Air Cadets grounded?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A typical Viking flight is about six minutes. Significant loads on the airframe come from the top of the winch launch, and landing and retrieve on rough ground. Soaring flight on the occasions that it occurs is unlikely to impose large loads, so basing the life on the number of launches is more meaningful.
Gliders are built to be operated from grass airfields which by their nature are not that smooth. A retrieve on exceedingly rough ground won't cause undue stress, neither will landing unless repeatedly on a surface that shakes the fillings out of P1 in the back seat, over the wheel.
As above, this model of glider in civilian clubs would have decades of useful life ahead given the relifing schedules available.
This leaves me even more convinced that part of the Southern Sailplanes operation should have been to transition them to the G-register and back onto the normal Grob maintenance schedules. Gliders flying with heavier weight limits retain them on transition, at least BGA ones do.
Serco 1 Viking
I note that 'SERCO' have only recovered I Viking. However it appears that this machine is now overweight by some 20+KG and no one is quite sure how this fits in with it being fit for purpose.
Why am I not surprised by this !!! and that the machines 'recovered' by SS (who know what they are doing) are ok.
If I was 'involved' with deciding how to organise the future ATC glider fleet I know what company I would be seeking advice from.
I always remember the images of the Syerston 'workshop' at the start of all this; and made the comment it was not a workshop at all more like a showroom.
That should have rung some warning bells somewhere if there was anyone at the top that had ANY IDEA what was 'SUPPOSED' to be going on. There is no point in having 'Ranks' involved in running an organisation if they do not understand the basics of what is required from both an operational and technical stance.
Why am I not surprised by this !!! and that the machines 'recovered' by SS (who know what they are doing) are ok.
If I was 'involved' with deciding how to organise the future ATC glider fleet I know what company I would be seeking advice from.
I always remember the images of the Syerston 'workshop' at the start of all this; and made the comment it was not a workshop at all more like a showroom.
That should have rung some warning bells somewhere if there was anyone at the top that had ANY IDEA what was 'SUPPOSED' to be going on. There is no point in having 'Ranks' involved in running an organisation if they do not understand the basics of what is required from both an operational and technical stance.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note that 'SERCO' have only recovered I Viking. However it appears that this machine is now overweight by some 20+KG and no one is quite sure how this fits in with it being fit for purpose.
Why am I not surprised by this !!! and that the machines 'recovered' by SS (who know what they are doing) are ok.
If I was 'involved' with deciding how to organise the future ATC glider fleet I know what company I would be seeking advice from.
I always remember the images of the Syerston 'workshop' at the start of all this; and made the comment it was not a workshop at all more like a showroom.
That should have rung some warning bells somewhere if there was anyone at the top that had ANY IDEA what was 'SUPPOSED' to be going on. There is no point in having 'Ranks' involved in running an organisation if they do not understand the basics of what is required from both an operational and technical stance.
Why am I not surprised by this !!! and that the machines 'recovered' by SS (who know what they are doing) are ok.
If I was 'involved' with deciding how to organise the future ATC glider fleet I know what company I would be seeking advice from.
I always remember the images of the Syerston 'workshop' at the start of all this; and made the comment it was not a workshop at all more like a showroom.
That should have rung some warning bells somewhere if there was anyone at the top that had ANY IDEA what was 'SUPPOSED' to be going on. There is no point in having 'Ranks' involved in running an organisation if they do not understand the basics of what is required from both an operational and technical stance.
I guess SS can fix what is wrong with the overweight Viking, suspect by removing and redoing a number of repairs.
Did the ranks have any idea they didn't know what they should be doing? Including any involved in civilian gliding as well?
Demobbed - Out of Service British Military Aircraft
Repaired weight !!
I also recall a Viking that had been repaired but had 'grown' during the process to the point that the tail dolly would not fit.
I am not suggesting that a weight/growth situation would make the machine a Cadet killer, but it rather suggests a lack of capability/competence in the servicing system. There was no excuse for all this in the case of the ATC going from the fretwork fighters to all glass. By the time the fleet came into service there were thousands of glass ships flying all over the world, and an excellent level of expertise within both industry and users. The level of technical and performance enhancing design means only reputable servicing/repair companies survive in a market where customers expect their machines to be 'as new' after an incident. The level of skill required in glass repairs means manufacturers only approve companies/people that show absolute 'fit for purpose' ability. It seems incredible that a major user of a GRP fleet did not have the ability to oversee its ongoing serviceability.
I am not suggesting that a weight/growth situation would make the machine a Cadet killer, but it rather suggests a lack of capability/competence in the servicing system. There was no excuse for all this in the case of the ATC going from the fretwork fighters to all glass. By the time the fleet came into service there were thousands of glass ships flying all over the world, and an excellent level of expertise within both industry and users. The level of technical and performance enhancing design means only reputable servicing/repair companies survive in a market where customers expect their machines to be 'as new' after an incident. The level of skill required in glass repairs means manufacturers only approve companies/people that show absolute 'fit for purpose' ability. It seems incredible that a major user of a GRP fleet did not have the ability to oversee its ongoing serviceability.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also recall a Viking that had been repaired but had 'grown' during the process to the point that the tail dolly would not fit.
I am not suggesting that a weight/growth situation would make the machine a Cadet killer, but it rather suggests a lack of capability/competence in the servicing system.
There was no excuse for all this in the case of the ATC going from the fretwork fighters to all glass. By the time the fleet came into service there were thousands of glass ships flying all over the world, and an excellent level of expertise within both industry and users.
The level of technical and performance enhancing design means only reputable servicing/repair companies survive in a market where customers expect their machines to be 'as new' after an incident. The level of skill required in glass repairs means manufacturers only approve companies/people that show absolute 'fit for purpose' ability.
It seems incredible that a major user of a GRP fleet did not have the ability to oversee its ongoing serviceability.
I am not suggesting that a weight/growth situation would make the machine a Cadet killer, but it rather suggests a lack of capability/competence in the servicing system.
There was no excuse for all this in the case of the ATC going from the fretwork fighters to all glass. By the time the fleet came into service there were thousands of glass ships flying all over the world, and an excellent level of expertise within both industry and users.
The level of technical and performance enhancing design means only reputable servicing/repair companies survive in a market where customers expect their machines to be 'as new' after an incident. The level of skill required in glass repairs means manufacturers only approve companies/people that show absolute 'fit for purpose' ability.
It seems incredible that a major user of a GRP fleet did not have the ability to oversee its ongoing serviceability.
There is often no problem for a suitably skilled shop to repair a broken tail boom retaining the original external dimensions whist staying within maximum weight and keeping the CoG where it should be. If it can't be done the glider should be written off. The guys who work in the 'suitably skilled shops' have a pile of tickets which say what sort of repairs they are allowed to do, and in the UK the BGA oversees training & licencing of inspectors.
BTW the one time I was at Tim Dews workshop there was a K21 having the tailboom repaired after breaking it.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
POBJOY recollections
I also recall a Viking that had been repaired but had 'grown' during the process to the point that the tail dolly would not fit.
Guest
Posts: n/a
All of the above points to the folly of buying these glass ships which if not 'fragile' are hard to restore to original condition when broken. To have to write off a glider costing tens of thousands because the tail boom cannot be fixed is ridiculous.
Hands up any one who has seen this kind of nonsense with a K13 or equivalent (if so name your two seater). I've never even seen a K13 with a broken off tail.
Seems I have come full circle on this thread.
Hands up any one who has seen this kind of nonsense with a K13 or equivalent (if so name your two seater). I've never even seen a K13 with a broken off tail.
Seems I have come full circle on this thread.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: across the border....
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen a K8 with a banana fuz, so it can be done.
Try finding people these days who can weld to aircraft spec, scarf joint and re-cover in some old linen - there's far more people in the world of commercial glider repairs that are familiar with glass, resin and carbon than there are with old sticks and fabric.
Try finding people these days who can weld to aircraft spec, scarf joint and re-cover in some old linen - there's far more people in the world of commercial glider repairs that are familiar with glass, resin and carbon than there are with old sticks and fabric.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of the above points to the folly of buying these glass ships which if not 'fragile' are hard to restore to original condition when broken. To have to write off a glider costing tens of thousands because the tail boom cannot be fixed is ridiculous.
Hands up any one who has seen this kind of nonsense with a K13 or equivalent (if so name your two seater). I've never even seen a K13 with a broken off tail.
Seems I have come full circle on this thread.
Hands up any one who has seen this kind of nonsense with a K13 or equivalent (if so name your two seater). I've never even seen a K13 with a broken off tail.
Seems I have come full circle on this thread.
Glass ships are not especially fragile, and there is normally no problem restoring to original condition as long as you know what you are doing and follow a suitable repair schedule. Exactly the same applies to a K13 (or any other glider) - if you have damage the repair has to be done correctly. Of course the insurer might decide that the cost of the repair is too great compared to the hull value.
The K21 I saw that needed the tailboom rejoining was the victim of a two instructor flight that went wrong (who has control?) resulting in a very bad field landing.
With a K13 it can be bent, and I cannot imagine there are not limits for how bent is acceptable. Possibly they can be straightened, but possibly not.
However I suspect that K13 production had ceased by the time the Viking procurement was underway, and it's just as well as they might well now be being consigned to the scrap heap with potential glue problems in the wings.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come full circle or are going round in circles?
