Taurus glider for sale

Sure. Ok. The manufacturer tried to buy it from the insurance company, but failed to come up with the money. Therefore, it went to the next bidder. It was only THEN that they decided to deem it unairworthy. Also of note is who the OP works for. The circumstances of the fire itself are also pretty interesting, considering what was conveniently removed beforehand, but I'll choose not to speculate on things I don't know to be factual.

I've flown the airplane in question. I've also witnessed it being tested to G loading spec, and seen in during refurbishment. I have zero issue with its structural integrity. If ANY of you have a mechanical engineering background and know more then the typical know-it-all soaring pilot, with firsthand knowledge of the airframe, I'm all ears.

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 11:14:49 PM UTC-6, Echo wrote:
Sure. Ok. The manufacturer tried to buy it from the insurance company, but failed to come up with the money. Therefore, it went to the next bidder. It was only THEN that they decided to deem it unairworthy. Also of note is who the OP works for. The circumstances of the fire itself are also pretty interesting, considering what was conveniently removed beforehand, but I'll choose not to speculate on things I don't know to be factual.

I've flown the airplane in question. I've also witnessed it being tested to G loading spec, and seen in during refurbishment. I have zero issue with its structural integrity. If ANY of you have a mechanical engineering background and know more then the typical know-it-all soaring pilot, with firsthand knowledge of the airframe, I'm all ears.

Interesting post Echo, that adds some clarity to the history of that Taurus.. So the insurance company totaled the aircraft? Did the original owner end up purchasing it from the insurance company? Would you please share who tested the aircraft and how it was tested to insure it's airworthiness as well as what the needed refurbishment consist of?

Thanks

Mike

I saw it after it was picked up, then after it was flying. The only significant anything was the canopy sagging a bit and some debris damage to a portion of the elevator. But before the fire happened, I believe (may be incorrect here), that the BRS chute and the wing pins were not with the aircraft.. It was listed on an insurance company's salvage auction, and the winning bidder was the manufacturer (but unsure if it was via a US representative), who then failed to come up with the money by the deadline, so it went to the next bidder, who bid significantly less. It was AFTER this that they began a campaign to claim it unairworthy, while meanwhile things like the wing pins were offered for sale to the buyer, by the original owner who made the insurance claim. Seems weird to me...would have thought things like wing pins would go with an aircraft. I do know that the repair and canopy replacement was completed by an A&P/IA.

Regardless, I'm only a spectator to this one. I do agree with other posts however...carbon fiber is incredibly resilient. I wouldn't worry about it at all. The only point I make is that based on what I know and conversations with a few people directly involved, I think it's a lot more complicated/interesting than some have suggested. It also doesn't take much to total an airplane, depending on who has the adjuster's ear.

"Sure. Ok. The manufacturer tried to buy it from the insurance company, but failed to come up with the money. Therefore, it went to the next bidder."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure where all of this misinformation comes from. I was involved with the insurance company in the assessment of this aircraft for return to service. The manufacturer declared it a total write off and condemned the aircraft. The insurance company were advised of this in writing.

The statement above is fantasy, the manufacturer was not interested in purchasing the airframe because we considered it condemned. It was our expectation that the airframe would be destroyed, whatever usable parts salvaged and that was it, end of story.

The manufacturer came aware that the aircraft was still around when a person wanted to purchase a new canopy but would not identify the aircraft serial number which is a requirement for our certification records being an LSA aircraft. This raised more questions than it answered and after investigation we concluded that this airframe was in the process of being rebirthed. This was reported to the FAA at the time because it is our responsibility as a manufacturer of certified aircraft and in particular one which we have previously deemed condemned.

To our surprise the said aircraft popped up on a classified site along with a change in registration category which cannot happen when it is an LSA certified aircraft without the manufacturers express approval and it also turned up with a new serial number. In fact a serial number that is identical to an aircraft currently registered and as you know you cannot have two aircraft flying on the same serial number.

The matter is now under FAA investigation and because legal action is most likely to be taken I would ask you guys to settle down and just let this investigation take its course.

I repeat again that we declared this aircraft condemned, the aircraft was agreed to be destroyed by the insurance company. We did not bid on the aircraft because why would we bid on something that was being destroyed ? The liability remains with why did the insurance company allow this aircraft to be sold or purchased by a new owner and why did this new owner fraudulently return this aircraft into service in a new registration category with a new serial number and with no records indicating this aircraft had been condemned due to a hanger fire. End

Again, total misinformation and fantasy, never let the truth get in the way of a good story!

The owner of the aircraft was a Pipistrel dealer, a FedEx pilot and also a pilot of the Orbis flying I hospital. He did not offer the pins for sale after the aircraft was written off, he would not want the liability.

Please, you guys need to be a little bit more responsible about this with some of the statements because they are just not true, not even close to the truth.

Again, the manufacturer declared the aircraft condemned after reviewing photographs of the aircraft in the hangar immediately after the smoke cleared.
they got into their documentation and found the information about what temperature the canopy would melt at, this was well beyond what the composite companies/resin manufacturers would allow for the products that are used in this aircraft manufacture and probably any aircrafts manufacture using composite materials.

I would be negligent of both myself and the manufacturer in looking the other way and allowing this aircraft to be sold to some excited pilot only to have the wings fall off days, weeks, months or years later.

The aircraft was condemned for a reason, you need to think, would you allow your wife or grandchildren to fly in this aircraft knowing its history ? (Divorce cases excluded) as mentioned in another email, the FAA are investigating now and I have trust in the system that they will get to the bottom of this

Interesting stuff, I haven't seen the plane in quite a while. Gotta about I'm not too familiar with anything having to do with LSA, be it their pilots or their aircraft. It is pretty interesting, however, that any aircraft can be deemed totalled/unairworthy (is there a difference?), Yet can be rebuilt and flown. There's a lot of airplanes out there flying around on a data plate and not much else. Makes you wonder who is actually deeming something airworthy? How much say does a manufacturer have over a mechanic or IA's signoff? Will be interesting to follow what happens.

Echo .. I have purchased 3 gliders on auction (which appeared repairable but required major work). The insurance company's did not remove the data plates or include any letters restricting repairs. which gave me the impression that the airframes were just beyond economic repair. After a a closer inspection when I started to work on them, I found that 2 of the aircraft had to much internal damage that wasn't apparent from inspection. I had to do more cutting and grinding to see how extensive the damage was, this included damage to metal components. After finishing the inspections, 2 where totally un-repairable. They were chopped up, reported to the FAA as destroyed, cut my losses and moved one. I would hope others out there would be as honest and responsible.

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 9:29:39 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Again, total misinformation and fantasy, never let the truth get in the way of a good story!

The owner of the aircraft was a Pipistrel dealer, a FedEx pilot and also a pilot of the Orbis flying I hospital. He did not offer the pins for sale after the aircraft was written off, he would not want the liability.

Please, you guys need to be a little bit more responsible about this with some of the statements because they are just not true, not even close to the truth.

Again, the manufacturer declared the aircraft condemned after reviewing photographs of the aircraft in the hangar immediately after the smoke cleared.
they got into their documentation and found the information about what temperature the canopy would melt at, this was well beyond what the composite companies/resin manufacturers would allow for the products that are used in this aircraft manufacture and probably any aircrafts manufacture using composite materials.

I would be negligent of both myself and the manufacturer in looking the other way and allowing this aircraft to be sold to some excited pilot only to have the wings fall off days, weeks, months or years later.

The aircraft was condemned for a reason, you need to think, would you allow your wife or grandchildren to fly in this aircraft knowing its history ? (Divorce cases excluded) as mentioned in another email, the FAA are investigating now and I have trust in the system that they will get to the bottom of this

There is an important distinction to be made when considering the effects of temperature on composites.
The epoxy resins used in most wet layups (like those used by just about all glider manufacturers except windward perf.) are actually very sensitive to heat. The exact type of resin used by each manufacturer varies, but as a benchmark the Kaneka Aerospace (Applied Poleramic) SC-14 resin, loses around 50% of its strain energy release rate value by the time it reaches 50 degrees C. Not hot!
Please refer to the following paper from Montana State Univ. regarding the effects of temperature and humidity on composites: http://naturefilm.montana.edu/compos...i%20thesis.pdf

If this taurus were indeed exposed to high enough temperatures for long enough to distort or melt the canopy, I would definitely argue that it has significant composites damage.

If you haven't thought about this before, the reason gliders are white in color is to minimize heat while spending long periods of time in the sun. It is much easier than you probably think to damage the glider by it getting too hot. Ever seen a glider with removed racing stripes?
This is also why wise owners tend to prefer fiberglass-top trailers over metal ones in places that get very hot. As you can imagine, the inside of a metal trailer might easily exceed 50 degrees C (122 deg f) on a hot summer day.

In contrast, pre-preg composites as used by windward composites and most leading aerospace companies, are cured at high temperature in an autoclave and are thus pretty much immune to heat. This is why (when they were in production at least...) you could order a duckhawk or a sparrowhawk in whatever color you wanted. There are also some resins used in wet layups (from my understanding, schleicher has started using these in their newest gliders) that are cured under heat and are not as much affected by heat after cure.

Most of my composites experience is with pre-preg, and despite being more costly than the alternative, it is significantly easier to work with, stronger and less prone to structural changes with exposure to moisture and heat.
I don't foresee the big glider manufacturers making the switch to pre-preg any time soon due to the inherent cost in switching manufacturing methods, but I do hope they switch to it at some point.

Thomas

Don't scare me now.
50ºC (122ºF) is VERY EASY to reach in Florida.
You mean to tell me all those trailers sitting out in Florida are slowly baking their gliders into oblivion?

At 18:15 21 May 2019, ripacheco1967 wrote:
Don't scare me now.=20
50=C2=BAC (122=C2=BAF) is VERY EASY to reach in Florida.
You mean to tell me all those trailers sitting out in Florida are slowly
ba=
king their gliders into oblivion?

The Scheuffler L285 resin widely used in German and Polish gliders requires

to be heat treated at not less than 54C (129F) before the aircraft is
flown.
The same resin is heat treated at 80C when used for power aircraft which
have to operate at higher ambient temperatures.