PAU 36% Edge 540 Build

[tailstrike4]

Thanks Wylier, but I don't have anything to put a wing on

[wylieruneyjr]

I Killed mine doing a WIDE OPEN THROTTLE wall on high rates. I just wished I was good enough a pilot to have landed with one wing, But I panicked and pull the wrong way on rudder at high rates. Once the nose dropped it was too late to correct. Dam I miss that plane. It had the best slow flight characteristics. Aileron control below stall speed. How long did you have yours for.

[tailstrike4]

I had it a year this Feb.
I liked mine too flew it a lot, flew it in two contests last year in Basic one at St. George, UT and Camarillo, CA.
Had been practicing sportsman for this year, I did notice a bump in the top of the left wing about two weeks ago on inspection I saw that the third or fourth rib (not sure which one now) had split.
So I cut a hole in the bottom of the wing pushed the split together epoxied a litht ply strip accros the split patched the hole and checked it after every flight after that.
Everything was fine till the wing failed on the inverted push to vertical.
Larry S

[sweetpea]

Same wing failed?

If so might have been more damage or your fix wasn't good enough

Sorry for the crash, Glad you got a year on it though....I didn't get that long on my AW260 I lost.

[tailstrike4]

Yea bummer, they do all have expiration dates just some are longer than others (or shorter)
Yea it was the same wing that failed.

[sweetpea]

Did you tell PAU about the wing when it intially broke?

I hope to sell every plane I have before its expiration date! My 32% Su-26 only made 5 flights before I lost that one......that was a very sad day.

[tailstrike4]

No I just repaired it
The particular rib was a course grain and on one of the grain lines it opened up.
I saw a raised place in the covering and when I looked in the sing you could see the rib had split.
I did a good repair job, cut a hole in the bottom of the wing so I could get in there and do a good job.
There were other issued with that wing, the sheeting joints had come loose too.
You could see the seems under the covering and when you press on one side you could see one side go down and the other side stay up.
I reall feal that the wings (or that wing) wasn't glued very well.

[wylieruneyjr]

[quote=tailstrike4;1014227]Thanks for the simpthy guys.
As I pushed over for the 45 I pulled the throttle back to idle, even so the wing should'nt have failed.
What if you do a wall or a water fall where there is negative G's on the wing, I don't know I just don't beleve the wing should have failed like that.
I have only had the plane about a year and have not abused it at all.
I'll tell you the walk of shame was tuff


We all take that walk, it just means were normal.

[Flyfalcons]

	Quote: Originally Posted by tailstrike4
	What if you do a wall or a water fall where there is negative G's on the wing, I don't know I just don't beleve the wing should have failed like that.

A waterfall is a stalled maneuver that imposes very little stress on the wings. A wall (positive or negative), or parachute, are maneuvers that can be very hard on aircraft if entered at too high of a speed. These maneuvers should always be done at less than a moderate speed, to give the aircraft a chance to stall before too much load is imposed on the wings. The ability to impose G-forces on an aircraft before it stalls is proportional to speed: The higher speed you are flying at, the easier it is to overstress an aircraft before it stalls. The Edge is a design that is inherently difficult to tip stall, and has a very low unloaded (level flight) stall speed. These traits make it very possible to strain the aircraft past its design limits when flown at higher speeds. The flip-flopping 3D maneuvers many of us enjoy make look very violent, but due to their low energy levels, they are placing less stress on the plane than even some of the simpler IMAC style maneuvers. Additionally, it is possible to overstress a plane, causing damage, but not failure. This damage may come in the form of raised sheeting, broken ribs, etc. If a damaged wing is noticed, it is important to fix the wing fully, as all the load limit design parameters before failure no longer apply. A damaged wing can fail under conditions that it is otherwise fully capable of handling.

Enclosed is a pic of a typical V-G diagram. While the speeds listed aren't directly related to this particular plane, it does show in graphical form what I've been describing.

[Wild Thang]

I personally think an Edge's wing is stressed more in a snaproll versus a plane that has tapered wings. More force is being applied at the tips, but much farther forward. When this happens you have more "wash out" (as airliners wings do during take off and landings). People who really utilize the elevator and throttle in a snap roll are really asking for trouble, and can be true with any airframe. So with an Edge fly your sequence a little slower and draw your lines out. And if your rocking a two blade, you honestly don't need to be on the throttle at all during a 45 downline. The PAU Edge has fairly generous tail feathers and shouldn't take a whole lot of speed to lock it in.

This is just my oppinion, Hope it helps.


Matt Thomas

[astrohog]

I've got hundreds of flights on mine and it is two years old. I definately put mine through the "stress test" the first year I had it as I wasn't used to this size of a plane (I'd been flying 50cc). My flying buddies used to tell me I had to mellow the sticks on the bigger planes. I do practice that now and this Edge is still by far my favorite of all time! It will still do everything I ask of it (and more, as Flyfalcons has wrung mine out more than once! ).

I think the lesson to be learned here is to LISTEN to our planes. They have their own language, and it takes some getting to know, but sometimes they will send us little clues. I know I will be more diligent in looking for signs of stress in the future!

Sorry about your loss Larry, we all feel your pain! Keep your chin up!

Regards,

astrohog

[Scotte 540]

	Quote: Originally Posted by astrohog
	I think the lesson to be learned here is to LISTEN to our planes. They have their own language, and it takes some getting to know, but sometimes they will send us little clues. I know I will be more diligent in looking for signs of stress in the future! astrohog

Well put Astrohog,,,,,,,I'm sure there are some wings glued better than others, that thought crosses my mind whenever I fly GS now and knife edge is always practiced

[bryandraves]

	Quote: Originally Posted by tailstrike4
	No he didn't offer any comp. Just said how sorry he was. Larry S

Not too start an arguement but if an owner says they are reinforcing the wings wouldnt this say that there is a problem? This was a big factor in my decision not to go with an edge for my next project. While I am sure they fly great and many people are enjoying them but I can't see that these wing failures are all pilot error.

[astrohog]

	Quote:
	Not too start an arguement but if an owner says they are reinforcing the wings wouldnt this say that there is a problem? This was a big factor in my decision not to go with an edge for my next project. While I am sure they fly great and many people are enjoying them but I can't see that these wing failures are all pilot error.

Did you read ALL the posts here? He has had this plane and flown many flights for a year. He noticed some stress fractures and attempted to fix the ones he saw (there very possibly could have been more that went unseen?).

How long would you expect a manufacturer to warranty a plane for? 2 years?... 3 years?.... REALLY?

I don't know of ANY company that will warranty an item that has been tampered with (repaired?) by anyone other than the manufacturer themselves and there is good reason for this.

Remember, these are wood airplanes, subject to many different stresses and by different pilots and flying styles. They WILL and DO fatigue over time.

The fact that the owner of PAU said he will look into a re-design of the wings for future planes is a sign that he IS listening to customers and adapting his products to allow for those that are potentially a little heavy-handed on the sticks.

I would venture that a VERY SMALL percentage of these planes have experienced failure of any kind in relation to the ones that are still flying without any issues, but that the few that have had problems were vocal on this website about their troubles.

Here are a couple questions to ask yourself:

1. How long do you think ARF manufacturers should warrant their product for? (remember, these ARE fairly fragile toys and just by nature of what we do with them are subject to a fair amount of abuse!)

2. How DO you quantify what constitutes pilot error or a structural issue? (put yourself in the owners shoes)(surely we have all seen guys at the field pull a no-no and crash and STILL want to blame one of numerous other failures!)

Please don't misunderstand my post, either! I am NOT looking for a nuclear war here, just pointing out some issues that I think are important to consider to be prudent to both sides!

Regards,

Astrohog

[bryandraves]

	Quote: Originally Posted by astrohog
	Did you read ALL the posts here? He has had this plane and flown many flights for a year. He noticed some stress fractures and attempted to fix the ones he saw (there very possibly could have been more that went unseen?). How long would you expect a manufacturer to warranty a plane for? 2 years?... 3 years?.... REALLY? I don't know of ANY company that will warranty an item that has been tampered with (repaired?) by anyone other than the manufacturer themselves and there is good reason for this. Remember, these are wood airplanes, subject to many different stresses and by different pilots and flying styles. They WILL and DO fatigue over time. The fact that the owner of PAU said he will look into a re-design of the wings for future planes is a sign that he IS listening to customers and adapting his products to allow for those that are potentially a little heavy-handed on the sticks. I would venture that a VERY SMALL percentage of these planes have experienced failure of any kind in relation to the ones that are still flying without any issues, but that the few that have had problems were vocal on this website about their troubles. Here are a couple questions to ask yourself: 1. How long do you think ARF manufacturers should warrant their product for? (remember, these ARE fairly fragile toys and just by nature of what we do with them are subject to a fair amount of abuse!) 2. How DO you quantify what constitutes pilot error or a structural issue? (put yourself in the owners shoes)(surely we have all seen guys at the field pull a no-no and crash and STILL want to blame one of numerous other failures!) Please don't misunderstand my post, either! I am NOT looking for a nuclear war here, just pointing out some issues that I think are important to consider to be prudent to both sides! Regards, Astrohog

Touche' I stand corrected astro