Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:22 AM - Re: Re: 601 problems (David Downey)
2. 08:26 AM - Re: 601 problems (Tim Juhl)
3. 08:26 AM - Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (ashontz)
4. 09:10 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (Gig Giacona)
5. 09:15 AM - Re: NTSB report (Tim Juhl)
6. 09:15 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (Bill Naumuk)
7. 09:19 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (LarryMcFarland)
8. 09:25 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (Ron Lendon)
9. 09:31 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (Jeyoung65@aol.com)
10. 09:49 AM - lack of firm information (Jim Belcher)
11. 09:50 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (Bryan Martin)
12. 10:07 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (jaybannist@cs.com)
13. 10:13 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (Rick Lindstrom)
14. 10:16 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (Rick Lindstrom)
15. 10:24 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (Terry Turnquist)
16. 10:28 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (ashontz)
17. 10:53 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (jaybannist@cs.com)
18. 11:22 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (David Downey)
19. 11:23 AM - Re: lack of firm information (David Downey)
20. 11:35 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (Gig Giacona)
21. 11:36 AM - Re: lack of firm information (Gig Giacona)
22. 11:51 AM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (David Downey)
23. 12:36 PM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (Rick Lindstrom)
24. 01:16 PM - Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons (jaybannist@cs.com)
25. 02:07 PM - Yuba City Probable cause released (dougsire)
26. 02:50 PM - Re: Yuba City Probable cause released (Gig Giacona)
27. 03:01 PM - Re: Re: NTSB report (Walter Carey)
28. 04:29 PM - Re: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released (Jeyoung65@aol.com)
29. 04:47 PM - Re: Yuba City Probable cause released (Gig Giacona)
30. 04:58 PM - Re: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released (T. Graziano)
31. 04:59 PM - Re: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released (jaybannist@cs.com)
32. 05:18 PM - Re: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released (jaybannist@cs.com)
33. 05:25 PM - Re: Re: NTSB report (LarryMcFarland)
34. 05:41 PM - Re: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released (T. Graziano)
35. 05:44 PM - Re: 601 problems (Sabrina)
36. 07:16 PM - Re: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released (David Downey)
37. 07:49 PM - Fun Video! (Brady)
38. 09:52 PM - Re: Re: NTSB report (John Smith)
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: 601 problems |
I had not even thought of that Sabrina. It is definitely possible - might c
ouple to slack control system cabling or yielded brackets...
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com> wrote:
From: Sabrina <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: 601 problems
<chicago2paris@msn.com>
"The forward sweep is an artifact of the 3 degree forward tilt of the spar
and the wing dihedral. If you raise the nose until the spar is vertical you
will
see no forward sweep." Bryan
=93I will not post to this again. I meant no assault - to anyone.=94 David
David, you should keep at it. The forward sweep of the wing in cruise attit
ude
changes the way the air flows over the ailerons. In otherwords, spanwise
airflow over a forward-swept wing is the reverse of a conventional swept wi
ng.
The fact that the sweep is so slight and can change with flight attitude ma
y be
an important factor for the LAA and NTSB to consider in determining how and
when
the ailerons that did unzip, unzipped since the airflow across them reverse
s
while leveling off after a climb. Correct?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221565#221565
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/forward_swept_wing_aerodynamics_920.jpg
=0A=0A=0A
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: 601 problems |
Sabrina,
In your recent email you mention "may be an important factor for the LAA and NTSB
to consider in determining how and when the ailerons that did unzip, unzipped...
" As I recall, your gussets were developed with this issue in mind.
To your knowledge, is the potential for "unzip" suspected to exist only in aircraft
with piano hinge ailerons or in the hingeless type as well?
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221629#221629
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: | Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
Some people have been suggesting that the hinged ailerons on the XL could in fact
be a source of flutter. That being the case, I'm thinking about going back
to the hingeless ailerons. Problem is, I've already made the hinged ailerons and
now I'm wondering if there's an acceptable safe way to retrofit back to the
original hingeless ailerons using the hinged design.
How would others here go about retrofitting. Would you just remake the ailerons,
or perhaps just sandwich a piece of .016 in where the hinge goes? I'm guessing
an overlap of maybe 3 or 4 rivets would be sufficient, that is, a strip of
.016 the length of the aileron and about 100mm wide, 60mm or so that gets sandwiched
in between the aileron top skin and the underlying ribs.
Just wondering if I can safely save myself some time and hassle and go back to
a hingeless aileron without rebuilding them.
Thanks
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221630#221630
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
To my knowledge no one has done that any way other than new ailerons. God only
knows what adding another variable to the aileron would do and sort of defeat
the purpose of using the original design.
--------
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=221642#221642
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 |
|
Walt,
That was quite a graphic and informative report. I, too have wondered if some
of the unusual aircraft movements observed prior to the loss of the XL's in question
might have been actions taken by the pilot to dampen flutter.
Interestingly enough, most Ercoupes originally had balanced ailerons - from what
I read the balance weighed almost 4 pounds and hung off the bottom of the aileron.
They have been removed from most ercoupes as a alternate means of compliance
with a 1947 AD that required reinforcement of the lower ailerons skins
because of the weight of the device.
I suspect if one were to run around with a cable tensionometer and check the aircraft
sitting on the ramp at the local airport they would find most did not have
the cable tension set correctly. I have participated in over 50 annuals over
the years and never seen a mechanic check the cable tension with such a device.
Unless they are really loose they get only a cursory inspection.
We had a case a number of years ago where an ercoupe on the field was damaged after
it got away from the owner who was trying to hand prop it because of a dead
battery. They had to pull the wings and when they went to disconnect the control
cables they found that the cable turnbuckles were secured with brass safety
wire (not in use for many years) one of which had broken and allowed the
turnbuckle to back off to where it was held on by only a couple of threads.
If not for the damage on the ground that required disassembly it would have let
go in the air.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221644#221644
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
Andy-
Read what you just wrote. If you're not positive it's broke, don't fix
it. You're trying to justify a band aid. If you're that worried about the
aileron configuration, build new ones to plans and sleep well at night.
Bill
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 11:25 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>
> Some people have been suggesting that the hinged ailerons on the XL could
> in fact be a source of flutter. That being the case, I'm thinking about
> going back to the hingeless ailerons. Problem is, I've already made the
> hinged ailerons and now I'm wondering if there's an acceptable safe way to
> retrofit back to the original hingeless ailerons using the hinged design.
>
> How would others here go about retrofitting. Would you just remake the
> ailerons, or perhaps just sandwich a piece of .016 in where the hinge
> goes? I'm guessing an overlap of maybe 3 or 4 rivets would be sufficient,
> that is, a strip of .016 the length of the aileron and about 100mm wide,
> 60mm or so that gets sandwiched in between the aileron top skin and the
> underlying ribs.
>
> Just wondering if I can safely save myself some time and hassle and go
> back to a hingeless aileron without rebuilding them.
>
> Thanks
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
>
> do not archive
>
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221630#221630
>
>
>
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
Andy,
I doubt the fine difference between hinge less and hinged make the
difference, as the hinge less isn't much of a damper until you've a
considerable angle (ie large amplitude)
for flutter and that just doesn't seem plausible. Same goes for low
tension cables with intermediate support that prevents that from happening.
I'd suggest you give it pause and wait for the obvious answers to
surface as they must one day soon.
Larry McFarland at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
ashontz wrote:
>
> Some people have been suggesting that the hinged ailerons on the XL could in
fact be a source of flutter. That being the case, I'm thinking about going back
to the hingeless ailerons. Problem is, I've already made the hinged ailerons
and now I'm wondering if there's an acceptable safe way to retrofit back to the
original hingeless ailerons using the hinged design.
>
> How would others here go about retrofitting. Would you just remake the ailerons,
or perhaps just sandwich a piece of .016 in where the hinge goes? I'm guessing
an overlap of maybe 3 or 4 rivets would be sufficient, that is, a strip of
.016 the length of the aileron and about 100mm wide, 60mm or so that gets sandwiched
in between the aileron top skin and the underlying ribs.
>
> Just wondering if I can safely save myself some time and hassle and go back to
a hingeless aileron without rebuilding them.
>
> Thanks
>
> --------
> Andy Shontz
>
> do not archive
>
> CH601XL - Corvair
> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221630#221630
>
>
>
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
I agree with Gig.
However, your government publishes a book, AC-43.13-1B that shows Acceptable Methods,
Techniques, and Practices - Aircraft Inspection and Repair. You might
get some formula for the patch there. You have a copy if you are using Kitlog
under, Resources, Advisory Circulars. I bought a printed copy from Jeppsen,
and find it quite handy to have around to answer some of the more obscure questions
I have.
Myself, I'd just re-skin the ailerons.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221650#221650
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
You might want to have an engineer look at this because the force on the
rivets will increase. As I stated before the hingeless require the last and
first rivets to be A5. Making new ailerons would be the best way.
Just a question, if you are building a 601XL are the ailerons .016 or .025
thick? Jerry of Ga. DO NOT ARCHIVE
In a message dated 12/29/2008 11:27:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ashontz@nbme.org writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Some people have been suggesting that the hinged ailerons on the XL could in
fact be a source of flutter. That being the case, I'm thinking about going
back to the hingeless ailerons. Problem is, I've already made the hinged
ailerons and now I'm wondering if there's an acceptable safe way to retrofit back
to the original hingeless ailerons using the hinged design.
How would others here go about retrofitting. Would you just remake the
ailerons, or perhaps just sandwich a piece of .016 in where the hinge goes? I'm
guessing an overlap of maybe 3 or 4 rivets would be sufficient, that is, a
strip of .016 the length of the aileron and about 100mm wide, 60mm or so that
gets sandwiched in between the aileron top skin and the underlying ribs.
Just wondering if I can safely save myself some time and hassle and go back
to a hingeless aileron without rebuilding them.
Thanks
--------
Andy Shontz
.
**************Don't be the last to know - click here for the latest news that
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: | lack of firm information |
I'm seeing a lot of communication suggesting that one sort of change or
another should be made to the 601XLs immediately. The problem is, I don't
think we have enough information to know if a given change is a good one or
not. For all we know, some changes may actually make things worse.
I strongly recommend waiting until we have enough information to know what the
problem really is before making changes. A healthy discussion at a
knowledgable technical level is a good thing, and may ultimately lead to
identifying the problem(s).
That's my 75 cents worth for this morning (25 cents just won't buy as much as
it once did).
--
=============================================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
================================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
================================================
Message 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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
That's a good question. Has anybody built their ailerons out of
anything but .016? My plans call for .016, going to .025 would
increase the mass of the skin by more than 56%. That could definitely
effect the flutter margin.
On Dec 29, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Jeyoung65@aol.com wrote:
>
> Just a question, if you are building a 601XL are the ailerons .016
> or .025 thick? Jerry of Ga. DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
Andy,
I have thought about that too.? I am going to replace my ailerons with ones that
have balsa ribs and stringers, covered with silkspan and doped.? The hinge will
be very thin teflon, super-glued to the aileron and the wing.? I will have
a ten pound counterweight.? I will also change from cables to pushrod tubes.?
In place of my wing leveler autopilot, I am going to install a hydraulic control
booster.? That should just about fix this awful aileron flutter problem we
have, don't you think?
Jay in Dallas
Definitely do not archive!
-----Original Message-----
From: ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:25 am
Subject: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
Some people have been suggesting that the hinged ailerons on the XL could in
fact be a source of flutter. That being the case, I'm thinking about going back
to the hingeless ailerons. Problem is, I've already made the hinged ailerons and
now I'm wondering if there's an acceptable safe way to retrofit back to the
original hingeless ailerons using the hinged design.
How would others here go about retrofitting. Would you just remake the ailerons,
or perhaps just sandwich a piece of .016 in where the hinge goes? I'm guessing
an overlap of maybe 3 or 4 rivets would be sufficient, that is, a strip of .016
the length of the aileron and about 100mm wide, 60mm or so that gets sandwiched
in between the aileron top skin and the underlying ribs.
Just wondering if I can safely save myself some time and hassle and go back to
a
hingeless aileron without rebuilding them.
Thanks
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221630#221630
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
Well said, Larry.
This whole debate reminds me of a typical episode of House, where all sorts of
cures are tried prior to the disease being truly identified and isolated. Aileron
flutter, compounded by the FSW of the Zodiac, has been among the hot topics
lately but the issue still remains without any sort of definitive confirmation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm just as curious as everyone else about this. It just seems
to me that we've become so desperate for a "cure", that we're willing to completely
rebuild certain parts of the airframe, even without knowing if it will
address a suspected problem supported by little more than speculation. Intellegent
and informed speculation, yes, but speculation nonetheless.
I'm not even suggesting that we don't discuss the issue, I think it's healthy in
the long run to compare notes and consider all possibilities. Sabrina's aerodynamic
insight has me in awe. (Why don't MY kids think this way?!)
Unless I've missed something along the way, I don't think there's been a single
case of flutter reported when aileron cable tensions were anywhere near the ballpark
of what's specified. And replacing outboard aluminum rivets with stainless
certainly couldn't hurt (unless it potentially starts corrosion from dissimilar
metals - get out the can of ACF!). But reskinning and/or replacing hinges
with new top skins?
I think I'll watch this one from the bench, and hope that the powers that be come
up with something definitive. Just my $0.02.
Rick Lindstrom
N42KP Zenvair 601 XL
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
>Sent: Dec 29, 2008 12:18 PM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>
>
>Andy,
>I doubt the fine difference between hinge less and hinged make the
>difference, as the hinge less isn't much of a damper until you've a
>considerable angle (ie large amplitude)
>for flutter and that just doesn't seem plausible. Same goes for low
>tension cables with intermediate support that prevents that from happening.
>I'd suggest you give it pause and wait for the obvious answers to
>surface as they must one day soon.
>
>Larry McFarland at www.macsmachine.com
>do not archive
>
>
>ashontz wrote:
>>
>> Some people have been suggesting that the hinged ailerons on the XL could in
fact be a source of flutter. That being the case, I'm thinking about going back
to the hingeless ailerons. Problem is, I've already made the hinged ailerons
and now I'm wondering if there's an acceptable safe way to retrofit back to
the original hingeless ailerons using the hinged design.
>>
>> How would others here go about retrofitting. Would you just remake the ailerons,
or perhaps just sandwich a piece of .016 in where the hinge goes? I'm guessing
an overlap of maybe 3 or 4 rivets would be sufficient, that is, a strip
of .016 the length of the aileron and about 100mm wide, 60mm or so that gets sandwiched
in between the aileron top skin and the underlying ribs.
>>
>> Just wondering if I can safely save myself some time and hassle and go back
to a hingeless aileron without rebuilding them.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> --------
>> Andy Shontz
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>> CH601XL - Corvair
>> www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221630#221630
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
Jay! What?! No servo tabs?!
I'm surprised at you.
Rick (rofl)
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: jaybannist@cs.com
>Sent: Dec 29, 2008 1:06 PM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>
>
> Andy,
>
>I have thought about that too.? I am going to replace my ailerons with ones that
have balsa ribs and stringers, covered with silkspan and doped.? The hinge
will be very thin teflon, super-glued to the aileron and the wing.? I will have
a ten pound counterweight.? I will also change from cables to pushrod tubes.?
In place of my wing leveler autopilot, I am going to install a hydraulic control
booster.? That should just about fix this awful aileron flutter problem we
have, don't you think?
>
>Jay in Dallas
>Definitely do not archive!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org>
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:25 am
>Subject: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>
>
>
>Some people have been suggesting that the hinged ailerons on the XL could in
>fact be a source of flutter. That being the case, I'm thinking about going back
>to the hingeless ailerons. Problem is, I've already made the hinged ailerons and
>now I'm wondering if there's an acceptable safe way to retrofit back to the
>original hingeless ailerons using the hinged design.
>
>How would others here go about retrofitting. Would you just remake the ailerons,
>or perhaps just sandwich a piece of .016 in where the hinge goes? I'm guessing
>an overlap of maybe 3 or 4 rivets would be sufficient, that is, a strip of .016
>the length of the aileron and about 100mm wide, 60mm or so that gets sandwiched
>in between the aileron top skin and the underlying ribs.
>
>Just wondering if I can safely save myself some time and hassle and go back to
a
>hingeless aileron without rebuilding them.
>
>Thanks
>
>--------
>Andy Shontz
>
>do not archive
>
>CH601XL - Corvair
>www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221630#221630
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
I know this question has come up before, but I must have missed the answer. What
is the ratio between piano hinged and hingeless ailerons in the seven aircraft
that have had inflight break-ups?
Do not Archive
Terry Turnquist
601XL-Plans
jaybannist@cs.com wrote: Andy,
I have thought about that too. I am going to replace my ailerons with ones that
have balsa ribs and stringers, covered with silkspan and doped. The hinge
will be very thin teflon, super-glued to the aileron and the wing. I will have
a ten pound counterweight. I will also change from cables to pushrod tubes.
In place of my wing leveler autopilot, I am going to install a hydraulic control
booster. That should just about fix this awful aileron flutter problem we
have, don't you think?
Jay in Dallas
Definitely do not archive!
-----Original Message-----
From: ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org>
To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:25 am
Subject: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
Some people have been suggesting that the hinged ailerons on the XL could in
fact be a source of flutter. That being the case, I'm thinking about going back
to the hingeless ailerons. Problem is, I've already made the hinged ailerons and
now I'm wondering if there's an acceptable safe way to retrofit back to the
original hingeless ailerons using the hinged design.
How would others here go about retrofitting. Would you just remake the ailerons,
or perhaps just sandwich a piece of .016 in where the hinge goes? I'm guessing
an overlap of maybe 3 or 4 rivets would be sufficient, that is, a strip of .016
the length of the aileron and about 100mm wide, 60mm or so that gets sandwiched
in between the aileron top skin and the underlying ribs.
Just wondering if I can safely save myself some time and hassle and go back to
a
hingeless aileron without rebuilding them.
Thanks
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221630#221630
---------------------------------
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
Ron, yes, I have that book. Invaluable resource, however, it's a little hard to
look this one up though (lol) but I know what you're saying. Just from eyeball
engineering, I'd guess that a strip like I'm suggesting would actually be stronger
than the hinge, simply because the hinge connects to the aileron via one
row of rivets, same with the hinge connection to the wing. With standard hingeless
ailerons, the weak link is still the single row of rivets in the rear spar.
Larry, I'm not too concerned about the hinges, just wondering out loud. It's not
a big deal to completely remake them if I decide to go that route. It's not
a priority at all.
As far as whoever it was that commented about the .016 vs .025. If memory serves
correctly, I believe the ailerons are .016 skins and the flaps are .025 skins.
Just in case anyone is wondering, yes, I' back to working on my plane. Need to
update my online log. My wife had our first baby and I spent a lot of time over
the spring and summer doing some house projects while waiting for more light
to be shed on this "XL thing".
Ron Lendon wrote:
> I agree with Gig.
>
> However, your government publishes a book, AC-43.13-1B that shows Acceptable
Methods, Techniques, and Practices - Aircraft Inspection and Repair. You might
get some formula for the patch there. You have a copy if you are using Kitlog
under, Resources, Advisory Circulars. I bought a printed copy from Jeppsen,
and find it quite handy to have around to answer some of the more obscure questions
I have.
>
> Myself, I'd just re-skin the ailerons.
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221672#221672
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
Rick,? You haven't been paying attention.? Aileron servos ADD to the awful flutter
problem!
Jay
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
Jay! What?! No servo tabs?!
I'm surprised at you.
Rick (rofl)
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: jaybannist@cs.com
>Sent: Dec 29, 2008 1:06 PM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>
>
> Andy,
>
>I have thought about that too.? I am going to replace my ailerons with ones
that have balsa ribs and stringers, covered with silkspan and doped.? The hinge
will be very thin teflon, super-glued to the aileron and the wing.? I will have
a ten pound counterweight.? I will also change from cables to pushrod tubes.? In
place of my wing leveler autopilot, I am going to install a hydraulic control
booster.? That should just about fix this awful aileron flutter problem we have,
don't you think?
>
>Jay in Dallas
>Definitely do not archive!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org>
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:25 am
>Subject: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>
>
>
>Some people have been suggesting that the hinged ailerons on the XL could in
>fact be a source of flutter. That being the case, I'm thinking about going back
>to the hingeless ailerons. Problem is, I've already made the hinged ailerons
and
>now I'm wondering if there's an acceptable safe way to retrofit back to the
>original hingeless ailerons using the hinged design.
>
>How would others here go about retrofitting. Would you just remake the
ailerons,
>or perhaps just sandwich a piece of .016 in where the hinge goes? I'm guessing
>an overlap of maybe 3 or 4 rivets would be sufficient, that is, a strip of .016
>the length of the aileron and about 100mm wide, 60mm or so that gets sandwiched
>in between the aileron top skin and the underlying ribs.
>
>Just wondering if I can safely save myself some time and hassle and go back to
a
>hingeless aileron without rebuilding them.
>
>Thanks
>
>--------
>Andy Shontz
>
>do not archive
>
>CH601XL - Corvair
>www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221630#221630
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
While a thicker skin in the hinge will increase the resistance (stick force
/degree of movement), a thicker "hinge" will directly affect the fatigue li
fe of the hinge. Somewhere CH even said so. They did quite a bit of testing
to try and predict the fatigue life of the hinge and even went so far as t
o notch the ends of the hinge to get a crack to start - with no success. Th
e original gage is what was tested for crack development over time/cycles,
deviating is another risk; this is another place where the intuitive reacti
on is not safe.
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net> wrote:
From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
<bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
That's a good question. Has anybody built their ailerons out of anything
but .016? My plans call for .016, going to .025 would increase the mass of
the
skin by more than 56%. That could definitely effect the flutter margin.
On Dec 29, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Jeyoung65@aol.com wrote:
>
> Just a question, if you are building a 601XL are the ailerons .016 or .02
5
thick? Jerry of Ga. DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
--Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
=0A=0A=0A
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: lack of firm information |
Absolutely. Remember the demo is still going strong after many, many hours
of flight at or near gross.
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com> wrote:
From: Jim Belcher <z601@anemicaardvark.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: lack of firm information
<z601@anemicaardvark.com>
I'm seeing a lot of communication suggesting that one sort of change or
another should be made to the 601XLs immediately. The problem is, I don't
think we have enough information to know if a given change is a good one or
not. For all we know, some changes may actually make things worse.
I strongly recommend waiting until we have enough information to know what
the
problem really is before making changes. A healthy discussion at a
knowledgable technical level is a good thing, and may ultimately lead to
identifying the problem(s).
That's my 75 cents worth for this morning (25 cents just won't buy as
much as
it once did).
--
====================
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
=======================
Jim B. Belcher
BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Instrument Rated Pilot
General Radio Telephone Certificate
=======================
=0A=0A=0A
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
Hinged:Hingeless Either 6:1 or 7:0 Nobody's sure about one of the accident aircraft.
ter_turn(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> I know this question has come up before, but I must have missed the answer. What
is the ratio between piano hinged and hingeless ailerons in the seven aircraft
that have had inflight break-ups?
>
> Do not Archive
>
> Terry Turnquist
> 601XL-Plans
>
--------
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=221683#221683
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: lack of firm information |
BINGO !!!!! We have a winner.
No Not Archive
z601(at)anemicaardvark.co wrote:
> The problem is, I don't
> think we have enough information to know if a given change is a good one or not.
> --
--------
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=221684#221684
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
Rick
! What?! No anti-servo tabs?!
I'm surprised at you.
Jay, you rock!
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com> wrote:
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
<tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Jay! What?! No servo tabs?!
I'm surprised at you.
Rick (rofl)
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: jaybannist@cs.com
>Sent: Dec 29, 2008 1:06 PM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>
>
> Andy,
>
>I have thought about that too.? I am going to replace my ailerons with one
s
that have balsa ribs and stringers, covered with silkspan and doped.? The h
inge
will be very thin teflon, super-glued to the aileron and the wing.? I will
have
a ten pound counterweight.? I will also change from cables to pushrod tubes
.? In
place of my wing leveler autopilot, I am going to install a hydraulic contr
ol
booster.? That should just about fix this awful aileron flutter problem we
have,
don't you think?
>
>Jay in Dallas
>Definitely do not archive!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org>
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:25 am
>Subject: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>
>
<ashontz@nbme.org>
>
>Some people have been suggesting that the hinged ailerons on the XL could
in
>fact be a source of flutter. That being the case, I'm thinking about
going back
>to the hingeless ailerons. Problem is, I've already made the hinged
ailerons and
>now I'm wondering if there's an acceptable safe way to retrofit
back to the
>original hingeless ailerons using the hinged design.
>
>How would others here go about retrofitting. Would you just remake the
ailerons,
>or perhaps just sandwich a piece of .016 in where the hinge goes? I'm
guessing
>an overlap of maybe 3 or 4 rivets would be sufficient, that is, a strip of
.016
>the length of the aileron and about 100mm wide, 60mm or so that gets
sandwiched
>in between the aileron top skin and the underlying ribs.
>
>Just wondering if I can safely save myself some time and hassle and go bac
k
to a
>hingeless aileron without rebuilding them.
>
>Thanks
>
>--------
>Andy Shontz
>
>do not archive
>
>CH601XL - Corvair
>www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221630#221630
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
=0A=0A=0A
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
Jay! NO NO NO!!
It's the ANTI-servo tab that's the BAD cop!
The SERVO tab is the GOOD cop!
Or is it the other way around?
See? I HAVE been paying attention. Mostly.
rick
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: jaybannist@cs.com
>Sent: Dec 29, 2008 1:52 PM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>
>
> Rick,? You haven't been paying attention.? Aileron servos ADD to the awful flutter
problem!
>
>Jay
>
>Do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:15 pm
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>
>
>
>Jay! What?! No servo tabs?!
>
>I'm surprised at you.
>
>Rick (rofl)
>
>do not archive
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: jaybannist@cs.com
>>Sent: Dec 29, 2008 1:06 PM
>>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>>
>>
>> Andy,
>>
>>I have thought about that too.? I am going to replace my ailerons with ones
>that have balsa ribs and stringers, covered with silkspan and doped.? The hinge
>will be very thin teflon, super-glued to the aileron and the wing.? I will have
>a ten pound counterweight.? I will also change from cables to pushrod tubes.?
In
>place of my wing leveler autopilot, I am going to install a hydraulic control
>booster.? That should just about fix this awful aileron flutter problem we have,
>don't you think?
>>
>>Jay in Dallas
>>Definitely do not archive!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org>
>>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>>Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:25 am
>>Subject: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Some people have been suggesting that the hinged ailerons on the XL could in
>>fact be a source of flutter. That being the case, I'm thinking about going back
>
>>to the hingeless ailerons. Problem is, I've already made the hinged ailerons
>and
>>now I'm wondering if there's an acceptable safe way to retrofit back to the
>>original hingeless ailerons using the hinged design.
>>
>>How would others here go about retrofitting. Would you just remake the
>ailerons,
>>or perhaps just sandwich a piece of .016 in where the hinge goes? I'm guessing
>>an overlap of maybe 3 or 4 rivets would be sufficient, that is, a strip of .016
>
>>the length of the aileron and about 100mm wide, 60mm or so that gets sandwiched
>
>>in between the aileron top skin and the underlying ribs.
>>
>>Just wondering if I can safely save myself some time and hassle and go back to
>a
>>hingeless aileron without rebuilding them.
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>--------
>>Andy Shontz
>>
>>do not archive
>>
>>CH601XL - Corvair
>>www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221630#221630
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________________________________________________
>>Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons |
Rick,
GREAT comeback!
Looks like I started something and now I've got a highly intellectual "tiger by
the tail."? I really don't know why I get these things, these debates started.?
I guess the mainstream discussion of this particular issue is just getting
a bit worn out and tiresome for me.?
So I take the High Road. (;>)
Jay in Dallas
Thank goodness every one has added "do not archive"
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 2:35 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
Jay! NO NO NO!!
It's the ANTI-servo tab that's the BAD cop!
The SERVO tab is the GOOD cop!
Or is it the other way around?
See? I HAVE been paying attention. Mostly.
rick
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: jaybannist@cs.com
>Sent: Dec 29, 2008 1:52 PM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
>
>
Rick,? You haven't been paying attention.? Aileron servos ADD to the awful
flutter problem!
Jay
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:15 pm
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
Jay! What?! No servo tabs?!
I'm surprised at you.
Rick (rofl)
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: jaybannist@cs.com
Sent: Dec 29, 2008 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
Andy,
I have thought about that too.? I am going to replace my ailerons with ones
that have balsa ribs and stringers, covered with silkspan and doped.? The hinge
will be very thin teflon, super-glued to the aileron and the wing.? I will have
a ten pound counterweight.? I will also change from cables to pushrod tubes.?
In place of my wing leveler autopilot, I am going to install a hydraulic control
booster.? That should just about fix this awful aileron flutter problem we
have, don't you think?
Jay in Dallas
Definitely do not archive!
-----Original Message-----
From: ashontz <ashontz@nbme.org>
Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:25 am
Subject: Zenith601-List: Retrofitting hingeless ailerons
Zenith601-List message posted by: "ashontz" <ashontz@nbme.org>
Some people have been suggesting that the hinged ailerons on the XL could in
fact be a source of flutter. That being the case, I'm thinking about going
back to the hingeless ailerons. Problem is, I've already made the hinged ailerons
and now I'm wondering if there's an acceptable safe way to retrofit back to the
original hingeless ailerons using the hinged design.
How would others here go about retrofitting. Would you just remake the
ailerons, or perhaps just sandwich a piece of .016 in where the hinge goes? I'm
guessing
an overlap of maybe 3 or 4 rivets would be sufficient, that is, a strip of .016
the length of the aileron and about 100mm wide, 60mm or so that gets sandwiched
in between the aileron top skin and the underlying ribs.
Just wondering if I can safely save myself some time and hassle and go back to
a hingeless aileron without rebuilding them.
Thanks
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: | Yuba City Probable cause released |
NTSB released the probable cause for the 11/06 AMD accident in Yuba City. The
smoking gun is....In-flight structural failure of the horizontal stabilizer and
wings for undetermined reasons.
