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 <mborg...@borgeltinstruments.com> > 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 >> Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au >> 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 > Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring