Russian enterprise to build wooden sail plane ?

[[email protected]]

In ca. 1964 I bought [already second-hand then] a Russian
multiband radio, which I'm still using. So there are
quality products produced in Russia ?

In 1970-80's aircraft quality spruce wood, then available
mostly from N. America, was said to be near unobtainable.

A violin maker told that he was able to select from very
few trees, which he paid for before they were cut-down,
at a very high price.

I can't believe that there is a shortage of aircraft quality
spruce, now with the availability of the vast Russian
forests !

Also Russia has ample knowledge about aircraft
design and construction -- also wooden.

Do some parts of Russia have a strong tradition of
doing accurate wood-work ?

For sport gliders, the wooden construction is suitable,
because it allows easily repairs for the commonly
expected but unintended landings in rough fields.

Several existing designs from Europe and USA still
give excelent gliders, especially for training purposes.
The main problem is the labour intensity [too many
jobs] for expensive Western labour.

Have any readers opinions on the viability of a Russian
enterprise which would build wooden gliders & would
perhaps be combined with a gliding school for foreign
students/clients ?

== Chris Glur.

[Vaughn Simon]

> wrote in message
...
> In ca. 1964 I bought [already second-hand then] a Russian
> multiband radio, which I'm still using. So there are
> quality products produced in Russia ?

There are certainly quality products made in eastern Europe, and aircraft
are among them.
>
> Several existing designs from Europe and USA still
> give excelent gliders, especially for training purposes.
> The main problem is the labour intensity [too many
> jobs] for expensive Western labour.

In my experience, a trainer needs to be an airframe that you don't mind
exposing to the elements. A trainer spends its days (and often nights) either
in use or tied out near the launch area. They seldom see a hanger, and fly so
often that it is impractical to continually derig and trailer-stow them. Given
today's choices of materials, I am not sure that wood is a good alternative.
Personally, I like metal for a trainer.

Also, wood may not be the best choice for all climates. Here in south
Florida, I have yet to see a wooden glider, and I see few wood (or wooden spar)
airplanes. I don't know from direct experience, but I suspect that there is a
good reason for that.

Vaughn

[Bill Daniels]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> In ca. 1964 I bought [already second-hand then] a Russian
>> multiband radio, which I'm still using. So there are
>> quality products produced in Russia ?
>
> There are certainly quality products made in eastern Europe, and
> aircraft are among them.
>>
>> Several existing designs from Europe and USA still
>> give excelent gliders, especially for training purposes.
>> The main problem is the labour intensity [too many
>> jobs] for expensive Western labour.
>
> In my experience, a trainer needs to be an airframe that you don't
> mind exposing to the elements. A trainer spends its days (and often
> nights) either in use or tied out near the launch area. They seldom see a
> hanger, and fly so often that it is impractical to continually derig and
> trailer-stow them. Given today's choices of materials, I am not sure that
> wood is a good alternative. Personally, I like metal for a trainer.
>
> Also, wood may not be the best choice for all climates. Here in south
> Florida, I have yet to see a wooden glider, and I see few wood (or wooden
> spar) airplanes. I don't know from direct experience, but I suspect that
> there is a good reason for that.
>
> Vaughn
>

Wood, as Vaughn points out is no longer considered suitable for gliders. At
one time, there was a generous supply of both aircraft quality wood and
people with the skills to build aircraft with it. Neither are true today.
Wood, even if well sealed, tends to be very sensitive to humidity. Small
changes in water content results in large changes in dimensions. Wood
gliders in dry climates take on a "starved horse" look as the skins shrink.

I would disagree about the desirability of metal. Now that we have several
decades of experience with composite structures, they are looking better
than metal. Composites are at least as easy to repair as wood and metal and
but are not as susceptible to corrosion, fatigue or rot. Problems with old
glass gliders tend to be with the metal parts and gelcoat and not with the
composite airframe.

No glider really survives well if tied out in the weather. They deteriorate
much faster if exposed to the elements.

Bill Daniels