January 20, 2001

Dear Janice

I feel you have done the correct thing by putting a lot of the windrose discussion on your website.

However you must be very careful to print the facts and be very careful not to print misleading information concerning my flying ,building and experience. None of your authors have ever had any discussion with me about building or flying, nor have you printed their names or experience.

Would you please correct any misleading information as I have outlined below.

I have tried to correct any obvious mistakes so that your readers can make a better appraisal of the Windrose.

It seems quite obvious to me that most of your authors (none have had any correspondence with me toconfirm factual details) are mainly concerned with disgracing my flying using false information rather than discussing the design and flying characteristics of the Windrose.

Focusing your Windrose discussion on disgacing me could be the material use for a legal action on my part. I do hope you keep the discussion to the Windrose , find some solution to upgrading the design and doing proper test flying.

If you feel I have been unfair please address that issue with me by email.

As noted in my site I had a lot of hope for the windrose, and I feel that with proper test flying, structure changes and an upgraded design you may have a decent glider.

-Mat

7/21 from Mat

Janice,

I have finally become proficient in the Windrose but fear that my

present work with the Monarch will never see time for my engine

installation. I am willing to sell the Windrose, now well documented

on the web at:

http://www.continuo.com/windrose/windrose.htm

I am asking $14,500 with two motors, but no trailer.

thanks-mat

8/13 from Mat

Janice I am very sorry to report my crash of the Windrose.

I think it prudent that you do not sell any more plans and notify all

people who have bought plans that the Glider is unsafe.

I entered a spin at altitude and could not recover forcing me to bail

out. I am extremely lucky to be alive.

I am very sorry about this. This was the second instance that the

glider entered a spin of this type.

I am an instructor and commercial pilot and I think my opinion

should not be taken lightly.

-mat

8/13 From Mat

Janice there are definite problems with the windrose. It is an

unusual glider to fly and not for the inexperienced pilot. The spin

characteristics are very unsafe for a glider. At first I thought I was

just being careless on my first flight. I stalled a wing and it was

over on its back and in a high speed spiral dive in seconds...

luckily the first time I recovered. This second time I was much

more experienced and felt able to handle almost anything.

I am a high time pilot, instructor and commercial pilot. I build

gliders and test fly them so I do know what I am talking about.

If you read my windrose site I do recommend only experienced

pilots fly it.

Janice I had real hopes for the Windrose and I really did an

excellent job of building it...... but it has a very grave weakness that

should not be overlooked.

I had felt that I had come to master the glider and at that point I

wanted to sell it and get on with our Monarch building.

-mat

8/13 From Janice

Dear Friends, What do you think? I will have to notify other builders, but

is it really unsafe, or is it the fault of the builder/pilot?

Janice Maupin

for Jim Maupin Ltd

8/13 From ? :

Matt noted on his earlier spin that he felt it was due the

low Reynolds number at the wingtip due to the very

narrow chord at that point, causing the aircraft to

(forgive the non-aerodynamicists view) slide through the bottom

of a steep turn.

What little knowledge I have suggests a stall fence on the wing

for this problem, as is also used on STOL craft.

While I'd not want to impose on Matt, knowledge of the conditions of his spin,

and other info, such as speed and attitude at entry,

would be of more assistance that an simple instruction to

ground the aircraft. Many an aircraft will spin and not recover easily, thus

is placarded against spin entry conditions; I own a certificated aircraft

that has been in the fleet for years with such restrictions.

A sailplane is much different, It is prone to conditions that can induce a spin when flying thermals. It is important to have a glider that can easily get out of a spin and that the stall is somewhat predictable. The straight ahead stall seemed fine, its just that in a turn such as thermal flying that the inside wing dropped without warning and recovery was very difficult. The point here is that a sailplane with an unrecoverable spin is not very safe as a glider because of the thermal conditions one flies in . I hope that Mush can do a number of spins and investigate the spin and recovery characteristics.

8/14 Another

Here is the current thread from rec-av-soaring.

Interesting that Matt provided much more detail there than to

builders....

Hope he shares the video...

Fact that the aircraft eventually recovered itself suggests .....

1. CG problem???

2. Complete normal spin recovery first -- i.e. neutralize controls, level wings,

gently pull out of ensuing dive.

Richard

Unfortunately the video did not materialize, I was told that a spectator had video taped it.... but I could not find that person... what I did have was a few very poor photos. I did have an eyewitness, and experienced pilot above me that confirmed my account. The aircraft recovered to do a number of loops, suggesting that once I was out of the cockpit the cg moved rearward and the energy left from the dive made it do a number of successive loops before doing a wingover and crashing. The entire incident happened so quickly that it was a matter of seconds until the tail started to flutter and I bailed out.

From: Matthew Redsell

Date: Sun, 13 Aug

Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 02:40:54 GMT

I would like all aviators to know about my Windrose crash today. And I

recommend that no one build and fly one.

It was a very strong thermal day and I was enjoying the strong thermals.

