Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:39 AM - Re: Re: Where did ZBAG go? (William Dominguez)
2. 05:03 AM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question (ernie)
3. 05:14 AM - 50 cents (Jake Reyna)
4. 05:36 AM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (kkinney)
5. 05:37 AM - Re: 50 cents (Paul Mulwitz)
6. 05:57 AM - Re: Advice about gas tanks in 601. (Bill Steer)
7. 06:11 AM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (T. Graziano)
8. 06:39 AM - Re: Where did ZBAG go? (Gig Giacona)
9. 06:48 AM - Re: Advice about gas tanks in 601. (Jim Belcher)
10. 06:49 AM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Gig Giacona)
11. 07:04 AM - Re: Advice about gas tanks in 601. (Jim Belcher)
12. 07:10 AM - Re: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Jay Maynard)
13. 07:11 AM - Re: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Rick Lindstrom)
14. 07:49 AM - Re: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Dave)
15. 08:08 AM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Gig Giacona)
16. 09:25 AM - Re: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Dave)
17. 09:59 AM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Gig Giacona)
18. 10:09 AM - Re: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Paul Mulwitz)
19. 10:09 AM - Re: Re: Where did ZBAG go? (bill_dom@yahoo.com)
20. 10:21 AM - What I did today. (Paul Mulwitz)
21. 10:29 AM - Re: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Dave)
22. 10:42 AM - Re: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Dave)
23. 11:06 AM - Re: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Juan Vega)
24. 11:21 AM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Scotsman)
25. 11:26 AM - Re: Re: Where did ZBAG go?Re: Where did ZBAG go? ()
26. 11:39 AM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Terry Phillips)
27. 11:43 AM - Re: Where did ZBAG go? (Gig Giacona)
28. 11:56 AM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Gig Giacona)
29. 12:19 PM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (T. Graziano)
30. 12:22 PM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (kkinney)
31. 12:49 PM - Instrument panel (annken100)
32. 01:10 PM - Re: Instrument panel (Larry Winger)
33. 01:10 PM - Re: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Dave)
34. 01:10 PM - Re: Instrument panel (jaybannist@cs.com)
35. 01:10 PM - Re: Instrument panel (Pramod Kotwal)
36. 01:12 PM - Re: Instrument panel (Craig Payne)
37. 01:24 PM - Re: Instrument panel (Craig Payne)
38. 01:36 PM - Re: Instrument panel (cookwithgas)
39. 01:39 PM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (n801bh@netzero.com)
40. 01:39 PM - Re: Instrument panel (Iberplanes IGL)
41. 01:42 PM - Re: Instrument panel (Carlos Sa)
42. 01:51 PM - Re: Re: Where did ZBAG go? (William Dominguez)
43. 01:51 PM - Re: Instrument panel (annken100)
44. 01:54 PM - Re: Instrument panel (Gig Giacona)
45. 02:06 PM - Re: Re: Instrument panel (Craig Payne)
46. 02:15 PM - Re: Where did ZBAG go? (Gig Giacona)
47. 02:50 PM - Re: Instrument panel (annken100)
48. 04:03 PM - FAA Registration (Davcoberly@wmconnect.com)
49. 04:05 PM - O-200 XL's (Peter W Johnson)
50. 04:15 PM - Re: FAA Registration (Paul Mulwitz)
51. 04:22 PM - Re: O-200 XL's (Paul Mulwitz)
52. 04:43 PM - Re: FAA Registration (Bill Steer)
53. 04:51 PM - Re: FAA Registration (Davcoberly@wmconnect.com)
54. 06:27 PM - air / fuel separator for manifold pressure gauge line? (Peter Chapman)
55. 06:48 PM - Re: FAA Registration (cookwithgas)
56. 07:05 PM - Re: air / fuel separator for manifold pressure gauge line ? (n801bh@netzero.com)
57. 07:24 PM - Re: Instrument panel (Juan Vega)
58. 09:49 PM - Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer (Terry Phillips)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Where did ZBAG go? |
"Dissent" and "fight" are not the same thing. You can dissent without resor
ting to fight.
William Dominguez
--- On Tue, 6/16/09, ernie <ernieth@gmail.com> wrote:
From: ernie <ernieth@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Where did ZBAG go?
To bad you cant fight this out were it belongs on the ZBAG list.
I am glad your "builders" list is nice and calm-without dissent.
here we use the delete key
=0ADo-not-archive
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:37 PM, William Dominguez <bill_dom@yahoo.com> wro
te:
=0AGig, did your read Dave comment? that is why you got banned. He got it,
and he is not even a member.
The group have a goal and the record shows you don't believe in the honesty
of that goal. When you characterize the group as a witch hunt, you just ga
ve away your real believe about the group. There where other post also but
I won't discuss them here. The term of use does address that.
=0A
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Tue, 6/16/09, Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com> wrote:
=0A
From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
=0ASubject: Zenith-List: Re: Where did ZBAG go?
=0A
William Dominguez wrote:
=0A> Gig, why do you want to be part of the group anyway? When you have ans
wered that question to yourself you'll be close to the reason why I removed
you.
My reason for wanting access to the ZBAG forum is the same now as it has be
en from the beginning. To keep an eye on what you guys are saying about a p
lane that I have several years and many thousands of dollars invested in. A
lso I'd like the opportunity to counter some of the hype that your members
are spreading.
=0A
That does not violate any set of terms of use you have ever published. And
neither did the post that got me kicked off.
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
=0ASee my progress at=0A www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248561#nics.com/Navigator?Zen
ith-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/=======
=================http://forums.sp; -
- - - ---- List Contribution Web Sbsp; - - - - - -
- - - - > ht
=0A
=0A=0A
arget="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=0A=0A
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question |
ok,But they still must have a natural resonant frequency, they just don't
have the same energy input from the wind.
This of course is a SWAG.(shit wild ass guess)
Do not archive
E
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>wrote:
>
> Off Topic.
>
> Nope. That's why suspension bridges have the steel gratings down the
> center. The gratings kill the lift that would be generated in high wind
> conditions. The first Tacoma Narrows bridge had a solid road bed with no
> gratings. It was also designed too thin and flexible. Engineers learned a
> lot from the mistakes made at Tacoma Narrows. Modern suspension bridges
> absolutely will not react like the first Tacoma Narrows bridge did, even
> under the strongest winds.
>
> On Jun 16, 2009, at 5:24 PM, ernie wrote:
>
> Dave,
>>
>> I think all Suspension bridges have a flutter in them under the right wind
>> loads, maybe the civil engineers in the crowd will know better, there is
>> this case.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
> N61BM, CH 601 XL,
> RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
> do not archive.
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I ran a query at ntsb.gov for fatal accidents in amateur built airplanes since
January 1, 2006. On average, there are 70 accidents causing 100 fatalities annually.
Since we know there have been 10 fatalities in Zodiacs in the same time
period, average 4 per year (I do some rounding), leaves the XL with a 4% fatality
rate. That seems reasonable, but what about the other 96%.
If you take the time to look at the data, you will see that the fatality rate is
higher in other amateur built airplanes. Are the recent XL accidents an anomaly?
There are those that continue to believe there is a flaw with the XL, but they
fail to accept that once you leave the ground the odds change significantly. Flying
is a battle against Nature, things like gravity, wind and heat. Gravity
will always win this battle. The biggest flaw associated with the XL or any other
airplane is the pilot.
Some will not be convinced all is well regardless of the data and testing. This
creates a great opportunity for those interested in an excellent airplane at
a reduced price. There are a handful of builders that lack confidence in the XL
and should be willing to part with their project at a significantly reduced
price, after all, they believe the airplane is unsafe. For those of you that know
otherwise, I suggest offering them 50 cents on the dollar for their project.
There are some great deals out there with the real possibility of acquiring
a complete XL kit, engine, instruments, etc. for $25,000. Depending on the level
of completion, it may have to be registered as an ELSA.
When life gives you lemons ....
Jake
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
> How about you, Kevin?
I freely admit I know far less that everyone else seems to and I apologize for
answering a question with a question. But what I do depends on the answer to
that question.
Have there been any suspect accidents on aircraft with flex hinges?
Regards,
kk
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248672#248672
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Jake,
Thank you for looking at some data before pronouncing the XL
safe. That puts you several notches above many posters on this open forum.
I do have a few questions about your data.
First, how many of the 100 fatalities were caused by in-flight
structure failures? How many of those were in Zodiac XLs? This
would give you the percentage of actual fatalities caused by
in-flight structure failures as opposed to any sort of accident. I
think a closer examination would show that structure failures are
quite rare compared to things like flying into the ground.
Second, of the in-flight structure failures how many were preceded
by mid-air collisions. I have noticed a rash of those lately. Each
one generates two accident reports (one for each plane in the
collision). So for a fair comparison with the Zodiac XL breakups
(which generally don't include hitting another airplane) you must
subtract two times the number of in-flight structure failures from
the list of these accidents for each mid-air collision.
Third, how many flight hours have been recorded in Zodiac XLs in your
sample period, and how many total GA hours were flown in the same
period. If the Zodiac XL has the same accident rate as the general
fleet then the number of accidents should be compared - per 100,000
hours flown - to the entire GA fleet per 100,000 hours flown by the
entire fleet. This would give a reasonable measure of the risk, per
flight hour, rather than the simple accident rate without considering
flight activity.
I'm afraid your statement that the Zodiac XL has a 4% fatality rate
was not computed in a reasonable fashion. Your calculation should be
described: "4 percent of fatalities occurred in Zodiac XLs". When
you adjust your computations to reflect actual risk in the XL
compared to the rest of the GA fleet I think you will get an
unpleasant surprise. If you further adjust your study to include
only single plane structure failures in flight I think your
unpleasant surprise will increase by an order of magnitude. If you
further adjust your numbers by eliminating the accidents easily
explained by events like rookie pilots taking off in thunderstorms
and suffering the expected result, then your numbers will be really scary.
I look forward to your updated report.
Paul
XL grounded
At 05:13 AM 6/17/2009, you wrote:
>I ran a query at ntsb.gov for fatal accidents in amateur built
>airplanes since January 1, 2006. On average, there are 70 accidents
>causing 100 fatalities annually. Since we know there have been 10
>fatalities in Zodiacs in the same time period, average 4 per year (I
>do some rounding), leaves the XL with a 4% fatality rate. That seems
>reasonable, but what about the other 96%.
>
>If you take the time to look at the data, you will see that the
>fatality rate is higher in other amateur built airplanes. Are the
>recent XL accidents an anomaly?
>
>There are those that continue to believe there is a flaw with the
>XL, but they fail to accept that once you leave the ground the odds
>change significantly. Flying is a battle against Nature, things like
>gravity, wind and heat. Gravity will always win this battle. The
>biggest flaw associated with the XL or any other airplane is the pilot.
>
>Some will not be convinced all is well regardless of the data and
>testing. This creates a great opportunity for those interested in an
>excellent airplane at a reduced price. There are a handful of
>builders that lack confidence in the XL and should be willing to
>part with their project at a significantly reduced price, after all,
>they believe the airplane is unsafe. For those of you that know
>otherwise, I suggest offering them 50 cents on the dollar for their
>project. There are some great deals out there with the real
>possibility of acquiring a complete XL kit, engine, instruments,
>etc. for $25,000. Depending on the level of completion, it may have
>to be registered as an ELSA.
>
>When life gives you lemons ....
>
>Jake
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Advice about gas tanks in 601. |
Hi, Gary. I installed mine in the side, per the plans. No leaks so
far, but I did have to replace one of the senders that turned out to be
bad. Didn't discover it until the wiring was in place. It was no
problem at all to replace it.
Bill
Gary Gower wrote:
>
> Hello 601 builders,
>
> I am ready to install the fuel senders in the 601 tanks... Just I am
> holding a little, doing some thinking, about the chance of installing
> the senders on the top of the tank...
>
> Two questions?
> Someone had installed the senders on top of the tank in the 601 XL?
> Have photos?.
>
> From some of you that have flying airplanes and that have the senders
> on the side. The sealing is satisfactory?
> I will hate to need to open the leading edge skin(s) to replace the
> sender or the gaskets... I think there is no way to reach it throught
> the 3 front ribs holes, to replace it...
>
> Thank you all in advance for the comments.
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower.
> 701 912S
> Building 601 XL Jab 3300
> Fuselage almost ready, tail surfaces ready, working on wings.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
The only actual aileron flutter that I have read about with the XL is those
who reported it, slowed down to stop it, and post flight found that their
cables were slack. The also reported that after tightening the cables, the
flutter went away.
In the one report of "wing flutter", over the turbulent rising air mass of
a powerplant, the pilot stated he DOVE down any away to stop the
"flutter"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????--try increasing airspeed with real flutter
and see what happens.
Also, what some overlook is:
See Page 6 of the NTSB Report where they report as part of Zenith's
Certification, Zenith did IN FLIGHT FLUTTER TESTING of the XL.
Tony Graziano
XL/Jab; N493TG, 502 hrs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Phillips" <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer
>
> Interesting question, Kevin
>
> Since we have ample evidence that flutter does occur in real CH601XL's in
> flight, I guess that your question translates to,
>
> "What evidence would it take to prove to me that the pilots who have
> experienced flutter in the 601XL were lying or mistaken?"
>
> Gosh, I don't know. All of the pilots who reported flutter were more
> experienced than I am. One had thousands of hours. I find their reports
> convincing. I have no reason to believe that they were lying. One person
> who reported flutter in the 601XL tests was Mathieu Heintz (look up his
> Sun n Fun AvWeb podcast). I guess that I would have to conclude that
> Mathieu is either incompetent or dishonest. I am not ready to make that
> conclusion. We have at least two second hand reports of flutter in 601XL
> from Chris Heintz (look through Chris's letters to owners). I would have
> to conclude that Chris was wrong in his letter.
>
> Here's what I think I know. If the balance on an aileron satisfies the
> criteria in A&E Report 45, then my understanding is that the FAA is
> willing to forego flutter testing for certificated airplanes. That's
> simple enough for me. Add about 5 lbs or so to each wing in a well
> designed counterbalance, and according to established criteria, aileron
> flutter will not happen. If you look at Fig. 24 of Prof. Weltin's GVT
> report, you'll see a pretty reasonable design for a 601XL aileron
> counterbalance. I suspect that Zenair has a better drawing of that
> somewhere. It looks good to me.
>
> Hey, E-AB aircraft builders can do whatever they want to their airplanes.
> If you do not believe that flutter is a problem, Kevin, then don't add
> counterbalances. It would be most revealing if half the fleet added the
> counterbalances, plus the LAA mods, whatever they work out to be, and half
> the fleet flew 601XL's made exactly to the prints. Then in a couple of
> years we would find out whether the counterbalances, et al, made a
> difference--or not. So those of you who have absolute faith in the design,
> you can be the control group. Others, whose faith is not so solid can make
> the mods they find appropriate. A couple of years of flying should tell
> the tale. I cannot understand why anyone with absolute faith in the design
> would feel threatened by the mods that others make to their planes. If you
> are right, you can have the last laugh at those of us who lack your
> absolute faith. For sure, the last thing I would want to do is to impose
> my own personal concerns on you.
>
> So, I suggest that everyone tone down their rhetoric. Then make the mods
> to your airplane that makes sense to you, or not, and in a couple of years
> we should have the answer. I've got a pretty good idea what I will do. How
> about you, Kevin?
>
> Terry
>
>
> At 06:03 AM 6/16/2009 -0700, you wrote:
>>My question is directed to anyone who has design questions regarding the
>>601XL.
>>
>>What evidence would it take to prove to you the 601XL is free of flutter?
>>
>>Regards,
>>Kevin Kinney
>
>
> Terry Phillips ZBAGer
> ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
> Corvallis MT
> 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
> are done; waiting on the wings
> http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Where did ZBAG go? |
So it is the position of ZBAG that any opposing viewpoint is considered "work aginst
them"? That's pretty much what I expected. Please note that in the post
where I used the term witch hunt I was responding to a post that had the phrase,
"Anti-ZBAG hysteria."
I have gone out of my way while on ZBAG to NOT attack any individual even though
there have been times when such an attack have been in order. Also note that
the primary person I was responding to Jay M. has stated here that he was not
offended by my post.
If ZBAG can't deal with strongly held dissenting opinion then that must mean either
you are not comfortable in your position and are afraid of such an opinion
being voiced in your forum or you have some other reason to not have it heard.
The stated purpose of ZBAG is to assist in finding if there is a problem with the
601XL. It has NEVER been my position that there is no issue. I just have not
accepted that it is a design issue that needs a mechanical fix but rather a
flight characteristic issue that can be trained for. In fact, in the post that
got be kicked I was asking a CFI-S about that specifically. I also have an issue
with the idea of less than thought out "fixes" being spread and voiced and
spoke out against that and will continue to do so as long as I have a computer
and access to the Internet.
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
> On the other hand since your stated objective is not to participate or help
> in any way, but to actually work against them it should not be surprising
> that they do not wish to assist you in your efforts. Frankly I think having
> a contrary voice is worthwhile, but I'm not the gatekeeper and have no idea
> what you've been up to. A healthy discussion is worthwhile, even if it gets
> a little too passionate from time to time. The goals should in theory be
> that same, to fly a good sound and reasonably safe aircraft. The "wings fall
> off" statements are not supported, but the source of those statements was
> not ZBAG. The statements exist as a consequence of the airframe failures, as
> does ZBAG itself. Let them discuss the issues as they care to without
> interference.
>
> The source of the rumors and potential bad reputation is not ZBAG, the fault
> lies solely in the unusual number of incidents, no matter the cause. Until
> they stop the situation will only get worse. I think ZBAG has had some small
> effect in getting additional testing done, not as much as aviation
> authorities in other countries, but some. That testing has resulted in
> modifications to the design so that it is now potentially safer. The
> incidents may stop now. I sincerely hope they do, not for the aircraft's
> sake, nor for any financial benefit, but because pilots families have lost
> members. So for any small part that the Analysis Group has played in making
> XL's safer, I applaud them.
>
>
>
> ---
--------
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=248686#248686
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Advice about gas tanks in 601. |
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 19:16, Gary Gower wrote:
> Hello601 builders,
>
> I am ready to install the fuel senders in the 601 tanks... Just I am
> holding a little, doing some thinking, about the chance of installing the
> senders on the top of the tank...
> Two questions?
> Someone had installed the senders on top of the tank in the 601 XL? Have
> photos?.
>
> >From some of you that have flying airplanes and that have the senders on
> > the side. The sealing is satisfactory?
>
> I will hate to need to open the leading edge skin(s) to replace the sender
> or the gaskets...I think there is no way to reach it throught the 3 front
> ribs holes, to replace it...
> Thank you all in advance for the comments.
Gary, I haven't tried this, but my immediate thought is that it places the
assembly and the electrical connections in an area where there's very little
room, and where it will be harder to service, should this become necessary
later.
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
============================================
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
rtdin wrote:
> I used to instruct in helos and sailplanes and I cannot trust an aircraft that
will scare a low time pilot.
If you instructed in helicopters then I'm sure you are familiar with SFAR74 and
the issues with the Robinson R22& R44 that caused it. We may well have a similar
though much less pervasive with the 601XL where additional training is needed.
The issues that Rick raised were not 601XL specific but were about the new LSAs
in general and were put forth by the insurance companies when they saw a correlation
between high time pilots having trouble with the light and responsive
LSA aircraft that they started flying with little or no transition training.
--------
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=248691#248691
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Advice about gas tanks in 601. |
On Tuesday 16 June 2009 19:31, John Davis wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> I installed my senders on the side per the plans. I first installed them
> with just the gasket and paper washers for the screws and they leaked
> around the screw holes. I removed them thu the lightening hole and the
> maintenance opening on the bottom of the wing and and reinstalled them
> with fuel lube sealant on the gasket and screws and haven't had a leak
> so far. I've got about 15 hours with no leaks...
After sealing the sender with sealant as you did, I put a soapy mixture around
the sender, and pressurized the tank slightly.
On one tank, I got bubbles around one screw, and had to do some additional
sealing. On the other, no bubbles appeared.
I feel reasonably confident that when I finally get the aircraft finished I
won't have fuel leaks. Or at least, not there.
About 20 years ago, I rebuilt a Tripacer, and blindly thought with sealant and
snugging the screws to their appropriate level of tightness, thinking I
wouldn't have leaks. I was wrong.
--
=============================================
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
================================================
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
============================================
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 06:49:16AM -0700, Gig Giacona wrote:
> The issues that Rick raised were not 601XL specific but were about the new
> LSAs in general and were put forth by the insurance companies when they
> saw a correlation between high time pilots having trouble with the light
> and responsive LSA aircraft that they started flying with little or no
> transition training.
I haven't actually done any instruction for real (seems there's a lack of
demand), but I have had a few other pilots fly my airplane with me aboard
now. I know that it took me a while to get used to the sensitive elevator. I
make a point of telling other pilots who fly with me that the elevator is
sensitive (and the pitch trim even more so), and give them a chance to try
it up in the air while I'm ready to intervene if things get too crazy.
I had one guy just about to take his private check ride aboard one time. I
let him do the takeoff; I told him to lift off at 60 KIAS, then lower the
nose and fly away at 70, accelerating to 80 once at 500 AGL. (I've found
this to work well in getting the best climb performance. Vx at 57 KIAS?
Yeah, right.) He was a bit too aggressive in lowering the nose, and I
quickly grabbed the stick before we found ourselves hitting nose first. He
was quite surprised by the pitch sensitivity; in retrospect, I should have
explained what was going to happen before then (and have done so with other
pilots since).
This only applies to the elevator, BTW; other pilots have said that the
ailerons and rudder are much heavier in feel, and took no real adjustment.
Yes, transitioning into the Zodiac takes some dual. I'm not sure 5 hours is
warranted for every pilot, but that seems to be the industry standard. Is
this an explanation for problems we've seen? Possibly. Is it *the*
explanation? That very much remains to be proven.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
Hi, Bob. Rick here.
>As Rick says, "Pilots that only fly FAR 23 A/C have trouble with LSAs." I
>guess I may have some trouble despite owning a Champ and Luscombe. Despite
>having many hours in FAR 23, 27, 29, CAR 3 and a couple of E-AB A/C, including
>a 601XL, I guess I don't have a chance. My first thought is if this is the
>horse that can't be rode and it has known bad traits, Why put low timers in
>it? Can't these quirks be fixed? I used to instruct in helos and sailplanes
>and I cannot trust an aircraft that will scare a low time pilot. I have
>faith that the LAA will civilize the 601XL.
Please don't misquote me, or attribute meanings to my posts that were never intended.
What I said was there is a disturbing uptick of accidents in LSAs with experienced
pilots who fly them like the Part 23 aircraft they are used to. I DID NOT
say "Pilots that only fly FAR 23 A/C have trouble with LSAs" as you posted. What
I said, in a nutshell, was that pilots who expect the same weather capability
from an LSA compliant design frequently have unpleasant surprises, and this
is NOT specific to the 601 airframe. I've found the 601XL very easy to fly, takes
off slow, lands slow, and is very docile in the air. The closest I could
get to a stall was a mush. But with an empty weight of only 800 pounds or so and
light wing loading, it's going to respond to every bump or patch of rough air,
and tell you about it.
With your myriad flying experience, I would be very surprised if you had any problems
at all with the 601. And it's interesting that low time pilots don't seem
to have a problem with the 601 at all.
I choose my words carefully, and I resent others twisting them to derive meanings
never intended.
Rick Lindstrom
N42KKP
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
Quite possible, although at present it's just another idea. Do have any
ideas on what might be done or has Zenith identified it as an issue? Can you
think of any small change to the existing design that would mitigate the
problem if it exists?
These are the types of discussions we SHOULD be having.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
> We may well have a similar though much less pervasive with the 601XL where
> additional training is needed.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
> Quite possible, although at present it's just another idea. Do have any
> ideas on what might be done or has Zenith identified it as an issue? Can you
> think of any small change to the existing design that would mitigate the
> problem if it exists?
>
> These are the types of discussions we SHOULD be having.
>
> ---
Agreed it is exactly the type of discussion. But the fix for this issue isn't a
design change it is a training issue.
To support this I put forth the theory that the reason that none of the accident
aircraft that have suffered airframe failure were flown by pilots that flew
the airplane during its' 25-40 phase 1 period. The first part of which a pilot
would presumably be taking extra care in maneuvering the aircraft and learning
its characteristics.
Let's assume for a second that the minimum a design change to mitigate a light
elevator is going to cost is $1000/plane. (Nothing in a plane costs less than
that.) That will buy you a minimum of 20 hours of CFI time. And that 20 hours
will do more to assure your future safety than any design change ever would. That
is not to say I think it takes 20 hours. 5 should do it and will make insurance
companies happy.
--------
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=248707#248707
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
If Zenith feels that extra training to overcome the issue is appropriate and
issues an advisory to the effect then maybe that is enough. I expect it
would only make things worse as it would create the illusion of an aircraft
that is difficult to fly and I don't think that's true. So far Zenith has
chosen to address it with a required design modification in the form of
elevator stops if I understand things correctly.
A design change to actually alter the stick forces is only an idea, as yet
unproved, unapproved and not required. In fact I would not like to see one
required, but if there is an issue that a change could address in a similar
fashion to the not required balanced ailerons I think it would be worthwhile
to explore it as an option. It's always nice to have options.
Zenith will not require changes from their builders without substantial
proof that there actually IS an issue and a need. So far they have
addressed the issue with elevator stops, REQUIRED I think. I don't think
ZBAG had anything to do with that requirement it was due to the sensitive
pitch aspect of the design and the accidents.
So which approach do you think is better in the long run, training to
address a particular and possibly unusual aspect of the airframe or an
option to bring the aircraft more in line with normal practice. I'd be happy
with both.
>
> Agreed it is exactly the type of discussion. But the fix for this issue
> isn't a design change it is a training issue.
>
> To support this I put forth the theory that the reason that none of the
> accident aircraft that have suffered airframe failure were flown by pilots
> that flew the airplane during its' 25-40 phase 1 period. The first part of
> which a pilot would presumably be taking extra care in maneuvering the
> aircraft and learning its characteristics.
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
The elevator stops don't effect the issue brought up by the NTSB where the elevator
has less resistance as Gs increase. They just reduce the amount of down elevator
you have available. A design change to change that would probably be complex
and expensive. (Especially for the S-LSA planes.) Though I have yet to
see anyone who flies a 601XL confirm this condition actually exists to a point
where they don't feel they can control the aircraft.
I'd be willing to bet that somewhere on the Zenith site it already suggests that
a pilot get transition training before flying any of their planes. That is the
sort of CYA stuff companies love.
Training is never a bad thing. Pilot certificates all the way up through ATP are
a license to learn. The FAA knows this and is why they have developed the Wings
Program and have set up the Flight Review requirements the way they have.The
insurance companies know it and are starting to require transition training.
SFAR 74 that was developed for the Robinson R22 & R44 and took a couple of years
to develop. That SFAR requires specific training and log book entries for every
pilot that flies those helicopters no matter if it is zero hour student or
an pilot that is transitioning from 3000 hours in an Apache.
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
> If Zenith feels that extra training to overcome the issue is appropriate and
> issues an advisory to the effect then maybe that is enough. I expect it
> would only make things worse as it would create the illusion of an aircraft
> that is difficult to fly and I don't think that's true. So far Zenith has
> chosen to address it with a required design modification in the form of
> elevator stops if I understand things correctly.
>
> A design change to actually alter the stick forces is only an idea, as yet
> unproved, unapproved and not required. In fact I would not like to see one
> required, but if there is an issue that a change could address in a similar
> fashion to the not required balanced ailerons I think it would be worthwhile
> to explore it as an option. It's always nice to have options.
>
> Zenith will not require changes from their builders without substantial
> proof that there actually IS an issue and a need. So far they have
> addressed the issue with elevator stops, REQUIRED I think. I don't think
> ZBAG had anything to do with that requirement it was due to the sensitive
> pitch aspect of the design and the accidents.
>
> So which approach do you think is better in the long run, training to
> address a particular and possibly unusual aspect of the airframe or an
> option to bring the aircraft more in line with normal practice. I'd be happy
> with both.
>
>
>
>
--------
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=248721#248721
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
Hi Dave,
I like the way you think. I agree that options are a good thing, and
I would personally like the option to install the aileron balance and
stick design changes with confidence that, at least, they don't cause
unintended problems. For me, that requires some sort of engineering
review from Chris or Zenith or Zenair or somebody in a position to
know the whole design and qualified to have a professional
opinion. Perhaps the LAA changes already meet that burden.
I don't know exactly how the amateur built airplane business works in
Canada (where I think your email address suggests you live). In the
USA, I believe the only authority that can force changes to be made
to Experimental-AB planes is the builder/owner. There may be some
way the government can force the issue if they choose, but I don't
think they are disposed to make that choice. The FAA folks I spoke
to seem interested in factory built planes but just don't care about
experimental amateur built ones.
Paul
XL grounded.
At 09:24 AM 6/17/2009, you wrote:
>So which approach do you think is better in the long run, training
>to address a particular and possibly unusual aspect of the airframe
>or an option to bring the aircraft more in line with normal
>practice. I'd be happy with both.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Where did ZBAG go? |
Gig,
I wasn't planning on doing this, but since you can stop talking about it, h
ere I go.
This is the message that got you banned, the one posted by Jay was close bu
t this one is the real cause.
Your message was in response to this one;
=0A
=0A> Why do you say "uninfomed guesses"? Do we need to bring in >Messrs
=0A=0A> Science, Merriam, and Webster again?
And you responded with this;
Hey ZBAG is the group that hired the engineer and didn't like the "There is
no problem" answer, went out and found somebody who would say what you wan
ted and gave that info to the NTSB and now are not happy that Zenair did ex
actly what you asked for by conducting GVTs because they too said "There is
no problem."
=0A
=0AKeep trying and I'm sure you will find some other yahoo that will tell y
ou what you want to hear. I just hope it isn't some half-ass fix that- ou
r members and others stick on their planes and causes somebody to die needl
essly.
Now you tell me, are these the words of someone with simply "opposing viewp
oints". Telling the list to look for pilot error when most where looking fo
r flutter, that is a different viewpoint and I welcome it. But what you say
above is far from "a different viewpoint". Not only you misrepresent some
facts (not the first time) but you do so with disdain toward the group in g
eneral.
In case you didn't read my answer to that post in ZBAG, here it is;
I know you like to portray the- ZBAG effort as a witch hunt but get some
facts before I decide whether or not you should stay on this list.
The first engineer hired by ZBAG did not performed a flutter=0Aanalysis, th
is was something that we knew he was not going to do.- His=0Ajob centered
around structural analisys only. Then comes the second engineer who came t
o us (we didn't look for him)- and offered to do both, structural and flu
tter analysis for free. The structural analisys came out similar to the fir
st one and his flutter analysis came out as we all know. This is hardly any
thing that could be interpreted as "...didn't like the "There is no problem
" answer, went out and found somebody who would say what you wanted...."
