FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... it's just a question of when

[son_of_flubber]

I'm not alarmist to say that the FAA is going to ground 80% of the senescent USA glider training fleet sometime soon. The only question is when.

The L-13s are being recycled.

The few people who know how to properly inspect and keep the 27 wooden Schleichers KA-* gliders flying safely are retiring.

The 314 registered SGS 2-33s may last forever, or one might fail this weekend.

Given the tragic and inevitable consequences of an aging fleet, it is unconscionable and unsportsmanlike to turn a blind eye. Recent events should be a call to action.

Yes, you're right. I'm riding my high horse. Talk is cheap. But I'm holding a note that finances my share of a brand new PW-6 for my local soaring club. (No, I'm not made of money. I cut back somewhere else.) So since I'm not just shooting off my mouth, I think that it is entirely reasonable for me to say this:

Gentlemen. Please step up!

[Bill D]

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 4:05:31 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I'm not alarmist to say that the FAA is going to ground 80% of the senescent USA glider training fleet sometime soon. The only question is when.
>
>
>
> The L-13s are being recycled.
>
>
>
> The few people who know how to properly inspect and keep the 27 wooden Schleichers KA-* gliders flying safely are retiring.
>
>
>
> The 314 registered SGS 2-33s may last forever, or one might fail this weekend.
>
>
>
> Given the tragic and inevitable consequences of an aging fleet, it is unconscionable and unsportsmanlike to turn a blind eye. Recent events should be a call to action.
>
>
>
> Yes, you're right. I'm riding my high horse. Talk is cheap. But I'm holding a note that finances my share of a brand new PW-6 for my local soaring club. (No, I'm not made of money. I cut back somewhere else.) So since I'm not just shooting off my mouth, I think that it is entirely reasonable for me to say this:
>
>
>
> Gentlemen. Please step up!

In 1950 the US soaring movement had more than 400 war surplus training gliders (LK-10's, Pratt-Reads, TG-2's and TG-3's) available. Today, we have less than 200. Surveys indicate less than 100 2-33's are flying in club and commercial fleets.

Yes, please step up. If we are to grow, we need as many as 400 new training gliders.

[GM]

I hear you loud and clear! The US-training fleet needs an infusion of new equipment much sooner than later. What I don't understand is this: we have talented and gifted glider designers in the US yet nobody seems to be able to come up with a US-version of a K21 or DuoDiscus? Looking across the pond, most clubs in Europe have said good-by to their wood&fabric gliders and upgraded to pastic one or two decades ago while the US is still holding on to their Schweizer-Saurus'!
Please - someone explain to me why a manufacturer like Windward Performance does not jump at the opportunity to build a modern two-seat trainer rather than trying to compete with the latest super orchid grown in Germany. I think something like this would sell.

Uli Neumann

[CLewis95]

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 6:41:49 PM UTC-5, GM wrote:
> I hear you loud and clear! The US-training fleet needs an infusion of new equipment much sooner than later. What I don't understand is this: we have talented and gifted glider designers in the US yet nobody seems to be able to come up with a US-version of a K21 or DuoDiscus? Looking across the pond, most clubs in Europe have said good-by to their wood&fabric gliders and upgraded to pastic one or two decades ago while the US is still holding on to their Schweizer-Saurus'!
>
> Please - someone explain to me why a manufacturer like Windward Performance does not jump at the opportunity to build a modern two-seat trainer rather than trying to compete with the latest super orchid grown in Germany. I think something like this would sell.
>
>
>
> Uli Neumann

HA! .. "Schweizer-Saurus" .. we're waiting for the big meteorite to put an end to it all Uli! :)
Curt - 95

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:41:49 PM UTC-4, GM wrote:
> I hear you loud and clear! The US-training fleet needs an infusion of new equipment much sooner than later.

Okay then. Should I put you down to make a $3000 or a $6000 loan pledge to your local club?

[GM]

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 8:04:52 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:41:49 PM UTC-4, GM wrote: > I hear you loud and clear! The US-training fleet needs an infusion of new equipment much sooner than later.

Okay then. Should I put you down to make a $3000 or a $6000 loan pledge to your local club?

We - Carolina Soaring Assoc. - are actively looking for a modern two-seater.. Since there is nothing useable on the open US-market, we have expanded our search to overseas. We are also discussing various financing models and yes, soliciting pledges from members is on the list.
Uli

[Don Johnstone[_4_]]

At 23:41 04 April 2013, GM wrote:
>I hear you loud and clear! The US-training fleet needs an infusion of new
>e=
>quipment much sooner than later. What I don't understand is this: we have
>t=
>alented and gifted glider designers in the US yet nobody seems to be able
>t=
>o come up with a US-version of a K21 or DuoDiscus? Looking across the
>pond,=
> most clubs in Europe have said good-by to their wood&fabric gliders and
>up=
>graded to pastic one or two decades ago while the US is still holding on
>to=
> their Schweizer-Saurus'!
>Please - someone explain to me why a manufacturer like Windward
>Performance=
> does not jump at the opportunity to build a modern two-seat trainer
>rather=
> than trying to compete with the latest super orchid grown in Germany. I
>th=
>ink something like this would sell.
>
>Uli Neumann

That is not strictly true, a lot of clubs in the UK still have at least one
K13 in their fleet, in many cases it is the only glider that can be used
for spin training. The apparent failure of a K7 wing is a little worrying,
there was a similar accident here a few years ago.

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 8:17:35 PM UTC-4, GM wrote:

> We - Carolina Soaring Assoc. - are actively looking for a modern two-seater. Since there is nothing useable on the open US-market, we have expanded our search to overseas. We are also discussing various financing models and yes, soliciting pledges from members is on the list.
<

Excellent!

When we looked at the tax advantages of accelerated depreciation and lease back arrangements, we found that buying a new glider was more feasible. A new glider built by a currently viable company makes the loan more secure for the lenders, and for that reason it becomes easier to raise the money. Our situation is unique, but it's worthwhile to get some expert advice on the tax angle.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 4/4/2013 4:41 PM, GM wrote:
> Please - someone explain to me why a manufacturer
> like Windward Performance does not jump at the opportunity to build a
> modern two-seat trainer rather than trying to compete with the latest
> super orchid grown in Germany. I think something like this would
> sell.

Let me explain...

I talked to Greg Cole of Windward performance today about this subject.
He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer...

+ should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21
+ be light weight (but rugged) with wing panels weighing less than 140
pounds each, so club members don't mind rigging it each weekend
+ have very nice handling

And ultimately, it should have a front mounted electric motor with a
folding propeller ("TFP" - tractor folding propeller). That would allow
it to use a car launch to 500', turn on the motor, and look for
thermals. No thermals? Climb with the motor.

When it lands, the battery can be exchanged for a fully charged one if
it needs recharging, and the depleted one put on charge (maybe you need
three batteries if the thermals are weak).

But even if a conventional towplane is used for the launch, the TFP lets
the student and instructor go soaring, even cross country, almost every
flight. Imagine how cool that is! Students would be much more enthused
about soaring if they actually got to do some soaring on every flight,
rather than being told "XC after you have your license", or "XC when you
have your own glider".

Whether it's car launch or towplane, the TFP would allow and encourage
more soaring, even XC, during instruction, and more XC when flown solo.
The light weight and easy rigging would subdue the concerns about
landing out (unlikely with the TFP), and the utilization of the glider
would be much higher than the typical heavy low/medium performance
two-seater.

Greg thinks it would sell, but bringing this glider (any glider!) to
market is very expensive. The full design, molds, production tooling,
and testing will easily exceed a million dollars (aka $1,000,000). So,
for Windward Performance to jump at this opportunity means coming up
with a lot of money. That will a lot easier to do if there are some
orders, so if you want one of these, or think you can find some money
for Windward, please call Greg Cole, and talk to him about it.

Get his contact details here:

http://windward-performance.com/contact-us/

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

[Frank Whiteley]

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 9:50:05 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 4/4/2013 4:41 PM, GM wrote:
>
> > Please - someone explain to me why a manufacturer
>
> > like Windward Performance does not jump at the opportunity to build a
>
> > modern two-seat trainer rather than trying to compete with the latest
>
> > super orchid grown in Germany. I think something like this would
>
> > sell.
>
>
>
> Let me explain...
>
>
>
> I talked to Greg Cole of Windward performance today about this subject.
>
> He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer...
>
>
>
> + should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21
>
> + be light weight (but rugged) with wing panels weighing less than 140
>
> pounds each, so club members don't mind rigging it each weekend
>
> + have very nice handling
>
>
>
> And ultimately, it should have a front mounted electric motor with a
>
> folding propeller ("TFP" - tractor folding propeller). That would allow
>
> it to use a car launch to 500', turn on the motor, and look for
>
> thermals. No thermals? Climb with the motor.
>
>
>
> When it lands, the battery can be exchanged for a fully charged one if
>
> it needs recharging, and the depleted one put on charge (maybe you need
>
> three batteries if the thermals are weak).
>
>
>
> But even if a conventional towplane is used for the launch, the TFP lets
>
> the student and instructor go soaring, even cross country, almost every
>
> flight. Imagine how cool that is! Students would be much more enthused
>
> about soaring if they actually got to do some soaring on every flight,
>
> rather than being told "XC after you have your license", or "XC when you
>
> have your own glider".
>
>
>
> Whether it's car launch or towplane, the TFP would allow and encourage
>
> more soaring, even XC, during instruction, and more XC when flown solo.
>
> The light weight and easy rigging would subdue the concerns about
>
> landing out (unlikely with the TFP), and the utilization of the glider
>
> would be much higher than the typical heavy low/medium performance
>
> two-seater.
>
>
>
> Greg thinks it would sell, but bringing this glider (any glider!) to
>
> market is very expensive. The full design, molds, production tooling,
>
> and testing will easily exceed a million dollars (aka $1,000,000). So,
>
> for Windward Performance to jump at this opportunity means coming up
>
> with a lot of money. That will a lot easier to do if there are some
>
> orders, so if you want one of these, or think you can find some money
>
> for Windward, please call Greg Cole, and talk to him about it.
>
>
>
> Get his contact details here:
>
>
>
> http://windward-performance.com/contact-us/
>
>
>
> --
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>
> email me)

Greg hinted at this at the Barnaby Lecture, but at that time said it would not be Type-Certificated, possibly Light Sport, due to the cost of a TC. I don't know how evolved his design is. That's okay for clubs, not for commercial operators. Bob Kuykendall has a design , and TC goals, as the glider design was influenced by commercial operators. Both are composite designs. Barry Aviation owns the Type Certificate for the Krosno Kr03a, aiming to bring it to production as the Peregrine. It's metal, which was the most popular choice of the two-seater survey. Barry Aviation did secure Part Manufacturing Authorization from the FAA in support of existing Kr-03a's while working on manufacturing certification. Manufacturing certification requires building three satisfactorily under FAA inspection in order to become self-certifying. However, if the FAA finds something that needs correction, the process stop and the problem gets worked on. In the meantime, you have to maintain your production facility awaiting the next FAA visit. As explained to me, the FAA budget would allow for three visits per year. When the economy tanked, money dried up, and they lost their assembly facility, thus all tooling and materials returned to storage. They estimate it would take $1M to bring it to production. Tim Barry stated that with trained production staff, they could build glider per week on the assembly line. Forty years ago, when composite glider production really ramped up, there were some articles about build times. A composite glider required about 1000 man hours. Schempp-Hirth delivered some models, certainly Nimbus 2's, to some customers with a final finishing option because owners were re-contouring the wings anyway. I found it noteworthy that a C-172 required 372 man hours to produce. No idea where those numbers have gone or if the ratio has changed. Can't say it appears there is much, if any, demand for metal gliders, despite the survey, as no one was ordering L-23's. Barry Aviation's goal was and remains domestic and international sales. But, like any other, will require a significant capital injection to even ramp up production.

Frank Whiteley

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:50:05 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 4/4/2013 4:41 PM, GM wrote:
>
> > Please - someone explain to me why a manufacturer
>
> > like Windward Performance does not jump at the opportunity to build a
>
> > modern two-seat trainer rather than trying to compete with the latest
>
> > super orchid grown in Germany. I think something like this would
>
> > sell.
>
>
>
> Let me explain...
>
>
>
> I talked to Greg Cole of Windward performance today about this subject.
>
> He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer...
>
>
>
> + should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21
>
> + be light weight (but rugged) with wing panels weighing less than 140
>
> pounds each, so club members don't mind rigging it each weekend
>
> + have very nice handling
>
>
>
> And ultimately, it should have a front mounted electric motor with a
>
> folding propeller ("TFP" - tractor folding propeller). That would allow
>
> it to use a car launch to 500', turn on the motor, and look for
>
> thermals. No thermals? Climb with the motor.
>
>
>
> When it lands, the battery can be exchanged for a fully charged one if
>
> it needs recharging, and the depleted one put on charge (maybe you need
>
> three batteries if the thermals are weak).
>
>
>
> But even if a conventional towplane is used for the launch, the TFP lets
>
> the student and instructor go soaring, even cross country, almost every
>
> flight. Imagine how cool that is! Students would be much more enthused
>
> about soaring if they actually got to do some soaring on every flight,
>
> rather than being told "XC after you have your license", or "XC when you
>
> have your own glider".
>
>
>
> Whether it's car launch or towplane, the TFP would allow and encourage
>
> more soaring, even XC, during instruction, and more XC when flown solo.
>
> The light weight and easy rigging would subdue the concerns about
>
> landing out (unlikely with the TFP), and the utilization of the glider
>
> would be much higher than the typical heavy low/medium performance
>
> two-seater.
>
>
>
> Greg thinks it would sell, but bringing this glider (any glider!) to
>
> market is very expensive. The full design, molds, production tooling,
>
> and testing will easily exceed a million dollars (aka $1,000,000). So,
>
> for Windward Performance to jump at this opportunity means coming up
>
> with a lot of money. That will a lot easier to do if there are some
>
> orders, so if you want one of these, or think you can find some money
>
> for Windward, please call Greg Cole, and talk to him about it.
>
>
>
> Get his contact details here:
>
>
>
> http://windward-performance.com/contact-us/
>
>
>
> --
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>
> email me)

No motors! That adds cost, complexity and training issues all out of proportion to any supposed benefit as a trainer. We need *trainers* and a safe, reliable, economical way to launch them. The PW-6 is the closest thing on the market.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

My FES conversion cost about $30,000. Whether it is worth that much extra on a new or newish PW6 or equivalent would depend on alternative launch facilities and potential benefits of never having a short flight/always getting away if it is soarable/cross country ability with virtually no risk of landout.

I would be interested in seeing the math (as you guys say) for different cases.

Chris N

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 7:24:28 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>We need *trainers* and a safe, reliable, economical way to launch them. The >PW-6 is the closest thing on the market.

I'm just beginning to appreciate the ballsy and audacious mindset of XC pilots; the mindset that it takes to fly 500 km without a motor...

But that mindset may be one of the reasons why the trainer problem goes unsolved. Some propose (in typical XC pilot fashion) that to solve the trainer problem, we need to be extremely clever and expertly negotiate an interdependent series of bold but calculated risks. These risks include bringing skilled labor intensive manufacturing back to the USA economy. Oh really?

On the other hand, we already have a glider factory in Poland http://www.szdjezow.com.pl/ofirmie_eng.html that would be a lot more viable and long-surviving if it got some more orders from the USA. Do you really think that soaring is big enough to support two trainer manufacturers at the same time? Let's just shoot ourselves in the foot and try to compete with The Glider Factory "JEŻÓW". Nobody wins and if JEZOW goes bankrupt, the clubs that have invested in a PW-6 lose.

Nationalistic competitive attitudes are counter-productive to solving the trainer problem. The way to demonstrate the greatness of the USA soaring community is to step up now and invest in some new trainers. The Founding Fathers (of soaring) did that once already when they ponied up the money for 314 SGS 2-33s. Where did that kind of audaciousness go?

[Karl Kunz[_2_]]

Is the PW-6 built any better than a PW-5? I can't imagine a trainer built like a PW-5 able to withstand the kind of abuse a trainer takes.



On Friday, April 5, 2013 4:24:28 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:50:05 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> > On 4/4/2013 4:41 PM, GM wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Please - someone explain to me why a manufacturer
>
> >
>
> > > like Windward Performance does not jump at the opportunity to build a
>
> >
>
> > > modern two-seat trainer rather than trying to compete with the latest
>
> >
>
> > > super orchid grown in Germany. I think something like this would
>
> >
>
> > > sell.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Let me explain...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I talked to Greg Cole of Windward performance today about this subject.
>
> >
>
> > He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > + should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21
>
> >
>
> > + be light weight (but rugged) with wing panels weighing less than 140
>
> >
>
> > pounds each, so club members don't mind rigging it each weekend
>
> >
>
> > + have very nice handling
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And ultimately, it should have a front mounted electric motor with a
>
> >
>
> > folding propeller ("TFP" - tractor folding propeller). That would allow
>
> >
>
> > it to use a car launch to 500', turn on the motor, and look for
>
> >
>
> > thermals. No thermals? Climb with the motor.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > When it lands, the battery can be exchanged for a fully charged one if
>
> >
>
> > it needs recharging, and the depleted one put on charge (maybe you need
>
> >
>
> > three batteries if the thermals are weak).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > But even if a conventional towplane is used for the launch, the TFP lets
>
> >
>
> > the student and instructor go soaring, even cross country, almost every
>
> >
>
> > flight. Imagine how cool that is! Students would be much more enthused
>
> >
>
> > about soaring if they actually got to do some soaring on every flight,
>
> >
>
> > rather than being told "XC after you have your license", or "XC when you
>
> >
>
> > have your own glider".
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Whether it's car launch or towplane, the TFP would allow and encourage
>
> >
>
> > more soaring, even XC, during instruction, and more XC when flown solo.
>
> >
>
> > The light weight and easy rigging would subdue the concerns about
>
> >
>
> > landing out (unlikely with the TFP), and the utilization of the glider
>
> >
>
> > would be much higher than the typical heavy low/medium performance
>
> >
>
> > two-seater.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Greg thinks it would sell, but bringing this glider (any glider!) to
>
> >
>
> > market is very expensive. The full design, molds, production tooling,
>
> >
>
> > and testing will easily exceed a million dollars (aka $1,000,000). So,
>
> >
>
> > for Windward Performance to jump at this opportunity means coming up
>
> >
>
> > with a lot of money. That will a lot easier to do if there are some
>
> >
>
> > orders, so if you want one of these, or think you can find some money
>
> >
>
> > for Windward, please call Greg Cole, and talk to him about it.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Get his contact details here:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://windward-performance.com/contact-us/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>
> >
>
> > email me)
>
>
>
> No motors! That adds cost, complexity and training issues all out of proportion to any supposed benefit as a trainer. We need *trainers* and a safe, reliable, economical way to launch them. The PW-6 is the closest thing on the market.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

The IS28b2 Lark is not the perfect trainer, it's heavy to rig, not as docile as a Schweizer, but it's rugged, has decent performance, looks great, and is all metal. Why the Romanians dont get it together to put it back into production is a mystery to me, especially in light of the potential demand. They were very affordable in their day (which may be why IAR is in bankruptcy) but maybe they could still be reasonably priced.

It's a good solid design with a type certificate already in place. How much would you pay for a brand new Lark today? Does anybody know if IAR or anybody is considering building them again?

MM

[WAVEGURU]

Maybe someone should just put the 2-33 back into production?

Boggs

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

Go right ahead. You think anyone will buy them even at 1/2 the cost of a PW-6, Puchacz (yes, they'll build you one, ready to ship in about 90 days last I checked) or a Perkoz? I don't. The newer members in our club don't want anything to do with our 2-33. It's ugly, it's ungainly and it glides like a flat rock. Aside from the fact that they are durable and safe, there isn't much to like.

T8

On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:26:25 AM UTC-4, Waveguru wrote:
> Maybe someone should just put the 2-33 back into production?
>
>
>
> Boggs

[Bill D]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 12:12:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Thursday, April 4, 2013 9:50:05 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> > On 4/4/2013 4:41 PM, GM wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Please - someone explain to me why a manufacturer
>
> >
>
> > > like Windward Performance does not jump at the opportunity to build a
>
> >
>
> > > modern two-seat trainer rather than trying to compete with the latest
>
> >
>
> > > super orchid grown in Germany. I think something like this would
>
> >
>
> > > sell.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Let me explain...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I talked to Greg Cole of Windward performance today about this subject.
>
> >
>
> > He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > + should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21
>
> >
>
> > + be light weight (but rugged) with wing panels weighing less than 140
>
> >
>
> > pounds each, so club members don't mind rigging it each weekend
>
> >
>
> > + have very nice handling
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And ultimately, it should have a front mounted electric motor with a
>
> >
>
> > folding propeller ("TFP" - tractor folding propeller). That would allow
>
> >
>
> > it to use a car launch to 500', turn on the motor, and look for
>
> >
>
> > thermals. No thermals? Climb with the motor.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > When it lands, the battery can be exchanged for a fully charged one if
>
> >
>
> > it needs recharging, and the depleted one put on charge (maybe you need
>
> >
>
> > three batteries if the thermals are weak).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > But even if a conventional towplane is used for the launch, the TFP lets
>
> >
>
> > the student and instructor go soaring, even cross country, almost every
>
> >
>
> > flight. Imagine how cool that is! Students would be much more enthused
>
> >
>
> > about soaring if they actually got to do some soaring on every flight,
>
> >
>
> > rather than being told "XC after you have your license", or "XC when you
>
> >
>
> > have your own glider".
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Whether it's car launch or towplane, the TFP would allow and encourage
>
> >
>
> > more soaring, even XC, during instruction, and more XC when flown solo.
>
> >
>
> > The light weight and easy rigging would subdue the concerns about
>
> >
>
> > landing out (unlikely with the TFP), and the utilization of the glider
>
> >
>
> > would be much higher than the typical heavy low/medium performance
>
> >
>
> > two-seater.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Greg thinks it would sell, but bringing this glider (any glider!) to
>
> >
>
> > market is very expensive. The full design, molds, production tooling,
>
> >
>
> > and testing will easily exceed a million dollars (aka $1,000,000). So,
>
> >
>
> > for Windward Performance to jump at this opportunity means coming up
>
> >
>
> > with a lot of money. That will a lot easier to do if there are some
>
> >
>
> > orders, so if you want one of these, or think you can find some money
>
> >
>
> > for Windward, please call Greg Cole, and talk to him about it.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Get his contact details here:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://windward-performance.com/contact-us/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>
> >
>
> > email me)
>
>
>
> Greg hinted at this at the Barnaby Lecture, but at that time said it would not be Type-Certificated, possibly Light Sport, due to the cost of a TC. I don't know how evolved his design is. That's okay for clubs, not for commercial operators. Bob Kuykendall has a design , and TC goals, as the glider design was influenced by commercial operators. Both are composite designs. Barry Aviation owns the Type Certificate for the Krosno Kr03a, aiming to bring it to production as the Peregrine. It's metal, which was the most popular choice of the two-seater survey. Barry Aviation did secure Part Manufacturing Authorization from the FAA in support of existing Kr-03a's while working on manufacturing certification. Manufacturing certification requires building three satisfactorily under FAA inspection in order to become self-certifying. However, if the FAA finds something that needs correction, the process stop and the problem gets worked on. In the meantime, you have to maintain your production facility awaiting the next FAA visit. As explained to me, the FAA budget would allow for three visits per year. When the economy tanked, money dried up, and they lost their assembly facility, thus all tooling and materials returned to storage. They estimate it would take $1M to bring it to production. Tim Barry stated that with trained production staff, they could build glider per week on the assembly line. Forty years ago, when composite glider production really ramped up, there were some articles about build times. A composite glider required about 1000 man hours. Schempp-Hirth delivered some models, certainly Nimbus 2's, to some customers with a final finishing option because owners were re-contouring the wings anyway. I found it noteworthy that a C-172 required 372 man hours to produce. No idea where those numbers have gone or if the ratio has changed. Can't say it appears there is much, if any, demand for metal gliders, despite the survey, as no one was ordering L-23's. Barry Aviation's goal was and remains domestic and international sales. But, like any other, will require a significant capital injection to even ramp up production.
>
>
>
> Frank Whiteley

The ASK-21 is essentially a perfect training glider. Its superb handling qualities match its beautiful appearance. Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.

The only things I would change are convenience items like wing hard points for one-man assembly tools and maybe some hand grips to help lever a creaky old instructor out of the back seat. I think quick and easy rigging/de-rigging is important for those without a hangar.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41:37 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
>Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.

If capital cost were no problem, we would not have a problem.


T8

[Bill D]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:54:11 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41:37 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
>
> >Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.
>

> If capital cost were no problem, we would not have a problem.

> T8

Buying the cheapest glider without regard for value is part of what got us into this jam.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:01:20 AM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:
> On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:54:11 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote: > On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41:37 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote: > > >Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back. > > If capital cost were no problem, we would not have a problem. > T8 Buying the cheapest glider without regard for value is part of what got us into this jam.

at one time the SSA was working on developing a program with Lea County State Bank to offer attractive financing options to clubs for two seaters. Sort of a group buy discount or something? Has there been any progress on that?

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Apr 4, 8:50*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> I talked to Greg Cole of Windward performance today about this subject.
> He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer...
>
> + should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21

I think that Greg is right, but only if what we want to do is train an
elite cadre of cross-country and competition pilots. And I happen to
think that that is not necessarily what we want to do.

I worked at one of the busiest training gliderports in the US for
about five years, and I saw the kind of abuse that a real training
glider gets, and I saw what a real training glider does. And I know
that performance better than ASK21 might sound good and look good, and
might be an interesting design challenge, but it is to a great extent
secondary to what we want to do, and is in some ways counterproductive
to what we need.

I have talked with several commercial operators, and what they seem to
value above all else is operational availability. The glider has to be
functional and ready to go when it is needed. That means more than
rugged construction, it means minimum downtime. It means that the
glider is easy to repair, and that replacement parts are easily
available, and easy to install. It means that you can change a wheel,
tire, and brake assembly in fifteen minutes. It means that FedEx can
deliver a replacement canopy, with frame, ready to latch on and fly
with, overnight. It means wings that interchange so you can mix and
match your fleet when things get rough.

What we need is a glider that will launch 7200 times a year, every
year. A glider that will expose thousands of potential pilots to the
experience of soaring flight in a way that shows them the potential
and makes them want more. Because the reality is that, while soaring
is a wonderful and fascinating and engrossing activity, it is not for
everyone. Maybe one in person in what, 300? 500? maybe 1000? takes a
20 minute ride and sticks with it through to the license.

Another important thing is that the glider has to offer a pleasant and
effective training environment for those that do stick. And that means
ease of entry and exit, good seating, and good communication with the
instructor.

Electric motor in nose? Sure, that's a reasonable option. But the
important thing is to produce new starts. We have to launch a few
thousand people into the air and see which ones stick. The ones that
stick can get their own gliders with performance "significantly better
than an ASK 21," because that's easy to do with single-seaters.

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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 4/5/2013 4:24 AM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> No motors! That adds cost, complexity and training issues all out of
> proportion to any supposed benefit as a trainer. We need *trainers*
> and a safe, reliable, economical way to launch them. The PW-6 is the
> closest thing on the market.

Greg's belief is we need *soaring* and *XC* trainers, not just
"trainers". He absolutely wants to avoid the cost, complexity and
training issues of the current gasoline engine systems, and that is why
he want to use a TFP system ("Tractor folding propeller" - same concept
as the FES, but that name belongs to another company). The cost,
complexity, and training issues are far smaller with an electric folding
propeller sustainer than gasoline sustainers, or self-launcher systems
like the ASK-21 Mi. Any instructor should be able to make good use of a
TFP after a few flights, and students could be ready to use it as well
by the time they are solo.

The TFP addresses the "safe, reliable, economical way" to launch the
glider, using a car launch to 500 feet.

I think training effectiveness would be increased if the instructor
could extend the flight with another climb instead of landing, and with
just a flick of a switch.

Think how exciting it would be for a student who isn't solo, but has
progressed to flying the glider for most of the flight, if part (or
all!) of the flight included real XC flying, beyond gliding range of the
airport? I think that would eliminate the huge "rubber band" effect most
solo students experience, and that continues to haunt them even when
they get their license.

That excitement would keep them coming back better than the typical
training program does now, don't you think?

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

[[email protected]]

I for one couldn't agree more with everything that Bob says. However, I'm not convinced side-by-side seating is necessary or even a good thing for people who will be mainly flying in line seating singles. I'm trying hard to be convinced, I want to be convinced, because everything else about the Aurora concept is awesome. I've instructed in both types and admittedly communication is an issue in tandems. If designing and building a tandem cockpit is cheaper and easier, I'd say address communication issues with a nice lightweight intercom. Whatever the case, I applaud Bob's efforts with Aurora and his well-informed sound practical thinking.

[[email protected]]

I for one couldn't agree more with everything that Bob says. However, I'm not convinced side-by-side seating is necessary or even a good thing for people who will be mainly flying in line seating singles. I'm trying hard to be convinced, I want to be convinced, because everything else about the Aurora concept is awesome. I've instructed in both types and admittedly communication is an issue in tandems. If designing and building a tandem cockpit is cheaper and easier, I'd say address communication issues with a nice lightweight intercom. Whatever the case, I applaud Bob's efforts with Aurora and his well-informed sound practical thinking.

[David Salmon[_2_]]

At 15:26 05 April 2013, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>On Apr 4, 8:50=A0pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>> I talked to Greg Cole of Windward performance today about this subject.
>> He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer...
>>
>> + should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21
>
>I think that Greg is right, but only if what we want to do is train an
>elite cadre of cross-country and competition pilots. And I happen to
>think that that is not necessarily what we want to do.
>
>I worked at one of the busiest training gliderports in the US for
>about five years, and I saw the kind of abuse that a real training
>glider gets, and I saw what a real training glider does. And I know
>that performance better than ASK21 might sound good and look good, and
>might be an interesting design challenge, but it is to a great extent
>secondary to what we want to do, and is in some ways counterproductive
>to what we need.
>
>I have talked with several commercial operators, and what they seem to
>value above all else is operational availability. The glider has to be
>functional and ready to go when it is needed. That means more than
>rugged construction, it means minimum downtime. It means that the
>glider is easy to repair, and that replacement parts are easily
>available, and easy to install. It means that you can change a wheel,
>tire, and brake assembly in fifteen minutes. It means that FedEx can
>deliver a replacement canopy, with frame, ready to latch on and fly
>with, overnight. It means wings that interchange so you can mix and
>match your fleet when things get rough.
>
>What we need is a glider that will launch 7200 times a year, every
>year. A glider that will expose thousands of potential pilots to the
>experience of soaring flight in a way that shows them the potential
>and makes them want more. Because the reality is that, while soaring
>is a wonderful and fascinating and engrossing activity, it is not for
>everyone. Maybe one in person in what, 300? 500? maybe 1000? takes a
>20 minute ride and sticks with it through to the license.
>
>Another important thing is that the glider has to offer a pleasant and
>effective training environment for those that do stick. And that means
>ease of entry and exit, good seating, and good communication with the
>instructor.
>
>Electric motor in nose? Sure, that's a reasonable option. But the
>important thing is to produce new starts. We have to launch a few
>thousand people into the air and see which ones stick. The ones that
>stick can get their own gliders with performance "significantly better
>than an ASK 21," because that's easy to do with single-seaters.
>
>Thanks, Bob K.
>https://www.facebook.com/AuroraTrainingSailplaneProject

Apologies if I say something that has already been said, but I haven't read
all the postings. You are obviously in a similar situation to that which
the UK was in many years ago, no local manufacturers, so the only place to
go was Europe, which most clubs have done.
However, you are a lot further away, and by the sound of it, there could be
a good market, so why does not some composite aircraft manufacturer try for
a licence? Why re-invent the wheel? There are a number of good designs
available.
Dave
>

[[email protected]]

Car towing adds a number of significant hazard variables. The rubber band effect can be and is effectively dealt with by implementing progressive XC minded training. I didn't have it but all my students do. Dual XC land outs can work wonders!

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

>
> > >Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.
>
> > If capital cost were no problem, we would not have a problem.
> > T8
>
> Buying the cheapest glider without regard for value is part of what got us into this jam.

If capital cost is the problem, utilization is the answer. As an
economist, it's a bit funny to see a $120,000 asset sitting on the
ground except for 12-5 pm on weekends 6 months of the year. An ASK 21
would pay for itself really quickly if training started at 7 am --
much better for students anyway -- and went on until dusk, 7 days a
week, and then moved to Florida/Arizona/Texas/California for the
winter. That it doesn't -- that commercial operators don't give
discounts for off peak utilization for example -- has always struck me
as a bit of a mystery. Capital cost must not be that big a deal in the
end...


John Cochrane

[Bill D]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:14:36 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> I for one couldn't agree more with everything that Bob says. However, I'm not convinced side-by-side seating is necessary or even a good thing for people who will be mainly flying in line seating singles. I'm trying hard to be convinced, I want to be convinced, because everything else about the Aurora concept is awesome. I've instructed in both types and admittedly communication is an issue in tandems. If designing and building a tandem cockpit is cheaper and easier, I'd say address communication issues with a nice lightweight intercom. Whatever the case, I applaud Bob's efforts with Aurora and his well-informed sound practical thinking.

Tandem vs. side-by-side is a non-issue. I learned in LK-10's and Pratt Reads. The only people who thought side-by-side seating might be hard had never flown the PR. The PR's seating seemed odd for about 10 seconds on the first flight then it became perfectly natural. If anything, the LK was harder to learn in because I sometimes couldn't quite understand what the instructor wanted.

I really liked the PR in that I could see the instructor point to things and it was much easier to follow his demonstrations of a maneuver when sitting beside him. Being able to watch the instructor do a "handie" of a maneuver was invaluable.

[dbrunone]

There are 97 L-23's in the US...what about those?

[Papa3[_2_]]

I think Bob K's post just above yours says it all. We already have wonderful XC trainers with engines - they're called Duo Discuses (Discii). They cost a lot of money, and very few blue collar glider training operations are going to buy one, at least here in the US. I'm sorry, but Greg may be disconnected from the realities of a typical club or low budget FBO. Managing a sophisticated system like you describe? Hah! I watch what the ASK-21s, Blanik L-23s, and 2-33s go through at our operation and those nearby. We're lucky if we can keep the 12V SLA battery charged with working connectors in order to run the radio and electric vario :-)

Seriously: Simple. Robust. User Friendly. Repairable. ASK-21 performance.

That's the high level requirement IMO.



On Friday, April 5, 2013 12:03:48 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 4/5/2013 4:24 AM, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > No motors! That adds cost, complexity and training issues all out of
>
> > proportion to any supposed benefit as a trainer. We need *trainers*
>
> > and a safe, reliable, economical way to launch them. The PW-6 is the
>
> > closest thing on the market.
>
>
>
> Greg's belief is we need *soaring* and *XC* trainers, not just
>
> "trainers". He absolutely wants to avoid the cost, complexity and
>
> training issues of the current gasoline engine systems, and that is why
>
> he want to use a TFP system ("Tractor folding propeller" - same concept
>
> as the FES, but that name belongs to another company). The cost,
>
> complexity, and training issues are far smaller with an electric folding
>
> propeller sustainer than gasoline sustainers, or self-launcher systems
>
> like the ASK-21 Mi. Any instructor should be able to make good use of a
>
> TFP after a few flights, and students could be ready to use it as well
>
> by the time they are solo.
>
>
>
> The TFP addresses the "safe, reliable, economical way" to launch the
>
> glider, using a car launch to 500 feet.
>
>
>
> I think training effectiveness would be increased if the instructor
>
> could extend the flight with another climb instead of landing, and with
>
> just a flick of a switch.
>
>
>
> Think how exciting it would be for a student who isn't solo, but has
>
> progressed to flying the glider for most of the flight, if part (or
>
> all!) of the flight included real XC flying, beyond gliding range of the
>
> airport? I think that would eliminate the huge "rubber band" effect most
>
> solo students experience, and that continues to haunt them even when
>
> they get their license.
>
>
>
> That excitement would keep them coming back better than the typical
>
> training program does now, don't you think?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>
> email me)

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Apr 5, 9:38*am, David Salmon > wrote:

> Apologies if I say something that has already been said, but I haven't read
> all the postings. You are obviously in a similar situation to that which
> the UK was in many years ago, no local manufacturers, so the only place to
> go was Europe, which most clubs have done.
> However, you are a lot further away, and by the sound of it, there could be
> a good market, so why does not some composite aircraft manufacturer try for
> a licence? Why re-invent the wheel? There are a number of good designs
> available.

Dave, those are excellent questions!

Part of the genesis of the Aurora project was the suggestion that a
license might be obtained to manufacture ASK21s locally. The question
then became, how would you manufacture them cost-effectively, with
minimum ramp-up time, and what might you do differently?

One of the big issues is that of obtaining production certification.
You don't just have to obtain license to manufacture a design that has
been certificated to meet regulatory requirements. You also have to
prove to the authorities that you can manufacture it so that every
single unit meets certification requirements. And that means
developing and implementing a variety of technologies that ensure that
you stay within allowable tolerances in several dimensions.

These considerations led to the idea that a training glider should be
designed from the start with the idea of making it as cost-effective
as possible to meet both design and production certification
requirements. And that led back towards a clean-sheet design. But this
isn't reinventing the wheel. This is developing a wheel that meets our
current needs, not someone else's needs from a bygone era.

Thanks, Bob K.

[soartech[_2_]]

Bob K said:
> Because the reality is that, while soaring
>is a wonderful and fascinating and engrossing activity, it is not for
>everyone. Maybe one in person in what, 300? 500? maybe 1000? takes a
>20 minute ride and sticks with it through to the license.

From what I have seen of this sport it is mostly made up of airplane
pilots who have
also taken up soaring. At least in my club it is. I would guess it is
the same elsewhere in the US.
It seems this makes it an easy license transition to get into a
glider.
Some of you have talked about what trainers were used in the 50's and
60's. This is largely irrelevant
now because in ~1975 flex wing hang gliding was born. And later,
paragliding.
Now anyone who has that (cursed) soaring gene can afford to soar, buy
a new glider and a complete vario/altimeter/ IGC logger for a few
thousand $ and
fly XC 100 to 300 km. on good days. And it is every bit as thrilling
as going 500 km in a sailplane. Without the towing fees.
The only things driving these soaring aficionados to sailplanes is
that some are getting too old to lug gliders
around AND they now have a little more cash.

What I am trying to point out is that we are not realistically looking
at the whole picture when thinking about how to grow sailplane
activity.
It is a lot harder than it was in the 60s when that was the only game
in town for motorless flight.
My prediction is that sailplane soaring will continue to be a
shrinking sport and there is nothing you can do about it unless
you can a). ban other forms of gliding and b.) greatly reduce the
cost.
A third item might be to try and get today's youth away from their
glowing screens long enough to participate in real-world activities.
HG and PG numbers are declining as well!

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 4/5/2013 9:42 AM, wrote:
> Car towing adds a number of significant hazard variables.

What "hazard variables" does it add, compared to aerotow? Doesn't it
also subtract some "hazard variables"?

If you are operating from a glider-only airfield, I'd guess the hazards
of a 500' agl car launch are less than a 2000' aerotow launch,
particularly if you include the hazards to the tow pilot. If operating
from a GA airport, I know it will have different hazards than aerotow,
but it's not clear they would be greater.

> The rubber
> band effect can be and is effectively dealt with by implementing
> progressive XC minded training. I didn't have it but all my students
> do. Dual XC land outs can work wonders!

I agree the rubber band effect can be mitigated, but my observation is
it isn't most of the time. My experience as an instructor trying to get
students to go XC was disappointing: even with all their training being
from an experienced XC pilot (me), with some XC flight with an
experienced XC pilot (me), with offers to retrieve the Blanik from a
field, with cheap aero retrieves available from airports, with plenty of
airports in reach of a Blanik, very few even attempted a XC flight.

The only students to do it as soon as they were allowed to were former
hang glider pilots, and they were already XC pilots when they joined!

So, I still think a glider with an FES/TFP will result in many more
experiencing it as students, attempting it when solo, and continuing
with it when they own their own glider (and be more likely to get their
own glider). It will have to be tried to see if it is effective.

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

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 4/5/2013 10:22 AM, Papa3 wrote:
> I think Bob K's post just above yours says it all. We already have
> wonderful XC trainers with engines - they're called Duo Discuses
> (Discii). They cost a lot of money, and very few blue collar glider
> training operations are going to buy one, at least here in the US.
> I'm sorry, but Greg may be disconnected from the realities of a
> typical club or low budget FBO. Managing a sophisticated system
> like you describe? Hah! I watch what the ASK-21s, Blanik L-23s, and
> 2-33s go through at our operation and those nearby. We're lucky if
> we can keep the 12V SLA battery charged with working connectors in
> order to run the radio and electric vario :-)

The engine system Greg proposes is nothing like the ones on the Duo
Discus. It is far simpler to operate: turn on a switch and it starts
providing power in a couple seconds (no mast to raise); move the power
lever to get level flight or climb. Got your thermal? Power back, switch
off, and you are a glider again in less than 5 seconds (no propeller to
stop, no mast to put away). Compare that to managing the gasoline motor
on a Duo.

If the instructor can't manage getting the propulsion battery put on
charge, he has no business being an instructor. That part of the
operation is simple compared everything else in an instructional flight:
"Jerry, take this here battery to the clubhouse and plug it into the big
charger. Bring the one that was on the charger back with you, or you
don't fly next."

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

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

In the UK, until a sustained campaign over the last few years, about 1/3 of the fatalities in our gliding were following a cable break or other premature termination of launch, usually as a result of spinning in. (It should not have happened, and we have learned how to much reduce such events, but it was a fact.)

I hope the present efforts to increase the proportion of cable launches – by winch or car – in the USA do not go through a similar high accident rate. Please learn from our mistakes and how to avoid them, not repeat that history.

By the way, having a FES and seeing how I could in theory get away from a medium height or higher cable break, I believe that a lot of the old cable break/low slow turn/spin accidents would have been avoided had they had FES to climb away with.

Chris N

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

See here how to have a crash (these pilots were lucky – they survived).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xCct8cDtyk

Chris N

[Papa3[_2_]]

It's not engine operation per-se I'm worried about. It's all of the mechanical and electronic wizardry that has to work to go along with it. Yeah, it's electic. No fuel system. No mags or plugs. Great. What happens I have a prop strike or Joe Pilot forgets to swap out the battery pack (assume that it can be swapped out) or..

If someone wants to design the capability in as an "add on" rather than as a required element, go for it. Just let me buy it without that stuff and don't charge me for it if I don't want it. Build me a robust trainer that can take the real world abuse of your typical club or FBO.

A lot of engineers love to build something that "pushes the envelope". I see it at work every single day. Yet we forget about design for maintainability or design for manufacturing.



On Friday, April 5, 2013 2:09:35 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 4/5/2013 10:22 AM, Papa3 wrote:
>
> > I think Bob K's post just above yours says it all. We already have
>
> > wonderful XC trainers with engines - they're called Duo Discuses
>
> > (Discii). They cost a lot of money, and very few blue collar glider
>
> > training operations are going to buy one, at least here in the US.
>
> > I'm sorry, but Greg may be disconnected from the realities of a
>
> > typical club or low budget FBO. Managing a sophisticated system
>
> > like you describe? Hah! I watch what the ASK-21s, Blanik L-23s, and
>
> > 2-33s go through at our operation and those nearby. We're lucky if
>
> > we can keep the 12V SLA battery charged with working connectors in
>
> > order to run the radio and electric vario :-)
>
>
>
> The engine system Greg proposes is nothing like the ones on the Duo
>
> Discus. It is far simpler to operate: turn on a switch and it starts
>
> providing power in a couple seconds (no mast to raise); move the power
>
> lever to get level flight or climb. Got your thermal? Power back, switch
>
> off, and you are a glider again in less than 5 seconds (no propeller to
>
> stop, no mast to put away). Compare that to managing the gasoline motor
>
> on a Duo.
>
>
>
> If the instructor can't manage getting the propulsion battery put on
>
> charge, he has no business being an instructor. That part of the
>
> operation is simple compared everything else in an instructional flight:
>
> "Jerry, take this here battery to the clubhouse and plug it into the big
>
> charger. Bring the one that was on the charger back with you, or you
>
> don't fly next."
>
>
>
> --
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
>
> email me)

[Peter von Tresckow]

> wrote:
> On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:13:22 AM UTC-4, Karl Kunz wrote:
>> Is the PW-6 built any better than a PW-5? I can't imagine a trainer
>> built like a PW-5 able to withstand the kind of abuse a trainer takes.
>> On Friday, April 5, 2013 4:24:28 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote: > On
>> Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:50:05 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote: > > >
>> On 4/4/2013 4:41 PM, GM wrote: > > > > > > > Please - someone explain to
>> me why a manufacturer > > > > > > > like Windward Performance does not
>> jump at the opportunity to build a > > > > > > > modern two-seat trainer
>> rather than trying to compete with the latest > > > > > > > super orchid
>> grown in Germany. I think something like this would > > > > > > > sell.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me explain... > > > > > > > > > > > > I talked to Greg Cole of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windward performance today about this subject. > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer... > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > + should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21 > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > + be light weight (but rugged) with wing panels weighing less than 140
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > pounds each, so club members don't mind rigging it each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weekend > > > > > > + have very nice handling > > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > And ultimately, it should have a front mounted electric motor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a > > > > > > folding propeller ("TFP" - tractor folding
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> propeller). That would allow > > > > > > it to use a car launch to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 500', turn on the motor, and look for > > > > > > thermals. No
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thermals? Climb with the motor. > > > > > > > > > > > > When it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lands, the battery can be exchanged for a fully charged one if > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > it needs recharging, and the depleted one put on charge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (maybe you need > > > > > > three batteries if the thermals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are weak). > > > > > > > > > > > > But even if a conventional
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> towplane is used for the launch, the TFP lets > > > > > > the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> student and instructor go soaring, even cross country, almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every > > > > > > flight. Imagine how cool that is! Students
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be much more enthused > > > > > > about soaring if they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually got to do some soaring on every flight, > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than being told "XC after you have your license", or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "XC when you > > > > > > have your own glider". > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > Whether it's car launch or towplane, the TFP would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow and encourage > > > > > > more soaring, even XC,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during instruction, and more XC when flown solo. > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > The light weight and easy rigging would subdue the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerns about > > > > > > landing out (unlikely with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the TFP), and the utilization of the glider > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be much higher than the typical heavy low/medium
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance > > > > > > two-seater. > > > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Greg thinks it would sell, but bringing this glider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (any glider!) to > > > > > > market is very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expensive. The full design, molds, production
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tooling, > > > > > > and testing will easily exceed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million dollars (aka $1,000,000). So, > > > > > > for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windward Performance to jump at this opportunity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means coming up > > > > > > with a lot of money. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will a lot easier to do if there are some > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orders, so if you want one of these, or think you can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find some money > > > > > > for Windward, please call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greg Cole, and talk to him about it. > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > Get his contact details here: > > > > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > http://windward-performance.com/contact-us/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Eric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (change ".netto" to ".us" to > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > email me) > > > > No
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motors! That adds cost,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and training
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues all out of proportion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to any supposed benefit as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trainer. We need *trainers*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a safe, reliable,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economical way to launch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them. The PW-6 is the closest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing on the market. > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> The PW-6 is well built and shows the experience of the designers and builders.
> I would rate it a good second to the ASK-21 which has a bit more
> performance and is, I expect a good bit more expensive. Frankly, I don't
> know why the PW-6 has not been much more widely accepted.
> With the variety of avilable options, K-21, Perkoz, PW-6, DG####, I don't
> see why anyone in the US would tray to create an alternative, other than
> for entertainment. Anyone who thinks they are likely to be able to beat
> the experience of the established factories, some of whom have long since
> paid off their one time costs, is kidding themselves.
> The problem is how to suck it up and finance these gliders. Our solution
> is to evolve long term letting the 2-33's that fly all day every day to
> pay for the ASK-21. When it is paid off, we'll do it again- we already
> have the second '21 in captivity.
> UH

Just out of curiosity what is the price of a new PW-6? Or for that matter a
new ASK-21?

Pete

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 4/5/2013 11:43 AM, Papa3 wrote:
> It's not engine operation per-se I'm worried about. It's all of the
> mechanical and electronic wizardry that has to work to go along with
> it. Yeah, it's electic. No fuel system. No mags or plugs. Great.
> What happens I have a prop strike or Joe Pilot forgets to swap out
> the battery pack (assume that it can be swapped out) or..
>
> If someone wants to design the capability in as an "add on" rather
> than as a required element, go for it. Just let me buy it without
> that stuff and don't charge me for it if I don't want it. Build me
> a robust trainer that can take the real world abuse of your typical
> club or FBO.
>
> A lot of engineers love to build something that "pushes the
> envelope". I see it at work every single day. Yet we forget about
> design for maintainability or design for manufacturing.

No prop strikes - the TFP system is a sustainer, not a self-launcher, on
the two-seater.

The battery would be easily swapped. If the pilot forgets to do it,
there should be no safety problem, only an inconvenience - he'd have to
land after he released from the launch, and return to the field,
something he should always be prepared to do.

The TFP sustainer capability would be an option, not a requirement, and
(I'm guessing) easily added later.

Built with pre-preg carbon fiber, the glider would be robust and still
light weight, much lighter than an ASK 21, making it easier to rig and
handle on the ground (or retrieve from a field, should that happen).

Greg does want to "push the envelope" in terms of utilization and
effectiveness, with a glider that exposes pilots to real soaring and XC
much earlier and more effectively in their training

As an engineer that's been heavily involved in the design and production
of several aircraft, Greg is far more aware of all the issues of
manufacturing them than you and I will ever be. Remember, he is
currently producing the SparrowHawk and the DuckHawk. Read about his
background and the other aircraft he's designed or worked on:

http://perlanproject.org/901-2/

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

[[email protected]]

> UH Just out of curiosity what is the price of a new PW-6? Or for that matter a new ASK-21? Pete

New K-21 is about $104K at the factory based on $1.30 exchange rate.
Trailer is about 15-16.
Shipping, insurance etc, about 3K
Instruments and stuff , anywhere from 3-15 depending on what you do.
Rough numbers.
No idea what PW-6 costs.
UH

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 4:41:12 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> > UH Just out of curiosity what is the price of a new PW-6? Or for that matter a new ASK-21? Pete
>
>
>
> New K-21 is about $104K at the factory based on $1.30 exchange rate.
>
> Trailer is about 15-16.
>
> Shipping, insurance etc, about 3K
>
> Instruments and stuff , anywhere from 3-15 depending on what you do.
>
> Rough numbers.
>
> No idea what PW-6 costs.
>
> UH

PW-6 base price $70K-ish. It doesn't ease the pain as much as one would like. At these numbers, personally, I'd be for digging in the pockets a little harder for the '21.

"Utilization" -- yes, I agree. Our club doesn't have an obvious, dead nuts reliable way to build enough utilization to make the nice new 2 seater work.

....frustrated. Seeking solutions.

T8

[Dave Nadler]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 6:16:21 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> PW-6 base price $70K-ish....
> At these numbers, personally, I'd be for digging in the pockets
> a little harder for the '21.

Evan, doesn't the PW-6 Wally was flying Saturday belong
to your club ? Is the club unhappy with it ?

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 6:25:47 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
> On Friday, April 5, 2013 6:16:21 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > PW-6 base price $70K-ish....
>
> > At these numbers, personally, I'd be for digging in the pockets
>
> > a little harder for the '21.
>
>
>
> Evan, doesn't the PW-6 Wally was flying Saturday belong
>
> to your club ? Is the club unhappy with it ?
>
>
>
> See ya, Dave "YO electric"

Walter's PW-6 belongs to Walter and he seems to like it quite a lot. My club (lately) is Post Mills. We have an L-13 (argh) and a 2-33. For a season we rented a very crappy L-23 from GBSC (I wouldn't fly it, it didn't pass my pre-flight), then it was offered to us for only $35K and we said "No". Our airport is small enough that take off performance is a serious concern.. We've ruled out G-103s, DG-anything on this basis. A K-21 might work, a Puch might work, a PW-6 might work. However our numbers say "used" not new. I don't have enough experience with the PW (one flight) to have much of an opinion.

T8

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 6:37:02 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:

> Walter's PW-6 belongs to Walter and he seems to like it quite a lot

Walter has a partner on the PW-6 who feels slighted when people overlook him

Here is another trainer option

http://szd.com.pl/files/SZD-50-3%20Puchacz%20for%20Sale.pdf

[Burt Compton - Marfa]

> New K-21 is about $104K at the factory based on $1.30 exchange rate.
> Trailer is about 15-16.
> Shipping, insurance etc, about 3K
> Instruments and stuff , anywhere from 3-15 depending on what you do.


Those numbers are about right. I imported a new ASK-21 (RORO in a Cobra trailer to Houston) two years ago, fully equipped with good instruments, LX audio vario with repeater, Becker radio, spin kit, poly paint, tip wheels, plus some spare parts. Uses standard size tires, Cleveland wheel/brake, unlike some eastern European ships. Utilization at Marfa, Texas, is high -- a joy to fly and instruct in. The perfect sailplane for fun soaring, tourist rides, glider-rating checkrides and training on all levels. I keep it hangared and tow it with Cessna tri-gear towplanes, which can also be used for airplane training as I am an airplane and glider flight instructor / FAA examiner. Excellent factory support from Schleicher. It will be a bargain if I keep this ASK-21 twenty years. Yes, got to figure in ongoing costs such as insurance and inspections, hangar . . . but I'll probably use up three $30K cars to zero in that time and I bet this sailplane will still be worth alot. So whether a club or commercial operation, build a realistic business plan. Advertise. Be sure to charge what it is worth. I get $60/hour and $135 for a 15 minute tourist ride. Believe me, they will pay to fly in a nice sailplane (reference the movie "Field of Dreams.") Bank happy to finance if you have a viable plan. Check out the financing possibilities from AOPA. Maybe talk to Lea County Bank in Hobbs, NM. Yes, I would prefer to buy American and I'm watching for the Windward two-seater -- that's an exciting prospect. The DG-1000 Club is also a very nice sailplane and available now. You can argue the above details but get this, it's working for me at Marfa.

[Tony[_5_]]

Maybe an eventual grounding of 2-xx's will be what it takes to create enough demand for two seaters in the us for attractive financing and lower costs and maybe even stateside construction to all come together in a perfect storm of glider building. Then in another 50 years or so we'll have another mass glider extinction.

Time to get back to restoring my old clubs 2-22. Their other glider is a ka7 . Oh, almost forgot about their blanik.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:28:05 -0700, Chris Nicholas wrote:

> See here how to have a crash (these pilots were lucky – they survived).
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xCct8cDtyk
>
> Chris N
Chris,

Why is this a must-sign-in-to-view item?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Chris Nicholas[_2_]]

I have no idea why, but I just clicked on it – no signing or adding any name or whatever – and it played OK.


Regards – Chris

[son_of_flubber]

For anyone who is in the market, there will be a good opportunity to compare the ASK-21, PW-6, Blanik L-23, and SGS 2-33 side by side at the same airfield at Sugarbush Soaring in Vermont this summer. www.sugarbush.org The PW-6 will be new. The other gliders are in good condition.

The conversation comparing the relative merits of the various designs will be continuous throughout the summer. Lots of pilots. Lots of CFI-Gs. Pleasant weather. Bring your glider. Open 7 days a week.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 4/5/2013 7:41 AM, Bill D wrote:
> The only things I would change are convenience items like wing hard
> points for one-man assembly tools and maybe some hand grips to help
> lever a creaky old instructor out of the back seat. I think quick
> and easy rigging/de-rigging is important for those without a hangar.

How about rigging or retrieving from a farm field? The wings look big
and heavy, and so does the fuselage.

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

[Bill D]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:38:57 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> How about rigging or retrieving from a farm field? The wings look big and heavy, and so does the fuselage.
>

ASK-21 wings are not that heavy. I rig two of them every time we fly. It's the easiest 2-seat glider I know of to rig. I really makes sense to store them de-rigged in a covered trailer if you don't have a hangar.

My usual crew is teenage CAP Cadets who have never seen a glider before and we get it done in about half an hour. I can lift the root by myself but it's too wide for me to align the spigots so I need someone on the trailing edge. The fun part is to get the smallest Cadet to do the wing pins - their grin is priceless.

A one-man dolly would be helpful but the wings are so wide it would need a huge saddle which is why I mentioned hard points. That way the dolly could be really small for storage.

[ASM]

Now Eric, you need to get off of your high horse.
The SZD 54-2 Perkoz is ready for purchase as well as the PW-6U.
http://soaringcafe.com/2012/04/world-class-sailplanes-dead/
http://soaringcafe.com/2012/12/the-szd-50-puchacz/
http://soaringcafe.com/2012/12/szd-54-2-perkoz-part-2/

Jacek

[Steve]

> The ASK-21 is essentially a perfect training glider. *Its superb handling qualities match its beautiful appearance. *Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.
>
> The only things I would change are convenience items like wing hard points for one-man assembly tools and maybe some hand grips to help lever a creaky old instructor out of the back seat. *I think quick and easy rigging/de-rigging is important for those without a hangar.

Living in the land of mice, black widow spiders, snakes and locusts
and having recently helped vacuum out several large thick piles of
locust body parts from under the seatpan of a K21 I can add another
thing I would change on it. It would be nice if complete access to
the entire fuselage by any critter the size of a baby skunk, raccoon
or possum could be limited. What critter eats the juicy parts of
thousands of grasshoppers and leaves only the legs, wings and other
dry parts? Seems like a mammal would eat the whole bug.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 4/5/2013 8:28 PM, ASM wrote:
> Now Eric, you need to get off of your high horse.
> The SZD 54-2 Perkoz is ready for purchase as well as the PW-6U.
> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/04/world-class-sailplanes-dead/
> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/12/the-szd-50-puchacz/
> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/12/szd-54-2-perkoz-part-2/

I don't have horse in this discussion. I'm just answering questions
people have about Windward Performance's abilities and offerings. I've
already ordered my two-seater, and it's a side-by-side with tractor
propeller!

Practically speaking, I know very little about the gliders you mention,
so I'm not qualified to discuss them.

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

[GC[_2_]]

On 6/04/2013 13:38, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 4/5/2013 7:41 AM, Bill D wrote:
>> The only things I would change are convenience items like wing hard
>> points for one-man assembly tools and maybe some hand grips to help
>> lever a creaky old instructor out of the back seat. I think quick
>> and easy rigging/de-rigging is important for those without a hangar.
>
> How about rigging or retrieving from a farm field? The wings look big
> and heavy, and so does the fuselage.

Quite right, Eric, K21s are heavy. Unlike prepregs however, they are
also quick, cheap and not technologically challenging to repair. The
insurance premiums are commensurate with that.

In over 50 years of aviation, I've yet to see a training aircraft so
robust that repairability wasn't important. (However, I've never seen a
2-33 so I may be wrong...)

GC

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Apr 5, 11:27*pm, GC > wrote:

> Quite right, Eric, K21s are heavy. *Unlike prepregs however, they are
> also quick, cheap and not technologically challenging to repair. *The
> insurance premiums are commensurate with that.

Using the field-optimized technologies I developed and refined for the
HP-24 project, I'm pretty sure I can hit 175 lbs/panel for each of
Aurora's ASK21-sized wings. That's not as light as might be wished
for, but it has good margin for repairability and operationality.

Thanks, Bob K.

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 11:28:38 PM UTC-4, ASM wrote:
> Now Eric, you need to get off of your high horse.
>
> The SZD 54-2 Perkoz is ready for purchase as well as the PW-6U.
>
> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/04/world-class-sailplanes-dead/
>
> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/12/the-szd-50-puchacz/
>
> http://soaringcafe.com/2012/12/szd-54-2-perkoz-part-2/
>
>
>
> Jacek

The SZD-54-2 deserves more attention than it is getting in the USA

[Frank Whiteley]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 9:11:06 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
> On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:38:57 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
>
>
> > How about rigging or retrieving from a farm field? The wings look big and heavy, and so does the fuselage.
>
> >
>
>
>
> ASK-21 wings are not that heavy. I rig two of them every time we fly. It's the easiest 2-seat glider I know of to rig. I really makes sense to store them de-rigged in a covered trailer if you don't have a hangar.
>
>
>
> My usual crew is teenage CAP Cadets who have never seen a glider before and we get it done in about half an hour. I can lift the root by myself but it's too wide for me to align the spigots so I need someone on the trailing edge. The fun part is to get the smallest Cadet to do the wing pins - their grin is priceless.
>
>
>
> A one-man dolly would be helpful but the wings are so wide it would need a huge saddle which is why I mentioned hard points. That way the dolly could be really small for storage.

A K-21 can be rigged and derigged by two moderately strong persons without a wing dolly and good wing stands. Can be, but not preferred. Been there, done that.

A PW-6 can be done reasonably easily by two. I watched, offered to help two gents well older then me, and they said 'just watch'. I did and they did..

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

On Friday, April 5, 2013 11:11:06 PM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
> On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:38:57 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote: > How about rigging or retrieving from a farm field? The wings look big and heavy, and so does the fuselage. > ASK-21 wings are not that heavy. I rig two of them every time we fly. It's the easiest 2-seat glider I know of to rig. I really makes sense to store them de-rigged in a covered trailer if you don't have a hangar. My usual crew is teenage CAP Cadets who have never seen a glider before and we get it done in about half an hour. I can lift the root by myself but it's too wide for me to align the spigots so I need someone on the trailing edge. The fun part is to get the smallest Cadet to do the wing pins - their grin is priceless. A one-man dolly would be helpful but the wings are so wide it would need a huge saddle which is why I mentioned hard points. That way the dolly could be really small for storage.

We use a rigger and can assemble using 2 people in about 15-20 minutes.
Lots less lifting that way.
UH

[Bill T]

I do not see how you correlate a failure of a wood spar glider with the potential grounding of metal spar SGS-2-33s. That is a reach.

Wood spars fail from drying out, wood rot, or failure of an inspection to find cracks. Let's look at all of the wood spar Decathlon issues, yet with inspections, they are still flying. Not worth much, but still flying.

How does that correlate to a metal spar glider? Yes we all know of the L-13 issues.

If you maintain your aircraft, metal or wood spar, make the decision yourself, or the mechanic will decide for you, when it's time to retire an aircraft.
Not the Feds.

I'll agree that nice, new(er) all metal training gliders would be nice for a lot of clubs. But not $100K + Euro Plastic.

T

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, April 6, 2013 10:50:52 PM UTC-4, Bill T wrote:
> I do not see how you correlate a failure of a wood spar glider with the potential grounding of metal spar SGS-2-33s. That is a reach.

I do not draw any correlation between the failure of a wood spar glider with a potential SGS-2-33 failure other than the fact that all gliders are subject to age, the occasional hard landing, wear and tear, and unevenness of inspection.

Consider the most hard-landed, abused and/or poorly inspected SGS 2-33 in use. That's the one that is the most relevant. As time passes this crappy glider deteriorates more and becomes more likely to fail catastrophically. No one really knows when/if it will actually fail. We just don't know. You can't really inspect it completely without taking it apart and if it fails, the FAA will take some action. Sure, it is engineered and built to last from the start. But those engineering calculations become less reliable predictors as the glider accrues unpredictable and unquantifiable experience and neglect.

A while back, the Australian's tested a couple of Blaniks that had used up their factory authorized "service life". They took them apart and did all sorts of inspection and materials testing. On the basis of that evaluation, they extended the allowable service life of that type in Australia.

Will that sort of rigorous pre-fatality evaluation ever happen to an SGS 2-33? Probably not. So we are all just keeping our fingers crossed. Are there hidden problems? Who the heck knows? But everything gets old and wears out.

My point is not to push a panic button about the 2-33s. I just wanted to restart the conversation about updating the fleet. The current non-plan is pathetic, (plus I've gotten tired of reading about stupid narcissistic s--t on RAS and my glider is still snowed in.)

I'm not an aeronautical engineer and I welcome anyone who can correct me if I'm wrong about how this is going to unfold over the next ten years.

[BobW]

On 4/7/2013 10:16 AM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Saturday, April 6, 2013 10:50:52 PM UTC-4, Bill T wrote:
>> I do not see how you correlate a failure of a wood spar glider with the
>> potential grounding of metal spar SGS-2-33s. That is a reach.
>
> I do not draw any correlation between the failure of a wood spar glider
> with a potential SGS-2-33 failure other than the fact that all gliders are
> subject to age, the occasional hard landing, wear and tear, and unevenness
> of inspection.
>
> Consider the most hard-landed, abused and/or poorly inspected SGS 2-33 in
> use. That's the one that is the most relevant. As time passes this crappy
> glider deteriorates more and becomes more likely to fail catastrophically.
> No one really knows when/if it will actually fail. We just don't know.
> You can't really inspect it completely without taking it apart and if it
> fails, the FAA will take some action. Sure, it is engineered and built to
> last from the start. But those engineering calculations become less
> reliable predictors as the glider accrues unpredictable and unquantifiable
> experience and neglect.
>
> A while back, the Australian's tested a couple of Blaniks that had used up
> their factory authorized "service life". They took them apart and did all
> sorts of inspection and materials testing. On the basis of that
> evaluation, they extended the allowable service life of that type in
> Australia.
>
> Will that sort of rigorous pre-fatality evaluation ever happen to an SGS
> 2-33? Probably not. So we are all just keeping our fingers crossed. Are
> there hidden problems? Who the heck knows? But everything gets old and
> wears out.
>
> My point is not to push a panic button about the 2-33s. I just wanted to
> restart the conversation about updating the fleet. The current non-plan is
> pathetic, (plus I've gotten tired of reading about stupid narcissistic s--t
> on RAS and my glider is still snowed in.)
>
> I'm not an aeronautical engineer and I welcome anyone who can correct me if
> I'm wrong about how this is going to unfold over the next ten years.
>

Heh. It can be painful to have future vision..especially when you're likely to
be correct!

FWIW, this degreed aerospace engineer (wanted to be an aeronautical one, but
the space race of the '60s led to "aeronautical" being "upgraded to aerospace,
in curriculum naming terms), doesn't sense any points of disagreement with
your assessment.

Nor do I disagree with Bill T''s prior point of how *individual* aircraft in
the U.S. are likely to be determined non-airworthy, i.e. "If you maintain your
aircraft, metal or wood spar, make the decision yourself, or the mechanic will
decide for you, when it's time to retire an aircraft.
Not the Feds."

However, should a 2-33 suffer a catastrophic in-flight failure, we've plenty
of FAA history to surmise how they might react...and grounding the fleet is
always a possibility (e.g. L-13, T-34 spar AD, various other older birds with
expensive [effectively, grounding] AD's, etc.).

The U.S. 2-seat glider training fleet is - IMO - definitely ripe for "a
universal upgrade"...which doesn't - in my mind - necessarily mean a wholesale
scrapping of currently flightworthy 2-seaters. Lots of ways to skin cats...and
"capital action" of this nature generally begins with discussion, mental
effort, etc. Keep at it!

Bob W.