Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:19 AM - [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight (willemdelange)
2. 04:28 AM - Re: XL wing fold in flight (willemdelange)
3. 05:32 AM - [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight (countzero)
4. 05:37 AM - Re: Re: XL wing fold in flight (mversteeg)
5. 06:23 AM - [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight (Gig Giacona)
6. 06:48 AM - how to make the wings stronger? (john butterfield)
7. 07:03 AM - Re: how to make the wings stronger? (countzero)
8. 07:07 AM - 601 Airworthiness Directive (K Dilks)
9. 07:16 AM - Re: how to make the wings stronger? (jaybannist@cs.com)
10. 07:35 AM - [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight (pavel569)
11. 07:37 AM - Re: Re: how to make the wings stronger? (ZodieRocket)
12. 07:44 AM - Re: how to make the wings stronger? (K Dilks)
13. 08:16 AM - Re: [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight (Dirk Zahtilla)
14. 09:16 AM - Re: how to make the wings stronger? (Jim Belcher)
15. 09:17 AM - Re: how to make the wings stronger? (Martin Pohl)
16. 12:41 PM - The UK LAA view on the Dutch XL (K Dilks)
17. 12:58 PM - Zenair Europe's comments on the Dutch accident and grounding (Craig Payne)
18. 01:51 PM - European 601 XL modifications (Peter Chapman)
19. 01:55 PM - Re: The UK LAA view on the Dutch XL (David Downey)
20. 02:19 PM - Re: [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight (Terry Phillips)
21. 05:44 PM - Re: The UK LAA view on the Dutch XL (Debo Cox)
22. 05:46 PM - Re: how to make the wings stronger? (Joemotis@aol.com)
23. 06:00 PM - Re: how to make the wings stronger? (Craig Payne)
24. 06:17 PM - Re: how to make the wings stronger? (Joemotis@aol.com)
25. 07:55 PM - Re: how to make the wings stronger? ()
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: [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight |
You are right that the lower MTOW is only because of the UL regulations in Europe.
The CZAW XL version has exactly the same wing and fuselage design and uses the
same materials.
Only the main landing gear has been changed to a lighter composite one and the
wheels are lighter. This is because under the German UL rules the empty weight
must be around 290 kg.
Other small changes can be found in finishing details of the canopy, instrument
panel, center console and firewall forward parts.
I expect zenair will dive in to the problem because it also affects the 650
Willem,
The Netherlands
--------
Willem de Lange
CH601XL owner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211144#211144
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: XL wing fold in flight |
keith, the european design is not really different from the US version, the wing
construction and the fuselage is the same. Just the main landing gear is of
composite and the wheels some lighter. This is because the empty weight must
be around 290 kg to meet the European regulations. The lower MTOW is just a matter
of regulation.
Other European changes are in details in the canopy, instrument panel and firewall
forward.
The 650 has the same wing design as the XL so I expect here the same problems.
Willem
The Netherlands.
--------
Willem de Lange
CH601XL owner
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211145#211145
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: [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight |
Willem,
I don't think it can be "exactly" the same, the Euro version has a different wing
rigging angle to the US XL. When this rigging angle was used for the new 650;
zenithair modified the rear spar attachment to reinforce it.
So I assume the CZAW XL has a beefed up rear spar attach just like the 650 or maybe
it doesn't need it with the lower gross weight.
Why was the rigging angle changed anyway?
Rob
> The CZAW XL version has exactly the same wing and fuselage design
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211156#211156
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: XL wing fold in flight |
Hello All,
As a native Dutch speaker living in Texas I looked at the original text:
> Uit een globaal onderzoek van de onderwerptekeningen van het
> Amerikaanseontwerp is naar
> voren gekomen dat de uitkomst van de sterkteberekeningen door de
> ontwerper wellicht te
> optimistisch was.
and the word 'globaal' does not equate in a 'comprehensive', as in
covering completely or
based on a full grasp, (of the) investigation. It could actually be
translated as 'cursory', as in
quick initial examination of the plans, suggesting that a more complete
investigation is going
to follow.
This just to make sure that the intend of the message is not lost in
translation. Clearly this
doesn't say anything about the conclusion which may or may not be valid.
Regards,
Maarten Versteeg
plans build 601XL, about to finish the second wing
> Time: 12:48:42 PM PST US From: Jim Belcher <"z
> 601"@anemicaardvark.com> Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing fold
> in flight On Tuesday 28 October 2008 14:17, Craig Payne wrote:
>> > <craig@craigandjean.com>
>> >
>> > Key point is this:
>> >
>> > "A comprehensive examination design drawings of the U.S. draft has shown
>> > that the outcome of the strength calculations by the designer was probably
>> > too optimistic."
>> >
>> > How do we reconcile this with the actual load testing (which was said to
>> > have been conducted by an independent outside engineer)?
>>
>
> Assuming there is a problem, the difference may lie in how the testing was
> done. The load testing I saw posted on the Zenith site appears to have been
> static, rather than dynamic, testing.
> -- ============================================= Those who can, do.
> Those who can't, sue. ===============================================
Those who can do, Those who can't simulate
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: [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight |
In the video that was included in the most recent addition of the newsletter it
is clearly stated that one of the reason for the 650 is to combine the attributes
of the different versions of the 601XL specifically named are the AMD LSA,
the US Kit and the European versions.
This tells me that there are differences and wing angle might not be the only one.
--------
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=211164#211164
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: | how to make the wings stronger? |
Hi List
I actually tend to believe that most of the wing accidents were caused by pilot
error/judgment. However, not being an engineer, am wondering how one would go
about making the wings stronger. There must be a way we could modify the wing/attaching
points or whatever to add a lot of strength to the wing assembly.
I have no idea or experience on how this could be done, but i am sure there
are plenty of people on this list that could figure out a way. It may be lighter
and cheaper that getting a parachute system. Even a parachute won't help if
a wing falls off at low altitude. I certainly would give up a few (lot) pounds
to not to ever have to worry about wing departure.
john
XL, corvair
Torrance, CA
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: how to make the wings stronger? |
Hello John,
You could reduce the loading on the wings by lowering your gross weight. This is
not the same as improving the structure pound for pound but is far simpler for
you to do.
Rob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211168#211168
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: | 601 Airworthiness Directive |
Please follow this like to see what Zenair Europe say .
regards to all
Kev
http://www.nak.no/mikro/html/Teknisk/Teknisk%20melding/AD_ZE-2008-01.pdf
--------
Austria ...guess where I work!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211169#211169
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: how to make the wings stronger? |
John,
This is not intended as a "flaming" response.? I just want share my thoughts on
structural modifications.
An aircraft structure is one of the most interdependent structural systems there
is.? You can't just "beef up" one part without knowing how that effects stresses
on adjacent parts and parts adjacent to those.? A building designer wouldn't
dream of adding a floor to a high-rise building without checking all the existing
columns, beams and foundations to see if they could take the additional
weight and moments. In order to do that, he would have to have access to, and
understand all the structural calculations. The same applies to an airplane.?
I would not trust ANY structural modification unless I knew, without a doubt,
that all the structural design calculations had been checked and that they would
allow such a modification. An airplane structure is just not a good thing
to "tinker" with.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: john butterfield <jdbutterfield@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 8:48 am
Subject: Zenith601-List: how to make the wings stronger?
Hi List
I actually tend to believe that most of the wing accidents were caused by pilot
error/judgment. However, not being an engineer, am wondering how one would go
about making the wings stronger. There must be a way we could modify the
wing/attaching points or whatever to add a lot of strength to the wing assembly.
I have no idea or experience on how this could be done, but i am sure there are
plenty of people on this list that could figure out a way. It may be lighter
and cheaper that getting a parachute system. Even a parachute won't help if a
wing falls off at low altitude. I certainly would give up a few (lot) pounds to
not to ever have to worry about wing departure.
john
XL, corvair
Torrance, CA
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight |
I just wonder who can fly these (if there is no other modification) - max gross
weight for UL in Europe=992lbs, empty weight (with Rotax 912S installed)=690lbs,
24gal=92l of fuel=144lbs. Then you'll get useful load of 158lbs. I could fly
it only at the morning before the breakfast and after bathroom use. I don't
know how much weight you can save on the gear but i doubt it will be more than
20-30lbs.
--------
Pavel
CA
Zodiac XL N581PM (Reserved)
Stratus Subaru EA-81
Tail, flaps, ailerons, wings done, fuselage is on the table ....
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211174#211174
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: how to make the wings stronger? |
When we look at the incidents, some are looked upon as pilot error, a
thunderstorm comes to mind. But also keep in mind that mechanical errors
can also creep in (missing bolts and cable tension are foremost in my
thoughts). There are many flying 601XL's and quite a few have amazing
hours accumulated. Zenair has time and time again tested the design for
many countries standards as well as use a 3rd party to test the
structure.
One thing I have seen in looking at some planes is that the cables are
not to spec in tension. These may have been set properly prior to first
flight but not stretched, which would allow slacking. We also tend not
to own a tension meter of which I would recommend having.
We have read letters from Chris on Zenith's website and AMD's as well as
a letter in the Zenair Newsletter about the importance of cable tension.
Attached is a letter issued from Zenair Europe as an AD. In America we
can only see an AD from the FAA so if we look on Zeniths website we see
a Zenair Safety Alert at
http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/ad-ze-2008-01.pdf
Read this and take it to action. IF you have been flying your plane
check it before next flight with a proper gauge. IF you're building
remember to pre-stretch your cables and check often during initial
flights and in a set interval during the life of the plane.
Entertaining an idea of changing a design that bears up in mathematical
and physical structural testing seems fool hardy and ill advised.
Ensuring that your plane is to standards as set forth by designer and
AC43-13b would be far more prudent and well in the reach of each
builder.
My Thoughts.
Mark Townsend Alma, Ontario
Zodiac CH650 C-GOXL, CH701 Rotax 912,
STOL CH750 Just started
www.ch601.org / www.ch701.com
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: how to make the wings stronger? |
The euro plane empty weight is quoted as 265 KG
most empty zodiacs come in at 320 to 340kg
So besides the undercarrige where else can they save that much weight.
I have looked hard to day around the net but I am sure they are using ,16 skins.
Maybe not on CZAW planes but on the ones from Dynaero in Portugal..
Not also the the data for loading . 6g is the ultimate so operational is 4g
. I wonder if guys are pulling 6 thinking there safe.
The lower figure of 4 is somtimes give and is on the plans.Check ZAC web site.
All in all with so many versions and makers / suppliers this is quite a mess to
work out.
--------
Austria ...guess where I work!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211176#211176
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: [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight |
I agree there are serious questions here. How could you remove the weight of
a Cont.O-200 in order to carry 2 people at that weight. Dousn't seem
possible...
Dirk
----- Original Message -----
From: "pavel569" <pm569@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:35 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight
>
> I just wonder who can fly these (if there is no other modification) - max
> gross weight for UL in Europe=992lbs, empty weight (with Rotax 912S
> installed)=690lbs, 24gal=92l of fuel=144lbs. Then you'll get useful load
> of 158lbs. I could fly it only at the morning before the breakfast and
> after bathroom use. I don't know how much weight you can save on the gear
> but i doubt it will be more than 20-30lbs.
>
> --------
> Pavel
> CA
> Zodiac XL N581PM (Reserved)
> Stratus Subaru EA-81
> Tail, flaps, ailerons, wings done, fuselage is on the table ....
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211174#211174
>
>
>
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: how to make the wings stronger? |
On Thursday 30 October 2008 08:48, john butterfield wrote:
> I actually tend to believe that most of the wing accidents were caused by
> pilot error/judgment. However, not being an engineer, am wondering how one
> would go about making the wings stronger. There must be a way we could
> modify the wing/attaching points or whatever to add a lot of strength to
> the wing assembly.
<snip>
First, let me say I agree with the caution that one cannot change one part of
a structure without considering the impact on the rest of the structure. We
can't afford to make structural changes to the design, without a lot more
information than is available.
Having said that, it has appeared to me (since I first looked at the design)
that the 6 AN5 bolts which connect the wing spar to the carry-through spar
are pretty small and few in number to the task. There isn't that much overlap
between the wing spar and the carry-through spar to transfer the wing loading
to the rest of the structure.
The commercial designs with which I'm most familiar had more and larger bolts,
and in some cases, close-tolerance bolts. There is, as I recall, much more
overlap between the spars to allow for reasonable spacing between the extra
bolts.
Is this the problem? Only the results of the various accident reports will
tell. But it could sure cause wing separation, if it is.
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
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: how to make the wings stronger? |
The average empty weight for CZAW CH601XLs seems to be around 310 - 320 kg. The
new European version might be different.
I checked my kit and I can assure that (on my CZAW 601XL) the wing sheet thickness
is 0.025".
Cheers Martin[/quote]
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211194#211194
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: | The UK LAA view on the Dutch XL |
Hope these links settle some minds out there.
Cant wait to start building !
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/ch601%20web.pdf
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/vno%20mag%20article.pdf
--------
Austria ...guess where I work!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211245#211245
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: | Zenair Europe's comments on the Dutch accident and grounding |
>From http://www.zenairulm.com/News/index_files/Page349.htm:
"Developing Situation with the Zodiac XL in the Netherlands:
On Saturday October 25, Zenair Sarl was informed by a Dutch Zodiac XL owner
that the Dutch CAA had issued an emergency Airworthiness Directive the
previous day, calling for the immediate grounding of all Zodiac XL in the
Netherlands, effective immediately.
This came as a complete surprise to Zenair Europe, Zenair Ltd and Zenith
Aircraft Co. as none of us had been previously contacted by the Dutch
authorities. We were further surprised that the basis for the NL-CAA action
was a preliminary accident report that offers no new findings regarding the
Zodiac XL design. Rather it makes allusion to various other accidents and
suggests that the "calculated strength" of the design is "probably too
optimistic".
Zenair is eager to discuss the basis for these statements with the Dutch CAA
and is keenly awaiting the return of CAA staff from their seasonal holiday.
In the mean time, we note that no past accident investigations involving the
CH 601 XL has ever found fault with the basic design; two accidents (2006 &
2008) are still being researched by the NTSB in the USA - completed design
analysis in each case, however, has already found the design's engineering
to be sound. We can also note that the Zodiac XL is not approved in Europe
just on "calculate strength", but on "demonstrated strength" as well
(extensive load-testing).
To help appease possible concerns among neighboring countries, Zenair has
taken the initiative of issuing an AD of its own. This AD (No. ZE-2008-01)
addresses an important issue that may have contributed to the accident
currently being investigated in Holland. We hope to share our thoughts on
the issue with the Dutch CAA as soon as we may, and look forward to
assisting with the on-going investigation in any way that we can.
We believe that everyone concerned here has a common goal: to quickly find
the solution(s) that will permit the Zenair CH 601 XL to once again be
deemed "airworthy" by the CAA in the Netherlands.
Please return to this page periodically for updates on this evolving
situation."
And here is a link to the cable tension AD:
http://www.zenairulm.com/News/pdfdocs/ZE-2008-01.pdf
-- Craig
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: | European 601 XL modifications |
At 12:17 30-10-08, you wrote:
Somebody really needs to have a good talk with
Zenith and figure out what the differences
between the different versions of the XL are. To
an outsider here, the arguments seem to be going
in circles. Are skin thicknesses changed or not?
Aircraft designations get used loosely. There is
the 601 XL ULM, with the ULM designating the
light version. (ULM being a common acronym for
ultralights in Europe, Ultra-Lger-Motoris).
