Whats Happening
May 16, 2004
I have been informed that Mush's Windrose from south africa crashed. We have two points of view on this crash.
A note from south africa:
Hi Mat, in browsing the web I came across the windrose saga. I live in Port Elizabeth, South Africa and know of Mush....... .........
What I find very interesting is that no one has let you know that Mush wrote off his WR about 2 years ago in a
spin incident. That he survived is a miracle. There are some photo's if you'd like I could scan them and email them to you.
Witnesses on the ground reported an engine failure after take-off and Mush's attempt to turn back to the runway followed by a stall and spin into the ground. The impact was mostly absorbed by a wing before the fuselage struck the ground inverted. Judging by the lost height in the turn his WR really only had weak gliding performance.
The guys that witnessed the crash reckon that he spun in from 150ft agl with less than one revolution. Spin entry was the result of a strongly 'ruddered' turn with no aileron applied
And from Mitja Sersen
Thanks Matt for the warning note!
I own one set of plans for the windrose (both wings) but I study them just to learn about this design and not to build it. The plans are pretty bad, missing some dimensions, the manual is very short...the support from the Maupin company was close to none, because Janice was not capable to cope with technical matter about Windrose design and building...and so on....
I think that a design between Windrose and AM Eaglet would be a better solution. Still a pod and boom fuselage, pusher engine, high wing with short struts....and build with modern composite techniques, (prepregs, graphilite pultrusinos...) to be more strong and light.
Also the wilng should be with moderate taper and also aerodynamical or geometrical twist in wing, and of course "mormal" ailerons at outer part of wing.
I was informed about Mush crash the day after it happend. I think that because of his experiences gathered over one year of flying, give him maybe to codenfial feeling about aeroplane, so he once step over the "normal flight envelope" to "danger zone"....and rest is known (for you even more, than for me only be an observer...)
As you maybe know, I did a aerodynamical research and find out that Windrose with 15 m wings indeed has a "strange" stalling behaviour.
It is not just the tip of the wing as you claimed but the stalling occur first at outer part of wing where ailerons ended, and then spreading over the wing both directions, so the tip stalls, and outer part of aileron is nonefective. Inner part of the aileron that is still in "fresh air" can not produce adequate forces to controll aeroplane at that moment.
If you are interested I can scan some diagrams and sketches of my research and send you as pdf file.
With best regards!
Mitja Sersen
http://www2.arnes.si/~cetim6
However Mush's account is much different: This note fvrom Jan Carlson
Mush didn't spin when he crashed his Windrose, the belt drive broke and he turned the plane into the ground. And it was one year ago, not "two"
You can read his own words here, Stop lying mat! no one is beleveing you anyway anymore.
Hi Jan
Sorry I haven't been in contact for a while, have been busy with building alterations at the guest house.
After approximately 100 hours flying in my windrose, it is with great sadness that I have to report that on Sunday 6 April 2003, I crashed my windrose, on take-off. With a 15-20 knot south westerly wind, good gliding day, went down to the gliding club as usual, cleaned and polished my baby, pumped up the wheels, checked everything over, except for my belt-drive mechanism on my rotax 503. Motored onto the 26 runway, turned around into wind on the holding point, did my radio call and rolled down the runway. At 95km per hour my windrose was airborne. At 110 km per hour had climbed to approx. 250 feet. My belt-drive disconnected and I had no power on my prop. Emergency landing time! Unfortunately while shutting down the engine and realising what had happened, I had already used up too much runway and could not land straight ahead. Straight ahead was a big barbed wire fence and over the fence, trees, rough terrain, donga's and a newly built road which was 90deg. across my path. I would have had to clear the road to have a sort of decent landing. Unfortunately did not have the height to do this. My instinct was a half left turn and a full right turn to start my crosswind landing, to at least avoid the fence. Unfortunately a thermal hit me, as I turned, and I found it very difficult to complete my right turn and ended up being driven into the airstrip. The aircraft went in at approximately 100km per hour with a left wing down, I then hit the runway with the nose of my glider and the glider then turned upside down. This amazing glider broke up on impact, went straight underneath me, I was then thrown from the glider and the glider turned onto it's back. I got up, looked for my glasses, hopped around checking that I was in one piece and that everything was working! I promise you nobody walks away from any other glider, from this type of a crash, alive! God was so good to me that day. Am collecting the photographs of the crash site and have got incredible information to prove that the windrose and even the carbon-fibre wingjoiners with the bolts drilled through them, can take a most incredible amount of punishment. I only broke one wing-root because the dragspar plate broke. The other main spar is completely intact. Both dragspars on both wings are in perfect condition. Unfortunately I have broken both wing-tips. I had just filled my fuel-tank, had 25 litres of fuel on board and not one drop of fuel was spilt. It is an all aluminium fuel tank. Again, this is not a failing of the windrose, this was pure pilot error and a very badly engineered reduction drive system, which I designed and I am afraid, let me down.
All is not lost, am well down the road with my next windrose and have been able to salvage quite a bit which will be used in that project. Once I have all the photo's will put on my webpage.
The worst thing is that my pride has been knocked, such a pity that it had to end this way - she was a beauty and I received many compliments. In the 100 hours of flying never had any scary moments. Unfortunately our runway is a very unforgiving runway. If you can walk away from a crash, then as they say, it must have been a good landing!
Hear from you soon.
Your bruised and battered South African brother.
Mush Hide.
Jan would appreciate you sending this out to the other builders.
August 2001. I will no longer respond to emails sent to me on the windrose. Please read the site thoroughly for my opinion of the windrose flight characteristics and construction. For detailed explanations of the safety and what is being done about the Windrose email Janice Maupin.
July 2001. Note from Hoffman: Note from Burns Correction per Paul and the three accidents to date, with two pilots killed, ntsb reports. Maupin replies aug 8/2001
For those who would like to dispute my observations and opinions please discuss specific items rather than just writing about someone elses opinion.
Mar 03, 2001. I am very upset with the publication of the Windrose controversy in the SHA magazine. I had asked Janice Armstrong not to publish anything without approval from Janet Maupin or mayself but she and Gary Osoba chose to even publish my letter "asking that nothing be published" as well as a lot of unsubstantiated remarks concerning my abilities or conflict of interest with Marske Flying Wings. I am also concerned that Gary Osoba did not phone me or communicate with me in any way before he wrote his editorial. He did not communicate my feelings at all and I feel he just did not do his homework nor represent the SHA in a fitting manner as president of the organization.
I had asked that the SHA refer those interested in the windrose to this and other websites. In this way it would allow the authors to modify and refine their assessments over time. There can never be any definitive decision on the windrose since I am the only pilot to have survived the type of spin recovery that I feel is next to impossible to recover from. (Two pilots have been killed in a windrose) There should also be a number of improvements made to the windrose design and construction, but none of these facts where presented or discussed in the SHA article!
Posting questionable emails from individuals that have not done their research (no-one has to this date even bothered to ask me anything pertinent to the crash). Most authors have little understanding of the controversy this publication does little to solve anything other than dividing the readership into those for and against me: which loses the entire point I am trying to make.
In order for Janet Maupin to continue selling the windrose plans she needs to have modifications done to the plans, change suspect parts and have a proper test flight program published. However if she chooses to continue selling the plans I advise her to note on the web site that these plans constitute a basis for a motorglider that has not been thoroughly tested.
I publically withdraw from any involvement in the SHA and shall no longer be in any way associated with it.
Feb 03, 2001 and July 2001: I have written to Janet Maupin a number of times asking her to delete or modify misleading and erroneous material she had posted on the Maupin site. She has since posted a note saying that I had made changes, implying that the changes may have dontributed to the accident, which is quite misleading. I hinged the canopy from the front rather than from the side, used the suggested spoiler as drawn by jim Maupin after he discovered that the original spoiler was inadequate and changed the very poorly designed push pull cable to operate the walking beam. I informed her of this misleading statement and she has elected to not change her statment: If this is the type of misleading information presented in the introduction of the windrose one should consider the validity of anything else printed on the site.
I have detailed my own criticisms I have found with the windrose.
To date there is no one who has bothered to properly review the details of the accident except Gary Osoba although it was only after publishing the article in SHA.
Hello Mat:
Regarding your comments on the design, do you feel that the tip
stalling/spin characteristics represent a bigger concern or that the
all-flying horizontal does? From what I read in Sailplane Builder, there
was quite a bit of commenting on the fact that the glider does have more
aggresive tip stalling characteristics than most other designs but I read
very little about the horizontal questions you mentioned other than in
your report. I think the horizontal issue may actually be the bigger one.
I'm trying to figure out what was actually going on when you said you
couldn't get any response from the horizontal. Can you describe for me
exactly what the mechanical arrangement for the horizontal is? Keep in
mind I haven't had any interest in building this design and the only one I
have ever seen was yours in progress at Hammondsport. I don't remember
looking at the tail at all...mainly just the wings and your innovative
arrangement on the canopy and latch. My memory is just not that good as to
whether or not your tail was completed.
Is there a direct mechanical linkage all the way through the control to
the tail so that in both pushing and pulling on the stick there is a
positive and corresponding movement of the tail? Is there any aspect of
the control movement wherein the tail is "floating", if you know what I
mean? Where is the hingeline for the horizontal in relation to the quarter
chord sweep-line? Is there neutral mass balance, over-balance or
under-balance of the horizontal? Answers to these questions would help me
to understand more about what you reported was happening to you and about
the way the design is approached.
You were quoted as saying that there were videos of your flight accident
and that a very experienced pilot had full view of it from above. Are
those videos available? Maybe we can see something on them which would
help us understand what was going on with the tail. Is there a written
report from the pilot above?
I'm trying to figure out what was going on with the tail since I think the
reasons for the tip stall characteristics seem pretty straightforward and
have generally had more discussion.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best Regards,
Gary
To get the facts straight:
In the construction of the Windrose, it was built according to the plans. I hinged the canopy from the front rather than the side and used a suggested larger spoiler as sketched by Jim Maupin. The spoiler was truck tested before installing on the windrose. I also used a push/pull tube to move the walking beam rather than the suggested push pull cable. I first contructed the cable operated push/ pull walking beam system as sketched by Jim Maupin, but took it out, as it was unreliable and unsafe.
For the flight, I was thermalling with about 1/2 flaps on a fairly thermal day when suddenly my inside wing dropped putting me in an inverted spin, I recovered from the spin but was unable to recover from the resultant dive. The rudder developed severe flutter making control and movement in the windrose extremely difficult. Once in the dive I put the elevator slowly forward to try re-attach the airflow but could not attach the airflow. Airspeed was building at an astonishing rate and I was probably over redline so I elected to eject the canopy to slow the craft which I did. I again tried to move the elevator and again I had no control. At this point I exited the Windrose with great difficulty. I had earlier reported that it was a spiral dive ( probably due to the oscilations of the rudder in flutter) but an eyewitness from above, Bill Rettick set the record straight.
Some thoughts that may have helped make a recovery are:
Maybe moving the flaps to a negative position would have given the wing a positive pitching moment. In my first encounter with the unrecoverable dive I did have neutral flaps but the pull out was still very difficult.I also feel that perhaps the elevator is blanketed in a high speed dive.
Conclusion:
I would have been the third person killed in a Windrose due to a spin if I had not been able to parachute to safety. Since I had once before been in a dive in the windrose that was very difficult to recover from I suspect that there is something in the design of the elevator or airfoils that needs a redesign. Dan Armstrong also felt the 13 meter had an abrupt stall and this makes me wonder about the safety of flying the windrose when in a thermal. One is constantly on the verge of a stall and an abrupt stall in a turn is not a good feature in a glider and should not be flown by anyone with low flying time.Why the elevator would not respond to inputs while in a dive is very suspect indeed! Is the elevator blanketed?
There has been a great question as to my abilities rather than looking carefully at the Windrose. I have about 1000 hours in all forms of gliding. I have a commercial and instructors rating. Many of my flightsin the last few years are of short duration as a test pilot , flying hundreds of flights a year in many different sailplanes. I only log flights of particular interest along with my instructional flights.
I started my flying in the early eighties with hang gliding, then took up fixed wing gliding. In 1989 obtained my silver C distance by declaring a remote start which actually made me fly twice the distance. I probably hold a record for the number of flights in a minibat as I found out what makes a poor sailplane, but it did have necessary ingredients to further my understanding of flying wings. I still have lots to learn especially in the field of microlift.
This will be a constantly evolving web page as I have time to update or revise it. My time is very limited.... the windrose was four... now five planes ago ( yes I build constantly) and I am furiously building gliders 8- 14 hours a day and doing a lot of flying when the weather permits.
The Windrose drawings are not complete nor have they been updated or do they reflect changes in more modern construction methods. ( for example carbon rods in the spars) or to accommodate various changes found in flight testing ( such as modifying the all flying elevator) .
There is no documented flight testing of the 15 meter windrose. The Maupin site leads you to believe that you are buying plans for a fully tested glider. You are not! You are the test pilot for new concepts that need proper development and techniques of building. Only highly qualified pilots and experienced builders should attempt the Windrose.
During the last year "Mush" from Africa seems to have made the most progress on building and flying the windrose, one should check the web pages of Jan Carlson to get the latest information on the building and flying of the Windrose. Both Mush and Jan Carlson seem well qualified to do the task of building the windrose, they seem to have done an excellent job. Jan Carlson has had a lot of resources at his disposal and a good understanding of aerodynamics, both of these are needed to build the Windrose but note that it has taken him fifteen years to build and it still is not flying the windrose. My only wish is that Jan would finish the Windrose and fly it. His report on the needed modifications and flight handling would be worth hearing once he has fully flight tested the full envelope and compared it to other gliders.
I do hope someone else tests the full turning stall and recovery. As I noted for straight flight or large diameter turns it seems fine, although I thought it had stiff ailerons in neutral flaps. I definitely did not have the fine control of any other glider I had flown.
I elected to fly the windrose as a glider first and then to add the motor. This seemed prudent at the time. Adding the motor will only hurt the sink rate. The drag associated with the exhaust and prop will negatively affect the L\D. Also there was no confirmed prop or motor for the 15 meter windrose and the reported climb in the original 13 meter was considered marginal.
My mistakes in making a windrose where:
I wanted an inexpensive motorglider ....basically there is no such thing! The development of a motorglider takes many years of development with lots of flight testing. Fly the motorglider before you build it! I had not counted on the noise and vibration when having an engine onboard and when I finally got to fly a motorglider. I also realized how complex the motorglider is to fly and maintain. Putting a motor on a glider is a very difficult proposition for an inexperienced builder let alone flying it. When I finally got down to doing the mathematics of calculating the propeller size, the space allowed and finding a motor I knew I had problems that should have been solved in the design stage.
I wanted something that was quick to build and in the long run it was far more work to sand those wings and get them correct than to have built molds. The 6 day wings turned into about two year wings when you profile them.
I did not choose a well tested design. The sellers of the plans are not pilots or builders and are unable to advise one on building the Windrose. Dan Armstrong was the aeronautical engineeer who acted as advisor for a number of years and the present advisers to Maupin Limited do not seem to be pilots who have built and flown a Windrose but seem more to be opinionated armchair pilots with little building and flight experience.
There was no other flying Windrose to compare notes with and no test flight data available when I first flew mine. But in the recent years I have noted at least two pilots killed in the windrose and have not heard of anyone flying the windrose on a consistant basis.
I did not see or fly the windrose before I decided to take on the Windrose project. A major mistake!!!
The Windrose
This glider is certainly unique in many ways and it is a brilliant concept but needs to be more fully developed. It has all an all flying rudder and elevator, inboard ailerons, a very small area for a propeller (low efficiency), a small wheel suitable only for pavement, a spoiler hinged on the fuselage, flaperons and a constantly changing airfoil form root to tip. It looks like a conventional glider but all of these features are unconventional and are relatively untested. I have been accused of flying a radical design with the Marske Monarch, but that glider has evolved over a period of at least 25 years and continues to evolve with a qualified designer and its flying characteristics are well know and it is easy to handle in the air. The windrose is actually a radical design but looks somewhat conventional.
I like the basic concept of the windrose and had high hopes for it but it was not a well tested design and anyone who desires to build it should understand that this is a wonderful concept but it needs a lot of test flying to optimize on the safety, the handling qualities and the building practices. One rather good quality was that there seemed to be an absence of adverse yaw in the glider and sometimes there was proverse yaw which is rather confusing to most pilots. (I did try a number of different positions on the belcrank for the ailerons to see if there was an optimum position)
Concerns in Areas of flight:
The 15 meter windrose has never been properly flight tested. I feel as does the professional test pilot who originally tested the Windrose that in turning there is a problem with the inboard ailerons and airfoil: the wing seems to initiate a controlled stall rather than an aerodynamically controlled turn. The function of long inboard ailerons are not well understood.
I have never solved my turning problems in the windrose. I was never comfortable doing a high banked turn in a thermal as I could have done so easily in any other glider. In a turn, a gliders airspeed must increase from straight and level but the windrose never felt very comfortable within a turn in a thermal at any speed. The glider is certainly not very agile and I have never felt very comfortable flying with others in a thermal due to the difficult or unusual handling. I had thought with time I would master it or I could make the changes necessary to make it more comfortable to fly.
I had great problems flying with the flaperons with zero flap setting. They where very stiff to operate. In the flaps down position the ailerons where much easier to operate.There is no documentation of this anywhere.
The spoiler as designed is far too small and ineffective . The large one that I built as per a sketch from Jim Maupin was much more effective but not as effective say on a Grob 103 or ASK 21, or any other glider I have flown, however with the flaps set to the down position I did find it at least manageable to land within a 200 ft. spot with a 3000 ft. runway but I would not recommend this glider for any off field landings nor anyone without a rating in a ASK 21 and having landed it without the spoilers as a minimum.
There was something definitely suspect on the takeoff roll. It took quite some time to lift a wing and get controllable. This reminded me of the minibat and the airfoil that would not work until I obtained at least 35 mph or there abouts. If I got a wing in the windrose down it was extremely awkward to get it back up again. Some of this may have been due to the CG. hook, but again no-one has reported aero towing the glider the windrose so I was on my own to discover the flight characteristics and make the changes.
I had a number of incidents of the elevator stalling, which resulted in very steep dives. It would have been nice to know the aerodynamic qualities of the elevator airfoil and its stall characteristics. At first I thought it was due to the 400 grit surface.. so I sanded it smooth to 600 then polished it... but it would still stall occasionally. An all flying tail stalls when using more than a 20 degree angle of attack whereas the more normal one can go to about 45 degrees before stalling. I would recommend a hinged elevator on the windrose. There have been a number of reports of gliders with all flying elevators not being able to recover from a spin.There is also a question of the pithing moment at high speeds and if the elevator has enough leverage to overcome this pitching moment.
Design concerns:
The ailerons are held on with pop rivets tothe fiberglass wings. Certainly not a very positive bond to the wing.
The main spar needs to be redesigned to use carbon fiber rods and to use fiberglass blocks to take the load on the main bolts. The main bolts should not go through the carbon due to galvanic action and the carbon fibers should not be cut which renders them useless, only those strands of carbon not cut by the bolts are able to carry any load. The hand laid up fibers are not all stretched the same so that one cannot calculate the tension and compression strengths accurately. I doubt that the hand laid up spars can carry more than 50,000 psi in tension or compression.
The varying airfoils do bother me. With a constantly changing airfoil one cannot predict their performance. From what I know small changes in the airfoils can cause quite different flight characteristics with subtle changes in shape. The stall for the entire wing could be rather confusing since the root could be in a stall then a little outward to that could be flying then further out it could be stalled again.There was no co-ordinates published for the airfoils and the paper plans are very subject changes of dimension with changes in humidity.
The builders manual is inadequate and poorly done. There should at least be a web site for those who are building to exchange ideas and have regular updates.
The currently designed walking beam is should not be cable driven but modified to have a solid connection on the left side of the pilot if the pilot is flying with the right hand. The sketch in the plans is inadequate for the homebuilder.
The controls are poorly designed with little bearing surface on the major components.
The bearing surface on the elevator is very small and I feel prone to wear. This should be a ball bearing bearing so that no sloppiness could get into the system.
There should be no tail wheel attached to the rudder.
The rudder should have a larger bearing surface, if not ball bearings at least 4130 metal with a large bearing surface area.
The rear spar should not have bolts through the fiberglass rovings.
The rudder is not hinged in the correct place. It moves too easily not giving the pilot enough feedback in flight. I tried a number of different locations to attach the rudder cables in different locations on the rudder pedals to compensate. I also suspect the tailboom should be made larger but I did not do the calculations on it to find out.
The wings themselves are difficult to attach requiring a number of people and about an hour. For those pilots who do not have a hangar this is very difficult to set up the windrose and fly.
The fuselage should be made much more crash resistant.The plans call for light plywood frames covered in cloth. I recommend a fiberglass cockpit with a kevlar/ glass sandwich.
