A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

another crash



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old September 7th 19, 06:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie Quebec
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default another crash

Had you bothered to click the link to the picture, the second one down shows clearly the glider was in a 65 degree nose down attitude when it hit.
The small damage to the wingtip and large damage to the nose show clearly where the force are. the sequencevof photos is quite clear.
I have personally seen the wreckage of a twin astir that struck nose first and both pilots survived, albeit one of them with a serious injury.
Here’s the link again to the pictures.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-runway.html
  #62  
Old September 7th 19, 08:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default another crash

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 10:44:56 AM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Dan Marotta wrote on 9/7/2019 7:06 AM:
As soon as I noticed the requirement, I installed a canopy breaker in the
cockpit.Â* Perhaps you'll find similar wording about the headrest or lack of same.
With no stated requirement, I'd argue with the authorities.Â* Probably a losing
battle, but one worth fighting.


What does a canopy breaker look like? I've never heard of one.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf


This video has been around for a while: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRvQxGl4kt4

Lots of options available if you search online but I suspect those cheap plastic handle breakers seem pretty good (I have several of them, got them for cars first). Secure them well so they don't come and get you during a crash. .. some of the heavier knife blade style breakers would worry me more about that. The dinky little sharp impact breakers ah not so useful as the video shows... heck you can shatter car glass with a tiny piece of ceramic..

Being trapped inverted in a crashed motorglider with potentially fuel leaking everywhere is not a pretty thought. Not really sure likely a breaker is is to be actually used/able to help (e.g. canopy is still intact, and breaking it will let you get out), but its cheap insurance.
  #63  
Old September 7th 19, 11:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default another crash

I have a military style breaker mounted to the left arm rest, under the
side pocket.Â* It is heavy and will make short work of a canopy if
properly used.Â* These were mounted to the canopy rails of all the jets I
flew in the Air Force (though they were painted flat black).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6dgzz4ji49...eaker.jpg?dl=0

On 9/7/2019 11:44 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Dan Marotta wrote on 9/7/2019 7:06 AM:
As soon as I noticed the requirement, I installed a canopy breaker in
the cockpit.Â* Perhaps you'll find similar wording about the headrest
or lack of same.Â* With no stated requirement, I'd argue with the
authorities.Â* Probably a losing battle, but one worth fighting.


What does a canopy breaker look like? I've never heard of one.


--
Dan, 5J
  #64  
Old September 8th 19, 01:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 774
Default another crash

"Canopy breakers" are different from the automotive "window breakers" in that the surfaces to be destroyed are also quite different. Automotive glass is tempered, meaning the entire surface is under a manufactured strain. It is quite durable and strong, but, because of the inherent stresses induced in the manufacturing process, it is susceptible to a sharp blow from a pointed object. Thus, a window breaker can (when properly used) shatter the entire surface into small chunks that pose minimal risk to occupants of the vehicle and allow for escape through the window frame.

Plexiglass glider canopies (as well as many other aviation windows) are much more flexible, and do not incorporate the tempered glass internal structure, Beating on the inside of a plastic canopy with the tiny pointed hammer that does so well on tempered glass is a basic exercise in futility, especially if the canopy has been partially broken, say, after a crash. There are specially designed tools that are intended for use with plastic canopies, like this one:

https://www.flyboyaccessories.com/Ch...ker-p/2201.htm

  #65  
Old September 8th 19, 03:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,403
Default another crash

Yes except the video I linked to showed somebody cracking open an acrylic aircraft canopy exactly with on of those cheap hammers. Don't think they will works I'll come and try one out on your glider. I won't even charge for the lesson, but I will pay for any minor damage I create that does not shatter the canopy.

The little click style breakers won't work well as that video prove, they rely on minimal force and just the point stress of a carbide or similar point on the tempered glass. As does chucking a tiny piece of broken spark plug ceramic against a car window (go on try it). So yet they would be a very bad ad choice. A rescue hammer, OTOH I expect to have little difficulty against a thin acrylic canopy. These are not fight jet canopies and are pretty dammed fragile.


On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 5:37:35 PM UTC-7, wrote:
"Canopy breakers" are different from the automotive "window breakers" in that the surfaces to be destroyed are also quite different. Automotive glass is tempered, meaning the entire surface is under a manufactured strain. It is quite durable and strong, but, because of the inherent stresses induced in the manufacturing process, it is susceptible to a sharp blow from a pointed object. Thus, a window breaker can (when properly used) shatter the entire surface into small chunks that pose minimal risk to occupants of the vehicle and allow for escape through the window frame.

Plexiglass glider canopies (as well as many other aviation windows) are much more flexible, and do not incorporate the tempered glass internal structure, Beating on the inside of a plastic canopy with the tiny pointed hammer that does so well on tempered glass is a basic exercise in futility, especially if the canopy has been partially broken, say, after a crash. There are specially designed tools that are intended for use with plastic canopies, like this one:

https://www.flyboyaccessories.com/Ch...ker-p/2201.htm


  #66  
Old September 8th 19, 03:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default another crash

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 10:52:20 AM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
Had you bothered to click the link to the picture, the second one down shows clearly the glider was in a 65 degree nose down attitude when it hit.
The small damage to the wingtip and large damage to the nose show clearly where the force are. the sequencevof photos is quite clear.
I have personally seen the wreckage of a twin astir that struck nose first and both pilots survived, albeit one of them with a serious injury.
Here’s the link again to the pictures.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-runway.html


You CLAIMED that the video showed a vertical impact, which it didn't. This picture DOESN'T show the impact either, but it looks very much like the wing tip hit first, causing a cartwheel - which is what I said before. A cartwheel is a VERY MUCH different type of impact from a frontal impact. I illustrated this with TWO SEPARATE ACCIDENTS. Go back and EDUCATE yourself!

Tom
  #67  
Old September 8th 19, 03:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,439
Default another crash

On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 7:14:41 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 at 10:52:20 AM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
Had you bothered to click the link to the picture, the second one down shows clearly the glider was in a 65 degree nose down attitude when it hit.
The small damage to the wingtip and large damage to the nose show clearly where the force are. the sequencevof photos is quite clear.
I have personally seen the wreckage of a twin astir that struck nose first and both pilots survived, albeit one of them with a serious injury.
Here’s the link again to the pictures.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-runway.html


You CLAIMED that the video showed a vertical impact, which it didn't. This picture DOESN'T show the impact either, but it looks very much like the wing tip hit first, causing a cartwheel - which is what I said before. A cartwheel is a VERY MUCH different type of impact from a frontal impact. I illustrated this with TWO SEPARATE ACCIDENTS. Go back and EDUCATE yourself!

Tom


I scrolled down and saw the 2nd photo, which CLEARLY shows the wing tip impacting first and absorbing much of the energy as it disintegrates. This is much more like a cartwheel than a frontal impact, where the cockpit hits first.

Tom
  #68  
Old September 9th 19, 09:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie Quebec
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default another crash

You can spin it any way you want, but the fact is, due to angular momentum the fuselage would have accelerated when the wing touched. The glider clearly did not cartwheel, it just touched a tip then the picture clearly shows that the tmpact was close to vertical .You must be blind if you can’t see the nose striking the ground at a near vertical position. Get your vision checked Your appeal to dubious authority of your so called experience is laughable.
  #69  
Old September 9th 19, 09:52 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie Quebec
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default another crash

Further, Nick Gilbert as you have chosen to claim that removing the headrest is illegal, I’m sure you can show the documentation to back your claim that a headrest is part
of the standard configuration of a DG 200. I’m sure the airworthiness people would be interested as they can find nothing definitive either way so far in the LBA certification. I imagine they really appreciate the waste of time on this rank triviality.
Lastly, regarding the construction of the headrest, I decided to take a quick look, to see what this marvel of safety is made of. It consists of a piece of 5mm ply, 50mm of soft springy foam, covered in cloth bolted thru the ply to a 50mm long 3mm steel plate 12mm wide, which is then welded to a 10mm square tube which carries the attachment arm to the canopy. It’s easy to imagine under load, the steel plate punching straight thru the low grade ply and into the back of the pilots head. It’s blatantly obvious that it’s poor construction method, and the obvious to anyone who isn’t a half wit hazard it presents should ejection by necessary, there is literally no way the canopy could leave the glider without striking the pilots head, or cause further injury in a whiplash situation.
Put up or shut up Nick.
  #70  
Old September 9th 19, 04:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default another crash

As the guy that sold the pilot that nicely turned out 300, it's a sad day indeed.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ASG-29 Crash [email protected] Soaring 0 September 27th 16 03:59 PM
UPS 747-400 crash D Ramapriya Piloting 0 September 4th 10 04:04 AM
Anyone know anything about this crash? [email protected] Soaring 2 July 28th 08 01:44 PM
vampire or venom crash pic - wx904 crash.jpg (1/1) [email protected] Aviation Photos 4 January 1st 07 07:30 PM
vampire or venom crash pic - wx904 crash.jpg (0/1) [email protected] Aviation Photos 0 December 30th 06 05:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.