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

Query on the Woodstock



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 22nd 06, 02:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Stealth Pilot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Query on the Woodstock

Australia determined way back when the glider first appeared that the
aft fuselage area had insufficient torsional strength and required
strengthening. ( I suspect that they were a bunch of *******)

looking through the articles that have appeared on the woodstock I see
that it has been flown with a self launch engine that popped up behind
the pilot. surely motor operation would have bought the glider undone
if it actually had any weakness.

what do you guys who actually fly the woodstock think of the
structural integrity of the design?
Is there anything about the design that you'd alter to improve it?

Stealth Pilot
Australia


  #2  
Old July 23rd 06, 02:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Stealth Pilot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Query on the Woodstock

On 22 Jul 2006 18:41:45 -0700, "Doug Hoffman"
wrote:


Stealth Pilot wrote:

what do you guys who actually fly the woodstock think of the
structural integrity of the design?


A search of the NTSB aviation accident database turned up two
structural failure incidents. Both were wing failures. One was caused
by using the glider for aerobatics. It is *not* an aerobatic glider.
The cause for the other was not determined. The pilot was flying wave
at 16,500 feet without oxygen.

I found no fuselage structure issues in the database.

Regards,

-Doug


thanks for that. it reinforces my thinking that it was an australian
spurious issue. ....not the only one.

Stealth Pilot
  #3  
Old July 25th 06, 07:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default Query on the Woodstock

I think the Woodstock is a great design. It performs better than
expected and is well engineered. If I remember correctly, the builder
of my ship, Bob Wander, was consulted by the FAA or NTSB on both of the
in-flight break-up's that occured in the US. You could contact him at
bobwander.com for details but I'm pretty sure in both cases the
investigation showed that the glider was flown well outside limits.
I'd steer clear of the 13 meter extended wingtip version as I don't
think the rest of the airframe was originally intended for the
additional loads. The stock design has considerable margins and can
probably handle it fine but but I'd rather have the load margins Irv
Culver calculated over the couple points of L/D the extended tips might
add.

Matt Michael
http://members.aol.com/woodglider/matt.htm


Stealth Pilot wrote:
Australia determined way back when the glider first appeared that the
aft fuselage area had insufficient torsional strength and required
strengthening. ( I suspect that they were a bunch of *******)

looking through the articles that have appeared on the woodstock I see
that it has been flown with a self launch engine that popped up behind
the pilot. surely motor operation would have bought the glider undone
if it actually had any weakness.

what do you guys who actually fly the woodstock think of the
structural integrity of the design?
Is there anything about the design that you'd alter to improve it?

Stealth Pilot
Australia


  #4  
Old July 25th 06, 08:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Frank Whiteley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,099
Default Query on the Woodstock

I think a couple were being built with carbon rods in the spar caps
also.

http://www.marskeaircraft.com/carbonrod.html

Frank Whiteley

wrote:
I think the Woodstock is a great design. It performs better than
expected and is well engineered. If I remember correctly, the builder
of my ship, Bob Wander, was consulted by the FAA or NTSB on both of the
in-flight break-up's that occured in the US. You could contact him at
bobwander.com for details but I'm pretty sure in both cases the
investigation showed that the glider was flown well outside limits.
I'd steer clear of the 13 meter extended wingtip version as I don't
think the rest of the airframe was originally intended for the
additional loads. The stock design has considerable margins and can
probably handle it fine but but I'd rather have the load margins Irv
Culver calculated over the couple points of L/D the extended tips might
add.

Matt Michael
http://members.aol.com/woodglider/matt.htm


Stealth Pilot wrote:
Australia determined way back when the glider first appeared that the
aft fuselage area had insufficient torsional strength and required
strengthening. ( I suspect that they were a bunch of *******)

looking through the articles that have appeared on the woodstock I see
that it has been flown with a self launch engine that popped up behind
the pilot. surely motor operation would have bought the glider undone
if it actually had any weakness.

what do you guys who actually fly the woodstock think of the
structural integrity of the design?
Is there anything about the design that you'd alter to improve it?

Stealth Pilot
Australia


 




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
Woodstock Plans F/S [email protected] Soaring 0 May 16th 05 10:06 PM
Jim Weir: RST-442E operation query Leo Home Built 8 April 25th 05 04:48 PM
Prop Strike Query Dick Home Built 12 November 16th 04 03:20 AM
Query for Jim Weir re RST Panel Mount Intercom [email protected] Home Built 3 November 14th 04 07:41 PM
Tool query... Tina Marie Owning 2 July 15th 04 05:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:00 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.