Production rates?

[Ed Byars]

Congrats to SZD for making 5000 gliders. That's a bunch. How many years did
it take. What is their production rate and how does it compare with Western
European (German) factories? Must be a high percentage of training gliders?
Any military?
I have owned German gliders with serial numbers in the low hundreds after
being in production for several years, seeming to indicate a lower annual
rate. Am I missing something?
Ed Byars

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "Ed Byars" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
> Congrats to SZD for making 5000 gliders. That's a bunch. How many years
did
> it take. What is their production rate and how does it compare with
Western
> European (German) factories? Must be a high percentage of training
gliders?
> Any military?
> I have owned German gliders with serial numbers in the low hundreds after
> being in production for several years, seeming to indicate a lower annual
> rate. Am I missing something?
> Ed Byars

Hello Ed,

Well, the roots of the SZD start just after the II World War, when they had
begin their existence as the IS - Instytut Szybownictwa (The Gliding
Institute), later renamed to SZD - Szybowcowe Zak³ady Doswiadczalne (The
Scientific Works for Gliding). The production first comprised of the
training gliders, with exception for the IS-1 Sep which has been a high
performance sailplane then. The rest of the gilders in production were
pre-war designs just like the Komar (Mosquito) and the Salamandra
(Salamander?). They also restarted the production of German Kranich II,
produced under the name IS-C Zuraw (Crane). 50 Kranich II gliders were made.

As the SZD had owned it's own design bureau (well, I must admit, that was
one of not many good things in the communist era, that state supported this
sport widely) there were several designs, of which lots were only
prototypes. Take just the SZD-40-X Halny (an experimental biplace XC ship),
or SZD-9 Bocian PULS (an SZD-9 Bocian powered with two pulse jet engines,
first flown in 1956).

http://www.piotrp.de/SZYBOWCE/dbopuls.htm

Below there is a listing of the designs I believe to be most numerous in
production:

SZD-9 Bocian (Stork), biplace: 615 gliders
SZD-10 Czapla (?), biplace: 157 gliders
SZD-12 Mucha 100 (Fly 100), solo training: 290 gliders (+later licenced
production in China)
SZD-22 Mucha Std (Fly Std.), training&XC: 290 gliders
SZD-24 Foka 4 (Seal 4), high performance XC: 204 gliders
SZD-30 Pirat (Pirate), training (mostly clubs): 813 gliders
SZD-32 Foka 5 (Seal 5), high performance XC: 132 gliders
SZD-36(A) Cobra 15, high performance XC: 290 gliders
SZD-41 Jantar Std (1) (Amber Std), high performance XC: 159 gliders
SZD-48 Jantar 2(b) (Amber 2), open class: 168 gliders
SZD-48(-3) Jantar Std. 2/3 (Amber Std 2/3), high performance XC: 631 gliders
SZD-50-3 Puchacz (Owl), biplace: 327+ gliders
SZD-51-1 Junior, training (ment to replace Pirats): 255+ gliders
SZD-55-1 Promyk ("a little ray"), high performance XC: 107+

* The gliders marked with "+" by the number are currently in production.

These are the most numerous I believe, but there were much more designs,
just look at the website:

http://www.piotrp.de/SZYBOWCE/dszd.htm

This is also the place I took the numbers from.

About the series, it seems that first, Germans were less focused on
producing new models, but more on maintaining them in production for many
years to maximize the profits. The "old SZD" was state runned company, and
much more was focused on the design work which shown in more designs in
shorter production runs.
Note also that SZD exported most of its production to the Eastern Bloc, in a
very large numbers (that's why we now call the former Soviet Union "A
Jantars mine"). Just look at the website on Polish built gliders:
http://www.lak-12.org/pol/

By the way, it seems that cumulative number of Jantar Std series seems to be
comparable with LS-4, which could also mean that it is also worth
consideration when thinking of the "one design" competition. The price would
be without any doubt lower, maybe by a half of the price of the LS-4. The
moulds and all exuipment for its production still exists, and there wouldn't
be any problem with restarting the production.

> I have owned German gliders with serial numbers in the low hundreds after
> being in production for several years, seeming to indicate a lower annual
> rate. Am I missing something?

I hope I have answered Your question so far. If not, please ask me again
what exactly You wanted to know, and I will supplement my response.

With kindest regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland

-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "Ed Byars" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
> Congrats to SZD for making 5000 gliders. That's a bunch. How many years
did
> it take. What is their production rate and how does it compare with
Western
> European (German) factories? Must be a high percentage of training
gliders?
> Any military?
> I have owned German gliders with serial numbers in the low hundreds after
> being in production for several years, seeming to indicate a lower annual
> rate. Am I missing something?
> Ed Byars

There's a cumulative table listing all the gliders made by the SZD, along
with the IS gliders included.

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland

-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "Ed Byars" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
...
> Congrats to SZD for making 5000 gliders. That's a bunch. How many years
did
> it take. What is their production rate and how does it compare with
Western
> European (German) factories? Must be a high percentage of training
gliders?
> Any military?
> I have owned German gliders with serial numbers in the low hundreds after
> being in production for several years, seeming to indicate a lower annual
> rate. Am I missing something?
> Ed Byars
>


There's a cumulative table listing all the gliders made by the SZD, along
with the IS gliders included.

http://free.ngo.pl/aerowroc/glider/szd/szd.htm

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland

-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[smjmitchell]

Janusz,

Could I ask if you know how many hours it takes the SZD factory to build a
Jantar or any of the other composite gliders they produce ? Where do the
composite materials (fiber, resin and core) come from, the Easter bloc or
from the West ???

Steve


"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
...
>
> U¿ytkownik "Ed Byars" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
> ...
> > Congrats to SZD for making 5000 gliders. That's a bunch. How many years
> did
> > it take. What is their production rate and how does it compare with
> Western
> > European (German) factories? Must be a high percentage of training
> gliders?
> > Any military?
> > I have owned German gliders with serial numbers in the low hundreds
after
> > being in production for several years, seeming to indicate a lower
annual
> > rate. Am I missing something?
> > Ed Byars
> >
>
>
> There's a cumulative table listing all the gliders made by the SZD, along
> with the IS gliders included.
>
> http://free.ngo.pl/aerowroc/glider/szd/szd.htm
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Janusz Kesik
> Poland
>
> -------------------------------------
> See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
> The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
> http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl
>
>
>
>

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "smjmitchell" > napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci u...
> Janusz,
>
> Could I ask if you know how many hours it takes the SZD factory to build a
> Jantar or any of the other composite gliders they produce ? Where do the
> composite materials (fiber, resin and core) come from, the Easter bloc or
> from the West ???
>
> Steve

Hello Steve,

I have sent an email to a person who might know something on the amount of
working hours needed to produce a Jantar or Junior. When I'll get a reply,
I'll send it here immediately. If we talk of the materials used, I think
they may be produced locally at least some of them, but it has no serious
importance I believe as these materials first have to be certifed ones, and
if they wouldn't have met the requirements, they wouldn't appear in the
workshop. Second, since we got rid of the communism and the hand-directed
economy and now we have a free market competition, the worse would lose
simply. Third, many of these materials may be produced locally under all
round the world known brands just like the Bayer and if they were worse, it
would expose this brand's reputation on a serious risk, and they wouldn't do
that. They simply must be same good as those used in the German gliders,
which are often finished with cheaper gelcoat instead of the crack-resistant
polyurethane paint which is a standard finish in case of SZD gliders.

With kindest regards,

--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "Janusz Kesik" > napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci ...
> U¿ytkownik "smjmitchell" > napisa³ w
> wiadomo¶ci u...
> > Janusz,
> >
> > Could I ask if you know how many hours it takes the SZD factory to build
a
> > Jantar or any of the other composite gliders they produce ? Where do
the
> > composite materials (fiber, resin and core) come from, the Easter bloc
or
> > from the West ???

Okay, now I know that the materials, for 99% all of them are made in the
Western Europe. When I'll get the information on workhours, I'll post it
here.


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Libelle lover]

"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message >...
> U¿ytkownik "smjmitchell" > napisa³ w
> wiadomo¶ci u...
> > Janusz,
> >
> > Could I ask if you know how many hours it takes the SZD factory to build a
> > Jantar or any of the other composite gliders they produce ? Where do the
> > composite materials (fiber, resin and core) come from, the Easter bloc or
> > from the West ???
> >
> > Steve
>
> Hello Steve,
>
> I have sent an email to a person who might know something on the amount of
> working hours needed to produce a Jantar or Junior. When I'll get a reply,
> I'll send it here immediately. If we talk of the materials used, I think
> they may be produced locally at least some of them, but it has no serious
> importance I believe as these materials first have to be certifed ones, and
> if they wouldn't have met the requirements, they wouldn't appear in the
> workshop. Second, since we got rid of the communism and the hand-directed
> economy and now we have a free market competition, the worse would lose
> simply. Third, many of these materials may be produced locally under all
> round the world known brands just like the Bayer and if they were worse, it
> would expose this brand's reputation on a serious risk, and they wouldn't do
> that. They simply must be same good as those used in the German gliders,
> which are often finished with cheaper gelcoat instead of the crack-resistant
> polyurethane paint which is a standard finish in case of SZD gliders.
>
> With kindest regards,

I think most people are already tired of your idiotic monologues
Mr.Kesik, give it a break.

[Michael McNulty]

"Libelle lover" > wrote in message
om...
> "Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
> >...
<snip>
>
> I think most people are already tired of your idiotic monologues
> Mr.Kesik, give it a break.

Speak for yourself, and please keep your rude insults off this group. Mr.
Kesik is a regular contributor to this newsgroup and I, at least for one,
find his contributions interesting and useful. If you don't like them, put
him on your blocked senders list and give the rest of us a break.

[Steve B]

I have been enjoying the discussion about the dynamics of construction
in other countries such as Poland. I am curious about the "Man hours"
it takes to build a SZD glider. The history and details of the company
I find quite interesting and educational.

The negative and disrespectful comment posted earlier was the only
part of the discussion I could do without. But then again, I thought
reading the post was optional.

Hey Jansz did you find out the amount of time it takes to build one?

Steve

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:52:06 -0700, "Michael McNulty"
> wrote:

>
>"Libelle lover" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
>> >...
><snip>
>>
>> I think most people are already tired of your idiotic monologues
>> Mr.Kesik, give it a break.
>
>Speak for yourself, and please keep your rude insults off this group. Mr.
>Kesik is a regular contributor to this newsgroup and I, at least for one,
>find his contributions interesting and useful. If you don't like them, put
>him on your blocked senders list and give the rest of us a break.
>

[Janos Bauer]

Hi Janusz,

Keep us informed about polish gliders&manufacturer! Don't care about
comments like this. Yes, your patriotism can be felt from your posts but
nothing wrong with it.
Regards,

/Janos

ps: I also tried paragliding and hanggliding but soaring seems to the
real solution for me;)


Libelle lover wrote:
>
> I think most people are already tired of your idiotic monologues
> Mr.Kesik, give it a break.

[smjmitchell]

OK thanks ...

I am just trying to get a feel for which factors influence the lower cost of
the Polish built sailplane. Obviously it is not materials. Presumably mostly
labour ......

The other thing I am curious about is certification costs in Poland ... I
assume that the original certification authority for the SZD gliders is the
Polish Airworthiness Authority ??? (BTW what is this called) Is this
correct ? Do the Polish Authorities try to recover costs by charging
applicants to process glider certification projects or is this a service
provided by the government gratis (free) ... certification costs are of
course a major issue in most other countries. Usually airworthiness
authorities bill for each hour spent which can rapidly up.

What is the procedure for the certification of a glider in Poland ? For
instance can you give use an approximate outline of the process that the
PW-5 another recent certification project would have gone through ...

Does Poland have any bilateral agreements to facilitate certification in
other countries once polish certification is achieved ?

Who controls the production of the gliders ... does Poland have a system
like the FAA Production Certificate where the government airworthiness
authority is hands off or to they still inspect each and every glider
produced prior to issue of an airworthiness certificate.




"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
...
>
> U¿ytkownik "Janusz Kesik" > napisa³ w
> wiadomo¶ci ...
> > U¿ytkownik "smjmitchell" > napisa³ w
> > wiadomo¶ci u...
> > > Janusz,
> > >
> > > Could I ask if you know how many hours it takes the SZD factory to
build
> a
> > > Jantar or any of the other composite gliders they produce ? Where do
> the
> > > composite materials (fiber, resin and core) come from, the Easter bloc
> or
> > > from the West ???
>
> Okay, now I know that the materials, for 99% all of them are made in the
> Western Europe. When I'll get the information on workhours, I'll post it
> here.
>
>
> --
> Janusz Kesik
> Poland
> to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
> -------------------------------------
> See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
> The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
> http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl
>
>

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "smjmitchell" > napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci u...
>
> I am just trying to get a feel for which factors influence the lower cost
of
> the Polish built sailplane. Obviously it is not materials. Presumably
mostly
> labour ......

Presumlbly yes, but not only. There are much more factors that make Poland a
good place to move the production, or moreover services like accounting,
call centres (generally so-called back office). Just consider a few:

1. Low labour cost, that we had made clear previously. By the way I believe
that the SZD staff is still here, and could be contacted and hired again by
the production of gliders or other glassfibre products, as they're skilled
and know the technology. Add to this lower cost of property, office space
rent (e.g 8$/month in a A class office building in Breslau (Wroclaw) - one
of the most dynamic cities).
http://paiz.gov.pl/index/?id=f457c545a9ded88f18ecee47145a72c0

2. Well educated workforce with lots of university/polytechnic university
graduates on the job market. There are almost two million students now in
the UNIs, just like at this faculty:
http://www.pwr.wroc.pl/eng/files/w_chemia.htm

3. Lower than in the Western Europe "additional cost of labour". I mean
social security fees etc. We also work more hours than e.g. Germans. When
they enjoy the 36h/week, we work average for some 48-50h/week. A Boston
Consulting Group report linked below:
http://paiz.gov.pl/index/?id=b2dd140336c9df867c087a29b2e66034

4. LOTS of tax incentives. First, the 19% flat rate corporate income tax:
http://paiz.gov.pl/index/?id=a8f15eda80c50adb0e71943adc8015cf

Plus... add to this lots of other incentives in Special Economic Zones /
Economic Activity Zones, just like these:

http://paiz.gov.pl/index/?id=43dd49b4fdb9bede653e94468ff8df1e

http://www.ksse.com.pl/index-eng.html

http://www.invest-park.com.pl/

http://leszno.pl/leszno2/gospodarka/vasa_industrial_zone_en.ppt
By the way, this one is located at Leszno, which is well known in soaring
community.

>
> The other thing I am curious about is certification costs in Poland ... I
> assume that the original certification authority for the SZD gliders is
the
> Polish Airworthiness Authority ??? (BTW what is this called) Is this
> correct ? Do the Polish Authorities try to recover costs by charging
> applicants to process glider certification projects or is this a service
> provided by the government gratis (free) ... certification costs are of
> course a major issue in most other countries. Usually airworthiness
> authorities bill for each hour spent which can rapidly up.

Well, it is hard question to me, as I don't have much experience with
airworthiness authority, but I believe it's still the producer to make the
flight tests, which are then base to the issuing of the certificate. So I
believe this is still included in the cost.
The body which is issuing certificates is Urzad Lotnictwa Cywilnego:
http://www.ulc.gov.pl

>
> What is the procedure for the certification of a glider in Poland ? For
> instance can you give use an approximate outline of the process that the
> PW-5 another recent certification project would have gone through ...

I don't have such an document, but I believe is has to comply with JAR-22
requirements.

> Does Poland have any bilateral agreements to facilitate certification in
> other countries once polish certification is achieved ?

I belive yes, but this is rather a kind of question which should be asked
either to ULC, or one of the producers, just like the SZD, or Marganski
works.

> Who controls the production of the gliders ... does Poland have a system
> like the FAA Production Certificate where the government airworthiness
> authority is hands off or to they still inspect each and every glider
> produced prior to issue of an airworthiness certificate.

It's for 99% hands off, they're just sending the papers, and make the maiden
flight.

Finally I got a reply from one of the guys who are well oriented in the
production of gliders, and they say that the production of Jantar Standard
2, of the late 12'th serie involved some 760hrs of work. It was in 1982, so
I believe some things have changed. Take the worker's productivity and newer
materials for instance.
On the other hand, I have been said that production of Junior takes only two
days, so the production process could be completed in one day (involving two
working shifts) topping at some 150 a year.

The materials used now are mostly made by Interglass and Conticell,
Schneufler L-285 resin, however still the locally produced Epidian 52&53
resins can be used instead which are much more affordable.

With kindest regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl


> "Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > U¿ytkownik "Janusz Kesik" > napisa³ w
> > wiadomo¶ci ...
> > > U¿ytkownik "smjmitchell" > napisa³ w
> > > wiadomo¶ci u...
> > > > Janusz,
> > > >
> > > > Could I ask if you know how many hours it takes the SZD factory to
> build
> > a
> > > > Jantar or any of the other composite gliders they produce ? Where
do
> > the
> > > > composite materials (fiber, resin and core) come from, the Easter
bloc
> > or
> > > > from the West ???

[Janos Bauer]

Janusz Kesik wrote:

> 3. Lower than in the Western Europe "additional cost of labour". I mean
> social security fees etc. We also work more hours than e.g. Germans. When
> they enjoy the 36h/week, we work average for some 48-50h/week.

Don't be sure about this;) A worked in several countries, Germany also
but I can't see this difference. Oh sorry, China was a different story...

/Janos

[Janusz Kesik]

Uzytkownik "Janos Bauer" > napisal w wiadomosci
...
> Janusz Kesik wrote:
>
> > 3. Lower than in the Western Europe "additional cost of labour". I mean
> > social security fees etc. We also work more hours than e.g. Germans.
When
> > they enjoy the 36h/week, we work average for some 48-50h/week.
>
> Don't be sure about this;) A worked in several countries, Germany also
> but I can't see this difference. Oh sorry, China was a different story...

I believe it depends on a certain company. And China... well that's a really
different story, also that its workforce mostly comprises of low qualified
workers who have to be taught a lot (which also costs a lot and takes a lot
of time).

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Ed Byars]

Janusz:
Thank you for your continued input. Your contributions to this thread are
appreciated. Please ignore the "Ugly American" comment (if it was an
American). I guess all countries have a few rude and inconsiderate types,
even in the soaring fraternity.
Ed Byars

"Janos Bauer" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Janusz,
>
> Keep us informed about polish gliders&manufacturer! Don't care about
> comments like this. Yes, your patriotism can be felt from your posts but
> nothing wrong with it.
> Regards,
>
> /Janos
>
> ps: I also tried paragliding and hanggliding but soaring seems to the
> real solution for me;)
>
>
> Libelle lover wrote:
> >
> > I think most people are already tired of your idiotic monologues
> > Mr.Kesik, give it a break.

[Mark James Boyd]

One of the hopes of the Sparrowhawk was presumably to significantly reduce
the amount of labor involved. Of the >10 production run modern gliders
I'm aware of, the Sparrowhawk seems to most significantly contrast
the time-honored build process of other gliders, like the SZD 55-1 .

Which is why I'm surprised that the Sparrowhawk price
has increased (not decreased) so much since Serial # 1.
Eric Greenwell's article seemed to indicate
production on the order of weeks, certainly not the 1400 man-hours
described here. Do the materials really cost 40% more than they did
several years ago or is this a labor cost increase, or is it
payments on sunk engineering costs?

One wonders what would happen if the Sparrowhawk construction concept
were adopted in a country with very low labor costs. Perhaps a
(strange) side benefit may be that US certification of a Polish
Sparrowhawk might be easier than doing the same thing inside the US.

Uniting low cost (overseas) labor with excellent innovation.
Van's does this for its quickbuild kits, apparently with good commercial
success. I'd love to see what SZD would do, in terms of price,
producing a Sparrowhawk... Maybe an idea for the next World Class? ;)

I'm astonished that the 55-1 takes 1400 man-hours to built.
I had absolutely no idea it was that consumptive...

In article >,
Janusz Kesik > wrote:
>I don't care such comments, and well, the most funny is that I wouldn't have
>noticed that post, if someone hasn't commented that. It looks like this guy
>has withdrawn his 'not so nice' posting from the server sooner than I did
>retrieved fresh postings from my news server. Anyway, thanks for the support
>for all of You my gliding friends.
>
>Finally, as asked I feel obliged to deliver the final reply that the total
>working hours involved in complete (from the first minute of work, to the
>very end of finish) in case of production of the SZD-55, total at 1400
>hours. So, well... it's a huge amount, and the lower cost of labour helps so
>much indeed to keep it's price still 4500Euros lower than the *predicted*
>price of the LS-4 which is going to re-enter production according to the
>news I have red on the R.A.S.
>
>With kindest regards,
>
>
>--
>Janusz Kesik
>Poland
>to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
>-------------------------------------
>See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
>The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
>http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl
>
>
>
>U¿ytkownik "Ed Byars" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
. ..
>> Janusz:
>> Thank you for your continued input. Your contributions to this thread are
>> appreciated. Please ignore the "Ugly American" comment (if it was an
>> American). I guess all countries have a few rude and inconsiderate types,
>> even in the soaring fraternity.
>> Ed Byars
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Janusz Kesik]

I don't care such comments, and well, the most funny is that I wouldn't have
noticed that post, if someone hasn't commented that. It looks like this guy
has withdrawn his 'not so nice' posting from the server sooner than I did
retrieved fresh postings from my news server. Anyway, thanks for the support
for all of You my gliding friends.

Finally, as asked I feel obliged to deliver the final reply that the total
working hours involved in complete (from the first minute of work, to the
very end of finish) in case of production of the SZD-55, total at 1400
hours. So, well... it's a huge amount, and the lower cost of labour helps so
much indeed to keep it's price still 4500Euros lower than the *predicted*
price of the LS-4 which is going to re-enter production according to the
news I have red on the R.A.S.

With kindest regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl



U¿ytkownik "Ed Byars" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
. ..
> Janusz:
> Thank you for your continued input. Your contributions to this thread are
> appreciated. Please ignore the "Ugly American" comment (if it was an
> American). I guess all countries have a few rude and inconsiderate types,
> even in the soaring fraternity.
> Ed Byars

[Bill Daniels]

"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
...
> I don't care such comments, and well, the most funny is that I wouldn't
have
> noticed that post, if someone hasn't commented that. It looks like this
guy
> has withdrawn his 'not so nice' posting from the server sooner than I did
> retrieved fresh postings from my news server. Anyway, thanks for the
support
> for all of You my gliding friends.
>
> Finally, as asked I feel obliged to deliver the final reply that the total
> working hours involved in complete (from the first minute of work, to the
> very end of finish) in case of production of the SZD-55, total at 1400
> hours. So, well... it's a huge amount, and the lower cost of labour helps
so
> much indeed to keep it's price still 4500Euros lower than the *predicted*
> price of the LS-4 which is going to re-enter production according to the
> news I have red on the R.A.S.
>
> With kindest regards,
>
>
> --
> Janusz Kesik
> Poland
> to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
> -------------------------------------
> See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
> The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
> http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl
>
Janusz, thank you for the information. It is very interesting.

Hypothetically, if the very skilled workers require 1400 hours to produce a
SZD-55, then there must be opportunities for production engineers to reduce
that time.

If process and materials improvements could slash 700 hours from the
building time, the most if not all the glider cost and availability issues
could be resolved. This is where bright people could make a real
contribution to the sport.

Of course, these process and materials improvements would have to work at
both small and large production numbers so that if a small production run
glider became very popular, the production could ramp up to meet demand.

Bill Daniels

[Janusz Kesik]

> Hypothetically, if the very skilled workers require 1400 hours to produce
a
> SZD-55, then there must be opportunities for production engineers to
reduce
> that time.

As we see, it depends a lot on the type of sailplane which is being build.
When we compare that to the 760 hours needed to complete the Jantar Standard
3 this is the slashing of the half You're writing of. And... cosidering that
these 760hrs has been counted in 1982yr., I believe without any problem it
could be reduced to let's say 600 hours. When we compare the cost of the
hour in Germany (~30Euro/h), and in Poland (~2.5-3.0Euro/h). That makes a
huge difference.

Then... add to this a low-cost workforce, and this may reduce the prices a
lot. The molds for th Jantars are still available, and I believe the
producer would be happy to respond an inquiry how much could cost a single
glider when let's say an order for a few pieces would be placed. I am sure
it would be veeeery attractive.

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "Mark James Boyd" > napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:41a255a1$1@darkstar...

> One wonders what would happen if the Sparrowhawk construction concept
> were adopted in a country with very low labor costs. Perhaps a
> (strange) side benefit may be that US certification of a Polish
> Sparrowhawk might be easier than doing the same thing inside the US.
>
> Uniting low cost (overseas) labor with excellent innovation.
> Van's does this for its quickbuild kits, apparently with good commercial
> success. I'd love to see what SZD would do, in terms of price,
> producing a Sparrowhawk... Maybe an idea for the next World Class? ;)

Well... It's just a question of contacting certain person in the SZD, or
Papiorek works (the one who builds the Stemme S-10) ans asking them if they
would be interested in cooperation. :) If there will be an interest of both
of the parties... maybe using our affordable workforce, and Your
professional marketing skills, could make the Sparrowhawk sales to soar? :)
The contacts to the particular persons may be found without the problem, so
is there any problem?
A single email may begin a cooperation which would be profitable for both
sides, plus for the pilots, and our sport of course. :)

With kindest regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[smjmitchell]

Janusz,

Thanks for the information on build time hours. This is very useful
information. I think it illustrates that labour is where we need to work at
reducing the cost. One many year is approximately 2000 hrs .. actually more
like 1700-1800 when holidays etc are considered. So 1400 hrs is a lot.

What I am now wondering is what the difference is between the Jantar
Standard and the SZD-55 ... I need to do some research to answer this for
myself because I am not that familiar with the later. 760 to 1400 hrs is a
big difference. However perhaps you have some comments on this. Are the
materials and tooling similar ? Are the tolerances tighter on the later
model ? Perhaps it is a question of the volume being produced ?

Thanks again,

Steve


"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
...
> > Hypothetically, if the very skilled workers require 1400 hours to
produce
> a
> > SZD-55, then there must be opportunities for production engineers to
> reduce
> > that time.
>
> As we see, it depends a lot on the type of sailplane which is being build.
> When we compare that to the 760 hours needed to complete the Jantar
Standard
> 3 this is the slashing of the half You're writing of. And... cosidering
that
> these 760hrs has been counted in 1982yr., I believe without any problem it
> could be reduced to let's say 600 hours. When we compare the cost of the
> hour in Germany (~30Euro/h), and in Poland (~2.5-3.0Euro/h). That makes a
> huge difference.
>
> Then... add to this a low-cost workforce, and this may reduce the prices a
> lot. The molds for th Jantars are still available, and I believe the
> producer would be happy to respond an inquiry how much could cost a single
> glider when let's say an order for a few pieces would be placed. I am sure
> it would be veeeery attractive.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Janusz Kesik
> Poland
> to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
> -------------------------------------
> See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
> The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
> http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl
>
>

[smjmitchell]

I think the biggest issue with the Sparrowhawk is the cost of materials.

As I have said before in another post I am not quite sure exactly what
materials are used but I think they are Toray Prepregs - which weave / style
I am not sure. However they are carbon. Assuming a woven cloth, say a Plain
Weave of approx 193 g/m2 (a very common carbon prepreg cloth made by a
number of prepreg companies - Fibercote, Cytec etc)) then the cost is likely
to be in the range of $60 USD / yd (based on a purchase of Fibercote T300
3KPW in the last month) ... perhaps reducing some with quantity (but then
the company needs capital which a producer of a dozen sailplanes a year is
unlikely to have). Compare this to a 92125 or 7781 glass cloth which is
probably in the $6 USD / yd price range (for the 7781 anyway) the difference
is HUGE. OK you might use a little less carbon and you need to add the cost
of resin to the glass. However for the prepreg you also need a lot of
consumables (Vac Bag, Release film, Breather, Bag Tape, Flash Tape etc) -
this can add another $10 USD / yd even with the cheapest products.

But then there are other issues with the Sparrowhawk ... the tooling is more
expensive because it needs to be made from high temperature tooling resins
and presumably carbon so it can be put in an oven. There is the cost of
renting (I think they use the Lancair oven) and running the oven. The
materials needs to be stored at 0 deg F and all prepreg materials are life
limited which implies a certain amount of wastage. The core material will be
more expensive because it must sustain the high cure temperatures (I am
assuming Sparrowhawk uses a 120 deg C cure system). I assume the core is
either nomex homeycomb or a high temperature PVC foam. You will need
surfacing films and film adhesives which are I think in the $30-$50 USD / yd
range (my memory is hazzy but I have bought Cytec FM-300 film adhesive
recently and can check). Probably one surfacing film against the mould and
then one ply of film adhesive on each side of the core .... that is another
$130 USD / sq metre of airplane surface - a lot more than gelcoat and micro
to seal foam !

So .. the material costs for the Sparrow hawk could be easily an order of
magnitude higher than for a simple glass, wet layup glider.

Please don't get me wrong here ... I am not trying to discredit the
Sparrowhawk. There are of course a lot of advantages to prepreg materials
.... I am just making the point that you don't get something for nothing. The
question is are the advantages worth the extra money ???

I have looked at the concept of a sailplane made from prepreg materials in
the past and have always concluded that it is not viable .... unless you
could use carbon uni-tape which currently sells for approx $2.something USD
/ sq ft or approx $20 USD / sq yd (i.e. Hexcel AS4/3501 or similar).
Newport, YLA, Fibercote + others all make products.

Finally ... I cannot see how prepreg materials can save any labour unless
you are using ply cutting machines or a computer controlled tape layer etc.
For an operation like the Sparrowhawk I assume they still need to cut the
plies manually, they still have to be laided up one by one manually. In some
cases (more than say 4-6 plies) you will have to bag and debulk in the
middle of the layup, then you need to do the final bagging and curing ...
there is really no less work but potentially some more work here than for a
simple wet layup.

There is also a lot more to go wrong in a prepreg process and so the
production process needs to be more closely monitored. You need
thermocouples on the parts with data loggers to verify the cure cycle, you
need processes to make sure that backing films are not left inside laminates
etc.

BTW ..... I have plucked all these numbers from memory so please don't hold
me to them that closely ... if anyone wants more precise costs etc just yell
out and I will get them. I have them all available.


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41a255a1$1@darkstar...
> One of the hopes of the Sparrowhawk was presumably to significantly reduce
> the amount of labor involved. Of the >10 production run modern gliders
> I'm aware of, the Sparrowhawk seems to most significantly contrast
> the time-honored build process of other gliders, like the SZD 55-1 .
>
> Which is why I'm surprised that the Sparrowhawk price
> has increased (not decreased) so much since Serial # 1.
> Eric Greenwell's article seemed to indicate
> production on the order of weeks, certainly not the 1400 man-hours
> described here. Do the materials really cost 40% more than they did
> several years ago or is this a labor cost increase, or is it
> payments on sunk engineering costs?
>
> One wonders what would happen if the Sparrowhawk construction concept
> were adopted in a country with very low labor costs. Perhaps a
> (strange) side benefit may be that US certification of a Polish
> Sparrowhawk might be easier than doing the same thing inside the US.
>
> Uniting low cost (overseas) labor with excellent innovation.
> Van's does this for its quickbuild kits, apparently with good commercial
> success. I'd love to see what SZD would do, in terms of price,
> producing a Sparrowhawk... Maybe an idea for the next World Class? ;)
>
> I'm astonished that the 55-1 takes 1400 man-hours to built.
> I had absolutely no idea it was that consumptive...
>
> In article >,
> Janusz Kesik > wrote:
> >I don't care such comments, and well, the most funny is that I wouldn't
have
> >noticed that post, if someone hasn't commented that. It looks like this
guy
> >has withdrawn his 'not so nice' posting from the server sooner than I did
> >retrieved fresh postings from my news server. Anyway, thanks for the
support
> >for all of You my gliding friends.
> >
> >Finally, as asked I feel obliged to deliver the final reply that the
total
> >working hours involved in complete (from the first minute of work, to
the
> >very end of finish) in case of production of the SZD-55, total at 1400
> >hours. So, well... it's a huge amount, and the lower cost of labour helps
so
> >much indeed to keep it's price still 4500Euros lower than the *predicted*
> >price of the LS-4 which is going to re-enter production according to the
> >news I have red on the R.A.S.
> >
> >With kindest regards,
> >
> >
> >--
> >Janusz Kesik
> >Poland
> >to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
> >-------------------------------------
> >See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
> >The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
> >http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl
> >
> >
> >
> >U¿ytkownik "Ed Byars" > napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci
> . ..
> >> Janusz:
> >> Thank you for your continued input. Your contributions to this thread
are
> >> appreciated. Please ignore the "Ugly American" comment (if it was an
> >> American). I guess all countries have a few rude and inconsiderate
types,
> >> even in the soaring fraternity.
> >> Ed Byars
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "smjmitchell" > napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci u...
> Janusz,
>
> Thanks for the information on build time hours. This is very useful
> information. I think it illustrates that labour is where we need to work
at
> reducing the cost. One many year is approximately 2000 hrs .. actually
more
> like 1700-1800 when holidays etc are considered. So 1400 hrs is a lot.

That is more interesting, is that the old wooden gliders were even more time
consuming. When You look insede let's say the Bocian's wing, You'll see
thousands of "matches" inside which had to be glued prior to covering the
wings' surfaces. Glass is a much step forward in reducing the cost.

> What I am now wondering is what the difference is between the Jantar
> Standard and the SZD-55 ... I need to do some research to answer this for
> myself because I am not that familiar with the later. 760 to 1400 hrs is a
> big difference. However perhaps you have some comments on this.

I shink that Jantar has much less complicated design than the SZD-55.
Consider only the wingtip. Jantar's one is straight and there seems to be
much less work required. In case of the '55', it is tapering and, moreover
it doesn't do this in a Schempp-Hirth way (just like the Discus') where it
is divided into three or four legs, but it tapers continously. It is surely
the most perfect option when looking at it from the aerodynamics point of
view, but it also requires way more work than in Discus, not to mention the
Jantar. Also the interior of the Jantar wing seems to have a simplier
design.

Note also what I was writing of earlier, that the SZD was able to shorten
the production of the Junior to just two days when using the two shift per
day system. It has also some 20% less elements than Jantar. Maybe there's a
way out - simple designs which won't be too sophisticated, but still will
give a chance to fly for as wide spectrum of people at it is possible. [And
the PW-5 fits this definition quite well]. For me I don't want a racer, I
just want to fly for fun. A few hours of wandering around 10-20 miles away
from the airport, or some ridge would be enough for me, still being heaps of
fun. Flying for fun, not racing.

Are the
> materials and tooling similar ?

Materials then were mostly locally produced, like the Epidian resins. Glass
cloth too I believe. (Jantar)

Are the tolerances tighter on the later
> model ?

I don't think so. More probably it was simplier design.

Perhaps it is a question of the volume being produced ?

Possibly yes, however that wouldn't influence the number of workhours (with
exception of the prototypes where the hours are circa doubled). The savings
may come from sharing the fixed costs (like the production site rental or
the monthly social security fees) by a larger number of products (in whose
price these costs had to be included).

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[F.L. Whiteley]

"smjmitchell" > wrote in message
u...
> Janusz,
>
> Thanks for the information on build time hours. This is very useful
> information. I think it illustrates that labour is where we need to work
at
> reducing the cost. One many year is approximately 2000 hrs .. actually
more
> like 1700-1800 when holidays etc are considered. So 1400 hrs is a lot.
>
> What I am now wondering is what the difference is between the Jantar
> Standard and the SZD-55 ... I need to do some research to answer this for
> myself because I am not that familiar with the later. 760 to 1400 hrs is a
> big difference. However perhaps you have some comments on this. Are the
> materials and tooling similar ? Are the tolerances tighter on the later
> model ? Perhaps it is a question of the volume being produced ?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Steve

Carbon layup, complex curves, flaperons, sparless construction(?), and
finishing work on the SZD-55 and certainly the Diana will take longer than
Standard Jantar glass fiber construction. There's still cure time. If the
molds are heated, then there's the cost of doing that involved. Otherwise,
the parts spend more time in the molds. Earlier mold design was subject to
distortion with time, so only so many accurate pulls could be made before
the planform of the wings changed. These things have been overcome, but
there are incremental price increases as a result. The 1000 hours I
originally mentioned was the early Ventus (15m) line from a visit to
Schempp-Hirth in 1981. I'm sure the number was only approximate, or perhaps
the ideal, but it was quoted to me. Gel-coats may be a bit quicker than
polyurethane during the original build. At one time SH delivered gliders
withn minimal finishing since they knew competition pilots would tune the
wings anyway.

Pre-preg can reduce layup time, but it's nearly 2x the cost of wet layup
(even in filament winding processes) according to some sources I've glanced
at. As far as building a Junior in two days, maybe, but I'd still think in
terms of 680 man hours as the substantial difference is fixed gear vs
retract. Two days is a meaningless concept without knowing whether 30-40
people were involved for 8 or 12 hour shifts.

Filament winding is one method that's been shown to work, at least by Rutan.
However, there are limitations to the process that might make it impractical
for most glider production. Even then, the pod took something like 7 hours
to wind and the fuselage was 24 hours of continuous processing. I'm sure if
any of the factories could conceivably create a paradigm shift in glider
production that would create a price advantage, it's would already be in
use. All that's actually happened is to re-locate to cheaper labor markets,
which is not always the best solution.

Frank Whiteley

[Michael McNulty]

"F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
...
>
> "smjmitchell" > wrote in message
> u...
>> Janusz,
>>
>> Thanks for the information on build time hours. This is very useful
>> information. I think it illustrates that labour is where we need to work
> at
>> reducing the cost. One many year is approximately 2000 hrs .. actually
> more
>> like 1700-1800 when holidays etc are considered. So 1400 hrs is a lot.
<snip>


>> Steve
>
> Carbon layup, complex curves, flaperons, sparless construction(?), and
> finishing work on the SZD-55 and certainly the Diana will take longer than

The SZD-55 has no carbon; it is all fiberglass. It has conventional wing
spars. It does not have flaperons or even flaps.

[smjmitchell]

> As far as building a Junior in two days, maybe, but I'd still think in
> terms of 680 man hours as the substantial difference is fixed gear vs
> retract. Two days is a meaningless concept without knowing whether 30-40
> people were involved for 8 or 12 hour shifts.


I suspect that one Junior emerged from the factory every 2 days but surely
they must have spent longer on the line than 2 days. If for instance you
have 5 stations on the line and each airframe spent 2 days at each station
that is a total of 10 days on the line. Now if 3 guys worked in each station
with two shifts that is a total of 5 (stations) x 2 (days) x 3 (# guys) x 8
(shift hours) x 2 (# shifts) = 480 hours. This seems achievable for a simple
glider. I just cannot see how a sailplane of conventional construction could
be made in an elapsed time of only 2 days when cure time etc is allowed for.

If indead it is true that the Junior was made in 2 days with two shifts then
this deserves careful study. Does anyone have a PDF copy of the Junior
maintenance manual ????

Janusz ... do you have any more info on this ????


Frank,

> Filament winding is one method that's been shown to work, at least by
Rutan.

There is a lot of conflicting information around on exactly how Rutan builds
his airframes. Some people say thay he uses a tape layer and others filament
winding. How confident are you in your information that he filament winds ?
If filament winding is used (and I believe this is probably the case) then I
am assuming he uses prepreg tow ???? Or is he using a wet layup with one of
the resins that has an extraordinarly long pot life (1-2 days) (there are
some excellent wet layup resins available now that are meant for this sort
of application).


> However, there are limitations to the process that might make it
impractical
> for most glider production.

Such as ????


> Even then, the pod took something like 7 hours
> to wind and the fuselage was 24 hours of continuous processing.

Are you refering to the Boomerang ????

It sounds like you have some knowledge of the Rutan processes ... can you
outline the process. What does he use for the plug to wind around ??? What
sort of winding machine - a simple two axis thing or something more complex
?? What sort of tow (12k ... 24k etc) ??? Does he wind a grid arrangement
of stiffeners on the inside of the fuselage ??? (it appears so from some
photo's you see) And the really big question .... how does he get the
outside smooth (perhaps this is one of the limitations you mention ??? -
perhaps this involved a lot of hand filling and sanding ?). What is the cure
.... oven ??? room temperature ??? What are the thickesses of the skins ?
What is the typical winding angle ?

[Bert Willing]

You have two moulds for each wing, and two moulds for the fuselage (plus two
for the stabilizers). All can be layed up in parallel (you need three men
less than 8 hours on one mould), that takes one day. Spraying of the gel
coat is done the night before. Glueing them together and hot-curing them
takes another day.

However, cost is counted in manhours, not in days. The time needed for layup
is about the same for carbon and for glass (some experience needed, though)
and the planiform of the wing has no influence whatsoever.

Improvements for this? The capital expenditure for any of it never pays off,
so just forget about it.

The main amount of manpower is needed AFTER the thing is demoulded -
finishing is quite a job, even for professionals. And that has been the
reason why Grob gliders were very reasonably priced at their time - they
just had less finish.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"smjmitchell" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
>> As far as building a Junior in two days, maybe, but I'd still think in
>> terms of 680 man hours as the substantial difference is fixed gear vs
>> retract. Two days is a meaningless concept without knowing whether 30-40
>> people were involved for 8 or 12 hour shifts.
>
>
> I suspect that one Junior emerged from the factory every 2 days but surely
> they must have spent longer on the line than 2 days. If for instance you
> have 5 stations on the line and each airframe spent 2 days at each station
> that is a total of 10 days on the line. Now if 3 guys worked in each
> station
> with two shifts that is a total of 5 (stations) x 2 (days) x 3 (# guys) x
> 8
> (shift hours) x 2 (# shifts) = 480 hours. This seems achievable for a
> simple
> glider. I just cannot see how a sailplane of conventional construction
> could
> be made in an elapsed time of only 2 days when cure time etc is allowed
> for.
>
> If indead it is true that the Junior was made in 2 days with two shifts
> then
> this deserves careful study. Does anyone have a PDF copy of the Junior
> maintenance manual ????
>
> Janusz ... do you have any more info on this ????
>
>
> Frank,
>
>> Filament winding is one method that's been shown to work, at least by
> Rutan.
>
> There is a lot of conflicting information around on exactly how Rutan
> builds
> his airframes. Some people say thay he uses a tape layer and others
> filament
> winding. How confident are you in your information that he filament winds
> ?
> If filament winding is used (and I believe this is probably the case) then
> I
> am assuming he uses prepreg tow ???? Or is he using a wet layup with one
> of
> the resins that has an extraordinarly long pot life (1-2 days) (there are
> some excellent wet layup resins available now that are meant for this sort
> of application).
>
>
>> However, there are limitations to the process that might make it
> impractical
>> for most glider production.
>
> Such as ????
>
>
>> Even then, the pod took something like 7 hours
>> to wind and the fuselage was 24 hours of continuous processing.
>
> Are you refering to the Boomerang ????
>
> It sounds like you have some knowledge of the Rutan processes ... can you
> outline the process. What does he use for the plug to wind around ???
> What
> sort of winding machine - a simple two axis thing or something more
> complex
> ?? What sort of tow (12k ... 24k etc) ??? Does he wind a grid
> arrangement
> of stiffeners on the inside of the fuselage ??? (it appears so from some
> photo's you see) And the really big question .... how does he get the
> outside smooth (perhaps this is one of the limitations you mention ??? -
> perhaps this involved a lot of hand filling and sanding ?). What is the
> cure
> ... oven ??? room temperature ??? What are the thickesses of the skins ?
> What is the typical winding angle ?
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "smjmitchell" > napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci u...
> > As far as building a Junior in two days, maybe, but I'd still think in
> > terms of 680 man hours as the substantial difference is fixed gear vs
> > retract. Two days is a meaningless concept without knowing whether
30-40
> > people were involved for 8 or 12 hour shifts.
>
>
> I suspect that one Junior emerged from the factory every 2 days but surely
> they must have spent longer on the line than 2 days. If for instance you
> have 5 stations on the line and each airframe spent 2 days at each station
> that is a total of 10 days on the line. Now if 3 guys worked in each
station
> with two shifts that is a total of 5 (stations) x 2 (days) x 3 (# guys) x
8
> (shift hours) x 2 (# shifts) = 480 hours. This seems achievable for a
simple
> glider. I just cannot see how a sailplane of conventional construction
could
> be made in an elapsed time of only 2 days when cure time etc is allowed
for.
>
> If indead it is true that the Junior was made in 2 days with two shifts
then
> this deserves careful study. Does anyone have a PDF copy of the Junior
> maintenance manual ????
>
> Janusz ... do you have any more info on this ????

I ve got only the user's manual, more it's in Polish only:

http://www.szybowce.enter.net.pl/instrukcje/junior/junior.pdf

What exact info on maitenance You need? A total life of Junior is now 9000
or 12000hrs if I remember correctly, the mid-inspection interval is 1000hrs.

However, the shorp production process has been achieved so far only by the
SZD and the Grob factories.
The production process of Junior comprised od TWO DAYS in a SINGLE SHIFT
system, so one day in a two shifts, I have checked this. This was achieved
due to e.g far going integration of the elements of glider just like the
main spar which is simply a Z shaped layer of the glassfibre (if I remember
correctly) and using the molds which didn't need the pressure forced forming
of the fuselage in the molds (well I am not sure if I had translated it
properly into English). Simply the stucture could form itself when just put
into molds (less workhours needed). This technologo also allowed to use
locally produced the "STR" (it's a brand I believe) glass cloth instead of
the Interglass cloth, and also it was possible to employ low skilled
employees (which are also a lot more affordable) at the production line if
needed.
It simply looks that simple technology could reduce lots of costs. Junior is
a good example of the way we should follow. Apart from this, it makes an
excellent sailplane for these who just want to fly for fun.

I have no specific knowledge of the technology, so I can't say how it was
achieved, and for me personally... I think there should be some time for
finish too! :) I know that factory won't say a word on this (I suppose so)
as it is their technology which they use, but if properly marketed the
Junior could make this what the World Class supposed to be - a glider for a
masses, safe, easy to fly, and affordable - all in one. By the way, I have
heard that Junior is produced under licence n Brasil, can anyone confirm
this information?

Returning to the previous post by mr Whiteley, the '55' is all glass, no
carbon inside, just the well designed glass design. No flapperons or flaps,
as it's a standard class glider, BUT Diana... it's carbon, and it's designer
mr Beres is one of the best specialists in using carbon materials here in
Poland. He runs his own business since he left SZD after it has gone bust
for a while: http://www.beres.com.pl/

With kindest regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl

[smjmitchell]

Is hot curing common in glider factories ? Are these using ovens, heater
blankets or perhaps heated moulds ?



"Bert Willing" > wrote in
message ...
> You have two moulds for each wing, and two moulds for the fuselage (plus
two
> for the stabilizers). All can be layed up in parallel (you need three men
> less than 8 hours on one mould), that takes one day. Spraying of the gel
> coat is done the night before. Glueing them together and hot-curing them
> takes another day.
>
> However, cost is counted in manhours, not in days. The time needed for
layup
> is about the same for carbon and for glass (some experience needed,
though)
> and the planiform of the wing has no influence whatsoever.
>
> Improvements for this? The capital expenditure for any of it never pays
off,
> so just forget about it.
>
> The main amount of manpower is needed AFTER the thing is demoulded -
> finishing is quite a job, even for professionals. And that has been the
> reason why Grob gliders were very reasonably priced at their time - they
> just had less finish.
>
> --
> Bert Willing
>
> ASW20 "TW"
>
>
> "smjmitchell" > a écrit dans le message de
> news: ...
> >> As far as building a Junior in two days, maybe, but I'd still think in
> >> terms of 680 man hours as the substantial difference is fixed gear vs
> >> retract. Two days is a meaningless concept without knowing whether
30-40
> >> people were involved for 8 or 12 hour shifts.
> >
> >
> > I suspect that one Junior emerged from the factory every 2 days but
surely
> > they must have spent longer on the line than 2 days. If for instance you
> > have 5 stations on the line and each airframe spent 2 days at each
station
> > that is a total of 10 days on the line. Now if 3 guys worked in each
> > station
> > with two shifts that is a total of 5 (stations) x 2 (days) x 3 (# guys)
x
> > 8
> > (shift hours) x 2 (# shifts) = 480 hours. This seems achievable for a
> > simple
> > glider. I just cannot see how a sailplane of conventional construction
> > could
> > be made in an elapsed time of only 2 days when cure time etc is allowed
> > for.
> >
> > If indead it is true that the Junior was made in 2 days with two shifts
> > then
> > this deserves careful study. Does anyone have a PDF copy of the Junior
> > maintenance manual ????
> >
> > Janusz ... do you have any more info on this ????
> >
> >
> > Frank,
> >
> >> Filament winding is one method that's been shown to work, at least by
> > Rutan.
> >
> > There is a lot of conflicting information around on exactly how Rutan
> > builds
> > his airframes. Some people say thay he uses a tape layer and others
> > filament
> > winding. How confident are you in your information that he filament
winds
> > ?
> > If filament winding is used (and I believe this is probably the case)
then
> > I
> > am assuming he uses prepreg tow ???? Or is he using a wet layup with
one
> > of
> > the resins that has an extraordinarly long pot life (1-2 days) (there
are
> > some excellent wet layup resins available now that are meant for this
sort
> > of application).
> >
> >
> >> However, there are limitations to the process that might make it
> > impractical
> >> for most glider production.
> >
> > Such as ????
> >
> >
> >> Even then, the pod took something like 7 hours
> >> to wind and the fuselage was 24 hours of continuous processing.
> >
> > Are you refering to the Boomerang ????
> >
> > It sounds like you have some knowledge of the Rutan processes ... can
you
> > outline the process. What does he use for the plug to wind around ???
> > What
> > sort of winding machine - a simple two axis thing or something more
> > complex
> > ?? What sort of tow (12k ... 24k etc) ??? Does he wind a grid
> > arrangement
> > of stiffeners on the inside of the fuselage ??? (it appears so from
some
> > photo's you see) And the really big question .... how does he get the
> > outside smooth (perhaps this is one of the limitations you mention ??? -
> > perhaps this involved a lot of hand filling and sanding ?). What is the
> > cure
> > ... oven ??? room temperature ??? What are the thickesses of the skins
?
> > What is the typical winding angle ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[smjmitchell]

> I ve got only the user's manual, more it's in Polish only:
>
> http://www.szybowce.enter.net.pl/instrukcje/junior/junior.pdf
>
> What exact info on maitenance You need?

I wanted to have a look at the structural repair sections of the manual to
study the composite layups and the way that the structure is put together. I
have a very good understanding of composite manufacturing processes and I
just wanted to think through what tooling was required and do some estimates
on the times required to manufacture the parts.


> However, the shorp production process has been achieved so far only by the
> SZD and the Grob factories.

Do we know anything about how long Grob took to make a Twin Astir or a


> The production process of Junior comprised od TWO DAYS in a SINGLE SHIFT
> system, so one day in a two shifts, I have checked this.

OK ... was this just for the composite airframe or did the glider roll out
the door at the end of the two days with canopy, control systems, landing
gear, instruments etc all fitted ?.


> correctly) and using the molds which didn't need the pressure forced
forming
> of the fuselage in the molds (well I am not sure if I had translated it
> properly into English).

I think what you are trying to say is that they did not need vacuum bagging
? Correct ?

[smjmitchell]

> Improvements for this? The capital expenditure for any of it never pays
off,
> so just forget about it.

Not necessarilly ... no one said you had to invest money to get access to
improved production equipment. Perhaps the production of parts needs to be
subcontracted to someone who has already invested the money in the equipment
for other reasons.


> The main amount of manpower is needed AFTER the thing is demoulded -
> finishing is quite a job, even for professionals.

Yep you are right !!

[Bert Willing]

Depends on the resin which is used - the L20 resin for example must be cured
at high temperature (around 55-60 deg C) for some hours (typically
overnight) in order to obtain the final strength of the resin and to push
the glass transition temperature to above 54 deg C.
Easy to do, though: Make a shelter of thick foam plates where the mould just
fits in, put a temperature-controlled hot air fan in it and switch it on.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"smjmitchell" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> Is hot curing common in glider factories ? Are these using ovens, heater
> blankets or perhaps heated moulds ?
>
>
>
> "Bert Willing" > wrote in
> message ...
>> You have two moulds for each wing, and two moulds for the fuselage (plus
> two
>> for the stabilizers). All can be layed up in parallel (you need three men
>> less than 8 hours on one mould), that takes one day. Spraying of the gel
>> coat is done the night before. Glueing them together and hot-curing them
>> takes another day.
>>
>> However, cost is counted in manhours, not in days. The time needed for
> layup
>> is about the same for carbon and for glass (some experience needed,
> though)
>> and the planiform of the wing has no influence whatsoever.
>>
>> Improvements for this? The capital expenditure for any of it never pays
> off,
>> so just forget about it.
>>
>> The main amount of manpower is needed AFTER the thing is demoulded -
>> finishing is quite a job, even for professionals. And that has been the
>> reason why Grob gliders were very reasonably priced at their time - they
>> just had less finish.
>>
>> --
>> Bert Willing
>>
>> ASW20 "TW"
>>
>>
>> "smjmitchell" > a écrit dans le message de
>> news: ...
>> >> As far as building a Junior in two days, maybe, but I'd still think in
>> >> terms of 680 man hours as the substantial difference is fixed gear vs
>> >> retract. Two days is a meaningless concept without knowing whether
> 30-40
>> >> people were involved for 8 or 12 hour shifts.
>> >
>> >
>> > I suspect that one Junior emerged from the factory every 2 days but
> surely
>> > they must have spent longer on the line than 2 days. If for instance
>> > you
>> > have 5 stations on the line and each airframe spent 2 days at each
> station
>> > that is a total of 10 days on the line. Now if 3 guys worked in each
>> > station
>> > with two shifts that is a total of 5 (stations) x 2 (days) x 3 (# guys)
> x
>> > 8
>> > (shift hours) x 2 (# shifts) = 480 hours. This seems achievable for a
>> > simple
>> > glider. I just cannot see how a sailplane of conventional construction
>> > could
>> > be made in an elapsed time of only 2 days when cure time etc is allowed
>> > for.
>> >
>> > If indead it is true that the Junior was made in 2 days with two shifts
>> > then
>> > this deserves careful study. Does anyone have a PDF copy of the Junior
>> > maintenance manual ????
>> >
>> > Janusz ... do you have any more info on this ????
>> >
>> >
>> > Frank,
>> >
>> >> Filament winding is one method that's been shown to work, at least by
>> > Rutan.
>> >
>> > There is a lot of conflicting information around on exactly how Rutan
>> > builds
>> > his airframes. Some people say thay he uses a tape layer and others
>> > filament
>> > winding. How confident are you in your information that he filament
> winds
>> > ?
>> > If filament winding is used (and I believe this is probably the case)
> then
>> > I
>> > am assuming he uses prepreg tow ???? Or is he using a wet layup with
> one
>> > of
>> > the resins that has an extraordinarly long pot life (1-2 days) (there
> are
>> > some excellent wet layup resins available now that are meant for this
> sort
>> > of application).
>> >
>> >
>> >> However, there are limitations to the process that might make it
>> > impractical
>> >> for most glider production.
>> >
>> > Such as ????
>> >
>> >
>> >> Even then, the pod took something like 7 hours
>> >> to wind and the fuselage was 24 hours of continuous processing.
>> >
>> > Are you refering to the Boomerang ????
>> >
>> > It sounds like you have some knowledge of the Rutan processes ... can
> you
>> > outline the process. What does he use for the plug to wind around ???
>> > What
>> > sort of winding machine - a simple two axis thing or something more
>> > complex
>> > ?? What sort of tow (12k ... 24k etc) ??? Does he wind a grid
>> > arrangement
>> > of stiffeners on the inside of the fuselage ??? (it appears so from
> some
>> > photo's you see) And the really big question .... how does he get the
>> > outside smooth (perhaps this is one of the limitations you mention
>> > ??? -
>> > perhaps this involved a lot of hand filling and sanding ?). What is the
>> > cure
>> > ... oven ??? room temperature ??? What are the thickesses of the
>> > skins
> ?
>> > What is the typical winding angle ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[smjmitchell]

Yes a post cure is normal for any composite structure. A glider or any
composite aircraft should be aiming for a Tg of at least 54 + 27 = 81 deg C.

