Duck Hawk Kudos

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

Talk is cheap, while skepticism is free...well, except perhaps for a
diminution of imagination.

I remember when news of Greg Cole's Sparrow Hawk first appeared on RAS.
There were the predictable skeptics:
- he'll never deliver anything;
- he'll never deliver at U.S. ultralight weight;
- it won't have the predicted performance if he does deliver;
- it'll cost too much in any event;
- insurance woes will kill it;
- it'll be too fragile;
- it's not 15 meters;
- etc...

Never mind the man's publicly-known technical background and
professional resume of the time. Since then he has not only delivered,
but done so at a rate that helps sustain a technology-intensive business
in what remains a low-volume market. I, for one, am impressed as all
get-out, at many levels.

Now - in the same understated manner in which he acknowledged the
existence of Sparrow Hawk hardware/airframe development - Greg Cole has
informed the U.S. soaring world of his second (as known to me, anyway)
sailplane/hardware under development. And - as with the Sparrow Hawk -
Greg Cole has not only imagined a ship 'outside the box* of conventional
soaring thought' but begun seriously acting upon his imaginings. He has
my deep respect and sincere wishes for continuing business success...and
would have even were we not from the same country.

He's not alone in so having that, BTW; I'm no less impressed with the
work of Attie Jonkers and Danny Howell (as known largely to me via the
same convention) and the tremendous belief and years of effort of Bob
Kuykendall (as known to me mostly via RAS). Throughout its history and
as well demonstrated still today, soaring has attracted some remarkable
people!

Personally, I'm less skeptical about the Duck Hawk than I am hopeful
sufficient numbers of them will wind up in the hands of soaring pilots
with sufficient imagination and talent and wherewithal to begin
expanding 'everyone's' commonly accepted realm of soaring possibilities.
Ditto Danny Howell's Lighthawk.

While I doubt any of the men mentioned here dream and design and create
mostly for reasons of receiving 'Attaboys!' I'm genuinely pleased to be
in a position to give them mine. I can hardly wait until the first Duck
Hawk airframe is completed, even though I'll almost certainly never be
in a position to pilot it.

Bob - anticipatorily - W.

* 'Outside the box' - Am I the only one who remembers from the
Albuquerque convention Greg Cole's intention (then, anyway) to stress
the Duck Hawk for 'useful' dynamic soaring speeds and maneuvers (and
concomitant stresses)...as in enabling it to be capable of dynamically
soaring (say) the fringes of the jet stream?

[Paul Remde]

Hi Bob,

Well said! I too highly respect these individuals who put their hearts and
souls into their sailplanes! Well done!

Paul Remde

"Bob Whelan" > wrote in message
...
> Talk is cheap, while skepticism is free...well, except perhaps for a
> diminution of imagination.
>
> I remember when news of Greg Cole's Sparrow Hawk first appeared on RAS.
> There were the predictable skeptics:
> - he'll never deliver anything;
> - he'll never deliver at U.S. ultralight weight;
> - it won't have the predicted performance if he does deliver;
> - it'll cost too much in any event;
> - insurance woes will kill it;
> - it'll be too fragile;
> - it's not 15 meters;
> - etc...
>
> Never mind the man's publicly-known technical background and professional
> resume of the time. Since then he has not only delivered, but done so at
> a rate that helps sustain a technology-intensive business in what remains
> a low-volume market. I, for one, am impressed as all get-out, at many
> levels.
>
> Now - in the same understated manner in which he acknowledged the
> existence of Sparrow Hawk hardware/airframe development - Greg Cole has
> informed the U.S. soaring world of his second (as known to me, anyway)
> sailplane/hardware under development. And - as with the Sparrow Hawk -
> Greg Cole has not only imagined a ship 'outside the box* of conventional
> soaring thought' but begun seriously acting upon his imaginings. He has
> my deep respect and sincere wishes for continuing business success...and
> would have even were we not from the same country.
>
> He's not alone in so having that, BTW; I'm no less impressed with the work
> of Attie Jonkers and Danny Howell (as known largely to me via the same
> convention) and the tremendous belief and years of effort of Bob
> Kuykendall (as known to me mostly via RAS). Throughout its history and as
> well demonstrated still today, soaring has attracted some remarkable
> people!
>
> Personally, I'm less skeptical about the Duck Hawk than I am hopeful
> sufficient numbers of them will wind up in the hands of soaring pilots
> with sufficient imagination and talent and wherewithal to begin expanding
> 'everyone's' commonly accepted realm of soaring possibilities. Ditto Danny
> Howell's Lighthawk.
>
> While I doubt any of the men mentioned here dream and design and create
> mostly for reasons of receiving 'Attaboys!' I'm genuinely pleased to be in
> a position to give them mine. I can hardly wait until the first Duck Hawk
> airframe is completed, even though I'll almost certainly never be in a
> position to pilot it.
>
> Bob - anticipatorily - W.
>
> * 'Outside the box' - Am I the only one who remembers from the Albuquerque
> convention Greg Cole's intention (then, anyway) to stress the Duck Hawk
> for 'useful' dynamic soaring speeds and maneuvers (and concomitant
> stresses)...as in enabling it to be capable of dynamically soaring (say)
> the fringes of the jet stream?

