DG-300/303 owners...

I doubt that you stay liable through bankruptcy.
DG is not Glazer-Dirks nor is it Rolladin-Schneider
and when DG bought the assets of those bankrupt
companies it didn't buy the liability of them. The
liabilities, debts to suppliers, warranties, shareholders
rights, employee compensation issues, etc... all
were disposed of by the bankruptcy court.
By buying the company name, assets and tooling
etc...DG got the goodwill of the customer base and
may have taken on the obligation to monitor the
status of legacy product but it did not take on an
obligation to provide free repair.
Also, they seem to believe that the third option,
the wings are strong enough with reduced operating
limits is sufficient.

Bob K. mentioned 'Hmmm... I wonder who that
'someone' might be. Whoever they are, they're
pretty brave to get wrapped up in this mess.'

This could also be applied to DG. If they specify
an inspection and repair procedure for this mess
does it imply that they are accepting some liability
for payment and warranty if someone other than
DG does the work?

At 03:06 21 April 2007, Mart wrote:

I read the report on the DG website and it all looks
very nice except
the last words; end of discussion. That rubs me the
wrong way.
As far as I know this is not a warranty issue but a
building mistake
and I think you stay liable for that, no time expire.
It seems to me that some business will have an insurance
to cover the
loss for the pilots.
I was at the Elan factory a number of years ago. They
were building
there the very first DG 1000. So there was defenitely
a close business
contact.
If DG would have to pay they might go bankrupt.Due
the previous
bankrupty they might not be liable anyway.
But Elan is a very big ski-factory. The gliders were
made on the same
terrain,behind the same fence. After seeing the gliders
build I saw
them build ski's by the 1000's. There is money there
to compensate or
fix the gliders.
I think all the 300/303 pilots should put $100 in an
account and have
somebody find out who is liable.




--
mart

I too believe the restrictions on the 300 will scarcely be noticed by
the average pilot, but if someone is concerened (acro) their ship can
easily be proof-loaded to 5.3 G's. Stan Hall wrote a good paper on
just how to go about it, published in Soaring. Basically you mount the
wing inverted on a sturdy test stand, secure it so it won't twist and
then sand-bag that puppy to the flight limits, usually 5.3 G's. Then
you know the wing is stong enough for anything it should see in flight
if the ship is flown within the flight envelope.
JJ

I was not able to follow the explaination, but in the original post at
DG they seem to say the wing that was tested (and was bad) failed at
just over 9.0 G's, but they want a safety factor of 1.5 which is 9.64
G's. I could have this wrong though. However, it seems in line with
the actually very modest restrictions, other than Acro, and only 35 or
37 Acro's were built.

Something I've always wondered is just exactly what made an Acro other
than the foot straps, the G meter, and the decal. Whatever it is it
doesn't seem to weigh anything.





On Apr 21, 5:34 am, JJ Sinclair wrote:
I too believe the restrictions on the 300 will scarcely be noticed by
the average pilot, but if someone is concerened (acro) their ship can
easily be proof-loaded to 5.3 G's. Stan Hall wrote a good paper on
just how to go about it, published in Soaring. Basically you mount the
wing inverted on a sturdy test stand, secure it so it won't twist and
then sand-bag that puppy to the flight limits, usually 5.3 G's. Then
you know the wing is stong enough for anything it should see in flight
if the ship is flown within the flight envelope.
JJ

brianDG303 wrote:
Something I've always wondered is just exactly what made an Acro other
than the foot straps, the G meter, and the decal. Whatever it is it
doesn't seem to weigh anything.

When I bought mine I was told that the structural changes consisted of a
slightly beefed up tail boom...

Marc