Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:24 AM - Re: MOD/247/012 (John Wighton)
2. 04:58 AM - Re: Re: MOD/247/012 (D McFadyean)
3. 06:57 AM - Re: MOD/247/012 (Area-51)
4. 07:07 AM - Re: Re: MOD/247/012 (Pete)
5. 07:55 AM - Re: MOD/247/012 (Area-51)
6. 10:36 AM - Re: Re: MOD/247/012 (Pete)
7. 02:59 PM - Re: MOD/247/012 (h&jeuropa)
8. 03:30 PM - Re: MOD/247/012 (Area-51)
9. 05:49 PM - Re: Re: MOD/247/012 (Pete)
10. 07:59 PM - Re: Re: MOD/247/012 (Fred Klein)
11. 08:00 PM - Re: MOD/247/012 (dmac7)
12. 08:54 PM - Re: MOD/247/012 (Area-51)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
As per my original posts on this subject, the Mod is reactive rather than constructive.
A properly run company would have taken this in house and worked with
the LAA and AAIB to create a solution proportional to the issue. A mandatory
SB issued by the LAA amounts to an MPD in plain anguage.
The solution adopted is technically very poor. It is also very ugly.
The root cause of doors coming off the aircraft hasn't been addressed. The 3d
printed solution will, l suspect, not prove to be sufficiently robust. Those
who have opted to follow Iss 1 of the Mod now have closely spaced holes adjacent
to a load high spot (door frame aperture), as pointed out by Area51 this could
lead to degradation of the primary structure.
I am progressing an alternate Mod that utilises a cross drilled hole in the front
latch pin, secured manually by a short pip pin and pendant. This is a positive
lock that prevents the front pin from sliding backwards, thereby making the
status of the rear pin irrelevant.
Following the Iss 2 of the Mod allows the bonding of the mouldings to the aircraft
skin. This mitigates the possibility of crack propagation but makes no difference
to the Ugliness.
--------
John Wighton
Europa XS trigear G-IPOD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=506304#506304
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
How does a rescuer (in the event of some emergency) open the door from the outside?
D McF.
> On 13 March 2022 at 10:23 John Wighton <john@wighton.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> As per my original posts on this subject, the Mod is reactive rather than constructive.
A properly run company would have taken this in house and worked with
the LAA and AAIB to create a solution proportional to the issue. A mandatory
SB issued by the LAA amounts to an MPD in plain anguage.
>
> The solution adopted is technically very poor. It is also very ugly.
>
> The root cause of doors coming off the aircraft hasn't been addressed. The 3d
printed solution will, l suspect, not prove to be sufficiently robust. Those
who have opted to follow Iss 1 of the Mod now have closely spaced holes adjacent
to a load high spot (door frame aperture), as pointed out by Area51 this
could lead to degradation of the primary structure.
>
> I am progressing an alternate Mod that utilises a cross drilled hole in the front
latch pin, secured manually by a short pip pin and pendant. This is a positive
lock that prevents the front pin from sliding backwards, thereby making
the status of the rear pin irrelevant.
>
> Following the Iss 2 of the Mod allows the bonding of the mouldings to the aircraft
skin. This mitigates the possibility of crack propagation but makes no
difference to the Ugliness.
>
> --------
> John Wighton
> Europa XS trigear G-IPOD
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=506304#506304
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thanks for voicing your thoughts John, its a possible solution and Duncan has gone
to my own first bit of swiss cheese thinking... I've been told warning lamps
are not considered a good enough solution; why i have no idea; airbus boeing
lockheed use them, but hey clearly not good enough concept for light sport aircraft...
i thought about an alignment pin and cone assembly to ensure the hatch
is guided into correct position and that would require cutting into the structure
and somebody will still manage to somehow loose a door...
If i can offer some basic and seldom observed fit for purpose design methodology
here good design is not an instant process; the idea may be instant yes, and
then it requires validation against a standard of defined presets; these are
the targets or kpi's to measure the outcome against through the development process.
in order to get to that outcome it's imperative to continue asking the
same two questions a) how did i arrive at this solusion/idea?, and b) can I break
this solution?... and you just keep going through back and forward until
validation is achieved and the set standard is met; and that's it.
You have to look at all the "what ifs", and it requires the ability to sometimes
be the dumbest humble person in the room and the courage to tell someone "your
idea is crap, now let me tell you why".
John raised a valid point in stating the reason for the door departing the aircraft
has not been addressed; he broke the solution... clearly the doors flexing
too much is the root cause and real issue here... is it realistic to put an
AD out to have rigid carbon or ceramic doors fitted? Probably not due to the cost...
second distinction he made was the idea is reactionary... i believe John
was being polite; i'm not, it's a lego brick.
One person has suggested lights and audible warning system; i think this is probably
the best solution for many reasons, that's probably why boeing lockheed
and airbus use it; that's the solutiony going into my aircraft... And yes, as
with everything, as sure as the sun will shine and rain will fall, even if fitted
to all europas, some idiot somewhere some day will still manage to screw up
and loose a door; 100% guaranteed.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=506309#506309
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Fwiw, my classic has lights yes, but that third mid door shoot bolt totally solves
the issue, as it is not possible to close the door without engaging it, and
if it is engaged, the the rear shoot bolt is too.
A simpler solution is to add a static mid door pin, which would effectively do
the same job - ie, if its engaged the so is the rear, as it would pull the door
in and ensure alignment.
Cheers,
PeteZ
> On Mar 13, 2022, at 10:02 AM, Area-51 <goldsteinindustrial@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for voicing your thoughts John, its a possible solution and Duncan has
gone to my own first bit of swiss cheese thinking... I've been told warning lamps
are not considered a good enough solution; why i have no idea; airbus boeing
lockheed use them, but hey clearly not good enough concept for light sport
aircraft... i thought about an alignment pin and cone assembly to ensure the
hatch is guided into correct position and that would require cutting into the
structure and somebody will still manage to somehow loose a door...
>
> If i can offer some basic and seldom observed fit for purpose design methodology
here good design is not an instant process; the idea may be instant yes,
and then it requires validation against a standard of defined presets; these are
the targets or kpi's to measure the outcome against through the development
process. in order to get to that outcome it's imperative to continue asking the
same two questions a) how did i arrive at this solusion/idea?, and b) can I
break this solution?... and you just keep going through back and forward until
validation is achieved and the set standard is met; and that's it.
>
> You have to look at all the "what ifs", and it requires the ability to sometimes
be the dumbest humble person in the room and the courage to tell someone "your
idea is crap, now let me tell you why".
>
> John raised a valid point in stating the reason for the door departing the aircraft
has not been addressed; he broke the solution... clearly the doors flexing
too much is the root cause and real issue here... is it realistic to put an
AD out to have rigid carbon or ceramic doors fitted? Probably not due to the
cost... second distinction he made was the idea is reactionary... i believe John
was being polite; i'm not, it's a lego brick.
>
> One person has suggested lights and audible warning system; i think this is probably
the best solution for many reasons, that's probably why boeing lockheed
and airbus use it; that's the solutiony going into my aircraft... And yes, as
with everything, as sure as the sun will shine and rain will fall, even if fitted
to all europas, some idiot somewhere some day will still manage to screw
up and loose a door; 100% guaranteed.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=506309#506309
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Sounds like a valid concept Peter and would affectively provide similar and greater
function as John's pip pin idea mentioned above... so if i read the concept
correctly an additional center located shoot bolt drives vertically down as
the outer existing ones drive outward? That would provide me the cone and pin
alighnment solution i was seeking... what's involved to affect this mod and has
anyone installed it on an aircraff yet? Sounds pretty idiot proof...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=506311#506311
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I plan on the passive fixed version for my build, but Troy Manor implemented
the center active shoot bolt very successfully on my flying mono. Works gre
at. I believe there are also others, to reduce the door bowing outward at hi
gher cruise speeds- its original intent.
PeteZ
C-GNPZ
classic
> On Mar 13, 2022, at 11:01 AM, Area-51 <goldsteinindustrial@gmail.com> wrot
e:
>
@gmail.com>
>
> Sounds like a valid concept Peter and would affectively provide similar an
d greater function as John's pip pin idea mentioned above... so if i read th
e concept correctly an additional center located shoot bolt drives verticall
y down as the outer existing ones drive outward? That would provide me the c
one and pin alighnment solution i was seeking... what's involved to affect t
his mod and has anyone installed it on an aircraff yet? Sounds pretty idiot p
roof...
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=506311#506311
>
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Here are my notes concerning the passive version. I got these many years ago and
have thought about installing but have not as yet.
Jim
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=506314#506314
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/sketch_190.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/sill_part_129_117.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/door_part_830_894.jpg
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Thanks Jim, your notes there answered my question regarding Peter's input and how
the passive concept works and how the door is opened from the outside in the
event of an emergency. I must have a really well constructed build; have not
experienced these levels of door flexure. Would appear they are not fabricated
with not enough layup layers in the first place perhaps?
The passive system is workable however it addresses a separate issue and doesn't
meet what I would consider sufficient to mitigate the overall risk in review...
Peter are there any drawings available of Troy's mod? The position of the
third pin is not at a stress point, so I have no issue cutting into the door or
channel and adding additional reinforcing layups; it addresses the overall risk
quite well, why has the factory not addressed this earlier?
I'm keen to hear from other aircraft owners on how this mod may not sufficiently
meet the existing risk factor, it's the best solution I have seen presented
so far.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=506315#506315
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Sorry, nope, its a roll your own deal ;)
> On Mar 13, 2022, at 6:36 PM, Area-51 <goldsteinindustrial@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Jim, your notes there answered my question regarding Peter's input and
how the passive concept works and how the door is opened from the outside in
the event of an emergency. I must have a really well constructed build; have not
experienced these levels of door flexure. Would appear they are not fabricated
with not enough layup layers in the first place perhaps?
>
> The passive system is workable however it addresses a separate issue and doesn't
meet what I would consider sufficient to mitigate the overall risk in review...
Peter are there any drawings available of Troy's mod? The position of the
third pin is not at a stress point, so I have no issue cutting into the door
or channel and adding additional reinforcing layups; it addresses the overall
risk quite well, why has the factory not addressed this earlier?
>
> I'm keen to hear from other aircraft owners on how this mod may not sufficiently
meet the existing risk factor, it's the best solution I have seen presented
so far.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=506315#506315
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I love Jim=99s solution with the little blocks; as I understand
it, not only does it prevent the shoot bolts from engaging unless the
door is properly aligned for both front and rear bolts, but it also has
the potential for solving the unsightly bulge when the door is locked in
place. I definitely will be adding them.
In my case, in order to ensure that the rear shoot bolt is properly
aligned, I=99ve found it necessary to add a little hand-hold (a
scrap of 1/8=9D Lastafoam w/ a couple of layers of BID) which,
when in the right seat, I reach across my chest with my right hand, pull
the door inward, while my left hand throws the latch into the forward
and locked positionBob=99s your uncle !!
Fred
> On Mar 13, 2022, at 2:58 PM, h&jeuropa <butcher43@att.net> wrote:
>
<mailto:butcher43@att.net>>
>
> Here are my notes concerning the passive version. I got these many
years ago and have thought about installing but have not as yet.
>
> Jim
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/sketch_190.jpg
<http://forums.matronics.com//files/sketch_190.jpg>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/sill_part_129_117.jpg
<http://forums.matronics.com//files/sill_part_129_117.jpg>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/door_part_830_894.jpg
<http://forums.matronics.com//files/door_part_830_894.jpg>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
For anyone interested in further ideas with a third shoot bolt, I suggest they
look at cliff Shaw's album of photos on europaowners.org he left photos of a design
he got from " Bob " it has no shoot bolts in the door but has three just
the same they are in the fuselage and door handle is also on fuselage under the
door. Keeps his door light and secure. The third shoot bolt was a topic of
discussion on the list back 20 years ago.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=506318#506318
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
It's my understanding that the LAA is the body responsible for initiating and approving
the lego brick as fit for purpose and not the factory?? Somebody, maybe
more than one, clearly needs to go back to school there urgently... The lego
brick is a very lazy and grossly inadequate effort. Was therer any public/community
consultation on this issue?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=506320#506320
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|