![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9/12/2016 8:34 AM, Ernst wrote:
Go to the accident docket and read the MATERIALS LABORATORY FACTUAL REPORT. My conclusion is that the pawl spring had been missing for some time. Ernst I found the 7-page Factual Report, which includes the statement, "A detailed examination report for the glider release mechanism is contained in the Materials Laboratory factual report located in the public docket." I've been unable to find the "Materials Laboratory factual report." Pointer help will be Seriously Appreciated! Meanwhile, I'm still finding it hard to believe the accident aircraft was successfully operated for ~26 hours without the release spring, though I can believe the (light-in-tension) spring *might* leave very little in the way of witness marks on the I.D. of the pawl's through hole. Thanks very much. Bob W. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 8:09:10 PM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
...I've been unable to find the "Materials Laboratory factual report." Pointer help will be Seriously Appreciated! The Docket Management System (DMS) has many good detail photos of broken aircraft. It is (or should be) every detail designer's go-to resource: http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hi...docketID=58737 Thanks, Bob K. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9/12/2016 9:21 PM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 8:09:10 PM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote: ...I've been unable to find the "Materials Laboratory factual report." Pointer help will be Seriously Appreciated! The Docket Management System (DMS) has many good detail photos of broken aircraft. It is (or should be) every detail designer's go-to resource: http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/hi...docketID=58737 Thanks, Bob K. Many thanks! Just to (sorta) complete the train of thought in my (bemused) posts preceding this one. The photos of the release mechanism from the accident aircraft seem to (pretty much) match my (oldish) memories of how it functions, the "pretty much" exception being I remembered the hook retraction spring as a simple tension spring (and not the dual-sided, probably custom-bent) coil type. It was THAT spring force to which I referred when writing I couldn't understand how the hook could have sensibly functioned in its absence. That force serves dual purposes: 1) maintaining the hook cover against the back side of the opening slot while in flight (while also allowing a back release in the event of loss of rope tension combined with a Big Bow), and 2) (by through-transmittal of the hook-opening-cover force) retracting the entire hook mechanism after the pawl is released from the flat-plate/cable-hook detent by the pilot pulling the release knob/cable. 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. Using Figure 8 by way of illustrating my puzzlement, it seems to me such a spring could either serve to decrease or increase the pawl's contact force against the hook plate. Decreasing the contact force would appear to be counter-productive, while increasing it (arguably) might have served to make the incomplete contact condition shown in Figure 9 even more likely. In any event, my current working hypothesis is the hook likely back released (as intended, for better or for worse) from a bow in the rope (gusty sink being reported in that vicinity by the previously-towed pilot) at an unfortunate/ugly towing-location, followed by loss of control. Having had two such back releases during gnarly tows (one nearly too low to warrant an attempted return, above head-high sagebrush, but fortunately not occurring until later that same tow), I can relate. Whether or not the incomplete contact condition between pawl and cable hook detent (shown in Figure 9) was a contributor, I have no idea. Back to the hook design - what am I missing? Thanks! Bob W. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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?? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At 17:28 13 September 2016, BobW wrote:
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. I am now confused by the "installed in German" part. Is the release you are talking about a TOST release? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 9/13/2016 4:24 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 17:28 13 September 2016, BobW wrote: Snip... 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. Bob W. I am now confused by the "installed in German" part. Is the release you are talking about a TOST release? Sorry for any confusion. A number of "Applebay releases" have been subsequently installed in (on the fuselage bottom surface, near the front of the nose of) non-USA-built gliders imported into the USA with only a single, CG-mounted, release back by the wheel. This second cable attachment point provided "a nose-hooked aero-towing option." Many - not all - such modified ships were of German origin. FWIW, I've been privately informed by a fellow Zuni owner (of S/N 28) that his ship's release uses a(n easily visible) *tension* spring (not compression, as on S/N 2) to positively seat the pawl against the rotating/indented cable hook part...which is what my fallible memory kinda-sorta remembered from my own (not recently looked at) Zuni (S/N 3). In either case, any owner of a ship with an "Applebay nose release" can/should easily confirm the presence of such a spring by verifying the business end of the pawl is "somehow or other" positively forced against the rotating cable hook as it operates throughout its range of motion. The truly curious can disconnect it before operating their releases to get a better feel for what I sought to describe in an earlier post. Please do reconnect it...or YMMV! Bob W. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |