Windrose II 15-meter Motorglider Plans For Sale

Complete and unused Windrose I and II plans and building
instructions. Includes extra plans and instructions
for 15 meter wings.

$300 + you pay shipping.

Contact Doug Hoffman at
or 248-576-5580 Mon-Fri 7:30am-4:00pm ET
248-693-8835 evenings and weekends.

I remember when that 1st was introduced. How many were completed? Is there
an owners group?
"Doug Hoffman" wrote in message
m...
Complete and unused Windrose I and II plans and building
instructions. Includes extra plans and instructions
for 15 meter wings.

$300 + you pay shipping.

Contact Doug Hoffman at
or 248-576-5580 Mon-Fri 7:30am-4:00pm ET
248-693-8835 evenings and weekends.

Search on the web for more info on the windrose.... my experiences nearly
cost me my life with an untested easily stalled wingtip. You might also look
up how many people have been killed in it as well...... and thats about how
many have been built!
-mat
--

Redsell is predictable. To wit, my e-mail to the questioner,
predating Redsell's post slamming the Windrose.

-Doug

From: Doug Hoffman
Date: Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:29:34 PM America/Detroit
To:
Subject: Windrose

I'm not aware of an owner's group. I am aware of at least 10-15
completions (probably more but it is hard to say).

A few completions appeared in Kitplanes.

http://user.tninet.se/~trz012v/windr...ndroseII99.htm

http://user.tninet.se/~trz012v/windrose/Rene.htm

http://user.tninet.se/~trz012v/windrose/Roman.htm


If Mat Redsell hasn't already e-mailed you, expect to hear nothing but
negatives from him. He refurbished one, lost control while flying it
and bailed. Rather than admit that he might have had the CG too far
aft, he never measured it and he is on the small side, he prefers to
badmouth the design.

You should know that there have been 2 deaths, both were the classic
engine quit upon launch and try to slowly turn and make it back to the
runway. Not a good idea, especially at low altitude. They both spun
in. But then there have been at least 10 such incidents in Moni's
(very underpowered) and even the Russia AC5M has already had 2 launch
accidents. One resulted in very serious injury. The other destroyed
the glider, pilot ok thankfully. I think the moral here is
motorgliders can demand extra attention, especially during self launch
and if power is lost. One must "fly the glider" (i.e., don't lose
airspeed if the motor quits!) at all times.

Irv Culver, the chief designer of Windrose, was a highly respected
aeronautical engineer that worked at Lockheed's "Skunkworks". Jim
Maupin was also heavily involved. Both were also responsible for the
Woodstock and Carbon Dragon. Either of these guys had probably
forgotten more than Redsell will ever know about gliders. I believe
that Redsell was personally responsible for the Maupin family stopping
to make the plans for all 3 gliders (Woodstock, Windrose, Carbon
Dragon) available to the public. A real loss...

Regards,

-Doug

I did not refurbish a Windrose.. I purchased a very incomplete one that I
completed in about four years work. The story of the building and flying is
on a web site

http://www.continuo.com/windrose/windrose.htm.

One should read the site and made their own minds up. I felt there was a lot
of potential with this aircraft but it had not been thoroughly tested
enough before it was released to the public. The plans also need updating as
carbon rovings do not make a predictible spar.

I suggested very strongly that Janice Maupin sell the plans with the
understanding that it was a concept that needed refining.

The main prolbem is that the aircraft was never thoroughly tested. There is
one main problem. The all flying tail can stall as it did twice for me in a
dive. The first time I was able to recover: the second I could not recover
and had to bail out.

The other very severe problem was the easily stalled wing tips which for a
motor-glider is not very good. It also had difficult handling
characteristics in circling that I was never able to remedy.

The construction is also questionable with the inboard ailersons. They do
work but contribute to the wing stalling and should be further investigated.

I do know my aerodynamics well and have been a test pilot in the development
of the Flying Wings of Jim Marske. I also modify the aircraft I fly and
work extensively in carbon and fiberglass. My work can be seen on the Marske
Web site. I am also an instructor.

I am helping Jim Marske in the upcoming Spar workshop held on November
22-23, 2003.

As unpopular as I am still feel that I gave a good assessment of the
windrose and shall continue to convince designers to have their creations
thoroughly tested.

-mat
--
Marske Flying Wings
http://www.continuo.com/marske

"Marske Flying Wings" wrote in message . ..
[snip]
As unpopular as I am still feel that I gave a good assessment of the
windrose and shall continue to convince designers to have their creations
thoroughly tested.

What is your opinion of the Carbon Dragon and Woodstock?

I do not have any building experience with the Woodstock or Carbon dragon
but I can make some general comments.

The use of wood in a glider is not really recommended any longer, nor is the
combination of wood and fiberglass. Ineveitably the wood and fiberglass tend
to separate. It is better to use an all fiberglass structure and I even
avoid the use of foam.

Spars constructed with carbon rovings are unpredictable and tests have shown
that compression and tension readings are very low ( 30.000- 60,000 psi)
whereas using a carbon rod will give a predictable 300,000 psi.

I have seen the prototype carbon dragon and the one built by Steve Arnt.
Steve's magic drag was much modified and he had tested his carbon rod spar.
He had done his research well. The use of carbon rovings is again not
predictible and the combination with wood I do not recomend. I suggest that
it would be better to vacuum mold all the parts from carbon cloth. Again I
have not seen any flight reports on the carbon dragon as to stability, spins
and general handling. Much development is now needed in this design but for
the time was a brilliant step forward in light wingloading soaring.

And as to your comment about the CG location on my windrose... I built it on
a weigh scale to make sure the CG came out at the correct position. I had
flown it to begin with in a slightly forward position and gradually moved it
back as needed. I have done a lot of work establishing the CG postion for
the Marske Pioneers and Monarchs .The designer has some idea of where the CG
belongs but each aircarft is different and the Cg refinement is then done by
a qualfied test pilot. The windrose was easily tip stalled and the all
flying tail could be stalled..... and that remains its' worst features.

-mat
--
Marske Flying Wings
http://www.continuo.com/marske

Now that is something interesting.

Doesn't seem to have crossed the big pond so far...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Marske Flying Wings" a écrit dans le message de
...
The use of wood in a glider is not really recommended any longer, nor is
the
combination of wood and fiberglass. Ineveitably the wood and fiberglass
tend
to separate. It is better to use an all fiberglass structure and I even
avoid the use of foam.

Spars constructed with carbon rovings are unpredictable and tests have
shown
that compression and tension readings are very low ( 30.000- 60,000 psi)
whereas using a carbon rod will give a predictable 300,000 psi.

"Marske Flying Wings" wrote in message .. .

Spars constructed with carbon rovings are unpredictable and tests have shown
that compression and tension readings are very low ( 30.000- 60,000 psi)
whereas using a carbon rod will give a predictable 300,000 psi.

Jim Marske shows carbon rovings to have 120,000 psi tensile
strength in his website. Not the numbers you show. ??

Mat, please cite for me the instances where the carbon roving
spar caps have failed. Either during proof loading or in flight.
Windrose or Carbon Dragon.

I will not question that the pultruded carbon
rods are an excellent building material. Had the stuff been
available when Culver and Maupin were designing they may even
have used them instead. But you can't say that the carbon
rovings are dangerous (you say/imply this in your website and imply it
in your postings).

"Doug Hoffman" wrote in message
m...
"Marske Flying Wings" wrote in message
.. .

Spars constructed with carbon rovings are unpredictable and tests have
shown
that compression and tension readings are very low ( 30.000- 60,000 psi)
whereas using a carbon rod will give a predictable 300,000 psi.

Jim Marske shows carbon rovings to have 120,000 psi tensile
strength in his website. Not the numbers you show. ??

Mat, please cite for me the instances where the carbon roving
spar caps have failed. Either during proof loading or in flight.
Windrose or Carbon Dragon.

I will not question that the pultruded carbon
rods are an excellent building material. Had the stuff been
available when Culver and Maupin were designing they may even
have used them instead. But you can't say that the carbon
rovings are dangerous (you say/imply this in your website and imply it
in your postings).


Boys Boys Boys......

Everybody knows that the compressive value for carbon fiber is about zilch.
The compressive values given are really a measure of the interlaminar shear
values
of the matrix they are suspended in.
Mat has chosen to further confuse the issue by pointing out that earlier
construction
methods using different lower modulus matrixes and dry unimpregnated
rovings with lower
fiber content develop lower mechanical
properties..............................

No ****, I would have never figured that out on my own.........

I am growing tired of this. If wood and f/glass are unsuitable for gliders,
stop test flying
unsafe Pioneers and Monarchs and quit selling plans...... But that would be
the wrong
thing to do because wood and f/glass are safe when properly built and
maintained.
The same must be said for carbon and kevlar. Dry rovings are suitable for
use in
spars as long as you use enough of it. It may be LESS EFFICIENT than
pultruded
rods, but it is not inherently unsafe. You also completely gloss over the
fact that compressive
spar failures are damn near universally collum buckling as opposed to
classic compressive failures.


Mat, you should really email your stuff to yourself and read it before you
send it to the world.
We've talked on the phone, your a smart guy and it is fairly obvious to me
that you are having
difficulty conveying your thoughts with the written word.

Doug.............. Did ya hear the one about wrestling with a pig?????

Scott.