Open Class Super-Ship from Windward Performance

[Magnus Johansson]

http://windward-performance.com/open-class-limited-super-ship/

I like it!

[Bill D]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 2:04:26 AM UTC-6, Magnus Johansson wrote:
> http://windward-performance.com/open-class-limited-super-ship/
>
>
>
> I like it!

OK, I think I'll buy a lottery ticket.

However...while super ships are neat, what we really need is 400 affordable 2-seat trainers.

[[email protected]]

>
> OK, I think I'll buy a lottery ticket.
>
>
>
> However...while super ships are neat, what we really need is 400 affordable 2-seat trainers.

Something like this?
http://windward-performance.com/twin-high-performance-sailplane/

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 3, 7:31*am, wrote:
> > OK, I think I'll buy a lottery ticket.
>
> > However...while super ships are neat, what we really need is 400 affordable 2-seat trainers.
>
> Something like this?http://windward-performance.com/twin-high-performance-sailplane/

That's a pretty neat looking two-seater, but at the price points
Windward has typically been working to, I rather doubt it will fall
within the bounds of "affordable." Also, it has a lot of features that
make it somewhat inappropriate for the ab-initio audience that Bill
needs trainers for.

Here's what I would propose for an affordable two-seat trainer:

http://www.hpaircraft.com/two-seater/cover_shot-1.jpg

http://www.hpaircraft.com/two-seater/2-seater-side-by_2_public.pdf

More info available as the situation develops.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Bill D]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 8:57:41 AM UTC-6, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Aug 3, 7:31*am, wrote:
>
> > > OK, I think I'll buy a lottery ticket.
>
> >
>
> > > However...while super ships are neat, what we really need is 400 affordable 2-seat trainers.
>
> >
>
> > Something like this?http://windward-performance.com/twin-high-performance-sailplane/
>
>
>
> That's a pretty neat looking two-seater, but at the price points
>
> Windward has typically been working to, I rather doubt it will fall
>
> within the bounds of "affordable." Also, it has a lot of features that
>
> make it somewhat inappropriate for the ab-initio audience that Bill
>
> needs trainers for.
>
>
>
> Here's what I would propose for an affordable two-seat trainer:
>
>
>
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/two-seater/cover_shot-1.jpg
>
>
>
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/two-seater/2-seater-side-by_2_public.pdf
>
>
>
> More info available as the situation develops.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

As any airplane instructor can tell you, a trainer with side-by-side seating has a lot of advantages since the student can see the instructors hand gestures and hear the instructor better.

Some will worry about students transitioning from side-by-side to center line seating but way back when we flew the Pratt-Read's, no one had a problem with the transition.

One real consideration is everyone has to remember to add ballast to replace the instructor's weight when he steps out to solo the student.

Bill D

[christine anderson]

On Aug 3, 7:57*am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 7:31*am, wrote:
>
> > > OK, I think I'll buy a lottery ticket.
>
> > > However...while super ships are neat, what we really need is 400 affordable 2-seat trainers.
>
> > Something like this?http://windward-performance.com/twin-high-performance-sailplane/
>
> That's a pretty neat looking two-seater, but at the price points
> Windward has typically been working to, I rather doubt it will fall
> within the bounds of "affordable." Also, it has a lot of features that
> make it somewhat inappropriate for the ab-initio audience that Bill
> needs trainers for.
>
> Here's what I would propose for an affordable two-seat trainer:
>
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/two-seater/cover_shot-1.jpg
>
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/two-seater/2-seater-side-by_2_public.pdf
>
> More info available as the situation develops.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

Hi Bob:

Looks very nice. The side by side configuration is much more conducive
to teaching than tandem, and for an acceptable performance trade-off.
However, I would recommend making it wider based upon experience in my
side by side which is a little wider than what you show in your
drawing. At least another 6 inches might be worth considering.

Best Regards,

Gary Osoba

[Bill D]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 2:04:26 AM UTC-6, Magnus Johansson wrote:
> http://windward-performance.com/open-class-limited-super-ship/
>
>
>
> I like it!

Neat design.

