Yea, I saw that picture. It was a cool shot. I had heard that safety reasons were the reason that they wanted to grind up even the privately owned ones, but I’m in no position to prove or disprove that comment. It might have been just a rumor. As to the original question as to why Helen didn’t chose composite, as a flight school owner, I would have to agree. And she has provided evidence when she stated they have had two of them with de-lamination problems. I’m not opposed to composite airplanes, but I would rather have easily (and quickly) repaired metal aircraft in a flight school. If I had to park on the ramp and not sit in a hangar, metal would be my only choice, including over fabric for the same reasons. UV rays are devastating to composites and fabric. Fabric has a test method to make sure it is still serviceable. I am not aware of such a test for composites. However, I’m not a mechanic and may just be ignorant of such a test. Are there 50 year old composite airplanes still flying? Are there 50 year old fabric airplanes that haven’t been recovered still flying? I don’t know the answer to that question and it is a serious question. I do know there are many 50 year old metal airplanes with their original skins still intact. Likewise, there are some very young metal airplanes (around the coasts) that look like swiss cheese.
It’s all about the situation. A metal airplane vs composite airplane in Florida for 20 years? I’d probably go with the composite. Metal vs composite in Leadville, CO with the high UV energy we get here in high altitudes, I’d probably go with metal. No such thing as a one size fits all when it comes to aircraft or materials.
From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dongeneda2000
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 9:16 AM
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Solid Trainer Aircraft?
Real simple, lack of buyers, partially due to high price (close to 5 million dollars) and the economy at the time. Only a handful of the 53 made were ever sold, Beech "hid" them where I was working at the time, did not want people to see a ramp full of new unsold planes..
Being composite was not the reason, in fact it was a reason to own one. One was recently used as chase plane for Rutan spaceship - also composite by the way.
--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Lyle Cox" <LyleCox@...> wrote:
>
> What was the reason that Beech decommissioned them?
>
> From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dongeneda2000
> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 8:41 AM
> To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Solid Trainer Aircraft?
>
>
>
>
> I sure do, I used to park my Cherokee in a hangar under the wings of 12 of them during their decomisioning.
> The airframe was far stronger than any aluminum aircraft ever built, and is actually stronger now then when built! Never had a delamination problem, and your point was???
>
> --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com> , "Lyle Cox" <LyleCox@> wrote:
> >
> > Remember the Beech Starship?
> >
> > From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of pwrsport@
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:29 AM
> > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Solid Trainer Aircraft?
> >
> >
> > Are any composite LSA’s coming apart do to fatigue? Ramos, CT and the Storm Rally that is flying over ten years now with zero problems. One of the most popular GA composite plane flying, the Cirrus â€" fatigue problems, I think not. The new airliners that you will be flying in will be mostly â€Å"all compositeâ€Â. Carbon fiber, stronger that steel with much less weight. However, the all metal Zenair 601 is shedding wings to the point the some countries will not allow it to fly in their airspace. The NTSB is very unhappy with it here in the US. And then there is that nasty (hidden stuff) in metal airplanes called â€" corrosion. Kind of bothers me too.
> >
> > Ed Snyder
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lyle Cox
> > Sent: Oct 13, 2009 8:53 PM
> > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Solid Trainer Aircraft?
> >
> >
> > All good reasons, Helen, PLUS, you can’t tell they getting fatigued until they separate. That kinda bothers me.
> >
> > From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Helen Woods
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 5:29 PM
> > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Solid Trainer Aircraft?
> >
> >
> > 1. When they crash, they shatter. (By comparison, we had a student
> > cartwheel a Tecnam down the runway and the only thing that broke off was
> > the gear. Student walked away without a scratch.)
> > 2. Even a little bit of damage is expensive and time consuming to fix.
> > (A wing ding cost several thousand to fix.)
> > 3. There is no A&P in the entire state of Maryland willing and capable
> > of doing composite structural work on an LSA.
> >
> > We have three composite planes all of which have required composite
> > work, all which we've had to ship out of state, all of which were down
> > for approximately a year during repairs, all of which cost a small
> > fortune to repair. Composite LSAs are not suitable in my opinion for
> > primary training for these reasons. By contrast, on our metal Tecnams,
> > even the worst bang ups (excluding the aforementioned cartwheel which
> > was totaled by the insurance company) are fixed in a matter of days.
> >
> > That being said, we're putting a composite hulled SeaRey on the line. I
> > think composites are fine for rated and proficient pilots and especially
> > seaplanes, just not primary training.
> >
> > Helen
> >
> > dongeneda2000 wrote:
> > > And you consider that to be a BAD thing because?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
__._,_.___
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment