View Full Version : Taurus glider for sale
In the Wings and Wheels classified ads there is listed a Taurus selflaunch glider for sale.
Originally it was N797SD, sn 107T503LSA. Currently carrying a different N number and serial number, but it is the same glider.
This Taurus was involved in a hangar fire about 4 years ago in Memphis, Tn. While the flames did not reach the glider temperatures were high enough to melt the canopy Plexiglas. That is a temperature of about 325 F.
The manufacturer, Pipistrel d.o.o of Ajdovscina, Slovenia has declared this glider un-airworthy and will provide no customer support. They are shocked that it has not been destroyed and is now considered safe for flight.
Caveat Emptor
Robert Mudd Pipistrel dealer and service center.
Dan Marotta
April 17th 19, 03:14 PM
Who considers it "safe for flight", when the manufacturer says, "NO"?
On 4/17/2019 2:08 AM, wrote:
> In the Wings and Wheels classified ads there is listed a Taurus selflaunch glider for sale.
> Originally it was N797SD, sn 107T503LSA. Currently carrying a different N number and serial number, but it is the same glider.
> This Taurus was involved in a hangar fire about 4 years ago in Memphis, Tn. While the flames did not reach the glider temperatures were high enough to melt the canopy Plexiglas. That is a temperature of about 325 F.
> The manufacturer, Pipistrel d.o.o of Ajdovscina, Slovenia has declared this glider un-airworthy and will provide no customer support. They are shocked that it has not been destroyed and is now considered safe for flight.
> Caveat Emptor
> Robert Mudd Pipistrel dealer and service center.
--
Dan, 5J
In the past haven't some people paid a manufacturer for "twice baked" wings to reduce spar shrinkage?....
This one just had it done fully assembled...
Scott Williams
April 17th 19, 04:40 PM
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 3:08:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> In the Wings and Wheels classified ads there is listed a Taurus selflaunch glider for sale.
> Originally it was N797SD, sn 107T503LSA. Currently carrying a different N number and serial number, but it is the same glider.
> This Taurus was involved in a hangar fire about 4 years ago in Memphis, Tn. While the flames did not reach the glider temperatures were high enough to melt the canopy Plexiglas. That is a temperature of about 325 F.
> The manufacturer, Pipistrel d.o.o of Ajdovscina, Slovenia has declared this glider un-airworthy and will provide no customer support. They are shocked that it has not been destroyed and is now considered safe for flight.
> Caveat Emptor
> Robert Mudd Pipistrel dealer and service center.
insert 'represented' instead of "considered"?
AS
April 18th 19, 05:09 AM
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 4:08:53 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> In the Wings and Wheels classified ads there is listed a Taurus selflaunch glider for sale.
> Originally it was N797SD, sn 107T503LSA. Currently carrying a different N number and serial number, but it is the same glider.
> This Taurus was involved in a hangar fire about 4 years ago in Memphis, Tn. While the flames did not reach the glider temperatures were high enough to melt the canopy Plexiglas. That is a temperature of about 325 F.
> The manufacturer, Pipistrel d.o.o of Ajdovscina, Slovenia has declared this glider un-airworthy and will provide no customer support. They are shocked that it has not been destroyed and is now considered safe for flight.
> Caveat Emptor
> Robert Mudd Pipistrel dealer and service center.
>> Currently carrying a different N number and serial number, but it is the same glider. <<
I get the 'different N-Number' part but how can one change the serial number of an aircraft??
Uli
'AS'
Ross[_3_]
April 18th 19, 05:57 AM
That is easy enough. Ask the guys that fly the Duo Discus with the serial number SS01 in a far away country
Bob Kuykendall
April 18th 19, 07:01 PM
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:08:53 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Originally it was N797SD, sn 107T503LSA. Currently carrying a different N number and serial number...
Searching the FAA database on the N-number in the ad, I see that it reports the exact serial number you cite. So that record is straight.
As for the ad reporting the serial number as 177, that could be a simple typo on 107, which is likely the part of the serial number that represents the aircraft's position in the production sequence.
--Bob K.
AS
April 18th 19, 07:22 PM
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 2:02:01 PM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:08:53 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > Originally it was N797SD, sn 107T503LSA. Currently carrying a different N number and serial number...
>
> Searching the FAA database on the N-number in the ad, I see that it reports the exact serial number you cite. So that record is straight.
>
> As for the ad reporting the serial number as 177, that could be a simple typo on 107, which is likely the part of the serial number that represents the aircraft's position in the production sequence.
>
> --Bob K.
That makes sense - thanks, Bob!
On my glider, the serial numbers of the fuselage, three wings and tail are all different and got put together under A/C serial # 228.
Uli
'AS'
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 12:22:15 PM UTC-6, AS wrote:
> On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 2:02:01 PM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 1:08:53 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >
> > > Originally it was N797SD, sn 107T503LSA. Currently carrying a different N number and serial number...
> >
> > Searching the FAA database on the N-number in the ad, I see that it reports the exact serial number you cite. So that record is straight.
> >
> > As for the ad reporting the serial number as 177, that could be a simple typo on 107, which is likely the part of the serial number that represents the aircraft's position in the production sequence.
> >
> > --Bob K.
>
> That makes sense - thanks, Bob!
> On my glider, the serial numbers of the fuselage, three wings and tail are all different and got put together under A/C serial # 228.
>
> Uli
> 'AS'
Uli, but I believe the registration is based on your fuselage SN# . I have documents for a Libelle where the original fuselage was damaged and was swapped out with an earlier fuselage (earlier construction technique use with less glass)and the repair station swapped out the SN# placard with the later fuselage.. Now that was just wrong!
Echo
April 19th 19, 06:09 AM
Wouldn't it be convenient for a manufacturer to avoid servicing or any other obligations by simply "declaring it unairworthy" without seeing it?
Have you seen it in person?
I bought a G-103 that had been in a hangar fire in Georgia, Peach State Club. We needed a left wing and the photos showed what looked like a useable left wing on a fuselage with canopies that had been hot enough to melt the canopies. Both canopied draped down like a tarp, but it was the new shape of the plexiglass! The outer skin of the left wing top was blistered and had to be replaced, but the spar caps were undamaged. I figured the wing hadn’t been in 350 degree environment long enough to affect the more dense spar cap. We proof-loaded the wing and it took 5.3 G’s with flying colors! That was some 25 years ago and that ship is still flying today!
Just a little data point about how much heat a fiberglass structure can take,
JJ
JS[_5_]
April 19th 19, 04:55 PM
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 7:10:14 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> I bought a G-103 that had been in a hangar fire in Georgia, Peach State Club. We needed a left wing and the photos showed what looked like a useable left wing on a fuselage with canopies that had been hot enough to melt the canopies. Both canopied draped down like a tarp, but it was the new shape of the plexiglass! The outer skin of the left wing top was blistered and had to be replaced, but the spar caps were undamaged. I figured the wing hadn’t been in 350 degree environment long enough to affect the more dense spar cap. We proof-loaded the wing and it took 5.3 G’s with flying colors! That was some 25 years ago and that ship is still flying today!
> Just a little data point about how much heat a fiberglass structure can take,
> JJ
I remember seeing those Peach State gliders tied down at Williamson after the fire.
Have also flown an ASH25Mi that was previously an ASH25M and involved in an engine compartment fire. The factory replaced the fuselage, worked on the wings, got it flying as good as ever.
Jim
BobW
April 19th 19, 05:47 PM
On 4/19/2019 8:10 AM, wrote:
> I bought a G-103 that had been in a hangar fire in Georgia, Peach State
> Club. We needed a left wing and the photos showed what looked like a
> useable left wing on a fuselage with canopies that had been hot enough to
> melt the canopies. Both canopied draped down like a tarp, but it was the
> new shape of the plexiglass! The outer skin of the left wing top was
> blistered and had to be replaced, but the spar caps were undamaged. I
> figured the wing hadn’t been in 350 degree environment long enough to
> affect the more dense spar cap. We proof-loaded the wing and it took 5.3
> G’s with flying colors! That was some 25 years ago and that ship is still
> flying today! Just a little data point about how much heat a fiberglass
> structure can take, JJ
WARNING: Engineering humor nearby!!!
Good thing the statute of limitations has expired, JJ, cuz the engineer in me
likes how you thought - and acted on the courage of your convictions - all
those years ago. Just like 'industry big boys' and 'reasonable government
safety-regulating-minions' regularly do in aviation-land - one test is worth a
thousand considered opinions. (Take *that* FUD-Merchants and [sometimes]
lazy/fearful manufacturers!)
Now back to regularly-scheduled programming.
:-)
Bob W.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Bob Kuykendall
April 19th 19, 05:59 PM
I was hoping JJ would post up about his fire damage repairs.
Right now at the HP shop we're doing a skunky project involving high-temperature epoxy systems. As part of it, we did some test on more pedestrian epoxies of the sort typically used in gliders. They appear to demonstrate that you can get them well above Tg and they'll still recover full strength when they cool down. Of course, how far above Tg you can safely get is hard to quantify.
> ...They are shocked that it has not been destroyed...
A corporate entity based in a former Soviet republic is surprised that airworthiness authorities did not seize and destroy the personal property of a private citizen?
Shocked, I tell you, Shocked!
(Bogie never did say "Play it again, Sam.")
--Bob K.
I asked my good friend, Stan Hall about flying this “heat treated” Grob wing and he gave me his honest opinion...........Only way to know for sure is to proof load it! Stan helped me on several projects including strength analysis of my scratch built Super Bowles Albatross.I sent him a full scale drawing of my center-wing attachments and he replied, “it’s strong enough, just strong enough”! I put 50 hours on the ship and then donated it to The SW Soaring Museum.
RIP old friend,
JJ
Echo
April 20th 19, 06:39 AM
If you need more proof such a company doesn't understand the ways of their ideal buyer...they have airplanes named "Sinus" and "Virus." Think they're taking pre orders for the anus yet? How does one even market something called a virus?
Chris Wedgwood[_2_]
April 20th 19, 08:17 AM
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 6:59:15 PM UTC+2, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> I was hoping JJ would post up about his fire damage repairs.
>
> Right now at the HP shop we're doing a skunky project involving high-temperature epoxy systems. As part of it, we did some test on more pedestrian epoxies of the sort typically used in gliders. They appear to demonstrate that you can get them well above Tg and they'll still recover full strength when they cool down. Of course, how far above Tg you can safely get is hard to quantify.
>
> > ...They are shocked that it has not been destroyed...
>
> A corporate entity based in a former Soviet republic is surprised that airworthiness authorities did not seize and destroy the personal property of a private citizen?
>
> Shocked, I tell you, Shocked!
>
> (Bogie never did say "Play it again, Sam.")
>
> --Bob K.
Slovenia has never been a Soviet Republic. Check your history.
Paul T[_4_]
April 20th 19, 11:02 AM
At 05:39 20 April 2019, Echo wrote:
>If you need more proof such a company doesn't understand the ways
of their
>ideal buyer...they have airplanes named "Sinus" and "Virus." Think
they're
>taking pre orders for the anus yet? How does one even market
something
>called a virus?
>
They seem to pretty successful- I think probably one of the most
successful and innovative in their field - I guess they are not as
ignorant as yourself.
Echo
April 20th 19, 02:59 PM
Perhaps you haven't flown it.
I guess for some people it's an ideal platform to dabble in two sides of aviation. I wasn't a fan personally.
I didn't say they didn't sell any; simply that I think I would have marketed it differently.
2G
April 21st 19, 07:07 AM
On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 7:10:14 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> I bought a G-103 that had been in a hangar fire in Georgia, Peach State Club. We needed a left wing and the photos showed what looked like a useable left wing on a fuselage with canopies that had been hot enough to melt the canopies. Both canopied draped down like a tarp, but it was the new shape of the plexiglass! The outer skin of the left wing top was blistered and had to be replaced, but the spar caps were undamaged. I figured the wing hadn’t been in 350 degree environment long enough to affect the more dense spar cap. We proof-loaded the wing and it took 5.3 G’s with flying colors! That was some 25 years ago and that ship is still flying today!
> Just a little data point about how much heat a fiberglass structure can take,
> JJ
There is a reason why fiberglass gliders are painted white: they can't withstand high temperatures. There is a critical temperature called the "glass transition temperature" which is where the plastic starts transitioning from a solid into a liquid. A typical glass transition temp for fiberglass is 100C, well below the temps seen in that hanger fire. The fact that they canopy melted demonstrates that the temp was that high for some period of time..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_transition
Bob Kuykendall
April 21st 19, 03:43 PM
On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 12:17:15 AM UTC-7, Chris Wedgwood
> Slovenia has never been a Soviet Republic. Check your history.
Thanks for the correction, Chris, my bad!
--Bob K.
Bob Kuykendall
April 21st 19, 04:04 PM
On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 11:07:40 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> There is a reason why fiberglass gliders are painted white: they can't withstand high temperatures...
It's a bit more complicated than that. We could have blue or black or red composite gliders if we really wanted. Unsurprisingly it comes down to economics.
There are epoxy resin systems that can be used to achieve a Tg well above those achieved by darkly colored surfaces exposed to direct sunlight. We're using one such system right now on some aircraft parts that for a variety of reasons must be painted black.
However, compared to the MGS285 system that has become the de facto standard for European sailplane manufacture, those high-temperature systems are generally some or all of:
* More expensive
* Harder to mix and use
* More toxic
* More sensitizing
Furthermore, for some such systems, the parts must be subjected to elevated post-cure just to make them tough enough to demold. And then they must get an even hotter post-cure after all the parts are assembled.
All of these reasons that high-temperature systems are a pain to use make them more expensive to use, and for no easily justified reason.
> There is a critical temperature called the "glass transition temperature" which is where the plastic starts transitioning from a solid into a liquid.. A typical glass transition temp for fiberglass is 100C, well below the temps seen in that hanger fire. The fact that they canopy melted demonstrates that the temp was that high for some period of time.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_transition
Our tests have shown that exceeding Tg does not necessarily weaken a composite structure; depending on a variety of factors it will quite likely regain all its former strength and stiffness once it cools down. Furthermore, the melting of the canopy is not necessarily an accurate indicator of the temperatures reached by the rest of the structure; clear acrylic plastic absorbs a lot of wavelengths that reflect off of a white painted surface.
--Bob K.
Martin Gregorie[_6_]
April 21st 19, 05:18 PM
On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 07:43:04 -0700, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 12:17:15 AM UTC-7, Chris Wedgwood
>
>> Slovenia has never been a Soviet Republic. Check your history.
>
> Thanks for the correction, Chris, my bad!
>
Life in the former Yugoslavia wasn't all that different from life in
Soviet-era Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. At least that's
my impression from visiting/travelling through those countries during
1973-1991.
Dealing with border police and banks was much the same in all of them, so
I'd expect aircraft construction and regulation to have been pretty much
in line with Russian practise before 1991, with only gradual changes
until they joined the EU and came under EASA.
--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org
2G
April 21st 19, 07:15 PM
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 8:04:21 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Saturday, April 20, 2019 at 11:07:40 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
>
> > There is a reason why fiberglass gliders are painted white: they can't withstand high temperatures...
>
> It's a bit more complicated than that. We could have blue or black or red composite gliders if we really wanted. Unsurprisingly it comes down to economics.
>
> There are epoxy resin systems that can be used to achieve a Tg well above those achieved by darkly colored surfaces exposed to direct sunlight. We're using one such system right now on some aircraft parts that for a variety of reasons must be painted black.
>
> However, compared to the MGS285 system that has become the de facto standard for European sailplane manufacture, those high-temperature systems are generally some or all of:
>
> * More expensive
> * Harder to mix and use
> * More toxic
> * More sensitizing
>
> Furthermore, for some such systems, the parts must be subjected to elevated post-cure just to make them tough enough to demold. And then they must get an even hotter post-cure after all the parts are assembled.
>
> All of these reasons that high-temperature systems are a pain to use make them more expensive to use, and for no easily justified reason.
>
> > There is a critical temperature called the "glass transition temperature" which is where the plastic starts transitioning from a solid into a liquid. A typical glass transition temp for fiberglass is 100C, well below the temps seen in that hanger fire. The fact that they canopy melted demonstrates that the temp was that high for some period of time.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_transition
>
> Our tests have shown that exceeding Tg does not necessarily weaken a composite structure; depending on a variety of factors it will quite likely regain all its former strength and stiffness once it cools down. Furthermore, the melting of the canopy is not necessarily an accurate indicator of the temperatures reached by the rest of the structure; clear acrylic plastic absorbs a lot of wavelengths that reflect off of a white painted surface.
>
> --Bob K.
Yes, it is always more complicated than what most people are interested in reading. But in the case of this glider, the manufacturer clearly considered it to be unairworthy, period. Further, without having the glider fully instrumented with thermocouples, no one can say how hot, and for how long, each part of the glider got. Absent such data, the only safe course of action is to declare it unairworthy unless the manufacturer details an inspection and test regimen that can assure the glider's safety and continued airworthiness.
Additionally, changing the serial number is a blatant effort to disguise the damage history of the glider and constitutes fraud, in my opinion.
Tom
Scott Williams
April 21st 19, 11:01 PM
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 3:08:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> In the Wings and Wheels classified ads there is listed a Taurus selflaunch glider for sale.
> Originally it was N797SD, sn 107T503LSA. Currently carrying a different N number and serial number, but it is the same glider.
> This Taurus was involved in a hangar fire about 4 years ago in Memphis, Tn. While the flames did not reach the glider temperatures were high enough to melt the canopy Plexiglas. That is a temperature of about 325 F.
> The manufacturer, Pipistrel d.o.o of Ajdovscina, Slovenia has declared this glider un-airworthy and will provide no customer support. They are shocked that it has not been destroyed and is now considered safe for flight.
> Caveat Emptor
> Robert Mudd Pipistrel dealer and service center.
Of course the seller could just tell any potential buyer that the glider is declared unairworthy by the maker/type certificate owner. Might hurt the value though.
2G
April 22nd 19, 01:56 AM
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 3:01:51 PM UTC-7, Scott Williams wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 3:08:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > In the Wings and Wheels classified ads there is listed a Taurus selflaunch glider for sale.
> > Originally it was N797SD, sn 107T503LSA. Currently carrying a different N number and serial number, but it is the same glider.
> > This Taurus was involved in a hangar fire about 4 years ago in Memphis, Tn. While the flames did not reach the glider temperatures were high enough to melt the canopy Plexiglas. That is a temperature of about 325 F.
> > The manufacturer, Pipistrel d.o.o of Ajdovscina, Slovenia has declared this glider un-airworthy and will provide no customer support. They are shocked that it has not been destroyed and is now considered safe for flight.
> > Caveat Emptor
> > Robert Mudd Pipistrel dealer and service center.
>
> Of course the seller could just tell any potential buyer that the glider is declared unairworthy by the maker/type certificate owner. Might hurt the value though.
If the seller were going to disclose that he would have put it in the ad, which he didn't. The ad has been cancelled - wonder why?
Echo
April 22nd 19, 03:26 AM
Speaking of complicated, I have direct knowledge of this one, and it's a lot more complicated than you realize. Just know that the manufacturer declaring it's unairworthy has nothing to do with anything, other than them not getting their way. I'll leave it at that.
Scott Williams
April 22nd 19, 04:16 AM
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 9:26:20 PM UTC-5, Echo wrote:
> Speaking of complicated, I have direct knowledge of this one, and it's a lot more complicated than you realize. Just know that the manufacturer declaring it's unairworthy has nothing to do with anything, other than them not getting their way. I'll leave it at that.
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 9:26:20 PM UTC-5, Echo wrote:
> Speaking of complicated, I have direct knowledge of this one, and it's a lot more complicated than you realize. Just know that the manufacturer declaring it's unairworthy has nothing to do with anything, other than them not getting their way. I'll leave it at that.
I must admit, It's not my glider, nor is it my $60K, But, How does the type certificate holders specific determination Not have anything to do with it?
That information would surely matter to an insurance company, and should concern any potential buyer. I have no doubt any future incident with this particular airframe would draw the lawyers like Buzzards to a carcass. Makes me wonder if the last inspector to sign it off is comfortable, and did he know? and will the next one be made aware? I'd bet Five bucks the owner was the last A&P to sign off this glider. I apologize if my skepticism is showing.
P.S. respond here if anyone was the last inspector and I owe you five bucks..
son_of_flubber
April 22nd 19, 04:37 AM
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 11:04:21 AM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
....
> Our tests have shown that exceeding Tg does not necessarily weaken a composite structure; depending on a variety of factors it will quite likely regain all its former strength and stiffness once it cools down.
Would the wings and fuselage sag and permanently deform in a hangar fire? Worse if only one wingtip was supported.
2G
April 22nd 19, 06:51 AM
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 7:26:20 PM UTC-7, Echo wrote:
> Speaking of complicated, I have direct knowledge of this one, and it's a lot more complicated than you realize. Just know that the manufacturer declaring it's unairworthy has nothing to do with anything, other than them not getting their way. I'll leave it at that.
As I said before, things are ALWAYS more complicated than they seem. But your assertion that the manufacturer's opinion on airworthiness is completely irrelevant is, simply, bizarre. Do you realize that the FAA could declare the glider unairworthy based on that opinion alone? This is not hypothetical - it happened to the Blanik L13. Unless you are willing to provide more information I will stick with my origin assessment.
Tom
Bob Kuykendall
April 22nd 19, 09:41 PM
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 11:15:25 AM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
> Additionally, changing the serial number is a blatant effort to disguise the damage history of the glider and constitutes fraud, in my opinion.
We've covered that. The serial number in the FAAs record for the new N-number is the correct one for that airframe. The serial number in the ad is close enough to be explained by a mere typo.
--Bob K.
J Wahl[_2_]
April 23rd 19, 03:09 AM
Based on what I've read on this thread, my two bits on this are:
I've seen the photos of that glider on the trailer after the fire. It was
nearly black due to soot covering the entire top surfaces. The bubble
canopy was black and draped over the seats and instrument combing. I did a
NTSB search on the aircraft, and the incident was never reported. As for
the listing serial number; I would expect that the whole number could have
been entered into the ad. And if you noticed in the ad, the TC was listed
as "Experimental" and not LSA as per the FAA records.
From my understanding, who ever signs the inspection of the annual and
deems it airworthy is Legally Liable and if the plane folds and deaths are
a result, that person will end up in prison for involuntary manslaughter
charges. I know of such a case and the person was sentenced.
So, it's buyer beware and my god have mercy on the AP that inspects it and
signs it off as airworthy.
One last comment.. Does anyone here have any reservations on buying this
plane knowing it's history? Would you chance flying it? Be honest!
J Wahl[_2_]
April 23rd 19, 03:09 AM
Based on what I've read on this thread, my two bits on this are:
I've seen the photos of that glider on the trailer after the fire. It was
nearly black due to soot covering the entire top surfaces. The bubble
canopy was black and draped over the seats and instrument combing. I did a
NTSB search on the aircraft, and the incident was never reported. As for
the listing serial number; I would expect that the whole number could have
been entered into the ad. And if you noticed in the ad, the TC was listed
as "Experimental" and not LSA as per the FAA records.
From my understanding, who ever signs the inspection of the annual and
deems it airworthy is Legally Liable and if the plane folds and deaths are
a result, that person will end up in prison for involuntary manslaughter
charges. I know of such a case and the person was sentenced.
So, it's buyer beware and my god have mercy on the AP that inspects it and
signs it off as airworthy.
One last comment.. Does anyone here have any reservations on buying this
plane knowing it's history? Would you chance flying it? Be honest!
Echo
April 24th 19, 06:14 AM
Sure. Ok. The manufacturer tried to buy it from the insurance company, but failed to come up with the money. Therefore, it went to the next bidder. It was only THEN that they decided to deem it unairworthy. Also of note is who the OP works for. The circumstances of the fire itself are also pretty interesting, considering what was conveniently removed beforehand, but I'll choose not to speculate on things I don't know to be factual.
I've flown the airplane in question. I've also witnessed it being tested to G loading spec, and seen in during refurbishment. I have zero issue with its structural integrity. If ANY of you have a mechanical engineering background and know more then the typical know-it-all soaring pilot, with firsthand knowledge of the airframe, I'm all ears.
Mike C
April 24th 19, 02:39 PM
On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 11:14:49 PM UTC-6, Echo wrote:
> Sure. Ok. The manufacturer tried to buy it from the insurance company, but failed to come up with the money. Therefore, it went to the next bidder. It was only THEN that they decided to deem it unairworthy. Also of note is who the OP works for. The circumstances of the fire itself are also pretty interesting, considering what was conveniently removed beforehand, but I'll choose not to speculate on things I don't know to be factual.
>
> I've flown the airplane in question. I've also witnessed it being tested to G loading spec, and seen in during refurbishment. I have zero issue with its structural integrity. If ANY of you have a mechanical engineering background and know more then the typical know-it-all soaring pilot, with firsthand knowledge of the airframe, I'm all ears.
Interesting post Echo, that adds some clarity to the history of that Taurus.. So the insurance company totaled the aircraft? Did the original owner end up purchasing it from the insurance company? Would you please share who tested the aircraft and how it was tested to insure it's airworthiness as well as what the needed refurbishment consist of?
Thanks
Mike
Echo
April 27th 19, 01:28 AM
I saw it after it was picked up, then after it was flying. The only significant anything was the canopy sagging a bit and some debris damage to a portion of the elevator. But before the fire happened, I believe (may be incorrect here), that the BRS chute and the wing pins were not with the aircraft.. It was listed on an insurance company's salvage auction, and the winning bidder was the manufacturer (but unsure if it was via a US representative), who then failed to come up with the money by the deadline, so it went to the next bidder, who bid significantly less. It was AFTER this that they began a campaign to claim it unairworthy, while meanwhile things like the wing pins were offered for sale to the buyer, by the original owner who made the insurance claim. Seems weird to me...would have thought things like wing pins would go with an aircraft. I do know that the repair and canopy replacement was completed by an A&P/IA.
Regardless, I'm only a spectator to this one. I do agree with other posts however...carbon fiber is incredibly resilient. I wouldn't worry about it at all. The only point I make is that based on what I know and conversations with a few people directly involved, I think it's a lot more complicated/interesting than some have suggested. It also doesn't take much to total an airplane, depending on who has the adjuster's ear.
"Sure. Ok. The manufacturer tried to buy it from the insurance company, but failed to come up with the money. Therefore, it went to the next bidder."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure where all of this misinformation comes from. I was involved with the insurance company in the assessment of this aircraft for return to service. The manufacturer declared it a total write off and condemned the aircraft. The insurance company were advised of this in writing.
The statement above is fantasy, the manufacturer was not interested in purchasing the airframe because we considered it condemned. It was our expectation that the airframe would be destroyed, whatever usable parts salvaged and that was it, end of story.
The manufacturer came aware that the aircraft was still around when a person wanted to purchase a new canopy but would not identify the aircraft serial number which is a requirement for our certification records being an LSA aircraft. This raised more questions than it answered and after investigation we concluded that this airframe was in the process of being rebirthed. This was reported to the FAA at the time because it is our responsibility as a manufacturer of certified aircraft and in particular one which we have previously deemed condemned.
To our surprise the said aircraft popped up on a classified site along with a change in registration category which cannot happen when it is an LSA certified aircraft without the manufacturers express approval and it also turned up with a new serial number. In fact a serial number that is identical to an aircraft currently registered and as you know you cannot have two aircraft flying on the same serial number.
The matter is now under FAA investigation and because legal action is most likely to be taken I would ask you guys to settle down and just let this investigation take its course.
I repeat again that we declared this aircraft condemned, the aircraft was agreed to be destroyed by the insurance company. We did not bid on the aircraft because why would we bid on something that was being destroyed ? The liability remains with why did the insurance company allow this aircraft to be sold or purchased by a new owner and why did this new owner fraudulently return this aircraft into service in a new registration category with a new serial number and with no records indicating this aircraft had been condemned due to a hanger fire. End
Again, total misinformation and fantasy, never let the truth get in the way of a good story!
The owner of the aircraft was a Pipistrel dealer, a FedEx pilot and also a pilot of the Orbis flying I hospital. He did not offer the pins for sale after the aircraft was written off, he would not want the liability.
Please, you guys need to be a little bit more responsible about this with some of the statements because they are just not true, not even close to the truth.
