Grob Astir AD spar spigots

[toad]

To anybody that owns a Grob single,

There is a new AD proposal working it's way through the FAA requiring
inspection and eventual replacement of the spar spigots. The FAA
thinks this will cost $840 for parts and 22 hours of shop time. Total
over $2000.

Todd Smith
3S

The text of the AD is here:

Date: April 12, 2007
Gregory Davison
Project Officer
Small Airplane Directorate
ACE-112
901 Locust Street
Kansas City, MO 64106
816 329-4130
Make, Model, Series, Serial No.: Grob G102 Astir CS, G102
Club Astir III, G102 Club Astir IIIb, G102 Standard Astir III; All
Serial Numbers
Reason for Airworthiness Concern:
Inspect and Replace Spar Spigot Assemblies
Attachments: *SDR(s) *A/IDS *SL(s) *SAIB *FAASR/*NTSBSR *AD *AMOC *RA
Notification: FAA *AOPA *EAA Type Club *TC Holder Other:
Response Date Requested: 03/21/05: Emergency (10 days) Alert (30 days)
Information (90 days)
(Space Bar Adds "X" to Check Boxes)
FAA Description of Airworthiness Concern:
In 1991, the German airworthiness authority, LBA, issued Airworthiness
Directive 91-5/2 on Grob single seat gliders
requiring an inspection and eventual replacement of the spar spigot
assemblies. This action was based on Grob Service
Bulletin TM 306-29 / 320-5. Grob issued this bulletin as a
precautionary
measure. There were no occurrence reports from
glider operators. However, due to the criticality of this assembly,
Grob's current position is to recommend that the FAA
issue an AD using the original service bulletin with adjustments in
the
time of compliance. The FAA had issued a similar
AD in 1990 (AD 90-02-09), which affects the spar spigot assemblies on
twin seat Grob models, but never issued an AD on
the single-seat versions. Cracks in the spar spigot assembly could
lead
to structural failure of the wing spar.
Approximately 75 units could be affected in the U.S. Parts cost is
estimated at $840 and 22 hours labor time.
T
he FAA is considering AD action through the NPRM process to address
this
concern. A copy of Grob's Service Bulletin
and LBA AD are attached electronically.
Please provide your comments on this airworthiness concern and address
any other issues (i.e., technical, cost of
compliance) that you deem appropriate to this matter.

[dforrest]

On Apr 18, 4:34 am, toad > wrote:
> To anybody that owns a Grob single,
>
> There is a new AD proposal working it's way through the FAA requiring
> inspection and eventual replacement of the spar spigots. The FAA
> thinks this will cost $840 for parts and 22 hours of shop time. Total
> over $2000.
>
> Todd Smith
> 3S
>
> The text of the AD is here:
>
> Date: April 12, 2007
> Gregory Davison
> Project Officer
> Small Airplane Directorate
> ACE-112
> 901 Locust Street
> Kansas City, MO 64106
> 816 329-4130
> Make, Model, Series, Serial No.: Grob G102 Astir CS, G102
> Club Astir III, G102 Club Astir IIIb, G102 Standard Astir III; All
> Serial Numbers
> Reason for Airworthiness Concern:
> Inspect and Replace Spar Spigot Assemblies
> Attachments: *SDR(s) *A/IDS *SL(s) *SAIB *FAASR/*NTSBSR *AD *AMOC *RA
> Notification: FAA *AOPA *EAA Type Club *TC Holder Other:
> Response Date Requested: 03/21/05: Emergency (10 days) Alert (30 days)
> Information (90 days)
> (Space Bar Adds "X" to Check Boxes)
> FAA Description of Airworthiness Concern:
> In 1991, the German airworthiness authority, LBA, issued Airworthiness
> Directive 91-5/2 on Grob single seat gliders
> requiring an inspection and eventual replacement of the spar spigot
> assemblies. This action was based on Grob Service
> Bulletin TM 306-29 / 320-5. Grob issued this bulletin as a
> precautionary
> measure. There were no occurrence reports from
> glider operators. However, due to the criticality of this assembly,
> Grob's current position is to recommend that the FAA
> issue an AD using the original service bulletin with adjustments in
> the
> time of compliance. The FAA had issued a similar
> AD in 1990 (AD 90-02-09), which affects the spar spigot assemblies on
> twin seat Grob models, but never issued an AD on
> the single-seat versions. Cracks in the spar spigot assembly could
> lead
> to structural failure of the wing spar.
> Approximately 75 units could be affected in the U.S. Parts cost is
> estimated at $840 and 22 hours labor time.
> T
> he FAA is considering AD action through the NPRM process to address
> this
> concern. A copy of Grob's Service Bulletin
> and LBA AD are attached electronically.
> Please provide your comments on this airworthiness concern and address
> any other issues (i.e., technical, cost of
> compliance) that you deem appropriate to this matter.

