A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fatal crash Arizona



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #25  
Old September 13th 16, 06:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 504
Default Fatal crash Arizona

On 9/13/2016 9:26 AM, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 10:34:20 AM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
As for the report's claimed missing pawl spring...I must be getting dense
in my old age, since I'm still puzzled by the intended function and line
of force of that implicated piece of (missing?) hardware. Back to the
hook design - what am I missing? Thanks!

Bob W.


If I understand correctly, the missing spring pushes the pawl in the
direction opposite of pulling the release knob. Otherwise, the pawl is not
secured in the "latched" position, except by a bit of friction with the
hook plate (from the spring that is present and any rope tension).

Do I understand correctly??


Quite possibly. I suppose such a spring fairly might be considered the
"suspenders" to the hook-retract-spring's "belt." It's not obvious from the
photos (Figure 1 shows it best), but installed-geometry, plus gravity, in the
pawl's as-installed position/angle work "against" the pawl remaining
detent-seated...i.e. the pawl pivoting by itself (no other physical contacts)
would tend to flop its "business end" *away* from the detent due to the longer
cable-attach arm's length compared to the detent-engagement arm's length
(unequal length teeter-totter).

Nonetheless, whether the absence of a compression spring between the pawl and
receptacle/pawl-spring-housing was a crucial element in this accident is
debatable; it would take very little force on the rope to rotate the cable
hook from the barely-engaged position (Figures 9) to the fully engaged
position (Figure 8). Once there, further testing definitely required to
determine whether the design would be more or less prone to back-releasing in
the absence of the pawl spring, in the presence of a rope bow...

That said - and since a number of these hooks have been installed into the
noses of German-built ships originally entering the USA with only a CG hook -
owners of ships with these hooks SHOULD (and easily can) VERIFY the
presence/absence of such a compression spring by checking to see if the pawl
is positively forced against the rotating piece of the cable hook throughout
its rotation range. Positive engagement = spring-present. (Note that the
spring itself is hidden in the hook's assembled state...and might easily
escape unnoticed in the event of the hook being disassembled for any reason.)

Bob W.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Parowan Fatal Crash ContestID67[_2_] Soaring 30 July 3rd 09 03:43 AM
Rare fatal CH-801 crash Jim Logajan Home Built 8 June 22nd 09 03:24 AM
Fatal crash in NW Washington Rich S.[_1_] Home Built 1 February 17th 08 02:38 AM
Fatal Crash Monty General Aviation 1 December 12th 07 09:06 PM
Fatal Crash in Fittstown, OK GeorgeC Piloting 3 March 7th 06 05:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.