jmaynard
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 394
Location: Fairmont, MN (FRM)
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:42 am Post subject: Report no. 2 from Sun n Fun - The Heintz clan reactions to |
 |
|
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 06:40:44PM -0700, Paul Mulwitz wrote:
| Quote: | Matthew doesn't think the NTSB has any standing in this mess. He said
they didn't have any proof to convince him that their decision was the
right one at least 5 times in the tent session. He has hired a couple of
engineering firms to do some studies of the design and he gives them
complete credence while considering the NTSB mostly worthless. The good
news is he thinks the highly paid engineers will be finished with their
work and submit their findings within 2 weeks. He said he will base his
further actions on those findings.
|
There are definitely contradictions in the NTSB's report as opposed to their
findings in at least one case (N158MD), and the Dutch report seems to have
come completely out of left field.
| Quote: | My position was that the NTSB ruling was authoritative and needed to be
respected. Since the NTSB screamed we need aileron mass balancing we need
aileron mass balancing.
|
Hang on. Later on, you say:
| Quote: | My point about the changes is that only the Heintz clan and their companies
can issue an authoritative engineering change.
|
These two statements contradict each other. If the NTSB can authoritatively
say that aileron mass balances are needed, they obviously can make
authoritative statements about the Zodiac's engineering. Which is it?
| Quote: | My general impression is that it will take a long time for Matthew the come
around and issue the needed design changes. I expect my plane to be
grounded (by me) for a long time.
|
This is your choice, of course. It's always acceptable to answer "no" to the
question "am I going to fly today?". I have made a different choice, and am
completely comfortable with it. So have others. I respect your choice;
please respect that of those who choose to continue flying.
| Quote: | The central issue is Matthew's decision process, and he doesn't seem to
see it my way.
|
If you insist that only one solution is acceptable, aren't you making an
engineering decision about the aircraft's design? Didn't you say that was
the Heintz' sole domain?
Bear in mind that, after careful engineering study, it's possible Mathieu
Heintz will conclude no mass balance is necessary, or that the stick force
gradient is not a problem, either because it does not in fact get lower with
higher G, or because it's far enough outside the envelope that it won't be
encountered anyway. Despite what I believe is an irritating slowness in
deciding to run the necessary studies, they are now collecting real, hard
data, apparently both on the US and European aircraft. (Was that confirmed
at the forum? If I'd been there, I'd have asked.) Real data trumps general
principles every time.
If Mathieu reaches that conclusion, what will you do? Take a chainsaw to
your airplane?
| Quote: | I will continue to apply as much pressure on him as I can, even thought I
think it is wasted effort. I simply have no reasonable alternative.
|
I suspect that applying continued pressure will be counterproductive.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, AGI http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
| | - The Matronics Zenith-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Zenith-List |
|
_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC |
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
