Woodstock Glider

[rod...@spinmaster.com]

Hello

I have had my glider plans for approximatly 9 years now.
My question is, does anyone know the Airfoil used by the Woodstock
Glider?
NACA ###?

Thanks
Herbie

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Apr 4, 9:35 am, rodn...@spinmaster.com wrote:

> NACA ###?

More likely Culver ####.

Ah, here it is: Culver 18%:

http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html

More than likely, the 18% is the thickness (T/C), nice and deep to
keep the spar simple and cheap.

Who's Irv Culver? Just the guy who was at the center of the design of
some of the hottest airplanes of the 20th century. The guy who gave
Kelly Johnson's "Skunk Works (R)" its name.

http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=5811273455&show=blog&archive=9/1/1999

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aeronautics/skunkworks/name.html

Thanks, Bob K.

[Doug Hoffman]

Irv also did the airfoils and structure analysis for the
record-setting Carbon Dragon and the very unique Windrose
(originally called the Extremely Easy). I had plans for both.
The WR struck me as a design of near genious for its simplicity
of construction (a 13 or 15 meter moldless composite
motorglider). Seems to me that any reported handling issues
should not be too hard to remedy. I sold my WR plans and am now
sorry that I did.

--
Regards,
Doug

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[rod...@spinmaster.com]

Thanks Guys

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no washout in this design is
there?

[rod...@spinmaster.com]

Sorry, yet another question, are the Airfoil Data points freely
available?

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Apr 7, 9:50 am, rodn...@spinmaster.com wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no washout in this design is
> there?

If there is, it will be shown in the plans. It might also be covered
in _Fundamentals of Sailplane Design_, but my copy is not handy.

> Sorry, yet another question, are the Airfoil Data points freely
> available?

Probably not. It's not at the UIUC site, so it's probably not freely
available. From what I've heard, it was a one-off profile (OK, two-off
if you count the substantial difference between the root and tip
shapes) that Irv did on a relatively casual basis.

Thanks, Bob K.

[JJ Sinclair]

I believe the Woodstock has an aerodynamic twist that allows the tip
stall later (slower) then the root. I believe the airfoil was derived
from the Gother 549 (modified by Erv Culver) then it blends into USA
35B at the tip. I flew the prototype and it didn't have a tip stall.
JJ

[rod...@spinmaster.com]

On Apr 7, 3:03 pm, JJ Sinclair <john.sincl...@att.net> wrote:
> I believe theWoodstockhas an aerodynamic twist that allows the tip

I'm looking at the plans, and there is no Washout, that I can detect,
which is why I'm asking.
The spar cutouts are exactly the same relative position on all the
foil profiles, with no twisting.
I am also an Aerospace Engineer, been working mostly mechanical for
the last 8 years so my aerospace brain has cobwebs, but I do know how
to read a drawing, my guess is it was this way for ease of
construction.
I'll re-read the assembly manual again.
I scanned sheet one of the 13M drawings and have the foils now in a
DWG format.
What I'll do is use Pro/E to loft between foil 1 and 20, then insert
each foil from 1 to 20 at station, then generate cross sections at
each station to see if they all meet up.

[rod...@spinmaster.com]

Sorry, I just clued in on the aerodynamic twist.
The tip foil should stall later, right.
I got confused with the %18 vs %13, which is just the thickness and I
wouldn't have thought the difference would have been significant, but
if what Mr. Sinclair is saying, they are actually different foils then
there would be some form of washout. Thanks guys.

Herbie.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Yup, that's the way I understand it - there's no angular difference
between the chord lines of the root and tip sections, but the profile
differences between the root and tip airfoils make the wing act as if
there are.

Here's a couple of pictures from the Les Sparks site that shows the
Woodstock wing profiles:

http://members.aol.com/lessparks/clint20.jpg

http://members.aol.com/woodglider/clint25t.jpg

It's kind of hard to see in the photos, but if you look closely you
can see that the profile goes from sort of flat-bottomed at the tip to
a deeper-bellied (for lack of a better term) section at the root.

Here's the home page for the site those photos are from:

http://members.aol.com/woodglider/index.htm

I haven't heard from Les for a while, I wonder what's up with his
project.

> I scanned sheet one of the 13M drawings and have the foils
> now in a DWG format.
> What I'll do is use Pro/E to loft between foil 1 and 20, then insert
> each foil from 1 to 20 at station, then generate cross sections at
> each station to see if they all meet up.

That sounds like a good plan, that ought to work great. The main
gotcha, and you've probably already thought of this, is that old
blueprints tend to shrink and warp a bit as they age. Also, sometimes
scanners add their own scaling errors. So its possible to accumulate a
bunch of little errors that add up to something substantial. The plans
probably have some key dimensions that you can use to correct the
scaling of your DWGs; if you keep an eye on them you'll be fine.

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[wby0...@aol.com]

And I might add that the Woodstock is an amazing sailplane or at least
a simple one that handles well with an amazing wing for a lightweight
glider. It's remarkably fast and surprises me almost everytime I go
somewhere with it. Gary Osoba called it the best kept secret in
soaring.
MM

[Soar...@gmail.com]

The original 12-meter Woodstock wing has no twist. Irv Culver
(Lockheed Skunkworks) did the airfoils at the request of designer Jim
Maupin (both now no longer with us, regrettably). Wingtip/aileron
stall protection was secured via reducing the percent section near the
wingtip. It's in the manual. Woodstock wing stall characteristics (at
least for the original 12 meter wing, which I built and flew) were
absolutely delightful: first time I stalled my n20609, on her maiden
flight, I broke out loud laughing. Perfect stall behavior; as mannerly
as it is possible to be. Despite low wing loading, the Woodstock
feels as much like Libelle as it does a SGS1-26. Easier to keep
rightside up in turbulence than a 1-26 in turbulence to boot,
particularly on aerotow.
Safe soaring,
Bob Wander

[rod...@spinmaster.com]

On Apr 7, 8:51 pm, Bob Kuykendall <b...@hpaircraft.com> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 4:44 pm, rodn...@spinmaster.com wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I just clued in on the aerodynamic twist.
> > The tip foil should stall later, right.
> > I got confused with the %18 vs %13, which is just the thickness and
> > I wouldn't have thought the difference would have been significant,
> > but if what Mr. Sinclair is saying, they are actually different foils then
> > there would be some form of washout. Thanks guys.
>
> Yup, that's the way I understand it - there's no angular difference
> between the chord lines of the root and tip sections, but the profile
> differences between the root and tip airfoils make the wing act as if
> there are.
>
> Here's a couple of pictures from the Les Sparks site that shows the
> Woodstock wing profiles:
>
> http://members.aol.com/lessparks/clint20.jpg
>
> http://members.aol.com/woodglider/clint25t.jpg
>
> It's kind of hard to see in the photos, but if you look closely you
> can see that the profile goes from sort of flat-bottomed at the tip to
> a deeper-bellied (for lack of a better term) section at the root.
>
> Here's the home page for the site those photos are from:
>
> http://members.aol.com/woodglider/index.htm
>
> I haven't heard from Les for a while, I wonder what's up with his
> project.
>
> > I scanned sheet one of the 13M drawings and have the foils

>

> That sounds like a good plan, that ought to work great. The main
> gotcha, and you've probably already thought of this, is that old
> blueprints tend to shrink and warp a bit as they age. Also, sometimes
> scanners add their own scaling errors. So its possible to accumulate a
> bunch of little errors that add up to something substantial. The plans
> probably have some key dimensions that you can use to correct the
> scaling of your DWGs; if you keep an eye on them you'll be fine.

Yes, Hence me looking for data points. The chord at root and tip are
known and have hard dimensions for.
I can check that with % chord at root and tip for scaling in that
direction, print off and check over the actual prints I have.
I can also CNC Route some "test ribs" using my CNC router.

[theodore...@gmail.com]

Dear Sir:
Is there any way I could buy a copy of your complete set to build woodstock glider?

Thanks Theodore R. Hansen

[bpku...@gmail.com]

I have one of the earliest set of plans; the airfoil sheet is a full size template that you glue (contact cement)to a piece of 3/4" plywood. Each rib has its own profile printed inside the previous one as it tapers toward the tip. From this template you trace and sand the root rib first then sand the template to the next line and trace the next rib and so on. You keep sanding and tracing all the way out to the tip rib profile. THERE ASRE NO COORDINATES given or in anyway documented for any of the rib profiles. I recall a conversation I had with Jim in the late 1980's, I remember him telling me that when it came to the airfoil development, he said that Irv said "let me run the numbers". He came up with this design/method and Jim did as above to build the prototype.

The only parts I ever made for the airplane are the root ribs and the template itself. The original prints including the full size rib template drawing are the old style diazo prints and not accurately copyable; further, my print is used up to make the template. I suppose I could resurrect my project and make all the ribs, digitizing as I go. I estimate I could do this with an accuracy of approximately .05" which should be good enough for an airfoil working at these reynold's numbers as long as everything is "nice and smooth", as professor Alex Strojnik once told me; (see Low Power Laminar Aircraft Design/Structures/Technologies) Recognize that this will be quite time consuming. If anyone wants to seriously pursue this, contact me @ bpkuenen(at)gmail; I don't read these threads often

[shan...@gmail.com]

Hi. Did you ever follow through with the wing rib patterns or templates. I'm looking to start a build this summer. Any time savings on templates would be greatly appreciated and worth a financial fee to me. Turns out my plans are a copy from years ago so I dont really trust their accuracy. Either way, thanks for your time. Mark

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-4, shan...@gmail.com wrote:
>I'm looking to start a build this summer. Any time savings on templates would be greatly appreciated and worth a financial fee to me.

Something to think about. People who're building boats out of marine plywood often have their plywood cut out by laser. You can get your Woodstock paper pattern for ribs professionally scanned, then send the file to a job shop to be cut out. This is quite common for boat builders who're building from both traditional and new designs. It is cost effective because of the time savings and precision. The laser cutter can insure that the ribs for the left and right wings are identical, and symmetry is important.

Google for 'custom laser cutting plywood'. You can send your file to multiple shops for competitive bid.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 7:16:17 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> symmetry is important.

Balance is important. Symmetry is way overrated, and I have the check templates to prove it.

--Bob K.

[jhstrin...@gmail.com]

If I might suggest, have them cut on a CNC machine, not burned on a laser cutting machine. Adhesives don't stick well to charred wood. I have a set of Wood stock parts, even completed spares that I cut by hand on a bandsaw, maybe 30 years ago...other ships got in the way and I never got around to assembly...plans are sometimes procrastinated by life. However it is a very straight forward process, tack the drawing to a piece of HARD masonite. Cut to almost the line then sand to the line. Tack two sheets of the 1/4 inch Marine ply together and trace the master pattern onto the stacked plywood. Rough cut (within an 1/4 or a 1/2 with a hand jigsaw)then cut and sand to the line. Trim the master pattern to the next rib and do the same for all the ribs. You can make a second set of master patterns by making a second master pattern with the sacrificial pattern each time. Please feel free to contact me should you like.
Jeff

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 11:35:16 PM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

Please say a little more about how this works. I was thinking that precision and symmetry affects the left right balance in an aircraft.

[johnsin...@yahoo.com]

Guys, we're talking about a wooden glider that is covered with plywood and fabric. Space age technology is not required. Your precision cut ribs will be cut in half, then glued to the spar........I'd be more concerned about maintaining a true cord line in the vertical assembly process. Jim's instructions were to glue the master rib sheet to 1/8 birch, then nail two blank rib pieces of 1/4 plywood, then cut to within 1/16 with a band saw, followed by disc sanding down to final size. Then nail two more blanks to the master and repeat the process. After all ribs have been glued to the spar, I like to level everything with a 36" sanding board running it fore and aft as I slowly move down the wing.
Hope this helps,
JJ

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 9:33:49 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:

> Please say a little more about how this works. I was thinking that precision and symmetry affects the left right balance in an aircraft.

The gist of it is in Eric Stewart's article in the March 2018 issue of Soaring.

--Bob K.

[bluewate...@gmail.com]

How could I join this group?

[bpku...@gmail.com]

Does anyone have available the drawings for the long wings. I bought an original set of drawings from
Jim in the mid '80,s (#58). The only thing I ever started on the project is the wing rib template , before I got side
tracked on a Wittman Tailwind (very fast) and a Buttercup . Since retiring and having sold both my interest is again
peaked in this glider, but if it makes a difference I'ld like a higher performance wing.

Tailwind888WT

[Frank Whiteley]

Have you tried ESA?
http://esoaring.com/contact-us.shtml

or
VSA?
https://www.vintagesailplane.org/

Good luck

Frank W

[paulst...@msn.com]

I am helping the estate of one of our dearly departed soaring buddies sell off all of his soaring artifacts. I stumbled into a pile of wing ribs and a portion of a vertical stabilizer that I believe may be parts for a Woodstock. Anyone interested?

Thanks,

Paul

[bluewate...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 6, 2020 at 12:36:05 AM UTC, paulst...@msn.com wrote:
> On Friday, April 4, 2008 at 11:35:37 AM UTC-5, rod...@spinmaster.com wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > I have had my glider plans for approximatly 9 years now.
> > My question is, does anyone know the Airfoil used by the Woodstock
> > Glider?
> > NACA ###?
> >

I'm interested possibly...

[Capt.Stephan Bradley]

If anyone is still watching this forum or sees this post, I am trying to find a copy of the 13m wing version of the Woodstock plans. Please let me know if you have access to them in any format (including any CAD format at all, DWG or other).

My email is just my first name and then the @ followed by bradleyventures and the dot com .

Thanks,
Stephan

[jose ferreira]

Hello, I have bought a motorized woodstock one. Builder started it at 1993, but he died around 2015 disease.
The man on the Aerodrome, had doubts about the flying security because he said he didn't know the glue was used and since its 30 years old from the start project other is no warranty about flying it secure.
Any of you have knowledge about the construction of this glider, so if could be glue degradation depending? I have no idea how to check it.
Thank you in advance.

[John Sinclair]

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 3:05:18 PM UTC-7, jose ferreira wrote:
> Hello, I have bought a motorized woodstock one. Builder started it at 1993, but he died around 2015 disease.
> The man on the Aerodrome, had doubts about the flying security because he said he didn't know the glue was used and since its 30 years old from the start project other is no warranty about flying it secure.
> Any of you have knowledge about the construction of this glider, so if could be glue degradation depending? I have no idea how to check it.
> Thank you in advance.

The recommended glue was Hughs Epoxy which is white in color and does not degrade over time.
JJ

[jose ferreira]

Don´t know if can be supervised or restored. If anyone want one already built, I have one for sale. Have no idea what glue was used.

[jose ferreira]

I could be flying it, but instructors say could be risky since construction started on 1993, so parts of the glider are 30 years old, so no warranty about the security, I really don´t know.

[John Sinclair]

There are wooden gliders more than 90 years old, still flying. The real issue is how it has been maintained and stored, dry-rot is the main issue + the old animal based glue, that hasn’t been used since epoxy glues arrived 50 years ago.
I would be more concerned about the addition of a motor to a light weight ship. It has got to be way over gross weight. Nobody in their right mind is going to buy into that bucket of worms!
I’d remove the motor, prop, battery and instruments and sell them separately and consider burning the rest. I believe there is liability associated with selling anything with known undisclosed problems!
JJ

[jose ferreira]

Thank you. The motor weights 11 kg. The entire Woodstock is about 180kg. I think that 11kg could be the weight difference of a pilot of 80kg or another pilot.

The Woodstock was in a aerodrome for some years since 2015.Climate is quite hot and dry on the south of Spain.
The glider got the licence to fly date 2022, so I´m not sure if there existe a "known" problem, or instead just "unkown", just because the original builder died between 2015- 2018 so is not posible to ask him what glue used or not. So is not posible to find out if there is any risk or if there isn´t.

It´s supposed that the glider passed some resistence testing to get the goverment licence, that was 8 years ago. So legally it has the oficcial licence to fly date 2022. Is it secure? I really don´t know.
If it´s not, its supposed they should not give the glider the licence, but I don´t know how they strict evaluate experimental aircrafts.
I was just adverstised about the age of the unit, and the unknown glue used, just because the man died.

But you are right, he should might advertise me before buy it. Now I have the doubt and must burn it? I have no experience. Have contacted to other peple and seem nobody seem to know if there is some security thing to be afraid or not.

What is the key to consider it a " bucket of worms"?

[John Sinclair]

First things first…………go look at any glue seam on the ship………….if it’s white in color, it’s probably epoxy glue that doesn’t deteriorate!

I don’t know anything about Experimental licensing in Spain, but in the US, there is no testing done by the government, they might try and steer you in a safe direction, but in the end, you’ll be allowed to fly anything in the Experimental Amateur Built category ………..solo!

You said you recently purchased the ship, I’d take it back!
JJ

[jose ferreira]

Can´t sent it back, too late. I asked a friend, showed a pic from the fuselage and said is Epoxy, although he say Epoxy is not white, is transparent. I have Epoxy at home for home figures and is transparent, not white.

Regarding Spain , to fly legal must pass a large time inspection to get the license, that started 8 years ago. Even you cannot change any other part, like motor, if you do it without the supervision you lost the license.
Here are two pics https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1OuTicJgLihwi6Qx_hgDPB0kDGJ7l9m_q?usp=share_link

[John Sinclair]

Your pictures show what I’m sure is epoxy glue, the designer recommended Hughs Epoxy which is white. Anyway, let’s assume the glue is OK, because epoxy doesn’t degrade much over time! The real issue I would have is your approximately 65 Kg (143 #) OVER design gross weight which is 205Kg (450#).
Empty weight……180Kg ( your figure)
Fuel…………………..3kg
Pilot & parachute…….87Kg
Total flying weight……270 Kg

The Maxim Recommended Gross Weight is 205 Kg! Your 65 Kg (143#) over the design gross weight !
BTW, Here a Woodstock came apart in moderate wave conditions, both wings departed and the pilot was killed! The accident Report didn’t mention anything about ship being overweight or pilot flying in excess of design airspeed limits

Food for thought,
JJ

[jose ferreira]

Thank you for your reply.
The guy who selled the Woodstock to me said me 180kg, in 99% is a lie or the first thought crossed his mind. He didn´t made the glider, and everything he told me about the glider was fantasy. He said he built the woodstock, made the integral cabin prototype, said was Private Pilot, said traveled on the Woodstock, all that was lie. When I met the aerodrome owner told me the whole story. This guy just bought the glider to the family of the real builder and never flied on it. Just finished the license requirements with another pilot colaboration.
So forget the 180kg.
The original design is 107 kg. I´ll try to find out a way to know the "real" weight.
On the aviation registration data of this glider say what you say 205 max weight, and that was the registry on 1993 when the builder started the build, so it should be no sense it may weight 180kg, that must be a random invention from the guy who selled it to me. I´ll try to find a method to weigh the woodstock. Thank your for the point.

[jose ferreira]

Another deail I forgot,

The real owner flew the plane motorized 60 hours before get ill with provisional license, till around 2015.
Later the second owner changed the motor for another one (same or litle less weight, one cylinder instead 3), and ended the license process.
He made a video on that time. The pilot is the colaborator. Data of the video is around 2018. But the thing is that the woodstock was already motorized, so I think must be similar to the 107kg (this one is 13.2 version), maybe a little bit more.
Motor 11kg.
Balistic parachute, around 8kg
Lets consider a pilot of 70kg that should be
107+11+8+70= 196

The guy said me it had 30l for fuel on the wings, probably also lie. But anyway should be not much bandwith for fuel to fit the 205kg, should be theorical 226kg, so you are right, issues to think about

Here is the video: https://youtu.be/GLpCE_QlYk8

Thank you for your tips.

[John Sinclair]

There’s one more factor to ponder……….the original Woodstock was a 12 meter sailplane. The builder of your ship poked the span out to over13 + meters! If he didn’t strengthen the spar…….???

Over here, we have a small claims court where one can take a misrepresented sale like yours to a judge!

Good luck,
JJ

[jose ferreira]

don´t understand the desire to criminalize me,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maupin_Woodstock_One

There are 3 variants, 11.9, 12,5 and 13,1 winspan
Plans and shems are on the web. The builder registered it on the spanish aerial security from start. After years of test and official procedures got the licence from the goverment: https://www.seguridadaerea.gob.es/

If sale a aircraft the have passed all that official procedures and it´s wrong, so my goverment and the own state arerial ageny should be to judge.. not me.
Today I have beening replying from them that is categorized as microlight aircraft and can be piloted with the respective official license must be got and examined from the own agency.

Curious that you claim me going to court, while you confess there is absolute no control in your country, so anyone can fly whatever he likes? You are making a judgement wrong. Anyone on your contry can built whatever wants and fly it, and die, so is no crime because is not sale, right? but the fly can crash over a home and kill other people.
You cannot do it here. You must have license to pilot the aircraft, the aircraft must have license, and must have accident insurance for third party cold damage.
I suppose you are on USA, and seem you feel like that, you are the law and the morality over the world where the others are criminals, while on USA anyone can carry a gun or fly anything. Ironic.

[Dan Goldman]

Mr. Sinclair here was trying to help you solve your problem.
You don't seem to want to hear any advice. Instead to go into politics. That's nasty.
Next time don't ask for advice from people who live in a country with "absolutely no control" regarding aviation.

Dan G

[jose ferreira]

First, I didn´t know this google group owned by an specific contry.
Second, I didn´t said, even I didn´t know about the control there. He said it, not me.
I just asked if any knowledge about glue. I received same feedback from Sinclair and a guy here. Both say it´s epoxy, so ok, thank you.
I was blamed several times. First, bucket of worms, I should burn it, then the motor should be removed, then its not ok because 13.1 (there are three variants winspan).., whatever I said, the advice is I should be going to court for selling this. Still don´t know why. The only "suspect" was about the "glue" used by the man who built it, and two persons said me was Epoxy.
In the other hand, I asked a glider school on Spain and reported me an story of a Schleicher ASK 13 model. A well known recognized glider manufacturer in Germany. Seems that, this model ASK 13 with 40 or 50 years old, have some accidents. He said me the investigation arrived to a conclusion of the glue used sometimes. They don´t know what serial number used that less good glue, date. Next day I was searching about gliders schools here in Spain and saw that one of that have a ASK 13, so I emailed him again asking why still was using this model. He replied me.. still there are world competition of this model, so I got shocked. There is a known issue with this model because of the years old and some ramdom glue used, but still used on schools, on competition ..., so I guess why no one send Schleicher to court? Regarding the Woodstock, I just received from the local owner aerodrome the advices of "I don´t know what glue he used, the builder died", so its just wonder, research, but seems it doesn´t matter. If Tesla have accidents because some cars accelerete and can´t top till crash, it´s ok, just a software problem. If Schleicher ASK 13 has a know issue related to age and glue discovered on accidents, seems doesn´t matter to stop using them. But.., if I just ask opinion about the glue used on one Woodstock, so I should be judged as soon as posible, because of the motor, the winspan, or whatever? So you say I reply about politics. I´m trying to find out any light about security (neutral), but seems that is more important if the seller is a millionaire or bilionaire company so they are innocent just after paying a penalty fee, but seems I´m presumed guilty. I´m open to any neutral advice, if exists that.

[Dan Marotta]

I think this is just a question of misunderstanding each other's languages.

I think I read Mr. Ferreira saying that the man who sold the glider to
him told him lies about the condition of the glider.

Mr. Sinclair said that, in this country (USA) we have small claims court
where an injured party, Mr Ferreira, can have a judge award him justice
in the form of compensation.

I think Mr Ferreira misunderstood Mr Sinclair thinking he had been
accused of some wrong doing. That was not the case.

And, for the record, rec.aviation.soaring, also known as RAS, is not a
google group. Google just picked it up.

Dan
5J

[jose ferreira]

Thank you, for clarify the language confusion.


There are two persons. The seller and the aerodrome owner.
The seller said lots of lies but he has no job no money. The own woodstock proprietary was hes "wife".
I paid him on December and kept the money. Going to justice should be more waste of money.
The aerodrome owner convinced me to go on and get the woodstock and the trailer.
But he advised me it was no good for a beginner and he don't know about the glue used.

Asked ultralight schools and also advised me about was no good for a beginner.

So I'll try to sale it to a user with experience in "experimental aircraft" , "as it is". A guy sai it was nice to change the motor to electric (even that means restart the license aproving).
Don't know. Maybe if no interest I'll keep around for a year or I don't know.

Im just a newbie so just Im finding new things and stories everyday. Seems that amateur aviation is an expensive hobby in every aspect. And with problems I didn't imagine before.
Justice in Spain is a waste of time and money.
Aviation is complicated and expensive.
Thank you for clear me the misunderstanding.

[Charlie M. (UH, Pi & 002 owner/pilot)]

Thank you Dan for a succinct explanation of the confusion of this thread.
I never saw a "dig" on the OP (Mr. Ferreira), but I can see how things "got lost in the translation".

Yes, sounds like a number of questions (some answered) and legalities between various countries aviation authorities which have different rules and claims courts which have different rules.
I deal with various electrical rules in the US and it not only varies by state, but by city.
Sheesh.
Dealing with governments is way worse.

[Dan Marotta]

That is true everywhere!

Good luck on your journey into soaring.

Dan
5J

[BobW]

On 4/14/2023 11:35 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I think this is just a question of misunderstanding each other's
> languages.
>
> I think I read Mr. Ferreira saying that the man who sold the glider to him
> told him lies about the condition of the glider.
>
> Mr. Sinclair said that, in this country (USA) we have small claims court
> where an injured party, Mr Ferreira, can have a judge award him justice in
> the form of compensation.
>
> I think Mr Ferreira misunderstood Mr Sinclair thinking he had been accused
> of some wrong doing. That was not the case.
>
> And, for the record, rec.aviation.soaring, also known as RAS, is not a
> google group. Google just picked it up.
>
> Dan 5J

Excellent summary by Dan M. It exactly matches my sense of "where & how this
RAS discussion has gone..."

It's true aviation is technical...as are airplanes/sailplanes/etc. Things
quickly can get complicated, as Mr. Ferreira is learning to his dismay. Get
things wrong and it's easy to kill yourself.

That noted, I'm mildly surprised no one has yet mentioned to Mr. Ferreira the
ancient aviation industry axiom: One test is worth 10,000 considered opinions.
It would be complicated to properly do, but a proof-load-test of wings of the
Woodstock in question would be highly instructive, while simultaneously
generating Real World Data - and maybe even some peace of mind.

Good luck going forward!

Bob W.

[jose ferreira]

The seller had videos on youtube with the load testing. Tons of weight over the wings. That was 8 years ago in the goverment aerial license process. The Woodstock only flied for license testing from then.
Anyway I made a wrong decision purchasing this glider. Teachers and ultralight school have their own interested. I haven´t found no support or interested to fly the Woodstock. I even still don´t know how to set firm the parachute (the seller gived all me disarmed on the trailer).
It´s single seat, rare unit. Guys with experience fly expensive modern gliders or motorgliders, or rent the shool ones. Ultralight schools don´t fly gliders, and there are very few glider school at 600km or 1000km from me, with other license and higher price.
My wife don´t like me to fly anything. So what was easy on my imagination converted on a large list of problems.
It should be better me got in to this world in a easier way. Theare are Ala Delta motorized that can fly at 30-35kmh that should be enough for start. You can take off and land anywhere a clean meadow. The Woodstock should be a rara avis, 1 hour and a half, or more aerodrome from my home, difficult to fly, take off and land with one wheel, and I should be alone, no support of help.
And in addition, is difficult to resale, nobody wants buy this glider, that is like a "do-it-yourself" one. Most users go for know high priced ones, or renting, and that may be way (if can afford it).
Thank you for your replies.

[John Sinclair]

> My wife don´t like me to fly anything.

Maybe you should listen to your wife!
JJ

[Haven]

Happy wife, happy life!

[John Sinclair]

Jose,
I’ll bet your instructors telling you that the glue was unsafe was his way of telling you that your not ready to handle this machine! Your Woodstock is no longer a glider. Due to weight gain it is now an underpowered airplane with one wheel! It has value, but not in its present form. Recommend you remove the motor, prop, fuel tank and ballistic parachute and sell them. A complete engine system should bring at least $1000 bucks and ballistic parachutes sell for several thousand.
Next, replace the nose cone and you now have a standard Woodstock again. With trailer and instruments it should sell for approximately $6000.
Aviation, may not be for you, but if you continue to peruse it, go slow and listen to your instructor!
Good luck,
JJ

[jose ferreira]

You all have reason. I´ll was happier before just playing my guitars and other instruments I have around.
I have in on sale locally as it is. If any offer even low I´ll sale it, and if no interested I´ll donate it.

Regarding taking out the motor, may should be a good idea on USA. Here the Woodstock is unknown, even was glider only. People here go for known brand machines, or known experimental kits. There are lots of similar motors on sale aswell. That should be a good idea on USA could pay for a true Woodstock, but not here.
Yes is underpowered, but still not that weight. 11kg motor, can be easy difference between a pilot weight or other. But that happens to any other motorglider.
One of the glider school here have a Dimona H36 as motor glider. It weights 497kg, stall speed 72km/h.
Even considering the actual Woodstock with motor,30l fuel and parachute, that should be 159kg, and it lands at real 63km/h ( I measured it from the video, from a know distance from two points of the aerodrome).
Motor gliders like the H36 a two-seat, and 80hp 4x the woodstock power but also near 4x the woodstock weight, so may be ugly because of the motor visible and no aerodinamic but maybe not that unbalanced. (My thoughts from my no experience, just comparing).

In adition, here in Spain, is an effort to get the license to fly. It got it as it is now. So if anyone wants to reconvert it on a glider, or electric glider or anything else.. will be not me. I just want no complicate my life and stop of wasting money.
Thank you all for your advices.

[jose ferreira]

Forgot to specify, the original real builder of this woodstock made it with motor and fuel tanks. He flew it 60 hours before getting ill.
The actual seller, just changed that motor for the actual one, near similar weight, now 22cv then 24cv, but very similar. The reason seems to be they have a problem trying to engineer an electric type of start. But in the end, this guy just put another similar motor, and ended all the license process.

But for what is worth, seems that for the builder was ok with 60 hours flying. The parachute was also on that time.
The actual seller lots of fantasy, probably is just like a kid that should like to make lot of feats, so go telling fantasies about that he built it, and so on, while he never flied it.
The aerodrome owner tell me the true story. But 60 hours of flying as it is now sounds not bad. I guess it has limitations as a glider but also all motorgliders have. The Dimona H36 I said before has a stall speed of 72km/h, the Woodstock 63km/h.
The original builder probably enjoyed it, because he built it. But I feel strange sitting on the seat.
I should be happy if anyone around should want to fly it a bit, or try it, so could give a real feedback, but haven´t found no one pilot or school interested on that. Schools are interested on me to put my money on their curses and after then.. renting their gliders or motorgliders, that´s how the businness works.

Thank you for your responses.

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Hello Group.
I'm the OP from this thread.
I see some people on here need plans?
I have the original plans and the longer wing plans too, message me, I'll just need a bit of time to archive them.

Allot of time has gone by, but finally ready to build this thing.
A friend also expressed interest in the glider.

Asking for a friend, does anyone know if it's possible to buy another Serial Number?

[Capt.Stephan Bradley]

I have been trying to get a set of the longer wing plans, but since it didn't go well I sort of dropped it.

I don't think you can get serial numbers any longer and the original plans are now in the public domain. I am happy to provide scanning services (I have a full size 42" wide scanner at my office) if you wanted to have the plans scanned.

[Dan Marotta]

As to serial numbers - If you build an aircraft, you can call it "John
Smith Glider S/N 001", if you want.

Dan
5J

[John Sinclair]

The VSA has plans for the Woodstock and Duster, but is honoring the designers wishes to no longer make them available.
JJ

[Rodney Dangerfield]

Thanks, but I have them already scanned from back in 2008, also translated to Autocad at that time.
I volunteer at an Air Cadet Squadron, we are thinking of building this now.
Kids learn allot then we can auction it off (or keep) for the glider pilots.

[Capt.Stephan Bradley]

> Thanks, but I have them already scanned from back in 2008, also translated to Autocad at that time.
> I volunteer at an Air Cadet Squadron, we are thinking of building this now.
> Kids learn allot then we can auction it off (or keep) for the glider pilots.

If you have them scanned, would you be willing to share a set? I have the first gen version, but wanted to study the longer wing version.

[Mike]

On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 6:58:19 AM UTC-6, Rodney Dangerfield wrote:

> Hello Group.
> I'm the OP from this thread.
> I see some people on here need plans?
> I have the original plans and the longer wing plans too, message me, I'll just need a bit of time to archive them.

Hi Herbie/Rodney,

I can't figure out how to reply to you directly to ask for the Woodstock plans--original wingspan and longer wingspan. My email address is mike.q.2310 'at' gmail.com , if your offer is still good. Will be glad to discuss my Woodstock intentions if you need to know. Thanks.

Mike