Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:32 AM - Re: XL wing concerns (Martin Pohl)
2. 02:48 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (Paul Mulwitz)
3. 03:30 AM - Re: XL wing concerns (europa2)
4. 03:35 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (David Johnson)
5. 03:49 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (Paul Mulwitz)
6. 04:08 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (Paul Mulwitz)
7. 05:07 AM - Re: XL wing concerns (aerobat)
8. 05:12 AM - Re: More on the XL grounding (chris Sinfield)
9. 05:17 AM - Re: Re: More on the XL grounding (Iberplanes IGL)
10. 05:27 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns ()
11. 05:42 AM - Re: XL wing concerns (aerobat)
12. 06:35 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (David Downey)
13. 06:48 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (Carlos Sa)
14. 06:54 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (Jay Maynard)
15. 07:13 AM - Re: XL wing concerns (Sabrina)
16. 07:22 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (Jay Maynard)
17. 07:25 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (jaybannist@cs.com)
18. 08:26 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (Bryan Martin)
19. 08:46 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (Jeyoung65@aol.com)
20. 08:53 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (A.F.RUPP@att.net)
21. 09:02 AM - Re: Simple rivet test/unzip (n85ae)
22. 09:08 AM - Zodiac CH601XL "Problems" (jaybannist@cs.com)
23. 09:31 AM - Re: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip (Ron Pollock)
24. 09:38 AM - Re: 601 problems (Scotsman)
25. 09:53 AM - Re: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip (David Downey)
26. 10:21 AM - Re: XL wing concerns (Martin Pohl)
27. 10:48 AM - Re: XL wing concerns (Sabrina)
28. 11:05 AM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (A.F.RUPP@att.net)
29. 11:21 AM - Re: XL wing concerns (Martin Pohl)
30. 11:38 AM - Re: XL wing concerns (Martin Pohl)
31. 12:09 PM - Re: XL wing concerns (Sabrina)
32. 12:23 PM - Re: XL wing concerns (Sabrina)
33. 12:37 PM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (Jim Belcher)
34. 12:44 PM - Re: XL wing concerns (Sabrina)
35. 01:06 PM - radio selection help (chris Sinfield)
36. 01:19 PM - Re: radio selection help (Craig Payne)
37. 01:21 PM - Re: radio selection help (Gig Giacona)
38. 01:51 PM - Re: radio selection help (Craig Payne)
39. 02:05 PM - Re: radio selection help (jaybannist@cs.com)
40. 02:18 PM - Re: Re: 601 problems (LarryMcFarland)
41. 02:22 PM - Re: radio selection help (chris Sinfield)
42. 02:37 PM - Re: Re: radio selection help (Craig Payne)
43. 02:46 PM - Re: radio selection help (Gig Giacona)
44. 03:42 PM - Re: Re: XL wing concerns (David Downey)
45. 03:57 PM - Re: Re: 601 problems (David Downey)
46. 04:03 PM - Re: 601 problems (rans6andrew)
47. 04:21 PM - Re: Re: 601 problems (Paul Mulwitz)
48. 07:17 PM - Re: Re: radio selection help (Randy)
49. 07:42 PM - Re: Zenith-List: Zodiac CH601XL (Juan Vega)
50. 08:21 PM - Re: radio selection help (chris Sinfield)
51. 08:33 PM - Re: Re: radio selection help (Randy)
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: XL wing concerns |
Paul,
> If you bought your plane from Czech Aircraft
> Works, then you have a real problem since, as I
> understand it, they have gone bankrupt.
Just to make things clear: CZAW was the official contractor for Zenair until the
end of 2006, i.e. all Zenair CH601XL-kits for Europe were delivered through
CZAW.
I contacted Zenair US in autumn 2005 to order my CH601XL and was redirected by
them to CZAW ("kits in Europe are solely sold through CZAW"). However my serial
number is a real Zenair number and my kit is a real Zenair kit.
Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220693#220693
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 concerns |
Hi Martin,
Thanks for writing and clearing up my misunderstanding.
Does the relationship between Zenair and CZAW mean you can get
warranty service from Zenair?
Also, I understood the European model XLs have several significant
differences from the other ones. The only one I can identify is the
landing gear being composite rather than solid aluminum. I thought
there were empty weight and possibly gross weight differences as well.
Paul
At 12:32 AM 12/23/2008, you wrote:
>
>Paul,
>
>
> > If you bought your plane from Czech Aircraft
> > Works, then you have a real problem since, as I
> > understand it, they have gone bankrupt.
>
>
>Just to make things clear: CZAW was the official contractor for
>Zenair until the end of 2006, i.e. all Zenair CH601XL-kits for
>Europe were delivered through CZAW.
>
>I contacted Zenair US in autumn 2005 to order my CH601XL and was
>redirected by them to CZAW ("kits in Europe are solely sold through
>CZAW"). However my serial number is a real Zenair number and my kit
>is a real Zenair kit.
>
>Martin
>
>--------
>Martin Pohl
>Zodiac XL QBK
>8645 Jona, Switzerland
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: XL wing concerns |
It should be stressed that the CZAW production of Zenair aircraft, whether RTF
or kit, were built under Zenair licence.
However, at the end of 2006 Zenair and Czech Aircraft works (CZAW) mutually agreed
to discontinue the manufacture of Zenair aircraft by CZAW .
The build plans of the CZAW supplied XL kit, has Chris Heintz's copyright on the
bottom of each page. Therefore, with regards to accidents involving the Zenair
type aircraft, it is appropriate that Chris is involved in discussion with
the appropriate aviation authority.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220699#220699
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 concerns |
I've been 'sitting on the sidelines' watching the exchanges that have been
flying around!
Now I'm sticking my head above the parapet.
I'm in the UK, I bought my 601XL kit from CZAW, as they were the European
agents for Zenith.
>From my experience, it is impossible to get any kind of support from Zenith,
they just don't want to know.
My kit is virtually finished - ready for the final inspections before test
flying - and now it's grounded, so you can imagine I'm really happy!!!!
The drawings that came with the kit were the full Zenith set, as far as I
know exactly the same as you get in the USA. Wherever there is a difference,
there is an additional page showing the differences, so it is easy to see
how different the CZAW kit is.
As Paul said, the kit includes the composite U/C legs, but virtually all the
other changes are very minor - things like the rudder turnbuckles are at the
front, near the pedals, rather than at the rear.
The only significant change that I am aware of is that they have changed the
angle of incidence of the wing by lowering the rear attachment point, but no
structural change there.
I have not been able to find any structural difference, the specified
thicknesses for the skins, ribs, etc. are all the same in the 2 sets of
drawings.
Mine is the VLA version with a MTOW of 560Kgs, there is a 'microlight'
version which is limited (by the definition of a microlight) to 450Kgs and I
think that may (but I'm not sure) make use of thinner metal in some areas.
Dave Johnson
Oxfordshire - in the UK
601XL with Jab. 3300
do not archive (or flame - I forgot my asbestos pants!!)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Thanks for writing and clearing up my misunderstanding.
>
> Does the relationship between Zenair and CZAW mean you can get warranty
> service from Zenair?
>
> Also, I understood the European model XLs have several significant
> differences from the other ones. The only one I can identify is the
> landing gear being composite rather than solid aluminum. I thought there
> were empty weight and possibly gross weight differences as well.
>
> Paul
>
>
> At 12:32 AM 12/23/2008, you wrote:
>>
>>Paul,
>>
>>
>> > If you bought your plane from Czech Aircraft
>> > Works, then you have a real problem since, as I
>> > understand it, they have gone bankrupt.
>>
>>
>>Just to make things clear: CZAW was the official contractor for Zenair
>>until the end of 2006, i.e. all Zenair CH601XL-kits for Europe were
>>delivered through CZAW.
>>
>>I contacted Zenair US in autumn 2005 to order my CH601XL and was
>>redirected by them to CZAW ("kits in Europe are solely sold through
>>CZAW"). However my serial number is a real Zenair number and my kit is a
>>real Zenair kit.
>>
>>Martin
>>
>>--------
>>Martin Pohl
>>Zodiac XL QBK
>>8645 Jona, Switzerland
>
>
>
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: XL wing concerns |
David,
Chris has indeed been involved in accident investigations and
supplemental structure testing for the XL. He has also issued some
letters recommending actions by XL builders/owners. In particular,
he has suggested a need to keep control cables tensioned
properly. He has also mentioned that the design trade-off giving
very good pitch control at low speeds has made it possible to cause
damage with abrupt stick inputs at high speeds - particularly in the
negative G direction.
On the other hand, I understand Chris has been retired (in France)
for several years now. I know there have been a number of
engineering changes made to the XL since he retired. I must conclude
there have been other engineers making design changes even though the
drawings still show only his name.
There are a number of engineers familiar with the XL design. They
have been readily available for builder assistance, and I presume
there has been plenty of engineering support for the various
government led accident investigations. The only comments I have
seen suggesting lack of engineering support for those investigations
have come from people too ashamed of their identities to include
their names along with their comments.
Paul
Camas, WA USA
At 03:29 AM 12/23/2008, you wrote:
>It should be stressed that the CZAW production of Zenair aircraft,
>whether RTF or kit, were built under Zenair licence.
>However, at the end of 2006 Zenair and Czech Aircraft works (CZAW)
>mutually agreed to discontinue the manufacture of Zenair aircraft by CZAW .
>The build plans of the CZAW supplied XL kit, has Chris Heintz's
>copyright on the bottom of each page. Therefore, with regards to
>accidents involving the Zenair type aircraft, it is appropriate that
>Chris is involved in discussion with the appropriate aviation authority.
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: XL wing concerns |
Hi David,
After several years on this list and working daily on my own XL I am
still confused by the various companies and people involved with this
design. It seems I am not the only one.
Recent posts have claimed CZAW was an agent for both Zenith and
Zenair. These are two completely different companies which exist in
two different countries. Zenair is the Canadian company that
produces parts and kits designed originally by Chris Heintz and
Zenith Aircraft Company is a USA company that also sells some of
those same designs. I know there is a close relationship of some
sort between Zenith and Zenair since I had to wait for Zenair to make
a new wing spar for shipment to Zenith when I ordered a replacement
wing kit. The remaining wing kit parts were manufactured at
Zenith. I strongly suspect there never was a relationship between
CZAW and Zenith but there was some sort of licensing agreement
between CZAW and Zenair.
I don't really understand the relationship between CZAW and either of
the companies mentioned above. However, I don't believe they acted
as an agent for them. Rather, I think CZAW produced airplanes based
on the same CH designs (at least in some cases) and sold them
primarily in Europe. I am also aware of at least one CZAW XL that
was sold as a complete airplane to a list member in Virginia.
There is similar confusion over the various members of the Heintz
family. Chris is the original designer for the CHxxx line of
aircraft. He is currently retired. He has 4 sons who currently make
their fortune working with his designs. Sebastian Heintz and
Nicholas Heintz both work for Zenith Aircraft Company in Mexico,
Missouri. Michael Heintz is involved with a California company that
acts as an agent for Zenith. There is another one whose name I can't
quote who is involved with AMD in Georgia.
Let me apologize if I am still confused over the various company
names and locations and various members of the Heintz family involved
with those companies. Some times I suspect they went out of their
way to keep their customers confused over these questions.
Paul
XL getting close
Camas, WA USA
At 03:35 AM 12/23/2008, you wrote:
>I'm in the UK, I bought my 601XL kit from CZAW, as they were the
>European agents for Zenith.
>
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: XL wing concerns |
None of the UK CH601XLs are microlights, they all have MTOW of 560kg apart from
two that appear to be 590kg.
My own XL came from CZAW complete with it's detailed build drawings that have ZENITH
AIRCRAFT in bold print, all rights reserved design by CHRIS HEINTZ and copyright
2002 Chris Heinz on every sheet apart from the few CZAW modifications
ie undercarriage.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220707#220707
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: More on the XL grounding |
Desire..
denial isn't just a river in Australia... ?????????????? Don't you mean Egypt??
Chris
Sydney AUSTRALIA..
Do not archive..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220710#220710
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: More on the XL grounding |
...... yeah for the "niles" river.
2008/12/23 chris Sinfield <chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
> chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
>
> Desire..
>
> denial isn't just a river in Australia... ?????????????? Don't you mean
> Egypt??
>
> Chris
> Sydney AUSTRALIA..
> Do not archive..
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220710#220710
>
>
--
Alberto Martin
www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain
----------------------------------------------
Zodiac 601 XL Builder
Serial: 6-7011
Tail Kit: Finished
Wings: Not Started
Fuselage: Ordered
Engine: Jabiru 3300
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: XL wing concerns |
Wow, I usually stay out of this stuff but come one guys. I have see 5 of you
flame people, swearing there are differences between European and US XL's,
then flame saying "your problem is with CZAW not Chris Heinz!" With all of
this bickering I have see the US "Zenith is Magnificant and Perfect"
attitude to a embarrassing point. You guys were wrong with your statements
and when it was pointed out by other European owners you accepted it but
after the brutal tongue bashing you gave the least you can do is admit you
are wrong and APOLOGIZE.
Yeah go ahead and flame me, I only have a few posts here. Yeah I sold my
601HD along time ago, but I bought a new set of plans and will build a new
601HD when I get around to it, but please don't let that stop you flame me
too, it seems to be all you can do.
You guys forget, this is a builders list. It is here for builders and if
they have a problem this is the place to vent. Remember we are supposed to
be supportive, not DEFENSIVE. None of us designed or sold Zenair, Zenith,
CZAW or AMD products, but we all own or are building them. I have great
compassion for the guys in Europe who are grounded. I can understand their
anger and frustraition.
What should have been said to the aerobat and the others who posted:
Wow, that is news to me. Well if it is true hopefully it will get worked out
soon. Being here in the USA we do not hear the same things, we can only read
what is posted by Zenith. Where did you get your information? Is your plane
built? Or still working on it?
Well something to that effect, you get the idea. Instead what I saw was a
immeadiate verbal attack to a fellow builder who has problems beyond his
control and who is very frustraited and needed support and a positive
response.
Well you guys, it is close to Christmas and to a bright new year. Lets try a
little friendship to people we don't know. Who knows someone might even show
you the same when you need it.
David M.
Petaluma CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of aerobat
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:07 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns
None of the UK CH601XLs are microlights, they all have MTOW of 560kg apart
from two that appear to be 590kg.
My own XL came from CZAW complete with it's detailed build drawings that
have ZENITH AIRCRAFT in bold print, all rights reserved design by CHRIS
HEINTZ and copyright 2002 Chris Heinz on every sheet apart from the few CZAW
modifications ie undercarriage.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220707#220707
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: XL wing concerns |
Excellent post Skyguy. Merry Christmas to you and your family.
