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

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

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