Build a 1-34 from plans?!

Group,

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

GR

"Gus Rasch" wrote in message
om...
Group,

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

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

Vaughn

GR

Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:

Are plans available?

No.

Has anyone ever done it?

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, and best regards to all

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

very good evaluation Bob K.

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

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

BT

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
om...
Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:

Are plans available?

No.

Has anyone ever done it?

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, and best regards to all

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

"Vaughn" wrote in message ...
"Gus Rasch" wrote in message
om...
Group,

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

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

Vaughn

GR



Vaughn,

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

GR

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message . com...
Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:

Are plans available?

No.

Has anyone ever done it?

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, and best regards to all

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

Bob,

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

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

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

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

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

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

GR

"Gus Rasch" wrote in message
om...
Bob,

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

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

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

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

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


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

http://www.vansaircraft.com

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

(Gus Rasch) wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My .02

Regards,

-Doug

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

If you are want a "T" tail project, take a look at:
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP...4T_Project.htm

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

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

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/


"Doug Hoffman" wrote in message
om...
(Gus Rasch) wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My .02

Regards,

-Doug

Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:

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

Go for it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, and best regards to all

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