Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:47 AM - Re: Re: Zenith.aero is down (Bryan Martin)
2. 05:21 AM - Back to the XL design question - was Zenith.aero down (Paul Mulwitz)
3. 06:14 AM - Re: Re: Zenith.aero is down (Jim Belcher)
4. 08:02 AM - Re: Re: Zenith.aero is down (Malcolm Hunt)
5. 07:32 PM - Re: Re: Zenith.aero is down (Juan Vega)
6. 09:20 PM - Sport Cruiser vs 601XL (Peter Chapman)
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: Zenith.aero is down |
And I still say the FAA guy you talked to was full of shit. The development of
the XL started at least two years before the Sport Pilot rule was even thought
of. It was developed as a replacement for the HD in the US market, which had
a gross weight of 1200 lbs. The earliest brochures for the XL listed the gross
weight at 1400 lbs, later brochures listed 1300 lbs for the E-AB version and
1232 lbs for the LSA compliant version. (The original proposed gross weight for
the LSA rule was 1232 lbs and ended up as 1320 lbs in the final rule.) Your
FAA guy was possibly confused by the Czech built version that was intended for
the European market. Just because somebody works for the government doesn't mean
he knows what he's talking about.
On Aug 5, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> After my long and productive conversation with the FAA guy at OSH, I wonder
> if the Sport cruiser was a derivative of the Zodiac XL or it was the other
> way around. He definitely said the XL was originally designed to the 1200
> pound European standard and just "Pencil whipped" to meet the US LSA
> specified gross weight of 1320.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus re-drive.
do not archive.
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: | Back to the XL design question - was Zenith.aero down |
Hi Bryan,
I think you should blame me and my faulty memory rather than the FAA guy you
never met for any errors in the XL story. I have spoken with this guy twice
now (this year at OSH and last year at Sun n Fun) and my BS dectors didn't
go off at all. I am not a very trusting soul. This guy impressed me as a
straight shooter.
Anyway, the really important part of my interaction with this guy has to do
with the engineering reviews the FAA performed on the XL design. The short
and most important part of this, to me, is the fact they did a thorough
review of the design and found it lacking. They notified Zenair and the
world of the deficiencies they found. Zenair produced the upgrade design.
Then the same FAA engineers did another thorough review and pronounced the
new design sound.
I'm sure that is what the FAA guy told me. I reread the FAA document
describing this story and found the details in the document consistent with
his verbal description. He put a different twist on the information that
convinced me the design problem was indeed found and fixed. I just didn't
get that from my first reading of the language in the document.
I have no idea what your experience with the XL design is or what your
qualifications are. I do believe the same FAA engineers who give certified
designs and designers nightmares for years over any new plane have now
blessed the XL design (after the update is installed). That is a great
story for me. If you think there is still reason to be concerned over
design flaws in the XL, then I would like to hear what you think those
errors are. If you are now happy with the XL design then perhaps we can all
agree the plane is safe after installation of the upgrade.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bryan Martin
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 2:46 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith.aero is down
And I still say the FAA guy you talked to was full of shit. The development
of the XL started at least two years before the Sport Pilot rule was even
thought of. It was developed as a replacement for the HD in the US market,
which had a gross weight of 1200 lbs. The earliest brochures for the XL
listed the gross weight at 1400 lbs, later brochures listed 1300 lbs for the
E-AB version and 1232 lbs for the LSA compliant version. (The original
proposed gross weight for the LSA rule was 1232 lbs and ended up as 1320 lbs
in the final rule.) Your FAA guy was possibly confused by the Czech built
version that was intended for the European market. Just because somebody
works for the government doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.
On Aug 5, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> After my long and productive conversation with the FAA guy at OSH, I
wonder
> if the Sport cruiser was a derivative of the Zodiac XL or it was the other
> way around. He definitely said the XL was originally designed to the 1200
> pound European standard and just "Pencil whipped" to meet the US LSA
> specified gross weight of 1320.
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus re-drive.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith.aero is down |
Good point, Jay. As usual, those willing to investigate a little may get the
better deal.
