Oyster Problems?

[minaret]

Originally Posted by neilpride

They survey the boat again and a ultrasound test is conducted in the laminate, the Oyster structural designer in charge in place, nothing wrong found,,, amazing!!!
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jix6qieym...02014.pdf?dl=0




Jesus froking crist.,,, they drill holes in the 5 mm stub partitions and the thicknes are as expected... Cant believe what I read....
Who is Harvey Jones Technical Director...

Just wow! They have painted themselves into a corner with that. It's either the laminate schedule is as expected, move along, no problem here; or, their chemical engineer admits the laminate schedule is completely insufficient and they carry all responsibility.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by jmaja

What would you say about a plane that had hit its wing into something solid every now and then and keeps flying without a thorough inspection and possible repair needed?

There are quite a few planes that have lost their wings in an accident.

So its never ever only in normal flying conditions with very thorough inspection/repair after every accident or abnormal condition.

Wich Jet Liner company have a wing break record? American? KLM?

As far I know there is not any such accident in normal flight conditions, regarding wings.... maybe I'm wrong, but the whole point of my previous post is the kind of regulations regarding Jet liners and their construction , safety in mind, what kind of safety in mind motto have those boat builders playing with scantlings and the Dam profit?? I wonder...

[Panope]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Excellent, yes .... No matter what ,,,since is a live or dead situation,
Kind of Jet Liners never ever can loose a wing,, and if it happen that particular plane is subject to a extensive investigation, if they found a faulty design, material or improper maintenance , they fine the company...
Ground the whole fleet, and rectify the issue in the future , something boat builders are free from this kind of regulations at the moment,,,

Neil: Actually, with the exception of some aerobatic and perhaps some military aircraft, aircraft structures can be overloaded and torn away simply by a pilot applying too much control input. An airliner that is built strong enough to survive full control deflection at cruise speed would be so heavy that the payload/range would be totally unacceptable.

Personally, I believe that private cruising yachts can afford the performance penalty of having primary structure that: Will. Not. Fall. Off. No. Matter. What.

Unfortunately, Jet liners are far more weight sensitive and we have to trust that the pilots: Do. Not. F#@k. Up. No. Matter. What.

Steve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

"Terrorism was officially ruled out as the cause by the National Transportation Safety Board, which instead attributed the disaster to the first officer's overuse of rudder controls in response to wake turbulence or jet wash from a Japan Airlines Boeing 747-400 that took off minutes before it. According to the NTSB, this aggressive use of the rudder controls by the co-pilot caused the vertical stabilizer to snap off the plane. The plane's two engines also separated from the aircraft before it hit the ground."

[Cap Erict3]

Originally Posted by minaret

Here in the states, when installed on small boats, they are generally known by the manufacturers name. That's a Freeman hatch to me, and I have installed many on small sail boats. Perhaps it helps to live somewhere where that sort of weather is fairly common?







Cast and Fabricated Marine Hatches: Freeman Marine

Point taken.




Never use a hundred words when 3 will carry the message.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by Panope

Neil: Actually, with the exception of some aerobatic and perhaps some military aircraft, aircraft structures can be overloaded and torn away simply by a pilot applying too much control input. An airliner that is built strong enough to survive full control deflection at cruise speed would be so heavy that the payload/range would be totally unacceptable.

Personally, I believe that private cruising yachts can afford the performance penalty of having primary structure that: Will. Not. Fall. Off. No. Matter. What.

Unfortunately, Jet liners are far more weight sensitive and we have to trust that the pilots: Do. Not. F#@k. Up. No. Matter. What.

Steve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

"Terrorism was officially ruled out as the cause by the National Transportation Safety Board, which instead attributed the disaster to the first officer's overuse of rudder controls in response to wake turbulence or jet wash from a Japan Airlines Boeing 747-400 that took off minutes before it. According to the NTSB, this aggressive use of the rudder controls by the co-pilot caused the vertical stabilizer to snap off the plane. The plane's two engines also separated from the aircraft before it hit the ground."

Nah, I don't agree, the investigation report from that accident show composite lugs torn away , not the titanium not the aluminium... but the point remain, airliner builders spend fortunes with safety in mind,, I will say Planes today are much safer than in the past, still I cant found a Plane who loose a wing in normal flight conditions, this issue remind me the McDonnell Douglas infamous DC10 in the early days, a plane plagued with defects, just after hundreds of victims the builder rectify the isues, and sad,, almost send the Firm to the bankruptcy...

In the picture show a Airbus A 350 wing deflection test.. just figurate..

So, with the boat industry something happen in the wrong direction , instead of make boats safer , they make boats for the throw away minimum standar , minimum requirements market sector, and I'm not pointing Oyster in this case , then and this is really funy, we have all of those EC A , ISSO big pile of dogshit sucking a part of the cake,,, Some builders take the new technology and materials and make really wonderful
boats , others just see a way to increase profit doing Crap and selling the product like Wowww!! I guess those stupid Vampires looking in how to squeeze to the last cent in a production line at the cost of the quality cant think for just one second that there is familys and real persons crossing oceans.

[poiu]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Worth to read this blog, with fresh pictures from Polina Star.
http://www.google.es/url?sa=t&rct=j&...ECTrxUooPtSk3w

A lot of discussion there involves the looseness of the bolts, yet they were not the part that failed. Would it not be expected to be tightening up the bolts in the first year after new to allow for shrinkage in the sealant?

That said, to have the gap appear again so soon isn't right I believe. I wonder if the repeated growth of the crack is a clue as to the nature of the failure. If the laminate had inadequate resin content it would gradually compress in time under the massive load of the bolts allowing the keel/stub gap to reappear and whilst the boat didn't fail here, the inadequate and weak fiberglass structure that was present was also to be found in the parts that did fail. As far as I can see Oyster didn't do an analysis of the layup strength, with no comment on resin content. They weren't looking in this area.

Perhaps this failing was coupled with the inadequate web reinforcement design, allowing an inadequate safety margin, compounded by maybe inadequate part bonding due to errors in timing of the resin setting in the assembly of the keel stub parts. The combination of all this being disastrous.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by poiu

A lot of discussion there involves the looseness of the bolts, yet they were not the part that failed. Would it not be expected to be tightening up the bolts in the first year after new to allow for shrinkage in the sealant?

That said, to have the gap appear again so soon isn't right I believe. I wonder if the repeated growth of the crack is a clue as to the nature of the failure. If the laminate had inadequate resin content it would gradually compress in time under the massive load of the bolts allowing the keel/stub gap to reappear and whilst the boat didn't fail here, the inadequate and weak fiberglass structure that was present was also to be found in the parts that did fail. As far as I can see Oyster didn't do an analysis of the layup strength, with no comment on resin content. They weren't looking in this area.

Perhaps this failing was coupled with the inadequate web reinforcement design, allowing an inadequate safety margin, compounded by maybe inadequate part bonding due to errors in timing of the resin setting in the assembly of the keel stub parts. The combination of all this being disastrous.

As far I see from the Russian pics is 45 mm in the bottom of the stub and 15 mm in the rest, so plenty of glass in the bottom, the main concern from me is why they don't test cut out samples in a laboratory?

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Wich Jet Liner company have a wing break record? American? KLM?

As far I know there is not any such accident in normal flight conditions, regarding wings.... maybe I'm wrong, but the whole point of my previous post is the kind of regulations regarding Jet liners and their construction , safety in mind, what kind of safety in mind motto have those boat builders playing with scantlings and the Dam profit?? I wonder...

Planes loose their wings in accidents sometimes, very very seldom in normal flight conditions. Boats loose their keels very very seldom. If you exclude pure racing boats (like you would figthers), how many keel loses there are in normal sailing conditions? How many of those had had previous accidents without thorough inspection/repair.

