Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:41 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (Scotsman)
2. 06:59 AM - Re: New Chris Heinz Letter Today (James)
3. 10:49 AM - Most recent letter from Chris (roger lambert)
4. 11:28 AM - Re: Most recent letter from Chris (Dave)
5. 11:49 AM - 601XL transition training ()
6. 11:55 AM - tight fit tool (Carlos Sa)
7. 12:10 PM - Re: tight fit tool (Stanley Challgren)
8. 12:13 PM - Re: tight fit tool (Ken Arnold)
9. 12:22 PM - Re: 601XL transition training (Gig Giacona)
10. 12:24 PM - Re: tight fit tool (Rick Lindstrom)
11. 12:30 PM - Re: Most recent letter from Chris (dougsire)
12. 12:52 PM - Re: tight fit tool (Carlos Sa)
13. 01:49 PM - A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Gig Giacona)
14. 02:09 PM - Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (ihab.awad@gmail.com)
15. 02:37 PM - Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Craig Payne)
16. 02:52 PM - Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (jetboy)
17. 03:43 PM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Paul Mulwitz)
18. 03:54 PM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Juan Vega)
19. 04:06 PM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (Paul Mulwitz)
20. 04:08 PM - Re: Most recent letter from Chris (Juan Vega)
21. 04:22 PM - Re: Tool test... (n801bh@netzero.com)
22. 04:25 PM - Re: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight (n801bh@netzero.com)
23. 04:44 PM - Re: tight fit tool (Craig Payne)
24. 07:11 PM - Re: tight fit tool (Ron Lendon)
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: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
Guys...probably time to drop this one. There is no point getting all heated about
it as you are not realistically going to be able to change each others' opinions.
The letter provides for consideration of both sides of the argument and importantly
takes our safety (whether pilot and/or design impaired) as a primary concern.
Let's wait and see what comes of of this as half of the nonsense on this
thread will not achieve/solve anything.
I look forward to hearing from Chris after the review is complete. Enjoy your
building in the meantime.
James
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252418#252418
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: New Chris Heinz Letter Today |
I, for one, hope you folks don't stop the debate. I find it damn entertaining.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252430#252430
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Most recent letter from Chris |
As some of you are not following ZBAG, I thought you might like the response
to Jim's recent letter concerning flutter. Those in quotation marks are
ZBAG's reply to Jim's statements, and the others are my reply to that.
As recently stated:
"It is my belief that the only FEA models of the 601XL/650 wing prior to the
recently completed tests for the DAeC, are the models developed in
conjunction
with ZBAG by Mark Sensmeier and Jim Helbling, and by Stephen Mitchell."
None of those models were validated by GVT, yet were sent to the NTSB. Have
the
GVT results supplied by Zenith been applied to those FEA models to
re-evaluate
those opinions?
" I have absolutely no doubt that it would be possible to design a
601XL without counterbalances that would be immune to flutter with the
controls disconnected."
Why would you want to have an aircraft designed as immune to flutter with
the
controls disconnected? You couldn't fly it. Also, as has been stated by
numerous
authorities, an aircraft is supposed to be designed not to flutter within
its
flight envelope as properly maintained.
" I believe that Jim is probably correct that the 601XL wing will not
flutter
if the cable tension is high enough. However, it is obvious from Mat Heintz'
AvWeb Podcast that the 601XL wing will flutter with slack control cables.
And
it is apparent from the same Podcast that, by adding counterbalances, the
wing
will not flutter."
Therefore, flutter can be prevented by merely maintaining the cable tensions
at
the levels proscribed by the designer without any further design change,
including counterbalances.
" So, while it is obviously possible to design a flutter-free, modern
aircraft without counterbalances, the cost effective solution to the
flutter problem for almost all aluminum skin general aviation aircraft is to
just add counterbalances so that the aircraft meets the criteria of A&E
Report
No. 45. And that is why you find counterbalances on the vast majority of
small
aluminum skinned aircraft, be they FAA certificated or E-AB's."
How is it cost effective to redesign the aileron control system to meet some
criteria, that it was not designed to meet initially, by the addition of
counterbalanced ailerons and any associated structures, when you agree that
the
flutter can be prevented within the aircraft's flight envelope by
maintaining
the cable tension as designed?
Also my two cents worth
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: Most recent letter from Chris |
Very interesting Roger. I have not quoted the entire posting just the
one sentence, hope you don't mind.
I think you might be approaching this from the standpoint that you do
not want these aileron counterbalance. If you discard that position and
look at it instead as a question of will these balances improve the
aircraft, or even a more open perspective of will they hurt it you may
come away with different opinion of the posting. We appear to be fairly
reassured that flutter is not an issue with cables at proper tension,
adding balances is not required. On the other hand they need not be
heavy or complex and then flutter mitigation would not require a
specific cable tension (although flight control would certainly require
some tension). If they are added the ailerons would certainly not
flutter even with no tension, controls disconnected (the ultimate slack)
flutter would then never be an issue, under any circumstances. Now I
regard that as an improvement. I don't think the author was advocating
for flight minus controls. If such a mod is approved, it should be
optional, but any further attempt to vilify ZBAG simply because of this
wording will only serve to further split the Zenith community.
Is there anyone here who still believes the XL WILL experience
destructive flutter with these cables properly tensioned? That's not
COULD, I specifically asked WILL. Further is there anyone here who would
object to the existence of an optional mod that would remove COULD from
the equation? If the answer to these questions is no, we should surely
not be at each others throats over it. If the answer is yes, I'd be
surprised, but the attitudes of some list members toward this has
already surprised me so no change there!
----- Original Message -----
From: roger lambert
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 2:48 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: Most recent letter from Chris
" I have absolutely no doubt that it would be possible to design a
601XL without counterbalances that would be immune to flutter with the
controls disconnected."
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | 601XL transition training |
<< Hmm, I can think of three possibilities but none are terribly close:
- Ed Moody got some time-in-type "near" New Orleans. Let's see if he picks
up on this thread. >>
I did my dual training in an AMD 601XL LSA at TVR (Tallulah Vicksburg Regional)
with Nassour Aviation. Now the bad news... that plane failed to make it out of
a short grass field at high takeoff weight a few weeks ago, so it is out of
action for the near future.
I have only 15.25 hours on my XL and will not be Phase 2 legal for at least a couple
of months. After that I would be happy to take up an XL builder for some
dual time. I am not a CFI and cannot endorse your logbook so you would still
need to find a CFI with an XL to make your insurance company happy.
Ed
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 |
|
Hello, all
Over the years, I have read a number of favorable comments regarding the
tight fit tool (http://www.tightfittools.com/index.html), so I ordered one:
http://www.tightfittools.com/tigfitdrilki1.html
In testing it, I noticed the drill bit wobbled significantly. I wrote to
them and they promptly sent me another tool, no charge (I told them I would
send the first tool back, and they told me to keep it...!)
The second tool arrived yesterday - same result ! I have written to them
again, but they close on Fridays.
See this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TXGFprtlk
Have others experienced this problem?
Carlos Sa
CH601-HD, plans
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: tight fit tool |
Carlos:
I had a problem with the first one I bought and they cheerfully sent
me a second one at no charge. It fulfills its intended purpose and I
am satisfied with it.
Stan Challgren
On Jul 10, 2009, at 12:54 , Carlos Sa wrote:
> Hello, all
>
>
> Over the years, I have read a number of favorable comments regarding
> the tight fit tool (http://www.tightfittools.com/index.html), so I
> ordered one:
> http://www.tightfittools.com/tigfitdrilki1.html
> In testing it, I noticed the drill bit wobbled significantly. I
> wrote to them and they promptly sent me another tool, no charge (I
> told them I would send the first tool back, and they told me to keep
> it...!)
> The second tool arrived yesterday - same result ! I have written to
> them again, but they close on Fridays.
> See this video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TXGFprtlk
>
> Have others experienced this problem?
>
>
> Carlos Sa
> CH601-HD, plans
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: tight fit tool |
Carlos,
They open at 8:00 am PST Monday. Suggest you contact them again.
Sounds like you are building up a reserve quantity of tight fit tools.
Good luck,
Ken
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Carlos Sa
To: zenith-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 2:54 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: tight fit tool
Hello, all
Over the years, I have read a number of favorable comments regarding
the tight fit tool (http://www.tightfittools.com/index.html), so I
ordered one:
http://www.tightfittools.com/tigfitdrilki1.html
In testing it, I noticed the drill bit wobbled significantly. I wrote
to them and they promptly sent me another tool, no charge (I told them I
would send the first tool back, and they told me to keep it...!)
The second tool arrived yesterday - same result ! I have written to
them again, but they close on Fridays.
See this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TXGFprtlk
Have others experienced this problem?
Carlos Sa
CH601-HD, plans
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: 601XL transition training |
That sucks so bad. I hope no one was hurt.
Dr. Ed, Get you butt a flying. Sounds like I'm going to need you.
Dave, that was the CFI and airplane I was talking about for you.
--------
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=252461#252461
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: tight fit tool |
Well, Carlos, with just a few minor additions, you could resell it as a marital
aid?
(grinning, ducking, and running!)
Rick
PLEASE do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: Carlos Sa <carlossa52@gmail.com>
>Sent: Jul 10, 2009 2:54 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: tight fit tool
>
>Hello, all
>
>
>Over the years, I have read a number of favorable comments regarding the
>tight fit tool (http://www.tightfittools.com/index.html), so I ordered one:
>http://www.tightfittools.com/tigfitdrilki1.html
>In testing it, I noticed the drill bit wobbled significantly. I wrote to
>them and they promptly sent me another tool, no charge (I told them I would
>send the first tool back, and they told me to keep it...!)
>The second tool arrived yesterday - same result ! I have written to them
>again, but they close on Fridays.
>See this video:
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TXGFprtlk
>
>Have others experienced this problem?
>
>
>Carlos Sa
>CH601-HD, plans
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: Most recent letter from Chris |
Roger,
There is no "ZBAG reply" as you state, "Those in quotation marks are
ZBAG's reply to Jim's statements". There is no global ZBAG headquarters where
opinions are promulgated and press releases generated. It is simply a forum
for those individuals wishing to discuss 601XL design issues in a civil and
intelligent matter. To state otherwise is a misleading statement.
--------
Doug Sire 601XL
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252463#252463
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: tight fit tool |
...and some people think this list is no longer entertaining... Well, we
try, don't we, Rick...
2009/7/10 Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
> tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>
> Well, Carlos, with just a few minor additions, you could resell it as a
> marital aid?
>
> (grinning, ducking, and running!)
>
> Rick
>
> PLEASE do not archive
>
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: | A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
The following was written by Andy Elliot and posted on the Zenith Aircraft Builder's
& Flyer's forum. Since he doesn't post to this list any more he gave me
permission to post this here.
Planes obey the laws of physics like nearly everything else. It is not just the
weight of the plane that produces flight loads, it is the weight x G loading.
So if the plane's design somehow suddenly became weaker (which seems illogical),
and now is limited to +4 G's at 1255#, you could still safely fly it at 1320#
if you limit yourself to just +3.8 G's. Not so bad, eh?
In fact, I certified my 601XL (non-LSA) to 1450# max gross weight, but at reduced
G limits of +3.6, -1.6. Not much of a restriction in my book, and I tested
the gear (Grove) at the higher weight during Phase 1 and found it acceptable.
A PDF copy of the flight load limit diagram that appears in my POH is attached.
For reference, I am also attaching the CG most forward and max aft limit pages
from my POH, which show how the CG range also changes at various weights. You
should have, or will be, required by your DAR to produce similar diagrams for
your plane for certification.
As for the 140 MIAS VNE change, well if that effects you directly, Congratulations!
The net result is that if you fly the plane within its limits, either old or "temporarily
recommended" you still have a highly useful machine.
Andy Elliott
N601GE/ TD / Corvair
--------
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=252478#252478
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Gig Giacona<wrgiacona@gmail.com> wrote:
> Planes obey the laws of physics like nearly everything else. It is not just the
> weight of the plane that produces flight loads, it is the weight x G loading.
Yes, but gusts and turbulence may impose a G loading on your aircraft
that is independent of your control inputs. For example, would you
also not need to reduce your Va?
Ihab
ps "Nearly" everything? *Nearly*? Hmmm.... :)
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
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: | A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Things which do not obey the laws of physics:
- Wile E. Coyote
- my bank account
- nearly everything in Sci-Fi movies
-- Craig
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ihab.awad@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Gig Giacona<wrgiacona@gmail.com> wrote:
> Planes obey the laws of physics like nearly everything else. It is not
just the
> weight of the plane that produces flight loads, it is the weight x G
loading.
Yes, but gusts and turbulence may impose a G loading on your aircraft
that is independent of your control inputs. For example, would you
also not need to reduce your Va?
Ihab
ps "Nearly" everything? *Nearly*? Hmmm.... :)
--
Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
I asked Andy about changing limit speeds and he agreed there should be a reduction
to Va
Actually this subject is more complicated dependent on which category of operation
the aircraft is registered for.
In New Zealand CH601, HD and XL and CH701 are only eligible to be registered as
a microlight if they comply with the design rules of Canadian Advanced Ultralight
spec. TC10141E (now DS10141E) or the British BCAR-S which is a more stringent
rule. Both these design rules require flutter testing which it seems the
LSA (ASTM) does not.
These aircraft cannot be modified without designer approval and must continue to
comply with the design rules subsequent to any modification.
The DS10141E spec includes a clause requiring design limit load of not less than
4G. I have no idea what the ASTM allows for LSA because that information is
not publicly available.
Therefore if you were to operate over the design gross there would need a restriction
on the various limit airspeeds Vfe, Vc, Va, Vne ?
Most countries would only allow operations above design gross wt. if the aircraft
was being operated in Experimental category and the test pilot had proved it
safe.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252488#252488
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Hi Ralph,
Oddly, it has been common practice in my flying experience to nearly
always fly some planes over the MTOW. I don't know the formal
treatment of this question, but the informal treatment I have heard
from several instructors suggests the FAA's version of MTOW is
ultra-conservative and should only be considered a serious limit at
high density altitudes.
The prime example of this issue is the Cessna 150. Many of us
learned to fly with dual instruction in this humble plane. When it
carries two adult males it is almost certainly a couple of hundred
pounds over gross weight. It still flies just fine, but the climb
rate is very low. Even solo with a teenager at the controls the
climb rate on this fine old plane is not very impressive.
Historically, I have always considered CG to be a much more important
specification than gross weight. Of course this thinking only works
if you fly the plane gently. (On the other hand, all the aerobatic
maneuvers I learned were done with two adults in a C-152 . . .).
I don't know about Vne, Va or other performance limits. From my
point of view these only come into play when you fly the plane in
very harsh conditions or with a very heavy hand on the stick or throttle.
Paul
XL grounded
At 02:47 PM 7/10/2009, you wrote:
>Most countries would only allow operations above design gross wt. if
>the aircraft was being operated in Experimental category and the
>test pilot had proved it safe.
>Ralph
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
Paul,
Ignoring MTOW is playing Russian roullette. PLay at your own peril.
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
>Sent: Jul 10, 2009 6:39 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight
>
>
>Hi Ralph,
>
>Oddly, it has been common practice in my flying experience to nearly
>always fly some planes over the MTOW. I don't know the formal
>treatment of this question, but the informal treatment I have heard
>from several instructors suggests the FAA's version of MTOW is
>ultra-conservative and should only be considered a serious limit at
>high density altitudes.
>
>The prime example of this issue is the Cessna 150. Many of us
>learned to fly with dual instruction in this humble plane. When it
>carries two adult males it is almost certainly a couple of hundred
>pounds over gross weight. It still flies just fine, but the climb
>rate is very low. Even solo with a teenager at the controls the
>climb rate on this fine old plane is not very impressive.
>
>Historically, I have always considered CG to be a much more important
>specification than gross weight. Of course this thinking only works
>if you fly the plane gently. (On the other hand, all the aerobatic
>maneuvers I learned were done with two adults in a C-152 . . .).
>
>I don't know about Vne, Va or other performance limits. From my
>point of view these only come into play when you fly the plane in
>very harsh conditions or with a very heavy hand on the stick or throttle.
>
>Paul
>XL grounded
>
>
>At 02:47 PM 7/10/2009, you wrote:
>>Most countries would only allow operations above design gross wt. if
>>the aircraft was being operated in Experimental category and the
>>test pilot had proved it safe.
>>Ralph
>
>
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
OK, Juan. I'll bite.
What outcome would you expect from flying over gross weight?
We all know it will reduce the climb rate. We also know that Va
increases with increased weight. This would seem to suggest that
structure failures are less likely with excess weight rather than
more likely (the plane is more likely to stall than sustain high G's).
So, what is the big problem with excess weight?
Paul
do not archive
At 03:52 PM 7/10/2009, you wrote:
>Paul,
>Ignoring MTOW is playing Russian roullette. PLay at your own peril.
>
>
>Juan
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Most recent letter from Chris |
Dave,
i don't understand, whats your point?
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave <d.goddard@ns.sympatico.ca>
>Sent: Jul 10, 2009 2:27 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Most recent letter from Chris
>
>Very interesting Roger. I have not quoted the entire posting just the one sentence,
hope you don't mind.
>
>I think you might be approaching this from the standpoint that you do not want
these aileron counterbalance. If you discard that position and look at it instead
as a question of will these balances improve the aircraft, or even a more
open perspective of will they hurt it you may come away with different opinion
of the posting. We appear to be fairly reassured that flutter is not an issue
with cables at proper tension, adding balances is not required. On the other
hand they need not be heavy or complex and then flutter mitigation would not
require a specific cable tension (although flight control would certainly require
some tension). If they are added the ailerons would certainly not flutter
even with no tension, controls disconnected (the ultimate slack) flutter would
then never be an issue, under any circumstances. Now I regard that as an improvement.
I don't think the author was advocating for flight minus controls. If
such a mod is approved, it should be optional, but any further attempt to vilify
ZBAG simply because of this wording will only serve to further split the Zenith
community.
>
>Is there anyone here who still believes the XL WILL experience destructive flutter
with these cables properly tensioned? That's not COULD, I specifically asked
WILL. Further is there anyone here who would object to the existence of an
optional mod that would remove COULD from the equation? If the answer to these
questions is no, we should surely not be at each others throats over it. If
the answer is yes, I'd be surprised, but the attitudes of some list members toward
this has already surprised me so no change there!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: roger lambert
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 2:48 PM
> Subject: Zenith-List: Most recent letter from Chris
>
>
> " I have absolutely no doubt that it would be possible to design a
> 601XL without counterbalances that would be immune to flutter with the
> controls disconnected."
>
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: Tool test... |
I just played the youtube video a few times and it appears your drill co
llet/chuck has alot of runout. It might not be the bit at all....
IMHO
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight
The following was written by Andy Elliot and posted on the Zenith Aircra
ft Builder's & Flyer's forum. Since he doesn't post to this list any mor
e he gave me permission to post this here.
Planes obey the laws of physics like nearly everything else. It is not j
ust the weight of the plane that produces flight loads, it is the weight
x G loading. So if the plane's design somehow suddenly became weaker (w
hich seems illogical), and now is limited to +4 G's at 1255#, you could
still safely fly it at 1320# if you limit yourself to just +3.8 G's. Not
so bad, eh?
In fact, I certified my 601XL (non-LSA) to 1450# max gross weight, but a
t reduced G limits of +3.6, -1.6. Not much of a restriction in my book,
and I tested the gear (Grove) at the higher weight during Phase 1 and fo
und it acceptable. A PDF copy of the flight load limit diagram that appe
ars in my POH is attached.
For reference, I am also attaching the CG most forward and max aft limit
pages from my POH, which show how the CG range also changes at various
weights. You should have, or will be, required by your DAR to produce si
milar diagrams for your plane for certification.
As for the 140 MIAS VNE change, well if that effects you directly, Congr
atulations!
The net result is that if you fly the plane within its limits, either ol
d or "temporarily recommended" you still have a highly useful machine.
Andy Elliott
N601GE/ TD / Corvair
--------
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=252478#252478
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
Get your dream car or truck. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYYjRV7LULR5tzYuWjzD
yJIW0Tfu8K178Zk6oJ88z4wJCZXkaBH6EI/
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: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight |
My Zenith is an" EXPERIMENTAL".. I can make my MTOW 10,000 lbs if I wan
t.
do not archive.
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: A Note About Moding G's instead of Weight
OK, Juan. I'll bite.
What outcome would you expect from flying over gross weight?
We all know it will reduce the climb rate. We also know that Va
increases with increased weight. This would seem to suggest that
structure failures are less likely with excess weight rather than
more likely (the plane is more likely to stall than sustain high G's).
So, what is the big problem with excess weight?
Paul
do not archive
At 03:52 PM 7/10/2009, you wrote:
>Paul,
>Ignoring MTOW is playing Russian roullette. PLay at your own peril.
>
>
>Juan
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
____________________________________________________________
Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/BLSrjpYYipdGB2OFTqExcBkv1
cU1EgPNXxRp44pxUZpZYaQHWtYLeyx5V8c/
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 |
|
Mine does not appear to have the same problem (what appears to be a
misaligned chuck). In mine there is some free-play in the whole "final
shaft". With a 2 inch long drill there is about 0.06 inch side-to-side
free-play at the tip of the drill. This has never been a problem in actual
use.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Sa
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:55 PM
Subject: Zenith-List: tight fit tool
Hello, all
Over the years, I have read a number of favorable comments regarding the
tight fit tool (http://www.tightfittools.com/index.html), so I ordered one:
http://www.tightfittools.com/tigfitdrilki1.html
In testing it, I noticed the drill bit wobbled significantly. I wrote to
them and they promptly sent me another tool, no charge (I told them I would
send the first tool back, and they told me to keep it...!)
The second tool arrived yesterday - same result ! I have written to them
again, but they close on Fridays.
See this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TXGFprtlk
Have others experienced this problem?
Carlos Sa
CH601-HD, plans
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: tight fit tool |
I agree with what Craig just said. The tool is loose but drills a good hole.
As a matter of fact I picked up more bits at SnF and they drill good holes in the
tight fit tool also.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Corvair Engine Prints:
http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=252521#252521
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! --
|