John,

I have been at Sun'n Fun and on holiday, so I have only just seen your
post.

I am sure I can find a figure for the moment of inertia of my prop, but
how do I go about checking that the mounting plate for the prop shaft is
strong enough to withstand the gyroscopic loads?

It is true that the CH25 engine I have develops maximum power at 3600
rpm in its standard configuration. In order to run it faster and get
more power from it I have fitted EFI and purpose-made short inlet
manifolds to increase the fuel supply and improve the breathing. I will
be measuring static thrust in the next week or two to see if this has
increased power over the standard carburettor configuration.

Incidentally, at Sun'n Fun I checked out the Hirth F23 horizontally
opposed 2 stroke, which they say has been recently redesigned. 50 hp
with a belt redrive weighing only 5 lb, 84 lb total, oil injection and
no need for a huge tuned exhaust. It looks very appealing for a Q1. Is
anybody considering this one?

Martin Burns
Q1 G-BKSE Scotland

________________________________

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf
Of johntenhave
Sent: 10 April 2008 2:30 AM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Kohler powered Q1



Martin,

you will find this link useful. There is more to it than just RPM..

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/BA-Background.htm
<http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/BA-Background.htm>

Do not forget to ensure that someone does the calcs for the gyroscopic
loads. They can be big - how big? Big enough to be deliberately used
in aeros to move the whole airframe. The kicker here is that the
bigger the propeller the very much bigger the problem.

Big pitch and yaw changes at high power can fail the crankshaft /prop
adapter if it is not engineered correctly. This doesn't just happen
during Aeros - taxiing at high power and turning on the brakes will
induce high yaw rates, for example.

The details are hazy now but I recall one case here in Aust where
the difference between crankshaft failure and an acceptable service
life was about 4" in the diameter of the propeller.

Another point for you to consider, Martin. The engine you are
proposing develops its peak power at 3600 RPM and Peak Torque at 2800
RPM. Direct drive looks pretty good at first glance. All else being
equal, running the engine faster than 3600 RPM will give less
power....I do not think that is the aim of the exercise.

Cheers

John

- In Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> , "Martin
Burns" <martin.burns@...> wrote:

Stan,

The whole point about using a larger prop is to turn it at a lower rpm
and get better efficiency. The prop on the Onan also turned at 3600
rpm, but only to get maximum power from the engine. I understand that

a

small prop turning at that speed is not very efficient.

I am in fact using a 48" prop turning at 3000-3200 rpm. The redrive
allows me to run the engine at 4500 rpm, hopefully getting more power
than the stock 25 hp at 3600. Without the redrive there would not be
clearance for a prop that size, nor could I run the engine faster than
3600 rpm.

Martin Burns
Q1 G-BKSE Scotland

________________________________

From: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf

Of Stan Susman
Sent: 08 April 2008 11:30 PM
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: Kohler powered Q1



I don't really understand why you need the extra weight of an psru

when

you can just make rated HP with the small diamiter prop we must use on
the Q-1.
I'm using a 44" but if you were to use a 50" prop @ 3600 RPM = 71%

mach

or 786' per second. The 44" prop is 62% of mach, these # are based on

a

few assumtions but I think it's close enough LC&S inc. (lie cheat and
steal)
If you're worried about the front bearing or crank shaft size,or

ground

clearence,or what ever thats cool but why not keep it simple?

Hi Tom

Glad to hear that your wing is salvageable.

Had the skin delaminated?

In what sort of condition was the skin?

Any photographs would be interesting.

The only similar problem of this nature that I can recall concerned a friend of mine who post cured his GU canard, mixing up Centigrade with Fahrenheit, and gave it a good cooking!
I never saw it but he reported that it looked like a size 16 squeezed into a size 10, the skin bulging out all over the place, but held in by the shearwebs, spars and ribs etc.

Regards

Paul Buckley
Cheshire
England

TriQ-200
Still buildingggggg.......

Hi Dave:

I don't think the Morris DF loop has ever been discussed here -- you might
check the DragonFly list. (DF is DragonFly, not Direction Finding in this
use.)

There were 2 discussions of Antennas (antennae?) on this list last summer:

"interesting info on tuning antennas" started 7-10-07
"Bent C Antenna" by Mike Dwyer started 7-13-07

Compared to the Morris Loop, Mike Dwyer's antenna is known to work in the Q
but is heavier. He has pics and diagram posted:
http://www.geocities.com/fly-home/bent_c.html
and background info:
http://www.hamuniverse.com/loop.html
http://www.eham.net/articles/4319

I would be very interested in a report of experience with the Morris DF
Loop in a Q -- save every ounce!

Mike Perry

Hi everyone,

I have been getting complaints about my radio transmission for quite a while and I'm using the tail mounted foil antenna that is in the original plans. I just took out my NAV / COM and had it checked at the radio shop, and it checked out fine. Has any one tried the Morris DF Loop antenna? http://www.davemorris.com/dave/MorrisDFLoop.html Looks good on paper, and seems simple enough to install. I'm looking for some reports before I proceed. On the way to last years KS fly in I was denied entry into Cleaveland airspace because of un-readable radios. Thanks......Dave Dugas


---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Thomas,

Remember that the scarf for each layer is one inch per laminate layer
at each edge.

Good luck with the repair.

John

Quickie Builders,

I do thank Mssrs. Hoskins, Patillo, Masal, Buckley, Severson,
'johntenhave', and others (whose names I may not have been able
to extract from my PC) for all your advice and comments.

The situation is that I have removed the lifted-out fiberglas
skin, and the foam is intact, and the wing is otherwise not
deformed. So (unlike Bob McFarland's infamous experience, in
which his pour-in-place foam did NOT fill the void), there is
no need to insert foam or replace a block of missing foam. It
is a question of the fiberglas skin/spar replacement strength.

I understand that replacing glas is treated in the manual, and I
will do this (and NOT replace the wing: I've done that once
already, and I do not wish to build a THIRD upper wing !).

Thanks again,

Thomas L. Cline
N49X

Hi Mike,

It was I that experienced this problem (not Richard). Yes, I concur with
all you've said. The switch to the NAV antenna was really just to confirm
that the problem was not with the radio itself. That said, I did go flying
in this configuration yesterday. Was about 50 miles away from home base and
was able to talk to a buddy in the pattern. So, the repair job is not a
priority - I cannot remember when I last used the VOR head... :-)

Jon

Hold the bus Paul,

these are not all viable options. The bubble in the glass is reported as

"A greater-than -1-square-foot bubble, about 1/8th to 1/4 inch thick,"

Trying to press the glass back will not work, nor will injecting the
bubble with micro - because the fibers are no longer correctly oriented.
You may get partial tensile strength restoration but compressive
strength has been destroyed. Even this approach may result in local
overloads as the straight fibers surrounding the bubble try and take
the load whilst the bubble is straightened out. The wing is already
marginal strength-wise at normal loadings, at BL 50.

John



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Paul Buckley" <paulbuckley@...> wrote:

Yes, that is correct.

The repair was done from the underside of the wing, the damage foam

removed and replaced by 'pour in' expanding foam.

The expanding foam did not expand enough and left a void adjacent to

the top skin, resulting in the wing collapsing.

The correct way would have been to micro in a close fitting block of

foam and repair the glasswork as per standard repair instructions.

Although I do think that the best advice regarding damage to the

primary structure would be to build a new one, let's not be too
hasty....the damage may well be repairable.

Is the glass skin visibly damaged due to the heat?

If the glass has simply delaminated, have you considered injecting

the void with micro?

If the skin is actually raised, can you press it back to the correct

contour, or has the underlying foam distorted with the heat?

Have you done a tap test to find out the extent, if any, of the

delamination?

Paul Buckley
Cheshire
England


----- Original Message -----
From: JMasal@...
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Wing repair suggestions appreciated


I think dealer McFarland of PA did his repair with expanding foam

instead of

inserting a block of the original wing material, if I remember

correctly. If

I don't, this accident is thoroughly discussed with pictures in a

back issue

of QTalk.
Bergin... you out there? I think we discussed this at SnF and you

were

closer to the dealer.

j.

**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S.

used car

listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.5/1400 - Release Date:

27/04/2008 09:39

All of Paul Buckley's comments are correct. I know from experience
because I bought a crashed plane with broken wings. I was also
unfortunate enough to subsequently also crash (destroy) the plane.
What was interesting was that NONE of the breaks in the new crash
occurred in areas of my repairs (wings and tail). What I did was cut
out the bad (separated glass), sand down the paint and bevel the
still existing glass over a two inch area around the damaged area. I
then exactly replaced the glass structure called for in the plans.
The two inch overlap was more than double what is normally called for
in such repairs, but I wanted a bit of insurance. It worked. I have
saved the relevant broken structures for any interested party to view.

Depending on the delamination, if the foam underneath is undamaged,
drilling two small holes at opposite ends of the delamination will
allow you to inject epoxy into one hole to fill the gap. Then use
continuous pressure across the whole delamination to force the epoxy
to attach the glass and foam while squeezing out the excess epoxy
until the epoxy has cured. In this case, the wing will end up as if
it had never been damaged.

At 03:52 PM 4/28/2008, you wrote:

Yes, that is correct.

The repair was done from the underside of the wing, the damage foam
removed and replaced by 'pour in' expanding foam.
The expanding foam did not expand enough and left a void adjacent to
the top skin, resulting in the wing collapsing.

The correct way would have been to micro in a close fitting block of
foam and repair the glasswork as per standard repair instructions.

Although I do think that the best advice regarding damage to the
primary structure would be to build a new one, let's not be too
hasty....the damage may well be repairable.

Is the glass skin visibly damaged due to the heat?

If the glass has simply delaminated, have you considered injecting
the void with micro?
If the skin is actually raised, can you press it back to the correct
contour, or has the underlying foam distorted with the heat?

Have you done a tap test to find out the extent, if any, of the delamination?

Paul Buckley
Cheshire
England

----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:JMasal%40aol.com>JMasal@...
To: <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>Q-LIST@...
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Wing repair suggestions appreciated

I think dealer McFarland of PA did his repair with expanding foam instead of
inserting a block of the original wing material, if I remember correctly. If
I don't, this accident is thoroughly discussed with pictures in a back issue
of QTalk.
Bergin... you out there? I think we discussed this at SnF and you were
closer to the dealer.

j.

**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(<http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851>http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)



----------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.5/1400 - Release Date:
27/04/2008 09:39

Larry Severson
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
(714) 968-9852
larry2@...

Thomas,

Sorry, your intentions were misread. Repairing the wing is absolutely
possible as long as you follow the building manual for correct foam
type, installation process and layup content of spars, precisely. You
should also be a good glass man with competent people around the
process, if not forget it.

Bob F. helped me repair a severly damaged canard spar which is
doccumented on this site. It now has 400 hundred hours since the
repair and has been loaded to gross weight many times. So far we see
no sign of problems. Having built the original wing, the job was
realitively easy even with the tight working quarters (Made teh
repair from both the top and bottom side of the canard under the
passenger leg area). Further the canard got some good load testing
while taxing around at gross which made me a little more comfortable
before flying it. We decided to take this approach rather than
building a new wing because the airplane was already flying and had
been painted.

My only point in favor of building or buying a new wing is your plane
is not finished as I understand it and the task can be done rather
easily. The upside is you will never have to worry when you are
flying friends or family. If not you will probably always have it in
the back of your mind when you do fast pull ups or get in the bumps
fully loaded. In my opinion, there are too many other things that
require your attention. Another option is to load test the wing in
both directions after the repair is made but this can be dangerous as
well. If you're not careful the load test can be more damaging than
the benefit.

If you would like to talk about this, plese give me a call at 510-468-
4891. I have experience in wing repair.

Regards,
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200






--- In Q-LIST@..., Q1terryMDT@... wrote:

In a message dated 4/27/2008 6:50:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
tlc49x@... writes:





Quickie Builders,

My Q-200 (unfinished, but currently mostly assembled, firewall

back) was

seriously damaged when I left an electric heater, to be stored

overnight

on the bench, accidentally turned on. A greater-than -1-square-foot
bubble, about 1/8th to 1/4 inch thick, was found on the lower

surface of

the upper wing, about halfway out, clearly indicating that the

glass

layer had separated from the foam. Obviously, if not repaired
perfectly, this would be equivalent to an improperly repaired

broken

wing - but I have the impression that broken wings have been

repaired

successfully. I understand that the number of new plies should

equal

those replaced plus 1, etc., but I fear that this situation

demands more

than a good-enough-than a good-enothan a good-enough-<WBR>for-

governm

without replacing the entire wing from scratch - how to properly

repair

it? Perhaps there is a discussion of a well-tested repair

somewhere in

the Newsletters you can direct me to, or perhaps one of you have

done it

right, yourself.

Thanks!

Thomas L. Cline, N49X











**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S.

used car

listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes, that is correct.

The repair was done from the underside of the wing, the damage foam removed and replaced by 'pour in' expanding foam.
The expanding foam did not expand enough and left a void adjacent to the top skin, resulting in the wing collapsing.

The correct way would have been to micro in a close fitting block of foam and repair the glasswork as per standard repair instructions.

Although I do think that the best advice regarding damage to the primary structure would be to build a new one, let's not be too hasty....the damage may well be repairable.

Is the glass skin visibly damaged due to the heat?

If the glass has simply delaminated, have you considered injecting the void with micro?
If the skin is actually raised, can you press it back to the correct contour, or has the underlying foam distorted with the heat?

Have you done a tap test to find out the extent, if any, of the delamination?

Paul Buckley
Cheshire
England

Thomas,

this can be repaired, but it is not trivial. Did you build the
aircraft from scratch? replacing the the wing with one of unknown
origin is not without its risks either.

Cheers

John

In a message dated 4/27/2008 6:50:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
tlc49x@... writes:





Quickie Builders,

My Q-200 (unfinished, but currently mostly assembled, firewall back) was
seriously damaged when I left an electric heater, to be stored overnight
on the bench, accidentally turned on. A greater-than -1-square-foot
bubble, about 1/8th to 1/4 inch thick, was found on the lower surface of
the upper wing, about halfway out, clearly indicating that the glass
layer had separated from the foam. Obviously, if not repaired
perfectly, this would be equivalent to an improperly repaired broken
wing - but I have the impression that broken wings have been repaired
successfully. I understand that the number of new plies should equal
those replaced plus 1, etc., but I fear that this situation demands more
than a good-enough-than a good-enothan a good-enough-<WBR>for-governm
without replacing the entire wing from scratch - how to properly repair
it? Perhaps there is a discussion of a well-tested repair somewhere in
the Newsletters you can direct me to, or perhaps one of you have done it
right, yourself.

Thanks!

Thomas L. Cline, N49X











**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)

Thomas,

Sam is right, replace it! I have a friend in the bay area that has
two main wings. Call Ron Evans at 510-205-1934.

Regards,
Jim Patillo
N46JP Q200


--- In Q-LIST@..., "Thomas L. Cline" <tlc49x@...> wrote:

Quickie Builders,

My Q-200 (unfinished, but currently mostly assembled, firewall

back) was

seriously damaged when I left an electric heater, to be stored

overnight

on the bench, accidentally turned on. A greater-than -1-square-foot
bubble, about 1/8th to 1/4 inch thick, was found on the lower

surface of

the upper wing, about halfway out, clearly indicating that the glass
layer had separated from the foam. Obviously, if not repaired
perfectly, this would be equivalent to an improperly repaired

broken

wing - but I have the impression that broken wings have been

repaired

successfully. I understand that the number of new plies should

equal

those replaced plus 1, etc., but I fear that this situation demands

more

than a good-enough-for-government-work approach. My question is -
without replacing the entire wing from scratch - how to properly

repair

it? Perhaps there is a discussion of a well-tested repair

somewhere in

the Newsletters you can direct me to, or perhaps one of you have

done it

right, yourself.

Thanks!

Thomas L. Cline, N49X

Thomas, it sounds like your wing may have been totaled. Uggh.

Many moons ago a Quickie dealer (name escapes me) had to make a repair to a
broken wing. As I recall the story, he contacted QAC and they helped him
with a repair scheme. It seemed to work, but some time later this person
got in some heavy turbulence near a T-storm and the wing failed at the
repair. Two lost. I think they were on their way to/from Sun 'n Fun.

Maybe you could repair it by injecting two-part foam or micro, but I think I
would replace the wing.

BTW, I just happen to be in the ending phase of a wing replacement:
http://samhoskins.blogspot.com/

Sam Hoskins

275CH was Charlie Harris' Q200. One of the fastest Q's flyin'.
Bruce




_____________________________________________________________
Click now to find a divorce attorney near you!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iiggZoWgpS3e9JibLAF2kjBdlkZAnVXNMN3oUJlzJbS4R5hkk/

I think dealer McFarland of PA did his repair with expanding foam instead of
inserting a block of the original wing material, if I remember correctly. If
I don't, this accident is thoroughly discussed with pictures in a back issue
of QTalk.
Bergin... you out there? I think we discussed this at SnF and you were
closer to the dealer.

j.



**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)

Hi Kevin,



I am interested in buying a Quickie. I Googled N275CH but didn't come up
with any pictures (only a 1989 accident report). Can you copy and paste in
the web address? Many thanks.

Rob



From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf Of
Kevin Fortin
Sent: Monday, 28 April 2008 2:58 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: RE: [Q-LIST] Q200 275CH



Phil,

The airplane is just east of Denver in my hangar. Pictures can be found
on Google under N275CH, but not ones I have taken. It is an ugly yellow,
but airplanes are more that a paint job.

Kevin

________________________________

From: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf
Of britmcman@... <mailto:britmcman%40aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 10:50 PM
To: Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Q200 275CH

Where is it located, any pictures, and can you send more specific
details to
me at britmcman(at)AOL.com? I know a fellow who may be interested.

Phil

In a message dated 4/27/2008 9:34:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
kfortin@... <mailto:kfortin%40prototypesetc.com>
<mailto:kfortin%40prototypesetc.com> writes:

Hey guys,

I have been a long time off this site, and I have been off to other
things, mostly other airplanes.

I think it is time I let go of N275CH.....I have other airplanes to play
with.

At present, N275CH has about 1000 hours on the airframe, and the engine
has zero time. Some reassembly is required from the firewall forward,
but overall the airframe is in great shape and has no damage at all.

Let me know if you are interested,

Kevin Fortin
Q200 N275CH

________________________________

From: _Q-LIST@... <mailto:_Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.Q-L>
<mailto:_Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.Q-L> _
(mailto:Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> )
[mailto:_Q-LIST@... <mailto:_Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.Q-L>
<mailto:_Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.Q-L> _
(mailto:Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> ) ] On
Behalf
Of Thomas L. Cline
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:50 PM
To: _Q-LIST@... <mailto:_Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.Q-L>
<mailto:_Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.Q-L> _
(mailto:Q-LIST@... <mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Q-LIST%40yahoogroups.com> )
Subject: [Q-LIST] Wing repair suggestions appreciated

Quickie Builders,

My Q-200 (unfinished, but currently mostly assembled, firewall back) was
seriously damaged when I left an electric heater, to be stored overnight
on the bench, accidentally turned on. A greater-than -1-square-foot
bubble, about 1/8th to 1/4 inch thick, was found on the lower surface of
the upper wing, about halfway out, clearly indicating that the glass
layer had separated from the foam. Obviously, if not repaired
perfectly, this would be equivalent to an improperly repaired broken
wing - but I have the impression that broken wings have been repaired
successfully. I understand that the number of new plies should equal
those replaced plus 1, etc., but I fear that this situation demands more
than a good-enough-than a good-enothan a good-enough-<WBR>for-governm
without replacing the entire wing from scratch - how to properly repair
it? Perhaps there is a discussion of a well-tested repair somewhere in
the Newsletters you can direct me to, or perhaps one of you have done it
right, yourself.

Thanks!

Thomas L. Cline, N49X



**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used
car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851
<http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851> )

Phil,

The airplane is just east of Denver in my hangar. Pictures can be found
on Google under N275CH, but not ones I have taken. It is an ugly yellow,
but airplanes are more that a paint job.

Kevin

________________________________

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf
Of britmcman@...
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 10:50 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Q200 275CH



Where is it located, any pictures, and can you send more specific
details to
me at britmcman(at)AOL.com? I know a fellow who may be interested.

Phil

Hey guys,

I have been a long time off this site, and I have been off to other
things, mostly other airplanes.

I think it is time I let go of N275CH.....I have other airplanes to play
with.

At present, N275CH has about 1000 hours on the airframe, and the engine
has zero time. Some reassembly is required from the firewall forward,
but overall the airframe is in great shape and has no damage at all.

Let me know if you are interested,

Kevin Fortin
Q200 N275CH

________________________________

From: Q-LIST@... [mailto:Q-LIST@...] On Behalf
Of Thomas L. Cline
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:50 PM
To: Q-LIST@...
Subject: [Q-LIST] Wing repair suggestions appreciated




Quickie Builders,

My Q-200 (unfinished, but currently mostly assembled, firewall back) was
seriously damaged when I left an electric heater, to be stored overnight
on the bench, accidentally turned on. A greater-than -1-square-foot
bubble, about 1/8th to 1/4 inch thick, was found on the lower surface of
the upper wing, about halfway out, clearly indicating that the glass
layer had separated from the foam. Obviously, if not repaired
perfectly, this would be equivalent to an improperly repaired broken
wing - but I have the impression that broken wings have been repaired
successfully. I understand that the number of new plies should equal
those replaced plus 1, etc., but I fear that this situation demands more
than a good-enough-for-government-work approach. My question is -
without replacing the entire wing from scratch - how to properly repair
it? Perhaps there is a discussion of a well-tested repair somewhere in
the Newsletters you can direct me to, or perhaps one of you have done it
right, yourself.

Thanks!

Thomas L. Cline, N49X