Aeronca 11AC Chief Project FS

Victor Bravo wrote:
On Jun 25, 7:01 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

So either you were dealing with a broken 601XL or as I said before you are full
of crap.

Sorry to ruin your day, I'm not full or crap this time. The aircraft
was inspected by myself and two other people from our EAA chapter. I
did not measure the movement, and I rough guessed three inches total
movement, which would be 1.5 each way. I could be wrong and it may
have only been 1 inch... but it was more than a half inch I assure
you. Now Gig, why do you think that anyone who says they found XYZ on
another airplane is automatically full of crap because it's not that
way on your airplane?


Well my plane is being built according to the plans. And you can rest
assured there that the Horz Stab can't be moved 3 inches without bending
the attach points past the point where they have been damaged.

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 00:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
wrote:

On Jun 25, 7:01 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:

So either you were dealing with a broken 601XL or as I said before you are full
of crap.

Sorry to ruin your day, I'm not full or crap this time. The aircraft
was inspected by myself and two other people from our EAA chapter. I
did not measure the movement, and I rough guessed three inches total
movement, which would be 1.5 each way. I could be wrong and it may
have only been 1 inch... but it was more than a half inch I assure
you. Now Gig, why do you think that anyone who says they found XYZ on
another airplane is automatically full of crap because it's not that
way on your airplane?

I can't think of any
force acting on the airframe in flight that would do what you are doing
with your hand.

A combination of any-all of: vibration, asymmetrical loads from
slipstream swirling back on the fuselage, sideslip angle, gusts,
rudder input slightly moving the fuselage, etc. etc. If you ever did
"slow flight" in a Piper Tomahawk, and the instructor told you to turn
around and look at the tail, you would damn well know how much a tail
can shake back and forth from just air loads!

Now I'm not saying you couldn't bend the attach points enough to make it
move 3" but you'd only get to do that once on my plane before I hit you
with a baseball bat.

You can come out and try to move the stab tips of my T-craft back and
forth all you want... and it won't move... and I won' even threaten to
whack you with a bat much less actually do it. Your comment shows me
that you know your stabilizer can be moved, and you know it's not good
for the airplane.


If it moves it was not built to plans. The stab on a correctly built
Zenith aircraft does NOT move without significant (excessive) force.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 00:20:53 -0700 (PDT), Victor Bravo
wrote:

On Jun 24, 7:27 pm, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:

Build a 2000 lb 601.

Do you have any idea of how much strength, stiffness, redundancy, and
flight safety can be gained from an additional ONE POUND of aluminum
designed into the right places on a light aircraft? My friend, you
need to spend some quality time building balsa wood free flight models
and learning how aircraft structure works.


Believe me, I know. However, I ALSO know that many builders beef up
this, and overbuild that because they THINK they know better than the
engineer who designed it. Unlike MANY light experimental and
ultralight aircraft, the Zenith WAS actually designed by an engineer,
and a damned good one at that.
I have seen a whole lot of overweight planes. A little here, and a
little their really adds up.
And there has not been a single case of a zenith aircraft crashing due
to a design deficiency.
EVERY ONE has been caused by pilot error and/or careless assembly
(like leaving out bolts when installing the wings)

Unlike the Texas Parasol (totally un-engineered) which claimed a life
in May when the (previously identified as faulty and dangerous
designed - disputed vehemently by the designer) wing folded in flight.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:

Unlike the Texas Parasol (totally un-engineered) which claimed a life
in May when the (previously identified as faulty and dangerous
designed - disputed vehemently by the designer) wing folded in flight.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


Clare, you son of a bitch.

That airplane was a very heavy -overbuilt- TWO seater!

Not a Texas Parasol
and
Not a Chuckbird

Now how the hell am I - or the design - supposed to take the
blame for that?

Ass-Whole

cavelamb himself wrote:


FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH - THIS IS A SINGLE SEAT AIRPLANE.

This one was NOT built to spec.

And Clare, you are a hateful lying coniving son of a bitch.


------------------------------------

Aircraft Profile
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/C-IHBT.html


Aircraft
Manufacturer: Chuckbird
Model: TEXAS CHUCKBIRD X2 Search all Chuckbird TEXAS CHUCKBIRD X2
Year built: 2002
Serial Number (C/N): 2002

Number of Seats: 2

Number of Engines: 1
Engine Type: Reciprocating
Engine Manufacturer and Model: ROTAX SERIES
Status: Registered



This was what was reported...
------------------------------------
ark: C-IHBT
Common Name: Chuckbird Model Name: TEXAS CHUCKBIRD X2
Serial No: 2002

owner Clint, died on impact.

Saw a report that spar broke in gusty winds.

------------------------------------

Clare, did YOU submit that "report"?

Because the airplane went down in rough terrain and there were
no witnesses cited.

------------------------------------


Quoting Q -

Believe me, I know. However, I ALSO know that many builders beef up
this, and overbuild that because they

THINK they know better

than the engineer who designed it.

cavelamb himself wrote:


Clare, did YOU submit that "report"?

Because the airplane went down in rough terrain and there were
no witnesses cited.


The RCMP report stated there were eyewitnesses, though I have not seen
any report that credited an eyewitness with any opinion of what went
wrong or description of the crash......

"2008-05-30 18:54 PDT

Shortly after noon on the 30th of May, 2008, the Fort St. John R.C.M.P.
received reports of a possible plane crash in the Charlie Lake area. Eye
witnesses assisted police in narrowing the area to be searched. A small
aircraft was located a short while later by first responders, in a
heavily wooded area off of the Golf Course Rd., at Charlie Lake. The
lone occupant of the aircraft was found deceased. The name of the
deceased is not being released at this time. The Fort St. John R.C.M.P.
will continue to assist both the Coroner service and the
Transportation Safety Board in their respective investigations in
determinng the cause of the crash.

Originally released 08-05-30 at 14:14hrs by Sgt. GOODLEY of the Fort St.
John RCMP. "

Charles

Charles Vincent wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:


Clare, did YOU submit that "report"?

Because the airplane went down in rough terrain and there were
no witnesses cited.


The RCMP report stated there were eyewitnesses, though I have not seen
any report that credited an eyewitness with any opinion of what went
wrong or description of the crash......

"2008-05-30 18:54 PDT

Shortly after noon on the 30th of May, 2008, the Fort St. John R.C.M.P.
received reports of a possible plane crash in the Charlie Lake area. Eye
witnesses assisted police in narrowing the area to be searched. A small
aircraft was located a short while later by first responders, in a
heavily wooded area off of the Golf Course Rd., at Charlie Lake. The
lone occupant of the aircraft was found deceased. The name of the
deceased is not being released at this time. The Fort St. John R.C.M.P.
will continue to assist both the Coroner service and the Transportation
Safety Board in their respective investigations in determinng the cause
of the crash.

Originally released 08-05-30 at 14:14hrs by Sgt. GOODLEY of the Fort St.
John RCMP. "

Charles


I haven't seen much more that this either.

Keep an eye on it.

--

Richard

(remove the X to email)

America has become thouroughly convinced that the lunatics
are running the assylum and good idea or no, it will take
more that George W Bush at a press conference to reclaim
the public trust this administration has wantonly destroyed.

John R. Corroll

On Jul 7, 2:00 am, cavelamb himself wrote:


You are coming off pretty snotty, VB.

Show and tell time.

Let's see the airplanes you have designed and built...

I'm holding up my end of an argument, against three or four people who
are being equally snotty. I would be delighted to raise the level of
this "discussion" up to a more genteel level, but it would require the
same commitment from others... who immediately came after me with both
barrels right out of the gate.

As for show and tell, I did not and do not claim to be an aircraft
designer. I've sketched on paper, and head-scratched, and dreamed just
like everyone else on the homebuilt newsgroup. However if you read the
thread from the start I went out of my way to not masquerade as a
structural engineer, and to compliment Chris Heintz on actually being
one.

I will claim only this:

1. After having built and tested and crashed and succeeded and failed
with hundreds of balsa model airplanes, and after having owned 15 or
16 full size aircraft, and after having gone through A&P mechanic
school, and after having listened and learned from several people with
engineering knowledge far greater than my own, and after having
tinkered good and bad with small sheet metal projects on several
airplanes... I have a little better understanding of what I am talking
about on this thread than (let's say) half of the people here.

2. There are some people who probably have a lot more engineering
knowledge than I, there are some with a lot less, and there are a few
with engineering degrees that I definitely do not have.

3. I looked at a CH-601XL and found a fairly obvious problem. I
pointed it out to an Aerospace engineer / A&P in our EAA chapter and
he said there was too much movement there but there might not be any
assymetrical loads on it.

4. There have been now SEVERAL 601XL in-flight wing failures, one or
two new ones since I made the comment that started this flame-fest. If
my big mouth keeps a couple of people from burying their heads in the
sand on this issue, then perhaps there is some good being done.

5. Although I know damned well there are people on this newsgroup with
engineering degrees and greater sheet metal knowledge than mine by
far, for some reason they have NOT participated and NOT explained if
I'm wrong and NOT explained if anyone else is right.

6. I own a CH-701 mini-project (plans and a few tail parts built), and
I would love to build it and fly it. I am a very strong supporter of
Chris Heintz' designs for the most part. He has done something
brilliant, made the airplanes easy to build, and extremely simple.

7. But if Kelly Johnson can make a mistake, and Ed Heinemann, and Kurt
Tank, and Willy Messerschmitt, and Andrei Tupolev, and Matty Laird,
and Igor Sikorsky, and Bill Stout, and even CG Taylor can make a
mistake, then so the hell can Chris Heintz make a mistake. It is my
GUESS that he took the original 601 Zodiac and tried to make a sexy
low drag wing for it, at the same time as he was fighting like hell to
get it light enough for the new LSA category. He had to push too hard
on some engineering issue (or more likely several small ones), he had
to go to a lighter skin gauge or thinner shear webs or spread a load
across too few bolts or something I do not have the college degree to
understand ... and the strength of the airplane fell between what was
good enough on paper and what the real world of ASSYMETRICAL flight
loads or gusts or sub-par workmanship requires.

8. If I'm being snotty I apologize, but I will return fire when fired
upon. And as you can see I will fully substantiate my arguments,
unlike some others here !

From a highly experienced airport bum and highly NON-engineering-
degreed mechanic, I am telling you all that there is an issue on the
tail mounting of the Zenair design. I don't know if it is a big
problem, a fatal accident waiting to happen, hugely overbuilt, or
something that will wiggle but never break. That is a question for the
engineers to clarify but someone needs to look at it.

I'm saying that there is a tragic problem with the CH601XL airplane
design. There are too many catastrophic structural failures that
cannot be swept under the rug of builder error or amateur aerobatics.
If it is a design flaw by Heintz, then he is still a great designer
and deserves the same respect, but he will have to find the problem
and issue a repair or upgrade.

Bill Berle

On 2008-07-28, Victor Bravo wrote:
I'm holding up my end of an argument, against three or four people who
are being equally snotty. I would be delighted to raise the level of
this "discussion" up to a more genteel level, but it would require the
same commitment from others... who immediately came after me with both
barrels right out of the gate.

Put yourself in my position.

You make comments about an airplane on which I just spent a large sum of
money and invested a lot of personal emotion into, using your experience
with one part of the aircraft to "explain" that another, completely
unrelated part of the aircraft that's been implicated in accidents is
somehow underdesigned, yet not backing up your comments beyond that - and
especially when my experience with your complaint on my aircraft turns out
to be quite different?

Just what kind of a reaction were you expecting?

4. There have been now SEVERAL 601XL in-flight wing failures, one or
two new ones since I made the comment that started this flame-fest. If
my big mouth keeps a couple of people from burying their heads in the
sand on this issue, then perhaps there is some good being done.

Nobody I know of in the Zodiac community is burying their head in the sand.
With a couple of exceptions, nobody's running around in Chicken Little mode,
either. We're watching the situation and doing what we can to minimize the
risks inherent in flying, just as any prudent pilot would do.

One of the Heintz brothers (I think it was Mathieu, but I could be
misremembering) has said that there is no one common factor among the
accidents that are under investigation. Since he's involved in the
investigation, he can't say any more than that until the NTSB has released
its findings.

6. I own a CH-701 mini-project (plans and a few tail parts built), and
I would love to build it and fly it. I am a very strong supporter of
Chris Heintz' designs for the most part. He has done something
brilliant, made the airplanes easy to build, and extremely simple.

Great! Build it and fly it! Even if your scaremongering about the 601XL were
on target, that would not apply to the 701 - as that's a different aircraft,
with a different flight profile, and a safety record even you shouldn't be
able to find fault with.

8. If I'm being snotty I apologize, but I will return fire when fired
upon. And as you can see I will fully substantiate my arguments,
unlike some others here !

Fine. Let me know when you do substantiate your arguments. So far, you have
utterly failed to explain how the one piece of concrete data you have - that
you were able to flex the horizontal stabilizer mounting by moving the
stabilizer tip - has anything at all to do with inflight structural failure
*of* *the* *wings*. Until you do, you're just blowing smoke.

From a highly experienced airport bum and highly NON-engineering-
degreed mechanic, I am telling you all that there is an issue on the
tail mounting of the Zenair design. I don't know if it is a big
problem, a fatal accident waiting to happen, hugely overbuilt, or
something that will wiggle but never break. That is a question for the
engineers to clarify but someone needs to look at it.

This is not borne out on my aircraft.

Further, it has never once been implicated in any accident, fatal or
otherwise, of the 601XL. Therefore, why, exactly, is it relevant?

I'm saying that there is a tragic problem with the CH601XL airplane
design. There are too many catastrophic structural failures that
cannot be swept under the rug of builder error or amateur aerobatics.

That remains to be seen. I do think there's a problem somewhere. There are
enough possibilities, and enough factors that can interact, that I do not
believe there is an inherent design flaw sufficient to cause structural
failure of an aircraft that is properly built, well maintained, and
conservatively flown. That there has been no common factor found in the
accidents in the type tends to bear out that opinion.

Until the problem is found, I intend to maintain my aircraft to the highest
standards of airworthiness possible, and fly it well within its performance
envelope and my capabilities as a 225-hour, non-instrument-rated private
pilot. That's all I can do.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

On Jul 29, 7:16 am, Jay Maynard
wrote:


using your experience
with one part of the aircraft to "explain" that another, completely
unrelated part of the aircraft that's been implicated in accidents is
somehow underdesigned, yet not backing up your comments beyond that - and
especially when my experience with your complaint on my aircraft turns out
to be quite different?

What I brought up is two separate issues with the 601, one of which
also applies to the 701. The tail movement has not caused any
accidents to my knowledge, it was simply something that bothered me
about the design, and something that could eventually cause some
inappropriate wear or cracking. If I left you with the opinion that I
was associating the tail flexing with the wing issues I apologize.
They have nothing to do with each other to my limited knowledge.

Nobody I know of in the Zodiac community is burying their head in the sand.

One guy on this newsgroup thread said the 601XL is the safest airplane
in the sky bar none, and apparently got irritated at my mere mention
of a potential problem. His head is buried in something, although it
may not be sand (sorry couldn't resist... no real insult intended)

With a couple of exceptions, nobody's running around in Chicken Little mode,
either.

There are only three 601XL people I know personally. The 3/4 completed
Quick Build kit project with a Jabiru 3300 has been put up for sale by
the builder because of the wing issues. The factory built fly-away LSA
airplane has been put in the back of the hangar until this same issue
is sorted out to his satisfaction. The XL that was built and flown
crashed on the first flight, due to something that had nothing to do
with the wing or tail.

One of the Heintz brothers ... said that there is no one common factor among the
accidents that are under investigation.

Let me get this straight... you're saying there is no one common
factor in the structural inflight failure crashes of... five 601XL
type aircraft ??? Jay, 601XL IS the common factor !

Even if your scaremongering about the 601XL were
on target,

Scaremongering !?!? Kindly explain where you would draw the line
between intelligently discussing a potential problem (that has
resulted in several tragedies) and "scaremongering". Would you prefer
to just not allow any discussions about a potential problem with a
specific airplane?

that would not apply to the 701 - as that's a different aircraft,
with a different flight profile, and a safety record even you shouldn't be
able to find fault with.

The 701 has an excellent safety record, good design features, and a
very clever balance between engineering for strength and engineering
for simplicity. The unique tradeoff between exceptional STOL ability
and cost to build/fly/own is indeed why I am interested in it.

So far, you have utterly failed to explain how ..... the horizontal stabilizer .....
has anything at all to do with inflight structural failure *of* *the* *wings*.
Until you do, you're just blowing smoke.

Once again, I did not and do not believe there is a direct connection
between moving the tail too much with hand pressure and wing failures.
I hope this is not a big surprise... we may be talking about more
than one issue ! The 601 and 701 have an issue which may be a design
flaw or may be a design compromise. I personally didn't like the fact
that you can move the tail in a manner which you cannot on ANY other
similar airplane. So far this has NOT caused any problems or crashes
but I stand by that it was worth mentioning.

The "concrete evidence" that you forgot to mention is that there have
been several fatalities on only one particular variant (XL) of an
otherwise very robust and safe design (Zodiac). For the third and
final time, I am NOT associating these wing failures with the
horizontal tail rigidity... I am associating these wing failures with
the possibility that there is not enough metal in the XL wing.

You sound like the people who stand out in front of a courthouse
screaming "racism !" because the guy who shot four innocent people and
is on trial for murder happens to be a different skin color than the
people on the jury. That has nothing to do with whether he shot the
people or not. Because I have the nerve to hold up an argument and
make people talk about a possible design issue, does not make me a
scaremonger.

(tail movement) This is not borne out on my aircraft.

Good. At least you looked at it, considered my point, and made your
own decision. That's all I wanted out of the tail argument anyway.

Further, it has never once been implicated in any accident, fatal or
otherwise, of the 601XL. Therefore, why, exactly, is it relevant?

The same reason a warning about Salmonella contamination on some food
product is relevant to an automobile recall for bad brakes. You check
your brakes AND you check where your friggin' tomatoes came from,
because you could have, exactly, two separate unrelated problems that
could cause you to get hurt. If you're not getting this concept (of
more than one thing going on at the same time) you might not be an
ideal candidate for aircraft ownership or operation.

I do think there's a problem somewhere.

Ahhh... the dull yellow light of higher brain function flickers
briefly...

I do not
believe there is an inherent design flaw sufficient to cause structural
failure of an aircraft that is properly built, well maintained, and
conservatively flown.

....and just as quickly is extinguished.

In aviation, particularly experimental aviation, we have to be far
more suspicious than complacent. We have to be utterly suspicious of
everything that can affect safety, and ever vigilant. We have to do a
pre-flight inspection assuming that something on the airplane will try
to kill us this day, and it is our job to find it before it does.
Guilty until proven innocent on all matters concerning mechanical
safety. We have to fly knowing the engine IS about to fail, and be
looking for emergency landing areas at all times. There is a very
large burden we have to carry, which makes every flight equally nerve
wracking as it is enjoyable. It is this burden that makes me willing
to argue with and infuriate a total stranger like you, so that perhaps
your anger at me will force you to take that one extra look at a
problem from a different angle.

You say there are no common factors in the failures... which SHOULD
prove that at least one of them was well built and being flown within
its limits. The most recent one was a formation flight, so it can be
assumed that pilot was flying in level flight and not maneuvering
excessively.

Until the problem is found, I intend to maintain my aircraft to the highest
standards of airworthiness possible, and fly it well within its performance
envelope and my capabilities as a 225-hour, non-instrument-rated private
pilot. That's all I can do.

Sorry Jay, I can't let you off the hook. The "highest standards of
airworthiness possible" means you would load test the wings (sandbag
test) to verify structural integrity... at various torsional moments
(wing twisting due to air loads). "Within its performance envelope"
means that you KNOW what the real performance envelope is. If other
601XL aircraft have failed inflight operating within or even near this
envelope, it means the published envelope is really not fully proven
out.

Changing my personalities for a moment, and assuming the role of
someone less antagonistic who only wants you to be able to fly safely,
I will turn off the smart-ass switch and turn on the "help this guy
live to enjoy his airplane" switch. Until a real engineer has
determined the full problem and figured out a real solution, I
sincerely advise you to implement a temporary set of restrictions in
your flight envelope to increase your structural margins.

Reduce your turbulent air penetration speed and VNE speed by 25%
each.
Reduce the allowable gross weight of your airplane by 10%.
Reduce the maximum G loading by one or two G.
Limit aerobatics to low G barrel rolls.
Reduce or eliminate maneuvers that put rolling (wing twisting) loads
on at the same time as G loads.

Taking these precautions WILL greatly reduce the loads on your
structure, until a qualified engineer figures this all out.

Bill Berle