[RAA-N] RE: National Digest, Vol 23, Issue 16

[Rob Prior (rv7)]

On 6:54:41 2006-03-16 "Dave Herron" <drherron at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Last year I started  looking at the idea of a wood plane without my
> jaundice eyed ignorant glasses; some convinced me that wood was in
> fact one of the best ways to build, as a medium, as a method and
> perhaps for economics, time notwithstanding.

Other benefits:  Generally a wooden airpane will be quieter in cruise, as
the structure absorbs vibrations much better than a comparable aluminum
aircraft (A lot of the noise in a Cessna or RV comes from the vibration of
aluminum panels, or direct transmission of engine noise through the rigid
aluminum structure).  A wooden airplane is generally more crash-survivable,
as the wood structure will absorb an impact better than a metal structure
on a comparable aircraft.

> In this case the plane ran off the runway and banged up a
> wing and landing gear; I am told its fixable...

Everything is fixable, with enough time and money.  :)  If nothing else,
you could remove the wing and either rebuild it or completely replace it. 
But it's not clear that replacement is necessary from your brief
description.

> My fiend here had a friend back where we used to live who
> ground-looped a plane, shrugged it off and did his last circuit ever;
> the inference being, "Don't buy a wood plane that has had even a
> minor(?) incident if you want your wings to stay on!

Sounds to me like a typical FOAF (Friend-Of-A-Friend) story from someone
who wants to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt).  The nicest and
most forgiving aircraft that I have ever flown were made of wood, i'm sure
many here would agree.

> So am I missing a deal or being prudent?

Without more detail about the specific aircraft in question, it's not
possible to say.  But don't dismiss the aircraft just because it's made of
wood.  Find someone you know who has built a wooden aircraft, and take them
to look at it.

-Rob