Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:51 AM - Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Paul Mulwitz)
2. 08:33 AM - Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (bryanmmartin@comcast.net)
3. 10:55 AM - Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Sabrina)
4. 11:25 AM - Re: Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Stephen R. Look)
5. 01:28 PM - Oshkosh (roger lambert)
6. 01:37 PM - Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Sabrina)
7. 01:58 PM - Re: Oshkosh (Sabrina)
8. 03:32 PM - Re: Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Stephen R. Look)
9. 03:39 PM - Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Sabrina)
10. 04:19 PM - Re: Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Skip Perry)
11. 04:30 PM - Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Sabrina)
12. 05:13 PM - Re: Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Karl Polifka)
13. 05:25 PM - Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Sabrina)
14. 05:50 PM - Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Sabrina)
15. 06:02 PM - Re: Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Karl Polifka)
16. 06:11 PM - Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. (Sabrina)
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: | Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
I don't want to argue over the issue of the final value of the upgrade
design. I feel good about it, but I think each owner and flyer needs to
make up his own mind about design related risks with the XL.
That said, I do want to make one comment about the nature of the whole mess
and how the marginal design concept fits the known facts. Perhaps the most
difficult part of this whole mess for me to understand has been the number
of accidents exerienced. It has always been small compared to the number of
planes flying but too big to ignore. This is exactly the result I would
expect from a design that was good but not quite good enough. If there were
a realy large problem with the design the the number of accidents would be
much greater.
The part of this I really like most is the new idea I got that there was
extensive review of the design details from FAA engineers who are quite
competent to do this review. The fact they did a similar review of the
completed design after the upgrade is also comforting.
One detail I forget to mention in my report is that the FAA guys felt the XL
design failed to meet ASTM requirements before the upgrade and does meet
them after the upgrade.
Paul
from OSH
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Belcher
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues.
That was my reaction, Steve. Evidently, there must have been very little
reserve for error. :)
On Wednesday 28 July 2010 09:18:58 you wrote:
>
> Really? A design difference for 120 pounds causes the failures?
>
> Steve
>
> At 05:39 PM 7/27/2010, you wrote:
> >... His comment was that the wing was designed for only 1200 pounds
> >(for the European ultralight market) gross weight but the operating
> >weight was 1320. For him (and maybe for me now) this explained not
> >only the design issue behind the failures but is also consistent
> >with the location of the actual failures on the wing spars. He was
> >unsure if the wing failure caused flutter or the flutter caused the
> >wing failures, but he feels the update properly addresses this
> >issue since it strengthens the wings and balances the ailerons.
>
> Steve Look
> Monticello, IL
> www.ilrt66.com
> "Dogs have owners, Cats have staff"
>
>
--
=======================================
Jim B. Belcher
BS,MS Physics
A&P/IA
General Radio Telephone Certificate
Instrument Rated Pilot
Retired Aerospace Technical Manager
Semi-proficient Househusband
=======================================
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: | Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
The 601XL was designed before the LSA rule was even started and it was designed
for the american market as an improvement over the 601HD. The original design
gross weight was 1400 lbs, it was reduced to 1320 lbs to appeal to the LSA market.
I don't know where this guy got the notion about a 1200 lb gross weight
but it just goes to show that even the "experts" don't necessarily know what they
are talking about when they get outside their area of expertise.
>
> At 05:39 PM 7/27/2010, you wrote:
> >... His comment was that the wing was designed for only 1200 pounds
> >(for the European ultralight market) gross weight but the operating
> >weight was 1320. For him (and maybe for me now) this explained not
> >only the design issue behind the failures but is also consistent
> >with the location of the actual failures on the wing spars. He was
> >unsure if the wing failure caused flutter or the flutter caused the
> >wing failures, but he feels the update properly addresses this
> >issue since it strengthens the wings and balances the ailerons.
--
Bryan Martin
do not archive
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: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
CH sold us kits and plans for a +/- 6 G (ultimate) 1320 lb gross weight 160 MPH
VNE vehicle.
The FAA would not be putting the number 1200 out there without either an admission
from CH or solid engineering.
The fact that we have an airframe that was sold to us as a 'better than utility'
category 1320 pound 160 MPH aircraft that is, in reality, a 1200 pound normal
category 138 MPH aircraft is something we have to live with or modify.
We should be thankful to the FAA that we are still around to live with it.
Although 120 pounds does not sound like much. When people fly into storms, near
mountains, or over cliffs with their wings light (fuel low) OR load the craft
beyond aft CG, bad things will happen. It is not the number of people as much
as it the gross weight and where the weight is located within the airframe.
The crashes seem to prove that an aft CG loaded 1250 pound XL punishes its
main spar just as bad as a center CG loaded 1440 pound XL.
I am heading up to Air Venture in the morning for lunch with my favorite FAA type.
I am so proud they have finally come up with or extracted from CH, a set
of de-rating numbers.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306698#306698
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: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
There is a big difference between saying "some guy" from the FAA says
something and saying that the FAA says something.
When I can get a reference to a specific finding in writing issued by
the FAA, I'll be less skeptical.
All of the supposition posted here without any basis in established
fact does nothing but hurt Zenith and us, the owners/builders.
Steve
At 12:54 PM 7/29/2010, you wrote:
>
>CH sold us kits and plans for a +/- 6 G (ultimate) 1320 lb gross
>weight 160 MPH VNE vehicle.
>The FAA would not be putting the number 1200 out there without
>either an admission from CH or solid engineering.
>The fact that we have an airframe that was sold to us as a 'better
>than utility' category 1320 pound 160 MPH aircraft that is, in
>reality, a 1200 pound normal category 138 MPH aircraft is something
>we have to live with or modify.
>We should be thankful to the FAA that we are still around to live with it.
>Although 120 pounds does not sound like much. When people fly into
>storms, near mountains, or over cliffs with their wings light (fuel
>low) OR load the craft beyond aft CG, bad things will happen. It
>is not the number of people as much as it the gross weight and where
>the weight is located within the airframe. The crashes seem to
>prove that an aft CG loaded 1250 pound XL punishes its main spar
>just as bad as a center CG loaded 1440 pound XL.
>I am heading up to Air Venture in the morning for lunch with my
>favorite FAA type. I am so proud they have finally come up with or
>extracted from CH, a set of de-rating numbers.
Steve Look
Monticello, IL
www.ilrt66.com
"Dogs have owners, Cats have staff"
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 |
|
Sabrina:
Do us two favors:
1. When you talk to your FAA type, get a name and advise him that you're
going to publish his statement. Then give us his name and report on what he
says.
2. Some time in the future, when you have a degree in aeronautical
engineering, and maybe have become a professional engineer- review the CH
plans and give us a report with your signature on it.
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: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
That's why I am heading to Oshkosh on Friday...
We have been pushing CH for de-rate numbers for a long time.
CH, in public or in writing, had always maintained that the kit or plans, as sold,
met 160VNE, +/-6U and 1320--that the upgrade is just a beef up.
I don't think there is a soul in the FAA or NTSB who believes those numbers now.
I don't see how de-rate numbers would hurt the builders. They could elect to
de-rate or upgrade. The numbers being tossed around are in the ball park and
consistent with all the evidence.
Steve, do you believe the kit, factory XL or plans without the modification can
support more than 1200 pounds? Faster than 138? Utility category?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306714#306714
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 |
|
The 1200 number was floating out there well before Paul posted it...
And, as you well know, my FAA types at Oshkosh are not the engineers but rather
the lawyers, PR types and brass who are trying to keep me alive through all this.
I count them as my friends and mentors.
www.tc.faa.gov/oshkosh Click "Sabrina"
I have been invited to Edwards Air Force Base in two weeks time to talk to some
engineers about our issue and check out some of their work as well...
Between the Friday meeting, the Edwards meeting and a follow up meeting in Burlington,
I should have enough information to determine if I will remove my struts
and de-rate or install fairings on my struts. They were designed to be removed
or reinstalled in a minute's time.
CH is the one who should be putting his signature on documents, like a 10 percent
refund check on my kit since he only delivered 90% of the gross weight he sold
to me.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306715#306715
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: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
What you and some others are asking us all to believe, is that CH is
a criminal and a maniac as he would allow family and others fly in
these aircraft knowing they are unsafe.
I have seen all the testing results which, near as I can tell, have
proved nothing to indicate the design unsafe.
I have seen "fixes" mandated that have no proof of being required.
I have seen the value of my airplane diminished.
What I haven't seen is the slightest shred of credible evidence to
back these claims against Zenith.
I believe the airplane is safe. Beyond that, I am not an aero
engineer so I can not intelligently answer your questions. I could
make up something but then I might sound like an FAA lawyer or an
AOPA columnist.
Steve
At 03:37 PM 7/29/2010, you wrote:
>
>Steve, do you believe the kit, factory XL or plans without the
>modification can support more than 1200 pounds? Faster than
>138? Utility category?
Steve Look
Monticello, IL
www.ilrt66.com
"Dogs have owners, Cats have staff"
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: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
Check out page 3, paragraph 1 of this document:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/Zodiac.pdf
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306730#306730
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: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
I too find it hard to believe that Chris would intentionally make false
claims about his airplane designs, even though I have never personally met
him. I have met Roger and the guys at the Mexico site and they all seem to
be "authentic" and no signs of being shysters. Hell, Roger crawled his ass
in the factory demonstrator for hour after hour. Do you really think he
would have done that if he felt there were problems not being disclosed?
If you buy a Mercedes and don't do the maintenance, you will eventually be
left on the side of the road. The only problem is it is a lot more dramatic
when an airplane does it. I feel comfortable with the "upgrades" and as far
as I plan to stress the airplane I feel it will do what I want. If I had
wanted a higher performance plane I would have opted for an RV and the extra
work and expense and sure as hell wish some of you guys would do the same
thing. I really get tired of reading all the attacks when all you had to do
was sell your stuff (yes, at a loss due to your bellyaching) and move on to
another design. I might buy the farm but again I can't believe Roger and the
other Mexico guys would have flown all those demonstrator hours with a plane
that was "defective"
That's just my opinion after reading hundreds of emails and my opinion is
just like my mom used to say - "opinions are like assholes, everyone has one
and most of them stink". Flame away if you like but I really don't give a
fat rats ass:-) Happy flying to you all, no matter what you are flying.
Skip
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sabrina
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:39 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues.
Check out page 3, paragraph 1 of this document:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/Zodiac.pdf
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306730#306730
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: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
Roger did not fly the factory demo once the FAA issued their finding. I bet CH
and Roger were just as surprised with the FAA findings as we were.
That said, Roger getting into an airplane with me, that we both believed was safe
at 1320, is no great feat. Hundreds of people reading this list did the same
thing.
Engineers make mistakes, great engineers own up to their mistakes.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306736#306736
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: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
Sabrina,
Skip has a great point -- about you.
Karl
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:30 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues.
>
> Roger did not fly the factory demo once the FAA issued their finding. I
> bet CH and Roger were just as surprised with the FAA findings as we were.
>
> That said, Roger getting into an airplane with me, that we both believed
> was safe at 1320, is no great feat. Hundreds of people reading this list
> did the same thing.
>
> Engineers make mistakes, great engineers own up to their mistakes.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306736#306736
>
>
>
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: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
Karl, I would like to agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306743#306743
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: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
"Sabrina, Skip has a great point... Karl"
Dear Mr. Polifka,
Sorry to offend you. Thank you for serving our country so well. Did you ever
get to the bottom of the Agent Orange fiasco in Laos?
Sabrina
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306744#306744
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: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
Sabrina,
What "Agent Orange fiasco in Laos" was that?
Karl
Raven45
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris@msn.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:50 PM
Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues.
>
> "Sabrina, Skip has a great point... Karl"
>
> Dear Mr. Polifka,
>
> Sorry to offend you. Thank you for serving our country so well. Did
> you ever get to the bottom of the Agent Orange fiasco in Laos?
>
> Sabrina
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306744#306744
>
>
>
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: Report from OSH on 601xl update issues. |
20 Alternate
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=306749#306749
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! --
|