The wing fairings connecting the fuselage to the wings are inadequately designed leaving much to the builder to find out for himself with little or no explanation of how this is to be accomplished.
The engine installation has not been thoroughly tested and my calculations indicate that in order to get a good takeoff one needs a rather large engine to compensate for the small prop space provided and the resulting inefficiency. With the inefficiency there is also a noise problem to worry about with the nearly .8 mach propellor speed. There is also no definitively recommended prop that has been tested for the Windrose. There have been no updates on the engine and propeller plans despite the advances made over the last ten years in the ultralight industry.
. While all of this criticism seems rather harsh, I am doing so only because I worry about the safety of other pilots and to express my felling about building a glider that has some dubious building techniques as well as unusual flying qualities. I do wish I had been forewarned about the lack of flight testing and development that should have taken place on the windrose. If these plans where offered for study purposes only and a lists of areas of difficulties provided with the plans then I feel the the public is suitably cautioned and there is no need for my criticisms. I must also say that this particular glider does have a lot of potential and should be developed by skilled builders, qualified designers and thoroughly test flown. But it should not be offered for sale as plans for a presumed thoroughly flight tested glider.
A number of authors have criticized my experiences but have never confirmed any facts with me and relegated my problems to poor building practices ( I have built 5 gliders and build about 1 or more a year) or inadequate flying experience ( I instruct and test fly a couple of hundred flights a year). Please read my replies to those published on the Maupin site below.
August 12, 2000. Updated Jan 20, 2001
I would like all aviators to know about my Windrose crash today. And I recommend that no one build and fly one unless they have carefully reviewed my writings below.
It was a strong thermal day and I was enjoying the soaring. As I reached 3000 ft. agl I hit a boomer which put me in an inverted spin. This surprised me since I had a fair amount of flaps on to give more aerodynamic twist and my airspeed seemed fairly high.
One of the problems is that when holding opposite aileron in a thermal turn one may actually stall the root of the inside wing which is not good especially when I suspect that the tip is stalled! On the attempt of recovery from the spin in the ensuing dive I noticed the elevator not responding, ( not the first time I experienced that in the Windrose) which I then pushed forward to reattach the airflow, but it would not re-attach. My speed built up very quickly and an eye witness from above said that my rudder developed severe flutter which caused the entire fuselage to oscillate back and forth. This has happened once before but I was able to recover. This situation got out of hand quickly so I bailed out..... but not without some difficulty. This was the first real test of the emergency canopy release that I had designed..... it worked but the canopy stayed on until I kicked it off... possibly held by the side latches which I had forgotten to release.... I had designed it so that if in a panic I had forgotten to release the side latches they would release with pressure once the main canopy release had been pulled.As a side note, I remained quite calm through the entire event and continued with my day without undue shock or anxiety. I had made a good decision and had executed it in a timely way. I had no sense of panic or fear at any time. I must say that the experience was a lot easier than my going out for date with a new girl.
The next episode was science fiction..... I free feel then pulled the chute but the glider recovered and did a long series of loops right above me and to the side within 20 -50 feet. I was really pulling those shroud lines to avoid hitting it to increase my sink rate..... and I really felt helpless!I pulled in my chute about four times... each time thinking I would get the lines tangled!!Controlling a round chute is very difficult in windy conditions and I had to take drastic action to get it to maneuver into the small field below.
I landed before the glider which was determined to get me..... I literally jumped out of the chute once on the ground and ran..... it was right above me...... it then pitched over to follow me in the direction I chose to run.......finally it went nosed in not 30 feet from me.
Amazingly the Yaesu hand held radio was working.... I pushed my hand in the rubble looking for it... finally finding it and broadcasting that I had survived. The radio was badly marked and missing the buttons!! This radio was a vital part in getting help and directing where I was and assuring others I was well and fine.. thanks Yaesu.I walked back to the glider club and then reported my crash.
I'm really lucky to be alive.....only one person took poor quality photos but there where about 15 witnesses with one pilot flying directly above me watching it. I had thought that there was a video.. but it did not turn out.
I consider windrose glider unsafe to fly until someone can suggest reasons for the spin entry (and possible fixes), and the errors and poor building practices in the windrose plans. This makes me quite sad since I liked the windrose concept quite a lot.
There are difficulties with the Windrose. Each individual item is not enough to ban the glider but all together I do not think this glider is safe to fly for the ordinary pilot unless a lot of through testing and flying can be done by a qualified test pilot in many flight conditions.
Mat Redsell CFIG <marske@continuo.com>
Marske Flying Wings 740-375-8080
Marske Flying wings <http://www.continuo.com/marske>
Windrose Website: <http://www.continuo.com/windrose/windrose.htm>
July 20,2000. The weather has been very poor but I have at least done some maintenance by changing the static ports which where reading about 5 mph too high actually have been flying the Marske Monarch almost every day since the autotow is so inexpensive and the Monarch flies in calm or light lift very well.
June 3, 2000. Today was the first flight of 2000. My first take off was pretty poor.... wing up... of course but I recovered. This is definitely a tough glider to launch. One does need about 8 mph wind to get a good take off with the tail wheel down. Seems I was not able to get the tail wheel off the ground very quickly. Winds where about 10. The tow was very turbulent and I lost my water bottle down behind me...... and after fishing for it I got it and tucked it in my harness. I decided to land and start over! The landing was very good.
The next flight was much better. My takeoff was excellent but difficult and then turbulence was manageable on tow. I started with a few degrees of flap. This glider is sometimes very tough on tow in thermally weather. My speed was 60 mph on tow. It reacts somewhat like a 2-33 when things get out of control. You must be well co-ordinated in order to have effective control. I should perhaps try other speeds on tow. Once released at 2000 ft. I found a thermal and went up to 5000 ft. Again about half degrees of flaps makes it easier to fly. Once at altitude I flew the clouds. With no flap setting it obviously flies well straight and level... I even tried the negative flaps and was pleased with the high speed. I did have to hold a lot of forward pressure so I'll take off some of the trim tab on the elevator. I did relax the forward pressure at times allowing the glider to slow. At the lower speed it was more enjoyable to fly but with the thermally conditions I wanted a higher speed. I still had the fear of dropping a wingtip. I tried stalling with zero flaps and managed to get a gentle stall with one tip starting to go down. With a few degrees of flaps it is a predictable stall. I still think it flies too fast at stall. I have turbulator tape on the outboard sections of the wing.
I few for one hour and 17 minutes and the last 30 minutes where very enjoyable. It takes quite some time to learn how to fly it. The rudder is everything in this glider. The ailerons are stiff and I found I was holding a lot of pressure on up side in a turn.... but if I relaxed if actually flew just fine but I adjusted this with the rudder to keep from spiraling in.
I flew for a long time from cloud to cloud just enjoying the flight.
The landing was excellent, that spoiler works just great. I use about 3/4 flaps on the landing. Finally I am getting to enjoy the glider.
I do recommend that for thermally conditions this is a glider for experienced pilots. In calm weather it is very easy to fly. I have yet to let anyone else fly it since the controls are slightly unconventional and I have not yet flown it in all areas of the flight envelope.
December 8, 1999. I flew the windrose today in light south winds. I was a little worried about the takeoff as the winds where quite light but Dave Stevenson on the wing did a great job of hustling down the runway. I lifted the tail off first with nose down elevator then just as the crosswind was picking up the right wing I jammed over the ailerons and rudder. I did happen to lift off too quickly and got about 25 ft. above the tow plane.. which I corrected. It took a moment or two to get the hang of flying the Windrose again but generally the tow is quite easy. I fish tailed around a little to try the new rudder settings... seemed just fine. The release from 3000 was uneventful. I practiced 360's with no flaps..... very stiff feel but with the more flaps you put on the easier the windrose ailerons are. this confused me and I may have reported the very opposite in other flights. But this flight was in calm air and afforded me the pleasure of testing a number of things. I did an imminent stall with zero flaps.... fine: I did not drop a wing. The pattern setup was at 1000 ft. and I extended my downwind to give me a long final with a near perfect landing! I used about 3/4 spoiler and even threw in a sideslip. I am a little worried about the sideslip with the spoiler... but nothing fell off so in a jam I can use the side slip. Obviously I was very pleased with this flight! I now need to get some soaring flights in.... lets hope for colder weather! The sink rate is pretty low and it really goes quite quickly. At about 80 mph the back pressure is quite high so I may reduce the size of my trim tab on the elevator. This is really exciting!!!
November 8, 1999: I did some more Belcrank changes on the ailerons and I've had a lot more flying in other gliders form the Monarch to 2-33's to a Grob 103 to a Katana extreme! And lots of hours ( last three days I flew every living hour) so I feel better to judge the Windrose now. Today I flew again after the changes.,... the ailerons are fine now... then get very stiff when the flaps are deployed.... but easily handled on the landing even in the full on position. The rudder needs to have more resistance so I will make some changes to the pedals and control system. I flew in rather calm conditions and felt in very good control. It just flys fast! Stall is somewhere about 45. Circling at 65 mph is quite good.. no over banked at this speed. I found it much more controllable at high speeds. Perhaps at times proverse yaw in the turns. There really is very little if any adverse yaw.
I find it easy to get the yaw string out of whack! I think it would help if the rudder had more resistance. Both the landing and takeoff where fine today with a cross wind. I find it is more difficult to fly in a crosswind.... just more practice! In themals it is a handful to fly..... I think I was flying it too slowly in previous flights. My static port is still too far forward... must remember to change that.
The glider is best towed with the tailwheel on the ground otherwise the nose pops up and the tailwheel hits hard!... and someone to really give a good run!!
I guess I can now finally say it is a fun glider to fly but I will keep working on it. I wonder what has changed more... me of the glider?
August 26th, 1999: Done a lot of flying on the windrose in the last few days. The Thermals where small but I stayed up. I could not out climb a 1-26 nor the grob 102. It does however do very well in the straight and level. As I get to know the windrose I am more sure that I am suffering from tip stalls. So it looks like I need to adjust the airfoils on the tips. the stall speed is still very high as well. While this may be discouraging to some it is just one of the many little road blocks that need to be overcome in the process of building your own glider. Refer to my flying Characteristics for more details.
August 6, 1999: I decided to get a different perspective on the windrose by flying a grob 102. Immediately I found it much more relaxing on the ailerons. The grob did not seem to spiral into the turns either. I did a 4 hour flight which gave me a lot of time to think things out. I will try some trim tab servos to help with the aileron pressures. I also did some more profiling on the wings to get smoother surfaces. I have great hope with the servo tabs....I'll spend sometime designing them.
August 2,1999 Check out the flying section of this web page for the flying characteristics. Had a good two hour flight today. I have decided to sell the windrose so I can get a Marske Pioneer. Any takers at$14,500 US?I have two 37 hp engines engine mounts and a prop that go with it. I will not be putting on the engine as my real interest is in the Marske monarch now.
Email me at windrose@continuo.com
July 18th. It appears as though I have made a great improvement in the handling with the change I made in the ailerons belcrank. I reduced the radius and increased the differential so that there is more up elevator than down. Now I have to fix that tailwheel which keeps collapsing on me.!
|
July 4, 1999 A photo just before my last flight.... getting that gps correct! Anyway I may have a solution to the heavy aileron handling.... I changed the position of the aileron pushrods on the rear belcrank to give a smaller radius..... on the ground it feels great.....now to get it airborne again!
|
June 30, 1999 Well it has been a while since the windrose last flew. On my first flight back in early June I spun the glider just after release. I have done some thinking on this and reiterate the story here. I was playing with the flap handle while slowing and probably got gusted. Over I went and for a few moments I was out of control: ending in a spiral dive. Being in a spiral dive I pulled up on the elevator and there was no response.... obviously stalled so I pushed forward and the plane started to fly again so I pulled out somewhere about 100 mph..... the tail stayed on so I kept flying for the next 3 hours in very turbulent conditions!
During the last three weeks I rechecked everything discovering the odd bolt that needed tightening and a few nicos that also needed tightening. I redid my C of G calculations... but did not do it as Maupin suggested since he presumes a seat position that does not agree with mine. My overall empty weight is 442 lbs. .
Now todays flight: The first flight was short. I was a little nervous about the whole thing after my spin so I just took it easy. I ballasted my seat by 20 pounds but wore a lighter national chute... only 11 pounds from the security that weighed 16. I took off from the grass which was too bumpy... infact too bumpy but I got in the air and popped up over the tow plane by 20 ft. we eventually got level and I noticed a lot of forward pressure on the stick under tow. My new static ports showed a speed of 65-70 mph hour.... the tow speed we agreed upon. The pressure was not too extreme but I thought that maybe a top speed of 65 would be better next flight. The release was fine and I initiated a few stalls and turns. This plane flys quite differently from any other I have flown. The rudder is very easy and the location of the cables should be at the top of the rudder pedals, not half was down. the ailerons are very stiff sometimes almost overpowering the pilot. There is very little movement required of the ailerons in the neutral position but again the forces are quite high... somewhat akin to a 185 Cessna. The L/D seemed quite high and I overshot my intended landing spot by a wide margin. This first flight was a bit nerve wracking so a second flight was in order.
The second flight was much more relaxed. The takeoff was from pavement with a slight crosswind with a few degrees of flap. I had quite a time getting one wing up.... forgot to use the rudder but this tow was better at the lower speed and I seemed to better master the turns. Tight turns seem to me to want to get tighter and require careful control regarding the rudder ( yaw string), elevator and ailerons. Sometimes they where easy but most where difficult. I thermalled for about an hour before I had to end my flight for a prearranged meeting. I am impressed with the glide ratio. My next flight I will try get some stall figures and l/d with my gps. My landing was much better. The spoiler works fine, (I even did a slip which I do not recommend with the spoiler deployed) but not quite as good as most other gliders. I did not have full flaps..... but I will the next landing. Overall a most successful flight.
A couple of notes on that flight. The nose skid needs some work, it would be nice to have the ailerons move easier, takeoffs should be from a paved surface and I will continue to sand the wings as that seemed to have a very positive effect on the glide ratio. I have collapsed the rudder wheel.... so I must fix that!
the windrose on aerotow on its first flight!
June 2, 1999. The windrose flies!!! Dave Welles flew the initial test flights from Elmira NY. We had problems with the airport not allowing us to perform autotows from the runways unless I had over 500,000 in insurance. I upped the insurance but could not get any response from them so Dave decided to do a long aerotow.... about 2 miles. He decided that indeed the plane flew so he took it on up to 5000 ft. The Glider lacked enough up elevator with the spoiler deployed so the landing was done without the spoiler. After three flights by Dave I took over. I launched on Thursday May 27th in strong north west winds. It was very gusty with thermals and wave. The tow was fine.. actually pleasant but upon release I was playing with the flap control while slowing down. Suddenly my left wing lost lift and I went over. I'm not sure what happened but I believe I ended up in a spiral dive. I remember pulling on the stick but nothing happened so I put full down stick.... and that did it, I was flying again! Quite a beginning to the flight. I spent three hours in the air under very difficult conditions. The landing was a very welcome relief.... the spoiler and flap setting gave me a very easily controlled landing.
I packed up the glider and took it to Marion Ohio where I am at the Marske Flying Wings. I have a static port to relocate and a few minor adjustments but I should be up and flying again within the week!
May 13, 1999 Well here I am in Marion Ohio working with Jim Marske and finishing the monarch!.... the windrose? yes its finished but in New York at Harris hill waiting for its blessing from the local FAA. I spoke to them today and they said it seemed just fine..... but they needed to get some paperwork done...... I hope to have it test flown around the week of May 22-30th. I still have do not a place to do the ground skims..I only have $100,000 liability insurance and the Elmira Airport requires $500,000. i'm planning on moving it out to Marion soon where the airport is much more easy about what we do here.
April 22, 1999. The Inspection went well. I missed a few things which I knew about ... I just ran out of Time. At Any rate Dave Wells did a complete inspection two days before and I completed those before the FAA arrived. So now I haveto get it to the airport and then Dave Wells will do a test flight!.
Well there it is!
April 16, 1999. Well the Inspection is for this coming Wednesday so things are pretty exciting! I've pretty much finished the painting and will assemble the plane on Monday.... thats when I'll find a few things that do not fit! I'm painting it with Imron white... paint donated by a friend!... with a foam brush. I'll eventually do a fine sanding since the foam brush leaves a small ripple.
April 5, 1999 I've been very busy closing my business... retiring and taking up the Marske Flying Wings fulltime! The windrose has made steady progress. I'm just painting it. A friend gave me two gallons of white Imron.... thats some friend!! I thought I would have to spray it but it brushes on with foam brushes just fine.... I will have some sanding to do. Hope to have some finished pictures soon.
March 26, 1999. I've just about finished everything. The canopy was glued in place yesterday, the air vent put in the panel. Just waiting for a warm day to do some painting. Spending most of my time making the Marske Monarch. I have the wings done except for the covering.... the fuselage too is nearing completion.
March 3,1999. This is very exciting! I found my release knob at a local craft store.. got my welding done at our shop in Marion.... and I'm just about ready to paint... All I need is warm weather. Pretty exciting!
February 24, 1999. The windrose is coming together very nicely! I have only to put in a few last pieces that I had welded. The canopy and instruments are in....I put in some static ports.. perhaps too far aft... but I can redo that later. I'm waiting for some warmer weather to do the final painting! So I am planning for the test flight sometime in May. I have added a few picutres under the wing section... some proof loading pictures.
January 15,1998 Its starting to get very exciting. I just painted up the cockpit with some textured paint.... looks really good... hides the fiberglass coth weave that would show through with out it. The outside is base coat painted, hiding all that mottled look of a glass ship. All the metal parts have come out and I'm inspecting them, painting them and reinstalling... really a lot of fun. Just installed static ports on the side just behind the main seat... just a guess as to where they belong. Will paint the bascoat on the bottom of the fuselage and paint the canopy black today. I ordered all new thin washers and half size nuts for those bolts in shear, from wicks as well as the odd bolt etc. As I said before this is all very exciting.
January 10, 1999 The recent pictures arrived so I posted many on the different web pages -mainly the canopy but there are some addtions to the spoiler, controls and fuselage. I did the 4 G proof loading of the wings yesterday... everything seemed to work just fine except that my camera was set for the wrong f stop at the critcial moment so those pictures will be dark!! So onward! I'm just spending a lot of time taking everything apart and making sure the parts are painted and all bolts are correct.
January 6, 1999 Is it really that long since I last wrote? Well not a lot has happened... just cleaning up the whole beast. I decided to finallly proof load the wings since my shop is very cold just now. So the sand has been apportioned out along beside the length of the wings ready for the big test!! All the registration seems to be falling into line as well. Instruments are in.... controls all work. Just took out the last few parts that haven't been final welded or fine finished. Have a set of pictures that will be ready for developing in the next few days too! Put the seat belts in... and ofcourse sat in for a few hours getting the feel. I love that canopy!!! Dave Wells came over for a final fitting of his 6ft plus frame and he felt everything was fine and he looks forward to test flying it. I took down my temporary heat hut and will reconstruct another one for final finishing. the reality of finding a trailer for it has struck me..... Dave says he will help with that... then how will I store it. Harris Hill's storage is full of glider trailers! The monarch I purchased looks more inviting all the time. Still having fun!!!
December 10, 1998 Really putting on the steam here to finish the glider. The picture above is still how it is looking... the plastic tent is so I can heat things up enough to have the epoxy cure. Worked on the canopy..... seems to work fine. I refitted the canopy latches to that it works in conjunction with the emergency release... looking good! I didn't allow enough room for the long vario instrument so I'll do a little cutting on the glass in the instrument panel on the canopy. Thats the beauty of working in glass... you can always change things.One of my major concerns just now is the gap seals on the ailerons to wing. This should be a piece of myar. John Walkling said he had some, I'll haveto give him a call. The final filling takes time......... but I'll start some painting soon.
November 28, 1998. Got the cockpit lever for the walking beam working. The lever has a bolt and brass piece that goes into many holes such as on a schwiezer 1-35. Seems to work fine. Put a few more pictures up.I put release mechanism on the instrument panel... seems to fit just fine.Just doing the final filling around the fuselage... and ready to put in the instruments. Getting very close now to completion. I will haveto yet take out some of the metalwork to have it welded since some of it is only tacked.
November 19, 1998. I'm just back from a week in Marion Ohio where we held the november Flying wing workshop. Finally all that theory is making good sense: Arodynamics are not such a mystery! When I returned i was concerned about the poor design from the carbon layup to the aluminum attachment plates. According to the math it will hold a 9-10 G load but i think it could havbe been designed better. Jim Marske certainly has it better thought out. Well I'm back at work. I just installed the release mechanism. It took some doing at first since the area I had to work in was rather cramped and there is no real deisgn for the attachment. with a bit of thinking I came up with a very good design that works well. I did happen to get some pictures back fro mthe photo shop and will put those up over the next few days. I'm in astate of overload... I work at my business from 7am -3 pm then up to the shop till about 7 pm then on to the monarch drawings as I prepare to build that next.Click here to goto my Marske workshop report
November 6, 1998. Was away for a week in Boston so I got a little behind in my work, but today I spent most of the day buiding a small heated plastic hut so I can still do some fiberglassing. Everything is coming together rather well. Just a few more small details to glass and fill.. The canopy is fitting well and the new latch system seems to work well. So I'll be adding instruments soon. But next week I'm in Marion attending the Marske workshops that I have organized. Sure wish I had done some of these workshops before I started to build! I'll be bringing back my recently purchased Monarch to redo the wings...
October 26, 1998 Put the canopy covering (lexan) back on so I could do some more filling around the edges of the canopy and cutting to fit better. Certainly looking more like a flier now. yes I've been sitting in it trying it out! the controls feel great.. have to guess where the stick will be and such. Rudder seems to work fine. just getting ready for the instrument panel. Was very warm the last few days so I got some extra days in filling with the epoxy and microballoons. I tried bending the spoiler to fit better... with heat lamps. I got 150 degrees under about 50 lbs I did get some change so this technique for bending fiberglass layups works. no wonder we should be concerned about the hot summy days where the temperature on the wings could get to 150 degrees!
October 21, 1998 I have spent a lot of time working on the canopy latch... that was a real toughy. With all the extensive sketching I decided on a schweizer type latch on both sides... seems to work fine so far. I put in the brake by attaching it to the upward lifting spoiler arm.... direct. It was quite easy and works like a charm so far. I have connected the cables to the elevator and put springs on the control stick. Lots of guesswork there as to what it will feel like in the air. Instrument panel and tow release will be next on the list. I've carted up three flights of stairs to my workshop about 1000 pounds of 10 lb bags of sand for proof loading. The cold weather is gradually coming in so I only get to glass every fourth or fifth day. I'll haveto construct my little plastic tent later this month.The shop in Marion tells me that the Monarch has arrived. I want it to be very good so I may redo the wings with a different profile... thats my next project.
October 6, 1998 Have some good pictures to add to my site. See the fuselage, spoiler ...and the canopy section too. Hammondsport was really alive yesterday. The local volunteers at the Curtiss museum built and flew an early Curtiss flying boat... what a spectacular sight!!!
September 29, 1998 The rearmost part of the fuselage came off quite easily and my guesswork at the amount of scrap fiberglass cloth worked out just fine,... about three layers with one layer of kintex left over from the wings. Looks and fits just fine. I'm putting a layer of micro on the part just now. Still playing with the canopy and developing a set of latches for it. I just purchased a Monarch that Howie Burr finished. Doug Carpenter is getting it from California and should be back with it about October 20th....Once the windrose is tested I may haveto part with it to continue my interest in the Marske wings. I have two motors for the windrose.
September 21, 1998 Well I have really been moving along. I have the canopy working.. what a pleasure to have the canopy open and close so easily. I still have a few adjustments to make but it works just fine. I have finished the basic glassing of the rearmost part of the fuselage. I used foam blocks built up like bricks, sanded it to shape then used some micro to make it smooth. This was a "male" mold. I have yet to remove the whole thing from the fuselage... should be fun since I'm sure its stuck on quite well despite my application of mold release and wax.
September 10, 1998 A lot has happened in the last few weeks. I have flown the monarch and feel nearly all my time and effort will now be with Jim Marske. I like his designs and he knows his building practices. His kits are easy to assemble and well thought out. I am going ahead as fast as I can on the windrose to get it completed. I have got the canopy well underway complete with hinge, but I have yet to install the gas strut. The spoiler seems to work well and I am now finishing off the back end of the fuselage. I will put more pictures in this week.
August 28, 1998 I just scanned in some pictures of the Canopy. I've started preparations for the trailing end of the fuselage, I'll use a freeform foam and fiberglass appnedage while it is used as a glider.
August 23/ 1998 Well I have been very busy and the highlight of my month has been flying the Monarch flying wing by Jim Marske. On the windrose I have put the canopy together and the emergency canopy release seems to work just fine, the controls are all working and the gas strut on the spoiler is fully operational. I finally have the correct placement. I will have about 40 lbs to help open the spoiler at speed. I have the wing fittings ready to epoxy together. Dave Wells my engineer friend was over for a fitting, resulting in my moving the seat back 2 inches as well as lowering it. The wings look slightly anhedral but upon measurement they are flat across and with a little air under them they will have the effective dihedral of 3 degrees being a high wing. The floor is in and carpeted and the flaperon handle is ready for notching with the evelators attached. My pcitures are just being developed. I think I made a mistake and got the black and white film.... just when I got a color scanner!@! So I'm pretty excited nearing completion.
July 29, 1998 Working very hard on the canopy. I have to say it but I ruined the first piece of lexan....yes $70 plus 6 hours of time to get a new sheet... I was pretty mad at myself for being so dumb. The second sheet is going on much better! The emergeny release is coming together -thats of carbon. Putting the floor in and the rudder pedals. Going to epoxy the wing fittings this next week while the hot weather is still here. I discovered that I can change the ange of each wing by adjusting the rear spar attachment... so I feel a little relieved at that possibility. Took one wing off tonight....getting it out by myslef is a bear!This is not going to be aneasy plane to assemble by oneself... I have visions of a T hangar........I have some pictures of Paul Johnsons first windrose flights see these under other builders photos..
July 24, 1998 Well I attended the Eastern Sailplane Workshop here in Elmira last weekend. I gave two talks on the windrose and most of all made arrangements to organize a workshop with Jim Marske this coming September 3-5, 1998 at the Marion Ohio airport. . Those interested in attending should email me or phone me at 1-800-231-2489.. There will be flying wing concepts, "hands on" construction techniques and some basic stress analysis. We will also get to see the monarch fly! Cost for the 3 day event is $250.And yes I'm still working on the windrose. I'm just completing the canopy and fiddling with the canopy mechanism , getting the floor in along with the rudder pedals.Everything seems to line up fine. At the workshop I learned how to make sure my wings had an equal angle of attack... use of a water hose to show level.... and it was recommended to not glude the canopy but put in on with screws that do allow some movement. At the moment I'm busy making the carbon boot for the canopy release mechanism.
July 12, 1998 Despite my late entry a lot is happening! I just upgraded one of my computers big time! New Color scanner, 64 meg memory, another 5 meg disk! And what a terrible time getting it all to work! OK enough of that! The first color photo is in the spoiler web page.
I'm still on the spoiler but its now all together and working... just finishing up on the mount for the gas strut. The canopy is actually looking like a canopy!! Just one more covering of light fiberglass on the bias.. then how do I afix that lexan to the canopy?... Epoxy will not work... so on to the internet for more info.? This is good fiberglassing weather! I have also started on the floor.. was going to put a cheap pice of 1/8 inch door skin.... but decided I'd better go look at the lumber yard for something better!
I have visited with Jim Marske and am deciding more to pursue flying wings. Will soon have some color photos.
Live is terribly busy but except for a week out in Oberlin and them Marion Ohio I get at the windrose every day. I look forward to going the eastern SHA this year where I will give talks on the 3 piece mould I made with vacuum bagging and the spoiler and canopy.
June 3, 1998 My how the time travels!!Due to my business I have been only able to work an hour or so a day. Then too there is the hang gliding to be done! At any rate, to update things I have done a lot of work on getting the canopy ready. Ihave started glassing the inside of the canopy frame. I am waiting to glass the outer sides once I have it stiff enough to start cutting it dow to accomocate the thinkness of the lexan and the requisite fiberglas. I am rolling the canopy on the floor to get the proper angles for the lexan attachment. As a test I tried epoxying the lexan to the fiberlass... that didn't work! But it pop rivets nicely without cracking. So how does one glue lexan?? Suggestions welcome.
On the spoiler I have also made a lot of progress. I have done and redone it a few times. I have a working model out of light aluminum tube and foam. I have all the parts in square 3/4" .035- 4130 tubing to be welded to a 3/4 " 4130 tube that will run in delrin bearings. I had made one attempt at tack welding the structure but my dimensions where none too accurate.... so it was back to the drawing board... and this time a more accurate foam model was produced which helped greatly. I expect to have the new spoiler mechanism welded together soon.
Dave Welles... my mentor is often commenting on some of the brilliant aspects of this wing. If only Irv Culver could answer a lot of my questions. Dave was also suggesting making two planes... one as a pure sailplane with a cut down fuselage and one as the motor glider.
May 12, 1998. I'm spending time working on the foam canopy. sure is nice working in foam. I've glued it all together with the canned foam and have put a lyer of microc ballons and exposy on part of it. I will use a very light weight fiberglass and use multiple layers where the streght is needed. On the spoiler.... I have a working mockup so i took it apart and have reconstructed it in foam. My next step is to make some sketches and see if my coach Dave Welles approves of the engineering. this is a long slow process.
May 10, 1998 The spoiler mechanism is gradually coming together. It is not easy to design the mehcanism so that it is deployable and you haveto have the strength to keep it open. I epoxied on the rear fuselage which gave the hinge mechanism more rigidity (mounted on the plywood frame). At the moment it is all done up in mockup material but it works well.
the canopy is proving a lot of fun! And the front hinging canopy is really rough to get right!! I am using an entirely foam core frame covered with fiberglass. There will be an emergency canopy release. The top half of the instrument panel now goes up with the canopy. All the foam is cut and glued... and now to begin the glassing!
April 30, 1998 Well I've done a lot of preliminary work to get that spoiler working! It requires very long arms and quite some changes to the mechanism designed on the plans. i have the gas strut in and everything functional in my rough state. I will redo all the parts when I am fully satisfied with the whole thing. But I am very close... my initial tests indicate it will work fine.
April 8, 1998 Pictures have finally arrived. ujpdates on the walking beam can be found under controls.
April 6, 1998 Pictures will follow in a few days!! Just finished another roll of film.
I ran into a lot of headaches for design off thecanopy. I have designed many systems for having the hinge at the front: all of them add weight. I'm really stubborn about that front hinging canopy!!! The big problem I had was how to get the canopy off in midflight should the emergency arise. I have wanted to go with a ballistic chute but with the lack of $$$ (contributions accepted)......so off with the canopy is the only other option and probably should be done anyway. After three days of design, cutting foam I came up with a solution I like. By pulling on a knob set in the instrument panel (that half of it goes up with the canopy)one can pull a handle back which shoves the canopy up and out and then releases it. Really fairly simple but it took a long time to get the idea. I have it working in the foam.
March 31, 1998 I have just completed another phase in the spoiler testing. We drove my truck to 60 mph with the large spoiler mounted on the roof. It was at about 45 degrees. I had the final fittings on the spoiler and measured the lb force on an digital scale. At 60 mph it had 70 lbs of pressure. With the attachment points only 10 inches from the hinge the required forces will be too great so I've put in a gas strut to assist. I hope to get about 40 lbs of assist. Below stall the forces on the stick will tend to want to open the spoiler which will pur on the brake. I'm making the canopy of foam covered with glass, it is a lot lighter than the wood. The basic spoiler controls are all working but will need some refinement as some of the parts are just of mockup qulaity. I am moving the spoiler arm down a bit and putting in a nylon bearing to accept the forces. I elongated the arm for the spoiler by 2 inches to get the correct travel for 45 degrees.
March 18, 1998 Working on getting the spoiler tested. In static testing I split one of the wood fixtures that attach the front metal hinges. I used solid wood and should have glassed the entire piece of wood or used a built up piece of plywood. I have increasing concerns about the pressures that will be exerted on this very large spoiler. I have only 6" of travel and only my arm strength about say 60-80 lbs at most so I will need a off-center gas strut to help with full deployment. What full deplyment is I am not sure. I would like 60 degrees but I do not have the proper travel for that.. its looks more like 30 degrees at the moment. I will see what the forces are while truck testing. While looking through my old EAA magazines I noted that one should not mix epoxy and polyester. I had been forewarned about this by Jim. I have used very little, mainly for filling the very small pin holes. I may haveto redo the filler and paint parts of the plane at some future date. Sure looks like a plane now! Dave says the welded front hinge is done. Will pick it up later this week-
March 11, 1998 Well lots of excitement! I had one of the local kids help put the wings back on. I had the new aft-fuselage ready and it fit fine! The spoiler fit perfect too! So now I'm mounting the spoiler hinge mechanism. I have all the parts done and will give a preliminary test of its forces mounted on my truck. I glassed part of the front canopy hinge. Looks good. Jan Carlson pointed out to me the aileron movement is restricted by the rear spar. At the moment I have about 30 degrees of travel for the ailerons, twenty degrees up and ten degrees down.
Mar 8, 1998. The aft canopy was a success! I took it out of the mold and was pleased with it. There were a few airbubbles but relatively few. I feel that these could be eliminated by having the glass and all at 80 degrees when doing the layup. I have cut the aft canopy for the wing roots and placed the hinge mechanism on the spoiler. One of the problems facing me now is whether I have enough travel in the spoiler mechanism... and enough strength to pull it open. I will mount this on my truck and measure the results. My preliminary findings make me wonder if I will be able to get it open 45 degrees. Wing weights indicate that one wing is 120 lbs and the other is 125.....hmmmmm? Will do a preliminary weight an balance in the next few to see if the front canopy hinge will cost me weight. I have the front canopy hinge fabricated from aluminum and ready for welding.
Mar 6/ 98 friday. I have just put on the second to last piece of fiberglass in the aft fuselage mold. This gets exciting! Later tonight or tomorrow I will put in the last piece of fiberglass then I get to open the mold to see how good a job I did.
I have finished the front canopy hinge mechanism out of aluminum so I called my friend Dave to see about his alumninum welding friends!
Looked long an hard at the completed spoiler... using some wood to attach the hinge mchanism to the spoiler. The hinge mechanism is made out of metal and it will afix to the spoiler on a wood block solidly glassed to that spoiler.
My pictures arrived today so I will update the aft fuselage web page.