FAA Revoking Standard Airworthiness Certificate DG-505

On 20 Oct, 10:59, Cats wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:45*am, Ian wrote:

On 20 Oct, 09:01, (Michel Talon) wrote:

Does "effectively stealing" means no stealing at all? Schleicher has
nothing to do with the Pegasus. Strange as such lies are long living.

I thought the Pegase fuselage was a direct copy of the ASW-19 - easily
done, since Centrair were building the ASW-19F at the time. Then to
add insult to injury they gave the Pegase a better wing than the
ASW-19 had ...

That's my understanding - and I also thought the ASW19 & ASW20 had
almost identical fuselages. *But I also thought it was all sorted out
20 years ago or so, and there was nothing ongoing.

An ASW-20 is more-or-less just a flapped ASW-19, isn't it? I, too, had
the impression that the Schleicher-Centrair fight was settled years
ago ... but I'd be very surprised indeed if Schleicher had any
responsibility at all for Pegase airworthiness issues.

Ian

PS Wikipedia suggests that the Pegase uses the ASW-20 fuselage.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:59:28 -0700, Cats wrote:


That's my understanding - and I also thought the ASW19 & ASW20 had
almost identical fuselages. But I also thought it was all sorted out 20
years ago or so, and there was nothing ongoing.

Centrair were building the ASW-20 under license, not the ASW-19. All
ASW-20Fs were built by Centrair. The Pegase fuselage is almost identical
to the 20: the boom is slightly bigger diameter (an ASW-20 tail dolly
won't quite fit a Pegase) and the underwing cockpit vent intakes on the
20 were blocked and replaced by a nose intake. If you look carefully at a
Pegase you can just see where the the 20's intakes were by looking for
waviness in reflections off the gelcoat.

I believe that the 19 and 20 have almost identical fuselages - probably
the biggest difference between all three are the wing roots, since all
three gliders have different wing sections.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Oct 20, 12:16*pm, Ian wrote:
snip

PS Wikipedia suggests that the Pegase uses the ASW-20 fuselage.

Wikipedia also suggests:

"The ASW 20 is an FAI 15 metre Class glider designed by Gerhard Waibel
and built by Alexander Schleicher GmbH & Co. Its fuselage is nearly
identical to the ASW19's, mated to newly designed wings for the 15
metre Class."

So I suspect the three gliders are all very similar in most of the
fuselage.

Ian wrote:
On 20 Oct, 09:01, (Michel Talon) wrote:

Does "effectively stealing" means no stealing at all? Schleicher has
nothing to do with the Pegasus. Strange as such lies are long living.

I thought the Pegase fuselage was a direct copy of the ASW-19 - easily
done, since Centrair were building the ASW-19F at the time. Then to
add insult to injury they gave the Pegase a better wing than the
ASW-19 had ...

Ian

The fuselage is vaguely similar, as is the case with a lot of other
gliders of the same period. The wings are a completely new design from
the french institute for aeronotics (ONERA). Everybody having flown both
the Pegase and the ASW 19 know how their handling is different.




--

Michel TALON

On 20 Oct, 12:36, Martin Gregorie
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:59:28 -0700, Cats wrote:

That's my understanding - and I also thought the ASW19 & ASW20 had
almost identical fuselages. *But I also thought it was all sorted out 20
years ago or so, and there was nothing ongoing.

Centrair were building the ASW-20 under license, not the ASW-19. All
ASW-20Fs were built by Centrair. The Pegase fuselage is almost identical
to the 20: the boom is slightly bigger diameter (an ASW-20 tail dolly
won't quite fit a Pegase) ...

I'm pretty sure that when I was flying at Le Blanc we used tail
dollies interchangeably between Pegases and ASW-20s. Of course, they
might all have been Pegase ones, on reflection ...

Ian

On 20 Oct, 13:30, (Michel Talon) wrote:
Ian wrote:

The fuselage is vaguely similar, as is the case with a lot of other
gliders of the same period. The wings are a completely new design from
the french institute for aeronotics (ONERA). Everybody having flown both
the Pegase and the ASW 19 know how their handling is different.

"Vaguely similar" does not quite cover "you can see where they taped
over the vents in the mould", I think...

Ian

At 15:03 20 October 2008, Ian wrote:
On 20 Oct, 13:30, (Michel Talon) wrote:
Ian wrote:

The fuselage is vaguely similar, as is the case with a lot of other
gliders of the same period. The wings are a completely new design from
the french institute for aeronotics (ONERA). Everybody having flown
both
the Pegase and the ASW 19 know how their handling is different.

"Vaguely similar" does not quite cover "you can see where they taped
over the vents in the mould", I think...

Ian

Indeed, and while we're at it, yes the handling of the Pegase and ASW19
are very different. The handling of the Pegase and the ASW20, on the other
hand, are very similar.

The previous owner of my ASW-19b bought a Pegase (to get the new Cobra
trailer it came with), and when I asked how the ships compared he said
"the ASW-19 handled like a sports car while the Pegase felt like a
truck".

-John

On Oct 20, 11:45 am, Andrew Warbrick
wrote:
Indeed, and while we're at it, yes the handling of the Pegase and ASW19
are very different. The handling of the Pegase and the ASW20, on the other
hand, are very similar.

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:01:15 -0700, Ian wrote:

I'm pretty sure that when I was flying at Le Blanc we used tail dollies
interchangeably between Pegases and ASW-20s. Of course, they might all
have been Pegase ones, on reflection ...

The difference was pretty small. The difference wasn't apparent to the
eye, but I'd read that Centrair had increased the boom diameter, so we
tried my ASW-20 dolly on it to see if there really was a difference. I'd
say the Pegase tail boom diameter was 3mm bigger at most. From memory the
dolly fitted onto the boom OK, but the catches wouldn't go over centre
with the normal amount of pressure.

My dolly was a good snug fit on the '20 and had a fairly thin, firm
lining. With a larger diameter moulding and a thicker, softer lining it
may have fit on the Pegase too.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

On Oct 18, 10:06*am, wrote:

Hi Jack

Sorry to say, but nearly everything in your posting is wrong. Let me
explain:

1. The glider was built and sold by and paid to AMS. DG had just no
shares in that business. I only had allowed AMS to use our molds -
that's all!

2. As described below the customer was aware of the problems and
ordered one of our inspector to the US. We prepared everything, but
then he cancelled the journey.

3. We did not write any invoice to the (non-)customer. We did the
preperation as service. That is our policy.

4. Obviously the problems were caused by the FAA - that is completely
outside of our control.

5. The customer is aware that inspite of sending the glider to Germany
for an inspection we also can repeat the visit we had prepared some
years ago. We need to inspect the glider personally - then we are
allowed to issue the necessary paperwork. Although we did not sell the
glider, it is self-evident for us to offer our help, wherever it is
needed.

6. Jack, you definetely will know it already:
DG also had no shares in the business of the DG-300's with the spar
problem. These gliders were neither built nor sold by DG Flugzeugbau.
It is very simple to inform yourself and you should do it, before you
are writing such a nonsense!

Best Greetings
Friedel Weber

DG-Flugzeugbau GmbH

Soaring - Touch the Sky!

I don't have much to add, I just wanted to quote this for posterity.
Thanks, Bob K.