Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:28 AM - Re: Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) (David Johnson)
2. 06:38 AM - Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) (Sabrina)
3. 07:07 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Sabrina)
4. 07:57 AM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Paul Mulwitz)
5. 07:58 AM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Paul Mulwitz)
6. 09:27 AM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Gig Giacona)
7. 12:18 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Thruster87)
8. 12:38 PM - Re: No Canopy Gas Struts on 650 Canopy for XL...? (PatrickW)
9. 12:51 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Sabrina)
10. 02:04 PM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Paul Mulwitz)
11. 02:41 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Sabrina)
12. 03:57 PM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Dave Austin)
13. 04:00 PM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Paul Mulwitz)
14. 04:34 PM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Graeme@cole)
15. 05:48 PM - Re: Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Paul Mulwitz)
16. 08:29 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (Thruster87)
17. 08:39 PM - Re: Dutch XL crash findings (chris Sinfield)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
The breakdown was:-
Right 209
Left 221
Nose 270
I should have mentioned that, as this is a CZAW kit, I have the composite
legs (or at least the 'plane has!) which save quite a bit of weight, I would
guess about 25Lbs.
Dave Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:05 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread)
>
> Dave,
>
> What is the break down of the 700 pounds per wheel?
>
> Nose? Left Main? Right Main?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226042#226042
>
>
>
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: Rotax Weight (from Dutch XL thread) |
Thank you David... when I was building very few people would give me the nose weight.
AMD refused, Zenith refused, before I started the build, I was calculating
nose gear weights of near 300 pounds--more than double my C150L. This
is why I have never worried about the up elevator knocking my tail into the ground
like winds can do to my C150. If your seats cushions are firmly in place
and you have dual sticks, the seat belts do a great job of locking the ailerons
into the seats.
I had to move the battery to the luggage area and added weight such as 4130 reinforcements
to strengthen the rear spar carry through and roll over capability.
I was around 100 pounds when I started building and I would have run into a too-forward
CG problem without a passenger or luggage if I had not added the reinforcements/head
rests.
Gary... age AND weight... :o) (I am pushing 120+ now, but I am 5' 9", I have
grown 7" since starting the build--I am so glad I set the pedals as far forward
as could be.)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226153#226153
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dutch XL crash findings |
The EU regs seem to create a dangerous situation as to the XL
As Kev points out: "The planes are NOT weighed , you just sign a declaration that
states you comply... virtually all ... are more than this limit."
So, an EU builder may be forced to lie to be safe or cut corners, literally.
How does the non-builder XL pilot in Europe know which plane he has?
As Andrew said: "the only way YOU can tell if YOUR aircraft is one of the bad ones
is by having it come apart in flight."
Here, the FAA responds to the EAA and has developed a wonderful EAB/E-LSA system
that is efficient, relatively inexpensive and open. If a builder can prove
to the FAA that his particular XL can carry more than 1320 pounds, he can certify
it to that higher weight, he will need a private pilot ticket to fly it,
but the process is there and it is transparent. No need to lie, no need to cut
corners here.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226158#226158
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Hi Sabrina,
While your statement is technically true, it leaves some issues unmentioned.
First, there is ot need to prove anything the the FAA to get a
certificate. That is, you don't need to prove the weight limit is
OK. You do need to prove you own the plane and that it was built
according to the appropriate rule set such as the 50% rule. The FAA
doesn't seem to concern itself with the general design safety of the
plane when it is certified as experimental.
For many of us, the Private License is a non-issue. The real issue
is the lack of need for a medical certificate to fly a plane that
qualifies as LSA.
Also, you can get your plane certified with a higher weight limit,
but the original design was limited to the 1320 pounds. That means
all the calculations of load limits are based on this weight. If you
fly it at a higher weight (which I'm sure we all will do from time to
time) you reduce the margin for overloading that can occur in choppy
weather or due to heavy handed piloting. You also need to change the
maneuvering speed.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 07:06 AM 1/22/2009, you wrote:
>Here, the FAA responds to the EAA and has developed a wonderful
>EAB/E-LSA system that is efficient, relatively inexpensive and
>open. If a builder can prove to the FAA that his particular XL can
>carry more than 1320 pounds, he can certify it to that higher
>weight, he will need a private pilot ticket to fly it, but the
>process is there and it is transparent. No need to lie, no need to
>cut corners here.
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 |
Hi Sabrina,
While your statement is technically true, it leaves some issues unmentioned.
First, there is ot need to prove anything the the FAA to get a
certificate. That is, you don't need to prove the weight limit is
OK. You do need to prove you own the plane and that it was built
according to the appropriate rule set such as the 50% rule. The FAA
doesn't seem to concern itself with the general design safety of the
plane when it is certified as experimental.
For many of us, the Private License is a non-issue. The real issue
is the lack of need for a medical certificate to fly a plane that
qualifies as LSA.
Also, you can get your plane certified with a higher weight limit,
but the original design was limited to the 1320 pounds. That means
all the calculations of load limits are based on this weight. If you
fly it at a higher weight (which I'm sure we all will do from time to
time) you reduce the margin for overloading that can occur in choppy
weather or due to heavy handed piloting. You also need to change the
maneuvering speed.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 07:06 AM 1/22/2009, you wrote:
>Here, the FAA responds to the EAA and has developed a wonderful
>EAB/E-LSA system that is efficient, relatively inexpensive and
>open. If a builder can prove to the FAA that his particular XL can
>carry more than 1320 pounds, he can certify it to that higher
>weight, he will need a private pilot ticket to fly it, but the
>process is there and it is transparent. No need to lie, no need to
>cut corners here.
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Paul,
While I don't have to weigh my plane with the DAR standing there I do have to show
him the weight and balance information. To lie on that form is a violation
of the law. As is flight with a MGW over 1320 lbs. I don't plane do do that either.
--------
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=226192#226192
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dutch XL crash findings |
You poor buggers.We are allowed 700kg -1540 lbs MTOW and NO top speed limits [other
then manufactures recommended] here down in OZ for the LSA category.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226214#226214
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: No Canopy Gas Struts on 650 Canopy for XL...? |
I called Zenith.
There were a few items that didn't make it onto the pick list: the gas struts,
some "eyelets", and the drawings.
They said they'll ship them to me.
The green nylon "thing" isn't on any of their airplanes or drawings. Must be an
AMD addition.
Hope this helps anyone else who's doing the 650 canopy and was wondering the same
thing.
Upward and onward... :)
- Patrick
--------
Patrick
601XL/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226218#226218
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 |
T87, Do you need a "Medical Standard 3" certificate to fly an LSA in Australia?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226220#226220
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: Dutch XL crash findings |
Hi Gig,
What law is it you would violate if you flew your plane over max gross weight?
Paul
Do not archive
At 09:27 AM 1/22/2009, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>While I don't have to weigh my plane with the DAR standing there I
>do have to show him the weight and balance information. To lie on
>that form is a violation of the law. As is flight with a MGW over
>1320 lbs. I don't plane do do that either.
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 |
Paul,
14 CFR 91.103(b)(2) Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become
familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This information
MUST include--...reliable information appropriate to the aircraft, relating
to aircraft performance under expected values of airport elevation and runway
slope, aircraft gross weight, and wind and temperature
Unless you test your aircraft in Phase 1 at "over max" , how can you possess "reliable
information appropriate to the aircraft" re the "gross weight."
So too, as to W&B you sign an 18 USC perjury advsory acknoweldgement during certification
that the information you gave was truthful. Not to mention the notarized
program letter.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226241#226241
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 |
Re over gross,
I believe I'm right up here in Canada in that it would invalidate your C of
A and would also render your insurance nul and void.
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912
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 |
Hi Sabrina,
I agree with you about truthfulness on the documents.
I disagree about the max gross weight. Yes, the pilot is responsible
for knowing the airplane's take off weight. But no, he is not
responsible for seeing that it falls within the maximum specified on
ancient papers.
Most of my pilot experience was gained as a renter rather than
airplane owner. That means I have flown many different models under
many different conditions. One of those conditions is a regular
habit of flying some particular model planes over gross weight. One
example is the C-150. I don't believe I have ever flown one of those
under gross except when soloing. My most recent flight in one (last
year) was getting my BFR with another chunky old man in the
passenger's seat. I'm sure we were at least 100 pounds over
gross. That sort of flight is very common practice in the real
world. In a case like this the only other choices would be to not
fly or find a different aircraft type. Perhaps that would have been
a good choice, but I don't think we broke any laws or regulations.
In real world practice, it is important to understand how the plane
will perform under the actual flight conditions. A C-150 will do
just fine when flown over gross so long as the CG is good and the air
conditions are favorable - reasonable density altitude. The fact
that the original certification called for a lower take off weight
has little bearing on this situation.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 02:40 PM 1/22/2009, you wrote:
>Paul,
>
>14 CFR 91.103(b)(2) Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a
>flight, become familiar with all available information concerning
>that flight. This information MUST include--...reliable information
>appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under
>expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft
>gross weight, and wind and temperature
>
>Unless you test your aircraft in Phase 1 at "over max" , how can you
>possess "reliable information appropriate to the aircraft" re the
>"gross weight."
>
>So too, as to W&B you sign an 18 USC perjury advsory acknoweldgement
>during certification that the information you gave was
>truthful. Not to mention the notarized program letter.
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 |
|
| From: | "Graeme@cole" <graeme@coletoolcentre.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Dutch XL crash findings |
Hi Paul
The regulations are quite clear in Australia It is the pilots responsability
to ensure the Aircraft does not
exceed max take off weight.
I agree the empty weight in the book is asumed correct so it is only the
load you added which would be calculated.
If you overload the Aircraft and it flies ok the concerns would be to fly
below the speeds indicated in the manual
other wise the wings may fall off also the Aircraft would not peform as per
book,
finally hope no CASA official catches you flying illegaly.
I see you have an XL I hope with all the talk on wing failure you will be
diligent and fly within the specifications.
not like some of crazy aerobatic stuff on youtube
Graemecns
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Dutch XL crash findings
>
> Hi Sabrina,
>
> I agree with you about truthfulness on the documents.
>
> I disagree about the max gross weight. Yes, the pilot is responsible
> for knowing the airplane's take off weight. But no, he is not
> responsible for seeing that it falls within the maximum specified on
> ancient papers.
>
> Most of my pilot experience was gained as a renter rather than
> airplane owner. That means I have flown many different models under
> many different conditions. One of those conditions is a regular
> habit of flying some particular model planes over gross weight. One
> example is the C-150. I don't believe I have ever flown one of those
> under gross except when soloing. My most recent flight in one (last
> year) was getting my BFR with another chunky old man in the
> passenger's seat. I'm sure we were at least 100 pounds over
> gross. That sort of flight is very common practice in the real
> world. In a case like this the only other choices would be to not
> fly or find a different aircraft type. Perhaps that would have been
> a good choice, but I don't think we broke any laws or regulations.
>
> In real world practice, it is important to understand how the plane
> will perform under the actual flight conditions. A C-150 will do
> just fine when flown over gross so long as the CG is good and the air
> conditions are favorable - reasonable density altitude. The fact
> that the original certification called for a lower take off weight
> has little bearing on this situation.
>
> Paul
> XL getting close
> do not archive
>
> At 02:40 PM 1/22/2009, you wrote:
>
>>Paul,
>>
>>14 CFR 91.103(b)(2) Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a
>>flight, become familiar with all available information concerning
>>that flight. This information MUST include--...reliable information
>>appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under
>>expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft
>>gross weight, and wind and temperature
>>
>>Unless you test your aircraft in Phase 1 at "over max" , how can you
>>possess "reliable information appropriate to the aircraft" re the
>>"gross weight."
>>
>>So too, as to W&B you sign an 18 USC perjury advsory acknoweldgement
>>during certification that the information you gave was
>>truthful. Not to mention the notarized program letter.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
7:08 AM
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 |
Hi Graeme,
As you can see, there is some doubt about the actual meaning of the
regulations in the USA. My understanding is that flying over the
listed maximum gross weight is not against the rules.
I agree with most of your comments. I disagree, but only slightly,
on your point about flying speed. In fact, you might be safer at
higher speeds than if you were flying at a lighter weight. This is
certainly true for maneuvering speed since the plane will stall at a
higher speed rather than breaking up.
I suppose each pilot must make a judgement for each model airplane he
flies about the gross weight question. The Cessna 150 is a case
where it just isn't possible to fly at book maximum weight with two
adults in the plane. This is a fact known to just about everyone who
flies that particular plane. It doesn't climb as well as it would
with lighter weight, but it works fine in all other respects.
I'm not sure how to approach this question with an experimental
plane. I suppose the best answer is to test fly it at various
weights and CGs during the initial test period to learn how it
behaves. Then limit your loading to the tested conditions later on.
The opinion I got from my favorite instructor on this subject is we
must consider the conditions and the particular plane when loading
and flying. If the air temperature is very cold then you can clear
obstacles much easier than if the air is very hot.
I agree with you that gentle flying is called for when flying at
heavy weights. Of course, I try to do that no matter what the plane weight is.
Indeed, I do not intend to fly my XL in an overly aggressive
fashion. I am not an aerobatic pilot, and the only aerobatic
maneuvers I would consider doing in any plane are the low G ones such
as stalls and spins. One slight exception to this is the wing-over
maneuver which I have trained and performed in the C-152. It is a
"Box Canyon" turn maneuver where you use vertical space to make the
turn rather than horizontal space. You might pull as much as 3 g's
in the pull out if you perform it correctly. If performed
incorrectly you will pull the wings off any plane.
Paul
XL getting close
do not archive
At 04:30 PM 1/22/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Paul
>
>The regulations are quite clear in Australia It is the pilots
>responsability to ensure the Aircraft does not
>exceed max take off weight.
>I agree the empty weight in the book is asumed correct so it is only
>the load you added which would be calculated.
>If you overload the Aircraft and it flies ok the concerns would be
>to fly below the speeds indicated in the manual
>other wise the wings may fall off also the Aircraft would not peform
>as per book,
>finally hope no CASA official catches you flying illegaly.
>I see you have an XL I hope with all the talk on wing failure you
>will be diligent and fly within the specifications.
>not like some of crazy aerobatic stuff on youtube
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 |
Hi Sabrina, NO medicals required.If you can hold a drivers license then you can
hold a RAA license,but you cannot fly into controlled airspace or above 5000ft
QNH unless it is for reasons of safety [only if you have a PPL and transponder
fitted]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226292#226292
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 |
Al
sorry to burst your 700kg bubble but the RAA is still limited as of yesterday to
544KG and the Xl in VH reg is limited to 600kg.
The Zodiac XL is not available in Australia as an LSA . Because AMD and Zenith
do not maintain the Airworthiness of the individual aircraft as per the Aussie
regs.
Chris..
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=226297#226297
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! --
|