Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:52 AM - Chat Room Reminder (George Race)
2. 06:12 AM - Re: Cable gauge calibration (Gig Giacona)
3. 07:01 AM - Re: New Zenith Statement (JetPilot)
4. 07:08 AM - Re: Re: Cable gauge calibration (Juan Vega)
5. 07:18 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (T. Graziano)
6. 07:43 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Rick Lindstrom)
7. 07:43 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Jay Maynard)
8. 08:05 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Rick Lindstrom)
9. 08:16 AM - Re: New Zenith Statement (Gig Giacona)
10. 08:26 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Frank Roskind)
11. 08:35 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (William Dominguez)
12. 08:35 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Dave)
13. 08:51 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Rick Lindstrom)
14. 08:59 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Rick Lindstrom)
15. 08:59 AM - Re: New Zenith Statement (Gig Giacona)
16. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Juan Vega)
17. 09:33 AM - Re: New Zenith Statement (JetPilot)
18. 09:42 AM - Re: New Zenith Statement (JetPilot)
19. 09:43 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Gary Gower)
20. 09:48 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Gary Gower)
21. 10:05 AM - Re: New Zenith Statement (Gig Giacona)
22. 10:05 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Bryan Martin)
23. 10:27 AM - Re: New Zenith Statement (JetPilot)
24. 10:37 AM - Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 (JetPilot)
25. 10:46 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (William Dominguez)
26. 11:10 AM - Re: Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (William Dominguez)
27. 11:11 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (jaybannist@cs.com)
28. 11:13 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (JohnDRead@aol.com)
29. 11:37 AM - Re: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 (William Dominguez)
30. 11:37 AM - Re: New Zenith Statement (Gig Giacona)
31. 11:56 AM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (William Dominguez)
32. 12:05 PM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Juan Vega)
33. 12:05 PM - Re: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 (Juan Vega)
34. 12:13 PM - Re: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 (Rick Lindstrom)
35. 12:33 PM - BSR Chute (Ken)
36. 12:36 PM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (William Dominguez)
37. 12:36 PM - Re: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 (Patrick Best)
38. 12:39 PM - Re: BSR Chute (Gig Giacona)
39. 12:42 PM - Re: New Zenith Statement (Gig Giacona)
40. 12:54 PM - Re: Re: BSR Chute (Iberplanes IGL)
41. 01:07 PM - Re: BSR Chute (Paul Mulwitz)
42. 01:29 PM - Re: BSR Chute (Gary Gower)
43. 01:56 PM - Re: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 (ernie)
44. 02:06 PM - Re: BSR Chute (Gig Giacona)
45. 03:30 PM - Re: BSR Chute (cookwithgas)
46. 03:35 PM - Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 (kmccune)
47. 05:04 PM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Lawrence Webber)
48. 05:05 PM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (purplemoon99@bellsouth.net)
49. 05:17 PM - Re: Re: New Zenith Statement (Juan Vega)
50. 09:05 PM - Re: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith CH-701 (jerry Shepard)
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: | Chat Room Reminder |
Live Chat Room every Monday evening around 8:00 EDT
www.mykitairplane.com <blocked::blocked::http://www.mykitairplane.com/>
Click on the Chat Room link on the page.
George
Do Not Archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cable gauge calibration |
When I spoke with the DAR that will be inspecting my plane for the AW certificate
he said that he will be asking for two things (and aircraft log book entries
to back them up) regarding cable tension.
1. That cables have been tensioned to design specs and what those specs are.
2. That the device used to check the cable tension was properly calibrated according
to the instructions that came with the tension measuring device.
I specifically asked about people that build their own meter. He said they need
to write calibration instructions for it as well.
--------
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=241412#241412
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: New Zenith Statement |
The best theory so far is flutter, and yes its just a theory at this point. Bottom
line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cause is
if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight. How many of those dead guys
do you think will say, its OK, because it might not have been flutter, or
its OK, because Zenith Air released a statement...
No matter how you sugar coat it, or try to reason it away, for whatever reason
Zodiac CH-601XL are having a large number of structural failures, and coming apart
in flight. This is not acceptable for any design.
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=241416#241416
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cable gauge calibration |
just hang 30lbs of stuff off the tensionometer, then take a photo or something
to show it was calibrated.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 9:11 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Cable gauge calibration
>
>
>When I spoke with the DAR that will be inspecting my plane for the AW certificate
he said that he will be asking for two things (and aircraft log book entries
to back them up) regarding cable tension.
>
>1. That cables have been tensioned to design specs and what those specs are.
>
>2. That the device used to check the cable tension was properly calibrated according
to the instructions that came with the tension measuring device.
>
>I specifically asked about people that build their own meter. He said they need
to write calibration instructions for it as well.
>
>--------
>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=241412#241412
>
>
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: New Zenith Statement |
In my "opinion" FWIW, the "best theory" is improper stick input for the
flight condition, causing excessive g loading. If the wings and horiz stab
are well designed, it is a toss up as to which fails first in overload,
assuming speed above Va.
Tony Graziano
XL/Jab; N493TG; 487 hrs
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 9:00 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
> The best theory so far is flutter, and yes its just a theory at this
> point. Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what
> the cause is if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight. How
> many of those dead guys do you think will say, its OK, because it might
> not have been flutter, or its OK, because Zenith Air released a
> statement...
>
> No matter how you sugar coat it, or try to reason it away, for whatever
> reason Zodiac CH-601XL are having a large number of structural failures,
> and coming apart in flight. This is not acceptable for any design.
>
> 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=241416#241416
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
Excuse me, Mike, but I have to ask.
Do you have ANY personal experience with this design, or the airplane itself?
You've posted some really outrageous statements, such as saying the airplane will
disintegrate in mid-air if your cable tensions aren't perfect. Based on what
evidence?
And now you're painting a picture that these crashes are endemic ("Bottom line
is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cause is if you are
in the airplane that breaks up in flight.") in spite of hard data to contrary.
There have been six crashes over two years, with 10 fatalities, with a small
variety of contributing factors suspected so far. You ignore the tens of thousands
of successful flight hours racked up by the XL in its history, that debunk
your claim of "...having a large number of structural failures, and coming apart
in flight."
And now you're insinuating that we don't care about "the dead guys." What nerve.
Those of us who have built and fly the 601 are a family, after all, and we do
care about each other. And like most families, we aren't shy about disagreements.
How dare you insult the group like this? Are you one us, or just someone
wading into the discussion from the outside just to stir up some crap?
What exactly are your motives here?
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 10:00 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>The best theory so far is flutter, and yes its just a theory at this point.
Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cause is
if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight. How many of those dead
guys do you think will say, its OK, because it might not have been flutter, or
its OK, because Zenith Air released a statement...
>
>No matter how you sugar coat it, or try to reason it away, for whatever reason
Zodiac CH-601XL are having a large number of structural failures, and coming
apart in flight. This is not acceptable for any design.
>
>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=241416#241416
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:17:58AM -0500, T. Graziano wrote:
> In my "opinion" FWIW, the "best theory" is improper stick input for the
> flight condition, causing excessive g loading. If the wings and horiz stab
> are well designed, it is a toss up as to which fails first in overload,
> assuming speed above Va.
I don't buy this explanation, at least in the case of N158MD. An
experienced, 79-year-old pilot with several owned airplanes and many hours
of flight under his belt, taking his wife for her first flight in their new
airplane, is not going to make the kinds of control inputs that would tear
the wings off from straight and level flight. Something else happened first.
