Discussed this years ago in the UK, we concluded WRT
overloading/overstressing that

1. metal bends and fatigues and shows signs of cracking. Fatigue life can
be estimated.
2. wood fails progressively with audible and visible cracking, though glue
joints are something else (there's an English pub discussion about why the
lengthwise cracked beams in the old pubs are stronger than solid beams.
Turns out that cracks indicated that the wood was seasoned, therefore
stronger in a load bearing sense. Wood without cracks was green, though
more resilient to impact, was more flexible and resulted in more bending
under load which apparently had resulted in some pub collapses, or at least
the story goes. This was all discussed in a pub in East Anglia where it was
said to actually have been built on a large raft in a boggy area a few
hundred years earlier.) Wood has theoretically infinite life, or at least
that was assumed.
3. composites (in the common sense) fail catastrophically (ever seen what
happens when a fiberglass pole vault goes bad?, similar to twisting a wing
section off I'd imagine, whether through overstress or defect.)

BTW, your 2c is probably not one of the earlier heavies mentioned. I think
most were 2b's. 1000 hours was 1/3 of the initial service life of the first
generations of glass ships, based on 1/6 of a design life of 18,000 hours as
a conservative estimate. Subsequent studies have shown long composite life,
though some of the metal bits may need periodic crack testing and
replacement. 2c is not really first generation glass, but still in the
early carbon fiber period. Not sure what the initial service life SH might
have assigned, but expect it would have been at least 3000 hours.

Frank Whiteley

"George William Peter Reinhart" wrote in message
...
Oops!!!
Should have been _forty two thousand_ hours on the Mooney sister ship.
At 7200 hrs, mine had used up four engines.
No telling how many on the sister ship.
Cheers!

George William Peter Reinhart wrote in article
...
Ian,
I've got a copy of the same articles.
I used to think my Mooney was a pretty high time at 7200 hours until I
parked it next to the sister ship with 4200+ hours.
There is still the "turbulence" though, so I'm wondering if I should fly
only on days when there is no lift.
Cheers! (and still trolling)

tango4 wrote in article
...
I have a copy of Technical Soaring, the July 2002 vol 26 number 2 that
discusses lifetime predictions of compostie aircraft. The general
conclusions seem to be that "lifetimes far in excess of the current
12000
hours" and "a lifespan of 50000 ( yes fifty thousand ) hours with a
high
level of safety" so your 1000 hour Nimbus is hardly out of the running
in
period!

Ian


"George William Peter Reinhart" wrote in message
...
Yep,
Makes you wonder doesn't it?
Where are the cut offs for High Time and "severe " turbulence that
would
make it not OK to fly?
Currently flying a well aged Nimbus with over 1000 hours on it.
Should I be worried about my personal safety because of the airframe
hours?
Are there some days I just shouldn't fly because the "turbulence"
might
be
"too high"?
All advice carefully considered.
Cheers!


Guy Byars wrote in article
...


I heard it was a high time glider in severe turbulence.

And that makes it ok?