Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS

[Victor Bravo]

Aeronca 11AC Chief groundloop project just received. Have flying
Taylorcraft so this is surplus to my needs. Groundlooped, but welding
is 90+% done already. Fabric removed. Needs engine, struts, possibly
spars. Some paperwork is there, but it is pretty light. Have good bill
of sale, no ownership chain problems. Airplane has the large vertical
fin, possible to convert up to 100 or 115HP. Was flying a couple of
years ago, stored indoors in dry AZ heat. LSA compliant. Asking $6000
OBO. Contact me at 818-701-6801. Los Angeles area.

Bill Berle

[RST Engineering]

Wow, there's a hell of a deal. "Welding done" implies that the fuselage was
severely tweaked, and busted up so bad it needs an engine, struts and
"possibly" spars. Not a hell of a lot of paperwork. Sounds like it was
"groundlooped" into a bridge abutment.

I'll bet you've got 'em standing in line for this one, eh Berle?

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


"Victor Bravo" > wrote in message
...
> Aeronca 11AC Chief groundloop project just received. Have flying
> Taylorcraft so this is surplus to my needs. Groundlooped, but welding
> is 90+% done already. Fabric removed. Needs engine, struts, possibly
> spars. Some paperwork is there, but it is pretty light. Have good bill
> of sale, no ownership chain problems. Airplane has the large vertical
> fin, possible to convert up to 100 or 115HP. Was flying a couple of
> years ago, stored indoors in dry AZ heat. LSA compliant. Asking $6000
> OBO. Contact me at 818-701-6801. Los Angeles area.
>
> Bill Berle

[Victor Bravo]

On Jun 21, 8:59 am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> Wow, there's a hell of a deal. "Welding done" implies that the fuselage was
> severely tweaked, and busted up so bad it needs an engine, struts and
> "possibly" spars. Not a hell of a lot of paperwork. Sounds like it was
> "groundlooped" into a bridge abutment.
>
> I'll bet you've got 'em standing in line for this one, eh Berle?
>
> Jim

You really are a putz, Mr. Weir.

The airplane was groundlooped without any bridge abutments nearby.
Most any groundloop will do some damage to a steel tube fuselage. If
you had been around old airplanes to any degree you would already know
that. You'd also know that the damage from a groundloop RANGES from
"severely tweaked" to just a few tubes bent around the gear mounting.
This one's not severley tweaked.

The struts were bent. One or two may be usable, I'll see when I get
them. I figured that I would just position it as needing struts to be
conservative. An idiot or a dishonest person would not mention bent
struts in a for sale listing, and an honest person would mention it.

The engine was removed for use on another airplane.You do know that
engines get removed and reinstalled occasionally, don't you?

The spars are probably save-able but will need some repairs. An honest
person reports this. You know, minor spar damage happens when you drag
a wingtip in a groundloop.

If you had been around old airplanes for a while, you know that the
majority of them have less then perfect paperwork. An honest guy
reports this up front. There is an airworthiness certificate, a clean
bill of sale, and some paperwork, but not all logs and papers.

As far as a hell of a deal, if you didn't already know it the 11AC
Chief meets the LAS rules at the same time as being a classic, at the
same time as being a certified aircraft, at the same time as being a
very economical aircraft to operate. The new cookie-cutter plastic
LSA's go for $80K to 150K. A good rebuilt Chief goes for $25-30K, uses
LESS fuel and has LESS engine troubles than the Rotax powered euro
LSA's.

At anything less than six or seven thousand, for a fairly easy to fix
one, the Chief is a very reasonably priced project.

Have a look at the Zenair 601XL, where an airframe KIT costs you $20K.
Now look at the unfortunate and tragic problems the 601 is having with
the wings folding in flight, and compare it to an airplane with a 60
year safety record, full commercial FAA certification, and tell me
that this is not a reasonable bargain.

Before I insulted any of your statements or products for sale with
regard to aviation electronics, I'd have made sure I had my facts
straight.

If you want to challenge me to a duel with words, I think you'd better
bring some more class, brains, and aviation experience to the game.
This is not a debate about Ohm's Law, you might be out of your depth.

Bill Berle

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

>
> You really are a putz, Mr. Weir.
>
> The airplane was groundlooped without any bridge abutments nearby.
> Most any groundloop will do some damage to a steel tube fuselage. If
> you had been around old airplanes to any degree you would already know
> that. You'd also know that the damage from a groundloop RANGES from
> "severely tweaked" to just a few tubes bent around the gear mounting.
> This one's not severley tweaked.


No need to get huffy, Bill.

A while back we got a nice Chief with a questionable engine for just
over $10k.

No airframe damage - the airplane was flyable - and indeed I flew it
from Florida to Texas.

$8k for a bent airframe and questionable wings? No engine?
Sounds like, like it or not, a basket case.

For 6K?

I'd have to agree with Jim on this one...

Richard

[RST Engineering]

Perhaps so. I failed to include the whole sig.

Jim
A&P, IA
2500 hours in taildraggers without a groundloop.
45 years in the airplane fixin' business.



>
> If you want to challenge me to a duel with words, I think you'd better
> bring some more class, brains, and aviation experience to the game.
> This is not a debate about Ohm's Law, you might be out of your depth.
>
> Bill Berle
>

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-06-22, Victor Bravo > wrote:
> At anything less than six or seven thousand, for a fairly easy to fix
> one, the Chief is a very reasonably priced project.

Assuming someone has an A&P-IA handy to supervise the work, yeah. here are
probably worse projects out there.

> Have a look at the Zenair 601XL, where an airframe KIT costs you $20K.
> Now look at the unfortunate and tragic problems the 601 is having with
> the wings folding in flight, and compare it to an airplane with a 60
> year safety record, full commercial FAA certification, and tell me
> that this is not a reasonable bargain.

There are lots of Zodiacs flying. There have been a few recent accidents,
but there is no common thread among them as to the apparent cause. AMD
tested the Zodiac XL with a full FAR 23 certification schedule, even though
it wasn't required. Further, after the only crash of an AMD-manufactured
aircraft, a thorough investigation was made of the materials, processes, and
design of the aircraft - and nothing at all was found to be wrong.

At this point, it appears that the crashes are likely due to either pilot or
builder error. The Zodiac has light and responsive controls, and it's very
easy to overcontrol it (as I know from humbling experience).

I put over 30 hours on N55ZC in the past week and a half, and flew it from
Georgia to Charlotte to southern Arkansas to Houston to College Station to
Austin to Dallas to Oklahoma City to Topeka to Fairmont. If I had any doubt
that it would have gotten me here safely, I wouldn't have attempted the trip
- let alone paid $133K for it.

> Before I insulted any of your statements or products for sale with
> regard to aviation electronics, I'd have made sure I had my facts
> straight.

Too bad you had to challenge his statements by insulting *MY* new airplane.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:10:15 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
> wrote:


>Have a look at the Zenair 601XL, where an airframe KIT costs you $20K.
>Now look at the unfortunate and tragic problems the 601 is having with
>the wings folding in flight, and compare it to an airplane with a 60
>year safety record, full commercial FAA certification, and tell me
>that this is not a reasonable bargain.

Wings folding in flight??
New one on me. The ONE I'm aware of had bolts not properly installed.
The other one, the wings were torn off when a couple of
drug-compromized idiots put it into a dive or something that GREATLY
exceeded VNE and tried to pull it out, or something like that.
The Aeronca Champ would have suffered the same fate in both cases.

That said, the Champ IS a great plane, at can be a great value as
well.
>

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Perhaps so. I failed to include the whole sig.
>
> Jim
> A&P, IA
> 2500 hours in taildraggers without a groundloop.
> 45 years in the airplane fixin' business.
>
>
>

Show off!

In 450 taildragger hours I have exactly one ground loop.

And in an 11AC at that.

Sanded through the skin under the wing tip bow.
A little duct tape and flew it home.

Like they say, there's them that has,
and them that's gonna...


Richard

[Jim Logajan]

"RST Engineering" > wrote:
> Perhaps so. I failed to include the whole sig.
>
> Jim
> A&P, IA
> 2500 hours in taildraggers without a groundloop.
> 45 years in the airplane fixin' business.

Hmmm, none of that explains your initial post. I think you need to add this
to your sig:

ESP that gives you the ability to provide the history of an aircraft that
was described in a single paragraph.

I'd be interested in knowing the quality of the welds - and which bridge
the aircraft ran into. ;-)

(Okay, the above is not particularly diplomatic, but I think you over-
reached and could have done a better job diplomacy-wise yourself and still
managed to raise legit condition issues. It isn't like the Usenet aviation
groups are currently overflowing on the decency/diplomacy front so much so
that a bit of snideness is needed to balance it.)

[RST Engineering]

Jim ...

In the first place, this thread belongs in rec.aviation.marketplace. It is
NOT a homebuilt and it is off-topic. I didn't say anything about that.

In the second place, this fellow has a history of abusing this newsgroup
trying to peddle sows' ears at silk purse prices. An 11AC with a possible
busted spar isn't a bargain at giveaway prices, much less the asking price.

So, we have to come up with an engine, some more welding (or re-welding,
depending as you say on the quality, and a question in the back of my mind
as to how the "90% complete" number came to be and why the last 10% hasn't
been done), either a lot of woodwork or a hell of a lot of woodwork
depending, struts, and a complete fabric cover. Plus a lot of bits and
pieces to hold it all together. Would'ja say, roughly, $15k in work?
That's my best estimate, figuring that the spar is a 50-50 proposition.
Somewhere between $12 and $18?

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .


>
> Hmmm, none of that explains your initial post. I think you need to add
> this
> to your sig:
>
> ESP that gives you the ability to provide the history of an aircraft that
> was described in a single paragraph.
>
> I'd be interested in knowing the quality of the welds - and which bridge
> the aircraft ran into. ;-)
>
> (Okay, the above is not particularly diplomatic, but I think you over-
> reached and could have done a better job diplomacy-wise yourself and still
> managed to raise legit condition issues. It isn't like the Usenet aviation
> groups are currently overflowing on the decency/diplomacy front so much so
> that a bit of snideness is needed to balance it.)

[[email protected]]

On Jun 22, 6:39 pm, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> An 11AC with a possible
> busted spar isn't a bargain at giveaway prices, much less the asking price.

I would expect to replace those spars anyway. The AD 2000-25-02R1
addresses the tendency of Aeronca spars to crack through the rib nail
holes as the wood dries out and shrinks across the grain while the
metal ribs try to prevent it, splitting the spars along the grain. The
plywood doublers at the spar attach points cause local stiffness that
forces the wood at the top of the spar at the ends of the doublers to
suffer compression fractures which extend down through the spar. The
plywood doubles at the spar butts cover cracks through the spar
itself, and perhaps those doublers are contributing to stress cracking
in the same way as the metal ribs.
See this: http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/certification/continuing/Alert/2001-05.htm
Re-sparring isn't cheap, and those aluminum ribs are often
corroded, too. American Champion sells brand-new all-metal wings with
or without the fabric. They aren't cheap, either.

Dan

[RST Engineering]

Dan ...

I maintain on an inspection basis a few 11ACs. I have yet to see one with
that AD spar cracking problem. It was reported a few times to Ok City under
their wonderful "tell us about your problems" program and (I'm wild ass
guessing here) some wet behind the ears history major puke that couldn't
tell a cotter pin from a diaper pin picked up on it and made it an AD. It
is, as far as I can tell, not a "tendency" but an abberation that a few of
the Airnockers have suffered. Not a widespread problem.

On the other hand, a few years ago, I inspected airplane after airplane with
cracked spars. Upon investigation, I found that I had a cracked inspection
mirror {;-)


Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


> wrote in message
...
> On Jun 22, 6:39 pm, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>> An 11AC with a possible
>> busted spar isn't a bargain at giveaway prices, much less the asking
>> price.
>
> I would expect to replace those spars anyway. The AD 2000-25-02R1
> addresses the tendency of Aeronca spars to crack through the rib nail
> holes as the wood dries out and shrinks across the grain while the
> metal ribs try to prevent it, splitting the spars along the grain. The
> plywood doublers at the spar attach points cause local stiffness that
> forces the wood at the top of the spar at the ends of the doublers to
> suffer compression fractures which extend down through the spar. The
> plywood doubles at the spar butts cover cracks through the spar
> itself, and perhaps those doublers are contributing to stress cracking
> in the same way as the metal ribs.
> See this:
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/certification/continuing/Alert/2001-05.htm
> Re-sparring isn't cheap, and those aluminum ribs are often
> corroded, too. American Champion sells brand-new all-metal wings with
> or without the fabric. They aren't cheap, either.
>
> Dan
>
>
>

[Sallie]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:10:15 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
> wrote:

>On Jun 21, 8:59 am, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
>> Wow, there's a hell of a deal. "Welding done" implies that the fuselage was
>> severely tweaked, and busted up so bad it needs an engine, struts and
>> "possibly" spars. Not a hell of a lot of paperwork. Sounds like it was
>> "groundlooped" into a bridge abutment.
>>
>> I'll bet you've got 'em standing in line for this one, eh Berle?
>>
>> Jim
>
>You really are a putz, Mr. Weir.

Bill, so you're telling us something new?

[Darrel Toepfer]

"RST Engineering" > wrote:

> Dan ...
>
> I maintain on an inspection basis a few 11ACs. I have yet to see one
> with that AD spar cracking problem.

One here had to have it replaced, cost was $5k+ as I remember for the
hardware alone. That didn't include the recovering, repainting, reassembly,
IA/AP inspections, etc...

Oh yeah that was 5 years ago and it still ain't airworthy...

Honestly, he probably has pictures, if you wanna see what one looks like...

[Sallie]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:41:03 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>Perhaps so. I failed to include the whole sig.
>
>Jim
>A&P, IA
>2500 hours in taildraggers without a groundloop.
>45 years in the airplane fixin' business.
>

Oh, that makes a difference!

>> If you want to challenge me to a duel with words, I think you'd better
>> bring some more class, brains, and aviation experience to the game.
>> This is not a debate about Ohm's Law, you might be out of your depth.
>>
>> Bill Berle
>>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"RST Engineering" > wrote

> On the other hand, a few years ago, I inspected airplane after airplane
> with cracked spars. Upon investigation, I found that I had a cracked
> inspection mirror {;-)


Guffaw ! ! !

That really cracks me up, Jim! <G>

I wonder if I get one of those right hand mirrors off of a car (that say
objects in the mirror may look larger than they are) to look at C-150, it
will turn into a C-182? :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Victor Bravo]

OK, since we're soaring through the intellectual stratosphere here, my
reasoning for putting it in both newsgroups is that the homebuilt
types are builders more than just talkers. Builders are somewhat more
likely to be interested in a rebuild project. Considering some of the
non-aviation nonsense that has been offered on the usenet groups,
offering an airplane project in need of a rebuild is not that far of a
stretch.

How would you know that anything I have offered here is a sow's ear ?
There's that ESP again, from one of the self-appointed PC police of
the newsgroup world. If you're not interested in what I am selling
then just delete the message from your computer and don't speak for
anyone else. I happen to horse trade and peddle flying airplanes,
projects, parts, and anything else in aviation I can get my hands on.
Sometimes it's for trading back and forth to get something I want,
other times it's to pay the rent. What's it to you? Who appointed you
to office?

I'm very familiar with your personality type. Your stuff for sale is
gold plated and everyone else's is crap. Anything you think is
valuable is stupendously important, anyone who disagrees is
misinformed. I used to deal with a guy on this newsgroup who had that
attitude, called himself Captain Zoom.

Anyone want to make a wager as to how historically important or
desirable Mr. Weir would position an old tired Chief rebuild project
for sale if it was HIS? Anyone want to bet on how valuable it would be
if it were HIS? Anyone want to guess how much he charges for his time
at the same time as berating anyone else who charges the same amount?

Let's not even talk about your reputation for "abusing newsgroups" by
bullying, endless arguing, and shoving your opinions down everyone's
throat.

The days of five hundred dollar old airplane projects are gone Jim.
They went the same way as $2 avgas, $2 sectional charts, and $25 an
hour for a Cessna 150 rental. You may be right, it may take ten
thousand bucks and months of someone's time to have this Chief
restored. Now with that in mind... look at what a nice Chief is going
for. Look what Cub projects, T-craft projects, and any other classic
projects are listed for.

An 11AC groundloop project with a possibly busted spar... Jim how much
would YOU be offering it for if it was yours? 45 years in the airplane
fixing business... what do YOU charge for a project airplane that you
are not fixing... a grand?

The welding is in fact not 90% completed. My error. It is about half
completed. The owner stopped having the project worked on when he
decided to buy something else. Does that create some mystery or sticky
question in your mind?

On Jun 22, 5:39 pm, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> Jim ...
>
> In the first place, this thread belongs in rec.aviation.marketplace. It is
> NOT a homebuilt and it is off-topic. I didn't say anything about that.
>
> In the second place, this fellow has a history of abusing this newsgroup
> trying to peddle sows' ears at silk purse prices. An 11AC with a possible
> busted spar isn't a bargain at giveaway prices, much less the asking price.
>
> So, we have to come up with an engine, some more welding (or re-welding,
> depending as you say on the quality, and a question in the back of my mind
> as to how the "90% complete" number came to be and why the last 10% hasn't
> been done), either a lot of woodwork or a hell of a lot of woodwork
> depending, struts, and a complete fabric cover. Plus a lot of bits and
> pieces to hold it all together. Would'ja say, roughly, $15k in work?
> That's my best estimate, figuring that the spar is a 50-50 proposition.
> Somewhere between $12 and $18?
>
> Jim

[Victor Bravo]

On Jun 22, 4:20 pm, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:

The ONE I'm aware of had bolts not properly installed.
> The other one, the wings were torn off when a couple of
> drug-compromized idiots put it into a dive or something that GREATLY
> exceeded VNE and tried to pull it out, or something like that.
> The Aeronca Champ would have suffered the same fate in both cases.


I'm a very strong supporter of Chris Heintz, I have CH701 plans and
parts I will someday build on, and I am aware the Heintz is a very
highly accredited designer. However, the earlier 601 aircraft do not
have these problems, and the 601XL was a version that they had to work
very hard to get into the LSA weight class. The XL skins and
structure is not nearly as over-built on this airplane as is normal in
the light aircraft world. You cannot simply blame this on drug-crazed
hippies. An Aeronca Champ flown in turbulence, or over redline speed
would not suffer the same fate. It is a more rigid aircraft with
higher structural margins in my opinion. You can walk up to a CH601
and move the tip of the horizontal stabilizer fore and aft a very
disturbing amount (I have on three separate aircraft). The loads are
SUPPOSED to be symmetrical, so it SHOULD not be an issue, but the
structure is very light and can be moved far more than a Champ.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:20:26 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada
wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:10:15 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Have a look at the Zenair 601XL, where an airframe KIT costs you $20K.
> >Now look at the unfortunate and tragic problems the 601 is having with
> >the wings folding in flight, and compare it to an airplane with a 60
> >year safety record, full commercial FAA certification, and tell me
> >that this is not a reasonable bargain.
>
> Wings folding in flight??
> New one on me. The ONE I'm aware of had bolts not properly installed.

Hmmmm. I presume this one is NTSB # LAX06LA105, but the online report says,
"Eleven of the main spar attach bolts were found in their normal position and
remained connected by their respective retaining nuts and washers. Recovery
personnel had disassembled the twelfth bolt during retrieval of the airplane."
Nothing mentioned about improper assembly.

> The other one, the wings were torn off when a couple of
> drug-compromized idiots put it into a dive or something that GREATLY
> exceeded VNE and tried to pull it out, or something like that.
> The Aeronca Champ would have suffered the same fate in both cases.

