Future of Glass Goose?

"Boo" wrote
Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
sections of the wing in flight.

That happened in the early stage of development, right?

Uh, no. It wasn't in development at all. These were all
customer-built aircraft.

Those problems were solved in the current version.

Not that I know of. AFAIK there has not been either a reliable FEA
simulation nor a long term cycle test to indicate that the 'solution'
actually fixed the problem. Nor has there been a long-term field
history.

Michael

Michael or whoever you are - Kelly's boyfriend?
1 - Why don't you respond to emails showing that you are wrong?
I tried to handle this off the group - but no joy.
2- why don't you use your real name when you put bad info out?


"Michael" wrote in message
om...
(Drew Dalgleish) wrote
Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
checked to see if it's insurable?

I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
sections of the wing in flight.

Michael

What's your take on it? As someone considering a GG it's troubling to say
the least. Tom Scott hasn't responded to my e-mail inquiry yet.

"HankL" wrote in message
m...
Michael or whoever you are - Kelly's boyfriend?
1 - Why don't you respond to emails showing that you are wrong?
I tried to handle this off the group - but no joy.
2- why don't you use your real name when you put bad info out?


"Michael" wrote in message
om...
(Drew Dalgleish) wrote
Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
checked to see if it's insurable?

I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
sections of the wing in flight.

Michael

Tom probably won't - his hanger is 50 ft. from mine. That guy Michael or
whoever is
talking about an occurrence that happened to a few SeaHawks ( I have one)
and the cause
was not anywhere close to the reasons he sited. Mine has 300 hrs and never
had a problem.
Some of our owners have installed struts between the wings - .
P.S. they can be insured - like the Lake and all amphibs, it's not cheap -
what is today?
For the money, 120 mph w/150hp, over 1000 mile range - land or water - you
figure it out.

"Boo" wrote in message
s.com...
What's your take on it? As someone considering a GG it's troubling to say
the least. Tom Scott hasn't responded to my e-mail inquiry yet.

"HankL" wrote in message
m...
Michael or whoever you are - Kelly's boyfriend?
1 - Why don't you respond to emails showing that you are wrong?
I tried to handle this off the group - but no joy.
2- why don't you use your real name when you put bad info out?


"Michael" wrote in message
om...
(Drew Dalgleish) wrote
Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
checked to see if it's insurable?

I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
sections of the wing in flight.

Michael

In HankL wrote:
That guy Michael
or whoever is talking about an occurrence that happened to a few
SeaHawks ( I have one) and the cause was not anywhere close to the
reasons he sited. Mine has 300 hrs and never had a problem.

Just out of curiosity, what was the cause?

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

"HankL" wrote
That guy Michael or whoever is

Anyone who has been on the net long enough to recall the era of the
fish knows who I am, and why I don't post my last name anymore.

talking about an occurrence that happened to a few SeaHawks ( I have one)
and the cause was not anywhere close to the reasons he sited.

Really? What cause, exactly, did I cite? All I recall stating is
that portions of the wing were lost in flight. So were they or
weren't they?

Mine has 300 hrs and never had a problem.

How many hours did the ones that had the problem have?

Some of our owners have installed struts between the wings - .

And you believe this fixes/prevents the problem why? FEA? Long term
cycle tests? What IS the cause of the problem? I've heard a lot of
conjecture, and have not repeated any of it because none of it sounded
convincing.

P.S. they can be insured - like the Lake and all amphibs, it's not cheap -
what is today?

What company will write hull coverage? Name it, please. I was not
able to find one that would write hull, at any price. The Lake is
expensive to insure, but it can be insured for hull.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Boo" wrote
Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
sections of the wing in flight.

That happened in the early stage of development, right?

Uh, no. It wasn't in development at all. These were all
customer-built aircraft.

What? All aircraft go thru research & development. Quite extensive with the
GG as this article describes. Tom, to his credit basically redesigned the
Seahawk from top to bottom. http://www.glassgoose.com/cp_may1.html

Those problems were solved in the current version.

Not that I know of. AFAIK there has not been either a reliable FEA
simulation nor a long term cycle test to indicate that the 'solution'
actually fixed the problem. Nor has there been a long-term field
history.

The wing failures were addressed:
" Then the NTSB asked him to look into the cause of the failures that were
occurring. He was sent to inspect some of the aircraft involved. In one
case, the NTSB had one of the broken wings sent to the NTSB laboratory for
X-ray examination. In each case that Scott investigated (and some he didn't)
it was determined that on the wings that had failed, the upper spar caps
were not being adequately bonded to the spar! Instructions supplied with the
Seahawk kits had been devoid of an inspection procedure to ensure the
bonding of the spar caps to the spar. Furthermore, the assembly process
outlined in the Seahawk instructions led the builders to unknowingly
assemble the wings without accomplishing the necessary bond! Some of those
planes flew as long as 200 hours before wing failure! Even then, to the
credit of the aircraft, the pilots were able to fly the planes to a safe
landing in spite of having lost a whole wing! "