---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith601-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 05/24/09: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:08:46 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:55:08 AM PST US From: "Jeff " 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:11:42 AM PST US From: Jay Maynard Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:34:08 AM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 >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 > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:09:02 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK From: jaybannist@cs.com 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:23:26 AM PST US From: Bryan Martin 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 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:51:36 AM PST US From: Gary Gower Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 wrote: From: Jeff 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:04:27 AM PST US From: Rick Lindstrom Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 >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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:38:36 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:21:36 AM PST US From: Walter Carey 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:34:51 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Flutter Testing shows 601/650 OK From: "Ron Lendon" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:15:41 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: GVT? From: "eddies" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:27:54 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: GVT? 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:31:15 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: GVT? "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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:35:28 PM PST US From: "Graeme@cole" Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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" Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 1:28 AM Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 >>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 >> >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:32:58 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: GVT? From: "eddies" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:40:51 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: GVT? 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.