On Apr 7, 11:47 am, Marc Ramsey wrote:
wrote:
I, for one, bought a DG-300 for its superior strength among other
reasons. We will have to wait for more clarification from DG but at
this point it seems that strength has now been reduced. Since this is
admittedly the fault of ELAN for not following the correct
manufacturing process and not notifying DG that they were altering the
manufacturing process this seems like a negligence issue. I would
hope they would do something to rectify the situation.

I sold mine several years ago, so I don't really have much of a stake in
this (at the moment, anyway), but when I bought my 303 Acro, the check
wasn't payable to ELAN, it was payable to Glaser-Dirks (which is, of
course, not quite the same company as DG-Flugzeugbau).

When subcontractor spar fabrication "innovations" resulted in our Duo
being grounded, Schempp-Hirth immediately took responsibility, found a
practical inspection and repair protocol, trained repair shops in their
major markets to inspect and repair (and flew SH technicians worldwide
to deal with the rest), and had most of the gliders back in the air in
less than two months without charging the owners a dime.

The situations aren't exactly comparable, but if I ever find myself
buying another new glider, this sort of behavior will no doubt influence
the choice...

Marc


I'm wondering why they have not issued a TN on this. Also, they
certainly know the S/N of the one where this was discovered as well as
any other tested. It seemed like they tested more than one.

In 1986 there was a mass balance issue that could have caused
flutter. They issued a TN and a very specific list of S/N's for
that. You'd think they could do the same here. ELAN seems to have
clammed up and mayby that's where the list needs to come from.
They're probably worried about liability and maybe they should be.