BROKEN SPAR


Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Mike my response was posted 21/5. The plans call for removal of one outer (glass) ply in preparation for glassing. That would leave only one remaining lightweight wrap for the UNI CF,and IMO a big chance to damage that remaining glass ply. These spars are lacking in hoop strength but have a good track record. If the wrap ply is weakened the spar is more likely to break near the centre. Spar caps protect BL00 and reinf ply protects BL15. BL12 could be near the weakest point in there.
Peter.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Perry
To: Q-LIST@...
Cc: James Postma ; Jim Patillo
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] BROKEN SPAR


I haven't seen any comments on the list since James Postma posted this
report, but I think we need to discuss it. This is apparently a spar
failure similar to what Jim Patillo found at annual in 2001 (Q-Talk
87). As Jim elegantly documented, the spars may have been damaged during
the testing process, leaving a weakened area around BL12 in some spars --
likely only a few spars, but still a concern.

My questions are:
Did anyone else have a similar failure?
Is there a one time inspection procedure we can do?
Any special inspection we can do if we have the canard off for some
other reason?
Is there a recurrent inspection that should be done?
If so what inspection and how often?
Finally, how much time did each airframe have?

Mike Perry

At 09:54 AM 5/20/2005 -0700, James Postma wrote:
>Subject: BROKEN SPAR
>
>Hello Group,
>
>I had a landing accident at Chino on April 21 which resulted in a broken
>spar.
>
>This was in a Q2 with the LS-1 canard. It broke just inside the fuselage on
>the right side in the area that Jim Patillo has repaired on his airplane.
>
>The landing was smooth and the right canard did not impact anything. I
>swerved right, then left, then right and the spar broke. When the aircraft
>settled to the ground, it ground looped to the right 200 degrees.
>
>The NTSB and the FAA is investigating. I asked the FAA accident
>investigator if they would take any action regarding the airplane type and
>he said that seeing as it is experimental, it is up to the owner/builders to
>take some action. There probably will be an NTSB accident report as there
>was substantial damage to the airplane. I was not injured.
>
>The airplane does not have the wheel alinement.
>
>If you want to comment on this, please send mail to me as well as to the
>list as I am not getting mail from the list. Telephone calls are also O.K.
>
>James Postma
>Steilacoom, Washington
>(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT
>







Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

I haven't seen any comments on the list since James Postma posted this
report, but I think we need to discuss it. This is apparently a spar
failure similar to what Jim Patillo found at annual in 2001 (Q-Talk
87). As Jim elegantly documented, the spars may have been damaged during
the testing process, leaving a weakened area around BL12 in some spars --
likely only a few spars, but still a concern.

My questions are:
Did anyone else have a similar failure?
Is there a one time inspection procedure we can do?
Any special inspection we can do if we have the canard off for some
other reason?
Is there a recurrent inspection that should be done?
If so what inspection and how often?
Finally, how much time did each airframe have?

Mike Perry

At 09:54 AM 5/20/2005 -0700, James Postma wrote:
Subject: BROKEN SPAR

Hello Group,

I had a landing accident at Chino on April 21 which resulted in a broken
spar.

This was in a Q2 with the LS-1 canard. It broke just inside the fuselage on
the right side in the area that Jim Patillo has repaired on his airplane.

The landing was smooth and the right canard did not impact anything. I
swerved right, then left, then right and the spar broke. When the aircraft
settled to the ground, it ground looped to the right 200 degrees.

The NTSB and the FAA is investigating. I asked the FAA accident
investigator if they would take any action regarding the airplane type and
he said that seeing as it is experimental, it is up to the owner/builders to
take some action. There probably will be an NTSB accident report as there
was substantial damage to the airplane. I was not injured.

The airplane does not have the wheel alinement.

If you want to comment on this, please send mail to me as well as to the
list as I am not getting mail from the list. Telephone calls are also O.K.

James Postma
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT


Jim Patillo
 

Mike,

My spar had about 300 hours on it when it failed. When I originally
jigged and put the spars together, I looked them over very carefully
and did not see any sign of stress or cracks. They looked perfect.
After I talked with Scott Swing, the guy who load tested spars for
QAC, I feel confident their testing proceedure was flawed and caused
my problem. I believe there are other bad spars out there in flying
airplanes but will only surface if the spars were aligned like mine.
How long that will take I cannot say.

I believe some spars were over stressed (due to a bad load test
fixture)when tested and are predisposed to failure. I belive there
are stress risers on some spars. Since there were no alignment
markings on the spars indicating top from bottom (after being tested)
one can randomly place the stress riser in the position I did and the
failure will occur.

I will say again, it is very important to monitor the areas just
under pilot and pax legs at the radius. That is the approximate
location where the failure can occur. If you notice the slightest
mark in those areas, ground the airplane and check it out
immediately. My crack appeared so small on the surface that it could
have been easily overlooked. Once I opened it up for investigation I
was glad I did. Read the article I wrote. MAKE SURE TO CHECK LS1
SPARS ON A REGULAR BASIS!

Some may say the failure will only occur on the ground like mine and
James' did but that may not be true.

Regards,

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200


--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Perry <dmperry1012@c...> wrote:
I haven't seen any comments on the list since James Postma posted
this
report, but I think we need to discuss it. This is apparently a
spar
failure similar to what Jim Patillo found at annual in 2001 (Q-Talk
87). As Jim elegantly documented, the spars may have been damaged
during
the testing process, leaving a weakened area around BL12 in some
spars --
likely only a few spars, but still a concern.

My questions are:
Did anyone else have a similar failure?
Is there a one time inspection procedure we can do?
Any special inspection we can do if we have the canard off
for some
other reason?
Is there a recurrent inspection that should be done?
If so what inspection and how often?
Finally, how much time did each airframe have?

Mike Perry

At 09:54 AM 5/20/2005 -0700, James Postma wrote:
Subject: BROKEN SPAR

Hello Group,

I had a landing accident at Chino on April 21 which resulted in a
broken
spar.

This was in a Q2 with the LS-1 canard. It broke just inside the
fuselage on
the right side in the area that Jim Patillo has repaired on his
airplane.

The landing was smooth and the right canard did not impact
anything. I
swerved right, then left, then right and the spar broke. When the
aircraft
settled to the ground, it ground looped to the right 200 degrees.

The NTSB and the FAA is investigating. I asked the FAA accident
investigator if they would take any action regarding the airplane
type and
he said that seeing as it is experimental, it is up to the
owner/builders to
take some action. There probably will be an NTSB accident report
as there
was substantial damage to the airplane. I was not injured.

The airplane does not have the wheel alinement.

If you want to comment on this, please send mail to me as well as
to the
list as I am not getting mail from the list. Telephone calls are
also O.K.

James Postma
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT



REBECCA SIMPSON
 

Jim,
How do I get a copy of the article and pics ?
Thanks,
Tad Simpson


Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@...> wrote:

Mike,

My spar had about 300 hours on it when it failed. When I originally
jigged and put the spars together, I looked them over very carefully
and did not see any sign of stress or cracks. They looked perfect.
After I talked with Scott Swing, the guy who load tested spars for
QAC, I feel confident their testing proceedure was flawed and caused
my problem. I believe there are other bad spars out there in flying
airplanes but will only surface if the spars were aligned like mine.
How long that will take I cannot say.

I believe some spars were over stressed (due to a bad load test
fixture)when tested and are predisposed to failure. I belive there
are stress risers on some spars. Since there were no alignment
markings on the spars indicating top from bottom (after being tested)
one can randomly place the stress riser in the position I did and the
failure will occur.

I will say again, it is very important to monitor the areas just
under pilot and pax legs at the radius. That is the approximate
location where the failure can occur. If you notice the slightest
mark in those areas, ground the airplane and check it out
immediately. My crack appeared so small on the surface that it could
have been easily overlooked. Once I opened it up for investigation I
was glad I did. Read the article I wrote. MAKE SURE TO CHECK LS1
SPARS ON A REGULAR BASIS!

Some may say the failure will only occur on the ground like mine and
James' did but that may not be true.

Regards,

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200


--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Perry <dmperry1012@c...> wrote:
I haven't seen any comments on the list since James Postma posted
this
report, but I think we need to discuss it. This is apparently a
spar
failure similar to what Jim Patillo found at annual in 2001 (Q-Talk
87). As Jim elegantly documented, the spars may have been damaged
during
the testing process, leaving a weakened area around BL12 in some
spars --
likely only a few spars, but still a concern.

My questions are:
Did anyone else have a similar failure?
Is there a one time inspection procedure we can do?
Any special inspection we can do if we have the canard off
for some
other reason?
Is there a recurrent inspection that should be done?
If so what inspection and how often?
Finally, how much time did each airframe have?

Mike Perry

At 09:54 AM 5/20/2005 -0700, James Postma wrote:
Subject: BROKEN SPAR

Hello Group,

I had a landing accident at Chino on April 21 which resulted in a
broken
spar.

This was in a Q2 with the LS-1 canard. It broke just inside the
fuselage on
the right side in the area that Jim Patillo has repaired on his
airplane.

The landing was smooth and the right canard did not impact
anything. I
swerved right, then left, then right and the spar broke. When the
aircraft
settled to the ground, it ground looped to the right 200 degrees.

The NTSB and the FAA is investigating. I asked the FAA accident
investigator if they would take any action regarding the airplane
type and
he said that seeing as it is experimental, it is up to the
owner/builders to
take some action. There probably will be an NTSB accident report
as there
was substantial damage to the airplane. I was not injured.

The airplane does not have the wheel alinement.

If you want to comment on this, please send mail to me as well as
to the
list as I am not getting mail from the list. Telephone calls are
also O.K.

James Postma
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT





Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


Jim Patillo
 

Mike identified it as Q-Talk #87 in the previous post.
I actually had less than 300 hours on the plane at the time now that
I think about it.

Jim P.


--- In Q-LIST@..., REBECCA SIMPSON
<rebeccaandtad_simpson@y...> wrote:
Jim,
How do I get a copy of the article and pics ?
Thanks,
Tad Simpson


Jim Patillo <logistics_engineering@m...> wrote:

Mike,

My spar had about 300 hours on it when it failed. When I originally
jigged and put the spars together, I looked them over very
carefully
and did not see any sign of stress or cracks. They looked perfect.
After I talked with Scott Swing, the guy who load tested spars for
QAC, I feel confident their testing proceedure was flawed and
caused
my problem. I believe there are other bad spars out there in flying
airplanes but will only surface if the spars were aligned like
mine.
How long that will take I cannot say.

I believe some spars were over stressed (due to a bad load test
fixture)when tested and are predisposed to failure. I belive there
are stress risers on some spars. Since there were no alignment
markings on the spars indicating top from bottom (after being
tested)
one can randomly place the stress riser in the position I did and
the
failure will occur.

I will say again, it is very important to monitor the areas just
under pilot and pax legs at the radius. That is the approximate
location where the failure can occur. If you notice the slightest
mark in those areas, ground the airplane and check it out
immediately. My crack appeared so small on the surface that it
could
have been easily overlooked. Once I opened it up for investigation
I
was glad I did. Read the article I wrote. MAKE SURE TO CHECK LS1
SPARS ON A REGULAR BASIS!

Some may say the failure will only occur on the ground like mine
and
James' did but that may not be true.

Regards,

Jim Patillo N46JP Q200


--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Perry <dmperry1012@c...> wrote:
I haven't seen any comments on the list since James Postma posted
this
report, but I think we need to discuss it. This is apparently a
spar
failure similar to what Jim Patillo found at annual in 2001 (Q-
Talk
87). As Jim elegantly documented, the spars may have been
damaged
during
the testing process, leaving a weakened area around BL12 in some
spars --
likely only a few spars, but still a concern.

My questions are:
Did anyone else have a similar failure?
Is there a one time inspection procedure we can do?
Any special inspection we can do if we have the canard off
for some
other reason?
Is there a recurrent inspection that should be done?
If so what inspection and how often?
Finally, how much time did each airframe have?

Mike Perry

At 09:54 AM 5/20/2005 -0700, James Postma wrote:
Subject: BROKEN SPAR

Hello Group,

I had a landing accident at Chino on April 21 which resulted in
a
broken
spar.

This was in a Q2 with the LS-1 canard. It broke just inside the
fuselage on
the right side in the area that Jim Patillo has repaired on his
airplane.

The landing was smooth and the right canard did not impact
anything. I
swerved right, then left, then right and the spar broke. When
the
aircraft
settled to the ground, it ground looped to the right 200 degrees.

The NTSB and the FAA is investigating. I asked the FAA accident
investigator if they would take any action regarding the
airplane
type and
he said that seeing as it is experimental, it is up to the
owner/builders to
take some action. There probably will be an NTSB accident
report
as there
was substantial damage to the airplane. I was not injured.

The airplane does not have the wheel alinement.

If you want to comment on this, please send mail to me as well
as
to the
list as I am not getting mail from the list. Telephone calls
are
also O.K.

James Postma
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT





Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org





---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


JohntenHave <Jtenhave@...>
 

Guys,

this is a very disturbing report and needs to be investigated
properly.

May I suggest that as an absolute minimum and with immediate effect
everyone with LS-1 canards who has arbitrarily increased their gross
weights reduce the limits to the published limits. The highest
stress that the spar sees will occur with a mauw heavy landing (
Anyone prepared to bet they will not have a MAUW EFATO one day?)

Ideally, do not fly until more is known, Less ideally, fly one up
and fly conservatively. (airracers, listen up!) If you are immortal
or wish to become so, ignore this completely. The only exception
could be Jim Patillo but the integrity of his unmodified spar is
possibly still in question.

James' experience is consistent with a spar that had partially failed
prior to the last landing, had sufficient residual strength to cope
with the distributed loads of normal flight but when subjected to the
same load applied to the mains, (i.e. a point load on the end of a
cantilever) failed completely.

When Jim P's spar failure was detected it was as a result of really
diligent examination in an area which was not the easiest to see.
Unless one had a really heavy landing and heard something the chances
of picking up the surface indications where he found them are very
low. He did a great job finding it.

The nature of carbon failure is that (for symmetrical section spars
such as that used in the Q 200) it will fail in compression first
when the spar is loaded in a manner such as that employed for the
initial testing. Compression failures can be less obvious than
tensile failures in carbon.

James,

firstly I am glad that you are still with us. Secondly, you have
done the Q community a great service by letting everyone know what
happened to you. Well done!

May I suggest that you measure carefully from the center of the spar
to where the failure occurred. Jim's spar failed at BL12 from memory.
If your failure is located in the same place you may be flying
another spar which failed during test but was either not detected or
not discarded. Take as many photos as you can.

If it is a similar failure, an inspection procedure will have to be
developed - and I have given some thought to appropriate NDT methods.

Some options:

The simplest may be a magnified visual examination, the next may be
a stethescope on the suspected site with a loading designed to flex
the area, if facilities permit, an ultrasound examination of the
suspected area and the most complex may be a boroscopic or hi res
video internal examination from the outboard end.

For those who are still building, or about to begin Q-200s, do what
ever is required to thoroughly examine the inside and outside of the
spars for any signs of damage. The stock spars are very thin and
damage intolerant.

Either way, this is two primary structure failures too many and two
very lucky escapes. The chances of a latent fatal waiting to happen
are too high to ignore. Stated bluntly, Q-200s are inherently risky
aircraft to operate in their present state. The risk needs to be
reduced.

I suggest that in the medium term, the least that should be done is
to statically load test each aircraft to a load sufficient to verify
structural integrity within the desired flight envelope.

An alternate strategy (conservative) is to assume that every spar has
the flaw and design a repair scheme that applies a suitable repair to
the site of both spars. Jim has documented his repair very well and
it would not be twice the work to repair both spars at the same time.

A third approach (most conservative) would be to declare all canards
with existing carbon spars suspect and decide to build new ones with
replacement spars.

If I can be of help, James, let me know.


John ten Have
SAAA Tech Councillor

--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@m...> wrote:

snipped for bandwidth (not for content!)


Mike,
SPAR

Hello Group,

I had a landing accident at Chino on April 21 which resulted in
a
broken
spar.

This was in a Q2 with the LS-1 canard. It broke just inside the
fuselage on
the right side in the area that Jim Patillo has repaired on his
airplane.

The landing was smooth and the right canard did not impact
anything. I
swerved right, then left, then right and the spar broke. When
the
aircraft
settled to the ground, it ground looped to the right 200 degrees.

The NTSB and the FAA is investigating. I asked the FAA accident
investigator if they would take any action regarding the
airplane
type and
he said that seeing as it is experimental, it is up to the
owner/builders to
take some action. There probably will be an NTSB accident
report
as there
was substantial damage to the airplane. I was not injured.

The airplane does not have the wheel alinement.

If you want to comment on this, please send mail to me as well
as
to the
list as I am not getting mail from the list. Telephone calls
are
also O.K.

James Postma
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT



britmcman99
 

Jim Postma:

Can you elaborate on the severity of the swerves that your plane experienced
before failure? It leads me to believe that excessive torsional or
forward/aft loads were being placed on the canard, not the typical upward/downward
loads.

I read an old text about the loads that a landing gear encounters and the
bouncing loads were considered normal and expected, with not damage
expectation. What was interesting was the problem with torsional loads. If big tires
touch down, the initial twist encountered to make the wheels spin up to
rollout speed can create damage.

What do you think?

Cheers,

Phil


Peter Harris <peterjfharris@...>
 

Doug,
John is making some very important points about the significance of the broken spars. We know from a microscopic analysis that the kit spars are not well made. The BID glass wrap is not properly alligned at +/- 45 deg and also may well be damaged during sanding for assembly.
I would like make a couple of suggestions:
1. Study the history of failures for a pattern. Formalise our record of product failures so we have data we can study for a fix.We could ask all flyers to report failures to a bad news file which could be seen at the website.

2. If most fail inside the cockpit then retro fix by extending the compression spar caps from BL00 out to the hull. That is a fairly easy fix. Subject to professional advice that could then be issued as a revision to the plans.
Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: HawkiDoug
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 6:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: BROKEN SPAR


Damian - How will you ultrasound the spar? With want device? Please do it
before you reinforce to see whats there, if anything. Is the device
something we can all get our hands on? Can we rent one and bring it to a
fly-in?

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974
----- Original Message -----
From: <damiantwinsport@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: BROKEN SPAR


> In regard to inspection a load test IMHO would not reveal a hidden flaw
> neccessarily.
> neither would a tap test. A more sophisticated NDT method on the other
> hand
> would or shall I say should. Ultrasound would reveal an anomaly in the
> structure starting at BL5 and continued to BL16 in an X Y direction, which
> should be
> round about the fuse to canard mating zone,
> Something to consider.... the canard spar is unsupported between these
> regions and they are within the center of mass transfer on landing,
> As I am in the process of building a new canard I am going to reinforce
> from BL00 to BL21 plus ultrasound spars before using (may be unnecessary
> but a
> whole lot easier to do at this stage than after assembled).
> Regards,
> Damian Gregory N8427 Q 200 ( rebuilding)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quickie Builders Association WEB site
> http://www.quickiebuilders.org
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

John: You made several important points and answered some questions but
raised others. From my original questions:
Is there a one time inspection procedure we can do? You said:
I suggest that in the medium term, the least that should be done is
to statically load test each aircraft to a load sufficient to verify
structural integrity within the desired flight envelope.
Just how would you do this in an existing aircraft? and what load would
you use? I get 1100lbs gross X 4gs = 4400lbs of sand in the cockpit??? Do
you need to flip the aircraft over and do the same test from below? how do
you do that?

I further asked: Any special inspection we can do if we have the canard off
for some other reason?
Again, how would you do this for an existing canard that needed to be
removed from the airplane? No direct reply, but you do say:
An alternate strategy (conservative) is to assume that every spar has
the flaw and design a repair scheme that applies a suitable repair to
the site of both spars. Jim has documented his repair very well and
it would not be twice the work to repair both spars at the same time.
Jim's Article in Q-Talk 87 implies that the likely problem area is BL
12-18. BL 16 is about where the top of the spar exits the cockpit. this
will limit inspections and repairs will extend outside the cockpit.

It would be very helpful to know exactly where James Postma's spar failed;
I will write and ask him.

Question: If the failure is due to damage induced by the test apparatus,
would this be damage to the Carbon Fiber or damage to the spar core? If
the carbon matrix, could we simply apply a carbon-fiber spar cap?

Mike Perry


At 07:31 AM 5/23/2005 +0000, you wrote:
Guys,

this is a very disturbing report and needs to be investigated
properly.

May I suggest that as an absolute minimum and with immediate effect
everyone with LS-1 canards who has arbitrarily increased their gross
weights reduce the limits to the published limits. The highest
stress that the spar sees will occur with a mauw heavy landing (
Anyone prepared to bet they will not have a MAUW EFATO one day?)

Ideally, do not fly until more is known, Less ideally, fly one up
and fly conservatively. (airracers, listen up!) If you are immortal
or wish to become so, ignore this completely. The only exception
could be Jim Patillo but the integrity of his unmodified spar is
possibly still in question.

James' experience is consistent with a spar that had partially failed
prior to the last landing, had sufficient residual strength to cope
with the distributed loads of normal flight but when subjected to the
same load applied to the mains, (i.e. a point load on the end of a
cantilever) failed completely.

When Jim P's spar failure was detected it was as a result of really
diligent examination in an area which was not the easiest to see.
Unless one had a really heavy landing and heard something the chances
of picking up the surface indications where he found them are very
low. He did a great job finding it.

The nature of carbon failure is that (for symmetrical section spars
such as that used in the Q 200) it will fail in compression first
when the spar is loaded in a manner such as that employed for the
initial testing. Compression failures can be less obvious than
tensile failures in carbon.

James,

firstly I am glad that you are still with us. Secondly, you have
done the Q community a great service by letting everyone know what
happened to you. Well done!

May I suggest that you measure carefully from the center of the spar
to where the failure occurred. Jim's spar failed at BL12 from memory.
If your failure is located in the same place you may be flying
another spar which failed during test but was either not detected or
not discarded. Take as many photos as you can.

If it is a similar failure, an inspection procedure will have to be
developed - and I have given some thought to appropriate NDT methods.

Some options:

The simplest may be a magnified visual examination, the next may be
a stethescope on the suspected site with a loading designed to flex
the area, if facilities permit, an ultrasound examination of the
suspected area and the most complex may be a boroscopic or hi res
video internal examination from the outboard end.

For those who are still building, or about to begin Q-200s, do what
ever is required to thoroughly examine the inside and outside of the
spars for any signs of damage. The stock spars are very thin and
damage intolerant.

Either way, this is two primary structure failures too many and two
very lucky escapes. The chances of a latent fatal waiting to happen
are too high to ignore. Stated bluntly, Q-200s are inherently risky
aircraft to operate in their present state. The risk needs to be
reduced.

I suggest that in the medium term, the least that should be done is
to statically load test each aircraft to a load sufficient to verify
structural integrity within the desired flight envelope.

An alternate strategy (conservative) is to assume that every spar has
the flaw and design a repair scheme that applies a suitable repair to
the site of both spars. Jim has documented his repair very well and
it would not be twice the work to repair both spars at the same time.

A third approach (most conservative) would be to declare all canards
with existing carbon spars suspect and decide to build new ones with
replacement spars.

If I can be of help, James, let me know.


John ten Have
SAAA Tech Councillor



--- In Q-LIST@..., "Jim Patillo"
<logistics_engineering@m...> wrote:

snipped for bandwidth (not for content!)


Mike,
SPAR

Hello Group,

I had a landing accident at Chino on April 21 which resulted in
a
broken
spar.

This was in a Q2 with the LS-1 canard. It broke just inside the
fuselage on
the right side in the area that Jim Patillo has repaired on his
airplane.

The landing was smooth and the right canard did not impact
anything. I
swerved right, then left, then right and the spar broke. When
the
aircraft
settled to the ground, it ground looped to the right 200 degrees.

The NTSB and the FAA is investigating. I asked the FAA accident
investigator if they would take any action regarding the
airplane
type and
he said that seeing as it is experimental, it is up to the
owner/builders to
take some action. There probably will be an NTSB accident
report
as there
was substantial damage to the airplane. I was not injured.

The airplane does not have the wheel alinement.

If you want to comment on this, please send mail to me as well
as
to the
list as I am not getting mail from the list. Telephone calls
are
also O.K.

James Postma
Steilacoom, Washington
(253) 584-1182 9:00 to 8:00 PDT





Quickie Builders Association WEB site
<http://www.quickiebuilders.org>http://www.quickiebuilders.org





----------
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
*
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Q-LIST/
*
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
*
<mailto:Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>Q-LIST-unsubscribe@...

*
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


JohntenHave <Jtenhave@...>
 

Hi Mike,

I am sorry, I did not read your posting prior to making my comments.

Let me try and answer your questions briefly. If you want more
information or explanation, let me know.

--- In Q-LIST@..., Mike Perry <dmperry1012@c...> wrote:
John: You made several important points and answered some
questions but
raised others. From my original questions:
Is there a one time inspection procedure we can do?
Positive G load testing will verify structural integrity in the
positive G condition and may reveal weaknesses which would threaten
negative g integrity. Internal borescopic examination may throw up
surface indications. Removal of paint about the BL 12 LH and RH
regions may reveal surface or subsurface indication in the glass
doublers if the failure is located in the accessible half of the
circumference. Bouncing the canard whilst listening with a
stethescope may reveal creaking or cracking.

You said:
I suggest that in the medium term, the least that should be done is
to statically load test each aircraft to a load sufficient to
verify
structural integrity within the desired flight envelope.
Just how would you do this in an existing aircraft? and what load
would
you use? I get 1100lbs gross X 4gs = 4400lbs of sand in the
cockpit??? Do
you need to flip the aircraft over and do the same test from
below? how do
you do that?

Short answer? The load would have to be calculated, factoring in load
distribution between wing and canard, landing loads and design margin
in original design. That load is too high for a concentrated load.
The loading you quote assumes a distributed load along the length of
the wings and the canard. Spars with distributed loads typically see
about 50% of the stress that the same spar would see with an end
loaded cantilever subjected to the same load. That is why the heavy
landing load case is the worst case and it is probably why James's
canard clapped hands on landing.


I further asked: Any special inspection we can do if we have the
canard off
for some other reason?
It would be the ideal time to apply a strengthening doubler designed
to assume a total failure of the spar at that location. Visual
inspection could be carried out, A borescopic inspection could be
carried out from the small diameter end drilling an access hole up
the center line of the spar. It is a bad time to load test it.


Again, how would you do this for an existing canard that needed to
be
removed from the airplane?
No real difference.


No direct reply, but you do say:
An alternate strategy (conservative) is to assume that every spar
has
the flaw and design a repair scheme that applies a suitable repair
to
the site of both spars. Jim has documented his repair very well
and
it would not be twice the work to repair both spars at the same
time.


The most likely cause of failure locates the site at BL 12 - look
there first.

Jim's Article in Q-Talk 87 implies that the likely problem area is
BL
12-18. BL 16 is about where the top of the spar exits the
cockpit. this
will limit inspections and repairs will extend outside the cockpit.

So what? extend it outside the cockpit.



It would be very helpful to know exactly where James Postma's spar
failed;
I will write and ask him.

I have asked him below and left a message on his answering machine so
should be able to get that information soon. It would also be useful
to find out what hours were on James's aircraft because it may be
that if the flaw exists it manifests itself within 300 hrs and
higher hour airframes may have inadvertently proven that they do not
have it – (But I would not bet my butt on it.)



Question: If the failure is due to damage induced by the test
apparatus,
would this be damage to the Carbon Fiber or damage to the spar
core? If
the carbon matrix, could we simply apply a carbon-fiber spar cap?

Damage to carbon resin matrix, there is no spar core. You could
design a carbon spar cap. My reasoning is that if the existing glass
is intact, you can factor its contribution into any repair scheme.
If you want to do a carbon repair you have to excavate down to the
spar, do the repair and then repair the doublers and there are lots
of them - the layup is about 1 cm thick in the spar I have in front
of me. 1 inch per laminate results in a repair about 32 in long. (
0.012 per layer of glass)

This is really serious stuff guys. If a pair of C172's had main spar
failures, the fleet would be grounded forthwith and they would stay
that way until the cause and the repair scheme or the appropriate
testing had been worked out. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
leaving it will degrade the value of your aircraft faster than you
could believe and the airframe has had enough bad press.

Regards

John


damiantwinsport@...
 


damiantwinsport@...
 

In regard to inspection a load test IMHO would not reveal a hidden flaw
neccessarily.
neither would a tap test. A more sophisticated NDT method on the other hand
would or shall I say should. Ultrasound would reveal an anomaly in the
structure starting at BL5 and continued to BL16 in an X Y direction, which should be
round about the fuse to canard mating zone,
Something to consider.... the canard spar is unsupported between these
regions and they are within the center of mass transfer on landing,
As I am in the process of building a new canard I am going to reinforce
from BL00 to BL21 plus ultrasound spars before using (may be unnecessary but a
whole lot easier to do at this stage than after assembled).
Regards,
Damian Gregory N8427 Q 200 ( rebuilding)


damiantwinsport@...
 

Doug, The ultra sound devices vary from hand held emitters and responders to
static devices that one passes the part through.
Yes, I will take the naked spars for inspection before I attempt to use
them.
There are guys that do field inspections on aircraft either because of
suspected or observed damage or because of FAA use mandated.
The data that is gathered from a scan has to be interpreted much like an
MD. Reads an MRI. Cracks usually show up in a scanned region as a pronounced
spike in the graph printout.
As for doing it at a fly in maybe one of these services might be agreeable
to conducting a group rate deal.
Regards,
Damian Gregory


HawkiDoug <hawkidoug@...>
 

Damian - How will you ultrasound the spar? With want device? Please do it before you reinforce to see whats there, if anything. Is the device something we can all get our hands on? Can we rent one and bring it to a fly-in?

Doug "Hawkeye" Humble
www.asignabove.net
Omaha NE
N25974

----- Original Message -----
From: <damiantwinsport@...>
To: <Q-LIST@...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-LIST] Re: BROKEN SPAR


In regard to inspection a load test IMHO would not reveal a hidden flaw
neccessarily.
neither would a tap test. A more sophisticated NDT method on the other hand
would or shall I say should. Ultrasound would reveal an anomaly in the
structure starting at BL5 and continued to BL16 in an X Y direction, which should be
round about the fuse to canard mating zone,
Something to consider.... the canard spar is unsupported between these
regions and they are within the center of mass transfer on landing,
As I am in the process of building a new canard I am going to reinforce
from BL00 to BL21 plus ultrasound spars before using (may be unnecessary but a
whole lot easier to do at this stage than after assembled).
Regards,
Damian Gregory N8427 Q 200 ( rebuilding)







Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links







britmcman99
 

Fellows:

Back when I was a young lad I attended some NDT familiarization courses
taught at the Don Bosco Institute of Technology in Pomona, CA. I am not an NDT
inspector, but a Quality Manager and I have had several years at Aerospace
and Commercial companies. We ought to be able to delve a little further into
the prospect of NDT testing since the subject of "Aging Aircraft" is a big
topic and since now many certificated aircraft companies are building with
composite structure.

Check with local commercial Non Destructive Test Labs and see what they
might offer in the way of NDT methods for composites. We might be surprised to
find an affordable method and some eager technicians who would love to get
close to an experimental aircraft.

Phil Lankford
N870BM


britmcman99
 

A good read on NDT for composites found under a Yahoo search on the terms
"composite ndt inspection remote holography"
NDT - A Continuing Responsibility in the Future of Aerospace
Gary Georgeson
_http://www.ndt.net/apcndt2001/papers/1205/1205.htm_
(http://www.ndt.net/apcndt2001/papers/1205/1205.htm)
Phil Lankford


JohntenHave <Jtenhave@...>
 

Damian,


--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
In regard to inspection a load test IMHO would not reveal a hidden
flaw
neccessarily.

You are right that no single load test on a built up airframe will
absolutely guarentee structural integrity but it would check that
load case and the flaw orientations which are susceptable to this
test. The trick here is to try and develop checks that would cover
the other options.


neither would a tap test. A more sophisticated NDT method on the
other hand
would or shall I say should. Ultrasound would reveal an anomaly in
the
structure starting at BL5 and continued to BL16 in an X Y
direction, which should be
round about the fuse to canard mating zone,

For the same reasons this cannot be an absolute guarentee if the
flaw is buried within the canard structure i.e. 7 - 11 oclock on a
RH canard looking outboard. The center of the spar is a void and
ultrasound needs a solid or liquid medium to conduct.


Something to consider.... the canard spar is unsupported between
these
regions and they are within the center of mass transfer on
landing,

It is also similarly "unsupported" (if you ignore the contribution
of the canard skins) outboard..... The center of mass does not move,
it is fixed save for fuel burn. Did you mean load transfer?


As I am in the process of building a new canard I am going to
reinforce
from BL00 to BL21 plus ultrasound spars before using (may be
unnecessary but a
whole lot easier to do at this stage than after assembled).
Smart move! Without some really smart jigging and equipment
internal ultrasound after construction is unlikely to be practical.

It would help the cause greatly if you could perform a careful
visual inspection inside and out at the BL12 location for the spars
and report your findings. If you see any damage at all, it would be
very help to photograph it as a reference for future boroscopic
examinations. It would also be be invaluable if you find a flaw and
are able to obtain an ultrasonic signature for your flaw.

Keep us posted.


John


Mike Perry <dmperry1012@...>
 

At 08:17 AM 5/24/2005 +0000, John ten Have wrote:

[snip for clarity] I {Mike Perry} wrote:

Question: If the failure is due to damage induced by the test
apparatus,
would this be damage to the Carbon Fiber or damage to the spar
core? If
the carbon matrix, could we simply apply a carbon-fiber spar cap?

Damage to carbon resin matrix, there is no spar core. You could
design a carbon spar cap. . . .
From what I was told by the only local Q-200 builder I thought the spar
had some sort of center foam structure. That may or may not be
true. However, Jim Patillo indicated there were two kinds of spars in his
article in issue 87:
". . . there were two kinds of carbon spars made for the Q200. One built
by Larry Howell from Dallas, Texas and another spiral wound spar built in
California somewhere. My information according to Scott Swing and Larry
Howell is that the spar failures were with spiral wound units and not the
mandrel wrapped autoclave versions that Larry made. The spiral wrap is
black and the autoclave version is yellow or orange colored, I
think. Larry put on an outer color for sanding purposes."

This raises several interesting questions, the key one being: Can we
identify a subset of spars that require more careful inspection and
replacement? To Jim and James, can you tell us anything identifying about
the spars, esp. external color?

Thanks to all -- Mike Perry


Sam Kittle
 

I bought a set of spars from Larry Howell with the knowledge that one
had damage (cracks approximately 22" from the large end running toward
the small end). The spar was also without any wrap when received. I
repaired this spar by performing a 45 degree BID wrap from tip to tip, a
second BID wrap from the large end for 2/3's of the length and a
third wrap from the large end for 1/3 the length. I then hot-wired a
30" tapered plug from blue foam, covered the plug with Bid and pushed it
into the large end of the spar.

The big surprise was the yellow wrap on the supposedly good spar peeled
off as though peeling a banana.

Regards,
Sam

Mike Perry wrote:

At 08:17 AM 5/24/2005 +0000, John ten Have wrote:


[snip for clarity] I {Mike Perry} wrote:



Question: If the failure is due to damage induced by the test

apparatus,


would this be damage to the Carbon Fiber or damage to the spar

core? If


the carbon matrix, could we simply apply a carbon-fiber spar cap?

Damage to carbon resin matrix, there is no spar core. You could
design a carbon spar cap. . . .

From what I was told by the only local Q-200 builder I thought the spar
had some sort of center foam structure. That may or may not be
true. However, Jim Patillo indicated there were two kinds of spars in his
article in issue 87:
". . . there were two kinds of carbon spars made for the Q200. One built
by Larry Howell from Dallas, Texas and another spiral wound spar built in
California somewhere. My information according to Scott Swing and Larry
Howell is that the spar failures were with spiral wound units and not the
mandrel wrapped autoclave versions that Larry made. The spiral wrap is
black and the autoclave version is yellow or orange colored, I
think. Larry put on an outer color for sanding purposes."

This raises several interesting questions, the key one being: Can we
identify a subset of spars that require more careful inspection and
replacement? To Jim and James, can you tell us anything identifying about
the spars, esp. external color?

Thanks to all -- Mike Perry









Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links











damiantwinsport@...
 

John, in regard to your post ...
1: Ultrasound inspection has come a long way there are now multiple angle array transducers that do not use a liquid medium. There are also newer software and faster PCs that are able to read and translate sounding data into a 2D model.
2: Yes I did mean load transfer.
3: The control surface C section facing aft on the canard lends geometry to the part.
4: I agree there are angles that would be hard or impossible to scan ,but I am most interested in the Z direction view @ 12 oclock


Regards,
Damian Gregory N8427 Q200

-----Original Message-----
From: JohntenHave <Jtenhave@...>
To: Q-LIST@...
Sent: Tue, 24 May 2005 22:32:09 -0000
Subject: [Q-LIST] Re: BROKEN SPAR


Damian,


--- In Q-LIST@..., damiantwinsport@a... wrote:
In regard to inspection a load test IMHO would not reveal a hidden
flaw
neccessarily.

You are right that no single load test on a built up airframe will
absolutely guarentee structural integrity but it would check that
load case and the flaw orientations which are susceptable to this
test. The trick here is to try and develop checks that would cover
the other options.


neither would a tap test. A more sophisticated NDT method on the
other hand
would or shall I say should. Ultrasound would reveal an anomaly in
the
structure starting at BL5 and continued to BL16 in an X Y
direction, which should be
round about the fuse to canard mating zone,

For the same reasons this cannot be an absolute guarentee if the
flaw is buried within the canard structure i.e. 7 - 11 oclock on a
RH canard looking outboard. The center of the spar is a void and
ultrasound needs a solid or liquid medium to conduct.


Something to consider.... the canard spar is unsupported between
these
regions and they are within the center of mass transfer on
landing,

It is also similarly "unsupported" (if you ignore the contribution
of the canard skins) outboard..... The center of mass does not move,
it is fixed save for fuel burn. Did you mean load transfer?


As I am in the process of building a new canard I am going to
reinforce
from BL00 to BL21 plus ultrasound spars before using (may be
unnecessary but a
whole lot easier to do at this stage than after assembled).
Smart move! Without some really smart jigging and equipment
internal ultrasound after construction is unlikely to be practical.

It would help the cause greatly if you could perform a careful
visual inspection inside and out at the BL12 location for the spars
and report your findings. If you see any damage at all, it would be
very help to photograph it as a reference for future boroscopic
examinations. It would also be be invaluable if you find a flaw and
are able to obtain an ultrasonic signature for your flaw.

Keep us posted.


John









Quickie Builders Association WEB site
http://www.quickiebuilders.org


Yahoo! Groups Links