and brokers, not rule one out due t
o posts here. You might be wasting money.
Jim LoBue
601XL/Corvair
Wing construction suspended, for now. Working on engine.
--- On Sat, 4/25/09, Roger & Lina Hill <hills@sunflower.com> wrote:
From: Roger & Lina Hill <hills@sunflower.com>
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Read This
=0A=0A=0A =0A =0A=0A =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AYa, when I told Avemco that my
plane was=0Ain phase 1 flight test, they said they would insure it, just n
ot for =0A=0AThe first 10 hours of flight so I=0Awent with Falcon.
=0A=0A =C2- =0A=0ARoger =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0AFrom:=0Aowner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-
zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul=0AMulwitz
=0ASent: Saturday, April 25, 2009=0A4:17 AM
=0ATo: zenith-list@matronics.com
=0ASubject: Re: Zenith-List: Read=0AThis =0A=0A=0A=0A =C2- =0A=0AFor what
it is worth, I have been playing around with the aviation=0Ainsurance comp
anies a lot lately.
=0A
=0AI have had excellent service from Harvest Jones at the Falcon insurance
agency=0A- the one who does the EAA insurance program.=C2- I got rotten r
esponses from=0AAvemco.=C2- They don't seem at all astute in the experime
ntal airplane area,=0Aand I learned there is a real value to having an agen
t between the airplane=0Aowner and the insurance company.=C2- Avemco does
n't allow that.=C2- The=0Aagent acts as middle man (woman?) and smooths o
ver the rough spots that are=0Asure to develop in this game.=C2-
=0A
=0AToday, Harvest did a great job on covering a lease of an LSA including a
dding a=0Astudent pilot to the package.=C2-=C2- Try that one with Avemc
o!
=0A
=0AIf anybody wants to contact her, try hjones@falconinsurance.com.=C2- S
he is a=0Areal pro and nice to look at too.=C2- (I met her at Sun n Fun t
his week for=0Athe second of the insurance policies.=C2- The first went v
ery smoothly with=0Aseveral emails and maybe a phone call or two).
=0A
=0APaul
=0AXL grounded
=0A
=0A
=0AAt 08:00 AM 4/24/2009, you wrote:
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A =0A=0AInsurance Rates Cut On Some LSAs =0A=0A
=0A
=0A=C2-
=0A
=0AAvemco raised some eyebrows last year when it set minimum transition tra
ining=0Astandards for those moving to LSAs. The company realized soon after
it began=0Ainsuring LSAs that the accident profile was different. Experien
ced, high-time=0Apilots were wrecking LSAs at an alarming rate because they
assumed, like the=0Ainsurance company did, that they would be easy to get
used to. The light wing=0Aloading and responsive controls of the little air
plane caused problems for many=0Aexperienced pilots so the company insisted
that its customers take a minimum of=0Afive hours of dual with a qualified
instructor on the type of airplane they=0Awere insuring and that they pass
a flight review at the end of the training=0Aperiod. Lauerman said the acc
ident rate has plummeted since then.
=0A
=0A =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2- =0A=0A =C2- =C2-http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Zenith-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp://www.matronics.com/
contribution =C2- =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
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: | Tests show no flutter in Zodiac amatuer Aircraft |
FYI: See Aviation eBrief <aopa@smartbrief.com> 24 April 09
Officials with Missouri-based Zenith Aircraft Co., exhibiting at the Sun
'n Fun Fly-In in Lakeland, Fla., this week, said they were surprised by
the National Transportation Safety Board's recommendation to ground
their amateur-built Zodiac CH-601XL aircraft. The NTSB cited the fact
that the single-engine, two-seater airplane has broken apart in flight
six times since 2006, killing 10 people, including one man in the
aircraft on his way to the Sun 'n Fun event last year, and officials say
that since the recommendation, two independent firms, one in the U.S.
and one in Germany, have conducted flutter analyses on the amateur
aircraft kits and found no indications of flutter. The Ledger (Lakeland,
Fla.) (4/23)
Tony Graziano
XL/Jab; N493TG; 485 hrs
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 |
|
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 05:33:50AM -0700, Jimbo wrote:
> I hope this thread does not become an Avemco bash-fest. Ive been with them
> for many years and you need to get quotes from them and an independent
> agent, too. Insurance markets change rapidly and what holds true today may
> be the complete opposite in six months.
Indeed. The reason I went with Avemco in the first place is that they were
$500 cheaper than everyone else last year.
--
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 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: | Zodiac flutter Testing |
See AVwebFlash <avweb@e.avflash.com> 24 April 09
When the NTSB last week issued a report calling for the Zodiac CH-601XL
aircraft to be immediately grounded due to concerns about aerodynamic
flutter, it caught the manufacturers by surprise -- but this week at Sun
'n Fun, Mathieu Heintz of Zenair provided AVweb with an update on the
company's response to the concerns raised by the report. Independent
researchers in Germany are conducting detailed tests on the airplane
wings to explore any possibility of flutter issues, Heintz said. "We've
seen very clearly that when we have tight control cables as per the
design requirements, we do not have a flutter problem with the
airplane," he said. Loose cables can result in flutter, he said, but
proper maintenance should prevent that from happening. Many of the
CH-601XL aircraft were sold as kits before the S-LSA version became
available. Heintz said that videos and other data and reports from the
independent testing now underway will soon be made available on the
company's Web site, and he added that he met with FAA representatives at
Sun 'n Fun this week. Click here to listen to AVweb's podcast of the
full interview with Heintz. More...
Tony Graziano
XL/Jab; N493TG ;485 hrs
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: | New Zenith Statement |
April 22, 2009
Zenair met with FAA officials on April 22, 2009. The meeting was productive, with
FAA officials confirming that they have no plans to ground the fleet of Zodiac
CH-601XL aircraft.
In response to the NTSB Safety Recommendation letter (dated April 14, 2009), the
FAA officials stated that they will commence their own thorough review of the
Zodiac design, and has given this review high priority. Zenair will cooperate
fully in assisting the FAA.
Zenair also continues with the ongoing design analysis of the Zodiac CH-601XL,
including wing flutter analysis. The independent consulting team from Germany
has released preliminary findings. These preliminary findings confirm that the
aircraft, with properly tensioned control cables, is not prone to flutter.
The team is continuing its analysis, including the recommendations set forth in
the NTSB's letter, such as mass balanced ailerons.
Zenair wants to remind builders, owners and pilots to verify that all control surfaces
are properly fastened and secured, and free of play, and that control
stops are present and properly installed, and that the control systems are not
loose. Pilots are reminded to operate the aircraft within its design limitations.
///
--------
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=241209#241209
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: | Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 |
I have seen two different people ask recently Which airplane is better, the Kitfox
or the Zenith Aircraft CH-701 ? There seems to be a lot of interest in
this topic so I will address it here. I have no interest in either aircraft
company, am not in the business of selling or promoting anything in sport aviation,
I am just giving the best advice I can here based on 25 years of being a
commercial pilot, CFI, and flying everything from the smallest ultralights to
heavy Airliners. This is the same personal advice I would give to a family
member if they were asking me which aircraft they should buy. What I write below
is based on my own extensive research and opinion. I would encourage anyone
that is considering buying an airplane to do their own research, and talk
to people that own and fly both airplane types before making their choice. I
recently was in the market to buy a new Aircraft kit to build to use with my
Rotax 912-S engine which I already have. In my search for the best aircraft,
I looked at both the Kitfox Series 7 Super Sport, the CH-701, and also some other
types. . I have a friend with a Kitfox Series 4 and a friend with a CH-701
so it was natural for me to compare these two aircraft closely to each other.
After looking at each plane and its performance, I found the current model
Kitfox 7 SS to be superior to the Zenith Air by a HUGE margin in performance
and safety, here is why
The Kitfox Series 7 SS that I bought is faster, more agile, and will run circles
around the CH-701 in the air. The Kitfox is also every bit as good at STOL as
the Zenair CH 701 is . Now you may ask how is this possible given the CH-701's
obvious STOL design, and that is simple ! The Kitfox has a much larger, higher
aspect ratio ( more efficient ) wing. If you look closely at the Zenith CH-701,
you will notice that it has very short wings, exactly what you do NOT want
if you want if you want to fly slow, and to take off and land at slow speeds.
You will also notice that the CH 701 wings start to get very thin and totally
disappear on each side of the cockpit, and there is NO wing at all above the
cockpit on the Zenair CH-701. So the Zenair CH-701 takes an already too short
wing, and gives up another 5 feet by not continuing any kind of airfoil over
the cockpit, with the wing airfoil disappearing into nothing on where it meets
the fuselage. So don't look at the published wingspan on the Zenith CH-701
and say " The CH-701 is not THAT much shorter than the Kitfox and other sport
planes.. " Look at the Zenair CH-701 published wingspan, and take about 5 feet
off that number for a realistic comparison to other airplanes. To compensate
for the much to short wingspan, the CH-701 designers had to make a ridiculously
thick and inefficient airfoil to enable the plane to take off and land slowly.
Unfortunately the CH-701s wing had to be made so thick that the ONLY thing
that wing is good at is flying slow.... The other flying qualities of the airplane
had to sacrificed to make up for this huge design flaw. The CH-701s unreasonably
thick wing makes the plane is draggy, slow, and it has a horrible
glide ratio, and is just a real dog in the air when compared to the Kitfox. STOL
is the only thing the Zenair CH-701 is good at.
The Kitfox has a very efficient wing that has low drag and is efficient at higher
cruise speeds. The Kitfox wing has enough wingspan and area that it still
has very good handling, efficient, and docile at low airspeeds. You need to
put VG's ( Vortex Generators ) on the Kitfox wing to get the extreme slow speed
handling of the CH-701, but they only cost 100 bucks and can be put on in
3 hours, With VGs, the approach and stall numbers will be very close to that the
Zenith CH-701 if not the same with no sacrifice in high speed cruise... With
VGs Kitfox can slow down, and land anywhere the CH701 can.
The most common emergency and greatest safety hazard we face in Experimental airplanes
is an engine failure. The unreasonably thick, short wing of the Zenith
CH701 gives it HORRIBLE glide characteristics. The Sink Rate of the CH-701 is
bad also. The Superior glide ratio of the Kitfox is a HUGE safety factor.
Assume you where at an altitude where you could glide a mile in a Zenair CH-701
and your engine quit, that would give you an area of 3.14 Square miles that
you could glide to. Now lets say you were in a Kitfox that has twice the glide
ratio and your engine quit at the same altitude, you would have an area of
12.5 square miles in which to find a a safe landing spot. In other words, if you
double the glide ratio of an airplane, you have FOUR TIMES the amount of potential
landing spots in the event of an engine failure. I am NOT saying the
Kitfox has twice the glide of the CH-701 without testing and documenting this
myself. But what I am saying that the Kitfox glide is MUCH better than the CH-701s
glide. Remember, every time you double the glide ratio, landing areas increase
by a factor of FOUR !! It does not take a lot of increase in glide ratio
to dramatically increase your chances of finding a safe landing area.
The Kitfox will also give you more time in an engine out situation due to its much
lower sink rate. Again, would you rather have 1 minute to diagnose your power
failure, to search for a good field, and execute an emergency approach and
landing, or would you rather have 2 minutes. Again, I am using round numbers
here for ease of understanding, but here is a fact. The Kitfox has a lower sink
rate than the CH-701 after an engine failure, which is another important safety
factor.
As for pure enjoyment of flying, the Kitfox again wins hand down. The Kitfox is
more agile, lighter, and quicker on the controls than the CH-701, while still
retaining excellent flying and handling qualities at low speed. Imagine driving
a agile, good handling sports car compared to driving an old pickup truck
, this just makes for a much more enjoyable flying experience. I am building
my Kitfox with Tricycle gear, I ddid not want a another taildragger, so landings
in my Kitfox will be every bit as docile and easy as they are in the Zenair
CH-701.
I was not a big fan of fabric, I like aluminum, but fabric does have its advantages.
It is very easy to repair if you should have an incident or hangar rash.
I can punch a hole in my airplane and have it fixed and flying again in one
afternoon. The Poly Fiber system is modern, easy to put on, shrinks with a household
iron, and requires no doping, and is much less labor and time intensive
than the old fashioned fabrics. The Poly Fiber fabric is rated to last outside
for many many years, service life of this covering is NOT an issue. If
in 10 or 15 years years I do need to replace the fabric covering, its not that
hard nor expensive. Replacing my fabric is no harder than stripping and repainting
an aluminum airplane.
One thing that is an issue for me is Hangar space. We always need a place inside
to put our airplanes, and the wings on the Kitfox fold and unfold in about
10 minutes with just one person, no lifting required. This feature is really
great, as I can share a hangar or put my airplane in a garage anywhere if need
be ! This can save a fortune in hangar rent. This also makes the airplane
very easy store and fly from a trailer if you want to keep it at home. The folding
wings did not make my purchase decision, it was just icing on the cake.
With over 4000 Kitfoxes sold, I can always count on parts support from the company,
and other sources that get into such a large market as well.
Whichever airplane you decide on, good luck. Experimental aviation is not easy,
research, good judgment, skill, and a lot of knowledge are required. But owning
and flying an airplane is a wonderful experience that is worth every cent
and every hour you put into it. No matter which airplane you fly, it is the
most exhilarating and rewarding hobby on the planet.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241215#241215
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: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions |
to tRe: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun
That was well thought out and I agree with you Dave. Paul's post
reminded me of the Count Vizzini in "The Princess Bride" and did little
to persuade me to his point of view. While I await my inspection on
29APR09 I am trying to gather as much factual data as possible. I have
not however, updated my own CV to submit as evidence. Geez I hope I
don't get Hap Ki Do'ed to death over this,
Ed
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: | My plans for flying my XL |
List:
I believe that I am one of many that read this list primarily to see the
comments and suggestions from a few of the list members (ie Larry, Bill,
John & a few others). These days there is a lot of speculation by members
on a possible problem with the XL and I can't sit here any longer reading
the posts without giving you my perspective on the issue.
Within a month I should be flying my XL. Am I concerned - NO! Why not?
First let me introduce myself. I am Mike MacLeod, a retired professional
Metallurgical Engineer. The XL is my third kit plane (and first Zenith).
I have finished building 601 XL kit 6-6771 and am waiting for final
inspection. The first part of my career was spent in the chemical
industry, and part of that was leading a group involved in failure
analysis of chemical plant components. We investigated hundreds of
failures. The failures were due to thing like general corrosion, stress
corrosion, fatigue, impact by equipment (ie trucks or tractors),
construction errors, misoperation by operators and a very very few "cause
unknown". Many of the failures in the first year of operation of any
chemical plant are design related. So, with this background, this is how I
read the current controversy.
