---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 06/15/09: 69 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:14:30 AM PST US From: "Clive Richards" 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. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:14:01 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard 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 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:08:00 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:29:24 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report. From: "Mitch Hodges" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:42:56 AM PST US From: "Dave" 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 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:05:01 AM PST US From: William Dominguez 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 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:20:48 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:40:41 AM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:40:41 AM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >Sent: Jun 15, 2009 6:02 AM >To: Matronics List >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:53:16 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: XL Testing UK From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:53:34 AM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:19:03 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:24:48 AM PST US From: Trainnut01@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Quick open poll about wing failures. 3 **************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! eExcfooterNO62) ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:30:39 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Get Me the Hell Off this Ride From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:36:48 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:39:41 AM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: [Probable Spam] Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:53:49 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: What did you do today? From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:20:07 AM PST US From: "Dave" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 10:34 AM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:30 AM PST US From: "Dave" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:39:05 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:50:21 AM PST US From: Bryan Martin 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 22 ____________________________________ Time: 09:04:52 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:09:36 AM PST US From: "T. Graziano" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 6:02 AM >>To: Matronics List >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:10:02 AM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:35:38 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: British XL testing From: roger lambert 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:35:38 AM PST US From: MaxNr@aol.com Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:15 AM PST US From: Jim Belcher Subject: Zenith-List: Making the right stick removable On Monday 15 June 2009 11:04, Gig Giacona wrote: > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:56:25 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK From: "aerobat" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:12:23 AM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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: > >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:30 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Making the right stick removable From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 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: > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:54:10 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report From: Iberplanes IGL 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:08:51 AM PST US From: MaxNr@aol.com Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:20:13 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:24:29 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:31:13 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Quick open poll about wing failures. From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:34:37 AM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK From: "jonaburns" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:53 PM PST US From: Rich Simmons <4RCSIMMONS@comcast.net> Subject: Zenith-List: Pauls Plane Paul, I need an engine and some avionics Seriously. lets talk numbers. $10K Rich Needing an engine do not archive! ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 12:17:08 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK From: "Sabrina" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:21:53 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:39:59 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: I got Zbagged three times on Friday - Flight Report From: Iberplanes IGL 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:40:03 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:51:47 PM PST US From: Subject: RE: Zenith-List: 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 On Monday 15 June 2009 11:04, Gig Giacona wrote: > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:55:10 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:16:42 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Making the right stick removable From: "Mitch Hodges" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:47:49 PM PST US From: "George Race" Subject: Zenith-List: Chat Room Live Chat Room every Monday evening around 8:00 EDT www.mykitairplane.com Click on the Chat Room link on the page. George Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 03:29:44 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:34:28 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" 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" Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:34 AM Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Quick open poll about wing failures. > > > 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 >>Sent: Jun 15, 2009 6:02 AM >>To: Matronics List >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:36:23 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Deal of the day From: "Tommy Walker" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:49:29 PM PST US From: Bryan Martin 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 50 ____________________________________ Time: 04:05:31 PM PST US From: MaxNr@aol.com Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:05:31 PM PST US From: Bryan Martin 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 52 ____________________________________ Time: 04:11:32 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Zenith-List: 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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:50:47 PM PST US From: William Dominguez Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 wrote: From: Bryan Martin 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:53:33 PM PST US From: Jim Belcher Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:45:37 PM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: [Probable Spam] Zenith-List: 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 > > > ________________________________ Message 56 ____________________________________ Time: 06:03:58 PM PST US From: "George Swinford" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:13:21 PM PST US From: Ronald Steele Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:37:48 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: New updates from Chris Heintz on the 601XL From: "eddies" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:52:26 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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" >To: >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:52:26 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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" >To: >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:12:13 PM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:12:14 PM PST US From: Brandon Tucker Subject: Zenith-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:28:54 PM PST US Subject: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK From: "Tim Juhl" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:34:44 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 To: zenith-list@matronics.com Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 1:30 PM Subject: Zenith-List: 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: =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) > [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 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________ Message 65 ____________________________________ Time: 08:42:56 PM PST US From: "Edward Moody II" 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 66 ____________________________________ Time: 08:43:28 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" 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" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:27:14 PM PST US From: "George Swinford" Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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" To: Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: XL Testing UK Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:57:35 -0700 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" To: 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. > > > > > > > > <======================== bsp; - The Zenith-List Email Forum -<======================== ====================== ================== ____________________________________________________________ Improve your career with an online bachelor's degree. Act now, free info. ________________________________ Message 68 ____________________________________ Time: 09:28:00 PM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:22:48 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.