Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

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

601 XL load testing

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject: 601 XL load testing

For your viewing pleasure



http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html

Mark Townsend

Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.

president(at)can-zacaviation.com

www.can-zacaviation.com 



 



2:18 PM

stshuck(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:20 pm Post subject: 601 XL load testing

That's great and I'm confident that this plane can fly safely, but there has 

been four XL's that the wings either folded or just exited the fuselage 

during flight. So how do you explain that?



---

gboothe5(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject: 601 XL load testing

..here we go, again...



Gary Boothe 

Cool, CA 

601 HDSTD, WW Conversion 90% done, 

Tail done, wings done, working on c-section

Do not archive

--

craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: 601 XL load testing

http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html



But those are green weight bags and I'm building a red weight bag 601XL.

Also did you allow for the Coriolis (not to mention the relativistic)

effects? Something bad happened somewhere in an airplane - how do I know my

plane won't spontaneously combust in the air? I have complete faith in Chris

Heintz's designs and testing but I want an absolute explanation for the

unknowable. And I think the NTSB should build a time machine so they can

tell me what happened in the past where there are no surviving witnesses. I

mean, why am I paying all those taxes (even though 99.9% go someplace other

than the FAA and the NTSB)? Until I achieve complete certainty I'm going to

speculate endlessly instead of working on my death-trap, er, XL. This will

generate answers to my unanswerable questions and make me safer. And I'm

going to think, think a lot, about switching to an XYZ because they are

different, somehow.



-- Craig



do not archive

pilot4pay

Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 171
Location: Louisville, KY

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:32 am Post subject: 601 XL load testing

ROTFLMAO!

8D



Do not archive

CS 



--

_________________
Craig Smith
CH640 builder
SN: 0078

"Just think how stupid the average person is,
and then realize that half of them are even stupider!"
--George Carlin

bill_dom(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:33 am Post subject: 601 XL load testing

Three, not four.

  

  William Dominguez

  Zodiac 601XL Plans

  Miami Florida



Steve Shuck <stshuck(at)comcast.net> wrote:[quote]  --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Steve Shuck" 



That's great and I'm confident that this plane can fly safely, but there has 

been four XL's that the wings either folded or just exited the fuselage 

during flight. So how do you explain that?



---

purplemoon99(at)bellsouth
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:47 am Post subject: 601 XL load testing

Craig,   I haven't been following the " load testing" but, when I saw your 

post the light came on..  A friend of mine just returned from CA.  He was 

out there taking the 120 hr. repairman's course so that he can be an 

inspector.  He told me last night at the EAA meeting that he found out what 

happened to the factory-built 601 and that was that the skin on the top of 

the wing pulled all of the rivets out.  They had some how been installed 

improperly.  Have  you heard anything on this?



Joe N101HD/601XL

---

John Bolding

Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 281

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 5:09 am Post subject: 601 XL load testing

Nobody get their shorts in a knot as I just have a  couple of  questions, not trying to cast aspersions or stir the  pot, just trying to learn something.

   I notice that the sandbags are placed evenly  along the wing, is that because it's a rectangular wing? Generally when you  see pics of load testing the bag stack is thin at the tip and thick at  the root.  Maybe every test I've seen before was of a  tapered wing??  Donno, somebody help me here.

 I guess in the recent pictures they were testing  for negative loads as the bags were on top of the wing , in the older test  the fuselage was inverted and bags were on the bottom, indicating a load test  for positive G's.  

 I guess maybe Chris felt the  prior positive G test was good to go and the negative test was needed more  than redoing something already done,  OR maybe he isn't finished  yet.  Interesting.

  

 Sometimes it's a small thing .   Van had  a few problems (severe understatement) with spars on very early  RV3's.  The spar caps were 1/8"x 1 1/4" bar stock   they were 8  thick at the root,  some of us etched the caps and built a fixture to marry  them all together with 3M Hysol Structural Adhesive so we could drill them  as a single piece rather than 8 pieces of varying lengths.  Turns out 10  yrs later when Van did in depth load testing that the adhesive improved the  crippling effect of the thin strips, making the cap assy act like a solid bar  rather than a bunch of strips. We were good for 2-3 more G's if I remember  right.   I had already tested to Limit Load (6 g (at) gross) in the air  but was reassuring nevertheless.  The airplane now has over 2000 hrs  but at inspection 10 yrs ago I de-rated it to utility category from aerobatic as  I REALLY have no confidence in a 35 yr old glue joint done on aluminum in  an uncontrolled environment. 

  

 John Bolding 

  

  

  

 [quote]   ---

planes_by_ken(at)bellsout
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:08 am Post subject: 601 XL load testing

> ...here we go, again...

OK....

I have been waiting for someone else to open this can of worms again.

If the collective group wants to know everything the NTSB knows, we can 

order copies of some to all of the information.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Preliminary Reports $6.00 each *

 Probable Cause Reports $6.00 each *

 Factual Investigation Report .15 per page

 Photographs B&W Laser Prints $1.00 each

 Photographs Color 8X10 Glossy $3.50 each

 Video Recordings VHS $20.00 each

 Audio Records $10.00 each

 Certifying Report (Blue Ribbon) $10.00 each

 Expedite Service $20.00 per request

 Microfiche Duplicates (if available) $1.00 each

 Fax - Preliminary or Probable Cause $10.00 each

 Fax - Invoice $2.00 each

 Fax - Other Reports $2.00 each

 Search Charge $15.00 each


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   http://www.ntsb.gov/info/gils/gilsdkt.htm


	


Ken Lilja

planes_by_ken(at)bellsout
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 6:38 am Post subject: 601 XL load testing

John,



In my opinion, the glue is a very good idea in certain places.  I am 

thinking of adding 3M Scotch Weld structural epoxy (Aircraft Spruce)at 

locations like the elevator horn strap.  This will fill in any voids and 

help with slightly oversized rivet holes.  No relative motion, no 

wallowed out rivet holes.We used this on the bonanza series when the 

wing attach carry-thru webs were cracking at the hi-shear fasteners 

retaining the bathtubs. This was per AD.  Needless to say, the cleaner 

the better with bonding.  Grumman singles are all glued together.

Lift distribution:  The idea is to get the entire wing to share the work 

so to my eye the weight distribution looks ok.  What I would like to 

make sure of is that the weight is evenly distributed either side of the 

center of lift.  Weighting the wing for negative G:  Most wings are 

twice as strong in positive G, so this may be worst case condition. 

That said I would like to see positive G loading also.

I would also like to see the wing loaded in torque at the wing tip +- G 

to see how much twist there is(especially a wing with the baggage 

lockers).  A wing that twists too much would not be good, BUT ALL WINGS 

TWIST.  One possible fix is actually easy.  Ad some diagonal ribs in 

between the regular ribs (think Ercoup).

JUST MY OPINIONS

Ken Lilja

John Bolding wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Nobody get their shorts in a knot as I just have a couple of  

 questions, not trying to cast aspersions or stir the pot, just trying to 

 learn something.

   I notice that the sandbags are placed evenly along the wing, is that 

 because it's a rectangular wing? Generally when you see pics of load 

 testing the bag stack is thin at the tip and thick at the root.  Maybe 

 every test I've seen before was of a tapered wing??  Donno, somebody 

 help me here.

 I guess in the recent pictures they were testing for negative loads as 

 the bags were on top of the wing , in the older test the fuselage was 

 inverted and bags were on the bottom, indicating a load test for 

 positive G's.  

 I _guess_ maybe Chris felt the prior positive G test was good to go and 

 the negative test was needed more than redoing something already done,  

 OR maybe he isn't finished yet.  Interesting.

  

 Sometimes it's a small thing .   Van had a few problems (severe 

 understatement) with spars on very early RV3's.  The spar caps were 

 1/8"x 1 1/4" bar stock   they were 8 thick at the root,  some of us 

 etched the caps and built a fixture to marry them all together with 3M 

 Hysol Structural Adhesive so we could drill them as a single piece 

 rather than 8 pieces of varying lengths.  Turns out 10 yrs later when 

 Van did in depth load testing that the adhesive improved the crippling 

 effect of the thin strips, making the cap assy act like a solid bar 

 rather than a bunch of strips. We were good for 2-3 more G's if I 

 remember right.   I had already tested to Limit Load (6 g (at) gross) in 

 the air but was reassuring nevertheless.  The airplane now has over 2000 

 hrs but at inspection 10 yrs ago I de-rated it to utility category from 

 aerobatic as I REALLY have no confidence in a 35 yr old glue joint done 

 on aluminum in an uncontrolled environment. 

  

 John Bolding

craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:11 am Post subject: 601 XL load testing

No, I haven't heard anything. We have heard rumors about some of the

accidents but they don't end up in the final official analysis. I don't know

if this says more about the rumors or the government investigative process.



Me, I'm just going to have to go with what I know: a fairly conventions

design with an overall good record. I think my piloting skills or poor

judgment are more likely to kill me than anything else. Happily that is

something I can do something about.



One thing I continue to think about is that in all the fatal 601XL accidents

(regardless of the cause) it seems likely that a ballistic recovery chute

could have saved some lives. This includes Jim Pellien's which no one claims

was tied to a structural failure. But I am waiting on my preliminary W&B

data to see if a chute would make my plane safer or not. I'd like to see

Scott Laughlin's numbers for his BRS-equipped XL even thought the Corvair is

heavier than a Jabiru 3300.



-- Craig

p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:18 am Post subject: 601 XL load testing

At 10:09 AM 6/21/2007, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  One thing I continue to think about is that in all the fatal 601XL accidents

(regardless of the cause) it seems likely that a ballistic recovery chute

could have saved some lives. This includes Jim Pellien's which no one claims

was tied to a structural failure. But I am waiting on my preliminary W&B

data to see if a chute would make my plane safer or not. I'd like to see

Scott Laughlin's numbers for his BRS-equipped XL even thought the Corvair is

heavier than a Jabiru 3300.


	


I don't know whether a ballistic chute would have helped with any of 

the recent accidents or not.  It seems that all of them happened at 

low altitude.  Between the human delay and the deployment delay I 

doubt a chute would have deployed in time to do any good on any of 

these accidents.



I have been thinking and looking at my plane as I reassemble the 

fuselage for riveting and noticed there might be a little weakness in 

the wing attach structure.  There are cute little gussets supporting 

the gear uprights to the longerons, but no similar gussets on the 

wing spar uprights.  Indeed, the only thing holding the main spar 

carry-through at the proper angle is a couple of pieces of side skin 

and the seat front bottom which is the same weight as the side 

skin.  I considered adding gussets between the wing spar uprights and 

the main longerons and discussed (email) that with Nick at ZAC.  He 

approved the addition as not being a problem, but he did not comment 

on whether or not it was helpful.



Paul

XL fuselage

planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: 601 XL load testing

I know this will serve as the pilot light for the flame throwers but I noticed the same thing and wonder if it is because the only washout the wing has is the effect from the twisted ailerons? I was more concerned because the test was upright (-G) and the primary loads most of us will see will be +G. With the unique canted spars in this wing design, the upright and inverted load paths are unarguably different - and my be substantially different due to the spar geometry in the completed structure. Also keep in mind that the load transfer into the fuselage is not symmetrical - that is, the geometry of the bolted joints in not the same upright and inverted.

   

  All that speculation made, I wonder if they will invert the same craft and go to ultimate for 3 seconds minimum then go for failure just to determine the margin in that particular assembly...

   

  just my 0.02...



John Bolding  <jnbolding1(at)teleshare.net> wrote:

  [quote]        Nobody get their shorts in a knot as I just have a couple of  questions, not trying to cast aspersions or stir the pot, just trying to learn something.

    I notice that the sandbags are placed evenly along the wing, is that because it's a rectangular wing? Generally when you see pics of load testing the bag stack is thin at the tip and thick at the root.  Maybe every test I've seen before was of a tapered wing??  Donno, somebody help me here.

  I guess in the recent pictures they were testing for negative loads as the bags were on top of the wing , in the older test the  fuselage was inverted and bags were on the bottom, indicating a load test for positive G's.  

  I guess maybe Chris felt the prior positive G test was good to go and the negative test was needed more than redoing something already done,  OR maybe he isn't finished yet.  Interesting.

   

  Sometimes it's a small thing .   Van had a few problems (severe understatement) with spars on very early RV3's.  The spar caps were 1/8"x 1 1/4" bar stock   they were 8 thick at the root,  some of us etched the caps and built a fixture to marry them all together with 3M Hysol Structural Adhesive so we could drill them as a single piece rather than 8 pieces of varying lengths.  Turns out 10 yrs later when Van did in depth load testing that the adhesive improved the crippling  effect of the thin strips, making the cap assy act like a solid bar rather than a bunch of strips. We were good for 2-3 more G's if I remember right.   I had already tested to Limit Load (6 g (at) gross) in the air but was reassuring nevertheless.  The airplane now has over 2000 hrs but at inspection 10 yrs ago I de-rated it to utility category from aerobatic as I REALLY have no confidence in a 35 yr old glue joint done on aluminum in an uncontrolled environment. 

   

  John Bolding 

   

   

   

  [quote]  ----- Original Message  ----- 

  From: ZodieRocket (zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca) 

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

  Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 11:01 PM

  Subject: 601 XL load testing

  



--> Zenith-List message posted by: "ZodieRocket" <zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca (zodierocket(at)hsfx.ca)>



For your viewing pleasure



http://www.zenithair.com/zodiac/6-photo-testing.html

Mark Townsend

Can-Zac Aviation Ltd.

president(at)can-zacaviation.com (president(at)can-zacaviation.com)

Dave Downey

  Harleysville (SE) PA

  Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?

        Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's  [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47093/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222]Comedy with an Edge [/url]to see what's on, when.     [quote][b]

planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:28 pm Post subject: 601 XL load testing

Please forgive the listing of qualification: A&P, Materials Engineer (composites/adhesives) at Boeing, 25+ years.

   

  Please keep omnmind that 3M makes a very large assortment of "Scotch-Weld" adhesives. Unfortunately, one of the more popular ones (and very old) is EC2216. While the 2216 grey is a very tough and moderately strong adhesive, it suffers from almost no strength at even moderately elevated temperatures (above 140°F!). Please choose an adhesive that provides decent performance (greater than 1000 psi lapshear and compression at 220°F) to avoid bond strength degradation at the temperatures that structure can heat soak to on the ramp. While skin temperatures do cool very rapidly with minimal airflow, the internal structures can take substantial time to cool.

   

  When the USAF was looking at bonded joints made in the field (no etch process line and corrosion protecting bonding primer) they learned that  there is only one way to get reasonable durability in a field bonded joint: thorough cleaning with scothcbrite/equivalent and solvent washing, followed immediately by wet scouring/scotchbriting/sanding the surfaces that will be closed by the bondline using the mixed adhesive itself in the operation. The abrasion debris was dry wiped from the surface, fresh adhesive added, and the joint closed. This was found to produce a more corrosion resistant bondline - and corrosion is the primary inroad leading to failed metal bond bondlines.



Ken Lilja <planes_by_ken(at)bellsouth.net> wrote:

  [quote]--> Zenith-List message posted by: Ken Lilja 



John,



In my opinion, the glue is a very good idea in certain places. I am 

thinking of adding 3M Scotch Weld structural epoxy (Aircraft Spruce)at 

locations like the  elevator horn strap. This will fill in any voids and 

help with slightly oversized rivet holes. No relative motion, no 

wallowed out rivet holes.We used this on the bonanza series when the 

wing attach carry-thru webs were cracking at the hi-shear fasteners 

retaining the bathtubs. This was per AD. Needless to say, the cleaner 

the better with bonding. Grumman singles are all glued together.

Lift distribution: The idea is to get the entire wing to share the work 

so to my eye the weight distribution looks ok. What I would like to 

make sure of is that the weight is evenly distributed either side of the 

center of lift. Weighting the wing for negative G: Most wings are 

twice as strong in positive G, so this may be worst case condition. 

That said I would like to see positive G loading also.

I would also like to see the wing loaded in torque at the wing tip +- G 

to see how much twist there is(especially a wing with the baggage  

lockers). A wing that twists too much would not be good, BUT ALL WINGS 

TWIST. One possible fix is actually easy. Ad some diagonal ribs in 

between the regular ribs (think Ercoup).

JUST MY OPINIONS

Ken Lilja

John Bolding wrote:

[quote] Nobody get their shorts in a knot as I just have a couple of 

 questions, not trying to cast aspersions or stir the pot, just trying to 

 learn something.

 I notice that the sandbags are placed evenly along the wing, is that 

 because it's a rectangular wing? Generally when you see pics of load 

 testing the bag stack is thin at the tip and thick at the root. Maybe 

 every test I've seen before was of a tapered wing?? Donno, somebody 

 help me here.

 I guess in the recent pictures they were testing for negative loads as 

 the bags were on top of the wing , in the older test the fuselage was 

 inverted and bags were on the bottom, indicating a  load test for 

 positive G's. 

 I _guess_ maybe Chris felt the prior positive G test was good to go and 

 the negative test was needed more than redoing something already done, 

 OR maybe he isn't finished yet. Interesting.

 

 Sometimes it's a small thing . Van had a few problems (severe 

 understatement) with spars on very early RV3's. The spar caps were 

 1/8"x 1 1/4" bar stock they were 8 thick at the root, some of us 

 etched the caps and built a fixture to marry them all together with 3M 

 Hysol Structural Adhesive so we could drill them as a single piece 

 rather than 8 pieces of varying lengths. Turns out 10 yrs later when 

 Van did in depth load testing that the adhesive improved the crippling 

 effect of the thin strips, making the cap assy act like a solid bar 

 rather than a bunch of strips. We were good for 2-3 more G's if I 

 remember right. I had already       Looking for a deal? [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47094/*http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFicDJoNDllBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHBvcwMxMwRzZWMDZ3JvdXBzBHNsawNlbWFpbC1uY20-]Find great prices on flights and hotels[/url] with Yahoo! FareChase. [quote][b]

planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 4:01 pm Post subject: 601 XL load testing

Hey Paul, it does not have to be a weakness - all it needs to be is slightly unstable. Then a wayward load comes along and under the right circumstances the instability leads to buckling or bowig of some element out of plane and failure pops up.



Paul Mulwitz <p.mulwitz(at)worldnet.att.net> wrote:  [quote]--> Zenith-List message posted by: Paul Mulwitz 



At 10:09 AM 6/21/2007, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  One thing I continue to think about is that in all the fatal 601XL accidents

(regardless of the cause) it seems likely that a ballistic recovery chute

could have saved some lives. This includes Jim Pellien's which no one claims

was tied to a structural failure. But I am waiting on my preliminary W&B

data to see if a chute would make my plane safer or not. I'd like to see

Scott Laughlin's  numbers for his BRS-equipped XL even thought the Corvair is

heavier than a Jabiru 3300.


	


I don't know whether a ballistic chute would have helped with any of 

the recent accidents or not. It seems that all of them happened at 

low altitude. Between the human delay and the deployment delay I 

doubt a chute would have deployed in time to do any good on any of 

these accidents.



I have been thinking and looking at my plane as I reassemble the 

fuselage for riveting and noticed there might be a little weakness in 

the wing attach structure. There are cute little gussets supporting 

the gear uprights to the longerons, but no similar gussets on the 

wing spar uprights. Indeed, the only thing holding the main spar 

carry-through at the proper angle is a couple of pieces of side skin 

and the seat front bottom which is the same weight as the side 

skin. I considered adding gussets between the wing spar uprights and 

the main  Zodiac 601XL/Corvair?

        Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48516/*http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ]Join Yahoo!'s user panel[/url] and lay it on us.  [quote][b]

alex_01

Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 33

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:15 am Post subject: Re: 601 XL load testing

We use Scotch Weld 9323 B/A with great sucsess. we are also building Carbon fibre chassis for motorracing (and carbon/alloy) we done several structural tests including many crash tests and for sure the bond is extrimely good with this glue

planecrazydld(at)Yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:12 am Post subject: 601 XL load testing

Please remember that the bond in composites is vastly different than a metal bond. All that matters there are clean appropriately active surfaces, good joint design, and the appropriate adhesive appropriately applied and cured. Also remember that 100% bonded structures are subject to ballistic failure as the joints have substantial shear lag and different local speed of sound in the materials.



alex_01 <zoechling(at)gmx.de> wrote:[quote] --> Zenith-List message posted by: "alex_01" 



We use Scotch Weld 9323 B/A with great sucsess. we are also building Carbon fibre chassis for motorracing (and carbon/alloy) we done several structural tests including many crash tests and for sure the bond is extrimely good with this glue





Read this topic online  Be a PS3 game guru.

Get your game face on with [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49936/*http://videogames.yahoo.com]the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.[/url] [quote][b]

alex_01

Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 33

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: Re: 601 XL load testing

we know the differance between carbon and metal we also manufactured approx 60 Porsche 956/962 Group C chassis and this glue had the best results for strenght and sheer load - but surface has to be reasonable clean (we use aceton) and bonding area must also be prepared with find scotch brite  or fine sandpaper

lgingell

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 50
Location: Lake California Airpark 68CA

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: Re: 601 XL load testing

I looked closely at the pictures, and the bags say 'Tri Mix', so I googled it, and it appears to be ED medication that gives you an erection!



Are they trying to use it to make the wings stiff? !!!

_________________
Zodiac XL/Jab 3300
http://lancegingell.com

stshuck(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 8:33 am Post subject: 601 XL load testing

Yes, I agree, but It only stiff  for 36 Hours.



---

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