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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus A as a first glider
Steve,
Page 57 of the 1997 SSA Sailplane Directory says; "The 16.5 meter Diamond built by FFA was the first all glass fiber production sailplane, not using balsa or other wood sandwich between the fiberglass layers". Have you seen a core inside the 16.5 wing? The 15 meter wings were built by Glasflugel and did use balsa cores. JJ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus A as a first glider
On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 6:48:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Steve, Page 57 of the 1997 SSA Sailplane Directory says; "The 16.5 meter Diamond built by FFA was the first all glass fiber production sailplane, not using balsa or other wood sandwich between the fiberglass layers". Have you seen a core inside the 16.5 wing? The 15 meter wings were built by Glasflugel and did use balsa cores. JJ Hi, JJ. Yes, I have seen the foam core inside the Diamant wings on several 16.5 meter variants. Also have the repair manual. Section 4 page 6 shows a cross section of the wing skin. Agree that the wings on serial 1-10 were built by Glasflugel and are balsa core. But, the 16.5 and 18 meter are foam core. The key in the statement you quoted is "...balsa or other wood sandwiched between the fiberglass layers." PVC foam isn't wood. So, the Diamant became the first "all plastic" sailplane. It used another "plastic" as its core. Cool history collected here on the Diamants. http://www.b2streamlines.com/FFADiamant/index.html Steve Leonard |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus A as a first glider
Hi Steve,
16.5 Diamond was the first "all glass fiber" produced sailplane.........poorly worded entry! I stand corrected, JJ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus A as a first glider
On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 9:29:56 AM UTC-7, wrote:
I have been thinking about the advisability of buying a 50 year old Glider and several things came to mind. There were 3, first generation ships, Diamont, Phoebus and 301 Libelle. Two of them used balsa wood wing core and the other didn't use any core at all (Diamont 16.5 & 18) and one used a wooden box spar (Phoebus). The next generation of sailplanes didn't employ any of these construction methods! The next generation (ASW-20, etc.) was built about 40% stronger after the LBA changed the strength requirements for their sailplanes. As an example, the Phoebus uses 3 layers of 4 ounce cloth in their fuselage (and wings) while the 20 uses a minimum of 3 layers (or more) of 6 ounce cloth in their fuselage. The question becomes, Is the Phoebus built strong enough? Yes, but the integrity of the wooden based box spar must not be compromised! What could compromise the integrity of the box spar? A ground loop that resulted in a split seam for a few feet. Pilot probably got out and was relieved to see the T tail still standing proud. He probably made a careful inspection, looking for any cracks and decided all's well, that end's well, right? A split seam in the box-spar can't be seen from the outside! Something else that could weaken a box-spar is wood rot, can't see that from the outside either. We know the ship has been stored in the rafters for 15 years, but how was it flown and stored before that? The ship may not be a bargain at any price! I've been remembering the tragic crash of BG-12, that a new pilots dad had perched for his son. The kid made a high speed pass, like he'd seen the big guys do, then pulled on the flaps (probably going too fast), the inboard hinge of one flap gave way and took out the drag spar! That allowed the wing to twist and one wing departed the aircraft! Wood rot was found in the drag spar! Buyer be ware! JJ When and where did the accident occur (I found 3 fatals involving BG12s, and none involved a high-speed, low-pass). Tom |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus A as a first glider
On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 2:57:24 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 9:29:56 AM UTC-7, wrote: I have been thinking about the advisability of buying a 50 year old Glider and several things came to mind. There were 3, first generation ships, Diamont, Phoebus and 301 Libelle. Two of them used balsa wood wing core and the other didn't use any core at all (Diamont 16.5 & 18) and one used a wooden box spar (Phoebus). The next generation of sailplanes didn't employ any of these construction methods! The next generation (ASW-20, etc.) was built about 40% stronger after the LBA changed the strength requirements for their sailplanes. As an example, the Phoebus uses 3 layers of 4 ounce cloth in their fuselage (and wings) while the 20 uses a minimum of 3 layers (or more) of 6 ounce cloth in their fuselage. The question becomes, Is the Phoebus built strong enough? Yes, but the integrity of the wooden based box spar must not be compromised! What could compromise the integrity of the box spar? A ground loop that resulted in a split seam for a few feet. Pilot probably got out and was relieved to see the T tail still standing proud. He probably made a careful inspection, looking for any cracks and decided all's well, that end's well, right? A split seam in the box-spar can't be seen from the outside! Something else that could weaken a box-spar is wood rot, can't see that from the outside either. We know the ship has been stored in the rafters for 15 years, but how was it flown and stored before that? The ship may not be a bargain at any price! I've been remembering the tragic crash of BG-12, that a new pilots dad had perched for his son. The kid made a high speed pass, like he'd seen the big guys do, then pulled on the flaps (probably going too fast), the inboard hinge of one flap gave way and took out the drag spar! That allowed the wing to twist and one wing departed the aircraft! Wood rot was found in the drag spar! Buyer be ware! JJ When and where did the accident occur (I found 3 fatals involving BG12s, and none involved a high-speed, low-pass). Tom Unfortunately it did happen at Tehachapi, Ca |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus A as a first glider
When and where did the accident occur (I found 3 fatals involving BG12s, and none involved a high-speed, low-pass). Tom It was several years ago at Mountain Valley Airport in Tehachapi. I remember reading about it in Soaring, but I don't remember the exact year. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus A as a first glider
The accident occurred on August 26, 2000 at Mountain Valley Gliderport in Tehachapi, California and the glider was listed as a CABLE-BREIGLER BG-12BD.
Very sad. Dan Armstrong "DAN" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus A as a first glider
On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 4:20:51 PM UTC-7, wrote:
The accident occurred on August 26, 2000 at Mountain Valley Gliderport in Tehachapi, California and the glider was listed as a CABLE-BREIGLER BG-12BD. Very sad. Dan Armstrong "DAN" I couldn't find it because the accident glider was a BG-12BD and that isn't an NTSB search option (a persistent problem with the NTSB search query). The NTSB found that the pilot exceeded the flap-extended speed limit (no mention was made of wood rot). Wood rot is a serious concern; I once convinced my partners in a Citabria 7KCAB to sell the plane because wood rot had been found in some aircraft and ours was tied down outside. But this can be inspected for, so it isn't a deal breaker IF a proper inspection is done. On the subject of high-speed, low passes: I have discouraged these for a long time. Part of my rational is it encourages low time pilots to try to emulate the maneuver who may not have the skill level to pull it off. And there is not a good reason for doing it to begin with. Tom |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus A as a first glider
On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 5:24:00 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 4:20:51 PM UTC-7, wrote: The accident occurred on August 26, 2000 at Mountain Valley Gliderport in Tehachapi, California and the glider was listed as a CABLE-BREIGLER BG-12BD. Very sad. Dan Armstrong "DAN" I couldn't find it because the accident glider was a BG-12BD and that isn't an NTSB search option (a persistent problem with the NTSB search query). The NTSB found that the pilot exceeded the flap-extended speed limit (no mention was made of wood rot). Wood rot is a serious concern; I once convinced my partners in a Citabria 7KCAB to sell the plane because wood rot had been found in some aircraft and ours was tied down outside. But this can be inspected for, so it isn't a deal breaker IF a proper inspection is done. On the subject of high-speed, low passes: I have discouraged these for a long time. Part of my rational is it encourages low time pilots to try to emulate the maneuver who may not have the skill level to pull it off. And there is not a good reason for doing it to begin with. Tom Here is the report: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...Final&IType=LA |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Phoebus A as a first glider
On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 12:29:56 PM UTC-4, wrote:
... There were 3, first generation ships, Diamont, Phoebus and 301 Libelle. What is the spin warning/entry behavior of these first generation ships and does that matter for a new pilot? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Phoebus c and Mistral C | ND | Soaring | 0 | January 21st 15 03:54 PM |
Phoebus C glider project available | Mike Entwisle[_2_] | Soaring | 0 | September 12th 12 10:40 AM |
WTB phoebus A or B rudder | shkdriver | Soaring | 0 | March 9th 12 03:46 AM |
Phoebus C glider and parts for sale - low prices | Gerry | Soaring | 2 | June 26th 09 01:21 PM |
Phoebus B | AFSax | Soaring | 2 | August 18th 05 08:51 PM |