Again, the manufacturer declared the aircraft condemned after reviewing photographs of the aircraft in the hangar immediately after the smoke cleared.
they got into their documentation and found the information about what temperature the canopy would melt at, this was well beyond what the composite companies/resin manufacturers would allow for the products that are used in this aircraft manufacture and probably any aircrafts manufacture using composite materials.
I would be negligent of both myself and the manufacturer in looking the other way and allowing this aircraft to be sold to some excited pilot only to have the wings fall off days, weeks, months or years later.
The aircraft was condemned for a reason, you need to think, would you allow your wife or grandchildren to fly in this aircraft knowing its history ? (Divorce cases excluded) as mentioned in another email, the FAA are investigating now and I have trust in the system that they will get to the bottom of this
ripacheco1967
May 3rd 19, 07:27 PM
Dang there is enough material here for a soap opera! Buyer beware huh?
Ramy[_2_]
May 4th 19, 04:04 AM
I find this discussion intriguing, especially when only half or so of the posters sign their names and/or their affiliation.
Note that many of us reading the posts online which hides the email address, so posts would be more credible if signed.
Ramy (no affiliation and no relation to this aircraft)
On Saturday, May 4, 2019 at 1:04:28 PM UTC+10, Ramy wrote:
> I find this discussion intriguing, especially when only half or so of the posters sign their names and/or their affiliation.
> Note that many of us reading the posts online which hides the email address, so posts would be more credible if signed.
>
> Ramy (no affiliation and no relation to this aircraft)
Sorry i thought it would show my details, (first time poster) Anyway I am Michael Coates the master distributor for Pipistrel USA
Jock Proudfoot
May 4th 19, 12:11 PM
At 08:52 04 May 2019, wrote:
>Sorry i thought it would show my details, (first time poster) Anyway
I am Michael Coates the master distributor for Pipistrel USA
>
Interesting stuff, I haven't seen the plane in quite a while. Gotta about I'm not too familiar with anything having to do with LSA, be it their pilots or their aircraft. It is pretty interesting, however, that any aircraft can be deemed totalled/unairworthy (is there a difference?), Yet can be rebuilt and flown. There's a lot of airplanes out there flying around on a data plate and not much else. Makes you wonder who is actually deeming something airworthy? How much say does a manufacturer have over a mechanic or IA's signoff? Will be interesting to follow what happens.
Dan Marotta
May 5th 19, 05:15 PM
You could set up your email client to read the newsgroup.* I see
everyone's email.* At least the email that they posted from.
On 5/3/2019 9:04 PM, Ramy wrote:
> I find this discussion intriguing, especially when only half or so of the posters sign their names and/or their affiliation.
> Note that many of us reading the posts online which hides the email address, so posts would be more credible if signed.
>
> Ramy (no affiliation and no relation to this aircraft)
--
Dan, 5J
Scott Williams
May 5th 19, 08:52 PM
On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 3:08:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> In the Wings and Wheels classified ads there is listed a Taurus selflaunch glider for sale.
> Originally it was N797SD, sn 107T503LSA. Currently carrying a different N number and serial number, but it is the same glider.
> This Taurus was involved in a hangar fire about 4 years ago in Memphis, Tn. While the flames did not reach the glider temperatures were high enough to melt the canopy Plexiglas. That is a temperature of about 325 F.
> The manufacturer, Pipistrel d.o.o of Ajdovscina, Slovenia has declared this glider un-airworthy and will provide no customer support. They are shocked that it has not been destroyed and is now considered safe for flight.
> Caveat Emptor
> Robert Mudd Pipistrel dealer and service center.
I suppose the chain of command in the States is;
God
FAA
Type certificate holder/builder
IA
Pilot
Of course gravity and inertia are Gods domain.
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
May 5th 19, 11:18 PM
There is no such thing as gravity....."the earth sucks"........LOL.......
Scott Williams
May 7th 19, 02:07 AM
On Sunday, May 5, 2019 at 5:18:27 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> There is no such thing as gravity....."the earth sucks"........LOL.......
You are so right Charlie,
But if I ever find myself falling from a great height, it will be of no comfort that Einstein explained that I'm only taking the shortest path in curved spacetime!! LOL
Echo .. I have purchased 3 gliders on auction (which appeared repairable but required major work). The insurance company's did not remove the data plates or include any letters restricting repairs. which gave me the impression that the airframes were just beyond economic repair. After a a closer inspection when I started to work on them, I found that 2 of the aircraft had to much internal damage that wasn't apparent from inspection. I had to do more cutting and grinding to see how extensive the damage was, this included damage to metal components. After finishing the inspections, 2 where totally un-repairable. They were chopped up, reported to the FAA as destroyed, cut my losses and moved one. I would hope others out there would be as honest and responsible.
Thomas Greenhill
May 21st 19, 06:04 PM
On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 9:29:39 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Again, total misinformation and fantasy, never let the truth get in the way of a good story!
>
> The owner of the aircraft was a Pipistrel dealer, a FedEx pilot and also a pilot of the Orbis flying I hospital. He did not offer the pins for sale after the aircraft was written off, he would not want the liability.
>
> Please, you guys need to be a little bit more responsible about this with some of the statements because they are just not true, not even close to the truth.
>
> Again, the manufacturer declared the aircraft condemned after reviewing photographs of the aircraft in the hangar immediately after the smoke cleared.
> they got into their documentation and found the information about what temperature the canopy would melt at, this was well beyond what the composite companies/resin manufacturers would allow for the products that are used in this aircraft manufacture and probably any aircrafts manufacture using composite materials.
>
> I would be negligent of both myself and the manufacturer in looking the other way and allowing this aircraft to be sold to some excited pilot only to have the wings fall off days, weeks, months or years later.
