Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:39 AM - Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight (mirko)
2. 06:45 AM - Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight (Gig Giacona)
3. 09:46 AM - Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight (Pete54)
4. 10:17 AM - Re: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight (KARL POLIFKA)
5. 10:23 AM - Re: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight (Terry Turnquist)
6. 11:15 AM - Re: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight (jaybannist@cs.com)
7. 11:44 AM - Re: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight (Jay Maynard)
8. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight (Paul Mulwitz)
9. 12:55 PM - Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight (Pete54)
10. 01:04 PM - Re: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight (LHusky@aol.com)
11. 02:22 PM - Re: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight (MaxNr@aol.com)
12. 10:21 PM - Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight (Scotsman)
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: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight |
Does anyone know/seen the actual UK tests results? Would be great to hear what
they had to say. I suppose the UK-boys would have some sort of agreement with
Chris.H to keep certain information confidential.
Regards,
Mirko
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259918#259918
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: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight |
psm(at)att.net wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> While I believe you are correct, I am afraid this is as good as it
> will get. The FAA apparently has decided there really is no problem
> with the XL, so we can expect nothing more from them.
What makes yo say that? Let's look at some quotes from the FAA response to the
NTSB letter.
"If the special review team finds an inherent design issue, the FAA will take appropriate
action based on those findings."
"If the special review team finds any inherent deficiencies, the FAA will decide
on an appropriate an appropriate course of action."
They make those statements or words to the same effect no less than 6 times in
the letter.
--------
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=259928#259928
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: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight |
I own a 2 year old XL which has been grounded by the LAA / CAA action in the UK.
My understanding of the test results is that with no aileron tension and the balance
weights fitted there was no tendency to flutter. Pretty much as expected
as the German trials suggested there was the potential for flutter with less
than 5 lbs force. (the test aircraft was instrumented to detect movement).
The centre section modifications are I would guess an area of some 'difference'
between the LAA and CH. The LAA analysis used a 'pin jointed' approach of load
transmission between the wing spar and the centre section. This is unlikely
due to the clamping force of the wing bolts - but it is a very conservative
approach. Not surprisingly it results in the need for strengthening....
If anyone has any details on the Canadian testing I would be interested to get
any details.
--------
Pete Morris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259964#259964
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: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight |
In other words, the basis for the flutter testing was not following mainten
ance procedures which specify cable tensioning!
Karl
----- Original Message -----
From: Pete54
To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 12:45 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight
een.com>
I own a 2 year old XL which has been grounded by the LAA / CAA action in
the UK.
My understanding of the test results is that with no aileron tension and
the balance weights fitted there was no tendency to flutter. Pretty much a
s expected as the German trials suggested there was the potential for flutt
er with less than 5 lbs force. (the test aircraft was instrumented to dete
ct movement).
The centre section modifications are I would guess an area of some 'diffe
rence' between the LAA and CH. The LAA analysis used a 'pin jointed' appro
ach of load transmission between the wing spar and the centre section. Thi
s is unlikely due to the clamping force of the wing bolts - but it is a ver
y conservative approach. Not surprisingly it results in the need for stren
gthening....
If anyone has any details on the Canadian testing I would be interested t
o get any details.
--------
Pete Morris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=259964#259964
===========
===========
===========
===========
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: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight |
A long time ago the tails began falling off the v-tailed Bonanza and Beech
and many owners with a hell of a lot more invested then we have wanted to p
retend it wasn't an issue. But of course it was, and- after several more
deaths an edumacated guess was made that the design was flawed, a fix was p
rescribed and everyone (well, almost everyone) lived happily ever after. I
hope this will be the case here.
Terry Turnquist
601 XL- Plans
--- On Thu, 8/27/09, Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Gig Giacona <wrgiacona@gmail.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight
psm(at)att.net wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> While I believe you are correct, I am afraid this is as good as it
> will get.- The FAA apparently has decided there really is no problem
> with the XL, so we can expect nothing more from them.
What makes yo say that? Let's look at some quotes from the FAA response to
the NTSB letter.
"If the special review team finds an inherent design issue, the FAA will ta
ke appropriate action based on those findings."
"If the special review team finds any inherent deficiencies, the FAA will d
ecide on an appropriate an appropriate course of action."
They make those statements or words to the same effect no less than 6 times
in the letter.
--------
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=259928#259928
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
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: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight |
Terry Turnquist wrote:
?
A long time ago the tails began falling off the v-tailed Bonanza and Beech and
many owners with a hell of a lot more invested then we have wanted to pretend
it wasn't an issue. But of course it was, and? after several more deaths an edumacated
guess was made that the design was flawed, a fix was prescribed and everyone
(well, almost everyone) lived happily ever after. I hope this will be
the case here.
Terry,
If you followed the Bonanza, you would know that saying "the tails began falling
off the v-tailed Bonanza"? is very misleading.? Yes, there were failures, but
in ALL cases, the airplanes were in extremely turbulent air. Most were in thunderstorm-related
turbulence, but one was caught in the wing-tip vortex of an
airliner.? The V tails weren't just "falling off".? They were being ripped off.?
The only design "flaw" was that they were not designed to fly into thunder
storms.? Since the "fix", V-tailed Bonanza drivers that fly into thunderstorms
now lose their wings first.
Jay Bannister
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: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight |
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 01:54:48PM -0400, jaybannist@cs.com wrote:
> If you followed the Bonanza, you would know that saying "the tails began
> falling off the v-tailed Bonanza"? is very misleading.? Yes, there were
> failures, but in ALL cases, the airplanes were in extremely turbulent air.
> Most were in thunderstorm-related turbulence, but one was caught in the
> wing-tip vortex of an airliner.? The V tails weren't just "falling off".?
> They were being ripped off.? The only design "flaw" was that they were not
> designed to fly into thunder storms.? Since the "fix", V-tailed Bonanza
> drivers that fly into thunderstorms now lose their wings first.
Quite so. OTOH, the fix did one thing more: it restored the reputation of
the airplane. That's why I expect a fix to be developed and made available
(and, likely, required for SLSA Zodiacs).
--
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 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: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight |
Hi Guys,
Let me add my own version of the Bonanza story (yes, I lived through
all that . . .)
The story I kept hearing for a decade or so of in-flight breakups of
V-tail Bonanzas was it was all because of poor pilots who lost
control of the planes, got going too fast (it was very slick) and
proceeded to pull up too hard and pull the tail off. It was said
often that these guys just weren't up to flying a high performance
plane like a Bonanza. Of course, none of them were around to defend
themselves from this slander.
Paul
XL awaiting engineering changes.
At 10:54 AM 8/27/2009, you wrote:
>Terry Turnquist wrote:
>
>A long time ago the tails began falling off the v-tailed Bonanza and
>Beech and many owners with a hell of a lot more invested then we
>have wanted to pretend it wasn't an issue. But of course it was,
>and after several more deaths an edumacated guess was made that the
>design was flawed, a fix was prescribed and everyone (well, almost
>everyone) lived happily ever after. I hope this will be the case here.
>
>
>Terry,
>
>If you followed the Bonanza, you would know that saying "the tails
>began falling off the v-tailed Bonanza" is very misleading. Yes,
>there were failures, but in ALL cases, the airplanes were in
>extremely turbulent air. Most were in thunderstorm-related
>turbulence, but one was caught in the wing-tip vortex of an
>airliner. The V tails weren't just "falling off". They were being
>ripped off. The only design "flaw" was that they were not designed
>to fly into thunder storms. Since the "fix", V-tailed Bonanza
>drivers that fly into thunderstorms now lose their wings first.
>
>Jay Bannister
>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: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight |
There are some similarities, if only about restoring the reputation. Whilst I
understand the need for aileron circuit tension I tend to support the UK authorities
stance. The CS-VLA design code, which all UK modern homebuilts must meet
states that the controls must not flutter, even under cable failure conditions.
Loosing the tension in the circuit can occur for a variety of reasons and I'm not
keen on the aircraft having the potential for ripping itself to pieces if that
happens. Cable jumps a pulley, fairlead wears/loosens, a lot of things could
happen.
I'll try and post the drawings tomorrow from work. I would guess that CH may not
issue these as the liability issues are complex. However I know a guy building
a recent xl kit which was imported from the US (mine is a CZAW kit), his
airframe has a considerable number of beefed up components within it compared
with mine - generally around the centre section, but also including the aft wing
spar attachment.
Whilst I've been frustrated to hell by the lack of speed and indecision by the
LAA we will mod my aircraft and get it flying and put this behind us.
--------
Pete Morris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260026#260026
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: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight |
I look forward to seeing those drawings.
Larry Husky
Madras, Oregon
In a message dated 8/27/2009 12:56:05 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.morris@optimusaberdeen.com writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Pete54"
<peter.morris@optimusaberdeen.com>
There are some similarities, if only about restoring the reputation.
Whilst I understand the need for aileron circuit tension I tend to support the
UK authorities stance. The CS-VLA design code, which all UK modern
homebuilts must meet states that the controls must not flutter, even under cable
failure conditions.
Loosing the tension in the circuit can occur for a variety of reasons and
I'm not keen on the aircraft having the potential for ripping itself to
pieces if that happens. Cable jumps a pulley, fairlead wears/loosens, a lot
of things could happen.
I'll try and post the drawings tomorrow from work. I would guess that CH
may not issue these as the liability issues are complex. However I know a
guy building a recent xl kit which was imported from the US (mine is a CZAW
kit), his airframe has a considerable number of beefed up components
within it compared with mine - generally around the centre section, but also
including the aft wing spar attachment.
Whilst I've been frustrated to hell by the lack of speed and indecision by
the LAA we will mod my aircraft and get it flying and put this behind us.
--------
Pete Morris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260026#260026
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: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight |
I certainly would like to see drawings of the mods either from ZAC or
smuggled out of the UK. This is encouraging. I would like to resume work on my
project.
About that Bonanza thing. I went through that with a friend who had a
Bonanza. The later models (such as his) needed an increased ruddervator area due
to higher GW & power. Beech just added more chord ahead of the fwd
ruddervator spar. This new area was not adequately supported. Following accidents,
there was an AD that reduced airspeed. Then came kits from about three vendors
to support the L.E. My friend's 35 ended up with brackets attached to the
fuselage side and supporting the L.E. Problem solved. Vne restored.
The 35's were always unforgiving for the inexperienced. A noted local gent
bought the farm early 50's in VFR-to-IFR conditions. It was then known as a
grave yard spiral. He was very experienced, with combat time in SE-5s and
Spads. (But no instrument rating)
RTD
601XL plans #6-6791 (wings)
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: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight |
"In other words, the basis for the flutter testing was not following maintenance
procedures which specify cable tensioning!
Karl
[quote] ---"
Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft
that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct
(I think it was 6 hours before the incident flight but I stand corrected).
Is it not possible that the issue is more complex than just tightening the cables?
As in the descriptions of the Bonanza incident, the first place which receives
the blame in a crash of unknown cause is the pilot which is not dissimilar to
our situation except it is the pilot/builder. The matter is highly subjective
without clear evidence but I do find it unusual (especially in the latest incident)
that a commercial pilot would fly outside of the envelope of the aircraft
(especially with the aircraft's history of wing failure) as it would appear
that the aircraft in question's aileron cables were appropriately tensioned.
As in the Bonanza incidents only time will tell whether aileron cable tension alone
is a sufficient control. At least there appears to be progress in the publication
of the various testing results regardless of which side of the fence
you sit on.
James
--------
Cell +27 83 675 0815
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260146#260146
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! --
|