Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:25 AM - Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650 (Warni (Scotsman)
2. 01:58 PM - Re: Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650 (Warni (Elden Jacobson)
3. 03:05 PM - Re: Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650 (Warni (Paul Mulwitz)
4. 05:14 PM - Re: Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650 (Juan Vega)
5. 06:03 PM - (Ben Ramler)
6. 06:03 PM - Re: Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650 (W (JohnDRead@aol.com)
7. 06:20 PM - Re: (Cory Emberson)
8. 06:24 PM - Re: Re: (LHusky@aol.com)
9. 06:32 PM - Re: Re: (Cory Emberson)
10. 06:54 PM - Re: Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650 (W (Paul Mulwitz)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650 |
(Warni
As an aside after considering the FAA's report it looks like, contrary to numerous
other comments on Matronics, that a number concerns raised by ZBAG on the
original design were legitimate.
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=287948#287948
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: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650 |
(Warni
When the modification kit was introduced some weeks ago, it was my impressi
on that the FAA had, in effect, both collaborated in, and "signed off" on,
the kit as an adequate response to the-concerns expressed by both it and
the NTSB. Now this.
-
What did I miss? Was the kit made public before the FAA was satisfied? Are
we to suppose that there are, potentially,-additional modifications it wi
ll deem necessary?
-
Elden Jacobson
xl/3300
do not archive
--- On Wed, 2/24/10, Scotsman <james.roberts@computershare.co.za> wrote:
From: Scotsman <james.roberts@computershare.co.za>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL
/650 (Warni
co.za>
As an aside after considering the FAA's report it looks like, contrary to n
umerous other comments on Matronics, that a number concerns raised by ZBAG
on the original design were legitimate.
--------
Cell---+27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=287948#287948
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650 |
(Warni
Hi Eldon and James,
It seems the FAA felt the design changes were necessary but not necessarily
sufficient to fix the problems. It may be that some of the FAA people felt
the changes were sufficient but the authors of the recent report clearly
want more evaluation to be done. It may help to remember that the FAA is a
huge bureaucracy and that it is silly to assume that so many different
people already agree on any subject.
James, you appear to be correct. I wasn't convinced there was a flutter
problem, but the FAA engineers seem completely convinced this is part of the
problem. Now, I am forced to consider some kind of flutter problem to be a
matter of fact.
I wonder if this will ever be resolved to give us a design with a clean bill
of health. I certainly hope so.
Paul
Camas, WA
Soon to receive the upgrade kit.
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Elden Jacobson
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac
601XL/650 (Warni
When the modification kit was introduced some weeks ago, it was my
impression that the FAA had, in effect, both collaborated in, and "signed
off" on, the kit as an adequate response to the concerns expressed by both
it and the NTSB. Now this.
What did I miss? Was the kit made public before the FAA was satisfied? Are
we to suppose that there are, potentially, additional modifications it will
deem necessary?
Elden Jacobson
xl/3300
do not archive
--- On Wed, 2/24/10, Scotsman <james.roberts@computershare.co.za> wrote:
From: Scotsman <james.roberts@computershare.co.za>
Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac
601XL/650 (Warni
<james.roberts@computershare.co.za
<http://us.mc333.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=james.roberts@computershare.co
.za> >
As an aside after considering the FAA's report it looks like, contrary to
numerous other comments on Matronics, that a number concerns raised by ZBAG
on the original design were legitimate.
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
======================================================
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: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650 |
dearest SAbrina,
so whats your point? And yes I get a good eight in.
JUan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com>
>Sent: Feb 23, 2010 9:59 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650
>
>
>Dearest Juan,
>
>If, after digesting the report, you still think the aircraft is over-designed
and the math was over analyzed by Zenith, you must sleep much better than many
of us.
>
>SPARS
>
>FAA: analysis estimated that the wing design loads were 20 to 25 percent too low...
The spar chords do not have structural flanges that are usually present
on most typical spar designs. Such flanges work to resist buckling, which has
been noted in static load tests on the CH 601 XL, and is present in accident
photos...
>
>Zenith upgraded the spars but tested them to less than 100% load. Similar tests
were performed by the manufacturer in Canada in September 2009 on a modified
structure to the 1,320 lb weight LSA version of this aircraft. During these
tests, buckling was noted in the wing structure below ultimate load, so the tests
were halted and the wing structure was modified. (again?)
>
>FAA: The manufacturer needs to perform additional structural testing (If it has
been performed since the report was written, the NTSB should have the new data.)
>
>FLUTTER
>
>The upgrade changed the structure so reliance upon testing on an unmodified airframe
does not satisfy the FAA: FAA has requested the manufacturer perform
additional analysis and testing on the revised structure to verify flutter concerns
have been mitigated... This should include a complete flutter investigation
(ground vibration test (GVT), flutter analysis, and flight test) accomplished
by a noted flutter expert. So too, the testing in Germany was a linear evaluation,
non-linear techniques of the flutter characteristics since the frequency
and mode shapes may be affected by post buckling effects on wing skin structural
stiffness... may be needed.