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 28, 1:27*pm, Bob Whelan > wrote:

>it'll be too fragile;

I'd say they got that one right. I sat in a Sparrow Hawk and was
disturbed by how lightly constructed the cockpit and canopy frame
were. I understand that the Duck Hawk will use the same fuselage.
I'd far rather it felt more substantial, and was made of more crash
tolerant materials, even if it was 30-50 pounds heavier.

I suppose I'm biased by my familiarity with modern Schleicher
cockpits.

Andy

[Eric Greenwell]

Andy wrote:
> On Feb 28, 1:27 pm, Bob Whelan > wrote:
>
>> it'll be too fragile;
>
> I'd say they got that one right. I sat in a Sparrow Hawk and was
> disturbed by how lightly constructed the cockpit and canopy frame
> were. I understand that the Duck Hawk will use the same fuselage.

It will use the same molds so it will look the same, but the structure
will be considerably different because of the higher gross weight (more
than double), higher Vne (~200 knots instead of 120 knots), retractable
landing gear, and eventually, a very different motor installation.

> I'd far rather it felt more substantial, and was made of more crash
> tolerant materials, even if it was 30-50 pounds heavier.

I suspect it will (and it will definitely be heavier), but I haven't
discussed this aspect with Greg.

> I suppose I'm biased by my familiarity with modern Schleicher
> cockpits.

Me too, one reason I bought my ASH 26 E years ago, and continue to fly
it. Advances have been made, however, and pilots seriously interested in
the glider (i.e, purchasing one!) should not base any decisions on RAS
discussions but should ask Greg directly about features that are
important to them.



--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Whelan wrote:

> * 'Outside the box' - Am I the only one who remembers from the
> Albuquerque convention Greg Cole's intention (then, anyway) to stress
> the Duck Hawk for 'useful' dynamic soaring speeds and maneuvers (and
> concomitant stresses)...as in enabling it to be capable of dynamically
> soaring (say) the fringes of the jet stream?

Bob's comment reminds me of part of my discussion with Greg. I recall
him saying, with what sounded like a sly grin, that "it might take a
younger pilot to appreciate the value of and tolerate the high G
loadings possible, and perhaps one who spent his teenage years
dynamically soaring RC models."

As a non-younger pilot who thinks 2 Gs is enough for any body, I suspect
he's right.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[John Cochrane]

Any idea on how he plans to certify it? It will be too heavy and fast
to be an ultralight or light sport. Is he going to get a standard
airworthiness certificate? From our FAA?

John Cochrane

[Eric Greenwell]

John Cochrane wrote:
> Any idea on how he plans to certify it? It will be too heavy and fast
> to be an ultralight or light sport. Is he going to get a standard
> airworthiness certificate? From our FAA?
>
> John Cochrane

No idea - that's not come up, but certainly an important issue for a
potential buyer.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[[email protected]]

On Feb 28, 12:27*pm, Bob Whelan > wrote:
> Am I the only one who remembers from the
> Albuquerque convention Greg Cole's intention (then, anyway) to stress
> the Duck Hawk for 'useful' dynamic soaring speeds and maneuvers (and
> concomitant stresses)...as in enabling it to be capable of dynamically
> soaring (say) the fringes of the jet stream?

I agree with the sentiment of the post. The effort deserves a lot of
credit.

That said, my personal feeling is that the most pilots will take
notice if the ship is able to achieve 5-10+ kts faster cruise speeds
at moderate-to-high McCready setting versus current designs. That's
what moves the market for a new high-performance glider. Performance
that you can only take advantage of in Class A airspace is
interesting, but not many of us want to go to the trouble to fly our
gliders regularly under IFR rules - not to mention the other
challenges of high-altitude flight.

I hope they beef the structure up a bit. I was a bit disturbed that
the canopy on the Sparrow Hawk had the apparent stiffness of a 1-liter
soda bottle. Maybe it's a false sense of security but I'd feel better
under the illusion that I can't push my fist through the side of my
glider. I'd like for the structure to be able to absorb a decent
amount of energy in a pinch.

9B

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

> That said, my personal feeling is that the most pilots will take
> notice if the ship is able to achieve 5-10+ kts faster cruise speeds
> at moderate-to-high McCready setting versus current designs. That's
> what moves the market for a new high-performance glider. Performance
> that you can only take advantage of in Class A airspace is
> interesting, but not many of us want to go to the trouble to fly our
> gliders regularly under IFR rules - not to mention the other
> challenges of high-altitude flight.

I assume you are talking about wave flying in Class A airspace. Class A
is not necessary to take advantage of a high Vne. Class A's advantage
is altitude, making it easier to traverse gaps in the wave. High speed
flight comes from strong lift, which can be very strong at 18,000'.

> I hope they beef the structure up a bit. I was a bit disturbed that
> the canopy on the Sparrow Hawk had the apparent stiffness of a 1-liter
> soda bottle.

The material is a polycarbonate (like Lexan), quite tough, lighter, and
relatively easy to form compared to the thicker acrylic used on larger,
heavier, and faster gliders. It's a good choice for the SparrowHawk.

> Maybe it's a false sense of security but I'd feel better
> under the illusion that I can't push my fist through the side of my
> glider. I'd like for the structure to be able to absorb a decent
> amount of energy in a pinch.

I doubt that any glider depends on the strength of the canopy plastic to
absorb energy in a pinch! Energy absorption comes from the design and
materials of the cockpit. I'm sure the canopy material will have to be
more substantial due to the DuckHawk's 200 knot Vne than the material
used on the 120 kt Vne SparrowHawk.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[[email protected]]

On Mar 1, 9:10*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
Eric - see answers to your questions below:

> I assume you are talking about wave flying in Class A airspace. Class A
> * is not necessary to take advantage of a high Vne. Class A's advantage
> is altitude, making it easier to traverse gaps in the wave. High speed
> flight comes from strong lift, which can be very strong at 18,000'.

I was referring to the reference in the original post that stated the
DuckHawk was designed to take advantage of dynamic soaring at the
boundary of the Jetstream. Last I checked the Jetstream is typically
found in Class A. I have no idea how you'd get to the boundary of the
Jetstream on a typical summer soaring day via thermal. In the winter
you might use wave. I'm not sure why you'd cruise at 200 kts under
thermal soaring conditions, even when the lift is averaging 10+ knots,
which is quite rare. That kind of speed could be useful for XC in
wave, but that is a niche market based on my observations. I'm not
sure I'd optimize a design for that scenario if I wanted volume
production unless it didn't come at the expense of performance under
more mainstream soaring conditions.

> The material is a polycarbonate (like Lexan), quite tough, lighter, and
> relatively easy to form compared to the thicker acrylic used on larger,
> heavier, and faster gliders. It's a good choice for the SparrowHawk.

I was referring to what they might use on the DuckHawk in contrast to
the SparrowHawk. 200 knots is pretty fast to have a coke bottle for a
canopy - at least for me.

>
> I doubt that any glider depends on the strength of the canopy plastic to
> absorb energy in a pinch!

I was talking about the fuselage which is quite thin - though I can
understand how you might have gotten confused because of the reference
to the canopy just before.

