---------------------------------------------------------- Zenith601-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 05/26/13: 8 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:39:54 AM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz 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 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:40:12 AM PST US From: "Randy" Subject: RE: Zenith601-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:13:25 AM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... From: Bryan Martin 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:25:13 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 To: zenith601-list@matronics.com 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 > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith601-List http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 03:05:19 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... From: "SIDESLIP" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:14:44 PM PST US Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... From: Barry Benson 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:00:05 PM PST US Subject: Zenith601-List: Re: FAA Special Review Team final report.... Have questions... From: "SIDESLIP" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:35:22 PM PST US From: Paul Mulwitz Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message zenith601-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Zenith601-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/zenith601-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/zenith601-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.