Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - 601XL main spar question

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

601XL main spar question
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

sabrina

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 170

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:09 am Post subject: Re: 601XL main spar question

Do Not Archive

Last edited by sabrina on Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:39 am Post subject: 601XL main spar question

I thought the 6 G ultimate loading was for positive G loading and negative ultimate was 3 G. The pic shows weight on the top of the wing, that is testing the negative loading.... They would have to flip the plane over, suspend the fuselage on some saw horses and pile the weight on the bottom of the wings to test for positive loading..... Am I thinking wrong here ? 

do not archive

Ben Haas

N801BH

www.haaspowerair.com



--------

sabrina

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 170

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 12:24 pm Post subject: Re: 601XL main spar question

Do Not Archive

Last edited by sabrina on Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:30 pm; edited 1 time in total

paulrod36(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:48 pm Post subject: 601XL main spar question

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  Opinions being like another part of our anatomy (everybody has one), I'd  like to throw in an unfounded suspicion for your consideration:  If you  take a piece of flat metal, any thickness or length will do, set it at 9 degrees  (forward) from vertical, and subject it to a true vertical stress, it tries  to bend backward under that stress.  Could it be that the main spar bends  backward some, puts  pressure at the rear spar attach point, and starts the  failure there, followed immediately by the main spar failure when the rear  breaks? I have no evidence, stats, or analysis to back this up, but I can't  think of any aircraft with a canted spar. Thoughts, anyone?

  

 Paul R

 [quote]   ---

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:33 pm Post subject: 601XL main spar question

What a fascination notion!  

   

I wonder if examination of the wreckage can shed light on this question.  I have heard many anecdotal comments about elongated holes in the rear attach points. Perhaps the axis of elongation would be impacted if the spar is bending . . .  

   

Paul  

   

       

From: owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-zenith-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of paulrod36(at)msn.com

 Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 2:47 PM

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: 601XL main spar question  

  

  

       

Opinions being like another part of our anatomy (everybody has one), I'd like to throw in an unfounded suspicion for your consideration:  If you take a piece of flat metal, any thickness or length will do, set it at 9 degrees (forward) from vertical, and subject it to a true vertical stress, it tries to bend backward under that stress.  Could it be that the main spar bends backward some, puts  pressure at the rear spar attach point, and starts the failure there, followed immediately by the main spar failure when the rear breaks? I have no evidence, stats, or analysis to back this up, but I can't think of any aircraft with a canted spar. Thoughts, anyone?  

    

   

    

Paul R  

  

  

       [quote][b]

n1269k

Joined: 23 Jan 2009
Posts: 8

Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: 601XL main spar question

Sabrina

My plans for the 650 shows +6/-3, the upgrade shows +6/-3 for both the 601 and the 650. Both show 1320 max weight.

Terry

Plans building

Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:04 am Post subject: 601XL main spar question

In a message dated 4/16/2010 1:20:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  chicago2paris(at)msn.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  if I    recall correctly, the only person to live to tell about flutter dived away    rather than climbing...

	


 

  

  [quote][b]

Afterfxllc(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:05 am Post subject: 601XL main spar question

In a message dated 4/16/2010 1:20:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  chicago2paris(at)msn.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  if I    recall correctly, the only person to live to tell about flutter dived away    rather than climbing...

	


 

 No he chopped the power and climbed. And I know the guy and it did  happen.

  

 Jeff

  [quote][b]

Terry Phillips

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 346
Location: Corvallis, MT

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:37 am Post subject: 601XL main spar question

At 11:59 AM 4/16/2010 -0400, Bryan Martin wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Why do you keep denying the possibility of pilot error in these accidents? It's a fact that pilot error is a factor in more accidents than all other causes combined. It is an especially prevalent problem for low time pilots with low time in type. Low time in type seems to be about the only common thread in these accidents, along with low time on the airframe. 	


 While we do not know everything about the 601XL accidents, there are some things that we do know. E.g. regarding common threads between the accidents. First, lets list the accidents in question:



 1. Oakdale, CA 2/8/06

 2. Yuba City, CA  11/4/06

 3. St. Fulgent, FR 7/7/07

 4. Polk City, FL 4/7/08

 5. Capao do Leao. BR 5/5/08

 6. Barcelona, SP 6/1/08

 7. Markemeer, NL 9/14/08

 8. Antelope Island, UT 3/4/09

 9. Agnos, AR 11/6/09



 I see some common threads in these accidents. 



 One thread is that all these accidents involve structural failure. I haven't listed the 601XL accidents that do not involve structural failure. If I had listed those, it is likely that Bryan's assertion that many accidents result from pilot error would shown to be correct.



 Another thread is that they all involve Zenair CH601XL aircraft. There are no 600's, 601HD's, 601HDS's, 701's, Kitfox's, Rans, etc. As Paul has pointed out, it is almost impossible that, among all the homebuilt designs out there, the 601XL has somehow been blessed with the most incompetent, careless, unskilled collection of pilots and owners in the history of aviation. Meanwhile, the 600, HD, and HDS apparently have only a single inflight break up amongst them--Bramley, UK . Significantly, Bramley was attributed to pilot error based on detailed analysis and the observation of a very abrupt climbing maneuver. Personally, I do not find pilot error a creditable explanation for the 601XL accidents.



 A third common thread is the occurrence of flutter in the majority of these accidents. Who says flutter occurred? Well, how about the NTSB and the FAA:



  	  Quote: 	
		   	  Quote: 	
		  "Photographs and physical evidence: 

  

 The FAA evaluated the photographic evidence of several accident aircraft and observed 

 the physical evidence first hand of the Antelope Island accident aircraft. The evidence 

 indicates the presence of compression failures in both the upper and lower aft spar caps 

 (or skins). In some cases the evidence shows a complete wing failure in one direction, yet 

 exhibits compression buckling consistent with bending in the other direction as well. This 

 combined condition is indicative of complete load reversal and provides consistent 

 evidence that flutter occurred in these cases. 

  

 Reports and conclusions from the NTSB, other foreign government regulatory 

 agencies, and eyewitness accounts: 

  

 The NTSB identified flutter as the primary cause for several accidents, citing similar 

 evidence to what was stated in the previous section. Their expertise in accident 

 investigation enables them to distinguish between damage that occurred in flight during 

 the structural break-up sequence, and damage caused from impact with the ground. The 

 NTSB has pointed out that the location of the buckling failures on the upper and lower 

 surfaces of both wings has been observed consistently on several accident aircraft. 

 Additionally the direction of the loading that would create those buckles is typically in a 

 direction inconsistent with the loading from the impact with terrain. However the 

 evidence is consistent with wing bending and/or twisting as would be observed during 

 flutter where wing bending and torsion combine with control surface rotation about the 

 wing torsional axis. Additionally the NTSB observed the compression buckling of the 

 lower spar cap was at the lower edge of the hole that allowed the aileron push rod to pass 

 through the rear spar web. The compression buckling of the upper spar cap was several 

 inches inboard of the flap/aileron junction." 

 [Zodiac Special Review Team Report, FAA, p. 21] 	
	


 The NTSB has published the photographic evidence in the Polk City Docket. You can buy a copy of the Docket from General Microfilms. Alternatively, the photos (from Oakdale, Yuba City, Polk City, Barcelona, Markemeer, Antelope Island, and Agnos) are available for study here: 



 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZBAG/files/NTSB%20Flutter%20Evidence%20091021/



  And yet, the FAA report also says, 



  	  Quote: 	
		   	  Quote: 	
		  "Based on the evidence and analysis available, it is clear that flutter appears to be a causal 

 factor to the in-flight breakup of the airplanes. However, it is not clear whether it was the 

 primary causal factor, or occurred after some other initial structural deformation caused 

 local changes in wing section angle of attack. Flutter investigation requires a highly 

 technical, detailed, and complex analysis. The FAA did not perform a detailed analysis to 

 determine the flutter characteristics of the CH 601 XL .." 	
	


 One might ask why the FAA would say, "it is not clear whether it was the primary causal factor," when there is unequivocal evidence that flutter occurred in 7 of the 9 accident aircraft, and it is common knowledge that aircraft structures cannot withstand the forces resulting from divergent flutter. 



 I cannot answer that question with certainty, but I can suggest a rationale:



 In their April 14, 2009, Safety Recommendation Letter to the FAA, the NTSB wrote,



  	  Quote: 	
		   	  Quote: 	
		  "Therefore, the National  Transportation Safety Board recommends that the Federal Aviation Administration:



 Prohibit further flight of the Zodiac CH-601XL, both special light sport aircraft and experimental, until such time that the Federal Aviation Administration determines that the CH-601XL has adequate protection from flutter, (A-09-30) (Urgent)" 	
	


 Moving quickly, three months later the FAA responded to the NTSB's "Urgent" recommendation in a July 13, 2009 letter:



  	  Quote: 	
		   	  Quote: 	
		  "The Federal Aviation Administration chartered a special review team to investigate the details of each recommendation. The team consists of FAA specialists from flight test, engineering, manufacturing, and accident investigation. The special review team will analyze the Zodiac CH-601XL and its derivatives.  

 …

 At this time, the FAA lacks adequate justification to take immediate certificate action to ground the entire fleet." 	
	


 So the FAA essentially rejected the NTSB recommendations and told the 601XL community to go on flying their airplanes while the FAA studied the problem. 



 The FAA did not discover "adequate justification to take immediate action," until November 7, 2009 when the FAA issued SAIB CE-10-08 in which the FAA, 



  	  Quote: 	
		   	  Quote: 	
		  "strongly recommend that all owners and operators of Zodiac CH601XL/CH650 comply with actions outlined in a forthcoming Aircraft Manufacturing & Design, LLC (AMD) Safety Directive / Safety Alert to address the above-referenced concerns before further flight." 	
	


 I must say that I am impressed. After considering the NTSB's recommendations for 3 months before rejecting them in their letter of July 13, and then making no public statements on the 601XL for nearly 4 more months, the FAA came into work on a Saturday(!) November 7, 2009 to issue the SAIB! 



 Considering the above sequence of events, one rationale why the FAA would say, "it is not clear whether it [i.e., flutter] was the primary causal factor," becomes clearer. The FAA rejected the NTSB's Urgent recommendation to ground the 601XL, and one could make a strong case that, as a direct consequence of the FAA's inaction, the 9th 601XL structural failure accident occurred on November 6 in Agnos, AR. If, in their final report, the FAA acknowledged flutter as the probable cause of the 601XL accidents, the FAA would, in effect, be saying, "The NTSB's April 14 recommendation to ground the 601XL fleet was correct. We were wrong to ignore the strong evidence for flutter in the 601XL accidents and to reject the NTSB recommendation." Instead of acknowledging the obvious, the FAA chose to obscure the issue by suggesting that flutter was only one possible cause, and that the design's other documented flaws may have been primary. While my conjecture may not be correct, I must say that I've observed similar behavior in individuals and organizations. It can be difficult to admit you are wrong. Even more so when a fatality results.



 Of course, that is just one rationale for the FAA's action, and an infinite number of others are possible. 



 My own personal view is that, while the original wing design is slightly under strength, that weakness was not primary cause of the accidents. I agree with the NTSB (as stated in the FAA final report) that the primary cause in most, if not all, of the accidents was flutter. If we can eliminate flutter, I believe the (structural failure) accidents will stop. The FAA's report states that Zenair should retest the modified design for flutter, and I agree that ASTM F2245 requires flutter testing before the (modified) S-LSA model can be sold. But the ASTM flutter test requirement does not apply to E-AB aircraft. I believe it's useful to consider the requirements for certified aircraft. The FAA will waive flutter testing if the control surfaces satisfy the criteria in A&E Report No. 45. I believe that the counterbalanced ailerons satisfy the A&E Report No. 45 aileron criteria, so I believe the upgrade will stop the flutter. That's good enough for me. But don't take my word for it. A&E Report 45 is available here:



 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZBAG/files/



 Do the calculations yourself and report back to the group. 



 I don't want to leave the impression that I believe the wing strengthening is unimportant. The 601XL wing should meet spec. I just do not believe that the weak wing caused the accidents. And I am equally sure that a practical aircraft wing cannot be make strong enough to withstand divergent wing-aileron bending flutter. Stop flutter and you'll stop the accidents.



 Enjoy the build.



 Terry



 



 

 Terry Phillips 

 ttp44~at~rkymtn.net

 Corvallis MT

 ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done; 

 Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive

 http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/     [quote][b]

_________________
Terry Phillips
Corvallis, MT
ttp44<at>rkymtn.net
Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Tail feathers done; working on the wings.

sonar1@cox.net

Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 55
Location: Santa Barbara, Ca

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 9:23 am Post subject: 601XL main spar question

Well said Terry - complete, concise, and with references.  Good synopsis. As far as I am concerned: case closed. Next subject????? I do  have a question though, do you know if all of the flutter incidents were with  piano hinged ailerons?? I know that Yuba City  was...............................Fred Sanford  N9601 sold just before the  edict...............

   [quote][b]

Terry Phillips

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 346
Location: Corvallis, MT

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 10:40 am Post subject: 601XL main spar question

Fred



 'Good question. 



 Stephen had more complete access to the accident data than I did. (I.e., he saw everything I saw, but he managed to get access to info that he could not share further.) After Markemeer he told me that he did not have info about Polk City or St Fulgent, but that the rest of the accident aircraft had piano hinges. From the accident flutter evidence photos referenced earlier, it is clear that Polk City and Agnos had piano hinges. It appears to me from the photos that Antelope Island had flex hinges, and the Factual Report refers to "flexible skin ailerons." I conclude that Antelope Island had flex hinges. I suspect that the preponderance of piano hinges in the accident aircraft (at least 7 of 9) is much greater than the occurrence of piano hinged ailerons in the fleet. So, I would conclude that flutter is more likely with piano hinges than with flex hinges. But, Antelope Island and the experience of at least two "flutter survivors," indicate that flex hinges are not proof against flutter in the 601XL. (ZBAG questionnaire's and other "flutter survivor" naratives are included in the ZBAG Forum Files.) 'Hope that helps.



 Terry



 

 At 10:16 AM 4/17/2010 -0700, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Well said Terry - complete, concise, and with references. Good synopsis. As far as I am concerned: case closed. Next subject????? I do have a question though, do you know if all of the flutter incidents were with piano hinged ailerons?? I know that Yuba City was...............................Fred Sanford  N9601 sold just before the edict...............



  	  Quote: 	
		  

[/b] 	
	
 

 

 Terry Phillips 

 ttp44~at~rkymtn.net

 Corvallis MT

 ZU-601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail & flaps are done; 

 Upgrading wings & ailerons per the AMD Safety Directive

 http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/     [quote][b]

_________________
Terry Phillips
Corvallis, MT
ttp44<at>rkymtn.net
Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Tail feathers done; working on the wings.

purplemoon99(at)bellsouth
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:30 pm Post subject: 601XL main spar question

PerfectTerry. End of story.... It IS time to move on,No more wing spar,wing spar,wing sparrrrrrrrBlaBla  go to work on your planes so you can fly again. Joe N101HD 601XL-R Ram/Subaru  ( now Corvett yellow  red and black)

   From: Fred Sanford <sonar1(at)cox.net>

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Sat, April 17, 2010 1:16:29 PM

Subject: Zenith-List: Re: Re: 601XL main spar question

   Well said Terry - complete, concise, and with references. Good synopsis. As far as I am concerned: case closed. Next subject????? I do have a question though, do you know if all of the flutter incidents were with piano hinged ailerons?? I know that Yuba City was..............................Fred Sanford  N9601 sold just before the edict..............

[quote][b][b]

bryanmmartin

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1018

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:43 pm Post subject: 601XL main spar question

As far as I have been able to determine, all the accidents involved failure in positive G loading except for Yuba City. There has already been a recommendation to limit the nose down elevator travel to about half of the nose up travel. I don't know if the Yuba City airplane had this modification. 



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

>> the upgrade shows +6/-3 for both the 601 and the 650<<

 

 My mentors were concerned that although the upgrade does appear to strengthen the wings as to torsional rigidity and positive Gs it may well detract from their ability to handle negative Gs due to the decision to only upgrade the top spar cap...

 

 According to my plans, which CH still stands behind, if I don't upgrade I am at -6G, if I upgrade, I am at -3Gs, according to the upgrade paperwork.   

 

 If it "might be" negative Gs causing the failures, does an upgrade sound like a good idea without first addressing the stick sensitivity issue?

 

>> Is your comment below the reason you felt uneasy about the upgrade? ...wing fails first in negative gs?<<

 

 Scott, this is what I meant by cold feet/feeling uneasy and why I am considering running a top mounted 1/8" cable between each wings' new rear spar mid-span doublers, and 3/16" cable between the inboard AN47 bolts of the new main spar struts.


	


-- 

Bryan Martin

N61BM, CH 601 XL,

RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.

do not archive.

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

larry(at)macsmachine.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:58 pm Post subject: 601XL main spar question

Yes Patrick,

  The angle of the spar related to the load would definitely make a 

plausible rationale for the oblong holes and bent bolts. Otherwise how 

would they

ever get to a point of beginning failure. Very good point!



Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Torsion.



 Take a cardboard shoe box.  Tape it up nice and tight.  You can stand on it.



 Take that same cardboard shoe box.  Tape it up nice and tight, but with a 9 degree tilt to it.  Then try to stand on it.  Not nearly as strong.



 The question is, "do the upgrades make the wing strong enough...?"  It appears that as far as Zenith and the FAA is concerned, the answer is "yes".



 Time will tell as more of us complete the upgrades and return to the air.



 Patrick

 XL/Corvair/BRS





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=294356#294356

larry(at)macsmachine.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 5:36 pm Post subject: 601XL main spar question

Exactly right Paul.  The elongated holes and bent bolts suggest 

improperly tightened bolts, or misalignment of the line of structural 

connections. (Obviously the latter)

and the number of cracks in the center spar suggests over-stress was 

prevalent a good bit before the failure. Moving the stress out through 

the fuselage attach sheets

and angle works out to a rapid total failure when it all lets go. Still 

don't think flutter had anything to do with it.



Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com



paulrod36(at)msn.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Opinions being like another part of our anatomy (everybody has one), 

 I'd like to throw in an unfounded suspicion for your consideration:  

 If you take a piece of flat metal, any thickness or length will do, 

 set it at 9 degrees (forward) from vertical, and subject it to a true 

 vertical stress, it tries to bend backward under that stress.  Could 

 it be that the main spar bends backward some, puts  pressure at the 

 rear spar attach point, and starts the failure there, followed 

 immediately by the main spar failure when the rear breaks? I have no 

 evidence, stats, or analysis to back this up, but I can't think of any 

 aircraft with a canted spar. Thoughts, anyone?

  

 Paul R

zman601xl(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:35 am Post subject: 601XL main spar question

I've often wondered why the Zenith demo airplane with 1300 hours on it did not have any sign of failure when they took it apart? My belief also is that there might have been  builder error in some of these breakups.Just an opinion(you know what they say about opinions.....they are like armpits,everybody has a couple ,and some stink).I do remember a post awhile back that said that they had finished the wing portion of the upgrade,and it took about 5 manhours to do a wing .Anyways, I'm working on installing the upgrade now.I'll say this I really like the new(.125 thick) aft wing to spar attach point.I always thought the original was not beefy enough.



 

 



 



--

bill.pagan(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:55 am Post subject: 601XL main spar question

My first wing took many more than 5 hours but the 2nd wing is going much faster.  

  

 On another note I'm wondering why the factory 601 didn't show up at Sun-N-Fun.  Might have given a lot of people a great peace of mind to see it make a long trip.  The only 601 there (I was only there on Saturday) looked like it was an AMD but I could be wrong.  I only saw the 750 factory plane at their display and a couple 701's (One with a corvair and one with Gus pushing his engine).  There was also a customer 801 there that was for sale for $100K plus.  Sure would like to have seen the factory 601 on the field.  I also didn't see a single 601 parked in the experimental parking area on Saturday.

 

Bill Pagan 

 



 

   From: "zman601xl(at)aol.com" <zman601xl(at)aol.com>

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Sun, April 18, 2010 11:33:32 AM

Subject: Re: Re: 601XL main spar question



 I've often wondered why the Zenith demo airplane with 1300 hours on it did not have any sign of failure when they took it apart? My belief also is that there might have been  builder error in some of these breakups.Just an opinion(you know what they say about opinions....they are like armpits,everybody has a couple ,and some stink).I do remember a post awhile back that said that they had finished the wing portion of the upgrade,and it took about 5 manhours to do a wing .Anyways, I'm working on installing the upgrade now.I'll say this I really like the new(.125 thick) aft wing to spar attach point.I always thought the original was not beefy enough.



 



 

 



 



 --

zman601xl(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 10:35 am Post subject: 601XL main spar question

Hi Bill,

I'm well into the first wing upgrade,and it's going ok..I know one thing when I do the second one the leading edge skin is coming off.It will be a lot easier on my back......Smile.I've got to call Zenith.I only received six -3 & six -4 stiffeners for the nose ribs.Problem is I've got the early kit with 4 nose ribs on each side.

                                                               Bob Haring



 

 



 



--

sabrina

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 170

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:09 pm Post subject: Re: 601XL main spar question

Do Not Archive

Last edited by sabrina on Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:33 pm; edited 2 times in total

sdthatcher

Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 91
Location: Port Saint Lucie

Posted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 5:25 am Post subject: Re: 601XL main spar question

 	  Sabrina wrote: 	
		  taking a break before my Calc-based Physics E&M test on Monday... 	




The bird looks great!  That wouldn't be Palwaukee airport near Chicago would it?



Will your leading edge cuff be riveted back on or are you going to use camloc or other connectors?



Let us know what type of movement you get from your testing.

_________________
Scott Thatcher, Port Saint Lucie, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, EAA203 140 hours and not flying currently.

Display posts from previous:

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