>
> The aircraft was condemned for a reason, you need to think, would you allow your wife or grandchildren to fly in this aircraft knowing its history ? (Divorce cases excluded) as mentioned in another email, the FAA are investigating now and I have trust in the system that they will get to the bottom of this
There is an important distinction to be made when considering the effects of temperature on composites.
The epoxy resins used in most wet layups (like those used by just about all glider manufacturers except windward perf.) are actually very sensitive to heat. The exact type of resin used by each manufacturer varies, but as a benchmark the Kaneka Aerospace (Applied Poleramic) SC-14 resin, loses around 50% of its strain energy release rate value by the time it reaches 50 degrees C. Not hot!
Please refer to the following paper from Montana State Univ. regarding the effects of temperature and humidity on composites: http://naturefilm.montana.edu/composites/documents/Mei%20Li%20thesis.pdf
If this taurus were indeed exposed to high enough temperatures for long enough to distort or melt the canopy, I would definitely argue that it has significant composites damage.
If you haven't thought about this before, the reason gliders are white in color is to minimize heat while spending long periods of time in the sun. It is much easier than you probably think to damage the glider by it getting too hot. Ever seen a glider with removed racing stripes?
This is also why wise owners tend to prefer fiberglass-top trailers over metal ones in places that get very hot. As you can imagine, the inside of a metal trailer might easily exceed 50 degrees C (122 deg f) on a hot summer day.
In contrast, pre-preg composites as used by windward composites and most leading aerospace companies, are cured at high temperature in an autoclave and are thus pretty much immune to heat. This is why (when they were in production at least...) you could order a duckhawk or a sparrowhawk in whatever color you wanted. There are also some resins used in wet layups (from my understanding, schleicher has started using these in their newest gliders) that are cured under heat and are not as much affected by heat after cure.
Most of my composites experience is with pre-preg, and despite being more costly than the alternative, it is significantly easier to work with, stronger and less prone to structural changes with exposure to moisture and heat.
I don't foresee the big glider manufacturers making the switch to pre-preg any time soon due to the inherent cost in switching manufacturing methods, but I do hope they switch to it at some point.
Thomas
ripacheco1967
May 21st 19, 07:15 PM
Don't scare me now.
50ºC (122ºF) is VERY EASY to reach in Florida.
You mean to tell me all those trailers sitting out in Florida are slowly baking their gliders into oblivion?
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
May 21st 19, 07:16 PM
My thoughts are.......UV degradation of the fibers is the prime reason for the white coating (to reduce UV getting to fibers).
Ever see synthetic ropes out in UV? Most are white, but the UV destroyes them, thus strength goes to poop. Same for a lot of plastic woven tarps.
Not saying I am correct, just some observations.....
James Thomson[_2_]
May 21st 19, 08:44 PM
At 18:15 21 May 2019, ripacheco1967 wrote:
>Don't scare me now.=20
>50=C2=BAC (122=C2=BAF) is VERY EASY to reach in Florida.
>You mean to tell me all those trailers sitting out in Florida are slowly
>ba=
>king their gliders into oblivion?
>
The Scheuffler L285 resin widely used in German and Polish gliders requires
to be heat treated at not less than 54C (129F) before the aircraft is
flown.
The same resin is heat treated at 80C when used for power aircraft which
have to operate at higher ambient temperatures.
Aside from gliders, the only other composite aircraft I've flown have been the Diamond DA20 and DA40, both of which have temp activated disks on the seat bulkhead. the color changes when the inside temperature exceeds 131 degrees F. There are also placards stating the temperature limitations warning of possible structural failure if flown when the temp has been exceeded, granted they mean flying it if the aircraft is that hot. But still, if the manufacturer states there is a danger, there must be one. I know my POH in the gliders I've flown state temperature limitations, though I've not seen any fancy temp sensitive color turn tapes glued in the cockpit of any glider..
There is a bunch of data on MGS epoxy here. www.cstsales.com/mgs_epoxy.html
I wouldn’t worry about any gliders stores in Florida or the Mojave desert.
Thomas Greenhill
May 21st 19, 09:28 PM
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 11:15:21 AM UTC-7, ripacheco1967 wrote:
> Don't scare me now.
> 50ºC (122ºF) is VERY EASY to reach in Florida.
> You mean to tell me all those trailers sitting out in Florida are slowly baking their gliders into oblivion?
Keep in mind that I was using SC-14 resin as an example, and although likely similar to the SC-14, I don't know exactly which resin glider manufacturers use.
Realistically, short exposure to 50 C while in the trailer (not under load) won't do major damage the glider. However, at significantly higher temperatures or under load, some damage might occur.
UV light causes widespread electron jumps due to its short wavelength (without high enough quantum energies that they have the same effect as XRays/Gamma radiation) and hence does not readily penetrate anything. So, although composites may be damaged if directly subjected to UV light, any thin layer of anything between the structural composite and UV light will be sufficient, it doesn't need to be white.
Thomas
Darryl Ramm
May 21st 19, 10:18 PM
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 11:16:45 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> My thoughts are.......UV degradation of the fibers is the prime reason for the white coating (to reduce UV getting to fibers).
> Ever see synthetic ropes out in UV? Most are white, but the UV destroyes them, thus strength goes to poop. Same for a lot of plastic woven tarps.
> Not saying I am correct, just some observations.....
It's not the fibers, well not with fiberglass and carbon per-se, it's the epoxy resin that is the issue, including how failing epoxy causes the reinforcing fibers to break/degrade. Epoxy is highly prone to UV dammage, it sucks.
And yes the white is also needed to keep the temperature down.
Hard to say there is a "prime reason" when addressing both UV exposure of the epoxy and high reflectivity to keep temperature low are both necessary.