Where did you find this? Exact link please.

[[email protected]]

>> Where did you find this? Exact link please.<<

There is no exact link. Your best link will be to your SSA Regional
Director (in the US).

I provided this info to Todd (and other folks I know that own Grob
102's) because I know he has one. This info is provided by the AOPA to
what they call "type clubs". That includes the SSA and other type
clubs like the Bonanza Society, the Commanche Organization and the
1-26 Association. It is part of the FAA's Airworthiness Concern
Coordination Program outlines in the "Airworthiness Concern Process
Guide" available here:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/small_airplanes/cos/continued_airworthiness/

If you open that Word document and scroll through it a bit, it will
describe the process the FAA uses to create AD's and buried in the
body of the document you will find a listing of contacts for the type
clubs; incredibly outdated for gliders, but I can assure you that the
contact information for the SSA is being updated now.

This process is also described in the AOPA web site here:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regairworthiness.html

The Process

Here's the deal (bear with me a bit):

The FAA writes AD's for US type certificated aircraft. They write AD's
based solely (almost) upon recommendations from the manufacturer of
the aircraft (or engine, or appliance manufacturer, etc.) and maybe
sometimes (rarely) from service information such as SDR's or M or D
reports. They do not write AD's because they think the glider
community needs one right in the middle of soaring season.

The only information the FAA has about the apparent unsafe condition
comes from the manufacturer; typically in the form of a manufacturer's
service bulletin and, in some cases, a foreign AD, but those also
typically come from a manufacturer's service bulletin (or TN or
whatever). Almost always (never say never, right?) a foreign (foreign
to the US anyhow, this is a Big Forum) AD against a glider will be
followed by a US AD. *Note to DG 300/303 owners.*

Manufacturers are required by rule to report unsafe conditions, at
least in the US they are - and I'm sure in other countries as well.
So, that's why the manufacturers are telling the FAA that they have an
unsafe condition, whether it be known failures, possible failures,
manufacturing defects, etc., ad infinitum. They simply are required to
report to the FAA bad problems that they think will cause significant
issues like hull loss, injury or fatalities. It's a Part 21 and 25
rule. OK, 33 as well, but we're talking gliders here.

This is not YOUR FAA, it is the Aircraft Certification FAA, not Flight
Standards FAA that you guys find sitting in the cube or answering the
phone at the FSDO. Different guys. Engineer guys. For gliders, it's
the guys in the Small Airplane Directorate in KC, for Boeings and the
like, it's here in Seattle, in the building across the parking lot.

The FAA engineer guys get the bad news from the manufacturer and they
are required by rule and FAA policy to write the AD. Now, they do this
with the best of intentions - to protect the flying public (you) from
the design problem that caused the unsafe condition. Many issues are
brought to the FAA engineer guys that do not become AD's - for various
reasons. Mostly because they are not design or manufacturing issues.
Every once in a blue moon, a service (meaning, no or poor maintenance,
or inadequate maintenance instructions, especially lubrication)
problem drives an AD, but normally, it's design, certification or
manufacturing problems that drive AD's. Normally. Not always.

The FAA engineers have to work hard to convince FAA engineering
management that they NEED an AD. Just like you convincing your finance
department that you need this capital expenditure for your pet (OK,
needed) project, or whatever you need from whomever you have to
convince in your huge corporate structure - anyhow, you get the
picture. These guys don't just make this stuff up and mail it out to
unsuspecting owners. The manufacturer of your aircraft is the first to
know about the problem, the FAA is second and you are third, or maybe
last.

Once the FAA engineer has convinced FAA engineering management that
the AD is worthy, now they have to write it. But first, like all good
engineers (and these are really good guys, good engineers, and just
maybe in one or more cases, a good glider pilot) they have to do their
engineering due diligence and determine all sorts of things before
they publish the proposed AD for public comment in the form of an NPRM
(Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the public docket, just google it).
So they have come up with this ACCS process to get some GOOD input
from industry, operators, owners, type clubs and other experts with
good, valuable, valid and important information that they can use in
the process of creating the substatiation for the contents of the AD,
like:

Cost of the AD
Validity of the unsafe condition
Suggested compliance time (emergency, 30 days, 180 days, 1`8 months,
etc.)
Availibilty of required spares
Availibility of repair facilities (I'm personally having some
difficulty with this today after a request from our local SSA Regional
Director - not easy to figure out and I'm one of "Them" that should
know)
and any other information the type clubs, industry(manufacturers),
repair facilities (through ARSA) and organizations like teh EAA, AOPA,
SSA and other would like to provide to teh FAA.

The vehicle for providing this additional, substantive information to
the FAA during the process of creating the AD (again - before it goes
out for public comment in the NPRM docket sustem) is through the
Airworthiness Concern Coordination Process detailed in the
publications noted above.

The Reason Why:

Here's the important part: Normally, the comments provided in the ACP
process will not (maybe) stop an AD, but they can, and have, helped to
shape the requirements so that they are based on factual information
and are less onerous to the owner/operator.

Think about this - if you are an engineer with information from the
manufacturer about an in-service condition that could cause damage or
hull loss and you received no comments from industry, owners or
operators about other mitigating factors that you are required by
policy to consider and would help you to decide when to make the AD
applicable or what it should require, then it would be easy to accept
the inspection criteria and compliance times outlined in the
manufactuer's SB without modification, even if the SB was written in
1991. The FAA recognizes that this is most likely not a good basis to
make decisions, so the FAA went to industry and type clubs and
organizations like the EAA, AOPA and SSA to get this input beforehand
so that they could react to the operator's concerns before they
started to get complaints after the AD goes out in the mail. The FAA
took this action in response to requests, concerns and complaints from
you, the flying pilots.

Sometimes the FAA engineers guys become human and make mistakes (don't
get me started on the bad AD's I've had to deal with) and the result
is a bad AD that maybe has an error. This is just as bad for the FAA
as it is for the owner/operators. Really good input and a second set
of eyes is valuable to the AD writers, so they welcome your input and
quality control. Nobody reads these AD's like the people affected -
just ask an air carrier engineering department, they literally dissect
AD's and are ruthless if there is a factual error. Many AMOCs are
issued to correct errors or grant immediate relief within hours of an
AD being published. The FAA engineers want to know about ANY problems
before the AD gets published, believe me!

If this diatribe rubs you the wrong way because you don't like the
gubmint no matter what, personally I don't care - but consider this: I
do not believe any of the other countries in this world afford this
kind of influence early on in their small aircraft AD development
process. Of course, I could be wrong, and I usually am. Evidence to
the contrary always welcome.

What Action You Can Take:

It is important that you - the owners, operators, glider repair
stations, SSA members, glider parts suppliers, club members that have
financial interests in your collectively-owned fleets - to have input
to the creation of these rules. This is real influence that is
provided to you, as a service, by the FAA through your type club,
affiliation, organization or whatever.

Take advantage of it and help the FAA get the good and valid
information they need to create the airworthiness documents that
affect you as a glider pilot and aircraft owner.

Join the AOPA because they started this for the small airplane crowd
and have borne the burden of managing this program.

Join the SSA because they are your (the glider owner) pipeline to the
ACP process - you can only go through the SSA to the AOPA to the FAA
ACP. A private owner has no avenue for input except through the
organization or type club listed in the documents above.

Send a message to your Regional Director with your concern for your
affected aircraft.

Comment on AD NPRM's when they are published.

Google AD NPRM - I did, and I get Seaplane Owners Association, Bonanza
Society, Short Wing Piper Club, etc. These people are taking advantage
of this program to influence their AD's before they are published, not
to mention knowing about them well ahead of the letter in the mail,
sometimes even before they get the service bulletin from the
manufacturer.

If you own an experimental glider, consider accomplishing all TN's and
SB's even though they will not be mandated by AD in the US - what
difference does it make to you if the propeller is going to fly off
your Nimbus 4DT because of defective bolts if it's an AD or not? The D
means dual (Duo?) and that means you have a passenger that is relying
on you to be doing the right thing, right?

Put an ELT in your glider - and do it right: (for example, mount the
antenna in accordance with the installation instructions, which means
for an AmeriKing, within 20° of vertical)
http://www.jimphoenix.com/jimphoenix2/pages/Nimbus/Nfuselage/subNfuselage.html

Comply with the FARs when maintaining or altering your glider. Nobody
that I know enjoys receiving a Letter of Investigation from the FAA.
Normally, it does not go well.

Support your local glider repair station and suppliers with all of
your spare parts purchases, maybe you'll save twenty bucks by buying
your transponder on ebay, but that's twenty bucks your glider supplier
or repair station won't have to keep their door open - then who you
gonna get to change your driveshaft on your Stemme, or tow your 1-26?

Check the AD's on your installed appliances, like your Becker comm,
United altimeter and Goodyear tire.

Jim

[Mike125]

Jim,

Excellent post. Thanks for taking the time to educate the masses on an
issue that directly impacts the entire soaring community.

Mike

[[email protected]]

FYI - An AD for this issue was put out in Canada many years ago
(February 1991)! Owners should check the logs to see if your 102 came
from Canada. If so, it probably has the spar spigot replacement done.
What took the FAA so long on this one?

Stephen

[toad]

On Apr 20, 8:17 am, wrote:
> FYI - An AD for this issue was put out in Canada many years ago
> (February 1991)! Owners should check the logs to see if your 102 came
> from Canada. If so, it probably has the spar spigot replacement done.
> What took the FAA so long on this one?
>
> Stephen

I don't know why the FAA waited this long, but the timing really
sucks.

Grob Systems in the US just closed shop and the repair stations that I
called have never done this before. One said that they referred that
kind of work to Grob, which is no longer an option.

Does anyone know of a shop in the US (or Canada) that did this work ?
Please send me contact information.

Finally, I created a yahoo group to discuss Grob sailplane matters
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/grob_sailplanes/). How to deal with
this AD is the 1st matter of buisness.

Todd Smith
Grob 102 Std III
N563S

[[email protected]]

> Does anyone know of a shop in the US (or Canada) that did this work ?
> Please send me contact information.

I'm doing some research into availibility of repair stations or shops
that do composite major repairs and besides the obvious ones - Rex at
Williams Soaring, John Murray's shop, M&H, Chris in Arlington and all
the others listed in the Soaring classifieds, but I'm not having much
luck. I thought there would be quite a few composite shops with all
the new glass power planes out there - and I'm sure there are, but
there's no listing of small aircraft or glider composite repair
facilities that I can find. Plenty of composite shops for your 777 or
A320 elevators, but those guys won't, and probably cannot, do your
glider, or specifically this AD.

The FAA's repair station query is next to worthless on this subject:
http://av-info.faa.gov/repairstation.asp (Try searching all states
for Limited airframe or any airframe)

I'm going to keep trying and maybe somebody here has knowledge of a
list other than the Soaring classifieds (EAA maybe) - but at least
those guys are a start, but usually, days away from where you are,
unless you're very lucky. Canadian AMO's can work on your US
registered glider - if there are any Canadian glider repair AMO's -
that may be helpful to somebody.

I would respectfully submit a minor change to your statement Todd. Why
did Grob wait so long to recommend this become an AD? Note Grob's
position statement in the information provided above:

"Grob's current position is to recommend that the FAA issue an AD
using the original service bulletin with adjustments in the time of
compliance."

Hopefully, it's a big adjustment to the time of compliance. There is a
procedure for Alternate Means of Compliance and an Adjustment to the
Compliance Time for any AD, this one might be a good candidate for an
AMOC if the compliance time falls in the middle of June, but I doubt
it will be that soon.

I saw a reference to a repair team in one of Bob Kuykendall's posts, a
team that did the 103's, but I suppose those were Grob guys Bob?

Jim

[toad]

On Apr 20, 10:44 am, wrote:
> > Does anyone know of a shop in the US (or Canada) that did this work ?
> > Please send me contact information.
>
> I'm doing some research into availibility of repair stations or shops
> that do composite major repairs and besides the obvious ones - Rex at
> Williams Soaring, John Murray's shop, M&H, Chris in Arlington and all
> the others listed in the Soaring classifieds, but I'm not having much
> luck. I thought there would be quite a few composite shops with all
> the new glass power planes out there - and I'm sure there are, but
> there's no listing of small aircraft or glider composite repair
> facilities that I can find. Plenty of composite shops for your 777 or
> A320 elevators, but those guys won't, and probably cannot, do your
> glider, or specifically this AD.
>
> The FAA's repair station query is next to worthless on this subject:http://av-info.faa.gov/repairstation.asp (Try searching all states
> for Limited airframe or any airframe)
>
> I'm going to keep trying and maybe somebody here has knowledge of a
> list other than the Soaring classifieds (EAA maybe) - but at least
> those guys are a start, but usually, days away from where you are,
> unless you're very lucky. Canadian AMO's can work on your US
> registered glider - if there are any Canadian glider repair AMO's -
> that may be helpful to somebody.
>
> I would respectfully submit a minor change to your statement Todd. Why
> did Grob wait so long to recommend this become an AD? Note Grob's
> position statement in the information provided above:
>
> "Grob's current position is to recommend that the FAA issue an AD
> using the original service bulletin with adjustments in the time of
> compliance."
>
> Hopefully, it's a big adjustment to the time of compliance. There is a
> procedure for Alternate Means of Compliance and an Adjustment to the
> Compliance Time for any AD, this one might be a good candidate for an
> AMOC if the compliance time falls in the middle of June, but I doubt
> it will be that soon.
>
> I saw a reference to a repair team in one of Bob Kuykendall's posts, a
> team that did the 103's, but I suppose those were Grob guys Bob?
>
> Jim

Jim,

My current focus is to try and find a shop that has already done this
work on either a Grob 102 or 103. This will give us a real idea of
how much it will cost.

Grob Systems is shut down.
Gehrlein Products never did it, they referred clients to Grob Systems.
XU Aviation in Canada did one at least.
M&H never did it.

On the time of compliance. I do hope that with the lack of any
problems since the original SB, that there is no urgency to issuing
this AD and they will set a reasonable method and time of compliance.

Todd Smith

[Bill Daniels]

Contact Robert Mudd in Moriarty, NM. I know that he has done at least one
of them.

Bill Daniels


"toad" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 20, 10:44 am, wrote:
>> > Does anyone know of a shop in the US (or Canada) that did this work ?
>> > Please send me contact information.
>>
>> I'm doing some research into availibility of repair stations or shops
>> that do composite major repairs and besides the obvious ones - Rex at
>> Williams Soaring, John Murray's shop, M&H, Chris in Arlington and all
>> the others listed in the Soaring classifieds, but I'm not having much
>> luck. I thought there would be quite a few composite shops with all
>> the new glass power planes out there - and I'm sure there are, but
>> there's no listing of small aircraft or glider composite repair
>> facilities that I can find. Plenty of composite shops for your 777 or
>> A320 elevators, but those guys won't, and probably cannot, do your
>> glider, or specifically this AD.
>>
>> The FAA's repair station query is next to worthless on this
>> subject:http://av-info.faa.gov/repairstation.asp (Try searching all
>> states
>> for Limited airframe or any airframe)
>>
>> I'm going to keep trying and maybe somebody here has knowledge of a
>> list other than the Soaring classifieds (EAA maybe) - but at least
>> those guys are a start, but usually, days away from where you are,
>> unless you're very lucky. Canadian AMO's can work on your US
>> registered glider - if there are any Canadian glider repair AMO's -
>> that may be helpful to somebody.
>>
>> I would respectfully submit a minor change to your statement Todd. Why
>> did Grob wait so long to recommend this become an AD? Note Grob's
>> position statement in the information provided above:
>>
>> "Grob's current position is to recommend that the FAA issue an AD
>> using the original service bulletin with adjustments in the time of
>> compliance."
>>
>> Hopefully, it's a big adjustment to the time of compliance. There is a
>> procedure for Alternate Means of Compliance and an Adjustment to the
>> Compliance Time for any AD, this one might be a good candidate for an
>> AMOC if the compliance time falls in the middle of June, but I doubt
>> it will be that soon.
>>
>> I saw a reference to a repair team in one of Bob Kuykendall's posts, a
>> team that did the 103's, but I suppose those were Grob guys Bob?
>>
>> Jim
>
> Jim,
>
> My current focus is to try and find a shop that has already done this
> work on either a Grob 102 or 103. This will give us a real idea of
> how much it will cost.
>
> Grob Systems is shut down.
> Gehrlein Products never did it, they referred clients to Grob Systems.
> XU Aviation in Canada did one at least.
> M&H never did it.
>
> On the time of compliance. I do hope that with the lack of any
> problems since the original SB, that there is no urgency to issuing
> this AD and they will set a reasonable method and time of compliance.
>
> Todd Smith
>
>
>

[toad]

On Apr 20, 1:55 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> Contact Robert Mudd in Moriarty, NM. I know that he has done at least one
> of them.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

Thanks, I will call and talk to him. It's a long drive from
Connecticut to New Mexico though.

Todd

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Apr 20, 7:44 am, wrote:

> I saw a reference to a repair team in one of Bob Kuykendall's posts, a
> team that did the 103's, but I suppose those were Grob guys Bob?

Gosh, it's been like a dozen years, I don't remember that much about
it. But as I recall it, it _was_ a team sent around by Grob, they'd
lined up several aircraft each at several shops around the country and
did a grand tour. I saw them briefly, I think at Steve Brown's Bay
Area Composite Repair.

As I recall the repair involved cutting through the spar stub shear
web to liberate the chunks of plywood to which the spigot was bolted
or riveted, leaving an ugly rectangular notch at the end of the stub
but not removing material from the spar caps. The beefier replacement
spigot and its support (probably plywood, but perhaps prefabbed
fiberglass plate, I don't recall) was placed into this notch, aligned
with a fixture that the team had brought with them, and floxed into
position. After the flox cured, the spigot and its support was secured
with several shear wraps of cloth. I don't recall if they ground away
the original shear wraps; they might have done so to keep the spar
stub within its original envelope.

As an aside, this series of repairs is one of the events where I first
started to comprehend that there's no particular magic to composite
aircraft structure. I remember spending quite a while looking at one
of the cut-open aircraft under repair after the guys had knocked off
for the day. I don't remember much of what I saw, but I do remember
thinking "What, is this all there is?" Of course, there's a lot of
careful engineering to it, engineering that I'm not qualified to
practice or for some of it to even understand. But I think that a lot
of it is just a mix of common sense plus stuff that people tried and
tested and found to work sufficiently, and the engineering came later
to figure out _why_ it worked.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Werner Schmidt]

Hello Stephen,

> FYI - An AD for this issue was put out in Canada many years ago
> (February 1991)!

looking at grob.aerospace.de I found this document:

http://www.grob-aerospace.net/fileadmin/service_bulletins/g102/G102_SB_Summary.pdf

And searching this document I found:

11.10.90
Überprüfung und Austausch der Holmstummelbolzen
Inspection and replacement of spar spigot assemblies
ASTIR CS, ASTIR CS 77, ASTIR JEANS, STANDARD II, CLUB II, CLUB III,
STANDARD III, CLUB IIIb
alle Werk-Nr. / all S/N

regards
Werner

[JJ Sinclair]

Todd,
The work must be done in a FAA certifid glider repair station, like
John Murry's or Gehrlein in your neck of the woods. it involves about
20 hours of work + the cost of the kit from Grob. It involves
assembling the ship with wax donuts on the old spigots to determine
the excess lateral slop that must be removed when the new spigots are
installed, then grind and remove the old, then fit the new with
factory jig, scarf spar but and lay up 8 layers of 92125 for the
replacement spar wrap. I would estimat $1800 to $2400 bucks.
JJ

[Brad[_2_]]

JJ,
Would Rutan style 7725 be a similar cloth to the 92125 European cloth?
Thanks,
Brad


On Apr 20, 5:20 pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> Todd,
> The work must be done in a FAA certifid glider repair station, like
> John Murry's or Gehrlein in your neck of the woods. it involves about
> 20 hours of work + the cost of the kit from Grob. It involves
> assembling the ship with wax donuts on the old spigots to determine
> the excess lateral slop that must be removed when the new spigots are
> installed, then grind and remove the old, then fit the new with
> factory jig, scarf spar but and lay up 8 layers of 92125 for the
> replacement spar wrap. I would estimat $1800 to $2400 bucks.
> JJ

[JJ Sinclair]

On Apr 22, 10:25 am, Brad > wrote:
> JJ,
> Would Rutan style 7725 be a similar cloth to the 92125 European cloth?
> Thanks,
> Brad
Yep, but when working with certified aircraft like the 102, one must
use the specified stuff. The kit I got from Grob had per-cut 92125
sections, everything but resin...............BTW, Williams Soaring
(Rex) just got 50 gallons of L285 epoxy at half the price that Spruce
& Seciality is getting.
JJ

[toad]

JJ,

Thanks a lot for this information.

It was a factory supplied jig that was used for the replacement ?

Todd


On Apr 20, 8:20 pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> Todd,
> The work must be done in a FAA certifid glider repair station, like
> John Murry's or Gehrlein in your neck of the woods. it involves about
> 20 hours of work + the cost of the kit from Grob. It involves
> assembling the ship with wax donuts on the old spigots to determine
> the excess lateral slop that must be removed when the new spigots are
> installed, then grind and remove the old, then fit the new with
> factory jig, scarf spar but and lay up 8 layers of 92125 for the
> replacement spar wrap. I would estimat $1800 to $2400 bucks.
> JJ

[dforrest]

On Apr 23, 8:46 am, toad > wrote:
> JJ,
>
> Thanks a lot for this information.
>
> It was a factory supplied jig that was used for the replacement ?
>
> Todd
>
> On Apr 20, 8:20 pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > Todd,
> > The work must be done in a FAA certifid glider repair station, like
> > John Murry's or Gehrlein in your neck of the woods. it involves about
> > 20 hours of work + the cost of the kit from Grob. It involves
> > assembling the ship with wax donuts on the old spigots to determine
> > the excess lateral slop that must be removed when the new spigots are
> > installed, then grind and remove the old, then fit the new with
> > factory jig, scarf spar but and lay up 8 layers of 92125 for the
> > replacement spar wrap. I would estimat $1800 to $2400 bucks.
> > JJ

Todd, Did you happen to notice the 3/21/05 response date on the
Airworthiness Concern Statement?

[toad]

> Todd, Did you happen to notice the 3/21/05 response date on the
> Airworthiness Concern Statement?

Yes, at least after it was pointed out :-) I think that there might
be a typo. The real deadline for comments in May 11th, I think.

Todd

[[email protected]]

On Apr 23, 10:11 am, toad > wrote:
> > Todd, Did you happen to notice the 3/21/05 response date on the
> > Airworthiness Concern Statement?
>
> Yes, at least after it was pointed out :-) I think that there might
> be a typo. The real deadline for comments in May 11th, I think.
>
> Todd


Correct, 5/11/2007 is the deadline for comments into the AOPA.

Jim

[Roger Worden]

What the heck is a spar spigot?

[toad]

On May 19, 2:01 am, "Roger Worden" > wrote:
> What the heck is a spar spigot?

It is the metal fitting that comes out of the inboard end of the spar
and inserts into a fitting on the other wing root.

Todd Smith