 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bryanmmartin
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1018
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:41 am Post subject: Apology |
 |
|
According to Zenith's documentation, the 601XL has a ±6 Gs ULTIMATE
LOAD FACTOR also known as the DESIGN LOAD FACTOR, the point beyond
which structural failure may occur. This load factor is generally
defined as 1.5 times the FLIGHT LOAD FACTOR or LIMIT LOAD FACTOR, the
maximum load the airplane is designed to handle in flight.
The numbers quoted in the POH for the Cessna are FLIGHT LOAD FACTORs.
A certificated aerobatic airplane has a ±6 G flight load factor and a
±9 G design load factor.
*************
A 601xl is NOT designed for a ±6 G FLIGHT LOAD FACTOR, it's designed
for a ±4 G FLIGHT LOAD FACTOR.
*************
I keep seeing this same mistake made over and over again my many
people. It's probably because certificated aircraft generally state
the flight load factors in their documentation along with the note
that design load factors are 1.5 times this number while home built
kit manufacturers generally only state the design load factor in
their brochures and websites.
None of this has anything to do with the legality of performing
aerobatic maneuvers. There's no rule that states that an airplane has
to be certified in the aerobatic category to do aerobatic maneuvers
as long as those maneuvers are not specifically prohibited by the Op
Lims and the flight load factor is not exceeded. And in any case, the
aerobatic category has nothing to do with an E-AB airwothiness
certificate. An E-AB is approved for any maneuvers the builder says
it is, with proper logbook entries.
Sec. 91.303
Aerobatic flight.
No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight--
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B,
Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an
intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's
attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not
necessary for normal flight.
Sec. 23.371
Gyroscopic and aerodynamic loads.
[(a) Each engine mount and its supporting structure must be designed
for the gyroscopic, inertial, and aerodynamic loads that result, with
the engine(s) and propeller(s), if applicable, at maximum continuous
r.p.m., under either:
(1) The conditions prescribed in Sec. 23.351 and Sec. 23.423; or
(2) All possible combinations of the following--
(i) A yaw velocity of 2.5 radians per second;
(ii) A pitch velocity of 1.0 radian per second;
(iii) A normal load factor of 2.5; and
(iv) Maximum continuous thrust.
(b) For airplanes approved for aerobatic maneuvers, each engine mount
and its supporting structure must meet the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section and be designed to withstand the load factors
expected during combined maximum yaw and pitch velocities.
These are the only FARs I could find that have anything to do with
requirements for aerobatic flight except for a couple that prohibit
aerobatic flight during charity flights by private pilots and one
that states that aerobatic flight is subject to waiver.
On Mar 27, 2007, at 8:06 AM, ashontz wrote:
| Quote: |
Just from memory, I thought a regular Cessna 152 was +4 and -3 Gs
where as an aerobat is +6, -6 Gs, which is the same as a 601Xl, so
wouldn't that by default qualify a 601XL as an aerobatic plane by
default? That wouldn't apply to the 701 though.
pilot4pay wrote:
> Juan, this is just not true. The FAA will cite you if you say
> that, and
> they know your AC is not an aerobatic aircraft. Heck, they're even
> searching
> social security records to link disabilities to pilot medicals! If
> they will
> go to those lengths to write a violation and revoke a pilot
> certificate,
> don't you think operating an aircraft outside it's operating
> limitations
> would be similar? Free speech has nothing to do with it, apples
> and oranges!
> If any of the aircraft in the videos is US registered, lets see if
> someone
> wants to send it in to the local FSDO, just to see what happens?
> Craig Smith
>
> --
|
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL,
RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
_________________
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
do not archive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ashontz
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:49 am Post subject: Re: Apology |
|
|
Thanks for the specifics Brian. That helps clear things up.
I don't intend to do aerobatics myself, but even though the 601 is not designed as an aerobatic plane, I'd be comfortable doing a loop in one, I just wouldn't do a loop at Vne.
do not archive
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYTerminat(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject: Apology |
|
|
In a message dated 3/27/2007 8:09:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ashontz(at)nbme.org writes:
| Quote: |
Just from memory, I thought a regular Cessna 152 was +4 and -3 Gs where as an aerobat is +6, -6 Gs, which is the same as a 601Xl, so wouldn't that by default qualify a 601XL as an aerobatic plane by default? That wouldn't apply to the 701 though. |
Why not? The 701 is the same +6 and -3 ultimate load at gross weight.
AOL now offersle="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339" href="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339" target="_blank">AOL.com.
