Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:08 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (jaybannist@cs.com)
2. 07:55 AM - Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Jeff)
3. 08:11 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Jay Maynard)
4. 08:34 AM - Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Rick Lindstrom)
5. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (jaybannist@cs.com)
6. 09:23 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Bryan Martin)
7. 09:51 AM - Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK. (Gary Gower)
8. 10:04 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Rick Lindstrom)
9. 10:38 AM - Re: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Paul Mulwitz)
10. 11:21 AM - GVT? (Walter Carey)
11. 01:34 PM - Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Ron Lendon)
12. 02:15 PM - Re: GVT? (eddies)
13. 02:27 PM - Re: Re: GVT? (Paul Mulwitz)
14. 02:31 PM - Re: GVT? (Craig Payne)
15. 03:35 PM - Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK (Graeme@cole)
16. 06:32 PM - Re: GVT? (eddies)
17. 06:40 PM - Re: Re: GVT? (Paul Mulwitz)
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Says who ?? That is no more a "given" than the NTSB's flutter was.
Jay Bannister
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Bear in mind that builder and pilot error cannot explain every 601XL inflight breakup.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
Message 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: | Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Jay,
I understand your very human need for an explanation. We all want to
find out what caused these accidents. This is particularly true if one
cause is responsible. Actually, we want to learn from all accidents,
particularly fatal ones. But that doesn't mean that the need for an answer
justifies grabbing at whatever theory comes along and holding that up as the
true cause. We need to proceed on facts and at this time, we have no choice
but to realize that we don't have the facts to conclusively explain what has
happened despite multiple extensive investigations. You need to realize
that we may never have the ultimate answer despite all our efforts.
Jeff Davidson
Time: 07:48:22 PM PST US
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 07:11:46PM -0700, Ron Lendon wrote:
> Well that is not unexpected news. I am really glad to hear it. It is
> really a shame all this even took place just because of a few
> uninformed whiners.
Okkay, fine. How do YOU explain the inflight breakups? Bear in mind that
builder and pilot error cannot explain every 601XL inflight breakup.
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 08:52:25AM -0400, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> Jay Maynard wrote:
> > Bear in mind that builder and pilot error cannot explain every 601XL
> > inflight breakup.
> Says who ?? That is no more a "given" than the NTSB's flutter was.
Okkay, then, explain N158MD's breakup. Be sure to account for the fact that
it was built in a part 23 certified factory and that it broke up in straight
and level flight, on a flight where its 79-year-old owner was taking his
wife up for the first time (and therefore wasn't going to be doing things
like 3G pullups from a high speed low pass, or other extreme maneuvers).
Until someone comes up with an explanation that accounts for the known facts
of *all* the crashes, I will remain unconvinced. It's too easy to say
"builder error and pilot error account for all of the crashes" when there
are facts that strongly argue otherwise.
I'm quite happy that Zenair has gotten a documented engineering study that
shows the Zodiac is not susceptible to flutter. That, however, leaves the
bigger question unanswered: why are Zodiacs breaking up in flight?
One of the things that the FAA wants CFIs to know is that there are
hazardous attitudes toward risk that pilots adopt and that need to be
guarded against and countered. One of those is invulnerability: "it can't
happen to me". I'm seeing a lot of that on this list (not from you, Jay; I
know you know better). It can and does happen, to anyone. I just hope it
won't happen again - but I suspect that hope will be in vain.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP 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 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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Good points, Jeff. One thing that has been haunting me lately has been the uptick
of LSA accidents that seem to center around airframe failures in flight. LSAs
as a group had a pretty good safety record for awhile, and now appear to be
trending up in break-ups. And it's not just the Zenith 600 series.
By nature, our new LSAs are very light airplanes, strong for sure, but not built
to withstand the same kind of rigors as a Part 23 design. The engineering specs
on paper may be close, but all you have to do is actually look at and compare
how these airplanes are constructed and it's pretty obvious how designers
manage to actually get a reasonable useful load out of an LSA.
I think we've grown up flying rugged, forgiving, overbuilt spam cans that manage
to come through things like icing and severe turbulence and excessive G loading
even when the book says they shouldn't. Now we're flying airframes of much
lighter design and construction, and there's no way we can subject them to the
same abuse without consequence.
