Build a 1-34 from plans?!

[Gus Rasch]

Group,

Are plans available? Has anyone ever done it? I bet SSC could sell
the dickens out of plans and kits if they made them available. I bet
it would be a quick build too! Thoughts?

GR

[Vaughn]

"Gus Rasch" > wrote in message
om...
> Group,
>
> Are plans available? Has anyone ever done it? I bet SSC could sell
> the dickens out of plans and kits if they made them available. I bet
> it would be a quick build too! Thoughts?

My first thought is if you want a 1-34, why not just buy one and go
flying?

Vaughn
>
> GR

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:

> Are plans available?

No.

> Has anyone ever done it?

Not to my knowledge. Rebuilds, yes. From scratch? No.

> I bet SSC could sell the dickens out of
> plans and kits if they made them available.

Judging by sales of HP kits and plans for ships with equivalent
performance, that's not the case.

> I bet it would be a quick build too!
> Thoughts?

To me, it looks about like a 3500-hour job in the home workshop
environment. With production tooling and skilled workers, about 1/5
that.

Thanks, and best regards to all

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

[BTIZ]

very good evaluation Bob K.

and if I remember correctly, because the 1-34 was not sold as a kit. It is
not available. Would take a lot of work on the part of Schweitzer to do
that.

But if you have a wreck.. all you need is a valid data plate. But in the end
all you would have is a 1-34.

BT

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
> Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:
>
> > Are plans available?
>
> No.
>
> > Has anyone ever done it?
>
> Not to my knowledge. Rebuilds, yes. From scratch? No.
>
> > I bet SSC could sell the dickens out of
> > plans and kits if they made them available.
>
> Judging by sales of HP kits and plans for ships with equivalent
> performance, that's not the case.
>
> > I bet it would be a quick build too!
> > Thoughts?
>
> To me, it looks about like a 3500-hour job in the home workshop
> environment. With production tooling and skilled workers, about 1/5
> that.
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Gus Rasch]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message >...
> "Gus Rasch" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Group,
> >
> > Are plans available? Has anyone ever done it? I bet SSC could sell
> > the dickens out of plans and kits if they made them available. I bet
> > it would be a quick build too! Thoughts?
>
> My first thought is if you want a 1-34, why not just buy one and go
> flying?
>
> Vaughn
> >
> > GR



Vaughn,

Some people like building when it isn't flyable. Besides, the idea of
a BRAND NEW 1-34 versus used is appealing.

GR

[Gus Rasch]

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message >...
> Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:
>
> > Are plans available?
>
> No.
>
> > Has anyone ever done it?
>
> Not to my knowledge. Rebuilds, yes. From scratch? No.
>
> > I bet SSC could sell the dickens out of
> > plans and kits if they made them available.
>
> Judging by sales of HP kits and plans for ships with equivalent
> performance, that's not the case.
>
> > I bet it would be a quick build too!
> > Thoughts?
>
> To me, it looks about like a 3500-hour job in the home workshop
> environment. With production tooling and skilled workers, about 1/5
> that.
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com

Bob,

I bet the 1-34 would stand a chance at better sales/completions versus
the HP series for a few reasons.

It's a tried and true conventional platform easily recognized for what
it is with hundreds of examples in the field or parked under a cloud
already. (versus the HP series which are harder to locate and more
likely to have a side-stick, V-tail, etc.)

With easy access to a local 1-34 a prospective builder/pilot could get
a good look at one to see what their getting into. That same local
1-34 could answer builders questions and be used for stick time to
keep current while they build their own.

A modern day kit like the Vans RV series (with prepunched skins and a
high degree of prefabrication) could be shot together in short order.
I think that 500 to 700 hours is do-able.

I would like to think that a short build time, reasonable performance
and low cost (when compared to a new glass ship of similar
capabilities) would be enough to justify someones time and effort.

Could a company get rich putting out the kit? I don't know, maybe.
But it may be just the thing to attract new people to the sport and
give those already in it another option. (versus an older glass ship
with gelcoat worries or 30 year old aluminum bird thats been hailed on
one too many times.

GR

[Larry Pardue]

"Gus Rasch" > wrote in message
om...
> Bob,
>
> I bet the 1-34 would stand a chance at better sales/completions versus
> the HP series for a few reasons.
>
> It's a tried and true conventional platform easily recognized for what
> it is with hundreds of examples in the field or parked under a cloud
> already. (versus the HP series which are harder to locate and more
> likely to have a side-stick, V-tail, etc.)
>
> With easy access to a local 1-34 a prospective builder/pilot could get
> a good look at one to see what their getting into. That same local
> 1-34 could answer builders questions and be used for stick time to
> keep current while they build their own.
>
> A modern day kit like the Vans RV series (with prepunched skins and a
> high degree of prefabrication) could be shot together in short order.
> I think that 500 to 700 hours is do-able.
>
> I would like to think that a short build time, reasonable performance
> and low cost (when compared to a new glass ship of similar
> capabilities) would be enough to justify someones time and effort.
>

It is interesting that Richard VanGrunsven of Van's Aircraft is fiddling
around with the idea of a Van's motorglider kit with performance similar to
a 1-34. It would be aluminum and rivet construction, also similar to a
1-34. I don't think he expects large sales (like his other kit designs),
but is just interested in the project.

http://www.vansaircraft.com

Larry Pardue 2I
http://www.n5lp.net

[Doug Hoffman]

(Gus Rasch) wrote:

>I bet the 1-34 would stand a chance at better sales/completions
>versus the HP series for a few reasons.

>It's a tried and true conventional platform easily
>recognized for what it is with hundreds of examples in the
>field or parked under a cloud already.

Did you mean "hundreds of 1-34s" or "hundreds of gliders
similar to the 1-34s"?

No doubt the numbers from the directory have changed,
but at least it is a consistent baseline for comparison.

Source: 1997 Soaring Sailplane Directory.
SGS 1-34 No. in US 70

>(versus the HP series which are harder to locate and more
>likely to have a side-stick, V-tail, etc.)

Source: 1997 Soaring Sailplane Directory.
HP-11 No. in US 13
HP-13/14 No. in US 40
RS-15 No. in US 20
HP-16 No. in US 10
HP-18 No. in US 50

That's 70 1-34s vs 143 HP series. Unless of course
you meant gliders similar to the 1-34 in which case there
will be many more SGS. But the HPs are really not so
hard to find.

Also, all of the HPs listed have 3-7 points higher max L/D
and equal or significantly lower min. sink than the 1-34.

As far as "tried and true" goes I believe all of the HP-11 thru
14 predate the 1-34.

>and more
>likely to have a side-stick, V-tail, etc.)

*Only* the -18s had a side stick. Many of which have
been converted to center stick. If not converted, Bob
Kuykendall sells a nicely engineered custom center
stick kit for the -18.

Bob K. has a background in homebuilts/kits. I
would tend to believe his estimations.

My .02

Regards,

-Doug

[Wayne Paul]

It should also be noted that not all HP have a "V" tail. Many HP-14s and
HP-16s have the more popular "T" tail. See:
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/C-FAXH.html
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N16VP.html

If you are want a "T" tail project, take a look at:
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-14/HP-14T_Project/HP-14T_Project.htm

It is listed in the "Trading Post" section of the Schreder Designs site:
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Trading_Post/The_Trading_Post.html

Note: None of the above sailplane have a side stick.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/


"Doug Hoffman" > wrote in message
om...
> (Gus Rasch) wrote:
>
> >I bet the 1-34 would stand a chance at better sales/completions
> >versus the HP series for a few reasons.
>
> >It's a tried and true conventional platform easily
> >recognized for what it is with hundreds of examples in the
> >field or parked under a cloud already.
>
> Did you mean "hundreds of 1-34s" or "hundreds of gliders
> similar to the 1-34s"?
>
> No doubt the numbers from the directory have changed,
> but at least it is a consistent baseline for comparison.
>
> Source: 1997 Soaring Sailplane Directory.
> SGS 1-34 No. in US 70
>
> >(versus the HP series which are harder to locate and more
> >likely to have a side-stick, V-tail, etc.)
>
> Source: 1997 Soaring Sailplane Directory.
> HP-11 No. in US 13
> HP-13/14 No. in US 40
> RS-15 No. in US 20
> HP-16 No. in US 10
> HP-18 No. in US 50
>
> That's 70 1-34s vs 143 HP series. Unless of course
> you meant gliders similar to the 1-34 in which case there
> will be many more SGS. But the HPs are really not so
> hard to find.
>
> Also, all of the HPs listed have 3-7 points higher max L/D
> and equal or significantly lower min. sink than the 1-34.
>
> As far as "tried and true" goes I believe all of the HP-11 thru
> 14 predate the 1-34.
>
> >and more
> >likely to have a side-stick, V-tail, etc.)
>
> *Only* the -18s had a side stick. Many of which have
> been converted to center stick. If not converted, Bob
> Kuykendall sells a nicely engineered custom center
> stick kit for the -18.
>
> Bob K. has a background in homebuilts/kits. I
> would tend to believe his estimations.
>
> My .02
>
> Regards,
>
> -Doug

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:

> A modern day kit like the Vans RV series (with prepunched skins and a
> high degree of prefabrication) could be shot together in short order.
> I think that 500 to 700 hours is do-able.

Go for it!

> I would like to think that a short build time, reasonable performance
> and low cost (when compared to a new glass ship of similar
> capabilities) would be enough to justify someones time and effort.

The business case for the HP-24 project is built on a series of
surveys that indicated that the social and economic landscape of
soaring has changed dramatically since the HP-18 (and 1-34) heyday.
Specifically:

* Very few people are building gliders for the pure pleasure of it
anymore

* People already in the sport of soaring tend to have more disposable
income than free time

* Far fewer people are interested in mid-30 L/D than previously.

* People want composite construction for its fidelity to contour and
ease of assembly

* People are less likely to want metal because it oilcans, and takes
thousands of rivets to hold together, and requires special tools and
skills that many find daunting.

And that's why the HP-24 kit glider is an all-composite, low-40s:1,
quickbuild kit with a T-tail and a center stick and a $17,500 base kit
price. It won't be the greatest show on earth, but if you fly it like
you stole it, you can win contests with it.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Gus Rasch]

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message >...
> Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:
>
> > A modern day kit like the Vans RV series (with prepunched skins and a
> > high degree of prefabrication) could be shot together in short order.
> > I think that 500 to 700 hours is do-able.
>
> Go for it!
>
> > I would like to think that a short build time, reasonable performance
> > and low cost (when compared to a new glass ship of similar
> > capabilities) would be enough to justify someones time and effort.
>
> The business case for the HP-24 project is built on a series of
> surveys that indicated that the social and economic landscape of
> soaring has changed dramatically since the HP-18 (and 1-34) heyday.
> Specifically:
>
> * Very few people are building gliders for the pure pleasure of it
> anymore
>
> * People already in the sport of soaring tend to have more disposable
> income than free time
>
> * Far fewer people are interested in mid-30 L/D than previously.
>
> * People want composite construction for its fidelity to contour and
> ease of assembly
>
> * People are less likely to want metal because it oilcans, and takes
> thousands of rivets to hold together, and requires special tools and
> skills that many find daunting.
>
> And that's why the HP-24 kit glider is an all-composite, low-40s:1,
> quickbuild kit with a T-tail and a center stick and a $17,500 base kit
> price. It won't be the greatest show on earth, but if you fly it like
> you stole it, you can win contests with it.
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24



Bob,

All very good points from a man far more knowledgable than me in the
soaring world. The 1-34 kit is just an idea (or dream) from someone
on the fringes of soaring who is currently used to far lower Ld's (if
thats possible) and enjoys building when it isn't flyable.

GR

[Vaughn]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
m...
> Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:
>
> * People are less likely to want metal because it oilcans, and takes
> thousands of rivets to hold together, and requires special tools and
> skills that many find daunting.

Only a blind idiot would argue that composite gliders are not popular,
but there is a segment of the market for metal and/or fabric gliders because
they can be tied out in the weather just like any other aircraft that you
see at any airport and you can be flying ten minutes after you arrive at the
gliderport. Also, these machines can more likely be successfully repaired
and maintained by using the skills of an ordinary airframe mechanic. In
short, metal gliders are great for commercial rental operations and for
people who like to fly, but do not like to fuss and tinker.

>
> And that's why the HP-24 kit glider is an all-composite, low-40s:1,
> quickbuild kit with a T-tail and a center stick and a $17,500 base kit
> price. It won't be the greatest show on earth, but if you fly it like
> you stole it, you can win contests with it.

Sounds inviting!

Vaughn



>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[John H. Campbell]

>Are plans available? I bet SSC could sell the dickens out of plans and kits
if >they made them available. Thoughts?

I don't recall that the 1-34 was available as a kit, but the 1-36 "Sprite"
(the "original" World Class sailplane) was in the mid 1980s. I don't know
that anyone ever built one outside SAC, perhaps a kit or 2 is still in stock
in Elmira.

[Mike Borgelt]

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 17:01:59 -0700, "Larry Pardue"
> wrote:

>
>"Gus Rasch" > wrote in message
om...
>> Bob,
>>
>> I bet the 1-34 would stand a chance at better sales/completions versus
>> the HP series for a few reasons.
>>
>> It's a tried and true conventional platform easily recognized for what
>> it is with hundreds of examples in the field or parked under a cloud
>> already. (versus the HP series which are harder to locate and more
>> likely to have a side-stick, V-tail, etc.)
>>
>> With easy access to a local 1-34 a prospective builder/pilot could get
>> a good look at one to see what their getting into. That same local
>> 1-34 could answer builders questions and be used for stick time to
>> keep current while they build their own.
>>
>> A modern day kit like the Vans RV series (with prepunched skins and a
>> high degree of prefabrication) could be shot together in short order.
>> I think that 500 to 700 hours is do-able.
>>
>> I would like to think that a short build time, reasonable performance
>> and low cost (when compared to a new glass ship of similar
>> capabilities) would be enough to justify someones time and effort.
>>
>
>It is interesting that Richard VanGrunsven of Van's Aircraft is fiddling
>around with the idea of a Van's motorglider kit with performance similar to
>a 1-34. It would be aluminum and rivet construction, also similar to a
>1-34. I don't think he expects large sales (like his other kit designs),
>but is just interested in the project.
>
>http://www.vansaircraft.com
>
>Larry Pardue 2I
>http://www.n5lp.net
>

Also checkout John Monnett's latest products. In particular the
Xenos.

www.sonex-ltd.com

Mike Borgelt

[Doug Hoffman]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote:

> It should also be noted that not all HP have a "V" tail. Many HP-14s and
> HP-16s have the more popular "T" tail.

Of course Wayne is right.

For the metal home builder a V-tail is a simplification. Just build
2 identical parts, but mirror imaged. This assumes the mixer comes
with the kit.

-Doug

[Hank Nixon]

(Gus Rasch) wrote in message >...
> Group,
>
> Are plans available? Has anyone ever done it? I bet SSC could sell
> the dickens out of plans and kits if they made them available. I bet
> it would be a quick build too! Thoughts?
>
> GR

From Practical Experience:
The 1-34 is a great club type ship. Easy to fly, reasonable
performance, can be stored outside.
What is NOT, is easy to build. I and my partner have brought 4 back
from the dead, mostly having wing damage. The structures are
conventional, but complex, with a lot of pieces. In particular, the
fuselage has a lot of parts, many machined. By comparison, the 1-26 is
quite simple. BUT it has less performance.
It is no surprise that Schweizer stopped producing the 1-34. It is
simply too complex for really economical manufacture, and thus totally
unsuited for home building.
But, if you can find a good project- go for it.
UH