![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Howard Franks" wrote in message ... I have always assumed the recent (last 20 years) composite gliders to be very robust, i.e. no issues flying right up against placarded limitations at anytime (maybe once or twice nipping over?). Perhaps the Eta break-up is a sign that we are reaching the structural/design limitations of the current materials and the designers ability to optimise gliders for performance. Are we at the point of diminishing returns where the small increase in performance only comes at a far greater risk of structural failure (similar to the Americas Cup yachts). This coupled with the recent Schempp-Hirth issues (agreed manufacturing not design defects), and the AD restricting GROB 103s is leading me to rethink just how tough these things are. There seems to be a prevalent attitude that all gliders are much stronger than the POH says. At least, as a CFI-G, I have a hard time convincing pilots that those placards mean just what they say. This is particularly a problem when it comes to overloading 2-seaters. Exceed a placarded limit and you become a test pilot - maybe a dead one. I think gliders are just as strong as the manufacturer says, but no stronger - and only then if the design and manufacturing rules are followed to the letter. The problem with the Schempp-Hirth gliders seems to be that the manufacturer's own procedures were not followed. The issue with the G103's MAY be that errors in design occurred. None of this says that composite construction is the problem, just that the process needs to be carefully controlled and monitored. (It also says that reputable manufacturers sometimes make mistakes that aren't found until after the gliders are in the field.) As for the Eta, this may turn out to be an intriguing case. At 31 meters it is certainly pushing the limits. Bob K. perceptively speculated about bending and twisting loads on the tailboom. It could also be that the spin recovery has to be performed exactly right of the airspeeds get way, way out of hand. I would expect that the Eta will be placarded against intentional spins for this reason. Bill Daniels |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
24M of Cocaine in a crashed plane | Jim Fisher | Piloting | 20 | January 6th 05 01:43 AM |
Experimental plane crashed : FFZ | RobsSanta | Piloting | 1 | September 22nd 04 04:10 AM |
What REALLY Crashed @ Boscome Down? | Kenneth Williams | Military Aviation | 5 | October 29th 03 04:37 PM |
Tu-160 just crashed near Saratov | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 23 | September 23rd 03 12:19 PM |
Airplane that crashed in Lake Ontario yet to be raised | James Robinson | Piloting | 12 | July 17th 03 03:45 PM |