Drain holes under Schleicher seatpans

[Tuno]

Now that I have my seatpan out (again) ...

My Ventus 2C had a drain/vent hole in the fuse directly under the
seatpan, about 6 or 7mm diameter. At first I wondered what it was for,
because nothing ever came out, so I kept it taped over.

After I got delivery of my new ASG29 in March, my first flights with
ballast leaked a significant amount of water into the cockpit, and I
immediately understand what the hole in the V2C was for.

So I'm wondering ... should I drill a hole in the Schleicher for same
purpose? My leaking problem seems to have been resolved by using
larger "O" rings on the drain plugs, but if it leaks again, I have no
way of even checking if there's water, much less draining it.

I'm inclined to poke a new hole unless there's a compelling reason not
to ...

2NO

[[email protected]]

On Jan 11, 8:14*am, Tuno > wrote:
> Now that I have my seatpan out (again) ...
>
> My Ventus 2C had a drain/vent hole in the fuse directly under the
> seatpan, about 6 or 7mm diameter. At first I wondered what it was for,
> because nothing ever came out, so I kept it taped over.
>
> After I got delivery of my new ASG29 in March, my first flights with
> ballast leaked a significant amount of water into the cockpit, and I
> immediately understand what the hole in the V2C was for.
>
> So I'm wondering ... should I drill a hole in the Schleicher for same
> purpose? My leaking problem seems to have been resolved by using
> larger "O" rings on the drain plugs, but if it leaks again, I have no
> way of even checking if there's water, much less draining it.
>
> I'm inclined to poke a new hole unless there's a compelling reason not
> to ...
>
> 2NO

I can't figure how leaking water ballast gets into the cockpit. Isn't
the whole arrangement in the wing?

If you do drill a drain hole then maybe you can use it to run a new
speaker wire.

;-)

9B

[Tuno]

My 29 was built with vent holes in the leading edge of the wing root
ribs. The purpose of these holes is to provide additional drainage and
ventilation when the wings is trailered after flying with ballast. For
flight, the holes are filled with small plugs, about 7mm diameter,
which are sealed with pairs of "O" rings.

The plugs that came with my glider weren't quite big enough for the
hole in the left wing, and Fidel fixed the problem by putting larger
(thicker) O rings on the plugs. So far, this seems to have fixed the
problem.

But when water leaks past that plug, it ends up very shortly in the
bottom of the fuse.

An even larger potential leak point is the panel and gasket that
covers the dump mechanism in the wing root. (711 had problems with
this gasket, iirc.) The maintenance manual recommends removing this
panel and gasket to allow the wing tank to vent, when not used for
ballast for (arbitrarily) long periods of time. But when that gasket
leaks, the water goes straight into the bottom of the fuse.

2NO (with a brand new drain hole, 4 inches in front of the main gear
doors)

[Greg Arnold[_2_]]

Just curious -- why did you shift from a V2c to an ASG-29? Do you
notice much difference between the two?



Tuno wrote:
> Now that I have my seatpan out (again) ...
>
> My Ventus 2C had a drain/vent hole in the fuse directly under the
> seatpan, about 6 or 7mm diameter. At first I wondered what it was for,
> because nothing ever came out, so I kept it taped over.
>
> After I got delivery of my new ASG29 in March, my first flights with
> ballast leaked a significant amount of water into the cockpit, and I
> immediately understand what the hole in the V2C was for.
>
> So I'm wondering ... should I drill a hole in the Schleicher for same
> purpose? My leaking problem seems to have been resolved by using
> larger "O" rings on the drain plugs, but if it leaks again, I have no
> way of even checking if there's water, much less draining it.
>
> I'm inclined to poke a new hole unless there's a compelling reason not
> to ...
>
> 2NO

[[email protected]]

On Jan 11, 12:11�pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
> Just curious -- why did you shift from a V2c to an ASG-29? �Do you
> notice much difference between the two?
>
>
>
> Tuno wrote:
> > Now that I have my seatpan out (again) ...
>
> > My Ventus 2C had a drain/vent hole in the fuse directly under the
> > seatpan, about 6 or 7mm diameter. At first I wondered what it was for,
> > because nothing ever came out, so I kept it taped over.
>
> > After I got delivery of my new ASG29 in March, my first flights with
> > ballast leaked a significant amount of water into the cockpit, and I
> > immediately understand what the hole in the V2C was for.
>
> > So I'm wondering ... should I drill a hole in the Schleicher for same
> > purpose? My leaking problem seems to have been resolved by using
> > larger "O" rings on the drain plugs, but if it leaks again, I have no
> > way of even checking if there's water, much less draining it.
>
> > I'm inclined to poke a new hole unless there's a compelling reason not
> > to ...
>
> > 2NO- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The wing loading between the V2C and the newer 18 Meter ships are
what's different. The V2c is around 10.7 lbs max., where the 29 is
11.8 lbs.

The V2CX and V2CXA are now at the same wing loading as the 29 and all
the other new 18 Meter ships (LS 10 and JS 1). Climb performance at
these higher wing loadings are what's equal or maybe just a tad better
than the older 18 meter ships. Then these newer 18 meters simply
cruise away from the older ones after climb because of the higher wing
loading.
We saw in Uvalde that the new 18's can race in the open class and
compete pretty well. Both the 29 and V2cx did extremely good. Tim
Well's in his V2cx won a day.

The Worlds in Luesse, also confirm's this, as we see only these newer
18 Meters at the top of the score sheet.

My water leak, that Tuno mentioned, filled my cockpit with water. To
make it simply, on the very early 29's, they sealed the panel to the
wing root using a sealant. My right wing panel cover wasn't sealed,
and when the panel poped lose in flight with full tanks (I was at the
18 Meter Nationals in Hobbs) from the wing root, is when about 5 gals
of water got into the cockpit. When this happened, I was very
concerned for a few seconds, as I thought I had failed, but the water
tasted fine. I almost landed out because of this, but climbed back up
and made it to Hobbs. After landing, we found the problem and it was
an easy fix.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 11, 5:11*pm, wrote:
> My water leak, that Tuno mentioned, filled my cockpit with water. To
> make it simply, on the very early 29's, they sealed the panel to the
> wing root using a sealant. My right wing panel cover wasn't sealed,
> and when the panel poped lose in flight with full tanks (I was at the
> 18 Meter Nationals in Hobbs) from the wing root, is when about 5 gals
> of water got into the cockpit. When this happened, I was very
> concerned for a few seconds, as I thought I had failed, but the water
> tasted fine. I almost landed out because of this, but climbed back up
> and made it to Hobbs. After landing, we found the problem and it was
> an easy fix.-

On the 28 the wing root panel only supports the valve push rods and
the rocker mechanism that keeps the valve open when the wing is off
the fuselage. There is no water path from the wing root to the wing
tank unless the valve leaks past the push rod which is does not do. If
the valve leaks the water exits by the wing dump port.

What did they change for the 29 and how is it better? I already see
the ways it is worse!

Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 11, 5:33�pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 11, 5:11�pm, wrote:
>
> > My water leak, that Tuno mentioned, filled my cockpit with water. To
> > make it simply, on the very early 29's, they sealed the panel to the
> > wing root using a sealant. My right wing panel cover wasn't sealed,
> > and when the panel poped lose in flight with full tanks (I was at the
> > 18 Meter Nationals in Hobbs) from the wing root, is when about 5 gals
> > of water got into the cockpit. When this happened, I was very
> > concerned for a few seconds, as I thought I had failed, but the water
> > tasted fine. I almost landed out because of this, but climbed back up
> > and made it to Hobbs. After landing, we found the problem and it was
> > an easy fix.-
>
> On the 28 the wing root panel only supports the valve push rods and
> the rocker mechanism that keeps the valve open when the wing is off
> the fuselage. �There is no water path from the wing root to the wing
> tank unless the valve leaks past the push rod which is does not do. If
> the valve leaks the water exits by the wing dump port.
>
> What did they change for the 29 and how is it better? �I already see
> the ways it is worse!
>
> Andy

The panels are removable and as Tuno said, the factory thinks its a
good idea to take the panels off when your not going to use water
ballast for awhile. The panels main the reason is if you have a
problem with the dump valve plumbing inside the wing, it allows you to
access inside the wing, without cutting big holes. Remember, the tamks
are bigger than a 27 and goe all the way to both ends of the inter
panel. The 27 doesn't do that and are smaller. Our inter panels carry
45 gals, the 27 is 40 gals.
I think they are great for those reasons and now since they have
gaskets its simple to remove them. Since mine was one of the very
first ones, the gaskets just might have not gotten to the factory from
the vendor in time. When I got home from Hobbs, the gaskets were in
the mail and I was told to remove the panels and install these
gaskets. Yep, I glued them babies on in Hobbs so they wouldn't ever
come off again. Ha,it took me all day to get them unstuck.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 11, 6:05*pm, wrote:
>
> The panels are removable and as Tuno said, the factory thinks its a
> good idea to take the panels off when your not going to use water
> ballast for awhile. The panels main the reason is if you have a
> problem with the dump valve plumbing inside the wing, it allows you to
> access inside the wing, without cutting big holes. Remember, the tamks
> are bigger than a 27 and goe all the way to both ends of the inter
> panel. The 27 doesn't do that and are smaller. Our inter panels carry
> 45 gals, the 27 is 40 gals.
> I think they are great for those reasons and now since they have
> gaskets its simple to remove them. Since mine was one of the very
> first ones, the gaskets just might have not gotten to the factory from
> the vendor in time. When I got home from Hobbs, the gaskets were in
> the mail and I was told to remove the panels and install these
> gaskets. *Yep, I glued them babies on in Hobbs so they wouldn't ever
> come off *again. Ha,it took me all day to get them unstuck.- Hide quoted text -
>


I guess I need a picture, or a close look at a 29. The valves are
removable from a 28 without cutting any holes. I think what you are
saying is that the wing tank of the 29 goes all the way to the wing
root and is closed by the removable panel. If that is the case the
wing tank goes further inboard on the 29 than the 28 and is closed in
a different way. On the 28 the tanks neck down to the valve well
short of the root rib. Sounds like they compromised the design to get
more water on board.

Andy

[Tuno]

<Sounds like they compromised the design to get more water on board.>

Sounds to me like they improved the design and are just getting the
glitches ironed out :)

All three gliders I've owned had ballast issues -- the 304CZ's bags
failed to empty (I landed a few times with water in one wing); the V2C
leaked internally (for its first owner) and required glassroscopic
surgery; and the aforementioned 29 problems.

My 29's problem was the easiest to remedy -- a cheap O ring on the
plug. A more daunting problem is finding 5 gallon water jugs that will
not crack after one season of use.

2NO

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 12, 8:03*am, Tuno > wrote:

> Sounds to me like they improved the design and are just getting the
> glitches ironed out :)

I suppoose it depends on what you take as a baseline to measure
improvement from. Your baseline seems to be other gliders with water
problems, my baseline was the previous Schleicher model which had no
leaks and has easily serviceable dump valves.

The only problems with the 28 are the rather long dump time even with
the improved double vents of the later models, and the fact that water
drains from the vents if the tips are low. Does the 29 fix both those
issues?

I don't know why they didn't put a decent size vent at the root which
I think is what the LS-8 has.

Andy

[Tuno]

> I suppoose it depends on what you take as a baseline to measure
> improvement from. *

What I believe Schleicher was trying to improve was the shrinkage
problem, by allowing the operator to remove the root rib panels
between long intervals of unballasted flight, as well as the ballast
capacity, needed to get the wing loading up in 18M configuration.

> The only problems with the 28 are the rather long dump time even with
> the improved double vents of the later models, and the fact that water
> drains from the vents if the tips are low. *

The 28 has no shrinkage issues like the 27?

> Does the 29 fix both those issues?

Nope. Still drains from the tip, and a dump of 28 gallons required
just under 3 minutes at 75 knots indicated. A full ballast dump would
require between 5 and 6.

I wonder if a one-way flap valve would work in those wingtip vents ...
allow air in but not water out?

> I don't know why they didn't put a decent size vent at the root which
> I think is what the LS-8 has.

Good question.

-ted

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 12, 9:48*am, Tuno > wrote:

> The 28 has no shrinkage issues like the 27?

Yes it has the same problem but not as bad as the 27. I have never
been convinced it has anything to do with water ballast. It would be
nice to hear from someone that has never ballasted their 27 or 28.

> Nope. Still drains from the tip, and a dump of 28 gallons required
> just under 3 minutes at 75 knots indicated. A full ballast dump would
> require between 5 and 6.

I timed mine at over 8 minutes for 9psf loading (about 30 gals) but
that was on fast final glide. I think it dumps a bit faster flying
slowly.