DFW07LA102 combined wing failure with the detection of some prescription meds in
the organs of the sole occupant...doesn't sound like the one you're referring
to. Was it a foreign crash?

In any case, I think the Fly Baby has the Zenair 601 beat. Out of 51 Fly Baby
crashes, 13 involved wing failure.

Ron Wanttaja

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:41:03 -0700, "RST Engineering"
> wrote:

>Perhaps so. I failed to include the whole sig.
>
>Jim
>A&P, IA
>2500 hours in taildraggers without a groundloop.
>45 years in the airplane fixin' business.
>
>
2500 hours without a groundloop....

hmmmm no experience in bent aeroplanes.
pity that :-)

me?
400 hours in a Tailwind. no experience with forced landings, no
experience with groundloops, dreadfull really. :-)

45 years in the airplane fixing business....
what havent you got that project fixed yet :-)

Stealth ( its in the statistics) Pilot

[Jim Logajan]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:20:26 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot
> canada wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:10:15 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Have a look at the Zenair 601XL, where an airframe KIT costs you
>> >$20K. Now look at the unfortunate and tragic problems the 601 is
>> >having with the wings folding in flight, and compare it to an
>> >airplane with a 60 year safety record, full commercial FAA
>> >certification, and tell me that this is not a reasonable bargain.
>>
>> Wings folding in flight??
>> New one on me. The ONE I'm aware of had bolts not properly installed.
>
> Hmmmm. I presume this one is NTSB # LAX06LA105, but the online report
> says, "Eleven of the main spar attach bolts were found in their normal
> position and remained connected by their respective retaining nuts and
> washers. Recovery personnel had disassembled the twelfth bolt during
> retrieval of the airplane." Nothing mentioned about improper assembly.
>
>> The other one, the wings were torn off when a couple of
>> drug-compromized idiots put it into a dive or something that GREATLY
>> exceeded VNE and tried to pull it out, or something like that.
>> The Aeronca Champ would have suffered the same fate in both cases.
>
> DFW07LA102 combined wing failure with the detection of some
> prescription meds in the organs of the sole occupant...doesn't sound
> like the one you're referring to. Was it a foreign crash?

I may be mistaken, but I suspect that clare may be mis-remembering a CH-801
accident as one involving a CH-601. The following "drug-compromised
idiots" accident may be the mistaken one:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030312X00321&key=1

I found it notable for the simple fact that it is the only CH-801 fatal
accident I could find in the NTSB database.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .

> I found it notable for the simple fact that it is the only CH-801 fatal
> accident I could find in the NTSB database.

Yes, but I recall that it is difficult to rely on the NTSB database for
homebuilt model statistics because model designations for like aircraft are not
reliably the same. For example: somebody's CH-801 could be a "Smith 801 Rocket"
or whatever.

Vaughn

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-06-23, Victor Bravo > wrote:
> You can walk up to a CH601 and move the tip of the horizontal stabilizer
> fore and aft a very disturbing amount (I have on three separate aircraft).

What do you consider a "very disturbing amount"? I want to try it on my
Zodiac.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[john smith]

In article >,
Jay Maynard > wrote:

> On 2008-06-23, Victor Bravo > wrote:
> > You can walk up to a CH601 and move the tip of the horizontal stabilizer
> > fore and aft a very disturbing amount (I have on three separate aircraft).

Several years ago that was discovered on the Cherokee Six that I fly.
The airplane was immediately grounded and put into maintenance to have
the bushings replaced.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:19:42 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> > I found it notable for the simple fact that it is the only CH-801 fatal
> > accident I could find in the NTSB database.
>
> Yes, but I recall that it is difficult to rely on the NTSB database for
> homebuilt model statistics because model designations for like aircraft are not
> reliably the same. For example: somebody's CH-801 could be a "Smith 801 Rocket"
> or whatever.

I looked in my 1998-2006 database and found five CH-801 accidents, of which this
one was the only fatal. The five planes were registered as:

Zenith 801
CH-801
STOL CH 801
Zenith CH801
CH801

"*801*" as a search team would have picked these up. I ran "*801*" against the
total FAA registration database (Jan 4 2008 edition) and got 53 hits. Only
three planes didn't have either "CH", "Zenair", or "Zenith" as part of their
model name, and just one was obviously not a Zenith 801 (certification date in
mid-80s).

Ron Wanttaja

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:55:06 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote:

>On 2008-06-23, Victor Bravo > wrote:
>> You can walk up to a CH601 and move the tip of the horizontal stabilizer
>> fore and aft a very disturbing amount (I have on three separate aircraft).
>
>What do you consider a "very disturbing amount"? I want to try it on my
>Zodiac.


All considered, there is NOT a safer plane design flying than the
Zenair Zodiac 601. PERIOD. For the number sold and flying, the
fatalities have been minimal - and none have been attributed to the
design of the plane.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Victor Bravo]

On Jun 23, 5:55 pm, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> What do you consider a "very disturbing amount"? I want to try it on my
> Zodiac.

Jay, I moved the tip of the stabilizer fore and aft about three
inches, which resulted in the four main stabilizer mounting tabs
moving in a twisting/shearing motion relative to each other. I first
did this on a 601XL which was built by one of our local EAA chapter
members. I thought for sure that the guy had forgotten a piece of
metal someplace. But one of our other EAA chapter members is an
engineer, he read the plans, and determined the tail attach had been
built per plans.

Then I tried to duplicate this fore-aft movement on a CH 701, which
uses a similar mounting, and was able to move it some amount as well.
Then I tried it on another 601XL which was built by the factory (QSP
in Cloverdale, CA) and was able to move the stabilizer fore and aft an
inch or two, again with the twisting/shearing motion on the stabilizer
mounting tabs.

I am definitely NOT an engineer, and cannot run any numbers or make
any authoritative statements about the structure. Chris Heintz IS an
engineer, and supposedly a very good one. But I will say that if/when
I build my 701 I will research and add some more aluminum back there
to stiffen and reinforce the structure so you can't move the stab tips
fore and aft. There are probably little or no assymetrical NORMAL
FLIGHT LOADS on it, but small movements back and forth caused by air
buffeting and vibration over some period of time can easily cause the
metal to become brittle and/or crack. Speaking as an AMATEUR mechanic,
I believe the problem is that the stabilizer mounting tabs are not
supported against bending or movement in one or two directions, and
the tabs stick up too far above the upper longeron for the off-axis
loads to be totally absorbed by the thickness of the metal.

Real engineers are more than welcome to correct me, disagree, or tell
me the problem is valid but far too small to cause a problem. Call me
a dinosaur, but I don't think you should be able to move the
stabilizer on an airplane that far fore and aft while watching the
fuselage structure twist from medium force hand movements.

And in response to what someone else posted, the 601 is not the best
or safest airplane by any stretch. The DC-3 / C-47 has a 70+ year
record of flying without ever one single structural failure.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jay Maynard wrote:
> On 2008-06-23, Victor Bravo > wrote:
>> You can walk up to a CH601 and move the tip of the horizontal stabilizer
>> fore and aft a very disturbing amount (I have on three separate aircraft).
>
> What do you consider a "very disturbing amount"? I want to try it on my
> Zodiac.

Jay, he's full of crap. The Horz Stab has four attach points. It doesn't
move at all unless you count the fact that the entire airplane moves
when you move it.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-06-24, Victor Bravo > wrote:
> On Jun 23, 5:55 pm, Jay Maynard >
> wrote:
>> What do you consider a "very disturbing amount"? I want to try it on my
>> Zodiac.
> Jay, I moved the tip of the stabilizer fore and aft about three
> inches, which resulted in the four main stabilizer mounting tabs
> moving in a twisting/shearing motion relative to each other.

I was not able to move mine more than a half inch at most.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-06-24, Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> Jay Maynard wrote:
>> On 2008-06-23, Victor Bravo > wrote:
>>> You can walk up to a CH601 and move the tip of the horizontal stabilizer
>>> fore and aft a very disturbing amount (I have on three separate aircraft).
>> What do you consider a "very disturbing amount"? I want to try it on my
>> Zodiac.
> Jay, he's full of crap. The Horz Stab has four attach points. It doesn't
> move at all unless you count the fact that the entire airplane moves
> when you move it.

Actually, mine did move a little bit, but not the three inches he said he
saw.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Victor Bravo]

On Jun 24, 6:32 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

> Jay, he's full of crap. The Horz Stab has four attach points. It doesn't
> move at all unless you count the fact that the entire airplane moves
> when you move it.

I am indeed full of crap sometimes, but not this time. The four attach
points that Dr. Einstein here was referring to are the exact parts
that moved slightly when I pulled on the stabilizer tip.

Here's a graphic visual example for the mechanically challenged:

Imagine that the four stabilizer mounting tabs on top of the fuselage
were all 12 inches tall, instead of the one or two inches tall that
they actually are... So the horizontal tail would be mounted a foot
above the top of the fuselage.

Under this example, when you tried to move one stabilizer tip forward
and the other one aft, it would move easily, and the four foot-long
imaginary mounting tabs would all move back and forth a little as you
twist the tail left and right (looking from above).

In order to prevent this type of movement, you would have to rivet
sheets of aluminum between these tall stabilizer supports to make the
system "torsionally stable". You would be riveting "shear webs"
between the stab supports, to oppose the shearing (and then twisting)
relative motion.

Now of course the mounting tabs are not a foot tall, so you cannot
swing the stabilizer tip fore and aft with one finger like you could
if it was a foot tall. But the stabilizer mounting tabs ARE an inch or
two above the fuselage, and this distance is NOT braced in shear or
twisting. So you CAN move it fore and aft a little, and when you do
this you CAN see the mounting tabs move relative to each other a
little.

Ladies and Gentlemen, you CANNOT move the stabilizer back and forth
this way on an undamaged Cessna, Taylorcraft, Champ, or Beech. You
cannot do it on a Luscombe, you cannot do it on an undamaged Piper
Cherokee, and you cannot do it on a Maule and you cannot do it on a
Grumman Yankee. I can go on if I have not made the point clearly
enough.

The stabilizer mounting system on the 601 and possibly the 701 is in
my opinion not rigid enough. The tabs are not braced against shearing
or twisting. There is no reason you should be able to move the
stabilizer back and forth on a standard configuration light aircraft
like that. When you move it like this, you are slightly bending the
stabilizer mounting tabs (and the attach structure on the fuselage)
back and forth a little bit each time.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-06-24, Victor Bravo > wrote:
> The stabilizer mounting system on the 601 and possibly the 701 is in
> my opinion not rigid enough.

I will point out, however, that you slammed the 601's accident record based
on inflight wing structural failures, and in none of them has the horizontal
stabilizer done anything but remain firmly attached. Whatever the cause of
the accidents is (and I believe it's going to turn out to be pilot or
builder related), it's not that.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:16:34 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
> wrote:

>On Jun 24, 6:32 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>wrote:
>
>> Jay, he's full of crap. The Horz Stab has four attach points. It doesn't
>> move at all unless you count the fact that the entire airplane moves
>> when you move it.
>
>I am indeed full of crap sometimes, but not this time. The four attach
>points that Dr. Einstein here was referring to are the exact parts
>that moved slightly when I pulled on the stabilizer tip.
>
>Here's a graphic visual example for the mechanically challenged:
>
>Imagine that the four stabilizer mounting tabs on top of the fuselage
>were all 12 inches tall, instead of the one or two inches tall that
>they actually are... So the horizontal tail would be mounted a foot
>above the top of the fuselage.
>
>Under this example, when you tried to move one stabilizer tip forward
>and the other one aft, it would move easily, and the four foot-long
>imaginary mounting tabs would all move back and forth a little as you
>twist the tail left and right (looking from above).
>
>In order to prevent this type of movement, you would have to rivet
>sheets of aluminum between these tall stabilizer supports to make the
>system "torsionally stable". You would be riveting "shear webs"
>between the stab supports, to oppose the shearing (and then twisting)
>relative motion.
>
>Now of course the mounting tabs are not a foot tall, so you cannot
>swing the stabilizer tip fore and aft with one finger like you could
>if it was a foot tall. But the stabilizer mounting tabs ARE an inch or
>two above the fuselage, and this distance is NOT braced in shear or
>twisting. So you CAN move it fore and aft a little, and when you do
>this you CAN see the mounting tabs move relative to each other a
>little.
>
>Ladies and Gentlemen, you CANNOT move the stabilizer back and forth
>this way on an undamaged Cessna, Taylorcraft, Champ, or Beech. You
>cannot do it on a Luscombe, you cannot do it on an undamaged Piper
>Cherokee, and you cannot do it on a Maule and you cannot do it on a
>Grumman Yankee. I can go on if I have not made the point clearly
>enough.
>
>The stabilizer mounting system on the 601 and possibly the 701 is in
>my opinion not rigid enough. The tabs are not braced against shearing
>or twisting. There is no reason you should be able to move the
>stabilizer back and forth on a standard configuration light aircraft
>like that. When you move it like this, you are slightly bending the
>stabilizer mounting tabs (and the attach structure on the fuselage)
>back and forth a little bit each time.


Build a 2000 lb 601.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Victor Bravo wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:32 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>> Jay, he's full of crap. The Horz Stab has four attach points. It doesn't
>> move at all unless you count the fact that the entire airplane moves
>> when you move it.
>
> I am indeed full of crap sometimes, but not this time. The four attach
> points that Dr. Einstein here was referring to are the exact parts
> that moved slightly when I pulled on the stabilizer tip.
>

You said 3 inches. I went out to the airport last night and checked this
just to be sure. On my unfinished 601XL (but the tail is attached per
specs) I was able to get <1/2 inch. of total movement. So either you got
you were dealing with a broken 601XL or as I said before you are full
of crap.

But let's say you were correct, and I am most certainly not saying that
you are, what possible in-flight stress could take advantage of such a
condition to cause damage or failure of the plane? I can't think of any
force acting on the airframe in flight that would do what you are doing
with your hand.

Now I'm not saying you couldn't bend the attach points enough to make it
move 3" but you'd only get to do that once on my plane before I hit you
with a baseball bat.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:01:34 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote:

> Now I'm not saying you couldn't bend the attach points enough to make it
> move 3" but you'd only get to do that once on my plane before I hit you
> with a baseball bat.

Here's a Piper with a bit too much play in the vertical stabilizer:

http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/wire1.JPG

:-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Paul M. Anton]

>> with a baseball bat.
>
> Here's a Piper with a bit too much play in the vertical stabilizer:
>
> http://www.wanttaja.com/avlinks/wire1.JPG
>
> :-)
That's the one that the Auburn Power Company uses to turn off the power when
they work on a line isn't it??

Cheers:


Paul
N1431A
KPLU

[Victor Bravo]

On Jun 25, 7:01 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

> So either you were dealing with a broken 601XL or as I said before you are full
> of crap.

Sorry to ruin your day, I'm not full or crap this time. The aircraft
was inspected by myself and two other people from our EAA chapter. I
did not measure the movement, and I rough guessed three inches total
movement, which would be 1.5 each way. I could be wrong and it may
have only been 1 inch... but it was more than a half inch I assure
you. Now Gig, why do you think that anyone who says they found XYZ on
another airplane is automatically full of crap because it's not that
way on your airplane?

> I can't think of any
> force acting on the airframe in flight that would do what you are doing
> with your hand.

A combination of any-all of: vibration, asymmetrical loads from
slipstream swirling back on the fuselage, sideslip angle, gusts,
rudder input slightly moving the fuselage, etc. etc. If you ever did
"slow flight" in a Piper Tomahawk, and the instructor told you to turn
around and look at the tail, you would damn well know how much a tail
can shake back and forth from just air loads!

> Now I'm not saying you couldn't bend the attach points enough to make it
> move 3" but you'd only get to do that once on my plane before I hit you
> with a baseball bat.

You can come out and try to move the stab tips of my T-craft back and
forth all you want... and it won't move... and I won' even threaten to
whack you with a bat much less actually do it. Your comment shows me
that you know your stabilizer can be moved, and you know it's not good
for the airplane.

[Victor Bravo]

On Jun 24, 2:22 pm, Jay Maynard >
wrote:

> I will point out, however, that you slammed the 601's accident record based
> on inflight wing structural failures, and in none of them has the horizontal
> stabilizer done anything but remain firmly attached.

You are correct, my comment about the tail has nothing to do with my
comments about the wing problems. My reasoning for discussing the tail
flexibility was (believe it or not) not meant to inflame or upset
anyone, it was meant to point out that the 601 appears to me to be
built a little too lightly in many areas, in an attempt to make the
LSA weight class. Regardless of what any of you mugs think, I'm old
enough to be more concerned about flight safety than most anything
else, and my motives were as pure as Captain Zoom's ego. My intent was
to make people take notice of a POSSIBLE flexibility issue in the 601
and 701 tail and simply be an informed owner. Once again I invite any
real live engineers to look at the issue I raised and let all of us
know how much of a big deal (if any) it was.

[Victor Bravo]

On Jun 24, 7:27 pm, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:

> Build a 2000 lb 601.

Do you have any idea of how much strength, stiffness, redundancy, and
flight safety can be gained from an additional ONE POUND of aluminum
designed into the right places on a light aircraft? My friend, you
need to spend some quality time building balsa wood free flight models
and learning how aircraft structure works.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Victor Bravo wrote:

> On Jun 24, 7:27 pm, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>
>
>>Build a 2000 lb 601.
>
>
> Do you have any idea of how much strength, stiffness, redundancy, and
> flight safety can be gained from an additional ONE POUND of aluminum
> designed into the right places on a light aircraft? My friend, you
> need to spend some quality time building balsa wood free flight models
> and learning how aircraft structure works.
>

You are coming off pretty snotty, VB.

Show and tell time.

Let's see the airplanes you have designed and built...

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Victor Bravo wrote:
> On Jun 25, 7:01 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>> So either you were dealing with a broken 601XL or as I said before you are full
>> of crap.
>
> Sorry to ruin your day, I'm not full or crap this time. The aircraft
> was inspected by myself and two other people from our EAA chapter. I
> did not measure the movement, and I rough guessed three inches total
> movement, which would be 1.5 each way. I could be wrong and it may
> have only been 1 inch... but it was more than a half inch I assure
> you. Now Gig, why do you think that anyone who says they found XYZ on
> another airplane is automatically full of crap because it's not that
> way on your airplane?
>

Well my plane is being built according to the plans. And you can rest
assured there that the Horz Stab can't be moved 3 inches without bending
the attach points past the point where they have been damaged.

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 00:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
> wrote:

>On Jun 25, 7:01 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>wrote:
>
>> So either you were dealing with a broken 601XL or as I said before you are full
>> of crap.
>
>Sorry to ruin your day, I'm not full or crap this time. The aircraft
>was inspected by myself and two other people from our EAA chapter. I
>did not measure the movement, and I rough guessed three inches total
>movement, which would be 1.5 each way. I could be wrong and it may
>have only been 1 inch... but it was more than a half inch I assure
>you. Now Gig, why do you think that anyone who says they found XYZ on
>another airplane is automatically full of crap because it's not that
>way on your airplane?
>
>> I can't think of any
>> force acting on the airframe in flight that would do what you are doing
>> with your hand.
>
>A combination of any-all of: vibration, asymmetrical loads from
>slipstream swirling back on the fuselage, sideslip angle, gusts,
>rudder input slightly moving the fuselage, etc. etc. If you ever did
>"slow flight" in a Piper Tomahawk, and the instructor told you to turn
>around and look at the tail, you would damn well know how much a tail
>can shake back and forth from just air loads!
>
>> Now I'm not saying you couldn't bend the attach points enough to make it
>> move 3" but you'd only get to do that once on my plane before I hit you
>> with a baseball bat.
>
>You can come out and try to move the stab tips of my T-craft back and
>forth all you want... and it won't move... and I won' even threaten to
>whack you with a bat much less actually do it. Your comment shows me
>that you know your stabilizer can be moved, and you know it's not good
>for the airplane.


