Ventus B, Discus ect aileron connecting rod/slide lube

At 23:52 02 February 2015, HGXC wrote:
On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:00:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:
Hi folks, I'm in the process of installing new connecting rods in my
Ventus=3D
B would like to know what everyone is using if any for the slide lube
wher=3D
e those connecting rods like to ride. The material that the slide is
mad=
e
o=3D
ut of seems to be impervious to wear so that's good but the rods are
wearin=3D
g is there any thing you have found that will not collect dust and
still
gi=3D
ve good wear resistance?

CH
=20
If Schempp Hirth thought that the rods needed a lubricate I am sure
they
would have mentioned it in the service manual or instructions for
replaci=
ng
the rods. I do not believe that they forgot and it is perfectly clear
tha=
t
they intended that the rods should be as they originally assembled
them,
lubricant free. Does that give you a clue at all on what should be
used?

I own a Ventus and I have mine lubed at the annual, I have the openings
in
=
the wing like Dick Johnson suggested. If Schempp Hirth didn't want this
to
=
be lubed then they would have used a different bushing when they made the
g=
lider. All gliders have short comings. The glider has been flown over 30
ye=
ars and like all popular gliders over time, pilots find ways of
addressing
=
imperfections and every glider has some.

Dennis

Why is it that some glider pilots feel they know better that the qualified
engineers and designers who design and build the machines they fly. Maybe
using an unapproved lubricant on material that you do not know the
composition of, which might be damaged is unwise but drilling a hole in the
structure to do it, that is stupidity of the highest order, such is life I
suppose. I doubt that the "opening" made was properly sealed to unsure that
moisture could not damage the GRP structure which is hygroscopic, my
advice. Do NOT purchase a glider owned by these people.
It is true pilots have a long history of finding incorrect ways of
addressing imperfections, proves the old maxim I suppose, if flying was
difficult engineers would do it.

At 12:31 03 February 2015, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 23:52 02 February 2015, HGXC wrote:
On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:00:05 PM UTC-5, Don
Johnstone wrote:
At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:
Hi folks, I'm in the process of installing new connecting rods
in my
Ventus=3D
B would like to know what everyone is using if any for the
slide lube
wher=3D
e those connecting rods like to ride. The material that the
slide is
mad=
e
o=3D
ut of seems to be impervious to wear so that's good but the
rods are
wearin=3D
g is there any thing you have found that will not collect dust
an
still
gi=3D
ve good wear resistance?

CH
=20
If Schempp Hirth thought that the rods needed a lubricate I
am sur
they
would have mentioned it in the service manual or instructions
for
replaci=
ng
the rods. I do not believe that they forgot and it is perfectly
clear
tha=
t
they intended that the rods should be as they originally
assemble
them,
lubricant free. Does that give you a clue at all on what should
b
used?

I own a Ventus and I have mine lubed at the annual, I have the
opening
in
=
the wing like Dick Johnson suggested. If Schempp Hirth didn't
want thi
to
=
be lubed then they would have used a different bushing when
they made the
g=
lider. All gliders have short comings. The glider has been flown
over 30
ye=
ars and like all popular gliders over time, pilots find ways o
addressing
=
imperfections and every glider has some.

Dennis

Why is it that some glider pilots feel they know better that the
qualifie
engineers and designers who design and build the machines they
fly. Mayb
using an unapproved lubricant on material that you do not know th
composition of, which might be damaged is unwise but drilling a
hole in th
structure to do it, that is stupidity of the highest order, such is life
suppose. I doubt that the "opening" made was properly sealed to
unsure tha
moisture could not damage the GRP structure which is
hygroscopic, m
advice. Do NOT purchase a glider owned by these people.
It is true pilots have a long history of finding incorrect ways o
addressing imperfections, proves the old maxim I suppose, if flying
wa
difficult engineers would do it.

I recall corresponding with a pilot who wanted to move forward the
C of G of his GRP glider and found that there was some lead
attached to the leading edge of the rudder. He didn't know why it
was there so he removed it. Next he planned to cut holes in the
rudder and cover them with fabric. I told him that it was the mass
balance and warned him about flutter but he replied that it was OK
as the glider was "Experimental".

John Galloway

On 2/3/2015 5:31 AM, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 23:52 02 February 2015, HGXC wrote:
On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:00:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:

Some judicious snippage...

I own a Ventus and I have mine lubed at the annual, I have the openings
in
=
the wing like Dick Johnson suggested. If Schempp Hirth didn't want this
to
=
be lubed then they would have used a different bushing when they made the
g=
lider. All gliders have short comings. The glider has been flown over 30
ye=
ars and like all popular gliders over time, pilots find ways of
addressing
=
imperfections and every glider has some.

Dennis

Why is it that some glider pilots feel they know better that the qualified
engineers and designers who design and build the machines they fly. Maybe
using an unapproved lubricant on material that you do not know the
composition of, which might be damaged is unwise but drilling a hole in the
structure to do it, that is stupidity of the highest order, such is life I
suppose. I doubt that the "opening" made was properly sealed to unsure that
moisture could not damage the GRP structure which is hygroscopic, my
advice. Do NOT purchase a glider owned by these people.
It is true pilots have a long history of finding incorrect ways of
addressing imperfections, proves the old maxim I suppose, if flying was
difficult engineers would do it.


Evidently, the original question touched upon "a topic of religion." One
church believes that gliders as-received from manufacturers cannot possibly be
improved by mere humanity unassociated with the original design process (and
to attempt improvement places one in the category of the devil's spawn). The
other church believes that use-/age-related issues will inevitably appear, and
might (if not should) be reasonably addressed by subsequent owners. True - at
least in the U.S. - for sailplanes licensed with (see below) an Approved Type
Certificate or licensed Experimentally.

In my view, there's sound reasons for both views, and in an ideal world, both
can peacefully co-exist. Full disclosu I'm a(n aerospace) degreed
(U.S.-based) engineer, but one who's convinced original designers were NOT
(all apply): all-knowing; incompetent. In other words, designers and the
design team are humans like the rest of us, though with (perhaps) some
specialized training, and (definitely) some specialized interests...again
normal human conditions.

The U.S. is fortunate to have a healthy, vibrant, amateur-built aircraft
licensing category, from which - perhaps - some cogent conclusions about this
particular religious topic may be drawn. As I type, approximately 20% of the
U.S. power, single-engine, 4-or-less seats general aviation fleet is licensed
"Experimental Amateur Built" (a presently increasing proportion), the rest
having Approved Type Certificates. Taken as a whole, the EAB category accident
frequency is (statistically and) significantly higher than the ATC category as
measured against fleet/licensing numbers. Unsurprisingly (in my view) the
percentages have a significant first-/early-flight bias (for engine/fuel and
loss of control reasons, mostly); thoughtful readers can probably make
accurate guesses why (an exercise and validation beyond the point I'm trying
to make with this post). Once beyond that bubble, EAB and ATC accident rates
are (arguably) identical. I expect (but am not certain) accident *causes* are
similar as well (when comparing similar classes of pilots/flight, e.g. Visual
Flight Rules piloting).

My conclusions:
1) "Sound airplane design practices" are not limited solely to factories and
their design teams.
2) The weakest link is generally the nut at the top of the stick.

Stated another way, pretty much every form of human design screwup/oversight
possible in general aviation flying machines (e.g. sailplanes) has been made
long, long ago, and "best practices" are pretty much available (and arguably
well known) to anyone inclined to learn from others' experiences. We're well
beyond the "secret guild stage" of aircraft structural design knowledge, and
the "smoke and mirrors" of ignorance-based myths.

That knowledge availability, along with the tendency of those geekily inclined
(most engineers, and many non-degreed people as well) is why I'm OK with
belonging to the Church of Future Improvement is Possible.

On the other hand, the World Wide Web has made it easier for everyone (e.g.
via YouTube) to easily see that Darwinism remains a potent human genealogical
force. Ignorance is potent, often more quickly than knowledge. Hence I'd never
try to convince members of the Church of Don't Mess With Factory Stuff to
change their beliefs.

Clint Eastwood was right: A man's got to know his limitations.

Further, who hasn't heard the truism: All generalizations are
false...including this one. In my view, there's at least one truism that is
NOT false: Perfection is never an option.

True in glider design, too. The trick is to know - or at lest to remain within
- one's limitations.

YMWV
Bob W.

P.S. I believe Dick Johnson was a degreed aeronautical engineer. His entire
working life was spent in the engineering field, and his extracurricular
soaring-and-sailplane-design-and-testing-related body of work was prodigious.
He likely passed on from heart failure in his mid-eighties while flying the
Ventus he owned for decades - the one in which he drilled lube access holes.
Make of all that what works for yourself!

Imagine: Dick Johnson and "stupid" in the same sentence. That's not
unlike hearing Derek Piggot and "lousy instructor" in the same sentence.

Nice post, Bob.

Dan

On 2/3/2015 7:15 AM, Bob Whelan wrote:
On 2/3/2015 5:31 AM, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 23:52 02 February 2015, HGXC wrote:
On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:00:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:

Some judicious snippage...

I own a Ventus and I have mine lubed at the annual, I have the openings
in
=
the wing like Dick Johnson suggested. If Schempp Hirth didn't want this
to
=
be lubed then they would have used a different bushing when they
made the
g=
lider. All gliders have short comings. The glider has been flown
over 30
ye=
ars and like all popular gliders over time, pilots find ways of
addressing
=
imperfections and every glider has some.

Dennis

Why is it that some glider pilots feel they know better that the
qualified
engineers and designers who design and build the machines they fly.
Maybe
using an unapproved lubricant on material that you do not know the
composition of, which might be damaged is unwise but drilling a hole
in the
structure to do it, that is stupidity of the highest order, such is
life I
suppose. I doubt that the "opening" made was properly sealed to
unsure that
moisture could not damage the GRP structure which is hygroscopic, my
advice. Do NOT purchase a glider owned by these people.
It is true pilots have a long history of finding incorrect ways of
addressing imperfections, proves the old maxim I suppose, if flying was
difficult engineers would do it.


Evidently, the original question touched upon "a topic of religion."
One church believes that gliders as-received from manufacturers cannot
possibly be improved by mere humanity unassociated with the original
design process (and to attempt improvement places one in the category
of the devil's spawn). The other church believes that use-/age-related
issues will inevitably appear, and might (if not should) be reasonably
addressed by subsequent owners. True - at least in the U.S. - for
sailplanes licensed with (see below) an Approved Type Certificate or
licensed Experimentally.

In my view, there's sound reasons for both views, and in an ideal
world, both can peacefully co-exist. Full disclosu I'm a(n
aerospace) degreed (U.S.-based) engineer, but one who's convinced
original designers were NOT (all apply): all-knowing; incompetent. In
other words, designers and the design team are humans like the rest of
us, though with (perhaps) some specialized training, and (definitely)
some specialized interests...again normal human conditions.

The U.S. is fortunate to have a healthy, vibrant, amateur-built
aircraft licensing category, from which - perhaps - some cogent
conclusions about this particular religious topic may be drawn. As I
type, approximately 20% of the U.S. power, single-engine, 4-or-less
seats general aviation fleet is licensed "Experimental Amateur Built"
(a presently increasing proportion), the rest having Approved Type
Certificates. Taken as a whole, the EAB category accident frequency is
(statistically and) significantly higher than the ATC category as
measured against fleet/licensing numbers. Unsurprisingly (in my view)
the percentages have a significant first-/early-flight bias (for
engine/fuel and loss of control reasons, mostly); thoughtful readers
can probably make accurate guesses why (an exercise and validation
beyond the point I'm trying to make with this post). Once beyond that
bubble, EAB and ATC accident rates are (arguably) identical. I expect
(but am not certain) accident *causes* are similar as well (when
comparing similar classes of pilots/flight, e.g. Visual Flight Rules
piloting).

My conclusions:
1) "Sound airplane design practices" are not limited solely to
factories and their design teams.
2) The weakest link is generally the nut at the top of the stick.

Stated another way, pretty much every form of human design
screwup/oversight possible in general aviation flying machines (e.g.
sailplanes) has been made long, long ago, and "best practices" are
pretty much available (and arguably well known) to anyone inclined to
learn from others' experiences. We're well beyond the "secret guild
stage" of aircraft structural design knowledge, and the "smoke and
mirrors" of ignorance-based myths.

That knowledge availability, along with the tendency of those geekily
inclined (most engineers, and many non-degreed people as well) is why
I'm OK with belonging to the Church of Future Improvement is Possible.

On the other hand, the World Wide Web has made it easier for everyone
(e.g. via YouTube) to easily see that Darwinism remains a potent human
genealogical force. Ignorance is potent, often more quickly than
knowledge. Hence I'd never try to convince members of the Church of
Don't Mess With Factory Stuff to change their beliefs.

Clint Eastwood was right: A man's got to know his limitations.

Further, who hasn't heard the truism: All generalizations are
false...including this one. In my view, there's at least one truism
that is NOT false: Perfection is never an option.

True in glider design, too. The trick is to know - or at lest to
remain within - one's limitations.

YMWV
Bob W.

P.S. I believe Dick Johnson was a degreed aeronautical engineer. His
entire working life was spent in the engineering field, and his
extracurricular soaring-and-sailplane-design-and-testing-related body
of work was prodigious. He likely passed on from heart failure in his
mid-eighties while flying the Ventus he owned for decades - the one in
which he drilled lube access holes. Make of all that what works for
yourself!

--
Dan Marotta

Ha ha ha lol! I love Ras. But I think everyone missed the meaning in the first post, my fault for not making it clear. The Rods tha attach to the Ventus B OUT at the aileron are a 12mm solid rod that are canted at the aileron and then go through A slide opening of just the mm or 2 wider than the rod.. This slide is probably 10" long and runs span wise in the wing and are made of some tough plastic delron or PTFE. The wear is occuring on the Stainless solid rods which I am sure the factory intended as they made them solid.. And anyone who has as much time in a ventus b asbusy I do will surely. understandhow they can be used enough to wear. So back to the original any good ideas of a dry lubricant that will help prevent wear on the rods?

At 16:36 03 February 2015, wrote:
Ha ha ha lol! I love Ras. But I think everyone missed the meaning in the
fi=
rst post, my fault for not making it clear. The Rods tha attach to the
Vent=
us B OUT at the aileron are a 12mm solid rod that are canted at the
aileron=
and then go through A slide opening of just the mm or 2 wider than the
rod=
.. This slide is probably 10" long and runs span wise in the wing and are
ma=
de of some tough plastic delron or PTFE. The wear is occuring on the
Stainl=
ess solid rods which I am sure the factory intended as they made them
solid=
.. And anyone who has as much time in a ventus b asbusy I do will surely.
un=
derstandhow they can be used enough to wear. So back to the original any
go=
od ideas of a dry lubricant that will help prevent wear on the rods?

OK, I will bite, why?

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 11:36:55 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Ha ha ha lol! I love Ras. But I think everyone missed the meaning in the first post, my fault for not making it clear. The Rods that attach to the Ventus B OUT at the aileron are a 12mm solid rod that are canted at the aileron and then go through a slide opening of just a mm or 2 wider than the rod. This slide is probably 10" long and runs span wise in the wing and is made of some tough plastic Delrin or PTFE. The wear is occurring on the Stainless solid rods which I am sure the factory intended as they made them solid. And anyone who has as much time in a Ventus B as I do will surely understand how they can be used enough to wear. So back to the original, any good ideas of a dry lubricant that will help prevent wear on the rods?

My fallback on lubes like this is either LockEze or powdered graphite. LockEze is graphite in a fast flash liquid so the lube gets where it's needed.
-It does not gum
-It's dry (thus stay's clean)
-It does not (as far as I know) mess with possible future repairs (like silicone can do)
-You can get it at hardware stores, auto stores, Home Depot/Lowes, etc.

At 16:07 03 February 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:
Imagine: Dick Johnson and "stupid" in the same sentence. That's not
unlike hearing Derek Piggot and "lousy instructor" in the same sentence.

Nice post, Bob.

Dan

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 7:15:37 AM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
On 2/3/2015 5:31 AM, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 23:52 02 February 2015, HGXC wrote:
On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:00:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:

Some judicious snippage...

I own a Ventus and I have mine lubed at the annual, I have the openings
in
=
the wing like Dick Johnson suggested. If Schempp Hirth didn't want this
to
=
be lubed then they would have used a different bushing when they made the
g=
lider. All gliders have short comings. The glider has been flown over 30
ye=
ars and like all popular gliders over time, pilots find ways of
addressing
=
imperfections and every glider has some.

Dennis

Why is it that some glider pilots feel they know better that the qualified
engineers and designers who design and build the machines they fly. Maybe
using an unapproved lubricant on material that you do not know the
composition of, which might be damaged is unwise but drilling a hole in the
structure to do it, that is stupidity of the highest order, such is life I
suppose. I doubt that the "opening" made was properly sealed to unsure that
moisture could not damage the GRP structure which is hygroscopic, my
advice. Do NOT purchase a glider owned by these people.
It is true pilots have a long history of finding incorrect ways of
addressing imperfections, proves the old maxim I suppose, if flying was
difficult engineers would do it.


Evidently, the original question touched upon "a topic of religion." One
church believes that gliders as-received from manufacturers cannot possibly be
improved by mere humanity unassociated with the original design process (and
to attempt improvement places one in the category of the devil's spawn). The
other church believes that use-/age-related issues will inevitably appear, and
might (if not should) be reasonably addressed by subsequent owners. True - at
least in the U.S. - for sailplanes licensed with (see below) an Approved Type
Certificate or licensed Experimentally.

In my view, there's sound reasons for both views, and in an ideal world, both
can peacefully co-exist. Full disclosu I'm a(n aerospace) degreed
(U.S.-based) engineer, but one who's convinced original designers were NOT
(all apply): all-knowing; incompetent. In other words, designers and the
design team are humans like the rest of us, though with (perhaps) some
specialized training, and (definitely) some specialized interests...again
normal human conditions.

The U.S. is fortunate to have a healthy, vibrant, amateur-built aircraft
licensing category, from which - perhaps - some cogent conclusions about this
particular religious topic may be drawn. As I type, approximately 20% of the
U.S. power, single-engine, 4-or-less seats general aviation fleet is licensed
"Experimental Amateur Built" (a presently increasing proportion), the rest
having Approved Type Certificates. Taken as a whole, the EAB category accident
frequency is (statistically and) significantly higher than the ATC category as
measured against fleet/licensing numbers. Unsurprisingly (in my view) the
percentages have a significant first-/early-flight bias (for engine/fuel and
loss of control reasons, mostly); thoughtful readers can probably make
accurate guesses why (an exercise and validation beyond the point I'm trying
to make with this post). Once beyond that bubble, EAB and ATC accident rates
are (arguably) identical. I expect (but am not certain) accident *causes* are
similar as well (when comparing similar classes of pilots/flight, e.g. Visual
Flight Rules piloting).

My conclusions:
1) "Sound airplane design practices" are not limited solely to factories and
their design teams.
2) The weakest link is generally the nut at the top of the stick.

Stated another way, pretty much every form of human design screwup/oversight
possible in general aviation flying machines (e.g. sailplanes) has been made
long, long ago, and "best practices" are pretty much available (and arguably
well known) to anyone inclined to learn from others' experiences. We're well
beyond the "secret guild stage" of aircraft structural design knowledge, and
the "smoke and mirrors" of ignorance-based myths.

That knowledge availability, along with the tendency of those geekily inclined
(most engineers, and many non-degreed people as well) is why I'm OK with
belonging to the Church of Future Improvement is Possible.

On the other hand, the World Wide Web has made it easier for everyone (e.g.
via YouTube) to easily see that Darwinism remains a potent human genealogical
force. Ignorance is potent, often more quickly than knowledge. Hence I'd never
try to convince members of the Church of Don't Mess With Factory Stuff to
change their beliefs.

Clint Eastwood was right: A man's got to know his limitations.

Further, who hasn't heard the truism: All generalizations are
false...including this one. In my view, there's at least one truism that is
NOT false: Perfection is never an option.

True in glider design, too. The trick is to know - or at lest to remain within
- one's limitations.

YMWV
Bob W.

P.S. I believe Dick Johnson was a degreed aeronautical engineer. His entire
working life was spent in the engineering field, and his extracurricular
soaring-and-sailplane-design-and-testing-related body of work was prodigious.
He likely passed on from heart failure in his mid-eighties while flying the
Ventus he owned for decades - the one in which he drilled lube access holes.
Make of all that what works for yourself!

Yes, nice post, Bob

One thing I wonder about is the continued use of Nylon blocks as cable/pushrod fairleads since there are better engineering plastics available today. For example solid UHMWPE is stronger than Nylon and has a coefficient of friction equal to Teflon. It also seems utterly immune to ageing effects. I know a number of Homebuilt/Experimental people who use it for fairleads.

At 14:15 03 February 2015, Bob Whelan wrote:

Evidently, the original question touched upon "a topic of religion." One
church believes that gliders as-received from manufacturers cannot
possibly
be
improved by mere humanity unassociated with the original design process
(and
to attempt improvement places one in the category of the devil's spawn).
The
other church believes that use-/age-related issues will inevitably
appear,
and
might (if not should) be reasonably addressed by subsequent owners. True
-
at
least in the U.S. - for sailplanes licensed with (see below) an Approved
Type
Certificate or licensed Experimentally.

In my view, there's sound reasons for both views, and in an ideal world,
both
can peacefully co-exist. Full disclosu I'm a(n aerospace) degreed
(U.S.-based) engineer, but one who's convinced original designers were NOT

(all apply): all-knowing; incompetent. In other words, designers and the
design team are humans like the rest of us, though with (perhaps) some
specialized training, and (definitely) some specialized interests...again

normal human conditions.

The U.S. is fortunate to have a healthy, vibrant, amateur-built aircraft
licensing category, from which - perhaps - some cogent conclusions about
this
particular religious topic may be drawn. As I type, approximately 20% of
the
U.S. power, single-engine, 4-or-less seats general aviation fleet is
licensed
"Experimental Amateur Built" (a presently increasing proportion), the rest

having Approved Type Certificates. Taken as a whole, the EAB category
accident
frequency is (statistically and) significantly higher than the ATC
category
as
measured against fleet/licensing numbers. Unsurprisingly (in my view) the

percentages have a significant first-/early-flight bias (for engine/fuel
and
loss of control reasons, mostly); thoughtful readers can probably make
accurate guesses why (an exercise and validation beyond the point I'm
trying
to make with this post). Once beyond that bubble, EAB and ATC accident
rates
are (arguably) identical. I expect (but am not certain) accident *causes*
are
similar as well (when comparing similar classes of pilots/flight, e.g.
Visual
Flight Rules piloting).

My conclusions:
1) "Sound airplane design practices" are not limited solely to factories
and
their design teams.
2) The weakest link is generally the nut at the top of the stick.

Stated another way, pretty much every form of human design
screwup/oversight
possible in general aviation flying machines (e.g. sailplanes) has been
made
long, long ago, and "best practices" are pretty much available (and
arguably
well known) to anyone inclined to learn from others' experiences. We're
well
beyond the "secret guild stage" of aircraft structural design knowledge,
and
the "smoke and mirrors" of ignorance-based myths.

That knowledge availability, along with the tendency of those geekily
inclined
(most engineers, and many non-degreed people as well) is why I'm OK with
belonging to the Church of Future Improvement is Possible.

On the other hand, the World Wide Web has made it easier for everyone
(e.g.

via YouTube) to easily see that Darwinism remains a potent human
genealogical
force. Ignorance is potent, often more quickly than knowledge. Hence I'd
never
try to convince members of the Church of Don't Mess With Factory Stuff to

change their beliefs.

Clint Eastwood was right: A man's got to know his limitations.

Further, who hasn't heard the truism: All generalizations are
false...including this one. In my view, there's at least one truism that
is

NOT false: Perfection is never an option.

True in glider design, too. The trick is to know - or at lest to remain
within
- one's limitations.

YMWV
Bob W.

P.S. I believe Dick Johnson was a degreed aeronautical engineer. His
entire

working life was spent in the engineering field, and his extracurricular
soaring-and-sailplane-design-and-testing-related body of work was
prodigious.
He likely passed on from heart failure in his mid-eighties while flying
the

Ventus he owned for decades - the one in which he drilled lube access
holes.
Make of all that what works for yourself!

Up until today I was firmly of the opinion that EASA and their regulation
was an unnecessary imposition on gliding. I had always believed that no-one
who flew a type certified glider would make structural modifications
without consulting the type certificate holder and obtaining their approval
for a modification, I simply did not believe that anyone could be THAT
irresponsible. I seems I was wrong, which is nothing new. I suppose that
EASA is a necessary evil while there are those who think that such behavior
is acceptable. What worries me most is that these actions are taken by
people who are described as well respected and qualified engineers. It
certainly increases my understanding of the attitude of EASA to FAA
licensed engineers.
I am well aware that in the past such modifications were made to simple
wood and fabric constructed gliders, cutting and patching a hole in fabric
or indeed metal skins is a completely different matter to drilling holes in
a GRP structure, the best that can be said is that such action has not
failed, YET, or maybe not.
To say that a course of action is ok because A.N Other did it and got away
with it is not safe practice, especially when it encourages those without
knowledge to try an "inspired" fix.
If you can produce a note of compliance, a relevant AD or tech note, from
the type certificate holder I will of course take it all back.