Andy

[Tuno]

> I have never been convinced it has anything to do with water ballast. *

Anecdotal evidence ... I've heard from Schleicher owners who do not
have shrinkage, but either don't use ballast or use bags instead of
tanks, and I've seen the shrinkage on several 27s that did use ballast
regularly.

I'd like to hear from an owner with shrinkage who didn't use ballast,
or an owner (in the southwest USA) who used wing tank ballast
regularly for more than a few years and has seen no shrinkage.

Reading the flight and maintenance manuals for my 29, the factory
seems to be rather adamant about keeping the wings dry inside. Who am
I to argue with the book ...

..02NO

[[email protected]]

On Jan 12, 11:03�am, Tuno > wrote:
> > I have never been convinced it has anything to do with water ballast. �
>
> Anecdotal evidence ... I've heard from Schleicher owners who do not
> have shrinkage, but either don't use ballast or use bags instead of
> tanks, and I've seen the shrinkage on several 27s that did use ballast
> regularly.
>
> I'd like to hear from an owner with shrinkage who didn't use ballast,
> or an owner (in the southwest USA) who used wing tank ballast
> regularly for more than a few years and has seen no shrinkage.
>
> Reading the flight and maintenance manuals for my 29, the factory
> seems to be rather adamant about keeping the wings dry inside. Who am
> I to argue with the book ...
>
> .02NO

Experienced 27/28 owners do the Nixon/Murray mod which lowers the dump
time to less than 4 minutes. I did it to my 27 and its an easy mod.,
takes a few hours and less than 200 bucks.

My 29 dumps from full tanks to empty in 3 1/2 minutes. Thats been
timed several times.
I don't have shrinkage and mine is the second oldest in the USA. I
will add I have a 2"wave gauge and do use it.

If you take a factory tour and become educated on how the wing is
constructed it would give you valueable insight. Worthless hearsay is
an avenue I wish not to pursue. I have been to the factory, watched
the construction methods and spent quite some time with AS trained
folks.

Trying to compare one model with another is like comparing apples to
oranges. A wise monkey will be happy with either the apple or orange,
so as I'll go climb my tree and enjoy eatting my banana.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jan 12, 12:21*pm, wrote:
> Experienced 27/28 owners do the Nixon/Murray mod which lowers the dump
> time to less than 4 minutes. I did it to my 27 and its an easy mod.,
> takes a few hours and less than 200 bucks.

I had discussed the modified dump valves with LX, and seen how it was
done, but did not make the modification because because I do no ridge
flying.

> If you take a factory tour and become educated on how the wing is
> constructed *it would give you valueable insight. Worthless hearsay is
> an avenue I wish not to pursue. I have been to the factory, watched
> the construction methods and spent quite some time with AS trained
> folks.

Given all that insight do you believe that the wing profile change
seen in the ASW 27, and to a lesser extent in the ASW 28, is caused
by residual moisture from ballast?


Andy

[[email protected]]

On Jan 12, 12:44�pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jan 12, 12:21�pm, wrote:
>
> > Experienced 27/28 owners do the Nixon/Murray mod which lowers the dump
> > time to less than 4 minutes. I did it to my 27 and its an easy mod.,
> > takes a few hours and less than 200 bucks.
>
> I had discussed the modified dump valves with LX, and seen how it was
> done, but did not make the modification because because I do no ridge
> flying.
>
> > If you take a factory tour and become educated on how the wing is
> > constructed �it would give you valueable insight. Worthless hearsay is
> > an avenue I wish not to pursue. I have been to the factory, watched
> > the construction methods and spent quite some time with AS trained
> > folks.
>
> Given all that insight do you believe that the wing profile change
> seen in the ASW 27, and to a lesser extent in the ASW 28, �is caused
> by residual moisture from ballast?
>
> Andy

Has nothing to due with carrying water ballast.

Simply basic answer...curing cycle. Whats used today, is much better
than what was used over years past. Other words, the goup, which is
used to glue it together, has gotten better. We humans are still
learning.

UV breaks down waxes/sealers which then allow moisture into the gel
coat pour. When moisture gets into the gel coat pour, expansion and
contraction occur due to temperature differences, then on a mirco
scale, "**** starts to happen". UV breaks down waxes/sealers alot
faster than most think. UV sun blockers we use have to be reapplied
quite frequently. Most waxes/sealers break down within 250 hrs of
direct tropical sunlight.

At this point, Ralph would say " And away we go".