Sparrowhawk Ultralight

[[email protected]]

Can someone who has flown a Sparrowhawk give their impression of the
AC. What does it do well? Can you really compare this sailplane to a 15
meter or any current sailplane? Can it be a serious cross country flier?

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> Can someone who has flown a Sparrowhawk give their impression of the
> AC. What does it do well? Can you really compare this sailplane to a
> 15 meter or any current sailplane? Can it be a serious cross country
> flier?

Yes, it is a serious cross country flier. Here's some info from Windward
Performance's web site:

> SparrowHawk News:
>
> 5/22/05
>
> The second annual spring SparrowHawk Rally was held at Great Western
> Soaring in Llano, CA May 8-14. Seven SparrowHawks were flown by 18
> different pilots, eleven of which were first time SparrowHawk pilots.
> Mike Reagan in his SparrowHawk SN008 flew the longest distance of the
> Crystal squadron on May 14, landing in Bishop, CA, a flight of over
> 220 miles. Great Western now has a SparrowHawk available for
> demonstration flights. Please contact them at 661-944-9449 to arrange
> your first SparrowHawk flight.

If your are really interested in one, you ought contact Great Western,
then arrange a visit there to fly their SparrowHawk, and see for yourself.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

"Yes, it's a serious cross country flier. As evidence, here's a
marketing blurb from the manufacturers web site."

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> "Yes, it's a serious cross country flier. As evidence, here's a
> marketing blurb from the manufacturers web site."

No, that's not evidence, nor is it a a "marketing blurb", but
description of what happened at the event, and an offer of a way to
assess the situation yourself (go fly it!). Someone seriously interested
in a $30K+ glider that is relatively new to gliding (that's why the
original poster was asking those questions) ought to take advantage of
an offer to try it himself. Do you see the other dealers making that
opportunity available?

I didn't supply evidence of it's "seriousness" because I thought the
quote offered enough to confirm that, but even better, made it
unnecessary to rely on someone's opinion; that is, try it himself.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

Eric

It's more of a marketing blurb than an actual account of what happened
at an event.

some people would consider it a bit misleading to say that on May 14 a
sparrowhawk flew the longest distance of the crystal squadron. While
failing to also say that the sparrowhawk was the only glider of the
crystal squadron to fly xc from crystal that day!

Hang gliders have flown diamond distance, so they should be considered
serious cross
country fliers also.

[For Example John Smith]

All aircraft have a performance envelope. Some pilots can "fill" the
performance envelope of their aircraft. Most can't. The real question
aircraft purchasers need to ask is "Will I be happy with the aircraft's
performance at the level to which I can 'fill' its performance envelope?"



> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Eric
>
> It's more of a marketing blurb than an actual account of what happened
> at an event.
>
> some people would consider it a bit misleading to say that on May 14 a
> sparrowhawk flew the longest distance of the crystal squadron. While
> failing to also say that the sparrowhawk was the only glider of the
> crystal squadron to fly xc from crystal that day!
>
> Hang gliders have flown diamond distance, so they should be considered
> serious cross
> country fliers also.
>

[[email protected]]

Perhaps I should have provided a little more information about what I
know, and what I want.
I have read the Sparrowhawk web site. From what I see the sailplane
looks good. Easy to assemble, cores thermals well, good climb
performance. Nice performance all around, about the same as a Ka 6E or
Libelle 201. One thing still has me wondering. Flying in windy
conditions, especially in the landing phase. With a low gross weight
(half the above ships) won't you get blown around like a leaf ? Is
there enough penetration to be an effective cross country plane in the
hands of an average pilot.

Now what I want...... Fun to fly !!! Easy to assemble / disassemble
(hate having to ask two or three folks for help). Easy to repair. Easy
to get parts / upgrades. The annual is not an issue, nor is
registartion or licensing. Low maintenance finish. And last good resale
value ( same as good performance).

[Tim.Ward]

wrote:
> Perhaps I should have provided a little more information about what I
> know, and what I want.
> I have read the Sparrowhawk web site. From what I see the sailplane
> looks good. Easy to assemble, cores thermals well, good climb
> performance. Nice performance all around, about the same as a Ka 6E or
> Libelle 201. One thing still has me wondering. Flying in windy
> conditions, especially in the landing phase. With a low gross weight
> (half the above ships) won't you get blown around like a leaf ? Is
> there enough penetration to be an effective cross country plane in the
> hands of an average pilot.
>
> Now what I want...... Fun to fly !!! Easy to assemble / disassemble
> (hate having to ask two or three folks for help). Easy to repair. Easy
> to get parts / upgrades. The annual is not an issue, nor is
> registartion or licensing. Low maintenance finish. And last good resale
> value ( same as good performance).

Well, while the weight is low, the wing is small, so the wing loading
is probably similar to a 1-26.

As to resale price, that's a tougher one, because I have not seen one
offered on the used market. I find that interesting, because I seem to
remember that nearly as soon as the Russias and PW5s became available
new, they became available used.

Tim Ward

[COLIN LAMB]

"With a low gross weight (half the above ships) won't you get blown around
like a leaf ?"

Weight alone has nothing to do with getting blown around like a leaf. A
hawk is very light but does not get blown around. Wing loading is a major
factor. Piper Cubs get blown around, because they have light wing loading.

It is good to take a test flight if you are considering one. Perhaps the
key word you are looking for is balance. Few ships do everything well in a
conveneint package.

The information Eric presented shows that the aircraft can do serious cross
country - which is the question asked. Whether it is adequate to meet your
demands is a personal question. Knowing the weight is irrelevant to the
question asked of whether it gets blown around like a leaf. A bolwing ball
weighs only 10 pounds ( or so, just a wild guess), but does not blow around
like a leaf.

Colin

[Eric Greenwell]

Tim.Ward wrote:

> Well, while the weight is low, the wing is small, so the wing loading
> is probably similar to a 1-26.

It's actually much higher than a 1-26. The 1-26 is rated at 3.6
pounds/sq ft; the SparrowHawk is typically 5 to 6 pounds/sq ft. This
makes a big difference! This wing loading is about the same as Russia
AC-4, which is similar in performance.
>
> As to resale price, that's a tougher one, because I have not seen one
> offered on the used market. I find that interesting, because I seem to
> remember that nearly as soon as the Russias and PW5s became available
> new, they became available used.
>
> Tim Ward
>


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

> Eric
>
> It's more of a marketing blurb than an actual account of what happened
> at an event.
>
> some people would consider it a bit misleading to say that on May 14 a
> sparrowhawk flew the longest distance of the crystal squadron. While
> failing to also say that the sparrowhawk was the only glider of the
> crystal squadron to fly xc from crystal that day!

I think how many flew is irrelevant to the original question: Is it a
serious cross-country flier? I think Mike's flight indicates it is.

> Hang gliders have flown diamond distance, so they should be considered
> serious cross
> country fliers also.

It didn't seem like the time to get into a philosophical discussion of
what a "serious cross country flier" is (it certainly meets my
standards, but that's another thread), but what I posted indicates it's
not just a local flier, and gave Hombres a way to assess the glider
himself, to his definition of "serious cross country flier".

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Ian Cant]

My Russia works out at about 7 lbs/sq ft. Last September
I shared a thermal with a Sparrowhawk - it was turning
tight and climbing just a shade better than me. And
it's probably a little faster in cruise as well. To
my mind a 'serious cross-country ship' in the West
needs to carry 'serious landout and safety equipment'.
How much space and weight can the Sparrowhawk offer
when you're sitting in the cockpit ?

Ian



At 05:42 09 June 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Tim.Ward wrote:
>
>> Well, while the weight is low, the wing is small,
>>so the wing loading
>> is probably similar to a 1-26.
>
>It's actually much higher than a 1-26. The 1-26 is
>rated at 3.6
>pounds/sq ft; the SparrowHawk is typically 5 to 6 pounds/sq
>ft. This
>makes a big difference! This wing loading is about
>the same as Russia
>AC-4, which is similar in performance.
>>
>> As to resale price, that's a tougher one, because
>>I have not seen one
>> offered on the used market. I find that interesting,
>>because I seem to
>> remember that nearly as soon as the Russias and PW5s
>>became available
>> new, they became available used.
>>
>> Tim Ward
>>
>
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

[M B]

Hmmm...not to dis' the PW5 or Russia, which I think
fit their missions well, the Sparrowhawk
seems to be very, very different from a typical
sailplane, while the PW-5 and Russia are not.

Something of an engineering marvel, in my opinion.
Haven't flown one yet, but the idea of a 145# or so
glider with that kind of no-flap performance is
simply mindblowing to me. If it weren't for the
over 50% price increase (over the past few
years) listed on the website, I suspect it
would have generated quite a few more sales.

$22k vs. $35k is enough to make some tilters (like
me)
consider other options. But it looks like they are
still gaining interested buyers.

At 23:24 08 June 2005, Tim.Ward wrote:

>As to resale price, that's a tougher one, because I
>have not seen one
>offered on the used market. I find that interesting,
>because I seem to
>remember that nearly as soon as the Russias and PW5s
>became available
>new, they became available used.
>
>Tim Ward
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[GK]

> Something of an engineering marvel, in my opinion.

Pleaseee, if SH is an "engineering marvel" then constructor of Pewee
should get a Nopel prize...

[Willie G]

M B wrote:

> Something of an engineering marvel, in my opinion.
> Haven't flown one yet, but the idea of a 145# or so
> glider with that kind of no-flap performance is
> simply mindblowing to me.

What kind of performance? I am still waiting on an
independent flight test of this ship.

The idea of an 11 meter ship with 36:1 glide ratio
seems unrealistic. I also wondered how a 150 pound
sailplane would have any penetration into the wind.

> $22k vs. $35k is enough to make some tilters (like
> me) consider other options.

I briefly considered this ship until I saw the price vs
performance. With instruments and trailer, this comes
out to $40k, for that I can buy that's two used libelles
that can really go 38:1.

[Jim]

On 9 Jun 2005 05:57:34 GMT, Ian Cant
> wrote:

>My Russia works out at about 7 lbs/sq ft. Last September
>I shared a thermal with a Sparrowhawk - it was turning
>tight and climbing just a shade better than me. And
>it's probably a little faster in cruise as well. To
>my mind a 'serious cross-country ship' in the West
>needs to carry 'serious landout and safety equipment'.
> How much space and weight can the Sparrowhawk offer
>when you're sitting in the cockpit ?
>
>Ian
>

The cockpit is very roomy, and the instrument panel lifts up with
the canopy.

[Jim]

On 9 Jun 2005 06:45:35 -0700, "Willie G" > wrote:

>
>
>M B wrote:
>
>> Something of an engineering marvel, in my opinion.
>> Haven't flown one yet, but the idea of a 145# or so
>> glider with that kind of no-flap performance is
>> simply mindblowing to me.
>
>What kind of performance? I am still waiting on an
>independent flight test of this ship.
>
>The idea of an 11 meter ship with 36:1 glide ratio
>seems unrealistic. I also wondered how a 150 pound
>sailplane would have any penetration into the wind.
>

Isn't it the wing loading, rather than the gross weight of the
aircraft, that is a factor?

>> $22k vs. $35k is enough to make some tilters (like
>> me) consider other options.
>
>I briefly considered this ship until I saw the price vs
>performance. With instruments and trailer, this comes
>out to $40k, for that I can buy that's two used libelles
>that can really go 38:1.

[[email protected]]

In January both Dean Carswell and I performed a number of test
flights with the Sparrow Hawk at Caddo Mills, and we both were quite
pleased with it. The results will appear in Soaring soon.
It was very easy to fly, and to prove that, I somehow made 8 perfect
(in my opinion anyway) landings in a row. My wing loading was 5.15 psf,
but that included the 25 lb BRS parachute system.
Dick Johnson

[M B]

The PW-5 has performance and materials and
weight within 30% of quite a few other gliders, including

the Russia and Grob 102 club.

If you are aware of a glider which has more than
a dozen produced by the factory which is within
30% of the performance and empty weight of the
Sparrowhawk, I would love to read about it. Please
post this info or e-mail it to me.

The Carbon Dragon seems the closest (and I also
consider it an engineering marvel) but the
difference is there is no factory producing a
finished glider in any noticeable quantity.
To my knowledge it is a
onesy or twosy amateur built glider.

<flame suit on>
It also gets its
performance by use of flaps, which I (being
a tilter) consider cheating...
:P

At 11:00 09 June 2005, Gk wrote:
>
>> Something of an engineering marvel, in my opinion.
>
> Pleaseee, if SH is an 'engineering marvel' then constructor
>of Pewee
>should get a Nopel prize...
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[Eric Greenwell]

Ian Cant wrote:
> To
> my mind a 'serious cross-country ship' in the West
> needs to carry 'serious landout and safety equipment'.
> How much space and weight can the Sparrowhawk offer
> when you're sitting in the cockpit ?

There is plenty of room behind the cockpit for the tiedowns and
emergency kit you'd want to carry, and the 5-10 pounds of weight won't
be a problem, except for the heaviest pilots with the BRS option installed.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Brian Iten]

I am curious if anyone has performed spin testing with
the Sparrowhawk yet and I don't mean from owners who
say it recovers fine when they only had the first indication
of a spin.
Brian

[Brian Iten]

Sorry, I meant to say first indication of a stall before
it broke into a spin....
Brian

At 18:54 09 June 2005, Brian Iten wrote:
>I am curious if anyone has performed spin testing with
>the Sparrowhawk yet and I don't mean from owners who
>say it recovers fine when they only had the first indication
>of a spin.
>Brian
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Willie G wrote:

> What kind of performance? I am still waiting on an
> independent flight test of this ship.
>
> The idea of an 11 meter ship with 36:1 glide ratio
> seems unrealistic. I also wondered how a 150 pound
> sailplane would have any penetration into the wind.

It's not 150 pounds when it's flying, but with the pilot, typically a
BRS, instruments, battery, etc, it's between 350 and 400 pounds. That,
and the small wing area give a 5 to 6 pound/sg ft wing loading. It's not
a "floater".


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

All,

Thanks for the information and sharing your thoughts. I would really
like to thank Eric Greenwell for taking the time to write the articles
in Soaring Magazine. I look forward to reading the Dick Johnson report
in the near future. Now time to schedule a trip to the northwest and
take a look for myself.

[Yurek]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> It's not 150 pounds when it's flying, but with the pilot, typically a
> BRS, instruments, battery, etc, it's between 350 and 400 pounds. That,
> and the small wing area give a 5 to 6 pound/sg ft wing loading. It's not
> a "floater".

Definitely, the wing loading is important, not the only weight of the
glider.
When we know that the Silent-2 with its 663 pounds of MTOW (298 lbs of
empty weight) and 7,0 lbs/sq ft, reaches L/D of 39:1, also the figures
given for Sparrowhawk seem to be realistic.
Is it possible to fly cross-country with an ultra-light glider ?
After flights of Leonardo Benetti-Longhini, reaching with the Silent-2
a 627 km free distance, the definitive answer was given by Dave
Stevenson jr, who pushed with the same glider the FAI DU world record
of distance on 904 km ! :-)
(http://records.fai.org/gliding/pending.asp - file ID 11488)
Yurek

[[email protected]]

When I saw the record set by the Silent 2 I went to the web site so
that I could compare specs. They seem similar which is encouraging. Was
Dave's flight a ridge run ? I live in Texas so most of my flying will
be theraml lift . Anyway I may be out west soon I am going to go take a
look, seems like a fun little glider.

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> When I saw the record set by the Silent 2 I went to the web site so
> that I could compare specs. They seem similar which is encouraging. Was
> Dave's flight a ridge run ? I live in Texas so most of my flying will
> be theraml lift . Anyway I may be out west soon I am going to go take a
> look, seems like a fun little glider.

Part of it was ridge running, but the majority of it was a downwind
dash. The URL for his flight trace and barogram is

http://tinyurl.com/9ger2

What a great flight! I've never flown that far, even in my ASH 26 E.
Dave has flown the SparrowHawk a number of times, so you might want to
call him about his impressions. Dave also flies a Ka-6e and an Elfe.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA