Cracks are bad news, right?

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

Remember the crack in the engine mount that failed and brought down the airliner? How about the B-52 that taxied onto the runway, applied full power and the left wing fell off! This all started as a crack near the spar after an air-refuling mishap. Would you fly a wood sailplane with cracks in th skin? No way, don't walk, run away from that puppy! Would you fly an aluminum ship with cracks in the skin? That old girls been rode hard and put away wet, right? Fear of cracks is in our DNA. Remember; Step on a crack and break your mothers back?

So now you find a crack in the skin of your fiberglass sailplane. Bad news, right? Actually no. Fiberglass sailplanes are covered with a thin layer of rock-hard gelcoat that was placed over a flexible structure. I remember the DG-400 at Minden, that had been flown extensively in wave conditions. It was literally covered with cracks. The wings had cord-wise cracks every half inch on both sides of both wings. This ship was flying regularly and was considered airworthy.

Yeah, but I got a crack coming from the corner of my spoiler box, is my wing going to fall off? Nope, when your wing skin was laid up in its mold, the fiberglass cloth wouldn't fit tightly into the corners and around the edges of your spoiler box, so filler and extra gelcoat was applied all around the spoiler box to allow the cloth to smoothly overlap the box. The corners of the box are stress concentration points and cracks will quite likely appear there. How deep do these cracks go? All the way through the gelcoat and filler, but they stop when they reach the fiberglass cloth because they are gelcoat cracks migrating IN from the rock-hard coating, NOT cracks in the fiberglass migrating OUT!

Once again, this is just my humble opinion, but it was formed after 40 years of grinding out your cracks and finding no structural issues.
:>) JJ

[Papa3[_2_]]

Following up on this...

From the few times I've been involved in refinishing projects, I've noticed that really bad gelcoat crazing from "normal" exposure and use/neglect (i..e. not wave flights) eventually makes its way down into the glass layer. A Grob Twin that I lead the refinish on had large areas of deep crazing, to the point where the bond between gelcoat and glass was failing (i.e chunks of gelcoat were falling off). We ground all the old gelcoat off, but what we were left with was areas where little "rivers" of epoxy had begun to chip or flake out of the glass matching the deepest gelcoat cracks. However, even under strong magnification, all you can see is that a few microns worth of epoxy is gone, but there is no evidence whatsoever of these cracks propagating further down into the matrix. Refinishing with the usual methods (Polyprimer and PPG Concept Urethane) produced a gorgeous, smooth surface.

So, JJ, my question is, have you ever felt the need to do anything "extreme" in cases where gelcoat has been badly neglected. For example, a two seater left out in the weather for years with failed gelcoat? I've heard tales of people "peeling" the outermost layer of glass and laying up a new one. Seems like a lot of work for a non-problem...



On Sunday, July 1, 2012 10:23:38 AM UTC-4, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Remember the crack in the engine mount that failed and brought down the airliner? How about the B-52 that taxied onto the runway, applied full power and the left wing fell off! This all started as a crack near the spar after an air-refuling mishap. Would you fly a wood sailplane with cracks in th skin? No way, don't walk, run away from that puppy! Would you fly an aluminum ship with cracks in the skin? That old girls been rode hard and put away wet, right? Fear of cracks is in our DNA. Remember; Step on a crack and break your mothers back?
>
> So now you find a crack in the skin of your fiberglass sailplane. Bad news, right? Actually no. Fiberglass sailplanes are covered with a thin layer of rock-hard gelcoat that was placed over a flexible structure. I remember the DG-400 at Minden, that had been flown extensively in wave conditions. It was literally covered with cracks. The wings had cord-wise cracks every half inch on both sides of both wings. This ship was flying regularly and was considered airworthy.
>
> Yeah, but I got a crack coming from the corner of my spoiler box, is my wing going to fall off? Nope, when your wing skin was laid up in its mold, the fiberglass cloth wouldn't fit tightly into the corners and around the edges of your spoiler box, so filler and extra gelcoat was applied all around the spoiler box to allow the cloth to smoothly overlap the box. The corners of the box are stress concentration points and cracks will quite likely appear there. How deep do these cracks go? All the way through the gelcoat and filler, but they stop when they reach the fiberglass cloth because they are gelcoat cracks migrating IN from the rock-hard coating, NOT cracks in the fiberglass migrating OUT!
>
> Once again, this is just my humble opinion, but it was formed after 40 years of grinding out your cracks and finding no structural issues.
> :>) JJ

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

On Sunday, July 1, 2012 7:23:38 AM UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Remember the crack in the engine mount that failed and brought down the airliner? How about the B-52 that taxied onto the runway, applied full power and the left wing fell off! This all started as a crack near the spar after an air-refuling mishap. Would you fly a wood sailplane with cracks in th skin? No way, don't walk, run away from that puppy! Would you fly an aluminum ship with cracks in the skin? That old girls been rode hard and put away wet, right? Fear of cracks is in our DNA. Remember; Step on a crack and break your mothers back?
>
> So now you find a crack in the skin of your fiberglass sailplane. Bad news, right? Actually no. Fiberglass sailplanes are covered with a thin layer of rock-hard gelcoat that was placed over a flexible structure. I remember the DG-400 at Minden, that had been flown extensively in wave conditions. It was literally covered with cracks. The wings had cord-wise cracks every half inch on both sides of both wings. This ship was flying regularly and was considered airworthy.
>
> Yeah, but I got a crack coming from the corner of my spoiler box, is my wing going to fall off? Nope, when your wing skin was laid up in its mold, the fiberglass cloth wouldn't fit tightly into the corners and around the edges of your spoiler box, so filler and extra gelcoat was applied all around the spoiler box to allow the cloth to smoothly overlap the box. The corners of the box are stress concentration points and cracks will quite likely appear there. How deep do these cracks go? All the way through the gelcoat and filler, but they stop when they reach the fiberglass cloth because they are gelcoat cracks migrating IN from the rock-hard coating, NOT cracks in the fiberglass migrating OUT!
>
> Once again, this is just my humble opinion, but it was formed after 40 years of grinding out your cracks and finding no structural issues.
> :>) JJ

Hi Papa3,
I have seen the condition you discribe where the epoxy was starting to oxidise, I brushed on a new coat of epoxy over these areas and then proceded with the re-finish.
Cheers,
JJ

[BobW]

On 7/1/2012 8:23 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Remember the crack in the engine mount that failed and brought down the
> airliner? How about the B-52 that taxied onto the runway, applied full
> power and the left wing fell off! This all started as a crack near the spar
> after an air-refuling mishap. Would you fly a wood sailplane with cracks in
> th skin? No way, don't walk, run away from that puppy! Would you fly an
> aluminum ship with cracks in the skin? That old girls been rode hard and
> put away wet, right? Fear of cracks is in our DNA. Remember; Step on a
> crack and break your mothers back?
>
> So now you find a crack in the skin of your fiberglass sailplane. Bad news,
> right? Actually no. Fiberglass sailplanes are covered with a thin layer of
> rock-hard gelcoat that was placed over a flexible structure. I remember the
> DG-400 at Minden, that had been flown extensively in wave conditions. It
> was literally covered with cracks. The wings had cord-wise cracks every
> half inch on both sides of both wings. This ship was flying regularly and
> was considered airworthy.
>
> Yeah, but I got a crack coming from the corner of my spoiler box, is my
> wing going to fall off? Nope, when your wing skin was laid up in its mold,
> the fiberglass cloth wouldn't fit tightly into the corners and around the
> edges of your spoiler box, so filler and extra gelcoat was applied all
> around the spoiler box to allow the cloth to smoothly overlap the box. The
> corners of the box are stress concentration points and cracks will quite
> likely appear there. How deep do these cracks go? All the way through the
> gelcoat and filler, but they stop when they reach the fiberglass cloth
> because they are gelcoat cracks migrating IN from the rock-hard coating,
> NOT cracks in the fiberglass migrating OUT!
>
> Once again, this is just my humble opinion, but it was formed after 40
> years of grinding out your cracks and finding no structural issues. :>) JJ
>

Thanks for bringing your "street cred" to this arena, and, for having the
intestinal fortitude offer an empirical, repair-based opinion, JJ! Even if it
gores FUD-based oxen...

FUD = Fear Uncertainty Doubt

My own aerospace-engineering-degreed opinion/conclusion mirrors yours. (FULL
DISCLOSURE: 1) I never made my living in the airplane structural-analysis
field; 2) the following discussion assumes "first generation glass" ships,
simply because they're the "floppiest" of the composite birds, due to the
relative lack of stiffness of glider-specific, structural fiberglass compared
to carbon. What follows blends critical-thinking and empirical observation,
underlain by a reasonably decent engineering understanding of the materials
involved and typical physical properties. It is a GENERAL discussion. The
devil is always in the details. YMMV, of course...)

There are LOTS of 1st-generation, non-carbon-reinforced, gliders out there in
used glider land. Likely, most have experienced gel-coat cracking at various
times in their lives, regardless of whether they originally arrived with "the
good gelcoat" or "the less-good gelcoat." Probably, by now, most have had
gelcoat cracks at some time in their lives.

The key element - as JJ noted - is the underlying structure is MUCH more
flexible than is any sprayed-in-mold gelcoat. Think chocolate-coated vinyl bar
stock. Yeah, it's an awful analogy, but you get the idea...what's underneath
will bend - without breaking - far beyond what unmelted chocolate will
withstand in its crack-free state. Want another analogy? Think plastic paint
stirring stick. How do you clean 'em once paint on 'em has dried? If you're
lazy like me, you simply bend 'em back and forth to crack the paint film, then
peel. I've never yet broken a plastic paint stirrer.

Gelcoat (or paint or any other coating atop the glider's structure) is present
for essentially 3 reasons: 1) aerodynamics (maximizing laminar flow runs
requires a smooth surface); 2) looks (few people would purchase an un-coated
composite glider even if it was the laminar equal of competitors, because to
most eyeballs, uncoated would look "unpretty"); and 3) UV protection (UV
degrades essentially everything!). Rank 'em in whatever order is important to
you...

In a nutshell, there tends to be two schools of thought concerning gel-coat
cracks. One tends to be FUD-based, one does not.

If cracks per-se concern you, then limit your future-ownership-searches only
to ships in pristine, uncracked condition. Be prepared to pay accordingly.

If you're comfortable with input such as JJ's and the thought process
underlying posts as this, your selection will be considerably larger, the
asking-price range considerably less exotic, and ship performance
little-degraded, in sport XC terms.

Dick Johnson had a saying: "Air has fingers, but no eyes." He meant exterior
looks were unimportant viz-a-viz surface smoothness, when considering ONLY
laminar flow. He also very kindly measured clean and "buggy" performance
numbers for just about every 1st-generation ship you might find for sale out
there. Number freaks - and many wannabee-XC pilots - obsess over the
differences; for all practical purposes few weekend sport pilots will ever
have the ability to detect 'em. *Discussing* numerical performance differences
is great fun, but of little real-world effect on one's ability to go XC and
have huge amounts of fun doing so.

Summarizing - the preceding mostly addresses issues arising from the relative
stiffnesses of 1st-generation-glass glider *structure* vs. that structure's
protective coating.
- - - - - -
What follows seeks to address two concerns - oft expressed - implying: 1) a
direct causal possibility that gel-coat cracks propagate directly INTO the
fiberglass, and 2) crack-enabled UV degradation is imminently life-threatening
to Joe PIC.

Some things to bear in mind: 1) ALL the structural fiberglass is 100% encased
within the resin matrix; 2) any NON-structural fiberglass is similarly
encased; 3)I've yet to hear a plausible theory for how a gelcoat crack can
propagate across the interface into the underlying (relatively
soft/non-brittle) resin substrate; 4) "all-fiberglass" composite ships don't
routinely suffer from fractured wings, regardless of gelcoat condition; 5)
cracks that don't propagate into the substrate will not allow any UV to
propagate either; 6) 1st-generation glass ships are designed to stiffness
criteria, not strength criteria.

That last is significant to the extent that 1st-generation composite glider
wings are considerably stronger than they need to be in a pure G-load sense,
simply because were they not, no one would buy the ships because their
(flutter-limited) Vne would be ridiculously/unusably low. I suspect somewhere
on YouTube is a video clip or two of German flutter tests of gliders. Even to
paid test pilots, the footage is impressive!

But back to "propagating cracks" and "the UV concern"...

Propagating cracks - Ask any experienced glider repairman how many crack
situations they've seen that they believed to have propagated DOWN/into the
structure from the gelcoat, as distinct from the other direction. If I read JJ
correctly, his answer appears to be "Zero." When I asked another well-known
western glider repairman the same question, his answer was, "Zero." Further he
knew of zero gliders relegated to the scrap heap from UV degradation...as
distinct from "refinish cost/relative value" considerations. His glider
build/repair experience then spanned nearly 3 decades.

My conclusion is the cracks you need to worry about do NOT come from routine
assembly/flight loads.

I know "UH" sometimes is on RAS, and would welcome him sharing his experience
in this matter.

UV - Pretend you know of a 1st-generation glass ship missing "huge areas" of
gelcoat atop both wings...meaning, UV CAN directly access the structure. In
time (years? decades? testing definitely required...) the structure would
degrade to where strength reduction would become measurably detectable. That
said, I've never seen such a "structure-exposed" ship since first setting eyes
on a composite sailplane in 1972.

If you happen to know of or own such a ship, simply spraying a UV barrier
would eliminate the UV issue (though the ship would still look cruddy and pay
an aerodynamic penalty from surface roughness).

My conclusion is "the UV concern" is in fact a non-issue with the slightest
application of common sense.
- - - - - -

My bottom line?

If it's good for your soul, limit yourself to, and do your best to propagate,
crack-free gliders. They ARE beautiful!!!

Meanwhile, take care of any glider you're responsible for to the best of your
ability...but don't lose sleep over gelcoat cracks you know are not directly
due to a structural overstress condition.
- - - - - -
Anecdotal tale...

Back in the early '90's my Club had a G-103A not get signed off for an annual
because the (unfamiliar with glass gliders) A&P "got nervous about all the
wing cracks." And there were LOTS of them. The small-radii leading edges had
beaucoup spanwise cracks from root to tip, and, from nose to several inches
back, on top and bottom. Both spoiler boxes had at each corner long cracks
radiating well over a foot in length. The remainder of the top surfaces had
various long, random, straight-to-arcing chordwise cracks bunched in various
spanwise locations. Both bottom surfaces, from root to nearly tip, had closely
spaced, mostly straight, chordwise cracks from nearly the leading edge to
nearly the trailing edge.

JJ explains above why spoiler box corners typically radiate cracks. The
differences between top and bottom surface chordwise cracks were likely due to
the undersurface being mostly in tension vs. compression for the top gelcoat.
The leading edge cracks were likely a result of gelcoat and filler being
thicker in that region.

The shop quoted $12K for partial gelcoat-removal/inspect/refinish of the
wings. By the time Club-labor sanded-to-inspection-depth the entire surfaces
of both wings (unsurprisingly, no "into-resin-cracks" found, anywhere), shot
on requisite, thin, pin-hole filling polyester "stuff" (I've forgotten what it
was, and we later sold that ship for one with a higher payload, despite it
getting slightly lighter due to our work), and had an auto body shop shoot
both wings with polyurethane, we had less than $4K into the refinish. Looked
great. Flew the same. Nary a crack ever showed through the polyurethane.

Again, YMMV. Written from the perspective of someone who believes information
trumps FUD...

Bob W.

[hretting]

WOW...looks like Bob is still working on that novel. Bob??? are you in prison? I'm thinking 'pet mouse'.
LOL dude, you sho no a lot of wods.
R

[John Firth]

One of the best, most informative and authorative threads
I have read; reassuring!
John F
An old, no longer bold pilot. (PIK 20E)

At 23:21 01 July 2012, BobW wrote:
>On 7/1/2012 8:23 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>> Remember the crack in the engine mount that failed and brought down the
>> airliner? How about the B-52 that taxied onto the runway, applied full
>> power and the left wing fell off! This all started as a crack near the
>spar
>> after an air-refuling mishap. Would you fly a wood sailplane with
cracks
>in
>> th skin? No way, don't walk, run away from that puppy! Would you fly an
>> aluminum ship with cracks in the skin? That old girls been rode hard
and
>> put away wet, right? Fear of cracks is in our DNA. Remember; Step on a
>> crack and break your mothers back?
>>
>> So now you find a crack in the skin of your fiberglass sailplane. Bad
>news,
>> right? Actually no. Fiberglass sailplanes are covered with a thin layer
>of
>> rock-hard gelcoat that was placed over a flexible structure. I remember
>the
>> DG-400 at Minden, that had been flown extensively in wave conditions.
It
>> was literally covered with cracks. The wings had cord-wise cracks every
>> half inch on both sides of both wings. This ship was flying regularly
and
>> was considered airworthy.
>>
>> Yeah, but I got a crack coming from the corner of my spoiler box, is my
>> wing going to fall off? Nope, when your wing skin was laid up in its
>mold,
>> the fiberglass cloth wouldn't fit tightly into the corners and around
the
>> edges of your spoiler box, so filler and extra gelcoat was applied all
>> around the spoiler box to allow the cloth to smoothly overlap the box.
>The
>> corners of the box are stress concentration points and cracks will
quite
>> likely appear there. How deep do these cracks go? All the way through
the
>> gelcoat and filler, but they stop when they reach the fiberglass cloth
>> because they are gelcoat cracks migrating IN from the rock-hard
coating,
>> NOT cracks in the fiberglass migrating OUT!
>>
>> Once again, this is just my humble opinion, but it was formed after 40
>> years of grinding out your cracks and finding no structural issues. :>)
>JJ
>>
>
>Thanks for bringing your "street cred" to this arena, and, for having the

>intestinal fortitude offer an empirical, repair-based opinion, JJ! Even
if
>it
>gores FUD-based oxen...
>
>FUD = Fear Uncertainty Doubt
>
>My own aerospace-engineering-degreed opinion/conclusion mirrors yours.
>(FULL
>DISCLOSURE: 1) I never made my living in the airplane structural-analysis

>field; 2) the following discussion assumes "first generation glass" ships,

>simply because they're the "floppiest" of the composite birds, due to the

>relative lack of stiffness of glider-specific, structural fiberglass
>compared
>to carbon. What follows blends critical-thinking and empirical
observation,
>
>underlain by a reasonably decent engineering understanding of the
materials
>
>involved and typical physical properties. It is a GENERAL discussion. The

>devil is always in the details. YMMV, of course...)
>
>There are LOTS of 1st-generation, non-carbon-reinforced, gliders out
there
>in
>used glider land. Likely, most have experienced gel-coat cracking at
>various
>times in their lives, regardless of whether they originally arrived with
>"the
>good gelcoat" or "the less-good gelcoat." Probably, by now, most have had

>gelcoat cracks at some time in their lives.
>
>The key element - as JJ noted - is the underlying structure is MUCH more
>flexible than is any sprayed-in-mold gelcoat. Think chocolate-coated
vinyl
>bar
>stock. Yeah, it's an awful analogy, but you get the idea...what's
>underneath
>will bend - without breaking - far beyond what unmelted chocolate will
>withstand in its crack-free state. Want another analogy? Think plastic
>paint
>stirring stick. How do you clean 'em once paint on 'em has dried? If
you're
>
>lazy like me, you simply bend 'em back and forth to crack the paint film,
>then
>peel. I've never yet broken a plastic paint stirrer.
>
>Gelcoat (or paint or any other coating atop the glider's structure) is
>present
>for essentially 3 reasons: 1) aerodynamics (maximizing laminar flow runs
>requires a smooth surface); 2) looks (few people would purchase an
>un-coated
>composite glider even if it was the laminar equal of competitors, because
>to
>most eyeballs, uncoated would look "unpretty"); and 3) UV protection (UV
>degrades essentially everything!). Rank 'em in whatever order is
important
>to
>you...
>
>In a nutshell, there tends to be two schools of thought concerning
gel-coat
>
>cracks. One tends to be FUD-based, one does not.
>
>If cracks per-se concern you, then limit your future-ownership-searches
>only
>to ships in pristine, uncracked condition. Be prepared to pay
accordingly.
>
>If you're comfortable with input such as JJ's and the thought process
>underlying posts as this, your selection will be considerably larger, the

>asking-price range considerably less exotic, and ship performance
>little-degraded, in sport XC terms.
>
>Dick Johnson had a saying: "Air has fingers, but no eyes." He meant
>exterior
>looks were unimportant viz-a-viz surface smoothness, when considering ONLY

>laminar flow. He also very kindly measured clean and "buggy" performance
>numbers for just about every 1st-generation ship you might find for sale
>out
>there. Number freaks - and many wannabee-XC pilots - obsess over the
>differences; for all practical purposes few weekend sport pilots will ever

>have the ability to detect 'em. *Discussing* numerical performance
>differences
>is great fun, but of little real-world effect on one's ability to go XC
and
>
>have huge amounts of fun doing so.
>
>Summarizing - the preceding mostly addresses issues arising from the
>relative
>stiffnesses of 1st-generation-glass glider *structure* vs. that
structure's
>
>protective coating.
>- - - - - -
>What follows seeks to address two concerns - oft expressed - implying: 1)
a
>
>direct causal possibility that gel-coat cracks propagate directly INTO the

>fiberglass, and 2) crack-enabled UV degradation is imminently
>life-threatening
>to Joe PIC.
>
>Some things to bear in mind: 1) ALL the structural fiberglass is 100%
>encased
>within the resin matrix; 2) any NON-structural fiberglass is similarly
>encased; 3)I've yet to hear a plausible theory for how a gelcoat crack can

>propagate across the interface into the underlying (relatively
>soft/non-brittle) resin substrate; 4) "all-fiberglass" composite ships
>don't
>routinely suffer from fractured wings, regardless of gelcoat condition; 5)

>cracks that don't propagate into the substrate will not allow any UV to
>propagate either; 6) 1st-generation glass ships are designed to stiffness

>criteria, not strength criteria.
>
>That last is significant to the extent that 1st-generation composite
glider
>
>wings are considerably stronger than they need to be in a pure G-load
>sense,
>simply because were they not, no one would buy the ships because their
>(flutter-limited) Vne would be ridiculously/unusably low. I suspect
>somewhere
>on YouTube is a video clip or two of German flutter tests of gliders.
Even
>to
>paid test pilots, the footage is impressive!
>
>But back to "propagating cracks" and "the UV concern"...
>
>Propagating cracks - Ask any experienced glider repairman how many crack
>situations they've seen that they believed to have propagated DOWN/into
the
>
>structure from the gelcoat, as distinct from the other direction. If I
read
>JJ
>correctly, his answer appears to be "Zero." When I asked another
well-known
>
>western glider repairman the same question, his answer was, "Zero."
Further
>he
>knew of zero gliders relegated to the scrap heap from UV degradation...as

>distinct from "refinish cost/relative value" considerations. His glider
>build/repair experience then spanned nearly 3 decades.
>
>My conclusion is the cracks you need to worry about do NOT come from
>routine
>assembly/flight loads.
>
>I know "UH" sometimes is on RAS, and would welcome him sharing his
>experience
>in this matter.
>
>UV - Pretend you know of a 1st-generation glass ship missing "huge areas"
>of
>gelcoat atop both wings...meaning, UV CAN directly access the structure.
In
>
>time (years? decades? testing definitely required...) the structure would

>degrade to where strength reduction would become measurably detectable.
>That
>said, I've never seen such a "structure-exposed" ship since first setting
>eyes
>on a composite sailplane in 1972.
>
>If you happen to know of or own such a ship, simply spraying a UV barrier

>would eliminate the UV issue (though the ship would still look cruddy and
>pay
>an aerodynamic penalty from surface roughness).
>
>My conclusion is "the UV concern" is in fact a non-issue with the
slightest
>
>application of common sense.
>- - - - - -
>
>My bottom line?
>
>If it's good for your soul, limit yourself to, and do your best to
>propagate,
>crack-free gliders. They ARE beautiful!!!
>
>Meanwhile, take care of any glider you're responsible for to the best of
>your
>ability...but don't lose sleep over gelcoat cracks you know are not
>directly
>due to a structural overstress condition.
>- - - - - -
>Anecdotal tale...
>
>Back in the early '90's my Club had a G-103A not get signed off for an
>annual
>because the (unfamiliar with glass gliders) A&P "got nervous about all the

>wing cracks." And there were LOTS of them. The small-radii leading edges
>had
>beaucoup spanwise cracks from root to tip, and, from nose to several
inches
>
>back, on top and bottom. Both spoiler boxes had at each corner long cracks

>radiating well over a foot in length. The remainder of the top surfaces
had
>
>various long, random, straight-to-arcing chordwise cracks bunched in
>various
>spanwise locations. Both bottom surfaces, from root to nearly tip, had
>closely
>spaced, mostly straight, chordwise cracks from nearly the leading edge to

>nearly the trailing edge.
>
>JJ explains above why spoiler box corners typically radiate cracks. The
>differences between top and bottom surface chordwise cracks were likely
due
>to
>the undersurface being mostly in tension vs. compression for the top
>gelcoat.
>The leading edge cracks were likely a result of gelcoat and filler being
>thicker in that region.
>
>The shop quoted $12K for partial gelcoat-removal/inspect/refinish of the
>wings. By the time Club-labor sanded-to-inspection-depth the entire
>surfaces
>of both wings (unsurprisingly, no "into-resin-cracks" found, anywhere),
>shot
>on requisite, thin, pin-hole filling polyester "stuff" (I've forgotten
what
>it
>was, and we later sold that ship for one with a higher payload, despite it

>getting slightly lighter due to our work), and had an auto body shop shoot

>both wings with polyurethane, we had less than $4K into the refinish.
>Looked
>great. Flew the same. Nary a crack ever showed through the polyurethane.
>
>Again, YMMV. Written from the perspective of someone who believes
>information
>trumps FUD...
>
>Bob W.
>

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

It appears that a major cause of cracks in gelcoat is the difference in the
expansion coefficient of polyester gel and epoxy resin/glass. For this
reason my club discourages the practice of taking a glider into air which
has a temperature of less than -20 deg C. Giving the airframe a cold soak
and then returning it to warmer air quicly will cause substantial cracks
but only in the gel.
Having said that the gelcoat used on the Slingsby Kestrel did not seem as
baddly effected as many other gliders. Probably the worst culprit is the
Grob 102/3


At 11:18 02 July 2012, John Firth wrote:
>One of the best, most informative and authorative threads
>I have read; reassuring!
>John F
>An old, no longer bold pilot. (PIK 20E)
>
>At 23:21 01 July 2012, BobW wrote:
>>On 7/1/2012 8:23 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>>> Remember the crack in the engine mount that failed and brought down
the
>>> airliner? How about the B-52 that taxied onto the runway, applied full
>>> power and the left wing fell off! This all started as a crack near the
>>spar
>>> after an air-refuling mishap. Would you fly a wood sailplane with
>cracks
>>in
>>> th skin? No way, don't walk, run away from that puppy! Would you fly
an
>>> aluminum ship with cracks in the skin? That old girls been rode hard
>and
>>> put away wet, right? Fear of cracks is in our DNA. Remember; Step on a
>>> crack and break your mothers back?
>>>
>>> So now you find a crack in the skin of your fiberglass sailplane. Bad
>>news,
>>> right? Actually no. Fiberglass sailplanes are covered with a thin
layer
>>of
>>> rock-hard gelcoat that was placed over a flexible structure. I
remember
>>the
>>> DG-400 at Minden, that had been flown extensively in wave conditions.
>It
>>> was literally covered with cracks. The wings had cord-wise cracks
every
>>> half inch on both sides of both wings. This ship was flying regularly
>and
>>> was considered airworthy.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but I got a crack coming from the corner of my spoiler box, is
my
>>> wing going to fall off? Nope, when your wing skin was laid up in its
>>mold,
>>> the fiberglass cloth wouldn't fit tightly into the corners and around
>the
>>> edges of your spoiler box, so filler and extra gelcoat was applied all
>>> around the spoiler box to allow the cloth to smoothly overlap the box.
>>The
>>> corners of the box are stress concentration points and cracks will
>quite
>>> likely appear there. How deep do these cracks go? All the way through
>the
>>> gelcoat and filler, but they stop when they reach the fiberglass cloth
>>> because they are gelcoat cracks migrating IN from the rock-hard
>coating,
>>> NOT cracks in the fiberglass migrating OUT!
>>>
>>> Once again, this is just my humble opinion, but it was formed after 40
>>> years of grinding out your cracks and finding no structural issues.
:>)
>>JJ
>>>
>>
>>Thanks for bringing your "street cred" to this arena, and, for having
the
>
>>intestinal fortitude offer an empirical, repair-based opinion, JJ! Even
>if
>>it
>>gores FUD-based oxen...
>>
>>FUD = Fear Uncertainty Doubt
>>
>>My own aerospace-engineering-degreed opinion/conclusion mirrors yours.
>>(FULL
>>DISCLOSURE: 1) I never made my living in the airplane
structural-analysis
>
>>field; 2) the following discussion assumes "first generation glass"
ships,
>
>>simply because they're the "floppiest" of the composite birds, due to
the
>
>>relative lack of stiffness of glider-specific, structural fiberglass
>>compared
>>to carbon. What follows blends critical-thinking and empirical
>observation,
>>
>>underlain by a reasonably decent engineering understanding of the
>materials
>>
>>involved and typical physical properties. It is a GENERAL discussion.
The
>
>>devil is always in the details. YMMV, of course...)
>>
>>There are LOTS of 1st-generation, non-carbon-reinforced, gliders out
>there
>>in
>>used glider land. Likely, most have experienced gel-coat cracking at
>>various
>>times in their lives, regardless of whether they originally arrived with
>>"the
>>good gelcoat" or "the less-good gelcoat." Probably, by now, most have
had
>
>>gelcoat cracks at some time in their lives.
>>
>>The key element - as JJ noted - is the underlying structure is MUCH more

>>flexible than is any sprayed-in-mold gelcoat. Think chocolate-coated
>vinyl
>>bar
>>stock. Yeah, it's an awful analogy, but you get the idea...what's
>>underneath
>>will bend - without breaking - far beyond what unmelted chocolate will
>>withstand in its crack-free state. Want another analogy? Think plastic
>>paint
>>stirring stick. How do you clean 'em once paint on 'em has dried? If
>you're
>>
>>lazy like me, you simply bend 'em back and forth to crack the paint
film,
>>then
>>peel. I've never yet broken a plastic paint stirrer.
>>
>>Gelcoat (or paint or any other coating atop the glider's structure) is
>>present
>>for essentially 3 reasons: 1) aerodynamics (maximizing laminar flow runs

>>requires a smooth surface); 2) looks (few people would purchase an
>>un-coated
>>composite glider even if it was the laminar equal of competitors,
because
>>to
>>most eyeballs, uncoated would look "unpretty"); and 3) UV protection (UV

>>degrades essentially everything!). Rank 'em in whatever order is
>important
>>to
>>you...
>>
>>In a nutshell, there tends to be two schools of thought concerning
>gel-coat
>>
>>cracks. One tends to be FUD-based, one does not.
>>
>>If cracks per-se concern you, then limit your future-ownership-searches
>>only
>>to ships in pristine, uncracked condition. Be prepared to pay
>accordingly.
>>
>>If you're comfortable with input such as JJ's and the thought process
>>underlying posts as this, your selection will be considerably larger,
the
>
>>asking-price range considerably less exotic, and ship performance
>>little-degraded, in sport XC terms.
>>
>>Dick Johnson had a saying: "Air has fingers, but no eyes." He meant
>>exterior
>>looks were unimportant viz-a-viz surface smoothness, when considering
ONLY
>
>>laminar flow. He also very kindly measured clean and "buggy" performance

>>numbers for just about every 1st-generation ship you might find for sale
>>out
>>there. Number freaks - and many wannabee-XC pilots - obsess over the
>>differences; for all practical purposes few weekend sport pilots will
ever
>
>>have the ability to detect 'em. *Discussing* numerical performance
>>differences
>>is great fun, but of little real-world effect on one's ability to go XC
>and
>>
>>have huge amounts of fun doing so.
>>
>>Summarizing - the preceding mostly addresses issues arising from the
>>relative
>>stiffnesses of 1st-generation-glass glider *structure* vs. that
>structure's
>>
>>protective coating.
>>- - - - - -
>>What follows seeks to address two concerns - oft expressed - implying:
1)
>a
>>
>>direct causal possibility that gel-coat cracks propagate directly INTO
the
>
>>fiberglass, and 2) crack-enabled UV degradation is imminently
>>life-threatening
>>to Joe PIC.
>>
>>Some things to bear in mind: 1) ALL the structural fiberglass is 100%
>>encased
>>within the resin matrix; 2) any NON-structural fiberglass is similarly
>>encased; 3)I've yet to hear a plausible theory for how a gelcoat crack
can
>
>>propagate across the interface into the underlying (relatively
>>soft/non-brittle) resin substrate; 4) "all-fiberglass" composite ships
>>don't
>>routinely suffer from fractured wings, regardless of gelcoat condition;
5)
>
>>cracks that don't propagate into the substrate will not allow any UV to
>>propagate either; 6) 1st-generation glass ships are designed to
stiffness
>
>>criteria, not strength criteria.
>>
>>That last is significant to the extent that 1st-generation composite
>glider
>>
>>wings are considerably stronger than they need to be in a pure G-load
>>sense,
>>simply because were they not, no one would buy the ships because their
>>(flutter-limited) Vne would be ridiculously/unusably low. I suspect
>>somewhere
>>on YouTube is a video clip or two of German flutter tests of gliders.
>Even
>>to
>>paid test pilots, the footage is impressive!
>>
>>But back to "propagating cracks" and "the UV concern"...
>>
>>Propagating cracks - Ask any experienced glider repairman how many crack

>>situations they've seen that they believed to have propagated DOWN/into
>the
>>
>>structure from the gelcoat, as distinct from the other direction. If I
>read
>>JJ
>>correctly, his answer appears to be "Zero." When I asked another
>well-known
>>
>>western glider repairman the same question, his answer was, "Zero."
>Further
>>he
>>knew of zero gliders relegated to the scrap heap from UV
degradation...as
>
>>distinct from "refinish cost/relative value" considerations. His glider
>>build/repair experience then spanned nearly 3 decades.
>>
>>My conclusion is the cracks you need to worry about do NOT come from
>>routine
>>assembly/flight loads.
>>
>>I know "UH" sometimes is on RAS, and would welcome him sharing his
>>experience
>>in this matter.
>>
>>UV - Pretend you know of a 1st-generation glass ship missing "huge
areas"
>>of
>>gelcoat atop both wings...meaning, UV CAN directly access the structure.
>In
>>
>>time (years? decades? testing definitely required...) the structure
would
>
>>degrade to where strength reduction would become measurably detectable.
>>That
>>said, I've never seen such a "structure-exposed" ship since first
setting
>>eyes
>>on a composite sailplane in 1972.
>>
>>If you happen to know of or own such a ship, simply spraying a UV
barrier
>
>>would eliminate the UV issue (though the ship would still look cruddy
and
>>pay
>>an aerodynamic penalty from surface roughness).
>>
>>My conclusion is "the UV concern" is in fact a non-issue with the
>slightest
>>
>>application of common sense.
>>- - - - - -
>>
>>My bottom line?
>>
>>If it's good for your soul, limit yourself to, and do your best to
>>propagate,
>>crack-free gliders. They ARE beautiful!!!
>>
>>Meanwhile, take care of any glider you're responsible for to the best of
>>your
>>ability...but don't lose sleep over gelcoat cracks you know are not
>>directly
>>due to a structural overstress condition.
>>- - - - - -
>>Anecdotal tale...
>>
>>Back in the early '90's my Club had a G-103A not get signed off for an
>>annual
>>because the (unfamiliar with glass gliders) A&P "got nervous about all
the
>
>>wing cracks." And there were LOTS of them. The small-radii leading edges
>>had
>>beaucoup spanwise cracks from root to tip, and, from nose to several
>inches
>>
>>back, on top and bottom. Both spoiler boxes had at each corner long
cracks
>
>>radiating well over a foot in length. The remainder of the top surfaces
>had
>>
>>various long, random, straight-to-arcing chordwise cracks bunched in
>>various
>>spanwise locations. Both bottom surfaces, from root to nearly tip, had
>>closely
>>spaced, mostly straight, chordwise cracks from nearly the leading edge
to
>
>>nearly the trailing edge.
>>
>>JJ explains above why spoiler box corners typically radiate cracks. The
>>differences between top and bottom surface chordwise cracks were likely
>due
>>to
>>the undersurface being mostly in tension vs. compression for the top
>>gelcoat.
>>The leading edge cracks were likely a result of gelcoat and filler being

>>thicker in that region.
>>
>>The shop quoted $12K for partial gelcoat-removal/inspect/refinish of the

>>wings. By the time Club-labor sanded-to-inspection-depth the entire
>>surfaces
>>of both wings (unsurprisingly, no "into-resin-cracks" found, anywhere),
>>shot
>>on requisite, thin, pin-hole filling polyester "stuff" (I've forgotten
>what
>>it
>>was, and we later sold that ship for one with a higher payload, despite
it
>
>>getting slightly lighter due to our work), and had an auto body shop
shoot
>
>>both wings with polyurethane, we had less than $4K into the refinish.
>>Looked
>>great. Flew the same. Nary a crack ever showed through the polyurethane.
>>
>>Again, YMMV. Written from the perspective of someone who believes
>>information
>>trumps FUD...
>>
>>Bob W.
>>
>
>

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, July 1, 2012 12:09:24 PM UTC-4, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> On Sunday, July 1, 2012 7:23:38 AM UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> > Remember the crack in the engine mount that failed and brought down the airliner? How about the B-52 that taxied onto the runway, applied full power and the left wing fell off! This all started as a crack near the spar after an air-refuling mishap. Would you fly a wood sailplane with cracks in th skin? No way, don't walk, run away from that puppy! Would you fly an aluminum ship with cracks in the skin? That old girls been rode hard and put away wet, right? Fear of cracks is in our DNA. Remember; Step on a crack and break your mothers back?
> >
> > So now you find a crack in the skin of your fiberglass sailplane. Bad news, right? Actually no. Fiberglass sailplanes are covered with a thin layer of rock-hard gelcoat that was placed over a flexible structure. I remember the DG-400 at Minden, that had been flown extensively in wave conditions. It was literally covered with cracks. The wings had cord-wise cracks every half inch on both sides of both wings. This ship was flying regularly and was considered airworthy.
> >
> > Yeah, but I got a crack coming from the corner of my spoiler box, is my wing going to fall off? Nope, when your wing skin was laid up in its mold, the fiberglass cloth wouldn't fit tightly into the corners and around the edges of your spoiler box, so filler and extra gelcoat was applied all around the spoiler box to allow the cloth to smoothly overlap the box. The corners of the box are stress concentration points and cracks will quite likely appear there. How deep do these cracks go? All the way through the gelcoat and filler, but they stop when they reach the fiberglass cloth because they are gelcoat cracks migrating IN from the rock-hard coating, NOT cracks in the fiberglass migrating OUT!
> >
> > Once again, this is just my humble opinion, but it was formed after 40 years of grinding out your cracks and finding no structural issues.
> > :>) JJ
>
> Hi Papa3,
> I have seen the condition you discribe where the epoxy was starting to oxidise, I brushed on a new coat of epoxy over these areas and then proceded with the re-finish.
> Cheers,
> JJ

I do this when the surface shows white lines in the epoxy. My sense is that the structure is ever so slightly compromised and won't be healing itself. I have found that this seems to stop the "imprinting" that shows up in the paint surface after the filler and paint finish curing. This "imprinting is much less evident in polyester refinishes from my experience, mostly due to much thicker finish..
I just mix a small batch of epoxy and spread it very thinly using a low power heat gun(modeller type) to reduce viscosity and help it wick into all the little defects. A little epoxy goes a very long way.
Just another input from somebody who has lots less experience than JJ.
UH

[Terry Walsh]

<"Probably the worst culprit is the
Grob 102/3>

Despite all their other reported issues Grob is famous for having one of
the more durable Gel coats Don.

Terry Walsh





At 12:26 02 July 2012, Don Johnstone wrote:
>It appears that a major cause of cracks in gelcoat is the difference in
the
>expansion coefficient of polyester gel and epoxy resin/glass. For this
>reason my club discourages the practice of taking a glider into air which
>has a temperature of less than -20 deg C. Giving the airframe a cold soak
>and then returning it to warmer air quicly will cause substantial cracks
>but only in the gel.
>Having said that the gelcoat used on the Slingsby Kestrel did not seem as
>baddly effected as many other gliders. Probably the worst culprit is the
>Grob 102/3
>
>
>At 11:18 02 July 2012, John Firth wrote:
>>One of the best, most informative and authorative threads
>>I have read; reassuring!
>>John F
>>An old, no longer bold pilot. (PIK 20E)
>>
>>At 23:21 01 July 2012, BobW wrote:
>>>On 7/1/2012 8:23 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
>>>> Remember the crack in the engine mount that failed and brought down
>the
>>>> airliner? How about the B-52 that taxied onto the runway, applied
full
>>>> power and the left wing fell off! This all started as a crack near
the
>>>spar
>>>> after an air-refuling mishap. Would you fly a wood sailplane with
>>cracks
>>>in
>>>> th skin? No way, don't walk, run away from that puppy! Would you fly
>an
>>>> aluminum ship with cracks in the skin? That old girls been rode hard
>>and
>>>> put away wet, right? Fear of cracks is in our DNA. Remember; Step on
a
>>>> crack and break your mothers back?
>>>>
>>>> So now you find a crack in the skin of your fiberglass sailplane. Bad
>>>news,
>>>> right? Actually no. Fiberglass sailplanes are covered with a thin
>layer
>>>of
>>>> rock-hard gelcoat that was placed over a flexible structure. I
>remember
>>>the
>>>> DG-400 at Minden, that had been flown extensively in wave conditions.
>>It
>>>> was literally covered with cracks. The wings had cord-wise cracks
>every
>>>> half inch on both sides of both wings. This ship was flying regularly
>>and
>>>> was considered airworthy.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but I got a crack coming from the corner of my spoiler box, is
>my
>>>> wing going to fall off? Nope, when your wing skin was laid up in its
>>>mold,
>>>> the fiberglass cloth wouldn't fit tightly into the corners and around
>>the
>>>> edges of your spoiler box, so filler and extra gelcoat was applied
all
>>>> around the spoiler box to allow the cloth to smoothly overlap the
box.
>>>The
>>>> corners of the box are stress concentration points and cracks will
>>quite
>>>> likely appear there. How deep do these cracks go? All the way through
>>the
>>>> gelcoat and filler, but they stop when they reach the fiberglass
cloth
>>>> because they are gelcoat cracks migrating IN from the rock-hard
>>coating,
>>>> NOT cracks in the fiberglass migrating OUT!
>>>>
>>>> Once again, this is just my humble opinion, but it was formed after
40
>>>> years of grinding out your cracks and finding no structural issues.
>:>)
>>>JJ
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks for bringing your "street cred" to this arena, and, for having
>the
>>
>>>intestinal fortitude offer an empirical, repair-based opinion, JJ! Even
>>if
>>>it
>>>gores FUD-based oxen...
>>>
>>>FUD = Fear Uncertainty Doubt
>>>
>>>My own aerospace-engineering-degreed opinion/conclusion mirrors yours.
>>>(FULL
>>>DISCLOSURE: 1) I never made my living in the airplane
>structural-analysis
>>
>>>field; 2) the following discussion assumes "first generation glass"
>ships,
>>
>>>simply because they're the "floppiest" of the composite birds, due to
>the
>>
>>>relative lack of stiffness of glider-specific, structural fiberglass
>>>compared
>>>to carbon. What follows blends critical-thinking and empirical
>>observation,
>>>
>>>underlain by a reasonably decent engineering understanding of the
>>materials
>>>
>>>involved and typical physical properties. It is a GENERAL discussion.
>The
>>
>>>devil is always in the details. YMMV, of course...)
>>>
>>>There are LOTS of 1st-generation, non-carbon-reinforced, gliders out
>>there
>>>in
>>>used glider land. Likely, most have experienced gel-coat cracking at
>>>various
>>>times in their lives, regardless of whether they originally arrived
with
>>>"the
>>>good gelcoat" or "the less-good gelcoat." Probably, by now, most have
>had
>>
>>>gelcoat cracks at some time in their lives.
>>>
>>>The key element - as JJ noted - is the underlying structure is MUCH
more
>
>>>flexible than is any sprayed-in-mold gelcoat. Think chocolate-coated
>>vinyl
>>>bar
>>>stock. Yeah, it's an awful analogy, but you get the idea...what's
>>>underneath
>>>will bend - without breaking - far beyond what unmelted chocolate will
>>>withstand in its crack-free state. Want another analogy? Think plastic
>>>paint
>>>stirring stick. How do you clean 'em once paint on 'em has dried? If
>>you're
>>>
>>>lazy like me, you simply bend 'em back and forth to crack the paint
>film,
>>>then
>>>peel. I've never yet broken a plastic paint stirrer.
>>>
>>>Gelcoat (or paint or any other coating atop the glider's structure) is
>>>present
>>>for essentially 3 reasons: 1) aerodynamics (maximizing laminar flow
runs
>
>>>requires a smooth surface); 2) looks (few people would purchase an
>>>un-coated
>>>composite glider even if it was the laminar equal of competitors,
>because
>>>to
>>>most eyeballs, uncoated would look "unpretty"); and 3) UV protection
(UV
>
>>>degrades essentially everything!). Rank 'em in whatever order is
>>important
>>>to
>>>you...
>>>
>>>In a nutshell, there tends to be two schools of thought concerning
>>gel-coat
>>>
>>>cracks. One tends to be FUD-based, one does not.
>>>
>>>If cracks per-se concern you, then limit your future-ownership-searches
>>>only
>>>to ships in pristine, uncracked condition. Be prepared to pay
>>accordingly.
>>>
>>>If you're comfortable with input such as JJ's and the thought process
>>>underlying posts as this, your selection will be considerably larger,
>the
>>
>>>asking-price range considerably less exotic, and ship performance
>>>little-degraded, in sport XC terms.
>>>
>>>Dick Johnson had a saying: "Air has fingers, but no eyes." He meant
>>>exterior
>>>looks were unimportant viz-a-viz surface smoothness, when considering
>ONLY
>>
>>>laminar flow. He also very kindly measured clean and "buggy"
performance
>
>>>numbers for just about every 1st-generation ship you might find for
sale
>>>out
>>>there. Number freaks - and many wannabee-XC pilots - obsess over the
>>>differences; for all practical purposes few weekend sport pilots will
>ever
>>
>>>have the ability to detect 'em. *Discussing* numerical performance
>>>differences
>>>is great fun, but of little real-world effect on one's ability to go XC
>>and
>>>
>>>have huge amounts of fun doing so.
>>>
>>>Summarizing - the preceding mostly addresses issues arising from the
>>>relative
>>>stiffnesses of 1st-generation-glass glider *structure* vs. that
>>structure's
>>>
>>>protective coating.
>>>- - - - - -
>>>What follows seeks to address two concerns - oft expressed - implying:
>1)
>>a
>>>
>>>direct causal possibility that gel-coat cracks propagate directly INTO
>the
>>
>>>fiberglass, and 2) crack-enabled UV degradation is imminently
>>>life-threatening
>>>to Joe PIC.
>>>
>>>Some things to bear in mind: 1) ALL the structural fiberglass is 100%
>>>encased
>>>within the resin matrix; 2) any NON-structural fiberglass is similarly
>>>encased; 3)I've yet to hear a plausible theory for how a gelcoat crack
>can
>>
>>>propagate across the interface into the underlying (relatively
>>>soft/non-brittle) resin substrate; 4) "all-fiberglass" composite ships
>>>don't
>>>routinely suffer from fractured wings, regardless of gelcoat condition;
>5)
>>
>>>cracks that don't propagate into the substrate will not allow any UV to

>>>propagate either; 6) 1st-generation glass ships are designed to
>stiffness
>>
>>>criteria, not strength criteria.
>>>
>>>That last is significant to the extent that 1st-generation composite
>>glider
>>>
>>>wings are considerably stronger than they need to be in a pure G-load
>>>sense,
>>>simply because were they not, no one would buy the ships because their
>>>(flutter-limited) Vne would be ridiculously/unusably low. I suspect
>>>somewhere
>>>on YouTube is a video clip or two of German flutter tests of gliders.
>>Even
>>>to
>>>paid test pilots, the footage is impressive!
>>>
>>>But back to "propagating cracks" and "the UV concern"...
>>>
>>>Propagating cracks - Ask any experienced glider repairman how many
crack
>
>>>situations they've seen that they believed to have propagated DOWN/into
>>the
>>>
>>>structure from the gelcoat, as distinct from the other direction. If I
>>read
>>>JJ
>>>correctly, his answer appears to be "Zero." When I asked another
>>well-known
>>>
>>>western glider repairman the same question, his answer was, "Zero."
>>Further
>>>he
>>>knew of zero gliders relegated to the scrap heap from UV
>degradation...as
>>
>>>distinct from "refinish cost/relative value" considerations. His glider

>>>build/repair experience then spanned nearly 3 decades.
>>>
>>>My conclusion is the cracks you need to worry about do NOT come from
>>>routine
>>>assembly/flight loads.
>>>
>>>I know "UH" sometimes is on RAS, and would welcome him sharing his
>>>experience
>>>in this matter.
>>>
>>>UV - Pretend you know of a 1st-generation glass ship missing "huge
>areas"
>>>of
>>>gelcoat atop both wings...meaning, UV CAN directly access the
structure.
>>In
>>>
>>>time (years? decades? testing definitely required...) the structure
>would
>>
>>>degrade to where strength reduction would become measurably detectable.
>>>That
>>>said, I've never seen such a "structure-exposed" ship since first
>setting
>>>eyes
>>>on a composite sailplane in 1972.
>>>
>>>If you happen to know of or own such a ship, simply spraying a UV
>barrier
>>
>>>would eliminate the UV issue (though the ship would still look cruddy
>and
>>>pay
>>>an aerodynamic penalty from surface roughness).
>>>
>>>My conclusion is "the UV concern" is in fact a non-issue with the
>>slightest
>>>
>>>application of common sense.
>>>- - - - - -
>>>
>>>My bottom line?
>>>
>>>If it's good for your soul, limit yourself to, and do your best to
>>>propagate,
>>>crack-free gliders. They ARE beautiful!!!
>>>
>>>Meanwhile, take care of any glider you're responsible for to the best
of
>>>your
>>>ability...but don't lose sleep over gelcoat cracks you know are not
>>>directly
>>>due to a structural overstress condition.
>>>- - - - - -
>>>Anecdotal tale...
>>>
>>>Back in the early '90's my Club had a G-103A not get signed off for an
>>>annual
>>>because the (unfamiliar with glass gliders) A&P "got nervous about all
>the
>>
>>>wing cracks." And there were LOTS of them. The small-radii leading
edges
>>>had
>>>beaucoup spanwise cracks from root to tip, and, from nose to several
>>inches
>>>
>>>back, on top and bottom. Both spoiler boxes had at each corner long
>cracks
>>
>>>radiating well over a foot in length. The remainder of the top surfaces
>>had
>>>
>>>various long, random, straight-to-arcing chordwise cracks bunched in
>>>various
>>>spanwise locations. Both bottom surfaces, from root to nearly tip, had
>>>closely
>>>spaced, mostly straight, chordwise cracks from nearly the leading edge
>to
>>
>>>nearly the trailing edge.
>>>
>>>JJ explains above why spoiler box corners typically radiate cracks. The

>>>differences between top and bottom surface chordwise cracks were likely
>>due
>>>to
>>>the undersurface being mostly in tension vs. compression for the top
>>>gelcoat.
>>>The leading edge cracks were likely a result of gelcoat and filler
being
>
>>>thicker in that region.
>>>
>>>The shop quoted $12K for partial gelcoat-removal/inspect/refinish of
the
>
>>>wings. By the time Club-labor sanded-to-inspection-depth the entire
>>>surfaces
>>>of both wings (unsurprisingly, no "into-resin-cracks" found, anywhere),
>>>shot
>>>on requisite, thin, pin-hole filling polyester "stuff" (I've forgotten
>>what
>>>it
>>>was, and we later sold that ship for one with a higher payload, despite
>it
>>
>>>getting slightly lighter due to our work), and had an auto body shop
>shoot
>>
>>>both wings with polyurethane, we had less than $4K into the refinish.
>>>Looked
>>>great. Flew the same. Nary a crack ever showed through the
polyurethane.
>>>
>>>Again, YMMV. Written from the perspective of someone who believes
>>>information
>>>trumps FUD...
>>>
>>>Bob W.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Grider Pirate[_2_]]

On Jul 2, 5:55*am, Terry Walsh > wrote:
> <"Probably the worst culprit is the
> Grob 102/3>
>
> Despite all their other reported issues Grob is famous for having one of
> the more durable Gel coats Don.
>
> Terry Walsh
>
> At 12:26 02 July 2012, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >It appears that a major cause of cracks in gelcoat is the difference in
> the
> >expansion coefficient of polyester gel and epoxy resin/glass. For this
> >reason my club discourages the practice of taking a glider into air which
> >has a temperature of less than -20 deg C. Giving the airframe a cold soak
> >and then returning it to warmer air quicly will cause substantial cracks
> >but only in the gel.
> >Having said that the gelcoat used on the Slingsby Kestrel did not seem as
> >baddly effected as many other gliders. Probably the worst culprit is the
> >Grob 102/3
>
> >At 11:18 02 July 2012, John Firth wrote:
> >>One of the best, most informative and authorative threads
> >>I have read; reassuring!
> >>John F
> >>An old, no longer bold pilot. (PIK 20E)
>
> >>At 23:21 01 July 2012, BobW wrote:
> >>>On 7/1/2012 8:23 AM, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> >>>> Remember the crack in the engine mount that failed and brought down
> >the
> >>>> airliner? How about the B-52 that taxied onto the runway, applied
> full
> >>>> power and the left wing fell off! This all started as a crack near
> the
> >>>spar
> >>>> after an air-refuling mishap. Would you fly a wood sailplane with
> >>cracks
> >>>in
> >>>> th skin? No way, don't walk, run away from that puppy! Would you fly
> >an
> >>>> aluminum ship with cracks in the skin? That old girls been rode hard
> >>and
> >>>> put away wet, right? Fear of cracks is in our DNA. Remember; Step on
> a
> >>>> crack and break your mothers back?
>
> >>>> So now you find a crack in the skin of your fiberglass sailplane. Bad
> >>>news,
> >>>> right? Actually no. Fiberglass sailplanes are covered with a thin
> >layer
> >>>of
> >>>> rock-hard gelcoat that was placed over a flexible structure. I
> >remember
> >>>the
> >>>> DG-400 at Minden, that had been flown extensively in wave conditions..
> >>It
> >>>> was literally covered with cracks. The wings had cord-wise cracks
> >every
> >>>> half inch on both sides of both wings. This ship was flying regularly
> >>and
> >>>> was considered airworthy.
>
> >>>> Yeah, but I got a crack coming from the corner of my spoiler box, is
> >my
> >>>> wing going to fall off? Nope, when your wing skin was laid up in its
> >>>mold,
> >>>> the fiberglass cloth wouldn't fit tightly into the corners and around
> >>the
> >>>> edges of your spoiler box, so filler and extra gelcoat was applied
> all
> >>>> around the spoiler box to allow the cloth to smoothly overlap the
> box.
> >>>The
> >>>> corners of the box are stress concentration points and cracks will
> >>quite
> >>>> likely appear there. How deep do these cracks go? All the way through
> >>the
> >>>> gelcoat and filler, but they stop when they reach the fiberglass
> cloth
> >>>> because they are gelcoat cracks migrating IN from the rock-hard
> >>coating,
> >>>> NOT cracks in the fiberglass migrating OUT!
>
> >>>> Once again, this is just my humble opinion, but it was formed after
> 40
> >>>> years of grinding out your cracks and finding no structural issues.
> >:>)
> >>>JJ
>
> >>>Thanks for bringing your "street cred" to this arena, and, for having
> >the
>
> >>>intestinal fortitude offer an empirical, repair-based opinion, JJ! Even
> >>if
> >>>it
> >>>gores FUD-based oxen...
>
> >>>FUD = Fear Uncertainty Doubt
>
> >>>My own aerospace-engineering-degreed opinion/conclusion mirrors yours.
> >>>(FULL
> >>>DISCLOSURE: 1) I never made my living in the airplane
> >structural-analysis
>
> >>>field; 2) the following discussion assumes "first generation glass"
> >ships,
>
> >>>simply because they're the "floppiest" of the composite birds, due to
> >the
>
> >>>relative lack of stiffness of glider-specific, structural fiberglass
> >>>compared
> >>>to carbon. What follows blends critical-thinking and empirical
> >>observation,
>
> >>>underlain by a reasonably decent engineering understanding of the
> >>materials
>
> >>>involved and typical physical properties. It is a GENERAL discussion.
> >The
>
> >>>devil is always in the details. YMMV, of course...)
>
> >>>There are LOTS of 1st-generation, non-carbon-reinforced, gliders out
> >>there
> >>>in
> >>>used glider land. Likely, most have experienced gel-coat cracking at
> >>>various
> >>>times in their lives, regardless of whether they originally arrived
> with
> >>>"the
> >>>good gelcoat" or "the less-good gelcoat." Probably, by now, most have
> >had
>
> >>>gelcoat cracks at some time in their lives.
>
> >>>The key element - as JJ noted - is the underlying structure is MUCH
> more
>
> >>>flexible than is any sprayed-in-mold gelcoat. Think chocolate-coated
> >>vinyl
> >>>bar
> >>>stock. Yeah, it's an awful analogy, but you get the idea...what's
> >>>underneath
> >>>will bend - without breaking - far beyond what unmelted chocolate will
> >>>withstand in its crack-free state. Want another analogy? Think plastic
> >>>paint
> >>>stirring stick. How do you clean 'em once paint on 'em has dried? If
> >>you're
>
> >>>lazy like me, you simply bend 'em back and forth to crack the paint
> >film,
> >>>then
> >>>peel. I've never yet broken a plastic paint stirrer.
>
> >>>Gelcoat (or paint or any other coating atop the glider's structure) is
> >>>present
> >>>for essentially 3 reasons: 1) aerodynamics (maximizing laminar flow
> runs
>
> >>>requires a smooth surface); 2) looks (few people would purchase an
> >>>un-coated
> >>>composite glider even if it was the laminar equal of competitors,
> >because
> >>>to
> >>>most eyeballs, uncoated would look "unpretty"); and 3) UV protection
> (UV
>
> >>>degrades essentially everything!). Rank 'em in whatever order is
> >>important
> >>>to
> >>>you...
>
> >>>In a nutshell, there tends to be two schools of thought concerning
> >>gel-coat
>
> >>>cracks. One tends to be FUD-based, one does not.
>
> >>>If cracks per-se concern you, then limit your future-ownership-searches
> >>>only
> >>>to ships in pristine, uncracked condition. Be prepared to pay
> >>accordingly.
>
> >>>If you're comfortable with input such as JJ's and the thought process
> >>>underlying posts as this, your selection will be considerably larger,
> >the
>
> >>>asking-price range considerably less exotic, and ship performance
> >>>little-degraded, in sport XC terms.
>
> >>>Dick Johnson had a saying: "Air has fingers, but no eyes." He meant
> >>>exterior
> >>>looks were unimportant viz-a-viz surface smoothness, when considering
> >ONLY
>
> >>>laminar flow. He also very kindly measured clean and "buggy"
> performance
>
> >>>numbers for just about every 1st-generation ship you might find for
> sale
> >>>out
> >>>there. Number freaks - and many wannabee-XC pilots - obsess over the
> >>>differences; for all practical purposes few weekend sport pilots will
> >ever
>
> >>>have the ability to detect 'em. *Discussing* numerical performance
> >>>differences
> >>>is great fun, but of little real-world effect on one's ability to go XC
> >>and
>
> >>>have huge amounts of fun doing so.
>
> >>>Summarizing - the preceding mostly addresses issues arising from the
> >>>relative
> >>>stiffnesses of 1st-generation-glass glider *structure* vs. that
> >>structure's
>
> >>>protective coating.
> >>>- - - - - -
> >>>What follows seeks to address two concerns - oft expressed - implying:
> >1)
> >>a
>
> >>>direct causal possibility that gel-coat cracks propagate directly INTO
> >the
>
> >>>fiberglass, and 2) crack-enabled UV degradation is imminently
> >>>life-threatening
> >>>to Joe PIC.
>
> >>>Some things to bear in mind: 1) ALL the structural fiberglass is 100%
> >>>encased
> >>>within the resin matrix; 2) any NON-structural fiberglass is similarly
> >>>encased; 3)I've yet to hear a plausible theory for how a gelcoat crack
> >can
>
> >>>propagate across the interface into the underlying (relatively
> >>>soft/non-brittle) resin substrate; 4) "all-fiberglass" composite ships
> >>>don't
> >>>routinely suffer from fractured wings, regardless of gelcoat condition;
> >5)
>
> >>>cracks that don't propagate into the substrate will not allow any UV to
> >>>propagate either; 6) 1st-generation glass ships are designed to
> >stiffness
>
> >>>criteria, not strength criteria.
>
> >>>That last is significant to the extent that 1st-generation composite
> >>glider
>
> >>>wings are considerably stronger than they need to be in a pure G-load
> >>>sense,
> >>>simply because were they not, no one would buy the ships because their
> >>>(flutter-limited) Vne would be ridiculously/unusably low. I suspect
> >>>somewhere
> >>>on YouTube is a video clip or two of German flutter tests of gliders.
> >>Even
> >>>to
> >>>paid test pilots, the footage is impressive!
>
> >>>But back to "propagating cracks" and "the UV concern"...
>
> >>>Propagating cracks - Ask any experienced glider repairman how many
> crack
>
> >>>situations they've seen that they believed to have propagated DOWN/into
> >>the
>
> >>>structure from the gelcoat, as distinct from the other direction. If I
> >>read
> >>>JJ
> >>>correctly, his answer appears to be "Zero." When I asked another
> >>well-known
>
> >>>western glider repairman the same question, his answer was, "Zero."
> >>Further
> >>>he
> >>>knew of zero gliders relegated to the scrap heap from UV
> >degradation...as
>
> >>>distinct from "refinish cost/relative value" considerations. His glider
> >>>build/repair experience then spanned nearly 3 decades.
>
> >>>My conclusion is the cracks you need to worry about do NOT come from
> >>>routine
> >>>assembly/flight loads.
>
> >>>I know "UH" sometimes is on RAS, and would welcome him sharing his
> >>>experience
> >>>in this matter.
>
> >>>UV - Pretend you know of a 1st-generation glass ship missing "huge
> >areas"
> >>>of
> >>>gelcoat atop both wings...meaning, UV CAN directly access the
> structure.
> >>In
>
> >>>time (years? decades? testing definitely required...) the structure
> >would
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yup. Grob gelcoat seems to be about the best I've seen. I'm partner
in a Janus C that had gelcoat literally blowing off of the top of the
wing. The bond had failed so completely that I didn't sand the
remaining gelcoat off, I SCRAPED/CHIPPED it off using a pnuematic
scraper (see the terrifying video on YouTube "Removing Failed Gelcoat")
(sorry, I can't provide a link right now). 5 gallons of PCL
PolyPrimer, lots of sanding, and gallons of PPG concept, followed by
more sanding and buffing. If it still looks good in 5 years, I'll
declare victory.

