Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Dutch XL crash findings

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

Dutch XL crash findings
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:04 pm Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

I have said all along it was flutter and I still believe and (Hope) it is.  I also believe it is exaggerated when the cable tensions are not correct. I  adjusted the one I flew back to Florida and found the tension to be 15 lbs and  if anyone wants to know it took 31/2 turns of all 3 turnbuckles to gain 32 lbs  on the cables. I didn't measure the fine tuning of the balance   cable. 

 I will tell you that there was no difference whatsoever in the feel of the  stick after the adjustment. Even though I knew they were right when we departed  for Fl. you can bet your sweet ass I had my eye on the right aileron and it was  in the back of my mind. I think the push pull tube is a great idea and it takes  out the possibility of the cables being loose. Most don't have access to a cable  tension meter and will just arbitrarily tighten them which could be just as  bad.

  

 I don't know if balancing them will help or not but I wish they would have  done that on the new 650 because it would have been the perfect time to do it.  Along with adding push pull tubes. I am not of the opinion that all of the  aircraft were over stressed either. If it had been 1 or 2 maybe but it would  seem to me from watching testing of a wing until it failed there is  some major distortion before it gives way to the stress and I just don't see  where that would have gone un noticed during a pre flight. To say only the  attach points of the wings were stressed with no other signs anywhere I just  don't see.

  

 I also don't think that Zenith could ever take any position other than  there isn't a problem because any other position would have attorneys beating  down there door and we certainly don't want to see that. I am building them and  will continue to build them and support them. That said, I am adding cherry max  rivets to the first 3 aileron attach holes and making sure to have the proper  cable tension at all times.

  

 These are my opinions and even though I have built 3 601's I am not saying  I know anymore about this subject than the scratch builder on his first plane so  take what I say as just that another opinion.

  

  

  

 Jeff  Garrett

Louisville Ky.

601XL N962T Aerolite Corvair  90%

601XL  N524B Aerolite Corvair  155 Hrs

601XL N2257  Aerolite  Corvair  85 Hrs

www.aeroliteproducts.com

www.project601xl.com

www.aerolite.camstreams.com



Do  not archive



A Good Credit 15855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO62"> See yours in just 2 easy steps!

  [quote][b]

dougsire

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 37

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:13 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

Jeff,



What type of Cherrymax rivets are you using?   I'm planning on using solid or Cherrymax in some areas, but I'm a bit confused by the different types (Aluminum, Monel, INCO).



Thanks,

Doug Sire

Billings, MT

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

Regardless of the cause, (most likely overstress from pilot error or shodding building in caparison to how Zenith would specifiy or build it themselves), one thing that is pretty consistent is HOW the wing breaks when it does break. That is:



near the root, top of spar buckling forward, as would be expected considering the slight forward cant to the spar. Personally, I'd rather see NO forward cant and I'm sure makes the wing slightly weaker than I'd prefer, but not weaker than the properly build design limitation, but whatever.



What that means is, if that's the weak link (not necessarily the problem), but the weak link in the wing itself, maybe double up on rivets in that area or use even better pulled rivets or possibly even bucked rivets. I'd also stay away from the 15 gallon tanks keeping all the ribs (rear and nose ribs) in line instead of offset around an extended tank. I wouldn't mess with multiple piece leading edge skins (ie. providing easier access to the fuel tank) and instead use just one continuous 12' leading edge skin, and I wouldn't mess with the wing locker. But that's just me.



Also, I'd be dead on with drilling the wing attach bolts to the center spar and I'd be sure to ream those holes to exact size too.



Once all that's done, I'd then keep an eye on the control cable tensions, (and pre-stretching them before installation), I'd balance the ailerons, install the aileron gussets Zenith just sent a notice out on, use the tennis balls as gust-locks, and then when I did go flying I'd drive the speed limit and not make any sudden moves. All that will probably help to keep the wings on.

Gig Giacona

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

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:09 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

 	  skyguynca wrote: 	
		   I sure they did stress calculations and 

measurements and tons of stuff they did not list because it has nothing to 

do with publishing the conclusion.



Lets not "read into" what is not there oh and if you know what day they came 

back from vacation and how many days they took off please list it and your 

source.



Lets try to leave comments like that out of they conversation for their is 

no proof they just came back adn that they have been on vacation since the 

accident.