Old habits die hard, but I really think that it's up to us as pilots to be realistic
about what kind of flying conditions we're prepared to challenge with this
latest batch of LSAs. And maybe we need to recognize that these light little
airplanes may need a bit more diligence where periodic maintenance is concerned.
Just my $0.02, FWIW.
Rick Lindstrom
ZenVair N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeff <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net>
>Sent: May 24, 2009 7:54 AM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com, zenith-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith601-List: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
>
>Jay,
>
> I understand your very human need for an explanation. We all want to
>find out what caused these accidents. This is particularly true if one
>cause is responsible. Actually, we want to learn from all accidents,
>particularly fatal ones. But that doesn't mean that the need for an answer
>justifies grabbing at whatever theory comes along and holding that up as the
>true cause. We need to proceed on facts and at this time, we have no choice
>but to realize that we don't have the facts to conclusively explain what has
>happened despite multiple extensive investigations. You need to realize
>that we may never have the ultimate answer despite all our efforts.
>
> Jeff Davidson
>
>
>
>
>
>Time: 07:48:22 PM PST US
>
>From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
>
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 07:11:46PM -0700, Ron Lendon wrote:
>
>> Well that is not unexpected news. I am really glad to hear it. It is
>
>> really a shame all this even took place just because of a few
>
>> uninformed whiners.
>
>
>
>Okkay, fine. How do YOU explain the inflight breakups? Bear in mind that
>builder and pilot error cannot explain every 601XL inflight breakup.
>
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Okkay, then, explain N158MD's breakup. Be sure to account for the fact that
it was built in a part 23 certified factory and that it broke up in straight
and level flight, on a flight where its 79-year-old owner was taking his
wife up for the first time (and therefore wasn't going to be doing things
like 3G pullups from a high speed low pass, or other extreme maneuvers).
Jay,
That accident is one that has a very extensive report. When you say that it
was in straight and level flight, I think you are overlooking the fact that,
just prior to the break up, there was a rather sudden increase in altitude -
at 700 fpm, from 2,000 to 2,800 ft. That is not "level flight". I know it is
total speculation, but isn't it possible that the pilot tried to overcome
a surprise, uncommanded increase in altitude with a sudden, drastic control input?
I'm not saying that is what happened, but if you are looking for an explanation,
you can't simply overlook pertinent facts and expect to get a valid answer.
Jay Bannister
DO NOT ARCHIVE
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
It did not break up in straight and level flight, the radar track
shows that it was maneuvering. And what makes you think a 79 year old
is immune to the "hey watch this" syndrome. Then there is also the
possibility of sudden incapacitation. Or a sudden maneuver to avoid a
bird strike. It is also quite likely that there is no common cause for
these accidents. With so few accidents to account for it is entirely
within the realm of possibility that this is a statistical fluke.
On May 24, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jay Maynard wrote:
> >
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 08:52:25AM -0400, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
>> Jay Maynard wrote:
>>> Bear in mind that builder and pilot error cannot explain every 601XL
>>> inflight breakup.
>> Says who ?? That is no more a "given" than the NTSB's flutter was.
>
> Okkay, then, explain N158MD's breakup. Be sure to account for the
> fact that
> it was built in a part 23 certified factory and that it broke up in
> straight
> and level flight, on a flight where its 79-year-old owner was taking
> his
> wife up for the first time (and therefore wasn't going to be doing
> things
> like 3G pullups from a high speed low pass, or other extreme
> maneuvers).
>
> Until someone comes up with an explanation that accounts for the
> known facts
> of *all* the crashes, I will remain unconvinced. It's too easy to say
> "builder error and pilot error account for all of the crashes" when
> there
> are facts that strongly argue otherwise.
>
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
do not archive.
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK. |
Hello Jay,
-
On the other side,- IF there HAS to be a (Design) Cause for the accidents
(as most of you, and some "competitors" want us to think).-
How do you explain so many XL's flying, so many-hours, WITHOUT-accident
s?
The prototype one of them... I wonder how many hours of XCountry, -to and
from, fly ins plus hours of local demo flights and still flying. I am sure
they had to go though some severe turbulence at least twice a year in thos
e long trips...-
We all know for sure THIS airplanes are never "trailered in" :-)- :-)-
:-)
-
Flying my 701, by the way, I have flown though really severe turbulence,-
need to tight up the seat belts, most time just under gross.- I just slow
to 70 mph and never run out of controls, or be-concerned about the integ
rity of my airplane.
-
When calm wind, I fly betwen 83 to 95 mph, depends in my cruise altitude in
cross country flights-(from 8,500 to 11,500 ft ASL).
When sight seeing over-safe places (with plenty of emergency landing area
s near) our flights are about-500 ft AGL.
-
Sure will be the same when I finish building the XL.
-
Saludos
Gary Gower
Flying from Chapala, Mexico.
701 912S-- 245 hrs
601 XL- Jab 3300 building.
Sorry, dont ask me for-explanation of the accidents,
Just plain-happy to fly, not a R/C or Flight Sim pilot, Yet :-)- :-)
--- On Sun, 5/24/09, Jeff <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net> wrote:
From: Jeff <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
Jay,
----- I understand your very human need for an explanation.- We
all want to find out what caused these accidents. -This is particularly
true if one cause is responsible. -Actually, we want to learn from all ac
cidents, particularly fatal ones. -But that doesn't mean that the need fo
r an answer justifies grabbing at whatever theory comes along and holding t
hat up as the true cause.- We need to proceed on facts and at this time,
we have no choice but to realize that we don't have the facts to conclusive
ly explain what has happened despite multiple extensive investigations.-
You need to realize that we may never have the ultimate answer despite all
our efforts.
----- Jeff Davidson
-
-
Time: 07:48:22 PM PST US
From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
-
-
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 07:11:46PM -0700, Ron Lendon wrote:
> Well that is not unexpected news.- I am really glad to hear it.- It i
s
> really a shame all this even took place just because of a few
> uninformed whiners.
-
Okkay, fine. How do YOU explain the inflight breakups? Bear in mind that bu
ilder and pilot error cannot explain every 601XL inflight breakup.
=0A=0A=0A
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Hi, Bryan. I just went back and reread the full NTSB narrative on 158MD, and there's
no shortage of possible contributing factors. As much as I hate like hell
to get sucked into the speculation game, the NTSB report contains many references
to advanced heart disease, really excessive negative G loading (broken seat
belts, shattered canopy, wings and stab torn away), sloppy airframe and engine
construction among others.
Given all the published data in the report, I don't think this one accident should
implicate the entire 600 series fleet of Zeniths. It actually bolstered my
faith in the design integrity of my own aiplane, reading about all of the inconsistancies
found during the investigation. No shortage of factors.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bryan Martin <bryanmmartin@comcast.net>
>Sent: May 24, 2009 9:21 AM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
>
>
>It did not break up in straight and level flight, the radar track
>shows that it was maneuvering. And what makes you think a 79 year old
>is immune to the "hey watch this" syndrome. Then there is also the
>possibility of sudden incapacitation. Or a sudden maneuver to avoid a
>bird strike. It is also quite likely that there is no common cause for
>these accidents. With so few accidents to account for it is entirely
>within the realm of possibility that this is a statistical fluke.
>
>On May 24, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jay Maynard wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 08:52:25AM -0400, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
>>> Jay Maynard wrote:
>>>> Bear in mind that builder and pilot error cannot explain every 601XL
>>>> inflight breakup.
>>> Says who ?? That is no more a "given" than the NTSB's flutter was.
>>
>> Okkay, then, explain N158MD's breakup. Be sure to account for the
>> fact that
>> it was built in a part 23 certified factory and that it broke up in
>> straight
>> and level flight, on a flight where its 79-year-old owner was taking
>> his
>> wife up for the first time (and therefore wasn't going to be doing
>> things
>> like 3G pullups from a high speed low pass, or other extreme
>> maneuvers).
>>
>> Until someone comes up with an explanation that accounts for the
>> known facts
>> of *all* the crashes, I will remain unconvinced. It's too easy to say
>> "builder error and pilot error account for all of the crashes" when
>> there
>> are facts that strongly argue otherwise.
>>
>
>
>--
>Bryan Martin
>N61BM, CH 601 XL,
>RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
>do not archive.
>
>
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
Another speculation for these facts is that the plane was vibrating
so the pilot thought it was experiencing flutter. The standard way
to stop flutter is to quickly reduce airspeed which might show up on
radar as a quick increase in altitude.
I can't account for the German pronouncement that flutter can't
happen, but we all know some sort of vibration can take place since
several list members have reported it.
Paul
XL grounded
At 09:08 AM 5/24/2009, you wrote:
>isn't it possible that the pilot tried to overcome
>a surprise, uncommanded increase in altitude with a sudden, drastic
>control input?
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 |
|
Hi- Everyone,
-
- A few questions regarding the GVT conducted in Germany on the 601XL:
-
-- (1) Does anyone know what's involved in a ground vibration test (GVT
), to detect among other things, aileron flutter?
-
-- (2) If not, does anyone know of a web site that describes the test?
-
-- (3) Was-there more than one 601XL involved in the German GVT?
-
-- (4) Did-the 601XL tested in Germany have hingless or hinged ailero
ns?
-
-- (5) Someone on this site stated a month or so back that all of the 6
01XL accidents-involving "suspected aileron flutter" were of the hingless
design. Am I correct? If so, how "official" is that info? In the words, is
the info regarding the hingless ailerons reflected in an accident report,
or shown in photos?--I'm not arguing with the contributor, but-I don'
t remember seeing any other comments along this line on this site.
-
Walt Carey in Dayton, OH
601XL
50%constructededJabiru 3300A--
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: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
> Okkay, fine. How do YOU explain the inflight breakups? Bear in mind that
> builder and pilot error cannot explain every 601XL inflight breakup.
Jay,
Not all things in life are explainable, there are some things we will never understand,
this just may be one of those things. I accept the fact I may never
know what brought those planes down and will endeavor to minimize my risk at every
opportunity.
--------
Ron Lendon, Clinton Township, MI
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
Zodiac XL, ScrapBuilder ;-)
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Corvair Engine Prints:
http://home.comcast.net/~rlendon/site/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245171#245171
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 |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VMMVuVrweM
The video above expalains what was done.
The test where done using hinged ailerons
Cheers
Eddie
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245176#245176
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 |
|
Hi Eddie,
Thank you for posting the link to the CH650 ground vibration test video.
Do you know if any testing was done of the plane we all have? That
would be the CH601XL.
Thanks,
Paul
XL grounded
At 02:15 PM 5/24/2009, you wrote:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VMMVuVrweM
>
>The video above expalains what was done.
>
>The test where done using hinged ailerons
>
>Cheers
>Eddie
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 |
|
"Someone on this site stated a month or so back that all of the 601XL
accidents involving "suspected aileron flutter" were of the hinge-less
design"
No, I don't think this is correct. The Yuba City plane was built by AMD and
had piano hinges. The post-crash photos show this (I've attached one). I
believe there are hinged and hinge-less planes among the unexplained
crashes.
-- Craig
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Walter Carey
Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 12:19 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: GVT?
Hi Everyone,
A few questions regarding the GVT conducted in Germany on the 601XL:
(1) Does anyone know what's involved in a ground vibration test (GVT), to
detect among other things, aileron flutter?
(2) If not, does anyone know of a web site that describes the test?
(3) Was there more than one 601XL involved in the German GVT?
(4) Did the 601XL tested in Germany have hingless or hinged ailerons?
(5) Someone on this site stated a month or so back that all of the 601XL
accidents involving "suspected aileron flutter" were of the hingless design.
Am I correct? If so, how "official" is that info? In the words, is the info
regarding the hingless ailerons reflected in an accident report, or shown in
photos? I'm not arguing with the contributor, but I don't remember seeing
any other comments along this line on this site.
Walt Carey in Dayton, OH
601XL
50%constructeded
Jabiru 3300A
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 |
|
| From: | "Graeme@cole" <graeme@coletoolcentre.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK |
one Question have all the air craft that crashed in the US and Europe had
the canopy at the crash sight?
here in Australia two of the ch601 that crashed may have had canopy failure
which could have incapacitated the pilot or caused damage to the
aircraft causing 4 fatalities.
graemecns
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Lindstrom" <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
> <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
>
> Good points, Jeff. One thing that has been haunting me lately has been the
> uptick of LSA accidents that seem to center around airframe failures in
> flight. LSAs as a group had a pretty good safety record for awhile, and
> now appear to be trending up in break-ups. And it's not just the Zenith
> 600 series.
>
> By nature, our new LSAs are very light airplanes, strong for sure, but not
> built to withstand the same kind of rigors as a Part 23 design. The
> engineering specs on paper may be close, but all you have to do is
> actually look at and compare how these airplanes are constructed and it's
> pretty obvious how designers manage to actually get a reasonable useful
> load out of an LSA.
>
> I think we've grown up flying rugged, forgiving, overbuilt spam cans that
> manage to come through things like icing and severe turbulence and
> excessive G loading even when the book says they shouldn't. Now we're
> flying airframes of much lighter design and construction, and there's no
> way we can subject them to the same abuse without consequence.
>
> Old habits die hard, but I really think that it's up to us as pilots to be
> realistic about what kind of flying conditions we're prepared to challenge
> with this latest batch of LSAs. And maybe we need to recognize that these
> light little airplanes may need a bit more diligence where periodic
> maintenance is concerned. Just my $0.02, FWIW.
>
> Rick Lindstrom
> ZenVair N42KP
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Jeff <jeffrey_davidson@earthlink.net>
>>Sent: May 24, 2009 7:54 AM
>>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com, zenith-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Zenith601-List: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
>>
>>Jay,
>>
>> I understand your very human need for an explanation. We all want
>> to
>>find out what caused these accidents. This is particularly true if one
>>cause is responsible. Actually, we want to learn from all accidents,
>>particularly fatal ones. But that doesn't mean that the need for an
>>answer
>>justifies grabbing at whatever theory comes along and holding that up as
>>the
>>true cause. We need to proceed on facts and at this time, we have no
>>choice
>>but to realize that we don't have the facts to conclusively explain what
>>has
>>happened despite multiple extensive investigations. You need to realize
>>that we may never have the ultimate answer despite all our efforts.
>>
>> Jeff Davidson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Time: 07:48:22 PM PST US
>>
>>From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
>>
>>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 07:11:46PM -0700, Ron Lendon wrote:
>>
>>> Well that is not unexpected news. I am really glad to hear it. It is
>>
>>> really a shame all this even took place just because of a few
>>
>>> uninformed whiners.
>>
>>
>>
>>Okkay, fine. How do YOU explain the inflight breakups? Bear in mind that
>>builder and pilot error cannot explain every 601XL inflight breakup.
>>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
07:09:00
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 |
|
Hi Paul,
>From what I understand the tests were done on the 650 which is basically the same
aircraft as the 601XL (different canopy and rudder) so the test results would
be valid regardless of the model, as they involved the wings and control surfaces.
As far as I know these are the same on both the 601XL and 650 models.
Cheers
Eddie
Hi Eddie,
Thank you for posting the link to the CH650 ground vibration test video.
Do you know if any testing was done of the plane we all have? That
would be the CH601XL.
Thanks,
Paul
XL grounded
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=245209#245209
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 |
|
Hi Eddie,
Thanks for the reply.
As I understand it, the wings on the 650 are mounted differently from
the 601. I think the incidence angle is different or some such change.
Perhaps you are correct. It might not matter which variant of the
601 is tested. There are so many minor variations that it would be
impossible to test them all. I suppose I consider the 650 as a model
change rather than just another variant.
Paul
XL grounded
At 06:32 PM 5/24/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Paul,
>
> >From what I understand the tests were done on the 650 which is
> basically the same aircraft as the 601XL (different canopy and
> rudder) so the test results would be valid regardless of the model,
> as they involved the wings and control surfaces. As far as I know
> these are the same on both the 601XL and 650 models.
>
>Cheers
>Eddie
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! --
|