I would say Oyster is one of the extremely few cases where a non-racer lost a keel without any groundings. I don't actually know any other one. Maybe Bavaria 42 Match, but I think it was never proven whether it had grounded before or not. But it was obvious the structure was going to fail sooner or later.

The problem I see in your argument is that you suggest that boats should handle several, even hard, groundings and that should be regarded as "normal sailing conditions". While at the same time with planes every small accident is taken very seriously and the plane is expected to be thoroughly inspected and repaired before the next flight.

I don't agree that groundings are normal sailin conditions. They do happen more often than accidents to planes, but still not normal. So I think it is OK for a boat to need a repair after a "hard" grounding as long as the safety of the crew is not at risk after a single grounding. The open question to me is how hard grounding a boat should tolerate without any damage (except for the dent in keel). I would say that depends on the boat you are after.

The problem with the boat industry is that boats are cheap (compared to planes) and they are made in very small series (compared to cars). Thus it is not possible to use billions for design as it is used for every car or plane model. Not even at AC or VOR.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by jmaja

Planes loose their wings in accidents sometimes, very very seldom in normal flight conditions. Boats loose their keels very very seldom. If you exclude pure racing boats (like you would figthers), how many keel loses there are in normal sailing conditions? How many of those had had previous accidents without thorough inspection/repair.

I would say Oyster is one of the extremely few cases where a non-racer lost a keel without any groundings. I don't actually know any other one. Maybe Bavaria 42 Match, but I think it was never proven whether it had grounded before or not. But it was obvious the structure was going to fail sooner or later.

The problem I see in your argument is that you suggest that boats should handle several, even hard, groundings and that should be regarded as "normal sailing conditions". While at the same time with planes every small accident is taken very seriously and the plane is expected to be thoroughly inspected and repaired before the next flight.

I don't agree that groundings are normal sailin conditions. They do happen more often than accidents to planes, but still not normal. So I think it is OK for a boat to need a repair after a "hard" grounding as long as the safety of the crew is not at risk after a single grounding. The open question to me is how hard grounding a boat should tolerate without any damage (except for the dent in keel). I would say that depends on the boat you are after.

The problem with the boat industry is that boats are cheap (compared to planes) and they are made in very small series (compared to cars). Thus it is not possible to use billions for design as it is used for every car or plane model. Not even at AC or VOR.

I would agree with most of this. The problem is that many of the newer designs suffer serious damage from even soft groundings, or even just from pounding when sailing to windward. You can forget the dent in the keel when most of them are made of cast iron these days instead of lead! Which of course just transfers the load (and the damage) to more expensive areas of the boat to fix.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by jmaja

Planes loose their wings in accidents sometimes, very very seldom in normal flight conditions. Boats loose their keels very very seldom. If you exclude pure racing boats (like you would figthers), how many keel loses there are in normal sailing conditions? How many of those had had previous accidents without thorough inspection/repair.

I would say Oyster is one of the extremely few cases where a non-racer lost a keel without any groundings. I don't actually know any other one. Maybe Bavaria 42 Match, but I think it was never proven whether it had grounded before or not. But it was obvious the structure was going to fail sooner or later.

The problem I see in your argument is that you suggest that boats should handle several, even hard, groundings and that should be regarded as "normal sailing conditions". While at the same time with planes every small accident is taken very seriously and the plane is expected to be thoroughly inspected and repaired before the next flight.

I don't agree that groundings are normal sailin conditions. They do happen more often than accidents to planes, but still not normal. So I think it is OK for a boat to need a repair after a "hard" grounding as long as the safety of the crew is not at risk after a single grounding. The open question to me is how hard grounding a boat should tolerate without any damage (except for the dent in keel). I would say that depends on the boat you are after.

The problem with the boat industry is that boats are cheap (compared to planes) and they are made in very small series (compared to cars). Thus it is not possible to use billions for design as it is used for every car or plane model. Not even at AC or VOR.

For me, a wing is subject to flexing , shaking, in a touchdown the wing is again flexed, shaked, etc... they deal with turbulences, extreme tempt, they hold the engines... I will call all this forces normal for a wing designed for comercial operations.. same for a keel to me, if is not designed to take groundings as normal incidents in the life of a boat and compromising a safe voyage , then for me is just designed to have a repair facility near,,

Who say boat builders are made in small series? ask Beneteau...
Cheap? ask Swan, or in this case Oyster,
No Billions for Safety? sure, they want profit...
And we don't talk about billions here, how many times we see a problem in a boat where just a small increase in the final product price fix lots of isues..

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by neilpride

They survey the boat again and a ultrasound test is conducted in the laminate, the Oyster structural designer in charge in place, nothing wrong found,,, amazing!!!
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jix6qieym...02014.pdf?dl=0




Jesus froking crist.,,, they drill holes in the 5 mm stub partitions and the thicknes are as expected... Cant believe what I read....
Who is Harvey Jones Technical Director...

Here are the conclusions:



The keel moving around was a "cosmetic issue"?

A peer-reviewed conclusion?

Something doesn't seem right with this.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by minaret

I would agree with most of this. The problem is that many of the newer designs suffer serious damage from even soft groundings, or even just from pounding when sailing to windward. You can forget the dent in the keel when most of them are made of cast iron these days instead of lead! Which of course just transfers the load (and the damage) to more expensive areas of the boat to fix.

Speaking strictly as a layman, I would agree with much of what jmaja posted too. But the other problem I see is that boats aren't subject to the type of maintenance & inspection regimen that accompanies the aviation or even the automotive industry, there don't seem to be standards that are practicable for educating the consumer, and serious boat failures are often fixed at the nearest available yard and not always accounted for. But notwithstanding, there is a broad spectrum of boats that may be more or less suitable for extended offshore passagemaking, but they are all given the CE Cat A seal of approval. Unless you are an industry pro or very well educated on the topic, you wouldn't have any idea.

At the same time, I'm not suggesting that all the Cat A rated boats need to be built to withstand worse case scenarios. I understand that a big part of the market is what Polux chooses, namely a bigger emphasis on lightweight & performance, and sailing generally confined to safer, well-charted waters. What I mainly find troubling is the lack of disclosure of the trade-offs an average boat buyer should be aware of.

[neilpride]

I don't understand , is that the final conclusions from Oyster? or the previous one before Polina Start loose the keel?

[jmaja]

Originally Posted by neilpride

Who say boat builders are made in small series? ask Beneteau...
Cheap? ask Swan, or in this case Oyster,
No Billions for Safety? sure, they want profit...
And we don't talk about billions here, how many times we see a problem in a boat where just a small increase in the final product price fix lots of isues..

Beneteau makes about one thousand of each model in its lifetime (less for +40'), which is very small series compared to cars and probably even to most planes.

Swan and Oyster are very cheap compared to any commercial plane and they are made in much smaller series from one offs to a few tens.

Designing a new car or a plane takes several years and includes a large group of people and a lot of practical testing. I know production boats that have been designed in two weeks by a single person. Beneteau and Oyster do it probably in about half a year including a few people.

[JPA Cate]

The preliminary report from the surveyors hired by Capt. Connoni and the owner mentions that layup samples were taken from certain areas. At the time of the writing of the preliminary report, those results were not there.

Thank you neilpride, for posting those links. I felt quite pleased that the results of the survey supported Capt. Connoni's statement that the vessel had not been grounded while under sail. Clearly, it was "grounded" in the Caribbean when they were still troubleshooting the keel movement problem.

I'm sure polux knows far more than me about the construction of new types of boats, so for me, your posting the links has increased my understanding, partly of the construction, but also as to the denial of the problem by the builder.

Thank you very much.

Ann