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

DG-300/303 owners...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 16th 07, 05:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Alan Montague
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default DG-300/303 owners...

Is there any scope for non-destructive testing by industrial
radiology?

X-rays are sensitive in showing up minor ripples in
children's bones? Would they work for the ripples in
my spar?

If so it might be financially viable.

Alan



Ads
  #2  
Old April 16th 07, 06:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Marc Ramsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 207
Default DG-300/303 owners...

Alan Montague wrote:
Is there any scope for non-destructive testing by industrial
radiology?

X-rays are sensitive in showing up minor ripples in
children's bones? Would they work for the ripples in
my spar?


There may well be alternative approaches, and that is why some of us
(including owners of other legacy DG gliders, like myself) are a bit
disturbed by the response of the DG factory. I don't expect them to pay
for the repair (or even inspection) of a legacy design like the 300, but
given that the original designer and many of the original engineers and
technicians now work for the "new" DG, they have the resources necessary
to find a better solution. In my mind, the reputations of the DG
designers, engineers, and inspectors is at stake here, whether or not
the current DG company feels they are obligated to take on any
responsibility beyond issuing what they consider to be a suitable TN.
If I were to buy a DG-808 now, why should I assume the factory won't
issue a draconian TN and leave me hanging 5 or 10 years down the line?

I again look at the Duo spar inspections as an example, the original
protocol involved cutting holes in the wing skin and visually inspecting
the spars, in short order SH evolved to using a borescope through the
existing inspection ports and a few holes drilled in the root rib and
aileron cutouts, eventually someone figured how to do it with
inexpensive lipstick cameras and long rods.

Marc

  #3  
Old April 16th 07, 07:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default DG-300/303 owners...

At 17:36 16 April 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Alan Montague wrote:
Is there any scope for non-destructive testing by
industrial
radiology?

X-rays are sensitive in showing up minor ripples in
children's bones? Would they work for the ripples
in
my spar?


I would think that an ultrasonic inspection method

could be developed for much less cost than radiography.
Ultrasonic might be able to look into the layers of
rovings
and see how deep the undulations are. You might want

to check with some companies which make composite
aircraft and composite spars. Cirrus Design, Scaled

Composites, Adam Aircraft etc..., and find out how
they
do NDT on their designs.

I again look at the Duo spar inspections as an example,
the original
protocol involved cutting holes in the wing skin and
visually inspecting
the spars, in short order SH evolved to using a borescope
through the
existing inspection ports and a few holes drilled in
the root rib and
aileron cutouts, eventually someone figured how to
do it with
inexpensive lipstick cameras and long rods.

Mark




  #4  
Old April 16th 07, 07:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default DG-300/303 owners...

At 17:36 16 April 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Alan Montague wrote:
Is there any scope for non-destructive testing by
industrial
radiology?

X-rays are sensitive in showing up minor ripples in
children's bones? Would they work for the ripples
in
my spar?


I would think that an ultrasonic inspection method

could be developed for much less cost than radiography.
Ultrasonic might be able to look into the layers of
rovings
and see how deep the undulations are. You might want

to check with some companies which make composite
aircraft and composite spars. Cirrus Design, Scaled

Composites, Adam Aircraft etc..., and find out how
they
do NDT on their designs.

I again look at the Duo spar inspections as an example,
the original
protocol involved cutting holes in the wing skin and
visually inspecting
the spars, in short order SH evolved to using a borescope
through the
existing inspection ports and a few holes drilled in
the root rib and
aileron cutouts, eventually someone figured how to
do it with
inexpensive lipstick cameras and long rods.

Mark




  #5  
Old April 16th 07, 09:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 209
Default DG-300/303 owners...


Such a major flaw in a wing spar should be replaced at the
manufacturers expense IMHO.

It is inexcusable for these wings to still be allowed to fly at lower
placarded limits as DG has no knowledge of the condition of the entire
fleet.
DG should sue Elan for screwing up and DG owners should get a free set
of wings to replace the bad ones they bought in good faith.
Its not like you can glue a new spar in the place where its bad!!

Regards

Al



On Apr 16, 11:39 am, Steve Davis
wrote:
At 17:36 16 April 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:

Alan Montague wrote:
Is there any scope for non-destructive testing by
industrial
radiology?


X-rays are sensitive in showing up minor ripples in
children's bones? Would they work for the ripples
in
my spar?


I would think that an ultrasonic inspection method

could be developed for much less cost than radiography.
Ultrasonic might be able to look into the layers of
rovings
and see how deep the undulations are. You might want

to check with some companies which make composite
aircraft and composite spars. Cirrus Design, Scaled

Composites, Adam Aircraft etc..., and find out how
they
do NDT on their designs.I again look at the Duo spar inspections as an example,
the original
protocol involved cutting holes in the wing skin and
visually inspecting
the spars, in short order SH evolved to using a borescope
through the
existing inspection ports and a few holes drilled in
the root rib and
aileron cutouts, eventually someone figured how to
do it with
inexpensive lipstick cameras and long rods.


Mark



  #6  
Old April 16th 07, 11:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default DG-300/303 owners...

On Apr 16, 9:26 pm, "
wrote:
Such a major flaw in a wing spar should be replaced at the
manufacturers expense IMHO.


This would bankrupt DG, which benefits no-one.

It is inexcusable for these wings to still be allowed to fly at lower
placarded limits as DG has no knowledge of the condition of the entire
fleet.


Well, they (and EASA) believe they've tested-to-destruction the worst
case, and under the new placard speeds (which are hardly low; the
DG300 always had a high VNE and rough air max) there's still the big
safety margin demanded by the regulations.

DG should sue Elan for screwing up and DG owners should get a free set
of wings to replace the bad ones they bought in good faith.
Its not like you can glue a new spar in the place where its bad!!


The manufacturing screw-up happened too long ago for DG to sue Elan/
AMS (I get the impression they would if they could).


Dan

  #7  
Old April 17th 07, 01:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default DG-300/303 owners...

The wings are reparable so they shouldn't have to
provide free replacements. Since it is a fiberglass
spar cap and the problem seems to be limited to the
wing root it MIGHT be possible to cut a slot into the

rovings and embed some Graphlite carbon fiber rods
into the spar cap. If this is doable the result could
be a far stronger spar than the original design. I

don't think you could do this with a carbon fiber spar
cap but i'm not sure about fiberglass.

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


It is inexcusable for these wings to still be allowed
to fly at lower
placarded limits as DG has no knowledge of the condition
of the entire
fleet.
DG should sue Elan for screwing up and DG owners should
get a free

set
of wings to replace the bad ones they bought in good
faith.
Its not like you can glue a new spar in the place where
its bad!!

Regards

Al



On Apr 16, 11:39 am, Steve Davis
wrote:
At 17:36 16 April 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:

Alan Montague wrote:
Is there any scope for non-destructive testing by
industrial
radiology?


X-rays are sensitive in showing up minor ripples
in
children's bones? Would they work for the ripples
in
my spar?


I would think that an ultrasonic inspection method

could be developed for much less cost than radiography.
Ultrasonic might be able to look into the layers of
rovings
and see how deep the undulations are. You might want

to check with some companies which make composite
aircraft and composite spars. Cirrus Design, Scaled

Composites, Adam Aircraft etc..., and find out how
they
do NDT on their designs.I again look at the Duo spar
inspections as

an example,
the original
protocol involved cutting holes in the wing skin and
visually inspecting
the spars, in short order SH evolved to using a borescope
through the
existing inspection ports and a few holes drilled
in
the root rib and
aileron cutouts, eventually someone figured how to
do it with
inexpensive lipstick cameras and long rods.


Mark







  #8  
Old April 17th 07, 01:39 AM
John Schaffer John Schaffer is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 7
Default

I have sent a email to the factory, with no reply.

I am guessing that it would cost me $21K USD to get my wings fixed.

Does anyone have any idea on the cost of new wings from the factory?

Would it be cheaper for me?

Regards,

John "XLT"
  #9  
Old April 17th 07, 08:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 209
Default DG-300/303 owners...

On Apr 16, 3:48 pm, "Dan G" wrote:
On Apr 16, 9:26 pm, "
wrote:

Such a major flaw in a wing spar should be replaced at the
manufacturers expense IMHO.


This would bankrupt DG, which benefits no-one.


If Boeing shipped a plane that was discovered to have a flaw in it
because their sub contractor failed to adhere to manufacturing specs
or QA procedures, Boeing would fix the problem then deal with the
sub. After all Boeing owns the paper for the sales contract.

So what is different here?


It is inexcusable for these wings to still be allowed to fly at lower
placarded limits as DG has no knowledge of the condition of the entire
fleet.


Well, they (and EASA) believe they've tested-to-destruction the worst
case, and under the new placard speeds (which are hardly low; the
DG300 always had a high VNE and rough air max) there's still the big
safety margin demanded by the regulations.


No DG would like to think they have found the worst case.
They dont know.

It will only take one crusty in his DG flying the old placard speeds,
making it clap hands and they are in a whole heap of trouble.


DG should sue Elan for screwing up and DG owners should get a free set
of wings to replace the bad ones they bought in good faith.
Its not like you can glue a new spar in the place where its bad!!


The manufacturing screw-up happened too long ago for DG to sue Elan/
AMS (I get the impression they would if they could).


No the DG site says this applies to DG303-Acros too which are recent
production.

This is a nightmare for DG300/303 owners, I almost became an owner
last summer as I was looking at a DG303 acro.

As an aside I posted some DG300 wing cross section shots from the one
that went in at Minden 10 years ago.
you can see the build quality really clearly here.
http://www.gliderforum.com/photos/ph...asp?albumid=55

Regards

Al




  #10  
Old April 17th 07, 08:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 209
Default DG-300/303 owners...

On Apr 16, 5:09 pm, Steve Davis
wrote:
The wings are reparable so they shouldn't have to
provide free replacements. Since it is a fiberglass
spar cap and the problem seems to be limited to the
wing root it MIGHT be possible to cut a slot into the

rovings and embed some Graphlite carbon fiber rods
into the spar cap. If this is doable the result could
be a far stronger spar than the original design. I


Cutting into a spar there is no good, you only move the problem
further out on the wing where the glue joint is!!


 




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
Beech Duke Owners/ex-Owners ple help... Stanley Owning 12 June 10th 16 12:36 AM
DG-300/303 owners... Marc Ramsey Soaring 34 April 22nd 07 05:07 AM
SHK Owners [email protected] Soaring 1 February 7th 06 07:37 PM
R22 owners please help with AD 2004-06-52 rotortrash Rotorcraft 20 April 28th 04 04:33 PM
Any UH-1 owners in here? Jim Rotorcraft 7 October 6th 03 02:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.