Re: VTOL version of the Sparrow Hawk?

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 3/3/2013 6:00 AM, wrote:

>
> It does raise an interesting question: Is windward a production
> aircraft company or a prototyping company? The duckhawk kinda blew
> our socks off at Mifflin. Yet, per FAA, there are still only two
> prototypes on the registry. Is anyone buying them? Is Windward at all
> interested in selling them? And, incidentally, doing the kind of
> long-haul, refining, getting the bugs out, customer support, FAA
> paperwork, etc. needed for being a production aircraft company? I
> count more different designs on the website than gliders of any
> design in the FAA N number database!
>
> It's a serious question. I'm a contest pilot and fishing around for
> new glider. But I also am a wary customer, and you want a company
> dedicated to keeping going the glider you have for the time you own
> it and the time the guy you sell it to owns it. You want to buy a
> glider that will have several hundred total production run, so that a
> base of experience develops on its quirks in the air, on the ground,
> and in the shop. You want someone at the company who really cares
> about your design, not just adapting 220 pounds of batteries in it so
> that it can do vtol on mars.

They do a lot of prototype work, but want to have a steady production
line in addition. The key is "steady", as intermittent production is
more expensive and harder to manage. Even if things go well, I expect
production rates for the DuckHawk will be low compared to the ASG-29
(for example), and because it is a smaller company, there is a greater
risk that it will not here ten years from now, compared to Schleicher
(for example).

If your monetary investment in a new glider must be safe, I suggest you
stay with the big brands; if you can risk some of that investment, then
you should investigate what appears to be a step-change in effective
soaring, and get to know the DuckHawk.

It's been 5 months since I've spoken to Greg, but at that time they had
4+ DuckHawk orders, many major components (wing skins, fuselage shells,
etc) already produced for them, but I don't know the current situation.

My suggestion: Call Greg Cole, and talk to him about the glider, and why
you nervous about buying something so expensive from a small company.
He'd love to have a competitor of your stature in a DuckHawk, so I'm
sure he'll be glad to talk to you. You'll enjoy the conversation, too!

Go right to the source - Greg understands people's concerns about buying
from a small company. He knows they aren't cheap, and that it's a
substantial amount of money for most pilots. But, it's a project he has
worked on for a long time, he's invested a lot time and money in the
concept, and he very much wants it to be successful.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Eric Greenwell > writes:
>On 3/3/2013 6:00 AM, wrote:
>
>>
>> It does raise an interesting question: Is windward a production
>> aircraft company or a prototyping company? The duckhawk kinda blew
>> our socks off at Mifflin. Yet, per FAA, there are still only two
>> prototypes on the registry. Is anyone buying them? Is Windward at all
>> interested in selling them? And, incidentally, doing the kind of
>> long-haul, refining, getting the bugs out, customer support, FAA
>> paperwork, etc. needed for being a production aircraft company? I
>> count more different designs on the website than gliders of any
>> design in the FAA N number database!
>>
>> It's a serious question. I'm a contest pilot and fishing around for
>> new glider. But I also am a wary customer, and you want a company
>> dedicated to keeping going the glider you have for the time you own
>> it and the time the guy you sell it to owns it. You want to buy a
>> glider that will have several hundred total production run, so that a
>> base of experience develops on its quirks in the air, on the ground,
>> and in the shop. You want someone at the company who really cares
>> about your design, not just adapting 220 pounds of batteries in it so
>> that it can do vtol on mars.
>
>They do a lot of prototype work, but want to have a steady production
>line in addition. The key is "steady", as intermittent production is
>more expensive and harder to manage. Even if things go well, I expect
>production rates for the DuckHawk will be low compared to the ASG-29
>(for example), and because it is a smaller company, there is a greater
>risk that it will not here ten years from now, compared to Schleicher
>(for example).
>
>If your monetary investment in a new glider must be safe, I suggest you
>stay with the big brands; if you can risk some of that investment, then
>you should investigate what appears to be a step-change in effective
>soaring, and get to know the DuckHawk.
>
>It's been 5 months since I've spoken to Greg, but at that time they had
>4+ DuckHawk orders, many major components (wing skins, fuselage shells,
>etc) already produced for them, but I don't know the current situation.
>
>My suggestion: Call Greg Cole, and talk to him about the glider, and why
>you nervous about buying something so expensive from a small company.
>He'd love to have a competitor of your stature in a DuckHawk, so I'm
>sure he'll be glad to talk to you. You'll enjoy the conversation, too!
>
>Go right to the source - Greg understands people's concerns about buying
>from a small company. He knows they aren't cheap, and that it's a
>substantial amount of money for most pilots. But, it's a project he has
>worked on for a long time, he's invested a lot time and money in the
>concept, and he very much wants it to be successful.


When I first saw the descriptions of the SparrowHawk, I fell in love
with the idea.

Then I started trying to confirm the details. Was it really part 103 legal?
The first thing to check is weight -- 103.1(d) If unpowered, weighs less than
155 pounds; Looking at the specifications page, "Empty Weight - 155 lbs".
OOPS, didn't quite make it. 155 pounds is not the same as "less than 155 pounds"

Well, perhaps there is something that can come out. Or, perhaps it really
weighs 154.6 pounds. After all, Windward Performance calls it "ultralight".
What did they say about it on their frequently asked questions page a while
back?

The SparrowHawk is not certified in any way. It will be an
unpowered ultralight vehicle in the US as defined by FAR 103
(14 CFR 103). Neither the factory nor any other authorities
will endorse it as being in compliance with any regulatory or
certification requirements.

So much for claims that it meets Part 103. I guess you have to buy one
and weigh it yourself.

If I showed that disclaimer to my wife, she would probably make it clear
that she would rather I fly something safe - SGS 2-32, Cessna 172, etc.

To really make a difference in soaring, building a few aircraft is only the
beginning. One needs to get them documented, certificated, and priced at a
point where lots of people will buy them -- then sell lots of them and start
to make a difference in soaring.


Alan

[Craig Funston[_2_]]

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:08:54 AM UTC-8, Alan wrote:
> In article > Eric Greenwell > writes:
>
> >On 3/3/2013 6:00 AM, wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>
>
> >> It does raise an interesting question: Is windward a production
>
> >> aircraft company or a prototyping company? The duckhawk kinda blew
>
> >> our socks off at Mifflin. Yet, per FAA, there are still only two
>
> >> prototypes on the registry. Is anyone buying them? Is Windward at all
>
> >> interested in selling them? And, incidentally, doing the kind of
>
> >> long-haul, refining, getting the bugs out, customer support, FAA
>
> >> paperwork, etc. needed for being a production aircraft company? I
>
> >> count more different designs on the website than gliders of any
>
> >> design in the FAA N number database!
>
> >>
>
> >> It's a serious question. I'm a contest pilot and fishing around for
>
> >> new glider. But I also am a wary customer, and you want a company
>
> >> dedicated to keeping going the glider you have for the time you own
>
> >> it and the time the guy you sell it to owns it. You want to buy a
>
> >> glider that will have several hundred total production run, so that a
>
> >> base of experience develops on its quirks in the air, on the ground,
>
> >> and in the shop. You want someone at the company who really cares
>
> >> about your design, not just adapting 220 pounds of batteries in it so
>
> >> that it can do vtol on mars.
>
> >
>
> >They do a lot of prototype work, but want to have a steady production
>
> >line in addition. The key is "steady", as intermittent production is
>
> >more expensive and harder to manage. Even if things go well, I expect
>
> >production rates for the DuckHawk will be low compared to the ASG-29
>
> >(for example), and because it is a smaller company, there is a greater
>
> >risk that it will not here ten years from now, compared to Schleicher
>
> >(for example).
>
> >
>
> >If your monetary investment in a new glider must be safe, I suggest you
>
> >stay with the big brands; if you can risk some of that investment, then
>
> >you should investigate what appears to be a step-change in effective
>
> >soaring, and get to know the DuckHawk.
>
> >
>
> >It's been 5 months since I've spoken to Greg, but at that time they had
>
> >4+ DuckHawk orders, many major components (wing skins, fuselage shells,
>
> >etc) already produced for them, but I don't know the current situation.
>
> >
>
> >My suggestion: Call Greg Cole, and talk to him about the glider, and why
>
> >you nervous about buying something so expensive from a small company.
>
> >He'd love to have a competitor of your stature in a DuckHawk, so I'm
>
> >sure he'll be glad to talk to you. You'll enjoy the conversation, too!
>
> >
>
> >Go right to the source - Greg understands people's concerns about buying
>
> >from a small company. He knows they aren't cheap, and that it's a
>
> >substantial amount of money for most pilots. But, it's a project he has
>
> >worked on for a long time, he's invested a lot time and money in the
>
> >concept, and he very much wants it to be successful.
>
>
>
>
>
> When I first saw the descriptions of the SparrowHawk, I fell in love
>
> with the idea.
>
>
>
> Then I started trying to confirm the details. Was it really part 103 legal?
>
> The first thing to check is weight -- 103.1(d) If unpowered, weighs less than
>
> 155 pounds; Looking at the specifications page, "Empty Weight - 155 lbs".
>
> OOPS, didn't quite make it. 155 pounds is not the same as "less than 155 pounds"
>
>
>
> Well, perhaps there is something that can come out. Or, perhaps it really
>
> weighs 154.6 pounds. After all, Windward Performance calls it "ultralight".
>
> What did they say about it on their frequently asked questions page a while
>
> back?
>
>
>
> The SparrowHawk is not certified in any way. It will be an
>
> unpowered ultralight vehicle in the US as defined by FAR 103
>
> (14 CFR 103). Neither the factory nor any other authorities
>
> will endorse it as being in compliance with any regulatory or
>
> certification requirements.
>
>
>
> So much for claims that it meets Part 103. I guess you have to buy one
>
> and weigh it yourself.
>
>
>
> If I showed that disclaimer to my wife, she would probably make it clear
>
> that she would rather I fly something safe - SGS 2-32, Cessna 172, etc.
>
>
>
> To really make a difference in soaring, building a few aircraft is only the
>
> beginning. One needs to get them documented, certificated, and priced at a
>
> point where lots of people will buy them -- then sell lots of them and start
>
> to make a difference in soaring.
>
>
>
>
>
> Alan

I'm not sure why there are so many harsh words for Windward and Greg Cole. Greg is a gifted designer and aerodynamicist with a significant portfolio of successful aircraft including the Lancair Legacy and the certified Columbia 300. He knows what it takes to get an aircraft certified and into production & I have to assume he's determined that the cost couldn't possibly be recouped in the sailplane market.

Regarding Joby's vertical take off concept, It's a start and I'm sure the numbers aren't great for range, but Greg's a master at lightweight construction which is everything for that aircraft. I'm sure he wouldn't have even taken it on if there weren't a reasonable chance of changing the state of the art.

So relax guys and show some support for someone who's taking sailplane construction out of the 1980s and has made the sacrifices necessary to move our sport forward.

Craig