Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

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

uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Pete54

Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 19
Location: Scotland

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:54 am Post subject: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

There are some similarities, if only about restoring the reputation.  Whilst I understand the need for aileron circuit tension I tend to support the UK authorities stance.  The CS-VLA design code, which all UK modern homebuilts must meet states that the controls must not flutter, even under cable failure conditions.



Loosing the tension in the circuit can occur for a variety of reasons and I'm not keen on the aircraft having the potential for ripping itself to pieces if that happens.  Cable jumps a pulley, fairlead wears/loosens, a lot of things could happen.



I'll try and post the drawings tomorrow from work.  I would guess that CH may not issue these as the liability issues are complex.  However I know a guy building a recent xl kit which was imported from the US (mine is a CZAW kit), his airframe has a considerable number of beefed up components within it compared with mine - generally around the centre section, but also including the aft wing spar attachment.



Whilst I've been frustrated to hell by the lack of speed and indecision by the LAA we will mod my aircraft and get it flying and put this behind us.

_________________
Pete Morris

LHusky

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 86
Location: Madras, Oregon

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:04 pm Post subject: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

I look forward to seeing those drawings. 

  

 Larry Husky 

 Madras, Oregon

  

  In a message dated 8/27/2009 12:56:05 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  peter.morris(at)optimusaberdeen.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Zenith601-List message posted by: "Pete54"    <peter.morris(at)optimusaberdeen.com>



There are some similarities,    if only about restoring the reputation.  Whilst I understand the need for    aileron circuit tension I tend to support the UK authorities stance.  The    CS-VLA design code, which all UK modern homebuilts must meet states that the    controls must not flutter, even under cable failure conditions.



Loosing    the tension in the circuit can occur for a variety of reasons and I'm not keen    on the aircraft having the potential for ripping itself to pieces if that    happens.  Cable jumps a pulley, fairlead wears/loosens, a lot of things    could happen.



I'll try and post the drawings tomorrow from work.     I would guess that CH may not issue these as the liability issues are    complex.  However I know a guy building a recent xl kit which was    imported from the US (mine is a CZAW kit), his airframe has a considerable    number of beefed up components within it compared with mine - generally around    the centre section, but also including the aft wing spar    attachment.



Whilst I've been frustrated to hell by the lack of speed    and indecision by the LAA we will mod my aircraft and get it flying and put    this behind us.



--------

Pete Morris





Read this    topic online    here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=260026#260026===============================================

_-=    Use the  ties  Day  ================================================               - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS  ================================================             - List Contribution Web Site  sp;                             ===================================================



	


 

  [quote][b]

rtdin

Joined: 16 Mar 2008
Posts: 46
Location: Florida panhandle

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:22 pm Post subject: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

I certainly would like to see drawings of the mods either from ZAC or smuggled out of the UK. This is encouraging. I would like to resume work on my project.

 

 About that Bonanza thing. I went through that with a friend who had a Bonanza. The later models (such as his) needed an increased ruddervator area due to higher GW & power. Beech just added more chord ahead of the fwd ruddervator spar. This new area was not adequately supported. Following accidents, there was an AD that reduced airspeed. Then came kits from about three vendors to support the L.E. My friend's 35 ended up with brackets attached to the fuselage side and supporting the L.E. Problem solved. Vne restored. 

 

 The 35's were always unforgiving for the inexperienced. A noted local gent bought the farm early 50's in VFR-to-IFR conditions. It was then known as a grave yard spiral. He was very experienced, with combat time in SE-5s and Spads. (But no instrument rating)

 

 RTD

 601XL plans #6-6791 (wings)  [quote][b]

Scotsman

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Posts: 89
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

"In other words, the basis for the flutter testing was not following maintenance procedures which specify cable tensioning! 



Karl 

[quote] ---"



Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct (I think it was 6 hours before the incident flight but I stand corrected).  Is it not possible that the issue is more complex than just tightening the cables?

 

As in the descriptions of the Bonanza incident, the first place which receives the blame in a crash of unknown cause is the pilot which is not dissimilar to our situation except it is the pilot/builder.  The matter is highly subjective without clear evidence but I do find it unusual (especially in the latest incident) that a commercial pilot would fly outside of the envelope of the aircraft (especially with the aircraft's history of wing failure) as it would appear that the aircraft in question's aileron cables were appropriately tensioned.



As in the Bonanza incidents only time will tell whether aileron cable tension alone is a sufficient control.  At least there appears to be progress in the publication of the various testing results regardless of which side of the fence you sit on.



James

_________________
Cell +27 83 675 0815

Pete54

Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 19
Location: Scotland

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:18 am Post subject: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

The smuggled drawings!



Not on the drawings are the changes to the elevator trim horn - which has to be reversed.  In the UK we have to fit a large trim tab (the original test aircraft had a heavy prop).  We now have a mod to reduce the effectiveness of that bigger trim tab......

0265_0001.tif

Description:

Filesize:

120.07 KB

Viewed:

16795 Time(s)

_________________
Pete Morris

Last edited by Pete54 on Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:54 am; edited 2 times in total

Scotsman

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Posts: 89
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:00 am Post subject: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

Hi Pete, I cannot access the tif file you uploaded to the thread...can you upload in a different format or any ideas why I cannot download them?



Cheers



James

_________________
Cell +27 83 675 0815

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:39 am Post subject: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

Hi James,



Thanks for posting the drawings.



After looking at them, I have a couple of questions.  I don't know if 

you are the right person to ask or not, but you are at least "The 

Messenger" so I will give it a try.



1.  I could not find any definition for the balance weights (6BA01-2, 

6BA01-3).  Do you know how these weights are constructed?  How much 

do they weigh?



2.  The image shows hinged ailerons.  Do you have any idea how this 

design might translate to hingeless ailerons?  (Are all UK Zodiacs 

built with piano hinges on ailerons?)



Thanks,



Paul

Camas, WA, USA

At 03:00 AM 8/28/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

<james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za>



Hi Pete, I cannot access the tif file you uploaded to the 

thread...can you upload in a different format or any ideas why I 

cannot download them?



Cheers



James



--------

Cell   +27 83 675 0815

jaybannist(at)cs.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:09 am Post subject: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

James,

 

 I think it is interesting that you choose to use the term "pilot/builder".  In fact, the only thing common among all the XL crashes is that NONE of the involved pilots were the builders of the airplane that crashed.

 

 I am assuming that the latest crash you refer to is the one in Utah.  It is STRICTLY a personal opinion, but I believe the same thing happened to that unfortunate pilot as the phenomena that ended Steve Fossett's storied life - inadvertent entry into a mountain down draft that the pilot and his airplane simply could not overcome.

 

 Jay Bannister

 Do not archive

 

   

 

   	  Quote: 	
		  

James Roberts wrote:



Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft 

that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct 

(I think it was 6 hours before the incident flight but I stand corrected).  Is 

it not possible that the issue is more complex than just tightening the cables?

 

As in the descriptions of the Bonanza incident, the first place which receives 

the blame in a crash of unknown cause is the pilot which is not dissimilar to 

our situation except it is the pilot/builder.  The matter is highly subjective 

without clear evidence but I do find it unusual (especially in the latest 

incident) that a commercial pilot would fly outside of the envelope of the 

aircraft (especially with the aircraft's history of wing failure) as it would 

appear that the aircraft in question's aileron cables were appropriately 

tensioned.

	
 

     [quote][b]

tonyplane(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:08 am Post subject: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

Or, the stick was used to remove the  wings.  As I have related previously, I was letting a passenger, who  was a Piper Tomahawk owner, fly.  It was a gusty day and on climb  out at about 80 - 90 kts, the nose pitched up.  He slammed the stick  forward to lower the nose and gave the seat belts a good workout.  He did  not go too far forward with the stick as I blocked the stick with my hand;  however I have no doubt, he would have put us through the canopy if not for the  belts.  

 (I still can not believe an experienced pilot would  have done something like that!)

  

 Tony Graziano

 XL/Jab; N493TG; 524 hrs

 [quote]   ---

pchap(at)primus.ca
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:28 am Post subject: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

At 06:00 28-08-09, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  

<james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za>



Hi Pete, I cannot access the tif file you uploaded to the 

thread...can you upload in a different format or any ideas why I 

cannot download them?



C


	


It is a multipage TIFF file that I'm not sure many browsers or 

graphics programs naturally read.



There may well be better solutions, but I use plugin 

AlternaTIFF  (www.alternatiff.com), available for different web browsers.

Free but requires registration.



Peter Chapman

Toronto, ON

Scotsman

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Posts: 89
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:32 am Post subject: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

Paul - not me I'm afraid I believe that it was another guy who posted the plans...unfortunately I cannot access the link.



Jay - Mea culpa...after reading the various news articles it appeared to infer that he was the builder and/or involved in the build.  It is a pertinent point though that you raise...is the reason for the wing failures due to overhandling/flying outside of the envelope due to the lack of familiarity with the sensitivity of control etc?...possibly.  



However, even the pilot/builder will not have experienced the sensitivity of the XLs controls until his or her first flight (just the same as a person who buys a completed XL).  So is it realistic to suggest that a pilot/builder will be more prone to ignoring/being unaware of the over controlling risk? 



Similarly, if that were the case, I would expect to hear of similar wing failure incidents on other homebuilts where the owner is not the builder.  It is personal opinion but I am not convinced by the theory that pilot error is the primary cause of all of the number of accidents that we have observed.



Cheers



James

_________________
Cell +27 83 675 0815

PatrickW

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

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:33 am Post subject: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

 	  Pete54 wrote: 	
		  I know a guy building a recent xl kit which was imported from the US (mine is a CZAW kit), his airframe has a considerable number of beefed up components within it compared with mine - generally around the centre section, but also including the aft wing spar attachment. 	


What were the differences, especially since this was a recent kit from Zenith?   Did they have anything in common with the new UK recommendations? (I couldn't view the tif file, so apologies in advance if that would have answered my question). 



Thanks,



Patrick

carlossa52(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:49 am Post subject: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

You can use the "Windows Pictures and Fax Viewer" (download the file, then right click on it and select the Viewer).

Optionally, using Files Explorer, right click the tiff file and select Preview.

Note that there are two pairs of buttons at the bottom of the viewer. The left most will take you from file to file within the same folder. 

 The other pair will flip pages within a TIFF file - you can also flip pages with the page up/down keys on your keyboard.

The file in question has 4 pages.

Carlos



2009/8/28 Peter Chapman <pchap(at)primus.ca (pchap(at)primus.ca)>

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> Zenith601-List message posted by: Peter Chapman <pchap(at)primus.ca (pchap(at)primus.ca)>

  

 At 06:00 28-08-09, you wrote:

 

  	  Quote: 	
		   --> Zenith601-List message posted by: "Scotsman" <james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za (james.roberts(at)computershare.co.za)>

 

 Hi Pete, I cannot access the tif file you uploaded to the thread...can you upload in a different format or any ideas why I cannot download them?

 

 C

 	
 

 It is a multipage TIFF file that I'm not sure many browsers or graphics programs naturally read.

 

 There may well be better solutions, but I use plugin AlternaTIFF  (www.alternatiff.com), available for different web browsers.

 Free but requires registration.

 

 

 

 Peter Chapman

 Toronto, ON 

 	
 



  [quote][b]

Doug.Norman(at)sportaviat
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:50 am Post subject: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

I have some experience teaching people to fly the Zodiac as I’m a CFI and used my Zodiac for a while as a teaching platform. A repeatable characteristic among those who fly high(er)-wing-loaded aircraft and are transitioning to the Zodie is their heavy-handedness on the controls. This generalizes from private pilots to ATPs. In fact, there were two other CFIs I couldn’t sign-off to fly the Zodiac because they couldn’t land it – an almost unbreakable PIO near the ground for both. They were the instructors who spent most of their time in twins. It’s clear (to me) there is a certain kinesthetic sense required to fly the Zodiac which is conflict with those built up in other GA airplanes.  This seems to be borne out from the insurance stats. One-finger control to press on the stick to change attitude followed by trim is the drill I would often use.  

   

Another “quirk” of the Zodiac is the location/height of the gear (I’m referring to a 2007 AMD airplane) and the angle of incidence of the wing (lower angle of incidence, not like the 650 is now or the 601 was earlier). This combination requires a deliberate rotating of the airplane for takeoff. Without the rotation the airplane will just continue down the runway never taking off.  Given the weight distribution wrt the gear location, the deliberate action required to rotate is too much stick for maintaining the nose angle one wants for climbout. Thus, it almost immediately results in a nose-too-high attitude once the airplane leaves the ground.   

   

The challenge is ensuring folks don’t panic at this point and shove the nose down (gotta ensure you box the stick with your hands!). That can result in a “good belt workout” at a critical altitude. If one takes off at 60 knots, there’s enough kinetic energy in the airplane for a nice easy correction.  

   

love the plane,  

Doug  

Near 400 hrs in N601DN  

       

From: owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith601-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of T. Graziano

 Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 11:02 AM

 To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight  

  

  

     

Or, the stick was used to remove the wings.  As I have related previously, I was letting a passenger, who was a Piper Tomahawk owner, fly.  It was a gusty day and on climb out at about 80 - 90 kts, the nose pitched up.  He slammed the stick forward to lower the nose and gave the seat belts a good workout.  He did not go too far forward with the stick as I blocked the stick with my hand; however I have no doubt, he would have put us through the canopy if not for the belts.    

    

(I still can not believe an experienced pilot would have done something like that!)  

    

   

    

Tony Graziano  

    

XL/Jab; N493TG; 524 hrs  

   	  Quote: 	
		      

----- Original Message -----   

    

From: jaybannist(at)cs.com (jaybannist(at)cs.com)   

    

To: zenith601-list(at)matronics.com (zenith601-list(at)matronics.com)   

    

Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 7:03 AM  

    

Subject: Re: Zenith601-List: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight  

    

   

    

James,

 

 I think it is interesting that you choose to use the term "pilot/builder".  In fact, the only thing common among all the XL crashes is that NONE of the involved pilots were the builders of the airplane that crashed.

 

 I am assuming that the latest crash you refer to is the one in Utah.  It is STRICTLY a personal opinion, but I believe the same thing happened to that unfortunate pilot as the phenomena that ended Steve Fossett's storied life - inadvertent entry into a mountain down draft that the pilot and his airplane simply could not overcome.

 

 Jay Bannister

 Do not archive  

    

   

   	  Quote: 	
		  

 

 James Roberts wrote:



Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft 



that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct 



(I think it was 6 hours before the incident flight but I stand corrected).  Is 



it not possible that the issue is more complex than just tightening the cables?



 



As in the descriptions of the Bonanza incident, the first place which receives 



the blame in a crash of unknown cause is the pilot which is not dissimilar to 



our situation except it is the pilot/builder.  The matter is highly subjective 



	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  



	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  



	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  



	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  



	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  



	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  



	
6

   	  Quote: 	
		  



	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  



	
8 	  Quote: 	
		  



	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft 



	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft 



	
1Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft 



	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft 



	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft 



	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft 



	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft 



	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft 



	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft 



	
8 	  Quote: 	
		  Sorry Karl, but if I remember correctly the latest XL crash was on an aircraft 



	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct 



	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct 



	
1 	  Quote: 	
		  that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct 



	
2 	  Quote: 	
		  that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct 



	
3 	  Quote: 	
		  that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct 



	
4 	  Quote: 	
		  that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct 



	
5 	  Quote: 	
		  that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct 



	
6 	  Quote: 	
		  that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct 



	
7 	  Quote: 	
		  that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct 



	
8 	  Quote: 	
		  that had recently tensioned the cables and had these confirmed as being correct 



	
9 	  Quote: 	
		  (I think it was 6 hours before the incident flight but I stand corrected).  Is 



	
0 	  Quote: 	
		  (I think it was 6 hours before the incident flight but I stand corrected).  Is 



	
1

        [quote][b]

z601a(at)anemicaardvark.c
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:38 am Post subject: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

On Friday 28 August 2009 10:33, PatrickW wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   What were the differences, especially since this was a recent kit from

 Zenith?   Did they have anything in common with the new UK recommendations?

 (I couldn't view the tif file, so apologies in advance if that would have

 answered my question).


	


My 601XL kit, delivered in October of last year, does not have all of the 

stiffners added by the drawing. Six additional vertical stiffners are added, 

three on either side of the center. 



Two of these are pretty much the same as the attach points added for the stick 

option. Two are inboard of this, between the stick attach and the center of 

the carry-through spar.



The other two are "L" brackets added to the existing outboard wing attach 

uprights.



I converted the drawings (the tiff actually has several drawings within it) so 

I could read them. If there's enough interest, I'll post them in jpeg format.



I think I'll wait and see if Chris Heintz comments on these changes. I'm not 

that convinced they do anything worthwhile.



-- 

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

                Do not archive.

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

                Jim B Belcher

    BS, MS Physics, Math, Computer Science

                  A&P/IA

     Retired aerospace technical manager

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

DaveG601XL

Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 351
Location: Cincinnati, Oh

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:56 am Post subject: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

Doug,



I flew your airplane when it was based at CAMS Flight in Florida for a checkout prior to flying mine on it's first flight.  It was great to have a 601XL available so close to Sun-N-Fun when I attended in 2008.   My favorite picture here at work my me next to your beautiful airplane with palm trees in the background.



I was pleased that the Instructor there was very thorough in describing the pitch control of the XL.  I had heard about pitch sensitivity on the forums and was glad to see he was on top of it.  The checkout went smoothly as a result with me careful not to get into pitch PIO.  



Of the small handful of rides I have given to pilots and non-pilots, it is the certified pilots that I am most watchful of.  I have briefed them all about the pitch sensitivity prior to relinquishing the stick.  The non-pilots have been very good at keeping to small movements.  This is probably due to their unfamiliarity with flying, in general, combined with a bit of apprehension (dare I call it fear?).  Most of the pilots start ham fisting it right away.  I do not have much of a stomach for negative G's and have immediately grabbed the stick on several occasions to tame them down.

Check Ride 601XL.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

77.81 KB

Viewed:

16766 Time(s)

_________________
David Gallagher
Cincinnati, OH area

Doug.Norman(at)sportaviat
Guest

Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:26 pm Post subject: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

David,



I'm glad you were able to be introduced to the Zodie in my airplane; and

thanks for the kind words about it.



Best of continued good fortune to you and your airplane.



Doug



--

Pete54

Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 19
Location: Scotland

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:46 am Post subject: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

The beefed up parts I referred to are not those featured in the UK drawings (my apologies to those who could not read them and my thanks to the chap who has re-posted them.)



From memory it is the rear wing spar attachment points, the centre section uprights and the tailplane attachments where we have noticed differences - there may be others - these were just the areas the chap was working on an wanted to check my aircraft to get a feel for the final assembly.  Then he started to measure the parts mentioned as they were so obviously different.  The official reason he was given was these were changes due to the increase in mauw from 560 to 600kg.

_________________
Pete Morris

Scotsman

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Posts: 89
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:01 am Post subject: Re: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

Hi Pete, do you know the thickness of the revised parts mentioned in your post above as I wanted to check against my own kit?  James

_________________
Cell +27 83 675 0815

craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:09 am Post subject: uk 601 xl aircraft cleared for flight

"From memory it is the rear wing spar attachment points, the centre section

uprights and the tailplane attachments where we have noticed differences"



Some of these changes are not particularly new and some are related to the

650 changes.



The 4 large "L"s that tie the center spar to the outer skins of the fuselage

(6B13-1) are shown as 0.063 inches thick on my 08/05 plans. That was an

increase (form 0.040?) from my older plans. This change is listed in "ZODIAC

CH 601 XL Updates included in 3rd edition 1st revision: April 2005"



"6-B-13 02/05 WING JIG

1) 6B13-1 Rev. 1 change material thickness from t=.040” to t=.063” deleted

bend

radius = ¼” changed length from 470 to 480 (02/05)"



http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/xl/data/xl-update-3rd-ed-1st-rev-4-05.pdf



The plate that attaches the rear spar to the fuselage (6B5-4) changed from

0.063 (08/05 plans) to 0.12. At OSH 2008 Patrick Hoyt (among others) noticed

the thicker plates on the 650 and asked Caleb about it (I was standing

there). Caleb said that to shift the plate on the 650 vertically (as

compared to the 601XL) to changes the wing's angle of incidence the height

of the plate had to be reduced. The increase in thickness was to give the

plate adequate strength in its attachment to the fuselage. Caleb said it had

nothing to do with strengthening the attachment between the rear spar and

the plate. Below is a picture Patrick shot:



http://picasaweb.google.com/Patrick.Hoyt/Zodiac650AtOshkosh#5243761730774797

442



This document states "Attach Plate Geometry and thickness changed to

accommodate change in wing incidence angle.":



"ZODIAC CH 650: Summary of changes from the Zodiac CH 601 XL (4th edition,

1/2008 drawings)"



http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/ch650/data/650-drawing-list-6x-0.pdf



-- Craig

--

Display posts from previous:

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

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