>
>THE MATH BEHIND THE 601XL
>
>The FAA identified several significant issues with the manufacturers structural
loads analysis. These issues included...
>
>Our estimated wing bending and torsion loads are significantly higher than those
computed by the manufacturer, as shown in figure 1...
>
>The manufacturers analysis assumes the wing planform covered by the fuselage is
as effective in producing lift as an adjacent portion of exposed wing planform.
This assumption may not be conservative and may be noncompliant with the ASTM
F 2245 5.1.1.2 requirement...
>
>The manufacturers analysis used an assumption that the lift distribution has a
purely elliptical shape. This assumption is often used in academic evaluations,
but is incorrect for compliance to ASTM F 2245 5.1.1.2...
>
>The manufacturer appears to have computed the wing loads assuming a 15 gallon
fuel tank in each wing. However, the manufacturers drawings and advertising materials
clearly show that a 12 gallon tank is standard equipment on the CH 601
XL. This small discrepancy in fuel tank capacity underestimates the wing design
bending loads by about four percent. This could lead to the structure being
designed to a lower capacity than needed....
>
>The manufacturers analysis defines the MZFW as the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW)
minus full fuel. This definition is incorrect...
>
>The manufacturers analysis was based on estimates of the airfoil pitching moment
characteristics obtained from the airfoil designer. The manufacturer then assumed
a reduction in the magnitude of the airfoil pitching moment without providing
substantiating test data to support it. This assumption could impact the
torsional loads used to design the wing structure, possibly leading to a reduction
in stiffness and damping characteristics of the wing, which could impact
flutter....
>
>The manufacturers analysis assumes that the intent of this standard is to multiply
both torsion and wing bending loads by 75%. The manufacturers interpretation
is incorrect...
>
>The manufacturer determined VA to be 90 knots (103) mph based on a stall speed,
VS, of 44 knots (51 mph). However, the manufacturers flight test report documents
a measured stall speed of 43 knots (49 mph). In addition, the flight test
report did not appear to contain proper temperature corrections to convert
the measured data to standard atmospheric conditions...
>
>The manufacturer should consider higher values for the MZFW, given the empty weights
of the existing fleets, owners preference for installed equipment including
ballistic recovery systems, owners preference for allowable baggage, and
the weight of any structural modifications...
>
>The manufacturer should establish limitations for VO, VNO, and VNE...
>
>The manufacturers flight test report was reviewed. It appears the airspeed calibration
data presented was only calibrating indicated airspeed to true airspeed...
However, to be valid both the airspeed and altitude must be constant while
the data is collected. From the data reviewed, it appears there are numerous
data points collected above VH, which implies that the aircraft must have been
in a dive to reach those speeds. This potentially invalidates the GPS reverse
course method.... The FAA suggests the manufacturer work with a qualified technical
source to develop a revised calibration method...
>
>With these criteria in mind, the manufacturers original calibration did not meet
14 CFR Part 23 23.1323 until after correcting for standard day temperature
conditions. For comparison, neither CZAW nor the UK LAAs data meets 14 CFR Part
23 23.1323, though they are not required to do so. However it is unusual for
a low speed aircraft like the CH 601 XL to need a -24 knot static source error
correction, indicating a potential error in the calibration methods used...
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=287919#287919
>
>
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 |
|
How are you,I hope all is well at home and work,I'm writing you this with tears
in my eyes,as many of you have not responded to my last email and i guess you
don't seem to be of help after when i told you about my difficulties here in
United Kingdomi write to let you know i misplaced my wallet on my way heading
back to my hotel room from the Starbucks coffee shop.Presently i have limited
access to internet and would like you to assist me with a loan of 1,540 Pounds
to sort-out my hotel bills and to get myself back home because my wallet consist
of all my money,phone,diary and my boarding pass(Return Ticket).
I have spoken to the embassy here but they are not responding to matters effectively,I'll
Refund the money back to you as soon as i'm back home,I would have
love you to call me but don't have a phone where i can be reached.
let me know if you can be of any help,I will appreciate whatever you can afford
to assist me with, do get back to me immediately as you receive this email in
order for me to let you know where to send the money.
I know this email sounds strange but i did send it
Thanks
Ben
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: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650 |
(W
Paul;
It is time for you and your ilk Ms. S. to fade into the sunset.
Your rhetoric has become very tiresome.
Regards, John
CH701 - Colorado - Jabiru 3300
Cell: 719-494-4567
Home: 303-648-3261
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 |
|
(sigh)
I guess the scammers who have hacked people's Facebook accounts have
moved to email lists for builders.
do not archive
Ben Ramler wrote:
>
> How are you,I hope all is well at home and work,I'm writing you this with tears
in my eyes,as many of you have not responded to my last email and i guess you
don't seem to be of help after when i told you about my difficulties here in
United Kingdomi write to let you know i misplaced my wallet on my way heading
back to my hotel room from the Starbucks coffee shop.Presently i have limited
access to internet and would like you to assist me with a loan of 1,540 Pounds
to sort-out my hotel bills and to get myself back home because my wallet consist
of all my money,phone,diary and my boarding pass(Return Ticket).
>
> I have spoken to the embassy here but they are not responding to matters effectively,I'll
Refund the money back to you as soon as i'm back home,I would have
love you to call me but don't have a phone where i can be reached.
> let me know if you can be of any help,I will appreciate whatever you can afford
to assist me with, do get back to me immediately as you receive this email
in order for me to let you know where to send the money.
>
>
> I know this email sounds strange but i did send it
>
> Thanks
> Ben
>
>
>
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 |
|
Yea, I just got the same email. Writing the check now!!!! LOL!!!!
do not archive
In a message dated 2/24/2010 6:21:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bootless@earthlink.net writes:
--> Zenith-List message posted by: Cory Emberson <bootless@earthlink.net>
(sigh)
I guess the scammers who have hacked people's Facebook accounts have
moved to email lists for builders.
do not archive
Ben Ramler wrote:
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Ben Ramler <ben_ramler2002@yahoo.com>
>
> How are you,I hope all is well at home and work,I'm writing you this
with tears in my eyes,as many of you have not responded to my last email and i
guess you don't seem to be of help after when i told you about my
difficulties here in United Kingdomi write to let you know i misplaced my wallet
on
my way heading back to my hotel room from the Starbucks coffee
shop.Presently i have limited access to internet and would like you to assist
me with
a loan of 1,540 Pounds to sort-out my hotel bills and to get myself back
home because my wallet consist of all my money,phone,diary and my boarding
pass(Return Ticket).
>
> I have spoken to the embassy here but they are not responding to matters
effectively,I'll Refund the money back to you as soon as i'm back home,I
would have love you to call me but don't have a phone where i can be
reached.
> let me know if you can be of any help,I will appreciate whatever you can
afford to assist me with, do get back to me immediately as you receive
this email in order for me to let you know where to send the money.
>
>
> I know this email sounds strange but i did send it
>
> Thanks
> Ben
>
>
>
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 |
|
Ah, ah - a "cheque." In pounds. Don't forget.
do not archive
LHusky@aol.com wrote:
> Yea, I just got the same email. Writing the check now!!!! LOL!!!!
>
> do not archive
>
> In a message dated 2/24/2010 6:21:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> bootless@earthlink.net writes:
>
> <bootless@earthlink.net>
>
> (sigh)
>
> I guess the scammers who have hacked people's Facebook accounts have
> moved to email lists for builders.
>
> do not archive
>
> Ben Ramler wrote:
> <ben_ramler2002@yahoo.com>
> >
> > How are you,I hope all is well at home and work,I'm writing you
> this with tears in my eyes,as many of you have not responded to my
> last email and i guess you don't seem to be of help after when i
> told you about my difficulties here in United Kingdomi write to
> let you know i misplaced my wallet on my way heading back to my
> hotel room from the Starbucks coffee shop.Presently i have limited
> access to internet and would like you to assist me with a loan of
> 1,540 Pounds to sort-out my hotel bills and to get myself back
> home because my wallet consist of all my money,phone,diary and my
> boarding pass(Return Ticket).
> >
> > I have spoken to the embassy here but they are not responding to
> matters effectively,I'll Refund the money back to you as soon as
> i'm back home,I would have love you to call me but don't have a
> phone where i can be reached.
> > let me know if you can be of any help,I will appreciate whatever
> you can afford to assist me with, do get back to me immediately as
> you receive this email in order for me to let you know where to
> send the money.
> >
> >
> > I know this email sounds strange but i did send it
> >
> > Thanks
> > Ben
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ======================== the ties Day
> ================================================ -
> MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
> ================================================ - List
> Contribution Web Site sp;
> ==================================================
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac 601XL/650 |
(W
Hi John,
Perhaps you are right. I will try to be silent for a while.
On the other hand, I think you misunderstood Sabrina's post. The "Rhetoric"
she posted was not her own. It was direct quotes from the FAA report just
released.
I understand you are tired of all the bad news regarding the Zodiac XL
design. So am I.
Maybe if we don't discuss the fatal design flaws the problems will all go
away . . .
Paul
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
JohnDRead@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Q&A FAA Special Review Team Report - Zodiac
601XL/650 (W
Paul;
It is time for you and your ilk Ms. S. to fade into the sunset. Your
rhetoric has become very tiresome.
Regards, John
CH701 - Colorado - Jabiru 3300
Cell: 719-494-4567
Home: 303-648-3261
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! --
|