Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

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

British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

ernieth(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:01 am Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

Hi, 

The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should understand what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL



Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are carried by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the plane out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far. 

 

Do Not Archive.

E.



On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:51 AM, Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com (pchapman(at)ionsys.com)> wrote:

[quote] --> Zenith-List message posted by: Peter Chapman <pchapman(at)ionsys.com (pchapman(at)ionsys.com)>

 

 At 13:14 11-05-07, you wrote:

 

 >--> Zenith-List message posted by: "PatrickW" <pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com (pwhoyt(at)yahoo.com)>

 >

 >Just got an email alert of another one that went down in the UK.

 >

 >Yahoo! Alerts Yahoo! News - My Alerts - Edit Alert

 >Friday, May 11, 2007 9:10 AM PDT

 >

 >Wing spar failed in plane crash

 >Yorkshire Post Today Fri, 11 May 2007 5:25 AM PDT

 >TWO men who died when a light aircraft plummeted to the ground in a

 >ball of flames were the victims of a break in the plane's wing

 >structure, a report has revealed. (11/05/2007 10:21:12)

 

 Synopsis:

 http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/may_2007/zenair_ch601ul__g_yoxi.cfm

 Report:

 http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Zenair%20CH601UL,%20G-YOXI%2005-07.pdf

 

 Haven't read it in detail, but they believe a hard pull up from a low

 pass (possibly to avoid wires) was a cause.

 Still one can always question how much extra margin one has in any

 airplane. It can be nice if a gap between Yield and Ultimate stress

 allows a pilot to come back home alive, even if the wings are bent...

 

 According to the British AAIB, it was a CH-601 UL, built from a Czech

 Aircraft Works Quick Build kit.

 

 Given the frustration voiced here with the US FAA, over another accident,

 it is very interesting to note that the AAIB report provides some

 analysis of the nature of the structural failure, that also includes

 engineering input from the manufacturer.

 

 

 Peter Chapman

 Toronto, ON           601 HDS  /  912  /  C-GZDC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 [b]

carlossa52(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:52 am Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

Just an observation: the UK report is about a CH601-UL, not XL. The wing is similar to the CH601-HD, which is a design different from the XL. The pictures in the PDF show this clearly.



Carlos

CH601-HD, plans



 On 12/03/2008, ernie <ernieth(at)gmail.com (ernieth(at)gmail.com)> wrote:[quote] Hi, 

The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should understand what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL



Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are carried by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the plane out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far. 

  

[b]

daveaustin2(at)primus.ca
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:24 am Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

I agree with you Carlos, and the report also showed  that it is of no use to randomly increase the strength of anything until the  weak link is determined.  Extra ribs and no baggage compartment would not  have saved that a/c.  Nor would a ballistic parachute have saved the  occupants.

 There can be good hope that the Australian  authorities will do as good an investigation as the CAA in Britain did and then  we will know.

 Dave Austin  601HDS - 912, Spitfire Mk  VIII

    [quote][b]

ernieth(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:26 am Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

Hello,



I think my point is maneuvering speed. 

If your canopy is hit by a bird at 120 knots and you yank all the way back on the controls you are in trouble.

This document is a good write up on what not to do with your CH601-<__>  plane.

 Do not archive

E.



On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Carlos Sa <carlossa52(at)gmail.com (carlossa52(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

[quote] Just an observation: the UK report is about a CH601-UL, not XL. The wing is similar to the CH601-HD, which is a design different from the XL. The pictures in the PDF show this clearly.



Carlos

CH601-HD, plans 



 On 12/03/2008, ernie <ernieth(at)gmail.com (ernieth(at)gmail.com)> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		    Hi, 

The UK accident report is very well written, and everyone should understand what went wrong in this accident, and how not to fly your XL



Following the link below to the uk report. The majority of loads are carried by the front spar, section E being critical. This pilot was flying the plane out of its normal operating range, and pushed it to far. 

   



	
[b]

amyvega2005(at)earthlink.
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:21 am Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

All,

read the report.  First to the guys looking for third party stress analysis, you have it in the report, so save your money.



Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the manuavering speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in high G load.  As I said before, and again reiterate:  the plane is safe, its the pilot, you need to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not there for to fill up paper space in your POH!



Cruise speed is cruise speed.  Manauvering speed is that! a speed at which the plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the plane.



fly the plane by the numbers.  This accident can happen to ANY aircraft not flown by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300!  in the EXTAR 300 POH it is clear, Accrobatics limited to under a certain weight and speed.  



Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers, this is plain english.



Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers.  Get too comfy, and well, you know the rest.



Juan



--

Iberplanes

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 174
Location: Igualada - Barcelona - Spain

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

Where´s the report? Can you submit the link? Please.



Thanks in advance.



Alberto Martin

Iberplanes IGL

http://www.iberplanes.es

Igualada - Barcelona - España



---

_________________
Alberto Martin
601 XL - Jabiru 3300
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain

haven

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 19
Location: Kansas City MO

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:49 am Post subject: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

The link is in the first post.

bill_dom(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

Juan,



The accident in the UK is of no concern to us and it is not what have prompted this discussion. In this case it was concluded that the plane was overstressed beyond its limits, furthermore, this plane was a 601UL so whatever happened there, does not apply to us building or flying XL since the wing is completely different. 



The concern with the XL is that there have been 3 confirmed structural failures and 2 unconfirmed ones. The difference between the XL wing failures and all the others is that the XL incidents have been so far inconclusive. 



Since the third accident last year, I've been searched and read lots of reports about this type of failure in other airplanes. What I have found is that in all the other cases, metallurgical  analysis have proved that overstressing was the cause. This included certificated as well as AB wing failure cases.



William Dominguez

Zodiac 601XL Plans

Miami  Florida

http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom

Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net> wrote:[quote] --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega 



All,

read the report.  First to the guys looking for third party stress analysis, you have it in the report, so save your money.



Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the manuavering speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in high G load.  As I said before, and again reiterate:  the plane is safe, its the pilot, you need to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not there for to fill up paper space in your POH!



Cruise speed is cruise speed.  Manauvering speed is that! a speed at which the plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the plane.



fly the plane by the  numbers.  This accident can happen to ANY aircraft not flown by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300!  in the EXTAR 300 POH it is clear, Accrobatics limited to under a certain weight and speed.  



Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers, this is plain english.



Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers.  Get too comfy, and well, you know the rest.



Juan



--

MHerder

Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 143
Location: Fort Worth TX

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

I don't think that this particular case has much to do with the incidents in question but.....  I think its interesting to note the differences in the report provided in the UK versus what the NTSB provides.  Hopefully the Aussies will do such an in depth investigation without some sort of BS conclusion like....



"The probable cause is the pilots failure to avoid hitting the ground"  Well no shit.  I'm glad my taxes fund such efforts.

_________________
Zodiac 601 HD
Jabiru 3300
Wood Sensinich 64x47
Finally Flying

tigerrick(at)mindspring.c
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

Hi, Juan, et al.



I have it on pretty good authority that the failure modes we've recently seen strongly suggest negative G loading of the wing and spar way beyond design limits.  This can be done with a sudden forward stick (down elevator) deflection.  Since there's 30 degrees of down elevator available in the 601, well more than actually is needed, this can create negative G loading beyond limits causing wing/spar deformation or even failure if done sharply.



The two obvious solutions are to fly the airplane as it was designed, and for extra insurance, install an elevator stop that limits down travel to 15 degrees or so.  The 601 has all sorts of down elevator authority, perhaps to counteract improper rear CG loading of the baggage compartment or lighter engines, but way more than is actually needed in normal flight operations.



