Ventus B, Discus ect aileron connecting rod/slide lube

[[email protected]]

Hi folks, I'm in the process of installing new connecting rods in my Ventus B would like to know what everyone is using if any for the slide lube where those connecting rods like to ride. The material that the slide is made out of seems to be impervious to wear so that's good but the rods are wearing is there any thing you have found that will not collect dust and still give good wear resistance?

CH

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:
>Hi folks, I'm in the process of installing new connecting rods in my
>Ventus=
> B would like to know what everyone is using if any for the slide lube
>wher=
>e those connecting rods like to ride. The material that the slide is made
>o=
>ut of seems to be impervious to wear so that's good but the rods are
>wearin=
>g is there any thing you have found that will not collect dust and still
>gi=
>ve good wear resistance?
>
>CH
>
This is beyond pilot maintenance in EASA but 10 years or more back I had a

discus b and while the seat pan was out I decided to lub the control rod
where it passed though a white block on the starboard side .
It was a disaster,the block was nylon and it reacted to the while grease
(Vaseline) by swelling and making the controls stiff.
The Answer of course was to clean all the grease off clean the bore and we

used dry Ptfe but the real solution was not to have lubed in the first
place .
So I hope you get some sensible answers here but if you don't ask the agent

or if that fails the factory,they have always been helpful to me.

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

Believe those push-rod guides should be kept completely dry. I have seen ware at the guides caused by the push-rod banging around in the trailer. I know the LS-3a has this problem and it is best to tape the push-rod to the aft lift fitting before trailering (use the wing tape you just pulled off). Don't believe this applies to automatic control hook ups, unless you have an A model which have manual hook-ups on the ailerons.
Go Patriots!!!!
JJ

[JJ Sinclair[_2_]]

Search "ventus aileron stiff" and find Dick Jonson's thoughts on the subject, he used 2 drops of WD-40 yearly in a hole he drilled to access the problem area. He also talked about sanding the aileron gap between wing skin and aileron...............all good stuff!
RIP Dick,
JJ

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:
>Hi folks, I'm in the process of installing new connecting rods in my
>Ventus=
> B would like to know what everyone is using if any for the slide lube
>wher=
>e those connecting rods like to ride. The material that the slide is made
>o=
>ut of seems to be impervious to wear so that's good but the rods are
>wearin=
>g is there any thing you have found that will not collect dust and still
>gi=
>ve good wear resistance?
>
>CH

If Schempp Hirth thought that the rods needed a lubricate I am sure they
would have mentioned it in the service manual or instructions for replacing
the rods. I do not believe that they forgot and it is perfectly clear that
they intended that the rods should be as they originally assembled them,
lubricant free. Does that give you a clue at all on what should be used?

[HGXC[_3_]]

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:00:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:
> >Hi folks, I'm in the process of installing new connecting rods in my
> >Ventus=
> > B would like to know what everyone is using if any for the slide lube
> >wher=
> >e those connecting rods like to ride. The material that the slide is made
> >o=
> >ut of seems to be impervious to wear so that's good but the rods are
> >wearin=
> >g is there any thing you have found that will not collect dust and still
> >gi=
> >ve good wear resistance?
> >
> >CH
>
> If Schempp Hirth thought that the rods needed a lubricate I am sure they
> would have mentioned it in the service manual or instructions for replacing
> the rods. I do not believe that they forgot and it is perfectly clear that
> they intended that the rods should be as they originally assembled them,
> lubricant free. Does that give you a clue at all on what should be used?

I own a Ventus and I have mine lubed at the annual, I have the openings in the wing like Dick Johnson suggested. If Schempp Hirth didn't want this to be lubed then they would have used a different bushing when they made the glider. All gliders have short comings. The glider has been flown over 30 years and like all popular gliders over time, pilots find ways of addressing imperfections and every glider has some.

Dennis

[Alexander Swagemakers[_2_]]

I would suggest not lubricating any kind of plastic bearing. Dust will stick to the lubricant and increase wear. Depending on the lubricant used the plastic may also start swelling. You can easily make thinks a lot worse by wrong lubrication. Keeping the bearing clean and the pushroad polished is probably the best approach. If you want to use a lubricant then maybe a thin film of something on a silicon or teflon basis would be good. In any case make sure the lube is compatible to the sleeve material and will not cause swelling.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 23:52 02 February 2015, HGXC wrote:
>On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:00:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
>> At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:
>> >Hi folks, I'm in the process of installing new connecting rods in my
>> >Ventus=3D
>> > B would like to know what everyone is using if any for the slide lube
>> >wher=3D
>> >e those connecting rods like to ride. The material that the slide is
>mad=
>e
>> >o=3D
>> >ut of seems to be impervious to wear so that's good but the rods are
>> >wearin=3D
>> >g is there any thing you have found that will not collect dust and
still
>> >gi=3D
>> >ve good wear resistance?
>> >
>> >CH
>>=20
>> If Schempp Hirth thought that the rods needed a lubricate I am sure
they
>> would have mentioned it in the service manual or instructions for
>replaci=
>ng
>> the rods. I do not believe that they forgot and it is perfectly clear
>tha=
>t
>> they intended that the rods should be as they originally assembled
them,
>> lubricant free. Does that give you a clue at all on what should be
used?
>
>I own a Ventus and I have mine lubed at the annual, I have the openings
in
>=
>the wing like Dick Johnson suggested. If Schempp Hirth didn't want this
to
>=
>be lubed then they would have used a different bushing when they made the
>g=
>lider. All gliders have short comings. The glider has been flown over 30
>ye=
>ars and like all popular gliders over time, pilots find ways of
addressing
>=
>imperfections and every glider has some.
>
>Dennis

Why is it that some glider pilots feel they know better that the qualified
engineers and designers who design and build the machines they fly. Maybe
using an unapproved lubricant on material that you do not know the
composition of, which might be damaged is unwise but drilling a hole in the
structure to do it, that is stupidity of the highest order, such is life I
suppose. I doubt that the "opening" made was properly sealed to unsure that
moisture could not damage the GRP structure which is hygroscopic, my
advice. Do NOT purchase a glider owned by these people.
It is true pilots have a long history of finding incorrect ways of
addressing imperfections, proves the old maxim I suppose, if flying was
difficult engineers would do it.

