Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - new statement from CH?

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

new statement from CH?

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:17 am Post subject: new statement from CH?

gentlemen; there is drastic difference between the +/-6G stated on the front page one of my plans (still current release page btw) and +6/-3 as stated in the clipping attributed to CH!



  Dave Downey

  Harleysville (SE) PA

  100 HP Corvair

   [quote][b]

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

MHerder

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

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:01 am Post subject: Re: new statement from CH?

Taken directly from the AMD website: www.newplane.com



AMD ZODIAC 

PERFORMANCE



(AT GROSS)

 CONTINENTAL 0-200       (100 HP) SPECIFICATIONS (STANDARD)

  CONTINENTAL 0-200   (100 HP)

 

CRUISE SPEED (TAS)

 130 MPH

 CABIN WIDTH

 44 INCHES

 

STALL NO FLAPS (LSA)

 51 MPH

 EMPTY WEIGHT

 770 LBS

 

STALL WITH FLAPS 

 44 MPH

 GROSS WEIGHT

 1320 LBS

 

RATE OF CLIMB 

 1,000 FPM

 USEFUL LOAD

 550 LBS

 

FUEL CAPACITY

 30 GAL

 DESIGN LOAD (ULT)

 +6/-3 G

 

ENDURANCE  5.5 HRS

 SERVICE CEILING  12,000 FT

 

RANGE (MILES)

 715 MILES

 WING AREA

 132 SQ. FT

 

This is a good question, I have wondered the same thing on several occasions.  My drawings issued in September of 07 also state Plus or Minus 6G.  Obviously this is a large discrepancy.  What loads were the airframe brought up to in the tests?  Did they only test to +6G -3G in June or did they go +-6?

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

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

Gig Giacona

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

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: Re: new statement from CH?

I just e-mailed this question to Zenith. So let's see what they have to say. I'll post their reply.

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

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

Tim Juhl

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

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: Re: new statement from CH?

My plans list ultimate loads of +/- 6 g.  I would hope that if the limits have been changed that Zenith would share that info with builder / operators to avoid any confusion.



General Info on loading:  Limiting loads and ultimate loads



To receive type approval certification the design of a general aviation or ultralight aircraft must conform with certain standards, among which are the in-flight manoeuvring loads plus the turbulence induced loads which the structure must be able to sustain. The turbulence loads are called the gust induced loads. FAR part 23 is the recognised world standard for light aircraft certification and the following is an extract: "... limit loads are the maximum loads to be expected in service [i.e. the highest load expected in normal operations] and ultimate loads are limit loads multiplied by a safety factor [of 1.5]. The structure must be able to support limit loads without detrimental, permanent deformation. At any load up to limit loads, the deformation may not interfere with safe operation. The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure for at least three seconds ..." 



The minimum positive limit load factor which an aircraft in the 'normal' operational category (at maximum take-off weight) must be designed to withstand is 3.8g. For a non-aerobatic aircraft the negative limit load factor is 0.4 times the positive limit which makes it 1.5g for the normal category.  The ultimate loads for the normal category are +5.7g and -2.25g. Amateur builders should aim to meet the same minimum values for limiting load and ultimate load factors. [At +6/ -3 the XL exceeds this requirement]



For aircraft with aerobatic capability the negative limit load factor must be 0.5 times the positive value. The 'utility' category (which includes training aircraft with spin certification) limit loads are +4.4g and -2.2g while the 'acrobatic' category limit loads are +6.0g and -3.0g. 



Tim

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

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

planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:14 pm Post subject: new statement from CH?

please note that the 3 seconds without failure at ultimate is exactly that - if the structure fails at 3.01 seconds under steady state ultimate load it passed. There is no requirement for repeated capability. The rate of load application and incrementation is also generally used to make the test as benign as possible where transient loads resulting from turbulence or pilot error are generally pulse loads...



Tim Juhl <juhl(at)avci.net> wrote:[quote] --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Juhl" 



My plans list ultimate loads of +/- 6 g.  I would hope that if the limits have been changed that Zenith would share that info with builder / operators to avoid any confusion.



General Info on loading:  Limiting loads and ultimate loads



To receive type approval certification the design of a general aviation or  ultralight aircraft must conform with certain standards, among which are the in-flight manoeuvring loads plus the turbulence induced loads which the structure must be able to sustain. The turbulence loads are called the gust induced loads. FAR part 23 is the recognised world standard for light aircraft certification and the following is an extract: "... limit loads are the maximum loads to be expected in service [i.e. the highest load expected in normal operations] and ultimate loads are limit loads multiplied by a safety factor [of 1.5]. The structure must be able to support limit loads without detrimental, permanent deformation. At any load up to limit loads, the deformation may not interfere with safe operation. The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure for at least three seconds ..." 



The minimum positive limit load factor which an aircraft in the 'normal' operational category (at maximum take-off weight) must be designed to withstand  is 3.8g. For a non-aerobatic aircraft the negative limit load factor is 0.4 times the positive limit which makes it 1.5g for the normal category.  The ultimate loads for the normal category are +5.7g and -2.25g. Amateur builders should aim to meet the same minimum values for limiting load and ultimate load factors. [At +6/ -3 the XL exceeds this requirement]



For aircraft with aerobatic capability the negative limit load factor must be 0.5 times the positive value. The 'utility' category (which includes training aircraft with spin certification) limit loads are +4.4g and -2.2g while the 'acrobatic' category limit loads are +6.0g and -3.0g. 



Tim



--------

______________

CFII

Champ L16A flying

Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A

Working on fuselage





Read this topic online  [quote][b]

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

ch701builder

Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 119
Location: N38.9947,W105.1305,ALT. 9,100'

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: new statement from CH?

Just my $0.02 worth. Here is a video of Boeing doing a "static" load test to their 777 series wing. It seems in this test that there is no account for turbulence, it is just a pure wing deflection until failure test

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: new statement from CH?

We do test like that - but no one here assumes that the static load is the big driver in the certification of the plane. Most of our structures are fatigue limited.



Keith Ashcraft <keith.ashcraft(at)itt.com> wrote:[quote]       Just my $0.02 worth. Here is a video of Boeing doing a "static" load test to their 777 series wing. It seems in this test that there is no account for turbulence, it is just a pure wing deflection until failure test. 

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o

 

 Don't know if this helps or hurts, or has any bearing on this discussion, but it is just a data point.

 

 

 Back to building my 701.

 

 Keith

 N 38.9947

 W 105.1305

 Alt. 9,100'

  ***********************************************************************************************

 

 

 David Downey wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		  please note that the 3 seconds without failure at ultimate is exactly that - if the structure fails at 3.01 seconds under steady state ultimate load it passed. There is no requirement  for repeated capability. The rate of load application and incrementation is also generally used to make the test as benign as possible where transient loads resulting from turbulence or pilot error are generally pulse loads...

 

 Tim Juhl <juhl(at)avci.net> (juhl(at)avci.net) wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		   --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Tim Juhl" 

 

 My plans list ultimate loads of +/- 6 g. I would  hope that if the limits have been changed that Zenith would share that info with builder / operators to avoid any confusion.

 

 General Info on loading: Limiting loads and ultimate loads

 

 To receive type approval certification the design of a general aviation or ultralight aircraft must conform with certain standards, among which are the in-flight manoeuvring loads plus the turbulence induced loads which the structure must be able to sustain.  The turbulence loads are called the gust induced loads. FAR part 23 is the recognised world standard for light aircraft certification and the following is an extract: "... limit loads are the maximum loads to be expected in service [i.e. the highest load expected  in normal operations] and ultimate loads are limit loads multiplied by a safety factor [of 1.5]. The structure must be able to support limit loads without detrimental, permanent deformation. At any load up to limit loads, the deformation may not interfere   with safe operation. The structure must be able to support ultimate loads without failure for at least three seconds ..." 

 

 The minimum positive limit load factor which an aircraft in the 'normal' operational category (at maximum take-off weight) must be designed to withstand is 3.8g. For a non-aerobatic aircraft the negative limit load factor is 0.4 times the positive limit which  makes it 1.5g for the normal category. The ultimate loads for the normal category are +5.7g and -2.25g. Amateur builders should aim to meet the same minimum values for limiting load and ultimate load factors. [At +6/ -3 the XL exceeds this requirement]

 

 For aircraft with aerobatic capability the negative limit load factor must be 0.5 times the positive value. The 'utility' category (which includes training aircraft with spin certification) limit loads are +4.4g and -2.2g while the 'acrobatic' category limit  loads are +6.0g and -3.0g. 

 

 Tim

 

 --------

  ______________

 CFII

 Champ L16A flying

 Zodiac XL - Jabiru 3300A

 Working on fuselage

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online   	  Quote: 	
		    ttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List ics.com .matronics.com/contribution  	
 	
 	
 

 -- 

 *************************************      *************************************

 Keith Ashcraft

 ITT Industries

 Advanced Engineering & Sciences

 5009 Centennial Blvd.

 Colorado Springs, CO

                       80919

 (719) 599-1787 -- work

 (719) 332-4364 -- cell

 keith.ashcraft(at)itt.com (keith.ashcraft(at)itt.com)

 

 

 

  This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be proprietary and are intended solely  [quote][b]

- The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

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