DG-300/303 owners...
Marc Ramsey
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html
Marc
Bullwinkle
7XGRh.1798$Q23....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net, "Marc Ramsey"
<ma...@ranlog.comREMOVE> wrote:
My German skills are non-existant. Can anyone tell me if the lengthier
German part mentions which serial numbers are affected, because the English
part says the manufacturing error began sometime during the production run.
Presumably that means some of the early DG-300's were built right.
Thanks,
Bullwinkle
rasposter
>
> <m...@ranlog.comREMOVE> wrote:
> > You should take a look at this:
>
> >http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html
>
> > Marc
>
> My German skills are non-existant. Can anyone tell me if the lengthier
> German part mentions which serial numbers are affected, because the English
> part says the manufacturing error began sometime during the production run.
> Presumably that means some of the early DG-300's were built right.
>
> Thanks,
> Bullwinkle
You can try translating the DG webpage with this one:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr
Just drop the URL into it, and choose "German to English".
-John W
Bullwinkle
1175944585.1...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, "rasposter"
<rasp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK: thanks!
Did that, and to answer my own question: no, no serial number range is
listed. Hopefully that will come out as DG and Elan/AMS continue to work the
problem.
As a summary, much of the longer German portion appears to be heavy duty
mental handwringing over what DG should do with the info that the spars are
weaker: ground the fleet, require a very expensive inspection, or just
impose some restrictions on speeds and weights. Clearly they have done the
latter.
I have to believe that Elan/AMS has sufficient manufacturing records to
determine when they changed their process, either by serial number, or by
date (from which affected serial numbers could be derived). You'd think
they'd keep those records for legal reasons, if no other.
Hoping for further clarification,
Thanks,
Bullwinkle
SkyB...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
My wife is a native speaker of German. I asked her to read this and
even though she isn't familiar with some of the terminology here is a
summary of generally what it says.
The glider that was inspected which resulted in this discovery is
about 20 years old and they did not report its serial number. At some
point ELAN started manufacturing the wings not to design
specifications. They apparently started using epoxy resins rather
than polyester resins (as were specified) in the affected part of the
spars possibly to reduce the curing times. This was done without
notification let alone approval from Glaser-Dirks. ELAN is aware that
they did this and ELAN does not dispute doing it but says they refuse
to take on any inspection costs. Also, they have been unresponsive to
DG's inquiries regarding this matter.
DG estimates the inspection cost to be around 6,000 euros and repair
cost could easily come to 5,000 euros per wing. DG says to maintain
consistency the inspection and repairs should all be done at the DG
factory in Germany so there will also be shipping costs. DG goes on
to say this option is not really discussion worthy for the pilots.
They rather opted for doing calculations and endurance tests on the
affected parts to prove that they are still sufficiently stable and
that the airplanes can be flown safely at reduced speeds and use.
This is apparently why they decided to just reduce the speeds, take
off weight and limit use. They say the current fleet is about 500
gliders worldwide.
I, for one, bought a DG-300 for its superior strength among other
reasons. We will have to wait for more clarification from DG but at
this point it seems that strength has now been reduced. Since this is
admittedly the fault of ELAN for not following the correct
manufacturing process and not notifying DG that they were altering the
manufacturing process this seems like a negligence issue. I would
hope they would do something to rectify the situation.
Bob
DG-300, S/N 3E-127
d...@nadler.com
Marc Ramsey
> I, for one, bought a DG-300 for its superior strength among other
> reasons. We will have to wait for more clarification from DG but at
> this point it seems that strength has now been reduced. Since this is
> admittedly the fault of ELAN for not following the correct
> manufacturing process and not notifying DG that they were altering the
> manufacturing process this seems like a negligence issue. I would
> hope they would do something to rectify the situation.
I sold mine several years ago, so I don't really have much of a stake in
this (at the moment, anyway), but when I bought my 303 Acro, the check
wasn't payable to ELAN, it was payable to Glaser-Dirks (which is, of
course, not quite the same company as DG-Flugzeugbau).
When subcontractor spar fabrication "innovations" resulted in our Duo
being grounded, Schempp-Hirth immediately took responsibility, found a
practical inspection and repair protocol, trained repair shops in their
major markets to inspect and repair (and flew SH technicians worldwide
to deal with the rest), and had most of the gliders back in the air in
less than two months without charging the owners a dime.
The situations aren't exactly comparable, but if I ever find myself
buying another new glider, this sort of behavior will no doubt influence
the choice...
Marc
SkyB...@gmail.com
I'm wondering why they have not issued a TN on this. Also, they
certainly know the S/N of the one where this was discovered as well as
any other tested. It seemed like they tested more than one.
In 1986 there was a mass balance issue that could have caused
flutter. They issued a TN and a very specific list of S/N's for
that. You'd think they could do the same here. ELAN seems to have
clammed up and mayby that's where the list needs to come from.
They're probably worried about liability and maybe they should be.
Marc Ramsey
> I'm wondering why they have not issued a TN on this. Also, they
> certainly know the S/N of the one where this was discovered as well as
> any other tested. It seemed like they tested more than one.
Issuing a TN would imply that DG is the responsible party. In reality,
I believe that DG still holds the EASA equivalent of the type
certificate for the 300/303, in which case they are the only ones that
can issue an official TN (and they have issued TNs for the 300/303 in
recent years). I too ran the German portion of the notice through a
translator when I first found it, and there were several paragraphs
devoted to convincing the reader that DG is not responsible, don't
expect us to do anything, it's all ELAN's fault, etc.
> In 1986 there was a mass balance issue that could have caused
> flutter. They issued a TN and a very specific list of S/N's for
> that. You'd think they could do the same here. ELAN seems to have
> clammed up and mayby that's where the list needs to come from.
> They're probably worried about liability and maybe they should be.
ELAN has been out of the aircraft business for several years, so I doubt
they'll have anything to say. The relationship between ELAN's former
aircraft business and AMS has never been clear to me. AMS produced and
sold to end-users something less than twenty 303s after they took over
the production rights, so they may get stuck with the liability for those.
But, as far as I know, ELAN was always a subcontractor to Glaser-Dirks
(and briefly DG) and never sold gliders directly to end-users (other
than perhaps acting as the agent for sales in Slovenia). If that is the
case, depending on how the reorganization was structured and German law,
DG may well end up holding the bag for the other 480 or so gliders,
which might explain the rather odd way of issuing a notice...
Marc
SkyB...@gmail.com
That was my wife's take on it as well. DG has performed these tests
and they are not going to do any more and ELAN isn't saying much.
They said they tested 8 wings and found this problem in 3 of them.
They said they don't know when the change in materials started or
ended, just that it did happen. My guess is the early 300's and late
303's are not affected but without a list of serial numbers who
knows. And maybe it didn't affect all the ones where the epoxy resin
was used.
Perhaps this is all an april fools joke. Or perhaps not. DG has
posted this on their web site but not published a technical note so
therefore the FAA will not publish an AD. At least I don't see how
they could without anything official from DG. Without that do the
operating limitations really change? Will all 300 owners see this?
Probably not and they will continue to operate their aircraft under
the offical operating limitations. When I go to the DG web site to
look for issues pertaining to my 300 I check the TN's. I would not
know about this if I didn't see it here.
I guess an email to DG is in order. I'd like to at least know the
serial number of the glider where this was initially discovered as
well as the numbers on the ones from the other 8 wings tested
indicating the 3 where it was present and the 5 where it wasn't. Like
you said I'll also be sure to let them know if I were to be in the
market for a new glider this sort of behavior would make me not
consider DG and before finding this out I would have considered DG
first.
Bob
Udo
I tried to read the computer translation out of curiosity, it is
dreadful.
To encapsulate:
Most, if not all DG 300 are restricted to a much lower speed and load
envelope due to flaws found in the spar production.
The fibers in the spar caps are not strait or aligned due to
manufactured flaws in the root area, hence the compression strength is
reduced.
The gliders will be able to fly with a reduce flight envelope.
Not fix is possible due to cost.
In a nut shell the value of that glider is substantially reduced.
Udo
Andreas Alin
changed the production process without permission of Wilhelm Dirks at an
unknown date. This means that nobody knows which gliders are affected.
Andreas
>> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html
Andreas Maurer
>I, for one, bought a DG-300 for its superior strength among other
>reasons. We will have to wait for more clarification from DG but at
>this point it seems that strength has now been reduced. Since this is
>admittedly the fault of ELAN for not following the correct
>manufacturing process and not notifying DG that they were altering the
>manufacturing process this seems like a negligence issue. I would
>hope they would do something to rectify the situation.
DG decided this:
- NO inspection required
If you decide not to perform an inspection, these new limits will
become valid for a DG-300/DG-303 Acro:
- Vne limited from 270 kp/h to 250 kp/h
- Va limited from 200 to 175 kp/h
- Maximum T/O weight limited from 525 to 450 kg
- 6 kg lower limit of mass of non-carrying structure
- aerobatics prohibited
Apart from the max T/O weight (and the prohibition of aerobatics for
the DG-303 Acro) none of this limitations is going to have any
practical influence on aircraft handling, don't you agree?
Bye
Andreas
Markus Graeber
I did a bit of research on the issue. Here the key points from DG's
posting with some additional information about DG's and Elan's
history. For those who wonder, I'm a native German speaker :-) :
The issue:
- Elan, who has been producing all DG 300/303 since its launch (up it
being taken over by AMS-Flight in 1999), apparently changed the
production process of the main spar at some unknown point in the past
without Glaser-Dirks (the DG predecessor) approval leading to the
possibility of faulty main spars (not all main spars produced by them
are necessary faulty).
- The glider that initially revealed the faulty main spar as a result
of a servere landing accident is about 20 years old with aprox. 1500h.
- There are about 500 DG-300/303 gliders still flying with an average
age of about 15 years and a total of about 1 million hours.
- No DG 300/303 has ever had a failed wing in flight as a result of
structural failure.
- The required breaking strength of the wing at the time of
certification was 1.725 times the max allowed in flight-load. The
actual certification test to failure was stopped at 2.1 times the max
allowed in-flight load without the wing failing.
- DG does not now how many gliders are affected, out of 8 tested 3 had
a faulty main spar.
- To test the wing is difficult and expensive, the wing has to be cut
open.
Possible solutions:
1. All gliders will be grounded
2. All gliders will have to be inspected within a reasonable time
period and repaired if necessary. The inspection would cost around EUR
6000 per glider, a repair, if necessary can easily reach EUR 5000. All
gliders would have to come to DG's factory in Germany since it would
be near impossible to develop guidelines about what is still
acceptable and what has to be repaired.
3. DG tries, using calculations, tests to failure and load tests on
faulty main spars, to prove that even faulty main spars have enough
strength as a result of the very high structural reserves of the
original design. This approach might allow to continue operating the
glider with reduced operating limits without the need for inspections
and repairs.
DG decided to go the 3. route to avoid having to ground all gliders
and has spent to date about EUR 10,000 to do the required testing.
Based on the suprisingly good results when testing the faulty main
spars they got the following operating limitations approved by the
EASA (European FAA equivalent):
New Operating Limits for all DG-300/303:
- Max speed reduced from 270 km/h to 250 km/h
- Maneuvering speed reduced from 200 km/h to 175 km/h
- MTOW reduced from 525 kg to 450 kg
- No aerobatics (also applies to the DG-300 Acro)
If you want to avoid these limitations you will have to get the glider
inspected and repaired if necessary.
The liability/legal issues/responsability:
The great majority of the affected gliders were delivered by & paid to
Glaser-Dirks which went bankrupt in 1996. The current DG-Flugzeugbau
only took over the Type Certificates and spare part supply but not the
product liability, the actual gliders and faulty main spars were not
manufactured by Glaser-Dirks but by Elan which does not dispute this.
Elan refuses to shoulder any costs related to the investigation of the
faulty main spars and does not respond to any inquiries. All gliders
with faulty main spars produced by Elan are out of warranty.
About 10 gliders were produced by Elan or its successor AMS-Flight and
delivered by the current DG-Flugzeugbau, all these gliders are out of
warranty as well.
AMS-Flight was established in 1999 to continue Elan's existing
aircraft production and took over the entire Elan Flight Division of
Elan as of Sep. 1st, 1999. AMS produced and delivered about 25 gliders
under their own responsibility and claims, that they converted the
production process back to the original specifications. However, they
don't seem to be able to state when and starting with which serial
number they did so. It is likely that the only DG-303s that are still
under warranty are technically ok but nobody knows for sure and only
an inspection will be able to prove that.
Here the companies' time lines & current sales:
1973 - Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH founded, prudction of the DG-100
begins
1978 - Elan founded
1983 - DG-300 introduced and produced by Elan
1996 - Glaser-Dirks Flugzeugbau GmbH goes bankrupt -> DG Flugzeugbau
GmbH buys up key parts of Glaser-Dirks (excluding the product
liability of the DG-300 series), Elan continues to produce the
DG-300/303.
1999 - AMS-Flight established to continue Elan's existing aircraft
production, takes over the entire Elan Flight Division of Elan as of
Sep. 1st, 1999.
2006 - AMS-Flight stops DG-303 ELAN manufacturing. As of February 2006
444 DG-300 ELAN & 67 DG-303 ELAN gliders were produced.
2006 - AMS sales EUR 2.4 million (projected), 40 employees
2006 - DG sales EUR 7 million (delivered 50 planes), 75 Employees
The potential costs of fixing all affected DG-300/303 gliders
Inspection: 500 gliders in service x EUR 6000 per inspection = EUR
3,000,000
Repairs: 188 gliders (3 out of 8) x EUR 5000 per repair = EUR
940,000
Total (without any related costs): EUR 3,940,000 (approx. USD
5,265,000)
Looking at that total you can see that this could potentially bankrupt
either company (with related loss of employment), hence DG's close
look at their legal responibility...
I'm not taking any sides on this, look at above facts and judge for
yourself. Either way there will only be losers in this messy affair...
Markus
Markus Graeber
John Giddy pointed out an important restriction I left out in my
summary above (not sure how I missed that, sorry
about that):
- Maximum mass of non-lifting parts is reduced from 246 kg (542 lb) to
240 kg (529 lb)
So the complete set of new restrictions to the operational limits is
as follows:
- Max speed reduced from 270 km/h (146 kt) to 250 km/h (135 kt)
- Maneuvering speed reduced from 200 km/h (108 kt) to 175 km/h (94 kt)
- MTOW reduced from 525 kg (1157 lb) to 450 kg (992 lb)
- Maximum mass of non-lifting parts reduced from 246 kg (542 lb) to
240 kg (529 lb)
- No aerobatics (also applies to the DG-300 Acro)
DG's definition of non-lifting parts is as follows:
- Fuselage (with permanently installed equipment, canopy, and main
pins)
- Cockpit load (Pilot + parachute + equipment <for instance tail fin
battery in baggage compartment instead of in tail fin>)
- Horizontal tail
This means that your max. cockpit load is reduced by 6 kg (13 lb) all
other things being equal.
I just saw that DG apparently just posted the complete English
translation of their German posting:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html
I hope this helps,
Markus
Mike Yankee
Are we supposed to be impressed that DG spends this on the fleet?
That is less than it would cost to ship, inspect and repair a single
US-based glider!
Markus Graeber
A quick clarification to my original cost translation after carefully
re-reading the original German post:
The inspection is estimated at EUR 6000 per glider. If a repair is
deemed necessary it can easily reach EUR 5000 PER MAIN SPAR. Since a
glider has 2 wings with 2 spars we'd end up with a worst case scenario
of EUR 16000 per glider and a potential total of some 376 main spars
affected in a fleet of some 500 gliders (initial test showed 3 out of
8 main spars defective).
So the potential total costs for the entire fleet would be:
- Inspection: 500 gliders in service x EUR 6000 per
inspection = EUR 3,000,000
- Repairs: 376 main spars (3 out of 8) x EUR 5000 per
repair = EUR 1,880,000
- Total (without any related costs) = EUR 4,940,000
(approx. USD 6,521,000)
Also note that DG's owner apparently just added some comments below
the original posting related to the considerable discussion going on
especially in German forums.
The extended DG posting: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html
For those of you who know some German here a link to the discussion on
one of the main forums:
http://www.segelflug.de/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/postlist.pl?Cat=1,5&Board=Flugzeuge
The pictures DG's owner (Friedel Weber) refers to in his comments can
be found here:
Markus
Shawn
> On Apr 9, 9:22 am, "Mike Yankee" <mikeyan...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> DG... has spent to date about EUR 10,000 to do the required testing.
>> Are we supposed to be impressed that DG spends this on the fleet?
>> That is less than it would cost to ship, inspect and repair a single
>> US-based glider!
>
> A quick clarification to my original cost translation after carefully
> re-reading the original German post:
>
> The inspection is estimated at EUR 6000 per glider. If a repair is
> deemed necessary it can easily reach EUR 5000 PER MAIN SPAR. Since a
> glider has 2 wings with 2 spars we'd end up with a worst case scenario
> of EUR 16000 per glider and a potential total of some 376 main spars
> affected in a fleet of some 500 gliders (initial test showed 3 out of
> 8 main spars defective).
3 of 8 in a sample that size (8) is playing pretty fairly free and loose
with statistics. Did DG sample gliders they thought would be affected
or did they sample across the entire manufacturing run? The numbers
could be much different.
Also, since they say they've tested 8 gliders, it costs EUR 6000/glider
to test, and they've spent EUR 10,000, I'm assuming they've only tested
wrecked gliders. That, or they hired an accountant from Enron. ;-)
Shawn
Markus Graeber
>
> 3 of 8 in a sample that size (8) is playing pretty fairly free and loose
> with statistics. Did DG sample gliders they thought would be affected
> or did they sample across the entire manufacturing run? The numbers
> could be much different.
> Also, since they say they've tested 8 gliders, it costs EUR 6000/glider
> to test, and they've spent EUR 10,000, I'm assuming they've only tested
> wrecked gliders. That, or they hired an accountant from Enron. ;-)
>
> Shawn
8 samples implies that they tested 4 gliders including the one that
showed the original defect after a severe landing accident. From what
I understand that original glider was repaired and is airworthy again
(and for sale by the club in Germany that owns it), it probably is the
only one right now with a guarantee that it has no main spar defects
and as such can be operated within the old operating limits...
I would guess they tested whatever they had at hand and of course the
sample might not be representative but all you can go by right now to
get an idea of the extend of the problem; especially since Elan is not
able/willing to provide any more information as to when they did the
change to the wing manufacturing process which can possibly lead to
the main spar defects discovered.
I assume the EUR 10,000 mentioned is the cost of the load test & tests
to destruction they did on affected wings to establish the new
operating limitations.
Markus
ContestID67
paint (or draw) me a mental picture on what was manufacturered
incorrectly? Also, what is a roving?
Finally, I assume that only DG-300/303's that say ELAN on them are
affected.
- John
Mike
The spar caps on a sailpane are often made of rovings. Rovings are
long strands of, in this case, uni fiberglass (lots of it) postitioned
at the thickest part of the chord, that extend from the spar roots to
an area usually just short of the tip of a wing. For optimum strength
they must be straight. If there are sections of the material that are
not straight, a percentage of the spar strength is lost. On some
DG300's some of the rovings were not laid in correctly, are not
straight,so there have been reductions on the operating limitations of
the sailplanes for safety reasons.
Mike
Jack
> The spar caps on a sailpane are often made of rovings. Rovings are
> long strands of, in this case, uni fiberglass (lots of it) postitioned
> at the thickest part of the chord, that extend from the spar roots to
> an area usually just short of the tip of a wing. For optimum strength
> they must be straight. If there are sections of the material that are
> not straight, a percentage of the spar strength is lost. On some
> DG300's some of the rovings were not laid in correctly, are not
> straight,so there have been reductions on the operating limitations of
> the sailplanes for safety reasons.
Also, see the pictures at the URL previously posted by Markus
Graeber [shorter form below]:
Marc Ramsey
AMS-Flight web site:
Marc
Markus Graeber
EASA (European FAA):
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/tn-359-24.pdf
DG also added some more FAQs at the bottom of the web page dealing
with the main spar issue:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html
Markus
Bob Kuykendall
the DG advisory and the photos at segelflug.de:
http://www.hpaircraft.com/misc/dg300spars.htm
It is only my guess at what the issues are, please view it with some
skepticism. Please alert me to any factual errors.
Thanks, and best regards
Bob K.
Ian
> You should take a look at this:
>
> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html
>
> Marc
Just finished reading this and the related thread. This is a nightmare for
the affected owners and many others in the industry!
However as a suggestion:
Would it be possible to determine if any one aircraft has the defect by
measuring wing deflection under a known load?
From my understanding of the defect, the misaligned fibres would not only
reduce the strength of the spar, but also it's stiffness. By measuring the
deflection of a sample of wings under load and then opening them up to
determine whether they have the defect or not, it might be possible to
draw up a non invasive procedure which can be used to determine if the
defect exists in a particular aircraft, and if it does, to what extent.
Anybody from DG reading this?
Ian
Jack
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:34:52 -0700, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>> You should take a look at this:
>>
>> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html
>>
>> Marc
>
> Just finished reading this and the related thread. This is a nightmare for
> the affected owners and many others in the industry!
>
> However as a suggestion:
>
> Would it be possible to determine if any one aircraft has the defect by
> measuring wing deflection under a known load?
I don't know about your deflection suggestion, but how DG handles
this spar-cap situation for all of the DG-300 owners should have a
significant bearing on whether, and how much, the market will
discount all of their products in the future.
A few dollars spent now to shore up what had been a good reputation
can pay big dividends. We shall soon see if DG is to remain a
desirable marque.
Jack
Steve Davis
a good enough picture of the undulations to know
if it's serious. Problem is what deviation from
ideal is acceptable? If anybody knows a glider
pilot who is in the USAF they could check with
the NDI Lab at their base and see if someone
could inspect the spar. Long, long ago I was an
AF NDI Technician and we X-Ray'd car batteries,
mag particle tested cam and crankshafts and would
have jumped at the chance to inspect a glider wing.
Nothing they did could be official, but for peace of
mind it might be something to try. You might get
some new students at your club. I first saw a soaring
site when I was stationed at Zweibrucken AB in Germany.
Mike Yankee
thing as DG's Tech Note), available at:
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2007_0100_e_corrected.pdf/EAD_2007-0100-E_1
I know about this only because a friend saw the link on the BGA
website.
As a long-time DG-300 owner, I am extremely disappointed to have heard
NOTHING from Glaser-Dirks about this situation. There is simply no
excuse for this. They have all or most owners' e-mail addresses
already (for their monthly newsletter). This situation cries out for
proactive announcements, explanation, clarification, etc. from the
manufacturer. Instead, we are left to scavenge whatever "information"
we can (possibly not all accurate) from R.A.S. and other sources. DG
did put the Tech Note draft on its website last week but that helps no
one unless they know about it or accidentally stumble across it. What
is missing is any official notification from the manufacturer. I can
abide the limitations required by the AD more easily than I can this
pitiable lack of proper communications and support from Glaser-Dirks.
Almost two weeks ago, when the R.A.S. thread first appeared, I sent an
e-mail inquiry to Glaser-Dirks with copies to the North American
dealers. I received no response. No excuse for that, either.
Ann O'Rack
>EASA has now published an emergency AD (saying essentially
>the same
>thing as DG's Tech Note), available at:
>
> http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2007_0100_e_corrected.pdf/E
>>AD_2007-0100-E_1
>
>I know about this only because a friend saw the link
>on the BGA
>website.
>
>As a long-time DG-300 owner, I am extremely disappointed
>to have heard
>NOTHING from Glaser-Dirks about this situation. There
>is simply no
>excuse for this.
that would be because Glaser-Dirks went bankrupt several
years ago
Alan Montague
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
Alan Montague
Marc Ramsey
> 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
Steve Davis
>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
Steve Davis
>Alan Montague wrote:
>>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
asw22...@gmail.com
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 <REMOVE_TO_REPLY.sfdavi...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Dan G
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
Steve Davis
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?
>>
John Schaffer
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"
--
John Schaffer
asw22...@gmail.com
> On Apr 16, 9:26 pm, "asw22pi...@gmail.com" <asw22pi...@gmail.com>
> 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/photo-thumbnails.asp?albumid=55
Regards
Al
asw22...@gmail.com
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!!
Ann O'Rack
>On Apr 16, 3:48 pm, 'Dan G' wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 9:26 pm, 'asw22pi...@gmail.com'
>>
>> > Such a major flaw in a wing spar should be replaced
>>>at the
>> > manufacturers expense IMHO.
>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?
What is different is that the manufacturing company
(Glaser-Dirks) no longer exists, would you expect DG
to be responsible for a manufacturing problem in, e.g.,
an LS3 also? Yes they could come up with a better
solution than they have so far but expecting them to
pay for it just because they sell the spare parts is
a fantasy.
asw22...@gmail.com
DG acquired the IP and remains of the old Glaser-Dirks.
When acquiring the rights and user base to a company like that you
cant just pick and choose what you take responsibility for.
Also the 303's have been built by the new company so where do you draw
the line?
Plus DG also retained the original manufacturer (Elan/AMS).
Andreas Maurer
<asw22...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So what is different here?
Boeing is still in business.
manufacturer of the DG-300/303 was Glaser Dirks which has been out of
business for several years now.
The current company DG Flugzeugbau merely does the service for all the
former Glaser Dirks aircraft prior to the DG-800.
>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.
The fact that no DG-300 ever loast its wings clearly proves that the
structure is strong enough to handle the flight loads.
>This is a nightmare for DG300/303 owners, I almost became an owner
>last summer as I was looking at a DG303 acro.
if you want to do aerobatocs in a 303, you're screwed.
99.9 percent of all other DG-300 pilots won't even notice the
restrictions.
Bye
Andreas
Andreas Maurer
<John.Schaf...@aviationbanter.com> wrote:
>
>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?
How often do you feel the need to fly with more than 450 kg and faster
than 250 kph...?
As long as you don't do that regularly, you can save a lot of money
and simply apply the new restrictions to your airspeed indicator and
POH.
Bye
Andreas
Ola Røer Thorsen
Carbon fibre and glass fibre do not have the same stiffness. The carbon
which is stiffer would have to carry the complete load and would break
unless being designed/dimensioned to replace the complete spar. It makes no
sense to mix the two in a spar like that.
Best regards,
Ola Røer Thorsen
SkyB...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 01:39:59 +0100, John Schaffer
>
>
> >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?
>
> How often do you feel the need to fly with more than 450 kg and faster
> than 250 kph...?
> As long as you don't do that regularly, you can save a lot of money
> and simply apply the new restrictions to your airspeed indicator and
> POH.
>
> Bye
> Andreas
Also, from your April 8 post:
Apart from the max T/O weight (and the prohibition of aerobatics for
the DG-303 Acro) none of this limitations is going to have any
practical influence on aircraft handling, don't you agree?
Andreas, do you own a DG-300? If not maybe you'd like to buy mine.
I'm partly joking and partly serious with that comment. It's still a
nice glider but it's not the glider I bought. Mine is not an acro but
was approved for mild aerobatics and I did those aerobatics. I'll
miss that. Also, I'd like to fly at 9.5 lbs/sq ft. or so sometimes.
525 kg isn't required for that but more than 450 kg is needed. With
450 kg only 9.0 is possible. The reduction in maneuvering speed is
probably a bigger deal than Vne but I know people around here who have
had trouble staying below 18,000 while at Vne. It's not very often
though.
ELAN seems to be the responsible party here. Are they still the same
company? My understanding is they only split off the aviation
division to form AMS but the original ELAN company is still the same.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Bob
Andreas Maurer
On 17 Apr 2007 16:58:55 -0700, SkyB...@gmail.com wrote:
>Andreas, do you own a DG-300? If not maybe you'd like to buy mine.
Thank you for your kind offer, but I (respectively my club) already
own 2 DG-300...
... and the pilots who fly them regard stories about 18.000 ft cloud
base and difficulties of staying below Vne as science fiction. :)
>ELAN seems to be the responsible party here. Are they still the same
>company? My understanding is they only split off the aviation
>division to form AMS but the original ELAN company is still the same.
>Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I have no idea about the situation of ELAN - but I'm pretty sure that
their product liability has expired.
Bye
Andreas
Shawn
> Hi Bob,
>
> On 17 Apr 2007 16:58:55 -0700, SkyB...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Andreas, do you own a DG-300? If not maybe you'd like to buy mine.
>
> Thank you for your kind offer, but I (respectively my club) already
> own 2 DG-300...
>
> ... and the pilots who fly them regard stories about 18.000 ft cloud
> base and difficulties of staying below Vne as science fiction. :)
What, you've never worried about the lift being too strong? You need to
come west!
Shawn
Steve Davis
to be changed to 'the
pilots who flew them regard' unless an inexpensive
method of inspecting
and repairing them is developed by someone.
>Thank you for your kind offer, but I (respectively
>my club) already
>own 2 DG-300...
>
>.... and the pilots who fly them regard stories about
>18.000 ft cloud
>base and difficulties of staying below Vne as science
>fiction. :)
>
Bob Kuykendall
wrote:
> '....and the pilots who fly them regard' might need
> to be changed to 'the
> pilots who flew them regard' unless an inexpensive
> method of inspecting
> and repairing them is developed by someone.
Hmmm... I wonder who that "someone" might be. Whoever they are,
they're pretty brave to get wrapped up in this mess.
On the topic of inexpensive, that will have to be relative at best.
>From correspondence and conversation with various engineers and
composites technicians, it appears that the scarf ratio for composite
repairs is determined by the ratio of the shear strength of the epoxy
to the tensile strength of the fibers. For a spar repair in E-glass,
it seems to come out on the order of 40:1, and perhaps 15% greater for
S-glass, let's say conservatively around 60:1.
My guess, based on my experience with wet fiberglass layups, is that
the degree of fiber "ondulation" will vary linearly through the depth
of the spar cap. That is, the worst "ondulation" will be at the
extreme outer fibers of the spar cap, and that there will be no
ondulation at the inner (last laid) fibers, and half way through that
depth the ondulation will be half as bad as the worst. The shame of
that is that the extreme outer fibers of a cantilever beam are the
ones with the greatest stress.
Anyhow, if the "ondulation" varies as I guess, part of the inspection
and repair process will be to assess what degree of "ondulation" is
acceptable, and how much spar cap has to be ground away to get to
acceptable fiber.
Suppose, for example, that the "Ondulated" fiber were to extend down
through 8mm of spar cap. Then you (or, more likely, the repair tech)
would have to grind out a scarf that extends spanwise through
8*60=480mm, call it a half a meter of span plus probably the full
length of the spar butt, call it a full meter. After grinding that
out, you'd have to build up the material removed by laying in new
straight rovings.
After executing the spar scarf, you'd have to repair all the
collateral damage inflicted on the wing skin when trenching down to
the spar. Probably the easiest way to do that would be with a
prefabricated patch panel, made in the original wing mold, that
encompasses the sandwich directly over the first half-meter of spar
plus 50mm or so chordwise fore and aft of the spar. The repair tech
would fit this patch panel, splice the inner skin, and execute an
outer skin scarf around the perimeter of the patch panel. After that,
gelcoat, sand, and polish to hide.
That is just my own half-informed guess at what the spar repair
entails. Your actual mileage has already varied. The response to my
own emails to DG has been on what I would call the chilly side. Their
position on this matter seems to be holding firm as follows:
* Supplementary explanations of the problem and surrounding issues
(such as the one I posted earlier) are unhelpful, since the
explanation posted on the DG Web site clearly addresses all aspects of
the issue. Beyond that, only "experts" are qualified to understand the
problem.
* Photos of affected spars are unhelpful because only "experts" are
qualified to read them, for everyone else they are just frightening.
* The inspection must be performed by DG-trained workers.
Regarding some of the repairs I've seen suggested, such as splinting
the spar with Graphlite rod, I think that those are non-starters at
best. I think that the only reasonable repair schemes are those that
restore the structure to its as-designed strength and stiffness.
Repairs that substantially alter the stress distribution through the
structure could well cause other unknown and unexpected problems.
Thanks, and best regards to all
Bob K.
Disclaimer: I'm the guy behind:
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
I'm an amateur - don't try this at work!
SkyB...@gmail.com
Andreas,
I was only trying to make light of a difficult situation. The DG-300
is still a nice glider. It's just not as nice as it was 10 days
ago.
> ... and the pilots who fly them regard stories about 18.000 ft cloud
> base and difficulties of staying below Vne as science fiction. :)
The airport we fly out of here is at 6,200 feet, about 1.900 meter.
On a good summer day the cloud base can be at 20,000 feet, 6.100
meter. That is only sometimes but 16,000 isn't unusual. It's the
high desert and sometimes you can go pretty fast. The science fiction
is more down by Roswell.
Bob
Steve Davis
which might not be worth $20K right after the
repair. My suggestion for the rods was to try
a $2K or less repair which would allow current
users the peace of mind to continue flying their
gliders.
My understanding of the DG 300 is that
it has a very stiff wing, presumably even with
undulations in the spar caps. Since Graphlite
ships in two and three ft. dia. spools it must be
plenty flexible and it is far stronger than the
equivalent amount of fiberglass rovings. My
suggestion would be to saw several kerfs of
varying lengths and depths through the undulation
area extending for some length on either side of
the area possibly to the end of the spar stubs.
Graphlite rods could be epoxied into the kerfs,
like rebar in concrete, and they would take the
load from the rovings they butt up against.
I suppose fiberglass cloth could be wrapped and
epoxied around the spar butt to prevent the rods
from popping out, if that could happen, but I think
you would have a much stronger than designed spar
with a very stiff wing. I have heard of someone cutting
a kerf in wooden spars and putting in the Graphlite
rods
to improve the strength.
Tony Verhulst
> I was only trying to make light of a difficult situation. The DG-300
> is still a nice glider. It's just not as nice as it was 10 days
> ago.
But much more affordable.
Tony V.
Bob Kuykendall
> You have described a $20K repair on a product
> which might not be worth $20K right after the
> repair.
I assume that you're replying to my post of 1:39 today - though it
doesn't appear so in the Google view of r.a.s. Please let me know if
otherwise.
Yes, in the right hands that might be a $20K repair - I know a lot of
folks who can manage that, and I'm sure they're salivating over the
fallout of this situation. But if there's lots of them to do, a
relatively modest investment in tooling can easily cut the costs down
to around a third of that, possibly less. For example, it's virtually
a no-brainer to build a scarf-router to precisely mill out the
required chunk of wing spar. And the pre-fabbed skin repair panels are
easy, the layup is dirt simple and takes about an hour to do four;
with cure cycles you could probably yield 8 per day from a single wing
mold set.
I remember when the G103 team was here fixing spar spigots. There was
a lot of hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth around a repair that
requires hacking huge chunks out of the spar stub. But in the end,
they just lined them up and churned them out, and when they were done
they all fit fine, looked like new, and no problems since.
And, yeah, if it was some dogmeat glider only worth $20K last month,
this might all be moot. But the fact is that DG300 have typically
commanded around twice that, sometimes much more for young and well-
equipped examples.
> My suggestion for the rods was to try
> a $2K or less repair which would allow current
> users the peace of mind to continue flying their
> gliders.
> My understanding of the DG 300 is that
> it has a very stiff wing, presumably even with
> undulations in the spar caps.
A for effort, but I think that the modulii mismatch between the
Graphlite and the fiberglass is probably too big to make it work
practically, even if the DG is reputed to be "stiff." The axiom of
such things is that as much as you might prefer it otherwise, stresses
are transferred not to the strongest parts but to the stiffest. If you
put any Graphlite into the spar, its stiffer modulus will make it try
to take on all of the stress, or fail its glue bond trying. So you'd
basically have to put in enough Graphlite to take all of the load, and
scarf it in shallow enough to yield enough bond area to get all the
load out of the fiberglass into it. And when you're done with that,
the surgery is likely no less traumatic than if you'd just done a
repair-manual scarf.
Another thing to consider is that if you execute an innovative repair,
you are probably on the hook to validate it with test it to
destruction, or at least to the somewhat-draconian EASA standard of
6.3*1.725. Whereas with a textbook repair, you may be justified in
only testing to design load or not testing at all.
> Since Graphlite
> ships in two and three ft. dia. spools it must be
> plenty flexible and it is far stronger than the
> equivalent amount of fiberglass rovings.
Yes, that's the way we've been buying Graphlite ribbon (not rod) for
the HP-24 and Glidair projects. Its flexibility is relative, though;
with a Young's Modulus of about 23 million it is much stiffer than the
equivalent profiles of pultruded fiberglass and is in fact 15% to 20%
stiffer than the equivalent hand-laid carbon tape or roving. For new
glider wing spar designs I think it is certainly the greatest thing
since sliced cheese, but it doesn't always play nice with others.
> My
> suggestion would be to saw several kerfs of
> varying lengths and depths through the undulation
> area extending for some length on either side of
> the area possibly to the end of the spar stubs.
> Graphlite rods could be epoxied into the kerfs,
> like rebar in concrete, and they would take the
> load from the rovings they butt up against.
> I suppose fiberglass cloth could be wrapped and
> epoxied around the spar butt to prevent the rods
> from popping out, if that could happen, but I think
> you would have a much stronger than designed spar
> with a very stiff wing.
As I wrote, that might work, but it inflicts trauma on the same order
as the textbook repair, involves a pretty big modulus mismatch, and
has no track record. I'd like to see it tried, though, it'd be an
interesting experiment.
> I have heard of someone cutting
> a kerf in wooden spars and putting in the Graphlite
> rods
> to improve the strength.
Yes, I've heard of that too - I think it was on a Bowlus Baby
Albatross.
Steve Davis
Thanks for your reply; there seems to be a lot
more going on in the spar than I had realized.
I was just guesstimating at the value of a DG 300
now vs. after a repair. With the current 'fix'
from DG I suspect a lot of them will just sit in
trailers not getting flown, or bought.
Also, is this a problem with both the top and
bottom spar caps of the wings or just one cap?
Thanks for your information.
Steve
Steve Davis
brianDG303
wrote:
. With the current 'fix'
> from DG I suspect a lot of them will just sit in
> trailers not getting flown, or bought.
>
Steve, this all came out about ten days ago. Last weekend at the field
there was quite a bit of chatter about it, and I had to answer a lot
of questions about how I was planning on dealing with my 303. And the
answer is, I'm so happy with the glider I just don't really care.
Andreas is correct, this will not affect me until I decide to sell it,
and that is some years down the line. The focus in this thread is on
how to fix the problem; my interest is on how to test at the lowest
cost. Let's say 50% of the gliders are affected, that means that the
cost to fix half the gliders is exactly nothing. While the testing
process is being worked out I'll be flying, and having fun.
As it happens, I have the last plane (DG303 # 486) ever made by ELAN,
and the 27th ACRO. It will be interesting to look back on this in a
year or two.
Jack
> As it happens, I have the last plane (DG303 # 486) ever made by ELAN,
> and the 27th ACRO. It will be interesting to look back on this in a
> year or two.
Who made the final 25 units, and what is the source of this information?
Jack
Marc Ramsey
AMS Flight made the last 25, after they bought out ELAN's aircraft
business and bought the production rights from DG Flugzeugbau...
Marc
Jack
> AMS Flight made the last 25, after they bought out ELAN's aircraft
> business and bought the production rights from DG Flugzeugbau...
And they continued the defective construction techniques,
in the same facility, probably using the same personnel?
No wonder they are staying silent.
Jack
Marc Ramsey
Jack
> [AMS-Flight] haven't been silent, see the second item posted at:
>
> http://www.ams-flight.si/
Thanks.
After reading that one wonders is there no one available to AMS who
can translate German to English more clearly?
As a relative newcomer to soaring it surprises me how much of a
garage-level industry is the production of sailplanes which cost so
dearly. To think that AMS could not be bothered to keep production
records which recorded changes in their processes is shocking.
"Amateurish" does not begin to cover it.
Jack
Marc Ramsey
> After reading that one wonders is there no one available to AMS who can
> translate German to English more clearly?
I wouldn't expect anyone there to do a particularly good job translating
German to English, any more than I would expect someone in the US to do
a good job of translating German to Slovenian.
> As a relative newcomer to soaring it surprises me how much of a
> garage-level industry is the production of sailplanes which cost so
> dearly. To think that AMS could not be bothered to keep production
> records which recorded changes in their processes is shocking.
>
> "Amateurish" does not begin to cover it.
Glaser-Dirks was pretty clearly responsible for establishing the
inspection protocols and record keeping requirements. Apparently they
didn't consider this part of the manufacturing process important enough
to monitor. Why would Elan or AMS keep record of something that
Glaser-Dirks didn't request?
Marc
Jack
> Glaser-Dirks was pretty clearly responsible for establishing the
> inspection protocols and record keeping requirements. Apparently they
> didn't consider this part of the manufacturing process important enough
> to monitor. Why would Elan or AMS keep record of something that
> Glaser-Dirks didn't request?
An at least equally valid supposition is that the original
manufacturer and certificate holder could not imagine that someone
would take shortcuts in the process which could be expected to
result in a substandard product. Doing so not only deviated from the
specs but could be expected to actually reduce the strength of the
wing, according to DG-FZB.
Thank you for reminding me that AMS is in Slovenia and not in
Germany. However, the point was obvious -- that the employment of a
good translator would enhance their presentation to English speaking
customers. The neglect of this nicety is consistent with their
disregard for proper production techniques. All in all, their
involvement in the production of any glider will likely remove that
glider from my list of prospective future purchases.
Jack
bagmaker
just wondering how much a NEW set of wings, 808 profile with butt
adaption and tongue/fork width to suit 300/303 series would be worth.
Mr DG would be tooled up already, the new specs could be added to the
manual and the glider is upgraded.
You Americans could then buy up the old 303 wings and bolt them to your
beloved tinships for training!
There is always an outside to the square.
Bagger
(diving for flamesuit, as usual)
--
bagmaker
Marc Ramsey
> for proper production techniques. All in all, their involvement in the
> production of any glider will likely remove that glider from my list of
> prospective future purchases.
The funny part is, my DG-303 had better fit and finish than the DG-800s
that were coming out of Germany at the time. My attitude on this is a
bit different than yours, Glaser-Dirks was responsible for ensuring that
all critical aspects of the work done by their subcontractors was of the
necessary high quality. DG Flugzeugbau obviously subcontracts out parts
of the manufacture of their current gliders, given that pretty much the
same people are involved on the DG side, why should I believe that they
are paying any more attention now than they were during the Glaser-Dirks
days?
Marc
Andreas Maurer
wrote:
>
>What, you've never worried about the lift being too strong? You need to
>come west!
At the moment I keep my hopes upon global warming.... :)
Bye
Andreas
Jack
> DG Flugzeugbau obviously subcontracts out parts
> of the manufacture of their current gliders, given that pretty much the
> same people are involved on the DG side, why should I believe that they
> are paying any more attention now than they were during the Glaser-Dirks
> days?
A question we all should be asking. The problem is seven months
along already and these companies are only now beginning to generate
some sort of response, and little of it constructive.
Jack
Andreas Maurer
<REMOVE_TO_RE...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>'....and the pilots who fly them regard' might need
>to be changed to 'the
>pilots who flew them regard' unless an inexpensive
>method of inspecting
>and repairing them is developed by someone.
LOL... noone in my club is considering to stop flying our DG-300's...
Bye
Andreas
Shawn
Nevada-like weather in Germany? I don't think even Al Gore could go
that far. ;-)
Shawn
Andreas Maurer
wrote:
>Nevada-like weather in Germany? I don't think even Al Gore could go
>that far. ;-)
In 2003 we were "close" (for a duration of two weeks):
Temperatures over 40 degrees C and cloud base over 10.000 ft...
Bye
Andreas
mart
I read the report on the DG website and it all looks very nice except
the last words; end of discussion. That rubs me the wrong way.
As far as I know this is not a warranty issue but a building mistake
and I think you stay liable for that, no time expire.
It seems to me that some business will have an insurance to cover the
loss for the pilots.
I was at the Elan factory a number of years ago. They were building
there the very first DG 1000. So there was defenitely a close business
contact.
If DG would have to pay they might go bankrupt.Due the previous
bankrupty they might not be liable anyway.
But Elan is a very big ski-factory. The gliders were made on the same
terrain,behind the same fence. After seeing the gliders build I saw
them build ski's by the 1000's. There is money there to compensate or
fix the gliders.
I think all the 300/303 pilots should put $100 in an account and have
somebody find out who is liable.
--
mart
Steve Davis
DG is not Glazer-Dirks nor is it Rolladin-Schneider
and when DG bought the assets of those bankrupt
companies it didn't buy the liability of them. The
liabilities, debts to suppliers, warranties, shareholders
rights, employee compensation issues, etc... all
were disposed of by the bankruptcy court.
By buying the company name, assets and tooling
etc...DG got the goodwill of the customer base and
may have taken on the obligation to monitor the
status of legacy product but it did not take on an
obligation to provide free repair.
Also, they seem to believe that the third option,
the wings are strong enough with reduced operating
limits is sufficient.
Bob K. mentioned 'Hmmm... I wonder who that
'someone' might be. Whoever they are, they're
pretty brave to get wrapped up in this mess.'
This could also be applied to DG. If they specify
an inspection and repair procedure for this mess
does it imply that they are accepting some liability
for payment and warranty if someone other than
DG does the work?
JJ Sinclair
the average pilot, but if someone is concerened (acro) their ship can
easily be proof-loaded to 5.3 G's. Stan Hall wrote a good paper on
just how to go about it, published in Soaring. Basically you mount the
wing inverted on a sturdy test stand, secure it so it won't twist and
then sand-bag that puppy to the flight limits, usually 5.3 G's. Then
you know the wing is stong enough for anything it should see in flight
if the ship is flown within the flight envelope.
JJ
brianDG303
DG they seem to say the wing that was tested (and was bad) failed at
just over 9.0 G's, but they want a safety factor of 1.5 which is 9.64
G's. I could have this wrong though. However, it seems in line with
the actually very modest restrictions, other than Acro, and only 35 or
37 Acro's were built.
Something I've always wondered is just exactly what made an Acro other
than the foot straps, the G meter, and the decal. Whatever it is it
doesn't seem to weigh anything.
Marc Ramsey
> Something I've always wondered is just exactly what made an Acro other
> than the foot straps, the G meter, and the decal. Whatever it is it
> doesn't seem to weigh anything.
When I bought mine I was told that the structural changes consisted of a
slightly beefed up tail boom...
Marc
John Schaffer
Just got a reply back from DG regarding the DG300 wings. When asked
aboutthe cost and availability I got and I quote
"Dear Mr. Schaffer,
unfortunately we can not offer you a new wing for DG-300."
--
John Schaffer
Marc Ramsey
AMS Flight currently has the molds, tooling and production rights, not
DG. They could build more if they wanted to...
Marc
Steve Davis
existing wings cheaper than supplying new
ones. Perhaps after some time an ultrasonic
inspection method could be developed and
only the bad wings could be sent to DG for
repair? I wouldn't be surprised if they try
to develop a cheaper way to inspect the spars
as some European clubs could delay purchases
of new DG gliders pending a satisfactory
resolution of this problem at least for their
club and members.
At 21:06 21 April 2007, John Schaffer wrote:
>
>Just got a reply back from DG regarding the DG300 wings.
>When asked
>aboutthe cost and availability I got and I quote
>
>'Dear Mr. Schaffer,
>
>unfortunately we can not offer you a new wing for DG-300.'
>
>
>
>
>--
>John Schaffer
>
Peter
PeterK
"Ian" <ia...@SPAM.zsd.co.za> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.04.15....@SPAM.zsd.co.za...
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:34:52 -0700, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>> You should take a look at this:
>>
>> http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/holm-dg300-e.html
>>
>> Marc
>
> Just finished reading this and the related thread. This is a nightmare for
> the affected owners and many others in the industry!
>
> However as a suggestion:
>
> Would it be possible to determine if any one aircraft has the defect by
> measuring wing deflection under a known load?
>
> From my understanding of the defect, the misaligned fibres would not only
> reduce the strength of the spar, but also it's stiffness. By measuring the
> deflection of a sample of wings under load and then opening them up to
> determine whether they have the defect or not, it might be possible to
> draw up a non invasive procedure which can be used to determine if the
> defect exists in a particular aircraft, and if it does, to what extent.
>
> Anybody from DG reading this?
>
> Ian
>
Marc Ramsey
> Are all DG300 certified "experimental" (in the U.S.) ?
Yes, but the operating limitations usually (always?) require that they
be maintained according to the published factory technical notes...
Marc