9B

[Brian Bange[_2_]]

This will be just the ticket for pilots flying for records in the
Andes. If it goes anything like the specs, it could set a new
world record for distance. Isn't the current record held by a
Nimbus set up by the factory for higher Vne than standard? 14
hrs @ 180 knots is a LOT of kilometers. Klaus Olman should be
first in line for one.

At 11:40 02 March 2009, wrote:
>On Mar 1, 9:10=A0pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Eric - see answers to your questions below:
>
>> I assume you are talking about wave flying in Class A
airspace. Class A
>> =A0 is not necessary to take advantage of a high Vne. Class
A's
>advantage
>> is altitude, making it easier to traverse gaps in the wave.
High speed
>> flight comes from strong lift, which can be very strong at
18,000'.
>

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> I'm not sure why you'd cruise at 200 kts under
> thermal soaring conditions, even when the lift is averaging 10+ knots,
> which is quite rare. That kind of speed could be useful for XC in
> wave, but that is a niche market based on my observations. I'm not
> sure I'd optimize a design for that scenario if I wanted volume
> production unless it didn't come at the expense of performance under
> more mainstream soaring conditions.

The DuckHawk is not optimized for a 200 knot cruise - that's the Vne
number. Optimum cruise speeds would be a lot lower than that, but
significantly higher than current production racing class gliders, and
at a lower wing loading, so it can still have a good climb in thermals.
>
>> The material is a polycarbonate (like Lexan), quite tough, lighter, and
>> relatively easy to form compared to the thicker acrylic used on larger,
>> heavier, and faster gliders. It's a good choice for the SparrowHawk.
>
> I was referring to what they might use on the DuckHawk in contrast to
> the SparrowHawk. 200 knots is pretty fast to have a coke bottle for a
> canopy - at least for me.

It sure is, and I'm sure Greg is aware that what works for a 120 knot
Vne may not be the best choice for a 200 knot Vne, and will choose
something appropriate. Still, I think you might not appreciate how tough
that canopy is, so try snapping a piece of Lexan )polycarbonate) and a
piece of Plexiglas (acrylic), and you will see why Lexan is used for
safety glasses.

>> I doubt that any glider depends on the strength of the canopy plastic to
>> absorb energy in a pinch!
>
> I was talking about the fuselage which is quite thin - though I can
> understand how you might have gotten confused because of the reference
> to the canopy just before.

It's important to know he is *NOT* using a SparrowHawk fuselage for the
DuckHawk! He is using the same molds so the outside shape will be the
same, but the inside will be very, very different.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[[email protected]]

On Mar 2, 8:24*am, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> The DuckHawk is not optimized for a 200 knot cruise - that's the Vne
> number. Optimum cruise speeds would be a lot lower than that, but
> significantly higher than current production racing class gliders.

Yes, that's what I said. The point I was making is that 200 knots of
Vne wouldn't be all that useful except in unusual circumstances (wave,
jetstream dynamic soaring - if you could ever get there, maybe the
occasional run under a CuNim - if you had the guts). I also was
responding to your earlier comment that seemed to imply the opposite:
"Class A is not necessary to take advantage of a high Vne. High speed
flight comes from strong lift, which can be very strong at 18,000'." I
just don't think the racing performance of the ship will have very
much at all to do with Vne. It's how it does at 100 kts that will
matter to performance - assuming it climbs okay. I think we're agreed
on that.

> I think you might not appreciate how tough
> that canopy is, so try snapping a piece of Lexan )polycarbonate) and a
> piece of Plexiglas (acrylic), and you will see why Lexan is used for
> safety glasses.

Point taken - I remember trying to stop a SparrowHak canopy that was
blown open by the wind and having it deform a couple of inches. That
was a surprise. I'm sure a bigger, tougher, faster, heavier glider
will have a canopy to match. You wouldn't want to have it bow in on
you to much, even if it doesn't crack.

> It's important to know he is *NOT* using a SparrowHawk fuselage for the
> DuckHawk! He is using the same molds so the outside shape will be the
> same, but the inside will be very, very different.

That was the hope many here had expressed. It certainly makes sense to
do it the way you describe - saves on tooling.

9B

[[email protected]]

Here is a nice bio for Greg Cole. Jody Culbert AC-4a

http://www.perlanproject.com/bio_cole.php