The ravages of time?

At 18:28 19 June 2008, wrote:
On Jun 19, 7:37=A0am, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:25:12 -0700 (PDT), "noel.wade"

wrote:
That's why I settled on the DG-300 - it fits a combination of my
safety & ergonomic needs, flying style, local weather, intended
usage,
performance minimums, and personal goals. =A0Now I just hope that I
don't find it "boring" to fly after a few years... :-)

Once again, I don't want to disappoint you, but my club's students
find the DG-300 extremely boring after about two years and look
forward to fly the ASW-24... which they find boring again after at
maximum another two years when they are allowed to fly the ASW-27...


Bye
Andreas

I came back to Standard Class after 13 years in 15 Meter and have
never been bored in the ASW 24 (sorry, Andreas!). Not much difference
in the Eastern US most of the time. In strong conditions, I see as
much difference due to wingloading (newer ships in both classes can
get heavier) as to flaps. Biggest reason to go with flaps is easier
landing in short fields. But with the '24, I've flown as Standard,
Sports, 15M, and even Open Class. The latter was at Hobbs: on the
strong days, I could stay with the big ships due to turning tighter
and having higher wingloading. But when it got weak or a blue hole
opened up (as always seemed to happen), it got ugly: there's no
substitute for span. I'm sure you'll like the DG 300 whether for a
few years or long term, depending on what you want to do/accomplish in
soaring. There's always something else to buy, but for most of us
there's always much more to learn.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA


Is there still an AD on D300 restricting vne

On Jun 19, 12:28*pm, Jonathon May wrote:
Is there still an AD on D300 restricting vne- Hide quoted text -

In the US, so far as I know there is not an AD and never was.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Jun 19, 1:15*pm, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

In the US, so far as I know there is not an AD and never was.

To expand on that a bit, the worst-known ondulated DG300 still held
static test loads of about 9g, well in excess of the appropriate
category limit loading specified in FAR part 23. I forget which
category we're talking about, but I seem to recall that the
commensurate load is 5.3g with a safety factor of 1.5, or 8g.

As I understand it, the main issue is that they wouldn't support the
loadings specified by the more conservative European JAR22, something
like 5.3 * 1.725 or 9.1g.

Thanks, Bob K.

At 20:15 19 June 2008, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Jun 19, 12:28=A0pm, Jonathon May wrote:
Is there still an AD on D300 restricting vne- Hide quoted text -

In the US, so far as I know there is not an AD and never was.

Thanks, Bob K.

I have just checked it was in 2007 and it was a restriction until
inspection.If you go to the bga site they list all AD for all makes.
Thats why its worth asking here.
Jon

Jonathon May wrote:
At 20:15 19 June 2008, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Jun 19, 12:28=A0pm, Jonathon May wrote:
Is there still an AD on D300 restricting vne- Hide quoted text -
In the US, so far as I know there is not an AD and never was.

Thanks, Bob K.

I have just checked it was in 2007 and it was a restriction until
inspection.If you go to the bga site they list all AD for all makes.
Thats why its worth asking here.

The DG-300 does not have a standard type certificate in the US, so the
FAA does not issue ADs for them. However, the operating limitations
issued along with the special airworthiness certificate almost certainly
requires compliance with any service bulletins issued by the factory, so
any Vne or gross weight restrictions issued in a DG service bulletin are
applicable...

Marc

On Jun 19, 2:58*pm, Jonathon May wrote:
At 20:15 19 June 2008, Bob Kuykendall wrote:On Jun 19, 12:28=A0pm, Jonathon May *wrote:
Is there still an AD on D300 restricting vne- Hide quoted text -

In the US, so far as I know there is not an AD and never was.

Thanks, Bob K.

I have just checked it was in 2007 and it was a restriction until
inspection.If you go to the bga site they list all AD for all makes.
Thats why its worth asking here.
Jon

As Bob said, it was not an AD in the USA, a factor in that is likely
all DG-30x are licensed in the experimental category in the USA. It
was a EASA AD and is documented as DG TN-359/24. Look through the
r.a.s archives and you'll see folks, including Bob discussing the
technical issues behind this TN in detail.I personally ignored it for
my DG-303 based in part from my comfort of previous loading of the
aircraft doing aerobatics and lots of XC flying at the old MTOW. When
I sold the glider I changed the ASI markings, replaced the cockpit
placards etc. to comply with the (voluntary in the USA) TN.

Darryl

Darryl Ramm wrote:
When
I sold the glider I changed the ASI markings, replaced the cockpit
placards etc. to comply with the (voluntary in the USA) TN.

Unless you had unusually liberal ops lims, it wasn't voluntary...

Marc

Jim Beckman wrote:

Then again, if what he really wants is a challenge, maybe he
should buy a 1-26 and find out if he *really* knows how to
fly cross country.

You find out if you can fly cross country well by flying in contests,
and flying for badges and records. You don't find it out just by flying
a particular glider. Without other pilots to compare yourself to, you
can't be sure how well you used the opportunities the day offered.

Great competition ship, too. Real
mano-a-mano, no equipment differences.

ANY one-model competition can say the same thing, whether it's 1-26, ASW
20, LS 4, Nimbus 4, whatever.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

At 05:33 03 July 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Jim Beckman wrote:

Great competition ship, too. Real
mano-a-mano, no equipment differences.

ANY one-model competition can say the same thing, whether it's 1-26, ASW

20, LS 4, Nimbus 4, whatever.

Sure. But the 1-26 is the only glider I'm aware of, at least
in this country, where such organized contests are
readily available. (OK, there's the World Class, but the
1-26s have several times the turnout as do the PW-5s.)

Jim Beckman

Jim Beckman wrote:
At 05:33 03 July 2008, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Jim Beckman wrote:

Great competition ship, too. Real
mano-a-mano, no equipment differences.
ANY one-model competition can say the same thing, whether it's 1-26, ASW

20, LS 4, Nimbus 4, whatever.

Sure. But the 1-26 is the only glider I'm aware of, at least
in this country, where such organized contests are
readily available. (OK, there's the World Class, but the
1-26s have several times the turnout as do the PW-5s.)

The 1-26 is numerous in this country, and there isn't any other glider
with similar performance to compete against it, so it makes sense to
have "one-design" contests. I am curious how many pilots compete in 1-26
contests primarily because it's a one-design contest and the
"mano-a-mano" aspect is important to them. My guess is most competitors
bought it for other reasons.

In practice, the desire for other one-model classes is not strong
because they are similar enough that the difference in performance is
not a big issue. FAI gliders built within about 20 years of each other
probably don't vary any more in performance than the various 1-26
models, especially when you consider the difference pilot weight can
make in the 1-26.

So, you can still go mano-a-mano in the Standard or 15 Meter classes,
probably even in the Open Class, and easily figure out which pilot is
doing the better job. Shucks, you can even merge the Std/15 meter
classes, as sometimes happens in Regionals, and sometimes watch the Std
Class pilot(s) whomp the field.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org