You can also make sudden turns in your car at high speeds, inducing loss of control with fatal results.  But we just don't do these things conciously.  And I suspect that the pilots in the 601s in question didn't do it consciously, either, but as a response to a sudden in-flight emergency such as a bird strike.



Not to rain on anyone's parade here, but I'm gonna wait to see what the  guys at Zenith have to say before signing on to pay an outside source to review the design.



Rick Lindstrom

N42KP Zenvair



--

amyvega2005(at)earthlink.
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:18 am Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

William,

to say the incident post is dispositive is frankly misguided.  A zenith crashed based on the same situation that occured in the other cases.  Read the report, and stick to flying and enjoying a great plane that is very well desinged, I will.



Juan



--

tjs22t(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

 	  Quote: 	
		   I have it on pretty good authority that  the failure modes we've recently seen strongly suggest negative G loading of the  wing and spar way beyond design limits.  

  
	


 You wouldn't want to back  this up with some actual sources? facts? design reviews? published  reports?  Anything at all to suggest that this is no more than pissin' in  the wind???  Didn't think so.

  

 do not archive because the  sky is falling!

    [quote][b]

ernieth(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:04 pm Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

It is a very similar aircraft, flow beyond its limits. 

I believe it makes very good reading even if the wing is different.

everyone should read it if they fly a 601-<__> that they built.

Do not archive



 On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:36 AM, William Dominguez <bill_dom(at)yahoo.com (bill_dom(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:

[quote] Juan,



The accident in the UK is of no concern to us and it is not what have prompted this discussion. In this case it was concluded that the plane was overstressed beyond its limits, furthermore, this plane was a 601UL so whatever happened there, does not apply to us building or flying XL since the wing is completely different. 

 

The concern with the XL is that there have been 3 confirmed structural failures and 2 unconfirmed ones. The difference between the XL wing failures and all the others is that the XL incidents have been so far inconclusive. 

 

Since the third accident last year, I've been searched and read lots of reports about this type of failure in other airplanes. What I have found is that in all the other cases, metallurgical  analysis have proved that overstressing was the cause. This included certificated as well as AB wing failure cases.

 

William Dominguez

Zodiac 601XL Plans

Miami  Florida

http://www.geocities.com/bill_dom

Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net (amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net)> wrote:[quote]  --> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega 



All,

read the report.  First to the guys looking for third party stress analysis, you have it in the report, so save your money.



Secondly, the report clearly concludes the pilot flew the plane past the manuavering speed into cruise speed area and manauvered the plane in high G load.  As I said before, and again reiterate:  the plane is safe, its the pilot, you need to fly it by the numbers. the V speed Limits are not there for to fill up paper space in your POH!

 

Cruise speed is cruise speed.  Manauvering speed is that! a speed at which the plane will take the designed G limits up to a certain weight in the plane.



fly the plane by the  numbers.  This accident can happen to ANY aircraft not flown by the numbers, even an EXTRA 300!  in the EXTAR 300 POH it is clear, Accrobatics limited to under a certain weight and speed.  



Save the rocket science responses from the other arm chair engineers, this is plain english.

 

Great plane, great design, pilot needs to fly by the numbers.  Get too comfy, and well, you know the rest.



Juan



--

Matt Ronics

Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 22

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

 	  tigerrick(at)mindspring.c wrote: 	
		  



Not to rain on anyone's parade here, but I'm gonna wait to see what the  guys at Zenith have to say before signing on to pay an outside source to review the design.



	




While considering the 601Xl and 701, I called Zenith on exactly this.  This was after they did the negative G load static testing.



When I called, I was told that Nick was the only one who would speak on this issue, and that Nick would call me when he was available.  Very professional, Nick called me back and answered all my questions.  To summarize the discussion, the underlying message was "testing complete, mission accomplished, don't worry about it."



This did not allay my concerns and I chose the 701.  I would would have built the 601HD concern-free but reasoned that the speed of the 601HD/S over the 701 was not significant (for my purposes) and that I like the short-field performance of the 701, video assistance, etc, over the HD designs.

tigerrick(at)mindspring.c
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

Jeez, Thomas.  Who put bitch flakes in your bowl this morning?



Because of my close association with a certain aviation periodical, and my promise not to steal anybody's thunder prematurely, I've commented as far as I can.



All I can say (right now) is that the powers that be at Zenith are very aware of this issue, have devoted significant resources to precisely identify the failure mode, and will most likely be going public with their findings in short order.



To heap scorn on Zenith, assume they're doing nothing, and commit to taking the design to an outside engineer for validation is premature, in my opinion.  The Zenith guys have no shortage of professional concern and integrity, and need to be given the chance to respond.



In the mean time, it would serve us all well to take a deep breath, chill, and give those wing tips a good shake during preflight if we have any reservations about flying.



"Pissing in the wind?"  I await your apology.



Rick



--

barcusc(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

Rick,



Yours is a thoughtful response and I suspect there could be some truth in 

it, however, that is the type of information I want to hear from the 

designer. If this post came from Zenith I would have a whole different 

perspective. If there is the chance that is the most likely reason you would 

think they would advise or suggest a maximum degree of down travel on heavy 

installations like the Continental or Corvair engines.

Clyde Barcus

---

lwinger

Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 229
Location: Tustin, CA

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

Rick,

  

 I understand that you want to wait "to see what the  guys at Zenith have to say before signing on to pay an outside source to review the design."  My concern is that they apparently feel they have said everything there is to say.

   

 Do you know for a fact that they are going to say anything more on the subject, other than "testing complete, mission accomplished, case closed"?

  

 Larry Winger



  

 Do Not Archive

 



 



  [quote][b]

_________________
Larry Winger
Tustin, CA
Plans building 601XL/650 with Corvair
Installing fuel system
www.mykitlog.com/lwinger

lwinger

Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 229
Location: Tustin, CA

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

Asked and answered before I sent "Send".  Should have checked my inbox.

  

 Larry Winger

  

 Do Not Archive

 On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Larry Winger <larrywinger(at)gmail.com (larrywinger(at)gmail.com)> wrote:

 [quote]   Rick,

  

 I understand that you want to wait "to see what the  guys at Zenith have to say before signing on to pay an outside source to review the design."  My concern is that they apparently feel they have said everything there is to say.

   

 Do you know for a fact that they are going to say anything more on the subject, other than "testing complete, mission accomplished, case closed"?

  

 Larry Winger



  

 Do Not Archive

 



 



[b]

_________________
Larry Winger
Tustin, CA
Plans building 601XL/650 with Corvair
Installing fuel system
www.mykitlog.com/lwinger

Tim Juhl

Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 488
Location: "Thumb" of Michigan

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

This is getting interesting. The few hints Rick provided help make sense out of some of the other information that has surfaced.



Rick, care to tell me which periodical I should subscribe to?



Tim



do not archive

_________________
______________
CFII
Champ L16A flying
Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A
Almost done! It'll fly in spring!

swater6

Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 52
Location: Minnesota-KMIC/KANE

Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 1:23 pm Post subject: Re: British 601 Crash (was: 601 Crash)

Rick,

Thanks for the update. Please let us know when you can share more.



For those of you that don't read Kitplanes magazine, Rick is the one that built the first XL from a quickbuild kit and did a great eight series report on the build last year.  You also may have seen it at Sun-n-Fun last year. 



I think he's got some credibility as someone with potential inside info.  While I know we all want info now (me too), I can understand why Zenith would want to be fully prepared before commenting publicly.  (Although I hope the response and info is better than last time)  



Now, Maybe Mark Townsend from can-zac can chime in too???? please???  



PS. I'm still planning on making a lot of aluminum chips in my basement this weekend....

_________________
601 XL kit N596SW reserved
Tail, control surfaces and both wings complete. Now working on fuselage

www.scottwaters.com

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