FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... it's just a question of when

I think Bob K's post just above yours says it all. We already have wonderful XC trainers with engines - they're called Duo Discuses (Discii). They cost a lot of money, and very few blue collar glider training operations are going to buy one, at least here in the US. I'm sorry, but Greg may be disconnected from the realities of a typical club or low budget FBO. Managing a sophisticated system like you describe? Hah! I watch what the ASK-21s, Blanik L-23s, and 2-33s go through at our operation and those nearby. We're lucky if we can keep the 12V SLA battery charged with working connectors in order to run the radio and electric vario :-)

Seriously: Simple. Robust. User Friendly. Repairable. ASK-21 performance.

That's the high level requirement IMO.



On Friday, April 5, 2013 12:03:48 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/5/2013 4:24 AM, Evan Ludeman wrote:

No motors! That adds cost, complexity and training issues all out of

proportion to any supposed benefit as a trainer. We need *trainers*

and a safe, reliable, economical way to launch them. The PW-6 is the

closest thing on the market.



Greg's belief is we need *soaring* and *XC* trainers, not just

"trainers". He absolutely wants to avoid the cost, complexity and

training issues of the current gasoline engine systems, and that is why

he want to use a TFP system ("Tractor folding propeller" - same concept

as the FES, but that name belongs to another company). The cost,

complexity, and training issues are far smaller with an electric folding

propeller sustainer than gasoline sustainers, or self-launcher systems

like the ASK-21 Mi. Any instructor should be able to make good use of a

TFP after a few flights, and students could be ready to use it as well

by the time they are solo.



The TFP addresses the "safe, reliable, economical way" to launch the

glider, using a car launch to 500 feet.



I think training effectiveness would be increased if the instructor

could extend the flight with another climb instead of landing, and with

just a flick of a switch.



Think how exciting it would be for a student who isn't solo, but has

progressed to flying the glider for most of the flight, if part (or

all!) of the flight included real XC flying, beyond gliding range of the

airport? I think that would eliminate the huge "rubber band" effect most

solo students experience, and that continues to haunt them even when

they get their license.



That excitement would keep them coming back better than the typical

training program does now, don't you think?



--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to

email me)

On Apr 5, 9:38*am, David Salmon wrote:

Apologies if I say something that has already been said, but I haven't read
all the postings. You are obviously in a similar situation to that which
the UK was in many years ago, no local manufacturers, so the only place to
go was Europe, which most clubs have done.
However, you are a lot further away, and by the sound of it, there could be
a good market, so why does not some composite aircraft manufacturer try for
a licence? Why re-invent the wheel? There are a number of good designs
available.

Dave, those are excellent questions!

Part of the genesis of the Aurora project was the suggestion that a
license might be obtained to manufacture ASK21s locally. The question
then became, how would you manufacture them cost-effectively, with
minimum ramp-up time, and what might you do differently?

One of the big issues is that of obtaining production certification.
You don't just have to obtain license to manufacture a design that has
been certificated to meet regulatory requirements. You also have to
prove to the authorities that you can manufacture it so that every
single unit meets certification requirements. And that means
developing and implementing a variety of technologies that ensure that
you stay within allowable tolerances in several dimensions.

These considerations led to the idea that a training glider should be
designed from the start with the idea of making it as cost-effective
as possible to meet both design and production certification
requirements. And that led back towards a clean-sheet design. But this
isn't reinventing the wheel. This is developing a wheel that meets our
current needs, not someone else's needs from a bygone era.

Thanks, Bob K.

Bob K said:
Because the reality is that, while soaring
is a wonderful and fascinating and engrossing activity, it is not for
everyone. Maybe one in person in what, 300? 500? maybe 1000? takes a
20 minute ride and sticks with it through to the license.

