Future of Glass Goose?

[geo]

The future of the Glass Goose is in doubt. I e-mailed Tom Scott about seeing
the GG while I was in Dallas but it seems he is having health issues & ready
to retire. I sure hope he finds a buyer to keep production going. The GG is
really in a class of its own; it really deserves to be the amphibian Europa
in terms of success. I was hoping to get one but as a first time buyer I
really need a company that's going to be around for a while for support. I
hope I don't have to resort to a SeaRey. I wish Tom the best.

[Legrande Harris]

Why don't you check out a few float planes? Some go just about as fast
(or faster), they are much easier to dock, they carry a lot more
baggage, etc.


In article >,
"geo" > wrote:

> The future of the Glass Goose is in doubt. I e-mailed Tom Scott about seeing
> the GG while I was in Dallas but it seems he is having health issues & ready
> to retire. I sure hope he finds a buyer to keep production going. The GG is
> really in a class of its own; it really deserves to be the amphibian Europa
> in terms of success. I was hoping to get one but as a first time buyer I
> really need a company that's going to be around for a while for support. I
> hope I don't have to resort to a SeaRey. I wish Tom the best.
>
>

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:09:14 GMT, "geo" > wrote:

>The future of the Glass Goose is in doubt. I e-mailed Tom Scott about seeing
>the GG while I was in Dallas but it seems he is having health issues & ready
>to retire. I sure hope he finds a buyer to keep production going. The GG is
>really in a class of its own; it really deserves to be the amphibian Europa
>in terms of success. I was hoping to get one but as a first time buyer I
>really need a company that's going to be around for a while for support. I
>hope I don't have to resort to a SeaRey. I wish Tom the best.
>
>
Looks like a cool plane but I have trouble believing the 900lb empty
weight is possible.

[geo]

"Legrande Harris" > wrote in message
...
> Why don't you check out a few float planes? Some go just about as fast
> (or faster), they are much easier to dock, they carry a lot more
> baggage, etc.

Do they burn 6.5gph? Plus no corrosion with composite. I'll be visiting more
beaches than docks. I think the total cost of ownership with the GG would be
a lot lower.

www.glassgoose.com

[nauga]

geo wrote...

> Do they burn 6.5gph?

A floatplane with an O320 (the GG engine, according to the website)
will have the same fuel consumption as a Glass Goose with an O320
at the same % power setting.

> I think the total cost of ownership with the GG would be
> a lot lower.

How many are flying? How much to build and equip?

Dave 'carpe data' Hyde

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:07:45 GMT, "geo" > wrote:

>"Legrande Harris" > wrote in message
...
>> Why don't you check out a few float planes? Some go just about as fast
>> (or faster), they are much easier to dock, they carry a lot more
>> baggage, etc.
>
>Do they burn 6.5gph? Plus no corrosion with composite. I'll be visiting more
>beaches than docks. I think the total cost of ownership with the GG would be
>a lot lower.
>
>www.glassgoose.com
>
>
Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
checked to see if it's insurable?

[Michael]

(Drew Dalgleish) wrote
> Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
> checked to see if it's insurable?

I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
sections of the wing in flight.

Michael

[Darrel Toepfer]

Michael wrote:
> (Drew Dalgleish) wrote
>
>>Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
>>checked to see if it's insurable?
>
> I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
> great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
> insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
> was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
> told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
> sections of the wing in flight.

Avweb featured pictures of Cezch Airworks "Lake Sport" prototype, all
metal and appears to be a 2 seater...
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/0413_016.jpg
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/0414_057.JPG
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/0415_078.JPG
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/0415_082.JPG

This is the glassed "Sea Storm" from Italy, available in 2 and 4 seat
flavors (most of the pix on their website appear to be manufactured in
Photoshop):
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/SnF2004_0418132.JPG
http://www.sgaviation.com/Products/Aircraft/Sea_Storm_Z4/Sea_Storm_Z4.htm
http://www.storm-sg.it/nuovo/sea_line.asp?CAT=sea

Videos (some of them make me nervous):
http://www.sgaviation.com/Downloads/Download.htm

[Legrande Harris]

In article >,
(Michael) wrote:

> (Drew Dalgleish) wrote
> > Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
> > checked to see if it's insurable?
>
> I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
> great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
> insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
> was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
> told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
> sections of the wing in flight.
>
> Michael

They didn't originally balance the ailerons and flutter would get them.
Tom Scott lost a wing but managed to land in a field. The upper wing
folded over onto the other side. Biplanes do have their advantages :)

LG Harris

[Boo]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> Michael wrote:
> > (Drew Dalgleish) wrote
> >
> >>Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
> >>checked to see if it's insurable?
> >
> > I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
> > great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
> > insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
> > was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
> > told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
> > sections of the wing in flight.

That happened in the early stage of development, right? Those problems were
solved in the current version.

[Michael]

"Boo" > wrote
> > > Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
> > > sections of the wing in flight.
>
> That happened in the early stage of development, right?

Uh, no. It wasn't in development at all. These were all
customer-built aircraft.

> Those problems were solved in the current version.