Doug Sire
Billings, MT
--------
Doug Sire 601XL
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221698#221698
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: Yuba City Probable cause released |
That makes things clear as mud. The one useful bit of info i gout out of it was
this. "no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces was apparent." That would
seem to be NTSB speak that rules out flutter.
That and they didn't rule out abrupt control input. Just that they couldn't see
it on radar.
--------
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=221705#221705
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 |
|
Tim,
-
-- I agree with what you said about A&P's and experimental aircraft own
ers failing to-check control cable tension during annual or 100 hour insp
ections.
-
-- I have an idea that I would like to put forth for all 601XL & HD own
ers on the list who have completed and are flying their airplane in the Uni
ted States (overseas owners could do the same thing in their area if intere
sted). I will buy a cable tension gauge that can be used on the 601XL & HD,
and mail it out to anyone who wants to check their control cables to see i
f they meet the specifications called for by Zenith.-When the person who
has the gauge-through testing-and adjusting their cables (please do the
testing/adjusting ASAP), that person mails the tensionometer-off to the
next person on the list (at their expense). I'll maintain-the list of who
would like to check their cables and-inform whomever has the gauge where
to send it next. I only ask that whenever the gauge is mailed to the next
person, I be informed so we don't loose track of there the gauge is.-I'll
also make a lightweight padded shipping box inwhich the meter can be
shipped.
-
-----If I get at least 10 interested individuals, I order the gau
ge and get things moving. The kit could also include the cable tensions rec
ommeded by Zenith for the-XL & HD, plus instruction on how to properly sa
fety wire the turnbuckles. And the checking of cable tension might also be
added to everyones annual inspection checklist.
-
----Is anyone interested?-
-
Walt in Ohio
601XL/w/Jabiru 3300A
working on fuselage------
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Tim Juhl <juhl@avci.net> wrote:
From: Tim Juhl <juhl@avci.net>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: NTSB report
<juhl@avci.net>
Walt,
That was quite a graphic and informative report. I, too have wondered if s
ome
of the unusual aircraft movements observed prior to the loss of the XL's in
question might have been actions taken by the pilot to dampen flutter.
Interestingly enough, most Ercoupes originally had balanced ailerons - from
what I read the balance weighed almost 4 pounds and hung off the bottom of
the
aileron. They have been removed from most ercoupes as a alternate means of
compliance with a 1947 AD that required reinforcement of the lower ailerons
skins because of the weight of the device.
I suspect if one were to run around with a cable tensionometer and check th
e
aircraft sitting on the ramp at the local airport they would find most did
not
have the cable tension set correctly. I have participated in over 50 annua
ls
over the years and never seen a mechanic check the cable tension with such
a
device. Unless they are really loose they get only a cursory inspection.
We had a case a number of years ago where an ercoupe on the field was damag
ed
after it got away from the owner who was trying to hand prop it because of
a
dead battery. They had to pull the wings and when they went to disconnect
the
control cables they found that the cable turnbuckles were secured with bra
ss
safety wire (not in use for many years) one of which had broken and allowed
the
turnbuckle to back off to where it was held on by only a couple of threads.
If
not for the damage on the ground that required disassembly it would have le
t go
in the air.
Tim
--------
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Working on fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221644#221644
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: Yuba City Probable cause released |
Giacona, why do you said "no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces was
apparent"? Did I miss something in the post? I would think "In-flight
structural failure of the horizontal stabilizer and wings for undetermined
reasons." indicates they DO NOT KNOW why they failed! Jerry of Ga DO NOT ARCHIVE
In a message dated 12/29/2008 5:51:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
wrgiacona@gmail.com writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
That makes things clear as mud. The one useful bit of info i gout out of it
was this. "no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces was apparent." That
would seem to be NTSB speak that rules out flutter.
**************Don't be the last to know - click here for the latest news that
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: Yuba City Probable cause released |
I said "no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces was apparent" and put it
in quotes because it is a direct quote from the report. I may be wrong but I
would think that the phrase "oscillatory loading of the control surfaces" would
be NTSB speak for flutter. If I'm wrong I'd like to know what it does mean.
[quote="Jeyoung65(at)aol.com"]Giacona, why do you said "no oscillatory loading
of the control surfaces was apparent"? Did I miss something in the post? I would
think "In-flight structural failure of the horizontal stabilizer and wings
for undetermined reasons." indicates they DO NOT KNOW why they failed! Jerry
of Ga DO NOT ARCHIVE
In a message dated 12/29/2008 5:51:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, wrgiacona@gmail.com
writes:
> --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona"
>
> That makes things clear as mud. The one useful bit of info i gout out of it
was this. "no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces was apparent."
That would seem to be NTSB speak that rules out flutter.
>
click here for the latest news that will have people talking.
> [b]
--------
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=221723#221723
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: Yuba City Probable cause released |
The separation of the wings and horizontal stabilizer was in a downward
direction
...the possibility of an abrupt control input cannot be excluded. This
airplane is very responsive in pitch control. One of the handling quality
characteristics designed by the
airplane's manufacturer is that movement of the control stick produces large
and rapid changes in pitch attitude."
FWIW. I believe abrupt up elevator input caused horizontal stab downward
failure. Causes extreme nose down pitch and extreme neg gs on wing
resulting in wing failure in downward
direction. Saw this on a T-28A at the Crash Lab at March AFB many years ago
during aircraft accident investigation course.
Tony Graziano
601XL; N493TG; 454 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 4:50 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
>
> That makes things clear as mud. The one useful bit of info i gout out of
> it was this. "no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces was
> apparent." That would seem to be NTSB speak that rules out flutter.
>
> That and they didn't rule out abrupt control input. Just that they
> couldn't see it on radar.
>
> --------
> 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=221705#221705
>
>
>
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: Yuba City Probable cause released |
Yes, you must have missed it.? Quote from the report: "All observed fracture surfaces
were overload, and no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces was
apparent."
Another part of the report said that the failure was from static overload, not
dynamic.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeyoung65@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 6:26 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
Giacona, why do you said "no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces
was apparent"? Did I miss something in the post? I would think "In-flight
structural failure of the horizontal stabilizer and wings for undetermined
reasons." indicates they DO NOT KNOW why they failed!? Jerry of
Ga?? DO NOT ARCHIVE
?
In a message dated 12/29/2008 5:51:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
wrgiacona@gmail.com writes:
-->
Zenith601-List message posted by: "Gig Giacona"
<wrgiacona@gmail.com>
That makes things clear as mud. The one
useful bit of info i gout out of it was this. "no oscillatory loading of the
control surfaces was apparent." That would seem to be NTSB speak that rules
out flutter.
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Yuba City Probable cause released |
I guess I still don't understand the difference between static and dynamic loads.?
The report said that all the overloads were static, not dynamic. ZAC tested
the 601XL wings for static loads twice and they passed with flying colors.
So the static loads seen by the failed wings and horizontal stabilizer must have
been greater than they were designed for.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: T. Graziano <tonyplane@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
?
The separation of the wings and horizontal stabilizer was in a downward
direction?
?
...the possibility of an abrupt control input cannot be excluded. This
airplane is very responsive in pitch control. One of the handling quality
characteristics designed by the?
?
airplane's manufacturer is that movement of the control stick produces large
and rapid changes in pitch attitude."?
?
?
FWIW. I believe abrupt up elevator input caused horizontal stab downward
failure. Causes extreme nose down pitch and extreme neg gs on wing
resulting in wing failure in downward?
?
direction. Saw this on a T-28A at the Crash Lab at March AFB many years ago
during aircraft accident investigation course.?
?
?
?
Tony Graziano?
?
601XL; N493TG; 454 hours?
?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>?
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 4:50 PM?
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released?
?
>?
> That makes things clear as mud. The one useful bit of info i gout out of
> it was this. "no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces was
> apparent." That would seem to be NTSB speak that rules out flutter.?
>?
> That and they didn't rule out abrupt control input. Just that they
> couldn't see it on radar.?
>?
> --------?
> 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=221705#221705?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
>?
> ?
?
?
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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 |
|
Walt,
I'd certainly consider tensioning cables to a reasonable amount, the HD
series hasn't a need for more than 25 lbs but does need guides along the
length at mid point
to keep the cable length from becoming a harmonic of its own weight
playing against the flying weight of the control surfaces. Don't think
tightening to extremes will do
more than damage parts and pivoting surfaces. This cable to flutter
seems to be a placebo that puts the onus on the builder because after an
accident, no one will know
what your tension was.
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
Walter Carey wrote:
> Tim,
>
> I agree with what you said about A&P's and experimental aircraft
> owners failing to check control cable tension during annual or 100
> hour inspections.
>
> I have an idea that I would like to put forth for all 601XL & HD
> owners on the list who have completed and are flying their airplane in
> the United States (overseas owners could do the same thing in their
> area if interested). I will buy a cable tension gauge that can be used
> on the 601XL & HD, and mail it out to anyone who wants to check their
> control cables to see if they meet the specifications called for by
> Zenith. When the person who has the gauge through testing and
> adjusting their cables (please do the testing/adjusting ASAP), that
> person mails the tensionometer off to the next person on the list (at
> their expense). I'll maintain the list of who would like to check
> their cables and inform whomever has the gauge where to send it next.
> I only ask that whenever the gauge is mailed to the next person, I be
> informed so we don't loose track of there the gauge is. I'll also make
> a lightweight padded shipping box inwhich the meter can be shipped.
>
> If I get at least 10 interested individuals, I order the gauge
> and get things moving. The kit could also include the cable tensions
> recommeded by Zenith for the XL & HD, plus instruction on how to
> properly safety wire the turnbuckles. And the checking of cable
> tension might also be added to everyones annual inspection checklist.
>
> Is anyone interested?
>
> Walt in Ohio
> 601XL/w/Jabiru 3300A
> working on fuselage
>
> ______________
> CFII
> Champ L16A flying
> Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
> Working on fuselage
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221644#221644
>
>
>
>
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: Yuba City Probable cause released |
That is why the stick is sometimes referred to a wing remover - you can
remove the wings with ONE abrupt full deflection pull or push, with
airspeed above Va.
Tony Graziano
----- Original Message -----
From: jaybannist@cs.com
To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
I guess I still don't understand the difference between static and
dynamic loads. The report said that all the overloads were static, not
dynamic. ZAC tested the 601XL wings for static loads twice and they
passed with flying colors. So the static loads seen by the failed wings
and horizontal stabilizer must have been greater than they were designed
for.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: T. Graziano <tonyplane@bellsouth.net>
To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
<tonyplane@bellsouth.net>
The separation of the wings and horizontal stabilizer was in a
downward direction
...the possibility of an abrupt control input cannot be excluded. This
airplane is very responsive in pitch control. One of the handling
quality characteristics designed by the
airplane's manufacturer is that movement of the control stick produces
large and rapid changes in pitch attitude."
FWIW. I believe abrupt up elevator input caused horizontal stab
downward failure. Causes extreme nose down pitch and extreme neg gs on
wing resulting in wing failure in downward
direction. Saw this on a T-28A at the Crash Lab at March AFB many
years ago during aircraft accident investigation course.
Tony Graziano
601XL; N493TG; 454 hours
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
To: <zenith601-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 4:50 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
<wrgiacona@gmail.com>
>
> That makes things clear as mud. The one useful bit of info i gout
out of > it was this. "no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces
was > apparent." That would seem to be NTSB speak that rules out
flutter.
>
> That and they didn't rule out abrupt control input. Just that they >
couldn't see it on radar.
>
> --------
> 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=221705#221705
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at
http://www.cs.com
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: | Re: 601 problems |
Tim, I have never seen a photo of an unzipped flex hinge.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221740#221740
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: | Re: Yuba City Probable cause released |
Jay, you understand perfectly. Static overload can still happen if controls
are used too suddenly or even in extreme wind shear. The other this is tha
t low cycle fatigue/iterative static overload is accumulative. Each load pa
st yield deforms the structure and particularly attach points. I also agree
that this is a nice nail in the flutter coffin for this case at least.
David L. Downey Harleysville-(SE) PA, USA
--- On Mon, 12/29/08, jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com> wrote:
From: jaybannist@cs.com <jaybannist@cs.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
I guess I still don't understand the difference between static and dynamic
loads.- The report said that all the overloads were static, not dynamic.
ZAC tested the 601XL wings for static loads twice and they passed with fly
ing colors. So the static loads seen by the failed wings and horizontal sta
bilizer must have been greater than they were designed for.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: T. Graziano <tonyplane@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released
t>-
-
The separation of the wings and horizontal stabilizer was in a downward
direction-
-
...the possibility of an abrupt control input cannot be excluded. This
airplane is very responsive in pitch control. One of the handling quality
characteristics designed by the-
-
airplane's manufacturer is that movement of the control stick produces larg
e
and rapid changes in pitch attitude."-
-
-
FWIW. I believe abrupt up elevator input caused horizontal stab downward
failure. Causes extreme nose down pitch and extreme neg gs on wing
resulting in wing failure in downward-
-
direction. Saw this on a T-28A at the Crash Lab at March AFB many years ag
o
during aircraft accident investigation course.-
-
-
-
Tony Graziano-
-
601XL; N493TG; 454 hours-
-
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona@gmail.com>-
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 4:50 PM-
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Yuba City Probable cause released-
-
-
>-
> That makes things clear as mud. The one useful bit of info i gout out of
> it was this. "no oscillatory loading of the control surfaces was
> apparent." That would seem to be NTSB speak that rules out flutter.-
>-
> That and they didn't rule out abrupt control input. Just that they
> couldn't see it on radar.-
>-
> ---------
> 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=221705#221705-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
> -
-
-
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
=0A=0A=0A
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 |
|
Check out this video.
This has little to do with airplanes directly.
But if you find CNC machining or machinery interesting and you like Joe, you might
enjoy watching this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMS8wWOD0HE
I will post more; that have to do with aircraft, parts and specifically Corvair
stuff and such as they become available. Smile
To nights project is to film the Machine cutting a pair of Corvair Heads.
Should be fun. :)
Enjoy,
--------
Brady McCormick
Poulsbo, WA
www.magnificentmachine.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221755#221755
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 |
|
Walter,=0A=0AI think your idea of share cable tension gauge is great.- It
allows the gauge to be more-accessible, and, hopefully, more planes to b
e correctly tensioned.- Put me in your list.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A______________
__________________=0AFrom: Walter Carey <careywf@sbcglobal.net>=0ATo: zenit
h601-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Monday, December 29, 2008 4:58:23 PM=0ASubj
ect: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: NTSB report=0A=0A=0ATim,=0A=0A-- I agree w
ith what you said about A&P's and experimental aircraft owners failing to
-check control cable tension during annual or 100 hour inspections. =0A
=0A-- I have an idea that I would like to put forth for all 601XL & HD
owners on the list who have completed and are flying their airplane in the
United States (overseas owners could do the same thing in their area if int
erested). I will buy a cable tension gauge that can be used on the 601XL &
HD, and mail it out to anyone who wants to check their control cables to se
e if they meet the specifications called for by Zenith.-When the person w
ho has the gauge-through testing-and adjusting their cables (please do
the testing/adjusting ASAP), that person mails the tensionometer-off to t
he next person on the list (at their expense). I'll maintain-the list of
who would like to check their cables and-inform whomever has the gauge wh
ere to send it next. I only ask that whenever the gauge is mailed to the ne
xt person, I be informed so we don't loose track of there the gauge is.-I
'll also make a lightweight padded shipping box inwhich the meter can be sh
ipped.=0A=0A-----If I get at least 10 interested individuals, I o
rder the gauge and get things moving. The kit could also include the cable
tensions recommeded by Zenith for the-XL & HD, plus instruction on how to
properly safety wire the turnbuckles. And the checking of cable tension mi
ght also be added to everyones annual inspection checklist.=0A=0A---
-Is anyone interested?-=0A=0AWalt in Ohio=0A601XL/w/Jabiru 3300A=0Awork
ing on fuselage------=0A=0A--- On Mon, 12/29/08, Tim Juhl <juhl
@avci.net> wrote:=0A=0AFrom: Tim Juhl <juhl@avci.net>=0ASubject: Zenith601-
List: Re: NTSB report=0ATo: zenith601-list@matronics.com=0ADate: Monday, De
m Juhl"=0A<juhl@avci.net>=0A=0AWalt,=0AThat was quite a graphic and informa
tive report. I, too have wondered if some=0Aof the unusual aircraft moveme
nts observed prior to the loss of the XL's in=0Aquestion might have been ac
tions taken by the pilot to dampen flutter.=0A=0AInterestingly enough, mos
t Ercoupes originally had balanced ailerons - from=0Awhat I read the balanc
e weighed almost 4 pounds and hung off the bottom of the=0Aaileron. They h
ave been removed from most ercoupes as a alternate means of=0Acompliance wi
th a 1947 AD that required reinforcement of the lower ailerons=0Askins beca
use of the weight of the device.=0A=0AI suspect if one were to run around w
ith a cable tensionometer and check the=0Aaircraft sitting on the ramp at t
he local airport they would find most did not=0Ahave the cable tension set
correctly. I have participated in over 50 annuals=0Aover the years and nev
er seen a mechanic check the cable tension with such a=0Adevice. Unless th
ey are really loose they get only a cursory inspection.=0A=0AWe had a case
a number of years ago where an ercoupe on the field was damaged=0Aafter it
got away from the owner who was trying to hand prop it because of a=0Adead
battery. They had to pull the wings and when they went to disconnect the
=0Acontrol cables they found that the cable turnbuckles were secured with
brass=0Asafety wire (not in use for many years) one of which had broken and
allowed the=0Aturnbuckle to back off to where it was held on by only a cou
ple of threads. If=0Anot for the damage on the ground that required disass
embly it would have let go=0Ain the air.=0A=0ATim=0A=0A--------=0A_________
_____=0ACFII=0AChamp L16A flying=0AZodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A=0AWorking on fu
selage=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.matron
ics.com/viewtopic.php?p=221644#221644=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=0A=0A=0A=0A
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! --
|