On Thursday 05 August 2010 17:58:02 you wrote:
> The way I see it, the Piper and AMD 650 have essentially the same bones,
> but so do the Camry and the Lexus ES. The reason one costs more than the
> other is primarily an upscaled interior finish and a prestigious name; the
> latter being the greatest. EVERYONE knows Piper. Who knows AMD ?
>
> Jay Bannister
--
=======================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS,MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
General Radio Telephone Certificate
Instrument Rated Pilot
Retired Aerospace Technical Manager
=======================================
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: Zenith.aero is down |
Hi Paul et al
It is worth remembering that the Sport Cruiser was developed by CZAW who
provided kits of the Zenith aircraft, including the 601XL, for the European
market.
The CZAW version of the 601XL had some very significant differences to the
American, including composite gear, different angle of attack for the wings
and different canopy details.
I saw the first Sport Cruiser to be completed in the UK and this had some
very familiar details to the European 601XL, including the gear and canopy.
Looking at the latest kits there has been some significant developments
including the canopy, which is now bonded, and the internal fitments to the
newer aircraft look very smart, many of which have glass cockpits.
We have all been through the mill over the mods but I think it is now time
to encourage Zenith to start actively promoting the 650B which I consider a
great aircraft and at the original price great value. Lets start enjoying
the construction and flying again of the 600 series!
Hope this is of interest.
Malcolm Hunt
CH601XL Plans builder in England
.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:51 PM
Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith.aero is down
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I took a good look at the Piper plane at OSH, and I have followed
> discussions of CZAW and their products for several years now. In my
> opinion, the Piper Sport is a derivative of the Zodiac XL rather than an
> exact copy.
>
> The wing tips are quite different, but the center console is the same.
> The
> landing gear (I think) is composite while the Zodiac gear is solid
> aluminum
> "Spring". The Piper has a smaller baggage compartment with a rear shelf.
> I
> believe there are extensive structural changes in the wing spars and
> related
> parts of the plane. This suggests that whoever did the engineering on the
> Sport Cruiser/Piper Sport took a different view of the structure than the
> Heintz boys did.
>
> The Sport Cruiser and Piper Sport have been flying for a number of years
> and
> I don't think any of them have experienced structural failures. Certainly
> there have not been a rash of them like the XL.
>
> After my long and productive conversation with the FAA guy at OSH, I
> wonder
> if the Sport cruiser was a derivative of the Zodiac XL or it was the other
> way around. He definitely said the XL was originally designed to the 1200
> pound European standard and just "Pencil whipped" to meet the US LSA
> specified gross weight of 1320. He also said he had proprietary
> information
> from Zenair/Zenith that he would not disclose, but assured me he was not
> hiding safety related information from me that would impact my own safety
> in
> an XL. I don't know what that information is, but it might have been
> something relating to the design history and who exactly did the
> engineering. I certainly asked him about that and all he would say was
> that
> "Zenair" provided the engineering for the upgrade and not the FAA.
>
> About corporations, I do indeed know a fair amount on that subject. I am
> not aware of any requirement for there to be different owners and/or
> officers from one corporation to another. If so, that would be a state
> law
> and certainly wouldn't impact two corporations in two different countries
> like Zenair and Zenith.
>
> I have no knowledge of any transactions going on regarding any of these
> companies. However, I feel the Piper Sport is direct competition for the
> AMD XL/650. On the other hand both Piper and AMD offer many other models
> of
> aircraft which have nothing to do with the other company's products.
>
> Paul
> Camas, WA
> Currently installing upgrade in my XL.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Belcher
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 3:02 PM
> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith.aero is down
>
>
> On Thursday 05 August 2010 15:59:34 you wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> Its my understanding that AMD and Zenith are two totally different
>> companies. There is/was a Heintz brother at each company though. I'm
>> not sure how many folks who are buying PiperSports or AMD planes for
>> that matter would buy a kit instead....
>
> Good points, all.
>
> I'm not sure, in the fiction that surrounds corporations, how much
> difference
> there really is between the two companies. I was told once that all that
> was
>
> needed for two corporations was at least one person in each corporation
> who
> held one or more shares of stock, but who did not hold stock in the other
> corporation. Me, I'm not a lawyer, but a techie, so I don't know for sure.
>
> I didn't mean to suggest that buyers of the kit were candidates for a
> finished
> plane, or vice-versa. Rather, I meant that AMD and Piper had virtually the
> same finished aircraft, competing for the same $.
>
> --
> =======================================
> Jim B. Belcher
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 5347 (20100806) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database
5347 (20100806) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith.aero is down |
Paul,
Sippin too many beers again in the barn or too many karate hits to the brain...
The Chech plane is an exact replica, save for a face lift. I flew both, the
check one and the 601 are the same. Like the 601 cause frankly with a 3300 engine,
it launches off the runway versus the rotax fred flinstone in 90 degree
heat.
as the the design the Heintz boys would be looking at talking to themselves if
they asked to speak to the sport cruiser designers.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Malcolm Hunt <malcolmhunt@mha1.fsbusiness.co.uk>
>Sent: Aug 6, 2010 11:01 AM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith.aero is down
>
>
>Hi Paul et al
>
>It is worth remembering that the Sport Cruiser was developed by CZAW who
>provided kits of the Zenith aircraft, including the 601XL, for the European
>market.
>
>The CZAW version of the 601XL had some very significant differences to the
>American, including composite gear, different angle of attack for the wings
>and different canopy details.
>
>I saw the first Sport Cruiser to be completed in the UK and this had some
>very familiar details to the European 601XL, including the gear and canopy.
>Looking at the latest kits there has been some significant developments
>including the canopy, which is now bonded, and the internal fitments to the
>newer aircraft look very smart, many of which have glass cockpits.
>
>We have all been through the mill over the mods but I think it is now time
>to encourage Zenith to start actively promoting the 650B which I consider a
>great aircraft and at the original price great value. Lets start enjoying
>the construction and flying again of the 600 series!
>
>Hope this is of interest.
>
>Malcolm Hunt
>
>CH601XL Plans builder in England
>
>.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
>To: <zenith-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:51 PM
>Subject: RE: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith.aero is down
>
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> I took a good look at the Piper plane at OSH, and I have followed
>> discussions of CZAW and their products for several years now. In my
>> opinion, the Piper Sport is a derivative of the Zodiac XL rather than an
>> exact copy.
>>
>> The wing tips are quite different, but the center console is the same.
>> The
>> landing gear (I think) is composite while the Zodiac gear is solid
>> aluminum
>> "Spring". The Piper has a smaller baggage compartment with a rear shelf.
>> I
>> believe there are extensive structural changes in the wing spars and
>> related
>> parts of the plane. This suggests that whoever did the engineering on the
>> Sport Cruiser/Piper Sport took a different view of the structure than the
>> Heintz boys did.
>>
>> The Sport Cruiser and Piper Sport have been flying for a number of years
>> and
>> I don't think any of them have experienced structural failures. Certainly
>> there have not been a rash of them like the XL.
>>
>> After my long and productive conversation with the FAA guy at OSH, I
>> wonder
>> if the Sport cruiser was a derivative of the Zodiac XL or it was the other
>> way around. He definitely said the XL was originally designed to the 1200
>> pound European standard and just "Pencil whipped" to meet the US LSA
>> specified gross weight of 1320. He also said he had proprietary
>> information
>> from Zenair/Zenith that he would not disclose, but assured me he was not
>> hiding safety related information from me that would impact my own safety
>> in
>> an XL. I don't know what that information is, but it might have been
>> something relating to the design history and who exactly did the
>> engineering. I certainly asked him about that and all he would say was
>> that
>> "Zenair" provided the engineering for the upgrade and not the FAA.
>>
>> About corporations, I do indeed know a fair amount on that subject. I am
>> not aware of any requirement for there to be different owners and/or
>> officers from one corporation to another. If so, that would be a state
>> law
>> and certainly wouldn't impact two corporations in two different countries
>> like Zenair and Zenith.
>>
>> I have no knowledge of any transactions going on regarding any of these
>> companies. However, I feel the Piper Sport is direct competition for the
>> AMD XL/650. On the other hand both Piper and AMD offer many other models
>> of
>> aircraft which have nothing to do with the other company's products.
>>
>> Paul
>> Camas, WA
>> Currently installing upgrade in my XL.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Belcher
>> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 3:02 PM
>> To: zenith-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Zenith-List: Re: Zenith.aero is down
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 05 August 2010 15:59:34 you wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> Its my understanding that AMD and Zenith are two totally different
>>> companies. There is/was a Heintz brother at each company though. I'm
>>> not sure how many folks who are buying PiperSports or AMD planes for
>>> that matter would buy a kit instead....
>>
>> Good points, all.
>>
>> I'm not sure, in the fiction that surrounds corporations, how much
>> difference
>> there really is between the two companies. I was told once that all that
>> was
>>
>> needed for two corporations was at least one person in each corporation
>> who
>> held one or more shares of stock, but who did not hold stock in the other
>> corporation. Me, I'm not a lawyer, but a techie, so I don't know for sure.
>>
>> I didn't mean to suggest that buyers of the kit were candidates for a
>> finished
>> plane, or vice-versa. Rather, I meant that AMD and Piper had virtually the
>> same finished aircraft, competing for the same $.
>>
>> --
>> =======================================
>> Jim B. Belcher
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>> signature database 5347 (20100806) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database
5347 (20100806) __________
>
>The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
>
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: | Sport Cruiser vs 601XL |
At 22:30 06-08-10, you wrote:
>
>Paul,
>
>Sippin too many beers again in the barn or too many karate hits to
>the brain... The Chech plane is an exact replica, save for a face lift.
No way.
I don't know much about the Sport Cruiser but they actually changed a
lot of it from the 601.
The tail assembly is a totally new design. The nose gear is
different. The rear fuselage seems to be completely worked over, as
it has a different profile (at the bottom, not just the turtledeck),
different corners, different rivet lines. They claim the fuselage to
be 2" wider. They did some changes with the wings -- at least the
flap attachment design is different and they use stringers in the wings.
Are there elements of the 601 design heritage still in the Sport
Cruiser? Yes, in the general wing & center fuselage design, the
firewall, the wing lockers, the canopy lift design, the general shape
of the cockpit, and so on.
The Sport Cruiser is certainly based on the 601 when one gets down to
the core structural design, but even then, was built stronger. To
pinch something off the ZBAG group list, Terry Philips wrote the
following based on a series of photos comparing structures that
someone else took:
>The SC wing structure is very similar to the 601XL, but there are
>significant differences (from memory--hopefully most of this is correct):
> * The spar caps at the root are 50% thicker than the 601XL [my
> note: well, .040" vs .032" the photo captions said, so it isn't quite 50%]
> * The spar caps appear to be tapered to thinner and narrower as
> one moves out the wing, avoiding the step changes in thickness
> common to the 601XL
> * The wing has two Z-angle stringers top and one bottom running
> most of the length of the wing
> * The wing spar web and top and bottom spar cap angles are made
> from a single piece of metal [my note: the web bends to form the
> cap rather than being rivetted on, for whatever that is worth]
> * The spar caps of the center spar are 50% thicker [my note:
> 3/8" in center section vs. 1/4"]
> * They use a pair of triangular braces to react the bending
> moment imposed on the center spar because it is not normal to the wing
> * The ailerons and flaps are hinged very differently than the
> simple piano hinges on the 601XL
> * I do no know if the aileron are counterbalanced
> * The airleron control rod is under the wing, rather than
> passing through a hole in the rear spar
> * You mentined the push-pull airleron control rods--I had forgotten them
>The fuselage structure looks to be more similar to an RV than to the 601XL.
>
>In my opinion, the major difference is that the 601XL was designed
>to be easily scratch built, whereas the SC was designed to only be
>sold as a kit with factory manufactured parts such as the tapered
>spar caps and 12 ft long one-piece spar web-spar cap angles.
[My addition: Rear spar attachment plate .093" vs .063" on the 601]
[My addition: Uprights around the wing attachment .063" vs .040" on the 601]
The dimensions are of course for the traditional 601 XL before the
post-structural failure upgrades.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON
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! --
|