Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

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

DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

btucke73(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

Gents,



     Writing off the people looping 601's as stupid is

insulting.  You know nothing about these guys and

their flight experience.  I have looped my HDS, and

plan to do it again.



     The 601 is stressed to 6 G's.  I performed my

loop at 2.5.  I realize that private and commercial

pilot training convince you that if you bank your

aircraft more than 60 degrees the wings will rip off. 

Reality is much different.  The wing knows no

difference between performing a loop and a nose low 60

degree angle of bank turn.  I dogfight aircraft

stressed for 6 G's (Varga Kachina) every weekend,

without exceeding 60 deg angle of bank or 30 deg of

pitch.  We pull 3 G's on every fight.  This is

recognized and approved by the FAA.  Is this stupid? 

We have been doing it for over 10 years without

incident.  Over 100,000 satisfied customers...  If you

choose to disagree, that is expected and

understandable.  Calling them stupid is not what this

forum is about.



     If Chris Heinz were sincerely afraid of the wings

ripping off a 601 in a loop, I doubt he would link the

video on his website...  



R/



Brandon

601 HDS / TD / Corvair

80 hours

4 loops, and 15 - 20 aileron rolls...  Haven't ripped

the wings off yet...



 

http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

Michael Valentine

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 108

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:21 am Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

I have to agree with Brandon on this one - you/we know nothing about these individuals and the reasons they make the choices they do.  Nor do we know anything about their aerobatic proficiency.



Also, can you direct me to any expressed design limitation that they have exceeded or provide support for any of your numerous other assertions (bolded below)?  (I personally did not receive any structural analyses or design parameters from Chris Heintz when I got my kit.  One would think that if your various statements are correct, we would each have received a nice thick booklet on what we can and cannot do with our planes.) 



Each of us who builds the plane is the manufacturer and ultimately responsible for our own actions.  Quite honestly, the attitude evinced in your email below is of more concern to me than a thousand people looping 601s on YouTube.  (Of course, I know nothing about you and you might be a great and guy and a great attorney with whom I would happily share a beer.  I am merely making my statement based on how I perceive the tone of your post.)  I say this because I think the attitude shown in your post will lead us to a  "nanny-state" where one is not responsible for his own actions a fair bit faster than the frivolous lawsuits that will occur when someone loops their 601/701 into a bus full of disabled school children. 



Michael in NH

On 3/25/07, C Smith <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net (pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net)> wrote:[quote] --> Zenith-List message posted by: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net (pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net)>



 Not to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to 

determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of the

aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of caution.

Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that they're 

videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design limitations,

that such operation is unsafe to the point of intentional disregard for the 

safety of themselves and others on the ground, that such operation isexpressly unsanctioned by the designer and manufacturer of the kit , and that

publicizing such careless behavior may encourage others to attempt similaracts of negligence , etc.

Just a thought, in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after the

deep pockets of big companies" litigation, I would be quick to distance

myself form people who would flagrantly abuse my products in such a fashion. 

Lawyers could argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of

time, and that the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the

activity, and did nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore liable 

for the accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort cases.

If you could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and

certified receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would even 

go so far as to send copies of that warning to the aviation administering

agencies of the registered countries of ownership, informing them of the

recorded acts of negligence.

Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to pay for it when 

the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in court.



Craig Smith



[b]

NYTerminat(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

Brandon,

  

 Well said!!!!!!

  

 Bob

  

  

 In a message dated 3/25/2007 12:25:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  btucke73(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

Gents,



     Writing off the people looping    601's as stupid is

insulting.  You know nothing about these guys    and

their flight experience.  I have looped my HDS, and

plan to do    it again.



     The 601 is stressed to 6 G's.  I    performed my

loop at 2.5.  I realize that private and    commercial

pilot training convince you that if you bank your

aircraft    more than 60 degrees the wings will rip off. 

Reality is much    different.  The wing knows no

difference between performing a loop and    a nose low 60

degree angle of bank turn. 	


 

  



AOL now offersle="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339" href="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339" target="_blank">AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

pilot4pay

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

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

Mark T., this post illustrates my point exactly. I had no idea these were

linked from the factory site. By doing so Zenith has given tacit approval of

the activity, and more importantly are promoting the activity. If I were

you, I would get on the phone to the webmaster and pull those links

immediately.

Any attorney worth his salt would have those videos and the web-page links

from the factory site in front of the jury during opening arguments.



 "If Chris Heinz were sincerely afraid of the wings ripping off a 601 in a

loop, I doubt he would link the video on his website..."

Is exactly what the attorney would argue.



Operating an aircraft outside of it's certification is a violation of the

FARs as well as negligent behavior, doing it more than once is stupid.

Regardless of the construction.

"4 loops, and 15 - 20 aileron rolls...  Haven't ripped the wings off yet..."



These are famous last words, I haven't been hurt yet. Easy to say, hard for

families to live with. I work in manufacturing, and the guys that are most

likely to hurt or kill themselves are the guys with many years of

experience. They have developed a sense of arrogant invulnerability. Try to

point out when they are not following safety protocol, you get the "I'm

insulted that you can question my experience" and "I've changed out these

for years without shutting off the buss", I've even been threatened for

mentioning safe practices. But listen to any survivor of an accident and you

will hear "I was stupid to think it couldn't happen to me".

Brandon, when your wing separates, or fuel supply fails, or some other

unforeseen component stops doing what it was intended to, you won't be able

to reach out and fix it.

Maybe you have or haven't seen someone die from an accident first hand, but

I have. It has left an indelible mark on my soul. Sometimes the smallest of

mistakes will kill you in an instant.

Of course nothing I have to say will change anyone's behavior, it never has.

But I've watched as my leading petty officer dropped dead from

electrocution, and watched another coworker get horribly burned, crippled

and blinded by the arrogance of experience.

I'm not going to apologize for insulting anyone on this matter, but I have

to thank Brandon for making my point better than I could have myself.



Craig Smith

State licensed Journeyman electrician

Certificated instrument rated pilot

422 hrs

0 loops, 0 aileron rolls




Gents,



     Writing off the people looping 601's as stupid is insulting.  You know

nothing about these guys and their flight experience.  I have looped my HDS,

and plan to do it again.



     The 601 is stressed to 6 G's.  I performed my loop at 2.5.  I realize

that private and commercial pilot training convince you that if you bank

your aircraft more than 60 degrees the wings will rip off. 

Reality is much different.  The wing knows no difference between performing

a loop and a nose low 60 degree angle of bank turn.  I dogfight aircraft

stressed for 6 G's (Varga Kachina) every weekend, without exceeding 60 deg

angle of bank or 30 deg of pitch.  We pull 3 G's on every fight.  This is

recognized and approved by the FAA.  Is this stupid? 

We have been doing it for over 10 years without incident.  Over 100,000

satisfied customers...  If you choose to disagree, that is expected and

understandable.  Calling them stupid is not what this forum is about.



     If Chris Heinz were sincerely afraid of the wings ripping off a 601 in

a loop, I doubt he would link the video on his website...  



R/



Brandon

601 HDS / TD / Corvair

80 hours

4 loops, and 15 - 20 aileron rolls...  Haven't ripped the wings off yet...

_________________
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

craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

Brandon,



I'm too ignorant to express an opinion but I do have a question. Do you

worry about loss of fuel feed from the tanks or lack of oil in your Corvair

while inverted? Roughly how long are you inverted? From my casual knowledge

on the subject I understand that aerobatic planes have engines with dry

sumps and flop tubes in the tanks.



-- Craig

TH-SR

Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 22
Location: WI

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

On a lighter  note here's another flight maneuver  safely performed by a qualified pilot but frowned upon by the  designer...

  

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vHiYA6Dmws  

  

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

Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 1:38  PM

To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Zenith-List:  Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

 

  Brandon,

  

 Well said!!!!!!

  

 Bob

  

  

 In a message dated 3/25/2007 12:25:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  btucke73(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

Gents,



     Writing off the people    looping 601's as stupid is

insulting.  You know nothing about these    guys and

their flight experience.  I have looped my HDS, and

plan    to do it again.



     The 601 is stressed to 6 G's.     I performed my

loop at 2.5.  I realize that private and    commercial

pilot training convince you that if you bank your

aircraft    more than 60 degrees the wings will rip off. 

Reality is much    different.  The wing knows no

difference between performing a loop and    a nose low 60

degree angle of bank turn. 	


 

  



   AOL now offersle="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339"  href="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339"  target="_blank">AOL.com. 

[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com



[b]

_________________
Todd
CH701

bryanmmartin

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1018

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

The 601 has a design load factor of 6 Gs. The flight load factor is 4  

Gs. Exceeding the flight load factor on an airplane will most likely  

put a permanent bend in the wing spars. Exceeding the design load  

factor will most likely break the wing spars.



That being said, if you have the training and skill to perform a  

flight maneuver without exceeding the flight load factor, there's  

nothing stupid about doing it. If you don't have the training and  

skill, performing a loop in a 601 would not be very smart. It's not  

designed for aerobatic training and not stressed for the loads you  

might encounter if you screw up the maneuver.



 	  Quote: 	
		        The 601 is stressed to 6 G's.  ....


	




-- 

Bryan Martin

N61BM, CH 601 XL,

RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.

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

amyvega2005(at)earthlink.
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

Too all freekin out about the loop on youtube,

tell Bob Hoover that what he did was frivolous.

Don't know Bob Hoover?  type it into the youtube search.

 

While you are on the ground busy judging someone elses behavior that has no bearing on what you are doing in your little part of the world,  I'll be doing a loop and enjoying it.



We built planes because we chose to build something and take the risks, same as jumping out of a plane with some silk stuffed in a back pack on your back.  We assume responsiblity for our own actions.   If  If they die doing it, they chose to take the risk.  C Smith has one point right, remember the old quote "there are no old, bold pilots".

My favorite is    "Life is a calculated risk"

Juan



--

pilot4pay

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

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:34 pm Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

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

 

 I have to agree with Brandon on this one - you/we know nothing about these  individuals and the reasons they make the choices they do.  Nor do we know  anything about their aerobatic proficiency. 

  

 This  is precisely why there are things like type certificates, building/electrical  codes etc. No one knows much about the proficiency of those performing the  work(driving the car, flying the plane, building the plane), hence governing  bodies impose regulations and standards of construction/operation/conduct. They  are called laws. The alternative is chaos. 



Also,  can you direct me to any expressed design limitation that they have exceeded or  provide support for any of your numerous other assertions (bolded below)?   (I personally did not receive any structural analyses or design parameters from  Chris Heintz when I got my kit.  One would think that if your various  statements are correct, we would each have received a nice thick booklet on what  we can and cannot do with our planes.)  

  

  

 It's  called the airworthiness certificate, and if it doesn't say aerobatic, you are  operating it outside the limitations. By the way, are you wearing parachutes while performing these  maneuvers?



Each of us who builds the plane is the  manufacturer and ultimately responsible for our own actions.  Quite  honestly, the attitude evinced in your email below is of more concern to me than  a thousand people looping 601s on YouTube.  (Of course, I know nothing  about you and you might be a great and guy and a great attorney with whom I  would happily share a beer.  I am merely making my statement based on how I  perceive the tone of your post.)  I say this because I think the attitude  shown in your post will lead us to a  "nanny-state" where one is not  responsible for his own actions a fair bit faster than the frivolous lawsuits  that will occur when someone loops their 601/701 into a bus full of disabled  school children.  

  

  

 I'm  assuming that NH stands for New Hampshire, that means you live in the  United States.  If those  involved in operating their aircraft outside the operating limitations were  somehow immune to the law of the land, and operated in areas where their  crashing airframe could pose zero risk to innocent citizens, then WHEEEEEeeeee,  go for it. Unfortunately one reason for the high cost of flying is stupid  people. One third of the cost of certificated aircraft is due to liability  concerns. Stupid is also why hair dryers and toasters have short electrical  cords, why every appliance you buy has xx pages of warnings listing behaviors  that to many would be laughable, it's why Cessna had to pay a ton of money and  cease production of it's piston singles (someone didn't bother to check if his  seat was locked in place). It's why a power company can be sued for turning off  electricity (due to nonpayment of bills) because the homeowner used flaming  newspaper to thaw the pipes under his house. Need I go on? Or are these things  completely foreign to you? These things are a reality of our country, to ignore  the fact has led to the bankrupting of many businesses. Didn't we just see a  major manufacturer of vacuum pumps, go out of the business because the pilot  couldn't fly partial panel? Michael, I'm not the one who has made the court system what it is,  but that doesn't mean that I won't take appropriate action to protect myself or  my business from acts of stupidity, nor does it mean I will keep my head in the  sand and pretend lawsuits don't happen.

 Craig Smith 

  

Michael in  NH



 On 3/25/07, C Smith  <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net (pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net)>  wrote: [quote]-->    Zenith-List message posted by: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net (pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net)>



Not    to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to    

determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of    the

aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of    caution.

Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that    they're 

videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design limitations,

that    such operation is unsafe to the point    of intentional disregard for the 

safety of themselves and others on the    ground, that such operation isexpressly    unsanctioned by the designer and manufacturer of the kit , and    that

publicizing such careless behavior may    encourage others to attempt similaracts of negligence , etc.

Just a thought,    in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after the

deep pockets of    big companies" litigation, I would be quick to distance

myself form people    who would flagrantly abuse my products in such a fashion. 

Lawyers could    argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of

time, and that    the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the

activity, and did    nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore liable 

for the    accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort cases.

If you    could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and

certified    receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would even 

go so far    as to send copies of that warning to the aviation administering

agencies of    the registered countries of ownership, informing them of the

recorded acts    of negligence.

Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to    pay for it when 

the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in    court.



Craig Smith







href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com



[b]

_________________
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

carlossa52(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:50 pm Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

"Life is terminal."



do not archive



On 25/03/07, Juan Vega <amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net (amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net)> wrote: [quote]--> Zenith-List message posted by: Juan Vega < amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net (amyvega2005(at)earthlink.net)>

... Smith has one point right, remember the old quote "there are no old, bold pilots".

 My favorite is    "Life is a calculated risk"

Juan[b]

Michael Valentine

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 108

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

If you believe even half of the things you are saying, you (and perhaps the rest of us in this society) have lost already.  You are already so affected by the possibility of lawsuits that you will cede the decisions about how to live your life to governing bodies.  There is a difference between sticking your head in the sand and cowering in the corner.  I think you are cowering, not being realistic. 



Michael in New Hampshire, USA 



do not archive



On 3/25/07, C Smith <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net (pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net)> wrote:[quote]       



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

 

 I have to agree with Brandon on this one - you/we know nothing about these  individuals and the reasons they make the choices they do.  Nor do we know  anything about their aerobatic proficiency. 

  

 This  is precisely why there are things like type certificates, building/electrical  codes etc. No one knows much about the proficiency of those performing the  work(driving the car, flying the plane, building the plane), hence governing  bodies impose regulations and standards of construction/operation/conduct. They  are called laws. The alternative is chaos. 



Also,  can you direct me to any expressed design limitation that they have exceeded or  provide support for any of your numerous other assertions (bolded below)?   (I personally did not receive any structural analyses or design parameters from  Chris Heintz when I got my kit.  One would think that if your various  statements are correct, we would each have received a nice thick booklet on what  we can and cannot do with our planes.)  

  

  

 It's  called the airworthiness certificate, and if it doesn't say aerobatic, you are  operating it outside the limitations. By the way, are you wearing parachutes while performing these  maneuvers?



Each of us who builds the plane is the  manufacturer and ultimately responsible for our own actions.  Quite  honestly, the attitude evinced in your email below is of more concern to me than  a thousand people looping 601s on YouTube.  (Of course, I know nothing  about you and you might be a great and guy and a great attorney with whom I  would happily share a beer.  I am merely making my statement based on how I  perceive the tone of your post.)  I say this because I think the attitude  shown in your post will lead us to a  "nanny-state" where one is not  responsible for his own actions a fair bit faster than the frivolous lawsuits  that will occur when someone loops their 601/701 into a bus full of disabled  school children.  

  

  

 I'm  assuming that NH stands for New Hampshire, that means you live in the  United States.  If those  involved in operating their aircraft outside the operating limitations were  somehow immune to the law of the land, and operated in areas where their  crashing airframe could pose zero risk to innocent citizens, then WHEEEEEeeeee,  go for it. Unfortunately one reason for the high cost of flying is stupid  people. One third of the cost of certificated aircraft is due to liability  concerns. Stupid is also why hair dryers and toasters have short electrical  cords, why every appliance you buy has xx pages of warnings listing behaviors  that to many would be laughable, it's why Cessna had to pay a ton of money and  cease production of it's piston singles (someone didn't bother to check if his  seat was locked in place). It's why a power company can be sued for turning off  electricity (due to nonpayment of bills) because the homeowner used flaming  newspaper to thaw the pipes under his house. Need I go on? Or are these things  completely foreign to you? These things are a reality of our country, to ignore  the fact has led to the bankrupting of many businesses. Didn't we just see a  major manufacturer of vacuum pumps, go out of the business because the pilot  couldn't fly partial panel? Michael, I'm not the one who has made the court system what it is,  but that doesn't mean that I won't take appropriate action to protect myself or  my business from acts of stupidity, nor does it mean I will keep my head in the  sand and pretend lawsuits don't happen.

 Craig Smith 

  

Michael in  NH



 On 3/25/07, C Smith  <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net (pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net)>  wrote:  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Zenith-List message posted by: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net (pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net)>



Not    to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to    

determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of    the

aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of    caution.

Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that    they're 

videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design limitations,

that    such operation is unsafe to the point    of intentional disregard for the 

safety of themselves and others on the    ground, that such operation isexpressly    unsanctioned by the designer and manufacturer of the kit , and    that

publicizing such careless behavior may    encourage others to attempt similaracts of negligence , etc.

Just a thought,    in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after the

deep pockets of    big companies" litigation, I would be quick to distance

myself form people    who would flagrantly abuse my products in such a fashion. 

Lawyers could    argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of

time, and that    the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the

activity, and did    nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore liable 

for the    accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort cases.

If you    could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and

certified    receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would even 

go so far    as to send copies of that warning to the aviation administering

agencies of    the registered countries of ownership, informing them of the

recorded acts    of negligence.

Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to    pay for it when 

the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in    court.



Craig Smith



	


 	  Quote: 	
		  



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List">

http://www.matronhref="http://forums.matronics.com">

http://forums.matronics.com



	
   [quote][b]  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List http://forums.matronics.com  [quote][b]

btucke73(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

Mark,



     As someone else stated, I am the manufacturer.  I

also wrote the operator's manual, which states that

aileron rolls and loops are allowable maneuvers.  If

someone, as you described, went out and performed

loops without proper training, in any aircraft, I

would have little problem with using the word 'stupid'

to describe them.  However, someone with proper

training should have no issues with looping an

aircraft that is stressed to do so, and is allowed by

the operator's manual.  I have respect for you and

your opinion, and simply respectfully disagree.  



      Craig:  Negative G's are never experienced in a

loop.  You maintain somewhere between 2 - 3 in the

pull up, and 1 over the top.  I would never

intentionally pull negative G's, or even zero G in an

aircraft not equipped with flop tubes, and inverted

oil systems.  



     Sea lawyer Chris:  Put away the law books, and

pick up some aviation books.  Study up a little more

on aerobatics, and aerodynamics.  I am getting the

impression that the people bitching about the loop,

have never really done one, and don't understand what

is happening aerodynamically when doing one.  I did a

loop in the Texan today, and never pulled more than 2

G's.  If anyone on the list is afraid of pulling 2 G's

in the Zodiac, maybe radio controlled aircraft are a

better fit for you.  When I said "-haven't ripped the

wings off yet," it was obviously tongue in cheek,

poked in your direction.  Don't bring dead friends and

arrogance into it either.  You confuse arrogance with

education and experience.   BTW, what in the hell does

this have to do shutting down a buss?  While you were

swapping fuses, I was landing on aircraft carriers. 

Go join a fuse replacement list and debate those

proper procedures there.



     I have lost patience with this thread and this

list.  I'll take my experience, and my "arrogance"

elsewhere.  There is sufficient free advice here from

people that have not finished their projects or even

flown a 601 for me to waste the bandwidth on real word

experience in a real 601 that actually flies.  



Brandon

 

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love 

(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

gboothe5(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

Brandon,



I have the feeling that this is the part where you "give back" to the list.

Your common sense and experience are exactly what needs to be heard,

otherwise other less sensible individuals will be far too willing to sign

away more of their rights to the Nanny State.



I can understand why you would not want to bang your head against this

particular wall, anymore, but that's today's challenge. Hang with us...



Gary Boothe 

Cool, CA 

601 HDSTD, WW Conversion 90% done, 

Tail done, wings done, working on c-section

--

pilot4pay

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

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

If you have an airworthiness certificate that says aerobatic, loop yer

heart out, if it doesn't , then gather the proper documentation submit it to

get one that does.

It's too bad that analogies are so difficult for such an experienced officer

and airman to grasp. The analogy pertains to attitudes people have to laws

and regulations.

I've lost patience with ignorance and recklessness.

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

rickpitcher

Joined: 27 Feb 2007
Posts: 76

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

Hey Brandon, don't leave. You'll always find a few folks on these lists that 

get all defensive and accusatory when someone presents a different viewpoint 

than their own.



I've gotta say: I've been upside down in my Zodiac a couple of times. I 

wasn't operating the controls, I haven't had the proper training. The guy 

that was with me was a very competent pilot with plenty of aerobatic 

experience or we wouldn't have done it.

 Chutes? Yeah... we were wearing chutes.



Rick Pitcher

601HD/Jab3300



---

marinegunner(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

Craig,

 An to think I and many others gave as much as our lives so that some like you can accept that the "governement" must take care of you from cradle to grave! Our legal system simply has to many lawyers who need to make money for any silly reason. If I wanna loop the plane I built I will. And, I will have fun. 

-- 

Semper Fi,

Steven R. Hulland

CH 600 Taildragger

Amado, AZ



This and all other incoming/outgoing email, attachments and replies scanned prior to opening/sending and uses an external firewall to help insure virus free email and attachments.  

  [quote][b]

tommylutz(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:08 pm Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

This link is for everyone in this discussion:

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming



On 3/25/07,  Steve Hulland <marinegunner(at)gmail.com (marinegunner(at)gmail.com)> wrote:[quote] Craig,

 An to think I and many others gave as much as our lives so that some like you can accept that the "governement" must take care of you from cradle to grave! Our legal system simply has to many lawyers who need to make money for any silly reason. If I wanna loop the plane I built I will. And, I will have fun. 

-- 

Semper Fi,

Steven R. Hulland

CH 600 Taildragger

Amado, AZ



This and all other incoming/outgoing email, attachments and replies scanned prior to opening/sending and uses an external firewall to help insure virus free email and attachments.  

  [quote][b]  http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List http://forums.matronics.com  [quote][b]

btucke73(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:14 am Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

 	  Quote: 	
		  >I've lost patience with ignorance and recklessness.

>CS


	


       I was happy to give up, but several off list messages made me realize that your view is not the majority.  Recklessness is subjective.  Did you break the speed limit when you went to work this morning...  I bet you did.  Some people might consider that reckless.  

   

       It is becoming increasingly obvious that the only ignorance here is on your part.  I use the ignorant term for it's true meaning, not to be flippant.  I think you need spend a little time studying before throwing stones.  Several people have chimed in here with information indicating that it is perfectly legal to do loops, if the operator's manual allows.  Don't state your opinion here as fact.  Actually do the research...  Read Brian's post.  The airworthiness certificate says  nothing about limitations on aerobatics.  The operator's manual does...  Mine does...  So I can, and I will fly my aircraft responsibly, safely, and in accordance with FAA regulations.  We are now back to square one.

   

       Your analogies are not lost on me.  I get it.  I would have gotten them when I was enlisted.  Being an officer has nothing to do with it.  I have a file in my office with newspaper clippings from the deaths of 7 friends of mine, who all died in military aircraft.  With the exception of 2, they were all doing exactly what the military orders and regulations directed / allowed.  I have narrowly avoided a mid air collision doing exactly what I was supposed to be doing.  There was no arrogance involved beyond the arrogance required to simply strap on the Hornet.

   

       I think information provided by others  on the list show that doing this is perfectly legal.  That issue is dead as far as I am concerned.  Let's move on from what is legal, and get to what is safe.  If you need convincing that this is not unsafe, come down to San Diego.  I will take you up in the Texan, and do a 2 G loop.  You will see that a loop is a joke in aerobatic terms.  I am certain that everyone on the list has been more aggressive in a Cessna in spin recovery than anything that can happen in a properly executed loop.  

   

  Brandon

   



   It's here! Your new message!

Get [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/] new email alerts[/url] with the free [url= http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49938/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/]Yahoo! Toolbar.[/url] [quote][b]

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: Re: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

Yeah, now that I've read the original e-mail I agree, who is someone else to say what you can and can't do with your own plane. The past five years as seen more dangerous activity in the subprime mortgage market than this and no one has said anything about that til recently, and now they're talking about picking everyone's pocket to pay for stupid people's mistakes. Eff them.



Speaking of litigation, that's what totally killed GA in the first place, even a superior judge friend of mine who's also a pilot said that, and he's ashamed of his profession because of it, as well as other shameless ambulance chasing activities the large majority of lawyers tend to engage in.



As far as doing a loop in a plane, even if the 601 is not explicitly aerobatic, there's a big difference between 2.5Gs and 6Gs, or even 4Gs, design load. I'd imagine the average person would be pretty hard pressed to keep themselves in a 6G manuever. Most likely you'd get so stressed you'd ease up on the stick on the stick, and maybe not complete you loop and go into a stall and recover from that instead. Theoretically, if you do the loop right, it shouldn't be anymore traumatic than going through a loop on a roller coaster.



But getting back to litigation, should we stop people from riding motorcycles? How about taking showers, plenty of people fall down in the shower? Then there's lawn mowers and snowblowers, Dag, you could cut your finger off or throw a rock through some kids eye with one of them. Here's a classic. Car brakes. You can go right down to Pep Boys and buy brake pads for your car and change them yourself, or totally screw up the job yourself. Totally up to you. You can even go so far as to buy a new master cylinder for your car's brakes and change that yourself too. OMG, I'm never going to leave the house again. A bus full of disabled school children is more likely to be run into by a drunk driver or someone with malfunctioning brakes, or even the doopy schoolbus driver stalling the bus on railroad tracks than being hit by a small plane. When you're up in the air, has anyone noticed how much relatively open space there is on the ground to choose from? I have. When you're on the ground you're confined to two dimensions. Generally plenty of time to choose between hitting an Archway bus and grassy knoll. You generally don't have as much of a choice when in an automobile accident.



In regards to lawyers and the Nanny state, it reminds me of the joke:



What do you call a bus load of lawyers going over a cliff? A good start.



What do you call a bus load of lawyers going over a cliff with one empty seat?  A crying shame.



Bottom line, too many lawyers, too many lawmakers, too many laws/regulations. The reason we're even dicussing this isn't because the guy is seemingly busting a regulation, it's because there was another over the top regulation put there in the first place, to the point that the busting of the regulation is the first mindless concern rather than "What does it really mean." What it really means is some lawyer back in 1965 or something found a nice was to prosecute something in GA to put little Porsche through Dartmouth to find another shyster lawyer to breed with. That's what it means in general. Granted, we all need to be safe up there, but the heart of the issue generally boils down to 90% Porsche and Babs getting a degree and Debutantery from Dartmouth and 10% addressing something GA related.



do not archive



[quote="Michael Valentine"]I have to agree with Brandon on this one - you/we know nothing about these individuals and the reasons they make the choices they do.  Nor do we know anything about their aerobatic proficiency.



Also, can you direct me to any expressed design limitation that they have exceeded or provide support for any of your numerous other assertions (bolded below)?  (I personally did not receive any structural analyses or design parameters from Chris Heintz when I got my kit.  One would think that if your various statements are correct, we would each have received a nice thick booklet on what we can and cannot do with our planes.) 



Each of us who builds the plane is the manufacturer and ultimately responsible for our own actions.  Quite honestly, the attitude evinced in your email below is of more concern to me than a thousand people looping 601s on YouTube.  (Of course, I know nothing about you and you might be a great and guy and a great attorney with whom I would happily share a beer.  I am merely making my statement based on how I perceive the tone of your post.)  I say this because I think the attitude shown in your post will lead us to a  "nanny-state" where one is not responsible for his own actions a fair bit faster than the frivolous lawsuits that will occur when someone loops their 601/701 into a bus full of disabled school children. 



Michael in NH

On 3/25/07, C Smith <pilot4profit> wrote: 	  Quote: 	
		   --> Zenith-List message posted by: "C Smith" <pilot4profit>



 Not to sound like an arm chair attorney, but wouldn't it be prudent to 

determine who the owner/operators are (based on the registration of the

aircraft) and send them each (via certified mail) a letter of caution.

Restating the design limitations of the aircraft, and noting that they're 

videos display operation of the aircraft outside of the design limitations,

that such operation is unsafe to the point of intentional disregard for the 

safety of themselves and others on the ground, that such operation isexpressly unsanctioned by the designer and manufacturer of the kit , and that

publicizing such careless behavior may encourage others to attempt similaracts of negligence , etc.

Just a thought, in this day and age of "I'm not responsible, go after the

deep pockets of big companies" litigation, I would be quick to distance

myself form people who would flagrantly abuse my products in such a fashion. 

Lawyers could argue that the videos were public domain for XX amount of

time, and that the manufacturer/designer "should have seen/known of the

activity, and did nothing to inform the operators, and is therefore liable 

for the accident". I've seen far more extreme arguments won in tort cases.

If you could simply produce the copies of the documents of warning, and

certified receipts of their mailing, it would be case closed. I would even 

go so far as to send copies of that warning to the aviation administering

agencies of the registered countries of ownership, informing them of the

recorded acts of negligence.

Just my 2 cents. Cheaper to nip it in the bud now, than to pay for it when 

the stupid people end up dead, with next of kin suing in court.



Craig Smith



[b]

btucke73(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:22 pm Post subject: DID I SEE THIS ON YouTUBE! 601 Looping!!!!

William,

   

       You are partly correct.  Most people's resting G tolerance is in the 4 range.  "Resting" means that you have no G suit on AND perform no anti-G straining maneuver.  My resting G tolerance when I went through the centrifuge was 4.5 (I am short and stocky).  The affects of positive G's are as simple as a pump's (heart) pressure head.  If you are tall and have low blood pressure, you will more than likely have a low resting G tolerance.  This is why on average, women have a higher resting G tolerance than men (they are typically shorter).  The G-suit only adds about 1 G of additional positive G tolerance.  The anti-G straining maneuver makes up the rest of the difference.  In the centrifuge, we were required to maintain 7.8 G's for 30 seconds.  -Something the Hornet is hardly capable of doing, but...  It was painful.  The Eagle  and Viper guys have to go to 9 G's.  Air show guys hit very high G's, but for a shorter duration of time.  The factors increasing the possibility of gray out, tunnel vision, or even GLOC (G induced loss of conciousness) are the amount of G's, G onset rate, and length of time sustained.  

   

       I totally agree that entry speed is not a factor, other than the higher the entry speed, theoretically, the lower the G force required to make it over the top.  In relatively low horsepower and high drag aerobatic aircraft like the Citabria, 3 - 4 G's is required to make it over the top.  The only problem I had with moving body parts under high G was getting my head turned around while in a defensive dogfight under high positive G (>6).  I would look at the HUD for whatever information I needed, and get my head looking back prior to pulling significant G's...  High positive G's  were even more difficult when wearing NVG's, but that is another story...

   

  VR/

   

  Brandon

  601 HDS / TD / Corvair

  80 hours  



   [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49935/*http://games.yahoo.com]Bored stiff?[/url] Loosen up...

[url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49935/*http://games.yahoo.com]Download and play hundreds of games for free[/url] on Yahoo! Games. [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

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