I note that a downwind flight of over 300 km from Parowan to just
south of Provo, Utah, by a Sparrowhawk has appeared on OLC.

This is the first decent cross-country flight I've seen using this
ship.

Comments?

Mike the Strike wrote:
> I note that a downwind flight of over 300 km from Parowan to just
> south of Provo, Utah, by a Sparrowhawk has appeared on OLC.
>
> This is the first decent cross-country flight I've seen using this
> ship.
>
> Comments?
>

This is on the News section of the Sparrowhawk website:

September 6, 2006 - Long SparrowHawk flights in California
Three SparrowHawk pilots fly over 500K flights during the Western
Division ESA Workshop held in Tehachapi, CA. Flying conditions were
superb over the Owens Valley.

On May 3, 12:24 pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> I note that a downwind flight of over 300 km from Parowan to just
> south of Provo, Utah, by a Sparrowhawk has appeared on OLC.
>
> This is the first decent cross-country flight I've seen using this
> ship.
>
> Comments?

Uhh, guess you're not looking too hard :-) Bill Thar has done a
number of very credible flights in the Sparrowhawk of 300km or more.
You can find them on OLC. http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/getScoring.html?scoringId=200&pilotId=11117

I also know that a Sparrowhawk holds the US free triangle distance
record at over 500K in the ultralight glider class with Gary Osaba at
the helm.

I've been flying with the Sparrowhawk at Blairstown a fair amount
lately, and I'm blown away at how incredibly good this thing is
considering it weighs less than my old Schwinn (okay not really) and
has less than a 12 meter span (really). I would say it is at least
as good as first generation glass (LS1, ASW-15, etc.) at all of the
speed ranges we typically fly, plus it climbs like crazy. It
simply blows the doors off a PW-5 in all respects.

I have no commercial or other interest in the ship; I just think it's
nice to see someone innovate to this level and wish Windward lots of
success.

Erik Mann
(LS8-18 P3)

On May 3, 10:39 am, Papa3 > wrote:

It simply blows the doors off a PW-5 in all respects.

Would you include crash worthiness? I looked at one and sat in it. I
was impressed by how frail the cockpit and canopy seemed to be. Of
course I'm comparing it to my ASW-28 not a hang glider, but do you
really think it's a crash worthy as a PW5?


Andy

On May 3, 7:03 pm, Andy > wrote:
> On May 3, 10:39 am, Papa3 > wrote:
>
> It simply blows the doors off a PW-5 in all respects.
>
> Would you include crash worthiness? I looked at one and sat in it. I
> was impressed by how frail the cockpit and canopy seemed to be. Of
> course I'm comparing it to my ASW-28 not a hang glider, but do you
> really think it's a crash worthy as a PW5?
>
> Andy

Andy,

Setting a pretty low bar there aren't ya :-) ? The couple of times
I've looked at some of the structures of damaged or wrecked PW-5s I
was not overly impressed.

Anyway, I quote the following from the Windward specs: "Fuselage
cockpit cell utilizes four carbon longerons with four transverse
bulkheads in addition to the carbon monocoque shell for crash
protection." Given what I've seen with some of the slick
engineering that went into the ship, I have to believe they took more
than a casual interest in cockpit safety.

P3

Ummmm...who crashes anyways? ;)

Like they say, any landing you walk away from is a good landing. A
great landing is one where you can still use the plane.



Andy wrote:
> On May 3, 10:39 am, Papa3 > wrote:
>
> It simply blows the doors off a PW-5 in all respects.
>
> Would you include crash worthiness? I looked at one and sat in it. I
> was impressed by how frail the cockpit and canopy seemed to be. Of
> course I'm comparing it to my ASW-28 not a hang glider, but do you
> really think it's a crash worthy as a PW5?
>
>
> Andy
>
>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

On May 3, 4:03 pm, Andy > wrote:
> On May 3, 10:39 am, Papa3 > wrote:
>
> It simply blows the doors off a PW-5 in all respects.
>
> Would you include crash worthiness? I looked at one and sat in it. I
> was impressed by how frail the cockpit and canopy seemed to be. Of
> course I'm comparing it to my ASW-28 not a hang glider, but do you
> really think it's a crash worthy as a PW5?
>
> Andy

Andy how would you compare the inertia of your ASW-28 to that of the
Sparrowhawk?

George

On May 4, 12:27 am, bikensoar > wrote:
>
> Andy how would you compare the inertia of your ASW-28 to that of the
> Sparrowhawk?

Obviously it's higher. I think the original comparison was with PW5
in which case the difference would be smaller. Sparrow Hawk max GW is
415lb and PW-5 660lb. You asked about inertia but isn't kinetic
energy is more relevant to crash survivability. Speed depends more on
the accident type than the aircraft type and in a higher speed
accident may be more important than the mass.

Andy

On May 4, 8:07 am, Andy > wrote:
> On May 4, 12:27 am, bikensoar > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Andy how would you compare the inertia of your ASW-28 to that of the
> > Sparrowhawk?
>
> Obviously it's higher. I think the original comparison was with PW5
> in which case the difference would be smaller. Sparrow Hawk max GW is
> 415lb and PW-5 660lb. You asked about inertia but isn't kinetic
> energy is more relevant to crash survivability. Speed depends more on
> the accident type than the aircraft type and in a higher speed
> accident may be more important than the mass.
>
> Andy

You are right about the speed factor. If it is going to be a high
speed, high
energy crash in a Sparrowhawk the obvious answer is the ballistic
chute.
Having a ballistic chute for the entire aircraft, IMHO, makes the
Sparrowhawk
the safest glider out there.

George