Glider Hours

I had one of those once; urinated on my 'chute. Spoilered in from
14,500msl to save it.

At 17:41 27 April 2011, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Apr 27, 10:51=A0am, jsbrake wrote:
Kirk
(who once logged a .3 flight in a F-4 that wasn't an IFE - and it
included the 5 minutes of taxi time!)

Okay, there's got to be a story in that! =A0Pardon my lack of
acronym-
sense, but what is "IFE" ? =A0(I'm thinking something Failure of
Engine).

-John
(who once crashed a simulated CF-100)

In Flight Emergency

On 4-27-2011 16:51, jsbrake wrote:
Kirk
(who once logged a .3 flight in a F-4 that wasn't an IFE - and it
included the 5 minutes of taxi time!)

Okay, there's got to be a story in that! Pardon my lack of acronym-
sense, but what is "IFE" ? (I'm thinking something Failure of
Engine).

-John
(who once crashed a simulated CF-100)

In flight emergency???

On Apr 27, 11:51*am, jsbrake wrote:
Kirk
(who once logged a .3 flight in a F-4 that wasn't an IFE - and it
included the 5 minutes of taxi time!)

Okay, there's got to be a story in that! *Pardon my lack of acronym-
sense, but what is "IFE" ? *(I'm thinking something Failure of
Engine).

-John
(who once crashed a simulated CF-100)

Short War Story:

Clark AB, Philippines, mid 80s. Squadron was in the middle of a
sortie surge - flying a lot of 4-ship 1.5 hour sorties back to back,
simulating wartime conditions. My pilot and I got to our jet and it
wasn't ready for some reason. So the rest of the flight took off on
their scheduled time while we waited for maintenance to fix our jet,
hoping to get airborne in time to get a short sortie in before the
mandatory "land-by" time (needed to get the jets ready for the next
scheduled takeoff time...). Bottom line, jet finally gets fixed,
about 30 minutes before it had to be back in the chocks for the next
crew. We told this to the squadron, suggesting that it would be
difficult to get started, systems checked, taxi to the active (a long
way on Clark AB), fly, land, taxi in, etc and still get a useful
sortie out of it. But we were told GO!, so we did. Flew exactly 12
minutes, mostly in min AB with the speed brakes out and dumping gas to
get the fuel down to a reasonable landing weight, did basically a big
looping pattern flight, and taxied back to our spot on the ramp on
time for the jet to be prepared for the next sortie. The crew chief,
not expecting us back for an hour or so, thought we had aborted prior
to taking off - until he saw that the drag chute had been deployed -
The look on his face was priceless!

So, we logged a .3 (12 minutes takeoff to landing plus 5 minutes taxi
time - AF standard), and got royally chewed out by the Ops Officer for
flying a really dumb sortie. Our excuse of "But we asked and you told
us to fly!" didn't hack it.

It was worth it, though!

Kirk
66

On Apr 29, 10:48*am, "kirk.stant" wrote:
On Apr 27, 11:51*am, jsbrake wrote:

Kirk
(who once logged a .3 flight in a F-4 that wasn't an IFE - and it
included the 5 minutes of taxi time!)

Okay, there's got to be a story in that! *Pardon my lack of acronym-
sense, but what is "IFE" ? *(I'm thinking something Failure of
Engine).

-John
(who once crashed a simulated CF-100)

Short War Story:

Clark AB, Philippines, mid 80s. *Squadron was in the middle of a
sortie surge - *flying a lot of 4-ship 1.5 hour sorties back to back,
simulating wartime conditions. My pilot and I got to our jet and it
wasn't ready for some reason. *So the rest of the flight took off on
their scheduled time while we waited for maintenance to fix our jet,
hoping to get airborne in time to get a short sortie in before the
mandatory "land-by" time (needed to get the jets ready for the next
scheduled takeoff time...). *Bottom line, jet finally gets fixed,
about 30 minutes before it had to be back in the chocks for the next
crew. *We told this to the squadron, suggesting that it would be
difficult to get started, systems checked, taxi to the active (a long
way on Clark AB), fly, land, taxi in, etc and still get a useful
sortie out of it. *But we were told GO!, so we did. *Flew exactly 12
minutes, mostly in min AB with the speed brakes out and dumping gas to
get the fuel down to a reasonable landing weight, did basically a big
looping pattern flight, and taxied back to our spot on the ramp on
time for the jet to be prepared for the next sortie. *The crew chief,
not expecting us back for an hour or so, thought we had aborted prior
to taking off - until he saw that the drag chute had been deployed -
The look on his face was priceless!

So, we logged a .3 (12 minutes takeoff to landing plus 5 minutes taxi
time - AF standard), and got royally chewed out by the Ops Officer for
flying a really dumb sortie. *Our excuse of "But we asked and you told
us to fly!" didn't hack it.

It was worth it, though!

Kirk
66

Have a shot of the Blue Kool-Aid and say "The Air Force Made me do
it!"

On 4/26/2011 4:13 PM, Walt Connelly wrote:
I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
time. Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
the air frame. While people might try to inflate their personal flying
time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
way or another. Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
determine the true time on an airframe? I cant think of one.

Walt

A couple of thoughts...

- My understanding of 'German glass' (the glider world 'certification
pioneers') is that early (Glasflugel & Schleicher & probably others)
pre-carbon-ed airframes were LBA-overseen-tested to 18,000 hours, then
(originally) certified to 1/6 of that, or the 'magic' 3,000 hours you'll
sooner or later encounter in the glider world. As airframes/types reached
3,000 hours, additional certification depended upon them passing detailed
inspections with the results forwarded/blessed by the LBA in 3,000 hour
increments. I believe some airframes have now been certified up to 12,000
hours (Twin Grobs? LS-4's?). It'd be great if knowledgeable Europeans will see
fit to chime in here...

- 'Pure glass' gliders are necessarily 'overstrong' (i.e. designed to
stiffness, rather than strength criteria [the latter being typical of aluminum
and wood gliders and airplanes]), in order to demonstrate 'usefully high'
flutter-free useable airspeeds.

- I'm unaware of any evidence of fatigue-related aging issues in any
first-generation glass ships' composites. (The metal bits are a different
story, of course...)

Based on the above, my conclusion is potential owners of 1st-generation glass
gliders have little to fret about in ship-life terms, at least of the plastic
bits, regardless of whether one is purchasing from an apparent 'squirrel' or
from Diogenes' sought-after human.

Regards,
Bob W.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:51:52 -0600, BobW
wrote:


- My understanding of 'German glass' (the glider world 'certification
pioneers') is that early (Glasflugel & Schleicher & probably others)
pre-carbon-ed airframes were LBA-overseen-tested to 18,000 hours, then
(originally) certified to 1/6 of that, or the 'magic' 3,000 hours you'll
sooner or later encounter in the glider world.

When glass glider were invented, things were a little more simple than
what you described.
The wings of glass gliders were (and still are) tested to destruction
in bending tests, but no large-scale load cycle tests were carried
out.
The only real long-term test article is that Janus C (carbon) wing
that is stored outside Stuttgart university and tested every couple of
years.


As airframes/types reached
3,000 hours, additional certification depended upon them passing detailed
inspections with the results forwarded/blessed by the LBA in 3,000 hour
increments. I believe some airframes have now been certified up to 12,000
hours (Twin Grobs? LS-4's?). It'd be great if knowledgeable Europeans will see
fit to chime in here...

Basically no need to do that - you explained the procedures perfectly
correctly.

The only "glass" glider I'm aware of that has an airframe hour limit
is the Pegase (but not based upon technical issues).

As you describe correctly, most German gliders need a thorough
inspection every 3.000 hrs (newer Schempp Hirth gliders 6.000 hrs)
which sometimes includes the replacement of certain parts (usually the
only mandatory replacements are rudder cables and release cables).

I've heard of an ASK-21 that recently passed its 24.000 hrs check.


- 'Pure glass' gliders are necessarily 'overstrong' (i.e. designed to
stiffness, rather than strength criteria [the latter being typical of aluminum
and wood gliders and airplanes]), in order to demonstrate 'usefully high'
flutter-free useable airspeeds.

.... and in contrary to aluminium the materials of a composite glider
are not fatigue critical - an aluminium structure needs to be
overengineered to extend its fatigue life, but glass, carbon or kevlar
fibre don't need this.


Based on the above, my conclusion is potential owners of 1st-generation glass
gliders have little to fret about in ship-life terms, at least of the plastic
bits, regardless of whether one is purchasing from an apparent 'squirrel' or
from Diogenes' sought-after human.

100% agree.



Cheers
Andreas

glider hours are nearly impossible to validate, especially in the US, you
can only rely on how well the records were kept and trust the owners to
properly keep records. I know most European gliders I've seen have had quite
elaborate record keeping as they should be.......here....not so
much......the good thing is that you really can't do much to wear out a
glider by flying unless you're pounding it on the ridge, racing and running
redline airspeeds in rough conditions or aerobatics..often when I see
comments like "record setting glider" or "proven contest record" this
implies it wasn't simply driven to church on Sundays by a little old lady
school teacher..Number of launches might even be more important.
There is an Glider Hour Counter available from Winter (I have these here)
that operates off of pitot pressure input but unless this was mandated as a
required instrument we are left with relying on the accuracy and
truthfulness of the owner/operator......much like "Damage History" and
"Recorded Damage History"
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Walt Connelly" wrote in message
...

I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
time. Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
the air frame. While people might try to inflate their personal flying
time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
way or another. Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
determine the true time on an airframe? I cant think of one.

Walt




--
Walt Connelly

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 6076 (20110427) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com






__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6076 (20110427) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

On Apr 26, 6:13*pm, Walt Connelly Walt.Connelly.
wrote:
I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
time. *Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
the air frame. *While people might try to inflate their personal flying
time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
way or another. *Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
determine the true time on an airframe? *I cant think of one.

Walt

--
Walt Connelly

You cut the spar in half and count the rings.

On Apr 28, 12:32*pm, SF wrote:
On Apr 26, 6:13*pm, Walt Connelly Walt.Connelly.

wrote:
I have seen a number of glider advertised and most tell you the total
time. *Unlike a powered airplane which has a tach or a Hobbs meter,
gliders seldom have any built in way to determine the actually time on
the air frame. *While people might try to inflate their personal flying
time, I would not be surprised if many of these gliders are low balling
their actual air frame time which I presume has a lifetime limit in one
way or another. *Is there any reasonably foolproof/accurate way to
determine the true time on an airframe? *I cant think of one.

Walt

--
Walt Connelly

You cut the spar in half and count the rings.

Unfortunately, that seems to have stopped working sometime in the mid
60's but that's been hidden by Hänle's "trick", splicing on a new
series.