Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Dutch XL crash findings

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

Dutch XL crash findings
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

rans6andrew

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Posts: 16
Location: Berks, UK

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:39 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

Jim,  the engine weight I mentioned came from chucking my engine, exhaust system, oil cooler, water rad and oil reservoir onto my bathroom scales.  The weights I saw agree with those from the Rotax 912UL manual.  Adding in water and oil brought me up to 67 or 68Kg (149 pounds) if memory serves.  The basic engine weighs just 57Kg.



I believe that the Dutch ultralight rules allow 475Kg gross weight.  In the UK the rules are 450Kg for a 2 seat microlight BUT the empty weight has to be 450 minus 1 hours worth of fuel at max continuous power and minus 2 X 86Kg pilots which comes down to an empty weight of 268Kg (590 pounds).  Apart from the fuel the aircraft must have everything it needs to fly when weighed empty.



If you use a 912, don't fit anything un-necessary, just basic instruments and go easy on the paint it comes inside the 268Kg empty weight.  You can help this by removing excess length from bolts (leave 1.5 threads through nuts), round off edges and trim spare material from all brackets, keep wire and hose lengths to a minimum.  I saved weight by throwing out a heavy key operated twin magneto and starter switch (8 ounces) and using individual mag switches and a starter button (less than 2 ounces).  I have only one fuel gauge (2 were supplied) and a change over switch as this saves some weight and some panel space.  I chose not to fit the Hobbs meter from the kit, I will use a handheld radio (not in at time of weighing!).  When you put your mind to it there is plenty of savings to be made without affecting anything structural.



  This works for a 601UL, I don't know what a 601XL could be built down to if attention is given to keeping the weight down but it must be in the low 600 pounds for the Dutch to be classing them as ultralights.



The aircraft is for daytime good vis pleasure flying, it does not need turn co-ordinator, artificial horizon, panel fit radio, transponder, autopilot, gps, spats, leg fairings, much sound insulation, carpets etc.  I see most aircraft pictured on the Zenith website have cockpits with more kit (weight!) than modern frontline all weather fighters.  A few ounces here, a few pounds there, it all adds up if you let it.



Andrew.

_________________
A good way through building a 601UL with 912UL.
Still flying Rans S6 with 503.

GBzodiflyer

Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 7

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

Talking about weight difference , there is a very big difference in weights in the undercariage suppliied. 

In usa kits , which is grove wheels etc , and a very heavy main aluminium  gear leg , And the original zenair/czaw u,c is two seperate composite legs and light weight wheels /tyres/brakes  , which i believe came from 



http://www.marc-ingegno.it/index.php?option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=53&lang=en



my xl tail dragger with this lightweight u/c  came out at 305 kg painted , weighed on u.s. built load cells .



do you guys in the u.s. have a lighter weight option main gear than the one supplied in the  american  kit , I am  a little concerned as the guys here are building the u.s. version , but will be restricted to 560 kg mtow , a little lower than your 600 kg i think .



Gary .

bryanmmartin

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1018

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:49 pm Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

There is a Grove main landing gear that is considerably lighter than  

the Zenith supplied one. it's built from a stronger type of aluminum  

so it can be lighter (but more expensive).



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 >



 do you guys in the u.s. have a lighter weight option main gear than  

 the one supplied in the  american  kit , I am  a little concerned as  

 the guys here are building the u.s. version , but will be restricted  

 to 560 kg mtow , a little lower than your 600 kg i think .



 Gary .


	


-- 

Bryan Martin

N61BM, CH 601 XL,

RAM Subaru, Stratus redrive.

do not archive.

_________________
--
Bryan Martin
N61BM, CH 601 XL, Stratus Subaru.
do not archive.

tiethoff

Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 23

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:39 pm Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

Lets assume they all are crazy in Europe ! Just pure hypothetical...



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

From: "Sabrina" <chicago2paris(at)msn.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:03 AM

To: <zenith601-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Pure Hypothetical....



