DG-300/303 owners...

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