Checklist for new ship selection

[Hans Cuppen]

Hi,

Our club has decided to replace its training fleet of K13's by new
ships.
In order to structure the selection process and to avoid that
everybody starts yelling and defending their favourite brand I need a
kind of list of criteria by which to match available ships in the
market.
Therefore I need a longlist that covers all (or most important)
aspects to consider before making a final choice.
Obvious main areas are: safety (like (how) does it spin?), price, ease
of ground handling, flexibility in club operations, expected
maintenance cost, supplier reliability, etc.
Maybe other clubs have gone through a similar process and are willing
to share the list of hard demands and soft wishes they used.
My intention is not to start a thread on the why's of our decision.
Just a list of aspects.

After scimming and searching a few thousand headings, I could not find
any related postings in RAC.

You can email your list, or a place where I can find one, to my
address (discarding the "nospam" part off course.)



Thanks in advance

Hans Cuppen
GOZC
The Netherlands


Hans Cuppen
DG-400 Charly Pappa
The Netherlands
"It aint much, if it aint Dutch"
When responding, replace "nospam.com" from my address by .nl (dot nl)

[303SAM]

I don't see how RAS'ers opinions on what should be on your checklist will be
of any help at all. Survey your members to see what THEY think is important
in a ship.
Once that's done (and you've somehow resolved all of the conflicting
requirements) get several respected members to help you build a matrix that
scores available ships against the criteria members said were important.

"Hans Cuppen" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> Our club has decided to replace its training fleet of K13's by new
> ships.
> In order to structure the selection process and to avoid that
> everybody starts yelling and defending their favourite brand I need a
> kind of list of criteria by which to match available ships in the
> market.
> Therefore I need a longlist that covers all (or most important)
> aspects to consider before making a final choice.
> Obvious main areas are: safety (like (how) does it spin?), price, ease
> of ground handling, flexibility in club operations, expected
> maintenance cost, supplier reliability, etc.
> Maybe other clubs have gone through a similar process and are willing
> to share the list of hard demands and soft wishes they used.
> My intention is not to start a thread on the why's of our decision.
> Just a list of aspects.
>
> After scimming and searching a few thousand headings, I could not find
> any related postings in RAC.
>
> You can email your list, or a place where I can find one, to my
> address (discarding the "nospam" part off course.)
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Hans Cuppen
> GOZC
> The Netherlands
>
>
> Hans Cuppen
> DG-400 Charly Pappa
> The Netherlands
> "It aint much, if it aint Dutch"
> When responding, replace "nospam.com" from my address by .nl (dot nl)
>

[phil collin]

I think what Hanns was after was an opinion on what your club may have
done in a similar situation. Hindsight is a very specific science so I
can see why he has asked the question. e.g are K21's and G103's good
replacements buck for buck against the K13?


303SAM wrote:
> I don't see how RAS'ers opinions on what should be on your checklist will be
> of any help at all. Survey your members to see what THEY think is important
> in a ship.
> Once that's done (and you've somehow resolved all of the conflicting
> requirements) get several respected members to help you build a matrix that
> scores available ships against the criteria members said were important.
>
> "Hans Cuppen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi,
>>
>> Our club has decided to replace its training fleet of K13's by new
>> ships.
>> In order to structure the selection process and to avoid that
>> everybody starts yelling and defending their favourite brand I need a
>> kind of list of criteria by which to match available ships in the
>> market.
>> Therefore I need a longlist that covers all (or most important)
>> aspects to consider before making a final choice.
>> Obvious main areas are: safety (like (how) does it spin?), price, ease
>> of ground handling, flexibility in club operations, expected
>> maintenance cost, supplier reliability, etc.
>> Maybe other clubs have gone through a similar process and are willing
>> to share the list of hard demands and soft wishes they used.
>> My intention is not to start a thread on the why's of our decision.
>> Just a list of aspects.
>>
>> After scimming and searching a few thousand headings, I could not find
>> any related postings in RAC.
>>
>> You can email your list, or a place where I can find one, to my
>> address (discarding the "nospam" part off course.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Hans Cuppen
>> GOZC
>> The Netherlands
>>
>>
>> Hans Cuppen
>> DG-400 Charly Pappa
>> The Netherlands
>> "It aint much, if it aint Dutch"
>> When responding, replace "nospam.com" from my address by .nl (dot nl)
>>
>
>

[Chris Reed]

I'd suggest these questions for a start (and as another poster has said,
find out what the club and its members is looking for, but these are
some of the important issues). My club has a K21, a Puchacz and a K13,
so I've added some comments about the K21/Puchacz to illustrate each
question.

1. Suitability for first training flights? (K21 is very encouraging
because it's easy to fly, Puchacz demands more accurate flying).

2. Suitability for later stages of pre-solo training? (K21 not so good
because it masks faults, Puchacz excellent)

3. Do we want to offer full spin recovery training? (K21 no good without
the spin kit [no idea how good with the kit], Puchacz excellent as it
does everything by the book but loses lots of height in the spin
compared with a K13)

4. Do we want to offer XC training? (K21 pretty good as less effort for
trainee to fly so can concentrate on XC skills, Puchacz OK but doesn't
penetrate so well into wind)

5. How easy is the ground handling? (both K21 and Puchacz are easy
because they have nose wheels and main wheel near the C of G; Puchacz is
keener to fly on its own in high winds so needs more care in gusty
conditions)

6. Cockpit size/weight limits/comfort? (Puchacz fits a wider range than
K21 in terms of height and breadth, weight limits are much the same)

7. Lookout visibility? (K21 is a little better from the back seat than
Puchacz, but both are OK)

8. Build quality? (K21 is excellent, Puchacz airframe seems solid but
pushrods, wheels, cables etc. are lower quality and our experience is
that it requires more watching and minor repair/replacement of these parts)

9. Handling/teaching vices? (K21 allows sloppy flying without real
penalty, Puchacz loses height rapidly in spins)

10. Ease of rigging/derigging? (Linked to the XC question, both are
pretty easy compared to a K13 if you can't find the special tool for
removing the main pins)

11. Will it fit in our hangar? (not a problem for a K21/Puchacz if
replacing a K13, but a DG1000 will require rather more space!)

12. Winch launch characteristics? (K21 is excellent, Puchacz has a very
narrow window of safe winch launching speeds)

13. Availability of spares? (Good for K21, reasonable for Puchacz [in
Europe at least])

I'm sure there are more questions, but these are the ones I recall being
discussed last time my club was considering what to buy.

[Gary Emerson]

Item #0 - Do any of the aircraft you are considering have a continuous
pattern of killing people, including situations where both pilots are
flight instructors with lots of time. If so, cross it off your list.


Chris Reed wrote:
> I'd suggest these questions for a start (and as another poster has said,
> find out what the club and its members is looking for, but these are
> some of the important issues). My club has a K21, a Puchacz and a K13,
> so I've added some comments about the K21/Puchacz to illustrate each
> question.
>
> 1. Suitability for first training flights? (K21 is very encouraging
> because it's easy to fly, Puchacz demands more accurate flying).
>
> 2. Suitability for later stages of pre-solo training? (K21 not so good
> because it masks faults, Puchacz excellent)
>
> 3. Do we want to offer full spin recovery training? (K21 no good without
> the spin kit [no idea how good with the kit], Puchacz excellent as it
> does everything by the book but loses lots of height in the spin
> compared with a K13)
>
> 4. Do we want to offer XC training? (K21 pretty good as less effort for
> trainee to fly so can concentrate on XC skills, Puchacz OK but doesn't
> penetrate so well into wind)
>
> 5. How easy is the ground handling? (both K21 and Puchacz are easy
> because they have nose wheels and main wheel near the C of G; Puchacz is
> keener to fly on its own in high winds so needs more care in gusty
> conditions)
>
> 6. Cockpit size/weight limits/comfort? (Puchacz fits a wider range than
> K21 in terms of height and breadth, weight limits are much the same)
>
> 7. Lookout visibility? (K21 is a little better from the back seat than
> Puchacz, but both are OK)
>
> 8. Build quality? (K21 is excellent, Puchacz airframe seems solid but
> pushrods, wheels, cables etc. are lower quality and our experience is
> that it requires more watching and minor repair/replacement of these parts)
>
> 9. Handling/teaching vices? (K21 allows sloppy flying without real
> penalty, Puchacz loses height rapidly in spins)
>
> 10. Ease of rigging/derigging? (Linked to the XC question, both are
> pretty easy compared to a K13 if you can't find the special tool for
> removing the main pins)
>
> 11. Will it fit in our hangar? (not a problem for a K21/Puchacz if
> replacing a K13, but a DG1000 will require rather more space!)
>
> 12. Winch launch characteristics? (K21 is excellent, Puchacz has a very
> narrow window of safe winch launching speeds)
>
> 13. Availability of spares? (Good for K21, reasonable for Puchacz [in
> Europe at least])
>
> I'm sure there are more questions, but these are the ones I recall being
> discussed last time my club was considering what to buy.
>

[Charles Yeates]

Try a PW-6 -- many advantages

Gary Emerson wrote:
> Item #0 - Do any of the aircraft you are considering have a continuous
> pattern of killing people, including situations where both pilots are
> flight instructors with lots of time. If so, cross it off your list.
>
>
> Chris Reed wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest these questions for a start (and as another poster has
>> said, find out what the club and its members is looking for, but these
>> are some of the important issues). My club has a K21, a Puchacz and a
>> K13, so I've added some comments about the K21/Puchacz to illustrate
>> each question.
>>
>> 1. Suitability for first training flights? (K21 is very encouraging
>> because it's easy to fly, Puchacz demands more accurate flying).
>>
>> 2. Suitability for later stages of pre-solo training? (K21 not so good
>> because it masks faults, Puchacz excellent)
>>
>> 3. Do we want to offer full spin recovery training? (K21 no good
>> without the spin kit [no idea how good with the kit], Puchacz
>> excellent as it does everything by the book but loses lots of height
>> in the spin compared with a K13)
>>
>> 4. Do we want to offer XC training? (K21 pretty good as less effort
>> for trainee to fly so can concentrate on XC skills, Puchacz OK but
>> doesn't penetrate so well into wind)
>>
>> 5. How easy is the ground handling? (both K21 and Puchacz are easy
>> because they have nose wheels and main wheel near the C of G; Puchacz
>> is keener to fly on its own in high winds so needs more care in gusty
>> conditions)
>>
>> 6. Cockpit size/weight limits/comfort? (Puchacz fits a wider range
>> than K21 in terms of height and breadth, weight limits are much the same)
>>
>> 7. Lookout visibility? (K21 is a little better from the back seat than
>> Puchacz, but both are OK)
>>
>> 8. Build quality? (K21 is excellent, Puchacz airframe seems solid but
>> pushrods, wheels, cables etc. are lower quality and our experience is
>> that it requires more watching and minor repair/replacement of these
>> parts)
>>
>> 9. Handling/teaching vices? (K21 allows sloppy flying without real
>> penalty, Puchacz loses height rapidly in spins)
>>
>> 10. Ease of rigging/derigging? (Linked to the XC question, both are
>> pretty easy compared to a K13 if you can't find the special tool for
>> removing the main pins)
>>
>> 11. Will it fit in our hangar? (not a problem for a K21/Puchacz if
>> replacing a K13, but a DG1000 will require rather more space!)
>>
>> 12. Winch launch characteristics? (K21 is excellent, Puchacz has a
>> very narrow window of safe winch launching speeds)
>>
>> 13. Availability of spares? (Good for K21, reasonable for Puchacz [in
>> Europe at least])
>>
>> I'm sure there are more questions, but these are the ones I recall
>> being discussed last time my club was considering what to buy.
>>

[Gary O'Neill]

You are referring to the the Puchacz,I will be straight ,I am not a fan of
this glider "but " the british Test Pilot school have put this glider
through the the program and found no unusual flight/spin modes. The
conclusion was you must do spin recoveries by the book and no halfway
methods will work.
The consensus from the instructors seems to be that it is a good trainer.
gary
"Gary Emerson" > wrote in message
et...
> Item #0 - Do any of the aircraft you are considering have a continuous
> pattern of killing people, including situations where both pilots are
> flight instructors with lots of time. If so, cross it off your list.
>
>
> Chris Reed wrote:
>> I'd suggest these questions for a start (and as another poster has said,
>> find out what the club and its members is looking for, but these are some
>> of the important issues). My club has a K21, a Puchacz and a K13, so I've
>> added some comments about the K21/Puchacz to illustrate each question.
>>
>> 1. Suitability for first training flights? (K21 is very encouraging
>> because it's easy to fly, Puchacz demands more accurate flying).
>>
>> 2. Suitability for later stages of pre-solo training? (K21 not so good
>> because it masks faults, Puchacz excellent)
>>
>> 3. Do we want to offer full spin recovery training? (K21 no good without
>> the spin kit [no idea how good with the kit], Puchacz excellent as it
>> does everything by the book but loses lots of height in the spin compared
>> with a K13)
>>
>> 4. Do we want to offer XC training? (K21 pretty good as less effort for
>> trainee to fly so can concentrate on XC skills, Puchacz OK but doesn't
>> penetrate so well into wind)
>>
>> 5. How easy is the ground handling? (both K21 and Puchacz are easy
>> because they have nose wheels and main wheel near the C of G; Puchacz is
>> keener to fly on its own in high winds so needs more care in gusty
>> conditions)
>>
>> 6. Cockpit size/weight limits/comfort? (Puchacz fits a wider range than
>> K21 in terms of height and breadth, weight limits are much the same)
>>
>> 7. Lookout visibility? (K21 is a little better from the back seat than
>> Puchacz, but both are OK)
>>
>> 8. Build quality? (K21 is excellent, Puchacz airframe seems solid but
>> pushrods, wheels, cables etc. are lower quality and our experience is
>> that it requires more watching and minor repair/replacement of these
>> parts)
>>
>> 9. Handling/teaching vices? (K21 allows sloppy flying without real
>> penalty, Puchacz loses height rapidly in spins)
>>
>> 10. Ease of rigging/derigging? (Linked to the XC question, both are
>> pretty easy compared to a K13 if you can't find the special tool for
>> removing the main pins)
>>
>> 11. Will it fit in our hangar? (not a problem for a K21/Puchacz if
>> replacing a K13, but a DG1000 will require rather more space!)
>>
>> 12. Winch launch characteristics? (K21 is excellent, Puchacz has a very
>> narrow window of safe winch launching speeds)
>>
>> 13. Availability of spares? (Good for K21, reasonable for Puchacz [in
>> Europe at least])
>>
>> I'm sure there are more questions, but these are the ones I recall being
>> discussed last time my club was considering what to buy.
>>

[India November]

Hans

My club also is debating whether to replace K13s.

Opinion is split between those who want to stay with K13s, and those
who agree the K13 was a fine aircraft but it's time for something newer
and more modern.

Therefore I am interested in hearing the reasons why you have decided
to replace yours.

Ian Grant
Gatineau GC

PS the alternative our analysis showed as best bang for the buck in
Canada is the L23 Blanik.

Hans Cuppen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our club has decided to replace its training fleet of K13's by new
> ships.
> In order to structure the selection process and to avoid that
> everybody starts yelling and defending their favourite brand I need a
> kind of list of criteria by which to match available ships in the
> market.
> Therefore I need a longlist that covers all (or most important)
> aspects to consider before making a final choice.
> Obvious main areas are: safety (like (how) does it spin?), price, ease
> of ground handling, flexibility in club operations, expected
> maintenance cost, supplier reliability, etc.
> Maybe other clubs have gone through a similar process and are willing
> to share the list of hard demands and soft wishes they used.
> My intention is not to start a thread on the why's of our decision.
> Just a list of aspects.
>
> After scimming and searching a few thousand headings, I could not find
> any related postings in RAC.
>
> You can email your list, or a place where I can find one, to my
> address (discarding the "nospam" part off course.)
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Hans Cuppen
> GOZC
> The Netherlands
>
>
> Hans Cuppen
> DG-400 Charly Pappa
> The Netherlands
> "It aint much, if it aint Dutch"
> When responding, replace "nospam.com" from my address by .nl (dot nl)

[Gary Emerson]

I personally don't have any time in the glider, and I'll take you and
the test pilots at their word. The issue is that in real world
situations it has demonstrated a statistic for killing people. In a
training environment, you have to consider that while you need a glider
that will spin effectively for training purposes, you also need one that
is going to be more forgiving of mistakes. Mistakes are a part of
training. Therefore it's not the glider you want to use.

Gary O'Neill wrote:
> You are referring to the the Puchacz,I will be straight ,I am not a fan of
> this glider "but " the british Test Pilot school have put this glider
> through the the program and found no unusual flight/spin modes. The
> conclusion was you must do spin recoveries by the book and no halfway
> methods will work.
> The consensus from the instructors seems to be that it is a good trainer.
> gary

[Gary O'Neill]

I agree and disagree with you ,I have watched the Puchaczdo do an
aerobatics/handling display and as part of the display a spin was initiated
around a 1000 feet ,the glider seemed to lose the same altitude as several
other 2 seaters but more quickly.
In the real world we are going to eventually fly a model or type of glider
that will require correct control inputs to recover from a spin, it is
better that
there is a model that will give you that training of how to do it correctly.
I have seen posts on RAS suggesting people go find an instructor current
on spinning a Cessna and do spin training simply because so few of the
2 seater designs will spin.
gary
"Gary Emerson" > wrote in message
. com...
>I personally don't have any time in the glider, and I'll take you and the
>test pilots at their word. The issue is that in real world situations it
>has demonstrated a statistic for killing people. In a training
>environment, you have to consider that while you need a glider that will
>spin effectively for training purposes, you also need one that is going to
>be more forgiving of mistakes. Mistakes are a part of training. Therefore
>it's not the glider you want to use.
>
> Gary O'Neill wrote:
>> You are referring to the the Puchacz,I will be straight ,I am not a fan
>> of this glider "but " the british Test Pilot school have put this glider
>> through the the program and found no unusual flight/spin modes. The
>> conclusion was you must do spin recoveries by the book and no halfway
>> methods will work.
>> The consensus from the instructors seems to be that it is a good trainer.
>> gary

[Hans Cuppen]

Hi folks,

Thanks a lot for all your input.
Actually Chris Reed was the one who read and answered the question I
put up most adequately. I've thanked him already for that.

We are considering renewal by DDX or DG1000 or K21.

And I am pretty convinced of what's it gonna be.

Actually, there is no choice.


Again, thank you all.

Hans






(Hans Cuppen) wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Our club has decided to replace its training fleet of K13's by new
>ships.
>In order to structure the selection process and to avoid that
>everybody starts yelling and defending their favourite brand I need a
>kind of list of criteria by which to match available ships in the
>market.
>Therefore I need a longlist that covers all (or most important)
>aspects to consider before making a final choice.
>Obvious main areas are: safety (like (how) does it spin?), price, ease
>of ground handling, flexibility in club operations, expected
>maintenance cost, supplier reliability, etc.
>Maybe other clubs have gone through a similar process and are willing
>to share the list of hard demands and soft wishes they used.
>My intention is not to start a thread on the why's of our decision.
>Just a list of aspects.
>
>After scimming and searching a few thousand headings, I could not find
>any related postings in RAC.
>
>You can email your list, or a place where I can find one, to my
>address (discarding the "nospam" part off course.)
>

>
>Thanks in advance
>
>Hans Cuppen
>GOZC
>The Netherlands
>
>
>Hans Cuppen
>DG-400 Charly Pappa
>The Netherlands
>"It aint much, if it aint Dutch"
>When responding, replace "nospam.com" from my address by .nl (dot nl)
>

Hans Cuppen
DG-400 Charly Pappa
The Netherlands
"It aint much, if it aint Dutch"
When responding, replace "nospam.com" from my address by .nl (dot nl)

[Hans Cuppen]

Ian,

35 years ago, our club made a landslide decisison to replace the
wooden oldies fleet by the latest and hottest K13's.

Since then they sat on their butts and watched the world go by.

Now, 2006, a same same window of opportunities opens itself.

I have shown our (150!) members that, although we can make it
affordable, it's not a matter of money but a matter of guts and
innovation!!

Just Do It. (As we did 35 years ago.)

Now what would YOU do?

grtzzz

Hans



And now we do, the 1000 seems the only option for us.



"India November" > wrote:

>Hans
>
>My club also is debating whether to replace K13s.
>
>Opinion is split between those who want to stay with K13s, and those
>who agree the K13 was a fine aircraft but it's time for something newer
>and more modern.
>
>Therefore I am interested in hearing the reasons why you have decided
>to replace yours.
>
>Ian Grant
>Gatineau GC
>
>PS the alternative our analysis showed as best bang for the buck in
>Canada is the L23 Blanik.
>
>Hans Cuppen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Our club has decided to replace its training fleet of K13's by new
>> ships.
>> In order to structure the selection process and to avoid that
>> everybody starts yelling and defending their favourite brand I need a
>> kind of list of criteria by which to match available ships in the
>> market.
>> Therefore I need a longlist that covers all (or most important)
>> aspects to consider before making a final choice.
>> Obvious main areas are: safety (like (how) does it spin?), price, ease
>> of ground handling, flexibility in club operations, expected
>> maintenance cost, supplier reliability, etc.
>> Maybe other clubs have gone through a similar process and are willing
>> to share the list of hard demands and soft wishes they used.
>> My intention is not to start a thread on the why's of our decision.
>> Just a list of aspects.
>>
>> After scimming and searching a few thousand headings, I could not find
>> any related postings in RAC.
>>
>> You can email your list, or a place where I can find one, to my
>> address (discarding the "nospam" part off course.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Hans Cuppen
>> GOZC
>> The Netherlands
>>
>>
>> Hans Cuppen
>> DG-400 Charly Pappa
>> The Netherlands
>> "It aint much, if it aint Dutch"
>> When responding, replace "nospam.com" from my address by .nl (dot nl)
>

Hans Cuppen
DG-400 Charly Pappa
The Netherlands
"It aint much, if it aint Dutch"
When responding, replace "nospam.com" from my address by .nl (dot nl)

[Gary Emerson]

My point is that there are other ships in existence that spin
effectively so as to allow the teaching of spins and spin recovery that
don't have a reputation of killing people. Anyone can "spin in" if they
screw things up at low altitude. Masak appears to be an example of this
unfortunately. However, if you polled the glider community I don't
think anyone would come forward and say Blaniks, DGs, LSs, Schleichers,
or Schempp gliders have a particular tendency to spin in. This is the
case with the Puchacz and it seems to stand out in this regard.

[Martin Gregorie]

Gary Emerson wrote:
> My point is that there are other ships in existence that spin
> effectively so as to allow the teaching of spins and spin recovery that
> don't have a reputation of killing people. Anyone can "spin in" if they
> screw things up at low altitude. Masak appears to be an example of this
> unfortunately. However, if you polled the glider community I don't
> think anyone would come forward and say Blaniks, DGs, LSs, Schleichers,
> or Schempp gliders have a particular tendency to spin in. This is the
> case with the Puchacz and it seems to stand out in this regard.
>
The Puchacz does have very powerful air brakes and, because it doesn't
drop its nose when they are deployed, the unwary can lose a lot of
airspeed when they are deployed. This is rather like selecting landing
flap in an ASW-20.

This tendency to shed speed when the brakes are deployed is at odds with
a G103 (which speeds up) or and ASK-21 (which shows very little speed
change). I wonder if this is where its 'bad reputation' comes from?


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