How ever they have posted their report and I understand that the "601XL 

Club" (oh and i have 601XL plans too) is not happy with the findings. Well 

you have the right to challenge them with the Dutch investigating 

authorities, but you do not have the right to slander them and make 

statements insinuating that they did not do a investigation because they 

were on vacation and now just making stuff up to put in their "officail" 

report.



David M.

Petaluma, CA



--- 	




First I'm with both of the Jay's these guys need to show their work if they are going to make a statement that this or any plane is unsafe. 



As far as slandering them them. They are the ones doing the slandering by not basing their statements on facts that they are willing to provide. Hell, they don't even tell what kind of GPS was in the plane. For all we know it was some $50 special with accuracy of +/- 1000ft. I don't know that is the case but this quarter ass report sure didn't tell me otherwise.

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

z601(at)anemicaardvark.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:46 pm Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

I pretty much agree with most of the criticism I'm reading here of the report. 

Read superficially, it sounds as though one is being given a real report with 

facts. Read carefully, particularly with some knowlege of what facts there 

are, it reads like a poorly researched way of closing the discussion, 

substituting careful grammer and sentence structure for thorough analysis.



I'm forced to wonder if the author(s) weren't under pressure to get something 

out, having a lot of catchup to do after returning from vacation.



Please understand I'm not picking on some one government - this sort of thing 

happens all over. There are times to put a subject to sleep with carefully 

chosen words, because it does not merit too much examination, and the author 

is running out of time. Heck, I've done it!



But this isn't one of those times. We really need international cooperation, 

and more detailed information than we are being given.



==============================================

Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

=================================================

               Jim B. Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

           Instrument Rated Pilot

     General Radio Telephone Certificate

=================================================

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:53 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

Also, never mentioned the direction of turn, or the bank or the approximate speed. Also, 200 ft variation while turning??!!! That'd be some serious Gs (if it was positive Gs) and say a 30 degree bank angle, no? I'm trying to picture a small plane making a 360 degree turn next to say the empire state building (around 950ft?) and that turn varying by plus or minus 200 ft. It'd look like the pilot was drunk. Watching that I'd definitely be like "WTF!?".



 	  Gig Giacona wrote: 	
		   	  skyguynca wrote: 	
		   I sure they did stress calculations and 

measurements and tons of stuff they did not list because it has nothing to 

do with publishing the conclusion.



Lets not "read into" what is not there oh and if you know what day they came 

back from vacation and how many days they took off please list it and your 

source.



Lets try to leave comments like that out of they conversation for their is 

no proof they just came back adn that they have been on vacation since the 

accident.



How ever they have posted their report and I understand that the "601XL 

Club" (oh and i have 601XL plans too) is not happy with the findings. Well 

you have the right to challenge them with the Dutch investigating 

authorities, but you do not have the right to slander them and make 

statements insinuating that they did not do a investigation because they 

were on vacation and now just making stuff up to put in their "officail" 

report.



David M.

Petaluma, CA



--- 	




First I'm with both of the Jay's these guys need to show their work if they are going to make a statement that this or any plane is unsafe. 



As far as slandering them them. They are the ones doing the slandering by not basing their statements on facts that they are willing to provide. Hell, they don't even tell what kind of GPS was in the plane. For all we know it was some $50 special with accuracy of +/- 1000ft. I don't know that is the case but this quarter ass report sure didn't tell me otherwise.

aerobat

Joined: 07 Nov 2008
Posts: 21
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 2:54 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

This is from the Zenair Europe site



Neither the preliminary accident report nor the Dutch grounding-orders makes reference to the wreckage of PH-4B6. Although for the last three months, Zenair has received no word of new findings from the Dutch Safety Board, factory representatives were recently permitted to inspect the remains of the accident aircraft. Upon careful first-hand examination, we feel sufficient new evidence comes to light that suggests a very different sequence of events than the one proposed by witnesses. The investigation is on-going and we do not know what is currently being considered by investigators, nevertheless, we remain puzzled as to why the official position has not been revised and why the grounding orders remain unchanged.



Three observations in particular seem especially significant. This is what we saw:



1) The leading edge D-cells of both wings of the accident aircraft display remarkable similarities: From root to tip, the front skins of both wings show even and continuous impact damage consistent with straight-on impact. The main landing gear and nose gear strut were undamaged (one wheel fairing actually remains attached). This, along with the nature of the overall damage suggests that the aircraft likely contacted the water straight-on, but more upside down (wheels pointing up) than right-side up.



2) In the area where it passes through the fuselage, the aileron control cable of the wing that supposedly failed in the air is still cleanly threaded through its plastic fairlead which is still firmly riveted (paint is not even cracked) to the fuselage side. The aileron belcranks of both wings are undamaged and still properly secured. In other accidents where a wing was known to have “folded” in flight, aileron control cables ripped through the thin fuselage sides (in the direction of the folding wing) and the aileron belcranks were torn loose from the wing structure. 



3) At the rear spar attachment location, the fuselage tab was intact, as was the attachment bolt. It is the rear spar web which failed, but not as we have seen in other accidents where the failure has been attributed to static overload. In this case, the remaining portion of the spar channel and doubler (a washer-like piece still attached under the tight bolt-joint) shows evidence of failure from bending and tearing - rather than from straight “up”, “down” or “out” shear forces.



Considered together (the even crushing of both wings, the absence of aileron cables “ripping” through the aluminum fuselage sides and intact belcranks, and the failure mode of the wing’s rear attachment point), the wreckage seems to tell its own story as to the configuration of the aircraft just prior to impact…

jaybannist(at)cs.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:36 pm Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

VERY interesting ! !  Does this inspire confidence in the Dutch Safety Board's report, or what ?

 

 Jay in Dallas

 Do not archive

 

   

 

   

 

 --

n85ae

Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 403

Posted: Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:07 am Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

 	  dougsire wrote: 	
		  

What type of Cherrymax rivets are you using?   I'm planning on using solid or Cherrymax in some areas, but I'm a bit confused by the different types (Aluminum, Monel, INCO).

	




Doug - For what it's worth, you might be better off to buy a rivet gun and 

use solids. The Cherrymax rivets are good rivets, no doubt. But they are

so costly you won't shoot very many before you have out spent the cost 

of a gun. I bought a gun, and shot a lot of solids using a hammer with

a polished head as a bucking bar at pretty low cost. I've bought a couple

bucking bars now, as I find it is more convenient. Solids are easy to

shoot with just a little practice.



The AD solids are stronger than the CherryMax as well, and you can buy

them by the pound really cheap.



Regards,

Jeff Hays

paulrod36(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:41 am Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  The two part leading edge skins ought not to be a problem. Several  manufacturers do that. As long as the two skins meet (and overlap appropriately)  on a nose rib, and are properly riveted, the joint will be at least as strong as  the single piece. I agree with you on the forward cant to the spar, and I'd  certainly like the upper flange to be on the FORWARD face of the spar. If you  need to open up to do a repair, or get to the tank, you either have to open up  about 5 or 6 rivets behind the spar, or figure out how to remove the rivet stubs  rattling around in there.

  

 Paul Rodriguez

 [quote]   ---

Ron Lendon

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 685
Location: Clinton Twp., MI

Posted: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:58 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

Sabrina,



Are those your gussets on the outside of the skin?  I read the print that the gussets were inside the skin.  They are represented by a hidden line and that usually indicates behind the outer material.

_________________
Ron Lendon
WW Corvair with Roy's Garage 5th bearing
CH 601 XLB
N601LT - Flying
http://www.mykitlog.com/rlendon
Corvair Engine Prints:
https://sites.google.com/site/corvairenginedata/

rans6andrew

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Posts: 16
Location: Berks, UK

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:10 am Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

see latest on LAA website.  Looks as if they are going to detail what they have found fairly soon.  I guess they have found something or the grounding would be lifted now.



http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/



front page news items.



Andrew



who got his 601UL fuselage back from the paintshop at the weekend.

Gig Giacona

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

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:47 am Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

 	  rans6andrew wrote: 	
		  see latest on LAA website.  Looks as if they are going to detail what they have found fairly soon.  I guess they have found something or the grounding would be lifted now.



http://www.lightaircraftassociation.co.uk/



front page news items.



	




YOu got that from this?



 	  Quote: 	
		  Update - Zenair Incident - 19th Jan 2009



LAA Engineering has been in close and productive contact with the designer, Chris Heintz, and we are nearing the end of our investigation.  Members of the LAA Engineering Team will be meeting with Zenair Europe in the very near future to discuss some outstanding issues and move towards getting the type back in the air. 	


You are obviously better at reading between the lines than I am.

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

tonyplane(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:04 am Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

The "discussion of "outstanding issues" with Zenith Europe "might"  be that 

their  (Zenith Europe) interpretation of the physical evidence indicates the 

wings were probably still attached at time of impact.



See below:



Tony Graziano



XL/Jab: N493TG; 462 hrs



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



Update - Zenair Incident - 19th Jan 2009



LAA Engineering has been in close and productive contact with the designer, 

Chris Heintz, and we are nearing the end of our investigation.  Members of 

the LAA Engineering Team will be meeting with Zenair Europe in the very near 

future to discuss some outstanding issues and move towards getting the type 

back in the air.



ZENAIR EUROPE NEWS



Update of January 9, 2009

Neither the preliminary accident report nor the Dutch grounding-orders makes 

reference to the wreckage of PH-4B6. Although for the last three months, 

Zenair has received no word of new findings from the Dutch Safety Board, 

factory representatives were recently permitted to inspect the remains of 

the accident aircraft. Upon careful first-hand examination, we feel 

sufficient new evidence comes to light that suggests a very different 

sequence of events than the one proposed by witnesses. The investigation is 

on-going and we do not know what is currently being considered by 

investigators, nevertheless, we remain puzzled as to why the official 

position has not been revised and why the grounding orders remain unchanged



Three observations in particular seem especially significant. This is what 

we saw:



1) The leading edge D-cells of both wings of the accident aircraft display 

remarkable similarities: From root to tip, the front skins of both wings 

show even and continuous impact damage consistent with straight-on impact. 

The main landing gear and nose gear strut were undamaged (one wheel fairing 

actually remains attached). This, along with the nature of the overall 

damage suggests that the aircraft likely contacted the water straight-on, 

but more upside down (wheels pointing up) than right-side up.



2) In the area where it passes through the fuselage, the aileron control 

cable of the wing that supposedly failed in the air is still cleanly 

threaded through its plastic fairlead which is still firmly riveted (paint 

is not even cracked) to the fuselage side. The aileron belcranks of both 

wings are undamaged and still properly secured. In other accidents where a 

wing was known to have "folded" in flight, aileron control cables ripped 

through the thin fuselage sides (in the direction of the folding wing) and 

the aileron belcranks were torn loose from the wing structure.



3) At the rear spar attachment location, the fuselage tab was intact, as was 

the attachment bolt. It is the rear spar web which failed, but not as we 

have seen in other accidents where the failure has been attributed to static 

overload. In this case, the remaining portion of the spar channel and 

doubler (a washer-like piece still attached under the tight bolt-joint) 

shows evidence of failure from bending and tearing - rather than from 

straight "up", "down" or "out" shear forces.

Considered together (the even crushing of both wings, the absence of aileron 

cables "ripping" through the aluminum fuselage sides and intact belcranks, 

and the failure mode of the wing's rear attachment point), the wreckage 

seems to tell its own story as to the configuration of the aircraft just 

prior to impact

.---

rans6andrew

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Posts: 16
Location: Berks, UK

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:37 am Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

actually I am privvy to a bit little more than you could read between the lines but I have been prevented from spilling the beans for "tact and diplomacy" reasons.  Given the nature of the suspected problems I have been quite frustrated that nobody has been allowed to put the preliminary LAA investigation findings up on here.  Even if they turn out to be wrong,  preventing any further accidents until the proof is found would have been worth the inconvenience of a short grounding, IMHO. 



I did try to make a few of the members of this group think about the situation by highlighting the differences between the in-flight break up rates of the 601HD, HDS and UL models and the 601XL situation.  I hoped that this would show them that something is not quite right with the XL and that it probably goes beyond aileron cable tension issues.  This was posted under Re: 601 problems on 23 Dec 2008.



If I have been wrong, flame me, I have tried to do what I think is right.



Andrew.

_________________
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.

z601(at)anemicaardvark.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:02 pm Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

On Tuesday 20 January 2009 11:37, rans6andrew wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <andrewcattell(at)hotmail.com>



 actually I am privvy to a bit little more than you could read between the

 lines but I have been prevented from spilling the beans for "tact and

 diplomacy" reasons.  Given the nature of the suspected problems I have been

 quite frustrated that nobody has been allowed to put the preliminary LAA

 investigation findings up on here.  Even if they turn out to be wrong, 

 preventing any further accidents until the proof is found would have been

 worth the inconvenience of a short grounding, IMHO.



 I did try to make a few of the members of this group think about the

 situation by highlighting the differences between the in-flight break up

 rates of the 601HD, HDS and UL models and the 601XL situation.  I hoped

 that this would show them that something is not quite right with the XL and

 that it probably goes beyond aileron cable tension issues.  This was posted

 under Re: 601 problems on 23 Dec 2008.


	


Andrew, your logic was understood. The problem we may face is that the 601XLs 

here in the U.S. are not all necessarily built to the same standards as the 

601XLs in the U.K. and Europe.



I'm not sure here that we can throw all XLs and XL accidents into the same 

category. 

==============================================

Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

=================================================

               Jim B. Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

           Instrument Rated Pilot

     General Radio Telephone Certificate

=================================================

rans6andrew

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Posts: 16
Location: Berks, UK

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:38 am Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

[/quote]

Andrew, your logic was understood. The problem we may face is that the 601XLs 

here in the U.S. are not all necessarily built to the same standards as the 

601XLs in the U.K. and Europe.



I'm not sure here that we can throw all XLs and XL accidents into the same 

category. 

==============================================

Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

=================================================

               Jim B. Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

           Instrument Rated Pilot

     General Radio Telephone Certificate

=================================================[/quote]



the thing is: at the moment nobody seems to know if the European and US 601XLs are built to the same standards.  Until the investigation findings are made public the only way YOU can tell if YOUR aircraft is one of the bad ones is by having it come apart in flight.  Not a way of finding out that I would choose.



Andrew.

_________________
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.

z601(at)anemicaardvark.co
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:29 am Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

On Wednesday 21 January 2009 03:38, rans6andrew wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 the thing is: at the moment nobody seems to know if the European and US

 601XLs are built to the same standards.  Until the investigation findings

 are made public the only way YOU can tell if YOUR aircraft is one of the

 bad ones is by having it come apart in flight.  Not a way of finding out

 that I would choose.


	


That is, I suppose, one form of testing to failure 



I'd bet the two aren't built to the same standards. I'm not aware of a way to 

build one aircraft that looks something like another, make it considerably 

lighter, and not make significant changes to the structure.



One question may be, what are those changes, and are they a possible cause of 

some of the problems? I increasingly believe there are multiple problems, 

ranging from possible structural areas, to poor maintenance on some aircraft.



The guy in the hangar next to me has one of the Czech 601s. It's a beautiful 

airplane. Of course, I'm prejudiced.

-- 

=============================================

                Do not archive.

=============================================

                Jim B Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

     Retired aerospace technical manager

=============================================

rans6andrew

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Posts: 16
Location: Berks, UK

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:39 am Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

Jim, please explain your comment re weight differences, quoted



"I'd bet the two aren't built to the same standards. I'm not aware of a way to

build one aircraft that looks something like another, make it considerably

lighter, and not make significant changes to the structure."



What makes you think that there is any design change which changes the weight?  Are Czech aircraft thought to be heavier or lighter than US aircraft?



In the UK the 601XL is only approved up to a gross weight of 560Kg (1230 pounds).  This could explain why the UK 601XLs are all built with Rotax 912ULS (about 68Kg wet and ready to turn) power which leaves enough payload capacity by keeping the empty weight low.



I notice that many US built aircraft use Corvair or Lyc/Cont engines and have instrument fits like all weather combat aircraft.  All very heavy looking.



Andrew.

_________________
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.

jmaynard

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 394
Location: Fairmont, MN (FRM)

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:03 am Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 09:39:53AM -0800, rans6andrew wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   In the UK the 601XL is only approved up to a gross weight of 560Kg (1230

 pounds).  This could explain why the UK 601XLs are all built with Rotax

 912ULS (about 68Kg wet and ready to turn) power which leaves enough

 payload capacity by keeping the empty weight low.


	


In the rest of Europe, the XL, to be registered in the microlight category

(or whatever it's called), has a max gross of 450 kg. That's about 990

pounds. A Zodiac with an empty weight of 770 pounds (350 kg) isn't going to

have much in the way of a useful load, but that's what many US Zodiacs come

in at.



BTW, your 68 kg (about 140 pounds) for the Rotax ignores some required extra

equipment that brings the real powerplant weight up to closer to 165 or so.

Yes, there's a difference, but it's not as much as Rotax advocates claim.

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI      http://www.conmicro.com

http://jmaynard.livejournal.com       http://www.tronguy.net

Fairmont, MN (KFRM)                        (Yes, that's me!)

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4

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