Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:39 AM - Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... (Paul Mulwitz)
2. 04:40 AM - Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... (Randy)
3. 10:13 AM - Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... (Bryan Martin)
4. 11:25 AM - Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... ()
5. 03:05 PM - Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... (SIDESLIP)
6. 05:14 PM - Re: Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... (Barry Benson)
7. 06:00 PM - Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... (SIDESLIP)
8. 06:35 PM - Re: Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... (Paul Mulwitz)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... |
Hi Chad,
I feel your pain. I will try to address all of the issues you raised,
but I'm sure I will forget some (rather than avoid them). Please feel
free to ask any questions again.
First, let me say I too have issues with my Zodiac XL with mods. The
good news is I had much greater ones and feel a lot better now than I
did when the upgrade was first announced. In general, I feel confident
in the structure now and believe it is possible to safely fly this
plane. There are limitations from my point of view, but the structural
issues seem to have been solved.
The biggest limitation for me is the light wing loading when combined
with unstable air. You get thrown around the sky compared to planes
with heavier wing loading. A C-150 would have similar problems but not
quite as bad. A C-182 will provide much more reliable and comfortable
transportation in most conditions, but you will pay for this comfort and
convenience.
I was not convinced the design was really fixed after reading the big
report from the FAA. I am not an aeronautical engineer and apparently I
didn't interpret the jargon correctly. I had a lucky meeting with the
guy whose name appears on the bottom of that report, Wes Ryan, at an
ASTM F37 meeting about a year after the report was issued. We discussed
the Zodiac issue for around 20 minutes. He convinced me that my
interpretation of the document was incorrect. They really did find
design problems with the Zodiac XL, and they really were fixed with the
upgrade package. History has supported this idea. There have not been
any more structural failures after installing the upgrade.
By the way, I have not changed the designation of my plane by adding the
"B" to its name. This is very difficult to do after the plane is
registered and I saw no reason to go through all that. Calling it
"Upgraded" is just as informative as adding the "B". It is different
for Zenith who sells kits long before they are registered.
There are a number of good reasons why you get different numbers from
different builders. All Zodiac XLs are not identical. Indeed, each one
is unique. There is no version control at Zenith, and changes are made
willy nilly whenever they feel like it. I doubt there is any reliable
way to track the changes that might appear in any given instance of the
XL. This is not really a problem, but it does mean you will get
differences from one plane to another. Of course it matters a great
deal what engine you mount after finishing building the kit. My point
is you shouldn't lose sleep over the different V speeds reported by
different builders. These planes are all built by amateurs and mostly
by people building their first plane. The rigging is less than optimum
on many of them. While there are problems with the design this is true
of all planes. The big problem - in flight structural failures - is
fixed now. The little problems are easy to live with if you operate the
plane in a conservative fashion and under weather conditions that are
reasonably benign.
I agree there is a problem in the rudder hinge area. I added bushings
to mine after seeing wear in the first few hours of flight. The
original design (at least the design as it appeared in my prints) had
steel rubbing against nylon each time the rudder was moved. This isn't
a good thing. Adding bushings so the steel is rubbing against a hard
and lubricated bushing seems to work a lot better.
I have nylon stops on the upward movement of the flaps. They are easy
to see from the top of the wing. Each flap has a couple of pieces of
nylon (1/8" sheet?) stuffed between the skin layers and riveted in
place. The nylon sticks out perhaps 1/4 inch from the top skin and the
flap presses against the stops. It is part of my normal preflight
inspection to try to wiggle the flaps. If they move at all I check to
make sure they are fully up. If they still move (they haven't yet in my
case) I would not fly the plane.
I do not know if the plane has been fully tested for flutter and other
bad juju since the mod was installed. This is a question for Zenith. I
am comfortable with the fact that history has shown the mod to be
effective. All the other possible tests only hope to predict the good
outcome we actually see now.
For what its worth I consider my XL to be as safe as you might expect
from any home built airplane. It has limitations, but they are not
particularly bad ones. I only fly in nice weather, and consider the XL
to be a fair weather plane. I would prefer to have a heavier and more
powerful plane but my lack of a medical certificate currently limits me
to light-sport designs. The XL is a reasonable example of the high end
of these planes. If the rules for medical certificates change in the
USA it is likely I will trade up to something bigger, heavier, and more
expensive to operate. Depending on the change I will probable go to the
upper limit of planes I can legally fly. For other people who treasure
inexpensive flying with reasonable cross country capability in good
weather I am comfortable recommending the XL as a possible choice.
Good luck,
Paul
Camas, WA
USA
On 5/25/2013 9:07 PM, SIDESLIP wrote:
>
> So I read all 40 pages thoroughly, and much of it does make sense. It appears
to be a series of compounding issues that simply escalated an already borderline
wing design.
>
> My question is this... Does anyone know if the COMPLETE Bravo mods were tested
for flutter, strength etc? The FAA reccomended that they (Zenith) run through
further testing for structure and flutter.
>
> Here's where I stand....
>
> I own a 601XL-B that climbs like a rocket, and cruises 100-110kts happily, and
the aircraft seems to perform great. HOWEVER, this IS my first Homebuilt, and
I didn't buy it. I am highly mechanically enclined, so I know mechanics and
the the basic engineering behind it all.
>
> My searches turned up very little, both on the net, and on here. For example,
my V-Speeds are as follows...
>
> Vso- 44kts
> Vs - 51kts
> Va- 85kts
> Vno- 113kts
> VNE - 140kts
> VX - 58kts
> VY - 60kts
>
> I've found many MANY different versions of the numbers, and that concerns me.
After reading the FAA report, Va should be 80-82kts, Vno 103kts or lower. The
VNE seemed to be the most consistent at 140kts (16mph)
>
> The rudder upper bolts seem to wear and get play In them, there is flap stops,
which I have never seen on a single zodiac yet, and haven't any idea what they
look like. There are just so many variables.....
>
> Is there anything that anyone can say to help ease my mind? What does the general
concensus say about this airplane, both before and after the Bravo Mod? How
sloppy do the cables need to get to become a hazard? My bottom line is that
I am DEEPLY in love with flying the airplane, it's performance and slickness!
It's a sexy looking airplane, and I get stopped for photo ops everywhere I go.
It's amazing. The performance is unreal!
>
> BUT, and a BIG BIG BUT here.....
>
> How safe is this airplane? I have a G-Meter so I can monitor so that I'm not
stressing the airframe. I don't jerk the controls, I'm smooth with them. I don't
push the airplane or "hot dog" it. I just fly it like I would a 152. I can
see how one would get in trouble quick though, because it IS so much fun to fly!
>
> But at the end of the day, can I feel safe? Will it truthfully try to kill me?
I've got three little ones that rely on me. Two 4 year old daughters and a 7
week old baby boy.
>
> I see tons of videos from Europe with guys flying these 601's XL's and HD's with
the same power plant as me, same set up, and they seem just fine. They have
a blast it seems!
>
> Chad..... Fighting to put my mind to rest......
> Or sell this and buy a 152! Lol. At least I know they don't break-up in flight.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Chad
>
> --------
> C-GYXQ. 912ULS. 601XL-B
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401365#401365
>
>
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: | FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... |
They did a ground vibration test (in Germany) on a pre-mod XL, with only
5lbs of cable tension and did not get any flutter.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Mulwitz
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have
questions...
Hi Chad,
I feel your pain. I will try to address all of the issues you raised,
but I'm sure I will forget some (rather than avoid them). Please feel
free to ask any questions again.
First, let me say I too have issues with my Zodiac XL with mods. The
good news is I had much greater ones and feel a lot better now than I
did when the upgrade was first announced. In general, I feel confident
in the structure now and believe it is possible to safely fly this
plane. There are limitations from my point of view, but the structural
issues seem to have been solved.
The biggest limitation for me is the light wing loading when combined
with unstable air. You get thrown around the sky compared to planes
with heavier wing loading. A C-150 would have similar problems but not
quite as bad. A C-182 will provide much more reliable and comfortable
transportation in most conditions, but you will pay for this comfort and
convenience.
I was not convinced the design was really fixed after reading the big
report from the FAA. I am not an aeronautical engineer and apparently I
didn't interpret the jargon correctly. I had a lucky meeting with the
guy whose name appears on the bottom of that report, Wes Ryan, at an
ASTM F37 meeting about a year after the report was issued. We discussed
the Zodiac issue for around 20 minutes. He convinced me that my
interpretation of the document was incorrect. They really did find
design problems with the Zodiac XL, and they really were fixed with the
upgrade package. History has supported this idea. There have not been
any more structural failures after installing the upgrade.
By the way, I have not changed the designation of my plane by adding the
"B" to its name. This is very difficult to do after the plane is
registered and I saw no reason to go through all that. Calling it
"Upgraded" is just as informative as adding the "B". It is different
for Zenith who sells kits long before they are registered.
There are a number of good reasons why you get different numbers from
different builders. All Zodiac XLs are not identical. Indeed, each one
is unique. There is no version control at Zenith, and changes are made
willy nilly whenever they feel like it. I doubt there is any reliable
way to track the changes that might appear in any given instance of the
XL. This is not really a problem, but it does mean you will get
differences from one plane to another. Of course it matters a great
deal what engine you mount after finishing building the kit. My point
is you shouldn't lose sleep over the different V speeds reported by
different builders. These planes are all built by amateurs and mostly
by people building their first plane. The rigging is less than optimum
on many of them. While there are problems with the design this is true
of all planes. The big problem - in flight structural failures - is
fixed now. The little problems are easy to live with if you operate the
plane in a conservative fashion and under weather conditions that are
reasonably benign.
I agree there is a problem in the rudder hinge area. I added bushings
to mine after seeing wear in the first few hours of flight. The
original design (at least the design as it appeared in my prints) had
steel rubbing against nylon each time the rudder was moved. This isn't
a good thing. Adding bushings so the steel is rubbing against a hard
and lubricated bushing seems to work a lot better.
I have nylon stops on the upward movement of the flaps. They are easy
to see from the top of the wing. Each flap has a couple of pieces of
nylon (1/8" sheet?) stuffed between the skin layers and riveted in
place. The nylon sticks out perhaps 1/4 inch from the top skin and the
flap presses against the stops. It is part of my normal preflight
inspection to try to wiggle the flaps. If they move at all I check to
make sure they are fully up. If they still move (they haven't yet in my
case) I would not fly the plane.
I do not know if the plane has been fully tested for flutter and other
bad juju since the mod was installed. This is a question for Zenith. I
am comfortable with the fact that history has shown the mod to be
effective. All the other possible tests only hope to predict the good
outcome we actually see now.
For what its worth I consider my XL to be as safe as you might expect
from any home built airplane. It has limitations, but they are not
particularly bad ones. I only fly in nice weather, and consider the XL
to be a fair weather plane. I would prefer to have a heavier and more
powerful plane but my lack of a medical certificate currently limits me
to light-sport designs. The XL is a reasonable example of the high end
of these planes. If the rules for medical certificates change in the
USA it is likely I will trade up to something bigger, heavier, and more
expensive to operate. Depending on the change I will probable go to the
upper limit of planes I can legally fly. For other people who treasure
inexpensive flying with reasonable cross country capability in good
weather I am comfortable recommending the XL as a possible choice.
Good luck,
Paul
Camas, WA
USA
On 5/25/2013 9:07 PM, SIDESLIP wrote:
>
> So I read all 40 pages thoroughly, and much of it does make sense. It
appears to be a series of compounding issues that simply escalated an
already borderline wing design.
>
> My question is this... Does anyone know if the COMPLETE Bravo mods were
tested for flutter, strength etc? The FAA reccomended that they (Zenith) run
through further testing for structure and flutter.
>
> Here's where I stand....
>
> I own a 601XL-B that climbs like a rocket, and cruises 100-110kts happily,
and the aircraft seems to perform great. HOWEVER, this IS my first
Homebuilt, and I didn't buy it. I am highly mechanically enclined, so I know
mechanics and the the basic engineering behind it all.
>
> My searches turned up very little, both on the net, and on here. For
example, my V-Speeds are as follows...
>
> Vso- 44kts
> Vs - 51kts
> Va- 85kts
> Vno- 113kts
> VNE - 140kts
> VX - 58kts
> VY - 60kts
>
> I've found many MANY different versions of the numbers, and that concerns
me. After reading the FAA report, Va should be 80-82kts, Vno 103kts or
lower. The VNE seemed to be the most consistent at 140kts (16mph)
>
> The rudder upper bolts seem to wear and get play In them, there is flap
stops, which I have never seen on a single zodiac yet, and haven't any idea
what they look like. There are just so many variables.....
>
> Is there anything that anyone can say to help ease my mind? What does the
general concensus say about this airplane, both before and after the Bravo
Mod? How sloppy do the cables need to get to become a hazard? My bottom line
is that I am DEEPLY in love with flying the airplane, it's performance and
slickness! It's a sexy looking airplane, and I get stopped for photo ops
everywhere I go. It's amazing. The performance is unreal!
>
> BUT, and a BIG BIG BUT here.....
>
> How safe is this airplane? I have a G-Meter so I can monitor so that I'm
not stressing the airframe. I don't jerk the controls, I'm smooth with them.
I don't push the airplane or "hot dog" it. I just fly it like I would a 152.
I can see how one would get in trouble quick though, because it IS so much
fun to fly!
>
> But at the end of the day, can I feel safe? Will it truthfully try to kill
me? I've got three little ones that rely on me. Two 4 year old daughters and
a 7 week old baby boy.
>
> I see tons of videos from Europe with guys flying these 601's XL's and
HD's with the same power plant as me, same set up, and they seem just fine.
They have a blast it seems!
>
> Chad..... Fighting to put my mind to rest......
> Or sell this and buy a 152! Lol. At least I know they don't break-up in
flight.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Chad
>
> --------
> C-GYXQ. 912ULS. 601XL-B
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401365#401365
>
>
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: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... |
Keep in mind that the original factory demonstrator/prototype flew 1700 hours without
the mod with absolutely no evidence of a problem. And this airplane was
flown to air shows all around the country and flown by many prospective customers
with no experience in the airplane. On one trip to Sun'N'Fun, I flew my pre-modification
airplane through turbulence so severe I think it would have thrown
me out of the plane if I hadn't been strapped in. There was no way to hold
altitude, I just slowed down to about 80 kts and rode it out. The airplane came
through undamaged. The modification kit has almost certainly increased the
safety margin of the airplane.
No airplane is 100% safe and if you try hard enough, you can rip the wings off
almost any airplane. Fly it within the design limits and keep it well maintained
and you should be as safe as you can be in any light airplane.
As far as the V speeds you list, your So and Vs numbers appear to be in the wrong
units - the numbers look correct for miles per hour. In any case, these numbers
may vary a bit from one airplane to another because no two homebuilts are
identical. And most of these numbers are valid for only one specific set of conditions:
standard sea level atmosphere at gross weight. Stall speeds and maneuvering
speed will all decrease with a decrease in weight. And remember: flying
at a speed less than Va does not mean you can't break the airplane, it just
means that in level flight in heavy turbulence the wing will stall before it
breaks. If the turbulence is severe enough, even that isn't a guarantee (stay
away from thunderstorms).
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus re-drive.
On May 26, 2013, at 12:07 AM, SIDESLIP <Chad2007@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> My searches turned up very little, both on the net, and on here. For example,
my V-Speeds are as follows...
>
> Vso- 44kts
> Vs - 51kts
> Va- 85kts
> Vno- 113kts
> VNE - 140kts
> VX - 58kts
> VY - 60kts
>
>
> But at the end of the day, can I feel safe? Will it truthfully try to kill me?
I've got three little ones that rely on me. Two 4 year old daughters and a 7
week old baby boy.
>
> I see tons of videos from Europe with guys flying these 601's XL's and HD's with
the same power plant as me, same set up, and they seem just fine. They have
a blast it seems!
>
>
> Chad
>
> --------
> C-GYXQ. 912ULS. 601XL-B
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: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... |
I more or less agree with Paul M but there are also other other ways to
de-epidermize the feline. Cables may be nice, but we can steal a page
from the RV-whatever book, and put in push-pull aileron tubes. A very
easy fix, which obviates any tension problems. If you ain't got no
cables, you don't gotta worry about them. Also, after the mod was done
on Zenith's demo XL, if memory serves, they reported that they got a
test pilot to wring it out. He never publicly stated what he did, and
they weren't about to, (probably to avoid encouraging those whose macho
score exceeds their IQ), but the report was that the wings were "very
robust". And, of course there's always the BRS, which, for under 5
grand, will allow you to rip apart your sweet little ride for the sake
of a bar story....
Paul R
From: Paul Mulwitz<mailto:psm@att.net>
To: zenith601-list@matronics.com<mailto:zenith601-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: FAA Special Review Team final report....
Have questions...
<psm@att.net<mailto:psm@att.net>>
Hi Chad,
I feel your pain. I will try to address all of the issues you raised,
but I'm sure I will forget some (rather than avoid them). Please feel
free to ask any questions again.
First, let me say I too have issues with my Zodiac XL with mods. The
good news is I had much greater ones and feel a lot better now than I
did when the upgrade was first announced. In general, I feel
confident
in the structure now and believe it is possible to safely fly this
plane. There are limitations from my point of view, but the
structural
issues seem to have been solved.
The biggest limitation for me is the light wing loading when combined
with unstable air. You get thrown around the sky compared to planes
with heavier wing loading. A C-150 would have similar problems but
not
quite as bad. A C-182 will provide much more reliable and comfortable
transportation in most conditions, but you will pay for this comfort
and
convenience.
I was not convinced the design was really fixed after reading the big
report from the FAA. I am not an aeronautical engineer and apparently
I
didn't interpret the jargon correctly. I had a lucky meeting with the
guy whose name appears on the bottom of that report, Wes Ryan, at an
ASTM F37 meeting about a year after the report was issued. We
discussed
the Zodiac issue for around 20 minutes. He convinced me that my
interpretation of the document was incorrect. They really did find
design problems with the Zodiac XL, and they really were fixed with
the
upgrade package. History has supported this idea. There have not
been
any more structural failures after installing the upgrade.
By the way, I have not changed the designation of my plane by adding
the
"B" to its name. This is very difficult to do after the plane is
registered and I saw no reason to go through all that. Calling it
"Upgraded" is just as informative as adding the "B". It is different
for Zenith who sells kits long before they are registered.
There are a number of good reasons why you get different numbers from
different builders. All Zodiac XLs are not identical. Indeed, each
one
is unique. There is no version control at Zenith, and changes are
made
willy nilly whenever they feel like it. I doubt there is any reliable
way to track the changes that might appear in any given instance of
the
XL. This is not really a problem, but it does mean you will get
differences from one plane to another. Of course it matters a great
deal what engine you mount after finishing building the kit. My point
is you shouldn't lose sleep over the different V speeds reported by
different builders. These planes are all built by amateurs and mostly
by people building their first plane. The rigging is less than
optimum
on many of them. While there are problems with the design this is
true
of all planes. The big problem - in flight structural failures - is
fixed now. The little problems are easy to live with if you operate
the
plane in a conservative fashion and under weather conditions that are
reasonably benign.
I agree there is a problem in the rudder hinge area. I added bushings
to mine after seeing wear in the first few hours of flight. The
original design (at least the design as it appeared in my prints) had
steel rubbing against nylon each time the rudder was moved. This
isn't
a good thing. Adding bushings so the steel is rubbing against a hard
and lubricated bushing seems to work a lot better.
I have nylon stops on the upward movement of the flaps. They are easy
to see from the top of the wing. Each flap has a couple of pieces of
nylon (1/8" sheet?) stuffed between the skin layers and riveted in
place. The nylon sticks out perhaps 1/4 inch from the top skin and
the
flap presses against the stops. It is part of my normal preflight
inspection to try to wiggle the flaps. If they move at all I check to
make sure they are fully up. If they still move (they haven't yet in
my
case) I would not fly the plane.
I do not know if the plane has been fully tested for flutter and other
bad juju since the mod was installed. This is a question for Zenith.
I
am comfortable with the fact that history has shown the mod to be
effective. All the other possible tests only hope to predict the good
outcome we actually see now.
For what its worth I consider my XL to be as safe as you might expect
from any home built airplane. It has limitations, but they are not
particularly bad ones. I only fly in nice weather, and consider the
XL
to be a fair weather plane. I would prefer to have a heavier and more
powerful plane but my lack of a medical certificate currently limits
me
to light-sport designs. The XL is a reasonable example of the high
end
of these planes. If the rules for medical certificates change in the
USA it is likely I will trade up to something bigger, heavier, and
more
expensive to operate. Depending on the change I will probable go to
the
upper limit of planes I can legally fly. For other people who
treasure
inexpensive flying with reasonable cross country capability in good
weather I am comfortable recommending the XL as a possible choice.
Good luck,
Paul
Camas, WA
USA
On 5/25/2013 9:07 PM, SIDESLIP wrote:
<Chad2007@rogers.com<mailto:Chad2007@rogers.com>>
>
> So I read all 40 pages thoroughly, and much of it does make sense.
It appears to be a series of compounding issues that simply escalated an
already borderline wing design.
>
> My question is this... Does anyone know if the COMPLETE Bravo mods
were tested for flutter, strength etc? The FAA reccomended that they
(Zenith) run through further testing for structure and flutter.
>
> Here's where I stand....
>
> I own a 601XL-B that climbs like a rocket, and cruises 100-110kts
happily, and the aircraft seems to perform great. HOWEVER, this IS my
first Homebuilt, and I didn't buy it. I am highly mechanically enclined,
so I know mechanics and the the basic engineering behind it all.
>
> My searches turned up very little, both on the net, and on here. For
example, my V-Speeds are as follows...
>
> Vso- 44kts
> Vs - 51kts
> Va- 85kts
> Vno- 113kts
> VNE - 140kts
> VX - 58kts
> VY - 60kts
>
> I've found many MANY different versions of the numbers, and that
concerns me. After reading the FAA report, Va should be 80-82kts, Vno
103kts or lower. The VNE seemed to be the most consistent at 140kts
(16mph)
>
> The rudder upper bolts seem to wear and get play In them, there is
flap stops, which I have never seen on a single zodiac yet, and haven't
any idea what they look like. There are just so many variables.....
>
> Is there anything that anyone can say to help ease my mind? What
does the general concensus say about this airplane, both before and
after the Bravo Mod? How sloppy do the cables need to get to become a
hazard? My bottom line is that I am DEEPLY in love with flying the
airplane, it's performance and slickness! It's a sexy looking airplane,
and I get stopped for photo ops everywhere I go. It's amazing. The
performance is unreal!
>
> BUT, and a BIG BIG BUT here.....
>
> How safe is this airplane? I have a G-Meter so I can monitor so that
I'm not stressing the airframe. I don't jerk the controls, I'm smooth
with them. I don't push the airplane or "hot dog" it. I just fly it like
I would a 152. I can see how one would get in trouble quick though,
because it IS so much fun to fly!
>
> But at the end of the day, can I feel safe? Will it truthfully try
to kill me? I've got three little ones that rely on me. Two 4 year old
daughters and a 7 week old baby boy.
>
> I see tons of videos from Europe with guys flying these 601's XL's
and HD's with the same power plant as me, same set up, and they seem
just fine. They have a blast it seems!
>
> Chad..... Fighting to put my mind to rest......
> Or sell this and buy a 152! Lol. At least I know they don't break-up
in flight.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Chad
>
> --------
> C-GYXQ. 912ULS. 601XL-B
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401365#401365<http://forums
.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401365#401365>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List<http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?Zenith601-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... |
Barry, Bryan:
Those airspeeds are what was posted via the AMD revised POH in 2009. In KTS. Do
the numbers seem wrong? That's what they posted, and what comes up when searched
anywhere.
As for the BRS, I don't have one, and I'd think one would be $10,000 or more to
install here in Canada. Not that my life isn't worth it, but with the other expenses
involved in purchasing the plane, there isn't any money left over. Lol.
The consensus that I seem to be getting is that since the Bravo mods, there haven't
been any failures related to structure. I'd be interested to know if that
IS in FACT the case. I haven't read anywhere that a B has even crashed. I could
be wrong. Like I mentioned, I think based on all the research I've read/talked
about really came down to a multitude of compounding factors likely beginning
with a less then capable main spar wing structure. Compound this with incorrect
airspeeds, lively spirited pilotage, and balance issues, and you've got
a recipe for disaster. Many people swear that it was stricktly a flutter issue.
That WOULD make sense, since in a lot of cases the airplanes were in level flight,
no unusual attitudes then just suddenly without warning broke up. I know
that once flutter begins, it's only a few seconds before its all over. I've
seen it with model airplanes, and from when flutter begins, the failure is almost
immediate. My airplane has the counter balances. I just hope and pray the
airplane is A-Ok. I got a pretty decent deal I believe, and probably because the
reputation brought down her value. Maybe? Maybe not.....
Thanks!
Chad.
--------
C-GYXQ. 912ULS. 601XL-B
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401394#401394
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: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have |
questions...
http://www.newplane.com/amd_downloads/MASTER_AMD_POH_601_650_Nov-09_at_1320lbs.pdfhas
the AMD pilot operating manual. This is what I have used for all
numbers. Hope this helps, Barry
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:04 PM, SIDESLIP <Chad2007@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> Barry, Bryan:
>
> Those airspeeds are what was posted via the AMD revised POH in 2009. In
> KTS. Do the numbers seem wrong? That's what they posted, and what comes up
> when searched anywhere.
>
> As for the BRS, I don't have one, and I'd think one would be $10,000 or
> more to install here in Canada. Not that my life isn't worth it, but with
> the other expenses involved in purchasing the plane, there isn't any money
> left over. Lol.
>
> The consensus that I seem to be getting is that since the Bravo mods,
> there haven't been any failures related to structure. I'd be interested to
> know if that IS in FACT the case. I haven't read anywhere that a B has even
> crashed. I could be wrong. Like I mentioned, I think based on all the
> research I've read/talked about really came down to a multitude of
> compounding factors likely beginning with a less then capable main spar
> wing structure. Compound this with incorrect airspeeds, lively spirited
> pilotage, and balance issues, and you've got a recipe for disaster. Many
> people swear that it was stricktly a flutter issue. That WOULD make sense,
> since in a lot of cases the airplanes were in level flight, no unusual
> attitudes then just suddenly without warning broke up. I know that once
> flutter begins, it's only a few seconds before its all over. I've seen it
> with model airplanes, and from when flutter begins, the failure is almost
> immediate. My airplane has the counter balances.!
> I just hope and pray the airplane is A-Ok. I got a pretty decent deal I
> believe, and probably because the reputation brought down her value. Maybe?
> Maybe not.....
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chad.
>
> --------
> C-GYXQ. 912ULS. 601XL-B
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401394#401394
>
>
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: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... |
Barry;
Thanks! That's the one I've based my numbers off. Mine are slightly off.
Vc should be called VNO. But whatever. So 108kts Vno
I'll edit my numbers.
Thanks!
Chad
--------
C-GYXQ. 912ULS. 601XL-B
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401397#401397
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: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have |
questions...
Guys,
Don't forget the AMD performance numbers are based on a Continental
engine which weighs about a hundred pounds more than a Rotax or Jabiru.
I suspect you will find the cruise speed for the Continental is around
100, Rotax around 110, and Jabiru around 120 - all in KIAS.
I personally don't have a ballistic 'chute and don't want one. While
they have an average record of actually helping they can also kill you.
I know of at least one case where the plane was on fire, the pilot
pulled the big chute and all aboard roasted before reaching the ground.
Paul
On 5/26/2013 5:59 PM, SIDESLIP wrote:
>
> Barry;
>
> Thanks! That's the one I've based my numbers off. Mine are slightly off.
>
> Vc should be called VNO. But whatever. So 108kts Vno
>
> I'll edit my numbers.
>
> Thanks!
> Chad
>
> --------
> C-GYXQ. 912ULS. 601XL-B
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=401397#401397
>
>
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! --
|