Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:51 AM - Dutch XL crash findings (aerobat)
2. 03:28 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Paul Mulwitz)
3. 03:34 AM - VNE what is it on the XL? (K Dilks)
4. 03:46 AM - Re: VNE what is it on the XL? (Paul Mulwitz)
5. 05:18 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Jay Maynard)
6. 05:20 AM - Re: VNE what is it on the XL? (Jay Maynard)
7. 05:46 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings ()
8. 06:02 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Jay Maynard)
9. 06:27 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (K Dilks)
10. 06:29 AM - Re: VNE what is it on the XL? (Gig Giacona)
11. 06:42 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (jaybannist@cs.com)
12. 06:42 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Gig Giacona)
13. 06:57 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (n85ae)
14. 07:02 AM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Jay Maynard)
15. 07:59 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (David Mikesell)
16. 08:08 AM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Jim Belcher)
17. 08:10 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Jay Maynard)
18. 08:23 AM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Paul Mulwitz)
19. 08:27 AM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Jay Maynard)
20. 08:37 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Jeyoung65@aol.com)
21. 08:54 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (jaybannist@cs.com)
22. 08:59 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (n85ae)
23. 09:13 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet))
24. 09:38 AM - 601XL Problems (Terry Turnquist)
25. 09:48 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (jaybannist@cs.com)
26. 09:56 AM - Re: 601XL Problems (John Davis)
27. 10:34 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Sabrina)
28. 10:45 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings. (Gary Gower)
29. 12:04 PM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Afterfxllc@aol.com)
30. 12:13 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (dougsire)
31. 12:24 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (ashontz)
32. 12:51 PM - Re: 601XL Problems (Gary Gower)
33. 01:10 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Gig Giacona)
34. 01:46 PM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Jim Belcher)
35. 01:53 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (ashontz)
36. 02:57 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (aerobat)
37. 03:36 PM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (jaybannist@cs.com)
38. 06:30 PM - My Corvair Engine Arrived! (jonaburns)
39. 06:39 PM - Re: My Corvair Engine Arrived! (jaybannist@cs.com)
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: | Dutch XL crash findings |
This is from the Dutch safety board
http://www.safetyboard.nl/publications/dsb/intermediate_warning_accident_with_mla.pdf
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224869#224869
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
What a curious report!
Here is a quote:
As from 2006 until now at least seven accidents with different types
of Zenair Zodiacs
CH601's have occurred caused by the collapse o f one or both wings as
a result of wing
overload. These accidents h ave occurred in int. al. the United
States, the United Kingdom and
Spain. Some investigations of these accidents revealed that the
overload of the wings had
different probable causes, for instance flutter in one or both wings.
end of quote.
I wonder where the Dutch folks got this information. All the actual
accident reports I have read indicated structural failure for unknown
reasons. Apparently, the Dutch folks have different reports that
indicate overload and flutter. Or perhaps they are just making up
these facts . . .
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 01:50 AM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
>
>This is from the Dutch safety board
>
>http://www.safetyboard.nl/publications/dsb/intermediate_warning_accident_with_mla.pdf
>
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: | VNE what is it on the XL? |
ZAC site is 180 mph /290kmh
On my plans 162/ 260 kmh
Any other sources ?
That is a big difference so what is the real figure ?, I feel it is the lower one
on the plans, so why ZAC say different?
Kev
Kit arrived November 21
Rudder, stab, elevator, flaps done. Finishing ailerons....wait to see if balance
mod is coming!
--------
Austria .............
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224873#224873
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: VNE what is it on the XL? |
Hi Kev,
I understand they reduced the Vne specified while converting the
design to conform with the LSA requirements.
From a practical point of view, this speed requires the plane be
flown in a powered dive to reach either speed. Since this is not an
aerobatic plane this sort of maneuver is not supposed to be performed
anyway. Even the 162 mph speed (indicated airspeed) is 24 mph over
the maximum of 138 required by the LSA spec. for level cruise at
maximum continuous power.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 03:34 AM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
>ZAC site is 180 mph /290kmh
>On my plans 162/ 260 kmh
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dutch XL crash findings |
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 03:28:05AM -0800, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
> I wonder where the Dutch folks got this information. All the actual
> accident reports I have read indicated structural failure for unknown
> reasons. Apparently, the Dutch folks have different reports that indicate
> overload and flutter. Or perhaps they are just making up these facts . . .
They appear to have oulled it out of their...uhm...thin air.
The good news is that they're at least back from vacation.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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 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: VNE what is it on the XL? |
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 03:34:34AM -0800, K Dilks wrote:
> ZAC site is 180 mph /290kmh
> On my plans 162/ 260 kmh
AMD has it as 140 knots, or 161.1 MPH. I don't know why the ZAC site has the
higher figure, or why it was lowered. OTOH, I've never had mine over 125
KIAS, even in a power-on descent. The AMD Vno (top of the green arc) is 108
knots, or 124.3 MPH.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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 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: | Dutch XL crash findings |
Or perhaps they did a "real" investigation, real actual dynamic stress
analysis thru computer animations....and they did say that the fligh
information came from the GPS unit recovered from the aircraft that
provided
the data that the plane was in level stable flight when the wing
separated.
David M.
_____
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Mulwitz
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:28 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings
What a curious report!
Here is a quote:
As from 2006 until now at least seven accidents with different types of
Zenair Zodiacs
CH601=12s have occurred caused by the collapse o f one or both wings as
a
result of wing
overload. These accidents h ave occurred in int. al. the United States,
the
United Kingdom and
Spain. Some investigations of these accidents revealed that the overload
of
the wings had
different probable causes, for instance flutter in one or both wings.
end of quote.
I wonder where the Dutch folks got this information. All the actual
accident reports I have read indicated structural failure for unknown
reasons. Apparently, the Dutch folks have different reports that
indicate
overload and flutter. Or perhaps they are just making up these facts .
. .
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 01:50 AM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
This is from the Dutch safety board
http://www.safetyboard.nl/publications/dsb/intermediate_warning_accident_
wit
h_mla.pdf
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 05:44:26AM -0800, skyguynca@skyguynca.com wrote:
> Or perhaps they did a "real" investigation, real actual dynamic stress
> analysis thru computer animations
If so, why didn't they say so? They probably didn't have time in the few
days since they got back from vacation.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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 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: Dutch XL crash findings |
What good is the data from the GPS in relation to previous over stressing of the
frame?
Yes it broke in level flight but it could well have been over stressed many times
before and finally something went.
Bit like and engine blowing up because 50 ours ago it was run low on oil and
suffered accelerated wear.
Sad but I suspect a similar outcome as the Yuba city crash .....undetermined cause.
My 2 cents
Kev
--------
Austria .............
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224889#224889
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: VNE what is it on the XL? |
My original plans said 180 mph. At the same time the website said 180.
The current plans say 162. When I fly it will be 162 in my plane.
The plans are the plans and the website is marketing and doesn't get changed very
often. Go with the 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=224890#224890
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
This is an uninformed, veiled indictment of Chris Heintz's design of the 601XL;
and the fact that US-built XLs are not subject to international airworthiness
standards.
Keep in mind that the subject airplane should properly be called a "CZAW Zodiac
601XL",? NOT a Zenair Zodiac CH 601XL.
Quote: "From a global examination of the drawings of the American design it appeared
that the results of the calculations of strength conducted by the designer
might have been too optimistic."
No where do they allow that "...some modifications were applied to the model in
order to enable the aircraft to comply with the requirement of having a maximum
take off mass of 450 kg." might have contributed to the failure.
No where do they mention that these modifications are not in the "American design"
and do not bear Chris Heintz's name (probably for very good reasons).
No where do they mention that nearly all of the failed XLs were CZAW manufactured
or CZAW kits.
No where do they allow that CZAW might have used substandard materials in their
construction.?
No where do they mention that Zenair terminated their relationship with CZAW. (Wonder
why?)
>From a global examination of
the findings of the Dutch Safety Board, it appears that their
conclusions are based on a? vague speculation, a LACK of information
and are probably prejudiced.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: aerobat <rhood2000@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 3:50 am
Subject: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings
This is from the Dutch safety board
http://www.safetyboard.nl/publications/dsb/intermediate_warning_accident_with_mla.pdf
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dutch XL crash findings |
Has there been any official investigation that stated the flutter was the cause?
If so I haven't seen it. The one official investigation that I have seen (Yuba
City) specifically ruled out flutter.
This paragraph...
"Some investigations of these accidents revealed that the overload of the wings
had different probable causes, for instance flutter in one or both wings."
Should be replaced with...
"An investigation of one of these accidents revealed that the overload of the wings
caused the accident, and rumors have mentioned possibilities for instance
flutter in one or both wings but was ruled out in the one accident investigated."
--------
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=224893#224893
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
The Dutch are reasonable people. The report is a "warning", that the plane
was not doing anything unusual and the wing simply broke off.
Seems pretty obvious to me what they're saying.
Regards,
Jeff
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224897#224897
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 06:56:53AM -0800, n85ae wrote:
> The Dutch are reasonable people. The report is a "warning", that the plane
> was not doing anything unusual and the wing simply broke off.
>
> Seems pretty obvious to me what they're saying.
You are, however, assuming they're competent. Their conduct of this
investigation very strongly suggests otherwise, from their departure on
vacation at its very beginning to their utter ignoring of other
investigations and their refusal to allow people who actually know things to
participate. The final straw is their statement on the potential cause
which, so far, is totally unsupported by any facts or even any documentation
of their conjectures.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dutch XL crash findings |
Jay, I have all Zeniths plans and have built and flown the 601HD and a big
fan of Zenith planes so please do not think that I am bashing.
Now they did not list anything but the gps to give reference how they knew
the plane was straight and level. I sure they did stress calculations and
measurements and tons of stuff they did not list because it has nothing to
do with publishing the conclusion.
Lets not "read into" what is not there oh and if you know what day they came
back from vacation and how many days they took off please list it and your
source.
Lets try to leave comments like that out of they conversation for their is
no proof they just came back adn that they have been on vacation since the
accident.
How ever they have posted their report and I understand that the "601XL
Club" (oh and i have 601XL plans too) is not happy with the findings. Well
you have the right to challenge them with the Dutch investigating
authorities, but you do not have the right to slander them and make
statements insinuating that they did not do a investigation because they
were on vacation and now just making stuff up to put in their "officail"
report.
David M.
Petaluma, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Maynard" <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings
>
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 05:44:26AM -0800, skyguynca@skyguynca.com wrote:
>> Or perhaps they did a "real" investigation, real actual dynamic stress
>> analysis thru computer animations
>
> If so, why didn't they say so? They probably didn't have time in the few
> days since they got back from vacation.
> --
> Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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 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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Ignoring that this report appears to have an undertone of something put
together, perhaps a bit hurriedly, when everyone returned from vacation, it
again says little more than "something broke, and we don't know why."
What it troubling to me is that the accidents seem to get lumped together as
though they were all one aircraft model, but they aren't. There's the Czech
version, the AMD versions, and as many experimental versions as there are
builders.
I would think Chris Heintz' measurements and tests are valid only for the US
versions. Lacking information on the Czech variants, are these tests totally
applicable?
I also wonder a little about the factory built copies, since we have one
accident in which it was known there were various deficiencies at the time of
delivery. True, these were corrected, but what does it say about factory
quality control at the time of construction of that particular aircraft?
One of my concerns when the whole LSA thing was initially proposed was that
having manufacturers propose their own standards, etc. was a little like the
fox guarding the hen house. Does anyone know if the demonstrator the guys at
Mexico, Mo use was build at AMD, or at Mexico?
I'm just thinking and curious. My mind is far from made up on the causes, and
I wonder if we may not be seeing several problems, not just one.
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
============================================
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 07:56:13AM -0800, David Mikesell wrote:
> but you do not have the right to slander them and make statements
> insinuating that they did not do a investigation because they were on
> vacation and now just making stuff up to put in their "officail" report.
Sorry. Until they show their work, all we have to go on is their bald
statements - and that includes their statement that they would not be able
to do anything for some time after grounding the entire fleet because they
were going on vacation. We would not stand for that in the US; I have no
idea why the Europeans put up with it. In any event, that greatly harms
their credibility, because it is so completely unprofessional of them.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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 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: Dutch XL crash findings |
I think it is safe to assume the demonstrator was built by the Zenith
folks rather than AMD. The demonstrator has hinge-less ailerons,a
Jabiru 3300 engine, and Center Y stick. The AMD planes (I believe)
have Continental engines, piano hinge ailerons, and dual sticks.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 08:09 AM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
>Does anyone know if the demonstrator the guys at
>Mexico, Mo use was build at AMD, or at Mexico?
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 08:23:52AM -0800, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
> The AMD planes (I believe) have Continental engines, piano hinge ailerons,
> and dual sticks.
This is correct.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI 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 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: Dutch XL crash findings |
>From the report it would appear that the wing was not bent or broken just
the attachments to the fuselage. As I have a 601HD I do not know how the 601
XL
wings are attached. Does anyone know what they are talking about "upper and
lower reinforcement of the right hand wing main spar"? Are these parts of th
e
fuselage (my: 6F-6-1 and -3)? Jerry of Ga DO NOT ARCHIVE
"The right hand wing folded up and backwards in flight, whereby the upper
lining of the wing hit
the upper side of the fuselage, behind the canopy.
=B7 The right hand wing did not break.
=B7 The upper reinforcement of the right hand wing main spar had been buckl
ed
and twisted,
slightly forward of the wing-fuselage attachment.
=B7 The lower reinforcement of the right wing main spar had been twisted ju
st
in front of the wingfuselage
attachment."
In a message dated 1/15/2009 10:59:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
skyguynca@skyguynca.com writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: "David Mikesell"
<skyguynca@skyguynca.com>
Jay, I have all Zeniths plans and have built and flown the 601HD and a big
fan of Zenith planes so please do not think that I am bashing.
.
**************Inauguration '09: Get complete coverage from the nation's
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
I am guessing that they are referring to the upper and lower wing spar caps
.=C2- Coincidentally, there is some question about the integrity of the ma
terials used by CZAW for these very parts.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeyoung65@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:36 am
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings
>From the report it would appear that the wing was not bent or broken just
the attachments to the fuselage. As I have a 601HD I do not know how the 601
XL
wings are attached. Does anyone know what they are talking about "upper and
lower reinforcement of the right hand wing main spar"? Are these parts of th
e
fuselage (my: 6F-6-1 and -3)?=C2- Jerry of Ga=C2-=C2-=C2- DO NOT
ARCHIVE
=C2-
"The right hand wing folded up and backwards in flight, whereby the upper
lining of the wing hit
the upper side of the fuselage, behind the
canopy.
=C2=B7 The right hand wing did not break.
=C2=B7 The upper reinforcement of
the right hand wing main spar had been buckled and twisted,
slightly forward
of the wing-fuselage attachment.
=C2=B7 The lower reinforcement of the right wing
main spar had been twisted just in front of the
wingfuselage
attachment."
=C2-
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
jmaynard wrote:
> The final straw is their statement on the potential cause
> which, so far, is totally unsupported by any facts or even any documentation
> of their conjectures.
This is what they said in the Preliminary Conclusion, perhaps your version
of English and mine are vastly different. It still reads the same to me, but
maybe I'm a dummy ...?
Jeff
The investigation conducted by the Dutch Safety Board into the cause of this accident
is ongoing.
Nevertheless the Board, with regard to the seven similar accidents elsewhere in
the world, and in
anticipation of the definitive outcome of its investigation of this accident, holds
the opinion that it is
appropriate to warn all those who are directly or indirectly involved in the operation
of this type of
aircraft for the apparent risks in doing so.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224921#224921
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Jay, you wrote:
"Coincidentally, there is some question about the integrity of the
materials used by CZAW for these very parts."
What do you have to prove this ? Did you ever compare all the drawings ?
By the way, i am from Holland and have all the confidence in the
authorities that are trying to find the reason why this particular plane
came down. This sort of investigation takes al long time and is in the
best interest of all of us. Everybody has a right to an opinion but
please don't shout till you have seen the outcome of all this.
Kindest regards from Holland.
From: jaybannist@cs.com
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings
I am guessing that they are referring to the upper and lower wing spar
caps. Coincidentally, there is some question about the integrity of the
materials used by CZAW for these very parts.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeyoung65@aol.com
Sent: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:36 am
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings
>From the report it would appear that the wing was not bent or broken
just the attachments to the fuselage. As I have a 601HD I do not know
how the 601XL wings are attached. Does anyone know what they are talking
about "upper and lower reinforcement of the right hand wing main spar"?
Are these parts of the fuselage (my: 6F-6-1 and -3)? Jerry of Ga DO
NOT ARCHIVE
"The right hand wing folded up and backwards in flight, whereby the
upper lining of the wing hit
the upper side of the fuselage, behind the canopy.
=C2=B7 The right hand wing did not break.
=C2=B7 The upper reinforcement of the right hand wing main spar had been
buckled and twisted,
slightly forward of the wing-fuselage attachment.
=C2=B7 The lower reinforcement of the right wing main spar had been
twisted ju st in front of the wingfuselage
attachment."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
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 |
|
Someone refresh my memory...What is the breakdown of the seven known wing failures
as to manufacturer? Thanks, and please, can't we all just get along?
Rodney
(Just kidding)
Do not archive
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dutch XL crash findings |
Eric,
I beg your pardon ?=C2- I really don't understand your reply.=C2- Who is
shouting, and what is there to prove? There IS a question about the materia
ls used.=C2- A question is just that - a question.=C2- How can you prove
a question ?=C2- There are many questions in the report.=C2- Why didn't
you ask where their proof is ?
Obviously, I personally have many questions about the performance of the Dut
ch Safety Board handling this situation.
The report did not specifically address the grounding of 601Xls.=C2- The f
inal sentence warns about the risk of operating "this type of aircraft". Doe
s that mean that the grounding has been lifted or is it still in effect ?
Kindest regards from The United States of America
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet) <j.e.tiethoff@hccnet.nl>
Sent: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:12 am
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings
Jay, you
wrote:
=C2-
"Coincidentally, there is some question about the integrity of
the materials used by CZAW for these very parts."
=C2-
What do you have to prove this ? Did you ever compare all
the drawings ? By the way, i am from Holland and have all the confidence in
the
authorities that are trying to find the reason why this particular plane cam
e
down. This sort of investigation takes al long time and is in the best inter
est
of all of us. Everybody has a20right to an opinion but please don't shout ti
ll
you have seen the outcome of all this.
=C2-
Kindest regards from Holland.
=C2-
From: jaybannist@cs.com
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash
findings
I am guessing that they are
referring to the upper and lower wing spar caps.=C2- Coincidentally, there
is
some question about the integrity of the materials used by CZAW for these ve
ry
parts.
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeyoung65@aol.com
Sent:
Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:36 am
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash
findings
>From the report it would appear that the wing was not bent or broken just
the attachments to the fuselage. As I have a 601HD I do not know how the 601
XL
wings are attached. Does anyone know what they are talking about "upper and
lower reinforcement of the right hand wing main spar"? Are these parts of th
e
fuselage (my: 6F-6-1 and -3)?=C2- Jerry of Ga=C2-=C2-=C2- DO NOT
ARCHIVE
=C2-
"The right hand wing folded up and backwards in flight, whereby the upper
lining of the wing hit
the upper side of the fuselage, behind the
canopy.
=C2=B7 The right hand wing did not break.
=C2=B7 The upper reinforcement of
the right hand wing main spar had been buckled and twisted,
slightly forward
of the
wing-fuselage attachment.
=C2=B7 The lower reinforcement of the right wing
main spar had been twisted ju st in front of the
wingfuselage
attachment."
=C2-
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matron
ics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: 601XL Problems |
Terry,
In the US there are:
2/2/2006 Oakdale CA, Hooker Zodiac - Kitbuild - Undetermined structural
failure
11/4/2006 Yuba City, CA - AMD - No final cause yet
5/2/2007 Canadian, TX - Kitbuild - This one really looks like loss of
control in IMC/Thunderstorms
4/7/2008 Polk City, FL - CZAW - No Final Cause yet
These are the only Wing related failures I find in the NTSB database. So
I'm not sure where the comment came from that most of the acident
aircraft were CZAW models. So far in the US only 1 of the wing related
accidents was a CZAW built aircraft, there was another CZAW in a fatal
accident but that was was a fuel exhaustion issue (Bayse, VA Accident).
There are several other fatal accidents but they dont seem to have any
failed wing component.
John Davis
Burnsville, NC
601XL -Jab 3300
Finally Flying....
Terry Turnquist wrote:
> Someone refresh my memory...What is the breakdown of the seven known
> wing failures as to manufacturer? Thanks, and please, can't we all
> just get along?
>
> Rodney
> (Just kidding)
>
> Do not archive
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dutch XL crash findings |
How many wing failures in the US where the original builder/mfg installed the wings
as flown on the day of the crash where there is no finding of pilot error
or unauthorized maintenance?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224946#224946
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: Dutch XL crash findings. |
For my point of view,- this type of report is real FAR-from -profesio
nal type.-
-
-Professional type reports have SUPORTED FACTS!--This looks like the
"news"- about Artists:- I heard..., someone told me..., maybe they made
the investigation at-barber shop- or in the comunity market, -and pr
obably their "material source"--for their investigation was all the BS
-some-of us -said in this list.-- :-)- :-)- :-)--
-
The correct way is:- There were X accident reportes in Zodiac XL during t
he period of 200X to 200Z :
One in X Country with the ABC Office report number 1234 dated- dd/mm/yy.
-- # 2 Report in X. Country with prelimiary report 9876 issued by the W
XY aggency... etc.
A Fluter Report # 1234 issued by this authority from this County...
-
I am sure- that not all 7 accidents have proven wing failures!-
-
I wonder how they investigate and judge the poor citizens...---Hope I
never get in jail there.
-
Saludos
Gary Gower
And they say I live in a 3th world country...
Do not archive.
--- On Thu, 1/15/09, Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net> wrote:
From: Paul Mulwitz <psm@att.net>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings
What a curious report!
Here is a quote:
As from 2006 until now at least seven accidents with different types of Zen
air Zodiacs
CH601=A2s have occurred caused by the collapse o f one or both wings as a r
esult of wing
overload. These accidents h ave occurred in int. al. the United States, the
United Kingdom and
Spain. Some investigations of these accidents revealed that the overload of
the wings had
different probable causes, for instance flutter in one or both wings.
end of quote.
I wonder where the Dutch folks got this information.- All the actual acci
dent reports I have read indicated structural failure for unknown reasons.
- Apparently, the Dutch folks have different reports that indicate overlo
ad and flutter.- Or perhaps they are just making up these facts . . .
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 01:50 AM 1/15/2009, you wrote:
This is from the Dutch safety board
http://www.safetyboard.nl/publications/dsb/intermediate_warning_accident_wi
th_mla.pdf
=0A=0A=0A
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
I have said all along it was flutter and I still believe and (Hope) it is. I
also believe it is exaggerated when the cable tensions are not correct. I
adjusted the one I flew back to Florida and found the tension to be 15 lbs and
if anyone wants to know it took 31/2 turns of all 3 turnbuckles to gain 32 lbs
on the cables. I didn't measure the fine tuning of the balance cable.
I will tell you that there was no difference whatsoever in the feel of the
stick after the adjustment. Even though I knew they were right when we departed
for Fl. you can bet your sweet ass I had my eye on the right aileron and it
was in the back of my mind. I think the push pull tube is a great idea and it
takes out the possibility of the cables being loose. Most don't have access
to a cable tension meter and will just arbitrarily tighten them which could
be just as bad.
I don't know if balancing them will help or not but I wish they would have
done that on the new 650 because it would have been the perfect time to do it.
Along with adding push pull tubes. I am not of the opinion that all of the
aircraft were over stressed either. If it had been 1 or 2 maybe but it would
seem to me from watching testing of a wing until it failed there is some major
distortion before it gives way to the stress and I just don't see where that
would have gone un noticed during a pre flight. To say only the attach
points of the wings were stressed with no other signs anywhere I just don't see.
I also don't think that Zenith could ever take any position other than there
isn't a problem because any other position would have attorneys beating down
there door and we certainly don't want to see that. I am building them and
will continue to build them and support them. That said, I am adding cherry max
rivets to the first 3 aileron attach holes and making sure to have the
proper cable tension at all times.
These are my opinions and even though I have built 3 601's I am not saying I
know anymore about this subject than the scratch builder on his first plane
so take what I say as just that another opinion.
Jeff Garrett
Louisville Ky.
601XL N962T Aerolite Corvair 90%
601XL N524B Aerolite Corvair 155 Hrs
601XL N2257 Aerolite Corvair 85 Hrs
_www.aeroliteproducts.com_ (http://www.aeroliteproducts.com/)
_www.project601xl.com_ (http://www.project601xl.com/)
_www.aerolite.camstreams.com_ (http://www.aerolite.camstreams.com/)
Do not archive
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
cemailfooterNO62)
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Jeff,
What type of Cherrymax rivets are you using? I'm planning on using solid or Cherrymax
in some areas, but I'm a bit confused by the different types (Aluminum,
Monel, INCO).
Thanks,
Doug Sire
Billings, MT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224964#224964
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Regardless of the cause, (most likely overstress from pilot error or shodding building
in caparison to how Zenith would specifiy or build it themselves), one
thing that is pretty consistent is HOW the wing breaks when it does break. That
is:
near the root, top of spar buckling forward, as would be suspected considering
the slight forward cant to the spar. Personally, I'd rather see NO forward cant
and I'm sure makes the wing slightly weaker than I'd prefer, but not weaker
than the properly build design limitation, but whatever.
What that means is, if that's the weak link (not necessarily the problem), but
the weak link in the wing itself, maybe double up on rivets in that area or use
even better pulled rivets or possibly even bucked rivets. I'd also stay away
from the 15 gallon tanks keeping all the ribs (rear and nose ribs) in line instead
of offset around the tank extension. I wouldn't mess with multiple piece
leading edge skins (ie. providing easier access to the fuel tank) and instead
use just one continuous 12' leading edge skin, and I wouldn't mess with the wing
locker. But that's just me.
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224969#224969
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: 601XL Problems |
John,
-
You are better investigator that "they " are...- And you are not paid for
it...- :-)- :-)
-
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Not Shouting,-- Just commenting the Facts (in black and white) -I see
in the report
Do not archive.
--- On Thu, 1/15/09, John Davis <johnd@data-tech.com> wrote:
From: John Davis <johnd@data-tech.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 601XL Problems
Terry,
In the US there are:
2/2/2006 Oakdale CA, Hooker Zodiac - Kitbuild - Undetermined structural fai
lure
11/4/2006 Yuba City, CA - AMD - No final cause yet
5/2/2007- Canadian, TX - Kitbuild - This one really looks like loss of co
ntrol in IMC/Thunderstorms
4/7/2008 Polk City, FL - CZAW - No Final Cause yet
These are the only Wing related failures I find in the NTSB database. So I'
m not sure where the comment came from that most of the acident aircraft we
re CZAW models. So far in the US only 1 of the wing related accidents was a
CZAW built aircraft, there was another CZAW in a fatal accident but that w
as was a fuel exhaustion issue (Bayse, VA Accident).
There are several other fatal accidents but they dont seem to have any fail
ed wing component.
John Davis
Burnsville, NC
601XL -Jab 3300
Finally Flying....
Terry Turnquist wrote:
Someone refresh my memory...What is the breakdown of the seven known wing f
ailures as to manufacturer? Thanks, and please, can't we all just get along
?
Rodney
(Just kidding)
Do not archive
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List">http://www.matr
onics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
=0A=0A=0A
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dutch XL crash findings |
skyguynca wrote:
> I sure they did stress calculations and
> measurements and tons of stuff they did not list because it has nothing to
> do with publishing the conclusion.
>
> Lets not "read into" what is not there oh and if you know what day they came
> back from vacation and how many days they took off please list it and your
> source.
>
> Lets try to leave comments like that out of they conversation for their is
> no proof they just came back adn that they have been on vacation since the
> accident.
>
> How ever they have posted their report and I understand that the "601XL
> Club" (oh and i have 601XL plans too) is not happy with the findings. Well
> you have the right to challenge them with the Dutch investigating
> authorities, but you do not have the right to slander them and make
> statements insinuating that they did not do a investigation because they
> were on vacation and now just making stuff up to put in their "officail"
> report.
>
> David M.
> Petaluma, CA
>
> ---
First I'm with both of the Jay's these guys need to show their work if they are
going to make a statement that this or any plane is unsafe.
As far as slandering them them. They are the ones doing the slandering by not basing
their statements on facts that they are willing to provide. Hell, they don't
even tell what kind of GPS was in the plane. For all we know it was some
$50 special with accuracy of +/- 1000ft. I don't know that is the case but this
quarter ass report sure didn't tell me otherwise.
--------
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=224976#224976
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
I pretty much agree with most of the criticism I'm reading here of the report.
Read superficially, it sounds as though one is being given a real report with
facts. Read carefully, particularly with some knowlege of what facts there
are, it reads like a poorly researched way of closing the discussion,
substituting careful grammer and sentence structure for thorough analysis.
I'm forced to wonder if the author(s) weren't under pressure to get something
out, having a lot of catchup to do after returning from vacation.
Please understand I'm not picking on some one government - this sort of thing
happens all over. There are times to put a subject to sleep with carefully
chosen words, because it does not merit too much examination, and the author
is running out of time. Heck, I've done it!
But this isn't one of those times. We really need international cooperation,
and more detailed information than we are being given.
=============================================
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 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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Also, never mentioned the direction of turn, or the bank or the approximate speed.
Also, 200 ft variation while turning??!!! That'd be some serious Gs (if it
was positive Gs) and say a 30 degree bank angle, no? I'm trying to picture a
small plane making a 360 degree turn next to say the empire state building (around
950ft?) and that turn varying by plus or minus 200 ft. It'd look like the
pilot was drunk. Watching that I'd definitely be like "WTF!?".
Gig Giacona wrote:
>
> skyguynca wrote:
> > I sure they did stress calculations and
> > measurements and tons of stuff they did not list because it has nothing to
> > do with publishing the conclusion.
> >
> > Lets not "read into" what is not there oh and if you know what day they came
> > back from vacation and how many days they took off please list it and your
> > source.
> >
> > Lets try to leave comments like that out of they conversation for their is
> > no proof they just came back adn that they have been on vacation since the
> > accident.
> >
> > How ever they have posted their report and I understand that the "601XL
> > Club" (oh and i have 601XL plans too) is not happy with the findings. Well
> > you have the right to challenge them with the Dutch investigating
> > authorities, but you do not have the right to slander them and make
> > statements insinuating that they did not do a investigation because they
> > were on vacation and now just making stuff up to put in their "officail"
> > report.
> >
> > David M.
> > Petaluma, CA
> >
> > ---
>
>
> First I'm with both of the Jay's these guys need to show their work if they are
going to make a statement that this or any plane is unsafe.
>
> As far as slandering them them. They are the ones doing the slandering by not
basing their statements on facts that they are willing to provide. Hell, they
don't even tell what kind of GPS was in the plane. For all we know it was some
$50 special with accuracy of +/- 1000ft. I don't know that is the case but this
quarter ass report sure didn't tell me otherwise.
--------
Andy Shontz
do not archive
CH601XL - Corvair
www.mykitlog.com/ashontz
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224980#224980
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
This is from the Zenair Europe site
Neither the preliminary accident report nor the Dutch grounding-orders makes reference
to the wreckage of PH-4B6. Although for the last three months, Zenair
has received no word of new findings from the Dutch Safety Board, factory representatives
were recently permitted to inspect the remains of the accident aircraft.
Upon careful first-hand examination, we feel sufficient new evidence comes
to light that suggests a very different sequence of events than the one proposed
by witnesses. The investigation is on-going and we do not know what is
currently being considered by investigators, nevertheless, we remain puzzled as
to why the official position has not been revised and why the grounding orders
remain unchanged.
Three observations in particular seem especially significant. This is what we saw:
1) The leading edge D-cells of both wings of the accident aircraft display remarkable
similarities: From root to tip, the front skins of both wings show even
and continuous impact damage consistent with straight-on impact. The main landing
gear and nose gear strut were undamaged (one wheel fairing actually remains
attached). This, along with the nature of the overall damage suggests that
the aircraft likely contacted the water straight-on, but more upside down (wheels
pointing up) than right-side up.
2) In the area where it passes through the fuselage, the aileron control cable
of the wing that supposedly failed in the air is still cleanly threaded through
its plastic fairlead which is still firmly riveted (paint is not even cracked)
to the fuselage side. The aileron belcranks of both wings are undamaged and
still properly secured. In other accidents where a wing was known to have folded
in flight, aileron control cables ripped through the thin fuselage sides (in
the direction of the folding wing) and the aileron belcranks were torn loose
from the wing structure.
3) At the rear spar attachment location, the fuselage tab was intact, as was the
attachment bolt. It is the rear spar web which failed, but not as we have seen
in other accidents where the failure has been attributed to static overload.
In this case, the remaining portion of the spar channel and doubler (a washer-like
piece still attached under the tight bolt-joint) shows evidence of failure
from bending and tearing - rather than from straight up, down or out shear
forces.
Considered together (the even crushing of both wings, the absence of aileron cables
ripping through the aluminum fuselage sides and intact belcranks, and the
failure mode of the wings rear attachment point), the wreckage seems to tell
its own story as to the configuration of the aircraft just prior to impact
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224986#224986
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dutch XL crash findings |
VERY interesting ! !=C2- Does this inspire confidence in the Dutch Safety
Board's report, or what ?
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: aerobat <rhood2000@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 4:54 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
This is from the Zenair Europe site
Neither the preliminary accident report nor the Dutch grounding-orders makes
reference to the wreckage of PH-4B6. Although for the last three months, Zen
air
has received no word of new findings from the Dutch Safety Board, factory
representatives were recently permitted to inspect the remains of the accide
nt
aircraft. Upon careful first-hand examination, we feel sufficient new eviden
ce
comes to light that suggests a very different sequence of events than the on
e
proposed by witnesses. The investigation is on-going and we do not know what
is
currently being considered by investigators, nevertheless, we remain puzzled
as
to why the official position has not been revised and why the grounding orde
rs
remain unchanged.
Three observations in particular seem especially significant. This is what w
e
saw:
1) The leading edge D-cells of both wings of the accident aircraft display
remarkable similarities: From root to tip, the front skins of both wings sho
w
even and continuous impact damage consistent with straight-on impact. The ma
in
landing gear and nose gear
strut were undamaged (one wheel fairing actually
remains attached). This, along with the nature of the overall damage suggest
s
that the aircraft likely contacted the water straight-on, but more upside do
wn
(wheels pointing up) than right-side up.
2) In the area where it passes through the fuselage, the aileron control cab
le
of the wing that supposedly failed in the air is still cleanly threaded thro
ugh
its plastic fairlead which is still firmly riveted (paint is not even cracke
d)
to the fuselage side. The aileron belcranks of both wings are undamaged and
still properly secured. In other accidents where a wing was known to have
=C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93folded=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D in flight, aileron control
cables ripped through the thin fuselage
sides (in the direction of the folding wing) and the aileron belcranks were
torn
loose from the wing structure.
3) At the rear spar attachment location, the fuselage tab was intact, as was
the
attachment bolt. It is the rear spar web which failed, but not as we have se
en
in other accidents where the failure has been attributed to static overload.
In
this case, the remaining portion of the spar channel and doubler (a washer-l
ike
piece still attached under the tight bolt-joint) shows evidence of failure f
rom
bending and tearing - rather than from straight =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93up=C3
=A2=82=AC=C2=9D, =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93down=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D or
=C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93out=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D shear forces.
Considered together (the even crushing of both wings, the absence
of aileron
cables =C3=A2=82=AC=C5=93ripping=C3=A2=82=AC=C2=9D through the aluminu
m fuselage sides and intact belcranks,
and the failure mode of the wing=C3=A2=82=AC=84=A2s rear attachment po
int), the wreckage seems
to tell its own story as to the configuration of the aircraft just prior to
impact=C3=A2=82=AC=C2
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=224986#224986
t Dralle, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | My Corvair Engine Arrived! |
To my delight, a nice guy in a truck from Yellow Transportation helped me unload
a crate with my name on it.
Of course, I knew what was inside, but since it is less than a month since Christmas,
(and we still have our decorations up) I pretended to be surprised to find
a shiny "new" Corvair engine gently strapped inside.
Here are a couple of pics...
My plane is going to need to go to the airport soon!
Jon Burns
Little Elm, Tx
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225011#225011
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0052_844.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0049_191.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0043_774.jpg
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: My Corvair Engine Arrived! |
Jon,
Looks great !? Go man !
Jay in Dallas
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: jonaburns <lsapilot@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 8:29 pm
Subject: Zenith601-List: My Corvair Engine Arrived!
To my delight, a nice guy in a truck from Yellow Transportation helped me unload
a crate with my name on it.
Of course, I knew what was inside, but since it is less than a month since
Christmas, (and we still have our decorations up) I pretended to be surprised to
find a shiny "new" Corvair engine gently strapped inside.
Here are a couple of pics...
My plane is going to need to go to the airport soon!
Jon Burns
Little Elm, Tx
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=225011#225011
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0052_844.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0049_191.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_0043_774.jpg
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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! --
|