54 deg C comes from NASA CP 2036 / CR 3290 per the JAR VLA ACJ's (white
surface on a hot day).

27 deg C (50 deg F) is the standard margin between Tg and the service
temperature that is recommended in MIL-HDBK-17 and accepted by
certificatioon authorities around the world.

Generally I would post cure at a higher temperature than 55-60 deg C but one
needs to be careful of the core material and this varies depending on the
resin. Often you can get the resin manufacturers to run Tg tests for you to
provide advice on the exact temperature and cycle to use for a particular
application.


I guess what I was really getting at though was whether manufacturers are
using heat to speed up the initial cure so they don't have to stand around
waiting for the room temperature cure. I wasn't really refering to post
cure.







"Bert Willing" > wrote in
message ...
> Depends on the resin which is used - the L20 resin for example must be
cured
> at high temperature (around 55-60 deg C) for some hours (typically
> overnight) in order to obtain the final strength of the resin and to push
> the glass transition temperature to above 54 deg C.
> Easy to do, though: Make a shelter of thick foam plates where the mould
just
> fits in, put a temperature-controlled hot air fan in it and switch it on.
>
> --
> Bert Willing
>
> ASW20 "TW"
>
>
> "smjmitchell" > a écrit dans le message de
> news: ...
> > Is hot curing common in glider factories ? Are these using ovens,
heater
> > blankets or perhaps heated moulds ?
> >
> >
> >
> > "Bert Willing" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> You have two moulds for each wing, and two moulds for the fuselage
(plus
> > two
> >> for the stabilizers). All can be layed up in parallel (you need three
men
> >> less than 8 hours on one mould), that takes one day. Spraying of the
gel
> >> coat is done the night before. Glueing them together and hot-curing
them
> >> takes another day.
> >>
> >> However, cost is counted in manhours, not in days. The time needed for
> > layup
> >> is about the same for carbon and for glass (some experience needed,
> > though)
> >> and the planiform of the wing has no influence whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Improvements for this? The capital expenditure for any of it never pays
> > off,
> >> so just forget about it.
> >>
> >> The main amount of manpower is needed AFTER the thing is demoulded -
> >> finishing is quite a job, even for professionals. And that has been the
> >> reason why Grob gliders were very reasonably priced at their time -
they
> >> just had less finish.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bert Willing
> >>
> >> ASW20 "TW"
> >>
> >>
> >> "smjmitchell" > a écrit dans le message
de
> >> news: ...
> >> >> As far as building a Junior in two days, maybe, but I'd still think
in
> >> >> terms of 680 man hours as the substantial difference is fixed gear
vs
> >> >> retract. Two days is a meaningless concept without knowing whether
> > 30-40
> >> >> people were involved for 8 or 12 hour shifts.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I suspect that one Junior emerged from the factory every 2 days but
> > surely
> >> > they must have spent longer on the line than 2 days. If for instance
> >> > you
> >> > have 5 stations on the line and each airframe spent 2 days at each
> > station
> >> > that is a total of 10 days on the line. Now if 3 guys worked in each
> >> > station
> >> > with two shifts that is a total of 5 (stations) x 2 (days) x 3 (#
guys)
> > x
> >> > 8
> >> > (shift hours) x 2 (# shifts) = 480 hours. This seems achievable for a
> >> > simple
> >> > glider. I just cannot see how a sailplane of conventional
construction
> >> > could
> >> > be made in an elapsed time of only 2 days when cure time etc is
allowed
> >> > for.
> >> >
> >> > If indead it is true that the Junior was made in 2 days with two
shifts
> >> > then
> >> > this deserves careful study. Does anyone have a PDF copy of the
Junior
> >> > maintenance manual ????
> >> >
> >> > Janusz ... do you have any more info on this ????
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Frank,
> >> >
> >> >> Filament winding is one method that's been shown to work, at least
by
> >> > Rutan.
> >> >
> >> > There is a lot of conflicting information around on exactly how Rutan
> >> > builds
> >> > his airframes. Some people say thay he uses a tape layer and others
> >> > filament
> >> > winding. How confident are you in your information that he filament
> > winds
> >> > ?
> >> > If filament winding is used (and I believe this is probably the case)
> > then
> >> > I
> >> > am assuming he uses prepreg tow ???? Or is he using a wet layup with
> > one
> >> > of
> >> > the resins that has an extraordinarly long pot life (1-2 days) (there
> > are
> >> > some excellent wet layup resins available now that are meant for this
> > sort
> >> > of application).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> However, there are limitations to the process that might make it
> >> > impractical
> >> >> for most glider production.
> >> >
> >> > Such as ????
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Even then, the pod took something like 7 hours
> >> >> to wind and the fuselage was 24 hours of continuous processing.
> >> >
> >> > Are you refering to the Boomerang ????
> >> >
> >> > It sounds like you have some knowledge of the Rutan processes ... can
> > you
> >> > outline the process. What does he use for the plug to wind around ???
> >> > What
> >> > sort of winding machine - a simple two axis thing or something more
> >> > complex
> >> > ?? What sort of tow (12k ... 24k etc) ??? Does he wind a grid
> >> > arrangement
> >> > of stiffeners on the inside of the fuselage ??? (it appears so from
> > some
> >> > photo's you see) And the really big question .... how does he get
the
> >> > outside smooth (perhaps this is one of the limitations you mention
> >> > ??? -
> >> > perhaps this involved a lot of hand filling and sanding ?). What is
the
> >> > cure
> >> > ... oven ??? room temperature ??? What are the thickesses of the
> >> > skins
> > ?
> >> > What is the typical winding angle ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Bert Willing]

No, it's not done to speed up the curing. However, most resin employed
nowadays - especially for carbon fiber lay-up - do need a (post-) curing
treatment. The exact temperature is given by the resin manufacturer.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"smjmitchell" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> Yes a post cure is normal for any composite structure. A glider or any
> composite aircraft should be aiming for a Tg of at least 54 + 27 = 81 deg
> C.
>
> 54 deg C comes from NASA CP 2036 / CR 3290 per the JAR VLA ACJ's (white
> surface on a hot day).
>
> 27 deg C (50 deg F) is the standard margin between Tg and the service
> temperature that is recommended in MIL-HDBK-17 and accepted by
> certificatioon authorities around the world.
>
> Generally I would post cure at a higher temperature than 55-60 deg C but
> one
> needs to be careful of the core material and this varies depending on the
> resin. Often you can get the resin manufacturers to run Tg tests for you
> to
> provide advice on the exact temperature and cycle to use for a particular
> application.
>
>
> I guess what I was really getting at though was whether manufacturers are
> using heat to speed up the initial cure so they don't have to stand around
> waiting for the room temperature cure. I wasn't really refering to post
> cure.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Bert Willing" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Depends on the resin which is used - the L20 resin for example must be
> cured
>> at high temperature (around 55-60 deg C) for some hours (typically
>> overnight) in order to obtain the final strength of the resin and to push
>> the glass transition temperature to above 54 deg C.
>> Easy to do, though: Make a shelter of thick foam plates where the mould
> just
>> fits in, put a temperature-controlled hot air fan in it and switch it on.
>>
>> --
>> Bert Willing
>>
>> ASW20 "TW"
>>
>>
>> "smjmitchell" > a écrit dans le message de
>> news: ...
>> > Is hot curing common in glider factories ? Are these using ovens,
> heater
>> > blankets or perhaps heated moulds ?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Bert Willing" > wrote in
>> > message ...
>> >> You have two moulds for each wing, and two moulds for the fuselage
> (plus
>> > two
>> >> for the stabilizers). All can be layed up in parallel (you need three
> men
>> >> less than 8 hours on one mould), that takes one day. Spraying of the
> gel
>> >> coat is done the night before. Glueing them together and hot-curing
> them
>> >> takes another day.
>> >>
>> >> However, cost is counted in manhours, not in days. The time needed for
>> > layup
>> >> is about the same for carbon and for glass (some experience needed,
>> > though)
>> >> and the planiform of the wing has no influence whatsoever.
>> >>
>> >> Improvements for this? The capital expenditure for any of it never
>> >> pays
>> > off,
>> >> so just forget about it.
>> >>
>> >> The main amount of manpower is needed AFTER the thing is demoulded -
>> >> finishing is quite a job, even for professionals. And that has been
>> >> the
>> >> reason why Grob gliders were very reasonably priced at their time -
> they
>> >> just had less finish.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Bert Willing
>> >>
>> >> ASW20 "TW"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "smjmitchell" > a écrit dans le message
> de
>> >> news: ...
>> >> >> As far as building a Junior in two days, maybe, but I'd still think
> in
>> >> >> terms of 680 man hours as the substantial difference is fixed gear
> vs
>> >> >> retract. Two days is a meaningless concept without knowing whether
>> > 30-40
>> >> >> people were involved for 8 or 12 hour shifts.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I suspect that one Junior emerged from the factory every 2 days but
>> > surely
>> >> > they must have spent longer on the line than 2 days. If for instance
>> >> > you
>> >> > have 5 stations on the line and each airframe spent 2 days at each
>> > station
>> >> > that is a total of 10 days on the line. Now if 3 guys worked in each
>> >> > station
>> >> > with two shifts that is a total of 5 (stations) x 2 (days) x 3 (#
> guys)
>> > x
>> >> > 8
>> >> > (shift hours) x 2 (# shifts) = 480 hours. This seems achievable for
>> >> > a
>> >> > simple
>> >> > glider. I just cannot see how a sailplane of conventional
> construction
>> >> > could
>> >> > be made in an elapsed time of only 2 days when cure time etc is
> allowed
>> >> > for.
>> >> >
>> >> > If indead it is true that the Junior was made in 2 days with two
> shifts
>> >> > then
>> >> > this deserves careful study. Does anyone have a PDF copy of the
> Junior
>> >> > maintenance manual ????
>> >> >
>> >> > Janusz ... do you have any more info on this ????
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Frank,
>> >> >
>> >> >> Filament winding is one method that's been shown to work, at least
> by
>> >> > Rutan.
>> >> >
>> >> > There is a lot of conflicting information around on exactly how
>> >> > Rutan
>> >> > builds
>> >> > his airframes. Some people say thay he uses a tape layer and others
>> >> > filament
>> >> > winding. How confident are you in your information that he filament
>> > winds
>> >> > ?
>> >> > If filament winding is used (and I believe this is probably the
>> >> > case)
>> > then
>> >> > I
>> >> > am assuming he uses prepreg tow ???? Or is he using a wet layup
>> >> > with
>> > one
>> >> > of
>> >> > the resins that has an extraordinarly long pot life (1-2 days)
>> >> > (there
>> > are
>> >> > some excellent wet layup resins available now that are meant for
>> >> > this
>> > sort
>> >> > of application).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> However, there are limitations to the process that might make it
>> >> > impractical
>> >> >> for most glider production.
>> >> >
>> >> > Such as ????
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Even then, the pod took something like 7 hours
>> >> >> to wind and the fuselage was 24 hours of continuous processing.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you refering to the Boomerang ????
>> >> >
>> >> > It sounds like you have some knowledge of the Rutan processes ...
>> >> > can
>> > you
>> >> > outline the process. What does he use for the plug to wind around
>> >> > ???
>> >> > What
>> >> > sort of winding machine - a simple two axis thing or something more
>> >> > complex
>> >> > ?? What sort of tow (12k ... 24k etc) ??? Does he wind a grid
>> >> > arrangement
>> >> > of stiffeners on the inside of the fuselage ??? (it appears so from
>> > some
>> >> > photo's you see) And the really big question .... how does he get
> the
>> >> > outside smooth (perhaps this is one of the limitations you mention
>> >> > ??? -
>> >> > perhaps this involved a lot of hand filling and sanding ?). What is
> the
>> >> > cure
>> >> > ... oven ??? room temperature ??? What are the thickesses of the
>> >> > skins
>> > ?
>> >> > What is the typical winding angle ?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Michael McNulty" > wrote in message
news:9_Tod.157409$G15.55934@fed1read03...
>
> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "smjmitchell" > wrote in message
> > u...
> >> Janusz,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the information on build time hours. This is very useful
> >> information. I think it illustrates that labour is where we need to
work
> > at
> >> reducing the cost. One many year is approximately 2000 hrs .. actually
> > more
> >> like 1700-1800 when holidays etc are considered. So 1400 hrs is a lot.
> <snip>
>
>
> >> Steve
> >
> > Carbon layup, complex curves, flaperons, sparless construction(?), and
> > finishing work on the SZD-55 and certainly the Diana will take longer
than
>
> The SZD-55 has no carbon; it is all fiberglass. It has conventional wing
> spars. It does not have flaperons or even flaps.
>
Oops on that, thinking 56 which is of course Diana. I guess they spent the
extra time squeeging out the resin in the 55;^) It is a more complex build
than the 48, but that's a huge difference.

Frank

[F.L. Whiteley]

"smjmitchell" > wrote in message
u...
> > Improvements for this? The capital expenditure for any of it never pays
> off,
> > so just forget about it.
>
> Not necessarilly ... no one said you had to invest money to get access to
> improved production equipment. Perhaps the production of parts needs to be
> subcontracted to someone who has already invested the money in the
equipment
> for other reasons.
>
US labor for those types of machines is running $35-$45/hour. Then there's
material cost, machine costs, and profit. Even the simply constructed high
production rate composite cylinders remain very expensive. I think it's a
great idea conceptually, but prohibitively expensive practice. Aircraft fit
and finish at any level is very hands on.

Frank Whiteley

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
...
>
> U¿ytkownik "smjmitchell" > napisa³ w
> wiadomo¶ci u...
> > > As far as building a Junior in two days, maybe, but I'd still think in
> > > terms of 680 man hours as the substantial difference is fixed gear vs
> > > retract. Two days is a meaningless concept without knowing whether
> 30-40
> > > people were involved for 8 or 12 hour shifts.
> >
> >
> > I suspect that one Junior emerged from the factory every 2 days but
surely
> > they must have spent longer on the line than 2 days. If for instance you
> > have 5 stations on the line and each airframe spent 2 days at each
station
> > that is a total of 10 days on the line. Now if 3 guys worked in each
> station
> > with two shifts that is a total of 5 (stations) x 2 (days) x 3 (# guys)
x
> 8
> > (shift hours) x 2 (# shifts) = 480 hours. This seems achievable for a
> simple
> > glider. I just cannot see how a sailplane of conventional construction
> could
> > be made in an elapsed time of only 2 days when cure time etc is allowed
> for.
> >
> > If indead it is true that the Junior was made in 2 days with two shifts
> then
> > this deserves careful study. Does anyone have a PDF copy of the Junior
> > maintenance manual ????
> >
> > Janusz ... do you have any more info on this ????
>
> I ve got only the user's manual, more it's in Polish only:
>
> http://www.szybowce.enter.net.pl/instrukcje/junior/junior.pdf
>
> What exact info on maitenance You need? A total life of Junior is now 9000
> or 12000hrs if I remember correctly, the mid-inspection interval is
1000hrs.
>
> However, the shorp production process has been achieved so far only by the
> SZD and the Grob factories.
> The production process of Junior comprised od TWO DAYS in a SINGLE SHIFT
> system, so one day in a two shifts, I have checked this. This was achieved
> due to e.g far going integration of the elements of glider just like the
> main spar which is simply a Z shaped layer of the glassfibre (if I
remember
> correctly) and using the molds which didn't need the pressure forced
forming
> of the fuselage in the molds (well I am not sure if I had translated it
> properly into English). Simply the stucture could form itself when just
put
> into molds (less workhours needed). This technologo also allowed to use
> locally produced the "STR" (it's a brand I believe) glass cloth instead of
> the Interglass cloth, and also it was possible to employ low skilled
> employees (which are also a lot more affordable) at the production line if
> needed.
> It simply looks that simple technology could reduce lots of costs. Junior
is
> a good example of the way we should follow. Apart from this, it makes an
> excellent sailplane for these who just want to fly for fun.
>
> I have no specific knowledge of the technology, so I can't say how it was
> achieved, and for me personally... I think there should be some time for
> finish too! :) I know that factory won't say a word on this (I suppose so)
> as it is their technology which they use, but if properly marketed the
> Junior could make this what the World Class supposed to be - a glider for
a
> masses, safe, easy to fly, and affordable - all in one. By the way, I have
> heard that Junior is produced under licence n Brasil, can anyone confirm
> this information?
>
> Returning to the previous post by mr Whiteley, the '55' is all glass, no
> carbon inside, just the well designed glass design. No flapperons or
flaps,
> as it's a standard class glider, BUT Diana... it's carbon, and it's
designer
> mr Beres is one of the best specialists in using carbon materials here in
> Poland. He runs his own business since he left SZD after it has gone bust
> for a while: http://www.beres.com.pl/
>
> With kindest regards,
>
>
> --
> Janusz Kesik
> Poland
> to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
> -------------------------------------
> See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
> The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
> http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl
>
>
That now begs the question about the time required to build a Diana.

Frank Whiteley

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik "F.L. Whiteley" > napisa³ w
wiadomo¶ci ...

<cut>
, and it's
> designer
> > mr Beres is one of the best specialists in using carbon materials here
in
> > Poland. He runs his own business since he left SZD after it has gone
bust
> > for a while: http://www.beres.com.pl/
>

> That now begs the question about the time required to build a Diana.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>

Well, I lack the knowledge on this. I believe that mr Bogumil Beres, the
designer and manufacturer of Diana will be happy to answer questions like
that. :)
Go to the website http://www.beres.com.pl and simply send him an e-mail. :)

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik
Poland
to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl
-------------------------------------
See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography,
The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today.
http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl