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

LIGHT AIRCRAFT

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

graeme(at)coletoolcentre.
Guest

Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

I have been watching from the side lines the continuing to and fro about the 

safety of the CH601.

I have a CH 701 but may consider building a 601 in future.

These are light air craft they don't have bullet proof glass. (bird strike 

protection)

they don't have armour plating around the cockpit area (hillbillies shooting 

at you over flying their crop protection)

When you hit the ground they break (and they have no airbags for crash 

protection)

They are not designed to crash they are designed to fly.

If you fly within the specifications you should be OK .

All those concerend should fit a G meter to check that you are not 

mishandling your aircraft.

If I build a ch601 for my own piece of mind I would consider a strut brace 

to trianglate wing.

But only if an answer on the accidents indicated structual failure or are 

inconclusive.

If any indication of concern with structure I am sure Zenith would respond 

with a fix.

I think the Australian investigators (Recreation Aviation Australia) should 

come up with some definitive results on the latest Accident. In time!!



Graemecns

frankroskind(at)HOTMAIL.C
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:58 am Post subject: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

IMO adding a strut brace to an existing design could be extremely dangerous as the stru would create a load at a point not designed to take a load.  Engineering is complicated, and a great way to concentrate loads and cause failures is to add a strengthening element which focuses forces in a new location not designed for the forces.

 	  Quote: 	
		   From: graeme(at)coletoolcentre.com.au

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Zenith-List: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

 Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:54:31 +1000

 --> Zenith-List message posted by: "Graeme" <graeme(at)coletoolcentre.com.au>

 I have been watching from the side lines the continuing to and fro about the 

 safety of the CH601.

 I have a CH 701 but may consider building a 601 in future.

 These are light air craft they don't have bullet proof glass. (bird strike 

 protection)

 they don't have armour plating around the cockpit area (hillbillies shooting 

 at you over flying their crop protection)

 When you hit the ground they break (and they have no airbags for crash 

 protection)

 They are not designed to crash they are designed to fly.

 If you fly within the specifications you should be OK .

 All those concerend should fit a G meter to check that you are not 

 mishandling your aircraft.

 If I build a ch601 for my own piece of mind I would consider a strut brace 

 to trianglate wing.

 But only if an answer on the accidents indicated structual failure or are 

 inconclusive.

 If any indication of concern with structure I am sure Zenith would respond 

 with a fix.

 I think the Australian investigators (Recreation Aviation Australia) should 

 come up with some definitive results on the latest Accident. In time!!

 Graemecns

&g======================

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

Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now!   	  Quote: 	
		  [b]

Kevin Bonds

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 171
Location: Nashville, Tn

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:39 am Post subject: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

_________________
KevinBonds
Nashville, TN
Plans-building Zenith CH601XL w/Corvair Power
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds

japhillipsga(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

Graemecns, I'm not sure about another external brace, but if I was building my XL again I might consider a forward wing bracket between the inboard side of the fuel tanks and the side of the fuselage. I am building a RV-8a and just finished mounting the wings. The Rv's have an overlapping forward attachment bracket intended to help prevent wing twist and more support for the leading edge of the wing for the added weight of full fuel tanks. A good idea that ZAC should consider as a modification to design. The XL might benefit from this modification. The XL wing is prevented from twisting by only one bolt in the very thin metal of the rear spar.  If I were to consider such a modification I would of course confer with the smart folks at ZAC for their opinion. Just a thought from a XL builder and flyer. Best of luck and regards, Bill

   do not archive  

 

 

 --

Jeyoung65(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:08 am Post subject: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

Has any one installed fuel tanks aft of the main spar that are larger than  the baggage comp. provided by Zenith? Did you add braces under the tank.  ect  Jerry of Ga

  

  In a message dated 3/20/2008 12:58:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  japhillipsga(at)aol.com writes:

 [quote]   Graemecns, I'm not sure about another external brace, but if I was    building my XL again I might consider a forward wing bracket between the    inboard side of the fuel tanks and the side of the fuselage. I am building a    RV-8a and just finished mounting the wings. The Rv's have an overlapping    forward attachment bracket intended to help prevent wing twist and more    support for the leading edge of the wing for the added weight of full fuel    tanks. A good idea that ZAC should consider as a modification to design. The    XL might benefit from this modification. The XL wing is prevented from    twisting by only one bolt in the very thin metal of the rear spar.  If I    were to consider such a modification I would of course confer with the smart    folks at ZAC for their opinion. Just a thought from a XL builder and flyer.    Best of luck and regards, Bill

   do not archive  

--

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:00 pm Post subject: Re: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

As long as that rear bolt is in there it should be fine. My concern would lie more with the torsional strength of the wing itself all along it's span. Even so, a RV style brace might be good. I think extra ribs would be better to ensure torsional strength of the wing along it's span.



 	  japhillipsga(at)aol.com wrote: 	
		  Graemecns, I'm not sure about another external brace, but if I was building my XL again I might consider a forward wing bracket between the inboard side of the fuel tanks and the side of the fuselage. I am building a RV-8a and just finished mounting the wings. The Rv's have an overlapping forward attachment bracket intended to help prevent wing twist and more support for the leading edge of the wing for the added weight of full fuel tanks. A good idea that ZAC should consider as a modification to design. The XL might benefit from this modification. The XL wing is prevented from twisting by only one bolt in the very thin metal of the rear spar.  If I were to consider such a modification I would of course confer with the smart folks at ZAC for their opinion. Just a thought from a XL builder and flyer. Best of luck and regards, Bill

   do not archive  

 

 

 --

steveadams

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 191

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

There are a whole bunch of ways to overstress an airframe, regardless of the rated loads. I could go out tomorrow, fly at Va and find a way to rip my wings off. People have managed to tear the wings off of 12G rated airframes. I could go out and push the limits of my airframe, be it by doing aerobatics, going too fast through turbulence, yanking and banking, or any of 100 stupid pilot tricks. Even a "1G roll" done incorrectly could tear the wings off or cause permanent damage to the airframe. Maybe 1 encounter with severe turbulence or a storm exceeds the limits. Maybe 1 steep turn that goes over a little too far. Once that damage is done, even with 1 stupid pilot trick, all structural calculations go out the window. Combine that with an incorrectly torqued bolt or a line of rivets incorrectly set or with inadequate edge distances in just the wrong place, and the airplane is flying on borrowed time. Something as seemingly benign as a steep turn or dropping the flaps on the next flight could result in catastrophic failure. The fact that it occurs so rarely is amazing, and a testament to the designers and builders of experimental aircraft, as well as to pilots in general. Lay people are clueless to the fact that poor piloting technique can easily rip an airplane apart, but as pilots we really shouldn't be. I'm not saying that this relates to all of the accidents, but we really shouldn't be surprised that the 601xl controls have enough authority to rip the wings off, or that a new sport pilot entering IMC is going to end 1 of 2 ways, spiraling into the ground or ripping the plane apart trying to bring it under control. As my 13 y/o daughter would say, "Duh!!"



Steve

N621J

CH640

jerry(at)jerryhey.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:42 pm Post subject: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

Surviving and living are not at all the same.  Putting around making  

gentle turns may extend your life but it is not living.  Yanking and  

banking are the important fun part of flying, much more so than  

sitting still in the left seat, afraid to twitch.   I love to fly.   

One of my old friends, flying a Tailwind, can't go from point to point  

without tossing in a roll ever so often.  One night, in pitch black,  

we did roll after roll as we cork screwed along, only the lights on  

the ground to pronounce right side up and our laughter filling the  

cabin.    That was living!   I would not have a plane that cannot  

handle a little fun.   Jerry  age 67   (701 scratch )

On Mar 20, 2008, at 7:17 PM, steveadams wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 >



 There are a whole bunch of ways to overstress an airframe,  

 regardless of the rated loads. I could go out tomorrow, fly at Va  

 and find a way to rip my wings off. People have managed to tear the  

 wings off of 12G rated airframes. I could go out and push the limits  

 of my airframe, be it by doing aerobatics, going too fast through  

 turbulence, yanking and banking, or any of 100 stupid pilot tricks.  

 Even a "1G roll" done incorrectly could tear the wings off or cause  

 permanent damage to the airframe. Maybe 1 encounter with severe  

 turbulence or a storm exceeds the limits. Maybe 1 steep turn that  

 goes over a little too far. Once that damage is done, even with 1  

 stupid pilot trick, all structural calculations go out the window.  

 Combine that with an incorrectly torqued bolt or a line of rivets  

 incorrectly set or with inadequate edge distances in just the wrong  

 place, and the airplane is flying on borrowed time. Something as  

 seemingly benign as a steep turn or dropping the flaps on the n!

 ext flight could result in catastrophic failure. The fact that it  

 occurs so rarely is amazing, and a testament to the designers and  

 builders of experimental aircraft, as well as to pilots in general.  

 Lay people are clueless to the fact that poor piloting technique can  

 easily rip an airplane apart, but as pilots we really shouldn't be.  

 I'm not saying that this relates to all of the accidents, but we  

 really shouldn't be surprised that the 601xl controls have enough  

 authority to rip the wings off, or that a new sport pilot entering  

 IMC is going to end 1 of 2 ways, spiraling into the ground or  

 ripping the plane apart trying to bring it under control. As my 13 y/ 

 o daughter would say, "Duh!!"



 Steve

 N621J

 CH640





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=171349#171349

jmaynard

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

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 08:39:49PM -0400, Jerry Hey wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Surviving and living are not at all the same.  Putting around making  

 gentle turns may extend your life but it is not living.  Yanking and  

 banking are the important fun part of flying, much more so than  

 sitting still in the left seat, afraid to twitch.   I love to fly.   

 One of my old friends, flying a Tailwind, can't go from point to point  

 without tossing in a roll ever so often.  One night, in pitch black,  

 we did roll after roll as we cork screwed along, only the lights on  

 the ground to pronounce right side up and our laughter filling the  

 cabin.    That was living!   I would not have a plane that cannot  

 handle a little fun.   Jerry  age 67   (701 scratch )


	


Different strokes for different folks. Your kind of flying is not for me: I

don't much enjoy going along with an airsickness bag to my mouth the whole

time. My kind of flying is getting from point A to point B as quickly,

smoothly, and safely as possible.



That's why there are different kinds of airplanes. Enjoy your 701; it sounds

like just what you're looking for.

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC                   http://www.conmicro.com

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

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

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

Kevin Bonds

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 171
Location: Nashville, Tn

Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

_________________
KevinBonds
Nashville, TN
Plans-building Zenith CH601XL w/Corvair Power
http://home.comcast.net/~kevinbonds

steveadams

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 191

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:38 am Post subject: Re: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

 	  jerry(at)jerryhey.com wrote: 	
		  Surviving and living are not at all the same.  Putting around making  

gentle turns may extend your life but it is not living.  Yanking and  

banking are the important fun part of flying, much more so than  

sitting still in the left seat, afraid to twitch.   I love to fly.   

One of my old friends, flying a Tailwind, can't go from point to point  

without tossing in a roll ever so often.  One night, in pitch black,  

we did roll after roll as we cork screwed along, only the lights on  

the ground to pronounce right side up and our laughter filling the  

cabin.    That was living!   I would not have a plane that cannot  

handle a little fun.   Jerry  age 67   (701 scratch )

	


To each his own, but I have to say in all seriousness. If that is the type of flying you like, the 701 seems like an unusual choice to fulfill the mission. I love orange juice, but I don't buy a bag of apples because they are on sale, expecting to make them into orange juice. In any event, I just meant that every airframe has it's limitations, and the pilot can easily direct the aircraft to exceed those limitations regardless of the design. The 601 is not aerobatic; it would not even be considered in the utility category at gross weight. Is it really "living" to exceed the design limits?

japhillipsga(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:44 am Post subject: LIGHT AIRCRAFT

Jerry, no, my wings are stock as are the attachments. Fuel  tanks behind the spar would sure changer the CG, wouldn't it? Somebody a bit smarter than me would have to look at that. I did make some notable mods to the fuselage. Best regards, Bill of Georgia

   do not archive

 

 

 --

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