But sometimes the ULM isn't specified for an XL.
It's not clear to me whether there is a normal
empty weight 601 XL in Europe, or if all have had
the lightening program done. And it starts to
look like the gross weight is not fundamentally
changed for the lightened ones, that they are
still apparently good for 4g at 1320 lbs, but the
gross weight is reduced as needed if operated in
a local ultralight category. But that's not clear.
For the 650, there's the 650 E (E for Europe),
sometimes listed with the same specs as the 601 XL in Europe.
I haven't seen much in some simple web searches
about lightening the XL for Europe:
--From http://www.zenairulm.com/Home/:
"As with previous European 601s, the 650 E will
again come equipped with a two-piece landing gear
system and various other light-weight components
including wheels, brakes and smaller fuel tanks (2 x 46 liters)."
(= 12 gallons, vs. 15 gallon tanks for the US version.)
-- From airpal.eu:
"Zenair has developed the Zodiac CH 650 E / CH
601 XL ULM version specifically for the European
market, where light aircraft rules restrict the
gross weight to 450 kg. (992 lbs.). The lightened
European Zodiac XL is the result of continuing
development, and is now available as a all-new
"100% Finished Airframe" Quick-Build Aircraft Kit.
The standard ZODIAC XL ULM kits, manufactured by
Zenith Aircraft in the United States, are being
distributed across Europe from Zenair Europe
www.zenairulm.com/Home/index.htm (Belgium/France)
and established Zenair dealers
www.zenairulm.com/Representatives/index_files/Page1679.htm
. Lighter materials are used in the European
version of the XL. This includes an all-new
lightweight composite landing gear main spring,
lighter European-made wheels and brakes, and some
lightened airframe items. As tested with the
standard 100-hp Rotax 912S engine installation, a
basic European Zodiac XL ULM weighs just 265 kg. (585 lbs.)"
It is still a pretty aggressive weight reduction
program, given that the standard XL is quoted as
690 lbs empty, also with a 912 S, 105 pounds more.
Factory numbers are of course just a starting
point and don't always reflect the typical
aircraft. Martin Pohl in his 75 page engineering
analysis uses 310 kg or 683 lbs as typical for
flying European XL's. The weight category a pilot
will use will naturally affect his choice of optional equipment.
So it is still uncertain (to me) exactly what a European 601 XL is.
Peter Chapman
Toronto, ON 601 HDS / 912 / C-GZDC
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: The UK LAA view on the Dutch XL |
I think you should post these files to the files area of the group.
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, K Dilks <kevin.dilks@liwest.at> wrote:
From: K Dilks <kevin.dilks@liwest.at>
Subject: Zenith601-List: The UK LAA view on the Dutch XL
<kevin.dilks@liwest.at>
Hope these links settle some minds out there.
Cant wait to start building !
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/ch601%20web.pdf
http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/vno%20mag%20article.p
df
--------
Austria ...guess where I work!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211245#211245
=0A=0A=0A
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: [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight |
Larry
Could you please contact me offline? Thank you.
Terry
do not archive
-----Original message-----
From: LHusky@aol.com
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: [Probable Spam] Re: XL wing fold in flight
> I have to agree with you Alberto. I thought the quality of the plane and
> the construction was excellent. I have not seen a QBK in the US that was built
> as good.
>
> Larry Husky
> Madras, Oregon
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: The UK LAA view on the Dutch XL |
Great articles Kevin. Thanks for posting them. The Vno one is a keeper.
Debo Cox
Scratchbuilt XL/Corvair
Airframe 80% complete
www.mykitlog.com/debo
do not archive
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, K Dilks <kevin.dilks@liwest.at> wrote:
> From: K Dilks <kevin.dilks@liwest.at>
> Subject: Zenith601-List: The UK LAA view on the Dutch XL
> To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 3:41 PM
> <kevin.dilks@liwest.at>
>
> Hope these links settle some minds out there.
>
> Cant wait to start building !
>
> http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/ch601%20web.pdf
>
>
> http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/vno%20mag%20article.pdf
>
> --------
> Austria ...guess where I work!
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=211245#211245
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
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: how to make the wings stronger? |
Maybe we should learn from this pilot!
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCbkBfdBrQ&eurl=http://www.chilloutzone.de/fi
les/08102703.html_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCbkBfdBrQ&eurl=http://www.chilloutzone.de/files/08102703.html)
This is incredible.
Joe Motis
Do not archive
In a message dated 10/30/2008 9:17:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
z601@anemicaardvark.com writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com>
On Thursday 30 October 2008 08:48, john butterfield wrote:
> I actually tend to believe that most of the wing accidents were caused by
> pilot error/judgment. However, not being an engineer, am wondering how one
> would go about making the wings stronger. There must be a way we could
> modify the wing/attaching points or whatever to add a lot of strength to
> the wing assembly.
<snip>
First, let me say I agree with the caution that one cannot change one part
of
a structure without considering the impact on the rest of the structure. We
can't afford to make structural changes to the design, without a lot more
information than is available.
Having said that, it has appeared to me (since I first looked at the design)
that the 6 AN5 bolts which connect the wing spar to the carry-through spar
are pretty small and few in number to the task. There isn't that much
overlap
between the wing spar and the carry-through spar to transfer the wing
loading
to the rest of the structure.
The commercial designs with which I'm most familiar had more and larger
bolts,
and in some cases, close-tolerance bolts. There is, as I recall, much more
overlap between the spars to allow for reasonable spacing between the extra
bolts.
Is this the problem? Only the results of the various accident reports will
tell. But it could sure cause wing separation, if it is.
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
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: | how to make the wings stronger? |
Yeah (as previously mentioned) it is a pretty good fake:
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsiderBlog_ViralVideo_KillaThrill_L
ostWingLanding_199096-1.html
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Joemotis@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: how to make the wings stronger?
Maybe we should learn from this pilot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCbkBfdBrQ
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCbkBfdBrQ&eurl=http://www.chilloutzone.de/
files/08102703.html> &eurl=http://www.chilloutzone.de/files/08102703.html
This is incredible.
Joe Motis
Do not archive
In a message dated 10/30/2008 9:17:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
z601@anemicaardvark.com writes:
On Thursday 30 October 2008 08:48, john butterfield wrote:
> I actually tend to believe that most of the wing accidents were caused by
> pilot error/judgment. However, not being an engineer, am wondering how
one
> would go about making the wings stronger. There must be a way we could
> modify the wing/attaching points or whatever to add a lot of strength to
> the wing assembly.
<snip>
First, let me say I agree with the caution that one cannot change one part
of
a structure without considering the impact on the rest of the structure. We
can't afford to make structural changes to the design, without a lot more
information than is available.
Having said that, it has appeared to me (since I first looked at the design)
that the 6 AN5 bolts which connect the wing spar to the carry-through spar
are pretty small and few in number to the task. There isn't that much
overlap
between the wing spar and the carry-through spar to transfer the wing
loading
to the rest of the structure.
The commercial designs with which I'm most familiar had more and larger
bolts,
and in some cases, close-tolerance bolts. There is, as I recall, much more
overlap between the spars to allow for reasonable spacing between the extra
bolts.
Is this the problem? Only the results of the various accident reports will
tell. But it could sure cause wing separation, if it is.
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
=======================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
===================e the es y --> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
nbsp; - List Contribution Web Site ;
========================
_____
Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check
p://travel.aol.com/discount-travel?ncid=emlcntustrav00000001> out Today's
Hot 5 Travel Deals!
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: how to make the wings stronger? |
It certainly faked me out!
Joe Motis
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 10/30/2008 6:01:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
craig@craigandjean.com writes:
Yeah (as previously mentioned) it is a pretty good fake:
_http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsiderBlog_ViralVideo_KillaThrill_Lo
stWingLanding_199096-1.html_
(http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsiderBlog_ViralVideo_KillaThrill_LostWingLanding_199096-1.html)
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joemotis@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: how to make the wings stronger?
Maybe we should learn from this pilot!
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCbkBfdBrQ&eurl=http://www.chilloutzone.de/fi
les/08102703.html_
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCbkBfdBrQ&eurl=http://www.chilloutzone.de/files/08102703.html)
This is incredible.
Joe Motis
Do not archive
In a message dated 10/30/2008 9:17:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
z601@anemicaardvark.com writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com>
On Thursday 30 October 2008 08:48, john butterfield wrote:
> I actually tend to believe that most of the wing accidents were caused by
> pilot error/judgment. However, not being an engineer, am wondering how one
> would go about making the wings stronger. There must be a way we could
> modify the wing/attaching points or whatever to add a lot of strength to
> the wing assembly.
<snip>
First, let me say I agree with the caution that one cannot change one part
of
a structure without considering the impact on the rest of the structure. We
can't afford to make structural changes to the design, without a lot more
information than is available.
Having said that, it has appeared to me (since I first looked at the design)
that the 6 AN5 bolts which connect the wing spar to the carry-through spar
are pretty small and few in number to the task. There isn't that much
overlap
between the wing spar and the carry-through spar to transfer the wing
loading
to the rest of the structure.
The commercial designs with which I'm most familiar had more and larger
bolts,
and in some cases, close-tolerance bolts. There is, as I recall, much more
overlap between the spars to allow for reasonable spacing between the extra
bolts.
Is this the problem? Only the results of the various accident reports will
tell. But it could sure cause wing separation, if it is.
====================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
=======================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
===================e the es y --> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS nbsp; - List
Contribution Web Site ;
____________________________________
Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel
Deals!
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot
5 Travel Deals!
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: how to make the wings stronger? |
I'm not an engineer, and don't even play one in commercials, but I don't
recall anything surfacing in any of the failures that indicated sheared
through-bolts. 6 AN5's per wing ought to hold several thousand ponds
more then 1320 at 6G's. However, the Dutch report is the first one, I
think, to have mentioned that the spar reinforcements were twisted and
bent outside the wing/fusalage connection. If memory serves, at that
point you have two (roughly) quarter inch by one and a quarter solid
aluminum bars, a web of .040 or .060 sheet, and a flange of .040, for
top and bottom. All of that is held by driven rivets (I forget the size)
It would be really useful to see pictures of the failed area. Could the
rivets have not been tight? If the rivets didn't do their job, then the
individual units weren't supporting each other, and the reinforcement
bars could have given, one by one. Just a theory........
Paul Rodriguez
601XL/Corvair
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Belcher<mailto:z601@anemicaardvark.com>
To: zenith601-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith601-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: how to make the wings stronger?
<z601@anemicaardvark.com<mailto:z601@anemicaardvark.com>>
On Thursday 30 October 2008 08:48, john butterfield wrote:
> I actually tend to believe that most of the wing accidents were
caused by
> pilot error/judgment. However, not being an engineer, am wondering
how one
> would go about making the wings stronger. There must be a way we
could
> modify the wing/attaching points or whatever to add a lot of
strength to
> the wing assembly.
<snip>
First, let me say I agree with the caution that one cannot change one
part of
a structure without considering the impact on the rest of the
structure. We
can't afford to make structural changes to the design, without a lot
more
information than is available.
Having said that, it has appeared to me (since I first looked at the
design)
that the 6 AN5 bolts which connect the wing spar to the carry-through
spar
are pretty small and few in number to the task. There isn't that much
overlap
between the wing spar and the carry-through spar to transfer the wing
loading
to the rest of the structure.
The commercial designs with which I'm most familiar had more and
larger bolts,
and in some cases, close-tolerance bolts. There is, as I recall, much
more
overlap between the spars to allow for reasonable spacing between the
extra
bolts.
Is this the problem? Only the results of the various accident reports
will
tell. But it could sure cause wing separation, if it is.
====================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
=======================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
=======================
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List<http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Zenith601-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
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! --
|