Not that I know of. AFAIK there has not been either a reliable FEA
simulation nor a long term cycle test to indicate that the 'solution'
actually fixed the problem. Nor has there been a long-term field
history.

Michael

[HankL]

Michael or whoever you are - Kelly's boyfriend?
1 - Why don't you respond to emails showing that you are wrong?
I tried to handle this off the group - but no joy.
2- why don't you use your real name when you put bad info out?


"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (Drew Dalgleish) wrote
> > Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
> > checked to see if it's insurable?
>
> I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
> great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
> insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
> was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
> told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
> sections of the wing in flight.
>
> Michael

[Boo]

What's your take on it? As someone considering a GG it's troubling to say
the least. Tom Scott hasn't responded to my e-mail inquiry yet.

"HankL" > wrote in message
m...
> Michael or whoever you are - Kelly's boyfriend?
> 1 - Why don't you respond to emails showing that you are wrong?
> I tried to handle this off the group - but no joy.
> 2- why don't you use your real name when you put bad info out?
>
>
> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Drew Dalgleish) wrote
> > > Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
> > > checked to see if it's insurable?
> >
> > I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
> > great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
> > insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
> > was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
> > told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
> > sections of the wing in flight.
> >
> > Michael
>
>

[HankL]

Tom probably won't - his hanger is 50 ft. from mine. That guy Michael or
whoever is
talking about an occurrence that happened to a few SeaHawks ( I have one)
and the cause
was not anywhere close to the reasons he sited. Mine has 300 hrs and never
had a problem.
Some of our owners have installed struts between the wings - .
P.S. they can be insured - like the Lake and all amphibs, it's not cheap -
what is today?
For the money, 120 mph w/150hp, over 1000 mile range - land or water - you
figure it out.

"Boo" > wrote in message
s.com...
> What's your take on it? As someone considering a GG it's troubling to say
> the least. Tom Scott hasn't responded to my e-mail inquiry yet.
>
> "HankL" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Michael or whoever you are - Kelly's boyfriend?
> > 1 - Why don't you respond to emails showing that you are wrong?
> > I tried to handle this off the group - but no joy.
> > 2- why don't you use your real name when you put bad info out?
> >
> >
> > "Michael" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (Drew Dalgleish) wrote
> > > > Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
> > > > checked to see if it's insurable?
> > >
> > > I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
> > > great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
> > > insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
> > > was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
> > > told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
> > > sections of the wing in flight.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> >
>
>

[Del Rawlins]

In > HankL wrote:
> That guy Michael
> or whoever is talking about an occurrence that happened to a few
> SeaHawks ( I have one) and the cause was not anywhere close to the
> reasons he sited. Mine has 300 hrs and never had a problem.

Just out of curiosity, what was the cause?

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Michael]

"HankL" > wrote
> That guy Michael or whoever is

Anyone who has been on the net long enough to recall the era of the
fish knows who I am, and why I don't post my last name anymore.

> talking about an occurrence that happened to a few SeaHawks ( I have one)
> and the cause was not anywhere close to the reasons he sited.

Really? What cause, exactly, did I cite? All I recall stating is
that portions of the wing were lost in flight. So were they or
weren't they?

> Mine has 300 hrs and never had a problem.

How many hours did the ones that had the problem have?

> Some of our owners have installed struts between the wings - .

And you believe this fixes/prevents the problem why? FEA? Long term
cycle tests? What IS the cause of the problem? I've heard a lot of
conjecture, and have not repeated any of it because none of it sounded
convincing.

> P.S. they can be insured - like the Lake and all amphibs, it's not cheap -
> what is today?

What company will write hull coverage? Name it, please. I was not
able to find one that would write hull, at any price. The Lake is
expensive to insure, but it can be insured for hull.

Michael

[Boo]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Boo" > wrote
> > > > Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
> > > > sections of the wing in flight.
> >
> > That happened in the early stage of development, right?
>
> Uh, no. It wasn't in development at all. These were all
> customer-built aircraft.

What? All aircraft go thru research & development. Quite extensive with the
GG as this article describes. Tom, to his credit basically redesigned the
Seahawk from top to bottom. http://www.glassgoose.com/cp_may1.html

> > Those problems were solved in the current version.
>
> Not that I know of. AFAIK there has not been either a reliable FEA
> simulation nor a long term cycle test to indicate that the 'solution'
> actually fixed the problem. Nor has there been a long-term field
> history.

The wing failures were addressed:
" Then the NTSB asked him to look into the cause of the failures that were
occurring. He was sent to inspect some of the aircraft involved. In one
case, the NTSB had one of the broken wings sent to the NTSB laboratory for
X-ray examination. In each case that Scott investigated (and some he didn't)
it was determined that on the wings that had failed, the upper spar caps
were not being adequately bonded to the spar! Instructions supplied with the
Seahawk kits had been devoid of an inspection procedure to ensure the
bonding of the spar caps to the spar. Furthermore, the assembly process
outlined in the Seahawk instructions led the builders to unknowingly
assemble the wings without accomplishing the necessary bond! Some of those
planes flew as long as 200 hours before wing failure! Even then, to the
credit of the aircraft, the pilots were able to fly the planes to a safe
landing in spite of having lost a whole wing! "