As I reached 3000 ft agl I hit a boomer which beause of the slow speed

put me in a spin. This surprised me since I had a fair abount of flaps

on. On the attempt of recovery from the spin in the ensuing spiral dive

I noticed the elevator not responding. This has happened once before...

but I recovered form that! This got too out of hand so I bailed out.....

but not without a lot of difficulty. This was the first real test of the

emergency canopy release..... it worked but not as Ii had thought it

would. The canopy stayed on until I kicked it off... possibly held by

the side latches.

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..... and I really felt helpless!

I landed before the glider which was deteremined to get me..... I

literally jumed 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 nose in not 30 feet from me.

Amazingly the Yaesu hand held radio was working.... I pushed my had in

the rubble looking for it... finally finding it and broadcasting that I

had survived!

I'm really lucky to be alive..... and a number of people got it on

video....

So I think we had better say the the windrose glider is very unsafe to

fly. This makes me quite sad since I liked it quite a lot.

8/14 From

Almost all sailplanes can and will spin. None recover normally into a spiral

dive. Out of CG, a stuck elevator, or a panic reaction can cause this.

IF the plane actually looped once abandoned, a stuck elevator might

be suggested. If there is a video, I hope it is shared. All airplanes are

also dangerous, but much less so if flown within a normal flight envelope.

We don't know for sure what this is; it might be less with the Windrose

than another ship.

I may have said that the spin resulted in a spiral dive, the eyewitness said I actually recovered right side up and in a steep dive, which was when I discovered the elevator would not respond. The rudder was in flutter at this point as well and I was being thrown about in the cockpit. I tried for a recovery once again after I ejected the canopy hoping that would help but it would not respond so I elected to jump.

The MOST I would do at this time is add a note suggesting parachutes, and an

emergency canopy release, equipment that is standard on MOST height performance sailplanes in any case.

Yes I did forget to say that wearing a parachute is recommended in all flying! Thanks for that good point.

RRI

8/15 From Mat

Janice I know that this is not good information for you but I am

really concerned. I gave the Windrose a real try.....and I am very

sorry that this glider did not continue.

There are other issues to: the spar construction is definitely wrong.

There should definitely not be bolts through the carbon fiber and as

a modern development, carbon rods should be used instead of

Carbon tow. Many other design changes should be made as well

and until these are done you should stop selling the plans at least

for the 15 meter version.

-mat

8/15

There continues to be a lot of comment on rec-aviation-soaring on the

Windrose incident.

Here is what we KNOW (to the degree that we can discern anything

to be fact on the combination of reporting and argument presented).

1. Matt was upset by a large thermal. We do not know his angle on bank within

this thermal.

I was flying in a thermal at a reasonable speed with a small amount of flaps. With the flaps on, the glider controls much easier (not really sure why) and that makes for more washout on the tips, which I had hoped would make a turning stalling more difficult. I have always felt the Windrose was unstable in a turn, more easily able to drop a wingtip than any other glider I have flown.

2. He felt he was upside down.

This was confirmed by an eyewitness and that transcript was turned in to the FAA. But it was only for a few seconds as I attempted my recovery

3. When he came out of inverted, he was in a spin and-or.

As far as I know my spin was inverted for a short time then I was in a steep dive after the recovery, but correct side up.

4. But he suffered severe flutter due to exceeding VNE.

This cannot be confirmed since the cockpit was reacting to the flutter making it impossible to see the airspeed. Once the canopy was ejected and I tried to recover again, but the wind was so strong that it removed my glasses and sight was nearly impossible. It would be interesting to see at what point the rudder would flutter. I wonder if a loose gap seal would cause flutter? The rudder was properly mass balanced.

Since a spin is a stalled condition, I guess "4" occurred after the recovery; or,

perhaps, he never spun but went into a spiral dive directly from being too slow for

conditions, oversped and broke up the aircraft. (this sounds like a typical landing accident???).

I wonder why the author did not email me to confirm his rather simple understanding of a complex problem. The aircraft was intact when I left it.

Regardless of Matt's blanket condemnation of the design, there is nothing that

suggests any problem with the design flown within the published speed and CG limits. While it is nice if an aircraft can recover from an unintentional upset, whether a thermal induced problem in soaring, or, say, a wake turbulence accident, the FAA generally looks to avoidance, rather than escape.

I do not have a blanket condemnation of the design, please read my points on my windrose web site.

In training nowadays, right or wrong, one is taught to avoid a spin, not recover

from one.

Not so in Gliding! We train all pilots to do a spin.

Many of the respondents on RAS have pointed out Matt's conflict of interest.

We are not competitors since Marske Flying Wings does not produce a Motorglider. We are avid builders and desingers and not just selling plans. Wedo flight testing of our products, build gliders and are constantly modifying the gliders to perform better and use well proven materials.

The debate is lively. I will collect all in a few days and distribute to the group.

My gut feeling: Matt flew his Windrose like the ultralight he's been flying for

a year now, got the airplane outside of its limits, and (as a reasonable option)

jumped from a recoverable aircraft while he had altitude.

To make such conclusions is rather foolish, especially since this author did not bother to contact me directly about the accident so he could make a reasonable assumption. I have plenty of experience in all types of gliders and would not confuse their differences. Just prior to my accident I had taught a number of flight lessons in a 2-33.

He might consider the length of time one should spend in a craft that has flutter and is not responding to elevator control inputs but the autor did not bother to do his research.

Had he spent his time sorting out the Windrose envelope systematically, rather

than promoting the Marske, the results would likely have been different.

Rather a foolish statement again . He did not contact me to ask about any details concerning my flying of the windrose, I had carefully started the windrose from no thermal days to increasing thermal days.

I believe, as the custodian of the plans, if Matt is not forthcoming to you with

the video, and the names of eyewitnesses so that the aerodynamicists of your choice can investigate the problem, his opinions should be discounted somewhat. Asking

the world to turn on his opinion is a but much: my pilot credentials are

probably the equal to his, and I never had any training in design evaluation.

His is in service to a Mfr with a competing, and radical design.

If you do not publish his name, then his comments should be deleted. Please list his experience, how many gliders he has built and how many gliders he has tested. This author obviously has no idea of flying wings. Jim Marskes designs are not a radical design but having been in existence since the 1950's. There are far more flights and flight testing done on the Marske Monarch than on the Windrose. The author is invited to fly a Monarch for his own appraisal.

From Anon:

Dear Janice:

>From the words of the pilot, it is not clear that the proper spin recovery was performed.

There is no statement that he used the rudder to stop the rotation before applying elevator.

If this author had bothered to email me he would have realized that I recovered from the spin but could not pull out of the steep dive..

In a normal spin, the ailerons and elevator are useless, and the basic recommendation is to

stop the rotation with the rudder, and then and only then, use the elevator to correct the stall.

The fact that the plane recovered after the pilot left could be caused by his hands coming

off the controls. (No longer providing incorrect control pressure.) I heard of a pilot who could

not recover from a spin in a sailplane, and he jettisoned the canopy. The plane recovered by itself.

He thought it was because he had the drag of a missing canopy, but it could have been because his

hands were busy removing the canopy and there was no incorrect control pressure.

The plane recovering by itself could also be caused by the change in CG with the pilot's weight

removed. If he had been flying with incorrect CG, this is a pilot/builder error. Incorrect control

pressures are certainly pilot error. Neither one should be attributed to the design of the plane.

I am sorry you have had this problem dumped in your lap. I have some suggestions, but

since they can be viewed by any and all you choose to send them to, I will put them in a different

email.

Again another athor that has not done his homework! I do teach spin training so the above is well know to me. Again the author has not bothered to checks facts with me.

8/15 From Tom

Dear Janice:

Sorry to hear about the incident that casts a shadow on the Windrose design. I have a vested interest in this plane, as I am ready

to mate the wings to the fuselage.

If the plane is dangerous and no one should fly it, the loss to myself and other builders is immense. I'm not convinced of the cause

of this problem. Therefore I would like to suggest the following:

All the people building and flying the Windrose, and all those who intend to build it, should consolidate efforts. The group should hire an objective aeronautical engineer to go over the plans, investigate the incident, and perhaps fly the plane. That person's report should include possible cause of the crash if known, and spin characteristics of the Windrose.

If all chipped in, it would not be terribly costly to each, but the benefit in plane valuation might be impressive.

I think this s an excellent suggestion. And as a minimum one must fly the plane and do a proper flight test of it in all conditions by qualified pilots. But how about someone starting to discuss the points I have listed on y web site???

If you wish to pass these suggestions along to the group, it is fine with me. Perhaps someone could assist with some fine tuning or additional suggestions. I would hate to see us all sit back on our thumbs because of an incident where we don't really know for

sure what happened.

Cheers Tom

Dear Mat,

I'm glad you are ok!

Of course we are taking this very seriously. We will provide notification on

our web site of your crash.

Per my mother’s request, I contacted the FAA today to request an

investigation, and offered to cooperate fully.

I'm following rec.avaition.soaring, which is very interesting!

Sincerely,

Janice Maupin

for Margaret Maupin/JimMaupin Ltd

8/18 From Janice:

Dear Friends/Builders,

Thanks to those of you who offered advice and support! Of course we are taking this

very seriously and are deeply concerned. We are getting as much information as possible

so we can decide if Mat's claims are valid.

The main point I am trying to make is to address the listed concerns I have on my web site.

I contacted the FAA and the NTSB to suggest an investigation and offered to cooperate

in any way we can. It turns out the NTSB is already doing an investigation! I gave

the investigator Mat's address and web site, and ours, and offered any more

information we could provide.

If any of your are willing to communicate with the investigator, please let me know.

I'm sure it would be helpful.

Thanks!

Janice

8/18 From Mat

I do not think the FAA can do anything since I have already!

contacted the FAA and filled out the very extensive NTSB forms.

I know what the difficulties are with the glider. 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.

The points listed below should a starting point for discussion. Instead most of the response to my alert have been to try disgrace my flying, building and character. How about discussing the points I bring up below. None of your authors have discussed any of these points!

These are the points I have recommended:

1) Bolts should not go through the carbon spar.

2) The aerodynamic twist does not work when thermalling since the

opposite aileron is used causing effective washout in the outboard

wing but washin on the inside, causing a stall on the inside wing.

3) The airfoil stalls abruptly in a turn, related to the inboard ailerons..

4) the Tail section should be made much stronger to resist flutter in

the tail. Carbon added would be recommended.

5) The tail section should be analyzed to see when it flutters.

6) The currently designed walking beam is should not be cable

driven but modified to have a solid connection.

7) There are no drawings for the large spoiler mechanism. The

glider is not safe without a large spoiler with a gas strut to help

open it in flight.

8)The main wheel is not large enough for grass strip operation.

9) The Elevator and rudder should not be an all flying design; these

have a bad habit of stalling when used in certain soaring situations.

Mat Redsell, CFIG

8/19 From: John

Dear Janice

Thank you for your E-mail detailing action being taken to investigate the latest Windrose incident. I was very sorry to hear about Mat's incident and thank God that his quick reactions to a situation that was getting out of hand for him ended in his successful escape.

At this stage after having spent hundreds of hours over the last five and a half years building a Windrose, I have got it to the stage where final rigging and painting are next, I am seriously debating if I can carry on or not as I have lost confidence in the whole design.

My options are to pack it away until I either regain enough faith in it to carry on or dump it.

Before this incident I had decided to finish the Windrose exactly as per the plans, test it very carefully to see if the take off performance was acceptable and if not re build the fuselage with a low boom and high much larger prop, now I just don't know what to do with it.

I note with interest that the Jan 2000 issue of Kitplane magazine mentions forty as the number completed and flown. If this is so do you have any actual performance figures for any of these. Publishing these would help prove the design is a success.of particular interest to me is overall performance, stall speed, takeoff performance and exactly what engine was used with each example.

In my endeavor to build my Windrose exactly as per the plans (mine are Number 320) I purchased a new Rotax 503. I now find that the manufacturer of this engine specifically states in the engine manual that it cannot be used for direct drive. How have other builders got round this problem?

Sorry to add my bit to the present problems but I do feel that it is high time the Windrose was either proved a success or failure before anyone else gets injured or killed in it. If the design is proven a failure it is my intention to cut my example up into very small pieces to prevent anyone else trying to use it, I won't be very happy doing so but feel that this is the only option. If enoughevidence is forthcoming to prove the design a success and the results of the NTSB investigation do not indicate an unsafe design I will carry on, either with the existing boom prop arrangement or with a redesign of the entire after end of the fuselage if this is proven the best way to go.

I am hoping of course that this is only a storm in a teacup and I can get back to building as soon as possible.

Please keep me in the loop for any further information and to my fellow builders please send me as much information as you can

find.

Regards John Cakewalk, very concerned Wind rose builder Auckland New Zealand

As always, most of us make a big mistake when undertaking building a glider. We must fly the plane before buying it. I had no idea what the controls would be like because if I had, the windrose would not have been my first choice.

8/19 From RRI:

Hello

I hypothesize. I have two aircraft I’ve built grounded for safety.

One, the vendor has fixed the design flaw in, and I'll get back to the

other is a lost cause.

My Windrose is at a similar stage to yours, though I took the liberty of

changing a few things before testing, probably a bad habit. I, for

example, took Rotax at their word and went with a similar motor designed and supported

for direct drive.

Let me suggest that, if your concerns lead you to be systematic and

careful in your test flying, and keep the envelope reasonable, you, and

I, will discover that, like most designs, the Windrose is well mannered within reasonable

flight regimes.

Our NTSB is investigating the incident. They are quite good.

But I can't help but speculate anyhow. Not with rose colored glasses,

but just the facts as I see them!.

1. The pilot has exaggerated the breadth of his experience. (the NTSB

report will verify this)

They list me as a commercial pilot, which I am but I am also an instructor. I began flying in sailplanes and hang gliders in the early eighties and did my silver C in 1989 when I flew out to my start point and landed back at the airport. Last year I did a couple of hundred flights on my own and taught about 60 students. I flew a 2-33, 1-34,1-26, grob 103, and 102, and test flew a Monarch F and Monarch G and Monarch E.

2. For two years, prior to this flight, the vast majority of his

flights were in very light <100kg gliders, tail-less, with quite unusual flying

characteristics. Thus his automatic reactions were well tuned to how these planes reacted.

I fly every type of glider from hang gliders to a grob 103 and do hundreds of flights a year. My first love is microlight soaring but I am an instructor with the regular gliders and do cross country in a Grob 102 and Monarch. Incidently the Marske flying wing flies as any normal glider, and easily flown and has much better handling than the windrose.. He should have asked anyone who has flown one. I invite this pilot out to fly one to see for himself. This authors information is very inaccurate and has obviously not done his homework...

3. In response to his perception of a "problem" with the Windrose, he

had made a number of changes, INCLUDING TO THE WING PROFILE, that he

had not tested systematically.

I did not change the wing profile. I spent hours sanding the wings to get the correct profile. This author has obviously not done any research.

4. At an extreme attitude, on a very active day, with flaps extended????(why) he stalled a lower wing and upset to inverted. In my glider transition training, I was told by my instructor that if one flies aggressively in any machine, upset is likely, and, in fact, had to demonstrate recovery. I would wager that the Windrose is much SLOWER to respond to inputs than the light flying wings he's trained himself too, and he got behind the airplane .

Again an email to me asking me about the accident would have answered his questions. The windrose in a turn can stall suddenly. The Marske flying wings never do that!

5. Any adverse effects alleged, such as flutter, occurred OUTSIDE OF

Vne. Yup, that's why we have Vne limitations.

A rather rediculous point! I did not intentionally fly outside the VNE . My flightwas within the VNE. It is just that when I recovered, the elevator did not respond and I may have been outside the vne.

6. The aircraft, with neutral controls, recovered! There seems not,

therefore, to have been an inherent characteristic that caused divergence; in fact dynamic stability (the effective 3 deg dihedral of a high wing mount) appears to have been exactly what the designer intended.

Maybe the lower speed stopped the flutter? Rather a senseless point to make when one has not bothered to do any investigation. The fact that he knows about the effective dihedral is encouraging though.

7. Paul Johnson has made the most recent reports. They were fine. No

one to my knowledge, has ever reported nasty behavior at <60 deg of bank within the speed envelope.

Now do some homework and discover that Pauls’ plane is a 13 meter.

8. Rudder, aileron feel and elevator authority are part of the normal

sorting-out process. That is partly why US authority require a 40 hour test flight regime before a certificate is issued.

And how many Windrose builders have done a 40 hour test flight except me? Again shoot the messanger of bad news and the problem will go away.

9. (Illogical but personal) Someone who accompanies the story of his

disaster with a sales pitch for another aircraft, and who was going to dispose of his Windrose, may well not have had his head in the right place for what he was trying to do.

Sales pitch for another aircraft.... where? We are two very separate entities. I build aircraft fulltime, test fly and work with a recognized living designer, Jim Marske. The Maupin group sells plans from the 1970's that badly need completing and updating.

BTW he did not build the flying surfaces on this aircraft himself, he bought them

from another builder.

Is this really a secret......If you read my site you will notice that I redid anything I did not like about the glider and filled and profiled the wings myself.

rri

-the above is typical of those who have little to offer the discussion... no recognizable name nor email address!

From Janice:

Here is my reply to John, which I intended to send to all - actually I added a few things:

Dear John,

I understand your concern, and we share it. I am very anxious to hear the results of the

investigation. I am glad that Mat survived too! It would have been horrible if he didn't.

I met him in Elmira, New York a few years ago.

However, he did make several changes to the design, which he denied. They are outlined

on his web site. Mat's web site is attached ours and it has his crash information on it.

Janice, please outline the changes I made. The wings are exactly as shown, the fuselage and tailboom, the elevator and rudder. The only thing I changed was the way the canopy opened, but kept the same shape. The Spoiler which Jim proposed and never put into the plans was as he suggested afther his test flying.. If I had not changed the Canopy I would not be alive today... and the spoiler made all the difference in the world when landing. The spoiler was most effective and the system I devised to operate worked well giving the correct pilot control without undue strength. I had to design the walking beam since the original plans where just a sketch with a poorly thought of push-pull cable.

I also recommend that you look at rec.aviation.soaring where there are several

comments responding to his flight and crash. If the results of the investigation are

that the sailplane is unsafe, of course we will discontinue sales immediately and notify

the purchasers of the plans.

I appreciate that you told me what you are thinking. I hope the Windrose works out for

you, you've done a lot of work.

Janice

8/20 From Jan

Hi All!

After a thing like this happens, it is a lot to think about, why? what? if?

We know that Mat did not build the wings him self, that the rear spar "ear" was not in 90 degree to the rot rib, and so on, So how was the wings

accuracy?? Were they twisted? Was the wing airfoil according to the plans?

I don't know Mat, so I don't know his flying status, in gliders or propeller planes, or spin training, but I know he have at least one jump with parachute, and I am glad he has!

What happened with the rudder? Was the whole boom to soft?

I think these questions can be answered by looking at hte windrose site.

What I have read, the 13 meter Windrose seems to behave well, so it is not necessary to "ground" all WR's, How many 15 meter is flying?? John Walkling, did and sold it, he said it was not a beginners plane. Any more out there? What is there experience in flying them?

Here the author is starting to address the actual plane with mention of the 15meter plane that John Walkling had.... and that it was not a beginners plane... perhaps that is a clue to other information.

Jan

Janice: 8/20

Dear Windrose group,

A crash and such a close call is a terrifying event! It sure stunned me! When I called my

mother (Who as you know, is the owner of Jim Maupin Ltd) our first response was, let's

stop selling glider plans altogether. But since then, we have decided to see this investigation

through first. I don't want everyone to assume that glider is unsafe and recommend that

they abandon their projects unless a determination is made that it really is the fault of the design.

I wish my dad were still around!

Janice

8/22

From John

Dear Janice,

Thanks for forwarding Tom's suggestion on. I for one think that the Tom's idea has some merit and we should discuss it further

as a group. After all it will as Tom says "stop us from sitting on our thumbs", not a pretty picture I might add and hopefully give us all the confidence to move on. If the worse comes to the worse it will also suggest possible future action to try and keep the Windrose design alive.

I thank you all for your thoughts on this whole situation and hope we can get something positive out of it.

I also wish your Dad was still with us as I'm sure he would sort this lot out in no time. I think we owe it to our collective memory of him to join together and do the best we can. I also feel, as others have expressed one way or another, that Mr Redsell is a bit of a loose canon and is not doing our cause any good at all. It is up to us all to overcome these present difficulties which must surely be easier if we can work together and pool whatever knowledge and resources we can bring to bear on the subject.

Thanking you all once again for your comments,

Regards, John

Dear Janice!

From: Mitja

I was on summer holidays and after my returning home, I find a lot of Emails about Mat &Windrose accident. I am happy that he luckily escaped from situation he can’t manage to solve.

It will be pure speculation if I said anything pro or contra both for the Windrose design and Mats pilot skills.

I poses (due your mistake, when sending me the 13m plans) also plans of 15 m wings.

I am much attempted to (and if I find some time, I will...but maybe it will be to late...) take coordinates of airfoils from plans then put them into analyze program (Martin Hepperle program for aerofoil coefficients) at appropriate reynolds numbers. After collecting coeficients (Lift, Drag

and moment) I will use Glauert method to find out characteristic of entire wing. First with flaperons in neutral position, and then with flaps at some positions. Then it will be seen what is happened when wing is stalling... where comes (IN THEORY) to stall at first.

If it will be at wingtip, then Mat is right, if will stall start at root, then with wing design in all OK.

BUT, anyway at building the wing in this technique builder can (I AM SURE!) make some deviations (unwilling) from the theoretical shape of

airfoil. So the airfoil will show different habits than expected. Also can came to unwanted positive twist of wing tip when curing....

Tip aerofoil is classic "turbulent" airfoil, so we can expect that it must work well also at low Re numbers (at minimum speeds) and also at this

type of airfoils some minor tolerances in shape should not have strong influence to stall behavior of airfoil... Well, taking coordinates from the

drawings also can lead to mistakes, so the airfoil will show already distorted coefficients, almost as real made airfoil can have.

Tip airfoil is really "short" 10 inches!! But lot of sailplanes have also so short tip airfoil!!! and they fly well!!! I can also tell you for sailplanes

without geometric wing twist!!! and fly well!!!

Model aero planes have shorter wing cord.. and still fly!! So I am tired of reading tales of lo Re numbers at tip ....(look at some E mails regarding

this accident, you send me...)

In spin, wing "flies" at maximum angle of attack. At this situation is to investigate at what angles of attack we can put elevator. Furthermore,

when find out elevator angles of attack, there must be find out if elevator "still work" or he is in stall.

I really wish to made some theoretical research in this direction. BUT I am only amateur, so the same approach to this challenge by some

professional aerodynamic engineer or designer will help a lot to FIND OUT WHAT KIND OF WING IRV DESIGNED. SAFE OR UNSAFE?

And now back to Mat`s crash. Any pictures? How much damage on sailplane? If one wing tip survive, it will be helpful for investigation to cut wing tip in sections and copy the (real) airfoil sections on paper. Then it will be easy to evaluate if wing sections were according to plans or

different (and how much different) OK, I am aware that cutting the wing can start some hidden internal forces to change the shape of cutted section, but this is something that can hardly occur.

Janice, I believe this is a hard time for you. Here in Slovenia we said: "No one soup is not eaten as hot as it is cooked!!"

So, be patient, and this "storm in cup of coffee" will disappear soon. It is not need to stop selling windrose plans!!! 13 m version is proved to

be OK! But you should stop to sell only 15 m version until all investigation bring to you end results. I wonder how this negative publicity will

affect to your company.

So much for now Janice!

With best regards!

Mitja (not a builder, but owner of the #417 plans)

From RRI 8/24:

What M. Redsell told the NTSB seems quite different than what he

posted?

NTSB Identification: NYC00LA230

Accident occurred AUG-12-00 at

MARION, OH

Aircraft: Redsell WINDROSE,

registration: CGELQ

Injuries: 1

Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain

errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final

report has been completed.

On August 12, 2000, about 1615 Eastern Daylight Time, a homebuilt

Windrose glider, Canadian Registry C-GELQ, was destroyed when it

impacted terrain in Marion, Ohio. The certificated commercial pilot was not

injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan

had been filed forthe local flight that departed the Marion Municipal Airport (MNN), about

1600. The personal flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part 91. According

to the pilot/builder, the glider was towed to, and released at, 2,000 feet

agl. While circling to the left in a thermal, a gust lifted the glider's

right wing and flipped the glider inverted. The glider then quickly entered a spiral dive. The

pilot further stated: "The speed built so quickly that I determined it

was near red line and a bailout was a better option than having it breakup in the air at

low altitude. My altitude was about 2,400 feet agl, when I entered this

maneuver. There was no control failure and I parachuted to a safe landing..." Winds

reported at MNN, at 1553, were from 360 degrees at 10 knots.

From Paul 8/25:

Dear Janice,

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, it's my usual excuse of

not checking my emails very often. I was staggered to find so many

emails waiting for me and hugely disappointed to find most were about

Mat's accident. Like everyone else I'm relieved that Mat survived.

I, like all aviators, get that little sick feeling in the gut at the

mention of an aircraft crash, as we all know that flying can be very

unforgiving of error or structural failure or failure to keep a keen

lookout. Non the less it is a rewarding pastime that is undertaken by

large numbers of people in a safe manner.

Is the Windrose unsafe?

When I started building my WR 14 years ago I did so because

here in Australia I needed the approval of the Gliding Federation of

Australia to build an "approved" design, and the Windrose was approved

for home construction and the GFA had carried out a 'First of Type'

evaluation and mandated some 35 modifications. The CTO/A had spent a

couple of days with Jim Maupin, when in the US, discussing the proof

loading of the 13m wings and the area of concern that the GFA had. Jim

even proposed a couple of suggested changes.

The advice I received from the CTO/A was that he did not think the

design was very creative nor did it take advantage of new materials and

techniques. It was pointed out that the performance would be quite

modest but it would be capable of self-launching. The philosophy

applied by the GFA is that the aircraft must be built using established

construction techniques and using approved materials such that whoever

may end up owning and operating the glider can do so confident of its

ongoing airworthiness.

One such modification was the requirement to build the boom 1" wider and

1" higher and add extra bulkheads. The pylon also was modified to have

the front and back skins made into 'double skins'. This was done

because the GFA didn't consider the boom stiff enough and the original

boom did not have sufficient reserve if full rudder was applied at the

Max rough air speed.

Any modification that I might want to make, would require the designers

approval, or an engineering justification carried out. Unlike in

America we are not free to modify at will.

Back to is the Windrose safe. The flight reports that I have send to

you and the group is the flight reports that I submit to the GFA. They

are factual, and have highlighted the difficulties experienced such as:

High level of noise both inside and outside the WR.

The original props inadequate performance

The improvement encountered when a modified Rotax exhaust was fitted.

The difficulty experienced trying to fit the exhaust

The near impossible task of effectively cowling the engine.

The high rate of sink being experienced.

The spoiler is only marginally effective.

What my 21 flights have shown me is that my 13m Windrose is fun to fly,

it side slips very effectively, it maintains aileron control down to

almost zero ground speed. It can handle +15 Kts crosswind at 45 degs on

a wing down takeoff with no difficulty.

I have flown a flight where the conditions were as lumpy, bumpy, and

down right unpleasant, but the WR answered the many and exaggerated

control inputs magnificently. At no time did I feel that I had

inadequate control over the glider.

I have a mentor, an experienced old pilot, aircraft owner, and

instructor, who has a no nonsense safety first approach to flying.

Keith has been present at most of my flights and never fails to brief me

on what possible effects the conditions may have on the WR's

performance. He has been surprised like myself at the handling

characteristics I have just described.

My one and only "Moment" came on my first flight (aerotow) when I

carried out my 2nd stall. The first stall resulted in a wing drop,

which was recovered as per normal. The second one resulted in the

Windrose 'mushing' down wings level, I noted that I had about a ¼"

travel left in the control 'fork' arrangement so I pulled the stick full

back!

Instantly I was facing the ground, picking up speed quickly. As it was

my fist full flight I just eased it out of it's dive and recovered what

height I could, and continued on my way. A check of the elevator

circuit revealed that if I loaded the elevator, as the trim tab does.

The elevator had 12degs up elevator instead of 10 degs. I resolved to

adjust the elevator travel in future with the elevator loaded. While I

got a fright there was nothing untoward and recovery was

straightforward.

I have not yet carried out a spin in my glider, and can't claim to be

itching to do so. I know that my C of G is correct (28-29 % MAC) and I

have no reason to believe that the spin performance of the prototype

would not be replicated by mine.

To those who have built/building a Windrose and not jet flown one.

Folks I can imagine your concern, despair, and frustration, for I have

felt it to. A couple a years ago I received a letter from Hans Lhor

from Canada who said among other things " The original prop made a

lovely wall clock", "you'll need a 3000' runway" and "the trim doesn't

work" all of which I came to understand fully. Hans also said "ring my

son, who is working in Australia and ask him to send you a copy of my

Windrose flying, he has a video" I did this and Han's son was true to

word and a tape arrived of Han's first couple a flights.

To SEE it actually leave the ground, to watch it flying to watch it land

and roll to a stop! Magic! They do fly!

I had spent hours and hours and hours literally dreaming of it flying,

but deep down what if it's a dud?

I'm indebted to Han's as his video reassured me greatly, and I would

like to say to others in the group, my experience doesn't lead me to

consider the Windrose unsafe, it's performance isn't flash but I never

expected it to be.

Over the next few weeks I'll make an effort to compile a video of my

test flights (PAL) and if I can find someone able to convert them to an

AVI file I may make some copies onto CD's I'll send you one if I am

successful.

Janice please copy this to the group and you have my continuing

support. I don't know Mat's aircraft, or it's C of G position nor do I

know what modifications may have been carried out. I do seem to recall

that Mat had been claiming to WR was unsafe for some time and I'm

surprised that he was still flying it if he held such a view?

Yours Faithfully

Paul

From: MUSH

Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 12:34 AM

Subject: Mat Redsell's bail out

Dear Mrs Maupin

After the Mat Redsell incident and negative reporting felt that I should write in support of the windrose design.

I am about a month away from full completion and will have photographs and a correct report as soon as I

have done all my test flights. I am more than qualified enough to test the glider - I instruct students on how to fly

glass gliders. I am quite confident that the glider will perform as to the plans.

I must take this opportunity to have my say as to what I think possibly took place.

1. I do not think that Mat Redsell had any previous experience in a glider with flaps.

2. I feel that with the flap control being on the right hand side of Matt's glider, he would not have been able to

go from a positive flap to a negative flap, in a spin. As it is the builder's choice, an experienced flap glider

pilot would put this on his left hand side.

3. On Matt's webpage he has been continually complaining about his airspeed and wanting to move his

petertube forward.

This is incorrect, It was the static port that I had to move forward.

This is unnecessary as this instrument works on air pressure and as long as it has clear air

it doesn't matter whether it is in the front or at the back of the glider.

4. Another complaint that he had was the weight of the alerons (in flight). One doesn't need to have too much

experience to realise that inboard alerons would automatically be heavier on the controls.

5. I am also quite amazed that with the launching of his glider, as an experimental aircraft, the last thing you would want to be playing with, are your positive and negative flap settings. I would have thought that he would have flown the glider for a few months with no flap settings, to first sort out the glider's characteristics (whether it is turning to the left or to the right - with hands off the controls).

6. With regard to the painting of the wing surfaces. According to his web page he had used a roller. I am quite shocked to hear that he was talking about cleaning up his roughened edges of his wing. All this will add to a bad performance of the glider in question.

I applied the Imron with a roller and then sanded the wings smooth.

7. Adding turbulator tape to the top surface of the wing to lighten his alerons carries no weight. Would become another form of drag.

The turbulator tape was added to aid in the low speed performance of the tips so that they would lift sooner when beginning the aerotow. This tape worked but it was only my first guess as to the location. I would have moved the tape to optimize the location. Where did the author get the idea it was to lighten the ailerons???

8. The complaint about the wheel size - the wheel size on the windrose is more than adequate. A standard 18m wooden glider has the identical size wheel.

I tried landing and takeoffs from a grass strip and soon realized the uncomfortable bumps was far more apparent in the windrose than in other gliders. So I switched to landing and takeoffs from a hard surface.

9. Complaint about the spoiler size - again this is the builder's choice. According to photo on his webpage the spoiler is a complete overkill.

Even with the Size of spoiler I had, it was not as effective and any other glider (ie grob 103, 102, 20-33, 1-026, 1-34, Monarch G) I have flown. It did bother me that in a landout I would need a very long field.

10. Aero-tows. Complaining about dropping a wing - fiddling with flap settings during an aero-tow - complaining about his air speed - complaining about his rudder being too sensitive - complaining about his elevator throw and his trim and tip stalling. All these complaints can be easily solved. (One needs to bear in mind that he bought a partly completed windrose and he himself finished it off).

I was well on the way to solving many of these difficulties, but I thought the glider was completely designed and test flown. Are all persons who build the glider now test pilots and designers?

11. One can go on and on. My most important observation is that he was warned by the first guy to fly his glider, about the negative flap setting and on his first launch behind the tug, on release, he went into a spiral dive. As an instructor I would have immediately grounded the pilot and I would have insisted that the pilot in question fly a glass two seater glider with flaps and be taught how to recover from a spiral dive and a spin.

On reading his first article all his input on getting out of his spiral dive is totally incorrect.

When one passes judgement, it is usually a good idea to confirm the facts. A little homework on this authors part would have cleared up his statements. This author has never contacted me for any details or discussion of the building or flying of the windrose.

Regarding my windrose and the testing thereof (mine being a motor glider). Every component, wings, rudder, elevator, will be balanced. The fuselage will be weighed individually.

The wing loadings will be tested at 3-4g's.

Once all this has been completed my first tests will be straight and level flights. Will not use the flap system at all, it will be sealed and there will be no negative flap setting at all in this glider, only positive. Will check the roll control of the glider, the response of the elevator (up and down movement), my trim setting and my air speed.

Regarding the motor - rotax 503 has been installed. Prop has been built according to the drawing supplied. The glider will take off with no covers over the motors to prevent any overheating problems and once I am satisfied with ground tests, which will be 3 or 4 level flights up and down the runway, at about 3ft. off the deck, will we take to the sky.

The most important test of the whole exercise will be to climb to 6000ft., put the glider in a stall (to see at what speed the glider stalls at). I will make my mark and fly 10% faster than stall. I will then stall the glider again and put it into a spin and see how quickly I can recover. Once all these tests have been completed I will be in a better position to pass on the information to Matt Redsell and we will then work out the correct polar curve.

I am confident that all will go well with my windrose - have had many experimental guys looking at it and sharing lots of building information. The product is superb, looks amazing, is straight and clean and will fly perfectly okay. Am looking forward to the big day.

Do not let the negativity of Matt Redsell's comments dampen any enthusiasm for the design of your product.

Am sure you have had much positive feedback from others.

Look forward to hearing from you

Best regards

Mush

Wings over Africa.