Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:13 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Dave)
2. 05:41 AM - Bolt torque (michael lord)
3. 06:28 AM - Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (steveadams)
4. 06:54 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Lawrence Webber)
5. 06:54 AM - Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Gig Giacona)
6. 07:17 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Jay Maynard)
7. 07:21 AM - Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (PatrickW)
8. 07:48 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Dave)
9. 08:04 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Dave)
10. 08:21 AM - AOPA Pilot (Jim Belcher)
11. 08:29 AM - panel access modicaton location (601corvair)
12. 08:43 AM - Re: panel access modicaton location (Carlos Sa)
13. 09:10 AM - Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Gig Giacona)
14. 09:32 AM - Re: panel access modicaton location (LarryMcFarland)
15. 09:41 AM - Re: panel access modicaton location (Gig Giacona)
16. 12:00 PM - 650XL Plans for sale (n1269k)
17. 01:18 PM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Dave)
18. 01:45 PM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Gary Gower)
19. 01:53 PM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Gary Gower)
20. 02:43 PM - Re: Bolt torque (purplemoon99@bellsouth.net)
21. 06:53 PM - What did you do today? (Carlos Sa)
22. 07:11 PM - Re: What did you do today? (purplemoon99@bellsouth.net)
23. 08:05 PM - Re: What did you do today? (Lawrence Webber)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
I think the only people who have lost so far were flying at the time.
I admire your desire to *know* with absolute certainty but it may very well
never happen. I expect the real answer is to keep an open mind, be cautious
and fly carefully. Becoming fixated on one idea or another will lead to the
positions already taken such as "I know flutter is the problem and I'm
installing mass balance devices so I'll be completely safe" or " I know for
a fact that there is no possible problem with this aircraft and everyone who
has crashed was a bad pilot and deserved what they got". Both are pretty
much unsubstantiated beliefs.
In time the aircraft will prove itself or a likely source of the problems
will be found. But even if a likely source is identified, it will not likely
address every incident all the time, if you stacked up all the aircraft
accidents that ever happened, it might turn out that unexplained is the
largest stack.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Maynard" <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:06:07PM -0300, Dave wrote:
>> Flight safety should be a primary concern to all of us, not winning
>> bull***t arguments on mailgroups.
>
> I will happily "lose" this argument if it means that we *know* - not
> merely
> think we know - what causes Zodiac inflight breakups and how to prevent
> them.
> --
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 |
|
Thanks Guys for the heads up on the AN bolt torque.
I will pull all of my wing bolts and replace them with new.
To explain where I got the bogus information. I googled
AN Bolt torque and a ultralightflyers.org/documents came up
I clicked on it and AN Bolt torque spec.xls document came up
with the faulty information.
Regards
Mike Lord
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
So what do we know? We know that review of the design by multiple independent parties
have found the design meets structural design parameters, both through
computer modeling and destructive testing. Sure the modeling can not identify
or predict every flaw, but as a non-engineer, I have to assume that they looked
at all the common things people have brought up in this list like torsional
loads on the structure in worst case scenarios. We know that flutter testing showed
no evidence of flutter with cable tensions down to 10. Each aircraft is
different theoretically, but this is pretty strong evidence that flutter is not
the smoking gun, at least in aircraft built and maintained to design specs.
We know that the aircraft has a lot of pitch authority, and have seen unquestioned
examples of pilots using the stick to remove their wings in flight. We know
that in at least some of the accidents there was evidence of extremely high
negative G forces. We know by example in other aircraft designs, that lack of
model specific training and experience can prove fatal. For example, pilot induced
oscillations in a gyro. We know that most of the accidents involved pilots
with relatively little time in the 601xl, regardless of the number total hours
they had. Having never flown in a 601, I can't speak from experience about
the handling qualities of the airplane, I can only speak as a casual outside
observer to this entire mess. While there are some here that say you just can't
blame all of the accidents on pilot error/lack of experience in flying the 601,
to me all the evidence thus far is like a neon sign pointing in that direction.
That's my opinion for what it's worth.
Steve
Zodiac CH640 N621J
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245533#245533
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
The aircraft doesnt have a bad reputation=2C what it does have is a bunch o
f
useless speculators trying to solve a problem from their armchairs. Why don
t
we give it a rest. Its the badmouthing causing all the bull***t as soon as
my project is complete im heading for UP. you all can do what you want
Larry Webber 601xl/corvair chugger
> Date: Tue=2C 26 May 2009 20:56:14 -0500
> From: jmaynard@conmicro.com
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
>
>
> On Tue=2C May 26=2C 2009 at 09:50:54PM -0400=2C Dave Austin wrote:
> > Is it reasonable to expect that we will "know" absolutely for sure? not
> > many things in life are that clear.
>
> If we find a smoking gun somewhere=2C we'll have a reasonable amount of
> certainty. If not=2C then we'll have to muddle along - and put up with th
e
> effects of a bad reputation for the airplane. Which would you rather have
?
> --
> Jay Maynard=2C K5ZC=2C PP-ASEL=2C CFI-SP 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
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live=99: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
> That would require quite a leap. The cause is unknown, unknown to you as
> well as everyone else.
>
>
I assume you were responding to me. And if you look at all GA accidents the two
items Jay listed plus the one I added are responsible for the vast majority of
accidents. So it isn't that much of a leap.
--------
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=245537#245537
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 09:53:25AM -0400, Lawrence Webber wrote:
> The aircraft doesnt have a bad reputation, what it does have is a bunch of
> useless speculators trying to solve a problem from their armchairs. Why
> dont we give it a rest. Its the badmouthing causing all the bull***t as
> soon as my project is complete im heading for UP. you all can do what you
> want
The NTSB's report did not help matters, and there's no "useless speculators"
there. Argue all you want about the NTSB's abilities and whether you think
they have axes to grind, but the fact remains that, to people outside the
Zodiac community, the airplane's reputation has been badly damaged - and if
you need to sell yours, then that will hit you square in the wallet.
How many of you find yourself beginning conversations with pilot friends by
explaining the latest news from Zenair's GVT, in reply to questions?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
> These incidents have occurred, they seem to have stopped for a short while now,
with any luck they won't re-occur.
A couple of possible reasons.
1) Perhaps builders & pilots have been more vigilant recently, and are doing more
thorough inspections, and are finding things that are getting addressed that
otherwise would have lead to problems.
2) Or perhaps people are flying less often than they were before. We've just
recently come out of winter in the northern regions.
There are more Zodiacs now than there were a couple years ago, so I hope the decrease
in accidents is because people are more aware now than maybe they were
before.
Are you guys finding anything on your planes that the rest of us should be on the
lookout for...?
- Pat
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245545#245545
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
We were not talking about all GA, we were talking about 601XL's, and you
said if you added the items that YOU could explain EVERY incident. You
can't, unexplained is unexplained. If the investigating bodies don't know,
neither do you.
>>How do YOU explain the inflight breakups? Bear in mind that builder and
>>pilot error cannot explain every 601XL inflight breakup.
>Actually if you add maintenance to builder and pilot error, yes you can.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:54 AM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
>
>
> d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
>> That would require quite a leap. The cause is unknown, unknown to you as
>> well as everyone else.
>>
>>
>
>
> I assume you were responding to me. And if you look at all GA accidents
> the two items Jay listed plus the one I added are responsible for the vast
> majority of accidents. So it isn't that much of a leap.
>
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Lawrence, I would hasten to point out that all the discussion SHOULD
have been aimed at finding out IF there is a way to avoid future
incidents and thereby avoid future loss of life and an inevitable bad
reputation. Simply calling those trying to identify potential issues
names is hardly productive. They thought it might be a flutter issue and
it looks like they were wrong, there still may be an issue. Nobody
knows. Does the aircraft have a bad reputation? I'm sure that amoung
some it does, crashes will do that sort of thing. I don't think it
deserves one but the numbers would indicate that some extra thought and
caution is required.
Frankly I'd be far happier reading a hundred messages asking "Could it
be this?" only to have potential concerns erased one by one than reading
a single one demanding that everyone shut up about it and deny there
have been issues.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Webber
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
The aircraft doesnt have a bad reputation, what it does have is a
bunch of
useless speculators trying to solve a problem from their armchairs.
Why dont
we give it a rest. Its the badmouthing causing all the bull***t as
soon as
my project is complete im heading for UP. you all can do what you want
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 |
|
There is a blurb, starting on page 44, of the new AOPA Pilot, which I feel is
somewhat less than complimentary of the 601XL. Once again, we are probably
being hurt by reporting based on less than full facts.
I don't have the full facts, either, but I'm not writing articles in national
magazines, nor issuing government reports. I've written my concerns to AOPA;
there may be others who wish to do the same.
On the devaluation of the 601XL: I remember the same thing happening to the
Globe Swift. It had a lot of crashes initially, because it was under powered
when it first came out. A switch from an 85hp to 125 hp engine fixed that,
but no one remembered this. They were cheap, and no own wanted them.
Years later, it seems to have been forgotten. Now, they are much in demand at
prices far above the $3K they sold for in the late 1960s.
Perhaps we'll be fortunate, and the problem soon forgotten, or the problem
clearly identified and a fix found.
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
============================================
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: | panel access modicaton location |
=0A=0A=0A=0AWe are trying to find dimensions for the placement of the=0Ains
trument panel access modifications pictured in the link below.
ZAC has blessed this modification.- We would like the entire access port
to be=0Awithin the canopy bubble. We have a forward tilting- canopy on a
HDS.
- We would like to make the access port and the=0Apanel cover before unro
lling and fitting the bubble.
Can anyone help us with dimensions to place=0Athis access cover within the
bubble?
Thanks=0Aphill
=0A=0A-=0A=0Ahttp://www.ch601.org/resources/zodiac%20updates/behind_the_p
anel_access.htm=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: panel access modicaton location |
Phil, I plan on doing that myself, and would appreciate if you could share
any/all info on it.
Cheers
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
2009/5/27 601corvair <airvair601@yahoo.com>
> We are trying to find dimensions for the placement of the
>
> instrument panel access modifications pictured in the link below.
>
> ZAC has blessed this modification. We would like the entire access port
> to be within the canopy bubble. We have a forward
>
> tilting canopy on a HDS.
>
> We would like to make the access port and the
>
> panel cover before unrolling and fitting the bubble.
>
>
> Can anyone help us with dimensions to place this access cover within the
> bubble?
>
> Thanks phill
>
>
> http://www.ch601.org/resources/zodiac%20updates/behind_the_panel_access.htm
>
> **
>
>
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
But the 601XL's don't exist in a vacuum. When you don't know what brought one down
it is wise to look at what brings down GA aircraft as a whole. The AOPA knows
this applies to all flying and it is why there is a Nall report each year
and why the NTSB produces accident reports. I don't read just 601XL accident reports
I read most of them.
Over 16% of the fatal GA accidents have "Other/Unknown" as the cause. It is the
very nature of fatal accidents especially GA and even more especially EXP-HB
and LSA that you never know the cause. The reason for this is obvious, the only
people that really know are dead.
In replying to Lawrence you wrote,
> Frankly I'd be far happier reading a hundred messages asking "Could it be this?"
only to have potential concerns erased one by one than reading a single one
demanding that everyone shut up about it and deny there have been issues.
I disagree. Look at what happened with the whole flutter issue. In not one single
accident report was flutter ever mentioned. The only time it was mentioned
in one it was to say there was no physical evidence of it. Yet the guys over at
ZBAG created so much speculation around the issue that the NTSB ignored their
own reports and listed it in the alert letter.
This isn't helpful. The constant harping on what error might be in the aircraft
may well be covering the real problem which could well be pilot error magnified
by a uniqueness in the flight characteristics of the plane.
The Yuba City accident is a perfect example for such a scenario. Experienced pilot
is in cruse flight. The plane is trimmed and everything great. Either the
pilot or passenger leans forward and the seat belt hangs on the stick when they
lean back they go into a climb and the pilot overcompensates with down elevator
and over stresses the airframe to failure.
I'm not saying this is what happened but we do KNOW that the elevator has lots
of authority. So much so that the designer has added a down elevator limiting
modification. But many here and especially over in ZBAG have so fixated on there
being a design error that they seem to refuse to consider pilot error which
is the largest single cause of GA accidents.
[quote="d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico"]We were not talking about all GA, we were talking
about 601XL's, and you
said if you added the items that YOU could explain EVERY incident. You
can't, unexplained is unexplained. If the investigating bodies don't know,
neither do you.
> >How do YOU explain the inflight breakups? Bear in mind that builder and
> >pilot error cannot explain every 601XL inflight breakup.
>
>
> Actually if you add maintenance to builder and pilot error, yes you can.
>
>
--------
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=245569#245569
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: panel access modicaton location |
Phill,
It's not too far a jump to making the forward top skin a removable
component. It's easier to get at everything and less expensive than
investing in a lot of
nut plates too. If you need more information on doing this, just ask and
I will do what I can to help you get it done and source the correct
hardware.
See links,
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/electricaccess.gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/canopysealtoskin.gif
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/canopy/full/uclips.gif
This approach is great help in checking the inside motor mount to
longeron hardware at annual inspection and finding wiring problems.
It takes 15 minutes to remove and maybe 20 to put it back on without
doing any damage to anything. It's been off 6 or more times in the last
3 years for radio transponder and fuel fitting checks and it's still
very sound at 135 hours flight time.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
601corvair wrote:
>
> We are trying to find dimensions for the placement of the
>
> instrument panel access modifications pictured in the link below.
>
> ZAC has blessed this modification. We would like the entire access
> port to be within the canopy bubble. We have a forward
>
> tilting canopy on a HDS.
>
> We would like to make the access port and the
>
> panel cover before unrolling and fitting the bubble.
>
>
> Can anyone help us with dimensions to place this access cover within
> the bubble?
>
> Thanks phill
>
>
>
>
> http://www.ch601.org/resources/zodiac%20updates/behind_the_panel_access.htm
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: panel access modicaton location |
My advise, go ahead and fit the canopy and the front skin. Even if you are going
to put an access panel in you are going to want the front skin off while you
are doing the wiring. Also, if you wait you will see exactly where you need the
access.
Just FYI I'm making the entire front skin removable.
[quote="airvair601(at)yahoo.com"]We are trying to find dimensions for the placement
of the
instrument panel access modifications pictured in the link below.
ZAC has blessed this modification. We would like the entire access port to be
within the canopy bubble. We have a forward
tilting canopy on a HDS.
We would like to make the access port and the
panel cover before unrolling and fitting the bubble.
Can anyone help us with dimensions to place this access cover within the bubble?
Thanks phill
http://www.ch601.org/resources/zodiac%20updates/behind_the_panel_access.htm
> [b]
--------
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=245574#245574
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: | 650XL Plans for sale |
CH 650XL plans for sale, as received from Zenith in Feb, 2009. Plans include tail
dragger drawings. Cost $495 plus $45 for tail dragger option.
Sale for $440 plus shipping. Contact: trpender (at) chartermi.net.
Terry Pender
Michigan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245585#245585
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
You're right, the constant sniping is not useful, nor is speculation posing
as fact. I have no idea what ZBAG said as I am not part of it and all I've
seen is heated rephrasing of their position. They did what they felt was
right and while it may be inconvenient for some, I can't disagree with the
stated motives I've seen which was to have the airframe tested. I've said
all along we don't know and shouldn't leap to conclusions.
I simply posited that you don't know and should have answered that you have
no answer. It was YOUR position as shown that YOU had the answer to all of
them. I said you don't. Nobody does. There is no argument here as far as I'm
concerned. It is never my aim to start or continue the pissing contest here.
The two basic tenets I've seen here are that there is definitely a problem
(and this is what it is....) and there is definitely not a problem (and shut
up about it....), neither position is right as far as I am concerned. It
appears to me there MAY be a problem, currently unknown and my private
speculation as to the cause is not so far from the one you advanced.
As far as you disagreeing with me, agreement is not guaranteed. it shouldn't
be a problem that we disagree.
Do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 1:09 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
>
> But the 601XL's don't exist in a vacuum. When you don't know what brought
> one down it is wise to look at what brings down GA aircraft as a whole.
> The AOPA knows this applies to all flying and it is why there is a Nall
> report each year and why the NTSB produces accident reports. I don't read
> just 601XL accident reports I read most of them.
>
> Over 16% of the fatal GA accidents have "Other/Unknown" as the cause. It
> is the very nature of fatal accidents especially GA and even more
> especially EXP-HB and LSA that you never know the cause. The reason for
> this is obvious, the only people that really know are dead.
>
> [quote="d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico"]We were not talking about all GA, we
> were talking about 601XL's, and you
> said if you added the items that YOU could explain EVERY incident. You
> can't, unexplained is unexplained. If the investigating bodies don't know,
> neither do you.
>
>
>> >How do YOU explain the inflight breakups? Bear in mind that builder and
>> >pilot error cannot explain every 601XL inflight breakup.
>> Actually if you add maintenance to builder and pilot error, yes you can.
>>
>>
>
>
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Very easy,- just invite them for a flight -
-
Saludos
Gary Gower
Do not archive.
--- On Wed, 5/27/09, Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com> wrote:
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 09:53:25AM -0400, Lawrence Webber wrote:
> The aircraft doesnt have a bad reputation, what it does have is a bunch o
f
> useless speculators trying to solve a problem from their armchairs. Why
> dont we give it a rest. Its the badmouthing causing all the bull***t as
> soon as my project is complete im heading for UP. you all can do what you
> want
The NTSB's report did not help matters, and there's no "useless speculators
"
there. Argue all you want about the NTSB's abilities and whether you think
they have axes to grind, but the fact remains that, to people outside the
Zodiac community, the airplane's reputation has been badly damaged - and if
you need to sell yours, then that will hit you square in the wallet.
How many of you find yourself beginning conversations with pilot friends by
explaining the latest news from Zenair's GVT, in reply to questions?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP---http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com- - ---http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM)- - - - - - - - - - - - (Yes, th
at's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
I think that what we learned from all of this, and should NEVER should forg
et since-our Student hours...
To do a GOOD preflight every time...- Not just wipe the leading edge and
-kick (sp?) the tires...-- On every airplane we now fly... 601XL or n
ot.
-
Yes, I know, a few armchairs will write:- I always do a perfect preflight
...
-
Just a thought.
-
Saludos
Gary Gower.
-
--- On Wed, 5/27/09, PatrickW <pwhoyt@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: PatrickW <pwhoyt@yahoo.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
> These incidents have occurred, they seem to have stopped for a short whil
e now, with any luck they won't re-occur.
A couple of possible reasons.
1)- Perhaps builders & pilots have been more vigilant recently, and are d
oing more thorough inspections, and are finding things that are getting add
ressed that otherwise would have lead to problems.
2)- Or perhaps people are flying less often than they were before.- We'
ve just recently come out of winter in the northern regions.
There are more Zodiacs now than there were a couple years ago, so I hope th
e decrease in accidents is because people are more aware now than maybe the
y were before.
Are you guys finding anything on your planes that the rest of us should be
on the lookout for...?
- Pat
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245545#245545
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
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: | What did you do today? |
'Evening, all
After almost a month working 12-16 h day ( and weekends ), I am starting to
have a bit of down time.
Yesterday I bent the 4 extrusion 6V11-5. It took quite a bit of muscle and
patience (both in short supply), but they came out quite nice.
(6V11-5 can be seen here, very bottom, left:
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/data/6-v-0.pdf )
I also made the holes for the gear slides on the bottom skin - pretty
unnerving, given the gazillion hours it took me to polish it (hey, gazillion
made it to the dictionary !).
And this evening I placed the skin on top of the (upside down) skeleton, and
everything fits beautifully!
It's gratifying, after spending so many hours on it...
Tomorrow, if I muster enough courage, there will be some drilling going on!
Slowly but surely (emphasis on "slowly", working on the "surely").
PS: *fly-in at St. Lazare on June 14*
http://www.eaa266.org/assets/pics/100th_anniv_of_flight_poster.pdf
http://gc.kls2.com/airport/CST3
http://www.ourairports.com/airports/CA-CST3/
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
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: What did you do today? |
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: | What did you do today? |
itested and mounted my 12 plate oil cooler
Larry
> From: purplemoon99@bellsouth.net
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com=3B zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: What did you do today?
> Date: Thu=2C 28 May 2009 02:10:06 +0000
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail=AE.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tut
orial_QuickAdd1_052009
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! --
|