I don't know where Mathieu Heintz got his statement in the AVweb podcast
citing a -7G (-8G? Something like that) force as the start of the accident
sequence, but the NTSB didn't say that in their report.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
Sudden incapacitation comes to mind.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 10:38 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:17:58AM -0500, T. Graziano wrote:
>> In my "opinion" FWIW, the "best theory" is improper stick input for the
>> flight condition, causing excessive g loading. If the wings and horiz stab
>> are well designed, it is a toss up as to which fails first in overload,
>> assuming speed above Va.
>
>I don't buy this explanation, at least in the case of N158MD. An
>experienced, 79-year-old pilot with several owned airplanes and many hours
>of flight under his belt, taking his wife for her first flight in their new
>airplane, is not going to make the kinds of control inputs that would tear
>the wings off from straight and level flight. Something else happened first.
>
>I don't know where Mathieu Heintz got his statement in the AVweb podcast
>citing a -7G (-8G? Something like that) force as the start of the accident
>sequence, but the NTSB didn't say that in their report.
>--
>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: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
tigerrick(at)mindspring.c wrote:
> Sudden incapacitation comes to mind.
>
> Rick
>
> --
That's the first thing that came to mind for me as well. There is also the chance
of all sorts of other accidental control inputs.
--------
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=241434#241434
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
Does anyone know what the fracture patterns on the failed main spars looked
like? If aileron flutter were the cause=2C the fracture would have been b
ecause of a torsional stress=2C which might make stress lines with almost a
circular pattern around the center of the spar. If the failure were due t
o a single overstress=2C then we would see a single big tear=2C with few li
nes parallel to the final line of failure. If the wing had a previous crac
k which grew=2C we would see a bunch of lines where small tears contributed
to the final depth of the crack. If we know how the spar failed then we c
an exclude some of the conjecture.
> Date: Mon=2C 27 Apr 2009 11:01:04 -0400
> From: tigerrick@mindspring.com
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
om>
>
> Sudden incapacitation comes to mind.
>
> Rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
> >Sent: Apr 27=2C 2009 10:38 AM
> >To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
> >
> >
> >On Mon=2C Apr 27=2C 2009 at 09:17:58AM -0500=2C T. Graziano wrote:
> >> In my "opinion" FWIW=2C the "best theory" is improper stick input for
the
> >> flight condition=2C causing excessive g loading. If the wings and hor
iz stab
> >> are well designed=2C it is a toss up as to which fails first in overlo
ad=2C
> >> assuming speed above Va.
> >
> >I don't buy this explanation=2C at least in the case of N158MD. An
> >experienced=2C 79-year-old pilot with several owned airplanes and many h
ours
> >of flight under his belt=2C taking his wife for her first flight in thei
r new
> >airplane=2C is not going to make the kinds of control inputs that would
tear
> >the wings off from straight and level flight. Something else happened fi
rst.
> >
> >I don't know where Mathieu Heintz got his statement in the AVweb podcast
> >citing a -7G (-8G? Something like that) force as the start of the accide
nt
> >sequence=2C but the NTSB didn't say that in their report.
> >--
> >Jay Maynard=2C K5ZC=2C PP-ASEL=2C AGI http://www.conmicro.com
> >http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
> >Fairmont=2C MN (KFRM) (Yes=2C that's me!)
> >AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Rediscover Hotmail=AE: Get e-mail storage that grows with you.
http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_
Storage2_042009
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
The use of the word "Large" or "small" is relative and subject to bias. The
important piece of information is the answer to this question; how many ot
her designs (with similar fleet size) have experimented 6 crashes due to wi
ng failures in the last 3 years.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
Excuse me, Mike, but I have to ask.
Do you have ANY personal experience with this design, or the airplane itsel
f?
You've posted some really outrageous statements, such as saying the airplan
e will disintegrate in mid-air if your cable tensions aren't perfect. Based
on what evidence?
And now you're painting a picture that these crashes are endemic ("Bottom l
ine is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cause is if y
ou are in the airplane that breaks up in flight.") in spite of hard data to
contrary. There have been six crashes over two years, with 10 fatalities,
with a small variety of contributing factors suspected so far. You ignore t
he tens of thousands of successful flight hours racked up by the XL in its
history, that debunk your claim of "...having a large number of structural
failures, and coming apart in flight."
And now you're insinuating that we don't care about "the dead guys." What n
erve. Those of us who have built and fly the 601 are a family, after all, a
nd we do care about each other. And like most families, we aren't shy about
disagreements. How dare you insult the group like this? Are you one us, or
just someone wading into the discussion from the outside just to stir up s
ome crap?
What exactly are your motives here?
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 10:00 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>The best theory so far is flutter, and yes its just a theory at this point
..---Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what
the cause is if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight.- How m
any of those dead guys do you think will say, its OK, because it might not
have been flutter, or its OK, because Zenith Air released a statement...
>
>No matter how you sugar coat it, or try to reason it away, for whatever re
ason Zodiac CH-601XL are having a large number of structural failures, and
coming apart in flight.- This is not acceptable for any design.
>
>Mike
>
>--------
>"NO FEAR" -- If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could hav
e !!!
>
>Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241416#241416
>
>
le, List Admin.
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: New Zenith Statement |
Entirely possible of course, at any age. But it's another theory with no
root in fact or knowledge, wasn't that one of the things we want to avoid?
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 12:16 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>
> tigerrick(at)mindspring.c wrote:
>> Sudden incapacitation comes to mind.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> --
>
>
> That's the first thing that came to mind for me as well. There is also the
> chance of all sorts of other accidental control inputs.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
Exactly right!
There are many airplanes out there that have checkered accident histories, not
because the design itself is flawed, but because they're easy to fly beyond design
limits.
Toss in widely varying construction and maintenance quality, and who can precisely
say?
I'm sure someone will jump in with the NTSB statistical averages here sooner or
later...
Rick
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 11:32 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>The use of the word "Large" or "small" is relative and subject to bias. The important
piece of information is the answer to this question; how many other designs
(with similar fleet size) have experimented 6 crashes due to wing failures
in the last 3 years.
>
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 10:41 AM
>
>
>Excuse me, Mike, but I have to ask.
>
>Do you have ANY personal experience with this design, or the airplane itself?
>
>You've posted some really outrageous statements, such as saying the airplane will
disintegrate in mid-air if your cable tensions aren't perfect. Based on what
evidence?
>
>And now you're painting a picture that these crashes are endemic ("Bottom line
is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cause is if you are
in the airplane that breaks up in flight.") in spite of hard data to contrary.
There have been six crashes over two years, with 10 fatalities, with a small
variety of contributing factors suspected so far. You ignore the tens of thousands
of successful flight hours racked up by the XL in its history, that debunk
your claim of "...having a large number of structural failures, and coming
apart in flight."
>
>And now you're insinuating that we don't care about "the dead guys." What nerve.
Those of us who have built and fly the 601 are a family, after all, and we
do care about each other. And like most families, we aren't shy about disagreements.
How dare you insult the group like this? Are you one us, or just someone
wading into the discussion from the outside just to stir up some crap?
>
>What exactly are your motives here?
>
>Rick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
>>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 10:00 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>The best theory so far is flutter, and yes its just a theory at this point..
Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cause
is if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight. How many of those dead
guys do you think will say, its OK, because it might not have been flutter,
or its OK, because Zenith Air released a statement...
>>
>>No matter how you sugar coat it, or try to reason it away, for whatever reason
Zodiac CH-601XL are having a large number of structural failures, and coming
apart in flight. This is not acceptable for any design.
>>
>>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=241416#241416
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>le, List Admin.
>
>
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 |
That's why it only crossed my mind, along with all the other possibilities. Everyone
wants to find a single causal "smoking gun", like aileron flutter, and move
on. Yes, we do want to avoid wild speculation. However, we also shouldn't
develop tunnel vision either, and be willing to at least consider other possibilities
until all of the facts are in.
Rick
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave <d.goddard@ns.sympatico.ca>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 11:34 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>Entirely possible of course, at any age. But it's another theory with no
>root in fact or knowledge, wasn't that one of the things we want to avoid?
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 12:16 PM
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>>
>>
>> tigerrick(at)mindspring.c wrote:
>>> Sudden incapacitation comes to mind.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>
>> That's the first thing that came to mind for me as well. There is also the
>> chance of all sorts of other accidental control inputs.
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
> Entirely possible of course, at any age. But it's another theory with no
> root in fact or knowledge, wasn't that one of the things we want to avoid?
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> ---
That doesn't seem to be slowing down the NTSB. There was no sign of flutter in
the Yuba City accident.
I agree that guessing sucks. But that is how the scientific process works. (See
#3)
1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results
But the NTSB and others have skipped #4. I'm not even sure they spent that much
time on #5.
--------
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=241445#241445
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
Jay,
i believe the accident cuased the two occupants to fly through window not before
some kind of large negative g manauver cuased them to break the seat belt, tossing
them through the wind shield out the plane. That does not happen by a
flutter, but by a violent stick movement exceeding -8 gs. NTSB report does not
say all the facts occuresd. Hientz Bros actually go to the accident scenes and
check the scene along witht he NTSB. NTSB reports dont always say all the
details.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 11:01 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>Sudden incapacitation comes to mind.
>
>Rick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
>>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 10:38 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 09:17:58AM -0500, T. Graziano wrote:
>>> In my "opinion" FWIW, the "best theory" is improper stick input for the
>>> flight condition, causing excessive g loading. If the wings and horiz stab
>>> are well designed, it is a toss up as to which fails first in overload,
>>> assuming speed above Va.
>>
>>I don't buy this explanation, at least in the case of N158MD. An
>>experienced, 79-year-old pilot with several owned airplanes and many hours
>>of flight under his belt, taking his wife for her first flight in their new
>>airplane, is not going to make the kinds of control inputs that would tear
>>the wings off from straight and level flight. Something else happened first.
>>
>>I don't know where Mathieu Heintz got his statement in the AVweb podcast
>>citing a -7G (-8G? Something like that) force as the start of the accident
>>sequence, but the NTSB didn't say that in their report.
>>--
>>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 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
William Dominguez wrote:
> The use of the word "Large" or "small" is relative and subject to bias. The important
piece of information is the answer to this question; how many other designs
(with similar fleet size) have experimented 6 crashes due to wing failures
in the last 3 years.
>
> William Dominguez
>
> --
William has got it right on, when you have 6 in flight breakups of a model of airplane
in two years you have a PROBLEM. Some dishonest people here that do
not want to admit that their airplane may have a design flaw will try to distract
others by saying, " People were not flying them right, or we don't know what
caused it ". It does not matter, Six in flight breakups in 2 years is UNACCEPTABLE,
PERIOD.
There are not that many Zodiac 601's out there flying that many hours. This would
be like having 100 Cessna's breaking apart in flight in two years, and then
having a some fool saying, " The pilots did not fly them correctly " or " Because
we don't know for sure what caused it, there is no problem and we should
not blame the airplane "..
Any honest and rational human without an agenda will see that six in flight breakups
in two years is EXCESSIVE, especially considering the few number of these
plane in service. I have no use for dishonesty and denail.
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=241455#241455
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
JetPilot wrote:
>
> William Dominguez wrote:
> > The use of the word "Large" or "small" is relative and subject to bias. The
important piece of information is the answer to this question; how many other
designs (with similar fleet size) have experimented 6 crashes due to wing failures
in the last 3 years.
> >
> > William Dominguez
> >
> > --
>
>
> William has got it right on, when you have 6 in flight breakups of a model of
airplane in two years you have a PROBLEM. Some dishonest people here that do
not want to admit that their airplane may have a design flaw will try to distract
others by saying, " People were not flying them right, or we don't know
what caused it ". It does not matter, Six in flight breakups in 2 years is
UNACCEPTABLE, PERIOD. This is NOT happening with other comparable LSA airplanes,
PERIOD.
>
> There are not that many Zodiac 601's out there flying that many hours. This
would be like having 100 Cessna 152's breaking apart in flight in two years,
and then having a some fool saying, " The pilots did not fly them correctly "
or " Because we don't know for sure what caused it, there is no problem and we
should not blame the airplane "..
>
> Any honest and rational human without an agenda will see that six in flight breakups
in two years is EXCESSIVE, especially considering the few number of these
plane in service. I have no use for dishonesty and denail.
>
> 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=241457#241457
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
<tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Excuse me, Mike, but I have to ask.
Do you have ANY personal experience with this design, or the airplane itself?
You've posted some really outrageous statements, such as saying the
airplane will disintegrate in mid-air if your cable tensions aren't perfect.
Based on what evidence?
And now you're painting a picture that these crashes are endemic
("Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the
cause is if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight.") in spite of
hard data to contrary. There have been six crashes over two years, with 10
fatalities, with a small variety of contributing factors suspected so far. You
ignore the tens of thousands of successful flight hours racked up by the XL in
its history, that debunk your claim of "...having a large number of
structural failures, and coming apart in flight."
And now you're insinuating that we don't care about "the dead
guys." What nerve. Those of us who have built and fly the 601 are a family,
after all, and we do care about each other. And like most families, we
aren't shy about disagreements. How dare you insult the group like this? Are
you one us, or just someone wading into the discussion from the outside just to
stir up some crap?
What exactly are your motives here?
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 10:00 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
<orcabonita@hotmail.com>
>
>The best theory so far is flutter, and yes its just a theory at this point.
Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cause is
if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight. How many of those dead
guys do you think will say, its OK, because it might not have been flutter, or
its OK, because Zenith Air released a statement...
>
>No matter how you sugar coat it, or try to reason it away, for whatever
reason Zodiac CH-601XL are having a large number of structural failures, and
coming apart in flight. This is not acceptable for any design.
>
>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=241416#241416
>
>
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: New Zenith Statement |
Hello Mike,
-
Very easy, just answer Rick with the Serial Number of you 601XL
-
Saludos
Gary Gower
601 XL--
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
<tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Excuse me, Mike, but I have to ask.
Do you have ANY personal experience with this design, or the airplane itsel
f?
You've posted some really outrageous statements, such as saying the
airplane will disintegrate in mid-air if your cable tensions aren't perfect
.
Based on what evidence?
And now you're painting a picture that these crashes are endemic
("Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the
cause is if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight.") in spite of
hard data to contrary. There have been six crashes over two years, with 10
fatalities, with a small variety of contributing factors suspected so far.
You
ignore the tens of thousands of successful flight hours racked up by the XL
in
its history, that debunk your claim of "...having a large number of
structural failures, and coming apart in flight."
And now you're insinuating that we don't care about "the dead
guys." What nerve. Those of us who have built and fly the 601 are a family,
after all, and we do care about each other. And like most families, we
aren't shy about disagreements. How dare you insult the group like this? Ar
e
you one us, or just someone wading into the discussion from the outside jus
t to
stir up some crap?
What exactly are your motives here?
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 10:00 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
<orcabonita@hotmail.com>
>
>The best theory so far is flutter, and yes its just a theory at this point
.
Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cau
se is
if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight. How many of those dea
d
guys do you think will say, its OK, because it might not have been flutter,
or
its OK, because Zenith Air released a statement...
>
>No matter how you sugar coat it, or try to reason it away, for whatever
reason Zodiac CH-601XL are having a large number of structural failures, an
d
coming apart in flight. This is not acceptable for any design.
>
>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=241416#241416
>
>
=0A=0A=0A
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: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
It would only be like Cessna of the the 100 Cessnas were built in 95 different
factories and most by people that never built a plane before and only a few of
them were ever worked on by an A&P.
AVEMCO found that LSAs were twice as likely to have a claim as a conventional factory
build SPAM can. But they also found that it wasn't because of any design
or certification problem it was a training issue. The really interesting thing
was that it wasn't that the pilots were inexperienced in general it was they
they were not experienced in planes that were as agile as the LSA they had the
accident in.
Let's put a few things we do know on the table.
1. There are lots of 601XLs flying lots of hours without a problem.
2. The NTSB and outside engineers have stated that the design exceeds the +4G design
goal though one outside engineer says the plane may not quite make the +6
Ultimate goal.
3. If the plane makes the design goal (and there is no evidence to say it doesn't
and there is evidence to say it does) then something is happening to make the
aircraft exceed that limit or the plane wouldn't be breaking up in flight.
4. There is no physical evidence of flutter.
--------
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=241462#241462
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 |
No, it would not be like having 100 Cessnas breaking apart in flight.
Six is still a small number. I'm no expert at statistics, but even I
know that it's not that simple. Simple linear interpolation doesn't
work that easily when you go from a population of a few hundred to
tens of thousands. It's very easy to skew the statistics all out of
whack when you have such a small population to start with. it's
entirely possible to toss a coin twenty times and get twenty heads or
twenty tails. It's possible that we are just be seeing a short term
aberration, even if it's not very likely.
On Apr 27, 2009, at 12:29 PM, JetPilot wrote:
>
> William has got it right on, when you have 6 in flight breakups of a
> model of airplane in two years you have a PROBLEM. Some dishonest
> people here that do not want to admit that their airplane may have a
> design flaw will try to distract others by saying, " People were not
> flying them right, or we don't know what caused it ". It does not
> matter, Six in flight breakups in 2 years is UNACCEPTABLE, PERIOD.
>
> There are not that many Zodiac 601's out there flying that many
> hours. This would be like having 100 Cessna's breaking apart in
> flight in two years, and then having a some fool saying, " The
> pilots did not fly them correctly " or " Because we don't know for
> sure what caused it, there is no problem and we should not blame the
> airplane "..
>
> Any honest and rational human without an agenda will see that six in
> flight breakups in two years is EXCESSIVE, especially considering
> the few number of these plane in service. I have no use for
> dishonesty and denail.
>
> Mike
>
> --------
> "NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as
> you could have !!!
>
> Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
ggower_99(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> ---
>
> ("Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cause
is if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight.") in spite of hard data
to contrary. There have been six crashes over two years, with 10 fatalities,
with a small variety of contributing factors suspected so far. Rick -
>
The hard data is 6 in flight breakups in 2 years. Other LSA designs, not even
designs with much greater numbers produced, and flying many more hours than the
Zodiac 601 XL are NOT having in flight breakups. That is the FACT... So
what is your " Hard Data to the Contrary " ???
Your assertion that anyone that does no fly a Zodiac 601 is not able to recognize
that a very high structural failure rate is a problem is nothing short of stupid.
I do not have any flight time in the Zodiac 601, nor do I need any to
know that 6 in flight breakups in a fleet size that small indicates a problem.
Again, there is you go trying to distract others away from the FACTS again.
In Jan 2009, about 360 Zodiac 601's had airworthiness certificates. Six in flight
breakups for a fleet this size is not typical, and not acceptable, PERIOD.
In 1985 when Cessna ended production of all of their light aircraft; by that
time, a total of 7,584 examples of the 152 had been built, if the same percentage
of 152's broke up in flight as Zodiac 601's have, that would have been 120
aircraft breaking apart in flight over the course of two years. Yes, that
percentage of the fleet breaking up in flight indicates a big problem, especially
when it is NOT happening in other comparable airplanes.
If I were not too deep into a Zodiac 601 right now, I would most defiantly be looking
at other aircraft types. The Sonex is an all metal, low wing airplane,
that is faster, has a large number built and flying over the last 10 years, is
aerobatic, and has had no in flight breakups even though there are a larger
number of them now flying than the Zodiac 601. Zenith Aircraft has never impressed
me much with the design of their airplanes ( See my CH-701 to Kitfox Comparison
), this is just another example of why I would never consider any airplane
from this company.
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=241469#241469
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: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith |
CH-701
fgantt(at)texaviation.com wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
The comparison is a Kitfox to a ZENITH CH-701, it is VERY and equally relevant
to this list as well as the Kitfox list. Are you afraid of a head to head comparison
between the Zenith and the Kitfox ? If I had bought an airplane that
performed worse in all areas, I might not like to see the data published either....
Actually, yes I would, I am just to honest of a person than to lead
others into making a bad choice just because I did. I am man enough to admit
if I made a wrong choice, and I would do whatever I could to keep my fellow aviators
from making the same mistake.
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=241474#241474
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 |
A while ago I took the time to look for structural failure incidents in oth
er popular experimental with with similar or larger fleet size than the Zod
iac 601XL. Do you know how many cases I found? zero for Sonex, all KR model
s, 701, 601HD/HDS.
The only design I found with several wing failure incidents was in one of t
he RVs models, 8 cases if I remember correctly. There are 2 important diffe
rence between the RV cases and the 601XL. First, in the RV cases, the NTSB
where able to conclude that structural failure where the result of hard pul
ls by the pilot, as we know, all 601XL cases are inconclusive. Second, even
thou the RV cases where concluded to be pilot error, Vans published a modi
fication to beef up the spar and no more of this type of accidents have hap
pened since.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
Exactly right!
There are many airplanes out there that have checkered accident histories,
not because the design itself is flawed, but because they're easy to fly be
yond design limits.
Toss in widely varying construction and maintenance quality, and who can pr
ecisely say?
I'm sure someone will jump in with the NTSB statistical averages here soone
r or later...
Rick
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 11:32 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>The use of the word "Large" or "small" is relative and subject to bias. Th
e important piece of information is the answer to this question; how many o
ther designs (with similar fleet size) have experimented 6 crashes due to w
ing failures in the last 3 years.
>
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 10:41 AM
>
m>
>
>Excuse me, Mike, but I have to ask.
>
>Do you have ANY personal experience with this design, or the airplane itse
lf?
>
>You've posted some really outrageous statements, such as saying the airpla
ne will disintegrate in mid-air if your cable tensions aren't perfect. Base
d on what evidence?
>
>And now you're painting a picture that these crashes are endemic ("Bottom
line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cause is if
you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight.") in spite of hard data t
o contrary. There have been six crashes over two years, with 10 fatalities,
with a small variety of contributing factors suspected so far. You ignore
the tens of thousands of successful flight hours racked up by the XL in its
history, that debunk your claim of "...having a large number of structural
failures, and coming apart in flight."
>
>And now you're insinuating that we don't care about "the dead guys." What
nerve. Those of us who have built and fly the 601 are a family, after all,
and we do care about each other. And like most families, we aren't shy abou
t disagreements. How dare you insult the group like this? Are you one us, o
r just someone wading into the discussion from the outside just to stir up
some crap?
>
>What exactly are your motives here?
>
>Rick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
>>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 10:00 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>The best theory so far is flutter, and yes its just a theory at this poin
t..---Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter wh
at the cause is if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight.- How
many of those dead guys do you think will say, its OK, because it might no
t have been flutter, or its OK, because Zenith Air released a statement...
>>
>>No matter how you sugar coat it, or try to reason it away, for whatever r
eason Zodiac CH-601XL are having a large number of structural failures, and
coming apart in flight.- This is not acceptable for any design.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>--------
>>"NO FEAR" -- If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could ha
ve !!!
>>
>>Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241416#241416
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>le, List Admin.
>
>
le, List Admin.
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 |
I need to make a correction to one of my statement bellow. When I said "as
we know, all 601XL cases are inconclusive" this is not entirely correct. Th
e wing failure incident in France was concluded to be a pilot error, he mad
e a hard pull. We know because the pilot survived the incident by deploying
a BRS system and he was interviewed by French investigators.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
A while ago I took the time to look for structural failure incidents in oth
er popular experimental with with similar or larger fleet size than the Zod
iac 601XL. Do you know how many cases I found? zero for Sonex, all KR model
s, 701, 601HD/HDS.
The only design I found with several wing failure incidents was in one of t
he RVs models, 8 cases if I remember correctly. There are 2 important diffe
rence between the RV cases and the 601XL. First, in the RV cases, the NTSB
where able to conclude that structural failure where the result of hard pul
ls by the pilot, as we know, all 601XL cases are inconclusive. Second, even
thou the RV cases where concluded to be pilot error, Vans published a modi
fication to beef up the spar and no more of this type of accidents have hap
pened since.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami=0A Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
Exactly right!
There are many airplanes out there that have checkered accident histories,
not because the design itself is flawed, but because they're easy to fly be
yond design limits.
Toss in widely varying construction and maintenance quality, and who can pr
ecisely say?
I'm sure someone will=0A jump in with the NTSB statistical averages here so
oner or later...
Rick
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 11:32 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>The use of the word "Large" or "small" is relative and subject to bias. Th
e important piece of information is the answer to this question; how many o
ther designs (with similar fleet size) have experimented 6 crashes due to w
ing failures in the last 3 years.
>
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 10:41 AM
>
m>
>
>Excuse me, Mike, but I have to ask.
>
>Do you have ANY personal experience with this design, or=0A the airplane i
tself?
>
>You've posted some really outrageous statements, such as saying the airpla
ne will disintegrate in mid-air if your cable tensions aren't perfect. Base
d on what evidence?
>
>And now you're painting a picture that these crashes are endemic ("Bottom
line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cause is if
you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight.") in spite of hard data t
o contrary. There have been six crashes over two years, with 10 fatalities,
with a small variety of contributing factors suspected so far. You ignore
the tens of thousands of successful flight hours racked up by the XL in its
history, that debunk your claim of "...having a large number of structural
failures, and coming apart in flight."
>
>And now you're insinuating that we don't care about "the dead guys." What
nerve. Those of us who have built and fly the 601 are a family, after all,
and we do care=0A about each other. And like most families, we aren't shy a
bout disagreements. How dare you insult the group like this? Are you one us
, or just someone wading into the discussion from the outside just to stir
up some crap?
>
>What exactly are your motives here?
>
>Rick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
>>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 10:00 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>The best theory so far is=0A flutter, and yes its just a theory at this p
oint..---Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter
what the cause is if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight.-
How many of those dead guys do you think will say, its OK, because it might
not have been flutter, or its OK, because Zenith Air released a statement.
...
>>
>>No matter how you sugar coat it, or try to reason it away, for whatever r
eason Zodiac CH-601XL are having a large number of structural failures, and
coming apart in flight.- This is not acceptable for any design.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>--------
>>"NO FEAR" -- If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could ha
ve !!!
>>
>>Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241416#241416
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>le, List Admin.
>
>
le, List Admin.
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: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
I recall a couple of certified aircraft (Robinson R22 and Mitsubishi MU2) having
what was considered an excessive number of accidents.? In both cases, it was
determined to be a problem of pilot training, not a design flaw.? Both manufacturers
responded with more pilot training requirements and the problems all
but disappeared.? All helicopters are demanding of pilot skill.?? They are exceptionally
vulnerable to pilot error that can cause it to fail structurally.?
The same goes for the MU2. Does this mean there is something wrong with the MU2
and all helicopters that MUST be corrected by the manufacturers?? By the same
token, how many certified airplanes come apart in flight when a pilot flies
into meteorological conditions beyond the design of the airframe? Does this place
the manufacturer or the designer at fault?? Steve Whittman lost his life when
his own airplane came apart in the air due to a construction error on his
part.? Does that say that Whittman's design was at fa
ult?? My point is that an aircraft designer has little control over how his design
is used, or mis-used. With experimental aircraft, it is up to the builder
to assure that it is built to the designers requirements; and it is up to the
pilot of that aircraft to fly it within the designer's limitations.? The fact
that it WILL exceed the designer's limitations is NOT a condemnation of the design.
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:56 am
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
It would only be like Cessna of the the 100 Cessnas were built in 95 different
factories and most by people that never built a plane before and only a few of
them were ever worked on by an A&P.
AVEMCO found that LSAs were twice as likely to have a claim as a conventional
factory build SPAM can. But they also found that it wasn't because of any design
or certification problem it was a training issue. The really interesting thing
was that it wasn't that the pilots were inexperienced in general it was they
they were not experienced in planes that were as agile as the LSA they had the
accident in.
Let's put a few things we do know on the table.
1. There are lots of 601XLs flying lots of hours without a problem.
2. The NTSB and outside engineers have stated that the design exceeds the +4G
design goal though one outside engineer says the plane may not quite make the +6
Ultimate goal.
3. If the plane makes the design goal (and there is no evidence to say it
doesn't and there is evidence to say it does) then something is happening to
make the aircraft exceed that limit or the plane wouldn't be breaking up in
flight.
4. There is no physical evidence of flutter.
--------
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=241462#241462
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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 |
Mike;
Clearly you have an axe to grind. Please go and do it somewhere
else though. Your rhetoric is getting tedious. WE DO NOT KNOW the cause of
the 601 problem, so sit still, be quite and stop pontificating on the
"cause". Certainly we are concerned but conjecture is just that. If you were not
there you cannot possibly know the cause of the problem. do not archive
John Read
CH701 - Elbert CO - Jabiru 3300
Phone: 303-648-3261
Fax: 303-648-3262
Cell: 719-494-4567
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
Aprilfooter427NO62)
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: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith |
CH-701
Mike,
You sound like an epinion poster. Experimental airplanes are not appliances
nor consumer electronics. You are suppose to do your homework and look for
what is right for you. Just because you are not happy with your choice doe
sn't mean others will be unhappy with the same choice.
I wouldn't go for a Kitfox or a Sonex, but that doesnt mean it could be goo
d choices for other peoples.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Ze
nith CH-701
fgantt(at)texaviation.com wrote:
>
> 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 lis
t to validate your decision. We all have made our decision without you sage
advice.
> Floyd
>
>
The comparison is a Kitfox to a ZENITH CH-701, it is VERY and equally relev
ant to this list as well as the Kitfox list.---Are you afraid of a he
ad to head comparison between the Zenith and the Kitfox- ?- If I had bo
ught an airplane that performed worse in all areas, I might not like to see
the data published either....---Actually, yes I would, I am just to
honest of a person than to lead others into making a bad choice just becaus
e I did.---I am man enough to admit if I made a wrong choice, and I w
ould do whatever I could to keep my fellow aviators from making the same mi
stake.
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=241474#241474
le, List Admin.
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: New Zenith Statement |
That's right on point Jay. The FAA even created a Special FAR for the required
training, SFAR 74.
William, are you counting the low time, LSA pilot that broke up after taking off
into IFR?
--------
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=241486#241486
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: | Re: New Zenith Statement |
Mike,
Your problem seem to be beyond wing failure incidents. It seems like you ma
de a mistake in your decision for some reason, and now you want to blame it
on some external factors like wing failures and what not.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
If I were not too deep into a Zodiac 601 right now, I would most defiantly
be looking at other aircraft types.- The Sonex is an all metal, low wing
airplane, that is faster, has a large number built and flying over the last
10 years, is aerobatic, and has had no in flight breakups even though ther
e are a larger number of them now flying than the Zodiac 601.- Zenith Air
craft has never impressed me much with the design of their airplanes ( See
my CH-701 to Kitfox Comparison ), this is just another example of why I wou
ld never consider any airplane from this company.
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=241469#241469
le, List Admin.
Message 32
| 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 |
dont forget the pilot that flew through the window for cranking the plane over
into negative Gs.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 2:34 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>That's right on point Jay. The FAA even created a Special FAR for the required
training, SFAR 74.
>
>William, are you counting the low time, LSA pilot that broke up after taking off
into IFR?
>
>--------
>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=241486#241486
>
>
Message 33
| 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: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith |
CH-701
Jet
let me know how much the Kitfox group is paying you to put you infomercial on our
site.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 2:28 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith
CH-701
>
>Mike,
>
>You sound like an epinion poster. Experimental airplanes are not appliances nor
consumer electronics. You are suppose to do your homework and look for what
is right for you. Just because you are not happy with your choice doesn't mean
others will be unhappy with the same choice.
>
>I wouldn't go for a Kitfox or a Sonex, but that doesnt mean it could be good choices
for other peoples.
>
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>
>--- On Mon, 4/27/09, JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
>From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith
CH-701
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 1:31 PM
>
>
>
>fgantt(at)texaviation.com wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>The comparison is a Kitfox to a ZENITH CH-701, it is VERY and equally relevant
to this list as well as the Kitfox list.Are you afraid of a head to head comparison
between the Zenith and the Kitfox ? If I had bought an airplane that performed
worse in all areas, I might not like to see the data published either....Actually,
yes I would, I am just to honest of a person than to lead others
into making a bad choice just because I did.I am man enough to admit if I made
a wrong choice, and I would do whatever I could to keep my fellow aviators from
making the same mistake.
>
>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=241474#241474
>
>
>le, List Admin.
>
>
Message 34
| 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: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith |
CH-701
Aha! The agenda reveals itself!
Rather than respect our individual choices in what to build and fly, Mike has taken
upon himself to save us from ourselves, by pointing out that the Zenith 601XL
has suffered a higher than average accident and fatality rate in the last
several years. Further,
-----Original Message-----
>From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 10:31 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith
CH-701
>
>
>
>fgantt(at)texaviation.com wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>The comparison is a Kitfox to a ZENITH CH-701, it is VERY and equally relevant
to this list as well as the Kitfox list. Are you afraid of a head to head comparison
between the Zenith and the Kitfox ? If I had bought an airplane that
performed worse in all areas, I might not like to see the data published either....
Actually, yes I would, I am just to honest of a person than to lead
others into making a bad choice just because I did. I am man enough to admit
if I made a wrong choice, and I would do whatever I could to keep my fellow
aviators from making the same mistake.
>
>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=241474#241474
>
>
Message 35
| 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 |
|
All of the discussion about 601-XL wing break-ups leads me to consider a BSR chute.
Is there an aspect to such an event the might make the device non-deployable
or ineffective?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241509#241509
Message 36
| 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 |
No. I'm going by the NTSB's count in their letter to the FAA. That count ex
cludes the French and the LSA pilot who flew into IFR.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
That's right on point Jay. The FAA even created a Special FAR for the requi
red training, SFAR 74.
William, are you counting the low time, LSA pilot that broke up after takin
g off into IFR?
--------
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=241486#241486
le, List Admin.
Message 37
| 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: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the |
Zenith CH-701
Further indeed.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... I'm trying to picture building and flying airplanes
as a happy experience.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Lindstrom
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith
CH-701
--> <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Aha! The agenda reveals itself!
Rather than respect our individual choices in what to build and fly, Mike has taken
upon himself to save us from ourselves, by pointing out that the Zenith 601XL
has suffered a higher than average accident and fatality rate in the last
several years. Further,
-----Original Message-----
>From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 10:31 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or
>the Zenith CH-701
>
>
>
>fgantt(at)texaviation.com wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>The comparison is a Kitfox to a ZENITH CH-701, it is VERY and equally relevant
to this list as well as the Kitfox list. Are you afraid of a head to head comparison
between the Zenith and the Kitfox ? If I had bought an airplane that
performed worse in all areas, I might not like to see the data published either....
Actually, yes I would, I am just to honest of a person than to lead
others into making a bad choice just because I did. I am man enough to admit
if I made a wrong choice, and I would do whatever I could to keep my fellow
aviators from making the same mistake.
>
>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=241474#241474
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
The French plane that overstressed the wing was saved by a BRS chute.
--------
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=241510#241510
Message 39
| 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 |
And this is a pretty major data point. The one and only pilot that lived to tell
the tail did overstress the aircraft by pilot error. So if I made the statement,
"In all accidents where we KNOW the cause it was pilot error." There is nobody
around that could dispute that.
William Dominguez wrote:
> I need to make a correction to one of my statement bellow. When I said "as we
know, all 601XL cases are inconclusive" this is not entirely correct. The wing
failure incident in France was concluded to be a pilot error, he made a hard
pull. We know because the pilot survived the incident by deploying a BRS system
and he was interviewed by French investigators.
>
--------
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=241514#241514
Message 40
| 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 |
|
there was another 601 that had an engine problem. You can read the story
here:
http://brsparachutes.com/files/Documents/Press%20Releases/PR%20Saves%20212-213.pdf
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: Ordered
Engine: Jabiru 3300
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
My guess is that ballistic chutes are considerably less than 100
percent dependable.
The chute and associated stuff can fail to operate properly.
The attachment to our experimental airframes might just destroy the
airframe rather than saving it.
If deployed close to the ground, it might not have a chance to do its
job before the plane meets the ground.
And lastly, just for reference, I had a long discussion with a friend
who flew fighters for the USAF for 20 years. He bailed out once from
high altitude in an RB-66 over the Florida Everglades. His back was
broken and he spent the next 6 months in the hospital. That was
considered a successful ejection. The other guy in the same plane
died before reaching the ground. In the end, he said the USAF
considers a 50 percent fatality rate to be the expected result from
an ejection.
'nuff said.
Paul
XL grounded
do not archive
At 12:30 PM 4/27/2009, you wrote:
>All of the discussion about 601-XL wing break-ups leads me to
>consider a BSR chute. Is there an aspect to such an event the might
>make the device non-deployable or ineffective?
