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

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

My FES conversion cost about $30,000. Whether it is worth that much extra on a new or newish PW6 or equivalent would depend on alternative launch facilities and potential benefits of never having a short flight/always getting away if it is soarable/cross country ability with virtually no risk of landout.

I would be interested in seeing the math (as you guys say) for different cases.

Chris N

On Friday, April 5, 2013 7:24:28 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
We need *trainers* and a safe, reliable, economical way to launch them. The PW-6 is the closest thing on the market.

I'm just beginning to appreciate the ballsy and audacious mindset of XC pilots; the mindset that it takes to fly 500 km without a motor...

But that mindset may be one of the reasons why the trainer problem goes unsolved. Some propose (in typical XC pilot fashion) that to solve the trainer problem, we need to be extremely clever and expertly negotiate an interdependent series of bold but calculated risks. These risks include bringing skilled labor intensive manufacturing back to the USA economy. Oh really?

On the other hand, we already have a glider factory in Poland http://www.szdjezow.com.pl/ofirmie_eng.html that would be a lot more viable and long-surviving if it got some more orders from the USA. Do you really think that soaring is big enough to support two trainer manufacturers at the same time? Let's just shoot ourselves in the foot and try to compete with The Glider Factory "JEŻÓW". Nobody wins and if JEZOW goes bankrupt, the clubs that have invested in a PW-6 lose.

Nationalistic competitive attitudes are counter-productive to solving the trainer problem. The way to demonstrate the greatness of the USA soaring community is to step up now and invest in some new trainers. The Founding Fathers (of soaring) did that once already when they ponied up the money for 314 SGS 2-33s. Where did that kind of audaciousness go?

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 IS28b2 Lark is not the perfect trainer, it's heavy to rig, not as docile as a Schweizer, but it's rugged, has decent performance, looks great, and is all metal. Why the Romanians dont get it together to put it back into production is a mystery to me, especially in light of the potential demand. They were very affordable in their day (which may be why IAR is in bankruptcy) but maybe they could still be reasonably priced.

It's a good solid design with a type certificate already in place. How much would you pay for a brand new Lark today? Does anybody know if IAR or anybody is considering building them again?

MM

Maybe someone should just put the 2-33 back into production?

Boggs

Go right ahead. You think anyone will buy them even at 1/2 the cost of a PW-6, Puchacz (yes, they'll build you one, ready to ship in about 90 days last I checked) or a Perkoz? I don't. The newer members in our club don't want anything to do with our 2-33. It's ugly, it's ungainly and it glides like a flat rock. Aside from the fact that they are durable and safe, there isn't much to like.

T8

On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:26:25 AM UTC-4, Waveguru wrote:
Maybe someone should just put the 2-33 back into production?



Boggs

On Friday, April 5, 2013 12:12:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2013 9:50:05 PM UTC-6, 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)



Greg hinted at this at the Barnaby Lecture, but at that time said it would not be Type-Certificated, possibly Light Sport, due to the cost of a TC. I don't know how evolved his design is. That's okay for clubs, not for commercial operators. Bob Kuykendall has a design , and TC goals, as the glider design was influenced by commercial operators. Both are composite designs. Barry Aviation owns the Type Certificate for the Krosno Kr03a, aiming to bring it to production as the Peregrine. It's metal, which was the most popular choice of the two-seater survey. Barry Aviation did secure Part Manufacturing Authorization from the FAA in support of existing Kr-03a's while working on manufacturing certification. Manufacturing certification requires building three satisfactorily under FAA inspection in order to become self-certifying. However, if the FAA finds something that needs correction, the process stop and the problem gets worked on. In the meantime, you have to maintain your production facility awaiting the next FAA visit. As explained to me, the FAA budget would allow for three visits per year. When the economy tanked, money dried up, and they lost their assembly facility, thus all tooling and materials returned to storage. They estimate it would take $1M to bring it to production. Tim Barry stated that with trained production staff, they could build glider per week on the assembly line. Forty years ago, when composite glider production really ramped up, there were some articles about build times. A composite glider required about 1000 man hours. Schempp-Hirth delivered some models, certainly Nimbus 2's, to some customers with a final finishing option because owners were re-contouring the wings anyway. I found it noteworthy that a C-172 required 372 man hours to produce. No idea where those numbers have gone or if the ratio has changed. Can't say it appears there is much, if any, demand for metal gliders, despite the survey, as no one was ordering L-23's. Barry Aviation's goal was and remains domestic and international sales. But, like any other, will require a significant capital injection to even ramp up production.



Frank Whiteley

The ASK-21 is essentially a perfect training glider. Its superb handling qualities match its beautiful appearance. Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.

The only things I would change are convenience items like wing hard points for one-man assembly tools and maybe some hand grips to help lever a creaky old instructor out of the back seat. I think quick and easy rigging/de-rigging is important for those without a hangar.

On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41:37 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.

If capital cost were no problem, we would not have a problem.


T8

On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:54:11 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41:37 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:

Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.


If capital cost were no problem, we would not have a problem.

T8

Buying the cheapest glider without regard for value is part of what got us into this jam.