If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... it's just aquestion of when
On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:01:20 AM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:
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. at one time the SSA was working on developing a program with Lea County State Bank to offer attractive financing options to clubs for two seaters. Sort of a group buy discount or something? Has there been any progress on that? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... it's just aquestion of when
On Apr 4, 8:50*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
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 I think that Greg is right, but only if what we want to do is train an elite cadre of cross-country and competition pilots. And I happen to think that that is not necessarily what we want to do. I worked at one of the busiest training gliderports in the US for about five years, and I saw the kind of abuse that a real training glider gets, and I saw what a real training glider does. And I know that performance better than ASK21 might sound good and look good, and might be an interesting design challenge, but it is to a great extent secondary to what we want to do, and is in some ways counterproductive to what we need. I have talked with several commercial operators, and what they seem to value above all else is operational availability. The glider has to be functional and ready to go when it is needed. That means more than rugged construction, it means minimum downtime. It means that the glider is easy to repair, and that replacement parts are easily available, and easy to install. It means that you can change a wheel, tire, and brake assembly in fifteen minutes. It means that FedEx can deliver a replacement canopy, with frame, ready to latch on and fly with, overnight. It means wings that interchange so you can mix and match your fleet when things get rough. What we need is a glider that will launch 7200 times a year, every year. A glider that will expose thousands of potential pilots to the experience of soaring flight in a way that shows them the potential and makes them want more. 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. Another important thing is that the glider has to offer a pleasant and effective training environment for those that do stick. And that means ease of entry and exit, good seating, and good communication with the instructor. Electric motor in nose? Sure, that's a reasonable option. But the important thing is to produce new starts. We have to launch a few thousand people into the air and see which ones stick. The ones that stick can get their own gliders with performance "significantly better than an ASK 21," because that's easy to do with single-seaters. Thanks, Bob K. https://www.facebook.com/AuroraTrainingSailplaneProject |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... replace it witha TFP trainer?
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) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... it's just aquestion of when
I for one couldn't agree more with everything that Bob says. However, I'm not convinced side-by-side seating is necessary or even a good thing for people who will be mainly flying in line seating singles. I'm trying hard to be convinced, I want to be convinced, because everything else about the Aurora concept is awesome. I've instructed in both types and admittedly communication is an issue in tandems. If designing and building a tandem cockpit is cheaper and easier, I'd say address communication issues with a nice lightweight intercom. Whatever the case, I applaud Bob's efforts with Aurora and his well-informed sound practical thinking.
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... it's just aquestion of when
I for one couldn't agree more with everything that Bob says. However, I'm not convinced side-by-side seating is necessary or even a good thing for people who will be mainly flying in line seating singles. I'm trying hard to be convinced, I want to be convinced, because everything else about the Aurora concept is awesome. I've instructed in both types and admittedly communication is an issue in tandems. If designing and building a tandem cockpit is cheaper and easier, I'd say address communication issues with a nice lightweight intercom. Whatever the case, I applaud Bob's efforts with Aurora and his well-informed sound practical thinking.
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... it's just a question of when
At 15:26 05 April 2013, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:50=A0pm, Eric Greenwell wrote: 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 I think that Greg is right, but only if what we want to do is train an elite cadre of cross-country and competition pilots. And I happen to think that that is not necessarily what we want to do. I worked at one of the busiest training gliderports in the US for about five years, and I saw the kind of abuse that a real training glider gets, and I saw what a real training glider does. And I know that performance better than ASK21 might sound good and look good, and might be an interesting design challenge, but it is to a great extent secondary to what we want to do, and is in some ways counterproductive to what we need. I have talked with several commercial operators, and what they seem to value above all else is operational availability. The glider has to be functional and ready to go when it is needed. That means more than rugged construction, it means minimum downtime. It means that the glider is easy to repair, and that replacement parts are easily available, and easy to install. It means that you can change a wheel, tire, and brake assembly in fifteen minutes. It means that FedEx can deliver a replacement canopy, with frame, ready to latch on and fly with, overnight. It means wings that interchange so you can mix and match your fleet when things get rough. What we need is a glider that will launch 7200 times a year, every year. A glider that will expose thousands of potential pilots to the experience of soaring flight in a way that shows them the potential and makes them want more. 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. Another important thing is that the glider has to offer a pleasant and effective training environment for those that do stick. And that means ease of entry and exit, good seating, and good communication with the instructor. Electric motor in nose? Sure, that's a reasonable option. But the important thing is to produce new starts. We have to launch a few thousand people into the air and see which ones stick. The ones that stick can get their own gliders with performance "significantly better than an ASK 21," because that's easy to do with single-seaters. Thanks, Bob K. https://www.facebook.com/AuroraTrainingSailplaneProject 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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... replace it with aTFP trainer?
Car towing adds a number of significant hazard variables. 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!
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... it's just aquestion of when
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. If capital cost is the problem, utilization is the answer. As an economist, it's a bit funny to see a $120,000 asset sitting on the ground except for 12-5 pm on weekends 6 months of the year. An ASK 21 would pay for itself really quickly if training started at 7 am -- much better for students anyway -- and went on until dusk, 7 days a week, and then moved to Florida/Arizona/Texas/California for the winter. That it doesn't -- that commercial operators don't give discounts for off peak utilization for example -- has always struck me as a bit of a mystery. Capital cost must not be that big a deal in the end... John Cochrane |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... it's just aquestion of when
On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:14:36 AM UTC-6, wrote:
I for one couldn't agree more with everything that Bob says. However, I'm not convinced side-by-side seating is necessary or even a good thing for people who will be mainly flying in line seating singles. I'm trying hard to be convinced, I want to be convinced, because everything else about the Aurora concept is awesome. I've instructed in both types and admittedly communication is an issue in tandems. If designing and building a tandem cockpit is cheaper and easier, I'd say address communication issues with a nice lightweight intercom. Whatever the case, I applaud Bob's efforts with Aurora and his well-informed sound practical thinking. Tandem vs. side-by-side is a non-issue. I learned in LK-10's and Pratt Reads. The only people who thought side-by-side seating might be hard had never flown the PR. The PR's seating seemed odd for about 10 seconds on the first flight then it became perfectly natural. If anything, the LK was harder to learn in because I sometimes couldn't quite understand what the instructor wanted. I really liked the PR in that I could see the instructor point to things and it was much easier to follow his demonstrations of a maneuver when sitting beside him. Being able to watch the instructor do a "handie" of a maneuver was invaluable. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
There are 97 L-23's in the US...what about those?
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ground school training online | Peet | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 29th 08 12:28 AM |
Worldwide glider fleet | Al Eddie | Soaring | 2 | October 11th 06 01:57 PM |
2003 Fleet Week ground transportation questions | Guy Alcala | Military Aviation | 0 | August 10th 03 11:59 AM |
IFR Ground Training | Tarver Engineering | Piloting | 0 | August 8th 03 03:45 PM |
IFR Ground Training | Scott Lowrey | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | August 7th 03 07:19 PM |