[John Galloway[_1_]]

At 12:31 03 February 2015, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 23:52 02 February 2015, HGXC wrote:
>>On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:00:05 PM UTC-5, Don
Johnstone wrote:
>>> At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:
>>> >Hi folks, I'm in the process of installing new connecting rods
in my
>>> >Ventus=3D
>>> > B would like to know what everyone is using if any for the
slide lube
>>> >wher=3D
>>> >e those connecting rods like to ride. The material that the
slide is
>>mad=
>>e
>>> >o=3D
>>> >ut of seems to be impervious to wear so that's good but the
rods are
>>> >wearin=3D
>>> >g is there any thing you have found that will not collect dust
an
>still
>>> >gi=3D
>>> >ve good wear resistance?
>>> >
>>> >CH
>>>=20
>>> If Schempp Hirth thought that the rods needed a lubricate I
am sur
>they
>>> would have mentioned it in the service manual or instructions
for
>>replaci=
>>ng
>>> the rods. I do not believe that they forgot and it is perfectly
clear
>>tha=
>>t
>>> they intended that the rods should be as they originally
assemble
>them,
>>> lubricant free. Does that give you a clue at all on what should
b
>used?
>>
>>I own a Ventus and I have mine lubed at the annual, I have the
opening
>in
>>=
>>the wing like Dick Johnson suggested. If Schempp Hirth didn't
want thi
>to
>>=
>>be lubed then they would have used a different bushing when
they made the
>>g=
>>lider. All gliders have short comings. The glider has been flown
over 30
>>ye=
>>ars and like all popular gliders over time, pilots find ways o
>addressing
>>=
>>imperfections and every glider has some.
>>
>>Dennis
>
>Why is it that some glider pilots feel they know better that the
qualifie
>engineers and designers who design and build the machines they
fly. Mayb
>using an unapproved lubricant on material that you do not know th
>composition of, which might be damaged is unwise but drilling a
hole in th
>structure to do it, that is stupidity of the highest order, such is life
>suppose. I doubt that the "opening" made was properly sealed to
unsure tha
>moisture could not damage the GRP structure which is
hygroscopic, m
>advice. Do NOT purchase a glider owned by these people.
>It is true pilots have a long history of finding incorrect ways o
>addressing imperfections, proves the old maxim I suppose, if flying
wa
>difficult engineers would do it.
>
I recall corresponding with a pilot who wanted to move forward the
C of G of his GRP glider and found that there was some lead
attached to the leading edge of the rudder. He didn't know why it
was there so he removed it. Next he planned to cut holes in the
rudder and cover them with fabric. I told him that it was the mass
balance and warned him about flutter but he replied that it was OK
as the glider was "Experimental".

John Galloway

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 2/3/2015 5:31 AM, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 23:52 02 February 2015, HGXC wrote:
>> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:00:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>> At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:

<Some judicious snippage...>

>> I own a Ventus and I have mine lubed at the annual, I have the openings
> in
>> =
>> the wing like Dick Johnson suggested. If Schempp Hirth didn't want this
> to
>> =
>> be lubed then they would have used a different bushing when they made the
>> g=
>> lider. All gliders have short comings. The glider has been flown over 30
>> ye=
>> ars and like all popular gliders over time, pilots find ways of
> addressing
>> =
>> imperfections and every glider has some.
>>
>> Dennis
>
> Why is it that some glider pilots feel they know better that the qualified
> engineers and designers who design and build the machines they fly. Maybe
> using an unapproved lubricant on material that you do not know the
> composition of, which might be damaged is unwise but drilling a hole in the
> structure to do it, that is stupidity of the highest order, such is life I
> suppose. I doubt that the "opening" made was properly sealed to unsure that
> moisture could not damage the GRP structure which is hygroscopic, my
> advice. Do NOT purchase a glider owned by these people.
> It is true pilots have a long history of finding incorrect ways of
> addressing imperfections, proves the old maxim I suppose, if flying was
> difficult engineers would do it.
>

Evidently, the original question touched upon "a topic of religion." One
church believes that gliders as-received from manufacturers cannot possibly be
improved by mere humanity unassociated with the original design process (and
to attempt improvement places one in the category of the devil's spawn). The
other church believes that use-/age-related issues will inevitably appear, and
might (if not should) be reasonably addressed by subsequent owners. True - at
least in the U.S. - for sailplanes licensed with (see below) an Approved Type
Certificate or licensed Experimentally.

In my view, there's sound reasons for both views, and in an ideal world, both
can peacefully co-exist. Full disclosure: I'm a(n aerospace) degreed
(U.S.-based) engineer, but one who's convinced original designers were NOT
(all apply): all-knowing; incompetent. In other words, designers and the
design team are humans like the rest of us, though with (perhaps) some
specialized training, and (definitely) some specialized interests...again
normal human conditions.

The U.S. is fortunate to have a healthy, vibrant, amateur-built aircraft
licensing category, from which - perhaps - some cogent conclusions about this
particular religious topic may be drawn. As I type, approximately 20% of the
U.S. power, single-engine, 4-or-less seats general aviation fleet is licensed
"Experimental Amateur Built" (a presently increasing proportion), the rest
having Approved Type Certificates. Taken as a whole, the EAB category accident
frequency is (statistically and) significantly higher than the ATC category as
measured against fleet/licensing numbers. Unsurprisingly (in my view) the
percentages have a significant first-/early-flight bias (for engine/fuel and
loss of control reasons, mostly); thoughtful readers can probably make
accurate guesses why (an exercise and validation beyond the point I'm trying
to make with this post). Once beyond that bubble, EAB and ATC accident rates
are (arguably) identical. I expect (but am not certain) accident *causes* are
similar as well (when comparing similar classes of pilots/flight, e.g. Visual
Flight Rules piloting).

My conclusions:
1) "Sound airplane design practices" are not limited solely to factories and
their design teams.
2) The weakest link is generally the nut at the top of the stick.

Stated another way, pretty much every form of human design screwup/oversight
possible in general aviation flying machines (e.g. sailplanes) has been made
long, long ago, and "best practices" are pretty much available (and arguably
well known) to anyone inclined to learn from others' experiences. We're well
beyond the "secret guild stage" of aircraft structural design knowledge, and
the "smoke and mirrors" of ignorance-based myths.

That knowledge availability, along with the tendency of those geekily inclined
(most engineers, and many non-degreed people as well) is why I'm OK with
belonging to the Church of Future Improvement is Possible.

On the other hand, the World Wide Web has made it easier for everyone (e.g.
via YouTube) to easily see that Darwinism remains a potent human genealogical
force. Ignorance is potent, often more quickly than knowledge. Hence I'd never
try to convince members of the Church of Don't Mess With Factory Stuff to
change their beliefs.

Clint Eastwood was right: A man's got to know his limitations.

Further, who hasn't heard the truism: All generalizations are
false...including this one. In my view, there's at least one truism that is
NOT false: Perfection is never an option.

True in glider design, too. The trick is to know - or at lest to remain within
- one's limitations.

YMWV
Bob W.

P.S. I believe Dick Johnson was a degreed aeronautical engineer. His entire
working life was spent in the engineering field, and his extracurricular
soaring-and-sailplane-design-and-testing-related body of work was prodigious.
He likely passed on from heart failure in his mid-eighties while flying the
Ventus he owned for decades - the one in which he drilled lube access holes.
Make of all that what works for yourself!

[Dan Marotta]

Imagine: Dick Johnson and "stupid" in the same sentence. That's not
unlike hearing Derek Piggot and "lousy instructor" in the same sentence.

Nice post, Bob.

Dan

On 2/3/2015 7:15 AM, Bob Whelan wrote:
> On 2/3/2015 5:31 AM, Don Johnstone wrote:
>> At 23:52 02 February 2015, HGXC wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:00:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>>> At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:
>
> <Some judicious snippage...>
>
>>> I own a Ventus and I have mine lubed at the annual, I have the openings
>> in
>>> =
>>> the wing like Dick Johnson suggested. If Schempp Hirth didn't want this
>> to
>>> =
>>> be lubed then they would have used a different bushing when they
>>> made the
>>> g=
>>> lider. All gliders have short comings. The glider has been flown
>>> over 30
>>> ye=
>>> ars and like all popular gliders over time, pilots find ways of
>> addressing
>>> =
>>> imperfections and every glider has some.
>>>
>>> Dennis
>>
>> Why is it that some glider pilots feel they know better that the
>> qualified
>> engineers and designers who design and build the machines they fly.
>> Maybe
>> using an unapproved lubricant on material that you do not know the
>> composition of, which might be damaged is unwise but drilling a hole
>> in the
>> structure to do it, that is stupidity of the highest order, such is
>> life I
>> suppose. I doubt that the "opening" made was properly sealed to
>> unsure that
>> moisture could not damage the GRP structure which is hygroscopic, my
>> advice. Do NOT purchase a glider owned by these people.
>> It is true pilots have a long history of finding incorrect ways of
>> addressing imperfections, proves the old maxim I suppose, if flying was
>> difficult engineers would do it.
>>
>
> Evidently, the original question touched upon "a topic of religion."
> One church believes that gliders as-received from manufacturers cannot
> possibly be improved by mere humanity unassociated with the original
> design process (and to attempt improvement places one in the category
> of the devil's spawn). The other church believes that use-/age-related
> issues will inevitably appear, and might (if not should) be reasonably
> addressed by subsequent owners. True - at least in the U.S. - for
> sailplanes licensed with (see below) an Approved Type Certificate or
> licensed Experimentally.
>
> In my view, there's sound reasons for both views, and in an ideal
> world, both can peacefully co-exist. Full disclosure: I'm a(n
> aerospace) degreed (U.S.-based) engineer, but one who's convinced
> original designers were NOT (all apply): all-knowing; incompetent. In
> other words, designers and the design team are humans like the rest of
> us, though with (perhaps) some specialized training, and (definitely)
> some specialized interests...again normal human conditions.
>
> The U.S. is fortunate to have a healthy, vibrant, amateur-built
> aircraft licensing category, from which - perhaps - some cogent
> conclusions about this particular religious topic may be drawn. As I
> type, approximately 20% of the U.S. power, single-engine, 4-or-less
> seats general aviation fleet is licensed "Experimental Amateur Built"
> (a presently increasing proportion), the rest having Approved Type
> Certificates. Taken as a whole, the EAB category accident frequency is
> (statistically and) significantly higher than the ATC category as
> measured against fleet/licensing numbers. Unsurprisingly (in my view)
> the percentages have a significant first-/early-flight bias (for
> engine/fuel and loss of control reasons, mostly); thoughtful readers
> can probably make accurate guesses why (an exercise and validation
> beyond the point I'm trying to make with this post). Once beyond that
> bubble, EAB and ATC accident rates are (arguably) identical. I expect
> (but am not certain) accident *causes* are similar as well (when
> comparing similar classes of pilots/flight, e.g. Visual Flight Rules
> piloting).
>
> My conclusions:
> 1) "Sound airplane design practices" are not limited solely to
> factories and their design teams.
> 2) The weakest link is generally the nut at the top of the stick.
>
> Stated another way, pretty much every form of human design
> screwup/oversight possible in general aviation flying machines (e.g.
> sailplanes) has been made long, long ago, and "best practices" are
> pretty much available (and arguably well known) to anyone inclined to
> learn from others' experiences. We're well beyond the "secret guild
> stage" of aircraft structural design knowledge, and the "smoke and
> mirrors" of ignorance-based myths.
>
> That knowledge availability, along with the tendency of those geekily
> inclined (most engineers, and many non-degreed people as well) is why
> I'm OK with belonging to the Church of Future Improvement is Possible.
>
> On the other hand, the World Wide Web has made it easier for everyone
> (e.g. via YouTube) to easily see that Darwinism remains a potent human
> genealogical force. Ignorance is potent, often more quickly than
> knowledge. Hence I'd never try to convince members of the Church of
> Don't Mess With Factory Stuff to change their beliefs.
>
> Clint Eastwood was right: A man's got to know his limitations.
>
> Further, who hasn't heard the truism: All generalizations are
> false...including this one. In my view, there's at least one truism
> that is NOT false: Perfection is never an option.
>
> True in glider design, too. The trick is to know - or at lest to
> remain within - one's limitations.
>
> YMWV
> Bob W.
>
> P.S. I believe Dick Johnson was a degreed aeronautical engineer. His
> entire working life was spent in the engineering field, and his
> extracurricular soaring-and-sailplane-design-and-testing-related body
> of work was prodigious. He likely passed on from heart failure in his
> mid-eighties while flying the Ventus he owned for decades - the one in
> which he drilled lube access holes. Make of all that what works for
> yourself!

--
Dan Marotta

[[email protected]]

Ha ha ha lol! I love Ras. But I think everyone missed the meaning in the first post, my fault for not making it clear. The Rods tha attach to the Ventus B OUT at the aileron are a 12mm solid rod that are canted at the aileron and then go through A slide opening of just the mm or 2 wider than the rod.. This slide is probably 10" long and runs span wise in the wing and are made of some tough plastic delron or PTFE. The wear is occuring on the Stainless solid rods which I am sure the factory intended as they made them solid.. And anyone who has as much time in a ventus b asbusy I do will surely. understandhow they can be used enough to wear. So back to the original any good ideas of a dry lubricant that will help prevent wear on the rods?

[Bill D]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 7:15:37 AM UTC-7, Bob Whelan wrote:
> On 2/3/2015 5:31 AM, Don Johnstone wrote:
> > At 23:52 02 February 2015, HGXC wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:00:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
> >>> At 15:26 01 February 2015, wrote:
>
> <Some judicious snippage...>
>
> >> I own a Ventus and I have mine lubed at the annual, I have the openings
> > in
> >> =
> >> the wing like Dick Johnson suggested. If Schempp Hirth didn't want this
> > to
> >> =
> >> be lubed then they would have used a different bushing when they made the
> >> g=
> >> lider. All gliders have short comings. The glider has been flown over 30
> >> ye=
> >> ars and like all popular gliders over time, pilots find ways of
> > addressing
> >> =
> >> imperfections and every glider has some.
> >>
> >> Dennis
> >
> > Why is it that some glider pilots feel they know better that the qualified
> > engineers and designers who design and build the machines they fly. Maybe
> > using an unapproved lubricant on material that you do not know the
> > composition of, which might be damaged is unwise but drilling a hole in the
> > structure to do it, that is stupidity of the highest order, such is life I
> > suppose. I doubt that the "opening" made was properly sealed to unsure that
> > moisture could not damage the GRP structure which is hygroscopic, my
> > advice. Do NOT purchase a glider owned by these people.
> > It is true pilots have a long history of finding incorrect ways of
> > addressing imperfections, proves the old maxim I suppose, if flying was
> > difficult engineers would do it.
> >
>
> Evidently, the original question touched upon "a topic of religion." One
> church believes that gliders as-received from manufacturers cannot possibly be
> improved by mere humanity unassociated with the original design process (and
> to attempt improvement places one in the category of the devil's spawn). The
> other church believes that use-/age-related issues will inevitably appear, and
> might (if not should) be reasonably addressed by subsequent owners. True - at
> least in the U.S. - for sailplanes licensed with (see below) an Approved Type
> Certificate or licensed Experimentally.
>
> In my view, there's sound reasons for both views, and in an ideal world, both
> can peacefully co-exist. Full disclosure: I'm a(n aerospace) degreed
> (U.S.-based) engineer, but one who's convinced original designers were NOT
> (all apply): all-knowing; incompetent. In other words, designers and the
> design team are humans like the rest of us, though with (perhaps) some
> specialized training, and (definitely) some specialized interests...again
> normal human conditions.
>
> The U.S. is fortunate to have a healthy, vibrant, amateur-built aircraft
> licensing category, from which - perhaps - some cogent conclusions about this
> particular religious topic may be drawn. As I type, approximately 20% of the
> U.S. power, single-engine, 4-or-less seats general aviation fleet is licensed
> "Experimental Amateur Built" (a presently increasing proportion), the rest
> having Approved Type Certificates. Taken as a whole, the EAB category accident
> frequency is (statistically and) significantly higher than the ATC category as
> measured against fleet/licensing numbers. Unsurprisingly (in my view) the
> percentages have a significant first-/early-flight bias (for engine/fuel and
> loss of control reasons, mostly); thoughtful readers can probably make
> accurate guesses why (an exercise and validation beyond the point I'm trying
> to make with this post). Once beyond that bubble, EAB and ATC accident rates
> are (arguably) identical. I expect (but am not certain) accident *causes* are
> similar as well (when comparing similar classes of pilots/flight, e.g. Visual
> Flight Rules piloting).
>
> My conclusions:
> 1) "Sound airplane design practices" are not limited solely to factories and
> their design teams.
> 2) The weakest link is generally the nut at the top of the stick.
>
> Stated another way, pretty much every form of human design screwup/oversight
> possible in general aviation flying machines (e.g. sailplanes) has been made
> long, long ago, and "best practices" are pretty much available (and arguably
> well known) to anyone inclined to learn from others' experiences. We're well
> beyond the "secret guild stage" of aircraft structural design knowledge, and
> the "smoke and mirrors" of ignorance-based myths.
>
> That knowledge availability, along with the tendency of those geekily inclined
> (most engineers, and many non-degreed people as well) is why I'm OK with
> belonging to the Church of Future Improvement is Possible.
>
> On the other hand, the World Wide Web has made it easier for everyone (e.g.
> via YouTube) to easily see that Darwinism remains a potent human genealogical
> force. Ignorance is potent, often more quickly than knowledge. Hence I'd never
> try to convince members of the Church of Don't Mess With Factory Stuff to
> change their beliefs.
>
> Clint Eastwood was right: A man's got to know his limitations.
>
> Further, who hasn't heard the truism: All generalizations are
> false...including this one. In my view, there's at least one truism that is
> NOT false: Perfection is never an option.
>
> True in glider design, too. The trick is to know - or at lest to remain within
> - one's limitations.
>
> YMWV
> Bob W.
>
> P.S. I believe Dick Johnson was a degreed aeronautical engineer. His entire
> working life was spent in the engineering field, and his extracurricular
> soaring-and-sailplane-design-and-testing-related body of work was prodigious.
> He likely passed on from heart failure in his mid-eighties while flying the
> Ventus he owned for decades - the one in which he drilled lube access holes.
> Make of all that what works for yourself!

Yes, nice post, Bob

One thing I wonder about is the continued use of Nylon blocks as cable/pushrod fairleads since there are better engineering plastics available today. For example solid UHMWPE is stronger than Nylon and has a coefficient of friction equal to Teflon. It also seems utterly immune to ageing effects. I know a number of Homebuilt/Experimental people who use it for fairleads.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 16:36 03 February 2015, wrote:
>Ha ha ha lol! I love Ras. But I think everyone missed the meaning in the
>fi=
>rst post, my fault for not making it clear. The Rods tha attach to the
>Vent=
>us B OUT at the aileron are a 12mm solid rod that are canted at the
>aileron=
> and then go through A slide opening of just the mm or 2 wider than the
>rod=
>.. This slide is probably 10" long and runs span wise in the wing and are
>ma=
>de of some tough plastic delron or PTFE. The wear is occuring on the
>Stainl=
>ess solid rods which I am sure the factory intended as they made them
>solid=
>.. And anyone who has as much time in a ventus b asbusy I do will surely.
>un=
>derstandhow they can be used enough to wear. So back to the original any
>go=
>od ideas of a dry lubricant that will help prevent wear on the rods?

OK, I will bite, why?
>

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 16:07 03 February 2015, Dan Marotta wrote:
>Imagine: Dick Johnson and "stupid" in the same sentence. That's not
>unlike hearing Derek Piggot and "lousy instructor" in the same sentence.
>
>Nice post, Bob.
>
>Dan

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 11:36:55 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Ha ha ha lol! I love Ras. But I think everyone missed the meaning in the first post, my fault for not making it clear. The Rods that attach to the Ventus B OUT at the aileron are a 12mm solid rod that are canted at the aileron and then go through a slide opening of just a mm or 2 wider than the rod. This slide is probably 10" long and runs span wise in the wing and is made of some tough plastic Delrin or PTFE. The wear is occurring on the Stainless solid rods which I am sure the factory intended as they made them solid. And anyone who has as much time in a Ventus B as I do will surely understand how they can be used enough to wear. So back to the original, any good ideas of a dry lubricant that will help prevent wear on the rods?

My fallback on lubes like this is either LockEze or powdered graphite. LockEze is graphite in a fast flash liquid so the lube gets where it's needed.
-It does not gum
-It's dry (thus stay's clean)
-It does not (as far as I know) mess with possible future repairs (like silicone can do)
-You can get it at hardware stores, auto stores, Home Depot/Lowes, etc.

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 14:15 03 February 2015, Bob Whelan wrote:

>Evidently, the original question touched upon "a topic of religion." One
>church believes that gliders as-received from manufacturers cannot
possibly
>be
>improved by mere humanity unassociated with the original design process
>(and
>to attempt improvement places one in the category of the devil's spawn).
>The
>other church believes that use-/age-related issues will inevitably
appear,
>and
>might (if not should) be reasonably addressed by subsequent owners. True
-
>at
>least in the U.S. - for sailplanes licensed with (see below) an Approved
>Type
>Certificate or licensed Experimentally.
>
>In my view, there's sound reasons for both views, and in an ideal world,
>both
>can peacefully co-exist. Full disclosure: I'm a(n aerospace) degreed
>(U.S.-based) engineer, but one who's convinced original designers were NOT

>(all apply): all-knowing; incompetent. In other words, designers and the
>design team are humans like the rest of us, though with (perhaps) some
>specialized training, and (definitely) some specialized interests...again

>normal human conditions.
>
>The U.S. is fortunate to have a healthy, vibrant, amateur-built aircraft
>licensing category, from which - perhaps - some cogent conclusions about
>this
>particular religious topic may be drawn. As I type, approximately 20% of
>the
>U.S. power, single-engine, 4-or-less seats general aviation fleet is
>licensed
>"Experimental Amateur Built" (a presently increasing proportion), the rest

>having Approved Type Certificates. Taken as a whole, the EAB category
>accident
>frequency is (statistically and) significantly higher than the ATC
category
>as
>measured against fleet/licensing numbers. Unsurprisingly (in my view) the

>percentages have a significant first-/early-flight bias (for engine/fuel
>and
>loss of control reasons, mostly); thoughtful readers can probably make
>accurate guesses why (an exercise and validation beyond the point I'm
>trying
>to make with this post). Once beyond that bubble, EAB and ATC accident
>rates
>are (arguably) identical. I expect (but am not certain) accident *causes*
>are
>similar as well (when comparing similar classes of pilots/flight, e.g.
>Visual
>Flight Rules piloting).
>
>My conclusions:
>1) "Sound airplane design practices" are not limited solely to factories
>and
>their design teams.
>2) The weakest link is generally the nut at the top of the stick.
>
>Stated another way, pretty much every form of human design
>screwup/oversight
>possible in general aviation flying machines (e.g. sailplanes) has been
>made
>long, long ago, and "best practices" are pretty much available (and
>arguably
>well known) to anyone inclined to learn from others' experiences. We're
>well
>beyond the "secret guild stage" of aircraft structural design knowledge,
>and
>the "smoke and mirrors" of ignorance-based myths.
>
>That knowledge availability, along with the tendency of those geekily
>inclined
>(most engineers, and many non-degreed people as well) is why I'm OK with
>belonging to the Church of Future Improvement is Possible.
>
>On the other hand, the World Wide Web has made it easier for everyone
(e.g.
>
>via YouTube) to easily see that Darwinism remains a potent human
>genealogical
>force. Ignorance is potent, often more quickly than knowledge. Hence I'd
>never
>try to convince members of the Church of Don't Mess With Factory Stuff to

>change their beliefs.
>
>Clint Eastwood was right: A man's got to know his limitations.
>
>Further, who hasn't heard the truism: All generalizations are
>false...including this one. In my view, there's at least one truism that
is
>
>NOT false: Perfection is never an option.
>
>True in glider design, too. The trick is to know - or at lest to remain
>within
>- one's limitations.
>
>YMWV
>Bob W.
>
>P.S. I believe Dick Johnson was a degreed aeronautical engineer. His
entire
>
>working life was spent in the engineering field, and his extracurricular
>soaring-and-sailplane-design-and-testing-related body of work was
>prodigious.
>He likely passed on from heart failure in his mid-eighties while flying
the
>
>Ventus he owned for decades - the one in which he drilled lube access
>holes.
>Make of all that what works for yourself!

Up until today I was firmly of the opinion that EASA and their regulation
was an unnecessary imposition on gliding. I had always believed that no-one
who flew a type certified glider would make structural modifications
without consulting the type certificate holder and obtaining their approval
for a modification, I simply did not believe that anyone could be THAT
irresponsible. I seems I was wrong, which is nothing new. I suppose that
EASA is a necessary evil while there are those who think that such behavior
is acceptable. What worries me most is that these actions are taken by
people who are described as well respected and qualified engineers. It
certainly increases my understanding of the attitude of EASA to FAA
licensed engineers.
I am well aware that in the past such modifications were made to simple
wood and fabric constructed gliders, cutting and patching a hole in fabric
or indeed metal skins is a completely different matter to drilling holes in
a GRP structure, the best that can be said is that such action has not
failed, YET, or maybe not.
To say that a course of action is ok because A.N Other did it and got away
with it is not safe practice, especially when it encourages those without
knowledge to try an "inspired" fix.
If you can produce a note of compliance, a relevant AD or tech note, from
the type certificate holder I will of course take it all back.

[BobW]

On 2/3/2015 1:30 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 14:15 03 February 2015, Bob Whelan wrote:
>
<Major snip>

>> True in glider design, too. The trick is to know - or at lest to remain
>> within
>> - one's limitations.
>>
>> YMWV
>> Bob W.
>>
>> P.S. I believe Dick Johnson was a degreed aeronautical engineer. His
> entire
>>
>> working life was spent in the engineering field, and his extracurricular
>> soaring-and-sailplane-design-and-testing-related body of work was
>> prodigious.
>> He likely passed on from heart failure in his mid-eighties while flying
> the
>>
>> Ventus he owned for decades - the one in which he drilled lube access
>> holes.
>> Make of all that what works for yourself!
>
> Up until today I was firmly of the opinion that EASA and their regulation
> was an unnecessary imposition on gliding. I had always believed that no-one
> who flew a type certified glider would make structural modifications
> without consulting the type certificate holder and obtaining their approval
> for a modification, I simply did not believe that anyone could be THAT
> irresponsible. I seems I was wrong, which is nothing new. I suppose that
> EASA is a necessary evil while there are those who think that such behavior
> is acceptable. What worries me most is that these actions are taken by
> people who are described as well respected and qualified engineers. It
> certainly increases my understanding of the attitude of EASA to FAA
> licensed engineers.
> I am well aware that in the past such modifications were made to simple
> wood and fabric constructed gliders, cutting and patching a hole in fabric
> or indeed metal skins is a completely different matter to drilling holes in
> a GRP structure, the best that can be said is that such action has not
> failed, YET, or maybe not.
> To say that a course of action is ok because A.N Other did it and got away
> with it is not safe practice, especially when it encourages those without
> knowledge to try an "inspired" fix.
> If you can produce a note of compliance, a relevant AD or tech note, from
> the type certificate holder I will of course take it all back.
>

Hmmm...should I have also mentioned that - in the U.S. - it was (may still be)
quite common for early-imported, eventually ATC-ed gliders to be initially
licensed in the "Experimental - Exhibition and Racing" category, after which,
should reciprocal LBA/FAA certification eventually occur, the current owner
could choose to either retain the Exp-E&R certificate or switch the ship into
the ATC category? The switch didn't happen automatically. Left for another
discussion is the differing rights and responsibilities legally open to owners
of U.S.-licensed ships in either category...

Left for interested readers is to research Dick Johnson's 1981, S/N 29, Ventus
A's licensing category. (For the Anal Police, complain to the NTSB if you're
unhappy they weren't able to type in the correct verbiage for the ship's
certificate in their Full Narrative Report...all my experimentally licensed
sailplanes had the wording I've used above.)

Again - readers are entitled to draw their own conclusions and hold their
individual opinions. Isn't the concept of individual responsibility wonderful? :-)

Regards,
Bob W.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 3:45:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>
> Up until today I was firmly of the opinion that EASA and their regulation
> was an unnecessary imposition on gliding. I had always believed that no-one
> who flew a type certified glider would make structural modifications
> without consulting the type certificate holder and obtaining their approval
> for a modification, I simply did not believe that anyone could be THAT
> irresponsible. I seems I was wrong, which is nothing new. I suppose that
> EASA is a necessary evil while there are those who think that such behavior
> is acceptable. What worries me most is that these actions are taken by
> people who are described as well respected and qualified engineers. It
> certainly increases my understanding of the attitude of EASA to FAA
> licensed engineers.
> I am well aware that in the past such modifications were made to simple
> wood and fabric constructed gliders, cutting and patching a hole in fabric
> or indeed metal skins is a completely different matter to drilling holes in
> a GRP structure, the best that can be said is that such action has not
> failed, YET, or maybe not.
> To say that a course of action is ok because A.N Other did it and got away
> with it is not safe practice, especially when it encourages those without
> knowledge to try an "inspired" fix.
> If you can produce a note of compliance, a relevant AD or tech note, from
> the type certificate holder I will of course take it all back.

I'm not so sure what Mr Johnson did would fall into the category of some really bad action as the writer above seems to imply.
The maintenance and repair manuals required as part of instructions for continued airworthiness specify various levels of damage and how they are to be handled. Come small holes commonly can be taped over, at least temporarily. It is quite possible the hole Mr Johnson described falls in that range. As as aero engineer by degree, he certainly would have made the proper judgement.
Sometimes, to get access to inner stuff to keep older gliders flying, a hole may need to be cut. Obviously it should be repaired as appropriate. In truth and composite repair is commonly easier that one in metal.
That said, Joe Winglifter should not just cut holes in stuff obviously.
EASA is an evil that is best avoided at all costs. In my view it has contributed little, if anything to our little part of the universe, yet has added much cost and aggravation to those it affects.
UH

[Dave Nadler]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 3:45:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
> I am well aware that in the past such modifications were made to simple
> wood and fabric constructed gliders, cutting and patching a hole in fabric
> or indeed metal skins is a completely different matter to drilling holes in
> a GRP structure, the best that can be said is that such action has not
> failed, YET, or maybe not.

Um, as one who owned one of these brutes, until it perished
in the great Barstow fire, I also made a hole to lubricate
the drive knuckles. OMG! Great Balls of Fire! The World will END!
Well no, the 3/32" hole is thru the fabric seal,
NOT through GRP structure. The track/follower assembly is
accessed via a factory-provided inspection plate.

Really now...

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 22:58 03 February 2015, wrote:
>On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 3:45:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>=20
>>
>> Up until today I was firmly of the opinion that EASA and their
regulation
>> was an unnecessary imposition on gliding. I had always believed that
>no-o=
>ne
>> who flew a type certified glider would make structural modifications
>> without consulting the type certificate holder and obtaining their
>approv=
>al
>> for a modification, I simply did not believe that anyone could be THAT
>> irresponsible. I seems I was wrong, which is nothing new. I suppose
that
>> EASA is a necessary evil while there are those who think that such
>behavi=
>or
>> is acceptable. What worries me most is that these actions are taken by
>> people who are described as well respected and qualified engineers. It
>> certainly increases my understanding of the attitude of EASA to FAA
>> licensed engineers.
>> I am well aware that in the past such modifications were made to simple
>> wood and fabric constructed gliders, cutting and patching a hole in
>fabri=
>c
>> or indeed metal skins is a completely different matter to drilling
holes
>=
>in
>> a GRP structure, the best that can be said is that such action has not
>> failed, YET, or maybe not.
>> To say that a course of action is ok because A.N Other did it and got
>awa=
>y
>> with it is not safe practice, especially when it encourages those
without
>> knowledge to try an "inspired" fix.
>> If you can produce a note of compliance, a relevant AD or tech note,
from
>> the type certificate holder I will of course take it all back.
>
>I'm not so sure what Mr Johnson did would fall into the category of some
>re=
>ally bad action as the writer above seems to imply.
>The maintenance and repair manuals required as part of instructions for
>con=
>tinued airworthiness specify various levels of damage and how they are to
>b=
>e handled. Come small holes commonly can be taped over, at least
>temporaril=
>y. It is quite possible the hole Mr Johnson described falls in that
range.
>=
>As as aero engineer by degree, he certainly would have made the proper
>judg=
>ement.
>Sometimes, to get access to inner stuff to keep older gliders flying, a
>hol=
>e may need to be cut. Obviously it should be repaired as appropriate. In
>tr=
>uth and composite repair is commonly easier that one in metal.
>That said, Joe Winglifter should not just cut holes in stuff obviously.
>EASA is an evil that is best avoided at all costs. In my view it has
>contri=
>buted little, if anything to our little part of the universe, yet has
>added=
> much cost and aggravation to those it affects.
>UH =20
>
You may well be right, Mr Johnson may have had the necessary skills and
knowledge to safely take action, I do not have too much of a problem with
that. What does concern me, and imho should concern all of us, that someone
with the knowledge and experience to make an informed decision may be
acceptable, but there was a suggestion or encouragement for those who do
not have that knowledge or experience to attempt to copy him. That still
does not explain why it should be necessary to apply lubricant to an item
that was designed to have none. Perhaps the best advice would be to consult
the type certificate holder for their opinion, they still make the Ventus
so that should not be a difficult task. As far as I know Schempp Hirth are
not like Friedel Weber at DG and do not charge an exorbitant price for very
little, inter alia blaming it on EASA. If the controls are stiff perhaps a
proper investigation into the cause as against treating the symptoms might
be a more responsible approach.

[Dan Marotta]

Let's not forget that manufacturers and licensing agencies don't always
get it right. If they did, we wouldn't have so many airworthiness
directives and mandatory service bulletins...


On 2/3/2015 7:12 PM, Don Johnstone wrote:
> At 22:58 03 February 2015, wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 3:45:05 PM UTC-5, Don Johnstone wrote:
>>> =20
>>>
>>> Up until today I was firmly of the opinion that EASA and their
> regulation
>>> was an unnecessary imposition on gliding. I had always believed that
>> no-o=
>> ne
>>> who flew a type certified glider would make structural modifications
>>> without consulting the type certificate holder and obtaining their
>> approv=
>> al
>>> for a modification, I simply did not believe that anyone could be THAT
>>> irresponsible. I seems I was wrong, which is nothing new. I suppose
> that
>>> EASA is a necessary evil while there are those who think that such
>> behavi=
>> or
>>> is acceptable. What worries me most is that these actions are taken by
>>> people who are described as well respected and qualified engineers. It
>>> certainly increases my understanding of the attitude of EASA to FAA
>>> licensed engineers.
>>> I am well aware that in the past such modifications were made to simple
>>> wood and fabric constructed gliders, cutting and patching a hole in
>> fabri=
>> c
>>> or indeed metal skins is a completely different matter to drilling
> holes
>> =
>> in
>>> a GRP structure, the best that can be said is that such action has not
>>> failed, YET, or maybe not.
>>> To say that a course of action is ok because A.N Other did it and got
>> awa=
>> y
>>> with it is not safe practice, especially when it encourages those
> without
>>> knowledge to try an "inspired" fix.
>>> If you can produce a note of compliance, a relevant AD or tech note,
> from
>>> the type certificate holder I will of course take it all back.
>> I'm not so sure what Mr Johnson did would fall into the category of some
>> re=
>> ally bad action as the writer above seems to imply.
>> The maintenance and repair manuals required as part of instructions for
>> con=
>> tinued airworthiness specify various levels of damage and how they are to
>> b=
>> e handled. Come small holes commonly can be taped over, at least
>> temporaril=
>> y. It is quite possible the hole Mr Johnson described falls in that
> range.
>> =
>> As as aero engineer by degree, he certainly would have made the proper
>> judg=
>> ement.
>> Sometimes, to get access to inner stuff to keep older gliders flying, a
>> hol=
>> e may need to be cut. Obviously it should be repaired as appropriate. In
>> tr=
>> uth and composite repair is commonly easier that one in metal.
>> That said, Joe Winglifter should not just cut holes in stuff obviously.
>> EASA is an evil that is best avoided at all costs. In my view it has
>> contri=
>> buted little, if anything to our little part of the universe, yet has
>> added=
>> much cost and aggravation to those it affects.
>> UH =20
>>
> You may well be right, Mr Johnson may have had the necessary skills and
> knowledge to safely take action, I do not have too much of a problem with
> that. What does concern me, and imho should concern all of us, that someone
> with the knowledge and experience to make an informed decision may be
> acceptable, but there was a suggestion or encouragement for those who do
> not have that knowledge or experience to attempt to copy him. That still
> does not explain why it should be necessary to apply lubricant to an item
> that was designed to have none. Perhaps the best advice would be to consult
> the type certificate holder for their opinion, they still make the Ventus
> so that should not be a difficult task. As far as I know Schempp Hirth are
> not like Friedel Weber at DG and do not charge an exorbitant price for very
> little, inter alia blaming it on EASA. If the controls are stiff perhaps a
> proper investigation into the cause as against treating the symptoms might
> be a more responsible approach.
>

--
Dan Marotta

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 2/4/2015 8:52 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Let's not forget that manufacturers and licensing agencies don't always get it
> right. If they did, we wouldn't have so many airworthiness directives and
> mandatory service bulletins...
>

Not to mention - in the U.S., anyway - alternative methods of compliance,
which are FAA-approved alternatives to the original FAA-issued Airworthiness
Directive and which typically come into being when people (read: [typically]
owners, repair shops, users and others with an economic interest in the
aircraft affected) feel sufficiently strongly that they convince the FAA the
original FAA-mandated fix (AD) can be accomplished in an alternative
(typically less draconian/expensive) manner (AMOC).

Ah, perfection; thou art indeed a virtue!

Ah, thread drift...

Bob W.