My Libelle POH includes a section that discusses various temperature considerations for the fiberglass construction of the glider. Some interesting temperature recommendations include:
Storage in enclosed or open trailer - >100 C
Working on a wing suspended end to end on sawhorses - 85 C max
Assembled glider on the ground - 82 C max
In normal flight - 70 C max
Aerotow - 61 C max
Winch launch - 60 C max
The POH also points out that storage at any temp between 54 C and 80 C "is like a tempering action that will increase the full load limit of the structure. No further profit" will be obtained at temperatures above 80 C.
Robert
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 2:47:45 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Aside from gliders, the only other composite aircraft I've flown have been the Diamond DA20 and DA40, both of which have temp activated disks on the seat bulkhead. the color changes when the inside temperature exceeds 131 degrees F. There are also placards stating the temperature limitations warning of possible structural failure if flown when the temp has been exceeded, granted they mean flying it if the aircraft is that hot. But still, if the manufacturer states there is a danger, there must be one. I know my POH in the gliders I've flown state temperature limitations, though I've not seen any fancy temp sensitive color turn tapes glued in the cockpit of any glider.
Thomas Greenhill
May 21st 19, 10:45 PM
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 2:18:43 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 11:16:45 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> > My thoughts are.......UV degradation of the fibers is the prime reason for the white coating (to reduce UV getting to fibers).
> > Ever see synthetic ropes out in UV? Most are white, but the UV destroyes them, thus strength goes to poop. Same for a lot of plastic woven tarps.
> > Not saying I am correct, just some observations.....
>
> It's not the fibers, well not with fiberglass and carbon per-se, it's the epoxy resin that is the issue, including how failing epoxy causes the reinforcing fibers to break/degrade. Epoxy is highly prone to UV dammage, it sucks.
>
> And yes the white is also needed to keep the temperature down.
>
> Hard to say there is a "prime reason" when addressing both UV exposure of the epoxy and high reflectivity to keep temperature low are both necessary..
Yes, Darryl is right that the epoxy is what's prone to UV radiation, not the fibers. But at the end of the day the fibers don't do anything unless properly bonded.
Refer to another interesting paper on the effect of UV (and humidity) on composites: http://me.eng.sunysb.edu/~compmech/downloads/N29.pdf
29% decrease in transverse strength over 1000hrs of repeated UV and condensation. Luckily, only a small decrease in longitudinal strength was observed (most of the load bearing is longitudinal). Obviously the gel coat (or polyurethane) will reduce this effect, but dang!
Thomas
Mike C
May 22nd 19, 12:00 AM
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 12:15:21 PM UTC-6, ripacheco1967 wrote:
> Don't scare me now.
> 50ºC (122ºF) is VERY EASY to reach in Florida.
> You mean to tell me all those trailers sitting out in Florida are slowly baking their gliders into oblivion?
No.
Tg of MGS epoxy, which most sailplane manufacturers use when post cured, is around 200 deg F.
Mike
Eric Greenwell[_4_]
May 22nd 19, 12:12 AM
Thomas Greenhill wrote on 5/21/2019 10:04 AM:
> This is also why wise owners tend to prefer fiberglass-top trailers over metal ones in places that get very hot. As you can imagine, the inside of a metal trailer might easily exceed 50 degrees C (122 deg f) on a hot summer day.
Why won't that happen to a fiberglass top trailer? The ones I had got plenty hot
inside.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf
Tango Whisky
May 22nd 19, 06:09 AM
Trailer tops are made from polyester resins (like boat hulls) - different animal.
Darryl Ramm
May 22nd 19, 06:56 AM
On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 10:09:54 PM UTC-7, Tango Whisky wrote:
> Trailer tops are made from polyester resins (like boat hulls) - different animal.
Let me try to de-r.a.s. this.
Nobody was discussing heat or UV dammage to a trailer trailer top.
AFAIK Eric is asking why a fiberglass top trailer may be less of a problem with heat inside damaging a glider than an aluminum top trailer.
(Careful now r.a.s. don't guess, Eric may be correct. And no, the roof of an aluminum trailer feel hotter but that is a thermal mass and conductivity effect).
Ian[_2_]
May 22nd 19, 07:36 AM
On 2019/05/21 19:04, Thomas Greenhill wrote:
> If this taurus were indeed exposed to high enough temperatures for long enough to distort or melt the canopy, I would definitely argue that it has significant composites damage.
I think we can accept that most FRP gliders have a "service limit" of
maximum temperature under load of somewhere between 80C and 200C. This
is quite low but more than adequate for purposes, even for flying in the
desert conditions.
But that is not quite the same case as the damaged Taurus. The only
relevant information I could find on Google was one comment was from
this link
https://www.permabond.com/2011/11/10/temperature-resistant-adhesives/
"Most adhesives can resist higher temperatures than what is listed as
the service temperature for short periods of time providing adhesion to
the substrate is high, and the stress is low."
Is that Taurus safe to fly?
Is there any means of testing the structure to determine if it has
suffered permanent damage?
I can understand why the manufacturer says "NO". The potential of a
liability claim from a future owner is huge, even if the future event
was not related to this damage, potential legal costs would be enough to
make the lawyers veto anything the engineers might say.
But if it was YOUR money invested in the aircraft would YOU fly it?
Ian
PS: I know of a few gliders that were damaged in fires, repaired and
returned to service. The repairs were done by experience professionals
and included post repair heat curing and post repair structural load
testing. These aircraft are still flying today, decades later.
Extract from engineering ........ has already shared info on the aircraft's destruction, so what I'd like to do here is to outline the structural concept of the Taurus Motorglider.
Taurus is constructed using the Scheufler (Hexion) L285 epoxy resin system, which is cured at 62 degC (145 F).
I attach the datasheet.
Essentially any long-term exposure to above +80 degC (175 F) or short term exposure to +90 degC (195 F) ambient temperature renders the material compromised in it's strength and is considered non-airworthy.......
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.