It is disappointing when people who visited an overseas production facility
almost 3 decades ago publicly imply
that nothing has changed since and when they are happily spreading
misinformation without the necessary
insight knowledge and expertise for statements of that nature.
Shame on you guys, you have not only discredited yourself but also the entire
Australian gliding movement.
I have been to the factory during the construction of my ASH 30 on 5 (fife)
different occasions over a period of
four months. As the agent I have unrestricted access to all production
facilities and I can confidently say that
nothing you have put on public record could be further from the truth. Where
ever modern production methods
can be economically employed they are being utilised but when 8 (eight)
different models are produced
concurrently it is almost impossible to further automate the process.
The reason should be self explanatory! Although Schleicher is a major
manufacturer they usually produce less
than 100 gliders a year. Every model is fundamentally different, all customers
specify different options and
some even ask for different propulsion systems. In short, relatively low
production numbers and vastly
different customer requirements do not allow a more automated manufacturing
process. This becomes only
too obvious when looking at a modern wing just before it gets closed up. The
same applies to the two fuselage
halfs of a motorised glider. Whether we like it or not, we have to live with
hand built gliders for the time being
and manufacturers with a dedicated and highly skilled workforce will have the
nose on front for a long time to
come.
Of course, keeping the costs down is essential but strict quality control
protocols all but prohibit the fabrication
of components in low wage countries. One manufacturer has experienced the
pitfalls of this approach when
wings built outside of his German production plant failed in flight. We
hopefully all agree that safety must come
first!!!
Now to the assertion that a manual typewriter was seen while visiting
Schleicher six years ago. Fact is that
Schleicher made the switch to modern communication systems well over 25 years
ago.
What can we learn form all this? Well, we should all be wary of making
statements only designed to make us
appear experts in the field when we are clearly missing the necessary in-depth
knowledge and expertise. If
this is the outcome the recent unqualified and unsubstantiated statements have
served a worthwhile purpose.
Kind regards to all
Bernard
PS: No further correspondence on this subject will be entered into. If you find
spelling or punctuation errors
you are allowed to keep them - please remember, English is my second
language.
> On 14 Dec. 2016, at 12:11 pm, Mike Borgelt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> When Carol and I visited Schleichers in 1988 they assigned a friendly bloke
> who gave us the tour of the what appeared to be a Bismarckian era building of
> unknown original purpose. One passageway had the molds for the ASH25 inner
> panel spars in it and I fully expected to see some folks working on wooden
> tailplanes for the Messerschmitt 109 on a Third Reich contract that someone
> forgot was no longer in force. Seeing them lay up the kevlar wing skins for
> an ASW 24 while the fog rolled in the open windows was interesting too. What
> was that about less than 50% RH?
>
> I'm not surprised about the manual typewriter. Somewhere on the Schleicher
> website they have a bit about how proud they are of their handbuilt gliders.
> Hand building is what every manufacturer on the planet is trying to avoid
> except in the German glider industry it seems.
>
> I do believe though that for the wings at least most have gone to CNC
> aluminium molds. The Discus 1 used concrete I think. We weren't allowed to
> see the molds for that in 1988 although Eberhard Schott was very proud of the
> accuracy and stability. Apparently there was only a 1mm line of un gel coated
> skin there. He said it would be better to just paint that line than put heaps
> of gel coat and sand smooth as you would lose the contour.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> At 06:25 AM 12/14/2016, you wrote:
>> >>Not only save weight but the wings wouldn't shrink, warp or develop
>> >>waviness.
>> Using pre pregs in the fuselage would save non lifting parts weight
>> and save even more wing weight.
>>
>> Agreed. The German certified glider industry is not innovative these
>> days. All the fuss about electric gliders is only possible because
>> most glider pilots don't look to anywhere other than 3 factories in
>> Germany.
>>
>> Their construction methods have not changed in 50 years. It's
>> staggering to see a worker with a jam jar fully of poxy bog and a pop
>> stick about to join a wing. The last place I saw a working manual
>> typewriter in use was Schleichers, about 6 years ago.
>>
>> Of course, a little investment in ATL machines and proper moulds would
>> help. I can't understand why yacht mast makers and boat builders can
>> mill a mould from solid alu for a single boat while glider
>> manufacturers stay with low-temp resin moulds which are reused for a
>> decade or more.
>>
>> Maybe we're not paying enough? Though I believe the problem is almost
>> entirely certification.
>>
>> D
>> _______________________________________________
>> Aus-soaring mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
>> <http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring>Borgelt Instruments -
>> design & manufacture of quality soaring instrumentation since 1978
> www.borgeltinstruments.com
> <http://www.borgeltinstruments.com/>tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas:
> int+61-7-4635 5784
> mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784
> P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
