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

Discus CS grounded in France



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 10th 03, 06:17 AM
CH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

it looks a bit suspicious that the latest incidents
concerned gliders out of Schemp Hirth's Chechia
licence fabrication only.
CH

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris OCallaghan"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:29 AM
Subject: Discus CS grounded in France


Per the French Airworthiness Directive, "separation of the wing during
normal operating conditions, possibly the result of a manufacturing
defect."



  #12  
Old September 10th 03, 03:40 PM
Ray Lovinggood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Eric,

Concrete and steel bonded together consitute a 'composite'
structure. Steel girders used for bridges have steel
studs welded on top flanges of the girders. The concrete
deck is poured and bonds to the girders with the help
of the numerous studs. The Portland cement in the
concrete is the glue which makes the bonding possible.
So, in a way, the concrete and the steel are 'glued'
to each other. Calculating the strength of the structure
takes the 'composite' structure into account.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 02:42 10 September 2003, Eric Greenwell wrote:
In article ,
says...

Same happens as with a wooden glider.......


JJ knows that...after all, wood and fiberglass are
both composite aircraft;-)


Not really. Wood is a material used 'as is', while
composite aircraft
mix at least two materials together; e.g., epoxy and
fiberglass.
Gluing or bolting materials together doesn't qualify
as 'composite'.

You probably knew that...
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just
a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)




  #13  
Old September 10th 03, 04:10 PM
F.L. Whiteley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?









  #16  
Old September 10th 03, 05:57 PM
Chuck Scrivner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

test


  #17  
Old September 10th 03, 05:59 PM
F.L. Whiteley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Roy" wrote in message
...
When getting antsy about composite life it's worth remembering helicopter
rotors are similar in construction to our ships and have service life on

the
main rotor of 15 years +
(I suspect life of the aircraft but 1 I know in particular had 15+ years

and
000's of hours on)
this is in a particularly harsh environment,
Failures, I suspect have more to do with poor initial construction and or
abuse rather than "lifeing" the items.

my $0.02

(and belive me, I do have the flameshields UP)


Reminds me of the rotor blades I saw that had been wrapped around a tree in
about 1970. Steel strap inside balsa laminates with fiberglass cover and
shielded leading edge. Pretty amazing.

I have no doubts about the integrity of properly constructed composite
structures. There have been some suggestions that at least one company may
have been a bit heavy handed with the squeegees a few years ago on one
model, as the airfoil was losing shape after three years. Current pre-pregs
have improved lay-up quality in many areas, but sloppy joinery, well.......

Frank Whiteley


  #18  
Old September 10th 03, 07:55 PM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...
Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
In article ,
TOPSPAM says...

Same happens as with a wooden glider.......


JJ knows that...after all, wood and fiberglass are both composite aircraft;-)


Not really. Wood is a material used "as is", while composite aircraft
mix at least two materials together; e.g., epoxy and fiberglass.
Gluing or bolting materials together doesn't qualify as "composite".

You probably knew that...


Webster's says:

Main Entry: 1com·pos·ite
Pronunciation: käm-'pä-z&t, k&m-', esp British 'käm-p&-zit
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin compositus, past participle of componere
Date: 1563
1 : made up of distinct parts:

That would seem to encompass gluing materials together. But of course
you know better. You might want to send a note to the folks at
Websters.


I doubt that Websters is interested in my understanding of
"composite" as used in the aircraft field, and general dictionaries
are a poor place to discover the meaning and usage of technical terms;
in this case, what a composite material is.

I am interested in how people that do work in the field use the term.
All aircraft are "composite" according to Webster's definition, but
what we are talking about is aircraft built from "composite"
materials. We all agree that fiberglass, carbon, Kevlar, etc. cloth
with epoxy make a composite material, but plywood? I don't think it
is, but I'm interested in why others think it should be included as
such with fiberglass and epoxy structures.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)
  #19  
Old September 11th 03, 03:05 AM
JJ Sinclair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Earlier Reic wrote
Is plywood defined somewhere as a composite? To me, it's not a
composite because it's just one material, glued together in distinct
layers, not in a matrix like fiberglass and epoxy.


One of the most common *Composite* examples is the cardboard box. Same
material, although the center core is shaped to form the required seperation,
then add the glue and we have a very cheap composite structure.
JJ Sinclair
  #20  
Old September 11th 03, 04:34 PM
Chris OCallaghan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My "suspicion" is that quality control broke down at the Chechia
factory. The quesiton on my mind is, "For how long and to what
degree?" Two gliders from the same factory breaking up in flight in a
single season deserves an explantion from the factory. Since we bet
our lives on these products, that's the least Schempp-Hirth can do.
Even a "We're looking into it" would be appreciated.

"CH" wrote in message ...
it looks a bit suspicious that the latest incidents
concerned gliders out of Schemp Hirth's Chechia
licence fabrication only.
CH

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris OCallaghan"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 12:29 AM
Subject: Discus CS grounded in France


Per the French Airworthiness Directive, "separation of the wing during
normal operating conditions, possibly the result of a manufacturing
defect."

 




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
18m Discus Burt Compton Soaring 2 September 8th 03 10:52 AM
Discus Wing question John Galloway Soaring 6 August 23rd 03 07:52 AM
DUO DISCUS GROUNDED AS OF 31 JULY 2003 Eric van Geetsum Soaring 20 August 18th 03 09:23 PM
Duo Discus Tech note Thomas Knauff Soaring 25 August 9th 03 10:10 PM
"France downplays jet swap with Russia" Mike Military Aviation 8 July 21st 03 05:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 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.