1. My experience with equipment failures.
Chemical plants often have identical parallel trains and almost identical
(usually differing in size) serial trains. I consider all XLs to be
'parallel trains'. I realize that investigating chemical plant failures,
where the failed component is usually immediately obvious, is far easier
than examining an aircraft crash where the root failure is far from
obvious. When a failure occurred in a chemical plant we would go to the
scene (after the leak and/or fire was stopped) and do extensive non
destructive checking (Xray, ultrasound etc) of the failed component and
equipment close to it. We would then do similar checks on the
corresponding equipment in any serial or parallel trains. After this
on-site work we would have the failed component removed for lab analysis
(100% of the time after a catastrophic failure). Lab analysis can easily
identify the cause of a failure, especially where fatigue, cracking, or
stress related failures are present. I believe that given a failed sample
from an aircraft component a competent technician can easily detect the
cause of the failure.
A summary of our findings:
Failures due to Design Issues (in the first year of a plant' s operation
this could be 1/2 of all failures)
- if a failure was design related, similar degredations (which had not
yet progressed to failure) would
be found in about 50% of identical components on parallel
trains.
- we would also find similar degredations in about 10% of similar
components in serial trains.
Conclusion: Design related failures affect a large percentage of
identical/similar components.
Failures due to All Other Causes
- These failures type rarely resulted in similar degredations on similar
components in serial or parallel trains.
In the few cases where they did, the failure could usually be traced
to faulty procedures or poor construction work.
Conclusion: These failures only involved the component that failed.
2. ZBAG
I am not a member of ZBAG but I do owe them a debt of gratitude. Like
some others I looked at the hole I cut in the wing for the wing lockers
and wondered if these openings affected the strength of the wing. I also
wondered about the wing to fuselage connections, especially the rear spar
connection to that 'thin' 6-B5-4.
By their silence on these issues (and their engineer must have paid
particular attention to these) I am even more confident that:
- the wing attachments are robust
- the wing locker does not affect wing strength appreciably
- the lack of a rib at station 4 to make room for the larger fuel tank
does not affect wing strength
- the main landing gear attachments are robust (my second homebuilt was
destroyed by a landing gear failure)
- the rudder attachments are robust
We all look at things as we build and the above were the ones that made me
think (and take extra care).
My thoughts on the ZBAG group
This is a group of well meaning individuals who invested time and money to
find a fault with the design. Well, apparently the design is ok - but
their mission was to find a problem - so they found one - flutter - not
easily refutable - and, despite a lack of evidence, went with it. (To the
NTSB no less).
3. The 601XL
My reasons for purchasing the kit were as follows:
- above 100 kts cruise
- inexpensive
- will take my Rotax engine (from my previous homebuilt)
- BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - IS SIMPLE AND COMES WITH ENGINEERING DRAWINGS (so
I can fabricate any part myself)
The fact that even though I bought a kit, this plane is simple enough for
me to build from scratch was paramount. My first plane was a 2 place
ultralight (about 1000 lbs gross). In many ways the ultralight was more
sophisticated than the XL, but don't ask me to fabricate those parts! I
believe that to achieve the level of simplicity present in the XL means
that some sacrifices in performance must be made.
I have seen videos of XLs where the pilots don't seem to realize that a
plane as simple as the XL can't be flown like a fighter.
I have read reports of XLs diving, looping, flying in strong winds and
other (in my opinion) very, very risky acts.
In Canada the XL can be registered as an ultralight. I will treat it as one.
4 My thoughts on Flutter
Flutter is a speed issue, go faster and increase the likelihood of being
caught.
I don't know how many XLs are flying, but based on the number of pictures
of XLs on the Zenith website I suspect that there are hundreds. In my
experience with design problems if flutter was an issue with the design
there should be many, many reports of flutter (up to 50% of aircraft).
But there aren't. I only know of one and I truly question if it was
really flutter (I once flew my Pelican at 1500 ft AGL over the stacks of
Algoma Steel in Sault St Marie Ont. as a shortcut to the airport "lets fly
direct, we will get to see more"; the plane shook rapidly and extremely,
extremely violently in the turbulence, I am lucky to still be married).
But this wasn't flutter.
Another problem I have with the flutter scenario is that some of the XL
incidents seem to involve aircraft that were apparently flying much slower
than Vne (or even Vc). One may have had its flaps down. Yet these
aircraft suffered an accident. They were probably flying much faster in
the period before the incident (even minutes before). This is not how
flutter works.
How can this be? No reports of a problem, even by pilots who far exceeded
VNE in phase 1 testing, yet people frantic for a solution.
5.My thoughts on aileron and elevator balancing
My Pelican PL (VNE 141 kts) had both aileron and elevator balancing. But
its successor the almost identical Pelican Sport had neither. When I
questioned the designer on this he assured me that on these planes as long
as the speeds were less than about 200 kts there was no chance of flutter.
Flutter is a phenomena that can be computer modeled. If these models
tell us that flutter is not an issue, I believe them.
In addition, trying to scare us by suggesting that our XLs will behave
similarly to the posted videos of flutter on non XL wings is
irresponsible. We all know that given the right conditions (well above
Vne) flutter can occur.
6. Witness reliability.
I live in the country. Occasionally we have flight schools practicing in
the skies above. I often go out to watch the stall practice (not much to
see - just a plane that seems to go very quiet, slow down, maybe a slight
change in heading, then noisier than before). Sometimes though they are
practicing spins, same as before - plane goes quiet, slows down - then
WOW, are those wings broken? . The illusion that as the plane spins one
or both wings are no longer at 90 degrees to the fuselage is very
powerful.
MY CONCLUSIONS:
- There is not a design problem that causes flutter.
- There is probably no single cause of the accidents. (unless you count
pilot error)
- Aileron balancing is not required.
- Eyewitness reports can be misleading.
MY PLANS
- First, before taking FSVB up - practice, practice, practice landings in
another low wing plane until I can grease it in every time.
I think the stresses on the wings from hard landings far exceed
anything you can do in flight.
- Avoid off airport landings (and try to avoid grass strips)
I know that many XLs use grass strips but in my experience they can be
very rough and again put stress on the wing attachments.
- Keep the cables tightened to 'spec'.
- Never fly faster than 130 kts.
- Fly only in good weather (I have always done this, I hate "bumps")
- Treat the plane with kid gloves (no spins, dives, turns over 60 degrees
bank, etc)
- Watch that rearward C of G
With the light Rotax engine my plane's C of G can easily go behind 450mm
as the fuel is burned.
- Never, never make abrupt fore or aft movements with the stick
I have the dual stick option, I think this will give me more leverage
with less feedback when I move the elevator.
- I will not 'balance' my ailerons or elevator.
My Thoughts.
Any Comments? (especially on MY PLANS)
Mike
macleod@eagle.ca
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: New Zenith Statement |
Hi, Gig. Kinda confirms what's been stated all along, doesn't it?
(sigh)
Rick Lindstrom
Zenvair N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 7:26 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>April 22, 2009
>
>Zenair met with FAA officials on April 22, 2009. The meeting was productive,
with FAA officials confirming that they have no plans to ground the fleet of Zodiac
CH-601XL aircraft.
>
>In response to the NTSB Safety Recommendation letter (dated April 14, 2009), the
FAA officials stated that they will commence their own thorough review of the
Zodiac design, and has given this review high priority. Zenair will cooperate
fully in assisting the FAA.
>
>Zenair also continues with the ongoing design analysis of the Zodiac CH-601XL,
including wing flutter analysis. The independent consulting team from Germany
has released preliminary findings. These preliminary findings confirm that the
aircraft, with properly tensioned control cables, is not prone to flutter.
The team is continuing its analysis, including the recommendations set forth
in the NTSB's letter, such as mass balanced ailerons.
>
>Zenair wants to remind builders, owners and pilots to verify that all control
surfaces are properly fastened and secured, and free of play, and that control
stops are present and properly installed, and that the control systems are not
loose. Pilots are reminded to operate the aircraft within its design limitations.
>
>///
>
>--------
>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=241209#241209
>
>
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: | Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith |
CH-701
Jeff
No asked for your opinion so why offer it to the Zenith list, it would be a good
post on the Kitfox list and you don't need anyone on the Zenith list to validate
your decision. We all have made our decision without you sage advice.
Floyd
----------------------------------------
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:01 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701
I have seen two different people ask recently Which airplane is better, the Kitfox
or the Zenith Aircraft CH-701 ? There seems to be a lot of interest in
this topic so I will address it here. I have no interest in either aircraft
company, am not in the business of selling or promoting anything in sport aviation,
I am just giving the best advice I can here based on 25 years of being a
commercial pilot, CFI, and flying everything from the smallest ultralights to
heavy Airliners. This is the same personal advice I would give to a family
member if they were asking me which aircraft they should buy. What I write below
is based on my own extensive research and opinion. I would encourage anyone
that is considering buying an airplane to do their own research, and talk
to people that own and fly both airplane types before making their choice. I
recently was in the market to buy a new Aircraft kit to build to use with my
Rotax 912-S engine which I already have. In my search for the best aircraft,
I looked at both the Kitfox Series 7 Super Sport, the CH-701, and also some other
types. . I have a friend with a Kitfox Series 4 and a friend with a CH-701
so it was natural for me to compare these two aircraft closely to each other.
After looking at each plane and its performance, I found the current model
Kitfox 7 SS to be superior to the Zenith Air by a HUGE margin in performance
and safety, here is why
The Kitfox Series 7 SS that I bought is faster, more agile, and will run circles
around the CH-701 in the air. The Kitfox is also every bit as good at STOL as
the Zenair CH 701 is . Now you may ask how is this possible given the CH-701's
obvious STOL design, and that is simple ! The Kitfox has a much larger, higher
aspect ratio ( more efficient ) wing. If you look closely at the Zenith CH-701,
you will notice that it has very short wings, exactly what you do NOT want
if you want if you want to fly slow, and to take off and land at slow speeds.
You will also notice that the CH 701 wings start to get very thin and totally
disappear on each side of the cockpit, and there is NO wing at all above the
cockpit on the Zenair CH-701. So the Zenair CH-701 takes an already too short
wing, and gives up another 5 feet by not continuing any kind of airfoil over
the cockpit, with the wing airfoil disappearing into nothing on where it meets
the fuselage. So don't look at the published wingspan on the Zenith CH-701
and say " The CH-701 is not THAT much shorter than the Kitfox and other sport
planes.. " Look at the Zenair CH-701 published wingspan, and take about 5 feet
off that number for a realistic comparison to other airplanes. To compensate
for the much to short wingspan, the CH-701 designers had to make a ridiculously
thick and inefficient airfoil to enable the plane to take off and land slowly.
Unfortunately the CH-701s wing had to be made so thick that the ONLY thing
that wing is good at is flying slow.... The other flying qualities of the airplane
had to sacrificed to make up for this huge design flaw. The CH-701s unreasonably
thick wing makes the plane is draggy, slow, and it has a horrible
glide ratio, and is just a real dog in the air when compared to the Kitfox. STOL
is the only thing the Zenair CH-701 is good at.
The Kitfox has a very efficient wing that has low drag and is efficient at higher
cruise speeds. The Kitfox wing has enough wingspan and area that it still
has very good handling, efficient, and docile at low airspeeds. You need to
put VG's ( Vortex Generators ) on the Kitfox wing to get the extreme slow speed
handling of the CH-701, but they only cost 100 bucks and can be put on in
3 hours, With VGs, the approach and stall numbers will be very close to that the
Zenith CH-701 if not the same with no sacrifice in high speed cruise... With
VGs Kitfox can slow down, and land anywhere the CH701 can.
The most common emergency and greatest safety hazard we face in Experimental airplanes
is an engine failure. The unreasonably thick, short wing of the Zenith
CH701 gives it HORRIBLE glide characteristics. The Sink Rate of the CH-701 is
bad also. The Superior glide ratio of the Kitfox is a HUGE safety factor.
Assume you where at an altitude where you could glide a mile in a Zenair CH-701
and your engine quit, that would give you an area of 3.14 Square miles that
you could glide to. Now lets say you were in a Kitfox that has twice the glide
ratio and your engine quit at the same altitude, you would have an area of
12.5 square miles in which to find a a safe landing spot. In other words, if you
double the glide ratio of an airplane, you have FOUR TIMES the amount of potential
landing spots in the event of an engine failure. I am NOT saying the
Kitfox has twice the glide of the CH-701 without testing and documenting this
myself. But what I am saying that the Kitfox glide is MUCH better than the CH-701s
glide. Remember, every time you double the glide ratio, landing areas increase
by a factor of FOUR !! It does not take a lot of increase in glide ratio
to dramatically increase your chances of finding a safe landing area.
The Kitfox will also give you more time in an engine out situation due to its much
lower sink rate. Again, would you rather have 1 minute to diagnose your power
failure, to search for a good field, and execute an emergency approach and
landing, or would you rather have 2 minutes. Again, I am using round numbers
here for ease of understanding, but here is a fact. The Kitfox has a lower sink
rate than the CH-701 after an engine failure, which is another important safety
factor.
As for pure enjoyment of flying, the Kitfox again wins hand down. The Kitfox is
more agile, lighter, and quicker on the controls than the CH-701, while still
retaining excellent flying and handling qualities at low speed. Imagine driving
a agile, good handling sports car compared to driving an old pickup truck
, this just makes for a much more enjoyable flying experience. I am building
my Kitfox with Tricycle gear, I ddid not want a another taildragger, so landings
in my Kitfox will be every bit as docile and easy as they are in the Zenair
CH-701.
I was not a big fan of fabric, I like aluminum, but fabric does have its advantages.
It is very easy to repair if you should have an incident or hangar rash.
I can punch a hole in my airplane and have it fixed and flying again in one
afternoon. The Poly Fiber system is modern, easy to put on, shrinks with a household
iron, and requires no doping, and is much less labor and time intensive
than the old fashioned fabrics. The Poly Fiber fabric is rated to last outside
for many many years, service life of this covering is NOT an issue. If
in 10 or 15 years years I do need to replace the fabric covering, its not that
hard nor expensive. Replacing my fabric is no harder than stripping and repainting
an aluminum airplane.
One thing that is an issue for me is Hangar space. We always need a place inside
to put our airplanes, and the wings on the Kitfox fold and unfold in about
10 minutes with just one person, no lifting required. This feature is really
great, as I can share a hangar or put my airplane in a garage anywhere if need
be ! This can save a fortune in hangar rent. This also makes the airplane
very easy store and fly from a trailer if you want to keep it at home. The folding
wings did not make my purchase decision, it was just icing on the cake.
With over 4000 Kitfoxes sold, I can always count on parts support from the company,
and other sources that get into such a large market as well.
Whichever airplane you decide on, good luck. Experimental aviation is not easy,
research, good judgment, skill, and a lot of knowledge are required. But owning
and flying an airplane is a wonderful experience that is worth every cent
and every hour you put into it. No matter which airplane you fly, it is the
most exhilarating and rewarding hobby on the planet.
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241215#241215
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: | New Zenith Statement |
Here is what I see in my crystal ball: Zenith and other organizations will carefully
analyze the XL and find no design flaws. But we will be left with the fact
that (as a percentage of the flying fleet) XL's crash more often for unknown
reasons than comparable aircraft. It is the distance between those two realities
that gives everyone pause.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
Hi, Gig. Kinda confirms what's been stated all along, doesn't it?
(sigh)
Rick Lindstrom
Zenvair N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 7:26 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>April 22, 2009
>
>Zenair met with FAA officials on April 22, 2009. The meeting was productive,
with FAA officials confirming that they have no plans to ground the fleet of Zodiac
CH-601XL aircraft.
>
>In response to the NTSB Safety Recommendation letter (dated April 14, 2009), the
FAA officials stated that they will commence their own thorough review of the
Zodiac design, and has given this review high priority. Zenair will cooperate
fully in assisting the FAA.
>
>Zenair also continues with the ongoing design analysis of the Zodiac CH-601XL,
including wing flutter analysis. The independent consulting team from Germany
has released preliminary findings. These preliminary findings confirm that the
aircraft, with properly tensioned control cables, is not prone to flutter.
The team is continuing its analysis, including the recommendations set forth
in the NTSB's letter, such as mass balanced ailerons.
>
>Zenair wants to remind builders, owners and pilots to verify that all control
surfaces are properly fastened and secured, and free of play, and that control
stops are present and properly installed, and that the control systems are not
loose. Pilots are reminded to operate the aircraft within its design limitations.
>
>///
>
>--------
>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=241209#241209
>
>
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: | Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith |
CH-701
Ignoring the qualities of the Kitfox designs as aircraft, they do seem to
have trouble building a viable company around the aircraft. By my count the
current owners are the fourth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitfox
-- Craig
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: | New Zenith Statement |
Hi, Craig.
Since my crystal ball is in the shop, here's what I'm waiting for...
How many of the crashed aircraft had loose or slack aileron cables?
How many of the crashed aircraft had loose or improper wing attachments?
How many of the crashed aircraft were overstressed from intentional or unintentional
control inputs?
How many of the crashed aircraft were built or maintained outside of design specification?
Once I have that number, and subtract it from 6, I'll have a much better idea if
the risk of flying my airplane is excessive, or not.
Rick Lindstrom
Zenvair N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 11:03 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>Here is what I see in my crystal ball: Zenith and other organizations will carefully
analyze the XL and find no design flaws. But we will be left with the fact
that (as a percentage of the flying fleet) XL's crash more often for unknown
reasons than comparable aircraft. It is the distance between those two realities
that gives everyone pause.
>
>-- Craig
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:22 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>Hi, Gig. Kinda confirms what's been stated all along, doesn't it?
>
>(sigh)
>
>Rick Lindstrom
>Zenvair N42KP
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 7:26 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>April 22, 2009
>>
>>Zenair met with FAA officials on April 22, 2009. The meeting was productive,
with FAA officials confirming that they have no plans to ground the fleet of
Zodiac CH-601XL aircraft.
>>
>>In response to the NTSB Safety Recommendation letter (dated April 14, 2009),
the FAA officials stated that they will commence their own thorough review of
the Zodiac design, and has given this review high priority. Zenair will cooperate
fully in assisting the FAA.
>>
>>Zenair also continues with the ongoing design analysis of the Zodiac CH-601XL,
including wing flutter analysis. The independent consulting team from Germany
has released preliminary findings. These preliminary findings confirm that
the aircraft, with properly tensioned control cables, is not prone to flutter.
The team is continuing its analysis, including the recommendations set forth
in the NTSB's letter, such as mass balanced ailerons.
>>
>>Zenair wants to remind builders, owners and pilots to verify that all control
surfaces are properly fastened and secured, and free of play, and that control
stops are present and properly installed, and that the control systems are not
loose. Pilots are reminded to operate the aircraft within its design limitations.
>>
>>///
>>
>>--------
>>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=241209#241209
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | New Zenith Statement |
But why should the items on your list be different for the XL when compared to
other aircraft types? Do you disagree that the XL has had a disproportionate number
of unexplained crashes when compared to other types?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:24 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
Hi, Craig.
Since my crystal ball is in the shop, here's what I'm waiting for...
How many of the crashed aircraft had loose or slack aileron cables?
How many of the crashed aircraft had loose or improper wing attachments?
How many of the crashed aircraft were overstressed from intentional or unintentional
control inputs?
How many of the crashed aircraft were built or maintained outside of design specification?
Once I have that number, and subtract it from 6, I'll have a much better idea if
the risk of flying my airplane is excessive, or not.
Rick Lindstrom
Zenvair N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 11:03 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>Here is what I see in my crystal ball: Zenith and other organizations will carefully
analyze the XL and find no design flaws. But we will be left with the fact
that (as a percentage of the flying fleet) XL's crash more often for unknown
reasons than comparable aircraft. It is the distance between those two realities
that gives everyone pause.
>
>-- Craig
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:22 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>Hi, Gig. Kinda confirms what's been stated all along, doesn't it?
>
>(sigh)
>
>Rick Lindstrom
>Zenvair N42KP
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 7:26 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>April 22, 2009
>>
>>Zenair met with FAA officials on April 22, 2009. The meeting was productive,
with FAA officials confirming that they have no plans to ground the fleet of
Zodiac CH-601XL aircraft.
>>
>>In response to the NTSB Safety Recommendation letter (dated April 14, 2009),
the FAA officials stated that they will commence their own thorough review of
the Zodiac design, and has given this review high priority. Zenair will cooperate
fully in assisting the FAA.
>>
>>Zenair also continues with the ongoing design analysis of the Zodiac CH-601XL,
including wing flutter analysis. The independent consulting team from Germany
has released preliminary findings. These preliminary findings confirm that
the aircraft, with properly tensioned control cables, is not prone to flutter.
The team is continuing its analysis, including the recommendations set forth
in the NTSB's letter, such as mass balanced ailerons.
>>
>>Zenair wants to remind builders, owners and pilots to verify that all control
surfaces are properly fastened and secured, and free of play, and that control
stops are present and properly installed, and that the control systems are not
loose. Pilots are reminded to operate the aircraft within its design limitations.
>>
>>///
>>
>>--------
>>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=241209#241209
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: My plans for flying my XL |
Since you asked. People have died in unexplained circumstances with the
601XL. So I think you should be concerned. Not frightened, not grounded,
simply aware and concerned, it may in fact turn out that a modification is
required. With all due respect for your history and such, expertise in one
field does not confer expertise in another, so it has little bearing. Fly
carefully and I believe you'll be ok. But that believe has no basis in fact,
it is simply my feeling about the aircraft. Good luck and safe flying.
----- Original Message -----
From: <macleod@eagle.ca>
>
> Within a month I should be flying my XL. Am I concerned - NO! Why not?
>
> Any Comments? (especially on MY PLANS)
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New Zenith Statement |
Hi, Craig.
Yes, I do disagree that the crash numbers are disproportionate when compared to
other kits.
The 601XL is an extremely easy to build kit, demanding little skill, and perfect
for first time builders. (Like me.) It's inexpensive to acquire, and very easy
to fly.
However, it does have a very effective elevator, it is NOT stressed beyond the
standard category, and it WILL easily go faster than it was originally designed
to do.
These things are not detriments, unless abused. Which, given the date we've seen,
is likely for at least some of the crashes.
RVs, by comparison, generally require more skill to build, and attract a different
kind of pilot. I'm not saying that Zenith pilots are less skilled, just that
the airplanes are more "entry level". Of course, there are a whole bunch of
Zenith pilots who have zillions of hours and aeronautical experience, but still
love the airplane's simplicity and flight characteristics. And I know that
several of crashes involved pilots with oodles of experience, which makes me suspect
maintenance or turbulence issues in these cases.
But this is all just speculation without hard data. That's why I won't simply say
"It crashes more than others do" without bona fide evidence.
Just my opinion.
Rick Lindstrom
N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 2:43 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>But why should the items on your list be different for the XL when compared to
other aircraft types? Do you disagree that the XL has had a disproportionate
number of unexplained crashes when compared to other types?
>
>-- Craig
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:24 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>Hi, Craig.
>
>Since my crystal ball is in the shop, here's what I'm waiting for...
>
>How many of the crashed aircraft had loose or slack aileron cables?
>How many of the crashed aircraft had loose or improper wing attachments?
>How many of the crashed aircraft were overstressed from intentional or unintentional
control inputs?
>How many of the crashed aircraft were built or maintained outside of design specification?
>
>Once I have that number, and subtract it from 6, I'll have a much better idea
if the risk of flying my airplane is excessive, or not.
>
>Rick Lindstrom
>Zenvair N42KP
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 11:03 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>Here is what I see in my crystal ball: Zenith and other organizations will carefully
analyze the XL and find no design flaws. But we will be left with the
fact that (as a percentage of the flying fleet) XL's crash more often for unknown
reasons than comparable aircraft. It is the distance between those two realities
that gives everyone pause.
>>
>>-- Craig
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
>>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:22 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>Hi, Gig. Kinda confirms what's been stated all along, doesn't it?
>>
>>(sigh)
>>
>>Rick Lindstrom
>>Zenvair N42KP
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>>>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 7:26 AM
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>>
>>>
>>>April 22, 2009
>>>
>>>Zenair met with FAA officials on April 22, 2009. The meeting was productive,
with FAA officials confirming that they have no plans to ground the fleet of
Zodiac CH-601XL aircraft.
>>>
>>>In response to the NTSB Safety Recommendation letter (dated April 14, 2009),
the FAA officials stated that they will commence their own thorough review of
the Zodiac design, and has given this review high priority. Zenair will cooperate
fully in assisting the FAA.
>>>
>>>Zenair also continues with the ongoing design analysis of the Zodiac CH-601XL,
including wing flutter analysis. The independent consulting team from Germany
has released preliminary findings. These preliminary findings confirm that
the aircraft, with properly tensioned control cables, is not prone to flutter.
The team is continuing its analysis, including the recommendations set forth
in the NTSB's letter, such as mass balanced ailerons.
>>>
>>>Zenair wants to remind builders, owners and pilots to verify that all control
surfaces are properly fastened and secured, and free of play, and that control
stops are present and properly installed, and that the control systems are
not loose. Pilots are reminded to operate the aircraft within its design limitations.
>>>
>>>///
>>>
>>>--------
>>>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=241209#241209
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: New Zenith Statement |
Gig Giacona wrote:
> April 22, 2009
>
> These preliminary findings confirm that the aircraft, with properly tensioned
control cables, is not prone to flutter.
>
>
Who wants to fly an airplane that is going to come apart in mid air as soon as
the aileron cables are not perfectly tensioned. Cables become loose, if an airplane
design is so bad that it requires perfection to fly safely, then the design
should be fixed.
Obviously, having perfectly tensioned cables is not always going to happen, as
evidenced by a lot of recent crashes. I know many will talk a big talk to defend
a company they bought an airplane from, but I wonder how many here would
send uptheirr Kids, or their wife in a Zodiac CH-601XL airplane today ???
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241252#241252
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: | New Zenith Statement |
If you want to restrict the comparison to low-wing, all metal LSA then what about
Sonex, the 601HD or HDS? If we can throw in high-wing rag-and-tube then there
is Kitfox, Rans, etc. Or the 701, Flight Design CTSW and CTLS, etc.
The point of my original post is that I doubt that the current investigation will
turn up a smoking gun. Which means that we will be back to where we were before
ZBAG and the NTSB indicted flutter.
It is the nature of accident investigations that we are not going to get hard answers
to the specific questions on your list. But if the mix of pilots building
and flying XLs is similar to those flying other LSA then significant differences
in the accident rates point to the aircraft. It may be that adding the stops
to restrict elevator travel will make planes with that change safer. But
this is an experiment that will take a long time to yield results.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:19 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
Hi, Craig.
Yes, I do disagree that the crash numbers are disproportionate when compared to
other kits.
The 601XL is an extremely easy to build kit, demanding little skill, and perfect
for first time builders. (Like me.) It's inexpensive to acquire, and very easy
to fly.
However, it does have a very effective elevator, it is NOT stressed beyond the
standard category, and it WILL easily go faster than it was originally designed
to do.
These things are not detriments, unless abused. Which, given the date we've seen,
is likely for at least some of the crashes.
RVs, by comparison, generally require more skill to build, and attract a different
kind of pilot. I'm not saying that Zenith pilots are less skilled, just that
the airplanes are more "entry level". Of course, there are a whole bunch of
Zenith pilots who have zillions of hours and aeronautical experience, but still
love the airplane's simplicity and flight characteristics. And I know that
several of crashes involved pilots with oodles of experience, which makes me suspect
maintenance or turbulence issues in these cases.
But this is all just speculation without hard data. That's why I won't simply say
"It crashes more than others do" without bona fide evidence.
Just my opinion.
Rick Lindstrom
N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 2:43 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>But why should the items on your list be different for the XL when compared to
other aircraft types? Do you disagree that the XL has had a disproportionate
number of unexplained crashes when compared to other types?
>
>-- Craig
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:24 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>Hi, Craig.
>
>Since my crystal ball is in the shop, here's what I'm waiting for...
>
>How many of the crashed aircraft had loose or slack aileron cables?
>How many of the crashed aircraft had loose or improper wing attachments?
>How many of the crashed aircraft were overstressed from intentional or unintentional
control inputs?
>How many of the crashed aircraft were built or maintained outside of design specification?
>
>Once I have that number, and subtract it from 6, I'll have a much better idea
if the risk of flying my airplane is excessive, or not.
>
>Rick Lindstrom
>Zenvair N42KP
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 11:03 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>Here is what I see in my crystal ball: Zenith and other organizations will carefully
analyze the XL and find no design flaws. But we will be left with the
fact that (as a percentage of the flying fleet) XL's crash more often for unknown
reasons than comparable aircraft. It is the distance between those two realities
that gives everyone pause.
>>
>>-- Craig
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
>>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:22 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>Hi, Gig. Kinda confirms what's been stated all along, doesn't it?
>>
>>(sigh)
>>
>>Rick Lindstrom
>>Zenvair N42KP
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>>>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 7:26 AM
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>>
>>>
>>>April 22, 2009
>>>
>>>Zenair met with FAA officials on April 22, 2009. The meeting was productive,
with FAA officials confirming that they have no plans to ground the fleet of
Zodiac CH-601XL aircraft.
>>>
>>>In response to the NTSB Safety Recommendation letter (dated April 14, 2009),
the FAA officials stated that they will commence their own thorough review of
the Zodiac design, and has given this review high priority. Zenair will cooperate
fully in assisting the FAA.
>>>
>>>Zenair also continues with the ongoing design analysis of the Zodiac CH-601XL,
including wing flutter analysis. The independent consulting team from Germany
has released preliminary findings. These preliminary findings confirm that
the aircraft, with properly tensioned control cables, is not prone to flutter.
The team is continuing its analysis, including the recommendations set forth
in the NTSB's letter, such as mass balanced ailerons.
>>>
>>>Zenair wants to remind builders, owners and pilots to verify that all control
surfaces are properly fastened and secured, and free of play, and that control
stops are present and properly installed, and that the control systems are
not loose. Pilots are reminded to operate the aircraft within its design limitations.
>>>
>>>///
>>>
>>>--------
>>>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=241209#241209
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: New Zenith Statement |
> I wonder how many here would send up their Kids, or their wife in a
Zodiac CH-601XL airplane today ???
Well, Chris Heintz for one.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of JetPilot
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 5:01 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
Gig Giacona wrote:
> April 22, 2009
>
> These preliminary findings confirm that the aircraft, with properly
tensioned control cables, is not prone to flutter.
>
>
Who wants to fly an airplane that is going to come apart in mid air as soon
as the aileron cables are not perfectly tensioned. Cables become loose, if
an airplane design is so bad that it requires perfection to fly safely, then
the design should be fixed.
Obviously, having perfectly tensioned cables is not always going to happen,
as evidenced by a lot of recent crashes. I know many will talk a big talk
to defend a company they bought an airplane from, but I wonder how many here
would send uptheirr Kids, or their wife in a Zodiac CH-601XL airplane today
???
Mike
--------
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you
could have !!!
Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241252#241252
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: New Zenith Statement |
Mike,
Who would send up their kids (or their wife) in a Zodiac CH-601XL, you
ask? Well, Chris Heinz does.
And if that's not sufficient, I find it hard to believe that all but a
truly suicidal pilot would climb into an airplane without ensuring that
it's properly maintained and in airworthy condition.
And you ask, "Who wants to fly an airplane that is going to come apart
in mid air as soon as the aileron cables are not perfectly tensioned.
Cables become loose, if an airplane design is so bad that it requires
perfection to fly safely, then the design should be fixed."
Sounds like a straw man argument to me. Any airplane you fly requires
rigorous preflight inspection and proper (and regular) maintenance.
There's a difference between perfection and appropriate maintenance, and
I believe you know that.
Cory
>
>
> Obviously, having perfectly tensioned cables is not always going to happen, as
evidenced by a lot of recent crashes. I know many will talk a big talk to
defend a company they bought an airplane from, but I wonder how many here would
send uptheirr Kids, or their wife in a Zodiac CH-601XL airplane today ???
>
> Mike
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could
have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241252#241252
>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
Mike:
You've made two statements that you might want to consider retracting:
>Who wants to fly an airplane that is going to come apart in mid air as soon as
the aileron cables are not perfectly tensioned. Cables become loose, if an airplane
design is so bad that it requires perfection to fly safely, then the design
should be fixed.<
Are you speaking of the 601XL? Seems to me that they fly just fine, even with cable
tensions well under specification. My own airplane flew with no flutter,
at speeds as high as 125 IAS with a 12 pound aileron cable tension. But I did
acquire a tensiometer, confirmed the calibration, and raised the tension to 20
pounds when Zenith issued the bulletin. Your statement of "come apart in mid
air...not perfectly tensioned" is incendiary and inappropriate.
>Obviously, having perfectly tensioned cables is not always going to happen, as
evidenced by a lot of recent crashes. I know many will talk a big talk to defend
a company they bought an airplane from, but I wonder how many here would
send uptheirr Kids, or their wife in a Zodiac CH-601XL airplane today ???<
A LOT of recent crashes? ALL due to imperfect cable tensions? A couple in the last
two years, maybe, from pretty slack aileron cables. Do you KNOW something
that the rest of us don't, or are you just throwing gasoline on the fire? Again?
Sheesh.
Rick
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New Zenith Statement |
Well, I installed the elevator stops on my plane after raising the aileron cable
tension. I have no desire to exceed 4 negative Gs under any condition, including
having a pax accidentally whack the stick forward while in cruise.
I have no idea exactly what the forensic analysis, should there be one, of the
601 crashes will turn up. And you may well be right, that we'll be right back
where we started in some regards.
So I'll find it interesting if there will be any more wing failure related crashes
of 601 that are flown within design limits, have proper maintenance, and have
limited down elevator.
And I intend to keep logging hours until the jury comes back in.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 6:55 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>If you want to restrict the comparison to low-wing, all metal LSA then what about
Sonex, the 601HD or HDS? If we can throw in high-wing rag-and-tube then there
is Kitfox, Rans, etc. Or the 701, Flight Design CTSW and CTLS, etc.
>
>The point of my original post is that I doubt that the current investigation will
turn up a smoking gun. Which means that we will be back to where we were before
ZBAG and the NTSB indicted flutter.
>
>It is the nature of accident investigations that we are not going to get hard
answers to the specific questions on your list. But if the mix of pilots building
and flying XLs is similar to those flying other LSA then significant differences
in the accident rates point to the aircraft. It may be that adding the
stops to restrict elevator travel will make planes with that change safer. But
this is an experiment that will take a long time to yield results.
>
>-- Craig
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:19 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>Hi, Craig.
>
>Yes, I do disagree that the crash numbers are disproportionate when compared to
other kits.
>
>The 601XL is an extremely easy to build kit, demanding little skill, and perfect
for first time builders. (Like me.) It's inexpensive to acquire, and very
easy to fly.
>
>However, it does have a very effective elevator, it is NOT stressed beyond the
standard category, and it WILL easily go faster than it was originally designed
to do.
>
>These things are not detriments, unless abused. Which, given the date we've seen,
is likely for at least some of the crashes.
>
>RVs, by comparison, generally require more skill to build, and attract a different
kind of pilot. I'm not saying that Zenith pilots are less skilled, just that
the airplanes are more "entry level". Of course, there are a whole bunch of
Zenith pilots who have zillions of hours and aeronautical experience, but still
love the airplane's simplicity and flight characteristics. And I know that
several of crashes involved pilots with oodles of experience, which makes me
suspect maintenance or turbulence issues in these cases.
>
>But this is all just speculation without hard data. That's why I won't simply
say "It crashes more than others do" without bona fide evidence.
>
>Just my opinion.
>
>Rick Lindstrom
>N42KP
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 2:43 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>But why should the items on your list be different for the XL when compared to
other aircraft types? Do you disagree that the XL has had a disproportionate
number of unexplained crashes when compared to other types?
>>
>>-- Craig
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
>>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 3:24 PM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>Hi, Craig.
>>
>>Since my crystal ball is in the shop, here's what I'm waiting for...
>>
>>How many of the crashed aircraft had loose or slack aileron cables?
>>How many of the crashed aircraft had loose or improper wing attachments?
>>How many of the crashed aircraft were overstressed from intentional or unintentional
control inputs?
>>How many of the crashed aircraft were built or maintained outside of design specification?
>>
>>Once I have that number, and subtract it from 6, I'll have a much better idea
if the risk of flying my airplane is excessive, or not.
>>
>>Rick Lindstrom
>>Zenvair N42KP
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>>>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 11:03 AM
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>>
>>>
>>>Here is what I see in my crystal ball: Zenith and other organizations will carefully
analyze the XL and find no design flaws. But we will be left with the
fact that (as a percentage of the flying fleet) XL's crash more often for unknown
reasons than comparable aircraft. It is the distance between those two realities
that gives everyone pause.
>>>
>>>-- Craig
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
>>>Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:22 AM
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi, Gig. Kinda confirms what's been stated all along, doesn't it?
>>>
>>>(sigh)
>>>
>>>Rick Lindstrom
>>>Zenvair N42KP
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>>>>Sent: Apr 25, 2009 7:26 AM
>>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>>Subject: Zenith-List: New Zenith Statement
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>April 22, 2009
>>>>
>>>>Zenair met with FAA officials on April 22, 2009. The meeting was productive,
with FAA officials confirming that they have no plans to ground the fleet of
Zodiac CH-601XL aircraft.
>>>>
>>>>In response to the NTSB Safety Recommendation letter (dated April 14, 2009),
the FAA officials stated that they will commence their own thorough review of
the Zodiac design, and has given this review high priority. Zenair will cooperate
fully in assisting the FAA.
>>>>
>>>>Zenair also continues with the ongoing design analysis of the Zodiac CH-601XL,
including wing flutter analysis. The independent consulting team from Germany
has released preliminary findings. These preliminary findings confirm that
the aircraft, with properly tensioned control cables, is not prone to flutter.
The team is continuing its analysis, including the recommendations set forth
in the NTSB's letter, such as mass balanced ailerons.
>>>>
>>>>Zenair wants to remind builders, owners and pilots to verify that all control
surfaces are properly fastened and secured, and free of play, and that control
stops are present and properly installed, and that the control systems are
not loose. Pilots are reminded to operate the aircraft within its design limitations.
>>>>
>>>>///
>>>>
>>>>--------
>>>>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=241209#241209
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 04:01:13PM -0700, JetPilot wrote:
> Who wants to fly an airplane that is going to come apart in mid air as
> soon as the aileron cables are not perfectly tensioned. Cables become
> loose, if an airplane design is so bad that it requires perfection to fly
> safely, then the design should be fixed.
This is significantly overstating the case. Lots of Zodiacs have flown lots
of hours with cables looser than spec. Mine did. It doesn't any more.
It's pretty obvious to most folks who actually bother to think about the
situation that it takes much more than just loose aileron cables to cause a
problem.
> Obviously, having perfectly tensioned cables is not always going to
> happen, as evidenced by a lot of recent crashes. I know many will talk a
> big talk to defend a company they bought an airplane from, but I wonder
> how many here would send uptheirr Kids, or their wife in a Zodiac CH-601XL
> airplane today ???
I would take anyone up in mine, in a heartbeat, without restriction or
reservation.
--
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 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
What the ground vibration testing actually found, according to
statements made in Avweb Interview, was that while flutter could occur
with loose cables, it was recoverable and not a threat to the
airframe. This seems to be in direct conflict with your statement
below. Of course it's impossible to completely model what happens in
the air while on the ground, it sure looks like you are overstating
things, by a lot.
On Apr 25, 2009, at 7:01 PM, JetPilot wrote:
> --> Who wants to fly an airplane that is going to come apart in mid
> air as soon as the aileron cables are not perfectly tensioned.
> Cables become loose, if an airplane design is so bad that it
> requires perfection to fly safely, then the design should be fixed.
> Mike
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as
> you could have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: My plans for flying my XL |
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:53:20PM -0400, macleod@eagle.ca wrote:
> Within a month I should be flying my XL.
Happy to hear it!
> My thoughts on the ZBAG group
> This is a group of well meaning individuals who invested time and money to
> find a fault with the design. Well, apparently the design is ok - but
> their mission was to find a problem - so they found one - flutter - not
> easily refutable - and, despite a lack of evidence, went with it. (To the
> NTSB no less).
Sorry, but no. I, at least, would have been perfectly happy had there been
nothing at all found. I'm happy Zenair chose to run the exhaustive analysis
of the Zodiac structure, both static and dynamic, they hadn't run before. I
look forward with interest to reading the reports they've promised to
publish.
> Flutter is a phenomena that can be computer modeled. If these models
> tell us that flutter is not an issue, I believe them.
However, those models are only approximations unless and until they're
validated with ground vibration testing. Zenair has now done that; until
then, it's just a guess.
> In addition, trying to scare us by suggesting that our XLs will behave
> similarly to the posted videos of flutter on non XL wings is
> irresponsible. We all know that given the right conditions (well above
> Vne) flutter can occur.
That assumes that the design was analyzed and tested for flutter above Vne -
something that may or may not have been done before now in the case of the
Zodiac.
> MY CONCLUSIONS:
> - There is not a design problem that causes flutter.
Zenair's testing this week seems to agree with you. If so, it's the first
time anyone can say so definitively.
> - There is probably no single cause of the accidents. (unless you count
> pilot error)
Sorry, but I can't accept this either. For example, where did Mathieu Heintz
get the Yuba City accident having a -8G load?! The NTSB report didn't say
anything like that. Not all pilots have been doing aerobatics in their
Zodiacs.
> - Aileron balancing is not required.
If there's no flutter, then you're correct. However, *every* aeronautical
engineer I've discussed the Zodiac with, and *every* bit of written guidance
from the FAA, says that the only way to *guarantee* no flutter is to use
mass balanced controls. Given that, it's not unreasonable to assume that
mass balancing is required.
> - Eyewitness reports can be misleading.
No arguments here.
> MY PLANS
> - First, before taking FSVB up - practice, practice, practice landings in
> another low wing plane until I can grease it in every time.
> I think the stresses on the wings from hard landings far exceed
> anything you can do in flight.
I'd *strongly* recommend getting some time in a Zodiac. The pitch
sensitivity is such that you *will* need some transition time. Landing a
Zodiac is not like landing a Cherokee or a Mooney or a Musketeer. The
principles are the same, sure, but your first few landings in a Zodiac
*will* suck.
> - Avoid off airport landings (and try to avoid grass strips)
> I know that many XLs use grass strips but in my experience they can be
> very rough and again put stress on the wing attachments.
I've flown in ad out of grass strips with mine. No issues. (In fact, my
favorite picture of my airplane was taken at a fly-in at a grass strip in
the middle of nowhere on Michigan's upper peninsula.)
> - Keep the cables tightened to 'spec'.
> - Never fly faster than 130 kts.
Both very good ideas.
> - Fly only in good weather (I have always done this, I hate "bumps")
That's a good idea in theory, but in practice, you'll get them anyway...just
remember to slow to maneuvering speed if the bumps get too bad.
> - Treat the plane with kid gloves (no spins, dives, turns over 60 degrees
> bank, etc)
This is just prudent piloting. The Zodiac is not an aerobatic airplane.
Don't fly it like one.
> - Watch that rearward C of G
> With the light Rotax engine my plane's C of G can easily go behind 450mm
> as the fuel is burned.
Good advice, always. I have jsut the opposite problem with the O-200: it
takes some weight in the seats with full fuel to keep the CG in limits
forward.
> - Never, never make abrupt fore or aft movements with the stick
> I have the dual stick option, I think this will give me more leverage
> with less feedback when I move the elevator.
Don't think of it as moving the stick. Think of it as pushing on the stick
until the airplane does what you want. The Zodiac will teach you the meaning
of 'control pressure".
> - I will not 'balance' my ailerons or elevator.
Your choice, but I suspect that, should Zenair develop and release a mass
balance kit, the market will force you to install it if you ever want to
sell your airplane.
That said...why wouldn't you? What bad effects would you expect such a kit
to have?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Method of Mass Balancing |
Hey finger pointers and name callers, stop for a minute and discuss something.
I went to an EAA breakfast this morning after some more time in IFR training (Love
those VFR holds! I feel like a NASCAR driver!!) . In conversation, a gentleman
in a Stagar EZ and I discussed Static balancing he did for his alerons. It
was simply a steel rod attached at the lower portion of the aleron (composite)
on the front side below the hing line. Seemed to work nicely and simle to boot.
It made a very small foot print on the part since it spaned the width of
the aleron. It literaly was a rod attached at the most forward lower angle of
the aleron and is hidden by the rear chanel.
Is this literaly what "MAY" be possible for balancing and is it a valid method
of doing it. It worked on his 200mph plane obvioulsy. If so it requires no modification
of the exissting wing structure. It seem regardless of speed, balancing
makes it a better mechanically.
So, instead of pointing fingers, take a break and do something constructive like
telling me what you think. - - - About the method of balancing!
I only have a bit of common sense and no formal degree in engineering. Funny though,
I do train several in my line of work though and they always want my opinion!
Kind of comical them learning from me!!!! In the school of hard knocks there
is no certificate of BS or PHD.
If I need to do a small sketch I will be glad to .
Thanks,
Rich
601XL paciently building, waithing and listening
I see an engine soon! (Still!)
Do not archive
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! --
|