---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith601-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 12/23/08: 51 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:32:53 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: "Martin Pohl" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:48:08 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz 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 3 _____________________________________ Time: 03:30:30 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: "europa2" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:35:49 AM PST US From: "David Johnson" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:49:30 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:08:16 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:07:31 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: "aerobat" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:12:42 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: More on the XL grounding From: "chris Sinfield" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:17:47 AM PST US From: "Iberplanes IGL" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: More on the XL grounding ...... yeah for the "niles" river. 2008/12/23 chris Sinfield > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:27:27 AM PST US From: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:42:11 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: "aerobat" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:35:49 AM PST US From: David Downey Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: 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 wro te: From: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:48:25 AM PST US From: "Carlos Sa" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns Well said, David ! Merry Christmas and a Great New Year ! Carlos CH601-HD, plans do not archive 2008/12/23 > > ... 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:54:44 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard 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 ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 07:13:52 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: "Sabrina" "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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:22:43 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:25:29 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:26:23 AM PST US From: Bryan Martin Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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. > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:46:10 AM PST US From: Jeyoung65@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 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" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:53:04 AM PST US From: A.F.RUPP@att.net Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 09:02:10 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Simple rivet test/unzip From: "n85ae" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:08:20 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Zodiac CH601XL "Problems" From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:31:43 AM PST US From: "Ron Pollock" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:38:00 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems From: "Scotsman" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:53:49 AM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 wrote: From: Ron Pollock Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 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. > =0A=0A=0A ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 10:21:46 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: "Martin Pohl" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:48:41 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: "Sabrina" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:05:19 AM PST US From: A.F.RUPP@att.net Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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" : -------------- > "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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:21:37 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: "Martin Pohl" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:38:35 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: "Martin Pohl" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:09:08 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: "Sabrina" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:23:22 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: "Sabrina" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:37:42 PM PST US From: Jim Belcher Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns On Tuesday 23 December 2008 09:13, 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. > 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? 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:44:58 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns From: "Sabrina" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:06:57 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: radio selection help From: "chris Sinfield" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:19:47 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:21:33 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: radio selection help From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:51:04 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:05:46 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: radio selection help From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:18:06 PM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:22:55 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: radio selection help From: "chris Sinfield" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:37:20 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:46:09 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: radio selection help From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:42:34 PM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: XL wing concerns Did I miss an attachment? David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA --- On Tue, 12/23/08, Sabrina wrote: From: Sabrina Subject: Zenith601-List: 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 =0A=0A=0A ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 03:57:53 PM PST US From: David Downey Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 wrote: From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:03:31 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems From: "rans6andrew" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:21:11 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:17:29 PM PST US From: "Randy" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:42:22 PM PST US From: Juan Vega Subject: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:44 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: radio selection help From: "chris Sinfield" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:33:21 PM PST US From: "Randy" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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" Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 10:20 PM Subject: Zenith601-List: 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith601-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith601-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith601-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith601-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.