However, I suspect a larger tail volume will be required for winch launch. Winch launch will be a necessity to keep training costs reasonable as tow plane operating costs continue to increase. The ASK-21 has superlative winch behavior partly because of its large horizontal tail.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:57:41 AM UTC-5, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Aug 3, 7:31*am, wrote: > > OK, I think I'll buy a lottery ticket. > > > However...while super ships are neat, what we really need is 400 affordable 2-seat trainers. > > Something like this?http://windward-performance.com/twin-high-performance-sailplane/ That's a pretty neat looking two-seater, but at the price points Windward has typically been working to, I rather doubt it will fall within the bounds of "affordable." Also, it has a lot of features that make it somewhat inappropriate for the ab-initio audience that Bill needs trainers for. Here's what I would propose for an affordable two-seat trainer: http://www.hpaircraft.com/two-seater/cover_shot-1.jpg http://www.hpaircraft.com/two-seater/2-seater-side-by_2_public.pdf More info available as the situation develops. Thanks, Bob K.

how affordable is affordable? type certified or kit built? going to be opening an engineering office in Wichita???

[[email protected]]

Den fredagen den 3:e augusti 2012 kl. 17:29:34 UTC+2 skrev Bill D:
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 2:04:26 AM UTC-6, Magnus Johansson wrote:
>
> > http://windward-performance.com/open-class-limited-super-ship/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I like it!
>
>
>
> Neat design.
>
>
>
> However, I suspect a larger tail volume will be required for winch launch.. Winch launch will be a necessity to keep training costs reasonable as tow plane operating costs continue to increase. The ASK-21 has superlative winch behavior partly because of its large horizontal tail.

I believe the Super-ship will be a SLG "jetturbine".

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 8:28:15 AM UTC-7, christine anderson wrote:

> Looks very nice. The side by side configuration is much more conducive
> to teaching than tandem, and for an acceptable performance trade-off.
> However, I would recommend making it wider based upon experience in my
> side by side which is a little wider than what you show in your
> drawing. At least another 6 inches might be worth considering.
>
> Best Regards,
> Gary Osoba

And, move one seat back a few inches so those of us with wider shoulders will have room to work. When can I put in my order? 8^)

Marc

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 3, 8:48*am, Tony > wrote:

> how affordable is affordable?

It's designed to hit $100,000 in 2010 dollars. That includes
convertible gear (nose roller and tail dragger), basic instruments,
removable nose and tail ballast, and open trailer.

> type certified or kit built?

Type certificated and built in series production. An experimental
glider of this size and shape would be economically and socially
unviable. This is a workhorse designed for operationality and
transposition rate, and engineered for ease of repair using common
composite materials.

There is also the ethical concern of carrying people who have not
necessarily made an informed decision to ride in a non-type-
certificated aircraft. I think that they deserve an aircraft that has
been tested to a higher standard than the typical kit aircraft.

> going to be opening an engineering office in Wichita???

I hadn't thought of that. Didn't they used to make airplanes there?

Thanks, Bob K.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:29:52 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> > type certified or kit built?
>
> Type certificated and built in series production. An experimental
> glider of this size and shape would be economically and socially
> unviable. This is a workhorse designed for operationality and
> transposition rate, and engineered for ease of repair using common
> composite materials.

Bob,

Why not LSA?

Marc

[Tony[_5_]]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 11:29:52 AM UTC-5, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Aug 3, 8:48*am, Tony > wrote: > how affordable is affordable? It's designed to hit $100,000 in 2010 dollars. That includes convertible gear (nose roller and tail dragger), basic instruments, removable nose and tail ballast, and open trailer. > type certified or kit built? Type certificated and built in series production. An experimental glider of this size and shape would be economically and socially unviable. This is a workhorse designed for operationality and transposition rate, and engineered for ease of repair using common composite materials. There is also the ethical concern of carrying people who have not necessarily made an informed decision to ride in a non-type- certificated aircraft. I think that they deserve an aircraft that has been tested to a higher standard than the typical kit aircraft. > going to be opening an engineering office in Wichita??? I hadn't thought of that. Didn't they used to make airplanes there? Thanks, Bob K.

Cool and Cool

You could always put a bid in for Hawker Beechcraft...get a nice 7000 ft runway, some big ovens for composites curing, and plenty of employees :)

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 3, 10:00*am, wrote:

> Why not LSA?

Marc, that's a good question. I think that by the time you develop an
aircraft that meets the LSA requirements, the extra effort to go to
Part 23 TC is not all that great. And the benefits are much greater
gross weight and no smoke-and-mirrors VNE. But I could be convinced
otherwise.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 12:06:01 PM UTC-5, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Aug 3, 10:00*am, wrote: > Why not LSA? Marc, that's a good question. I think that by the time you develop an aircraft that meets the LSA requirements, the extra effort to go to Part 23 TC is not all that great. And the benefits are much greater gross weight and no smoke-and-mirrors VNE. But I could be convinced otherwise. Thanks, Bob K.

there are export advantages to not being LSA...as Cessna has learned with the Skycatcher, with which they are pursuing Primary category certification so it can get certified overseas. Yes I expect you to be supplying the european market with trainers in 10 years :)

This will be the HP-48???

[[email protected]]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:29:52 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Aug 3, 8:48*am, Tony > wrote: > how affordable is affordable? It's designed to hit $100,000 in 2010 dollars. That includes convertible gear (nose roller and tail dragger), basic instruments, removable nose and tail ballast, and open trailer. > type certified or kit built? Type certificated and built in series production. An experimental glider of this size and shape would be economically and socially unviable. This is a workhorse designed for operationality and transposition rate, and engineered for ease of repair using common composite materials. There is also the ethical concern of carrying people who have not necessarily made an informed decision to ride in a non-type- certificated aircraft. I think that they deserve an aircraft that has been tested to a higher standard than the typical kit aircraft. > going to be opening an engineering office in Wichita??? I hadn't thought of that. Didn't they used to make airplanes there? Thanks, Bob K.

Just because it is a kit aircarft, Homebuilt, dose'nt mean it has not been tested. All of Windwards aircraft are tested to part 21 standards and beyond the reason for not certifing in the Standard Catagory is cost. With this thinking Bob there must be a lot of unethical people out there flying experimental aircraft, or the EAA is unethical, or building your own airplane is unethical, or you must be a left wing tree hugger to be flying that, what an electric airplane, you fly an experimental aircraft you must be a socialist.

John

[Tony[_5_]]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:14:15 PM UTC-5, (unknown) wrote:
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:29:52 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote: > On Aug 3, 8:48*am, Tony > wrote: > how affordable is affordable? It's designed to hit $100,000 in 2010 dollars. That includes convertible gear (nose roller and tail dragger), basic instruments, removable nose and tail ballast, and open trailer. > type certified or kit built? Type certificated and built in series production. An experimental glider of this size and shape would be economically and socially unviable. This is a workhorse designed for operationality and transposition rate, and engineered for ease of repair using common composite materials. There is also the ethical concern of carrying people who have not necessarily made an informed decision to ride in a non-type- certificated aircraft. I think that they deserve an aircraft that has been tested to a higher standard than the typical kit aircraft. > going to be opening an engineering office in Wichita??? I hadn't thought of that. Didn't they used to make airplanes there? Thanks, Bob K. Just because it is a kit aircarft, Homebuilt, dose'nt mean it has not been tested. All of Windwards aircraft are tested to part 21 standards and beyond the reason for not certifing in the Standard Catagory is cost. With this thinking Bob there must be a lot of unethical people out there flying experimental aircraft, or the EAA is unethical, or building your own airplane is unethical, or you must be a left wing tree hugger to be flying that, what an electric airplane, you fly an experimental aircraft you must be a socialist. John

interesting...

I agree with Bob though, for a 2 seater to be successful as a trainer it really needs to be type certified, for many reasons including the ones that Bob points out.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 3, 11:14*am, wrote:

> * Just because it is a kit aircarft, Homebuilt, dose'nt mean it has not been tested...

Oh, yeah, I get that. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt:

http://hpaircraft.com/hp-24/update_10_dec_11.htm

> All of Windwards aircraft are tested to part 21 standards and
> beyond the reason for not certifing in the Standard Catagory is cost.
> With this thinking Bob there must be a lot of unethical people
> out there flying experimental aircraft, or the EAA is unethical, or
> building your own airplane is unethical, or you must be a left wing
> tree hugger to be flying that, what an electric airplane, you fly an
> experimental aircraft you must be a socialist.

That last run-on sentence makes the grammar a bit difficult to parse,
but I'll take a crack at it:

I didn't mean that those who develop, build, and operate non-
certificated multiplace aircraft are unethical. In fact, I have been
one of those people, and probably will be again.

I just happen to think that developing and testing multiplace aircraft
to a higher standard than single place aircraft has value for ethical
reasons that I have already stated: They often carry people who have
not made, and are perhaps not qualified to make, an informed decision
to ride in the machine. Therefore, the designer and builder hold an
increased obligation to protect the uninformed from the possible
consequences of such activity. Also, I happen to think, for a variety
of reasons outside the scope of this particular discussion, that this
is a bit more important for sailplanes than for powered aircraft.

I think that once you execute on this obligation to a degree
commensurate with what is at stake, you are about 90% of the way to
certification, so you might as well finish it off.

I have incredible respect for those who fought for and won our
privilege of building and operating amateur-built aircraft, and I have
a great deal of respect for the responsibility that is bound to it. I
think that the EAA is doing a good job of providing guidance and
protection for those who choose to exercise this privilege.

However, there have indeed been a few unethical people in experimental
aviation, and the sport has suffered mightily for it on occasion.
Folks who took deposits and returned only empty promises. Folks who
designed structurally inadequate aircraft that broke before even
reaching limit load. I intend to avoid, by whatever practical means,
being one of those people.

And, for the record, I am indeed a tree-hugging liberal, though not in
the strictest sense a socialist. More along the lines of a social
engineering-ist.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 3, 10:08*am, Tony > wrote:

> This will be the HP-48???

The project name is currently "Aurora," for reasons I'll get into
another time. There is as yet no aircraft name or designation.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 3, 10:08*am, Tony > wrote:

> This will be the HP-48???

Currently it only has the project name "Aurora," for reasons I'll get
into later. There is as yet no aircraft type or designation for it.

[Bill D]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 10:29:52 AM UTC-6, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Aug 3, 8:48*am, Tony > wrote:

> It's designed to hit $100,000 in 2010 dollars. That includes
> convertible gear (nose roller and tail dragger), basic instruments,
> removable nose and tail ballast, and open trailer.

I would very seriously consider a covered trailer - at least as an option. If the glider is made extremely easy to rig, many will consider a covered trailer a hangar on wheels and rig every day they fly. I do this with CAP K-21's and find it no worse than fitting a glider into a hangar. Just a bit of thought on rigging ease would make it a no-brainer.

A side-by-side fuselage could easily accommodate two main wheels making the fuselage self-stable thus eliminating the ubiquitous fuselage dolly and jack-able ramp. A hard points with 1/2-13 threaded holes at each wing panel CG allows a compact one-man rigging dolly's no bigger than a wing stand. The hard points also serve as tie-down points. A one-wheel wing tip dolly would allow walking the wings out of the trailer without lifting. As long as the tailplane is easily handled by one person, you have a easy one-man rig-able glider.

This is a particularly fitting time to consider producing a new 2-seat trainer. I think the market in the US is at least 400 gliders considering the demise of the L-13's and the rapidly shrinking Schweizer fleet combined with (hopefully) resumed growth in soaring. Internationally, the ASK-21 is the most popular trainer which, while excellent, is a 1980 design. The world market could be in excess of 1000 units

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 3, 12:50*pm, Bill D > wrote:

> I would very seriously consider a covered trailer - at least as an option..

Absolutely! It's just that the covered trailer wouldn't be part of the
base package. The customer can convert the open trailer to covered by
skinning the sides and assembling the optional clamshell top.

> If the glider is made extremely easy to rig, many will consider a covered
> trailer a hangar on wheels and rig every day they fly...

That is as intended. The controls will be auto-connecting, too.

> A side-by-side fuselage could easily accommodate two main wheels
> making the fuselage self-stable thus eliminating the ubiquitous fuselage
> dolly and jack-able ramp...

I'd have to take that under advisement. It would give this glider
different touchdown handling, especially in crosswinds. That's not bad
in and of itself, but may prove an obstacle to transition training to
single-place gliders or higher-performance twins.

> *A hard points with 1/2-13 threaded holes at each wing panel CG allows a
> compact one-man rigging dolly's no bigger than a wing stand. *The hard points
> also serve as tie-down points. A one-wheel wing tip dolly would allow walking
> the wings out of the trailer without lifting. As long as the tailplane is easily
> handled by one person, you have a easy one-man rig-able glider.

That's a good idea. Threaded hard points could be used for trailering
fixtures as well. Glider finishes, even urethanes, can bubble when
exposed to moisture trapped between dollies and the paint.

> This is a particularly fitting time to consider producing a new 2-seat trainer.
> *I think the market in the US is at least 400 gliders considering the demise
> of the L-13's and the rapidly shrinking Schweizer fleet combined with
> (hopefully) resumed growth in soaring. Internationally, the ASK-21 is the
> most popular trainer which, while excellent, is a 1980 design. *The world
> market could be in excess of 1000 units

I hope that is so. I think I would have to sell at least 150 units to
amortize the tooling and development. At today's rate of US training
glider consumption, that is still a tough proposition. So this would
have to be a good glider for joyrides and sightseeing as well.

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com
https://www.facebook.com/AuroraTrainingSailplaneProject

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 3, 9:06*am, wrote:

> And, move one seat back a few inches so those of us with wider shoulders
> will have room to work. *When can I put in my order? 8^)

Marc, there will be enough fore-aft adjustability in the seats so that
you can arrange shoulders. Additionally, we might place the central
divider an inch and a half or so off center so that one seat is
naturally a bit wider than the other.

Thanks, Bob K.

[kirk.stant]

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 2:32:29 AM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

Bob, good luck with this project - we need it!

However, I have to admit I would prefer the cockpit configuration to be tandem instead of side-by-side.

It's been tried, but with no real success so far in the gliding community. For good or bad, glider pilots seem to be fashion conscious and are attracted to the sleek lines of our racing gliders, and by extension, tandem 2 seaters.

As far as instructing, the quieter cockpits of gliders takes away some of the advantage of side-side seating during initial training. Once at the solo stage, I think the tandem configuration is better.

And for all those pilots who fly club or rental trainers solo - there is no doubt the tandem configuration is superior - if nothing else than the visibility out the empty side of the cockpit.

Kirk
66

[Dave Nadler]

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 9:28:40 AM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> However, I have to admit I would prefer the cockpit
> configuration to be tandem instead of side-by-side.

Add my vote for side-by-side. I still have my whale
(RHJ-8), and most pilots have really enjoyed the
seating. No shouting back and forth down a long tube,
MUCH friendlier for rides, shared set of instruments.
Easier for instructor to see what's going on with
student and hit him. Visibility impact is not so much !

CG management is more challenging especially if
pilots are far enough in front of wing for good
visibility.

Much-appreciated side-by-side designs include
Platypus and Akaflieg Darmstadt D41 (sadly no
more). Most pilots who have flown these really
like the arrangement !

Always lots of opinions out there ;-)
Best Regards, Dave

[Mike C]

The Taurus is available now. Side by side seating modern carbon construction and decent performance.

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 9:50:07 AM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 9:28:40 AM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > However, I have to admit I would prefer the cockpit
>
> > configuration to be tandem instead of side-by-side.
>
>
>
> Add my vote for side-by-side. I still have my whale
>
> (RHJ-8), and most pilots have really enjoyed the
>
> seating. No shouting back and forth down a long tube,
>
> MUCH friendlier for rides, shared set of instruments.
>
> Easier for instructor to see what's going on with
>
> student and hit him. Visibility impact is not so much !
>
>
>
> CG management is more challenging especially if
>
> pilots are far enough in front of wing for good
>
> visibility.
>
>
>
> Much-appreciated side-by-side designs include
>
> Platypus and Akaflieg Darmstadt D41 (sadly no
>
> more). Most pilots who have flown these really
>
> like the arrangement !
>
>
>
> Always lots of opinions out there ;-)
>
> Best Regards, Dave

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 4, 9:09*am, Mike C > wrote:

> The Taurus is available now...

Absolutely. However, one the primary goals of the Aurora project is to
keep as much of the investment in the US as practical, and as much of
if it in the US soaring community as possible.

I wouldn't be entirely averse to outsourcing some of the parts, but
I'd like to keep all of the most steeply value-add portions of the
process onshore. It will promote soaring from the production line all
the way to the flight line.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 4, 8:50*am, Dave Nadler > wrote:

> Add my vote for side-by-side. I still have my whale
> (RHJ-8), and most pilots have really enjoyed the
> seating. No shouting back and forth down a long tube,
> MUCH friendlier for rides, shared set of instruments.
> Easier for instructor to see what's going on with
> student and hit him. Visibility impact is not so much !
>
> CG management is more challenging especially if
> pilots are far enough in front of wing for good
> visibility...

Thanks, Dave! I have always been inspired by Henry Preiss's designs,
and by the practical get-it-done development ethic that let him and
Dick Schreder toss so many two-seaters into the sky.

The reason the canopy rail is so low on the sides is to promote
visibility down and offside, which is sometimes sub-par in side-by-
side designs.

Bob K.

[John Firth]

the heading now seems off-topic.
Among many mods to my RHJ-8 were two ballast boxes
under the knees, and a 10lb slug to slide into the tail cone
for 2 pilots of over 300 lb total.
Easy and quick CG control.
John F


At 19:03 04 August 2012, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>On Aug 4, 8:50=A0am, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
>> Add my vote for side-by-side. I still have my whale
>> (RHJ-8), and most pilots have really enjoyed the
>> seating. No shouting back and forth down a long tube,
>> MUCH friendlier for rides, shared set of instruments.
>> Easier for instructor to see what's going on with
>> student and hit him. Visibility impact is not so much !
>>
>> CG management is more challenging especially if
>> pilots are far enough in front of wing for good
>> visibility...
>
>Thanks, Dave! I have always been inspired by Henry Preiss's designs,
>and by the practical get-it-done development ethic that let him and
>Dick Schreder toss so many two-seaters into the sky.
>
>The reason the canopy rail is so low on the sides is to promote
>visibility down and offside, which is sometimes sub-par in side-by-
>side designs.
>
>Bob K.
>

[John Firth]

the heading now seems off-topic.
Among many mods to my RHJ-8 were two ballast boxes
under the knees, and a 10lb slug to slide into the tail cone
for 2 pilots of over 300 lb total.
Easy and quick CG control.
John F


At 19:03 04 August 2012, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>On Aug 4, 8:50=A0am, Dave Nadler wrote:
>
>> Add my vote for side-by-side. I still have my whale
>> (RHJ-8), and most pilots have really enjoyed the
>> seating. No shouting back and forth down a long tube,
>> MUCH friendlier for rides, shared set of instruments.
>> Easier for instructor to see what's going on with
>> student and hit him. Visibility impact is not so much !
>>
>> CG management is more challenging especially if
>> pilots are far enough in front of wing for good
>> visibility...
>
>Thanks, Dave! I have always been inspired by Henry Preiss's designs,
>and by the practical get-it-done development ethic that let him and
>Dick Schreder toss so many two-seaters into the sky.
>
>The reason the canopy rail is so low on the sides is to promote
>visibility down and offside, which is sometimes sub-par in side-by-
>side designs.
>
>Bob K.
>

[Wayne Paul]

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the RHJ-8, here is a link that you
might find interesting.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RHJ/C-FAJT.html

Wayne
http:/www.soaridaho.com/Schreder



"Dave Nadler" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 9:28:40 AM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> However, I have to admit I would prefer the cockpit
> configuration to be tandem instead of side-by-side.

Add my vote for side-by-side. I still have my whale
(RHJ-8), and most pilots have really enjoyed the
seating. No shouting back and forth down a long tube,
MUCH friendlier for rides, shared set of instruments.
Easier for instructor to see what's going on with
student and hit him. Visibility impact is not so much !

CG management is more challenging especially if
pilots are far enough in front of wing for good
visibility.

Much-appreciated side-by-side designs include
Platypus and Akaflieg Darmstadt D41 (sadly no
more). Most pilots who have flown these really
like the arrangement !

Always lots of opinions out there ;-)
Best Regards, Dave