Message 42
| 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 |
|
Murphy Law...
Do not archive.
--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Ken <hror1@pld.com> wrote:
From: Ken <hror1@pld.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: BSR Chute
All of the discussion about 601-XL wing break-ups leads me to consider a BSR
chute. Is there an aspect to such an event the might make the device
non-deployable or ineffective?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241509#241509
Message 43
| 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: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith |
CH-701
Mike,
Your purpose on this list is to keep anyone from building a 701
because it would be a mistake?
WOW.
Is your purpose not yet in the open, to protect me from making the
same "mistake" in building a 601?
Thanks for your input.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:31 PM, JetPilot <orcabonita@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> fgantt(at)texaviation.com wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> The comparison is a Kitfox to a ZENITH CH-701, it is VERY and equally relevant
to this list as well as the Kitfox list. Are you afraid of a head to head comparison
between the Zenith and the Kitfox ? If I had bought an airplane that
performed worse in all areas, I might not like to see the data published either....
Actually, yes I would, I am just to honest of a person than to lead others
into making a bad choice just because I did. I am man enough to admit if
I made a wrong choice, and I would do whatever I could to keep my fellow aviators
from making the same mistake.
>
> 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=241474#241474
>
>
Message 44
| 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 |
|
Thank God we aren't talking about putting ejection seats in 601s. There is a huge
difference between shooting the chute out with a rocket and shooting the pilot
out with one.
Since Paul isn't reading my posts I will post this on ejections seats in my ongoing
fight against incorrect data.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBT/is_9_57/ai_78413230/
During an ejection, the limits of performance of humans and their equipment can
be approached; those failures are closely studied. The overall ACES II ejection
survival rate from Aug 1978 to Sep 2000 was 92 percent (see Table 1). During
this period, a total of 362 ejections occurred in five different types of ACES
II seat-equipped aircraft. Accompanying figures depict A-10 Thunderbolt II,
F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon lifetime ejection history totals, as well
as fatalities where ejections were, and were not, attempted. Success rates are
different for each aircraft, primarily because of the different mission profiles
flown in those aircraft. Aircraft with specific mission profiles that have
them flying faster and closer to the ground will likely have more mishaps.
--------
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=241543#241543
Message 45
| 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 |
|
Ken:
I put one in my airplane that I fly frequently. I am betting my life that it will
work just fine. I also bet my life that the airplane is safe. So far it
has been a good bet and I heck of a lot of fun also. You can see some of the
details here:
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/BRS.html
and the finished result here:
http://www.cooknwithgas.com/Feb_2008_Taxiing.JPG
I don't have any videos of the BRS being deployed but I have several videos of
the airplane flying on Youtube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyqOL9x6W2s
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eitHTi4iVzo
I told myself I wouldn't come back to this list but I strayed this afternoon to
find a good question like yours.
I hope this helps. Gotta run,
Scott Laughlin
Omaha
601XL/Corvair
www.cooknwithgas.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241555#241555
Message 46
| 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: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith |
CH-701
Actually this is the wrong list for this post, there is a 701, 801 list.
I looked at both the Kitfox and the Eurofox, but they did not offer what I wanted.
A little extra cruise would be nice, but how many times would I use it? Its
pretty well known that the 701 can be built with longer wings ( ala Savannah)
Same design just longer ( and yes I have Savannah docs to go by). The VGs are
also available for the 701, this increases speed and supposedly does not effect
the STOL capabilities. This is direct from happy customers, not internet speculation.
Though, I am going with the slats.
The Kitfox specs also don't support your claims, yes I know that they all perform
better then the specs, but so does the 701, there is a big chasm between the
two specs as for STOL.
The Kitfox cannot be built from plans and this is the second biggest thing for
me. I can not afford a kit with two kids really into med school. The biggest
reason is weatherability ( I think I may have coined that one...sorry)
The out side is not good for rag and tube airframes, but not as bad for 6061 alloy
airframes. And if I want to go faster the 650 is always available. And no
I am not at all concerned about the wings falling off.
I'm sure that you like your Kitfox, just back off a bit and let me like my CH701.
Regards
Kevin McCune
CH 701
SN 7172
JetPilot wrote:
> 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
--------
Mark Twain: Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that
you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail
away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream.
Discover.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241556#241556
Message 47
| 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 |
Hey Mikey
I can only speak for myself directly=2C but i bet there are many other
zenith builders=2C who would say to you! miss on you pister you aint so
mucking fuch=2C why dont you go in your kitfox jackyard and backoff=2C
you bon of a sitch im holding up one finger on my hand to you
guess which one it is
oh yea i dont post much because of anal attentive blokes like you!!
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Larry Webber 601 xl /corvair chugger
401 539 1028
From: bill_dom@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
I need to make a correction to one of my statement bellow. When I said "as
we know=2C all 601XL cases are inconclusive" this is not entirely correct.
The wing failure incident in France was concluded to be a pilot error=2C he
made a hard pull. We know because the pilot survived the incident by deplo
ying a BRS system and he was interviewed by French investigators.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Mon=2C 4/27/09=2C William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
A while ago I took the time to look for structural failure incidents in oth
er popular experimental with with similar or larger fleet size than the Zod
iac 601XL. Do you know how many cases I found? zero for Sonex=2C all KR mod
els=2C 701=2C 601HD/HDS.
The only design I found with several wing failure incidents was in one of t
he RVs models=2C 8 cases if I remember correctly. There are 2 important dif
ference between the RV cases and the 601XL. First=2C in the RV cases=2C the
NTSB where able to conclude that structural failure where the result of ha
rd pulls by the pilot=2C as we know=2C all 601XL cases are inconclusive. Se
cond=2C even thou the RV cases where concluded to be pilot error=2C Vans pu
blished a modification to beef up the spar and no more of this type of acci
dents have happened since.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Mon=2C 4/27/09=2C Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
Exactly right!
There are many airplanes out there that have checkered accident histories
=2C not because the design itself is flawed=2C but because they're easy to
fly beyond design limits.
Toss in widely varying construction and maintenance quality=2C and who can
precisely say?
I'm sure someone will jump in with the NTSB statistical averages here soone
r or later...
Rick
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Apr 27=2C 2009 11:32 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>The use of the word "Large" or "small" is relative and subject to bias. Th
e important piece of information is the answer to this question=3B how many
other designs (with similar fleet size) have experimented 6 crashes due to
wing failures in the last 3 years.
>
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>--- On Mon=2C 4/27/09=2C Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Date: Monday=2C April 27=2C 2009=2C 10:41 AM
>
m>
>
>Excuse me=2C Mike=2C but I have to ask.
>
>Do you have ANY personal experience with this design=2C or the airplane it
self?
>
>You've posted some really outrageous statements=2C such as saying the airp
lane will disintegrate in mid-air if your cable tensions aren't perfect. Ba
sed on what evidence?
>
>And now you're painting a picture that these crashes are endemic ("Bottom
line is these accidents are HAPPENING=2C if wont matter what the cause is i
f you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight.") in spite of hard data
to contrary. There have been six crashes over two years=2C with 10 fatalit
ies=2C with a small variety of contributing factors suspected so far. You i
gnore the tens of thousands of successful flight hours racked up by the XL
in its history=2C that debunk your claim of "...having a large number of st
ructural failures=2C and coming apart in flight."
>
>And now you're insinuating that we don't care about "the dead guys." What
nerve. Those of us who have built and fly the 601 are a family=2C after all
=2C and we do care about each other. And like most families=2C we aren't sh
y about disagreements. How dare you insult the group like this? Are you one
us=2C or just someone wading into the discussion from the outside just to
stir up some crap?
>
>What exactly are your motives here?
>
>Rick
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
>>Sent: Apr 27=2C 2009 10:00 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>
>>The best theory so far is flutter=2C and yes its just a theory at this po
int.. Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING=2C if wont matter what
the cause is if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight. How man
y of those dead guys do you think will say=2C its OK=2C because it might no
t have been flutter=2C or its OK=2C because Zenith Air released a statement
...
>>
>>No matter how you sugar coat it=2C or try to reason it away=2C for whatev
er reason Zodiac CH-601XL are having a large number of structural failures
=2C and coming apart in flight. This is not acceptable for any design.
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>--------
>>"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have
!!!
>>
>>Kolb MK-III Xtra=2C 912-S
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=241416#241416
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>le=2C List Admin.
>="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.c
o=======================
http://forums.matronics.co &nbs="nofollow" target="
_blank" href="http://www.matronics.com/contributi=
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99 SkyDrive=99: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_042009
Message 48
| 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 |
Message 49
| 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 second the motion!
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Lawrence Webber <lawrencewebber@HOTMAIL.COM>
>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 7:58 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>
>
>Hey Mikey
>
>I can only speak for myself directly, but i bet there are many other
>
>zenith builders, who would say to you! miss on you pister you aint so
>
>mucking fuch, why dont you go in your kitfox jackyard and backoff,
>
>you bon of a sitch im holding up one finger on my hand to you
>
>guess which one it is
>
>
>oh yea i dont post much because of anal attentive blokes like you!!
>
>
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>Larry Webber 601 xl /corvair chugger
>401 539 1028
>
>
>
>
>Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:00:26 -0700
>From: bill_dom@yahoo.com
>Subject: Re: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>
>
>I need to make a correction to one of my statement bellow. When I said "as we
know, all 601XL cases are inconclusive" this is not entirely correct. The wing
failure incident in France was concluded to be a pilot error, he made a hard
pull. We know because the pilot survived the incident by deploying a BRS system
and he was interviewed by French investigators.
>
>
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>--- On Mon, 4/27/09, William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 1:39 PM
>
>
>A while ago I took the time to look for structural failure incidents in other
popular experimental with with similar or larger fleet size than the Zodiac 601XL.
Do you know how many cases I found? zero for Sonex, all KR models, 701, 601HD/HDS.
>
>The only design I found with several wing failure incidents was in one of the
RVs models, 8 cases if I remember correctly. There are 2 important difference
between the RV cases and the 601XL. First, in the RV cases, the NTSB where able
to conclude that structural failure where the result of hard pulls by the pilot,
as we know, all 601XL cases are inconclusive. Second, even thou the RV cases
where concluded to be pilot error, Vans published a modification to beef up
the spar and no more of this type of accidents have happened since.
>
>
>William Dominguez
>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>Miami Florida
>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>
>--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 11:50 AM
>
>
>
>Exactly right!
>
>There are many airplanes out there that have checkered accident histories, not
because the design itself is flawed, but because they're easy to fly beyond design
limits.
>
>Toss in widely varying construction and maintenance quality, and who can precisely
say?
>
>I'm sure someone will jump in with the NTSB statistical averages here sooner or
later...
>
>Rick
>
>do not archive
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 11:32 AM
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>>
>>The use of the word "Large" or "small" is relative and subject to bias. The important
piece of information is the answer to this question; how many other designs
(with similar fleet size) have experimented 6 crashes due to wing failures
in the last 3 years.
>>
>>William Dominguez
>>Zodiac 601XL Plans
>>Miami Florida
>>http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
>>
>>--- On Mon, 4/27/09, Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 10:41 AM
>>
>>
>>Excuse me, Mike, but I have to ask.
>>
>>Do you have ANY personal experience with this design, or the airplane itself?
>>
>>You've posted some really outrageous statements, such as saying the airplane
will disintegrate in mid-air if your cable tensions aren't perfect. Based on what
evidence?
>>
>>And now you're painting a picture that these crashes are endemic ("Bottom line
is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cause is if you are
in the airplane that breaks up in flight.") in spite of hard data to contrary.
There have been six crashes over two years, with 10 fatalities, with a small
variety of contributing factors suspected so far. You ignore the tens of thousands
of successful flight hours racked up by the XL in its history, that debunk
your claim of "...having a large number of structural failures, and coming
apart in flight."
>>
>>And now you're insinuating that we don't care about "the dead guys." What nerve.
Those of us who have built and fly the 601 are a family, after all, and we
do care about each other. And like most families, we aren't shy about disagreements.
How dare you insult the group like this? Are you one us, or just someone
wading into the discussion from the outside just to stir up some crap?
>>
>>What exactly are your motives here?
>>
>>Rick
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: JetPilot <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
>>>Sent: Apr 27, 2009 10:00 AM
>>>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: New Zenith Statement
>>>
>>>
>>>The best theory so far is flutter, and yes its just a theory at this point..
Bottom line is these accidents are HAPPENING, if wont matter what the cause
is if you are in the airplane that breaks up in flight. How many of those dead
guys do you think will say, its OK, because it might not have been flutter,
or its OK, because Zenith Air released a statement...
>>>
>>>No matter how you sugar coat it, or try to reason it away, for whatever reason
Zodiac CH-601XL are having a large number of structural failures, and coming
apart in flight. This is not acceptable for any design.
>>>
>>>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=241416#241416
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>le, List Admin.
>>="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronics.co=======================
>http://forums.matronics.co &nbs="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://www.matronics.com/contributi=
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Windows Live SkyDrive: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
>http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_042009
Message 50
| 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: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the Zenith |
CH-701
In the same hanger I keep my 701 is a Kitfox Mod IV with a 80 HP 912 Rotax.
WE compare notes often. I have flown with and without Slats. Cruise speed
is not much different between the two airplanes if I am flying without
slats. STOL preformance either way goes to the 701, although the Kitfox is
not bad. If you want to compare the Mod 7 Kitfox, Maybe you should be
comparing with the 750. If you want raw speed , build a Sonex. Kitfox or
Zenith cannot beat the numbers Monet puts up.for his Sonex. Is'nt it great
that we all can have opinons Maybe a PIET would best serve your needs!!!!!
As for the 601 spectacle. remember. these are EXPERIMENTAL AIRPLANES. If
you want to Mass Balance your Aielerons, then do it, If you want pushrods
instead of cables, then do it. Stop whinning about what someone else should
or should not do for your experiment. If you don't want to build and fly an
experimental airplane, buy a Cessna, or Piper or Cirrus.. BALLISTIC CHUTE
anyone???
----- Original Message -----
From: "JetPilot" <orcabonita@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 12:31 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Which Airplane is Better ??? The Kitfox or the
Zenith CH-701
>
>
> fgantt(at)texaviation.com wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> The comparison is a Kitfox to a ZENITH CH-701, it is VERY and equally
> relevant to this list as well as the Kitfox list. Are you afraid of a
> head to head comparison between the Zenith and the Kitfox ? If I had
> bought an airplane that performed worse in all areas, I might not like to
> see the data published either.... Actually, yes I would, I am just to
> honest of a person than to lead others into making a bad choice just
> because I did. I am man enough to admit if I made a wrong choice, and I
> would do whatever I could to keep my fellow aviators from making the same
> mistake.
>
> 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=241474#241474
>
>
>
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! --
|