Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - 601 and wing failiers

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

601 and wing failiers
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

kmccune

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: 601 and wing failiers

My wife's cousin has just about finished building a Challenger. And would like to build a cross country airplane. I suggested the 601, but he has heard of the recent wing issues.  Well I don't want to research it in detail, but my gut feeling is that there is a common thread between them. I may be wrong and I don't want to started a lengthly read. But, does any one happen to have the particulars? 



He was adamant that the 601 was not safe, I don't believe it is true, but what can I say? He is wanting a project and a faster plane at low cost, so a scratch built 601 right! 



Thanks



Kevin

_________________
“Always do what you are afraid to do.”
R.W. Emerson (1803-1882)

"Real freedom is the sustained act of being an individual." WW - 2009

"Life is a good deal...it's worth it" Feb 1969
Dorothy McCune

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: 601 and wing failiers

Hi Kevin,



The short answer is: Maybe there is a problem and maybe not.



I am aware of 4 different incidents with Zodiac XLs that involved 

structural failure and loss of life.  One was a new Sport Pilot who 

decided to depart in IMC.  One was a mid-air collision with a C-172 

(I think).  One was a plane that had just been reassembled after sale 

from one owner to another that came apart in the traffic 

pattern.  The last one was one that came apart in mid-flight cruise 

after making some vibration noises and unusual engine sounds.



Considering how many Zodiacs are flying around this is alarming but 

not enough to say it is a dangerous design.  Yes, the XL is the 

newest member of the Zodiac family so it is not necessarily fair to 

group all the Zodiacs in this class.  Still, there are many of us 

continuing to build and fly XLs and we are happy to do so.  Yes, 

there is a nagging concern we all feel, but it isn't enough to stop many of us.



I don't know how this accident record compares to other kit 

planes.  It certainly is better than some factory built planes in the 

past (I am thinking of Yankees and Swifts, and all the V-tail 

Bonanzas that broke up in flight).  There are many other designs and 

some might be better or just experience a little more good luck and a 

little less bad luck,



Flying is a dangerous activity and when you do it in planes built by 

first time amateurs the danger is certainly increased.  If you want a 

really safe hobby perhaps you should consider taking up knitting.



Paul

XL fuselage - installing engine





At 02:42 PM 12/16/2007, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



My wife's cousin has just about finished building a Challenger. And 

would like to build a cross country airplane. I suggested the 601, 

but he has heard of the recent wing issues.  Well I don't want to 

research it in detail, but my gut feeling is that there is a common 

thread between them. I may be wrong and I don't want to started a 

lengthly read. But, does any one happen to have the particulars?



He was adamant that the 601 was not safe, I don't believe it is 

true, but what can I say? He is wanting a project and a faster plane 

at low cost, so a scratch built 601 right!



Thanks



Kevin



------

annken100

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 62

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: 601 and wing failiers

The issue of wing failures and the safety of the 601 design has been hashed out, debated, speculated on, and generally beaten to death in previous threads.  A simple search of the archives will bring you up to speed.



Not being a structural, mechanical, or aeronautical engineer, I can't say with any authority that the design is safe or unsafe.  However, the few past wing failures appear to be a result of pilot error or ambiguous mechanical defects. No one knows for sure.



The conclusion I draw is that the 601 is safe based on the ample number of planes that are flying that haven't had wing failures.  Considering that most 601's are assembled by amateur airplane builders with out any quality control measures as would be expected in a manufacturing setting, it is not outside the realm of possibility that a few 601's may have been built to substandard levels and therefore turned out unsafe.



The bottom line is that you either trust the designer and the design or you don't.  I don't think it makes any sense to try and convince someone the plane is safe if they already have made up their minds that indeed it is not.

Good Luck,



Ken Pavlou

601 XL / Corvair

bryanmmartin

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1018

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: 601 and wing failiers

I'm aware of three in-flight failures with 601 XLs.



One was a homebuilt recently bought by a new owner and reassembled for a 

test flight. Speculation is that the rear wing spar bolts weren't 

installed properly. The post crash fire destroyed most of the fuselage 

so the NTSB report was inconclusive as the the cause of the failure.



