Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:14 AM - XL Testing UK (Clive Richards)
2. 04:14 AM - Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. (Jay Maynard)
3. 05:08 AM - Kit plane design safety. (Paul Mulwitz)
4. 05:29 AM - Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. (Mitch Hodges)
5. 05:42 AM - Re: Kit plane design safety. (Dave)
6. 06:05 AM - Quick open poll about wing failures. (William Dominguez)
7. 06:20 AM - Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (Jay Maynard)
8. 06:40 AM - Re: Kit plane design safety. (Rick Lindstrom)
9. 06:40 AM - Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (Rick Lindstrom)
10. 06:53 AM - Re: XL Testing UK (jaybannist@cs.com)
11. 06:53 AM - Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. (Rick Lindstrom)
12. 07:19 AM - Re: XL Testing UK (Jay Maynard)
13. 07:24 AM - Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (Trainnut01@aol.com)
14. 07:30 AM - Re: Get Me the Hell Off this Ride (Gig Giacona)
15. 07:36 AM - Re: XL Testing UK (Gig Giacona)
16. 07:39 AM - Re: [Probable Spam] Re: XL Testing UK (LarryMcFarland)
17. 07:53 AM - Re: What did you do today? (Gig Giacona)
18. 08:20 AM - Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (Dave)
19. 08:21 AM - Re: Re: XL Testing UK (Dave)
20. 08:39 AM - Re: Re: XL Testing UK (Jay Maynard)
21. 08:50 AM - Re: Kit plane design safety. (Bryan Martin)
22. 09:04 AM - Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (Gig Giacona)
23. 09:09 AM - Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (T. Graziano)
24. 09:10 AM - Re: Kit plane design safety. (Juan Vega)
25. 09:35 AM - British XL testing (roger lambert)
26. 09:35 AM - Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report (MaxNr@aol.com)
27. 09:52 AM - Making the right stick removable (Jim Belcher)
28. 09:56 AM - Re: XL Testing UK (aerobat)
29. 10:12 AM - Re: Making the right stick removable (Juan Vega)
30. 10:26 AM - Re: Making the right stick removable (jaybannist@cs.com)
31. 10:54 AM - Re: Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report (Iberplanes IGL)
32. 11:08 AM - Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (MaxNr@aol.com)
33. 11:20 AM - Re: XL Testing UK (Gig Giacona)
34. 11:24 AM - Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report (Gig Giacona)
35. 11:31 AM - Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (Gig Giacona)
36. 11:34 AM - Re: XL Testing UK (jonaburns)
37. 12:04 PM - Pauls Plane (Rich Simmons)
38. 12:17 PM - Re: XL Testing UK (Sabrina)
39. 12:21 PM - Re: Making the right stick removable (Paul Mulwitz)
40. 12:39 PM - Re: Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report (Iberplanes IGL)
41. 12:40 PM - Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (Paul Mulwitz)
42. 12:51 PM - Re: Making the right stick removable ()
43. 12:55 PM - Re: Re: XL Testing UK (Paul Mulwitz)
44. 01:16 PM - Re: Making the right stick removable (Mitch Hodges)
45. 01:47 PM - Chat Room (George Race)
46. 03:29 PM - Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (n801bh@netzero.com)
47. 03:34 PM - Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (n801bh@netzero.com)
48. 03:36 PM - Deal of the day (Tommy Walker)
49. 03:49 PM - Re: Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (Bryan Martin)
50. 04:05 PM - Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report (MaxNr@aol.com)
51. 04:05 PM - Re: Re: XL Testing UK (Bryan Martin)
52. 04:11 PM - response to some questionable recommednations (Juan Vega)
53. 04:50 PM - Re: Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (William Dominguez)
54. 04:53 PM - Re: Re: XL Testing UK (Jim Belcher)
55. 05:45 PM - Re: [Probable Spam] Quick open poll about wing failures. (LarryMcFarland)
56. 06:03 PM - Re: Re: XL Testing UK (George Swinford)
57. 06:13 PM - Re: Re: Making the right stick removable (Ronald Steele)
58. 06:37 PM - New updates from Chris Heintz on the 601XL (eddies)
59. 06:52 PM - Re: Re: XL Testing UK (Juan Vega)
60. 06:52 PM - Re: Re: XL Testing UK (Juan Vega)
61. 08:12 PM - Re: Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. (Bryan Martin)
62. 08:12 PM - 601 HDS Price Reduced (Brandon Tucker)
63. 08:28 PM - Re: XL Testing UK (Tim Juhl)
64. 08:34 PM - Re: Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. ()
65. 08:42 PM - Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. (Edward Moody II)
66. 08:43 PM - Re: Re: XL Testing UK (n801bh@netzero.com)
67. 09:27 PM - Re: Re: XL Testing UK (George Swinford)
68. 09:28 PM - Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. (Rick Lindstrom)
69. 10:22 PM - Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. (Paul Mulwitz)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
All XL Builders
>From our LAA WEB SITE
Testing of Chris Heinz mods appears to be immanent and may resolve your
problems.
Clive
Permission to test fly Zenair CH 601 XL Granted by UK CAA
Following a briefing meeting at Gatwick with the CAA flutter and
structures experts, the CAA has now given permission for the LAA to
start the flight program on a modified Zenair CH601 XL fitted with
aileron mass balances and wing attachment reinforcements. This
permission temporarily exempts the aircraft from the MPD which currently
grounds the type, so that the effectiveness of the modifications can be
explored. LAA Engineering are now awaiting the arrival of the test
equipment which has been specified to record the behaviour of the
airframe during the flutter testing. Once the equipment is installed and
wired up, flight tests will explore the ASI calibration, flutter
behaviour, cg range, pitch stability and the sensitivity of the elevator
trim tab. The flight testing will take place from a farm strip near
Cambridge.
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: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. |
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:18:17PM -0400, Rick Lindstrom wrote:
> Yes, Dave, it WAS nice around here while it lasted, wasn't it?
Too bad some folks feel compelled to make personal attacks against those who
are concerned for their safety and that of their passengers.
> However, the sullied reputation of the 601XL will remain so until the
> hoopla is allowed to die down. Unfortunately, this may take awhile, ss
> evidenced by the negative comments gathered by those who've endured them
> and reported them here.
Indeed. We're far from the first folks who have had to defend their aircraft
from negative publicity.
> Frankly, I'm a bit stunned by the comments from those who choose to ignore
> the recent GVT data and continue to press the "fatal flaw" theory. Sure,
> the 601XL airframe is just not going to put up with the same abuse that
> other airframes might handle. But then, it's not stressed for aerobatics
> or intended for rough weather conditions.
The recent GVT results rule out one fatal flaw (in my book), that of aileron
flutter. I'm completely satisfied that that's not an issue. (The NTSB may
not be, however.) They do not rule out other flaws.
The problem I have is that those on the other side of the fence are assuming
the exact opposite: that there is no fatal flaw, and cannot be, and that the
rash of inflight breakups can be exclusively attributed to builder and pilot
error. That assumption is downright dangerous. How many people died
needlessly due to Bonanza inflight breakups before Beech was forced to quit
stonewalling and fix the ruddervator design? Is it unreasonable to demand
that Zenith do all they can to avoid the same fate?
> I'm very fortunate to have access to several airplanes to fly, and I'll
> choose the right one for the mission at hand. The 601XL is a great,
> good-weather, fun-flying type airplane. If there's any weather involved,
> or anything beyond light to moderate chop, I'll take a different one.
As will I. (For me, the different one is likely to have four wheels.)
> It is what it is. It ain't what it ain't. Why is this so hard to understand?
I don't think that anyone is misunderstanding what the Zodiac is and is
capable of, statements by others that "you need to sell your airplane and
buy a certificated aircraft" notwithstanding. OTOH, assuming that the Zodiac
need not be as safe as certificated aircraft is highly destructive, because
that will do nothing but give anti-experimental agitators out there more
ammunition.
--
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 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: | Kit plane design safety. |
Hi Jay,
I think you have made a very important point here and I want to
amplify it. Kit planes, and E-AB certified planes in general, give
builders the option to have Spartan interiors, instrumentation, and
paint jobs to keep the initial flying cost minimal. This type of
choice should not have a negative impact on flight safety. We can
also use inexpensive engines which do have some impact on flight
safety, but even this freedom should not lead to structural failures.
I believe kit plane designs should be stronger and safer than
certified planes rather than weaker and less safe. There is nobody
who disagrees with this notion when considering designs intended for
aerobatics. I don't see why anyone would be happy to accept a design
that is so delicate that a little rough air will make the wings fall off.
The Zodiac is designed to similar limits as Normal and possibly
Utility category certified planes. This kind of strength is adequate
for all but the most violent weather when flown as a normal airplane
rather than as an air show performer. In addition, the Zodiac is
designed to be built by first time builders. Hopefully, that means
there is a certain amount of "Fudge factor" built into the design to
allow for differences from one plane to another and one skill level
of builder to another..
When a knowledgeable person like Rick admits the Zodiac is not really
safe in marginal weather conditions (as opposed to flying through
thunderstorms) I think he is really saying the design is
deficient. Any plane that can only be flown on smooth days without
risking structural failure doesn't even come close to having a safe design.
Because the Zodiac is a light sport aircraft it has certain weather
related limits that simply cannot be exceeded without risking big
problems. The most obvious of these is the crosswind capability of
the plane. The common rule of thumb for crosswind ability of any
airplane is 1/3 of the stall speed in the flight configuration being
used. Since LSA have very low stall speeds that means they also have
very low crosswind capabilities. Of course the penalty for exceeding
this limit probably extends to landing and taxiing accidents that are
unlikely to include serious injuries to occupants. Industry wide
accident statistics suggest LSA are more difficult to land than
heavier planes - especially for pilots new to this class of
planes. Transition training is a serious issue here. My own
experience is that approach speeds and roundout speeds need to be
considerably higher, based on stall speed, than for heavier
planes. On the one LSA I am experienced with (Tecnam Echo) a final
approach speed of at least 1.3 times VS works well while heavier
planes call for an initial approach speed of 1.3 times VS and slower
final approach speeds.
The Zodiac is designed as a cross country airplane. If it is not
safe to operate unless the air is completely smooth then it would be
very difficult for it to complete any long distance trips. The design
load limits are similar to certified planes of this genre, so the
plane should survive normal use just as the certified planes do.
Paul
XL grounded
At 04:13 AM 6/15/2009, you wrote:
>assuming that the Zodiac
>need not be as safe as certificated aircraft is highly destructive,
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: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. |
I don't really have a dog in this hunt (well, maybe a little yippie dog, since
I'm building an HDS) but it seems to me that is reasonable, given the limited
information available to our fellow pilots from AOPA, etc, for them to be curious,
even concerned, and to want to ask questions about the XL or any other airframe
with a recommendation or directive against it.
Case in point, as I mentioned in a previous post, I took an aerobatics course a
couple of weeks ago. It was in a Cessna 152 Aerobat. All 152's are subject
to a recent controversial AD concerning rudder stops. Two accidents occurred
back in 2005-2007 where 152s were being used to practice spins and the pilots
were not able to recover. It was determined one plane was very poorly maintained,
and the other had the rudder stops installed backwards and were ineffective.
(There is some debate on whether there were other related incidents, but
these were the two the AD was based on)
The Aerobat I flew in, and instructor I flew with, participated in the FAA testing
for the AD. Despite the fact that no fault could be found with a properly
maintained and configured 152, the FAA issued an AD that requires a $500 "repair".
Since the AD was not yet in effect at the time of my flight, and the "new improved"
parts had not been installed on this Aerobat, I talked it over with the instructor,
she showed me the tail, explained the AD, and also demonstrated that
the issues found on the two lost aircraft (rudder hitting the elevator) were
guarded against in the standard design with correctly installed an maintained
stops. Given this particular airframe had recovered successfully from literally
a couple of thousand spins, and its partner plane, now in the Smithsonian,
had a documented 6,000+ spin recoveries, I went up, enjoyed my flights and gave
no further thought to it.
We had a similar conversation about the XL, as she knew I was building a related
design. Her knowledge was limited to what was in the AOPA and a couple of other
articles. I explained the testing that had been done to date, including the
ZBAG and European testing, as well as the static load tests. She came away
with a better understanding and we both agreed the whole story isn't out there
yet.
In the end, we both made informed decisions, I flew in lots of unusual attitudes
in "Orville the Aerobat" and she asked for the privilege to one day have a little
seat time in "Michelle the Zodiac" if I ever manage to
finish it.
My point is, flying is, in the end, the practice of making informed decisions and
mitigating risk to each pilot-in-command's satisfaction. It is the responsibility
of the entire flying community to watch out for one another, and it is
possible we will disagree on occasion. That is healthy.
It is unfortunate that a vocal few on this list find it necessary to leave out
the "civil" portion of civil aviation. It serves no useful purpose that I can
tell other than providing some limited entertainment.
--------
Mitch Hodges
N601MH (Zenith 601HDS)
Builder Log at http://www.hodges.aero
Wings Under Perpetual Construction
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248183#248183
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: Kit plane design safety. |
Hi Paul, it's not that I disagree with the sentiment but you know this
wording is going to generate another sh**storm from people who cannot
separate their aircraft from their ego. I think the XL is probably OK as is,
although it appears that aspects of it could be improved. Old news now
anyway. Zeenith has moved on to the 650, which so far has not had issues.
> I believe kit plane designs should be stronger and safer than certified
> planes rather than weaker and less safe. There is nobody who disagrees
> with this notion when considering designs intended for aerobatics. I
> don't see why anyone would be happy to accept a design that is so delicate
> that a little rough air will make the wings fall off.
>
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: | Quick open poll about wing failures. |
Now that this topic have again resurfaced, lets cool down and do a little
open poll in the meanwhile. This is an open poll so every one is free to
keep their own count of the results.
Please respond to this thread with the number associated with your
response. You can optionally leave any comment if you wish.
When it comes to wing failures accidents in the Zodiacs 601XL fleet,
which of the following views best describe your own;
1) What wing failure accidents? There have not been any confirmed
wing failures, its all speculation.
2) There is no design issue with the plane, the reason for the accidents
are pilot error.
3) I don't know if there is a design issue or pilot error, I will hold
judgment until this whole thing clarify further.
4) There must be a design flaw with the plane and Zenith
should
address it.
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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:02:30AM -0700, William Dominguez wrote:
> When it comes to wing failures accidents in the Zodiacs 601XL fleet,
> which of the following views best describe your own;
> 3) I don't know if there is a design issue or pilot error, I will hold
> judgment until this whole thing clarify further.
> 4) There must be a design flaw with the plane and Zenith should address
> it.
My view is in between these two. I don't know if there is a design issue or
not, but I believe it's imperative that Zenith take every action they can to
resolve whatever issue there is in order to prevent future in-flight
breakups and rstore the reputation of the type.
Pilot error is what remains after all other causes have been ruled out. So
far, we're far from that point.
--
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 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: Kit plane design safety. |
I agree with you, Dave. I certainly wouldn't turn up my nose at a factory approved
retrofit that beefs up the center spar and wing attachments. Even though the
airframe still fully meets the design spec for negative G loading, a little
extra margin certainly wouldn't hurt the confidence factor. I'm looking forward
to the UK results, as posted by Clive.
As for "...going to generate another sh**storm from people who cannot
>separate their aircraft from their ego."
Et tu, Brutus? ;-)
Rick Lindstrom
N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave <d.goddard@ns.sympatico.ca>
>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 5:42 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Kit plane design safety.
>
>
>Hi Paul, it's not that I disagree with the sentiment but you know this
>wording is going to generate another sh**storm from people who cannot
>separate their aircraft from their ego. I think the XL is probably OK as is,
>although it appears that aspects of it could be improved. Old news now
>anyway. Zeenith has moved on to the 650, which so far has not had issues.
>
>> I believe kit plane designs should be stronger and safer than certified
>> planes rather than weaker and less safe. There is nobody who disagrees
>> with this notion when considering designs intended for aerobatics. I
>> don't see why anyone would be happy to accept a design that is so delicate
>> that a little rough air will make the wings fall off.
>>
>
>
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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
I wish there was a #5:
"When G loading on the airframe is exceeds design spec, the failure points are
very predictable and repeatable."
That's still my belief.
Rick Lindstrom
-----Original Message-----
>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 6:02 AM
>To: Matronics List <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Zenith-List: Quick open poll about wing failures.
>
>Now that this topic have again resurfaced, lets cool down and do a little
>open poll in the meanwhile. This is an open poll so every one is free to
>keep their own count of the results.
>
>Please respond to this thread with the number associated with your
>response. You can optionally leave any comment if you wish.
>
>When it comes to wing failures accidents in the Zodiacs 601XL fleet,
>which of the following views best describe your own;
>
>1) What wing failure accidents? There have not been any confirmed
>wing failures, its all speculation.
>
>2) There is no design issue with the plane, the reason for the accidents
>are pilot error.
>
>3) I don't know if there is a design issue or pilot error, I will hold
>judgment until this whole thing clarify further.
>
>4) There must be a design flaw with the plane and Zenith
> should
>address it.
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: XL Testing UK |
Clive,
"May resolve your problems"?? Must the scientific community go back and prove to
the British CAA Bureaucrats that the world is round ???? The Zodiac XL has been
load tested twice, passing both times. The German scientists PROVED that there
is NOT a flutter problem with the XL, and yet the Brits insist on testing
a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Is it because they didn't do
the tests themselves that they have totally disregarded all the testing
that has been done on the XL ???? I guess we MUST allow that the Brit Bureaucrats'
intelligence is superior to that of everyone else in the world.? Talk about
hard-headed arrogance !!
Jay Bannister
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Clive Richards <s.clive.richards@homecall.co.uk>
Sent: Mon, Jun 15, 2009 4:12 am
Subject: Zenith-List: XL Testing UK
All XL Builders
>From our LAA WEB SITE
Testing of Chris Heinz mods appears to be immanent
and may resolve your problems.
Clive
Permission to test fly Zenair CH 601 XL
Granted by UK CAA
?
Following a briefing meeting at Gatwick with the CAA flutter
and structures experts, the CAA has now given permission for the LAA to start
the flight program on a modified Zenair CH601 XL fitted with aileron mass
balances and wing attachment reinforcements. This permission temporarily exempts
the aircraft from the MPD which currently grounds the type, so that the
effectiveness of the modifications can be explored.? LAA Engineering are
now awaiting the arrival of the test equipment which has been specified to
record the behaviour of the airframe during the flutter testing. Once the
equipment is installed and wired up, flight tests will explore the ASI
calibration, flutter behaviour, cg range, pitch stability and the sensitivity of
the elevator trim tab. The flight testing will take place from a farm strip near
Cambridge.
?
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. |
Hi, Jay.
>Too bad some folks feel compelled to make personal attacks against those who
>are concerned for their safety and that of their passengers.
Being concerned for safety is one thing (and we all are). But choosing words that
purposely inflame the debate by polarizing those who have honest differences
of opinion really serves no use.
>The problem I have is that those on the other side of the fence are assuming
>the exact opposite: that there is no fatal flaw, and cannot be, and that the
>rash of inflight breakups can be exclusively attributed to builder and pilot
>error.
My feeling that this in not a binary issue, but one more of analog nature. When
pilots overstress the airframe (accidentally or through poor decision making),
the airframe will not tolerate it. As with most aviation accidents, it's a combination
of events that result in airframe failure. And with loose aileron cables,
flutter could very well be the starting point of a tragic, catastrophic
failure. But it's been proved that this is a non-issue with properly tensioned
cables.
I don't think we can neatly divide people into one side of the fence or the other.
We all have concerns about the 601 airframe integrity, to a varying degree.
It's most likely OK the way it is, when flown conservately in good weather.
But would I like to see a mod that raises the ultimate G loading? Sure I would.
At this age, I applaud anything that makes me worry less!
Rick Lindstrom
N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 4:13 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report.
>
>
>On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 10:18:17PM -0400, Rick Lindstrom wrote:
>> Yes, Dave, it WAS nice around here while it lasted, wasn't it?
>
>Too bad some folks feel compelled to make personal attacks against those who
>are concerned for their safety and that of their passengers.
>
>> However, the sullied reputation of the 601XL will remain so until the
>> hoopla is allowed to die down. Unfortunately, this may take awhile, ss
>> evidenced by the negative comments gathered by those who've endured them
>> and reported them here.
>
>Indeed. We're far from the first folks who have had to defend their aircraft
>from negative publicity.
>
>> Frankly, I'm a bit stunned by the comments from those who choose to ignore
>> the recent GVT data and continue to press the "fatal flaw" theory. Sure,
>> the 601XL airframe is just not going to put up with the same abuse that
>> other airframes might handle. But then, it's not stressed for aerobatics
>> or intended for rough weather conditions.
>
>The recent GVT results rule out one fatal flaw (in my book), that of aileron
>flutter. I'm completely satisfied that that's not an issue. (The NTSB may
>not be, however.) They do not rule out other flaws.
>
>The problem I have is that those on the other side of the fence are assuming
>the exact opposite: that there is no fatal flaw, and cannot be, and that the
>rash of inflight breakups can be exclusively attributed to builder and pilot
>error. That assumption is downright dangerous. How many people died
>needlessly due to Bonanza inflight breakups before Beech was forced to quit
>stonewalling and fix the ruddervator design? Is it unreasonable to demand
>that Zenith do all they can to avoid the same fate?
>
>> I'm very fortunate to have access to several airplanes to fly, and I'll
>> choose the right one for the mission at hand. The 601XL is a great,
>> good-weather, fun-flying type airplane. If there's any weather involved,
>> or anything beyond light to moderate chop, I'll take a different one.
>
>As will I. (For me, the different one is likely to have four wheels.)
>
>> It is what it is. It ain't what it ain't. Why is this so hard to understand?
>
>I don't think that anyone is misunderstanding what the Zodiac is and is
>capable of, statements by others that "you need to sell your airplane and
>buy a certificated aircraft" notwithstanding. OTOH, assuming that the Zodiac
>need not be as safe as certificated aircraft is highly destructive, because
>that will do nothing but give anti-experimental agitators out there more
>ammunition.
>--
>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 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: XL Testing UK |
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:51:11AM -0400, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> The Zodiac XL has been load tested twice, passing both times.
Static load testing, only...good in and of itself, but not everything.
> The German scientists PROVED that there is NOT a flutter problem with the
> XL, and yet the Brits insist on testing a solution to a problem that
> doesn't exist. Is it because they didn't do the tests themselves that they
> have totally disregarded all the testing that has been done on the XL ????
There's one thing that the German testing didn't cover: what happens if
there's no tension on the aileron cables? It's well and good in the US to
say that the cable tensions must be maintained as a sufficient solution to
the problem, but the accepted standard in the aeronautical engineering world
is to have no flutter issues with slack cables. The Germans didn't test that
scenario. It's not unreasonable for the British to say that cable tension
alone is not sufficient.
> I guess we MUST allow that the Brit Bureaucrats' intelligence is superior
> to that of everyone else in the world.? Talk about hard-headed arrogance
> !!
It's not the British bureaucrats. It's the accepted standards of
aeronautical engineering. *EVERY* aeronautical engineer I've ever spoken to
has said that having unbalanced ailerons is not acceptable as a matter of
principle.
--
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 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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
3
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
eExcfooterNO62)
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: Get Me the Hell Off this Ride |
Bill, I hope this get's to you before you figure out how to unsubscribe. The list
is only of any use to those that follow you in the build process can access
the knowledge.
As for all the crap. This to shall pass.
JAPhillipsGA(at)aol.com wrote:
> Whoever is in control of this list about the 601 XL airplanes please remove
me from whatever list sends me e-mails about that plane. 4 - 5 years ago when
I was building my XL and for a long time afterward I enjoyed the fellowship
of like minded builders. Now there appears to be way too many DICK HEADS and
too few builders. Stop sending me e-mails. Bill Phillips, 601XL 3300Jab 145
Hrs
>
>
--------
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=248211#248211
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: XL Testing UK |
jmaynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:51:11AM -0400, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> There's one thing that the German testing didn't cover: what happens if
> there's no tension on the aileron cables?
Come on Jay, this one is easy. The airplane becomes uncontrollable and flutter
will be the least of your concerns.
--------
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=248212#248212
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: XL Testing UK |
Jay,
I agree with you about not being flutter, but 5 of the 6 aircraft had 2
people on board and perhaps had maxed or exceeded weight limits.
The suggestion that a stronger center section and attachments is
probably a good idea that would add only a couple of pounds at best.
Static load testing
at max is different from repeated flight loading, but potential failure
due to fatigue would just take a lot longer. I'm 197 lbs and feel very
safe when
flying by myself, but I won't board anyone in my aircraft that weighs
much more than 200 lbs because of this type of concern, even in an HDS.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> Clive,
>
> "May resolve your problems"?? Must the scientific community go back
> and prove to the British CAA Bureaucrats that the world is round ?
> The Zodiac XL has been load tested twice, passing both times. The
> German scientists PROVED that there is NOT a flutter problem with the
> XL, and yet the Brits insist on testing a solution to a problem that
> doesn't exist. Is it because they didn't do the tests themselves that
> they have totally disregarded all the testing that has been done on
> the XL ?? I guess we MUST allow that the Brit Bureaucrats'
> intelligence is superior to that of everyone else in the world. Talk
> about hard-headed arrogance !!
>
> Jay Bannister
> Do not archive
>
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: What did you do today? |
I got my seats from the upholsterer Saturday. Here is one of them. A shot of them
in the plane will be on my web site in a few days.
--------
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=248217#248217
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/seat_photo_283.jpg
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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
I'l take #3 from the list offered but I somewhat agree with Rick here, there
could be more choices. On the other hand the elevator stops are intended to
remove the likelyhood of this failure mode and may be a solution. No?
It raises a question, is a design in which the design spec is easily
exceeded by a normal or even slightly careless pilot (completely ruling out
someone who deliberately defies the spec) a defective or poor design? I'm
totally torn on an answer, it should be a definitive no but slight or casual
moments of carelessness are so common that it seems it should be within
capabilities without immediate or long term consequences. And since this
must affect the entire aviation fleet both certified and homebuilt, it seems
that in most cases it's not normally an issue.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lindstrom" <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Quick open poll about wing failures.
> <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>
> I wish there was a #5:
>
> "When G loading on the airframe is exceeds design spec, the failure points
> are very predictable and repeatable."
>
> That's still my belief.
>
> Rick Lindstrom
>
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: XL Testing UK |
I think I recall seeing that they claimed no issue with tensions as low as
10 lbs. So there appears to be some flexibility there. No tension is so far
outside the acceptable range that I don't think it should be tested a that
level.
>
>
> jmaynard wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:51:11AM -0400, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
>> There's one thing that the German testing didn't cover: what happens if
>> there's no tension on the aileron cables?
>
>
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: XL Testing UK |
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:19:54PM -0300, Dave wrote:
> jmaynard wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:51:11AM -0400, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
>> There's one thing that the German testing didn't cover: what happens if
>> there's no tension on the aileron cables?
> I think I recall seeing that they claimed no issue with tensions as low as
> 10 lbs. So there appears to be some flexibility there. No tension is so far
> outside the acceptable range that I don't think it should be tested a that
> level.
Actually, they tested down to 5 pounds. I agree that slack cables are a
problem in other ways - but then, take a look at what happened when they
examined the Dutch Zodiac fleet: over half of the airplanes had them.
Even so, if every aeronautical engineering reference says that unbalanced
ailerons aren't acecptable, how can we complain when a regulatory authority
takes them at their word?
--
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 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: Kit plane design safety. |
On my way from Michigan to Sun'N'Fun this year, I ran into some
turbulence south of Knoxville that was so severe that I almost thought
it would knock the fillings out of my teeth. Holding altitude was
impossible, all I could do was slow down and ride it out and try to
find smoother air. If I hadn't had my seat belt pulled tight, I would
have been bouncing off the canopy. It wasn't much fun, but got through
it OK and so did the airplane. I found no damage to the airframe after
the flight.
If I had been flying a King Air, It probably would have been
considered light to moderate turbulence. In an LSA class airplane like
the Zodiac, I would call it severe turbulence. You have to realize
that an LSA is not going to handle weather as well as most normal
category aircraft can because, most normal category aircraft are much
heavier and have higher wing loading than an LSA.
I don't believe the Zodiac is unsafe in marginal weather, but you do
have to respect its limitations and the pilot has to have the
necessary skills and experience. I would not consider a Zenith an
ideal IFR airplane, but then, it wasn't intended for that.
I have found that the Zodiac has better crosswind landing capability
than the Cessnas I have flown previously. This is due to the all
flying rudder. I have found that I can fly the airplane crabbed into
the wind all the way down into ground effect and kick out the crab
just before touchdown.
>
> Hi Jay,
>
> I believe kit plane designs should be stronger and safer than
> certified planes rather than weaker and less safe. There is nobody
> who disagrees with this notion when considering designs intended for
> aerobatics. I don't see why anyone would be happy to accept a
> design that is so delicate that a little rough air will make the
> wings fall off.
>
> When a knowledgeable person like Rick admits the Zodiac is not
> really safe in marginal weather conditions (as opposed to flying
> through thunderstorms) I think he is really saying the design is
> deficient. Any plane that can only be flown on smooth days without
> risking structural failure doesn't even come close to having a safe
> design.
>
> Because the Zodiac is a light sport aircraft it has certain weather
> related limits that simply cannot be exceeded without risking big
> problems. The most obvious of these is the crosswind capability of
> the plane. The common rule of thumb for crosswind ability of any
> airplane is 1/3 of the stall speed in the flight configuration being
> used. Since LSA have very low stall speeds that means they also
> have very low crosswind capabilities.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
>
> It raises a question, is a design in which the design spec is easily
> exceeded by a normal or even slightly careless pilot (completely ruling out
> someone who deliberately defies the spec) a defective or poor design? I'm
> totally torn on an answer, it should be a definitive no but slight or casual
> moments of carelessness are so common that it seems it should be within
> capabilities without immediate or long term consequences. And since this
> must affect the entire aviation fleet both certified and homebuilt, it seems
> that in most cases it's not normally an issue.
>
> ---
Aircraft design is a series of compromises. They were made when Boeing designed
the 747 and Chris had to do it when he designed the 601XL. When the 601XL was
designed it had a center stick. Maybe over control of the elevator wasn't as
"easy" that way? I was butt testing my new seats this weekend after installing
the ELT. I reached to the far side of the cabin to test the ELT. The stick was
full forward as it will always be when not in flight. Guess what piece of the
aircraft came in contact with my ample tummy as I reached across. What would
have happened in flight if something had cause me to reach over there is a hurry
when the stick wasn't full forward? And at 180 my stomach isn't as ample as
some who fly 601s with duel sticks. What about a passenger who is clueless and
pushes the stick as they are getting moving around.
I'm seriously thinking about making the right stick removable.
But as to the design sure the over-control would be less possible with a smaller
elevator but then you would have pilots running out of elevator authority at
low speed.
--------
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=248240#248240
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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
I would vote for a #5.
I can still vividly recall, as I have reported before, of a Piper Tomahawk
owner/pilot I was letting fly in my XL in very gusty conditions.
The nose pitched up on climb out, and he actually pushed the stick rapidly
forward, putting us tight against the seat belts and into a nose low dive.
(I think if my belt had been unbuckled, I would have gone through the
canopy - my head was touching the canopy). I blocked and grabbed the stick,
stated "my airplane" and "eased" the nose to level. I often wonder had I
not grabbed the stick if he would have just as rapidly pulled the stick back
to raise the nose.
Tony Graziano
XL/Jab
N493TG; 501 hrs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lindstrom" <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Quick open poll about wing failures.
> <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>
> I wish there was a #5:
>
> "When G loading on the airframe is exceeds design spec, the failure points
> are very predictable and repeatable."
>
> That's still my belief.
>
> Rick Lindstrom
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 6:02 AM
>>To: Matronics List <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Zenith-List: Quick open poll about wing failures.
>>
>>Now that this topic have again resurfaced, lets cool down and do a little
>>open poll in the meanwhile. This is an open poll so every one is free to
>>keep their own count of the results.
>>
>>Please respond to this thread with the number associated with your
>>response. You can optionally leave any comment if you wish.
>>
>>When it comes to wing failures accidents in the Zodiacs 601XL fleet,
>>which of the following views best describe your own;
>>
>>1) What wing failure accidents? There have not been any confirmed
>>wing failures, its all speculation.
>>
>>2) There is no design issue with the plane, the reason for the accidents
>>are pilot error.
>>
>>3) I don't know if there is a design issue or pilot error, I will hold
>>judgment until this whole thing clarify further.
>>
>>4) There must be a design flaw with the plane and Zenith
>> should
>>address it.
>
>
>
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: Kit plane design safety. |
To look at it even more simply,
would you fly a piper cub or a cessna 170 in weather fit for a c-90? i think not.
I would not fly the zodiac I wouldnt fly a 170 or a cub into. ZFit the tool
to the situation.
JUan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 11:45 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Kit plane design safety.
>
>
>On my way from Michigan to Sun'N'Fun this year, I ran into some
>turbulence south of Knoxville that was so severe that I almost thought
>it would knock the fillings out of my teeth. Holding altitude was
>impossible, all I could do was slow down and ride it out and try to
>find smoother air. If I hadn't had my seat belt pulled tight, I would
>have been bouncing off the canopy. It wasn't much fun, but got through
>it OK and so did the airplane. I found no damage to the airframe after
>the flight.
>
>If I had been flying a King Air, It probably would have been
>considered light to moderate turbulence. In an LSA class airplane like
>the Zodiac, I would call it severe turbulence. You have to realize
>that an LSA is not going to handle weather as well as most normal
>category aircraft can because, most normal category aircraft are much
>heavier and have higher wing loading than an LSA.
>
>I don't believe the Zodiac is unsafe in marginal weather, but you do
>have to respect its limitations and the pilot has to have the
>necessary skills and experience. I would not consider a Zenith an
>ideal IFR airplane, but then, it wasn't intended for that.
>
>I have found that the Zodiac has better crosswind landing capability
>than the Cessnas I have flown previously. This is due to the all
>flying rudder. I have found that I can fly the airplane crabbed into
>the wind all the way down into ground effect and kick out the crab
>just before touchdown.
>
>>
>> Hi Jay,
>>
>> I believe kit plane designs should be stronger and safer than
>> certified planes rather than weaker and less safe. There is nobody
>> who disagrees with this notion when considering designs intended for
>> aerobatics. I don't see why anyone would be happy to accept a
>> design that is so delicate that a little rough air will make the
>> wings fall off.
>>
>> When a knowledgeable person like Rick admits the Zodiac is not
>> really safe in marginal weather conditions (as opposed to flying
>> through thunderstorms) I think he is really saying the design is
>> deficient. Any plane that can only be flown on smooth days without
>> risking structural failure doesn't even come close to having a safe
>> design.
>>
>> Because the Zodiac is a light sport aircraft it has certain weather
>> related limits that simply cannot be exceeded without risking big
>> problems. The most obvious of these is the crosswind capability of
>> the plane. The common rule of thumb for crosswind ability of any
>> airplane is 1/3 of the stall speed in the flight configuration being
>> used. Since LSA have very low stall speeds that means they also
>> have very low crosswind capabilities.
>
>
>--
>Bryan Martin
>N61BM, CH 601 XL,
>RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
>do not archive.
>
>
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: | British XL testing |
Will the airplane be tested both before and after modification for
comparison purposes?
If not, what useful information will be gained? No one(maybe) wants a
bandaid "fix" or something just to make someone feel better when it only
complicates the construction without real benefit?
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: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report |
ZBAG has about two dozen members spread over North & South America, Europe
and Australia. What are the odds that you could meet three on the same day
?
Bob in FL
601XL (holding at the wings)
Subject:----I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report.
>
> From:----cookwithgas (cookwithgas@HOTMAIL.COM)
> Date:----Sun Jun 14 - 7:07 AM
>
> >> On friday my daughter and I flew to Austin, Texas and back plus a
>> little sightseeing
>> with an old friend, adding four hours to the 601XL hobbs.
>>
>> I got Zbagged three times.
> Do not archive.
**************
Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your
fingertips.
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00
000004)
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: | Making the right stick removable |
On Monday 15 June 2009 11:04, Gig Giacona wrote:
<snip>
>
> I'm seriously thinking about making the right stick removable.
Our thinking is somewhat parallel. I think the right stick is necessary at
times, but at other times, it is an invitation to problems.
Has someone already done this, or is this new ground to be plowed?
I toyed with having a stub at the bottom with threads on it, and an upper
section which would simply screw on. Mind you, that idea isn't thought out
too well, so it may have some flaws.
================================================
You can check on my aircraft construction
progress at: http://www.mykitlog.com/santaigo
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
Retired Aerospace Technical Manager
================================================
===
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: XL Testing UK |
Did the Germans test at their max weight of 450kg or higher weights as in UK and
US. It could make a difference !
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248265#248265
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: Making the right stick removable |
do it just like in a cub, with a male/ female pipe slid in and a pin holding them.
do a quick disconnect for the PTT.
its been done many times.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com>
>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 12:53 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Making the right stick removable
>
>
>On Monday 15 June 2009 11:04, Gig Giacona wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> I'm seriously thinking about making the right stick removable.
>
>Our thinking is somewhat parallel. I think the right stick is necessary at
>times, but at other times, it is an invitation to problems.
>
>Has someone already done this, or is this new ground to be plowed?
>
>I toyed with having a stub at the bottom with threads on it, and an upper
>section which would simply screw on. Mind you, that idea isn't thought out
>too well, so it may have some flaws.
>
>================================================
> You can check on my aircraft construction
>progress at: http://www.mykitlog.com/santaigo
>================================================
> Jim B. Belcher
> BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
> A&P/IA
> Instrument Rated Pilot
> General Radio Telephone Certificate
> Retired Aerospace Technical Manager
>================================================
>===
>
>
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: Making the right stick removable |
Jim,
I made both sticks removable.? I wanted to be able to remove that right stick to
prevent the accidental push or pull by my passenger.? The other reason was for
under-panel access.? Some day, you are going to need to do some work in that
cave and with a stick in the way, you are not going to get much done.? I have
already had both sticks off for that purpose.?
I cut a piece of 4130 tubing for an inner sleeve.? The top part of the sleeve is
through bolted to the upper part of the stick and I fasten the lower part of
the stick with quick-release pins. I had to do a little shimming of the joint
to completely remove any "slop".
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com>
Sent: Mon, Jun 15, 2009 11:53 am
Subject: Zenith-List: Making the right stick removable
On Monday 15 June 2009 11:04, Gig Giacona wrote:
<snip>
>
> I'm seriously thinking about making the right stick removable.
Our thinking is somewhat parallel. I think the right stick is necessary at
times, but at other times, it is an invitation to problems.
Has someone already done this, or is this new ground to be plowed?
I toyed with having a stub at the bottom with threads on it, and an upper
section which would simply screw on. Mind you, that idea isn't thought out
too well, so it may have some flaws.
================================================
You can check on my aircraft construction
progress at: http://www.mykitlog.com/santaigo
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
Retired Aerospace Technical Manager
================================================
===
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report |
Sorry to correct you, we=B4re 150+ members and counting.
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: @ home
Engine: Jabiru 3300
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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
I say:
4
To blame EVERY in flight break up on pilot error is reprehensible. The
general consensus that I picked up on this list is that the ULTIMATE load for
this air craft should now be three G's. Even the most ardent supporters (those
that vote "1") make frequent remarks such as "He did a 3 G pull up and the
wing failed." Following the crowd, I suggest that the new Matronics
consensus limitation (3G ultimate) be observed.
That would make the new normal load = 2 G. That means that the Vn diagram
must be redrawn. A new Va would result. Furthermore, tried and true flutter
mitigation measures are invalid. FAR 23.629 is junk. If so, is AC 43.13b
also? Bernoulli is dead. Consensus rules! What do I know, I'm just a washed up
ancient aviator that hangs out with retired aerodynamicists and old AI's? I
must follow the herd.
Bob in FL
601XL
**************
Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at
your fingertips.
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000004)
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: XL Testing UK |
aerobat wrote:
> Did the Germans test at their max weight of 450kg or higher weights as in UK
and US. It could make a difference !
As far as flutter is concerned it really shouldn't make any difference.
--------
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=248287#248287
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: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report |
Iberplanes wrote:
> Sorry to correct you, were 150+ members and counting.
>
The ZBAG list shows 168 as of right this second. But that is just subscribers of
which I am one and don't think anyone would consider me a supporter. How many
paid into the witch hunt kitty?
--------
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=248288#248288
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
You act as if the cause for 58% of ALL airplane accidents isn't pilot error. Pilot
error doesn't necessarily mean the pilot did something real stupid just that,
for what ever reason, the allowed the aircraft to stray outside of it's design
limitations. Of the in-flight break ups where the cause is known both were
pilot error. One being flying the plane into bad weather the other being the
French guy who did aerobatics and reset the G meter prior to the investigative
team being able to check it.
For that matter it may not have even been the fault of the pilot who was flying
it at the time of the accident. None of the accident aircraft were being flown
by the guy that built them. SO it is safe to assume that the plane had been
flown by someone else prior. The plane could have been over stressed and damaged
by a previous pilot. Just not enough to cause immediate failure.
[quote="rtdin"]I say:
4
To blame EVERY in flight break up on pilot error is reprehensible. The general
consensus that I picked up on this list is that the ULTIMATE load for this air
craft should now be three G's. Even the most ardent supporters (those that vote
"1") make frequent remarks such as "He did a 3 G pull up and the wing failed."
Following the crowd, I suggest that the new Matronics consensus limitation
(3G ultimate) be observed.
That would make the new normal load = 2 G. That means that the Vn diagram must
be redrawn. A new Va would result. Furthermore, tried and true flutter mitigation
measures are invalid. FAR 23.629 is junk. If so, is AC 43.13b also? Bernoulli
is dead. Consensus rules! What do I know, I'm just a washed up ancient aviator
that hangs out with retired aerodynamicists and old AI's? I must follow
the herd.
Bob in FL
601XL
**************
Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your fingertips. (http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000004)
> [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=248291#248291
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: XL Testing UK |
Jay,
You say that *EVERY* Aeronautical Engineer states this is unacceptable...
Isn't CH an Aeronautical Engineer?
Has *EVERY* Engineer you have talked to designed and flown MORE aircraft than CH?
Many of us still question your "Experts" who continue to support speculation and
refuse to admit they were WRONG on the Flutter issue, and WILL NOT release their
so called engineering for independent review.
There may be an issue, and there may not be. Everyone should be free to decide
their own risk level and you and I have obviously decided differently. Until
there is hard proof that there is an issue we will continue to agree to disagree.
There are a few that won't accept anything but a design flaw and will do anything
they can to fulfill that assumption.
To those calling Scott crazy and reckless because he chooses to fly his airplane
because of blind belief in a government agency is beyond me. I guess we all
need faith in something.
We all know that government agencies are without flaw or political motivation,
right?
Calling an unfinished plane "grounded" is another issue I have. It isn't "Grounded"
it is abandoned. If it isn't legal to fly, it isn't an aircraft yet,
and can't be grounded. Your choice of not finishing the build is your own, just
like hundreds of other kits wasting away in attics, basements, and hangers.
My kids have a "grounded" space ship out back... It has the best avionics the
Home Depot can offer. The stickers have stayed on for 3 years.
Jon Burns
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248292#248292
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 |
|
Paul,
I need an engine and some avionics
Seriously. lets talk numbers.
$10K
Rich
Needing an engine
do not archive!
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL Testing UK |
I'm back...
I just wanted to make sure it was not me who was causing the list to flame. It
can flame very well on its own.
I just finished my 2,000th consecutive day of school without being sick, absent
or tardy. My U.S. Student pilot certificate issued June 3d and my IL motorbike
permit issued that same day. I just finished with the ACT this Saturday and
the SAT the Saturday before that. No scores on those yet. I did score a
perfect 800 on the May 2d SAT Subject Test: Math Level 2. I have been riding
side by side with my dad on my motorcycles the past weekreally cool! I take
the M permit course this week. If I pass, the Secretary of State may issue
an M permit next week. Until then, I ride my 16th birthday present: a 1985
Honda CB125S...
Paul, I will be in Washington State next month, what do you say we get St. Pauli
Girl in the air? (Hope you don't mind me naming her for you.)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248299#248299
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/newairplane_195.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/honda_cb125s_164.jpg
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: Making the right stick removable |
Hi Jim,
I would stay away from threads for this kind of application and
consider some sort of steel tube inside the current one, perhaps
welded in place, and a pin to hold the stick in place for
use. Probably a Clevis pin with either a cotter pin or one of those
spring steel diaper pin thingies.
It is easy to get aircraft steel tubing in exactly the diameter you
want to make telescoping structures with other aircraft steel tubing.
Good luck,
Paul
At 09:53 AM 6/15/2009, you wrote:
>I toyed with having a stub at the bottom with threads on it, and an upper
>section which would simply screw on. Mind you, that idea isn't thought out
>too well, so it may have some flaws.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report |
ok ,if you are not a supporter, what are you doing in that list? Just in
case, right?
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: @ home
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
I am stuck between 4 and 5.
I am convinced there is a design problem. That is the only possible
explanation for such a large number of in-flight structure failures -
many with experienced pilots flying straight and level and relatively
slowly too. However, there is absolutely no clue to the actual
problem so there is no way Zenith or anyone else can fix it right now.
I am beginning to consider the idea that the problem is not a simple
design problem. Rather, it might be a design feature intentionally
built into the plane. I refer to the very light elevator/pitch
response. This was intentionally done to allow for great control all
the way down to stall speed. Unfortunately, it might also mean the
plane is susceptible to rapid pilot (or panicked passenger) stick
inputs at higher speeds that could instantly overload the structure.
With all the testing that has been done, I am sure there is not a
simple design problem here. It is not an oversight or arithmetic
mistake. I think the accident numbers are alarmingly high, but not
so high that they point to a real risk for normal flight under normal
conditions.
Paul
XL grounded
At 06:02 AM 6/15/2009, you wrote:
>4) There must be a design flaw with the plane and Zenith should
>address it.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Making the right stick removable |
A friend made a removable right stick in his RV7. For the wiring he
used a DIN connector that fits nicely inside the tubing so that there is
no wiring running up the outside. It's a very slick installation (just
like the rest of his plane!).
I agree that an removable right stick is a safety feature. I get scared
just thinking of my wife being near the controls (and she wouldn't argue
the point).
Ron
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Zenith-List: Making the right stick removable
From: Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com>
On Monday 15 June 2009 11:04, Gig Giacona wrote:
<snip>
>
> I'm seriously thinking about making the right stick removable.
Our thinking is somewhat parallel. I think the right stick is necessary
at
times, but at other times, it is an invitation to problems.
Has someone already done this, or is this new ground to be plowed?
I toyed with having a stub at the bottom with threads on it, and an
upper
section which would simply screw on. Mind you, that idea isn't thought
out
too well, so it may have some flaws.
================================================
You can check on my aircraft construction
progress at: http://www.mykitlog.com/santaigo
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
Retired Aerospace Technical Manager
================================================
===
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: XL Testing UK |
Welcome back Sabrina! I am delighted to hear
from you again. I was worried you were gone for good.
Of course I would like to meet you (with
appropriate chaperone) when you visit Washington
State. Just let me know where and when. I don't
think I am ready to fly my XL but I have another
(even nicer) plane at my disposal for the next
year. I would be happy to fly anywhere in the
state to meet you. I am all current and legal,
so I could take you up if you want. The plane
looks a lot like a 150 but performs somewhere between a 172 and 182.
I'll have to consider the name, St. Pauli Girl,
before agreeing. If I wind up selling it I
shouldn't name it. I don't think anyone will pay
a fair price, but I feel I have already received
my money's worth on the airframe. Four years of
great activity is worth a lot to me. On the
other hand, I have a very nice engine and
avionics that many builders wouldn't pay the
price for. I'm not going to give them away to
anyone (except perhaps someone I really like)
just because I am reluctant to fly the plane. I
am considering building another airframe that can
use the same engine and avionics.
I, for one, never thought you were responsible
for any of the flaming that goes on regularly
here. I am afraid I can't say the same about
myself. I try to be "Professional" and stay away
from personal attacks, but there are many here who don't see it the same way.
Paul
Camas, WA (1W1)
do not archive
At 12:16 PM 6/15/2009, you wrote:
>
>I'm back...
>
>I just wanted to make sure it was not me who was
>causing the list to flame. It can flame very well on its own.
>
>I just finished my 2,000th consecutive day of
>school without being sick, absent or tardy. My
>U.S. Student pilot certificate issued June 3d
>and my IL motorbike permit issued that same
>day. I just finished with the ACT this
>Saturday and the SAT the Saturday before
>that. No scores on those yet. I did score a
>perfect 800 on the May 2d SAT Subject Test: Math
>Level 2. I have been riding side by side with
>my dad on my motorcycles the past weekreally
>cool! I take the M permit course this
>week. If I pass, the Secretary of State may
>issue an M permit next week. Until then, I
>ride my 16th birthday present: a 1985 Honda CB125S...
>
>Paul, I will be in Washington State next month,
>what do you say we get St. Pauli Girl in the
>air? (Hope you don't mind me naming her for you.)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Making the right stick removable |
rsteele(at)rjsit.com wrote:
> I get scared just thinking of my wife being near the controls ------
That's one of the things that attracted me to the Y-controller.
I personally am more scared of leaving my wife (or any other copilot) with no controls
should I become incapacitated in flight regardless of the "copilot's"
flying knowledge and expertise. ATC has talked down folks with no experience
but with controls. They've never talked down anyone (regardless of experience)
without controls.
By the way, I assume anyone sitting in the right seat with me is a copilot regardless
of their knowledge, and I make sure they know how to make a radio call
if needed.
--------
Mitch Hodges
N601MH (Zenith 601HDS)
Builder Log at http://www.hodges.aero
Wings Under Perpetual Construction
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248310#248310
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 |
|
Live Chat Room every Monday evening around 8:00 EDT
www.mykitairplane.com <http://www.mykitairplane.com/>
Click on the Chat Room link on the page.
George
Do Not Archive
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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
I am a 3 but..... The Yuba City incident has me still wondering on how i
t transpired. And the one headed to Sun and Fun is baffling too.. One t
hing to remember is the GVT is computer modeling, not real flight testin
g so the potential for a false negative still exists.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Quick open poll about wing failures.
Now that this topic have again resurfaced, lets cool down and do a littl
e
open poll in the meanwhile. This is an open poll so every one is free to
keep their own count of the results.
Please respond to this thread with the number associated with your
response. You can optionally leave any comment if you wish.
When it comes to wing failures accidents in the Zodiacs 601XL fleet,
which of the following views best describe your own;
1) What wing failure accidents? There have not been any confirmed
wing failures, its all speculation.
2) There is no design issue with the plane, the reason for the accidents
are pilot error.
3) I don't know if there is a design issue or pilot error, I will hold
judgment until this whole thing clarify further.
4) There must be a design flaw with the plane and Zenith should
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
============
____________________________________________________________
You're never too old to date. Senior Dating. Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYdji9UksFZ816jA90Qh
aPN5UAO1ypK5sLabbJIy7UizIbrQdmhid6/
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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
If you were at or below VA who cares, The plane "should" stall first bef
ore it can destroy itself..
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "T. Graziano" <tonyplane@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Quick open poll about wing failures.
t>
I would vote for a #5.
I can still vividly recall, as I have reported before, of a Piper Tomaha
wk
owner/pilot I was letting fly in my XL in very gusty conditions.
The nose pitched up on climb out, and he actually pushed the stick rapid
ly
forward, putting us tight against the seat belts and into a nose low div
e.
(I think if my belt had been unbuckled, I would have gone through the
canopy - my head was touching the canopy). I blocked and grabbed the sti
ck,
stated "my airplane" and "eased" the nose to level. I often wonder had
I
not grabbed the stick if he would have just as rapidly pulled the stick
back
to raise the nose.
Tony Graziano
XL/Jab
N493TG; 501 hrs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lindstrom" <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Quick open poll about wing failures.
> <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>
> I wish there was a #5:
>
> "When G loading on the airframe is exceeds design spec, the failure po
ints
> are very predictable and repeatable."
>
> That's still my belief.
>
> Rick Lindstrom
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com>
>>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 6:02 AM
>>To: Matronics List <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Zenith-List: Quick open poll about wing failures.
>>
>>Now that this topic have again resurfaced, lets cool down and do a lit
tle
>>open poll in the meanwhile. This is an open poll so every one is free
to
>>keep their own count of the results.
>>
>>Please respond to this thread with the number associated with your
>>response. You can optionally leave any comment if you wish.
>>
>>When it comes to wing failures accidents in the Zodiacs 601XL fleet,
>>which of the following views best describe your own;
>>
>>1) What wing failure accidents? There have not been any confirmed
>>wing failures, its all speculation.
>>
>>2) There is no design issue with the plane, the reason for the acciden
ts
>>are pilot error.
>>
>>3) I don't know if there is a design issue or pilot error, I will hold
>>judgment until this whole thing clarify further.
>>
>>4) There must be a design flaw with the plane and Zenith
>> should
>>address it.
>
>
>
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
Get the best Criminal Lawyer. Click Here
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYbd6xlLExIqljDwzQ26
kLlnQVbxgB2DikKexJY5sOSIvOQwzkSSBq/
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 |
|
For you 601'ers who want to break out, here's a deal for you at 1saleaday.com.
Offer expires at midnight. Price is $0.00 and shipping is usually $4.95. Slow
delivery though.
http://wireless.1saleaday.com/
Tommy Walker in Alabama
Do Not Archive
--------
Tommy Walker
N8701 - Anniston, AL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248322#248322
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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
I have to assume you're joking. I've pulled four Gs in mine at gross
weight during phase 1 testing with no problem at all. The Zodiac will
not shed its wings at three Gs unless you've got it grossly
overloaded. or didn't bother to install the wing bolts.
On Jun 15, 2009, at 1:56 PM, MaxNr@aol.com wrote:
> I say:
>
> 4
>
> To blame EVERY in flight break up on pilot error is reprehensible.
> The general consensus that I picked up on this list is that the
> ULTIMATE load for this air craft should now be three G's. Even the
> most ardent supporters (those that vote "1") make frequent remarks
> such as "He did a 3 G pull up and the wing failed." Following the
> crowd, I suggest that the new Matronics consensus limitation (3G
> ultimate) be observed.
>
> That would make the new normal load = 2 G. That means that the Vn
> diagram must be redrawn. A new Va would result. Furthermore, tried
> and true flutter mitigation measures are invalid. FAR 23.629 is
> junk. If so, is AC 43.13b also? Bernoulli is dead. Consensus rules!
> What do I know, I'm just a washed up ancient aviator that hangs out
> with retired aerodynamicists and old AI's? I must follow the herd.
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report |
You answered your own question. You say that you are NOT a ZBAG supporter
but you do visit. There are no subscriptions as Matronics has. Yes, there are
168 registered members to this Yahoo group. All have been invited to join
the forum and access the "Files" and pictures. No, there are not 168 ZBAGers.
There are about two dozen paid members and the rest are cordially invited
guests. As Gig says, he is far from a supporter, but he frequently
participates in the discussions. Is Gig one of 168 ZBAGers? He is registered, however.
You are still most welcome, Gig. I do agree with many things that you have
said, such as special training for 601XL pilots. (SFAR-73)
Bob
>
> >> Sorry to correct you, were 150+ members and counting.
>> >
>>
>>
>> The ZBAG list shows 168 as of right this second. But that is just
>> subscribers of
>> which I am one and don't think anyone would consider me a supporter. How
>> many
>> paid into the witch hunt kitty?
>>
> Do not archive
**************
Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your
fingertips.
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000004)
Message 51
| 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: XL Testing UK |
I believe there are a few standard category aircraft that don't have
balanced ailerons. These are mostly vintage airplanes with a
relatively low value for Vne. For these airplanes it was considered
acceptable not to have balanced ailerons. I am not familiar with any
of these aircraft types, but I have heard of them. I can't cite any
specific examples. Maybe someone else can? I seem to recall mention
that some early Cubs were designed that way.
On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:33 PM, jonaburns wrote:
>
> Jay,
>
> You say that *EVERY* Aeronautical Engineer states this is
> unacceptable...
>
> Isn't CH an Aeronautical Engineer?
>
> Has *EVERY* Engineer you have talked to designed and flown MORE
> aircraft than CH?
>
> Many of us still question your "Experts" who continue to support
> speculation and refuse to admit they were WRONG on the Flutter
> issue, and WILL NOT release their so called engineering for
> independent review.
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
Message 52
| 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: | response to some questionable recommednations |
All;
the following a godd attempt at SWAG.(shit wild ass guess)
MaxNr@aol.com wrote:
> I say:
>
> 4
>
> To blame EVERY in flight break up on pilot error is reprehensible.
> The general consensus that I picked up on this list is that the
> ULTIMATE load for this air craft should now be three G's. Even the
> most ardent supporters (those that vote "1") make frequent remarks
> such as "He did a 3 G pull up and the wing failed." Following the
> crowd, I suggest that the new Matronics consensus limitation (3G
> ultimate) be observed.
>
> That would make the new normal load = 2 G. That means that the Vn
> diagram must be redrawn. A new Va would result. Furthermore, tried
> and true flutter mitigation measures are invalid. FAR 23.629 is
> junk. If so, is AC 43.13b also? Bernoulli is dead. Consensus rules!
> What do I know, I'm just a washed up ancient aviator that hangs out
> with retired aerodynamicists and old AI's? I must follow the herd.
>
THE FACTS;
Manauvering speed and max G load changes with certain variables, gross weight,
speed, temperature outside, Pressure Altitude
on a standard temp day, if you fly the plane at full gross, you will exceed design
loads below the max manauavering speeds.
The standard design model has a given Max G load for a given weight and speed.
Change the variables such as described above will yield a SNAFU situation.
I have looped the plane and done 4 G pulls, provided I had only 10 gallons of gas
(60lbs) and only me in the plane(220 lbs). To do the same with two guys and
full fuel would be stupid.
That is what some of the guys flying the 601 just do not get. Not even a stunt
pilot flying an EXTRA 300 loaded for 10 Gs would do stunts in a fully loaded
aircraft, and that is what those planes are desinged for.
So ignore the BullS___t statements. Fly the plane within the specs, fly a well
maintained plane, and you will be fine.
DO you fly at 130 mph on a hot day with nasty thermals and convection goin on?
Only the dip shits will. Regardless of the plane flown.
Juan Vega
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 6:46 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Quick open poll about wing failures.
>
>
>I have to assume you're joking. I've pulled four Gs in mine at gross
>weight during phase 1 testing with no problem at all. The Zodiac will
>not shed its wings at three Gs unless you've got it grossly
>overloaded. or didn't bother to install the wing bolts.
>
>On Jun 15, 2009, at 1:56 PM, MaxNr@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I say:
>>
>> 4
>>
>> To blame EVERY in flight break up on pilot error is reprehensible.
>> The general consensus that I picked up on this list is that the
>> ULTIMATE load for this air craft should now be three G's. Even the
>> most ardent supporters (those that vote "1") make frequent remarks
>> such as "He did a 3 G pull up and the wing failed." Following the
>> crowd, I suggest that the new Matronics consensus limitation (3G
>> ultimate) be observed.
>>
>> That would make the new normal load = 2 G. That means that the Vn
>> diagram must be redrawn. A new Va would result. Furthermore, tried
>> and true flutter mitigation measures are invalid. FAR 23.629 is
>> junk. If so, is AC 43.13b also? Bernoulli is dead. Consensus rules!
>> What do I know, I'm just a washed up ancient aviator that hangs out
>> with retired aerodynamicists and old AI's? I must follow the herd.
>>
>
>
>--
>Bryan Martin
>N61BM, CH 601 XL,
>RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
>do not archive.
>
>
Message 53
| 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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
How uncomfortable does 4 G feel?
I have experienced some Gs to the point where I have felt a little dizzy fo
r the few seconds it lasted but I didn't have a G meter to get an idea how
much it was. I'm curious as to how it feel as it gets close to the airframe
limit.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net> wrote:
From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Quick open poll about wing failures.
I have to assume you're joking. I've pulled four Gs in mine at gross weight
during phase 1 testing with no problem at all. The Zodiac will not shed it
s wings at three Gs unless you've got it grossly overloaded. or didn't both
er to install the wing bolts.
On Jun 15, 2009, at 1:56 PM, MaxNr@aol.com wrote:
> I say:
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---4
>
> To blame EVERY in flight break up on pilot error is reprehensible. The ge
neral consensus that I picked up on this list is that the ULTIMATE load for
this air craft should now be three G's. Even the most ardent supporters (t
hose that vote "1") make frequent remarks such as "He did a 3 G pull up and
the wing failed." Following the crowd, I suggest that the new Matronics co
nsensus limitation (3G ultimate) be observed.
>
> That would make the new normal load = 2 G. That means that the Vn diagr
am must be redrawn. A new Va would result. Furthermore, tried and true flut
ter mitigation measures are invalid. FAR 23.629 is junk. If so, is AC 43.13
b also? Bernoulli is dead. Consensus rules!- What do I know, I'm just a w
ashed up ancient aviator that hangs out with retired aerodynamicists and ol
d AI's? I must follow the herd.
>
--Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
le, List Admin.
Message 54
| 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: XL Testing UK |
On Monday 15 June 2009 17:59, Bryan Martin wrote:
>
> I believe there are a few standard category aircraft that don't have
> balanced ailerons. These are mostly vintage airplanes with a
> relatively low value for Vne. For these airplanes it was considered
> acceptable not to have balanced ailerons. I am not familiar with any
> of these aircraft types, but I have heard of them. I can't cite any
> specific examples. Maybe someone else can? I seem to recall mention
> that some early Cubs were designed that way.
I think all the J3s were built thus. I know that the Short Wing Pipers
(Vagabond, Clipper, Pacer, TriPacer, and Colt) did not have balanced
ailerons. The TriPacer flies at about the same speed as the 601XL, but I am
unaware of any flutter incidents with one that was properly maintained.
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
============================================
Message 55
| 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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
William Dominguez wrote:
> Now that this topic have again resurfaced, lets cool down and do a little
> open poll in the meanwhile. This is an open poll so every one is free to
> keep their own count of the results.
>
> Please respond to this thread with the number associated with your
> response. You can optionally leave any comment if you wish.
>
> When it comes to wing failures accidents in the Zodiacs 601XL fleet,
> which of the following views best describe your own;
>
> 1) What wing failure accidents? There have not been any confirmed
> wing failures, its all speculation.
>
> 2) There is no design issue with the plane, the reason for the accidents
> are pilot error.
>
> 3) I don't know if there is a design issue or pilot error, I will hold
> judgment until this whole thing clarify further.
>
> 4) There must be a design flaw with the plane and Zenith should
> address it.
>
> William,
> (1) I dont think there have been failures of the wings. The longer
> thin-section wing may be culpable in aggravating a max-loaded short
> center spar. The spar angle seems nearly 10-degrees out of plane with
> flight loads (positive) and landings (negative). These may place
> critically uneven stresses in the actual center spar section.
>
> (2) I suspect long term some XL center spars may suffer from harsh
> stresses at the landing gear attachment and yield to excessive
> elevator force in flight with max loads. These all remain to be proven.
>
> (3) (I lean toward item 3.) It shouldn't be said that pilot error is
> a cause as the published performance envelope could well include the
> loads at which the failures occurred.
> Neither source of failure, pilot or design, have been absolutely proven.
>
> (4) The term design flaw should not be used until the degree of a
> design compromise that actually contributes to failure is clearly
> obvious. I'm sure Zenith, in good faith, is studying this to put a
> one-time approach or possible modification in place. Today theres
> good FEA mechanical software out there that makes best use of linear
> algebra and calculus and it almost casually allows anyone to ask good
> questions. I think the answers eventually will suggest a real cause.
>
> Do fly safe,
>
> Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
> <http://www.macsmachine.com/>
>
>
Message 56
| 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: XL Testing UK |
As I noted a few weeks ago, The Ercoupe is one vintage airplane on which
aileron balance weights were not required. They were initially fitted but
subsequent analysis and testing showed that they were not needed and the
factory recommended their removal. These Ercoupes had fabric-covered wings.
(Some later Ercoupes were produced with metal covering the same basic
structure.) The metal covered leading edge was not a D-tube structure: i.e.
the metal was not attached to the lower chord of the main spar. Torsional
stiffness of the wing was realized by a system of diagonal ribs. I believe
Vne was 146 mph, but it's been a long time since I flew one so that may be
wrong.
George Swinford
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Martin" <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK
>
> I believe there are a few standard category aircraft that don't have
> balanced ailerons. These are mostly vintage airplanes with a relatively
> low value for Vne. For these airplanes it was considered acceptable not
> to have balanced ailerons. I am not familiar with any of these aircraft
> types, but I have heard of them. I can't cite any specific examples.
> Maybe someone else can? I seem to recall mention that some early Cubs
> were designed that way.
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:33 PM, jonaburns wrote:
>
>>
>> Jay,
>>
>> You say that *EVERY* Aeronautical Engineer states this is
>> unacceptable...
>>
>> Isn't CH an Aeronautical Engineer?
>>
>> Has *EVERY* Engineer you have talked to designed and flown MORE aircraft
>> than CH?
>>
>> Many of us still question your "Experts" who continue to support
>> speculation and refuse to admit they were WRONG on the Flutter issue,
>> and WILL NOT release their so called engineering for independent review.
>>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
> do not archive.
>
>
>
Message 57
| 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: Making the right stick removable |
I agree. I'll be doing the center stick also, but mine will be
straight (single grip). I've very long legs which interfere with the
"Y" or dual sticks.
I'd never remove a right hand stick with a passenger that had a hope
in heck of landing the plane. Unfortunately, the wife is outside that
category.
I do hope to teach some radio and nav work at some point.
Ron
DO NOT ARCIVE
On Jun 15, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Mitch Hodges wrote:
>
>
> rsteele(at)rjsit.com wrote:
>> I get scared just thinking of my wife being near the controls ------
>
>
> That's one of the things that attracted me to the Y-controller.
>
> I personally am more scared of leaving my wife (or any other
> copilot) with no controls should I become incapacitated in flight
> regardless of the "copilot's" flying knowledge and expertise. ATC
> has talked down folks with no experience but with controls. They've
> never talked down anyone (regardless of experience) without controls.
>
> By the way, I assume anyone sitting in the right seat with me is a
> copilot regardless of their knowledge, and I make sure they know how
> to make a radio call if needed.
>
> --------
> Mitch Hodges
> N601MH (Zenith 601HDS)
> Builder Log at http://www.hodges.aero
> Wings Under Perpetual Construction
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248310#248310
>
>
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New updates from Chris Heintz on the 601XL |
See attached PDF.
Cheers
Eddie Seve
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248368#248368
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ch_nl172_153.pdf
Message 59
| 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: XL Testing UK |
check the -
Piper cub
cessna 140 and 150
Erocoupe
Taylor craft
sopwith Pup
Tiger Moth
stinson
-----Original Message-----
>From: George Swinford <grs-pms@comcast.net>
>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 8:57 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK
>
>
>As I noted a few weeks ago, The Ercoupe is one vintage airplane on which
>aileron balance weights were not required. They were initially fitted but
>subsequent analysis and testing showed that they were not needed and the
>factory recommended their removal. These Ercoupes had fabric-covered wings.
>(Some later Ercoupes were produced with metal covering the same basic
>structure.) The metal covered leading edge was not a D-tube structure: i.e.
>the metal was not attached to the lower chord of the main spar. Torsional
>stiffness of the wing was realized by a system of diagonal ribs. I believe
>Vne was 146 mph, but it's been a long time since I flew one so that may be
>wrong.
>
>George Swinford
>
>Do not archive
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bryan Martin" <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 3:59 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK
>
>
>>
>> I believe there are a few standard category aircraft that don't have
>> balanced ailerons. These are mostly vintage airplanes with a relatively
>> low value for Vne. For these airplanes it was considered acceptable not
>> to have balanced ailerons. I am not familiar with any of these aircraft
>> types, but I have heard of them. I can't cite any specific examples.
>> Maybe someone else can? I seem to recall mention that some early Cubs
>> were designed that way.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:33 PM, jonaburns wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Jay,
>>>
>>> You say that *EVERY* Aeronautical Engineer states this is
>>> unacceptable...
>>>
>>> Isn't CH an Aeronautical Engineer?
>>>
>>> Has *EVERY* Engineer you have talked to designed and flown MORE aircraft
>>> than CH?
>>>
>>> Many of us still question your "Experts" who continue to support
>>> speculation and refuse to admit they were WRONG on the Flutter issue,
>>> and WILL NOT release their so called engineering for independent review.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Bryan Martin
>> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
>> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
>> do not archive.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 60
| 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: XL Testing UK |
check the -
Piper cub
cessna 140 and 150
Erocoupe
Taylor craft
sopwith Pup
Tiger Moth
stinson
-----Original Message-----
>From: George Swinford <grs-pms@comcast.net>
>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 8:57 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK
>
>
>As I noted a few weeks ago, The Ercoupe is one vintage airplane on which
>aileron balance weights were not required. They were initially fitted but
>subsequent analysis and testing showed that they were not needed and the
>factory recommended their removal. These Ercoupes had fabric-covered wings.
>(Some later Ercoupes were produced with metal covering the same basic
>structure.) The metal covered leading edge was not a D-tube structure: i.e.
>the metal was not attached to the lower chord of the main spar. Torsional
>stiffness of the wing was realized by a system of diagonal ribs. I believe
>Vne was 146 mph, but it's been a long time since I flew one so that may be
>wrong.
>
>George Swinford
>
>Do not archive
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bryan Martin" <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 3:59 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK
>
>
>>
>> I believe there are a few standard category aircraft that don't have
>> balanced ailerons. These are mostly vintage airplanes with a relatively
>> low value for Vne. For these airplanes it was considered acceptable not
>> to have balanced ailerons. I am not familiar with any of these aircraft
>> types, but I have heard of them. I can't cite any specific examples.
>> Maybe someone else can? I seem to recall mention that some early Cubs
>> were designed that way.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:33 PM, jonaburns wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Jay,
>>>
>>> You say that *EVERY* Aeronautical Engineer states this is
>>> unacceptable...
>>>
>>> Isn't CH an Aeronautical Engineer?
>>>
>>> Has *EVERY* Engineer you have talked to designed and flown MORE aircraft
>>> than CH?
>>>
>>> Many of us still question your "Experts" who continue to support
>>> speculation and refuse to admit they were WRONG on the Flutter issue,
>>> and WILL NOT release their so called engineering for independent review.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Bryan Martin
>> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
>> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
>> do not archive.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 61
| 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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
It's tolerable but not very pleasant. It really puts you into the seat
cushions. The semi-reclined seating of the Zodiac probably makes it
more tolerable than what you'd experience in a Cessna. I only tried it
a couple of times just to verify the flight envelope.
It just occurred to me to wonder if that has anything to do with some
of these accidents. A pilot might pull more Gs than he thinks he is
because it doesn't feel as high if he's not used to pulling Gs in a
Zenith.
On Jun 15, 2009, at 7:41 PM, William Dominguez wrote:
> How uncomfortable does 4 G feel?
>
> I have experienced some Gs to the point where I have felt a little
> dizzy for the few seconds it lasted but I didn't have a G meter to
> get an idea how much it was. I'm curious as to how it feel as it
> gets close to the airframe limit.
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
Message 62
| 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: | 601 HDS Price Reduced |
Gents,
I just reduced the price of my HDS / Corvair to $20,000. -I have been
recalled to active duty, took a pay cut, and am deploying overseas in a cou
ple of months. -It needs to go. -Check Barnstormers.com under Zodiac fo
r the ad. -
VR/
Brandon Tucker(760)586-5757=0A=0A=0A
Message 63
| 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: XL Testing UK |
My Champ does not have balanced ailerons. My buddy just built a 80% replica of
a Tiger Moth - it doesn't have balanced ailerons either.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248385#248385
Message 64
| 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: Quick open poll about wing failures. |
Gig, I would love to be able to interview "the French guy" in detail, I
think he has a wealth of information that we could all benefit from.
Bureaucracy being what it is, I bet he dare not open his mouth. However,
if any of our French friends knows him, it would be great if they wrote
a FICTITIOUS chapter to an aviation novel, depicting an imaginary flier
who lost both wings, "theorizing" how the hero got into the hypothetical
situation. The hero of the Fictional story would rightfully own the
title of "Lucky Pierre".
Entendez, nous amis Zenithoises? (Poor French, I know)
Paul R.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gig Giacona<mailto:wrgiacona@gmail.com>
To: zenith-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 1:30 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Quick open poll about wing failures.
<wrgiacona@gmail.com<mailto:wrgiacona@gmail.com>>
You act as if the cause for 58% of ALL airplane accidents isn't pilot
error. Pilot error doesn't necessarily mean the pilot did something real
stupid just that, for what ever reason, the allowed the aircraft to
stray outside of it's design limitations. Of the in-flight break ups
where the cause is known both were pilot error. One being flying the
plane into bad weather the other being the French guy who did aerobatics
and reset the G meter prior to the investigative team being able to
check it.
For that matter it may not have even been the fault of the pilot who
was flying it at the time of the accident. None of the accident aircraft
were being flown by the guy that built them. SO it is safe to assume
that the plane had been flown by someone else prior. The plane could
have been over stressed and damaged by a previous pilot. Just not enough
to cause immediate failure.
[quote="rtdin"]I say:
=EF=BD 4
To blame EVERY in flight break up on pilot error is reprehensible.
The general consensus that I picked up on this list is that the ULTIMATE
load for this air craft should now be three G's. Even the most ardent
supporters (those that vote "1") make frequent remarks such as "He did a
3 G pull up and the wing failed." Following the crowd, I suggest that
the new Matronics consensus limitation (3G ultimate) be observed.
That would make the new normal load = 2 G. That means that the Vn
diagram must be redrawn. A new Va would result. Furthermore, tried and
true flutter mitigation measures are invalid. FAR 23.629 is junk. If so,
is AC 43.13b also? Bernoulli is dead. Consensus rules! What do I know,
I'm just a washed up ancient aviator that hangs out with retired
aerodynamicists and old AI's? I must follow the herd.
Bob in FL
601XL
**************
Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your
fingertips.
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown0
0000004<http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcnt
usdown00000004>)
> [b]
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at
www.peoamerica.net/N601WR<http://www.peoamerica.net/N601WR>
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248291#248291<http://forums
.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248291#248291>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List<http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?Zenith-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
Message 65
| 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: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. |
HOOO - WHEEE! And I thought local SW LA card games were contentious! For
the record, I've been ZBAGed as well. I think any of us who build, fly
or even speak in support of the 601XL design will encounter some of
that. No big deal. I'm a dentist, a political conservative, and I have
Irish ancestors. If I can't take some heat, I'll just have to commit
sideways and get it over with. I don't think I'll unsubscribe just yet
because every now and then there's something entertaining and/or
informative to read here. True, there's a lot of horsecrap but maybe
there's a pony in there too, huh?
I'm not an aeronautical engineer nor do I have lots of hours as PIC, and
I've only built two planes and assisted on two others (they do all fly
however, and none of them has crashed... yet), so I am not an aviation
authority by any measure. Some of you on the list are extensively
experienced. My greatest experience is in my genuine love of people,
even those who are sometimes rash and discourteous. We all make such
mistakes once in a while and what matters more is how we handle these
faux pas. No need to have a divorce because of an arguement. How about
we all Cajun up a bit and get some perspective? (I know it's supposd to
be "Cowboy Up" but Texas gets enough publicity as it is). Put the knives
away and sit back down and play cards, alright? Anybody need another
beer?
Here's some free advice that's worth about what you're paying for it:
Don't get all worked up about the opinions of other people... especially
people who hold opinions that you don't agree with. Got that? If you
already think they're all wet, don't take them so seriously. As for the
equity hit on our airplanes, it has already happened. It doesn't matter
whether ZBAG had great motives or self serving ones; the negative vibe
is already out there and it will only fade if we build and maintain and
fly our planes properly... and honestly, the bad PR will probably still
be there anyway. Hurling invective will not change any of that and
besides, invective hurling was never a very fun sport to begin with.
Now on the what I did today subject: Nothing with the airplane. My
grandaughter turned 4 today so I gave her a tent and played camping
games with her. I make very good imaginary bacon. Sunday however, I flew
to the gulf coast and back; logged 1.5 hours; still fussing with the
intake hose and the CHTs and EGTs at various power settings. I've got an
erratic left tank gauge that is probably (I hope) just a bad wire or
loose connection. It's not a big deal yet since I stick the tanks before
I fly and I don't fly more than 2 hours at a time so far. I've got 11.6
hours on the plane and no bad behavior from the plane at all. I wish I
had the engine behaving as well as the airframe but that will come in
time. I didn't get this old and patient and wise very quickly either.
What are you all laughing at?
Ed
Message 66
| 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: XL Testing UK |
Subsequent analysis and testing proved deadly for these two guys.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 081213X62443&key=1
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "George Swinford" <grs-pms@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK
t>
As I noted a few weeks ago, The Ercoupe is one vintage airplane on which
aileron balance weights were not required. They were initially fitted b
ut
subsequent analysis and testing showed that they were not needed and the
factory recommended their removal. These Ercoupes had fabric-covered wi
ngs.
(Some later Ercoupes were produced with metal covering the same basic
structure.) The metal covered leading edge was not a D-tube structure: i
.e.
the metal was not attached to the lower chord of the main spar. Torsion
al
stiffness of the wing was realized by a system of diagonal ribs. I beli
eve
Vne was 146 mph, but it's been a long time since I flew one so that may
be
wrong.
George Swinford
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Martin" <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK
net>
>
> I believe there are a few standard category aircraft that don't have
> balanced ailerons. These are mostly vintage airplanes with a relative
ly
> low value for Vne. For these airplanes it was considered acceptable n
ot
> to have balanced ailerons. I am not familiar with any of these aircra
ft
> types, but I have heard of them. I can't cite any specific examples.
> Maybe someone else can? I seem to recall mention that some early Cubs
> were designed that way.
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:33 PM, jonaburns wrote:
>
>>
>> Jay,
>>
>> You say that *EVERY* Aeronautical Engineer states this is
>> unacceptable...
>>
>> Isn't CH an Aeronautical Engineer?
>>
>> Has *EVERY* Engineer you have talked to designed and flown MORE airc
raft
>> than CH?
>>
>> Many of us still question your "Experts" who continue to support
>> speculation and refuse to admit they were WRONG on the Flutter issue
,
>> and WILL NOT release their so called engineering for independent rev
iew.
>>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
> do not archive.
>
>
>
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
Improve your career with an online bachelor's degree. Act now, free info
.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYZIIBSNYBCWuHB51dmQ
MuaC8QMaZeFnggUczd9tFsM1zCcgiPDqoQ/
Message 67
| 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: XL Testing UK |
Something did. I doubt it was "analysis and testing". There is a
history of intergranular corrosion of Ercoupe wing attach fittings,
leading to failure and wing separation. As for the observed
fluttering, that may or may not have been an accurate observation.
Failure analysis of the wreckage should determine that one way or the
other.
I had the sad experience of witnessing a fatal in-flight breakup. My
observations did not agree in all respects with the eyewitness who was
standing right beside me. I now take eyewitness observations, my own
included, with a grain of salt.
George
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: n801bh@netzero.com
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK
Subsequent analysis and testing proved deadly for these two guys.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 081213X62443&key=1
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "George Swinford" <grs-pms@comcast.net>
To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:57:35 -0700
<grs-pms@comcast.net>
As I noted a few weeks ago, The Ercoupe is one vintage airplane on
which
aileron balance weights were not required. They were initially fitted
but
subsequent analysis and testing showed that they were not needed and
the
factory recommended their removal. These Ercoupes had fabric-covered
wings.
(Some later Ercoupes were produced with metal covering the same basic
structure.) The metal covered leading edge was not a D-tube structure:
i.e.
the metal was not attached to the lower chord of the main spar.
Torsional
stiffness of the wing was realized by a system of diagonal ribs. I
believe
Vne was 146 mph, but it's been a long time since I flew one so that
may be
wrong.
George Swinford
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Martin" <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK
<bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>
> I believe there are a few standard category aircraft that don't have
> balanced ailerons. These are mostly vintage airplanes with a
relatively
> low value for Vne. For these airplanes it was considered acceptable
not
> to have balanced ailerons. I am not familiar with any of these
aircraft
> types, but I have heard of them. I can't cite any specific
examples.
> Maybe someone else can? I seem to recall mention that some early
Cubs
> were designed that way.
>
>
> On Jun 15, 2009, at 2:33 PM, jonaburns wrote:
>
<lsapilot@hotmail.com>
>>
>> Jay,
>>
>> You say that *EVERY* Aeronautical Engineer states this is
>> unacceptable...
>>
>> Isn't CH an Aeronautical Engineer?
>>
>> Has *EVERY* Engineer you have talked to designed and flown MORE
aircraft
>> than CH?
>>
>> Many of us still question your "Experts" who continue to support
>> speculation and refuse to admit they were WRONG on the Flutter
issue,
>> and WILL NOT release their so called engineering for independent
review.
>>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
> do not archive.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<========================
bsp; - The Zenith-List Email Forum
-<========================
======================
==================
____________________________________________________________
Improve your career with an online bachelor's degree. Act now, free
info.
Message 68
| 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: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. |
I ain't laughin' A-tall, hoss! Open up a Pearl, put on some chanky-chank, and jes'
know that I loved yer post.
I'm a-thankin' that I need a Jo-El Sonnier fix 'bout now...
Rick Lindstrom
-----Original Message-----
>From: Edward Moody II <dredmoody@cox.net>
>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 11:41 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report.
>
>HOOO - WHEEE! And I thought local SW LA card games were contentious! For the record,
I've been ZBAGed as well. I think any of us who build, fly or even speak
in support of the 601XL design will encounter some of that. No big deal. I'm
a dentist, a political conservative, and I have Irish ancestors. If I can't take
some heat, I'll just have to commit sideways and get it over with. I don't
think I'll unsubscribe just yet because every now and then there's something
entertaining and/or informative to read here. True, there's a lot of horsecrap
but maybe there's a pony in there too, huh?
>
>I'm not an aeronautical engineer nor do I have lots of hours as PIC, and I've
only built two planes and assisted on two others (they do all fly however, and
none of them has crashed... yet), so I am not an aviation authority by any measure.
Some of you on the list are extensively experienced. My greatest experience
is in my genuine love of people, even those who are sometimes rash and discourteous.
We all make such mistakes once in a while and what matters more is
how we handle these faux pas. No need to have a divorce because of an arguement.
How about we all Cajun up a bit and get some perspective? (I know it's supposd
to be "Cowboy Up" but Texas gets enough publicity as it is). Put the knives
away and sit back down and play cards, alright? Anybody need another beer?
>
>Here's some free advice that's worth about what you're paying for it: Don't get
all worked up about the opinions of other people... especially people who hold
opinions that you don't agree with. Got that? If you already think they're
all wet, don't take them so seriously. As for the equity hit on our airplanes,
it has already happened. It doesn't matter whether ZBAG had great motives or
self serving ones; the negative vibe is already out there and it will only fade
if we build and maintain and fly our planes properly... and honestly, the bad
PR will probably still be there anyway. Hurling invective will not change any
of that and besides, invective hurling was never a very fun sport to begin with.
>
>Now on the what I did today subject: Nothing with the airplane. My grandaughter
turned 4 today so I gave her a tent and played camping games with her. I make
very good imaginary bacon. Sunday however, I flew to the gulf coast and back;
logged 1.5 hours; still fussing with the intake hose and the CHTs and EGTs at
various power settings. I've got an erratic left tank gauge that is probably
(I hope) just a bad wire or loose connection. It's not a big deal yet since I
stick the tanks before I fly and I don't fly more than 2 hours at a time so far.
I've got 11.6 hours on the plane and no bad behavior from the plane at all.
I wish I had the engine behaving as well as the airframe but that will come
in time. I didn't get this old and patient and wise very quickly either. What
are you all laughing at?
>
>Ed
Message 69
| 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: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. |
Hey Ed,
Could you send me some of that bacon. I really like bacon, but my
scale is broken. It keeps saying I have gained another pound . . .
Paul
do not archive
At 08:41 PM 6/15/2009, you wrote:
>My grandaughter turned 4 today so I gave her a tent and played
>camping games with her. I make very good imaginary bacon.
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! --
|