From what I have seen of this sport it is mostly made up of airplane
pilots who have
also taken up soaring. At least in my club it is. I would guess it is
the same elsewhere in the US.
It seems this makes it an easy license transition to get into a
glider.
Some of you have talked about what trainers were used in the 50's and
60's. This is largely irrelevant
now because in ~1975 flex wing hang gliding was born. And later,
paragliding.
Now anyone who has that (cursed) soaring gene can afford to soar, buy
a new glider and a complete vario/altimeter/ IGC logger for a few
thousand $ and
fly XC 100 to 300 km. on good days. And it is every bit as thrilling
as going 500 km in a sailplane. Without the towing fees.
The only things driving these soaring aficionados to sailplanes is
that some are getting too old to lug gliders
around AND they now have a little more cash.

What I am trying to point out is that we are not realistically looking
at the whole picture when thinking about how to grow sailplane
activity.
It is a lot harder than it was in the 60s when that was the only game
in town for motorless flight.
My prediction is that sailplane soaring will continue to be a
shrinking sport and there is nothing you can do about it unless
you can a). ban other forms of gliding and b.) greatly reduce the
cost.
A third item might be to try and get today's youth away from their
glowing screens long enough to participate in real-world activities.
HG and PG numbers are declining as well!

On 4/5/2013 9:42 AM, wrote:
Car towing adds a number of significant hazard variables.

What "hazard variables" does it add, compared to aerotow? Doesn't it
also subtract some "hazard variables"?

If you are operating from a glider-only airfield, I'd guess the hazards
of a 500' agl car launch are less than a 2000' aerotow launch,
particularly if you include the hazards to the tow pilot. If operating
from a GA airport, I know it will have different hazards than aerotow,
but it's not clear they would be greater.

The rubber
band effect can be and is effectively dealt with by implementing
progressive XC minded training. I didn't have it but all my students
do. Dual XC land outs can work wonders!

I agree the rubber band effect can be mitigated, but my observation is
it isn't most of the time. My experience as an instructor trying to get
students to go XC was disappointing: even with all their training being
from an experienced XC pilot (me), with some XC flight with an
experienced XC pilot (me), with offers to retrieve the Blanik from a
field, with cheap aero retrieves available from airports, with plenty of
airports in reach of a Blanik, very few even attempted a XC flight.

The only students to do it as soon as they were allowed to were former
hang glider pilots, and they were already XC pilots when they joined!

So, I still think a glider with an FES/TFP will result in many more
experiencing it as students, attempting it when solo, and continuing
with it when they own their own glider (and be more likely to get their
own glider). It will have to be tried to see if it is effective.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On 4/5/2013 10:22 AM, Papa3 wrote:
I think Bob K's post just above yours says it all. We already have
wonderful XC trainers with engines - they're called Duo Discuses
(Discii). They cost a lot of money, and very few blue collar glider
training operations are going to buy one, at least here in the US.
I'm sorry, but Greg may be disconnected from the realities of a
typical club or low budget FBO. Managing a sophisticated system
like you describe? Hah! I watch what the ASK-21s, Blanik L-23s, and
2-33s go through at our operation and those nearby. We're lucky if
we can keep the 12V SLA battery charged with working connectors in
order to run the radio and electric vario :-)

The engine system Greg proposes is nothing like the ones on the Duo
Discus. It is far simpler to operate: turn on a switch and it starts
providing power in a couple seconds (no mast to raise); move the power
lever to get level flight or climb. Got your thermal? Power back, switch
off, and you are a glider again in less than 5 seconds (no propeller to
stop, no mast to put away). Compare that to managing the gasoline motor
on a Duo.

If the instructor can't manage getting the propulsion battery put on
charge, he has no business being an instructor. That part of the
operation is simple compared everything else in an instructional flight:
"Jerry, take this here battery to the clubhouse and plug it into the big
charger. Bring the one that was on the charger back with you, or you
don't fly next."

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

In the UK, until a sustained campaign over the last few years, about 1/3 of the fatalities in our gliding were following a cable break or other premature termination of launch, usually as a result of spinning in. (It should not have happened, and we have learned how to much reduce such events, but it was a fact.)

I hope the present efforts to increase the proportion of cable launches – by winch or car – in the USA do not go through a similar high accident rate. Please learn from our mistakes and how to avoid them, not repeat that history.

By the way, having a FES and seeing how I could in theory get away from a medium height or higher cable break, I believe that a lot of the old cable break/low slow turn/spin accidents would have been avoided had they had FES to climb away with.

Chris N

See here how to have a crash (these pilots were lucky – they survived).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xCct8cDtyk

Chris N

It's not engine operation per-se I'm worried about. It's all of the mechanical and electronic wizardry that has to work to go along with it. Yeah, it's electic. No fuel system. No mags or plugs. Great. What happens I have a prop strike or Joe Pilot forgets to swap out the battery pack (assume that it can be swapped out) or..

If someone wants to design the capability in as an "add on" rather than as a required element, go for it. Just let me buy it without that stuff and don't charge me for it if I don't want it. Build me a robust trainer that can take the real world abuse of your typical club or FBO.

A lot of engineers love to build something that "pushes the envelope". I see it at work every single day. Yet we forget about design for maintainability or design for manufacturing.



On Friday, April 5, 2013 2:09:35 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/5/2013 10:22 AM, Papa3 wrote:

I think Bob K's post just above yours says it all. We already have

wonderful XC trainers with engines - they're called Duo Discuses

(Discii). They cost a lot of money, and very few blue collar glider

training operations are going to buy one, at least here in the US.

I'm sorry, but Greg may be disconnected from the realities of a

typical club or low budget FBO. Managing a sophisticated system

like you describe? Hah! I watch what the ASK-21s, Blanik L-23s, and

2-33s go through at our operation and those nearby. We're lucky if

we can keep the 12V SLA battery charged with working connectors in

order to run the radio and electric vario :-)



The engine system Greg proposes is nothing like the ones on the Duo

Discus. It is far simpler to operate: turn on a switch and it starts

providing power in a couple seconds (no mast to raise); move the power

lever to get level flight or climb. Got your thermal? Power back, switch

off, and you are a glider again in less than 5 seconds (no propeller to

stop, no mast to put away). Compare that to managing the gasoline motor

on a Duo.



If the instructor can't manage getting the propulsion battery put on

charge, he has no business being an instructor. That part of the

operation is simple compared everything else in an instructional flight:

"Jerry, take this here battery to the clubhouse and plug it into the big

charger. Bring the one that was on the charger back with you, or you

don't fly next."



--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to

email me)

wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:13:22 AM UTC-4, Karl Kunz wrote:
Is the PW-6 built any better than a PW-5? I can't imagine a trainer
built like a PW-5 able to withstand the kind of abuse a trainer takes.
On Friday, April 5, 2013 4:24:28 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote: On
Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:50:05 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/4/2013 4:41 PM, GM wrote: Please - someone explain to
me why a manufacturer like Windward Performance does not
jump at the opportunity to build a modern two-seat trainer
rather than trying to compete with the latest super orchid
grown in Germany. I think something like this would sell.
Let me explain... I talked to Greg Cole of
Windward performance today about this subject.
He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer...
+ should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21
+ be light weight (but rugged) with wing panels weighing less than 140
pounds each, so club members don't mind rigging it each
weekend + have very nice handling
And ultimately, it should have a front mounted electric motor
with a folding propeller ("TFP" - tractor folding
propeller). That would allow it to use a car launch to
500', turn on the motor, and look for thermals. No
thermals? Climb with the motor. When it
lands, the battery can be exchanged for a fully charged one if
it needs recharging, and the depleted one put on charge
(maybe you need three batteries if the thermals
are weak). But even if a conventional
towplane is used for the launch, the TFP lets the
student and instructor go soaring, even cross country, almost
every flight. Imagine how cool that is! Students
would be much more enthused about soaring if they
actually got to do some soaring on every flight,
rather than being told "XC after you have your license", or
"XC when you have your own glider".
Whether it's car launch or towplane, the TFP would
allow and encourage more soaring, even XC,
during instruction, and more XC when flown solo.
The light weight and easy rigging would subdue the
concerns about landing out (unlikely with
the TFP), and the utilization of the glider
would be much higher than the typical heavy low/medium
performance two-seater.
Greg thinks it would sell, but bringing this glider
(any glider!) to market is very
expensive. The full design, molds, production
tooling, and testing will easily exceed a
million dollars (aka $1,000,000). So, for
Windward Performance to jump at this opportunity
means coming up with a lot of money. That
will a lot easier to do if there are some
orders, so if you want one of these, or think you can
find some money for Windward, please call
Greg Cole, and talk to him about it.
Get his contact details he
http://windward-performance.com/contact-us/
-- Eric
Greenwell - Washington State, USA
(change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me) No
motors! That adds cost,
complexity and training
issues all out of proportion
to any supposed benefit as a
trainer. We need *trainers*
and a safe, reliable,
economical way to launch
them. The PW-6 is the closest
thing on the market.
Evan Ludeman / T8

The PW-6 is well built and shows the experience of the designers and builders.
I would rate it a good second to the ASK-21 which has a bit more
performance and is, I expect a good bit more expensive. Frankly, I don't
know why the PW-6 has not been much more widely accepted.
With the variety of avilable options, K-21, Perkoz, PW-6, DG####, I don't
see why anyone in the US would tray to create an alternative, other than
for entertainment. Anyone who thinks they are likely to be able to beat
the experience of the established factories, some of whom have long since
paid off their one time costs, is kidding themselves.
The problem is how to suck it up and finance these gliders. Our solution
is to evolve long term letting the 2-33's that fly all day every day to
pay for the ASK-21. When it is paid off, we'll do it again- we already
have the second '21 in captivity.
UH

Just out of curiosity what is the price of a new PW-6? Or for that matter a
new ASK-21?

Pete

On 4/5/2013 11:43 AM, Papa3 wrote:
It's not engine operation per-se I'm worried about. It's all of the
mechanical and electronic wizardry that has to work to go along with
it. Yeah, it's electic. No fuel system. No mags or plugs. Great.
What happens I have a prop strike or Joe Pilot forgets to swap out
the battery pack (assume that it can be swapped out) or..

If someone wants to design the capability in as an "add on" rather
than as a required element, go for it. Just let me buy it without
that stuff and don't charge me for it if I don't want it. Build me
a robust trainer that can take the real world abuse of your typical
club or FBO.

A lot of engineers love to build something that "pushes the
envelope". I see it at work every single day. Yet we forget about
design for maintainability or design for manufacturing.

No prop strikes - the TFP system is a sustainer, not a self-launcher, on
the two-seater.

The battery would be easily swapped. If the pilot forgets to do it,
there should be no safety problem, only an inconvenience - he'd have to
land after he released from the launch, and return to the field,
something he should always be prepared to do.

The TFP sustainer capability would be an option, not a requirement, and
(I'm guessing) easily added later.

Built with pre-preg carbon fiber, the glider would be robust and still
light weight, much lighter than an ASK 21, making it easier to rig and
handle on the ground (or retrieve from a field, should that happen).

Greg does want to "push the envelope" in terms of utilization and
effectiveness, with a glider that exposes pilots to real soaring and XC
much earlier and more effectively in their training

As an engineer that's been heavily involved in the design and production
of several aircraft, Greg is far more aware of all the issues of
manufacturing them than you and I will ever be. Remember, he is
currently producing the SparrowHawk and the DuckHawk. Read about his
background and the other aircraft he's designed or worked on:

http://perlanproject.org/901-2/

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)