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveadams
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 191
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:37 am Post subject: Re: Apology |
|
|
[quote="NYTerminat(at)aol.com"]In a message dated 3/27/2007 8:09:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ashontz(at)nbme.org writes:
| Quote: |
Just from memory, I thought a regular Cessna 152 was +4 and -3 Gs where as an aerobat is +6, -6 Gs, which is the same as a 601Xl, so wouldn't that by default qualify a 601XL as an aerobatic plane by default? That wouldn't apply to the 701 though. |
Why not? The 701 is the same +6 and -3 ultimate load at gross weight.
AOL now offersle="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339" href="http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339" target="_blank">AOL.com.
You are comparing apples and oranges here. The +/- 6G's is the ultimate load factor for the Zodiac, while a certified aircraft generally give the flight load factor. For certified aircraft, the ultimate + load must be at least 5.7G, for utility 6.6G, and for aerobatic 9.0 G, and that's the minimum. The Sukhoi's ultimate load factor is +/-23 G's. The Zodiac doesn't make the utility category, let alone the aerobatic category. Of course it's an experimental and you can do what you want. Do everything right and you'll never have a problem. I'm sure no one ever botched a maneuver, thus the incredibly low aerobatic accident rate in the NTSB files. There are a lot of great things about experimental aviation; you have a lot of freedom and there is a huge choice of aircraft designs out there. You can choose a 2 seat design, stuff 4 seats in it and increase the gross weight by 500 lbs if you want to. You can tell yourself you baby the plane and don't need the safety factor, so it's perfectly safe for you and the way you fly. But it would probably be a better idea to choose a design that better fits your needs. It's the same with aerobatics and the Zodiac. If you really want to do aerobatics, wouldn't it make more sense to choose a design more appropriate to your needs? You can rationalize anything, and cite 100 examples of people having no problems doing what you propose doing. Sure people have probably looped about every GA aircraft out there, usually with no ill effects. It still doesn't make it smart.
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paulrod36(at)msn.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject: Apology |
|
|
<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]--> Breathes there a man with soul so glub,
Would never loop a J-3 Cub;
To make the horizon all a-snocker,
And barrel roll an old Airknocker?
Is his sense of joy so thin,
He'd never want to do a spin?
To heave the stick to left or right
and aileron roll with all his might?
Others might think him a bit daft.
As he Immelmans his Taylorcraft.
One could not say he's lived at all,
If he hasn't tried a hammerhead stall.
To nibble at the edge of fright,
In recovery from vertical flight.
People do these, all wide-eyed,
In airplanes that're Certified.
God lets people be all erratics,
But he only lets pilots know aerobatics.
(Apologies to the Muse!)
Paul Rodriguez
DO NOT ARCHIVE
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
naumuk(at)alltel.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:15 pm Post subject: Apology |
|
|
Paul-
Cool. On my 3rd flight ever with an instructor, he had me kick hard right rudder while in a power on stall in our 1971 C150 trainer. You know, the kind that had "Learn how to fly" on the tail.
When I recovered from the blackout from the snap roll, he said "You don't want to do that".
It was a real rush. Unfortuately (Or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) I've managed to outlive my first instructor by better than 30 years.
As I understand it, the only difference between a C-150 and an Aerobat is the grade of a couple of spar bolts. I could care less about loops, but I intend to aileron roll my HDS. Call me conservatively stupid.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:12 am Post subject: Apology |
|
|
I used to be on teh Material Review Board at Cessna in the early 80s. The biggest difference between the 150 and the Aerobat (according to Stress) was that the Aerobats wings had to be completely free of "standard repairs" and other discrepancies that usually occur in virtually any build. These "perfect wings" wer strong enough for the loads from the approved maneuvers.
do not archive
Bill Naumuk <naumuk(at)alltel.net> wrote:
[quote] Paul-
Cool. On my 3rd flight ever with an instructor, he had me kick hard right rudder while in a power on stall in our 1971 C150 trainer. You know, the kind that had "Learn how to fly" on the tail.
When I recovered from the blackout from the snap roll, he said "You don't want to do that".
It was a real rush. Unfortuately (Or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) I've managed to outlive my first instructor by better than 30 years.
As I understand it, the only difference between a C-150 and an Aerobat is the grade of a couple of spar bolts. I could care less about loops, but I intend to aileron roll my HDS. Call me conservatively stupid.
Bill Naumuk
HDS Fuse/Corvair
Townville, Pa
[quote] ---
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