 Let's say Zenith sold me 372 pounds of aluminum... this 372 does not count 

 the landing gear, canopy, canopy struts, landing gear fixtures, axles, 

 wheels, tubes, tires, nose strut, rivets, torque tube, brakes, dual 

 sticks, engine mount, cowling, canopy rails, flap motor, flap tube/arms, 

 interior, servos, fuel senders, gauges, bolts, fiberglass pants/tips, 

 nylon or cables.



 Figure my O-200A engine, accessories, oil, engine mount, cowl, metal prop, 

 prop spacer, heat exchangers, exhaust, spinner come in at 250.



 Figure the the misc. steel, main landing gear, rivets, wire, bolts, nuts, 

 rubber, pumps, batteries, avionics, lights, paint, fiberglass tips, 

 canopy, interior, cables, etc. come in at  250.



 With four gallons of fuel, I am at 860, without fuel 836.



 836 - 250 - 250 =  336 pounds of aluminum out of the 372 after trimming.



 Assuming you can cut 30% of my engine weight and 30% of my "other" mass, 

 you still have 372 pounds of aluminum + 175 + 175 = 722.



 To reach 590 one would have to trim the aluminum to 240/372 pounds or 

 shave off 35% off the airframe.



 I don't know how anyone in the EU gets down to 590 pounds... 700 I can 

 see, 590???





 Read this topic online here:



 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 26064#226064

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:57 am Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

Hi Sabrina,



While your statement is technically true, it leaves some issues unmentioned.



First, there is ot need to prove anything the the FAA to get a 

certificate.  That is, you don't need to prove the weight limit is 

OK.  You do need to prove you own the plane and that it was built 

according to the appropriate rule set such as the 50% rule.  The FAA 

doesn't seem to concern itself with the general design safety of the 

plane when it is certified as experimental.



For many of us, the Private License is a non-issue.  The real issue 

is the lack of need for a  medical certificate to fly a plane that 

qualifies as LSA.



Also, you can get your plane certified with a higher weight limit, 

but the original design was limited to the 1320 pounds.  That means 

all the calculations of load limits are based on this weight.  If you 

fly it at a higher weight (which I'm sure we all will do from time to 

time) you reduce the margin for overloading that can occur in choppy 

weather or due to heavy handed piloting.  You also need to change the 

maneuvering speed.



Paul

XL getting close

do not archive

At 07:06 AM 1/22/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Here, the FAA responds to the EAA and has developed a wonderful 

EAB/E-LSA system that is efficient, relatively inexpensive and 

open.   If a builder can prove to the FAA that his particular XL can 

carry more than 1320 pounds, he can certify it to that higher 

weight, he will need a private pilot ticket to fly it, but the 

process is there and it is transparent.  No need to lie, no need to 

cut corners here.

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:27 am Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

Paul,



While I don't have to weigh my plane with the DAR standing there I do have to show him the weight and balance information. To lie on that form is a violation of the law. As is flight with a MGW over 1320 lbs. I don't plane do do that either.

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

Thruster87

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 193
Location: Australia

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:17 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

You poor buggers.We are allowed 700kg -1540 lbs MTOW and NO top speed limits [other then manufactures recommended] here down in OZ for the LSA category.

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:04 pm Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

Hi Gig,



What law is it you would violate if you flew your plane over max gross weight?



Paul

Do not archive

At 09:27 AM 1/22/2009, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Paul,



While I don't have to weigh my plane with the DAR standing there I 

do have to show him the weight and balance information. To lie on 

that form is a violation of the law. As is flight with a MGW over 

1320 lbs. I don't plane do do that either.

alex_001

Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 61

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:29 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

just to comment on the weight issue

planes do get weight checked in germany before reg.

my first xl(CZAW)back in 2005 (was the 1st one in germany) had 298kg   no seats,no carpet etc, no wheelfairing, no airbox,rotax 912, no radio etc, only asi and alt,BRS, no propspinner, 



my current xl has empty 323kg with avionics and other parts on it



most microlights are around this mark  pioneer 300, ctsw, etc

there are some heavy ones made from cfk about 350kg ish.



this is also the reason i disscussed with chip Erwin (CZAW) why the sportscruiser has no microlight reg here cause at 330kg it comes to heavy for registration purpose.  plane must be empty below 298 incl rescue system.

daveaustin2(at)primus.ca
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:57 pm Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

Re over gross,

I believe I'm right up here in Canada in that it would invalidate your C of 

A and would also render your insurance nul and void.

Dave Austin  601HDS - 912

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:00 pm Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

Hi Sabrina,



I agree with you about truthfulness on the documents.



I disagree about the max gross weight.  Yes, the pilot is responsible 

for knowing the airplane's take off weight.  But no, he is not 

responsible for seeing that it falls within the maximum specified on 

ancient papers.



Most of my pilot experience was gained as a renter rather than 

airplane owner.  That means I have flown many different models under 

many different conditions.  One of those conditions is a regular 

habit of flying some particular model planes over gross weight.  One 

example is the C-150.  I don't believe I have ever flown one of those 

under gross except when soloing.  My most recent flight in one (last 

year) was getting my BFR with another chunky old man in the 

passenger's seat.  I'm sure we were at least 100 pounds over 

gross.  That sort of flight is very common practice in the real 

world.  In a case like this the only other choices would be to not 

fly or find a different aircraft type.  Perhaps that would have been 

a good choice, but I don't think we broke any laws or regulations.



In real world practice, it is important to understand how the plane 

will perform under the actual flight conditions.  A C-150 will do 

just fine when flown over gross so long as the CG is good and the air 

conditions are favorable - reasonable density altitude.  The fact 

that the original certification called for a lower take off weight 

has little bearing on this situation.



Paul

XL getting close

do not archive



At 02:40 PM 1/22/2009, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  Paul,



14 CFR 91.103(b)(2) Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a 

flight, become familiar with all available information concerning 

that flight. This information MUST include--...reliable information 

appropriate to the aircraft, relating to aircraft performance under 

expected values of airport elevation and runway slope, aircraft 

gross weight, and wind and temperature



Unless you test your aircraft in Phase 1 at "over max" , how can you 

possess "reliable information appropriate to the aircraft" re the 

"gross weight."



So too, as to W&B you sign an 18 USC perjury advsory acknoweldgement 

during certification that the information you gave was 

truthful.  Not to mention the notarized program letter.

graeme(at)coletoolcentre.
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:34 pm Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

Hi Paul



The regulations are quite clear in Australia It is the pilots responsability 

to ensure the Aircraft does not

exceed max take off weight.

I agree the empty weight in the book is asumed correct so it is only the 

load you added which would be calculated.

If you overload the Aircraft and it flies ok the concerns would be to fly 

below the speeds indicated in the manual

other wise the wings may fall off also the Aircraft would not peform as per 

book,

finally hope no CASA official catches you flying illegaly.

I see you have an XL I hope with all the talk on wing failure you will be 

diligent and fly within the specifications.

not like some of crazy aerobatic stuff  on youtube

Graemecns

---

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:48 pm Post subject: Dutch XL crash findings

Hi Graeme,



As you can see, there is some doubt about the actual meaning of the 

regulations in the USA.  My understanding is that flying over the 

listed maximum gross weight is not against the rules.



I agree with most of your comments.  I disagree, but only slightly, 

on your point about flying speed.  In fact, you might be safer at 

higher speeds than if you were flying at a lighter weight.  This is 

certainly true for maneuvering speed since the plane will stall at a 

higher speed rather than breaking up.



I suppose each pilot must make a judgement for each model airplane he 

flies about the gross weight question.  The Cessna 150 is a case 

where it just isn't possible to fly at book maximum weight with two 

adults in the plane.  This is a fact known to just about everyone who 

flies that particular plane.  It doesn't climb as well as it would 

with lighter weight, but it works fine in all other respects.



I'm not sure how to approach this question with an experimental 

plane.  I suppose the best answer is to test fly it at various 

weights and CGs during the initial test period to learn how it 

behaves.  Then limit your loading to the tested conditions later on.



The opinion I got from my favorite instructor on this subject is we 

must consider the conditions and the particular plane when loading 

and flying.  If the air temperature is very cold then you can clear 

obstacles much easier than if the air is very hot.



I agree with you that gentle flying is called for when flying at 

heavy weights.  Of course, I try to do that no matter what the plane weight is.



Indeed, I do not intend to fly my XL in an overly aggressive 

fashion.  I am not an aerobatic pilot, and the only aerobatic 

maneuvers I would consider doing in any plane are the low G ones such 

as stalls and spins.  One slight exception to this is the wing-over 

maneuver which I have trained and performed in the C-152.  It is a 

"Box Canyon" turn maneuver where you use vertical space to make the 

turn rather than horizontal space.  You might pull as much as 3 g's 

in the pull out if you perform it correctly.  If performed 

incorrectly you will pull the wings off any plane.



Paul

XL getting close

do not archive

At 04:30 PM 1/22/2009, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  Hi Paul



The regulations are quite clear in Australia It is the pilots 

responsability to ensure the Aircraft does not

exceed max take off weight.

I agree the empty weight in the book is asumed correct so it is only 

the load you added which would be calculated.

If you overload the Aircraft and it flies ok the concerns would be 

to fly below the speeds indicated in the manual

other wise the wings may fall off also the Aircraft would not peform 

as per book,

finally hope no CASA official catches you flying illegaly.

I see you have an XL I hope with all the talk on wing failure you 

will be diligent and fly within the specifications.

not like some of crazy aerobatic stuff  on youtube

Thruster87

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 193
Location: Australia

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:28 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

Hi Sabrina, NO medicals required.If you can hold a drivers license then you can hold a RAA license,but you cannot fly into controlled airspace or above 5000ft QNH unless it is for reasons of safety [only if you have a PPL and transponder fitted]

chris Sinfield

Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 270
Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:39 pm Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

Al

sorry to burst your 700kg bubble but the RAA is still limited as of yesterday to 544KG and the Xl in VH reg is limited to 600kg.



The Zodiac XL is not available in Australia as an LSA . Because AMD and Zenith do not maintain the Airworthiness of the individual aircraft as per the Aussie regs.

Chris..

Thruster87

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 193
Location: Australia

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:59 am Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

Hi Chris you are correct.Been so busy building I got ahead of myself with respect to upcoming changes/proposals from CASA.To meet the LSA 1 of the following conditions is satisfied:

(i) the manufacturer of the aeroplane, or of the kit, was the holder of a

certificate of approval in relation to the manufacture of, or of kits for,

aeroplanes of a kind that includes the particular aeroplane;

(ii) the aeroplane, or the kit, was manufactured in accordance with an

approval given by CASA;

(iii) if the aeroplane, or the kit, was exported to Australia, a certificate that

is acceptable to CASA and that relates to the airworthiness of the

aeroplane, or the aeroplane that could be assembled from the kit, has

been issued by the appropriate authority of the country from which

the aeroplane, or the kit, was exported; So we are still waiting???

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:23 am Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

 	  psm(at)att.net wrote: 	
		  Hi Gig,



What law is it you would violate if you flew your plane over max gross weight?



Paul

Do not archive

	


91.13

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

stepinwolf

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Posts: 133
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:37 am Post subject: Re: Dutch XL crash findings

 	  Gig Giacona wrote: 	
		   	  psm(at)att.net wrote: 	
		  Hi Gig,



What law is it you would violate if you flew your plane over max gross weight?



Paul

Do not archive

	


91.13 	




Probably the law of survival,,,,



Stepinwolf

701&750 Scratch

_________________
Long wing + vga's, = lo & slo

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith601-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

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