Glasflugel AD

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 20:31:33 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
wrote:

.... text deleted
Glasfaser says it applies to all Kestrels, type 401.
The BGA doesn't say anything different. The copy of the AD 2011-0213,
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_a...AD_2011-0213_1
referenced from the BGA website has additional notes about a few specific
gliders identified by s/n over the range 86-125.
.... text deleted

Looking at the EASA AD cited, this looks very similar to the problem
Schempp-Hirth experienced in the 1992-93 time frame with all of their
ships with elevators driven by a pushrod in the vertical tail; Ventus,
Nimbus, Janus, Discus, Mini-Nimbus.

See: TM Nr. 349-16.
http://www.schempp-hirth.com/fileadm...49-16-1592.pdf
http://www.schempp-hirth.com/fileadm...49-16-1590.pdf

In the SH case, the water apparently got into the vertical pushrod in
a similar manner, though a small inspection hole in the pushrod, in
this case through a leaking top sealing bellows.

My recollection from that time is that most everyone replaced the
vertical pushrod. I believe many SH ships of that era still bare the
small hole in the left side of the vertical tail required to access
the push rod securing nut, I know mine does.

Again, based on the EASA note and the Schempp-Hirth experience, this
should only effect ships with a top mounted elevator and a vertical
pushrod in the tail (T-tail designs).

Bob
Ventus C

On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 22:02:21 -0500, Bob Gibbons wrote:

Again, based on the EASA note and the Schempp-Hirth experience, this
should only effect ships with a top mounted elevator and a vertical
pushrod in the tail (T-tail designs).

Agreed, which makes its applicability to the one Std. Libelle, H.201b,
s/n 169 particularly intriguing.



--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Nov 6, 1:51*pm, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 22:02:21 -0500, Bob Gibbons wrote:
Again, based on the EASA note and the Schempp-Hirth experience, this
should only effect ships with a top mounted elevator and a vertical
pushrod in the tail (T-tail designs).

Agreed, which makes its applicability to the one Std. Libelle, H.201b,
s/n 169 particularly intriguing.

--
martin@ * | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org * * * |

S/n 169 was a one-of-a-kind Libelle with T-tail, made for Eugen
Aeberli, one of the three "fathers" of the Libelle (Hänle, Hütter,
Aeberli).

Changes compared to H201: - rounded fuselage beam - T-tail - 5 cm
broader cockpit - contoured wing/fuselage transition - flat canopy, as
for H301 "open class" Libelle. Water ballast and winglets added later.
The glider was built in 1970 as a kind of prototype for the H 205/206.
Flies in Ettenheim in Baden-Württemberg. Source: http://libelle.bugwiper..com/freaks.htm
..

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 02:08:04 -0800, stephanevdv wrote:

S/n 169 was a one-of-a-kind Libelle with T-tail, made for Eugen Aeberli,
one of the three "fathers" of the Libelle (Hänle, Hütter,
Aeberli).

Changes compared to H201: - rounded fuselage beam - T-tail - 5 cm
broader cockpit - contoured wing/fuselage transition - flat canopy, as
for H301 "open class" Libelle. Water ballast and winglets added later.
The glider was built in 1970 as a kind of prototype for the H 205/206.
Flies in Ettenheim in Baden-Württemberg. Source:
http://libelle.bugwiper.com/freaks.htm .

Thanks for the information.

Were its airbrakes improved at all? I'd think that would be a good idea
since it probably doesn't shed height in a slip as well without the
teardrop boom cross section.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |