Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:23 AM - Contributions Down By 21%... (Matt Dralle)
1. 01:36 AM - Re: LAA MODS (Pete54)
2. 05:33 AM - In a galaxy far, far away (roger lambert)
3. 05:51 AM - Re: In a galaxy far, far away--fiction (fritz)
4. 06:33 AM - Re: In a galaxy far, far away (Jay Maynard)
5. 07:02 AM - Chat Reminder (George Race)
6. 09:35 AM - Re: In a galaxy far, far away (Jim Belcher)
7. 09:56 AM - Re: In a galaxy far, far away (dougsire)
8. 12:22 PM - Re: Re: In a galaxy far, far away (Karl Polifka)
9. 01:29 PM - spar and wing mods (LarryMcFarland)
10. 01:51 PM - Re: Re: In a galaxy far, far away (Rick Lindstrom)
11. 01:57 PM - Re: spar and wing mods (Rick Lindstrom)
12. 02:37 PM - Re: Re: In a galaxy far, far away (Jay Maynard)
13. 03:20 PM - Re: In a galaxy far, far away (ernie)
14. 03:56 PM - Re: Re: In a galaxy far, far away (Rick Lindstrom)
15. 04:13 PM - Re: Re: In a galaxy far, far away (NYTerminat@aol.com)
16. 08:42 PM - Re: Re: LAA MODS (Gary Gower)
Message 0
| 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: | Contributions Down By 21%... |
Dear Listers,
As of today, contributions to the Matronics List Fund Raiser are lagging behind
last year at this time by 21%. I have a fund raiser each year simply to cover
my operating costs for the Lists. I *do not* accept any advertising income
to support the Lists and rely solely on the contributions of members to keep the
expenses paid.
I run all of my own servers and they are housed here locally, and the Internet
connection is a commercial-grade, T1 connection with public address space. I
also maintain a full backup system that does nightly backups of all List-related
data so that in the event of a server crash or worse, all of the Lists and
the many years of List archive data could be restored onto a new server in a matter
of hours.
All of this costs a fair amount of money, not to mention a significant amount of
my personal time as well. I have a Fund Raiser each year to cover these costs
and I ask that members that feel they receive a benefit from my investments,
make a modest contribution each year to support the continued operation and
upgrade of these services.
If you enjoy the Lists, please make a contribution today. I also offer some incentive
gifts for larger contribution levels. At the Contribution Web Wite, you
can use a credit card, Paypal, or personal check to show your support for the
continuation of these services:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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 |
|
The original LAA mods are still on their site http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/engineering/Zenair%20Docs/Zenai%20CH%20601%20XL%20-%20MPD%20release%20Modification%20Instructions%20-%20fourth.pdf.
The aileron drawing has the print in colour for some reason which does not help
the clarity.
For what it is worth, my UK registered XL has had these mods completed and has
been test flown. No real changes but the removal of the elevator spring assist
linked to the flaps has very much improved the longitudinal stability. The
downside is that you can no longer trim out the pitch forces with full flap deployed.
The LAA may come up with afurther modification to address this.
--------
Pete Morris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273095#273095
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: | In a galaxy far, far away |
A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away the aviation authorities
decided they needed to get a large number of older aircraft out of the fleet
and, at the same time, allow more people to fly in a low, slow unregulated
airspace. To that end they issued a set of specifications and requested
engineers to design aircraft to those specifications. The engineers made
several assumptions, i.e. the builders would follow the plans, the pilots
would operate the airplane within the flight envelope, and the owners would
properly maintain the aircraft. The engineers designed the aircraft to the
government specs and released the plans and kits to the market.
Unfortunately, the engineers were wrong in their assumptions about some of
the builders, owners and pilots. Some builders,many of whom were not
engineers and had no building experience felt they knew"better" than the
designer and made "improvements" to the design or built poorly with hardware
store tools and equipment. Some owners did not maintain the aircraft
according to factory specifications. Some pilots "self checked" the
modifications, flew aerobatics and exceeded Va and Vne with reckless
abandon. Crashes insued. A group of builders then engaged in a campaign to
force a redesign of the airplane by an avalanche of complaints to the
aviation authorities. They demanded the airplane be made safe from
"flutter". Even after the theory of flutter was refuted, they continued with
their stream of complaints and many refused to believe any of the studies
done by professional engineers or even the aviation authorities were
correct. The aviation authorities, in order to stop this activity, engaged
the designers of the airplane to strengthen the airplane so the pilots would
have less opportunity to harm themselves by their excursions outside the
flight envelope in their self designed "improvements" to the airplane. The
designers, tired of going to crash sites, and tired of seeing how poorly
built, flown and maintained their aircraft were, designed modifications that
made the airplane far stronger than the original specifications. Several
interesting things happened, including, (1)The complaining group claimed
victory and patted themselves on the back as having superior knowledge to
the others. They forgot their claims of design flaw were never shown as
correct by any engineering study and ignored every indication of the
aviation authorities that operational activities may have contributed to the
crashes. As none of this group actually had a flying airplane(most don't
even have a pilot's license), they suffered no real damage, and have further
reason to put off ever having to fly their airplane.(2) The designers, who
may or may not survive economically, are bombarded by demands they pay for
these "improvements" by owners so shortsighted they couldn't pass a flight
physical without wearing binoculars backwards, will now be able to attribute
every crash to builder/pilot error.(3) The factory built airplanes will now
have an additional bill for the "improvements" to an airplane which is
already upside down financially and may never recover any commercial
ability.(4) The rest, including those with hundreds of hours on the
airframe, who built appropriately and flew the airplane within its flight
envelope will also have to dissassemble their airplane to incorporate the
"improvements" or face potential problems with the aviation authorities or
the insurance companies, much less any attempted resale of the airplane.
Steven Speilberg couldn't film one better than this.
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: In a galaxy far, far away--fiction |
nor could he write a better piece of fiction---------Fritz do not
archive
----- Original Message -----
From: roger lambert
To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:33 AM
Subject: Zenith601-List: In a galaxy far, far away
A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away the aviation
authorities decided they needed to get a large number of older aircraft
out of the fleet and, at the same time, allow more people to fly in a
low, slow unregulated airspace. To that end they issued a set of
specifications and requested engineers to design aircraft to those
specifications. The engineers made several assumptions, i.e. the
builders would follow the plans, the pilots would operate the airplane
within the flight envelope, and the owners would properly maintain the
aircraft. The engineers designed the aircraft to the government specs
and released the plans and kits to the market. Unfortunately, the
engineers were wrong in their assumptions about some of the builders,
owners and pilots. Some builders,many of whom were not engineers and had
no building experience felt they knew"better" than the designer and made
"improvements" to the design or built poorly with hardware store tools
and equipment. Some owners did not maintain the aircraft according to
factory specifications. Some pilots "self checked" the modifications,
flew aerobatics and exceeded Va and Vne with reckless abandon. Crashes
insued. A group of builders then engaged in a campaign to force a
redesign of the airplane by an avalanche of complaints to the aviation
authorities. They demanded the airplane be made safe from "flutter".
Even after the theory of flutter was refuted, they continued with their
stream of complaints and many refused to believe any of the studies done
by professional engineers or even the aviation authorities were correct.
The aviation authorities, in order to stop this activity, engaged the
designers of the airplane to strengthen the airplane so the pilots would
have less opportunity to harm themselves by their excursions outside the
flight envelope in their self designed "improvements" to the airplane.
The designers, tired of going to crash sites, and tired of seeing how
poorly built, flown and maintained their aircraft were, designed
modifications that made the airplane far stronger than the original
specifications. Several interesting things happened, including, (1)The
complaining group claimed victory and patted themselves on the back as
having superior knowledge to the others. They forgot their claims of
design flaw were never shown as correct by any engineering study and
ignored every indication of the aviation authorities that operational
activities may have contributed to the crashes. As none of this group
actually had a flying airplane(most don't even have a pilot's license),
they suffered no real damage, and have further reason to put off ever
having to fly their airplane.(2) The designers, who may or may not
survive economically, are bombarded by demands they pay for these
"improvements" by owners so shortsighted they couldn't pass a flight
physical without wearing binoculars backwards, will now be able to
attribute every crash to builder/pilot error.(3) The factory built
airplanes will now have an additional bill for the "improvements" to an
airplane which is already upside down financially and may never recover
any commercial ability.(4) The rest, including those with hundreds of
hours on the airframe, who built appropriately and flew the airplane
within its flight envelope will also have to dissassemble their airplane
to incorporate the "improvements" or face potential problems with the
aviation authorities or the insurance companies, much less any attempted
resale of the airplane.
Steven Speilberg couldn't film one better than this.
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: In a galaxy far, far away |
Oh, good grief. If you're going to post wildly inaccurate flamage, the least
you could do is put in a paragraph break every now and then.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 08:33:16AM -0500, roger lambert wrote:
> Some builders,many of whom were not engineers and had no building
> experience felt they knew"better" than the designer and made
> "improvements" to the design or built poorly with hardware store tools and
> equipment. Some owners did not maintain the aircraft according to factory
> specifications. Some pilots "self checked" the modifications, flew
> aerobatics and exceeded Va and Vne with reckless abandon. Crashes insued.
It's still yet to be demonstrated that that is teh case in all of the
inflight breakups. It's possible. How possible is anyone's guess.
> A group of builders then engaged in a campaign to force a redesign of the
> airplane by an avalanche of complaints to the aviation authorities.
One well-reasoned report is not an "avalanche".
> They demanded the airplane be made safe from "flutter".
At the time, there was a distinct lack of explanations that would account
for the accidents any other way - and especially ones that would account for
why factory-built aircraft were crashing.
> Even after the theory of flutter was refuted, they continued with their
> stream of complaints
What stream of complaints? Discussion on a mailing list is not a complaint
to the authorities, no matter how much you may think it is.
> and many refused to believe any of the studies done by professional
> engineers or even the aviation authorities were correct.
You're on the ZBAG mailing list. You know damned good and well there's no
unanimity there, except in that an answer needed to be found.
> The aviation authorities, in order to stop this activity,
Horse exhaust. The FAA doesn't ground an entire fleet of aircraft to shut up
a few malcontents.
> The designers, tired of going to crash sites, and tired of seeing how
> poorly built, flown and maintained their aircraft were, designed
> modifications that made the airplane far stronger than the original
> specifications.
I guess you missed the FAA's statement that the original Zodiac XL design
did not meet the ASTM standards.
> Several interesting things happened, including, (1)The complaining group
> claimed victory and patted themselves on the back as having superior
> knowledge to the others.
What do you call the FAA's statement that the Zodiac's design was deficient,
then? The FAA, ever mindful of litigation, would not say that if they did
not sincerely believe it.
> They forgot their claims of design flaw were never shown as correct by any
> engineering study
Tell that to the FAA.
> and ignored every indication of the aviation authorities that operational
> activities may have contributed to the crashes.
Right. A 79-year-old man taking his wife up for her first flight in his new,
factry-built Zodiac is going to push the edges of the envelope.
> As none of this group actually had a flying airplane(most don't even have
> a pilot's license),
Read my .signature. My airplane has around 210 hours on the Hobbs. It's
flown all over the central US. I've had a pilot's license for 20 years. Yes,
I'm a member of the group you insist on hating and blaming for the
grounding, instead of the Zodiac's design.
> they suffered no real damage,
I've got an airplane I can't afford any more (due to extended unemployment),
can't fly, and can't sell. How, exactly, have I "suffered no real damage"?
> and have further reason to put off ever having to fly their airplane.
I flew my airplane the day of the grounding, before I learned of it. I would
love to be able to fly it again. That's probably not oign to happen in the
absence of a miracle.
> (2) The designers, who may or may not survive economically, are bombarded
> by demands they pay for these "improvements"
I have not made, and will not make, such a demand.
> by owners so shortsighted they couldn't pass a flight physical without
> wearing binoculars backwards,
I agree that demands that Zenith/Zenair/AMD pay for the modifications are
shortsighted.
> will now be able to attribute every crash to builder/pilot error.
Once the deficient design is corrected - and, no matter how loudly you howl
and scream and punf feet and fists on the floor like a two-year-old, the FAA
says that the design is deficient - then the aircraft should have its
accident rate fall to about the same as the rest of the LSA fleet, unlike
what it has been. This is the inconvenient fact you keep ignoring.
> (3) The factory built airplanes will now have an additional bill for the
> "improvements" to an airplane which is already upside down financially and
> may never recover any commercial ability.
When I bought my AMD, I didn't expect to get out of it anything approaching
what I paid for it. That didn't bother me. If I were still making my
previous salary, it wouldn't bother me now. I bought it to fly for the rest
of my flying days. I'd love to simply fly it to Eastman (with a ferry
permit), write AMD a check, and fly home a couple of weeks later with an
airplane whose design has been thoroughly examined, tested, characterized,
and understood - far better than any other LSA flying.
> (4) The rest, including those with hundreds of hours on the airframe, who
> built appropriately and flew the airplane within its flight envelope will
> also have to dissassemble their airplane to incorporate the "improvements"
> or face potential problems with the aviation authorities or the insurance
> companies, much less any attempted resale of the airplane.
Would you rather fly a design the FAA has found deficient, or would you
rather remove all doubt?
> Steven Speilberg couldn't film one better than this.
I commend Tom Clancy's words to you before you write your next fairy tale.
Clancy observed that he couldn't get away with writing things that have
really happened, because fiction has to be believable. Your fairy tale is a
deliberate distoryion of reality, to the point of not being believable any
more.
--
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 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 |
|
Live Chat Room every Monday evening around 8:00 EDT
www.mykitairplane.com <http://www.mykitairplane.com/>
Click on the Chat Room link at the top of the page.
George
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: In a galaxy far, far away |
On Monday 16 November 2009 07:33, roger lambert wrote:
<snip>
>(2) The designers, who may or may not survive economically, are
> bombarded by demands they pay for these "improvements" by owners so
> shortsighted they couldn't pass a flight physical without wearing
> binoculars backwards, will now be able to attribute every crash to
> builder/pilot error.
<snip>
Whoa, little buddy. Ignoring my visual accuity or lack thereof, I have every
reason to expect Zenith to provide these improvements at minimal cost.
Sure, they're a bunch of nice guys, and I'm more than willing to work with
them because of it. I have no desire to see them go under, but neither is it
reasonable for me to assume all the cost of what appears to be their error.
At a minimum, I have a lot of extra labor to undo things, and install the
"upgrades."
While their contract claims they have no responsibilty for results, I have
printed copies of their website, and promotional materials, making broad
claims for what can be accomplished with the kit. I suspect that, at a
minimum, is negotiating in bad faith. While their attorney may have been the
one forcing those words in the contract, the fact remains that they wind up
being responsible.
Zenith is a small company, which does not have endless resources. Conversely,
I'm retired, disabled, and I don't have an endless supply of money handy to
offset errors made by others, even if they're unintentional. I think Zenith
and I are on about an even playing field. I don't think I'm alone in this: I
believe there are several others who are disabled or retirees who are
building these kits. Given the nature of the aircraft, I would suspect there
aren't that many really wealthy people building this aircraft: I doubt most
of us can afford to eat the cost of the "upgrade."
I'm waiting to see exactly what Zenith offers, and at what price. They are, as
many have been pointing out, really nice people who are willing to work with
us as builders. I'm waiting to see just how much this policy carries over
into the pricing of this modification.
--
============================================
Do not archive.
============================================
Jim B Belcher
BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science
A&P/IA
Retired aerospace technical manager
Mathematics and alcohol do not mix.
Do not drink and derive.
============================================
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: In a galaxy far, far away |
Well Roger, at least you have finally proved what I have suspected all along.
You're not really in touch with reality.
And apart from your obvious arrogance, what proof do you have that you are somehow
a better builder/pilot/mechanic than those who died when their aircraft broke
up in flight?
--------
Doug Sire 601XL
Do Not Archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273171#273171
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: In a galaxy far, far away |
Doug,
You are well over the edge.
Many posts on this forum have indicated very foolish piloting techniques and
poor maintenance practices. Similar unprofessional behavior may well have
contributed to the accident pattern we have seen. There is no way this can
be tied directly to what has happened, but it is a a couple of factors that
need to be considered. We are all now paying, in time and effort, for what
is mostly a CYA operation.
News flash. Fly an airplane within its limits, do proper maintenance, and
you are very unlikely to have problems.
I have flown a number of very tough airplanes well beyond their stated
limits only because I had to in severe combat situations. The 601XL was
never designed for those sorts of operations. This is a light aircraft
designed primarily to cruise from A to B. Stay within those limits. It is
clear that many do not, and add poor maintenance to the equation.
Karl
--------------------------------------------------
From: "dougsire" <dsire@imt.net>
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 12:56 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: In a galaxy far, far away
>
> Well Roger, at least you have finally proved what I have suspected all
> along. You're not really in touch with reality.
>
> And apart from your obvious arrogance, what proof do you have that you are
> somehow a better builder/pilot/mechanic than those who died when their
> aircraft broke up in flight?
>
> --------
> Doug Sire 601XL
> Do Not Archive
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273171#273171
>
>
>
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: | spar and wing mods |
Hi guys,
I believe the issues we see being blamed on piloting and maintenance are
a soft argument as most of us who build and fly are regarded as very
responsible. But, the previous class of 601s had nearly none of the
history of failures exhibited by the latest XL model.
The logical conclusion must be made that the margin of strength, from
fatigue to failure was brought nearer by a changes to a shorter
center-spar, reduced height wing spars, a main spar slightly angled off
from the direction of loading. These are significant changes that can go
without complication for many hours, but might possibly be overcome by
time, max loading, convective air and or minor mishandling of the
aircraft. There may even be a problem with minor variability of
construction affecting this narrower safety margin, but it too would be
very hard to find. Its still too early to get into a fault finding game.
The RVs had a similar problem with wings occasionally breaking off and
they made a fix that allowed them to survive and continue, painful as it
was.
If I owned an XL, Id be very happy to make the modifications and accept
the improved strength and original intent of loading. The reported cost
seems very reasonable.
Because the design is the intellectual property of Zenith, I really hope
they are able to survive the legal implications.
Do fly safe guys,
Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com <http://www.macsmachine.com/>
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: In a galaxy far, far away |
Guys, this whole thing is getting out of hand, IMHO. I thought Roger's post, as
overly dramatic and format-challenged as it was, still made some good points.
It was most likely written with tongue firmly planted in cheek, and I took it
with a grain of salt or two.
I am really surprised at the venomous response from some here. The FAA and the
NTSB still have not found a single "smoking gun" that's the primary cause for
the in-flight break ups. And yet, it's also not normal for 7 601 series airplanes
to suffer catastrophic airframe failures in a very similar fashion. All we
know is that when overstressed (for whatever the reason), a chain of events starts
that causes the airframe to fail in a predictable fashion. The one thing
that we do know is that the airframe is not fault-tolerant of being overstressed.
We also know that the 601 design has racked up thousands of flight hours
without failure, but this is of little comfort to the 11 lost souls (and their
families), who are forever marred by these crashes.
So, after all of the dust settles, we'll finally have an airframe that is more
tolerant of airborne stresses and less susceptable to any single event resulting
in catastrophic failure. It won't be irrecoverable anymore if the controls
get mishandled, the aileron cables go slack, someone accidently steps on a flap,
someone overstresses the aileron control system, the airplane goes a bit too
fast or pulls a bit more G's than the design specifically allows. We'll now
have an airplane that will at least allow us to safely return to earth under control.
I went back and reread the SAIB from the FAA, which claims the 601 was marginal
in meeting the intent of the ASTM standard. However, the designer has claimed
all along that the 601 is safe provided it's properly flown and maintained. Between
the two schools of thought is a wide area that has been the subject of
hot debate, and we won't get anywhere with one side demonizing the other.
So let's quit kicking Roger for his thoughts, order and install the upgrades, and
get on with enjoying flying our little beasties as Chris and sons intended.
(opinion mode off)
Rick Lindstrom
ZenVair 601XL N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Karl Polifka <jfowler120@verizon.net>
>Sent: Nov 16, 2009 3:20 PM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: In a galaxy far, far away
>
>
>Doug,
>
>You are well over the edge...
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: spar and wing mods |
Very well said, Larry! I wish I woulda read yours first before spending the time
to write my own!
Rick
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
>From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
>Sent: Nov 16, 2009 4:27 PM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Zenith601-List: spar and wing mods
>
>
>Hi guys,
>
>I believe the issues we see being blamed on piloting and maintenance are
>a soft argument as most of us who build and fly are regarded as very
>responsible. But, the previous class of 601s had nearly none of the
>history of failures exhibited by the latest XL model.
>
>The logical conclusion must be made that the margin of strength, from
>fatigue to failure was brought nearer by a changes to a shorter
>center-spar, reduced height wing spars, a main spar slightly angled off
>from the direction of loading. These are significant changes that can go
>without complication for many hours, but might possibly be overcome by
>time, max loading, convective air and or minor mishandling of the
>aircraft. There may even be a problem with minor variability of
>construction affecting this narrower safety margin, but it too would be
>very hard to find. Its still too early to get into a fault finding game.
>
>The RVs had a similar problem with wings occasionally breaking off and
>they made a fix that allowed them to survive and continue, painful as it
>was.
>
>If I owned an XL, Id be very happy to make the modifications and accept
>the improved strength and original intent of loading. The reported cost
>seems very reasonable.
>
>Because the design is the intellectual property of Zenith, I really hope
>they are able to survive the legal implications.
>
>Do fly safe guys,
>
>Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com <http://www.macsmachine.com/>
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: In a galaxy far, far away |
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 04:51:04PM -0500, Rick Lindstrom wrote:
> So let's quit kicking Roger for his thoughts
I'll quit kicking Roger just as soon as he quits bashing ZBAG, a group of
owners and builders that only has everyone's safety at heart - despite his
incoherent ravings.
--
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 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: In a galaxy far, far away |
Made me Laugh. Thanks.
E.
Do not archive
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:33 AM, roger lambert <n601ap@gmail.com> wrote:
> A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away the aviation authorities
> decided they needed to get a large number of older aircraft out of the fleet
> and, at the same time, allow more people to fly in a low, slow unregulated
> airspace. To that end they issued a set of specifications and requested
> engineers to design aircraft to those specifications. The engineers made
> several assumptions, i.e. the builders would follow the plans, the pilots
> would operate the airplane within the flight envelope, and the owners would
> properly maintain the aircraft. The engineers designed the aircraft to the
> government specs and released the plans and kits to the market.
> Unfortunately, the engineers were wrong in their assumptions about some of
> the builders, owners and pilots. Some builders,many of whom were not
> engineers and had no building experience felt they knew"better" than the
> designer and made "improvements" to the design or built poorly with hardware
> store tools and equipment. Some owners did not maintain the aircraft
> according to factory specifications. Some pilots "self checked" the
> modifications, flew aerobatics and exceeded Va and Vne with reckless
> abandon. Crashes insued. A group of builders then engaged in a campaign to
> force a redesign of the airplane by an avalanche of complaints to the
> aviation authorities. They demanded the airplane be made safe from
> "flutter". Even after the theory of flutter was refuted, they continued with
> their stream of complaints and many refused to believe any of the studies
> done by professional engineers or even the aviation authorities were
> correct. The aviation authorities, in order to stop this activity, engaged
> the designers of the airplane to strengthen the airplane so the pilots would
> have less opportunity to harm themselves by their excursions outside the
> flight envelope in their self designed "improvements" to the airplane. The
> designers, tired of going to crash sites, and tired of seeing how poorly
> built, flown and maintained their aircraft were, designed modifications that
> made the airplane far stronger than the original specifications. Several
> interesting things happened, including, (1)The complaining group claimed
> victory and patted themselves on the back as having superior knowledge to
> the others. They forgot their claims of design flaw were never shown as
> correct by any engineering study and ignored every indication of the
> aviation authorities that operational activities may have contributed to the
> crashes. As none of this group actually had a flying airplane(most don't
> even have a pilot's license), they suffered no real damage, and have further
> reason to put off ever having to fly their airplane.(2) The designers, who
> may or may not survive economically, are bombarded by demands they pay for
> these "improvements" by owners so shortsighted they couldn't pass a flight
> physical without wearing binoculars backwards, will now be able to attribute
> every crash to builder/pilot error.(3) The factory built airplanes will now
> have an additional bill for the "improvements" to an airplane which is
> already upside down financially and may never recover any commercial
> ability.(4) The rest, including those with hundreds of hours on the
> airframe, who built appropriately and flew the airplane within its flight
> envelope will also have to dissassemble their airplane to incorporate the
> "improvements" or face potential problems with the aviation authorities or
> the insurance companies, much less any attempted resale of the airplane.
>
> Steven Speilberg couldn't film one better than this.
>
> =
>
>
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: In a galaxy far, far away |
Hi, Jay.
The last time I talked to William D. (the founder of ZBAG), he admitted that there
was an faction of the group that wasn't as pure of heart as we would all have
liked. I too, originally signed on as a ZBAG participant, but it became very
clear that there were several different agendas at work, the worst being a
few impatient souls who were very unhappy and wanted to build gallows and tie
nooses as the solution.
I decided that the best course of action (for me) was to wait until the jury came
back in before passing sentence on Zenith generally and the 601 specifically.
In the mean time, I checked my 601 religiously, flew it conservatively, up
until the time I lost access to the hangar it was in and moved it to my shop.
And now I can finally get on with the mods, reassemble it, and fly it with renewed
confidence.
I still think the original intent of ZBAG, to independently research the cause
of the inflight break ups, was laudible. However, there was also a lot of inappropriate
anger directed at the Heintz family, and a lot of leaping to the conclusion
that the Heintz's just weren't doing enough fast enough. Lost in the ensuing
debate was the realization that we ALL had a vested interest in putting
this issue to rest, in a thorough and scientific manner.
With or without ZBAG, we'd ultimately end up where we are now. 7 inflight break
ups of a single design in a short time frame isn't acceptable in anyone's book,
and I'll bet even Roger will admit that. I also think Zenith deserves credit
for going the extra mile in coming up with an upgrade package that will result
in a stronger airframe, one that is more resistant to neglectful maintenance
or stupid pilot/passeger tricks or severe turbulence. We do fly in an imperfect
world with imperfect people. Zenith knows this, they've spent the last year
coming up with these mods, partially based on their crash research with the
NTSB.
In the old days, we'd most likely get a certified letter from Zenith or the FAA
detailing the information that's now instantly available online. As marvelous
a tool as the PC is in building airplanes, with discussion groups on every topic
imaginable, we should recognize that it's also a powerful tool for forming
and sharing opinions before thoroughly thinking things through. This is the downside.
My impression of Roger's parable was exactly that - a parable. I don't think he
intended it to be scientific treatise purely based on fact, there's a lot of
his opinion at work. We all view reality through our own set of filters, based
on individual perceptions. That's a long way from "incoherent ravings".
Right now, Monday Night Fooball and a cold beer seem like the perfect solution
to electronic dirt clod chucking!
Best,
Rick
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jay Maynard <jmaynard@conmicro.com>
>Sent: Nov 16, 2009 5:36 PM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: In a galaxy far, far away
>
>
>On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 04:51:04PM -0500, Rick Lindstrom wrote:
>> So let's quit kicking Roger for his thoughts
>
>I'll quit kicking Roger just as soon as he quits bashing ZBAG, a group of
>owners and builders that only has everyone's safety at heart - despite his
>incoherent ravings.
>--
>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 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: In a galaxy far, far away |
Rick, You are right. I don't think that Roger's post was meant as pure
fact but more as satire. I took it with a grain of salt and enjoyed the
reading. There was no reason to flame him!!!!!!!!
Bob Spudis
N701ZX Ch701/912S
In a message dated 11/16/2009 4:52:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
tigerrick@mindspring.com writes:
--> Zenith601-List message posted by: Rick Lindstrom
<tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Guys, this whole thing is getting out of hand, IMHO. I thought Roger's
post, as overly dramatic and format-challenged as it was, still made some good
points. It was most likely written with tongue firmly planted in cheek,
and I took it with a grain of salt or two.
I am really surprised at the venomous response from some here. The FAA and
the NTSB still have not found a single "smoking gun" that's the primary
cause for the in-flight break ups. And yet, it's also not normal for 7 601
series airplanes to suffer catastrophic airframe failures in a very similar
fashion. All we know is that when overstressed (for whatever the reason), a
chain of events starts that causes the airframe to fail in a predictable
fashion. The one thing that we do know is that the airframe is not
fault-tolerant of being overstressed. We also know that the 601 design has racked
up
thousands of flight hours without failure, but this is of little comfort to
the 11 lost souls (and their families), who are forever marred by these
crashes.
So, after all of the dust settles, we'll finally have an airframe that is
more tolerant of airborne stresses and less susceptable to any single event
resulting in catastrophic failure. It won't be irrecoverable anymore if
the controls get mishandled, the aileron cables go slack, someone accidently
steps on a flap, someone overstresses the aileron control system, the
airplane goes a bit too fast or pulls a bit more G's than the design
specifically allows. We'll now have an airplane that will at least allow us to
safely
return to earth under control.
I went back and reread the SAIB from the FAA, which claims the 601 was
marginal in meeting the intent of the ASTM standard. However, the designer has
claimed all along that the 601 is safe provided it's properly flown and
maintained. Between the two schools of thought is a wide area that has been
the subject of hot debate, and we won't get anywhere with one side
demonizing the other.
So let's quit kicking Roger for his thoughts, order and install the
upgrades, and get on with enjoying flying our little beasties as Chris and sons
intended.
(opinion mode off)
Rick Lindstrom
ZenVair 601XL N42KP
-----Original Message-----
>From: Karl Polifka <jfowler120@verizon.net>
>Sent: Nov 16, 2009 3:20 PM
>To: zenith601-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: In a galaxy far, far away
>
<jfowler120@verizon.net>
>
>Doug,
>
>You are well over the edge...
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 |
|
looks like the "domino" law is starting...- :-)- :-)- :-)
-
Only a joke.
-
Saludos
Gary Gower.
--- On Mon, 11/16/09, Pete54 <peter.morris@optimusaberdeen.com> wrote:
From: Pete54 <peter.morris@optimusaberdeen.com>
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: LAA MODS
n.com>
The original LAA mods are still on their site http://www.lightaircraftassoc
iation.co.uk/engineering/Zenair%20Docs/Zenai%20CH%20601%20XL%20-%20MPD%20re
lease%20Modification%20Instructions%20-%20fourth.pdf.
The aileron drawing has the print in colour for some reason which does not
help the clarity.
For what it is worth, my UK registered XL has had these mods completed and
has been test flown.- No real changes but the removal of the elevator spr
ing assist linked to the flaps has very much improved the longitudinal stab
ility.- The downside is that you can no longer trim out the pitch forces
with full flap deployed.- The LAA may come up with afurther modification
to address this.
--------
Pete Morris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=273095#273095
le, List Admin.
=0A=0A=0A
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! --
|