The second involved a non-instrument rated pilot taking off in marginal 

weather that rapidly deteriorated into IMC. There were reports of 

thunderstorms in the area at the time of the crash. Speculation is that 

the pilot either encountered severe turbulence or became disoriented and 

lost control and overstressed the airplane.



The third crash involved a factory built S-LSA that apparently suffered 

an in-flight explosion. Some kind of fuel or engine problems had been 

reported on previous flights.



kmccune wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 My wife's cousin has just about finished building a Challenger. And would like to build a cross country airplane. I suggested the 601, but he has heard of the recent wing issues.  Well I don't want to research it in detail, but my gut feeling is that there is a common thread between them. I may be wrong and I don't want to started a lengthly read. But, does any one happen to have the particulars? 

 

 He was adamant that the 601 was not safe, I don't believe it is true, but what can I say? He is wanting a project and a faster plane at low cost, so a scratch built 601 right! 

 

 Thanks

 

 Kevin

 

 --------

 Kevin


	


-- 

Bryan Martin

Zenith 601XL N61BM

Ram Subaru, Stratus redrive

Do Not Archive

_________________
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
do not archive.

Canatukker

Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Mission(Hatzic lake)B.C. Canada

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: 601 and wing failiers

I trust the wings of my 601 but helped with some insurance

DSCF0025.JPG

Description:

This will help keeping the wing on my plane !!:)

Filesize:

829.45 KB

Viewed:

897 Time(s)

_________________
Have fun fly safe

annken100

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 62

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject: Re: 601 and wing failiers

 	  Quote: 	
		    I trust the wings of my 601 but helped with some insurance 	




   Funny!



Is that modification patented?  What thickness duct tape did you use? Have you run it by Zenith yet?



Ken Pavlou



601 XL / Corvair[/quote]

Canatukker

Joined: 03 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Mission(Hatzic lake)B.C. Canada

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:58 pm Post subject: Re: 601 and wing failiers

 don't know how thick ,is already patented  

	  	



Scotch® All-Weather Duct Tape  



 Apollo 13 astronauts used it for repairs and the Apollo 17 astronauts to keep dust off the lunar rover’s fenders; it is now policy to have a roll on every space shuttle mission    Ron in a can't fly to rainy Mission B.C. good o'l Canada



do not archive

_________________
Have fun fly safe

kmccune

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:16 am Post subject: Re: 601 and wing failiers

Thanks for the answers, thats about what I remembered. I really didn't pay that much attention because it was not a 701. I was just put back because of the absolute refusal to even consider the 601. 



I hope you know that the Vne  for duct tape is only 100mph!

notsew_evets(at)frontiern
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:52 am Post subject: 601 and wing failiers

Kevin

Duct tape is good up to 100 MPH thats true.  But,  If you also use bailing 

wire in combanation the Vne goes to 115 MPH..

---

PatrickW

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 380
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:34 am Post subject: Re: 601 and wing failiers

 	  kmccune wrote: 	
		  I was just put back because of the absolute refusal to even consider the 601. 	


Some people won't look any further than the hingless ailerons, and tend to dismiss the design.  People who give it some thought tend to like the design.  Seems that people either love the 601, or they hate it - no middle ground.



Funny story:  My EAA Technical Adviser told me that the first time he saw my project that he was agonizing on how to break the news to me on the magnitude of my "screw-up".  He is now a proponent of the design.  



Patrick

XL/Corvair

dredmoody(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:22 pm Post subject: 601 and wing failiers

Personally, I have as much use for a closed mind as a closed store. Neither one does much for me.



Dred

Do Not Archive



---- PatrickW <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com> wrote: 

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 

 kmccune wrote:

 > I was just put back because of the absolute refusal to even consider the 601. 

 

 Some people won't look any further than the hingless ailerons, and tend to dismiss the design.  People who give it some thought tend to like the design.  Seems that people either love the 601, or they hate it - no middle ground.

 

 Funny story:  My EAA Technical Adviser told me that the first time he saw my project that he was agonizing on how to break the news to me on the magnitude of my "screw-up".  He is now a proponent of the design.  

 

 Patrick

 XL/Corvair

ggower_99(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:51 pm Post subject: 601 and wing failiers

One thing that gives me trust in the design are the lots of hours that some of the older 601 XL have already acumulated.   Not mentioning the previous 601 series (HD; HDS, UL).

   

  The factory prototype  has the same wings since his first flight and is a plane that is flying every day as a demo,  also travels a lot to Fly ins and Aviation events...

   

  I am also waiting for the results of the investigations of this accidents, I dont know how long they might take to be released,  mean time, I will continue building and will fly mine when finished.   

  Yes,  I am extra carefull with our building process and double check every step,  I want to be sure that I build it safe in my side.   

   

   

  Saludos

  Gary Gower

  Flying from Chapala, Mexico

  701 912S   Flying

  601 XL  Jab 3300  building.



annken100 <annken100(at)aol.com> wrote:

  [quote]--> Zenith-List message posted by: "annken100" 



The issue of wing failures and the safety of the 601 design has been hashed out, debated, speculated on, and generally beaten to death in previous threads. A simple search of the archives will bring you up to speed.



Not being a structural, mechanical, or aeronautical engineer, I can't say with any authority that the design is safe or unsafe. However, the few past wing failures appear to be a result of pilot error or ambiguous mechanical defects. No one knows for sure.



The conclusion I draw is that the 601 is safe based on the ample number of planes that are flying that haven't had wing failures. Considering that most 601's are assembled by amateur airplane Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [quote][b]

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: Re: 601 and wing failiers

I think you will be disappointed when you read the reports. The ones that have been released, including the accident where there was concern that the rear wing attach bolts had either not been installed correctly or with the wrong bolts, have been pretty limited in the information they provide.



The FAA/NTSB doesn't spend the money or the man power (nor should they) on accidents involving experimentals that provide the sort of rock solid evidence that we see when an airliner goes down.



These accidents have been discussed in length on this list and the general consensus, with a few exceptions, is that the planes that failed had been stressed beyond their design limitations either at the time of the accident or before. 



It all comes down to follow the plans, follow the proper building methods and most important fly safely. 



 	  ggower_99(at)yahoo.com wrote: 	
		     

  I am also waiting for the results of the investigations of this accidents, I dont know how long they might take to be released,  mean time, I will continue building and will fly mine when finished.   

  Yes,  I am extra carefull with our building process and double check every step,  I want to be sure that I build it safe in my side.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

kmccune

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: Re: 601 and wing failiers

 	  PatrickW wrote: 	
		  

  People who give it some thought tend to like the design.  Seems that people either love the 601, or they hate it - no middle ground.  



Patrick

XL/Corvair 	




Funny thing is that I'm pretty indifferent to it. It does not do what I want, so it was never in the running. I think its a good plane, it is "relatively" inexpensive to scratch build, and has a wider engine range then the 701. It cruises pretty fast and..and ...and.    



Oh well, some peoples kids!



Kevin

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: Re: 601 and wing failiers

Is this the factory demo plane. It DOES NOT APPEAR to have the wing lockers. Personally, I'm very suspicious of the wing lockers. Granted, they may be fine in testing, but if the accident planes failed due to over stressing that would be where the stress would accumulate most, right at the wing locker area. Skins in tension are strong, skins in compression, or areas in compression where there are no skins, like the wing locker, would be particularly prone to failure first. If there is anything wrong with this design, I'd say this is it. I'd have to guess the wing is considerable stronger without the wing locker. Eliminate the locker and you eliminate one more stress point in an area that's already fairly stressed as it is as well as being even more diminished in capacity to deal with compression forces due to the locker. It would be interesting to see if these wings that failed also had wing lockers. Seems as those the wong locker idea is a carry-over from the 601HD wing locker, the difference though is that the TRUE cantilever part of the wing on the HD is outboard of the wing locker area due to the fact that the wing on the HD is a three part deal, the 8 foot center section and two 8' outboard panels, both of which are solid and shorter and the wing locker is essentially part of the center wing section, not part of the seperate and shorter wing panels.



Now considering normal compression in that area in flight is, well, normal, but then add to the fact that with a wing locker you're taking away reinforcement that keeps that area from buckling, specifically, you're reducing the resistance to compression that keeps the skins basically parallel to each other. In a buckling situation it's the compression side that fails, and in this case we have a reducing resistance to compression. Not only that, but factor in that the wing spar is inclined 9 degrees forward to the perdendicular load of lift and you have the main spar preloaded to want to bow forward under a load. Without the wing lockers, the top skin helps to keep the spar in alignment. Without the top skin in that area the loads that keep the spar aligned, which were spread to all the rivets in the area between rib stations 4 and 5 are now short cutted to MOSTLY the rivets that are forward of the wing locker, with a small amount vectoring around the wing locker to the rivets on the rear spar as well as the rivets near the aft portions of the center ribs. Not only has the majority of the loads been transferred to rivets forward of the wing locker, but those loads on those rivets forward of the wing locker are also at a much more extreme angled component because the if the most rear rivet providing support which is also still forward of the wing locker is at best transferring only an angular component of the stress. And now that I look at it again, before I thought there was a portion of skin after of the main spar before you reached the wing locker hinge, but on reinspection I see that the hinge for the locker IS AT the main spar, there for, NO LOAD is being distributed in that area which would keep the spar in alignment. THE ONLY resisting force to keep the spar in alignment in that area is the compressive force of the nose skin, which we already know is considerably less than a tension load.



And as Forrest Gump would say if he was an aeronautical engineer, "And that's all I have to say about that."



[quote="ggower_99(at)yahoo.com"]One thing that gives me trust in the design are the lots of hours that some of the older 601 XL have already acumulated.   Not mentioning the previous 601 series (HD; HDS, UL).

   

  The factory prototype  has the same wings since his first flight and is a plane that is flying every day as a demo,  also travels a lot to Fly ins and Aviation events...

   

  I am also waiting for the results of the investigations of this accidents, I dont know how long they might take to be released,  mean time, I will continue building and will fly mine when finished.   

  Yes,  I am extra carefull with our building process and double check every step,  I want to be sure that I build it safe in my side.   

   

   

  Saludos

  Gary Gower

  Flying from Chapala, Mexico

  701 912S   Flying

  601 XL  Jab 3300  building.



annken100 <annken100> wrote:

  [quote]--> Zenith-List message posted by: "annken100" 



The issue of wing failures and the safety of the 601 design has been hashed out, debated, speculated on, and generally beaten to death in previous threads. A simple search of the archives will bring you up to speed.



Not being a structural, mechanical, or aeronautical engineer, I can't say with any authority that the design is safe or unsafe. However, the few past wing failures appear to be a result of pilot error or ambiguous mechanical defects. No one knows for sure.



The conclusion I draw is that the 601 is safe based on the ample number of planes that are flying that haven't had wing failures. Considering that most 601's are assembled by amateur airplane Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  	  Quote: 	
		  [b]

ZenithDemo.bmp

Description:

Filesize:

425.19 KB

Viewed:

704 Time(s)

larry(at)macsmachine.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject: 601 and wing failiers

Hi Andy,

Minor corrections are needed here. On the HD and HDS, the wings are 

thick, so the corresponding size of the spars is responsible for the 

strength of the wing.

On the wing lockers, the HD and HDS lockers are also located in the 

wings, but have little to do with the strength of the structures.  The 

XL has the thinner

wing and spar that needs to support the same airframe weight and often 

larger engines.  Having cantilevered a thinner and longer section to the 

fuselage does place more leverage on the bolted center spar and 

attaching structure. This is what has made flight loading or incorrect 

attachment or lack of proper bolting much more critical to the safety of 

the aircraft.  The strength of the wing is not affected by lockers as 

the wings appear to have folded at fuselage connections.

Wing skins that form the D-section with the front spar and to a lesser 

degree, the rear spar are the load bearing members and the skins only 

serve to box it up and lock up the geometry for flight.



Zenith has posted pictures of the load testing, and essentially proves 

the structure valid to published values.  Only poor piloting or 

construction can undo that argument, so I'd not be inclined to worry 

about the wings.

 

Larry McFarland  at www.macsmachine.com



ashontz wrote:

[quote] 



 Is this the factory demo plane. It DOES NOT APPEAR to have the wing lockers. Personally, I'm very suspicious of the wing lockers. Granted, they may be fine in testing, but if the accident planes failed due to over stressing that would be where the stress would accumulate most, right at the wing locker area. Skins in tension are strong, skins in compression, or areas in compression where there are no skins, like the wing locker, would be particularly prone to failure first. If there is anything wrong with this design, I'd say this is it. I'd have to guess the wing is considerable stronger without the wing locker. Eliminate the locker and you eliminate one more stress point in an area that's already fairly stressed as it is as well as being even more diminished in capacity to deal with compression forces due to the locker. It would be interesting to see if these wings that failed also had wing lockers. Seems as those the wong locker idea is a carry-over from the 601HD wing loc!

  ker, the difference though is that the TRUE cantilever part of the wing on the HD is outboard of the wing locker area due to the fact that the wing on the HD is a three part deal, the 8 foot center section and two 8' outboard panels, both of which are solid and shorter and the wing locker is essentially part of the center wing section, not part of the seperate and shorter wing panels.



 [quote="ggower_99(at)yahoo.com"]One thing that gives me trust in the design are the lots of hours that some of the older 601 XL have already acumulated.   Not mentioning the previous 601 series (HD; HDS, UL).

    

   The factory prototype  has the same wings since his first flight and is a plane that is flying every day as a demo,  also travels a lot to Fly ins and Aviation events...

    

   I am also waiting for the results of the investigations of this accidents, I dont know how long they might take to be released,  mean time, I will continue building and will fly mine when finished.   

   Yes,  I am extra carefull with our building process and double check every step,  I want to be sure that I build it safe in my side.   

    

    

   Saludos

   Gary Gower

   Flying from Chapala, Mexico

   701 912S   Flying

   601 XL  Jab 3300  building.



 annken100  wrote:

    	  Quote: 	
		  



 The issue of wing failures and the safety of the 601 design has been hashed out, debated, speculated on, and generally beaten to death in previous threads.



 --------

 Andy Shontz

 CH601XL - Corvair

 www.mykitlog.com/ashontz

amyvega2005(at)earthlink.
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: 601 and wing failiers

LArry,

my understanding and we can have Sebastian verify, is that the XL wing spar is the same as the other models, however they turned it forward with top side liening toward the wing front.  That results in the wing slightly forward swept.  SAme wings. different foil tapering on trailing edge and leading as well.



Juan



--

amyvega2005(at)earthlink.
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: 601 and wing failiers

for the ecception of the engine falling off of one, I believe the 601 pilots need to be cognisant of Cruise speed versus Manauvering speed.  And G loading on a full weighted plane versus light weighted.  Two guys in a fully loaded plane at cruise speed yanking and banking are asking for trouble. Manauveriung at 103 mph or below and I have spun the plane, done wing overs, tail slid, no problems.  You will never catch me crankin and Bankin like that with full load of gas and a fellow fatman.



Juan



--

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject: Re: 601 and wing failiers

I thought I saw the wing lockers in the HD in the center spar. My bad. Still, they're shorter wing panels.



Anyway, I'm done over analyzing the XL wing, but personally, I won't install the wing lockers. Something about it from a "seat of your pants" engineering style, it just looks "not right" to me. I also think making some other changes like the 15 gallon tanks which puts a nose rib out of alignment with a rear rib, especially in conjunction with a wing locker and a nose skin made of shorter skins is asking for trouble. Any one of them on it's own isn't a problem (except the wing locker in my opinion), but combine all three and it's a potential recipe for disaster.



I plan on completing my wings with no wing locker, 12 gallon tanks, and only one change, a two piece nose skin instead of one full 12 foot span and have the two over lap two rib stations. That's simply so that if I ever have to get to the tanks it'll be a little easier, plus it'll be easier fitting and forming shorter nose skins.

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 7:38 pm Post subject: Re: 601 and wing failiers

I thought I read in one of the reports that they observed some S bends in the spar in what sounded like some distance from the root. I could be wrong though. Again, being that they don't give any real specifics or photos it's hard to say what they were actually looking at. Like you say, the wing is thinner and yet has to support the same airframe if not a little more so there is more stress there.



Just out of curiosity, you may want to go back and read one of those NTSB narratives that describes the spar in more detail, it sounded like the S-bend in the spar was further out. I could be wrong. Then again, you can't even tell if it occurred pre or post crash. I'm just speculating, not to scare anyone or anything, just as a heads up. I think the wing is plenty strong, but enough things can be done to it, possibly in conjunction, that can take away from that that's good to be aware of. I'm going to pass on the wing locker.



[quote="larry(at)macsmachine.com"]Hi Andy,

Minor corrections are needed here. On the HD and HDS, the wings are 

thick, so the corresponding size of the spars is responsible for the 

strength of the wing.

On the wing lockers, the HD and HDS lockers are also located in the 

wings, but have little to do with the strength of the structures.  The 

XL has the thinner

wing and spar that needs to support the same airframe weight and often 

larger engines.  Having cantilevered a thinner and longer section to the 

fuselage does place more leverage on the bolted center spar and 

attaching structure. This is what has made flight loading or incorrect 

attachment or lack of proper bolting much more critical to the safety of 

the aircraft.  The strength of the wing is not affected by lockers as 

the wings appear to have folded at fuselage connections.

Wing skins that form the D-section with the front spar and to a lesser 

degree, the rear spar are the load bearing members and the skins only 

serve to box it up and lock up the geometry for flight.



Zenith has posted pictures of the load testing, and essentially proves 

the structure valid to published values.  Only poor piloting or 

construction can undo that argument, so I'd not be inclined to worry 

about the wings.

 

Larry McFarland  at www.macsmachine.com



ashontz wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Is this the factory demo plane. It DOES NOT APPEAR to have the wing lockers. Personally, I'm very suspicious of the wing lockers. Granted, they may be fine in testing, but if the accident planes failed due to over stressing that would be where the stress would accumulate most, right at the wing locker area. Skins in tension are strong, skins in compression, or areas in compression where there are no skins, like the wing locker, would be particularly prone to failure first. If there is anything wrong with this design, I'd say this is it. I'd have to guess the wing is considerable stronger without the wing locker. Eliminate the locker and you eliminate one more stress point in an area that's already fairly stressed as it is as well as being even more diminished in capacity to deal with compression forces due to the locker. It would be interesting to see if these wings that failed also had wing lockers. Seems as those the wong locker idea is a carry-over from the 601HD wing loc!

  ker, the difference though is that the TRUE cantilever part of the wing on the HD is outboard of the wing locker area due to the fact that the wing on the HD is a three part deal, the 8 foot center section and two 8' outboard panels, both of which are solid and shorter and the wing locker is essentially part of the center wing section, not part of the seperate and shorter wing panels.



 [quote="ggower_99(at)yahoo.com"]One thing that gives me trust in the design are the lots of hours that some of the older 601 XL have already acumulated.   Not mentioning the previous 601 series (HD; HDS, UL).

    

   The factory prototype  has the same wings since his first flight and is a plane that is flying every day as a demo,  also travels a lot to Fly ins and Aviation events...

    

   I am also waiting for the results of the investigations of this accidents, I dont know how long they might take to be released,  mean time, I will continue building and will fly mine when finished.   

   Yes,  I am extra carefull with our building process and double check every step,  I want to be sure that I build it safe in my side.   

    

    

   Saludos

   Gary Gower

   Flying from Chapala, Mexico

   701 912S   Flying

   601 XL  Jab 3300  building.



 annken100  wrote:

    	  Quote: 	
		  



 The issue of wing failures and the safety of the 601 design has been hashed out, debated, speculated on, and generally beaten to death in previous threads.



 --------

 Andy Shontz

 CH601XL - Corvair

 www.mykitlog.com/ashontz

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum