psm(at)ATT.NET Guest
 
 
 
 
 
  | 
		
			
				 Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:23 pm    Post subject: Final Report on the Markermeer accident has been    publishe | 
				     | 
			 
			
				
  | 
			 
			
				Hi Larry,
      
      If you have a problem with my post, perhaps you can find a more     erudite way to express it.
      
      So, what exactly is your problem?
      
      Paul
      
      
      On 4/11/2011 5:37 PM, Lawrence Webber wrote:     [quote]              HERE WE F%&%g   GO AGAIN !!!!
        
        Larry
        
        
        
                
 
                      Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:07:01 -0700
        From: psm(at)att.net (psm(at)att.net)
        To: zenith-list(at)matronics.com (zenith-list(at)matronics.com)
        Subject: Re: Final Report on the Markermeer accident       has been published
        
               Hi Bill,
        
        I agree with everything you said - I think.  I admit I didn't       really understand all the technical details of the Dutch report,       but I think it points to flutter and weak wings as the cause of       their particular accident.  
        
        They also added a lot of details to the whole story that I hadn't       heard before.  One interesting point was the French in-flight       failure that didn't result in a fatality because of a ballistic       'chute.  The pilot of that incident reported flutter before the       wing failed.  Another interesting point (to me) was the report       that the solid rivets holding the wing spars together failed in       the shear direction.  I can't imagine how this could happen in a       properly designed wing.  That could be just my shortcoming.
        
        I think they clearly said they "Think" flutter caused the start of       the incident in the Netherlands.  The FAA managers I have spoken       to told me they had evidence of flutter in the accidents they       investigated but they couldn't determine if the flutter caused the       structure failure or the structure failure caused the flutter.        They also told me in no uncertain terms that before the upgrade       the aircraft did not meet the appropriate design standards and       after the upgrade it does.
        
        For me the bottom line is we should all install the upgrade       package in our planes.  This is what the FAA demands, the folks at       ZAC tell us to do and now the Dutch seem to agree with.  The Dutch       report singles out aileron balance and reinforcing RR-7 as key       elements, but I think they also said the spar structure needs help       too.
        
        Paul
        Nearly finished installing upgrade.
        
        
        On 4/11/2011 11:49 AM, japhillipsga(at)aol.com (japhillipsga(at)aol.com)       wrote:       [quote]I read the Dutch           report and found it sufficiently informative. I may be the           only builder and flyer that sees that the report says the ZAC           host modifications and upgrades though painful to perform are           the solution. Maybe not, maybe so??? Not knowing much about           metallurgy, force torsion and compression issues I have to           rely on folks educated differently than I. I suppose those           dull Dutch experts may have really screwed up by           publishing this report and failing to ask our expert, Mr. Paul           R., to approve their investigation and findings. I know I'd           feel more secure if they had got some more opinions from such           experts as I fly my XL-B around the sky's of Georgia. Seems           like about half of the 24 page report spoke to the issue of           weak wing strength, weak rear spar attachment material,           unbalanced ailerons and the propensity for loose control           cables in flexible wings to get even more slack and nurture           flutter conditions. I think the Dutch folks make it fairly           clear that flutter took the wing off or did I miss something?           I made the ZAC modifications and several others to my XL-B           last year and fly her now. She flys well and stronge, but she           always did. I also have a RV-8a I built and I think the XL-B           wing spar I assembled is about as strong, maybe           stronger. Course, I don't suppose the value of my plane will           ever rise much above salvage value for possible sale and we           all have our ZBAG Busy Body folks to thank for the many           thousands of dollars of cost to each of us. Wonder if this           whole business could have been handled a different way?  Lots           of plane crash. Why was the XL and ZAC singled out for this           treatment? This is my last thought I'm going to waste on the           subject, fly happy and often, Bill Phillips   
            
            --
 
  |  | - 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 |  
  |  
 
 
 
 
  | 
			 
		  |