There is nothing...nothing difficult about repairing a glassfibre aircraft. It is cloth and resin. Repairing it so the repair is invisible...no more technically difficult but requires craftsmanship, just like with any hands-on job.
Have you ever worked on a GRP glider?
I mentioned before that I’ve watched a few guys repair a rather large hole in an ASW19 wing (it hit a fence post on landing) overnight, on the grid for the next day’s race at 7am the next morning. They knew what they were doing. Why would you let anyone else other than someone who knows what they are doing repair an aircraft anyway? There is NO shortage of excellent GRP repair facilities in the UK.
Alas Syerston is not one of them.
There is nothing...nothing difficult about repairing a glassfibre aircraft. It is cloth and resin. Repairing it so the repair is invisible...no more technically difficult but requires craftsmanship, just like with any hands-on job.
Have you ever worked on a GRP glider?
I mentioned before that I’ve watched a few guys repair a rather large hole in an ASW19 wing (it hit a fence post on landing) overnight, on the grid for the next day’s race at 7am the next morning. They knew what they were doing. Why would you let anyone else other than someone who knows what they are doing repair an aircraft anyway? There is NO shortage of excellent GRP repair facilities in the UK.
Alas Syerston is not one of them.
All of the above points to the folly of buying these glass ships which if not 'fragile' are hard to restore to original condition when broken. To have to write off a glider costing tens of thousands because the tail boom cannot be fixed is ridiculous.
Hands up any one who has seen this kind of nonsense with a K13 or equivalent (if so name your two seater). I've never even seen a K13 with a broken off tail.
Seems I have come full circle on this thread.
Hands up any one who has seen this kind of nonsense with a K13 or equivalent (if so name your two seater). I've never even seen a K13 with a broken off tail.
Seems I have come full circle on this thread.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come full circle or are going round in circles?
There is nothing...nothing difficult about repairing a glassfibre aircraft. It is cloth and resin. Repairing it so the repair is invisible...no more technically difficult but requires craftsmanship, just like with any hands-on job.
Have you ever worked on a GRP glider?
I mentioned before that I’ve watched a few guys repair a rather large hole in an ASW19 wing (it hit a fence post on landing) overnight, on the grid for the next day’s race at 7am the next morning. They knew what they were doing. Why would you let anyone else other than someone who knows what they are doing repair an aircraft anyway? There is NO shortage of excellent GRP repair facilities in the UK.
Alas Syerston is not one of them.
There is nothing...nothing difficult about repairing a glassfibre aircraft. It is cloth and resin. Repairing it so the repair is invisible...no more technically difficult but requires craftsmanship, just like with any hands-on job.
Have you ever worked on a GRP glider?
I mentioned before that I’ve watched a few guys repair a rather large hole in an ASW19 wing (it hit a fence post on landing) overnight, on the grid for the next day’s race at 7am the next morning. They knew what they were doing. Why would you let anyone else other than someone who knows what they are doing repair an aircraft anyway? There is NO shortage of excellent GRP repair facilities in the UK.
Alas Syerston is not one of them.
I agree with all of this. The only problem is that market forces being what they are there isn't much slack to suddenly look after an additional 60 (or whatever the number is) gliders, and that would be the case whatever type they are.
<Edit>
PS
I also think they would be in the same pickle if they had had K13s or any other glider type including T21 & T31.
Last edited by cats_five; 18th Jan 2018 at 12:28.
92125
Well said. It is decades ago, and applied to radomes rather than today's techniques on gliders, but semi-skilled labourers did this work in our Fabric Shop. And very well too. In this context 'semi' meant being fully-trained on a quite narrow range of jobs. But, MoD has sold off most of these workshops - certainly all of the ones I worked at - and has lost the expertise. This matters little at shop floor level, as it can be contracted out. Where MoD completely misses the point is that these workshops were the recruiting grounds for Engineering Authorities, Requirements Managers, Risk Managers, etc., and ultimately Project Managers. Today, there are very few in DE&S who have this background, and without that you cannot recognise the risks. How many in the Project Team (or MAA) have the necessary training? MoD dug this hole long ago.
There is nothing...nothing difficult about repairing a glassfibre aircraft. It is cloth and resin. Repairing it so the repair is invisible...no more technically difficult but requires craftsmanship, just like with any hands-on job.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK, so there is no problem fixing busted glass ships. I reserve my judgement on that point though.
Why is it necessary to have a glider costing megabucks which is required only to do circuits? Albeit 6 minute circuits, as opposed to the T31 which usually did about 4 mins. That's a lot of money for two minutes extra in the air. How do you justify that to the taxpayer? Will pupils go solo in two thirds of the time in a Viking? I doubt it.
The ATC is not a gliding club where the solo pilots expect to be taught thermal and ridge soaring and field landings so that they can go on cross countries. Once a Cadet has had his three solos that's it for 90% of them I guess. They never fly solo again. Why not just go back to the good old T31 which was cheap as chips to make and repair? We all know that the really tricky bit of flying is landing. You would agree I think that landing a K13 is a probably lot easier than a Viking, and therefore can be taught more quickly.
I maintain that the whole idea of how flying should operate in the ATC needs a root and branch review. What exactly are you trying to do?
Why is it necessary to have a glider costing megabucks which is required only to do circuits? Albeit 6 minute circuits, as opposed to the T31 which usually did about 4 mins. That's a lot of money for two minutes extra in the air. How do you justify that to the taxpayer? Will pupils go solo in two thirds of the time in a Viking? I doubt it.
The ATC is not a gliding club where the solo pilots expect to be taught thermal and ridge soaring and field landings so that they can go on cross countries. Once a Cadet has had his three solos that's it for 90% of them I guess. They never fly solo again. Why not just go back to the good old T31 which was cheap as chips to make and repair? We all know that the really tricky bit of flying is landing. You would agree I think that landing a K13 is a probably lot easier than a Viking, and therefore can be taught more quickly.
I maintain that the whole idea of how flying should operate in the ATC needs a root and branch review. What exactly are you trying to do?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The T31 is tiny - I've been in one and I only just fitted in. I'm under 5'6". If a Cadet flight can be two strapping people weighing almost 100kg each with parachute then a T31 isn't the ship to use.
I've flown a K13 and a Grob similar to a Viking, as I learnt on glass I found the Viking easier to land.
If you are worrying about broken ships you should be worrying about crashworthiness and all the glass ships knock spots of the older ones in that respect.
And if you can bear to read back through the thread someone, sometime posted that a T31 (& presumably T21) wouldn't be a cheap ship to make these days.
I've flown a K13 and a Grob similar to a Viking, as I learnt on glass I found the Viking easier to land.
If you are worrying about broken ships you should be worrying about crashworthiness and all the glass ships knock spots of the older ones in that respect.
And if you can bear to read back through the thread someone, sometime posted that a T31 (& presumably T21) wouldn't be a cheap ship to make these days.
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate that much of your Gliding was in the wood and fabric days, and no, there is nothing wrong with such aircraft. However time has simply moved on. Nobody is going to build a T31 these days, to suggest otherwise is madness. I’m not disputing that they were perfectly competent at doing the job that they were required to do, but times have changed and technology has moved on. Should we have just stopped at the making hops on the Primary?
Grob Twin IIs are not expensive aircraft. A reasonable one on the second-hand market would set you back maybe £30-40k. Adjust that figure as necessary if you want to make them into a military aircraft.
Neither are they difficult to fly. Yes, in a K13 everything might happen 5-10kts slower, but they are very competent basic trainers with no vices. In fact it is far more forgiving of sloppy handling than the K13.
Grob Twin IIs are not expensive aircraft. A reasonable one on the second-hand market would set you back maybe £30-40k. Adjust that figure as necessary if you want to make them into a military aircraft.
Neither are they difficult to fly. Yes, in a K13 everything might happen 5-10kts slower, but they are very competent basic trainers with no vices. In fact it is far more forgiving of sloppy handling than the K13.
Why is it necessary to have a glider costing megabucks which is required only to do circuits? Albeit 6 minute circuits, as opposed to the T31 which usually did about 4 mins. That's a lot of money for two minutes extra in the air. How do you justify that to the taxpayer? Will pupils go solo in two thirds of the time in a Viking? I doubt it.
The ATC is not a gliding club where the solo pilots expect to be taught thermal and ridge soaring and field landings so that they can go on cross countries. Once a Cadet has had his three solos that's it for 90% of them I guess. They never fly solo again. Why not just go back to the good old T31 which was cheap as chips to make and repair? We all know that the really tricky bit of flying is landing. You would agree I think that landing a K13 is a probably lot easier than a Viking, and therefore can be taught more quickly.
The ATC is not a gliding club where the solo pilots expect to be taught thermal and ridge soaring and field landings so that they can go on cross countries. Once a Cadet has had his three solos that's it for 90% of them I guess. They never fly solo again. Why not just go back to the good old T31 which was cheap as chips to make and repair? We all know that the really tricky bit of flying is landing. You would agree I think that landing a K13 is a probably lot easier than a Viking, and therefore can be taught more quickly.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on earth would a basic simple glider need mods for the military? Machine guns? Ejection seats? Or is it simply a gold roundel stuck to the side of the glider?
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts