Aviation Forums Forum Index Aviation Forums
Aviation discussions newsgroups
 
Archives   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Query on the Woodstock

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Aviation Forums Forum Index -> Sailplanes
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Stealth Pilot
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:52 pm    Post subject: Query on the Woodstock Reply with quote



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 tossers)

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

Back to top
Doug Hoffman
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:11 am    Post subject: Re: Query on the Woodstock Reply with quote



Stealth Pilot wrote:

Quote:
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
Back to top
Fish
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Query on the Woodstock Reply with quote

Guys......I am pretty sure it was Maupin's Windrose self-launcher that
was deemed to need a stiffer fuse boom on Oz.
If anyone is after some, I have a set of unused Windrose Plans 13 an
15m

Cheers
Fish


Doug Hoffman wrote:
Quote:
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
Back to top
Stealth Pilot
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 6:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Query on the Woodstock Reply with quote

On 22 Jul 2006 18:41:45 -0700, "Doug Hoffman"
<dhoffman (AT) talkamerica (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

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
Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Query on the Woodstock Reply with quote

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:
Quote:
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 tossers)

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
Back to top
Frank Whiteley
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:02 am    Post subject: Re: Query on the Woodstock Reply with quote

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

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

Frank Whiteley

wby0nder (AT) aol (DOT) com wrote:
Quote:
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 tossers)

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
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Aviation Forums Forum Index -> Sailplanes All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB