Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Zenith Builders Analysis Group

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

Zenith Builders Analysis Group
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Terry Phillips

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 346
Location: Corvallis, MT

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

At 02:24 PM 4/25/2008 -0500, John Bolding wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Jeff,

 No deviation from my feeble point of view.



 ....



 Progress is slow on the engineering front, I'm gonna call Thurston and see if he's interested in the project in case the academic doesn't pan out. He may want something useful to do in his spare time.

 Ya'll choose up a point man so if somebody says they are ready to do it there won't be any fumbling around. I think it needs to be a 601 guy in the middle of this as there might be some back and forth.

 	


 Progress is indeed slow. However, there is some that I  can report. Apparently it is finals time at Embry-Riddle, so the profs are pretty busy. I have sent them links to the Yuba City photos, as well as, scans of several of my wing drawings. We have tentatively arranged a phone call on Thursday, May 1 to discuss the engineering evaluation of the 601XL wing. In preparation for that call, I have drafted a statement of work that I will append to this message. I would invite comments, suggestions, flames, whatever. I'll need a revised version before the phone call.



 I spoke with one of the 601XL builders who I was hoping could provide a second signature on the bank account to provide a measure of fiscal control for the project. He told me that he would not take that role because he was concerned about potential liability. And, he more or less told me that I was crazy if I took an active role. I guess I'm crazy. I think someone has to take some initiative. It's either that, or walk away from a year of work and a $16,000 investment. Because I do not have the confidence I need in the aircraft at this time. However, his point is well taken, and I'm considering the following steps to limit liability exposure:  Distribute the engineering report only to those "members" who have  supported the analysis financially. 
Require each "member" to sign a release and hold harmless form that would be shamelessly plagiarized from the forms I had to sign for ZAC and JabiruUSA. 
Initiate work on the analysis only after enough funding has been received to fund the complete statement of work. 
If sufficient funds are not received within 4 weeks of the initial request for funding, then all checks will be returned using a SASE provided by each "member," and the analysis will not be done. Again, I invite your comments, flames, whatever, on the above. It's possible imposing the above conditions would decrease support so that the analysis could not be made. If so, I would be happy to relinquish my role to anyone who has a better  idea to make the analysis happen. Let me know if you are interested.



 

 Draft Statement of Work:



 

 Zenith Builders Analysis Group



 Statement of Work for Zenith CH601XL Independent Engineering Analysis



 Rev. 0



 April 26, 2008



 GOAL:  The goal of this analysis is to analyze the wing design of the CH601XL:



   To attempt to determine whether the structure, as designed, has adequate strength to meet the published design loads of +6G and -3G. 

  
Assuming that the analysis shows that the structure, as designed probably has adequate strength, then

  
Evaluate the susceptibility of the flaps and ailerons to flutter. If the analysis shows that flutter is a possible occurrence when a  CH601XL is flown within the design envelope, then evaluate possible modifications to minimize or eliminate the flutter.  
Consider the effect of design options on the ability of the wing to meet design standards:   Hinged vs. skin flex hinge aileron attachment.  
Aileron trim tab option.  
Wing locker option.  
Landing light option.  
Thirty gallon vs. 24 gallon fuel tanks.  
???  
 
Consider, to the extent possible given time and budget constraints, the effect of typicalbuilder mistakes, e.g.,   Wrong size or kind of rivets used at high stress location.  
Missing, loose, or wrong sized bolts.  
Mis-placed or wrong sized openings, e.g., the hole for the aileron control rod, holes in ribs for wiring, fuel lines, pitot lines, etc.  
Two or three piece nose skin  
???  
 The first task will be to Review the information available about the accidents which have occurred that may have involved in-flight breakup of the aircraft structure. The purpose of this review is to discover information that might guide the analysis of the wing.



 At the completion of the investigation, the engineer will submit a written report covering the results and recommendations, if any, for changes to the aircraft design to reduce the possibility of in-flight breakup.



 



 

 

 Terry Phillips

 ttp44~at~rkymtn.net

 Corvallis MT

 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons are done; working on the wings

 http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/     [quote][b]

_________________
Terry Phillips
Corvallis, MT
ttp44<at>rkymtn.net
Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Tail feathers done; working on the wings.

craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

My comments:  

   

- I am not a lawyer. Although I can see some REMOTE possibility of the engineer doing the analysis incurring some liability it is hard to see how those paying him would. And any engineer worth his salt has been designing real-world projects and already addressed the liability issue.  

   

- I think the analysis should be informed by the load testing done to date by Zenith’s outside testing engineers. If at all possible the formal reports from those tests should be obtained from  Zenith (possibly directly by the contracted engineer)  

   

- If possible the engineer should be able to ask Zenith (preferably Chris) questions during his investigation. Otherwise it is very likely that he will finish his report with a conclusion of X and Zenith will come back and say “but you didn’t consider Y”. Some kind of conversation during the investigation would go a long way to ensure a useful outcome.  

   

- I assume that when the hypothetical engineer hears about the events motivating this project he will have his own ideas about what would make sense in the statement of work. He (or she) has done this kind of thing before, we have not. Your penultimate paragraph below basically says this.  

   

- I suspect the statement of work will have to be greatly cut back to make this project affordable. The question is how limited can the project be and still produce a useful result.  

   

- You might want to point whoever does the work to the Zenith Construction Standards document too.  

   

We could just wait until Sabrina has her degree and exploit her motivation. But I don’t want to wait 2 years until she graduates from MIT. J  

   

-- Craig  

       

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

 Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 10:50 PM

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group  

  

  

   

At 02:24 PM 4/25/2008 -0500, John Bolding wrote:

 

   

Jeff,

 No deviation from my feeble point of view.

 

 ....

 

 Progress is slow on the engineering front, I'm gonna call Thurston and see if he's interested in the project in case the academic doesn't pan out. He may want something useful to do in his spare time.

 Ya'll choose up a point man so if somebody says they are ready to do it there won't be any fumbling around. I think it needs to be a 601 guy in the middle of this as there might be some back and forth.  



 Progress is indeed slow. However, there is some that I  can report. Apparently it is finals time at Embry-Riddle, so the profs are pretty busy. I have sent them links to the Yuba City photos, as well as, scans of several of my wing drawings. We have tentatively arranged a phone call on Thursday, May 1 to discuss the engineering evaluation of the 601XL wing. In preparation for that call, I have drafted a statement of work that I will append to this message. I would invite comments, suggestions, flames, whatever. I'll need a revised version before the phone call.

 

 I spoke with one of the 601XL builders who I was hoping could provide a second signature on the bank account to provide a measure of fiscal control for the project. He told me that he would not take that role because he was concerned about potential liability. And, he more or less told me that I was crazy if I took an active role. I guess I'm crazy. I think someone has to take some initiative. It's either that, or walk away from a year of work and a $16,000 investment. Because I do not have the confidence I need in the aircraft at this time. However, his point is well taken, and I'm considering the following steps to limit liability exposure:     Distribute the engineering report only to those      "members" who have  supported the analysis financially.   
Require each "member" to sign a release      and hold harmless form that would be shamelessly plagiarized from the      forms I had to sign for ZAC and JabiruUSA.   
Initiate work on the analysis only after enough      funding has been received to fund the complete statement of work.   
If sufficient funds are not received within 4      weeks of the initial request for funding, then all checks will be returned      using a SASE provided by each "member," and the analysis will      not be done.    

Again, I invite your comments, flames, whatever, on the above. It's possible imposing the above conditions would decrease support so that the analysis could not be made. If so, I would be happy to relinquish my role to anyone who has a better  idea to make the analysis happen. Let me know if you are interested.

 

 

 Draft Statement of Work:

 

 

 Zenith Builders Analysis Group

 

 Statement of Work for Zenith CH601XL Independent Engineering Analysis

 

 Rev. 0

 

 April 26, 2008

 

 GOAL:  The goal of this analysis is to analyze the wing design of the CH601XL:     To attempt to determine whether the      structure, as designed, has adequate strength to meet the published design      loads of +6G and -3G.   
Assuming that the analysis shows that the      structure, as designed probably has adequate strength, then  
Evaluate the susceptibility of the flaps and      ailerons to flutter. If the analysis shows that flutter is a possible      occurrence when a  CH601XL is flown within the design envelope, then      evaluate possible modifications to minimize or eliminate the flutter.   
Consider the effect of design options on the      ability of the wing to meet design standards:      Hinged vs. skin flex hinge aileron       attachment.    
Aileron trim tab option.    
Wing locker option.    
Landing light option.    
Thirty gallon vs. 24 gallon fuel tanks.    
???   
  
Consider, to the extent possible given time and      budget constraints, the effect of typicalbuilder mistakes, e.g.,      Wrong size or kind of rivets used at high stress       location.    
Missing, loose, or wrong sized bolts.    
Mis-placed or wrong sized openings, e.g.,       the hole for the aileron control rod, holes in ribs for wiring, fuel       lines, pitot lines, etc.    
Two or three piece nose skin    
???   
   

The first task will be to Review the information available about the accidents which have occurred that may have involved in-flight breakup of the aircraft structure. The purpose of this review is to discover information that might guide the analysis of the wing.

 

 At the completion of the investigation, the engineer will submit a written report covering the results and recommendations, if any, for changes to the aircraft design to reduce the possibility of in-flight breakup.

 

 

 

 

 

   

Terry Phillips

 ttp44~at~rkymtn.net

 Corvallis MT

 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons are done; working on the wings

 http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/    	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

       [quote][b]

Iberplanes

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 174
Location: Igualada - Barcelona - Spain

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

I think engine choise vs vibrations should be included.  E.g.. Rotax 912 and Jab3300.

  

 Alberto Martin

Iberplanes IGL 

http://www.iberplanes.es

Igualada -  Barcelona - España



 [quote]   ---

_________________
Alberto Martin
601 XL - Jabiru 3300
http://www.iberplanes.es
Igualada - Barcelona - Spain

planecrazydld(at)yahoo.co
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:45 am Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

do not archive



Terry;



Why +6 -3 G's? My current edition plans still show +/-6 G's.



Terry Phillips <ttp44(at)rkymtn.net> wrote:[quote]   At 02:24 PM 4/25/2008 -0500, John Bolding wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Jeff,

 No deviation from my feeble point of view.



 .....



 Progress is slow on the engineering front, I'm gonna call Thurston and see if he's interested in the project in case the academic doesn't pan out. He may want something useful to do in his spare time.

 Ya'll choose up a point man so if somebody says they are ready to do it there won't be any fumbling around. I think it needs to be a 601 guy in the middle of this as there might be some back and forth.

 	


 Progress is indeed slow. However, there is some that I  can report. Apparently it is finals  time at Embry-Riddle, so the profs are pretty busy. I have sent them links to the Yuba City photos, as well as, scans of several of my wing drawings. We have tentatively arranged a phone call on Thursday, May 1 to discuss the engineering evaluation of the 601XL wing. In preparation for that call, I have drafted a statement of work that I will append to this message. I would invite comments, suggestions, flames, whatever. I'll need a revised version before the phone call.



 I spoke with one of the 601XL builders who I was hoping could provide a second signature on the bank account to provide a measure of fiscal control for the project. He told me that he would not take that role because he was concerned about potential liability. And, he more or less told me that I was crazy if I took an active role. I guess I'm crazy. I think someone has to take some initiative. It's either that, or walk away from a year of work and a $16,000 investment. Because I do not have the  confidence I need in the aircraft at this time. However, his point is well taken, and I'm considering the following steps to limit liability exposure:  Distribute the engineering report only to those "members" who have  supported the analysis financially. 
Require each "member" to sign a release and hold harmless form that would be shamelessly plagiarized from the forms I had to sign for ZAC and JabiruUSA. 
Initiate work on the analysis only after enough funding has been received to fund the complete statement of work. 
If sufficient funds are not received within 4 weeks of the initial request for funding, then all checks will be returned using a SASE provided by each "member," and the analysis will not be done. Again, I invite your comments, flames, whatever, on the above. It's possible imposing the above conditions would decrease support so that the analysis could not be made. If so, I would be happy to relinquish my role to  anyone who has a better  idea to make the analysis happen. Let me know if you are interested.



 

 Draft Statement of Work:



 

 Zenith Builders Analysis Group



 Statement of Work for Zenith CH601XL Independent Engineering Analysis



 Rev. 0



 April 26, 2008



 GOAL:  The goal of this analysis is to analyze the wing design of the CH601XL:



   To attempt to determine whether the structure, as designed, has adequate strength to meet the published design loads of +6G and -3G. 

  
Assuming that the analysis shows that the structure, as designed probably has adequate strength, then

  
Evaluate the susceptibility of the flaps and ailerons to flutter. If the analysis shows that flutter is a possible occurrence when a  CH601XL is flown within the design envelope, then evaluate possible modifications to minimize or eliminate the flutter.  
Consider the effect of design options on  the ability of the wing to meet design standards:   Hinged vs. skin flex hinge aileron attachment.  
Aileron trim tab option.  
Wing locker option.  
Landing light option.  
Thirty gallon vs. 24 gallon fuel tanks.  
???  
 
Consider, to the extent possible given time and budget constraints, the effect of typicalbuilder mistakes, e.g.,   Wrong size or kind of rivets used at high stress location.  
Missing, loose, or wrong sized bolts.  
Mis-placed or wrong sized openings, e.g., the hole for the aileron control rod, holes in ribs for wiring, fuel lines, pitot lines, etc.  
Two or three piece nose skin  
???  
 
The first task will be to Review the information available about the accidents which have occurred that may have involved in-flight breakup of the aircraft structure. The purpose of this review is to discover information that might guide the        Be a better friend, newshound, and  [quote][b]

purplemoon99(at)bellsouth
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:02 am Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

Terry,I sent the email to Matt,no reply as of yet,  just read your post, and I 'am with this effort 100%,  like I said before  my plane is staying on the ground untill this matter is solved. keep me in the  loop....Joe N101HD 601XL/RAM

 [quote]   ---

sdthatcher

Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 91
Location: Port Saint Lucie

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

Thanks Terry for taking an active part in this  endeavor.

  

 Here are some additional items that I feel need to  be addressed as well.

    Smoking rivets (or elongated rivet holes in wing    areas)   
Varying amounts of fuel (someone mentioned that a    flutter was observed in a different aircraft when fuel was 1/3    capacity)   
Missing nylon flap stop (inducing vibrations at    cruise) Thanks again for your efforts.

  

 Scott Thatcher, Palm Beach Gardens, FL

601XL  with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA

N601EL, http://placestofly.com, EAA203  

    [quote][b]

_________________
Scott Thatcher, Port Saint Lucie, FL
601XL with Corvair, Registered as E-LSA
N601EL, EAA203 140 hours and not flying currently.

lwhitlow

Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 76
Location: Valparaiso Indiana

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:42 am Post subject: Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

Terry and others who want an outside engineering analysis.



I do understand your desire to be confident in the design and safety of the 601XL. Like you I have a $17500 kit that I want to be able to fly safely.



But if you proceed with the analysis under the terms you have stated below, You will destroy not only your own investment of both time and money but you will destroy everyone else's investments in their aircraft as  well, NO MATTER WHAT THE ENGINEERING REPORT HAS TO SAY!!



Curious?? I'll explain.



If the analysis is done and a completed report exists then....



If the results of the report are only seen by the "contributors" A giant unanswered question hangs over the aircraft, Is it OK??? Has a problem been found? Are there modifications suggested??  This will weaken the "airplane shopping publics" opinion of the aircraft, and perhaps be enough to make them choose another aircraft with "less of an unknown factor". Even if the report says every things A-OK, the very fact that its a secret, will deter buyers. If this choice occurs enough times then Zenith ceases production and support of the 601XL or perhaps ceases business all together. I'm sure we can all agree that this would not be a desirable outcome.



Also a engineering report known only to some of the fleet of 601XL devalues them all. Questions will arise? Do you know about the report?  Have you made modifications based on the report? Once again confusion and unknowns take over and we all loose.



More importantly  Lets say the report reveals something that should be addressed, and you get your secret copy. Are you, ( a builder, a pilot, an aviation enthusiast) actually going to let another pilot or builder fly a machine that you know has a problem and NOT TELL HIM OR HER ABOUT IT!!!  That's  not what the sport aviation community should be all about. Could you live with yourself knowing you could have prevented a tragedy but did nothing because the other person didn't contribute to the funding of this witch hunt.  By the way what if some people contribute less than others to the funding of this report???  Are you only going to give them part of the data? Maybe the higher dollar contributors get the data first and its held from the lower dollar contributors for a period of time.



And of course if the report says "everything is fine"  Now What?  Its a secret, so all of the bad things listed above still happen, and the shrill voices calling for a redesign or "beef up" or whatever continue un-abated. AND WE ALL STILL LOOSE.



The sport aviation community is about helping yourself and others fly enjoyably and safely. A secret report will do none of that and quite possibly be the beginning of the end of our hobby and pastime as we know it.  I hope than my son will be able to learn to fly and to build his own airplane someday. This has all the earmarks of seriously damaging something that I dearly love to do.



Any crash or problem with a amateur built experimental aircraft affects us all. If we don't take good care and be as responsible as we possibly can within the rules currently in place,  then the not so interested government WILL step in and make things harder for all of us.



I seen posts recently with all sorts of speculation, guesses, critical observations, and truly useful thoughts and suggestions, I think the discussion is valid and useful as long as it is the open exchange of ideas and working towards a common goal of a safe and fun airplane



But, I implore all of you to not give into fear and hysteria while we search for a cause or problem. Statements like "As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing to say case closed." have no place. We only know what we see in one set of pictures and what limited reports that have been released by the FAA. Analyzing such a limited data set takes time. The FAA has not stated a cause, the designer of the aircraft has not sated a cause. The manufacturer of the kit has not stated a cause, yet some people on this very forum want to put themselves above all of those knowledgeable and qualified people and say that there is a problem because they have managed to scrape together $18000 and buy a kit. It almost makes the statement, "are you an engineer??  No but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night" seem reasonable.



I would rather take contributions up to send Sabrina to the finest aviation and engineering schools in the world. Its people like her we need to be encouraging if we want to be able to pursue our hobby and to pass on the joy of flight to generations to come. We need younger people to be excited by piloting you own aircraft, and to be able to afford to do it. Look around you own EAA Chapters. How many up and comers do you have attending?



FUD   Fear Uncertainty Doubt. These are not the characteristics you look for in a pilot. Seems to me we need to address this before we move on to metallurgy and tensile strength.

Larry Whitlow

Valparaiso IN

601XL Builder

Pilot since Age 15 Solo'ed on my 16th birthday Dad had to drive me to the Airport, because I couldn't get my drivers license for another month

 	  Quote: 	
		   ="Terry Phillips"]At 02:24 PM 4/25/2008 -0500, 



>>EDIT<<

  And, he more or less told me that I was crazy if I took an active role. I guess I'm crazy. I think someone has to take some initiative. It's either that, or walk away from a year of work and a $16,000 investment. Because I do not have the confidence I need in the aircraft at this time. However, his point is well taken, and I'm considering the following steps to limit liability exposure:  Distribute the engineering report only to those "members" who have  supported the analysis financially. 
Require each "member" to sign a release and hold harmless form that would be shamelessly plagiarized from the forms I had to sign for ZAC and JabiruUSA. 
Initiate work on the analysis only after enough funding has been received to fund the complete statement of work. 
If sufficient funds are not received within 4 weeks of the initial request for funding, then all checks will be returned using a SASE provided by each "member," and the analysis will not be done. Again, I invite your comments, flames, whatever, on the above. It's possible imposing the above conditions would decrease support so that the analysis could not be made. If so, I would be happy to relinquish my role to anyone who has a better  idea to make the analysis happen. Let me know if you are interested.



 

 Draft Statement of Work:



 

 Zenith Builders Analysis Group



 Statement of Work for Zenith CH601XL Independent Engineering Analysis



 Rev. 0



 April 26, 2008



 GOAL:  The goal of this analysis is to analyze the wing design of the CH601XL:



   To attempt to determine whether the structure, as designed, has adequate strength to meet the published design loads of +6G and -3G. 

  
Assuming that the analysis shows that the structure, as designed probably has adequate strength, then

  
Evaluate the susceptibility of the flaps and ailerons to flutter. If the analysis shows that flutter is a possible occurrence when a  CH601XL is flown within the design envelope, then evaluate possible modifications to minimize or eliminate the flutter.  
Consider the effect of design options on the ability of the wing to meet design standards:   Hinged vs. skin flex hinge aileron attachment.  
Aileron trim tab option.  
Wing locker option.  
Landing light option.  
Thirty gallon vs. 24 gallon fuel tanks.  
???  
 
Consider, to the extent possible given time and budget constraints, the effect of typicalbuilder mistakes, e.g.,   Wrong size or kind of rivets used at high stress location.  
Missing, loose, or wrong sized bolts.  
Mis-placed or wrong sized openings, e.g., the hole for the aileron control rod, holes in ribs for wiring, fuel lines, pitot lines, etc.  
Two or three piece nose skin  
???  
 The first task will be to Review the information available about the accidents which have occurred that may have involved in-flight breakup of the aircraft structure. The purpose of this review is to discover information that might guide the analysis of the wing.



 At the completion of the investigation, the engineer will submit a written report covering the results and recommendations, if any, for changes to the aircraft design to reduce the possibility of in-flight breakup.



 



 

 

 Terry Phillips



[/quote}

Terry Phillips

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 346
Location: Corvallis, MT

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:07 am Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

Larry



 Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate your thoughts. They deserve a reply, so I will attempt one. For convenience, I will intersperse my replies within your comment below



 Terry



 

 At 09:43 AM 4/27/2008 -0700, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Terry and others who want an outside engineering analysis.



 I do understand your desire to be confident in the design and safety of the 601XL. Like you I have a $17500 kit that I want to be able to fly safely.



 But if you proceed with the analysis under the terms you have stated below, You will destroy not only your own investment of both time and money but you will destroy everyone else's investments in their aircraft as  well, NO MATTER WHAT THE ENGINEERING REPORT HAS TO SAY!! 	


 I may be unusual, but I do not look at my 601XL as an investment. I plan to fly it for as long as I am able to fly safely; eventually, my A/C will be part of my estate, and my heirs can do with it what they please. I recognize that, in the future, my personal circumstances may change and I may wish to recover my investment in the A/C. I guess I'll have to cross that bridge, if and when, I come to it.



 

  	  Quote: 	
		  Curious?? I'll explain.



 If the analysis is done and a completed report exists then....



 If the results of the report are only seen by the "contributors" A giant unanswered question hangs over the aircraft, Is it OK??? Has a problem been found? Are there modifications suggested??  This will weaken the "airplane shopping publics" opinion of the aircraft, and perhaps be enough to make them choose another aircraft with "less of an unknown factor". Even if the report says every things A-OK, the very fact that its a secret, will deter buyers. If this choice occurs enough times then Zenith ceases production and support of the 601XL or perhaps ceases business all together. I'm sure we can all agree that this would not be a desirable outcome. 	


 Distributing the report only to contributors is a selfish attempt on my part to contain any potential liability for trying to get this analysis done. To my knowledge, only the US Government can define "secret" information in the USA. For most of my career I had a DOE Q-Clearance, and at times also a DOD Top Secret Clearance. For many years I was an ADC, an authorized derivative classifier. Even as an  ADC, I was only allowed to classify information subject to specific, written classification guidance issued by someone, at a higher level. Someone who really had the authority to determine what information could be classified. So no, the report will not be "secret." However, by issuing copies of the report only to members  who have contributed to the project and signed my cobbled up release and hold harmless agreement, I hope that I can deter any builder (or worse, their heirs) from suing  me because their lawyer has convinced them that they have a grievance. What the "members" of the group do with their copy of the report is up to them. But rest assured, they will not be subject  to criminal  prosecution--as I would be if today I disclosed US Government "secret" information. Perhaps I am overly paranoid. But I would like to preserve my meagre estate for my heirs and not spend it on legal expenses. Larry, you could personally resolve the "secret" issue by contributing to the analysis, and then posting your copy of the report on the Zenith-List. I'm just asking that you take that responsibility; don't condemn me for not doing it. It is a sad commentary on the state of our society that one must be concerned  about the threat of litigation. But the threat is real. In fact, I have read at least one post on the Zenith-List that suggested that ZAC should be concerned. Good grief! 



 

  	  Quote: 	
		  Also a engineering report known only to some of the fleet of 601XL devalues them all. Questions will arise? Do you know about the report?  Have you made modifications based on the report? Once again confusion and unknowns take over and we all loose.



 More importantly  Lets say the report reveals something that should be addressed, and you get your secret copy. Are you, ( a builder, a pilot, an aviation enthusiast) actually going to let another pilot or builder fly a machine that you know has a problem and NOT TELL HIM OR HER ABOUT IT!!!  That's  not what the sport aviation community should be all about. Could you live with yourself knowing you could have prevented a tragedy but did nothing because the other person didn't contribute to the funding of this witch hunt.  By the way what if some people contribute less than others to the funding of this report???  Are you only going to give them part of the data? Maybe the higher dollar contributors get the data first and its held from the lower dollar contributors for a period of time. 	


 Membership in the group would not be restricted in any way. Chris Heinz is welcome and encouraged to join. My expectation is that the analysis will  find  that the XL  design is essentially sound. In the event that a significant flaw is detected, I would personally send a copy of the report to the NTSB and let them take responsibility for further distribution of that finding. In any event, I cannot and will not take responsibility to "tell him or her about it." Particularly since, I do not know just whom "him or her" might  be.



  	  Quote: 	
		  And of course if the report says "everything is fine"  Now What?  Its a secret, so all of the bad things listed above still happen, and the shrill voices calling for a redesign or "beef up" or whatever continue un-abated. AND WE ALL STILL LOOSE. 	


 I fail to see how the engineering analysis of the 601XL design will increase the FUD that you refer to. I expectation is that the analysis will reduce FUD.



  	  Quote: 	
		  The sport aviation community is about helping yourself and others fly enjoyably and safely. A secret report will do none of that and quite possibly be the beginning of the end of our hobby and pastime as we know it.  I hope than my son will be able to learn to fly and to build his own airplane someday. This has all the earmarks of seriously damaging something that I dearly love to do.



 Any crash or problem with a amateur built experimental aircraft affects us all. If we don't take good care and be as responsible as we possibly can within the rules currently in place,  then the not so interested government WILL step in and make things harder for all of us.



 I seen posts recently with all sorts of speculation, guesses, critical observations, and truly useful thoughts and suggestions, I think the discussion is valid and useful as long as it is the open exchange of ideas and working towards a common goal of a safe and fun airplane



 But, I implore all of you to not give into fear and hysteria while we search for a cause or problem. Statements like "As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing to say case closed." have no place. We only know what we see in one set of pictures and what limited reports that have been released by the FAA. Analyzing such a limited data set takes time. The FAA has not stated a cause, the designer of the aircraft has not sated a cause. The manufacturer of the kit has not stated a cause, yet some people on this very forum want to put themselves above all of those knowledgeable and qualified people and say that there is a problem because they have managed to scrape together $18000 and buy a kit. It almost makes the statement, "are you an engineer??  No but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night" seem reasonable. 	


 I absolutely agree that knowledgeable analysis of the situation is required. The only question is how to get that done.



  	  Quote: 	
		  I would rather take contributions up to send Sabrina to the finest aviation and engineering schools in the world. Its people like her we need to be encouraging if we want to be able to pursue our hobby and to pass on the joy of flight to generations to come. We need younger people to be excited by piloting you own aircraft, and to be able to afford to do it. Look around you own EAA Chapters. How many up and comers do you have attending?



 FUD   Fear Uncertainty Doubt. These are not the characteristics you look for in a pilot. Seems to me we need to address this before we move on to metallurgy and tensile strength. 	


 Again, I suggest that the whole purpose of an independent analysis is to address Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. There may be better ways to address FUD, but  I do not believe that a good way is to pretend that it is not there. I am open to your suggestions for positive steps to reduce this FUD.



 

  	  Quote: 	
		  Larry Whitlow

 Valparaiso IN

 601XL Builder

 Pilot since Age 15 Solo'ed on my 16th birthday Dad had to drive me to the Airport, because I couldn't get my drivers license for another month 	




 



 

 Terry Phillips

 ttp44~at~rkymtn.net

 Corvallis MT

 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons are done; working on the wings

 http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/     [quote][b]

_________________
Terry Phillips
Corvallis, MT
ttp44<at>rkymtn.net
Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Tail feathers done; working on the wings.

craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

I’m afraid that if you are trying to devise a strategy to minimize legal liability then you really need to get a lawyer involved. The strategy may only provide the illusion of some level of protection.  

   

IMHO the plan should just not worry about liability. Those who are concerned should just not join the group. True, this might greatly reduce the size of the group but so might the confidentiality clause.  

   

-- Craig, still building, still planning to fly my XL.  

       

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

 Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 12:52 PM

 To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group  

  

  

   

Larry

 

 Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate your thoughts. They deserve a reply, so I will attempt one. For convenience, I will intersperse my replies within your comment below

 

 Terry

 

 

 At 09:43 AM 4/27/2008 -0700, you wrote:

 

   

Terry and others who want an outside engineering analysis.

 

 I do understand your desire to be confident in the design and safety of the 601XL. Like you I have a $17500 kit that I want to be able to fly safely.

 

 But if you proceed with the analysis under the terms you have stated below, You will destroy not only your own investment of both time and money but you will destroy everyone else's investments in their aircraft as  well, NO MATTER WHAT THE ENGINEERING REPORT HAS TO SAY!!  



 I may be unusual, but I do not look at my 601XL as an investment. I plan to fly it for as long as I am able to fly safely; eventually, my A/C will be part of my estate, and my heirs can do with it what they please. I recognize that, in the future, my personal circumstances may change and I may wish to recover my investment in the A/C. I guess I'll have to cross that bridge, if and when, I come to it.

 

 

 

   

Curious?? I'll explain.

 

 If the analysis is done and a completed report exists then....

 

 If the results of the report are only seen by the "contributors" A giant unanswered question hangs over the aircraft, Is it OK??? Has a problem been found? Are there modifications suggested??  This will weaken the "airplane shopping publics" opinion of the aircraft, and perhaps be enough to make them choose another aircraft with "less of an unknown factor". Even if the report says every things A-OK, the very fact that its a secret, will deter buyers. If this choice occurs enough times then Zenith ceases production and support of the 601XL or perhaps ceases business all together. I'm sure we can all agree that this would not be a desirable outcome.  



 Distributing the report only to contributors is a selfish attempt on my part to contain any potential liability for trying to get this analysis done. To my knowledge, only the US Government can define "secret" information in the USA. For most of my career I had a DOE Q-Clearance, and at times also a DOD Top Secret Clearance. For many years I was an ADC, an authorized derivative classifier. Even as an  ADC, I was only allowed to classify information subject to specific, written classification guidance issued by someone, at a higher level. Someone who really had the authority to determine what information could be classified. So no, the report will not be "secret." However, by issuing copies of the report only to members  who have contributed to the project and signed my cobbled up release and hold harmless agreement, I hope that I can deter any builder (or worse, their heirs) from suing  me because their lawyer has convinced them that they have a grievance. What the "members" of the group do with their copy of the report is up to them. But rest assured, they will not be subject  to criminal  prosecution--as I would be if today I disclosed US Government "secret" information. Perhaps I am overly paranoid. But I would like to preserve my meagre estate for my heirs and not spend it on legal expenses. Larry, you could personally resolve the "secret" issue by contributing to the analysis, and then posting your copy of the report on the Zenith-List. I'm just asking that you take that responsibility; don't condemn me for not doing it. It is a sad commentary on the state of our society that one must be concerned  about the threat of litigation. But the threat is real. In fact, I have read at least one post on the Zenith-List that suggested that ZAC should be concerned. Good grief! 

 

 

 

   

Also a engineering report known only to some of the fleet of 601XL devalues them all. Questions will arise? Do you know about the report?  Have you made modifications based on the report? Once again confusion and unknowns take over and we all loose.

 

 More importantly  Lets say the report reveals something that should be addressed, and you get your secret copy. Are you, ( a builder, a pilot, an aviation enthusiast) actually going to let another pilot or builder fly a machine that you know has a problem and NOT TELL HIM OR HER ABOUT IT!!!  That's  not what the sport aviation community should be all about. Could you live with yourself knowing you could have prevented a tragedy but did nothing because the other person didn't contribute to the funding of this witch hunt.  By the way what if some people contribute less than others to the funding of this report???  Are you only going to give them part of the data? Maybe the higher dollar contributors get the data first and its held from the lower dollar contributors for a period of time.  



 Membership in the group would not be restricted in any way. Chris Heinz is welcome and encouraged to join. My expectation is that the analysis will  find  that the XL  design is essentially sound. In the event that a significant flaw is detected, I would personally send a copy of the report to the NTSB and let them take responsibility for further distribution of that finding. In any event, I cannot and will not take responsibility to "tell him or her about it." Particularly since, I do not know just whom "him or her" might  be.

 

 

   

And of course if the report says "everything is fine"  Now What?  Its a secret, so all of the bad things listed above still happen, and the shrill voices calling for a redesign or "beef up" or whatever continue un-abated. AND WE ALL STILL LOOSE.  



 I fail to see how the engineering analysis of the 601XL design will increase the FUD that you refer to. I expectation is that the analysis will reduce FUD.

 

 

   

The sport aviation community is about helping yourself and others fly enjoyably and safely. A secret report will do none of that and quite possibly be the beginning of the end of our hobby and pastime as we know it.  I hope than my son will be able to learn to fly and to build his own airplane someday. This has all the earmarks of seriously damaging something that I dearly love to do.

 

 Any crash or problem with a amateur built experimental aircraft affects us all. If we don't take good care and be as responsible as we possibly can within the rules currently in place,  then the not so interested government WILL step in and make things harder for all of us.

 

 I seen posts recently with all sorts of speculation, guesses, critical observations, and truly useful thoughts and suggestions, I think the discussion is valid and useful as long as it is the open exchange of ideas and working towards a common goal of a safe and fun airplane

 

 But, I implore all of you to not give into fear and hysteria while we search for a cause or problem. Statements like "As far as Yuba City, I'm almost willing to say case closed." have no place. We only know what we see in one set of pictures and what limited reports that have been released by the FAA. Analyzing such a limited data set takes time. The FAA has not stated a cause, the designer of the aircraft has not sated a cause. The manufacturer of the kit has not stated a cause, yet some people on this very forum want to put themselves above all of those knowledgeable and qualified people and say that there is a problem because they have managed to scrape together $18000 and buy a kit. It almost makes the statement, "are you an engineer??  No but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night" seem reasonable.  



 I absolutely agree that knowledgeable analysis of the situation is required. The only question is how to get that done.

 

 

   

I would rather take contributions up to send Sabrina to the finest aviation and engineering schools in the world. Its people like her we need to be encouraging if we want to be able to pursue our hobby and to pass on the joy of flight to generations to come. We need younger people to be excited by piloting you own aircraft, and to be able to afford to do it. Look around you own EAA Chapters. How many up and comers do you have attending?

 

 FUD   Fear Uncertainty Doubt. These are not the characteristics you look for in a pilot. Seems to me we need to address this before we move on to metallurgy and tensile strength.  



 Again, I suggest that the whole purpose of an independent analysis is to address Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. There may be better ways to address FUD, but  I do not believe that a good way is to pretend that it is not there. I am open to your suggestions for positive steps to reduce this FUD.

 

 

 

   

Larry Whitlow

 Valparaiso IN

 601XL Builder

 Pilot since Age 15 Solo'ed on my 16th birthday Dad had to drive me to the Airport, because I couldn't get my drivers license for another month  



 

 

 

 

   

Terry Phillips

 ttp44~at~rkymtn.net

 Corvallis MT

 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons are done; working on the wings

 http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/    	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

       [quote][b]

lwhitlow

Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 76
Location: Valparaiso Indiana

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

Terry



I'm very happy you read my thoughts and took the time to give me yours.



I know that a solution must be found, and I appreciate yours and the others efforts to solve this



My big beef is the spread of information. I would be happy to contribute myself but only if we tell the world (so to speak).



The down sides are still there even if we do tell everyone about the engineers findings.  The best outcome can only come from Zenith doing an exhaustive analysis along with Zenith having an outside engineer review and concur.



I agree with Larry McFarland I think the root of the current crashes will lie with the manufacturer. and not a design issue.  But the reality is that only Zenith can put this issue to bed, not us



Thanks for taking the time



Larry Whitlow



 	  Quote: 	
		  ="Terry Phillips"]Larry



 Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate your thoughts. They deserve a reply, so I will attempt one. For convenience, I will intersperse my replies within your comment below



 Terry

 

 Terry Phillips

 ttp44~at~rkymtn.net

 Corvallis MT

 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons are done; working on the wings

 http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

Terry, along with checking for flap or aileron flutter, they should be checking for flutter of the entire wing too.



[quote="Terry Phillips"]At 02:24 PM 4/25/2008 -0500, John Bolding wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Jeff,

 No deviation from my feeble point of view.



 ....



 Progress is slow on the engineering front, I'm gonna call Thurston and see if he's interested in the project in case the academic doesn't pan out. He may want something useful to do in his spare time.

 Ya'll choose up a point man so if somebody says they are ready to do it there won't be any fumbling around. I think it needs to be a 601 guy in the middle of this as there might be some back and forth.

 	


 Progress is indeed slow. However, there is some that I  can report. Apparently it is finals time at Embry-Riddle, so the profs are pretty busy. I have sent them links to the Yuba City photos, as well as, scans of several of my wing drawings. We have tentatively arranged a phone call on Thursday, May 1 to discuss the engineering evaluation of the 601XL wing. In preparation for that call, I have drafted a statement of work that I will append to this message. I would invite comments, suggestions, flames, whatever. I'll need a revised version before the phone call.



 I spoke with one of the 601XL builders who I was hoping could provide a second signature on the bank account to provide a measure of fiscal control for the project. He told me that he would not take that role because he was concerned about potential liability. And, he more or less told me that I was crazy if I took an active role. I guess I'm crazy. I think someone has to take some initiative. It's either that, or walk away from a year of work and a $16,000 investment. Because I do not have the confidence I need in the aircraft at this time. However, his point is well taken, and I'm considering the following steps to limit liability exposure:  Distribute the engineering report only to those "members" who have  supported the analysis financially. 
Require each "member" to sign a release and hold harmless form that would be shamelessly plagiarized from the forms I had to sign for ZAC and JabiruUSA. 
Initiate work on the analysis only after enough funding has been received to fund the complete statement of work. 
If sufficient funds are not received within 4 weeks of the initial request for funding, then all checks will be returned using a SASE provided by each "member," and the analysis will not be done. Again, I invite your comments, flames, whatever, on the above. It's possible imposing the above conditions would decrease support so that the analysis could not be made. If so, I would be happy to relinquish my role to anyone who has a better  idea to make the analysis happen. Let me know if you are interested.



 

 Draft Statement of Work:



 

 Zenith Builders Analysis Group



 Statement of Work for Zenith CH601XL Independent Engineering Analysis



 Rev. 0



 April 26, 2008



 GOAL:  The goal of this analysis is to analyze the wing design of the CH601XL:



   To attempt to determine whether the structure, as designed, has adequate strength to meet the published design loads of +6G and -3G. 

  
Assuming that the analysis shows that the structure, as designed probably has adequate strength, then

  
Evaluate the susceptibility of the flaps and ailerons to flutter. If the analysis shows that flutter is a possible occurrence when a  CH601XL is flown within the design envelope, then evaluate possible modifications to minimize or eliminate the flutter.  
Consider the effect of design options on the ability of the wing to meet design standards:   Hinged vs. skin flex hinge aileron attachment.  
Aileron trim tab option.  
Wing locker option.  
Landing light option.  
Thirty gallon vs. 24 gallon fuel tanks.  
???  
 
Consider, to the extent possible given time and budget constraints, the effect of typicalbuilder mistakes, e.g.,   Wrong size or kind of rivets used at high stress location.  
Missing, loose, or wrong sized bolts.  
Mis-placed or wrong sized openings, e.g., the hole for the aileron control rod, holes in ribs for wiring, fuel lines, pitot lines, etc.  
Two or three piece nose skin  
???  
 The first task will be to Review the information available about the accidents which have occurred that may have involved in-flight breakup of the aircraft structure. The purpose of this review is to discover information that might guide the analysis of the wing.



 At the completion of the investigation, the engineer will submit a written report covering the results and recommendations, if any, for changes to the aircraft design to reduce the possibility of in-flight breakup.



 



 

 

 Terry Phillips

 ttp44~at~rkymtn.net

 Corvallis MT

 601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons are done; working on the wings

 http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/      	  Quote: 	
		  [b]

ashontz

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 723

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:34 am Post subject: Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

I posted this in the Unintended Consequenses thread, but I think it's worth noting here also just in  case no one here is reading that thread. If you haven't you might want to take a look at it.



The more I think about this, the more I agree. Lawyers already ruined general avaition, no sense letting one buy another waterfront home in Boca Raton (and an original restored P-51 Mustang as a trophy for a 'job(?) well done') and in the process ruin homebuilding for everyone else. Too many lawyers in this country and not enough real producing workers like homebuildes themselves. As soon as I saw someone in the analysis group mention a lawyer, that's time to do a 180 on that noise. Drop the issue, shut up and build your plane or sell or scrap it if you don't want to build it. BUT DO NOT LET THE SPOILS OF GENUINE HARD WORK GO TO LAZY PARASITIC LAWYERS THAT ARE AFRAID OF A HAMMER AND COULDN'T SURVIVE 3 SECONDS IN A WORLD WITHOUT SOMEONE TO LEACH OFF OF.

ihab.awad(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:34 PM, ashontz <ashontz(at)nbme.org> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   BUT DO NOT LET THE SPOILS OF GENUINE HARD WORK GO TO LAZY PARASITIC

 LAWYERS THAT ARE AFRAID OF A HAMMER AND COULDN'T SURVIVE 3 SECONDS

 IN A WORLD WITHOUT SOMEONE TO LEACH OFF OF.


	


Wow. (a) Everyone loves their own lawyer and hates everyone else's.

(b) In a civil society, this is indeed as it *should* be. (c) No

lawyer by themselves has standing to file suit; behind every lawsuit

is the citizen or corporation who hired them. (d) At least we're

governed by the rule of law, not by random mobs and thuggery; for

that, you might have to thank some people with legal knowledge, and

some of them are even lawyers!



Cheers,



Ihab



DO NOT ARCHIVE



-- 

Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA

xl(at)prosody.org
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

I thought the report about the Piper breakup was very good.

They did a dynamic analysis using a model that supported the

hypothesis that abrupt control movements, first in one direction then

the other lead to the wing failure. How about developing a dynamic

model that could be used to evaluate a number of failure scenarios?



I too tried to get an Aeronautical Engineering prof interested in

the analysis - no bite.



I'd like to know what happens when a flap is extended and the limit

switch allows the flap arm to leave the motor. I thought that I had

the flap controls adjusted well. But, on one preflight, the flap

arm departed and the flap fell unattached. That would leave the flap

flapping. I normally don't use flaps. But, when I do, I don't extend

them fully - I got bit in a gusty crosswind once.



Joe E (at) BFI

CH601XL, 507 hours

Jabiru 3300, 64x51 Sensenich wood prop

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008, Terry Phillips wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   At 02:24 PM 4/25/2008 -0500, John Bolding wrote:

> Jeff,

 ......snip  ........snip

 Draft Statement of Work:

 Zenith Builders Analysis Group

 Statement of Work for Zenith CH601XL Independent Engineering Analysis

 Rev. 0

 April 26, 2008



 GOAL:  The goal of this analysis is to analyze the wing design of the 

 CH601XL:



   *  To attempt to determine whether the structure, as designed, has 

 adequate strength to meet the published design loads of +6G and -3G.

   * Assuming that the analysis shows that the structure, as designed 

 probably has adequate strength, then

   * Evaluate the susceptibility of the flaps and ailerons to flutter. If the 

 analysis shows that flutter is a possible occurrence when a  CH601XL is flown 

 within the design envelope, then evaluate possible modifications to minimize 

 or eliminate the flutter.

   * Consider the effect of design options on the ability of the wing to meet 

 design standards:

       * Hinged vs. skin flex hinge aileron attachment.

       * Aileron trim tab option.

       * Wing locker option.

       * Landing light option.

       * Thirty gallon vs. 24 gallon fuel tanks.

       * ???

   * Consider, to the extent possible given time and budget constraints, the 

 effect of typicalbuilder mistakes, e.g.,

       * Wrong size or kind of rivets used at high stress location.

       * Missing, loose, or wrong sized bolts.

       * Mis-placed or wrong sized openings, e.g., the hole for the aileron 

 control rod, holes in ribs for wiring, fuel lines, pitot lines, etc.

       * Two or three piece nose skin

       * ???

 The first task will be to Review the information available about the 

 accidents which have occurred that may have involved in-flight breakup of the 

 aircraft structure. The purpose of this review is to discover information 

 that might guide the analysis of the wing.



 At the completion of the investigation, the engineer will submit a written 

 report covering the results and recommendations, if any, for changes to the 

 aircraft design to reduce the possibility of in-flight breakup.

 do not archive

japhillipsga(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:34 am Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

Andy, lawyers are not lazy! Bill of Georgia 

 

 

 --

Andrewlieser

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 43
Location: Chicagoland

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

Has anyone spoke to the Hientz's about this potential independent analysis?  If so as an alternative route for disseminating the results of such an analysis would it be best to provide all of the information and results to Zenith as well.  In doing this you could still provide a copy of the results to all parties that paid for the analysis and allow others to have the information disseminated to them through Zenith therefor disposing of any potential liability of the analysis group.  Just a thought.  I do agree with the comment about the younger generation getting excited about flying in general.  Being 27 it is very transparent to me and sometimes I feel like the last of a dying breed....

_________________
Andrew Lieser
S/N 6-7045
http://websites.expercraft.com/andrewlieser

MHerder

Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 143
Location: Fort Worth TX

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:34 am Post subject: Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

Andrew, 



I'm 26 so you're not the very last of the dying breed!  I thought I was one of the youngest builders in the group... That is till I heard about Sabrina...  She puts us all to shame!  I am truly inspired by her story though and look forward to seeing what she will do for aviation in the future.  Perhaps another Burt Rutan!  I am definitely the youngest at my local EAA chapter during our monthly meetings by at least 25 yrs or so.



Mike Herder



Zodiac XL Builder

N318MH

6-7019



HT and Rudder Complete, Fuselage is getting ready to get front skins.  I guess I'm about 35-40% there, not bad since I picked up the kit in December 07.

_________________
Zodiac 601 HD
Jabiru 3300
Wood Sensinich 64x47
Finally Flying

Terry Phillips

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 346
Location: Corvallis, MT

Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

Good point, Andrew.



Sounds like a good idea to me. If we are lucky enough to find an engineer 

to do the analysis, and, if we can raise the necessary funds, I think 

Zenith should get a copy of the report.



And, responding to a earlier post (I think by Craig Payne) it would be 

wonderful to have Zenith support the analysis with data and/or design 

information. I'm not sure how to make that happen. Suggestions, anyone?



Terry

At 11:56 AM 4/30/2008 -0700, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Has anyone spoke to the Hientz's about this potential independent 

analysis?  If so as an alternative route for disseminating the results of 

such an analysis would it be best to provide all of the information and 

results to Zenith as well.  In doing this you could still provide a copy 

of the results to all parties that paid for the analysis and allow others 

to have the information disseminated to them through Zenith therefor 

disposing of any potential liability of the analysis group.  Just a 

thought.  I do agree with the comment about the younger generation getting 

excited about flying in general.  Being 27 it is very transparent to me 

and sometimes I feel like the last of a dying breed....



--------

Andrew Lieser


	




Terry Phillips

ttp44~at~rkymtn.net

Corvallis MT

601XL/Jab 3300 s .. l .. o .. o .. w build kit - Tail, flaps, & ailerons 

are done; working on the wings

http://www.mykitlog.com/N47TP/

_________________
Terry Phillips
Corvallis, MT
ttp44<at>rkymtn.net
Zenith 601XL/Jab 3300 slow build kit - Tail feathers done; working on the wings.

numskull99(at)netzero.net
Guest

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 2:37 am Post subject: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

I think there is allot more younger people than you may think.  Im 27, and proud to be able to build a 601XL at this age.



Derek Lewis

Do not Archive;



-- "MHerder" <michaelherder(at)beckgroup.com> wrote:




Andrew, 



I'm 26 so you're not the very last of the dying breed!  I thought I was one of the youngest builders in the group... That is till I heard about Sabrina...  She puts us all to shame!  I am truly inspired by her story though and look forward to seeing what she will do for aviation in the future.  Perhaps another Burt Rutan!  I am definitely the youngest at my local EAA chapter during our monthly meetings by at least 25 yrs or so.



Mike Herder



Zodiac XL Builder

N318MH

6-7019



HT and Rudder Complete, Fuselage is getting ready to get front skins.  I guess I'm about 35-40% there, not bad since I picked up the kit in December 07.



--------

One Rivet at a Time!





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=180348#180348

_____________________________________________________________

Put your loved ones in good hands with quality senior assisted living. Click now!

http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmaeYKsW11c6KlYyFIorMy3anmRZUygvm50UUiXD7OxfgYQ6/?count=1234567890

Andrewlieser

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 43
Location: Chicagoland

Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: Re: Zenith Builders Analysis Group

I did not know here were other younger builders on the site!  It's nice to here that!  Just curious were you guys brought up around aviation or were you exposed later on in life???  Just curios!

_________________
Andrew Lieser
S/N 6-7045
http://websites.expercraft.com/andrewlieser

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