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

Another Z-BAGing

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

doug_geese(at)fwmetals.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:37 pm Post subject: Another Z-BAGing

I’ve built a Zenair CH640 over the last 7 years and have a DAR scheduled to inspect it the first week of August.  He called tonight to become more familiar with the type of Zenith that he’ll be inspecting.  The conversation turned into “I’m glad it’s not a 601 and all the problems they have” referring to the unproven and completely bogus aileron flutter issue.  Like other Zenith designs the 640 does not have massed balance ailerons.  I’m not sure what I’ll be dealing with when the DAR realizes this.  You Z-BAGers have cast doubt on ALL Zenith designs with your un-founded and irresponsible witch hunt.  What part of “Experimental” don’t guys understand.  IMHO you have NO business building, flying, or maintaining anything experimental.  If you want the likes of the FAA and NTSB regulating everything about your aircraft I suggest you get something certified and leave the rest of us alone.  Has anyone noticed that these accidents started when the LSA stuff hit the books and many inactive, un-proficient pilots began flying again after many years.  Gig, Juan, Scott and others, I now feel your pain.  

   

Doug Geese  

CH640 (Ready for Inspection, Z-BAGed)   

      [quote][b]

dgeese(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: Another Z-BAGing

I’ve built a Zenair CH640 over the last 7 years and have a DAR scheduled to inspect it the first week of August.  He called tonight to become more familiar with the type of Zenith that he’ll be inspecting.  The conversation turned into “I’m glad it’s not a 601 and all the problems they have” referring to the unproven and completely bogus aileron flutter issue.  Like other Zenith designs the 640 does not have massed balance ailerons.  I’m not sure what I’ll be dealing with when the DAR realizes this.  You Z-BAGers have cast doubt on ALL Zenith designs with your un-founded and irresponsible witch hunt.  What part of “Experimental” don’t guys understand.  IMHO you have NO business building, flying, or maintaining anything experimental.  If you want the likes of the FAA and NTSB regulating everything about your aircraft I suggest you get something certified and leave the rest of us alone.  Has anyone noticed that these accidents started when the LSA stuff hit the books and many inactive, un-proficient pilots began flying again after many years.  Gig, Juan, Scott and others, I now feel your pain.  

   

Doug Geese  

CH640 (Ready for Inspection, Z-BAGed)   

       [quote][b]

klondike(at)megalink.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:39 am Post subject: Another Z-BAGing

what about the 10 dead folks???? they  might not share your  opinion.  Yes, Experimental is Experimental !  Known problems are  known problems !!!!!   What is wrong with building the safest airplane  we can?

 [quote]   ---

barcusc(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:40 am Post subject: Another Z-BAGing

Hi Doug

  

 I agree too much has been said, however there has  not been a fatal accident in a while now, perhaps it is possible the  attention has caused Pilots to stay within design limits and do a better job  maintaining their plane. We will never know, but it is possible lives have been  saved because of the attention. I also believe Chris Heinz will be making a  few changes that will add to the margin of safety to help compensate for  those that have poor piloting skills. That said, I do wish the more radical  people on this list would give it a rest.

  

  

 Regards:

  

 Clyde

 601 XL

  

  

  

 [quote]   ---

klondike(at)megalink.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:08 am Post subject: Another Z-BAGing

very well said--- I think the attention did save lives.  Just because  someones gets killed in a plane crash doesn't mean they are a "poor" or  "inexperienced" piot.        In reading a lot  of the info--- it appears a builder could have sat his cable tention correctly  at a minimum setting---- the cables starch during the first hours of flight, now  they are to loose and flutter appears.

  

 You can't argue with the attitude in Europe----- yes the plane is safe with  correct cable tention--- but they want a system that does not blame entirely on  cable tention---- hence, I think you will see an "aileron balance" system come  in being for the 601 XL--------  

  

 why is this "hornets nest" being stirred up again?????????

 [quote]   ---

jmaynard

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

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:18 am Post subject: Another Z-BAGing

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 08:59:09AM -0400, fritz wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   why is this "hornets nest" being stirred up again?????????


	


Because there are a few ...folks on this list who care more about the

reputation of their airplane than their safety, it seems to me.

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP   http://www.conmicro.com

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

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

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

jmaynard

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

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:21 am Post subject: Another Z-BAGing

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:41:06PM -0400, Doug Geese wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   I'm not sure what I'll be dealing with when the DAR realizes this.


	


How about being up front with the DAR about it, and discuss it with him

before he gets there? While you're at it, you can also discuss the TUHH GVT

results with him.



 	  Quote: 	
		   You Z-BAGers have cast doubt on ALL Zenith designs with your un-founded

 and irresponsible witch hunt.  What part of "Experimental" don't guys

 understand.  IMHO you have NO business building, flying, or maintaining

 anything experimental.


	


Not all of us are flying experimentals, even if we are flying Zodiacs.



 	  Quote: 	
		   If you want the likes of the FAA and NTSB regulating everything about your

 aircraft I suggest you get something certified and leave the rest of us

 alone.


	


If you want to destroy the world of experimental aircraft, go right on with

your cavalier attitude toward aviation safety.



I don't blame the fact that I had to wait a month and fly a few hundred

miles to take my CFI-SP checkride on ZBAG, even though the delay and trip

were because the original DPE backed out on me. I blame it on the justified

concern of people about being safe, and on Zenair for not responding to the

problem when it first came to light. If Zenair had done their job, there

would have been no need for ZBAG.

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP   http://www.conmicro.com

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

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

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

aprazer

Joined: 24 Nov 2006
Posts: 93
Location: Boise, Idaho

Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:22 am Post subject: Re: Another Z-BAGing

I've got a suggestion for all ZBAG'rs! 



Focus your efforts on Cirrus -- as this brand of aircraft has contributed to 78 deaths in 110 accidents since 4-10-04!



Then, take a look at Cessna, Beech, Piper, etc...



During the same time period, Zenith had 24 deaths in 46 accidents.



All aircraft have the tendency to fall out of the air, as if you didn't know. 



Pilots, passengers, etc. are encountering chance every time a plane takes to the air. 



Now, please drop the matter as you know not how much unnecessary damage you are creating!



Mack

601XL/3300

N990MK



DO NOT ARCHIVE

_________________
The poh-oh-unemployed farm boy from Idaho

jmaynard

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

Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:42 am Post subject: Another Z-BAGing

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 09:22:09AM -0700, aprazer wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Focus your efforts on Cirrus -- as this brand of aircraft has contributed

 to 78 deaths in 110 accidents since 4-10-04!

 

 Then, take a look at Cessna, Beech, Piper, etc...

 

 During the same time period, Zenith had 24 deaths in 46 accidents.


	


How many Cirrus, Cessna, Beech, Piper, and so on aircraft are flying, and

how many Zodiacs?



 	  Quote: 	
		   All aircraft have the tendency to fall out of the air, as if you didn't

 know.


	


Sure. That doesn't mean we have to ignore problems specific to the type if

they exist - and the accident rates say they do.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Pilots, passengers, etc. are encountering chance every time a plane takes

 to the air.


	


That doesn't mean we have no obligation to minimize risks and fix problems.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Now, please drop the matter as you know not how much unnecessary damage

 you are creating!


	


I'm not going to just wash my hands of the Zodiac's safety. That would be

the ultimate in irresponsibility to myself, my loved ones, and aviation in

general.



You can forget about improving aviation safety if you want to. I'll not so

politely ignore demands that I do so.



Even if, as your message shows, you don't give a fuzzy rat's posterior about

being safe, I do.

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP   http://www.conmicro.com

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

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

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:50 am Post subject: Another Z-BAGing

Hi Mack,



That is an interesting comparison of apples to oranges.



To be a reasonable accident comparison it needs to consider how much 

flying was done in each of the  airplane makes listed.  Perhaps you 

have the best numbers.  I would guess Cirrus has 100 times as many 

flight hours as Zenith and Cessna 1000 or 10,000 times as 

many.  Remember Cessna accounts for the top three models of light 

planes shipped in history - the 172, 182, and 150/152.  Also, most 

Cessnas and Pipers are old and worn pretty thin.



I agree with you completely that all types of planes have fatal 

accidents.  It is only a rare exception where a given make and model 

have a much higher rate of accidents than other ones.  There is also 

the issue of what kind of accident happens.  When a freshly minted 

Sport Pilot takes off in IMC you can't really blame the plane for the 

outcome.  On the other hand, when a plane has the wings come off in 

level flight in the traffic pattern you have to wonder what 

happened.  When a plane as unpopular as the Zodiac XL (probably less 

than 1000 flying before the problems surfaced - a lot less now) has 5 

or 10 wing separations in two years you really need to wonder what is 

behind the failures.



I really wish we could stop blaming ZBAG for the problems in the 

Zodiac XL.  They didn't create the problems and blaming them only 

inflames the community.



I know you and many other Zenith people wish this whole problem would 

just go away.  Unfortunately, it is going to take some design changes 

for that to happen.



Paul

XL grounded



At 09:22 AM 7/19/2009, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



I've got a suggestion for all ZBAG'rs!



Focus your efforts on Cirrus -- as this brand of aircraft has 

contributed to 78 deaths in 110 accidents since 4-10-04!



Then, take a look at Cessna, Beech, Piper, etc...



During the same time period, Zenith had 24 deaths in 46 accidents.



All aircraft have the tendency to fall out of the air, as if you didn't know.



Pilots, passengers, etc. are encountering chance every time a plane 

takes to the air.



Now, please drop the matter as you know not how much unnecessary 

damage you are creating!



Mack

601XL/3300

N990MK



DO NOT ARCHIVE

jfowler120(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:43 am Post subject: Another Z-BAGing

I have been monitoring the matronics posts on the  601XL for the last six months for obvious reasons (we have one with 240 hours on  it now).  I am struck by the increasing intensity of the "discussion", the  willingness of some to accept a one-size-fits-all NTSB explanation (and one with  very questionable statements), those who are clearly exceeding the design specs  and have other very bad and potentially fatal habits, and those who have not  adapted their flying techniques to the airplane.

  

 Accepting a NTSB explanation at face value, or  thinking that whatever they say = "safety", is a not fully productive  approach.  Flutter may be an existing problem -- but that is not the whole  story.

  

 Those of you who freely admit to exceeding design  specs may yet rip the wings off your airplanes.  Someone may then call it a  flutter problem when, in reality, it is a pilot problem.  That is not  a Zenith problem, but you will make it look like one.

  

 The 601XL is pitch sensitive.  It takes about  10 seconds to figure that out -- sort of the difference between a Porsche and a  truck. This is not a C-172 so don't go whapping the stick around like it  is.  That alone can lead to structural problems.  Do not try and do  silly unachievable things like "countering turbulence" with rapid control  inputs, as someone alluded to -- it doesn't work in any airplane.  In other  words, be a better pilot.

  

 Many years ago I was picking an airplane at the  Cessna factory for a foreign delivery (C-185/U-17).  I asked the chief  designer why they didn't have more rudder authority, like the O-1  Birddog, on their standard designs.  He, appropriately, gave me a  patient look and explained that they designed airplanes for people who were okay  at driving cars.  Oh.  The 601XL is not a Cessna.  Adapt or get  something else.

  

 I suspect that many of the 601XL problems  reside in the left seat -- but probably not all of them.  Let's all  calm down.

  

 Karl         

   [quote][b]

tigerrick(at)mindspring.c
Guest

Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:33 pm Post subject: Another Z-BAGing

Hi, Karl, and THANK YOU for stating what may not be so obvious to those following the whole online 601XL debacle. I recently spent 3,000 words writing an article that essentially makes your very same points - even as far as using the Skyhawk as an example of an airplane that will fly just fine DESPITE how many pilots fly it.



One thing that is at the very core of this issue is the dichotomy of the market for the 601, versus what it needs to be flown safely. The whole Zenith line is cheap to acquire, and very simple to build and maintain (unlike some of the fast glass out there). But despite the low cost and minimal skill needed to build, the 601 still rewards those who develop the skill to fly with a light, precise touch. This isn't hard, but it does feel unusual at first to those used to the control pressures needed to get a Skyhawk or Cherokee to do anything like changing attitude.  And once a pilot gets used to flying with the fingertips, it's really hard to go back to flying airplanes that need comparitively massive control input pressures.  Kind of like giving up a sports car for a truck without power steering.



Already I can hear the screams accusing me of being a Zenith shill or 601 apologist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everyone who puts their butt in a 601 has a keen interest in flying it safely and returning successfully to earth in a single piece. But this isn't an issue that is either "all airplane" or "all pilot skill". It's a combination of the two.



Unfortunately, we all know exactly where the failure point is when the airframe is stressed beyond its G load limits or someone attempts to fly with slack aileron cables.  The tragic results are repeatable and predictable.



Could the airframe be made stronger, thus moving the failure point somewhere else at higher G loads? Probably. Would I like to retrofit my airframe with such a mod? Sure, if it doesn't add excessive weight. Is it really necessary? I don't think so (which assumes that I can stay out of the heavy bumps and fly lightly).  I've already limited the down deflection of my elevator to 15 degrees and insured the cable tensions are up to snuff. Now it's really up to me to fly where the weather isn't with a light touch on the stick.



Glad to do it.



Rick Lindstrom

N42KP



--

tonyplane(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:52 am Post subject: Another Z-BAGing

Good inputs, Karl and Rick.



I would not be too concerned if you hit turbulent conditions, just slow down 

and ride it out without jerky elevator inputs. In my over 500 hrs in my XL, 

I have been in conditions where I had to hold my headset on with my free 

hand to keep it on my head and prevent it from bouncing around the cockpit. 

One time on a cross country I was pretty close to gross weight - my poor 

wife, who is also a pilot, filled a "barf bag".



Also note that Mr. Phillips, who reported his extreme conditions and shaking 

wings over a power plant, reported entering the conditions at above 140 and 

when diving to clear the area hit about 170.



Also, if I recall correctly, the only reported aileron flutter was two cases 

where the cables were SLACK, the airspeed was reduced to stop the flutter, 

and after tightening the cables the condition could not be repeated.



Tony Graziano

601XL/Jab3300; 513 hrs really enjoyable hours: 1149 landings (196 on a 

short, rough, through the trees, farm field); N493TG



---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-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