If it moves it was not built to plans. The stab on a correctly built
Zenith aircraft does NOT move without significant (excessive) force.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 00:20:53 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
> wrote:

>On Jun 24, 7:27 pm, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>
>> Build a 2000 lb 601.
>
>Do you have any idea of how much strength, stiffness, redundancy, and
>flight safety can be gained from an additional ONE POUND of aluminum
>designed into the right places on a light aircraft? My friend, you
>need to spend some quality time building balsa wood free flight models
>and learning how aircraft structure works.


Believe me, I know. However, I ALSO know that many builders beef up
this, and overbuild that because they THINK they know better than the
engineer who designed it. Unlike MANY light experimental and
ultralight aircraft, the Zenith WAS actually designed by an engineer,
and a damned good one at that.
I have seen a whole lot of overweight planes. A little here, and a
little their really adds up.
And there has not been a single case of a zenith aircraft crashing due
to a design deficiency.
EVERY ONE has been caused by pilot error and/or careless assembly
(like leaving out bolts when installing the wings)

Unlike the Texas Parasol (totally un-engineered) which claimed a life
in May when the (previously identified as faulty and dangerous
designed - disputed vehemently by the designer) wing folded in flight.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:

> Unlike the Texas Parasol (totally un-engineered) which claimed a life
> in May when the (previously identified as faulty and dangerous
> designed - disputed vehemently by the designer) wing folded in flight.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


Clare, you son of a bitch.

That airplane was a very heavy -overbuilt- TWO seater!

Not a Texas Parasol
and
Not a Chuckbird

Now how the hell am I - or the design - supposed to take the
blame for that?

Ass-Whole

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

cavelamb himself wrote:


FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH - THIS IS A SINGLE SEAT AIRPLANE.

This one was NOT built to spec.

And Clare, you are a hateful lying coniving son of a bitch.


------------------------------------

Aircraft Profile
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/C-IHBT.html


Aircraft
Manufacturer: Chuckbird
Model: TEXAS CHUCKBIRD X2 Search all Chuckbird TEXAS CHUCKBIRD X2
Year built: 2002
Serial Number (C/N): 2002

Number of Seats: 2

Number of Engines: 1
Engine Type: Reciprocating
Engine Manufacturer and Model: ROTAX SERIES
Status: Registered



This was what was reported...
------------------------------------
ark: C-IHBT
Common Name: Chuckbird Model Name: TEXAS CHUCKBIRD X2
Serial No: 2002

owner Clint, died on impact.

Saw a report that spar broke in gusty winds.

------------------------------------

Clare, did YOU submit that "report"?

Because the airplane went down in rough terrain and there were
no witnesses cited.

------------------------------------


Quoting Q -

Believe me, I know. However, I ALSO know that many builders beef up
this, and overbuild that because they

THINK they know better

than the engineer who designed it.

[Charles Vincent]

cavelamb himself wrote:

>
> Clare, did YOU submit that "report"?
>
> Because the airplane went down in rough terrain and there were
> no witnesses cited.
>

The RCMP report stated there were eyewitnesses, though I have not seen
any report that credited an eyewitness with any opinion of what went
wrong or description of the crash......

"2008-05-30 18:54 PDT

Shortly after noon on the 30th of May, 2008, the Fort St. John R.C.M.P.
received reports of a possible plane crash in the Charlie Lake area. Eye
witnesses assisted police in narrowing the area to be searched. A small
aircraft was located a short while later by first responders, in a
heavily wooded area off of the Golf Course Rd., at Charlie Lake. The
lone occupant of the aircraft was found deceased. The name of the
deceased is not being released at this time. The Fort St. John R.C.M.P.
will continue to assist both the Coroner service and the
Transportation Safety Board in their respective investigations in
determinng the cause of the crash.

Originally released 08-05-30 at 14:14hrs by Sgt. GOODLEY of the Fort St.
John RCMP. "

Charles

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Charles Vincent wrote:

> cavelamb himself wrote:
>
>>
>> Clare, did YOU submit that "report"?
>>
>> Because the airplane went down in rough terrain and there were
>> no witnesses cited.
>>
>
> The RCMP report stated there were eyewitnesses, though I have not seen
> any report that credited an eyewitness with any opinion of what went
> wrong or description of the crash......
>
> "2008-05-30 18:54 PDT
>
> Shortly after noon on the 30th of May, 2008, the Fort St. John R.C.M.P.
> received reports of a possible plane crash in the Charlie Lake area. Eye
> witnesses assisted police in narrowing the area to be searched. A small
> aircraft was located a short while later by first responders, in a
> heavily wooded area off of the Golf Course Rd., at Charlie Lake. The
> lone occupant of the aircraft was found deceased. The name of the
> deceased is not being released at this time. The Fort St. John R.C.M.P.
> will continue to assist both the Coroner service and the Transportation
> Safety Board in their respective investigations in determinng the cause
> of the crash.
>
> Originally released 08-05-30 at 14:14hrs by Sgt. GOODLEY of the Fort St.
> John RCMP. "
>
> Charles


I haven't seen much more that this either.

Keep an eye on it.

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

America has become thouroughly convinced that the lunatics
are running the assylum and good idea or no, it will take
more that George W Bush at a press conference to reclaim
the public trust this administration has wantonly destroyed.

John R. Corroll

[Victor Bravo]

On Jul 7, 2:00 am, cavelamb himself > wrote:

>
> You are coming off pretty snotty, VB.
>
> Show and tell time.
>
> Let's see the airplanes you have designed and built...

I'm holding up my end of an argument, against three or four people who
are being equally snotty. I would be delighted to raise the level of
this "discussion" up to a more genteel level, but it would require the
same commitment from others... who immediately came after me with both
barrels right out of the gate.

As for show and tell, I did not and do not claim to be an aircraft
designer. I've sketched on paper, and head-scratched, and dreamed just
like everyone else on the homebuilt newsgroup. However if you read the
thread from the start I went out of my way to not masquerade as a
structural engineer, and to compliment Chris Heintz on actually being
one.

I will claim only this:

1. After having built and tested and crashed and succeeded and failed
with hundreds of balsa model airplanes, and after having owned 15 or
16 full size aircraft, and after having gone through A&P mechanic
school, and after having listened and learned from several people with
engineering knowledge far greater than my own, and after having
tinkered good and bad with small sheet metal projects on several
airplanes... I have a little better understanding of what I am talking
about on this thread than (let's say) half of the people here.

2. There are some people who probably have a lot more engineering
knowledge than I, there are some with a lot less, and there are a few
with engineering degrees that I definitely do not have.

3. I looked at a CH-601XL and found a fairly obvious problem. I
pointed it out to an Aerospace engineer / A&P in our EAA chapter and
he said there was too much movement there but there might not be any
assymetrical loads on it.

4. There have been now SEVERAL 601XL in-flight wing failures, one or
two new ones since I made the comment that started this flame-fest. If
my big mouth keeps a couple of people from burying their heads in the
sand on this issue, then perhaps there is some good being done.

5. Although I know damned well there are people on this newsgroup with
engineering degrees and greater sheet metal knowledge than mine by
far, for some reason they have NOT participated and NOT explained if
I'm wrong and NOT explained if anyone else is right.

6. I own a CH-701 mini-project (plans and a few tail parts built), and
I would love to build it and fly it. I am a very strong supporter of
Chris Heintz' designs for the most part. He has done something
brilliant, made the airplanes easy to build, and extremely simple.

7. But if Kelly Johnson can make a mistake, and Ed Heinemann, and Kurt
Tank, and Willy Messerschmitt, and Andrei Tupolev, and Matty Laird,
and Igor Sikorsky, and Bill Stout, and even CG Taylor can make a
mistake, then so the hell can Chris Heintz make a mistake. It is my
GUESS that he took the original 601 Zodiac and tried to make a sexy
low drag wing for it, at the same time as he was fighting like hell to
get it light enough for the new LSA category. He had to push too hard
on some engineering issue (or more likely several small ones), he had
to go to a lighter skin gauge or thinner shear webs or spread a load
across too few bolts or something I do not have the college degree to
understand ... and the strength of the airplane fell between what was
good enough on paper and what the real world of ASSYMETRICAL flight
loads or gusts or sub-par workmanship requires.

8. If I'm being snotty I apologize, but I will return fire when fired
upon. And as you can see I will fully substantiate my arguments,
unlike some others here !

From a highly experienced airport bum and highly NON-engineering-
degreed mechanic, I am telling you all that there is an issue on the
tail mounting of the Zenair design. I don't know if it is a big
problem, a fatal accident waiting to happen, hugely overbuilt, or
something that will wiggle but never break. That is a question for the
engineers to clarify but someone needs to look at it.

I'm saying that there is a tragic problem with the CH601XL airplane
design. There are too many catastrophic structural failures that
cannot be swept under the rug of builder error or amateur aerobatics.
If it is a design flaw by Heintz, then he is still a great designer
and deserves the same respect, but he will have to find the problem
and issue a repair or upgrade.

Bill Berle

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-07-28, Victor Bravo > wrote:
> I'm holding up my end of an argument, against three or four people who
> are being equally snotty. I would be delighted to raise the level of
> this "discussion" up to a more genteel level, but it would require the
> same commitment from others... who immediately came after me with both
> barrels right out of the gate.

Put yourself in my position.

You make comments about an airplane on which I just spent a large sum of
money and invested a lot of personal emotion into, using your experience
with one part of the aircraft to "explain" that another, completely
unrelated part of the aircraft that's been implicated in accidents is
somehow underdesigned, yet not backing up your comments beyond that - and
especially when my experience with your complaint on my aircraft turns out
to be quite different?

Just what kind of a reaction were you expecting?

> 4. There have been now SEVERAL 601XL in-flight wing failures, one or
> two new ones since I made the comment that started this flame-fest. If
> my big mouth keeps a couple of people from burying their heads in the
> sand on this issue, then perhaps there is some good being done.

Nobody I know of in the Zodiac community is burying their head in the sand.
With a couple of exceptions, nobody's running around in Chicken Little mode,
either. We're watching the situation and doing what we can to minimize the
risks inherent in flying, just as any prudent pilot would do.

One of the Heintz brothers (I think it was Mathieu, but I could be
misremembering) has said that there is no one common factor among the
accidents that are under investigation. Since he's involved in the
investigation, he can't say any more than that until the NTSB has released
its findings.

> 6. I own a CH-701 mini-project (plans and a few tail parts built), and
> I would love to build it and fly it. I am a very strong supporter of
> Chris Heintz' designs for the most part. He has done something
> brilliant, made the airplanes easy to build, and extremely simple.

Great! Build it and fly it! Even if your scaremongering about the 601XL were
on target, that would not apply to the 701 - as that's a different aircraft,
with a different flight profile, and a safety record even you shouldn't be
able to find fault with.

> 8. If I'm being snotty I apologize, but I will return fire when fired
> upon. And as you can see I will fully substantiate my arguments,
> unlike some others here !

Fine. Let me know when you do substantiate your arguments. So far, you have
utterly failed to explain how the one piece of concrete data you have - that
you were able to flex the horizontal stabilizer mounting by moving the
stabilizer tip - has anything at all to do with inflight structural failure
*of* *the* *wings*. Until you do, you're just blowing smoke.

> From a highly experienced airport bum and highly NON-engineering-
> degreed mechanic, I am telling you all that there is an issue on the
> tail mounting of the Zenair design. I don't know if it is a big
> problem, a fatal accident waiting to happen, hugely overbuilt, or
> something that will wiggle but never break. That is a question for the
> engineers to clarify but someone needs to look at it.

This is not borne out on my aircraft.

Further, it has never once been implicated in any accident, fatal or
otherwise, of the 601XL. Therefore, why, exactly, is it relevant?

> I'm saying that there is a tragic problem with the CH601XL airplane
> design. There are too many catastrophic structural failures that
> cannot be swept under the rug of builder error or amateur aerobatics.

That remains to be seen. I do think there's a problem somewhere. There are
enough possibilities, and enough factors that can interact, that I do not
believe there is an inherent design flaw sufficient to cause structural
failure of an aircraft that is properly built, well maintained, and
conservatively flown. That there has been no common factor found in the
accidents in the type tends to bear out that opinion.

Until the problem is found, I intend to maintain my aircraft to the highest
standards of airworthiness possible, and fly it well within its performance
envelope and my capabilities as a 225-hour, non-instrument-rated private
pilot. That's all I can do.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Victor Bravo]

On Jul 29, 7:16 am, Jay Maynard >
wrote:

>
> using your experience
> with one part of the aircraft to "explain" that another, completely
> unrelated part of the aircraft that's been implicated in accidents is
> somehow underdesigned, yet not backing up your comments beyond that - and
> especially when my experience with your complaint on my aircraft turns out
> to be quite different?

What I brought up is two separate issues with the 601, one of which
also applies to the 701. The tail movement has not caused any
accidents to my knowledge, it was simply something that bothered me
about the design, and something that could eventually cause some
inappropriate wear or cracking. If I left you with the opinion that I
was associating the tail flexing with the wing issues I apologize.
They have nothing to do with each other to my limited knowledge.

> Nobody I know of in the Zodiac community is burying their head in the sand.

One guy on this newsgroup thread said the 601XL is the safest airplane
in the sky bar none, and apparently got irritated at my mere mention
of a potential problem. His head is buried in something, although it
may not be sand :) (sorry couldn't resist... no real insult intended)

> With a couple of exceptions, nobody's running around in Chicken Little mode,
> either.

There are only three 601XL people I know personally. The 3/4 completed
Quick Build kit project with a Jabiru 3300 has been put up for sale by
the builder because of the wing issues. The factory built fly-away LSA
airplane has been put in the back of the hangar until this same issue
is sorted out to his satisfaction. The XL that was built and flown
crashed on the first flight, due to something that had nothing to do
with the wing or tail.

> One of the Heintz brothers ... said that there is no one common factor among the
> accidents that are under investigation.

Let me get this straight... you're saying there is no one common
factor in the structural inflight failure crashes of... five 601XL
type aircraft ??? Jay, 601XL IS the common factor !

> Even if your scaremongering about the 601XL were
> on target,

Scaremongering !?!? Kindly explain where you would draw the line
between intelligently discussing a potential problem (that has
resulted in several tragedies) and "scaremongering". Would you prefer
to just not allow any discussions about a potential problem with a
specific airplane?

> that would not apply to the 701 - as that's a different aircraft,
> with a different flight profile, and a safety record even you shouldn't be
> able to find fault with.

The 701 has an excellent safety record, good design features, and a
very clever balance between engineering for strength and engineering
for simplicity. The unique tradeoff between exceptional STOL ability
and cost to build/fly/own is indeed why I am interested in it.

>So far, you have utterly failed to explain how ..... the horizontal stabilizer .....
> has anything at all to do with inflight structural failure *of* *the* *wings*.
> Until you do, you're just blowing smoke.

Once again, I did not and do not believe there is a direct connection
between moving the tail too much with hand pressure and wing failures.
I hope this is not a big surprise... we may be talking about more
than one issue ! The 601 and 701 have an issue which may be a design
flaw or may be a design compromise. I personally didn't like the fact
that you can move the tail in a manner which you cannot on ANY other
similar airplane. So far this has NOT caused any problems or crashes
but I stand by that it was worth mentioning.

The "concrete evidence" that you forgot to mention is that there have
been several fatalities on only one particular variant (XL) of an
otherwise very robust and safe design (Zodiac). For the third and
final time, I am NOT associating these wing failures with the
horizontal tail rigidity... I am associating these wing failures with
the possibility that there is not enough metal in the XL wing.

You sound like the people who stand out in front of a courthouse
screaming "racism !" because the guy who shot four innocent people and
is on trial for murder happens to be a different skin color than the
people on the jury. That has nothing to do with whether he shot the
people or not. Because I have the nerve to hold up an argument and
make people talk about a possible design issue, does not make me a
scaremonger.

> (tail movement) This is not borne out on my aircraft.

Good. At least you looked at it, considered my point, and made your
own decision. That's all I wanted out of the tail argument anyway.

> Further, it has never once been implicated in any accident, fatal or
> otherwise, of the 601XL. Therefore, why, exactly, is it relevant?

The same reason a warning about Salmonella contamination on some food
product is relevant to an automobile recall for bad brakes. You check
your brakes AND you check where your friggin' tomatoes came from,
because you could have, exactly, two separate unrelated problems that
could cause you to get hurt. If you're not getting this concept (of
more than one thing going on at the same time) you might not be an
ideal candidate for aircraft ownership or operation.

> I do think there's a problem somewhere.

Ahhh... the dull yellow light of higher brain function flickers
briefly...

> I do not
> believe there is an inherent design flaw sufficient to cause structural
> failure of an aircraft that is properly built, well maintained, and
> conservatively flown.

....and just as quickly is extinguished.

In aviation, particularly experimental aviation, we have to be far
more suspicious than complacent. We have to be utterly suspicious of
everything that can affect safety, and ever vigilant. We have to do a
pre-flight inspection assuming that something on the airplane will try
to kill us this day, and it is our job to find it before it does.
Guilty until proven innocent on all matters concerning mechanical
safety. We have to fly knowing the engine IS about to fail, and be
looking for emergency landing areas at all times. There is a very
large burden we have to carry, which makes every flight equally nerve
wracking as it is enjoyable. It is this burden that makes me willing
to argue with and infuriate a total stranger like you, so that perhaps
your anger at me will force you to take that one extra look at a
problem from a different angle.

You say there are no common factors in the failures... which SHOULD
prove that at least one of them was well built and being flown within
its limits. The most recent one was a formation flight, so it can be
assumed that pilot was flying in level flight and not maneuvering
excessively.

> Until the problem is found, I intend to maintain my aircraft to the highest
> standards of airworthiness possible, and fly it well within its performance
> envelope and my capabilities as a 225-hour, non-instrument-rated private
> pilot. That's all I can do.

Sorry Jay, I can't let you off the hook. The "highest standards of
airworthiness possible" means you would load test the wings (sandbag
test) to verify structural integrity... at various torsional moments
(wing twisting due to air loads). "Within its performance envelope"
means that you KNOW what the real performance envelope is. If other
601XL aircraft have failed inflight operating within or even near this
envelope, it means the published envelope is really not fully proven
out.

Changing my personalities for a moment, and assuming the role of
someone less antagonistic who only wants you to be able to fly safely,
I will turn off the smart-ass switch and turn on the "help this guy
live to enjoy his airplane" switch. Until a real engineer has
determined the full problem and figured out a real solution, I
sincerely advise you to implement a temporary set of restrictions in
your flight envelope to increase your structural margins.

Reduce your turbulent air penetration speed and VNE speed by 25%
each.
Reduce the allowable gross weight of your airplane by 10%.
Reduce the maximum G loading by one or two G.
Limit aerobatics to low G barrel rolls.
Reduce or eliminate maneuvers that put rolling (wing twisting) loads
on at the same time as G loads.

Taking these precautions WILL greatly reduce the loads on your
structure, until a qualified engineer figures this all out.

Bill Berle

[Jim Logajan]

Victor Bravo > wrote:
> Let me get this straight... you're saying there is no one common
> factor in the structural inflight failure crashes of... five 601XL
> type aircraft ??? Jay, 601XL IS the common factor !

I can only find 2 such cases in the NTSB database - and one of those
appears to have been due to over-control brought on by flight into IMC:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070509X00539&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060217X00209&key=1

It would be helpful if you could provide information on the other three
alleged incidents.

P.S. For comparison, I had no problem finding several incidents of wing
failures on Van's RV models.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-07-29, Victor Bravo > wrote:
> If I left you with the opinion that I was associating the tail flexing
> with the wing issues I apologize. They have nothing to do with each other
> to my limited knowledge.

Well, then, there's little point in harping on it if the subject under
discussion is the cause of what appears to be in-flight structureal failure.

> There are only three 601XL people I know personally. The 3/4 completed
> Quick Build kit project with a Jabiru 3300 has been put up for sale by
> the builder because of the wing issues. The factory built fly-away LSA
> airplane has been put in the back of the hangar until this same issue
> is sorted out to his satisfaction. The XL that was built and flown
> crashed on the first flight, due to something that had nothing to do
> with the wing or tail.

Right. Airplanes crash for lots of reasons.

>> One of the Heintz brothers ... said that there is no one common factor among the
>> accidents that are under investigation.
> Let me get this straight... you're saying there is no one common
> factor in the structural inflight failure crashes of... five 601XL
> type aircraft ??? Jay, 601XL IS the common factor !

Just like the RV is the common factor in all of the inflight failures Jim
Logajan mentioned. The point is that, if there's no common factor in the
601XL crashes, then there's likely no design flaw - for if there was one, it
would show up as a common factor in the crashes.

>> Even if your scaremongering about the 601XL were on target,
> Scaremongering !?!? Kindly explain where you would draw the line
> between intelligently discussing a potential problem (that has
> resulted in several tragedies) and "scaremongering". Would you prefer
> to just not allow any discussions about a potential problem with a
> specific airplane?

Your line right abouve, about the 601 being the common factor - even though
there's no evidence, at this point, that the various crashes are in fact
related by any particular cause - is scaremongering. Intelligent discussion
would be about trying to figure out what the problem is, not railing that
the design is unsafe without anything concrete to back it up.

> You sound like the people who stand out in front of a courthouse
> screaming "racism !" because the guy who shot four innocent people and
> is on trial for murder happens to be a different skin color than the
> people on the jury. That has nothing to do with whether he shot the
> people or not. Because I have the nerve to hold up an argument and
> make people talk about a possible design issue, does not make me a
> scaremonger.

Sorry, but I disagree. You fail to advance any other cause that's backed up
by real-world data. There have been lots of crashes in RVs, but you're not
running around calling it unsafe.

> Ahhh... the dull yellow light of higher brain function flickers briefly...

For someone who claims not to stoop to personal insult, this is awfully
insulting.

>> I do not believe there is an inherent design flaw sufficient to cause
>> structural failure of an aircraft that is properly built, well
>> maintained, and conservatively flown.
> ...and just as quickly is extinguished.

....as is this.

I've looked at the available data, and come to my conclusion based on what's
known and what's been disclosed. Because my conclusion is different from
yours, you claim my brain isn't working.

All you're doing is destroying your credibility. You come across like a
salesman for a competitor, trying to destroy the market for the Zodiac, not
like someone interested in improving air safety.

> In aviation, particularly experimental aviation, we have to be far
> more suspicious than complacent. We have to be utterly suspicious of
> everything that can affect safety, and ever vigilant.

This (as well as the rest of your paragraph) is nothing more than saying
that pilots have to manage risks. That's indeed inherent in aviation.
Aviation is not dangerous, but it's terribly unforgiving. The pilot's
defense is to assess each risk and determine whether that risk is
acceptable.

> You say there are no common factors in the failures... which SHOULD
> prove that at least one of them was well built and being flown within
> its limits. The most recent one was a formation flight, so it can be
> assumed that pilot was flying in level flight and not maneuvering
> excessively.

If you're referring to the crash on the way to Sun n Fun, that aircraft was
built by the Czech Aircraft Works to European LSA standards - which include
a 450 kg (990 pounds) max gross, not the 600 kg the XL was designed to. CZAW
had to modify the design to make that limit reachable. We don't know just
what modifications they made.

>> Until the problem is found, I intend to maintain my aircraft to the highest
>> standards of airworthiness possible, and fly it well within its performance
>> envelope and my capabilities as a 225-hour, non-instrument-rated private
>> pilot. That's all I can do.
> Sorry Jay, I can't let you off the hook. The "highest standards of
> airworthiness possible" means you would load test the wings (sandbag
> test) to verify structural integrity... at various torsional moments
> (wing twisting due to air loads).

This isn't something that's done for any other production aircraft during
maintenance. (Remember, mine's a factory-built SLSA, not an experimental.)
Zenair has done that test, and that's good enough for me.

> "Within its performance envelope" means that you KNOW what the real
> performance envelope is.

AMD tested the aircraft through a full Part 23 certification flight test
program. That's defined the envelope as well as any 152.

> If other 601XL aircraft have failed inflight operating within or even near
> this envelope, it means the published envelope is really not fully proven
> out.

....assuming that the primary cause of the crash was a structural failure of
an aircraft that had been flown within the envelope for its entire lifetime.

Jim Logajan said:

> I can only find 2 such cases in the NTSB database - and one of those
> appears to have been due to over-control brought on by flight into IMC:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070509X00539&key=1
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060217X00209&key=1

There are at least two other fatal Zodiac crashes that come to mind and
could be attributed to wing failure, though the NTSB has not yet released
final reports:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20061115X01677&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080421X00519&key=1

> Changing my personalities for a moment, and assuming the role of
> someone less antagonistic who only wants you to be able to fly safely,

About damned time.

> I will turn off the smart-ass switch and turn on the "help this guy
> live to enjoy his airplane" switch. Until a real engineer has
> determined the full problem and figured out a real solution, I
> sincerely advise you to implement a temporary set of restrictions in
> your flight envelope to increase your structural margins.

As it happens, I already do a good number of these...

> Reduce your turbulent air penetration speed and VNE speed by 25%
> each.

Va is 90 knots in the Zodiac. 75% of that is 67.5 knots...and I come over
the fence on landing at 65.

Vne is 140. 75% of that is 105 knots - where I normally top out at, anyway.

> Reduce the allowable gross weight of your airplane by 10%.

The Zodiac XL's 1320 pounds max gross is a regulatory number to meet the LSA
spec. The airframe was designed for a max gross of 1450 pounds. 90% of that
is 1305 pounds; I meet that anyway.

> Reduce the maximum G loading by one or two G.
> Limit aerobatics to low G barrel rolls.

I do not fly aerobatics, period. I'm too susceptible to motion sickness.

> Reduce or eliminate maneuvers that put rolling (wing twisting) loads
> on at the same time as G loads.

Such as?

> Taking these precautions WILL greatly reduce the loads on your
> structure, until a qualified engineer figures this all out.

I know how my aircraft has been flown throughout its lifetime, because I'm
the only one who's flown it since it passed its flight test.

You're also assuming that the Heintzes aren't qualified engineers...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

[Victor Bravo]

I'm not a salesman for any of the competition, nor am I "against"
Zenair in any way shape or form, sincerely. I've owned an RV-3, which
is one of the RV's that you mentioned have had wing failures. Van in
one case did find that there was something that was appropriate to
change (rear spar attach fitting hole edge distance problem, becoming
RV-3A), and also found it appropriate to change the design later to
make it more immune to hot-dogging pilots (which arguably was an
operational error rather than a design flaw), becoming the RV-3B.

This discussion has gotten somewhat out of hand for perhaps the wrong
reason. I stand by my statement that there appears to be something in
the 601XL that needs to be addressed.

I have personally spoken to TWO professional crash investigators (one
governmental and one engine-related) who have expressed a strong
personal opinion that the XL is too lightly built. These two
investigators have examined one of the non-fatal 601 crash wrecks, and
both have several years of professional experience looking at why
airplanes crashed.

My comments about moving the tail back and forth were meant to further
illustrate the notion that the CH 601 is very lightly built. I found
one airplane where the amount of movement startled me, and I said
something about it publicly. That should not have made you anywhere
near as upset or offended as you apparently got. My apologies, I was
not intending to upset you when I pointed that out.

> (design flaw) or if there was one, it
> would show up as a common factor in the crashes.

There have been several inflight wing separations on a common aircraft
design. There has been a letter from the factory somewhat addressing
the situation as well... so Heintz understands that there is some kind
of situation. Common sense AND an engineering textbook should tell you
that this needs to be taken very seriously. Van took it seriously
every time, made changes, and the RV's continue to be well respected
designs. Heintz is a well respected designer and I strongly believe he
will continue to be so.

> Your line right abouve, about the 601 being the common factor - (snip) - is scaremongering.

Stating a fact (several inflight wing failures in one particular
design) should not be scaremongering. How would you have addressed
this fact without being guilty of scaremongering? If I had reported
that people are putting their 601's up for sale, even though that is
fact (I was told about a factory-built XL being put up for sale today,
and another friend of mine has put his QB project up), it could be
seen as scaremongering. But all I said was that there have been
several similar inflight failures and people need to get to the bottom
of this issue. I stand by that still.

> Intelligent discussion
> would be about trying to figure out what the problem is, not railing that
> the design is unsafe

I thought I HAD been discussing the idea of figuring it out. It's hard
to be open minded enough to figure it out, when people are just
standing there in denial that there COULD even be a problem.

> Sorry, but I disagree. You fail to advance any other cause that's backed up
> by real-world data.

The real-world data is that four or five of these airplanes have had
the wings come off in flight to one degree or another. That seems to
be more than enough of a cause to me. Real-world data comes in several
flavors... wind tunnel tests, sandbag tests, metallurgy lab tests, and
on and on. Real-world data ALSO includes field testing by non-
engineers in actual flight conditions. The results from this type of
non-engineer testing, which in this case has involved unfortunate
tragedy, is just as valid as scientists in white lab coats running
computer simulations or sandbag tests.

> There have been lots of crashes in RVs, but you're not
> running around calling it unsafe.

OK, the original RV-3 design is less safe than later versions, and is
shown to be fundamentally unsafe for certain aerobatic or overspeed
flight conditions which have resulted in tragic crashes. The
unmodified original RV-3 can only be flown safely with speed and G
load restrictions compared to later models... just like I am
suggesting with the 601 UNTIL the root cause of the problem is figured
out. The RV-3A and RV-3B upgrades have greatly extended the safe
flight envelope and provide a far greater margin of structural safety.

>
> > Ahhh... the dull yellow light of higher brain function flickers briefly...
>
> For someone who claims not to stoop to personal insult, this is awfully
> insulting.

I claim that others stooped to personal insult far earlier than I.
After a few people come at me with guns blazing, I'll blaze right
back. No apologies on that particular issue.

> I've looked at the available data, and come to my conclusion based on what's
> known and what's been disclosed. Because my conclusion is different from
> yours, you claim my brain isn't working.

No, I just think you have a beautiful, fun, and flying airplane, and
because of that fact you don't want to even discuss the possibility it
might need another couple of pounds of metal in the wing somewhere.

> All you're doing is destroying your credibility. You come across like a
> salesman for a competitor, trying to destroy the market for the Zodiac, not
> like someone interested in improving air safety.

I am a salesman for one old, tired, Aeronca Chief project that I want
to find a good home for. That's it. I do have a Zenair project in my
garage, and I do not have an RV, Savannah, Sonex, or Thorp. You are
dead wrong, my only interest in (this extended offshoot of my Aeronca
posting) is indeed for air safety. You see, if a structural problem
with ANY small airplane causes a crash, it could have a devastating
effect on my ability to fly my little antique Taylorcraft around ever
again.

> If you're referring to the crash on the way to Sun n Fun, that aircraft was
> built by the Czech Aircraft Works to European LSA standards - which include
> a 450 kg (990 pounds) max gross, not the 600 kg the XL was designed to.
> CZAW had to modify the design to make that limit reachable.


Well, that sure as hell sounds like something that needs to be gotten
to the bottom of, now doesn't it? Some of the QB kits I'm told were
built in the Czech Republic too. Some were built elsewhere. So you're
telling me that SOME of the XL airplanes built for one part of the
world have a lot more metal in the structure, than some OTHERS built
in (or for) some other part of the world? That sure as hell needs to
be part of the investigation too.

>We don't know just what modifications they made.

You're making my point 100X better than I ever could have made it !!!

> This isn't something that's done for any other production aircraft during
> maintenance.

No, they only do it after there have been a few suspicious crashes...

(Remember, mine's a factory-built SLSA, not an experimental.)
> Zenair has done that test, and that's good enough for me.

Here's where I got upset and started thinking about people's heads
being in the sand. Zenair "had done that test" probably before any of
the crashes, and so perhaps there is something in the real world that
did not show up on the tests. You are drawing arbitrary lines between
this 601XL and that 601XL, between ones built here and ones built
there, between experimental and S-LSA versions, between ones painted
white and ones painted blue. I believe some of each have crashed. If
that is true (that some SLSA's have crashed, some homebuilts, some
Euro models) then the only "common factor" in the crashes would be the
basic airframe design. If only one of the sub-types were crashing
(ones built in Czechoslovakia on Wednesdays with greater than 50%
relative humidity and using green upholstery) then that information
leads you down a different path to finding out what is going on.

> AMD tested the aircraft through a full Part 23 certification flight test
> program. That's defined the envelope as well as any 152.

And if five 152's had inflight wing failures within a five year
period, what do you think the NTSB and the concerned owners would
do... argue about who's being polite and whose table manners need
polishing?

> ...assuming that the primary cause of the crash was a structural failure of
> an aircraft that had been flown within the envelope for its entire lifetime.

I don't care whether the airplanes are being flown within any
arbitrary envelope, it doesn't matter at the level I am talking about.
Because I'm NOT attacking Zenair, and I'm NOT suing anyone, and I'm
NOT advocating the grounding of the fleet... the legal issues and
operating limits are not the focus of my thinking. I am thinking that
aircraft are being lost in the real-world operating environment...
whether that is within or not within the airplane's POH. If all these
crashes are happening outside the POH limits, then it needs to be
figured out WHY five different people were flying the airplane outside
these limits, and whether these limits are too easily exceeded in real-
world operating conditions by average pilots.

> (changing my personality) About damned time.

You too, if we're being honest.You're looking at me like a vicious
party-pooper instead of someobody who thinks there is an issue which
others are not paying enough attention to. It's not my life at stake
here, Hombre, I have a Taylorcraft with a 67 year history of keeping
the wings on.

> Va is 90 knots in the Zodiac. 75% of that is 67.5 knots...and I come over
> the fence on landing at 65.

You come over the fence at 65 knots on an airplane with a 40 knot
stall speed? would you please get your flight instructor online in
this conversation? I have a few words for him/her about energy
management and landing distance.

> I do not fly aerobatics, period. I'm too susceptible to motion sickness.

OK, then that is not a factor.

> > Reduce or eliminate maneuvers that put rolling (wing twisting) loads
> > on at the same time as G loads.
>
> Such as?

Pulling the stick back and sideways at the same time. If you want to
do a tight turn then my suggestion is to roll the airplane into the
turn, then wait until the rolling part is complete, put the stick back
in the center, THEN pull back on the stick rather than all at once.

RUMOR is that on one of the crashes the ailerons were found far away
from the crash site. This brings up the POSSIBLE existence of flutter
(TBD by real engineers). I humbly suggest that you check your ailerons
for excess play, flexibility in the system where it is supposed to be
rigid, aileron mass balance, heavy paint on the ailerons, etc.

> You're also assuming that the Heintzes aren't qualified engineers...

Oh no not at all... Chris Heintz is one of the most highly qualified
light aircraft engineers around. I don't know about anyone else in the
family's qualifications one way or another.

Fly extra safe Jay, I'd love to have you around for a while if for no
other reason than to argue with :)








>

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
> wrote:


>
>There have been several inflight wing separations on a common aircraft
>design. There has been a letter from the factory somewhat addressing
>the situation as well... so Heintz understands that there is some kind
>of situation. Common sense AND an engineering textbook should tell you
>that this needs to be taken very seriously. Van took it seriously
>every time, made changes, and the RV's continue to be well respected
>designs. Heintz is a well respected designer and I strongly believe he
>will continue to be so.
From what I understand, at least one "wing related crash" was a Czech
aircraft works plane. Of the other 2, one had a rear spar bolt not
installed, or incorrectly installed(and fell out) Another had a
hardware store bolt in a critical wing attach application.
Neither of these two was a design fault - and as pointed out earlier
by someone, the Czech plane is not EXACTLY a 601XL LSA plane. It was
originally built to a lighter standard and may or may not have been
properly modified to LSA requirements.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Jim Logajan]

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
> > wrote:
>> There have been several inflight wing separations on a common aircraft
>> design.

VB, in an earlier post I believe you specifically stated there were 5 such
accidents and I asked if you had references to them as I can only find 2
such accidents in the U.S. NTSB database (I provided the NTSB database
links).

Again, it would be exceedingly helpful if you could direct me to either the
NTSB reports I'm overlooking or press accounts of the 3 other accidents you
are claiming.

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> From what I understand, at least one "wing related crash" was a Czech
> aircraft works plane. Of the other 2, one had a rear spar bolt not
> installed, or incorrectly installed(and fell out) Another had a
> hardware store bolt in a critical wing attach application.

Clare, you are claiming 3 such accidents. Again, I only have information on
2. The NTSB said the probable cause for one of those was flight into IMC
followed by control overstress, and for the other the probable cause was
structural failure for reasons unknown. No mention of substandard or
incorrectly installed hardware in the narratives or probable cause.

In fact in the second case the wing spars remained attached to the fuselage
- but the engine was heard to have been changing RPM repeatedly just prior
to wing failure.

So if you have references for a third such accident (e.g. foreign press
reports) that would help.

[clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada]

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:45:20 -0500, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
>> > wrote:
>>> There have been several inflight wing separations on a common aircraft
>>> design.
>
>VB, in an earlier post I believe you specifically stated there were 5 such
>accidents and I asked if you had references to them as I can only find 2
>such accidents in the U.S. NTSB database (I provided the NTSB database
>links).
>
>Again, it would be exceedingly helpful if you could direct me to either the
>NTSB reports I'm overlooking or press accounts of the 3 other accidents you
>are claiming.
>
>clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>> From what I understand, at least one "wing related crash" was a Czech
>> aircraft works plane. Of the other 2, one had a rear spar bolt not
>> installed, or incorrectly installed(and fell out) Another had a
>> hardware store bolt in a critical wing attach application.
>
>Clare, you are claiming 3 such accidents. Again, I only have information on
>2. The NTSB said the probable cause for one of those was flight into IMC
>followed by control overstress, and for the other the probable cause was
>structural failure for reasons unknown. No mention of substandard or
>incorrectly installed hardware in the narratives or probable cause.
>
>In fact in the second case the wing spars remained attached to the fuselage
>- but the engine was heard to have been changing RPM repeatedly just prior
>to wing failure.
>
>So if you have references for a third such accident (e.g. foreign press
>reports) that would help.

I don't have the info - just asked a friend who is up to date on these
things. One or more may NOT have been XL models, and it is possible
one of the two (bolt related) was the Czeck plane. The one that went
IMS and suffered control overstress was apparently the one with the
missing rear spar bolt.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Steven [email protected]]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:23:16 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
> wrote:
>Fly extra safe Jay, I'd love to have you around for a while if for no
>other reason than to argue with :)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-

Bil, Bill, Bill.

May suggest you consider a left parenthesis instead
of a right parenthesis in the interest of 'truthiness'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness



- Barnyard Bob -
The more people I meet,
the more I like my dog.