Glider Hours

[Walt Connelly]

I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total time. Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter, gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on the air frame. While people might try to inflate their personal flying time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one way or another. Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to determine the true time on an airframe? I cant think of one.

Walt

[hretting]

You could look at the rubber pad on the pedals. Wait....that's for
Buicks.
Look, Walt....gliders are like good looking women. You walk up and if
you mumble "Damn"....you're most of the way home. If the owner will
let you touch it, your intuition will guide you the rest of the way.
No one really gives a sinking ship on the number of hours as you can't
hide wear and tear easily.
Of course, if you're talking about Tin Cans....it's 'Buyer Beware". A
detail inspection is in order.
A bigger concern over hours would be damage history not entered into
the log books. A very small concern at that though.
Or the type of flying...ridge vs. thermals. Glider home port...inland
vs. marine air. Outside vs. inside.
The reference of a seller would be most telling.
R

[Andy[_1_]]

On Apr 26, 3:13*pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
> time. *Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
> gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
> the air frame. *While people might try to inflate their personal flying
> time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
> their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
> way or another. *Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
> determine the true time on an airframe? *I cant think of one.
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly

All the time I have logged in my ASW-28 is supported by electronic
flight logs with a 2 second sample interval. I log my flight time and
the glider usage to the nearest minuted based on those flight logs.

Glider flight history is typically recorded as number of launches or
starts, and total flight time. If you were in the market to buy mine
I could provide complete and accurate records including all the
electronic flight logs. Do you have $80K looking for a good home?

Andy

[Grider Pirate]

On Apr 26, 3:13*pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
> time. *Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
> gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
> the air frame. *While people might try to inflate their personal flying
> time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
> their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
> way or another. *Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
> determine the true time on an airframe? *I cant think of one.
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly

In short. No. I have kept pretty accurate records since I got my
glider, but it was 24 years old, with 5 previous owners when I got it.

[glidergeek]

On Apr 26, 3:13*pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
> time. *Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
> gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
> the air frame. *While people might try to inflate their personal flying
> time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
> their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
> way or another. *Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
> determine the true time on an airframe? *I cant think of one.
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly

Does sleeping in it and dreaming about a 2200 km flight count?

[kirk.stant]

On Apr 26, 5:13*pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
> time. *Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
> gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
> the air frame. *While people might try to inflate their personal flying
> time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
> their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
> way or another. *Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
> determine the true time on an airframe? *I cant think of one.
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly

Gliders are no different than F-4s, it's all up to the length of the
pilot's pencil...

Kirk
(who once logged a .3 flight in a F-4 that wasn't an IFE - and it
included the 5 minutes of taxi time!)

[jsbrake[_2_]]

> Kirk
> (who once logged a .3 flight in a F-4 that wasn't an IFE - and it
> included the 5 minutes of taxi time!)

Okay, there's got to be a story in that! Pardon my lack of acronym-
sense, but what is "IFE" ? (I'm thinking something Failure of
Engine).

-John
(who once crashed a simulated CF-100)

[Frank Whiteley]

On Apr 27, 10:51*am, jsbrake > wrote:
> > Kirk
> > (who once logged a .3 flight in a F-4 that wasn't an IFE - and it
> > included the 5 minutes of taxi time!)
>
> Okay, there's got to be a story in that! *Pardon my lack of acronym-
> sense, but what is "IFE" ? *(I'm thinking something Failure of
> Engine).
>
> -John
> (who once crashed a simulated CF-100)

In Flight Emergency

[BobW]

On 4/26/2011 4:13 PM, Walt Connelly wrote:
> I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
> time. Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
> gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
> the air frame. While people might try to inflate their personal flying
> time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
> their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
> way or another. Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
> determine the true time on an airframe? I cant think of one.
>
> Walt

A couple of thoughts...

- My understanding of 'German glass' (the glider world 'certification
pioneers') is that early (Glasflugel & Schleicher & probably others)
pre-carbon-ed airframes were LBA-overseen-tested to 18,000 hours, then
(originally) certified to 1/6 of that, or the 'magic' 3,000 hours you'll
sooner or later encounter in the glider world. As airframes/types reached
3,000 hours, additional certification depended upon them passing detailed
inspections with the results forwarded/blessed by the LBA in 3,000 hour
increments. I believe some airframes have now been certified up to 12,000
hours (Twin Grobs? LS-4's?). It'd be great if knowledgeable Europeans will see
fit to chime in here...

- 'Pure glass' gliders are necessarily 'overstrong' (i.e. designed to
stiffness, rather than strength criteria [the latter being typical of aluminum
and wood gliders and airplanes]), in order to demonstrate 'usefully high'
flutter-free useable airspeeds.

- I'm unaware of any evidence of fatigue-related aging issues in any
first-generation glass ships' composites. (The metal bits are a different
story, of course...)

Based on the above, my conclusion is potential owners of 1st-generation glass
gliders have little to fret about in ship-life terms, at least of the plastic
bits, regardless of whether one is purchasing from an apparent 'squirrel' or
from Diogenes' sought-after human.

Regards,
Bob W.

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

I had one of those once; urinated on my 'chute. Spoilered in from
14,500msl to save it.

At 17:41 27 April 2011, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>On Apr 27, 10:51=A0am, jsbrake wrote:
>> > Kirk
>> > (who once logged a .3 flight in a F-4 that wasn't an IFE - and it
>> > included the 5 minutes of taxi time!)
>>
>> Okay, there's got to be a story in that! =A0Pardon my lack of
acronym-
>> sense, but what is "IFE" ? =A0(I'm thinking something Failure of
>> Engine).
>>
>> -John
>> (who once crashed a simulated CF-100)
>
>In Flight Emergency
>

[Tim Mara]

glider hours are nearly impossible to validate, especially in the US, you
can only rely on how well the records were kept and trust the owners to
properly keep records. I know most European gliders I've seen have had quite
elaborate record keeping as they should be.......here....not so
much......the good thing is that you really can't do much to wear out a
glider by flying unless you're pounding it on the ridge, racing and running
redline airspeeds in rough conditions or aerobatics..often when I see
comments like "record setting glider" or "proven contest record" this
implies it wasn't simply driven to church on Sundays by a little old lady
school teacher..Number of launches might even be more important.
There is an Glider Hour Counter available from Winter (I have these here)
that operates off of pitot pressure input but unless this was mandated as a
required instrument we are left with relying on the accuracy and
truthfulness of the owner/operator......much like "Damage History" and
"Recorded Damage History"
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Walt Connelly" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
> time. Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
> gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
> the air frame. While people might try to inflate their personal flying
> time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
> their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
> way or another. Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
> determine the true time on an airframe? I cant think of one.
>
> Walt
>
>
>
>
> --
> Walt Connelly
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 6076 (20110427) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6076 (20110427) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Walt Connelly]

You could look at the rubber pad on the pedals. Wait....that's for
Buicks.
Look, Walt....gliders are like good looking women. You walk up and if
you mumble "Damn"....you're most of the way home. If the owner will
let you touch it, your intuition will guide you the rest of the way.
No one really gives a sinking ship on the number of hours as you can't
hide wear and tear easily.
Of course, if you're talking about Tin Cans....it's 'Buyer Beware". A
detail inspection is in order.
A bigger concern over hours would be damage history not entered into
the log books. A very small concern at that though.
Or the type of flying...ridge vs. thermals. Glider home port...inland
vs. marine air. Outside vs. inside.
The reference of a seller would be most telling.
R

Ah yes. Gliders are like good looking women. Slim and sleek with smooth, flawless skin. A great laid out, comfortable cockpit and a tail, firm and unfailing. They respond to input quickly and without hesitation. They need to be FLOWN often and well, sometimes just a pattern, or perhaps a cross country marathon. But all to often one finds that they are VERY expensive to maintain and there is always someone wanting to fly your glider, although he will never ask.

Walt

[Scott[_7_]]

On 4-27-2011 16:51, jsbrake wrote:
>> Kirk
>> (who once logged a .3 flight in a F-4 that wasn't an IFE - and it
>> included the 5 minutes of taxi time!)
>
> Okay, there's got to be a story in that! Pardon my lack of acronym-
> sense, but what is "IFE" ? (I'm thinking something Failure of
> Engine).
>
> -John
> (who once crashed a simulated CF-100)

In flight emergency???

[SF]

On Apr 26, 6:13*pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
> wrote:
> I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
> time. *Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
> gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
> the air frame. *While people might try to inflate their personal flying
> time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
> their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
> way or another. *Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
> determine the true time on an airframe? *I cant think of one.
>
> Walt
>
> --
> Walt Connelly

You cut the spar in half and count the rings.

[BruceGreeff]

Funny thing about hours and condition.

I recently sold my venerable/classic Std Cirrus.

When I purchased her there was a bit of embarrassment when it came to
hours and launches as there was no log book available for the first 12
years of her existence. So no record of flying. The owners at that
point, had estimated based on hours and launches of similar aircraft,
flown in the same club during the same period and made an educated
estimated number of hours to start their new log book off. So she had a
log showing over 2000 hours , not unusual in a 30 year old airframe.

Being a first time buyer and a gullible sort - I simply checked the
condition out very carefully, decided she was a very shiny and desirable
object and negotiated a suitable price.

A couple of years later at a regional contest one of the vintage glider
pilots drew me aside and handed over the missing logbook which he had
found in his study nearly 25 years too late. Apparently the sight of 66
- his first glass slipper - on the runway had jogged a memory...

It turns out the initial 3 owners only ever flew her for contest and
record attempts. The initial estimate of hours was completely overstated
(by nearly 1000 hours!) However - it turns out there were a number of
minor bashes and repairs that I had been blisfully unaware of.

So - log books are useful things, but condition is what really counts -
unless you are looking at metal where fatigue hours count, or wood which
is a whole different game, or are close to a time limit that has high
cost associated. For many gliders a 3000 hour inspection is not much
different from what many do as an annual. I have flown in gliders with
>15,000 hours on their log that looked and felt better than much
"newer" gliders.

On 2011/04/27 5:48 AM, Grider Pirate wrote:
> On Apr 26, 3:13 pm, Walt Connelly<Walt.Connelly.
> > wrote:
>> I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
>> time. Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
>> gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
>> the air frame. While people might try to inflate their personal flying
>> time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
>> their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
>> way or another. Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
>> determine the true time on an airframe? I cant think of one.
>>
>> Walt
>>
>> --
>> Walt Connelly
>
> In short. No. I have kept pretty accurate records since I got my
> glider, but it was 24 years old, with 5 previous owners when I got it.

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[Bruce Hoult]

On Apr 28, 12:32*pm, SF > wrote:
> On Apr 26, 6:13*pm, Walt Connelly <Walt.Connelly.
>
> > wrote:
> > I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
> > time. *Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
> > gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
> > the air frame. *While people might try to inflate their personal flying
> > time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
> > their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
> > way or another. *Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
> > determine the true time on an airframe? *I cant think of one.
>
> > Walt
>
> > --
> > Walt Connelly
>
> You cut the spar in half and count the rings.

Unfortunately, that seems to have stopped working sometime in the mid
60's but that's been hidden by Hänle's "trick", splicing on a new
series.

[Andreas Maurer]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:51:52 -0600, BobW >
wrote:


>- My understanding of 'German glass' (the glider world 'certification
>pioneers') is that early (Glasflugel & Schleicher & probably others)
>pre-carbon-ed airframes were LBA-overseen-tested to 18,000 hours, then
>(originally) certified to 1/6 of that, or the 'magic' 3,000 hours you'll
>sooner or later encounter in the glider world.

When glass glider were invented, things were a little more simple than
what you described. :)
The wings of glass gliders were (and still are) tested to destruction
in bending tests, but no large-scale load cycle tests were carried
out.
The only real long-term test article is that Janus C (carbon) wing
that is stored outside Stuttgart university and tested every couple of
years.


>As airframes/types reached
>3,000 hours, additional certification depended upon them passing detailed
>inspections with the results forwarded/blessed by the LBA in 3,000 hour
>increments. I believe some airframes have now been certified up to 12,000
>hours (Twin Grobs? LS-4's?). It'd be great if knowledgeable Europeans will see
>fit to chime in here...

Basically no need to do that - you explained the procedures perfectly
correctly.

The only "glass" glider I'm aware of that has an airframe hour limit
is the Pegase (but not based upon technical issues).

As you describe correctly, most German gliders need a thorough
inspection every 3.000 hrs (newer Schempp Hirth gliders 6.000 hrs)
which sometimes includes the replacement of certain parts (usually the
only mandatory replacements are rudder cables and release cables).

I've heard of an ASK-21 that recently passed its 24.000 hrs check.


>- 'Pure glass' gliders are necessarily 'overstrong' (i.e. designed to
>stiffness, rather than strength criteria [the latter being typical of aluminum
>and wood gliders and airplanes]), in order to demonstrate 'usefully high'
>flutter-free useable airspeeds.

.... and in contrary to aluminium the materials of a composite glider
are not fatigue critical - an aluminium structure needs to be
overengineered to extend its fatigue life, but glass, carbon or kevlar
fibre don't need this.


>Based on the above, my conclusion is potential owners of 1st-generation glass
>gliders have little to fret about in ship-life terms, at least of the plastic
>bits, regardless of whether one is purchasing from an apparent 'squirrel' or
>from Diogenes' sought-after human.

100% agree.



Cheers
Andreas

[kirk.stant]

On Apr 27, 11:51*am, jsbrake > wrote:
> > Kirk
> > (who once logged a .3 flight in a F-4 that wasn't an IFE - and it
> > included the 5 minutes of taxi time!)
>
> Okay, there's got to be a story in that! *Pardon my lack of acronym-
> sense, but what is "IFE" ? *(I'm thinking something Failure of
> Engine).
>
> -John
> (who once crashed a simulated CF-100)

Short War Story:

Clark AB, Philippines, mid 80s. Squadron was in the middle of a
sortie surge - flying a lot of 4-ship 1.5 hour sorties back to back,
simulating wartime conditions. My pilot and I got to our jet and it
wasn't ready for some reason. So the rest of the flight took off on
their scheduled time while we waited for maintenance to fix our jet,
hoping to get airborne in time to get a short sortie in before the
mandatory "land-by" time (needed to get the jets ready for the next
scheduled takeoff time...). Bottom line, jet finally gets fixed,
about 30 minutes before it had to be back in the chocks for the next
crew. We told this to the squadron, suggesting that it would be
difficult to get started, systems checked, taxi to the active (a long
way on Clark AB), fly, land, taxi in, etc and still get a useful
sortie out of it. But we were told GO!, so we did. Flew exactly 12
minutes, mostly in min AB with the speed brakes out and dumping gas to
get the fuel down to a reasonable landing weight, did basically a big
looping pattern flight, and taxied back to our spot on the ramp on
time for the jet to be prepared for the next sortie. The crew chief,
not expecting us back for an hour or so, thought we had aborted prior
to taking off - until he saw that the drag chute had been deployed -
The look on his face was priceless!

So, we logged a .3 (12 minutes takeoff to landing plus 5 minutes taxi
time - AF standard), and got royally chewed out by the Ops Officer for
flying a really dumb sortie. Our excuse of "But we asked and you told
us to fly!" didn't hack it.

It was worth it, though!

Kirk
66

[Grider Pirate]

On Apr 29, 10:48*am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Apr 27, 11:51*am, jsbrake > wrote:
>
> > > Kirk
> > > (who once logged a .3 flight in a F-4 that wasn't an IFE - and it
> > > included the 5 minutes of taxi time!)
>
> > Okay, there's got to be a story in that! *Pardon my lack of acronym-
> > sense, but what is "IFE" ? *(I'm thinking something Failure of
> > Engine).
>
> > -John
> > (who once crashed a simulated CF-100)
>
> Short War Story:
>
> Clark AB, Philippines, mid 80s. *Squadron was in the middle of a
> sortie surge - *flying a lot of 4-ship 1.5 hour sorties back to back,
> simulating wartime conditions. My pilot and I got to our jet and it
> wasn't ready for some reason. *So the rest of the flight took off on
> their scheduled time while we waited for maintenance to fix our jet,
> hoping to get airborne in time to get a short sortie in before the
> mandatory "land-by" time (needed to get the jets ready for the next
> scheduled takeoff time...). *Bottom line, jet finally gets fixed,
> about 30 minutes before it had to be back in the chocks for the next
> crew. *We told this to the squadron, suggesting that it would be
> difficult to get started, systems checked, taxi to the active (a long
> way on Clark AB), fly, land, taxi in, etc and still get a useful
> sortie out of it. *But we were told GO!, so we did. *Flew exactly 12
> minutes, mostly in min AB with the speed brakes out and dumping gas to
> get the fuel down to a reasonable landing weight, did basically a big
> looping pattern flight, and taxied back to our spot on the ramp on
> time for the jet to be prepared for the next sortie. *The crew chief,
> not expecting us back for an hour or so, thought we had aborted prior
> to taking off - until he saw that the drag chute had been deployed -
> The look on his face was priceless!
>
> So, we logged a .3 (12 minutes takeoff to landing plus 5 minutes taxi
> time - AF standard), and got royally chewed out by the Ops Officer for
> flying a really dumb sortie. *Our excuse of "But we asked and you told
> us to fly!" didn't hack it.
>
> It was worth it, though!
>
> Kirk
> 66

Have a shot of the Blue Kool-Aid and say "The Air Force Made me do
it!"