---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith601-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 01/15/09: 39 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:51:01 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings From: "aerobat" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:28:53 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz 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'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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:34:55 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: VNE what is it on the XL? From: "K Dilks" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:46:27 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:18:27 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:20:00 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:46:26 AM PST US From: Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:02:56 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard 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 9 _____________________________________ Time: 06:27:02 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings From: "K Dilks" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:29:09 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: VNE what is it on the XL? From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:42:14 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:42:15 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:57:22 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings From: "n85ae" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:02:39 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:59:04 AM PST US From: "David Mikesell" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:08:59 AM PST US From: Jim Belcher Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:10:43 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:23:55 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:27:02 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:37:16 AM PST US From: Jeyoung65@aol.com 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)? 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:54:43 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:59:13 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings From: "n85ae" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:13:51 AM PST US From: "Eric Tiethoff (HCCNet)" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:38:21 AM PST US From: Terry Turnquist Subject: Zenith601-List: 601XL Problems 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:48:19 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Dutch XL crash findings From: jaybannist@cs.com 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) 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:56:42 AM PST US From: John Davis Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:34:16 AM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings From: "Sabrina" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:45:18 AM PST US From: Gary Gower Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 wrote: From: Paul Mulwitz 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:39 PM PST US From: Afterfxllc@aol.com Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:13:53 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings From: "dougsire" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:24:05 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:51:34 PM PST US From: Gary Gower Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 wrote: From: John Davis 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:10:14 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings From: "Gig Giacona" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:46:52 PM PST US From: Jim Belcher Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:53:54 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings From: "ashontz" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:57:09 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings From: "aerobat" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:36:01 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:30:11 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: My Corvair Engine Arrived! From: "jonaburns" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:39:56 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: My Corvair Engine Arrived! From: jaybannist@cs.com Jon, Looks great !? Go man ! Jay in Dallas Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: jonaburns 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith601-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith601-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith601-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith601-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.