Phoebus A as a first glider

[John Foster]

What are your thoughts regarding the Phoebus A as a first glider for a low-time pilot who received their training in a 2-33? I have the opportunity to acquire a Phoebus for a very good price from the club that I'm training with, but it has not flown in over 15yrs. No one knows of any obvious problems with it, but no one can say it is OK either. It does not come with a trailer.

[[email protected]]

http://phoebus.vassel.com/site_page_2511/

[John Foster]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:48:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> http://phoebus.vassel.com/site_page_2511/

Thanks for the link. That is a very insightful evaluation. I'm also interested in what others think, particularly those who have flown a Phoebus.

[Chris Rowland[_2_]]

At 03:05 13 April 2018, John Foster wrote:
>What are your thoughts regarding the Phoebus A as a first glider for a
>low-=
>time pilot who received their training in a 2-33? I have the opportunity
>t=
>o acquire a Phoebus for a very good price from the club that I'm training
>w=
>ith, but it has not flown in over 15yrs. No one knows of any obvious
>probl=
>ems with it, but no one can say it is OK either. It does not come with a
>t=
>railer.
>
I wouldn't touch a glider that hadn't been flown for 15 years almost
regardless of type or price. There are too many things that could go wrong
when you try to return it to flying condition.

Especially as the first thing you will need to do is get a trailer. Even
if you can keep it hangared this will inhibit your attempts to go cross
country because of the difficulty of getting retrieved.

At the very least don't commit to it until it has been restored to flying
condition and flown. This will increase the price but will, I think, be
well worth it.

It might make a good project for a vintage glider enthusiast.

Chris

[JD Williams]

There are things that you want to know about the Phoebus. Bruno spent about an hour on the phone with me before I bought mine. I'm happy to do the same with you. They get a bad rap which I think is undeserved, I have quite enjoyed flying mine. I also learned to fly in a 2-33, but was able to spend time in 1-26 and a Lark, both good ships to prepare for the Phoebus. I have had no issues with the transition.

The concern about returning a glider from a 15 year hiatus is valid, as is the lack of trailer.

JD at spoot us if you want to email me!

JD

[Skypilot]

Hi a John, I did the same thing with a Phoebus C. They are fairly bulletproof and easy to work on, we have given ours away for free to young pilots to build time on. They go pretty well cross country but they are are a bit of a floater, not that comfortable, have wooden wings, have gelcoat issues and a removable canopy.
Ours had dual electric varios, flarm, radio and Oudie.
I can’t help feeling that as more than 6 years have now passed and you would be better off in a more modern 15m like a Astir, libelle, cirrus, hornet, Jantar ect. All of them are old but can still be competitive in club class. With the Phoebus I think you would always be looking at the more modern glider.

Justin




On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:48:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
http://phoebus.vassel.com/site_page_2511/

Thanks for the link. That is a very insightful evaluation. I'm also interested in what others think, particularly those who have flown a Phoebus.

[Roy B.]

I had a "B" Phoebus for may years (same as the "A" but retractable gear). Handles reasonably well, climbs great, lousy penetration. Very wide span elevator which catches the spill from the dive brakes so it vibrates & rumbles with the brakes open (which can be disconcerting). Dive brake handle was very short so it was hard to modulate the brakes (I lengthened it). Removable canopy is a PITA (they all are).Elevator is big clumsy and a little hard to rig at times. Bolkow sometimes used motorcycle front wheels (with spokes removed) for the main gear (look to see if there are spoke holes in the wheel) so the wheels will not take any side load. Big all flying tail so she can be a little twitchy on tow but you will figure it out quickly. Oxygen bottle mount(on flimsy removable fiberglass tray behind pilot's head) is incredibly dangerous and simply should not be used.

If the glider is sound and inspected by a person knowledgeable about glass/balsa construction it should be OK as a first glider.

Good luck

ROY

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 11:05:26 PM UTC-4, John Foster wrote:
> ...it has not flown in over 15yrs. It does not come with a trailer.

....fiberglass and balsa wood sandwich technique

The airworthiness of this particular aircraft is the large gaping open question. Do you have an expert in this particular type who knows where to look for problems? Is it possible to find those problems with non-destructive inspection?

Have you thought about a nicely restored 1-26? Old school XC. Lots of relatively safe low speed landout practice. Easy to resell. Parts and expertise readily available. A strong community of owners. And great fun.

[[email protected]]

You know the old joke: Buy the best trailer you can afford take whatever glider is in it.
It's funny because it is true. Make sure you source a trailer before going forward.

[[email protected]]

The Phoebus has a balawood core in the wings and fuselage, so Dry storage throughout its entire history is a must! A thorough inspection should reveal any water damage, look for soft spots that reveal mushy core. One more little tid-bit, all Phoebus wings are the same, the C (17 meter) was made by gluing a 1 meter glove onto the A or B wing. ...............got a C wing in the barn waiting for anyone in need.
JJ

[John Foster]

That’s part of the reason for the post. Our mechanic (A&P) has no experience with this type of construction and wanted me to find out what the known issues were, how to check for them, and ultimately how they need to be remedied. The glider has been stored indoors in his hanger the whole time, and about 15 yrs ago he did the annual inspection on it and it hasn’t been flown or out of his shop since. To my inexperienced cursory inspection, it looks OK, without any glaring obvious problems.

[2G]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 1:20:47 PM UTC-7, John Foster wrote:
> That’s part of the reason for the post. Our mechanic (A&P) has no experience with this type of construction and wanted me to find out what the known issues were, how to check for them, and ultimately how they need to be remedied. The glider has been stored indoors in his hanger the whole time, and about 15 yrs ago he did the annual inspection on it and it hasn’t been flown or out of his shop since. To my inexperienced cursory inspection, it looks OK, without any glaring obvious problems.

I would get in touch with a fiberglass repair expert such as Rex Mayes at Williams Soaring, and get an inspection procedure. The fact that it has not been flown is irrelevant; more important are the storage conditions, which sound excellent. Look for any evidence of mold or mildew (areas of dark coloration), which would make the glider unairworthy. You will need some sort of borescope or camera to do this. Rust on the metal parts is also evidence of moisture intrusion, another deal breaker. You can inspect the wings for any delamination by tapping all surfaces with a plastic-faced hammer; good areas will have a solid high-frequency knocking sound (caused by the bond reflecting back the tapping sound energy), bad areas will have a much softer lower-frequency sound. This principal is used in aviation ultrasonic bond testers (I designed and built this equipment in my former life).

Also, you didn't mention anything about damage history. I would pass on the glider if there were any major repairs.

Good luck!

Tom

[Frank Whiteley]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 2:20:47 PM UTC-6, John Foster wrote:
> That’s part of the reason for the post. Our mechanic (A&P) has no experience with this type of construction and wanted me to find out what the known issues were, how to check for them, and ultimately how they need to be remedied. The glider has been stored indoors in his hanger the whole time, and about 15 yrs ago he did the annual inspection on it and it hasn’t been flown or out of his shop since. To my inexperienced cursory inspection, it looks OK, without any glaring obvious problems.

Try this group
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Bolkow_Phoebus_Sailplanes/info

[John Foster]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-7, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 2:20:47 PM UTC-6, John Foster wrote:
> > That’s part of the reason for the post. Our mechanic (A&P) has no experience with this type of construction and wanted me to find out what the known issues were, how to check for them, and ultimately how they need to be remedied. The glider has been stored indoors in his hanger the whole time, and about 15 yrs ago he did the annual inspection on it and it hasn’t been flown or out of his shop since. To my inexperienced cursory inspection, it looks OK, without any glaring obvious problems.
>
> Try this group
> https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Bolkow_Phoebus_Sailplanes/info

Thanks. I put in a request to join the group, but haven't heard back from them yet. As soon as I'm permitted, I'll ask over there as well. Thanks.

[John Foster]

On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 5:15:15 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Friday, April 13, 2018 at 1:20:47 PM UTC-7, John Foster wrote:
> > That’s part of the reason for the post. Our mechanic (A&P) has no experience with this type of construction and wanted me to find out what the known issues were, how to check for them, and ultimately how they need to be remedied. The glider has been stored indoors in his hanger the whole time, and about 15 yrs ago he did the annual inspection on it and it hasn’t been flown or out of his shop since. To my inexperienced cursory inspection, it looks OK, without any glaring obvious problems.
>
> I would get in touch with a fiberglass repair expert such as Rex Mayes at Williams Soaring, and get an inspection procedure. The fact that it has not been flown is irrelevant; more important are the storage conditions, which sound excellent. Look for any evidence of mold or mildew (areas of dark coloration), which would make the glider unairworthy. You will need some sort of borescope or camera to do this. Rust on the metal parts is also evidence of moisture intrusion, another deal breaker. You can inspect the wings for any delamination by tapping all surfaces with a plastic-faced hammer; good areas will have a solid high-frequency knocking sound (caused by the bond reflecting back the tapping sound energy), bad areas will have a much softer lower-frequency sound. This principal is used in aviation ultrasonic bond testers (I designed and built this equipment in my former life).
>
> Also, you didn't mention anything about damage history. I would pass on the glider if there were any major repairs.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Tom

I'll give him a call sometime. The glider seems to have been stored well, but my one question would be what would have happened during the hot summer days sitting in the attic of a hanger, and how the heat would affect the materials. Your point about rust is also a good one, as the glider is in WA state where it seems to rain a lot. It's been kept out of the rain all these years, but the humidity is still a potential issue. I'll ask Rex if he can email me something that I can forward to our mechanic/A&P that will give him more specific things to check for.

[POPS]

Phoebus, fun plane in 10 easy steps!
1. Go to phoebus.vassel as directed and read everything written on the
Phoebus, and then watch all the videos Bruno made flying the ship, you'll
get an excellent idea of its capabilities.
2. Go here: http://www.ltb-lindner.com/phoebus-ad-sb.html
Rudolph Linder was one of the original designers, his shop is now run by his
son. He will respond to emails, and you can speak with him if necessary.
Look at the AD&SB Summary, particularly as it pertains to
13 94 001 . 09 27-6 . 08 27-20. Many AI's won't even see this.
There have been virtually no AD's on this ship anyway.
3. Take the seat pan out and fill that area with lots of pillows because your
knees and legs will go here. Then remove the cubby shelf. With a utility
light, a strong flashlight, and an inspection mirror on an extendable arm at
the ready, carefully climb in there, taking care not to load up the control
rods that are under the pillows... and stuff your head right on into the area
that was the cubby shelf you took out, and where you will see all the
control rods articulating everything. It's really quite enjoyable to get
in there and play around seeing how it all works. You can get even
further in as you relax and get comfortable.. I hope you're not a 250
pounder by the way.
4. You need to take your time and inspect every rod-end
fitting in there. The ones they used back in 65 were of the exposed ball
bearing type, in other words, you can see the balls contained in the
bearing.
Sometimes there are some missing balls, you may even find some laying
down in the fuselage. Some may be frozen from corrosion or lubricant
solidification. Have the rod-end unscrewed from the rod and replaced
if there's any question. Quality replacements are not expensive.
Now go and find every single rod-end fitting on the ship.
5. Do # 4 yourself. Have a trusted/knowledgeable aircraft person go over
your work and hopefuly find nothing more if you feel lacking.
I hate to say it but aircraft inspections rarely, and I mean rarely inspect
to the bone marrow. Sad but true.
6. While you are in the "cave" check carefully that all the gussets and
stand-offs that hold things out away from the fuselage all have solid
fiberglass laminations; nothing is able to move, all is solid. Check
everywhere throughout the ship like this.
6. Polish the heck out of the wing root pins and hope they buff-out perfect
with no pitting, checking etc... otherwise the wings may be toast,
but there's a pair of C model wings out in Cal!
7. Check every moving part, every connection on that creature yourself
before an Annual is called for. Make certain you are there for that annual,
you will be amazed at what they NEVER look at, and then you will realize,
it is true, that You better know every nook and cranny of any aircraft
you ever own.
8. And then... and then.... move to the trailer and pick it apart.... rig the
whole plane with the knowlegable person that truly knows how to rig it,
not just somebody figuring it out on the fly..of course, before the annual.
Go through the logbook carefully, is it is complete? Was the plane rigged
for the annual? Got the picture?
9. Great bang for the buck them Phoebi'
10. Never ever get rushed into rushing with any of this. You buy it you own it.

Best of luck.







On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 9:48:50 PM UTC-7, wrote:
http://phoebus.vassel.com/site_page_2511/

Thanks for the link. That is a very insightful evaluation. I'm also interested in what others think, particularly those who have flown a Phoebus.

[Aaron Thomson]

I have extensive experience with Phoebus Gliders. I helped Bruno get his Phoebus A and I restored a Phoebus B. I’ve inspected 5-6 different Phoebus as pre-buy and condition inspections. I don’t have a lot of time to email or text so feel free to call! Love to talk to you!

Aaron Thomson
801-458-4885

[[email protected]]

First off, get someone who knows what they're doing to perform a thorough pre purchase inspection. Type specific experience is a plus but anyone who knows composite gliders well and is willing to look closely at everything should be able to do a fine job. This applies to any glider you're thinking about buying. The 15 year lay up wouldn't deter me from at least taking a good look at it - I've seen fairly new ships that were being flown that were awful and conversely a 20 that a club member recently bought that had also been parked for around a decade that turned out to be an absolute beauty.

The only Phoebus I've flown is a C. Weak airbrakes, but sufficient and it was easy to progressively increase the full airbrake sink rate by applying a slip if needed. General handling pretty good and fairly docile though it does tend to gently drop a wing when stalled. Or at least the C I flew had this characteristic. The drop was gentle though and the ship really needed to be very nose up to stall. The all-flying tail was perhaps a touch more sensitive than an ASW-15 but shouldn't present any difficulty to anyone who flies with any degree of smoothness. I actually found it to be nicer than Bruno Vassel did when he wrote about flying his Phoebus. High speed performance was better than I had expected too and the climb was wonderful. Removable canopies are awkward but the Phoebus has an advantage over the ASW-15 in that the latch can be locked in the open position when you need to get in whereas on the 15 you need to reach in with one hand and pull the release back and while holding it against the spring pressure you then need to lift the canopy away with your other hand. The under each rudder pedal there is a steel tube running fore and aft on which the rudder pedal assembly slides for adjustment so your feet HAVE to rest in the heel cups on the pedals and some find the cups too small. Because of the tubes you can't rest your heels on the floor like you can in most gliders. It wasn't a problem for me as I fit fine - I'm size 11. If you're size 13 and like to wear the sort of shoes John Travolta checks out in the opening sequence of Saturday Night Fever though it could be a problem"-) Rigging is easier than I had expected with the only quirky part being that, as there is no access to the aileron and airbrake connections when the wings are attached you need to connect and safety the L'Hotelliers right before you slide the wings in the last few inches. Support from Lindner (this ship has needed very little but I've had to go to them for the club Grobs) has been excellent and Lindner is owned by the designer of the Phoebus. A nice first generation glass ship and I would have been happy with a good one.

It's also a very pretty ship.

[[email protected]]

I have been thinking about the advisability of buying a 50 year old Glider and several things came to mind. There were 3, first generation ships, Diamont, Phoebus and 301 Libelle. Two of them used balsa wood wing core and the other didn't use any core at all (Diamont 16.5 & 18) and one used a wooden box spar (Phoebus). The next generation of sailplanes didn't employ any of these construction methods! The next generation (ASW-20, etc.) was built about 40% stronger after the LBA changed the strength requirements for their sailplanes. As an example, the Phoebus uses 3 layers of 4 ounce cloth in their fuselage (and wings) while the 20 uses a minimum of 3 layers (or more) of 6 ounce cloth in their fuselage. The question becomes, Is the Phoebus built strong enough? Yes, but the integrity of the wooden based box spar must not be compromised! What could compromise the integrity of the box spar? A ground loop that resulted in a split seam for a few feet. Pilot probably got out and was relieved to see the T tail still standing proud. He probably made a careful inspection, looking for any cracks and decided all's well, that end's well, right? A split seam in the box-spar can't be seen from the outside! Something else that could weaken a box-spar is wood rot, can't see that from the outside either. We know the ship has been stored in the rafters for 15 years, but how was it flown and stored before that? The ship may not be a bargain at any price!
I've been remembering the tragic crash of BG-12, that a new pilots dad had perched for his son. The kid made a high speed pass, like he'd seen the big guys do, then pulled on the flaps (probably going too fast), the inboard hinge of one flap gave way and took out the drag spar! That allowed the wing to twist and one wing departed the aircraft! Wood rot was found in the drag spar!
Buyer be ware!
JJ

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 11:29:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> I have been thinking about the advisability of buying a 50 year old Glider and several things came to mind. There were 3, first generation ships, Diamont, Phoebus and 301 Libelle. Two of them used balsa wood wing core and the other didn't use any core at all (Diamont 16.5 & 18) and one used a wooden box spar (Phoebus).

<<snippage>>>

Minor correction, JJ. The Diamant DOES use core in almost all of its skins.. It uses PVC foam, not balsa. But, it DOES use core in its skins.

Steve Leonard
Wichita, KS
N1193 (Diamant serial 12)
N11LE (Diamant serial 13)

[2G]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 9:29:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> I have been thinking about the advisability of buying a 50 year old Glider and several things came to mind. There were 3, first generation ships, Diamont, Phoebus and 301 Libelle. Two of them used balsa wood wing core and the other didn't use any core at all (Diamont 16.5 & 18) and one used a wooden box spar (Phoebus). The next generation of sailplanes didn't employ any of these construction methods! The next generation (ASW-20, etc.) was built about 40% stronger after the LBA changed the strength requirements for their sailplanes. As an example, the Phoebus uses 3 layers of 4 ounce cloth in their fuselage (and wings) while the 20 uses a minimum of 3 layers (or more) of 6 ounce cloth in their fuselage. The question becomes, Is the Phoebus built strong enough? Yes, but the integrity of the wooden based box spar must not be compromised! What could compromise the integrity of the box spar? A ground loop that resulted in a split seam for a few feet. Pilot probably got out and was relieved to see the T tail still standing proud. He probably made a careful inspection, looking for any cracks and decided all's well, that end's well, right? A split seam in the box-spar can't be seen from the outside! Something else that could weaken a box-spar is wood rot, can't see that from the outside either. We know the ship has been stored in the rafters for 15 years, but how was it flown and stored before that? The ship may not be a bargain at any price!
> I've been remembering the tragic crash of BG-12, that a new pilots dad had perched for his son. The kid made a high speed pass, like he'd seen the big guys do, then pulled on the flaps (probably going too fast), the inboard hinge of one flap gave way and took out the drag spar! That allowed the wing to twist and one wing departed the aircraft! Wood rot was found in the drag spar!
> Buyer be ware!
> JJ

When and where did the accident occur (I found 3 fatals involving BG12s, and none involved a high-speed, low-pass).

Tom

[son_of_flubber]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 12:29:56 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> ... There were 3, first generation ships, Diamont, Phoebus and 301 Libelle.

What is the spin warning/entry behavior of these first generation ships and does that matter for a new pilot?

[6PK]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 2:57:24 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 9:29:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > I have been thinking about the advisability of buying a 50 year old Glider and several things came to mind. There were 3, first generation ships, Diamont, Phoebus and 301 Libelle. Two of them used balsa wood wing core and the other didn't use any core at all (Diamont 16.5 & 18) and one used a wooden box spar (Phoebus). The next generation of sailplanes didn't employ any of these construction methods! The next generation (ASW-20, etc.) was built about 40% stronger after the LBA changed the strength requirements for their sailplanes. As an example, the Phoebus uses 3 layers of 4 ounce cloth in their fuselage (and wings) while the 20 uses a minimum of 3 layers (or more) of 6 ounce cloth in their fuselage. The question becomes, Is the Phoebus built strong enough? Yes, but the integrity of the wooden based box spar must not be compromised! What could compromise the integrity of the box spar? A ground loop that resulted in a split seam for a few feet. Pilot probably got out and was relieved to see the T tail still standing proud. He probably made a careful inspection, looking for any cracks and decided all's well, that end's well, right? A split seam in the box-spar can't be seen from the outside! Something else that could weaken a box-spar is wood rot, can't see that from the outside either. We know the ship has been stored in the rafters for 15 years, but how was it flown and stored before that? The ship may not be a bargain at any price!
> > I've been remembering the tragic crash of BG-12, that a new pilots dad had perched for his son. The kid made a high speed pass, like he'd seen the big guys do, then pulled on the flaps (probably going too fast), the inboard hinge of one flap gave way and took out the drag spar! That allowed the wing to twist and one wing departed the aircraft! Wood rot was found in the drag spar!
> > Buyer be ware!
> > JJ
>
> When and where did the accident occur (I found 3 fatals involving BG12s, and none involved a high-speed, low-pass).
>
> Tom

Unfortunately it did happen at Tehachapi, Ca

[[email protected]]

> When and where did the accident occur (I found 3 fatals involving BG12s, and none involved a high-speed, low-pass).
>
> Tom

It was several years ago at Mountain Valley Airport in Tehachapi. I remember reading about it in Soaring, but I don't remember the exact year.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:38:16 -0700, son_of_flubber wrote:

> What is the spin warning/entry behavior of these first generation ships
> and does that matter for a new pilot?
>
As someone who learnt to fly in the UK, I'd say that spin awareness and
recovery matters for every pilot, and especially for a new soloed one,
because he's likely to be a bit more ham-fisted than a more experienced
pilot. Over here you can't go solo without having demonstrated spin
recognition and recovery to your instructor and gotten his sign-off.

And, to make sure that remains a current skill, we repeat that exercise
every year, along with failed winch launch exercises, before the summer
soaring season starts. No launch failure and spin sign-offs, no solo
flying until you have them.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[[email protected]]

The accident occurred on August 26, 2000 at Mountain Valley Gliderport in Tehachapi, California and the glider was listed as a CABLE-BREIGLER BG-12BD.

Very sad.

Dan Armstrong
"DAN"

[[email protected]]

Steve,
Page 57 of the 1997 SSA Sailplane Directory says; "The 16.5 meter Diamond built by FFA was the first all glass fiber production sailplane, not using balsa or other wood sandwich between the fiberglass layers". Have you seen a core inside the 16.5 wing? The 15 meter wings were built by Glasflugel and did use balsa cores.
JJ

[2G]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 4:20:51 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> The accident occurred on August 26, 2000 at Mountain Valley Gliderport in Tehachapi, California and the glider was listed as a CABLE-BREIGLER BG-12BD.
>
> Very sad.
>
> Dan Armstrong
> "DAN"

I couldn't find it because the accident glider was a BG-12BD and that isn't an NTSB search option (a persistent problem with the NTSB search query). The NTSB found that the pilot exceeded the flap-extended speed limit (no mention was made of wood rot). Wood rot is a serious concern; I once convinced my partners in a Citabria 7KCAB to sell the plane because wood rot had been found in some aircraft and ours was tied down outside. But this can be inspected for, so it isn't a deal breaker IF a proper inspection is done.

On the subject of high-speed, low passes: I have discouraged these for a long time. Part of my rational is it encourages low time pilots to try to emulate the maneuver who may not have the skill level to pull it off. And there is not a good reason for doing it to begin with.

Tom

[2G]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 5:24:00 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 4:20:51 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > The accident occurred on August 26, 2000 at Mountain Valley Gliderport in Tehachapi, California and the glider was listed as a CABLE-BREIGLER BG-12BD.
> >
> > Very sad.
> >
> > Dan Armstrong
> > "DAN"
>
> I couldn't find it because the accident glider was a BG-12BD and that isn't an NTSB search option (a persistent problem with the NTSB search query). The NTSB found that the pilot exceeded the flap-extended speed limit (no mention was made of wood rot). Wood rot is a serious concern; I once convinced my partners in a Citabria 7KCAB to sell the plane because wood rot had been found in some aircraft and ours was tied down outside. But this can be inspected for, so it isn't a deal breaker IF a proper inspection is done.
>
> On the subject of high-speed, low passes: I have discouraged these for a long time. Part of my rational is it encourages low time pilots to try to emulate the maneuver who may not have the skill level to pull it off. And there is not a good reason for doing it to begin with.
>
> Tom

Here is the report:
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20001212X21782&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=LA

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Steve,
> Page 57 of the 1997 SSA Sailplane Directory says; "The 16.5 meter Diamond built by FFA was the first all glass fiber production sailplane, not using balsa or other wood sandwich between the fiberglass layers". Have you seen a core inside the 16.5 wing? The 15 meter wings were built by Glasflugel and did use balsa cores.
> JJ

Hi, JJ. Yes, I have seen the foam core inside the Diamant wings on several 16.5 meter variants. Also have the repair manual. Section 4 page 6 shows a cross section of the wing skin. Agree that the wings on serial 1-10 were built by Glasflugel and are balsa core. But, the 16.5 and 18 meter are foam core. The key in the statement you quoted is "...balsa or other wood sandwiched between the fiberglass layers." PVC foam isn't wood. So, the Diamant became the first "all plastic" sailplane. It used another "plastic" as its core.

Cool history collected here on the Diamants.

http://www.b2streamlines.com/FFADiamant/index.html

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

Hi Steve,
16.5 Diamond was the first "all glass fiber" produced sailplane.........poorly worded entry!
I stand corrected,
JJ

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 8:57:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 16.5 Diamond was the first "all glass fiber" produced sailplane.........poorly worded entry!
> I stand corrected,
> JJ

Lots of entries that aren't quite right. Which side do you have on that Phoebus C wing? Left or right? I have a right that is not too bad. Trailing edge of the left one is torn up from a trailer roll onto its side.

Steve Leonard

[[email protected]]

I've got a Phoebus right wing, undamaged with :20 flying time (test flight) a large spool of wire broke loose in the ship and crashed into this brand new Phoebi. Right wing is all that survived! Looks like it's an A, because the aileron (missing) goes to within a foot of the wing tip. Could be made into a C by gluing on the tip glove...........don't know if the factory added extra cloth to strengthen the C wing. The Phoebi I've worked on only had 3 layers of 92110 on their skins. Anybody know if the A wing was strengthened to make it a C?
Cheers,
JJ

[[email protected]]

I purchased a C model 2 years ago. Trained in an L23,grob103, transitioned to a grob102 and then started to fly the Phoebus. Brunos site was a huge help plus 3 people in my club that helped guide me and get prepared for flying her. 8mwas lucky that she had been refinished before I purchased her and it was done right. There are things to watch for and pay attention too not unlike other ships. As long as you aren’t well over the 225 mark and over 6’ you should be ok. I was and made it a goal to lose weight and am now under 200.
Shoot me an email if you have more questions.

Kevin

[POPS]

Here ya go, a visual on a decent enough trailer set up. Not in this setup, but the wings are often crisscrossed in the trailer with the Phoebus for some reason, which adds a little bit of monkey business when rigging and de-rigging. Pay particular attention to how the fuselage lives securely in the cradle.
Only the C model had that parachute of course, which is pretty cool... And probably fun to play around with if you're living on grassy fields, wouldn't last too long out in the Wild West.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GY4NmiJc6o


What are your thoughts regarding the Phoebus A as a first glider for a low-time pilot who received their training in a 2-33? I have the opportunity to acquire a Phoebus for a very good price from the club that I'm training with, but it has not flown in over 15yrs. No one knows of any obvious problems with it, but no one can say it is OK either. It does not come with a trailer.

[[email protected]]

Mine derigs with wings on ea side of fuse. It the airstream of glider trailers I guess but it works.

[[email protected]]

The wings are often crisscrossed on older glider trailers in general. And they frequently put the wings in tip first so you have to walk the heaviest part of the wing the longest distance. I think the old style trailers were part of a conspiracy involving osteopaths, orthopedic surgeons and physical therapists to ensure a steady of supply of patients. If you get an older ship (first or early second generation glass) you can count yourself very lucky if you get a trailer that has the fuselage go in nose first, the wings root first, left wing on the left, right wing on the right and you don't have to pull everything out to rig over top of the damn trailer tongue. You're really in clover if your trailer allows you to leave the horizontal stabilizer safely in the trailer until the wings are on!