[Papa3[_2_]]

I suspect any reputation regarding Grob gelcoat might have to do with the fact that so many of them are tied out all year long in harsh climates. Interestingly, there was a HUGE difference in the amount of gelcoat damage on my recent Grob refinish project between the SW side (sunny side) and NE side (shady side) of the fuselage. The glider is tied outside with the left side subject to sun pretty much all day, while the right side is not. Sunny side gelcoat was crazed in all directions, while shady side crazing was limited to fine lines in the direction of the finish sanding.

P3

On Monday, July 2, 2012 10:41:14 AM UTC-4, Grider Pirate wrote:
> On Jul 2, 5:55*am, Terry Walsh > wrote:
> > <"Probably the worst culprit is the
> > Grob 102/3>
> >
> > Despite all their other reported issues Grob is famous for having one of
> > the more durable Gel coats Don.
> >
> > Terry Walsh
> >
> > At 12:26 02 July 2012, Don Johnstone wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
>> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yup. Grob gelcoat seems to be about the best I've seen. I'm partner
> in a Janus C that had gelcoat literally blowing off of the top of the
> wing. The bond had failed so completely that I didn't sand the
> remaining gelcoat off, I SCRAPED/CHIPPED it off using a pnuematic
> scraper (see the terrifying video on YouTube "Removing Failed Gelcoat")
> (sorry, I can't provide a link right now). 5 gallons of PCL
> PolyPrimer, lots of sanding, and gallons of PPG concept, followed by
> more sanding and buffing. If it still looks good in 5 years, I'll
> declare victory.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, July 2, 2012 8:58:18 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> I suspect any reputation regarding Grob gelcoat might have to do with the fact that so many of them are tied out all year long in harsh climates. Interestingly, there was a HUGE difference in the amount of gelcoat damage on my recent Grob refinish project between the SW side (sunny side) and NE side (shady side) of the fuselage. The glider is tied outside with the left side subject to sun pretty much all day, while the right side is not. Sunny side gelcoat was crazed in all directions, while shady side crazing was limited to fine lines in the direction of the finish sanding.
>
> P3
>
> BUT- If it had not originally been done in Scwhabelack it would be much worse.
Grobs surive abuse much better than most other types.
UH

[Dave Nadler]

On Sunday, July 1, 2012 7:23:38 AM UTC-7, JJ Sinclair wrote:
> Remember the crack in the engine mount that failed and brought down the airliner? How about the B-52 that taxied onto the runway, applied full power and the left wing fell off! This all started as a crack near the spar after an air-refuling mishap. Would you fly a wood sailplane with cracks in th skin? No way, don't walk, run away from that puppy! Would you fly an aluminum ship with cracks in the skin? That old girls been rode hard and put away wet, right? Fear of cracks is in our DNA. Remember; Step on a crack and break your mothers back?
>
> So now you find a crack in the skin of your fiberglass sailplane. Bad news, right? Actually no. Fiberglass sailplanes are covered with a thin layer of rock-hard gelcoat that was placed over a flexible structure. I remember the DG-400 at Minden, that had been flown extensively in wave conditions. It was literally covered with cracks. The wings had cord-wise cracks every half inch on both sides of both wings. This ship was flying regularly and was considered airworthy.
>
> Yeah, but I got a crack coming from the corner of my spoiler box, is my wing going to fall off? Nope, when your wing skin was laid up in its mold, the fiberglass cloth wouldn't fit tightly into the corners and around the edges of your spoiler box, so filler and extra gelcoat was applied all around the spoiler box to allow the cloth to smoothly overlap the box. The corners of the box are stress concentration points and cracks will quite likely appear there. How deep do these cracks go? All the way through the gelcoat and filler, but they stop when they reach the fiberglass cloth because they are gelcoat cracks migrating IN from the rock-hard coating, NOT cracks in the fiberglass migrating OUT!
>
> Once again, this is just my humble opinion, but it was formed after 40 years of grinding out your cracks and finding no structural issues.
> :>) JJ

JJ is the expert here ! And this advice is solid in
99% of cases, But....

Many years ago I started rebuilding a wreck which had
a few cracks that looked not dissimilar to the photos
that started this discussion. Unfortunately, they were
caused by a structural problem under the gelcoat - an
improper repair done years earlier (and not in the logs).
It was a LOT of work to rip out all the improper repair
mess and correct it. More work in fact than repairing
the prangage that had totaled the ship prior I bought
it from the insurance company.

Bottom line: Get somebody REALLY EXPERIENCED to look at
anything you're considering purchasing ! It could save
you a lot of money, or even more...

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 7/1/2012 7:04 PM, hretting wrote:
> WOW...looks like Bob is still working on that novel. Bob??? are you in prison? I'm thinking 'pet mouse'.
> LOL dude, you sho no a lot of wods.
> R
>

Chortle! Twitter cut me off.
BW

[Steve]

On Jul 2, 7:58*pm, Papa3 > wrote:
> I suspect any reputation regarding Grob gelcoat might have to do with the fact that so many of them are tied out all year long in harsh climates. *Interestingly, there was a HUGE difference in the amount of gelcoat damage on my recent Grob refinish project between the SW side (sunny side) and NE side (shady side) of the fuselage. * *The glider is tied outside with the left side subject to sun pretty much all day, while the right side is not. * Sunny side gelcoat was crazed in all directions, while shady side crazing was limited to fine lines in the direction of the finish sanding.
>
> P3
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, July 2, 2012 10:41:14 AM UTC-4, Grider Pirate wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 5:55*am, Terry Walsh > wrote:
> > > <"Probably the worst culprit is the
> > > Grob 102/3>
>
> > > Despite all their other reported issues Grob is famous for having one of
> > > the more durable Gel coats Don.
>
> > > Terry Walsh
>
> > > At 12:26 02 July 2012, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yup. *Grob gelcoat seems to be about the best I've seen. *I'm partner
> > in a Janus C that had gelcoat literally blowing off of the top of the
> > wing. *The bond had failed so completely that I didn't sand the
> > remaining gelcoat off, I SCRAPED/CHIPPED it off using a pnuematic
> > scraper (see the terrifying video on YouTube "Removing Failed Gelcoat")
> > (sorry, I can't provide a link right now). *5 gallons of PCL
> > PolyPrimer, lots of sanding, and gallons of PPG concept, followed by
> > more sanding and buffing. *If it still looks good in 5 years, I'll
> > declare victory.

Has anyone looked into using the vehicle wraps (3M) instead of paint?
They seem to last OK on cars, trailers and boats. Would that be a
cheaper alternative?