Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:33 AM - Re: Flying Times (Peter Franke)
2. 06:14 AM - Re: (no subject) (PatrickW)
3. 06:42 AM - Re: How many of you have grounded... (PatrickW)
4. 06:44 AM - Young Eagles in XL? (PatrickW)
5. 08:35 AM - Flying times (roger lambert)
6. 09:11 AM - Re: Young Eagles in XL? (Tonyplane)
7. 09:18 AM - Additional NTSB Documents (dougsire)
8. 09:21 AM - Re: Flying times (Paul Mulwitz)
9. 09:42 AM - NTSB letter and flutter. (Paul Mulwitz)
10. 09:57 AM - Re: Flying times (Floyd Gantt)
11. 10:47 AM - Re: Flying times (Tonyplane)
12. 10:59 AM - Reaming wing attach holes (Cle)
13. 12:42 PM - Re: Reaming wing attach holes (Paul Mulwitz)
14. 12:52 PM - Re: Flying times (mversteeg)
15. 12:53 PM - Re: Flying Times (Randy)
16. 12:55 PM - Re: Reaming wing attach holes (Cle)
17. 01:57 PM - Re: Re: Reaming wing attach holes (Paul Mulwitz)
18. 01:57 PM - Re: Re: Reaming wing attach holes (Dave Austin)
19. 03:07 PM - Re: Reaming wing attach holes (Cle)
20. 03:42 PM - Re: Re: Reaming wing attach holes (Rene Felker)
21. 04:09 PM - Re: Reaming wing attach holes (Cle)
22. 06:35 PM - Flying Times (Rosalie)
23. 06:36 PM - Re: Young Eagles in XL? (NYTerminat@aol.com)
24. 07:20 PM - Re: Flying Times (Stephen Smith)
25. 10:47 PM - Re: Reaming wing attach holes (Ron Lendon)
26. 10:54 PM - Re: Young Eagles in XL? (Ron Lendon)
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 |
|
Flying since March this year. 72 hours so far, and having a ball!
19-7024
Peter F in Oz
_____
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobbyPaulk@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, 29 October 2009 12:50 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Flying Times
Guys
can we get a show of hands on who is flying and how much. i would have done
much more except for weather and runway construction. went to a fly-in 100
miles away. good time, good food. indicated 125 mph at 5500' with a 155 mph
ground speed
hopefully we are getting better weather.
N131BP
601 XL E-AB
14hrs since June
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: (no subject) |
Nice. Got a chuckle out of the guy who said, "It sounds just like an aviation
motor".
- Pat
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269957#269957
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: How many of you have grounded... |
What about builders who have completed and signed-off XL's that have not yet flown?
There's one local guy in my area who finished his airplane last winter who hasn't
flown yet. He hasn't been coming around, so we don't know what's up with him.
Could be afraid. Could be sick, or have other reasons. Don't know...
Also know of one other guy with a finished and signed off XL who hasn't flown yet.
Has been a few months.
The way I feel, when I get my XL signed off, I can't imagine delaying very long
until it's first flight.
Patrick
90%.
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269960#269960
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: | Young Eagles in XL? |
Anybody flying Young Eagles in their XL's...?
When I was a little kid a guy gave me a ride in his airplane. Meant a lot to me.
I'd eventually like to return the favor for other kids.
Anybody catching any flak or encountering resistance in using your XL for Young
Eagle flights...?
Patrick
90%
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269961#269961
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 |
|
Hi Paul:
Actually, I recently conducted a poll on the ZBAG list. The results were for
a period of 3 months this summer. There were 32 different people responding
to anything posted on the list. Of those who responded to the poll:
anonymously, I might add so they would feel free to speak their real
feelings:
44% didn't believe the FAA statement that the 601xl is capable of safe
flight if built and flown according to manufacturers specifications(11 of
25)
37.5% didn't believe The Austrian GVT testing and the opinions expressed as
a result of that testing(one of them, who has wholeheartedly embraced the
LAA tried and true method of conducting GVT testing of putting wood on the
wingtip and whacking it with a hammer, actually wanted "independent"
verification of the Austrian GVT testing).(6 0f 16)
So when you write:
"I hope you are not including me in the "nay-sayers of the opinion
that only a few people are flying" but I suspect this is indeed your
interpretation"
We need only look at your subsequent statements:
"If only 10 percent of the flying Zodiac XL owners have responded and
the Kitplanes number is reasonably accurate that would suggest 90
percent of the fleet is grounded."
and
" but it does seem only a few are still
flying. "
Accordingly, I think you placed yourself in that group.
Secondly, your statements:
" I also object to your characterization of the
problems with the Zodiac XL as "Flutter" mess. Let me try to clear
up my own position.
Flutter never was a serious likelihood to explain the XL
problems. "
are belied by your actions. I was present at Sun-n-Fun. A whole tentful of
people saw and heard you shout repeatedly at the Heintz brothers that the
NTSB says flutter is the problem and when are you going to fix the ailerons
so many times that the rest of the crowd told you to shut up and let other
people speak. You then proceeded to stalk the brothers across the area back
to the Zenith display where you continued the harange until you left the
area. If flutter was never a serious likelihood, why such actions?
Third, the statement:
" It is only a few very vocal folks still flying their Zodiac XLs that seem
to want a
justification for their choice by citing numbers of people who agree
with them."
appears to be contraindicated. Actually the statistics support the
proposition that it is a very vocal minority that are engaged that are
justifying their position by refusing to believe any test, study or opinion
that is at variance with the NTSB statement.
Fourth:
"My own position since the NTSB letter has been, and remains, my plane
is grounded until we get a formal release of engineering changes from
Chris Heintz or one of his related companies to resolve this
problem."
Which problem is that? If its not flutter( as per the NTSB, which you now
say never a serious likelihood),what is(are) it(they)? Give us all an
engineering analysis by an aeronautical engineer willing to actually sign
his name to a document for public review that actually states the casual
factor( the assumption implicit by the hand wringers in all this of their
being only one) of the crashes and how to fix it. The FAA, NTSB, LAA and
ZBAG despite millions of dollars haven't been able to do it .
Lastly:
" I don't know why it seems to annoy some people so
much that I have chosen this path, but apparently it does."
Perhaps its the circular logic, you continually state:
1. I won't fly because of the NTSB letter saying flutter is the cause of the
accidents.
2. Flutter was never a serious likelihood to explain the accidents.
3. I still won't fly because of the NTSB flutter letter.
Personally, I hope CH does come up with something, anything, to stop this
ceaseless game of Whack-a-Mole being played by some members of these groups.
If its not flutter, its rivit strength, or aileron bellcrank support or the
rear spar attach or the hole in the rear spar for the aileron actuator
rod. All most of us ever wanted was reputable analysis of the accidents for
causation and some engineered fix. It would have been easy for CH to just
put forth an external mass balanced aileron for everyone and pretend the
problem is solved. Fortunately or unfortunately, he has too much integrity
and has done, and paid for, those tests and studies to determine potential
causes and solutions. Let's see what he comes up with. It all the accidents
had one single cause, it would have been apparent and identified by now. It
it were one design flaw, it would be happening to every aircraft built in
accordance with that design operated within the same flight envelope. Risk
managment is the goal, risk elimination is a figment of imagination.
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: Young Eagles in XL? |
About 15 this year. On 3 Oct, gave 8 Y.E. rides during "Aluminum
Overcast"'s visit to 0M4 (Camden, Tn). Neat stating "Nr. 2 following the
Boeing". No problems or any questions.
Tony Graziano
XL/Jab; N493TG
----- Original Message -----
From: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:44 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Young Eagles in XL?
>
> Anybody flying Young Eagles in their XL's...?
>
> When I was a little kid a guy gave me a ride in his airplane. Meant a lot
> to me.
>
> I'd eventually like to return the favor for other kids.
>
> Anybody catching any flak or encountering resistance in using your XL for
> Young Eagle flights...?
>
> Patrick
> 90%
>
> --------
> Patrick
> XL/650/Corvair
> N63PZ (reserved)
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269961#269961
>
>
>
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: | Additional NTSB Documents |
John Clark, Chief Scientist, Office of Aviation Safety at the NTSB has posted three
additional documents to the public docket of the Polk City, FL accident.
They include photos of compression buckling on the upper and lower rear spar
caps for six 601XL accidents: Markermeer, Netherlands, Antelope Island, UT, Polk
City, FL, Oakdale, CA, Barcelona, Spain, and Yuba City, CA. The three separate
documents are attached (hopefully).
It is interesting to note that the builder of the Antelope Island aircraft apparently
drilled the hole in the rear spar incorrectly on one wing, and then put
a patch over it. The buckling is in the same place on both the upper and lower
spar cap on that wing.
What could have caused this damage, and why would Mr. Clark post these documents
at this point?
Im reminded of the cartoon which shows a dog furiously writing a long mathematical
proof on a classroom chalkboard. One of the human observers exclaims, I
think Lassie is trying to tell us something!
--------
Doug Sire 601XL
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269986#269986
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rear_spar_damage_spain_yuba_city_102109_764.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rear_spar_damage_polk_city_oakdale_102109_608.pdf
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rear_spar_damage_dutch_antelope_island102109_119.pdf
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: Flying times |
Hi Roger,
I really appreciate your comments. Instead of making personal
attacks, as some have done, you are making reasonably logical
comments on my actual statements. I will try my best to give you
straight answers to your questions.
I never thought flutter was an issue with the XL. My reason is the
fact observed by witnesses to a couple of the accidents that the
breakups tend to happen in level flight at moderate to slow
speeds. My understanding of flutter is that it is a high speed
phenomenon and that increased speed greatly increases the likelihood.
In my personal interpretation of the NTSB letter, the real issue was
always the structure failures and the comments about flutter were
just a side issue. The NTSB is in the business of analyzing
accidents and their causes rather than engineering and design
choices. We all know the airplanes failed and lots of people
died. What ever the underlying cause of the failures is this simple
fact is the basis of the NTSB letter and my own feelings. OK, this
may not be the only way to read the letter, but it is indeed my interpretation.
I understand some people were so focused on the question of flutter
it didn't matter what I or anyone else said. They simply heard
"Flutter problem" rather than what was actually said.
I don't feel qualified to have a professional opinion on the
underlying cause of the failures. With that caveat, I do have a
personal opinion about the basic problem. I think the light pitch
control forces and the gradient problem first identified in the NTSB
letter are the root of the problem. I also know there is some
"Problem" that causes loud vibrations in level flight as reported by
Bill of GA. His winning solution for this problem was not a speed
reduction - the normal solution if flutter is a problem - but
unloading the wings by entering a steep bank. I don't think the
noisy vibration is actually fatal, but I think some pilots respond to
this phenomenon as if it were flutter and sharply pull and push the
stick removing the wings. If this is indeed true and not just my own
personal musing then the change already announced by Chris Heintz to
reduce the pitch sensitivity with some sort of springs will indeed
help reduce the accident rate. It also means those pilots who are
cool enough in an "Emergency" situation to maintain gentle control
forces will be safe in XLs with or without the engineering change.
On to another engineering point . . . even though I am convinced
flutter is not a problem I am still willing to install a mass balance
change on the ailerons of my plane. My reasoning may be impossible
to follow, but here it is. I have heard many "Old timers" from the
FAA and my local pilot community say that this is a necessary change
for safety. They can't convince me that the XL has a flutter problem
and this fixes it. They have convinced me that planes with balanced
control surfaces (virtually all existing planes with metal control
surfaces) have better safety records. Put this all together and you
can see I am willing to add a few pounds to my plane to get the
ailerons balanced simply because I think it might help and can't hurt.
I hope I have answered your questions. The only point I want to
emphasize is that the changes I want have already been promised from
Chris with no specific delivery date other than "Soon". My decision
to wait for those changes and install them in my plane shouldn't
upset anyone. Since my "Choice of words" seems to upset some people
I am indeed sorry. I am trying to be straight forward with my ideas
without inflammatory language.
I do want to make one more comment. I have started building a
Wittman Buttercup and have joined several email lists relating to
that airplane and its builders/owners. I have not seen a single
instance of the kind of abrasive personal attacks that regularly
happen on this list. Perhaps it is because the other group is mostly
experienced builders rather than first timers like the Zenith
community. I wish there were some magic wand I could wave to get the
Zenith community to act more professionally and with less personal attacks.
If I left out any significant points please let me know. I meant to
answer all your concerns, but I am not perfect - particularly in the
memory area.
Paul
XL awaiting engineering changes
At 08:31 AM 10/29/2009, you wrote:
> If flutter was never a serious likelihood, why such actions?
>
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: | NTSB letter and flutter. |
After the last round of heated discussion over the NTSB letter
regarding flutter I decided to check the language in the actual
letter. The first paragraph of the letter in question is copied below.
The letter itself says: "It appears . . .flutter . . . likely
source". This is a country mile away from a statement that flutter
caused the accidents. It is merely a conjecture that is presented
for further consideration and testing.
Paul
XL awaiting engineering changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Transportation Safety Board has investigated a series
of in-flight structural breakups of Zodiac CH-601XL airplanes
designed by Zenair, Inc., that occurred in the United States in the
last 3 years. The Safety Board is also aware of several in-flight
structural breakups of CH-601XLs that have occurred abroad. It
appears that aerodynamic flutter is the likely source of four of the
U.S. accidents and of at least two foreign accidents. The Safety
Board believes urgent action is needed by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to prevent additional in-flight breakups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Flying times |
PaulI think we grow tired of the constant posting of known facts.Why can't
we wait and see what Chris and Zenith Aircraft's final report recommends.
Each person has made their own decision to ground or not to ground their
airplane. I think the statement ,"I do want to make one more comment. I
have started building a Wittman Buttercup and have joined several email
lists relating to that airplane and its builders/owners. I have not seen a
single instance of the kind of abrasive personal attacks that regularly
happen on this list. Perhaps it is because the other group is mostly
experienced builders rather than first timers like the Zenith community. I
wish there were some magic wand I could wave to get the Zenith community to
act more professionally and with less personal attacks",is condescending
and unnecessary.
Floyd Gantt
----------------------------------------
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying times
Hi Roger,
I really appreciate your comments. Instead of making personal
attacks, as some have done, you are making reasonably logical
comments on my actual statements. I will try my best to give you
straight answers to your questions.
I never thought flutter was an issue with the XL. My reason is the
fact observed by witnesses to a couple of the accidents that the
breakups tend to happen in level flight at moderate to slow
speeds. My understanding of flutter is that it is a high speed
phenomenon and that increased speed greatly increases the likelihood.
In my personal interpretation of the NTSB letter, the real issue was
always the structure failures and the comments about flutter were
just a side issue. The NTSB is in the business of analyzing
accidents and their causes rather than engineering and design
choices. We all know the airplanes failed and lots of people
died. What ever the underlying cause of the failures is this simple
fact is the basis of the NTSB letter and my own feelings. OK, this
may not be the only way to read the letter, but it is indeed my
interpretation.
I understand some people were so focused on the question of flutter
it didn't matter what I or anyone else said. They simply heard
"Flutter problem" rather than what was actually said.
I don't feel qualified to have a professional opinion on the
underlying cause of the failures. With that caveat, I do have a
personal opinion about the basic problem. I think the light pitch
control forces and the gradient problem first identified in the NTSB
letter are the root of the problem. I also know there is some
"Problem" that causes loud vibrations in level flight as reported by
Bill of GA. His winning solution for this problem was not a speed
reduction - the normal solution if flutter is a problem - but
unloading the wings by entering a steep bank. I don't think the
noisy vibration is actually fatal, but I think some pilots respond to
this phenomenon as if it were flutter and sharply pull and push the
stick removing the wings. If this is indeed true and not just my own
personal musing then the change already announced by Chris Heintz to
reduce the pitch sensitivity with some sort of springs will indeed
help reduce the accident rate. It also means those pilots who are
cool enough in an "Emergency" situation to maintain gentle control
forces will be safe in XLs with or without the engineering change.
On to another engineering point . . . even though I am convinced
flutter is not a problem I am still willing to install a mass balance
change on the ailerons of my plane. My reasoning may be impossible
to follow, but here it is. I have heard many "Old timers" from the
FAA and my local pilot community say that this is a necessary change
for safety. They can't convince me that the XL has a flutter problem
and this fixes it. They have convinced me that planes with balanced
control surfaces (virtually all existing planes with metal control
surfaces) have better safety records. Put this all together and you
can see I am willing to add a few pounds to my plane to get the
ailerons balanced simply because I think it might help and can't hurt.
I hope I have answered your questions. The only point I want to
emphasize is that the changes I want have already been promised from
Chris with no specific delivery date other than "Soon". My decision
to wait for those changes and install them in my plane shouldn't
upset anyone. Since my "Choice of words" seems to upset some people
I am indeed sorry. I am trying to be straight forward with my ideas
without inflammatory language.
I do want to make one more comment. I have started building a
Wittman Buttercup and have joined several email lists relating to
that airplane and its builders/owners. I have not seen a single
instance of the kind of abrasive personal attacks that regularly
happen on this list. Perhaps it is because the other group is mostly
experienced builders rather than first timers like the Zenith
community. I wish there were some magic wand I could wave to get the
Zenith community to act more professionally and with less personal
attacks.
If I left out any significant points please let me know. I meant to
answer all your concerns, but I am not perfect - particularly in the
memory area.
Paul
XL awaiting engineering changes
At 08:31 AM 10/29/2009, you wrote:
> If flutter was never a serious likelihood, why such actions?
>
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: Flying times |
Paul,
Statements made by witnesses as to what they think they observed do not
necessarily contain true facts. The statement is a fact; however, the
supposed observations contained in the statement are often proven false.
Also the problem reported by Bill of Ga apparently was caused by super
turbulent air encountered above a power plant, a phenomena not encountered
in typical level flight.
Tony Graziano
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Mulwitz" <psm@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying times
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> I really appreciate your comments. Instead of making personal attacks, as
> some have done, you are making reasonably logical comments on my actual
> statements. I will try my best to give you straight answers to your
> questions.
>
> I never thought flutter was an issue with the XL. My reason is the fact
> observed by witnesses to a couple of the accidents that the breakups tend
> to happen in level flight at moderate to slow speeds. My understanding of
> flutter is that it is a high speed phenomenon and that increased speed
> greatly increases the likelihood.
>
> In my personal interpretation of the NTSB letter, the real issue was
> always the structure failures and the comments about flutter were just a
> side issue. The NTSB is in the business of analyzing accidents and their
> causes rather than engineering and design choices. We all know the
> airplanes failed and lots of people died. What ever the underlying cause
> of the failures is this simple fact is the basis of the NTSB letter and my
> own feelings. OK, this may not be the only way to read the letter, but it
> is indeed my interpretation.
>
> I understand some people were so focused on the question of flutter it
> didn't matter what I or anyone else said. They simply heard "Flutter
> problem" rather than what was actually said.
>
> I don't feel qualified to have a professional opinion on the underlying
> cause of the failures. With that caveat, I do have a personal opinion
> about the basic problem. I think the light pitch control forces and the
> gradient problem first identified in the NTSB letter are the root of the
> problem. I also know there is some "Problem" that causes loud vibrations
> in level flight as reported by Bill of GA. His winning solution for this
> problem was not a speed reduction - the normal solution if flutter is a
> problem - but unloading the wings by entering a steep bank. I don't think
> the noisy vibration is actually fatal, but I think some pilots respond to
> this phenomenon as if it were flutter and sharply pull and push the stick
> removing the wings. If this is indeed true and not just my own personal
> musing then the change already announced by Chris Heintz to reduce the
> pitch sensitivity with some sort of springs will indeed help reduce the
> accident rate. It also means those pilots who are cool enough in an
> "Emergency" situation to maintain gentle control forces will be safe in
> XLs with or without the engineering change.
>
> On to another engineering point . . . even though I am convinced flutter
> is not a problem I am still willing to install a mass balance change on
> the ailerons of my plane. My reasoning may be impossible to follow, but
> here it is. I have heard many "Old timers" from the FAA and my local
> pilot community say that this is a necessary change for safety. They
> can't convince me that the XL has a flutter problem and this fixes it.
> They have convinced me that planes with balanced control surfaces
> (virtually all existing planes with metal control surfaces) have better
> safety records. Put this all together and you can see I am willing to add
> a few pounds to my plane to get the ailerons balanced simply because I
> think it might help and can't hurt.
>
> I hope I have answered your questions. The only point I want to emphasize
> is that the changes I want have already been promised from Chris with no
> specific delivery date other than "Soon". My decision to wait for those
> changes and install them in my plane shouldn't upset anyone. Since my
> "Choice of words" seems to upset some people I am indeed sorry. I am
> trying to be straight forward with my ideas without inflammatory language.
>
> I do want to make one more comment. I have started building a Wittman
> Buttercup and have joined several email lists relating to that airplane
> and its builders/owners. I have not seen a single instance of the kind of
> abrasive personal attacks that regularly happen on this list. Perhaps it
> is because the other group is mostly experienced builders rather than
> first timers like the Zenith community. I wish there were some magic wand
> I could wave to get the Zenith community to act more professionally and
> with less personal attacks.
>
> If I left out any significant points please let me know. I meant to
> answer all your concerns, but I am not perfect - particularly in the
> memory area.
>
> Paul
> XL awaiting engineering changes
>
>
> At 08:31 AM 10/29/2009, you wrote:
>> If flutter was never a serious likelihood, why such actions?
>>
>
>
>
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: | Reaming wing attach holes |
Hello,
My name is Clemens living in Austria and I am building a 601XL from plans and I
have a big problem finding the correct reamer size for the wing attach holes.
For example if i buy a 1/4" reamer and ream the hole with it I can feel a small
play when I inserting a AN4 Bolt in the hole - also small play with close tolerance
bolts.
What do you think? Is that play okay? I think if you install this "heay", "long"
wing you will not feel any play at the bolt - but I want to make sure befor
I destroy a wing- and centerspar.
Thanks for your help,
Cle
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269997#269997
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: Reaming wing attach holes |
Hi Cle,
My experience is that a reamed 1/4 inch hole will provide a snug fit
for a normal AN-4 bolt. I used a hand reamer with slow and gentle
force, after drilling perhaps 30/1000 inch smaller holes to reach
this point. Perhaps you are using a chucking reamer in a vibrating
drill to do your reaming and this might give different results.
The good news is you are unlikely to destroy your plane at this
point. You can always go to larger, AN-5, bolts if necessary. I am
not an expert on this stuff, but I feel the 12 bolts used to hold the
wings to the spar carry through are probably a bit much for
safety. If one or two of the bolts is not quite perfectly installed
I think you will probable still be just fine. Even if they are all a
little bit loose before being torqued in place the torqued bolts will
still provide a great deal of strength for the total structure.
Good luck,
Paul
XL awaiting engineering changes
At 10:59 AM 10/29/2009, you wrote:
>Hello,
>My name is Clemens living in Austria and I am building a 601XL from
>plans and I have a big problem finding the correct reamer size for
>the wing attach holes.
>For example if i buy a 1/4" reamer and ream the hole with it I can
>feel a small play when I inserting a AN4 Bolt in the hole - also
>small play with close tolerance bolts.
>What do you think? Is that play okay? I think if you install this
>"heay", "long" wing you will not feel any play at the bolt - but I
>want to make sure befor I destroy a wing- and centerspar.
>Thanks for your help,
>Cle
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flying times |
Hello,
Two months ago I took a number of training lessons in a 650 (117FA) from
Forsyth Aviation in Virginia. Since they are a commercial operation they
decided to limit he take-off weight to the suggested value and yes this
limits
the maximum flight duration. But they have a light-weight (physical not
regarding his qualifications) instructor available so it is still doable.
Regards,
Maarten Versteeg, San Antonio
plansbuilding 601xl, working on fuselage
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: Flying Times |
I'm Randy from Wisconsin.
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy L. Thwing
To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying Times
What Randy are you? Are you my Pal Randy Stout of San Antonio? Are
you Randy, Las vegas? No wait that's me. Are you another Randy? Need
to add an identifyer here.
Regards,
Randy, Las Vegas
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy
To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Flying Times
I've been flying almost every week (spring, summer, fall and winter)
since May 2007. Longest down time was three and a half weeks do to
weather.
Randy
601xl
360hrs since May 2007
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: Reaming wing attach holes |
Thanks Paul for your info.
You are right - I use a drill press for the reamers. I normally use a drill press
for the reamers due to the reason that the hole looks more perfect if I use
the drill press. If I drive my reamers with hand, chances are big that the surface
of the hole gets corners. I don't know why this happens - maybe the reamers
are not good for aluminum. If I use this reamers in steel I get perfect holes
like with drill press + Aluminum.
Cle
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=270014#270014
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: Reaming wing attach holes |
Hi Cle,
Chucking reamers are best used in the big machining stations used in
large factories. Hand reamers are much more appropriate for home builders.
Hand reamers are used in a tap holder much like a tap. I use the
ones with left spiral and right hand cut, but I suspect the ones with
straight flutes work about the same.
Drilling holes in aluminum works best if you start with a pilot hole
and make small increases in drill size until you reach the desired
size. If you make a big jump in size to a larger drill then you get
odd shaped holes. I didn't know this was less of a problem with
steel, but I am not surprised.
Good luck,
Paul
XL awaiting engineering changes
At 12:55 PM 10/29/2009, you wrote:
>Thanks Paul for your info.
>You are right - I use a drill press for the reamers. I normally use
>a drill press for the reamers due to the reason that the hole looks
>more perfect if I use the drill press. If I drive my reamers with
>hand, chances are big that the surface of the hole gets corners. I
>don't know why this happens - maybe the reamers are not good for
>aluminum. If I use this reamers in steel I get perfect holes like
>with drill press + Aluminum.
>Cle
>
Message 18
| 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: Reaming wing attach holes |
Remember, when you install the wings, lift on the tips while tightening the
bolts. No matter how close you get the fit there will still be some slop.
Dave Austin 601HDS - 912
Message 19
| 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: Reaming wing attach holes |
Thanks Paul for your info about the pilot hole and continuing with larger drills
but this is not new for me.
If I want a 1/4" reamed hole I always start with a small drill bit and normally
end with a drill bit of a size of 6,1mm or 6,2mm. After drilling the hole looks
always perfect. My reamers were sold as "hand reamers" but when I use them
with a tap and turn them by hand into the hole, I get odd sized holes in aluminum.
If I use them in my drill press I get perfect round holes but obviously a
little bit too large holes.
Cle
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=270025#270025
Message 20
| 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: Reaming wing attach holes |
I use a unibit, when I am drilling bigger hole.
Rene' Felker
RV-10 N423CF Flying
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cle
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:07 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Reaming wing attach holes
Thanks Paul for your info about the pilot hole and continuing with larger
drills but this is not new for me.
If I want a 1/4" reamed hole I always start with a small drill bit and
normally end with a drill bit of a size of 6,1mm or 6,2mm. After drilling
the hole looks always perfect. My reamers were sold as "hand reamers" but
when I use them with a tap and turn them by hand into the hole, I get odd
sized holes in aluminum. If I use them in my drill press I get perfect round
holes but obviously a little bit too large holes.
Cle
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=270025#270025
Message 21
| 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: Reaming wing attach holes |
[Rolling Eyes]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=270029#270029
Message 22
| 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 |
|
50 hours this year, mostly after February when the Little Yellow Bird
was in for painting. We took it to Ashland, OR for Shakespeare in May.
Very inexpensive trip!
Brad DeMeo
N601BD - "Little Yellow Bird"
Zodiac XL
Message 23
| 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: Young Eagles in XL? |
Patrick,
I have flown Young Eagles over the past few years in my CH701. No problem
fling them with an Experimental plane.
Bob Spudis
N701ZX/ 912S/ 180hrs
In a message dated 10/29/2009 9:45:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
pwhoyt@yahoo.com writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt@yahoo.com>
Anybody flying Young Eagles in their XL's...?
When I was a little kid a guy gave me a ride in his airplane. Meant a lot
to me.
I'd eventually like to return the favor for other kids.
Anybody catching any flak or encountering resistance in using your XL for
Young Eagle flights...?
Patrick
90%
--------
Patrick
XL/650/Corvair
N63PZ (reserved)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=269961#269961
Message 24
| 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: Flying Times |
620 hours since July 01, 2007
238 hours since January 01, 2009
Steve
--------
Steve Smith
N601WF
Zenair Zodiac XL
Jabiru 3300
600+ hours
Sensenich composite - ground adjustable
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=270058#270058
Message 25
| 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: Reaming wing attach holes |
Don't know if I did it right, but it worked and the holes are round, correct size
and perpendicular to the surface. Take a look here:
http://mykitlog.com/users/display_log.php?user=rlendon&project=113&category=1683&log=24457&row=315
--------
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=270069#270069
Message 26
| 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: Young Eagles in XL? |
I know of XL's being used out of EAA Chapter 13 for Young Eagles flights. No problems
have been reported.
--------
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=270071#270071
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! --
|