First Glider

On 07 Sep 2004 09:35:40 GMT, (OscarCVox) wrote:

.... text deleted
Avoid wood. They are lovely to fly but you have to spend so much time and money
keeping them in good condition they are not worth it.


Since this is a thread intended for those unfamilar with purchasing
and maintaining sailplanes, I cannot let this statement go
unchallenged.

Older wooden sailplanes are not as robust to mishandling as the newer
fiberglass gliders, and this might be a factor for a club operation.

However, for a personally owned sailplane, older wooden gliders are no
more difficult to keep in good flying condition than any other
sailplane that is given good care. I owned and flew a Ka-6E for half a
dozen years with no significant maintenance problems, and our club has
a pilot who has been flying an early 60's Slingsby Skylark 4 for the
past 30 years with no maintenance problems. Modern synthetic fabrics
can last for decades with proper storage of the sailplane.

Do not rule out a great flying (and very affordable) ship like the
Ka-6 or Skylark for worries about maintenance.

Bob

Bob,

Your old Ka-6E is stored in a hangar and still airworthy. However, the
current owner has not flown it since I sold it to him eight years ago.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

"Bob Gibbons" wrote in message
...
On 07 Sep 2004 09:35:40 GMT, (OscarCVox) wrote:

... text deleted
Avoid wood. They are lovely to fly but you have to spend so much time and
money
keeping them in good condition they are not worth it.


Since this is a thread intended for those unfamilar with purchasing
and maintaining sailplanes, I cannot let this statement go
unchallenged.

Older wooden sailplanes are not as robust to mishandling as the newer
fiberglass gliders, and this might be a factor for a club operation.

However, for a personally owned sailplane, older wooden gliders are no
more difficult to keep in good flying condition than any other
sailplane that is given good care. I owned and flew a Ka-6E for half a
dozen years with no significant maintenance problems, and our club has
a pilot who has been flying an early 60's Slingsby Skylark 4 for the
past 30 years with no maintenance problems. Modern synthetic fabrics
can last for decades with proper storage of the sailplane.

Do not rule out a great flying (and very affordable) ship like the
Ka-6 or Skylark for worries about maintenance.

Bob

Bob Gibbons wrote:

However, for a personally owned sailplane, older wooden gliders are no
more difficult to keep in good flying condition than any other
sailplane

given good care. and
proper storage of the sailplane.

LOL. Under those conditions, a sailplane made of matchsticks
and toilet paper would fare just as well. Given good care and
proper storage, one can raise baby Bald Eagles too. Good luck.

Stay away from wooden gliders. You don't know if they've
had "good care" or "proper storage" in the past, and
this may be very hard to determine.

I'm reminded of the Citabrias guys with all the inspection
holes in their wings. It didn't matter if you kept
yours in a super dry hanger its whole life, and never flew it.
The wooden AD meant you had to cut holes in the
wings.

So it doesn't always matter how good YOU traet it either.
Stay away from wood. There's a reason it is uncommon
in current aircraft manufacturing.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Mark James Boyd wrote:

Stay away from wooden gliders. You don't know if they've
had "good care" or "proper storage" in the past, and
this may be very hard to determine.

All aircraft can suffer from improper care and storage. That's why you
inspect them.

I'm reminded of the Citabrias guys with all the inspection
holes in their wings. It didn't matter if you kept
yours in a super dry hanger its whole life, and never flew it.


We had a Citabria that neeeded inspection. As I recall, the AD wasn't
due to rot, but some Citabrias were found to have damaged spars.
Eventually, but after lots of Citabrias were inspected, it was found
that some (all?) of the original ones that started the AD were damaged
by things like blowing over and not having repairs done, or not logged.
I don't think it was primarily a wood issue in the end. We had to
replace some little nails.

The wooden AD meant you had to cut holes in the
wings.

Hey, it was just fabric. Easy to do, easy to fix. Try that with a metal
or fiberglass glider.

Wood doesn't fatigue like metal or fiberglass, but the metal fittings
can. These are easy to inspect. Regardless, you should have whatever you
buy inspected first by a person that knows the material and the aircraft.


So it doesn't always matter how good YOU traet it either.
Stay away from wood. There's a reason it is uncommon
in current aircraft manufacturing.

It is a very expensive way to make aircraft in quantity is a big reason.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 16:46:18 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Mark James Boyd wrote:

Stay away from wooden gliders. You don't know if they've
had "good care" or "proper storage" in the past, and
this may be very hard to determine.

All aircraft can suffer from improper care and storage. That's why you
inspect them.

I'm reminded of the Citabrias guys with all the inspection
holes in their wings. It didn't matter if you kept
yours in a super dry hanger its whole life, and never flew it.


We had a Citabria that neeeded inspection. As I recall, the AD wasn't
due to rot, but some Citabrias were found to have damaged spars.
Eventually, but after lots of Citabrias were inspected, it was found
that some (all?) of the original ones that started the AD were damaged
by things like blowing over and not having repairs done, or not logged.
I don't think it was primarily a wood issue in the end. We had to
replace some little nails.

The wooden AD meant you had to cut holes in the
wings.

Hey, it was just fabric. Easy to do, easy to fix. Try that with a metal
or fiberglass glider.

Wood doesn't fatigue like metal or fiberglass, but the metal fittings
can. These are easy to inspect. Regardless, you should have whatever you
buy inspected first by a person that knows the material and the aircraft.

AFAIK fibreglass doesn't suffer from fatigue either
In Australia there has been an ongoing fatigue test on a Janus wing,
with no detectable deterioration over many thousands of hours of
testing.
Cheers, John G.

The next time someone sneers at a wooden sailplane, remind them that it is
made of a unidirectional reinforced laminated composite material consisting
of micro-tubular fibres embedded in a long chain polymer matrix and having a
near infinite fatigue life.
tim


Stay away from wooden gliders. You don't know if they've
had "good care" or "proper storage" in the past, and
this may be very hard to determine.

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Tim Mara wrote:
The next time someone sneers at a wooden sailplane, remind them that it is
made of a unidirectional reinforced laminated composite material consisting
of micro-tubular fibres embedded in a long chain polymer matrix and having a
near infinite fatigue life.
tim



Stay away from wooden gliders. You don't know if they've
had "good care" or "proper storage" in the past, and
this may be very hard to determine.

------------+
Mark J. Boyd




And anyone who thinks they are not tough has not looked at the vintage
Bergfalkes and K13 grinding around the circuits all over the world. We have one
Bergie over 17,000 flights/9000 hours and going strong. Damage history is
extensive too - but easy to repair, and even poorly executed repairs from
previous lives have held up remarkably.

On a weak day they give a nice aerial view of the glass sitting on the runway...

Tim Mara wrote:
The next time someone sneers at a wooden sailplane, remind them that it is
made of a unidirectional reinforced laminated composite material consisting
of micro-tubular fibres embedded in a long chain polymer matrix and having a
near infinite fatigue life.
tim

LOL! Yep. And vulnerable to Isoptera. And dihyrogenoxate(?). Big names,
simple common problems. Make a glider for $30k with anything other than
modern materials that has the polar of a Sparrowhawk, and I'll be happy
to bow out.

Not sneering at wood. For those who know it well and can do
"proper care and storage," good for them. But wood just isn't a common
aircraft material anymore.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

So it doesn't always matter how good YOU traet it either.
Stay away from wood. There's a reason it is uncommon
in current aircraft manufacturing.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

One of the reasons is that wood changes dimensionally when the weather
changes. And if you take a wooden aircraft to a very dry location, the
dimensional change can cause all manner of structural problems.

Another reason for sailplanes is the high labour cost of cutting out and
gluing thousands of wooden bits. Not much less than the costs involved
in making a glass ship, which can be made with much better control of
wing profile and hence performance.
--
Mike Lindsay

Mark James Boyd wrote:
...
Stay away from wood. There's a reason it is uncommon
in current aircraft manufacturing.
...

Maybe uncommon in the USA, in France the most common 4 seats
airplane is probably the Robin DR400 which is, at least for the
wings, made of wood and fabric. Also widely used as a tow plane.