Happy flying.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220718#220718
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: XL wing concerns |
thank you Dave. Have a blessed Christmas and a satisfying new year.
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Tue, 12/23/08, skyguynca@skyguynca.com <skyguynca@skyguynca.com> wro
te:
From: skyguynca@skyguynca.com <skyguynca@skyguynca.com>
Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns
Wow, I usually stay out of this stuff but come one guys. I have see 5 of yo
u
flame people, swearing there are differences between European and US XL's,
then flame saying "your problem is with CZAW not Chris Heinz!" With
all of
this bickering I have see the US "Zenith is Magnificant and Perfect"
attitude to a embarrassing point. You guys were wrong with your statements
and when it was pointed out by other European owners you accepted it but
after the brutal tongue bashing you gave the least you can do is admit you
are wrong and APOLOGIZE.
Yeah go ahead and flame me, I only have a few posts here. Yeah I sold my
601HD along time ago, but I bought a new set of plans and will build a new
601HD when I get around to it, but please don't let that stop you flame me
too, it seems to be all you can do.
You guys forget, this is a builders list. It is here for builders and if
they have a problem this is the place to vent. Remember we are supposed to
be supportive, not DEFENSIVE. None of us designed or sold Zenair, Zenith,
CZAW or AMD products, but we all own or are building them. I have great
compassion for the guys in Europe who are grounded. I can understand their
anger and frustraition.
What should have been said to the aerobat and the others who posted:
Wow, that is news to me. Well if it is true hopefully it will get worked ou
t
soon. Being here in the USA we do not hear the same things, we can only rea
d
what is posted by Zenith. Where did you get your information? Is your plan
e
built? Or still working on it?
Well something to that effect, you get the idea. Instead what I saw was a
immeadiate verbal attack to a fellow builder who has problems beyond his
control and who is very frustraited and needed support and a positive
response.
Well you guys, it is close to Christmas and to a bright new year. Lets try
a
little friendship to people we don't know. Who knows someone might even
show
you the same when you need it.
David M.
Petaluma CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of aerobat
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:07 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns
<rhood2000@hotmail.com>
None of the UK CH601XLs are microlights, they all have MTOW of 560kg apart
from two that appear to be 590kg.
My own XL came from CZAW complete with it's detailed build drawings that
have ZENITH AIRCRAFT in bold print, all rights reserved design by CHRIS
HEINTZ and copyright 2002 Chris Heinz on every sheet apart from the few CZA
W
modifications ie undercarriage.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220707#220707
=0A=0A=0A
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: XL wing concerns |
Well said, David !
Merry Christmas and a Great New Year !
Carlos
CH601-HD, plans
do not archive
2008/12/23 <skyguynca@skyguynca.com>
>
> ... Instead what I saw was a
> immeadiate verbal attack to a fellow builder who has problems beyond his
> control and who is very frustraited and needed support and a positive
> response.
>
> Well you guys, it is close to Christmas and to a bright new year. Lets try
> a
> little friendship to people we don't know. Who knows someone might even
> show
> you the same when you need it.
>
> David M.
> Petaluma CA
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: XL wing concerns |
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 04:07:00AM -0800, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
> There is similar confusion over the various members of the Heintz family.
> Chris is the original designer for the CHxxx line of aircraft. He is
> currently retired. He has 4 sons who currently make their fortune working
> with his designs. Sebastian Heintz and Nicholas Heintz both work for
> Zenith Aircraft Company in Mexico, Missouri. Michael Heintz is involved
> with a California company that acts as an agent for Zenith. There is
> another one whose name I can't quote who is involved with AMD in Georgia.
That's Mathieu Heintz.
Who runs Zenair in Canada? I know that AMD gets quick build kits from them
for completion and sale, as I watched two of them being delivered while I
was at the AMD factory to take delivery of my airplane. Is that where Zenith
gets their quick build kits, or do they start from parts and do their own
assembly? I'd thought that Zenith was, basically, the US distributor for
Zenair.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
Message 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: XL wing concerns |
"The only significant change that I am aware of is that they have changed the angle
of incidence of the wing by lowering the rear attachment point, but no structural
change there." End Quote.
CZAW did this 2" down--2 degree decalage change by TWISTING the main spars rather
than re-setting the main carry through spar... Can the LAA find any static
testing of this new twisted main spar anywhere in CZAW's books?
I am sure the FAA and NTSB recognize this and that is why they contacted CZAW owners
here in the U.S. The 650 changes the main spar set to match the new rear
spar angle.
When your LAA, through a former Zenith dealer, takes the time to repeatedly contact
a 15 year old girl in the U.S. about the addition of SS A5 rivets on the
inboard ailerons aft hinge portion attach points and requests more information
each time, it means only one thing, they are very thorough. I applaud the
LAA. They don't believe for one minute that this was ONLY significant change
CZAW made. The AMD XLi and the Sabrina roll out at 850 pounds empty. As the
Germans recently pointed out, how in the world do you EU CZAW owners get your
aircraft to come in at the required EU weights? I have been sent photos showing
.016 skin thicknesses on some CZAW aircraft kits where Zenith plans spec
.025 Are there static tests of the .016 CZAW aircraft anywhere to be had?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220744#220744
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: XL wing concerns |
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 07:13:03AM -0800, Sabrina wrote:
> When your LAA, through a former Zenith dealer, takes the time to
> repeatedly contact a 15 year old girl in the U.S. about the addition of SS
> A5 rivets on the inboard ailerons aft hinge portion attach points and
> requests more information each time, it means only one thing, they are
> very thorough.
It also means the 15-year-old in question has earned a significant amount of
respect as an aeronautical engineer. Personally, I think it's well-deserved.
> The AMD XLi and the Sabrina roll out at 850 pounds empty.
My AMD XLi did, but it's one of the heavier ones due to the level of
equipment installed. AMD's aircraft tend to be in the 750-800 pound range
with more usual levels of equipment, or 790-850 with BRS parachutes (which
mine does not have).
> As the Germans recently pointed out, how in the world do you EU CZAW
> owners get your aircraft to come in at the required EU weights?
This is a really good question, to which I've never heard a definitive
straight answer.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
Message 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: XL wing concerns |
Jay,
I know that Zenith Aircraft Company in Mexico MO does manufacture parts.? I have
observed their CNC routers making skins and actual people making wing ribs and
fabricating and welding various 4130 steel assemblies.? Obviously, they don't
make engines, flap actuators, wheels and brake assemblies, strobe/nav light
sets and such.? I know that wing spars are made elsewhere.? I really don't know
where the assembly of the ready-to-go quick build kit components is done. Sebastian
runs the Mexico facility and Nick is now in Europe.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Sent: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 8:54 am
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 04:07:00AM -0800, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
> There is similar confusion over the various members of the Heintz family.
> Chris is the original designer for the CHxxx line of aircraft. He is
> currently retired. He has 4 sons who currently make their fortune working
> with his designs. Sebastian Heintz and Nicholas Heintz both work for
> Zenith Aircraft Company in Mexico, Missouri. Michael Heintz is involved
> with a California company that acts as an agent for Zenith. There is
> another one whose name I can't quote who is involved with AMD in Georgia.
That's Mathieu Heintz.
Who runs Zenair in Canada? I know that AMD gets quick build kits from them
for completion and sale, as I watched two of them being delivered while I
was at the AMD factory to take delivery of my airplane. Is that where Zenith
gets their quick build kits, or do they start from parts and do their own
assembly? I'd thought that Zenith was, basically, the US distributor for
Zenair.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: XL wing concerns |
There may have been a change to the later versions of the Zenith plans
where .016 skins have been changed to .025. In my early plans, every
skin aft of the cabin area is .016 and so are the ailerons, all the
other skins are .025.
Some people were concerned about oil canning on the aft fuselage area
and were considering using .025 or .020 instead of .016. I think that
Zenith approved that modification. I seem to recall that Zenith may
have changed the plans to include thicker skins on the aft fuselage
area. How thick is the aluminum in that area on your plans? If there
was a change in the plans, maybe the CZAW planes were built from
earlier plans.
I recall some builders were considering using the thicker aluminum
because .016 was not readily available in their region. The only down
side I can see of using thicker skins on the aft fuselage would be the
extra weight and a small change in the CG that would need to be taken
into account. On the other hand, using thicker skins on the control
surfaces could have serious consequences.
>
> <chicago2paris@msn.com>
>
> I have been sent photos showing .016 skin thicknesses on some CZAW
> aircraft kits where Zenith plans spec .025 Are there static tests
> of the .016 CZAW aircraft anywhere to be had?
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: XL wing concerns |
FYI: My 601 HD plans has .016 for the Rear Top and Rear Bottom skin at .016"
(Ref: 6V-8 drawing dated 04/01) as well at the Wing Nose Skin and Wingtip
Rear Top Skin ( Ref: 6V-9 dated 01/02) Jerry of Georgia
In a message dated 12/23/2008 11:30:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
bryanmmartin@comcast.net writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: Bryan Martin
<bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
There may have been a change to the later versions of the Zenith plans
where .016 skins have been changed to .025. In my early plans, every
skin aft of the cabin area is .016 and so are the ailerons, all the
other skins are .025.
Some people were concerned about oil canning on the aft fuselage area
and were considering using .025 or .020 instead of .016. I think that
Zenith approved that modification. I seem to recall that Zenith may
have changed the plans to include thicker skins on the aft fuselage
area. How thick is the aluminum in that area on your plans? If there
was a change in the plans, maybe the CZAW planes were built from
earlier plans.
I recall some builders were considering using the thicker aluminum
because .016 was not readily available in their region. The only down
side I can see of using thicker skins on the aft fuselage would be the
extra weight and a small change in the CG that would need to be taken
into account. On the other hand, using thicker skins on the control
surfaces could have serious consequences.
>
> --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Sabrina"
> <chicago2paris@msn.com>
>
> I have been sent photos showing .016 skin thicknesses on some CZAW
> aircraft kits where Zenith plans spec .025 Are there static tests
> of the .016 CZAW aircraft anywhere to be had?
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. The NEW
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: XL wing concerns |
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: Simple rivet test/unzip |
Sometimes aluminum structures that bend, change the rivet load from
shear to tension. With A4's once you get a bit of bending, then your row
of A4's become the aluminum equiv of velcro. A5's, and Solids do not
do this. The laboratory perfect shear load, is rarely the case in real life.
If you have a hinge holding an assembly on with A4's a hard shake might
be all it takes to get the rivets to start popping. (flutter for example).
Personally I think the rivets should be stronger than the metal that they
are fastening.
Somebody mentioned A5's are heavier? You could change every A4 to
an A5 and the weight difference is probably less than what you gained
eating over the holidays ...
Regards,
Jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220763#220763
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: | Zodiac CH601XL "Problems" |
Here is my take on the Zodiac CH 601XL =9Cproblem=9D:
Chris Heintz designed quite a number of airplanes; for factory assembly, kit
construction and plans building.=C2- There are thousands of airplanes of
his designs flying, including CH601XLs registered in the USA as LSA, E-LSA,
EAB and an extremely confusing array of registration designations in other c
ountries. =C2-
There is a lot of discussion about whether the CZAW kits and airplanes are i
dentical to the ones from the USA.=C2- There are those that claim that the
y are identical...except blah, blah & blah.=C2- They simply can=99t
be identical if there are exceptions.=C2- I suspect (another personal opin
ion) that there are differences that observers either will not; or, more lik
ely, can=99t recognize.=C2- For instance, can a builder tell the dif
ference between 6061-T6 aluminum and 6061-Txx? Absolutely not.=C2- Can a b
uilder tell the difference between the Avex rivets that Zenith supplies and
substandard imitators?=C2- No.=C2- Yet these differences can be signific
ant and can certainly effect the structural integrity of the airframe.=C2
- The same applies to the different angle of incidence of the wing.=C2-
Is the angle of the wing spar center section changed or is the wing twisted
to change the angle? (The latter is the case)=C2-=C2- Analyzing the weig
ht differences and plain old common sense tells me that there are more diffe
rences yet.=C2- In short, all CH601XLs are NOT identical, and claiming so
is simply engaging in fantasy.
European bu
ilders have given the argument that Chris Heintz=99s name on all the d
rawings as evidence that Heintz is totally responsible for their airplanes.
However, they assert that the drawings are the same as those in the USA....e
xcept for the added drawings by CZAW.=C2- Drawings supplied by CZAW with C
hris Heintz name on all of them do NOT establish absolute responsibility for
the finished product.=C2- That would require certification that the kit m
aterials or the complete airplane strictly adheres to the requirements state
d in those drawings, either by CZAW or the kit builder.=C2- CZAW obviously
can=99t make that certification, and I don=99t know of any buil
der that has the technical expertise nor the materials documentation to make
that certification. Therefore, the owner / builder has the final responsibi
lity for their airplane.
As I recall, CZAW was started by an American in the Czech Republic as a prog
ram to assist builders to quickly assemble Zodiac kits.=C2- CZAW then morp
hed into a company that manufactured complete Zodiac airplanes and sold kits
.=C2- It is unclear where the materials CZAW used actually originated. The
Zenair - CZAW relationship ended for a reason.=C2- I don=99t know w
hat that reason was, but I strongly suspect (my opinion strictly) that it wa
s because the CZAW organization did not exercise adequate quality control, e
specially over the materials they used and or supplied to kit builders.
So why are CH601XLs crashing?=C2- Is there a design flaw? The design has b
een verified sever
al times over, through analysis and through testing.=C2- You can advance a
ll sorts of convoluted arguments against this but the design simply does not
have a flaw that causes a wing to fold.=C2- The XL design, as ALL aircraf
t designs, is based on clearly stated operating limitations.=C2- Operating
outside the design limitations of ANY aircraft subjects that aircraft to st
ructural failure; and many of them have failed and crashed. =C2-
So are there problems with the way pilots are operating? We all know the lim
itations, but some pilots forget about them, or fly into bad climate situati
ons, or have untenable equipment malfunctions, or simply choose to ignore th
e limitations, because others have =9Cgotten away with it=9D.
Are there problems with the materials used?=C2- I am personally confident
in the materials supplied by Zenith.=C2- I do not have the same confidence
in the materials supplied by CZAW.
Summation (Definitely my opinion): The Zodiac CH601XL =9Cproblem
=9D is not design.=C2- The =9CProblems=9D are:
1) The way some pilots choose to fly the airplane, either on purpose or acci
dentally,
2) Possible substandard materials and unsound design changes (from CZAW) and
,
3) Construction and maintenance errors on the part of builders/owners.
These are highly personal opinions and not cold hard facts.
A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all !!!
Jay Bannister (alias Jay in Dallas)
Zodiac CH 601XL N2630J =9CLil Bruiser=9D
BTW, I have crashed in a Zodiac CH
601XLi (not mine).=C2- It had nothing to do with the design and the wings
did not fall off.
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Simple rivet test/unzip |
I'm curious to know if anyone would consider the larger holes drilled,
say in using A5s in place of A4s, to cause the skin to be more prone
to tearing.
I thought on reviewing a fastener chart posted yesterday that even A4s
weren't listed for .016" skin. Biggest was A3s.
Thanks, Ron in L.A.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:01 AM, n85ae <n85ae@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Sometimes aluminum structures that bend, change the rivet load from
> shear to tension. With A4's once you get a bit of bending, then your row
> of A4's become the aluminum equiv of velcro. A5's, and Solids do not
> do this. The laboratory perfect shear load, is rarely the case in real life.
>
> If you have a hinge holding an assembly on with A4's a hard shake might
> be all it takes to get the rivets to start popping. (flutter for example).
>
> Personally I think the rivets should be stronger than the metal that they
> are fastening.
>
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: 601 problems |
While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Aerobat (regardless of his/her
motives) has to say his/her comment "there must be many other types out there
with incorrect cable tensions flying without dropping out of the sky" seems
to bear some merit.
If cable tension was the single problem causing catastrophic failure then you would
expect to see this alleged aileron flutter resulting in structural failure
across numerous other types (both Zenith designs and other designs). Since
I do not observe this I consider that maybe the XL is particularly susceptible
to a failure mode resultant from aileron flutter.
Furthermore, the potential for the wing folding incidents being exacerbated or
caused by overloading thus should not be unique to the XL as many aircraft are
often overloaded yet this does not appear to commonly lead to catastrophic failure.
Does anyone agree with the above thinking?
James Roberts
BTW - Yes I do own a XL kit which I am in the process of building (although currently
stopped awaiting clarity on the matter) and this can be seen on the South
African distributors website.
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220779#220779
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: Simple rivet test/unzip |
a larger hole necessarily produces greater bearing strength as long as the
edge distance is adequate. The recommended fastener sizes are for the desig
n of a balanced joint - one that has approximately equal strength in shear
(fastener failure in shear) and bearing (skin tear out) for the thinner ele
ment assembled.
That having been said, the rivet spacing is grossly above the the best bala
nce spacing on not only the Zodiac but also most of the other designs on th
e market. Also, as has been pointed out previously, adding the full complem
ent is not unacceptable and has only a minor weight impact.
I have always designed structure and repairs with the bearing failure as th
e clear mode of failure. At least then you know the loads that the failure
will propagate at in both pre and post buckled states to within a reasonabl
e tolerance. The other way you have to assume that the structure is loading
without local deflections that load the fasteners in unstable ways - zippe
r mode.
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Tue, 12/23/08, Ron Pollock <ronpollock@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Ron Pollock <ronpollock@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip
<ronpollock@gmail.com>
I'm curious to know if anyone would consider the larger holes drilled,
say in using A5s in place of A4s, to cause the skin to be more prone
to tearing.
I thought on reviewing a fastener chart posted yesterday that even A4s
weren't listed for .016" skin. Biggest was A3s.
Thanks, Ron in L.A.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:01 AM, n85ae <n85ae@yahoo.com> wrote:
<n85ae@yahoo.com>
>
> Sometimes aluminum structures that bend, change the rivet load from
> shear to tension. With A4's once you get a bit of bending, then your
row
> of A4's become the aluminum equiv of velcro. A5's, and Solids do
not
> do this. The laboratory perfect shear load, is rarely the case in real
life.
>
> If you have a hinge holding an assembly on with A4's a hard shake
might
> be all it takes to get the rivets to start popping. (flutter for example)
.
>
> Personally I think the rivets should be stronger than the metal that they
> are fastening.
>
=0A=0A=0A
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL wing concerns |
May I correct this one:
> CZAW did this 2" down--2 degree decalage change by TWISTING the main spars rather
than re-setting the main carry through spar... Can the LAA find any static
testing of this new twisted main spar anywhere in CZAW's books?
The CZAW CH601XL has the main carry through spar reset by 2. The wings/main spar
angles of the wings are similar to the Zenith version.
The UK LAA has static wing loading tests of the CZAW CH601XL done by CZAW. The
wings were tested all the way to wing failure.
Cheers and Merry Christmas
Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220790#220790
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL wing concerns |
Martin, what is left of the CZAW assembly guide on line shows a "9 degrees plywood
spars" template. This agrees with what I have been told. This is the US
XL set. If your plans show the 83 degree set or 7 degree template, please scan
your 6-B-14 and post it today.
Until I see a photo of a static test with the trailing edge down 2" I will not
believe that a static test was ever conducted on the CZAW wing design. Feel free
to supply photos. Please don't substitute in the 650 test photos.
http://www.slovak-aircraft.eu/SINACO%20ZODIAC%20DVD/Zodiac%20XL%20photo%20assembly%20guides/fuselage/6-B-13.pdf
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220795#220795
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL wing concerns |
All;,
I don't normally say anything but seems to me we are not thinking through this.
Look at your plans, does what you are saying make sense? If I do this what happens
over there.
What Sabrina is saying is if you drop the rear attach point down with out changing
the uprights you are preloading the rivets on the spar cap and preloading
the mid spar at the uprights just to get the nose down. Talk about zippers. Setting
the flap upstop a little short and rigging in aileron droop to the flaps
or changing the incidence on the horizontal stabilizer as Sabrina did will get
the nose down without any stress on the airframe. It may slow you down but,
depends what your desires are. Deviate from the engineer's design and you have
built in a different airplane, don't call it his.
Notice how Sabrina always goes back to the plans. That is CH's design.
When you change the tension on your control cables you are rigging your controls
I have heard some say they had "x" tension on this cable but the balance had
something else. If you have different tension on the cables to a control you
have a resistance on those cables or they would be the same unless you have rig
pins in.
NTSB investigations always have "interested parties" as part of an investigation.
That is where they get their expertise from. I would assume any foreign investigation
would be the same.
Al Rupp
601XL Corvair power
Almost done
In Aircraft maintenance since 1944, mostly airline
-------------- Original message from "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>: --------------
> "The only significant change that I am aware of is that they have changed the
angle of incidence of the wing by lowering the rear attachment point, but no
structural change there." End Quote.
> CZAW did this 2" down--2 degree decalage change by TWISTING the main spars rather
than re-setting the main carry through spar... Can the LAA find any static
testing of this new twisted main spar anywhere in CZAW's books?
> I am sure the FAA and NTSB recognize this and that is why they contacted CZAW
owners here in the U.S. The 650 changes the main spar set to match the new rear
spar angle.
> When your LAA, through a former Zenith dealer, takes the time to repeatedly contact
a 15 year old girl in the U.S. about the addition of SS A5 rivets on the
inboard ailerons aft hinge portion attach points and requests more information
each time, it means only one thing, they are very thorough. I applaud the
> LAA. They don't believe for one minute that this was ONLY significant change
> CZAW made. The AMD XLi and the Sabrina roll out at 850 pounds empty. As the
> Germans recently pointed out, how in the world do you EU CZAW owners get your
> aircraft to come in at the required EU weights? I have been sent photos
> showing .016 skin thicknesses on some CZAW aircraft kits where Zenith plans spec
> .025 Are there static tests of the .016 CZAW aircraft anywhere to be had?
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL wing concerns |
I will scan the CZAW drawing with the plywood spar template - however not today,
the kids want to have time with their dad tonight :D.
The online source you listed (http://www.slovak-aircraft.eu/) is not CZAW and does not seem to be related in any way to CZAW.
The red CH601XL (http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html) is in fact a CZAW version of the CH601XL. The load test was performed at CZAW for the european certification of the airplane. I had limited access to the load test document which is available to the european aviation authorities.
Cheers Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220803#220803
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL wing concerns |
I just got time to scan the drawing:
Martin
--------
Martin Pohl
Zodiac XL QBK
8645 Jona, Switzerland
www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220805#220805
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL wing concerns |
Martin, thank you for the post. I have been looking for that drawing for months!
Notice that Christophe Heintz' name is not on plans.
So too, the engine is pitched 3 degrees up while the wing is only pitched 2 degrees,
the line of thrust of the engines no longer follow the main longerons.
Ouch!
Finally, do you agree that the following items, at the very least, would have to
be changed on your aircraft to re-set the main spar?
6B-5-1s 57 degree angle changed
6B5-4 redesign
6B5-6 shifted
The section A-A 3 degree pitch changed on 6-B-5
6B-5-2s 74 degree angle changed
The geometry of 6B-17-5 changed
6B-18-1 redesigned
6B-18-3 redesigned
The aileron balance cable fairlead placement changed 6-B-22
6W-1-1 the center spar web redesigned
6W-1-2 the rear center spar web redesigned
6B-11-2 CNC forward side skins cut to the new specs
These are major modifications!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220807#220807
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL wing concerns |
Thank you for the PDF Martin... I am so happy to see that CH's name is not on
it. I misspoke about the firewall set, the 80 on your plans is the bottom angle.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220808#220808
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL wing concerns |
On Tuesday 23 December 2008 09:13, Sabrina wrote:
<snip>
> When your LAA, through a former Zenith dealer, takes the time to repeatedly
> contact a 15 year old girl in the U.S. about the addition of SS A5 rivets
> on the inboard ailerons aft hinge portion attach points and requests more
> information each time, it means only one thing, they are very thorough.
> I applaud the LAA. They don't believe for one minute that this was ONLY
> significant change CZAW made. The AMD XLi and the Sabrina roll out at 850
> pounds empty. As the Germans recently pointed out, how in the world do
> you EU CZAW owners get your aircraft to come in at the required EU weights?
> I have been sent photos showing .016 skin thicknesses on some CZAW
> aircraft kits where Zenith plans spec .025 Are there static tests of the
> .016 CZAW aircraft anywhere to be had?
<snip>
This is, I believe, a good and valid question. Another question one might ask
is: "has any dynamic testing been done?"
The failures we read of appear to have occurred under dynamic, not static,
conditions. The aircraft were flying, not sitting in a hangar with snadbags on
the wing.
Flutter, if indeed this is what has happened, can be the result
of resonance, which is a dynamic condition. I would like to see the results of
relevant structural dynamic testing, as well as static structural testing.
I don't believe that we, as individuals, have enough information than to do
more than beat around the fringe of the situation. Only the FAA, similar
national organizations, and Zenith have enough information to draw firm
conclusions. I await their thinking on the subject.
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
Retired aerospace technical manager
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL wing concerns |
Martin,
Are any of these items changed as well on your version of the CZAW 601XL?
6B-5-1, 6B5-4, 6B5-6, 6B-5-2, 6B-18-1, 6B-18-3, 6W-1-1,6W-1-2, 6B-11-2
The attached loading test photos you directed me to sure looks like the original
CZAW to me, the one with the high set rear spar attach, not the lowered trailing
edge one required by the new wing set in your pdf.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220811#220811
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/601structure_wings_897.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/601structure_fuse1_103.jpg
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | radio selection help |
Guys and Girls,
Radio selection time..
My choices are the Microair M760 or the Icom 210?? I am looking at using the
vox intercom in both as my pax intercom.
The Microair M760 is an Aussie design and light weight, smaller and easier to install.
The 210 will it also interface with the Garmon 495?
anyone flying and using with these radios have an opinion??
Chris Sinfield
Zodiac XL
Sydney Australia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220815#220815
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | radio selection help |
Why not the XCOM?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris
Sinfield
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:06 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: radio selection help
<chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
Guys and Girls,
Radio selection time..
My choices are the Microair M760 or the Icom 210?? I am looking at using
the vox intercom in both as my pax intercom.
The Microair M760 is an Aussie design and light weight, smaller and easier
to install.
The 210 will it also interface with the Garmon 495?
anyone flying and using with these radios have an opinion??
Chris Sinfield
Zodiac XL
Sydney Australia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220815#220815
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio selection help |
Not flying yet but I went with the 210 because of the monitor of the standby freq.
It pretty much gives you 2 radios in one and was a lot cheaper than the SL40
which has the same feature.
As far as talking to the 495, I don't know. It is supposed to work with the 496
but it is a feature not supported by either Garmin or Icom. According to Stein
at SteinAir it "should" work and is a one wire connection.
--------
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=220819#220819
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | radio selection help |
BTW: the MGL radio is just beginning to ship. I don't know about Australia
but all they are waiting for in the US is a letter from the FAA. The
Australian dealer is:
http://www.lightflying.com.au/
The specs are here:
http://www.mglavionics.co.za/VHF10.htm
Manual here:
http://www.mglavionics.co.za/Docs/V10%20Transceiver%20manual.pdf
PC simulator here:
http://www.mglavionics.co.za/Software/VHF.exe
It supports a superset of the Garmin SL-40 serial protocol.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris
Sinfield
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:06 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: radio selection help
<chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
Guys and Girls,
Radio selection time..
My choices are the Microair M760 or the Icom 210?? I am looking at using
the vox intercom in both as my pax intercom.
The Microair M760 is an Aussie design and light weight, smaller and easier
to install.
The 210 will it also interface with the Garmon 495?
anyone flying and using with these radios have an opinion??
Chris Sinfield
Zodiac XL
Sydney Australia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220815#220815
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio selection help |
Chris,
I have an ICOM IC-A200 transceiver in my airplane.? It has an intercom function,
but I had heard that it was not really adequate.? I installed a Softcomm ATC-2P
and am happy with the combination.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: chris Sinfield <chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 3:05 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: radio selection help
Guys and Girls,
Radio selection time..
My choices are the Microair M760 or the Icom 210?? I am looking at using the
vox intercom in both as my pax intercom.
The Microair M760 is an Aussie design and light weight, smaller and easier to
install.
The 210 will it also interface with the Garmon 495?
anyone flying and using with these radios have an opinion??
Chris Sinfield
Zodiac XL
Sydney Australia
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220815#220815
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 problems |
James,
I'd think if cable tension could become harmonic with the ailerons at a
lesser tension than specified, the logical thing to do would be to place
guides half or third the distance between ends to keep
the cables from becoming a player in the harmonic situation. I don't use
more than 25 lbs on any of my cables, but then it's a HDS and the
conditions are slightly different.
Seriously doubt cable tension has anything to do with inducing or
enlarging the frequency of wing flutter, even in the XL, but there's
nothing wrong with being on the safe side.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Scotsman wrote:
>
> While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Aerobat (regardless of his/her
motives) has to say his/her comment "there must be many other types out
there with incorrect cable tensions flying without dropping out of the sky" seems
to bear some merit.
>
> If cable tension was the single problem causing catastrophic failure then you
would expect to see this alleged aileron flutter resulting in structural failure
across numerous other types (both Zenith designs and other designs). Since
I do not observe this I consider that maybe the XL is particularly susceptible
to a failure mode resultant from aileron flutter.
>
> Furthermore, the potential for the wing folding incidents being exacerbated or
caused by overloading thus should not be unique to the XL as many aircraft are
often overloaded yet this does not appear to commonly lead to catastrophic
failure.
>
> Does anyone agree with the above thinking?
>
>
> James Roberts
>
> BTW - Yes I do own a XL kit which I am in the process of building (although currently
stopped awaiting clarity on the matter) and this can be seen on the South
African distributors website.
>
> --------
> Cell +27 83 675 0815
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220779#220779
>
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio selection help |
Why not the XCOM?
Also made in Australia and a cloner of the 760. but out of experience if you get
a good one its good, but our club had 10 in a group buy and 8 had to be exchanged
or returned for repair within 12 months..
Maybe a bad batch but it was our experience and has turned me away from them until
their reliability improves.. True Mr Coats replaced or repaired each one so
good customer back up for XCom , but just gunshy ,sorry did I write the guns
word?..
Chris
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220826#220826
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio selection help |
Thanks for the info on the XCOM. I have an unflown one. Guess I'll see how
lucky I am.
Here is an excerpt from an Oct 2008 joint press release from Narco and XCOM
titled "Narco Avionics and XCOM Avionics, Manufacturing Partnership
Agreement":
"Since the radios inception the XCOM has been built in Australia with a
large majority (approximately 90%) of our product being shipped
internationally with most of this going to the USA. Production issues in
Australia have forced us to look for another manufacturer, we tried several
manufacturers in Australia but none of these could offer reliable and
quality production which basically meant we had a fantastic product that was
being let down by poor manufacturing which was out of our control. The best
way around this is to find a manufacturer who is already familiar with
avionics and has the ability to manufacture correctly to TSO standards, will
stand behind their work and most importantly take pride in what they are
doing!
For this reason we have entered into a cooperation with Narco Avionics who
are the world's longest standing avionics business. This partnership gives
XCOM the complete confidence that our product will be manufactured and
tested beyond the standards which are required for efficient and continuous,
long-term , durable operations. It really means we can stand behind our
product with more confidence than ever before and it also gives Narco
exposure to the LSA, experimental and Ultralight market which is rapidly
expanding."
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of chris
Sinfield
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 3:23 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: radio selection help
<chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
Why not the XCOM?
Also made in Australia and a cloner of the 760. but out of experience if
you get a good one its good, but our club had 10 in a group buy and 8 had to
be exchanged or returned for repair within 12 months..
Maybe a bad batch but it was our experience and has turned me away from them
until their reliability improves.. True Mr Coats replaced or repaired each
one so good customer back up for XCom , but just gunshy ,sorry did I write
the guns word?..
Chris
Do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220826#220826
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio selection help |
I went with a separate intercom (PM-3000) as well. Mainly for the extra audio inputs.
jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
> Chris,
>
> I have an ICOM IC-A200 transceiver in my airplane. It has an intercom function,
but I had heard that it was not really adequate. I installed a Softcomm
ATC-2P and am happy with the combination.
>
> Jay in Dallas
> Do not archive
>
> --
--------
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=220831#220831
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: XL wing concerns |
Did I miss an attachment?
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Tue, 12/23/08, Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com> wrote:
From: Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns
<chicago2paris@msn.com>
Thank you for the PDF Martin... I am so happy to see that CH's name is
not on it. I misspoke about the firewall set, the 80 on your plans is the
bottom angle.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220808#220808
=0A=0A=0A
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 problems |
...I keep mentioning the forward swept wing design - because it is real.
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Tue, 12/23/08, LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com> wrote:
From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems
<larry@macsmachine.com>
James,
I'd think if cable tension could become harmonic with the ailerons at a
lesser tension than specified, the logical thing to do would be to place
guides half or third the distance between ends to keep
the cables from becoming a player in the harmonic situation. I don't use
more than 25 lbs on any of my cables, but then it's a HDS and the
conditions are slightly different.
Seriously doubt cable tension has anything to do with inducing or
enlarging the frequency of wing flutter, even in the XL, but there's
nothing wrong with being on the safe side.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Scotsman wrote:
<james.roberts@computershare.co.za>
>
> While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Aerobat
(regardless of his/her motives) has to say his/her comment "there must be
many other types out there with incorrect cable tensions flying without dro
pping
out of the sky" seems to bear some merit.
>
> If cable tension was the single problem causing catastrophic failure then
you would expect to see this alleged aileron flutter resulting in structura
l
failure across numerous other types (both Zenith designs and other designs)
.
Since I do not observe this I consider that maybe the XL is particularly
susceptible to a failure mode resultant from aileron flutter.
>
> Furthermore, the potential for the wing folding incidents being
exacerbated or caused by overloading thus should not be unique to the XL as
many
aircraft are often overloaded yet this does not appear to commonly lead to
catastrophic failure.
>
> Does anyone agree with the above thinking?
>
>
> James Roberts
>
> BTW - Yes I do own a XL kit which I am in the process of building
(although currently stopped awaiting clarity on the matter) and this can be
seen
on the South African distributors website.
>
> --------
> Cell +27 83 675 0815
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220779#220779
>
>
>
=0A=0A=0A
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 problems |
I had been thinking along the same lines as Scotsman (who is from South Africa,
apparently) and then I came around to comparing accident types and rates with
other Zenair(ith) designs.
I don't know how many 601XLs there are out there or indeed how many 601HDs there
are or 601ULs there are. In the UK we currently have 20 XLs on the register,
28 ULs , 17 HD and 10 HDS models. So less than 30 % of the fleet is XL types.
Is this typical of the ratio in the world as a whole?
If it is, assuming that the same sort of people buy/build ULs, HDs, HDSs and XL
varients, assuming that the same spread of pilot abilities, the same ratio of
aerobatic wannabees buy each model and the same spread of builder competences
we should be hearing about 3 times as many in flight break ups of the non XL
types as XL types.
We don't.
In the UK we have had only one aircraft break up in flight, a UL, when it was observed
to be beating up an airstrip and pulling up to avoid overhead power lines,
with two people and significant fuel on board. The investigation suggested
that the pilot was in the habit of this type of flying and the airframe was
overstressed on this or on a previous occasion leading to the failure. This
is the only non XL 601 in flight break up I have heard about.
Where are the others?
This line of thinking tells me that either I have missed something significant
or that there is something peculiar to the XL.
Please correct me if there is a fatal flaw in my reasoning.
Oh, and feel free to flame me 'cos it seems to be par for the course if you post
from the UK!
Andrew - in the UK and building a 601UL.
--------
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220843#220843
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 601 problems |
Hi Andrew,
I think your reasoning is sound - at least to a point. It also seems
to me that there is something about the XL that makes it more
susceptible to in flight structure failures. I feel the number of
failures is too high to be just random chance, but too low to
indicate a simple design flaw.
While the various Zodiac models seem to be very similar there are a
number of very significant differences between the XL and the other
models. The wings are much thinner, tapered and have a single long
main spar. The other ones have much fatter constant chord wings with
shorter spars. The fuselage is a foot longer. The interface between
the wings and fuselage is completely different. To make matters more
interesting, I suspect the XL is considerably faster than the other
models. (I don't know this for sure because there doesn't seem to be
reliable data about the speeds the builder community has achieved
with any of the models. This is compounded by the wide variety of
power plants used.)
I feel there is a definite weakness in the XL structure that shows up
extremely rarely. If only the rocket scientists who analyze the
failed structures could work their magic I feel this weakness would
be found and corrected. For now, I believe all we can do is wait for
the experts to do their thing.
(No flame intended).
Paul
Camas, WA
do not archive
At 04:03 PM 12/23/2008, you wrote:
>This line of thinking tells me that either I have missed something
>significant or that there is something peculiar to the XL.
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio selection help |
Guys,
I have the XCOM radio and really like it. I don't know if things changed
but when I purchased it I also looked at the Microair and Icom but their
built in intercom was not voice activated (VOX). It just had a hot mic and
everyone who installed one also installed a separate intercom. The XCOM has
a voice activated intercom and it works very well (at least mine does).
I've been flying my plane for about a year and a half and have over 230
hours on it.
Randy
601xl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:45 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: radio selection help
>
> I went with a separate intercom (PM-3000) as well. Mainly for the extra
> audio inputs.
>
>
> jaybannist(at)cs.com wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> I have an ICOM IC-A200 transceiver in my airplane. It has an intercom
>> function, but I had heard that it was not really adequate. I installed a
>> Softcomm ATC-2P and am happy with the combination.
>>
>> Jay in Dallas
>> Do not archive
>>
>> --
>
>
> --------
> 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=220831#220831
>
>
>
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List: Zodiac CH601XL |
Bravo, the truth is finally said!
Juan
-----Original Message-----
>From: jaybannist@cs.com
>Sent: Dec 23, 2008 12:06 PM
>To: zenith-list@matronics.com, zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith-List: Zodiac CH601XL "Problems"
>
>Here is my take on the Zodiac CH 601XL problem:
>
>Chris Heintz designed quite a number of airplanes; for factory assembly, kit construction
and plans building. There are thousands of airplanes of his designs
flying, including CH601XLs registered in the USA as LSA, E-LSA, EAB and an extremely
confusing array of registration designations in other countries.
>
>There is a lot of discussion about whether the CZAW kits and airplanes are identical
to the ones from the USA. There are those that claim that they are identical...except
blah, blah & blah. They simply cant be identical if there are exceptions.
I suspect (another personal opinion) that there are differences that
observers either will not; or, more likely, cant recognize. For instance, can
a builder tell the difference between 6061-T6 aluminum and 6061-Txx? Absolutely
not. Can a builder tell the difference between the Avex rivets that Zenith
supplies and substandard imitators? No. Yet these differences can be significant
and can certainly effect the structural integrity of the airframe. The same
applies to the different angle of incidence of the wing. Is the angle of the
wing spar center section changed or is the wing twisted to change the angle?
(The latter is the case) Analyzing the weight differences and plain old common
sense tells me that there are more differences yet. In short, all CH601XLs are
NOT identical, and claiming so is simply engaging in fantasy.
>
>European bu
>ilders have given the argument that Chris Heintzs name on all the drawings as
evidence that Heintz is totally responsible for their airplanes. However, they
assert that the drawings are the same as those in the USA....except for the added
drawings by CZAW. Drawings supplied by CZAW with Chris Heintz name on all
of them do NOT establish absolute responsibility for the finished product. That
would require certification that the kit materials or the complete airplane
strictly adheres to the requirements stated in those drawings, either by CZAW
or the kit builder. CZAW obviously cant make that certification, and I dont know
of any builder that has the technical expertise nor the materials documentation
to make that certification. Therefore, the owner / builder has the final
responsibility for their airplane.
>
>As I recall, CZAW was started by an American in the Czech Republic as a program
to assist builders to quickly assemble Zodiac kits. CZAW then morphed into a
company that manufactured complete Zodiac airplanes and sold kits. It is unclear
where the materials CZAW used actually originated. The Zenair - CZAW relationship
ended for a reason. I dont know what that reason was, but I strongly suspect
(my opinion strictly) that it was because the CZAW organization did not
exercise adequate quality control, especially over the materials they used and
or supplied to kit builders.
>
>So why are CH601XLs crashing? Is there a design flaw? The design has been verified
sever
>al times over, through analysis and through testing. You can advance all sorts
of convoluted arguments against this but the design simply does not have a flaw
that causes a wing to fold. The XL design, as ALL aircraft designs, is based
on clearly stated operating limitations. Operating outside the design limitations
of ANY aircraft subjects that aircraft to structural failure; and many of
them have failed and crashed.
>
>So are there problems with the way pilots are operating? We all know the limitations,
but some pilots forget about them, or fly into bad climate situations,
or have untenable equipment malfunctions, or simply choose to ignore the limitations,
because others have gotten away with it.
>
>Are there problems with the materials used? I am personally confident in the materials
supplied by Zenith. I do not have the same confidence in the materials
supplied by CZAW.
>
>Summation (Definitely my opinion): The Zodiac CH601XL problem is not design. The
Problems are:
>
>1) The way some pilots choose to fly the airplane, either on purpose or accidentally,
>
>2) Possible substandard materials and unsound design changes (from CZAW) and,
>
>3) Construction and maintenance errors on the part of builders/owners.
>
>These are highly personal opinions and not cold hard facts.
>
>A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all !!!
>
>Jay Bannister (alias Jay in Dallas)
>Zodiac CH 601XL N2630J Lil Bruiser
>
>BTW, I have crashed in a Zodiac CH
>601XLi (not mine). It had nothing to do with the design and the wings did not
fall off.
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio selection help |
thanks for the input with the Xcom.. sounds like it was a bad batch of radios..
with the new Narco partnership I hope it goes well but now the radio will be
pricer due to the US$ fluctuations I guess..
Randy
With the XCOM was the VOX ok with 2 people and can you TX from both headsets if
connected up??
See this is what we should use the energy.. keep building, keep flying within the
limits..
glass half full / half empty???
I am so happy to have bought the XL as when it comes out the other end of all this
it will be the most analyzed, scrutinized, looked over for got ya sized, plane
that I will have every confidence in flying it once its finished..
look at the DC10 look it had problems that caused a few crashes, they found them
and fixed them and now its a great DC10, KC 10, MD11 airframe flying all over
the world.
The XL will contine to fly, down under, here another left the nest last month and
yet another XL will get airborne in the next few weeks, even if we do fly them
upside down.
Chris..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220870#220870
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radio selection help |
Chris,
Yes, it works great with two people. It's comes with a toggle switch,
mounted on the dash, to have the intercom on or off, or when you do have a
passenger to switch it to isolate, if you wish. The passenger can transmit
also.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris Sinfield" <chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:20 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: radio selection help
> <chris_sinfield@yahoo.com.au>
>
> thanks for the input with the Xcom.. sounds like it was a bad batch of
> radios.. with the new Narco partnership I hope it goes well but now the
> radio will be pricer due to the US$ fluctuations I guess..
>
> Randy
> With the XCOM was the VOX ok with 2 people and can you TX from both
> headsets if connected up??
>
> See this is what we should use the energy.. keep building, keep flying
> within the limits..
>
> glass half full / half empty???
> I am so happy to have bought the XL as when it comes out the other end of
> all this it will be the most analyzed, scrutinized, looked over for got ya
> sized, plane that I will have every confidence in flying it once its
> finished..
>
> look at the DC10 look it had problems that caused a few crashes, they
> found them and fixed them and now its a great DC10, KC 10, MD11 airframe
> flying all over the world.
>
> The XL will contine to fly, down under, here another left the nest last
> month and yet another XL will get airborne in the next few weeks, even if
> we do fly them upside down.
>
> Chris..
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=220870#220870
>
>
>
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! --
|