This=0Alist welcomes any views, whether you believe in pilot error or struc
tural flaw. There are plenty of good arguments to be made for- each=0Avie
w, but questioning the intentions of the group and spreading distorted fact
s are not one of them.
As a matter of principle, since you no longer believe in the reason for thi
s group, why are you still a member?
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Wed, 6/17/09, Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Where did ZBAG go?
So it is the position of ZBAG that any opposing viewpoint is considered "wo
rk aginst them"? That's pretty much what I expected. Please note that in th
e post where I used the term witch hunt I was responding to a post that had
the phrase, "Anti-ZBAG hysteria."
I have gone out of my way while on ZBAG to NOT attack any individual even t
hough there have been times when such an attack have been in order. Also no
te that the primary person I was responding to Jay M. has stated here that
he was not offended by my post.
If ZBAG can't deal with strongly held dissenting opinion then that must mea
n either you are not comfortable in your position and are afraid of such an
opinion being voiced in your forum or you have some other reason to not ha
ve it heard.
The stated purpose of ZBAG is to assist in finding if there is a problem wi
th the 601XL. It has NEVER been my=0A position that there is no issue. I ju
st have not accepted that it is a design issue that needs a mechanical fix
but rather a flight characteristic issue that can be trained for. In fact,
in the post that got be kicked I was asking a CFI-S about that specifically
.. I also have an issue with the idea of less than thought out "fixes" being
spread and voiced and spoke out against that and will continue to do so-
as long as I have a computer and access to the Internet.
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
> On the other hand since your stated objective is not to participate or he
lp
> in any way, but to actually work against them it should not be surprising
> that they do not wish to assist you in your efforts. Frankly I think havi
ng
> a contrary voice is worthwhile, but I'm not the gatekeeper and have no id
ea
> what you've been up to. A healthy discussion is worthwhile, even if it ge
ts
> a little too=0A passionate from time to time. The goals should in theory
be
> that same, to fly a good sound and reasonably safe aircraft. The "wings f
all
> off" statements are not supported, but the source of those statements was
> not ZBAG. The statements exist as a consequence of the airframe failures,
as
> does ZBAG itself.- Let them discuss the issues as they care to without
> interference.
>
> The source of the rumors and potential bad reputation is not ZBAG, the fa
ult
> lies solely in the unusual number of incidents, no matter the cause. Unti
l
> they stop the situation will only get worse. I think ZBAG has had some sm
all
> effect in getting additional testing done, not as much as aviation
> authorities in other countries, but some. That testing has resulted in
> modifications to the design so that it is now potentially safer. The
> incidents may stop now. I sincerely=0A hope they do, not for the aircraft
's
> sake, nor for any financial benefit, but because pilots families have los
t
> members. So for any small part that the Analysis Group has played in maki
ng
> XL's safer, I applaud them.
>
>
>
> ---
--------
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=248686#248686
le, List Admin.
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | What I did today. |
A few weeks ago I watched a short video on the EAA web site giving a
demonstration of polishing aluminum with Nuvite. Given the current
status of my plane I decided to try this process. The goup and
buffing wheels arrived yesterday.
Here is the result of my first attempt to use this process. I spent
maybe 10 minutes on an area about 1 foot square with just the heavy
grit F9 polish. I am sure a little practice and the added skill will
make this amount of work take a lot less time. I can't imagine how
nice it will look with the final "C" grade polish.
With my plane moved to the airport I don't have a good place to spray
paint. Polishing is a benign enough process that it can be done
anywhere. No ventilation or special safety considerations required.
Paul
XL grounded
[]
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
No the stops do not affect the forces, they stop a pilot from inadvertantly
applying too much elevator as a consequence of the decreasing force. That's
certainly one way to go, and by far the easiest and least expensive. Do you
have an objection to an optional change that addresses the issue in a
different way? I have no idea what it would cost as the option doesn't
exist, I'm not sure we could simply assume it would be expensive or
complicated, we could likely assume it would not be required as a retrofit.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:58 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer
>
> The elevator stops don't effect the issue brought up by the NTSB where the
> elevator has less resistance as Gs increase. They just reduce the amount
> of down elevator you have available. A design change to change that would
> probably be complex and expensive.
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
Just hoping (in vain) to get everyone to stop hitting each other with the
oars and start rowing in vaguely the same direction. Safety shouldn't be
such a contentious issue, but this argument is nothing compared to the great
helmet debate among motorcyclists.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> I like the way you think. I agree that options are a good thing, and
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
Paul Mulwitz;
in the mid 1990s they created a weighting aileron design that works on the 601
models. its in the Zenith journals. Make and install it. try it out. that
is why its called experimental.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Jun 17, 2009 1:06 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer
>
>
>Hi Dave,
>
>I like the way you think. I agree that options are a good thing, and
>I would personally like the option to install the aileron balance and
>stick design changes with confidence that, at least, they don't cause
>unintended problems. For me, that requires some sort of engineering
>review from Chris or Zenith or Zenair or somebody in a position to
>know the whole design and qualified to have a professional
>opinion. Perhaps the LAA changes already meet that burden.
>
>I don't know exactly how the amateur built airplane business works in
>Canada (where I think your email address suggests you live). In the
>USA, I believe the only authority that can force changes to be made
>to Experimental-AB planes is the builder/owner. There may be some
>way the government can force the issue if they choose, but I don't
>think they are disposed to make that choice. The FAA folks I spoke
>to seem interested in factory built planes but just don't care about
>experimental amateur built ones.
>
>Paul
>XL grounded.
>
>
>At 09:24 AM 6/17/2009, you wrote:
>>So which approach do you think is better in the long run, training
>>to address a particular and possibly unusual aspect of the airframe
>>or an option to bring the aircraft more in line with normal
>>practice. I'd be happy with both.
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
Just a quick question.....
Is there a simpler "fix" for the pitch sensitivity whereby lengthening the lower
and upper elevator horn would reduce the degrees of deflection per cm that the
stick is moved in pitch? Is there sufficient space in the rear of the fuselage
to accommodate this?
If possible this would be cheap alternative. Any thoughts anyone?
James
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248740#248740
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Where did ZBAG go?Re: Where did ZBAG go? |
Ahh, humor! I remember that! "tiny bach" composes classic ringtones.
I guess since I am not inclined to believe that the crashes were due to a design
flaw, I could say, "I'll be bach!"
Hasta la vista baby,
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lindstrom" <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Where did ZBAG go?
> And by the way, what is this "tiny bach" you refer to? Are we talking
> about a dwarf composer? ;-)
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
Yep, that's the way I see it also. Tight cables, no flutter. Loose cables,
yes flutter.
Relying on tight cables to prevent flutter does not meet FAA standards for
certificated airplanes. But we're mostly talking E-AB aircraft here, and
E-AB aircraft do not have to meet FAA standards. So, if you are happy with
relying on tight cables to prevent flutter in your E-AB 601XL, then that is
the way you should go. Or, if you think that, just maybe, the FAA has good
reasons for not relying on tight cables to prevent flutter, then you might
want to take additional steps.
I've tried to transcribe part of Mathieu Heintz AvWeb Podcast. What I hear is:
>"the latest thing they've just completed now is a series of flutter tests
>in a wind tunnel"
>
>"What we see from there is very clearly that when we have tight control
>cables per design requirements, that we do not have a flutter problem with
>the airplane. When you loosen up the cables, sure enough we get some
>flutter. It's not flutter in the sense that it's going to rip a wing
>apart, but it's enough to scare a pilot. Then when we put a mass balance
>weight with the loose control cables, then sure enough that goes away."
So, it seems that the 601XL wing is prone to flutter with loose cables, and
that aileron counterbalance will prevent 601XL aileron flutter, even with
loose cables. The choice is yours.
Terry
At 08:10 AM 6/17/2009 -0500, you wrote:
>
>The only actual aileron flutter that I have read about with the XL is
>those who reported it, slowed down to stop it, and post flight found that
>their cables were slack. The also reported that after tightening the
>cables, the flutter went away.
>
>In the one report of "wing flutter", over the turbulent rising air mass
>of a powerplant, the pilot stated he DOVE down any away to stop the
>"flutter"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????--try increasing airspeed with real flutter
>and see what happens.
>
>Also, what some overlook is:
>See Page 6 of the NTSB Report where they report as part of Zenith's
>Certification, Zenith did IN FLIGHT FLUTTER TESTING of the XL.
>
>Tony Graziano
>XL/Jab; N493TG, 502 hrs.
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Phillips" <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:07 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer
>
>
>>
>>Interesting question, Kevin
>>
>>Since we have ample evidence that flutter does occur in real CH601XL's in
>>flight, I guess that your question translates to,
>>
>>"What evidence would it take to prove to me that the pilots who have
>>experienced flutter in the 601XL were lying or mistaken?"
>>
>>Gosh, I don't know. All of the pilots who reported flutter were more
>>experienced than I am. One had thousands of hours. I find their reports
>>convincing. I have no reason to believe that they were lying. One person
>>who reported flutter in the 601XL tests was Mathieu Heintz (look up his
>>Sun n Fun AvWeb podcast). I guess that I would have to conclude that
>>Mathieu is either incompetent or dishonest. I am not ready to make that
>>conclusion. We have at least two second hand reports of flutter in 601XL
>>from Chris Heintz (look through Chris's letters to owners). I would have
>>to conclude that Chris was wrong in his letter.
>>
>>Here's what I think I know. If the balance on an aileron satisfies the
>>criteria in A&E Report 45, then my understanding is that the FAA is
>>willing to forego flutter testing for certificated airplanes. That's
>>simple enough for me. Add about 5 lbs or so to each wing in a well
>>designed counterbalance, and according to established criteria, aileron
>>flutter will not happen. If you look at Fig. 24 of Prof. Weltin's GVT
>>report, you'll see a pretty reasonable design for a 601XL aileron
>>counterbalance. I suspect that Zenair has a better drawing of that
>>somewhere. It looks good to me.
>>
>>Hey, E-AB aircraft builders can do whatever they want to their airplanes.
>>If you do not believe that flutter is a problem, Kevin, then don't add
>>counterbalances. It would be most revealing if half the fleet added the
>>counterbalances, plus the LAA mods, whatever they work out to be, and
>>half the fleet flew 601XL's made exactly to the prints. Then in a couple
>>of years we would find out whether the counterbalances, et al, made a
>>difference--or not. So those of you who have absolute faith in the
>>design, you can be the control group. Others, whose faith is not so solid
>>can make the mods they find appropriate. A couple of years of flying
>>should tell the tale. I cannot understand why anyone with absolute faith
>>in the design would feel threatened by the mods that others make to their
>>planes. If you are right, you can have the last laugh at those of us who
>>lack your absolute faith. For sure, the last thing I would want to do is
>>to impose my own personal concerns on you.
>>
>>So, I suggest that everyone tone down their rhetoric. Then make the mods
>>to your airplane that makes sense to you, or not, and in a couple of
>>years we should have the answer. I've got a pretty good idea what I will
>>do. How about you, Kevin?
>>
>>Terry
>>
>>
>>At 06:03 AM 6/16/2009 -0700, you wrote:
>>>My question is directed to anyone who has design questions regarding the
>>>601XL.
>>>
>>>What evidence would it take to prove to you the 601XL is free of flutter?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Kevin Kinney
>>
>>
>>Terry Phillips ZBAGer
>>ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>>Corvallis MT
>>601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
>>are done; waiting on the wings
>>http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; waiting on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Where did ZBAG go? |
Great William I didn't see that message and I'd love to reply to your position.
I will do this in the open because I have nothing to hide. My position is clear
and always has been. I do apologize for having to use this forum to do this
but I can't do it at ZBAG.
My post that you quoted included the line I was responding to.
> "> Why do you say "uninfomed guesses"? Do we need to bring in >Messrs > Science,
Merriam, and Webster again?"
Is that the response of someone who wants to have a reasonable discussion of the
issue? Did that person get banned? Of course he didn't. And the "uniformed guesses"
that he quotes me stating was all of the many ideas that were posted after
the GVT results came out with other things that might be wrong with the design,
including fixes that would either be useless at best and dangerous at worst.
As far as the rest of my response I stand behind it 100%.
ZBAG hired an engineer and he said there was NO design problem. Never once did
one member of ZBAG make a post that even hinted that you would except this answer
and shut down your witch hunt.
You then found, by whatever means, another engineer who doesn't seem willing to
stand behind his work who says yes there are design problems and one of them
is a flutter issue.
You then sent this information to the NTSB and for some reason they lapped it up
like a thirsty dog. I am looking forward to finding out if you forwarded the
information from the first engineer who said there wasn't a problem. That will
be very telling.
Meanwhile, ZBAG members are banging their hammers for Zenith to perform the GVT.
When Zenith does and the information refutes the pet theory of flutter does
ZBAG back off at all? Again, the answer is no. No one at ZBAG even voices any
questions that if the second engineer was wrong about that he could well be wrong
about anything he produced.
The fact is that anyone can say anything negative they want about the design of
the 601XL but if anyone stoops so low as to speak ill of ZBAG as a group they
are banned. (And let it be very clear that I never posted a single post that
attacked a ZBAG member personally.) That is the very definition of self serving
hypocrisy.
--------
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=248744#248744
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
I can't think of a simple or cost effective way to modify the design that would
address this issue. I have no doubt that someone could design a complex system
of weights and/or pulleys that would do it but complex isn't why I decided to
build a 601XL and I'm not that hot for a complex change for a problem that shouldn't
even show itself except at the edges of the flight envelope and can be
trained around.
As far as changing the length of the upper and lower elevator horns you then get
into the issue that there isn't enough room in the cockpit for the stick to
move all the way.
d.goddard(at)ns.sympatico wrote:
> No the stops do not affect the forces, they stop a pilot from inadvertantly
> applying too much elevator as a consequence of the decreasing force. That's
> certainly one way to go, and by far the easiest and least expensive. Do you
> have an objection to an optional change that addresses the issue in a
> different way? I have no idea what it would cost as the option doesn't
> exist, I'm not sure we could simply assume it would be expensive or
> complicated, we could likely assume it would not be required as a retrofit.
>
> ---
--------
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=248745#248745
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
It would appear from what I have read that cables have to be very loose
(slack) such as the stick can be moved without initial movement of the
ailerons. A preflight check and a "check controls are free and proper"
before flight check should, I believe, detect improper (slack) cable
tension.
Tony Graziano
XL/Jab: N493TG; 502 hrs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Phillips" <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer
>
> Yep, that's the way I see it also. Tight cables, no flutter. Loose cables,
> yes flutter.
>
> Relying on tight cables to prevent flutter does not meet FAA standards for
> certificated airplanes. But we're mostly talking E-AB aircraft here, and
> E-AB aircraft do not have to meet FAA standards. So, if you are happy with
> relying on tight cables to prevent flutter in your E-AB 601XL, then that
> is the way you should go. Or, if you think that, just maybe, the FAA has
> good reasons for not relying on tight cables to prevent flutter, then you
> might want to take additional steps.
>
> I've tried to transcribe part of Mathieu Heintz AvWeb Podcast. What I hear
> is:
>
>>"the latest thing they've just completed now is a series of flutter tests
>>in a wind tunnel"
>>
>>"What we see from there is very clearly that when we have tight control
>>cables per design requirements, that we do not have a flutter problem with
>>the airplane. When you loosen up the cables, sure enough we get some
>>flutter. It's not flutter in the sense that it's going to rip a wing
>>apart, but it's enough to scare a pilot. Then when we put a mass balance
>>weight with the loose control cables, then sure enough that goes away."
>
> So, it seems that the 601XL wing is prone to flutter with loose cables,
> and that aileron counterbalance will prevent 601XL aileron flutter, even
> with loose cables. The choice is yours.
>
> Terry
>
>
> At 08:10 AM 6/17/2009 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>The only actual aileron flutter that I have read about with the XL is
>>those who reported it, slowed down to stop it, and post flight found that
>>their cables were slack. The also reported that after tightening the
>>cables, the flutter went away.
>>
>>In the one report of "wing flutter", over the turbulent rising air mass
>>of a powerplant, the pilot stated he DOVE down any away to stop the
>>"flutter"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????--try increasing airspeed with real flutter
>>and see what happens.
>>
>>Also, what some overlook is:
>>See Page 6 of the NTSB Report where they report as part of Zenith's
>>Certification, Zenith did IN FLIGHT FLUTTER TESTING of the XL.
>>
>>Tony Graziano
>>XL/Jab; N493TG, 502 hrs.
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Phillips" <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:07 PM
>>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Interesting question, Kevin
>>>
>>>Since we have ample evidence that flutter does occur in real CH601XL's in
>>>flight, I guess that your question translates to,
>>>
>>>"What evidence would it take to prove to me that the pilots who have
>>>experienced flutter in the 601XL were lying or mistaken?"
>>>
>>>Gosh, I don't know. All of the pilots who reported flutter were more
>>>experienced than I am. One had thousands of hours. I find their reports
>>>convincing. I have no reason to believe that they were lying. One person
>>>who reported flutter in the 601XL tests was Mathieu Heintz (look up his
>>>Sun n Fun AvWeb podcast). I guess that I would have to conclude that
>>>Mathieu is either incompetent or dishonest. I am not ready to make that
>>>conclusion. We have at least two second hand reports of flutter in 601XL
>>>from Chris Heintz (look through Chris's letters to owners). I would have
>>>to conclude that Chris was wrong in his letter.
>>>
>>>Here's what I think I know. If the balance on an aileron satisfies the
>>>criteria in A&E Report 45, then my understanding is that the FAA is
>>>willing to forego flutter testing for certificated airplanes. That's
>>>simple enough for me. Add about 5 lbs or so to each wing in a well
>>>designed counterbalance, and according to established criteria, aileron
>>>flutter will not happen. If you look at Fig. 24 of Prof. Weltin's GVT
>>>report, you'll see a pretty reasonable design for a 601XL aileron
>>>counterbalance. I suspect that Zenair has a better drawing of that
>>>somewhere. It looks good to me.
>>>
>>>Hey, E-AB aircraft builders can do whatever they want to their airplanes.
>>>If you do not believe that flutter is a problem, Kevin, then don't add
>>>counterbalances. It would be most revealing if half the fleet added the
>>>counterbalances, plus the LAA mods, whatever they work out to be, and
>>>half the fleet flew 601XL's made exactly to the prints. Then in a couple
>>>of years we would find out whether the counterbalances, et al, made a
>>>difference--or not. So those of you who have absolute faith in the
>>>design, you can be the control group. Others, whose faith is not so solid
>>>can make the mods they find appropriate. A couple of years of flying
>>>should tell the tale. I cannot understand why anyone with absolute faith
>>>in the design would feel threatened by the mods that others make to their
>>>planes. If you are right, you can have the last laugh at those of us who
>>>lack your absolute faith. For sure, the last thing I would want to do is
>>>to impose my own personal concerns on you.
>>>
>>>So, I suggest that everyone tone down their rhetoric. Then make the mods
>>>to your airplane that makes sense to you, or not, and in a couple of
>>>years we should have the answer. I've got a pretty good idea what I will
>>>do. How about you, Kevin?
>>>
>>>Terry
>>>
>>>
>>>At 06:03 AM 6/16/2009 -0700, you wrote:
>>>>My question is directed to anyone who has design questions regarding the
>>>>601XL.
>>>>
>>>>What evidence would it take to prove to you the 601XL is free of
>>>>flutter?
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>Kevin Kinney
>>>
>>>
>>>Terry Phillips ZBAGer
>>>ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>>>Corvallis MT
>>>601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
>>>are done; waiting on the wings
>>>http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Terry Phillips ZBAGer
> ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
> Corvallis MT
> 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
> are done; waiting on the wings
> http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
Scotsman wrote:
>
> Is there a simpler "fix" for the pitch sensitivity whereby lengthening the lower
and upper elevator horn would reduce the degrees of deflection per cm that
the stick is moved in pitch?
Of the top of my head, I'd say there isn't much room to spare. It would seem to
alter more flight characteristics than just pitch sensitivity, such as reducing
max elevator deflection.
Assuming you have the original single stick, reducing sensitivity could be accomplished
by adding a friction plate where the stick attaches at the torque tube.
That would accomplish the single goal of reducing pitch sensitivity. I'm
not an aero-engineer, so I can not say what else may be affected.
This could be something to ask the factory.
Regards,
Kevin Kinney
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248749#248749
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Instrument panel |
Ok Guys, while the Zenith list is rank with arguments about flutter and 601's raining
from the sky, I decided to post some photos of my panel progress.
The vast majority of components are installed and about 25% of the wiring is done.
As the last picture shows, I have a bit more wiring to do!
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248756#248756
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00591_216.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00561_134.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00581_137.jpg
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel |
Nicely done. How did you label your panel?
Larry Winger
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:48 PM, annken100 <annken100@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Ok Guys, while the Zenith list is rank with arguments about flutter and
> 601's raining from the sky, I decided to post some photos of my panel
> progress.
>
> The vast majority of components are installed and about 25% of the wiring
> is done. As the last picture shows, I have a bit more wiring to do!
>
> Ken Pavlou
>
> --------
> 601 XL / Corvair
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248756#248756
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00591_216.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00561_134.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00581_137.jpg
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
I can't think of one either, but I could not have conceived a way to do away
with aileron cables and install push/pull tubes and that's been done. It
also looked fairly straightforward and easy to do while building. It's a
good reason to try to run these questions past a group of peers and see who
might have an idea. There's no reason to simply dismiss the notion as
complex or expensive when it doesn't exist. If a system is devised, I have
extreme doubts that anyone would be required to install it. It would simply
be an option for those who want it, do you object?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:55 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer
>
> I can't think of a simple or cost effective way to modify the design that
> would address this issue. I have no doubt that someone could design a
> complex system of weights and/or pulleys that would do it but complex
> isn't why I decided to build a 601XL and I'm not that hot for a complex
> change for a problem that shouldn't even show itself except at the edges
> of the flight envelope and can be trained around.
>
> As far as changing the length of the upper and lower elevator horns you
> then get into the issue that there isn't enough room in the cockpit for
> the stick to move all the way.
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel |
Ken,
Wow,? looks like a real Pro job !!? Love it !!
Jay
Ok Guys, while the Zenith list is rank with arguments about flutter and 601's
raining from the sky, I decided to post some photos of my panel progress.
The vast majority of components are installed and about 25% of the wiring is
done. As the last picture shows, I have a bit more wiring to do!
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel |
Ken,
Either you are a masochist or just love to see cockfights.
You might just have started a flaming war on the reliability of the glass panel
and how your panel betrays the spirit of the whole amateur built plane culture,
an insult to the (cheapskate) Corvair movement.
Let us stand behind the mud barrier and raise our glasses of a martini to the fighting
fools,
Pramod
--- On Wed, 6/17/09, annken100 <annken100@aol.com> wrote:
> From: annken100 <annken100@aol.com>
> Subject: Zenith-List: Instrument panel
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 3:48 PM
> "annken100" <annken100@aol.com>
>
> Ok Guys, while the Zenith list is rank with arguments about
> flutter and 601's raining from the sky, I decided to post
> some photos of my panel progress.
>
> The vast majority of components are installed and about 25%
> of the wiring is done. As the last picture shows, I
> have a bit more wiring to do!
>
> Ken Pavlou
>
> --------
> 601 XL / Corvair
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248756#248756
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00591_216.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00561_134.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00581_137.jpg
>
>
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Instrument panel |
Very comprehensive. I assume the "serial output" selector switch is for
monitoring the serial output from five instruments. Is that a 9 pin DSUB
connector next to the switch? The first (CCW) position looks like it is
labeled "Off". Just a precaution so the connector can't kill one of the data
streams?
Don't you need a USB connector to update the firmware on the Dynons? Since
the clips indicate you are making your forward skin removable I suppose you
will go in that way.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of annken100
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 1:49 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Instrument panel
Ok Guys, while the Zenith list is rank with arguments about flutter and
601's raining from the sky, I decided to post some photos of my panel
progress.
The vast majority of components are installed and about 25% of the wiring is
done. As the last picture shows, I have a bit more wiring to do!
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248756#248756
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00591_216.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00561_134.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00581_137.jpg
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Instrument panel |
He spent the money he saved on the engine on some nice glass. :-)
And depending on the Dynon models he installed he probably has glass backing
up glass.
Pramod: given his location and yours I bet you nitrided his crank.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pramod Kotwal
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Instrument panel
Ken,
Either you are a masochist or just love to see cockfights.
You might just have started a flaming war on the reliability of the glass
panel and how your panel betrays the spirit of the whole amateur built plane
culture, an insult to the (cheapskate) Corvair movement.
Let us stand behind the mud barrier and raise our glasses of a martini to
the fighting fools,
Pramod
--- On Wed, 6/17/09, annken100 <annken100@aol.com> wrote:
> From: annken100 <annken100@aol.com>
> Subject: Zenith-List: Instrument panel
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 3:48 PM
> "annken100" <annken100@aol.com>
>
> Ok Guys, while the Zenith list is rank with arguments about
> flutter and 601's raining from the sky, I decided to post
> some photos of my panel progress.
>
> The vast majority of components are installed and about 25%
> of the wiring is done. As the last picture shows, I
> have a bit more wiring to do!
>
> Ken Pavlou
>
> --------
> 601 XL / Corvair
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248756#248756
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00591_216.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00561_134.jpg
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00581_137.jpg
>
>
>
>
> Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel |
Beautiful Ken. Keep building a little each day. I hope to meet you at a fly-in
some day.
Scott in Texas
601XL/Corvair
136 hours
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248765#248765
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
Ok. I am getting confused again <GG> Mathieu said >"the latest thing
they've just completed now is a series of flutter tests
>in a wind tunnel.
Is the GVT considered a wind tunnel test or was there two seperate test
s performed ??
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer
Yep, that's the way I see it also. Tight cables, no flutter. Loose cable
s,
yes flutter.
Relying on tight cables to prevent flutter does not meet FAA standards f
or
certificated airplanes. But we're mostly talking E-AB aircraft here, and
E-AB aircraft do not have to meet FAA standards. So, if you are happy wi
th
relying on tight cables to prevent flutter in your E-AB 601XL, then that
is
the way you should go. Or, if you think that, just maybe, the FAA has go
od
reasons for not relying on tight cables to prevent flutter, then you mig
ht
want to take additional steps.
I've tried to transcribe part of Mathieu Heintz AvWeb Podcast. What I he
ar is:
>"the latest thing they've just completed now is a series of flutter tes
ts
>in a wind tunnel"
>
>"What we see from there is very clearly that when we have tight control
>cables per design requirements, that we do not have a flutter problem w
ith
>the airplane. When you loosen up the cables, sure enough we get some
>flutter. It's not flutter in the sense that it's going to rip a wing
>apart, but it's enough to scare a pilot. Then when we put a mass balanc
e
>weight with the loose control cables, then sure enough that goes away."
So, it seems that the 601XL wing is prone to flutter with loose cables,
and
that aileron counterbalance will prevent 601XL aileron flutter, even wit
h
loose cables. The choice is yours.
Terry
At 08:10 AM 6/17/2009 -0500, you wrote:
et>
>
>The only actual aileron flutter that I have read about with the XL is
>those who reported it, slowed down to stop it, and post flight found th
at
>their cables were slack. The also reported that after tightening the
>cables, the flutter went away.
>
>In the one report of "wing flutter", over the turbulent rising air mas
s
>of a powerplant, the pilot stated he DOVE down any away to stop the
>"flutter"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????--try increasing airspeed with real flutt
er
>and see what happens.
>
>Also, what some overlook is:
>See Page 6 of the NTSB Report where they report as part of Zenith's
>Certification, Zenith did IN FLIGHT FLUTTER TESTING of the XL.
>
>Tony Graziano
>XL/Jab; N493TG, 502 hrs.
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Phillips" <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:07 PM
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer
>
>
>>
>>Interesting question, Kevin
>>
>>Since we have ample evidence that flutter does occur in real CH601XL's
in
>>flight, I guess that your question translates to,
>>
>>"What evidence would it take to prove to me that the pilots who have
>>experienced flutter in the 601XL were lying or mistaken?"
>>
>>Gosh, I don't know. All of the pilots who reported flutter were more
>>experienced than I am. One had thousands of hours. I find their report
s
>>convincing. I have no reason to believe that they were lying. One pers
on
>>who reported flutter in the 601XL tests was Mathieu Heintz (look up hi
s
>>Sun n Fun AvWeb podcast). I guess that I would have to conclude that
>>Mathieu is either incompetent or dishonest. I am not ready to make tha
t
>>conclusion. We have at least two second hand reports of flutter in 601
XL
>>from Chris Heintz (look through Chris's letters to owners). I would ha
ve
>>to conclude that Chris was wrong in his letter.
>>
>>Here's what I think I know. If the balance on an aileron satisfies the
>>criteria in A&E Report 45, then my understanding is that the FAA is
>>willing to forego flutter testing for certificated airplanes. That's
>>simple enough for me. Add about 5 lbs or so to each wing in a well
>>designed counterbalance, and according to established criteria, ailero
n
>>flutter will not happen. If you look at Fig. 24 of Prof. Weltin's GVT
>>report, you'll see a pretty reasonable design for a 601XL aileron
>>counterbalance. I suspect that Zenair has a better drawing of that
>>somewhere. It looks good to me.
>>
>>Hey, E-AB aircraft builders can do whatever they want to their airplan
es.
>>If you do not believe that flutter is a problem, Kevin, then don't add
>>counterbalances. It would be most revealing if half the fleet added t
he
>>counterbalances, plus the LAA mods, whatever they work out to be, and
>>half the fleet flew 601XL's made exactly to the prints. Then in a coup
le
>>of years we would find out whether the counterbalances, et al, made a
>>difference--or not. So those of you who have absolute faith in the
>>design, you can be the control group. Others, whose faith is not so so
lid
>>can make the mods they find appropriate. A couple of years of flying
>>should tell the tale. I cannot understand why anyone with absolute fai
th
>>in the design would feel threatened by the mods that others make to th
eir
>>planes. If you are right, you can have the last laugh at those of us w
ho
>>lack your absolute faith. For sure, the last thing I would want to do
is
>>to impose my own personal concerns on you.
>>
>>So, I suggest that everyone tone down their rhetoric. Then make the mo
ds
>>to your airplane that makes sense to you, or not, and in a couple of
>>years we should have the answer. I've got a pretty good idea what I wi
ll
>>do. How about you, Kevin?
>>
>>Terry
>>
>>
>>At 06:03 AM 6/16/2009 -0700, you wrote:
>>>My question is directed to anyone who has design questions regarding
the
>>>601XL.
>>>
>>>What evidence would it take to prove to you the 601XL is free of flut
ter?
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Kevin Kinney
>>
>>
>>Terry Phillips ZBAGer
>>ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>>Corvallis MT
>>601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailero
ns
>>are done; waiting on the wings
>>http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; waiting on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
You're never too old to date. Senior Dating. Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYdji95DWeP4SvZpPUCy
ggiYSCHdYYTifAyGibieNgJ7UvXr1VNUyM/
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel |
Hello Ken,
nice panel with AP74 and HS34, I guess the AP installation was an snap,
right? BTW, how did you do the label? It looks great.
Bye,
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: @ home
Engine: Jabiru 3300
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel |
Very, very nice !
I too am interested on how you labeled the panel, looks like you had it
professionally done?
Carlos
CH601-HD (a bunch of parts conspiring to become an airplane)
2009/6/17 annken100 <annken100@aol.com>
>
> Ok Guys, while the Zenith list is rank with arguments about flutter and
> 601's raining from the sky, I decided to post some photos of my panel
> progress.
>
> The vast majority of components are installed and about 25% of the wiring
> is done. As the last picture shows, I have a bit more wiring to do!
>
> Ken Pavlou
>
> --------
> 601 XL / Corvair
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Where did ZBAG go? |
Gig,
You are really amusing and I'm not being sarcastic, take it as a compliment
.. You act as if you are in a public trial facing a possible jail sentence.
You just lost access to a forum, not a big deal, one you no longer believe
in its premise in the first place. You seem to enjoy arguing as a hobby. I
no longer willing to entertain this side of you. At least not in this topic
.. Time to move on.
William Dominguez
Zodiac 601XL Plans
Miami Florida
http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--- On Wed, 6/17/09, Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Where did ZBAG go?
Great William I didn't see that message and I'd love to reply to your posit
ion. I will do this in the open because I have nothing to hide. My position
is clear and always has been. I do apologize for having to use this forum
to do this but I can't do it at ZBAG.
My post that you quoted included the line I was responding to.
> "> Why do you say "uninfomed guesses"? Do we need to bring in >Messrs > S
cience, Merriam, and Webster again?"
Is that the response of someone who wants to have a reasonable discussion o
f the issue? Did that person get banned? Of course he didn't. And the "unif
ormed guesses" that he quotes me stating was all of the many ideas that wer
e posted after the GVT results came out with other things that might be wro
ng with the design, including fixes that would either be useless at best an
d dangerous at worst.
As far as the rest of my response I stand behind it 100%.
ZBAG hired an engineer and he said there was NO design problem. Never once
did one member of ZBAG make a post that even hinted that you would except t
his answer and shut down your witch hunt.
You then found, by whatever means, another engineer who doesn't seem willin
g to stand behind his work who says yes there are design problems and one o
f them is a flutter issue.
You then sent this information to the NTSB and for some reason they lapped
it up like a thirsty dog. I am looking forward to finding out if you forwar
ded the information from the first engineer who said there wasn't a problem
.. That will be very telling.
Meanwhile, ZBAG members are banging their hammers for Zenith to perform the
GVT. When Zenith does and the information refutes the pet theory of flutte
r does ZBAG back off at all? Again, the answer is no. No one at ZBAG even v
oices any questions that if the second engineer was wrong about that he cou
ld well be wrong about anything he produced.
The fact is that anyone can say anything negative they want about- the de
sign of the 601XL but if anyone stoops so low as to speak ill of ZBAG as a
group they are banned. (And let it be very clear that I never posted a sing
le post that attacked a ZBAG member personally.) That is the very definitio
n of self serving hypocrisy.
--------
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=248744#248744
le, List Admin.
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel |
Larry, I did the labels using a system called decalpro FX. Here is the link: http://www.pulsarprofx.com/ I highly recommend it. The system does have a steep learning curve, but the results are worth it. Also, the guy who created the system is very helpful over the phone.
Craig, you are correct, that is a 9 pin connector next to the serial switch. I
made a serial cable that goes from the panel to my laptop which has a usb-serial
converter. I simply connect the laptop and select which unit I want to update.
I can also use it to download the ems and efis data. The main instrument
is a Dynon D180 and the backup is a D100. The D100 normally boots up in to
the EMS screen. The D180 boots up to a full EFIS screen. The rest of the equipment
are a Dynon HS34 and AP74 and a Garmin SL30 Nav/Com and GTX327 transponder.
The GPS is an Avmap EKP IV and the intercom is a flightcom 401.
Thank you all for the kind words.
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248770#248770
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel |
How dare you interrupt the fighting with this crap.....
Just kidding of course. Fine looking panel. I especially like the labels.
A couple of questions.
1. Where did you get the little switch guards?
2. Why the HS 34 if you have an SL30? I thought the Dynon could deal with the SL30
data without the HS34 and the AP 74 gives you the knobs and voice alerts?
--------
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=248771#248771
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel |
One source of switch guards (two styles). Look on the right side:
http://periheliondesign.com/
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gig Giacona
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:53 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Instrument panel
How dare you interrupt the fighting with this crap.....
Just kidding of course. Fine looking panel. I especially like the labels.
A couple of questions.
1. Where did you get the little switch guards?
2. Why the HS 34 if you have an SL30? I thought the Dynon could deal with
the SL30 data without the HS34 and the AP 74 gives you the knobs and voice
alerts?
--------
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=248771#248771
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Where did ZBAG go? |
I'm glad that you think my wanting to be able to read and keep tabs on how your
group is trashing an airframe that I have a lot of time and money invested in
is amusing.
But keep laughing. I think that most people here will see that your laughing at
this point because you can't counter any statement I made in the post which is
the same problem you have over on ZBAG the difference there is you can just
ban any voices that don't sing in harmony with your own.
Nothing is more silly than silly laughter.
- Catullus
&
"So, to keep tongues from wagging,
I laugh when I'm crying, bitterly
And gaily sing when my heart is sad."
De Pisan, Christine, Rondeau XI
William Dominguez wrote:
> Gig,
>
> You are really amusing and I'm not being sarcastic, take it as a compliment.
You act as if you are in a public trial facing a possible jail sentence. You just
lost access to a forum, not a big deal, one you no longer believe in its premise
in the first place. You seem to enjoy arguing as a hobby. I no longer willing
to entertain this side of you. At least not in this topic. Time to move
on.
>
> William Dominguez
> Zodiac 601XL Plans
> Miami Florida
> http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom
--------
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=248779#248779
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel |
Alberto, I haven't installed the autopilot servos yet. I'll let you know how that
goes.
Gig, the switch guards are from http://www.periheliondesign.com They also sell a neat domino-sized overvoltage device which works good.
You are correct that the D180 will handle the Sl-30 without the HS34. There are
two reasons why I purchased the HS34:
1.) More buttons and knobs! [Laughing]
2.) I hate assymetry, I thought the D180 looked better with the HS34 on one side
and a AP74 on the other.
Just kidding, I chose to install the HS34 because I'm connecting both the SL30
and the GPS to the Dynons. The HS34 allows me to keep the D180 serial line free
for updates and data streaming. Also, I needed more GP inputs for things like
my trim and flap indicators. Lastly, I can change bearing sources and the
obs with my left hand without letting go of the center Y-stick.
See my previous response for the panel labels.
Ken Pavlou
--------
601 XL / Corvair
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248789#248789
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FAA Registration |
Anyone applied for their registration lately just wanted to know how long
it took to get your paperwork. David Coberly 601XL / Corvair
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Guys,
I am about ready to run the control cables for the O-200. I have a "Y" stick
so need two throttle cables, one mixture and a carb heat.
Has anybody got, or can take, some photos of their setup?
I'm especially looking for routing ideas.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://zodiac.cpc-world.com
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Registration |
I did it a few months ago.
Each round trip of application and rejection takes a couple of
weeks. Perhaps 3 weeks.
The more interesting question is how many round trips do you need to
complete the process. The bureaucrats at FAA registry are absolutely
incredible. They can come up with reasons to reject your paperwork
that you would never have imagined.
My registration was relatively quick at 3 round trips. The last
rejection was because under manufacturer I only included my last name
- just as it is engraved on the data plate. They wanted my whole
name. There went another 2-3 weeks. I think the whole process took
me about 3 months to complete.
Good luck,
Paul
XL grounded
P.S. If you admit you built your plane from a kit rather than random
parts that means another rejection if you don't include a "Bill of
Sale" for the kit. The normal invoice used in the business world
isn't good enough for our heroes at FAA registry. It has to say
"Bill of Sale".
At 03:58 PM 6/17/2009, you wrote:
>Anyone applied for their registration lately just wanted to know how
>long it took to get your paperwork. David Coberly 601XL / Corvair
>
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hi Peter,
I did a Jabiru 3300 so my exact routing probably won't help you much.
The real problem for me was the dual throttle controls. I wound up
using a 1/2 inch steel torque tube mounted in the cabin just behind
the firewall with three steel arms (maybe 4 inches long) welded to
it. The two outer arms connect to push-pull cable controls similar
to the ones used on Cessnas with friction locks. The knobs are
mounted on the cabin side skin so I can reach them while reclined in
the seat. The center arm connects to a spring loaded (from the
carburetor) pull only cable that goes through the firewall. The
torque tube is mounted with nylon bearings on either end and a couple
of nylon blocks in the middle area on the bottom of the channel
between the firewall and instrument panel.
I put the carb heat knob near the left side throttle knob on the side
wall. My engine doesn't have a mixture control.
Good luck,
Paul
XL grounded
At 04:05 PM 6/17/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Guys,
>
>I am about ready to run the control cables for the O-200. I have a "Y" stick
>so need two throttle cables, one mixture and a carb heat.
>
>Has anybody got, or can take, some photos of their setup?
>
>I'm especially looking for routing ideas.
>
>Cheers
>
>Peter
>Wonthaggi Australia
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Registration |
Assuming you have your 8050-3 form (i.e., your N number has been
assigned) it shouldn't take more than two weeks. At least, that's how
long mine took. The only tricky blank to fill in was "Airworthiness
Directives" in part B of form 8130-6. At the advice of the EAA, I
filled in "2004-7." The FAA office in Atlanta changed it to "Biweekly
2009-10 May 11-2009." I used the "Step-by-Step Certification Guide"
from the EAA. It was invaluable. If you're using a DAR to do your
inspection, ask him/her who his contact is in the FAA and mail the forms
directly to that person.
Hope this helps.
Bill
Davcoberly@wmconnect.com wrote:
> Anyone applied for their registration lately just wanted to know how
> long it took to get your paperwork. David Coberly 601XL / Corvair
> *
>
>
> *
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Registration |
According to the FAA web site my reserved N# now shows assigned,
certificate issued, status valid but still no paperwork in the mail. DAR at the
ready.
After I get my weight and balance done. David Coberly 601XL / Corvair
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | air / fuel separator for manifold pressure gauge line? |
For anyone running a variable pitch prop, and a mechanical manifold
pressure gauge, what do you use as a fuel separator in the line from
the carb(s) to the instrument?
I've got a 912 with an Ivoprop inflight adjustable, and have a
plastic line coming off a port on the balance tube between the two carbs.
I had a little plastic gadget installed in the line but it eventually
broke, and I don't know where it was from. I tried a small fuel
filter but the MP gauge just starts filling up with fuel. I might try
to build something -- basically a tiny bottle with an in and out hose
through the lid on top would likely do. I recall someone on the list
built something like that more than a decade back.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Registration |
David:
Mine came back really fast - about 1-1/2 week if I remember correctly. The waiting
comes if you want the FAA to inspect your airplane. My guy took three months
to fit me in. If you hire a DAR it can be much faster, but I think it is
kind of pricey. The FAA guy was free.
You forget about all the waiting you get that pink slip in your hands!
Good luck!
Scott in Texas
601XL/Corvair
136 hours and climbing.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248835#248835
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: air / fuel separator for manifold pressure gauge line |
?
In reality you should not need any filter. the maifold pressure gauge is
a dead end passage ending at a diaphram. No fuel shuold be able to migr
ate into it. To be safe you could run the line uphill to the gauge... IM
HO
Ps. I also run a inflight Ivo prop. My gauge doesn't fill up with fuel,
well not in 260 hours. So far. <G>
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Peter Chapman <pchap@primus.ca>
Subject: Zenith-List: air / fuel separator for manifold pressure gauge l
ine?
For anyone running a variable pitch prop, and a mechanical manifold
pressure gauge, what do you use as a fuel separator in the line from
the carb(s) to the instrument?
I've got a 912 with an Ivoprop inflight adjustable, and have a
plastic line coming off a port on the balance tube between the two carbs
.
I had a little plastic gadget installed in the line but it eventually
broke, and I don't know where it was from. I tried a small fuel
filter but the MP gauge just starts filling up with fuel. I might try
to build something -- basically a tiny bottle with an in and out hose
through the lid on top would likely do. I recall someone on the list
built something like that more than a decade back.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYSwrGBbAMNNikkwhgTy
7u98aUTbvOSrPiEivBuTWUJvjncLC4JGZi/
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Instrument panel |
OOOOOooooh, I Like!!
JUan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Craig Payne <craig@craigandjean.com>
>Sent: Jun 17, 2009 4:19 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Instrument panel
>
>
>He spent the money he saved on the engine on some nice glass. :-)
>
>And depending on the Dynon models he installed he probably has glass backing
>up glass.
>
>Pramod: given his location and yours I bet you nitrided his crank.
>
>-- Craig
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pramod Kotwal
>Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:07 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Instrument panel
>
>
>
>Ken,
>Either you are a masochist or just love to see cockfights.
>You might just have started a flaming war on the reliability of the glass
>panel and how your panel betrays the spirit of the whole amateur built plane
>culture, an insult to the (cheapskate) Corvair movement.
>Let us stand behind the mud barrier and raise our glasses of a martini to
>the fighting fools,
>
>Pramod
>
>--- On Wed, 6/17/09, annken100 <annken100@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> From: annken100 <annken100@aol.com>
>> Subject: Zenith-List: Instrument panel
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 3:48 PM
>> "annken100" <annken100@aol.com>
>>
>> Ok Guys, while the Zenith list is rank with arguments about
>> flutter and 601's raining from the sky, I decided to post
>> some photos of my panel progress.
>>
>> The vast majority of components are installed and about 25%
>> of the wiring is done. As the last picture shows, I
>> have a bit more wiring to do!
>>
>> Ken Pavlou
>>
>> --------
>> 601 XL / Corvair
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=248756#248756
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Attachments:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00591_216.jpg
>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00561_134.jpg
>> http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_00581_137.jpg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Email Forum -
>> FAQ,
>> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>> List Contribution Web Site -
>> -Matt
>> Dralle, List Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer |
Apparently, the tests for the DAeC included several components
* ground vibration tests (GVT)
* Load tests, probably to German microlight MTOW of 472 kg.
* According to Mat's Podcast, some sort of wind tunnel tests. It would
be nice if Zenair would post a report for the wind tunnel tests.
The video that Zenair posted of the GVT on the 650 shows something of what
those tests entailed. See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VMMVuVrweM
The wind tunnel tests would be an entirely separate affair. To date I have
not seen any report of the wind tunnel tests nor of the load tests.
Terry
At 08:36 PM 6/17/2009 +0000, you wrote:
>Ok. I am getting confused again <GG> Mathieu said >"the latest thing
>they've just completed now is a series of flutter tests
> >in a wind tunnel.
>
>Is the GVT considered a wind tunnel test or was there two seperate tests
>performed ??
>
>do not archive
>
>
>Ben Haas
>N801BH
>www.haaspowerair.com
>
>---------- Original Message ----------
>From: Terry Phillips <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer
>Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:38:00 -0600
>
>
>Yep, that's the way I see it also. Tight cables, no flutter. Loose cables,
>yes flutter.
>
>Relying on tight cables to prevent flutter does not meet FAA standards for
>certificated airplanes. But we're mostly talking E-AB aircraft here, and
>E-AB aircraft do not have to meet FAA standards. So, if you are happy with
>relying on tight cables to prevent flutter in your E-AB 601XL, then that is
>the way you should go. Or, if you think that, just maybe, the FAA has good
>reasons for not relying on tight cables to prevent flutter, then you might
>want to take additional steps.
>
>I've tried to transcribe part of Mathieu Heintz AvWeb Podcast. What I hear is:
>
> >"the latest thing they've just completed now is a series of flutter tests
> >in a wind tunnel"
> >
> >"What we see from there is very clearly that when we have tight control
> >cables per design requirements, that we do not have a flutter problem with
> >the airplane. When you loosen up the cables, sure enough we get some
> >flutter. It's not flutter in the sense that it's going to rip a wing
> >apart, but it's enough to scare a pilot. Then when we put a mass balance
> >weight with the loose control cables, then sure enough that goes away."
>
>So, it seems that the 601XL wing is prone to flutter with loose cables, and
>that aileron counterbalance will prevent 601XL aileron flutter, even with
>loose cables. The choice is yours.
>
>Terry
>
>
>At 08:10 AM 6/17/2009 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >The only actual aileron flutter that I have read about with the XL is
> >those who reported it, slowed down to stop it, and post flight found that
> >their cables were slack. The also reported that after tightening the
> >cables, the flutter went away.
> >
> >In the one report of "wing flutter", over the turbulent rising air mass
> >of a powerplant, the pilot stated he DOVE down any away to stop the
> >"flutter"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????--try increasing airspeed with real flutter
> >and see what happens.
> >
> >Also, what some overlook is:
> >See Page 6 of the NTSB Report where they report as part of Zenith's
> >Certification, Zenith did IN FLIGHT FLUTTER TESTING of the XL.
> >
> >Tony Graziano
> >XL/Jab; N493TG, 502 hrs.
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Phillips" <ttp44@rkymtn.net>
> >To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:07 PM
> >Subject: Re: Zenith-List: ZBAG, a respectful question: a modest answer
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Interesting question, Kevin
> >>
> >>Since we have ample evidence that flutter does occur in real CH601XL's in
> >>flight, I guess that your question translates to,
> >>
> >>"What evidence would it take to prove to me that the pilots who have
> >>experienced flutter in the 601XL were lying or mistaken?"
> >>
> >>Gosh, I don't know. All of the pilots who reported flutter were more
> >>experienced than I am. One had thousands of hours. I find their reports
> >>convincing. I have no reason to believe that they were lying. One person
> >>who reported flutter in the 601XL tests was Mathieu Heintz (look up his
> >>Sun n Fun AvWeb podcast). I guess that I would have to conclude that
> >>Mathieu is either incompetent or dishonest. I am not ready to make that
> >>conclusion. We have at least two second hand reports of flutter in 601XL
> >>from Chris Heintz (look through Chris's letters to owners). I would have
> >>to conclude that Chris was wrong in his letter.
> >>
> >>Here's what I think I know. If the balance on an aileron satisfies the
> >>criteria in A&E Report 45, then my understanding is that the FAA is
> >>willing to forego flutter testing for certificated airplanes. That's
> >>simple enough for me. Add about 5 lbs or so to each wing in a well
> >>designed counterbalance, and according to established criteria, aileron
> >>flutter will not happen. If you look at Fig. 24 of Prof. Weltin's GVT
> >>report, you'll see a pretty reasonable design for a 601XL aileron
> >>counterbalance. I suspect that Zenair has a better drawing of that
> >>somewhere. It looks good to me.
> >>
> >>Hey, E-AB aircraft builders can do whatever they want to their airplanes.
> >>If you do not believe that flutter is a problem, Kevin, then don't add
> >>counterbalances. It would be most revealing if half the fleet added the
> >>counterbalances, plus the LAA mods, whatever they work out to be, and
> >>half the fleet flew 601XL's made exactly to the prints. Then in a couple
> >>of years we would find out whether the counterbalances, et al, made a
> >>difference--or not. So those of you who have absolute faith in the
> >>design, you can be the control group. Others, whose faith is not so solid
> >>can make the mods they find appropriate. A couple of years of flying
> >>should tell the tale. I cannot understand why anyone with absolute faith
> >>in the design would feel threatened by the mods that others make to their
> >>planes. If you are right, you can have the last laugh at those of us who
> >>lack your absolute faith. For sure, the last thing I would want to do is
> >>to impose my own personal concerns on you.
> >>
> >>So, I suggest that everyone tone down their rhetoric. Then make the mods
> >>to your airplane that makes sense to you, or not, and in a couple of
> >>years we should have the answer. I've got a pretty good idea what I will
> >>do. How about you, Kevin?
> >>
> >>Terry
> >>
> >>
> >>At 06:03 AM 6/16/2009 -0700, you wrote:
> >>>My question is directed to anyone who has design questions regarding the
> >>>601XL.
> >>>
> >>>What evidence would it take to prove to you the 601XL is free of flutter?
> >>>
> >>>Regards,
> >>>Kevin Kinney
> >>
> >>
> >>Terry Phillips ZBAGer
> >>ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
> >>Corvallis MT
> >>601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
> >>are done; waiting on the wings
> >>http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>Terry Phillips ZBAGer
>ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
>Corvallis MT
>601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
>are done; waiting on the wings
>_=========================================================
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
><http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/tgl2242/fc/blsrjpydji95dwep4svzppucyggiyschdyytifaygibiengj7uvxr1vnuym/>You're
>never too old to date. Senior Dating. Click Here.
Terry Phillips ZBAGer
ttp44~at~rkymtn.net
Corvallis MT
601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons
are done; waiting on the wings
http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|