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

I'm not alarmist to say that the FAA is going to ground 80% of the senescent USA glider training fleet sometime soon. The only question is when.

The L-13s are being recycled.

The few people who know how to properly inspect and keep the 27 wooden Schleichers KA-* gliders flying safely are retiring.

The 314 registered SGS 2-33s may last forever, or one might fail this weekend.

Given the tragic and inevitable consequences of an aging fleet, it is unconscionable and unsportsmanlike to turn a blind eye. Recent events should be a call to action.

Yes, you're right. I'm riding my high horse. Talk is cheap. But I'm holding a note that finances my share of a brand new PW-6 for my local soaring club. (No, I'm not made of money. I cut back somewhere else.) So since I'm not just shooting off my mouth, I think that it is entirely reasonable for me to say this:

Gentlemen. Please step up!

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 4:05:31 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
I'm not alarmist to say that the FAA is going to ground 80% of the senescent USA glider training fleet sometime soon. The only question is when.



The L-13s are being recycled.



The few people who know how to properly inspect and keep the 27 wooden Schleichers KA-* gliders flying safely are retiring.



The 314 registered SGS 2-33s may last forever, or one might fail this weekend.



Given the tragic and inevitable consequences of an aging fleet, it is unconscionable and unsportsmanlike to turn a blind eye. Recent events should be a call to action.



Yes, you're right. I'm riding my high horse. Talk is cheap. But I'm holding a note that finances my share of a brand new PW-6 for my local soaring club. (No, I'm not made of money. I cut back somewhere else.) So since I'm not just shooting off my mouth, I think that it is entirely reasonable for me to say this:



Gentlemen. Please step up!

In 1950 the US soaring movement had more than 400 war surplus training gliders (LK-10's, Pratt-Reads, TG-2's and TG-3's) available. Today, we have less than 200. Surveys indicate less than 100 2-33's are flying in club and commercial fleets.

Yes, please step up. If we are to grow, we need as many as 400 new training gliders.

I hear you loud and clear! The US-training fleet needs an infusion of new equipment much sooner than later. What I don't understand is this: we have talented and gifted glider designers in the US yet nobody seems to be able to come up with a US-version of a K21 or DuoDiscus? Looking across the pond, most clubs in Europe have said good-by to their wood&fabric gliders and upgraded to pastic one or two decades ago while the US is still holding on to their Schweizer-Saurus'!
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.

Uli Neumann

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 6:41:49 PM UTC-5, GM wrote:
I hear you loud and clear! The US-training fleet needs an infusion of new equipment much sooner than later. What I don't understand is this: we have talented and gifted glider designers in the US yet nobody seems to be able to come up with a US-version of a K21 or DuoDiscus? Looking across the pond, most clubs in Europe have said good-by to their wood&fabric gliders and upgraded to pastic one or two decades ago while the US is still holding on to their Schweizer-Saurus'!

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.



Uli Neumann

HA! .. "Schweizer-Saurus" .. we're waiting for the big meteorite to put an end to it all Uli!
Curt - 95

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:41:49 PM UTC-4, GM wrote:
I hear you loud and clear! The US-training fleet needs an infusion of new equipment much sooner than later.

Okay then. Should I put you down to make a $3000 or a $6000 loan pledge to your local club?

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 8:04:52 PM UTC-4, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:41:49 PM UTC-4, GM wrote: I hear you loud and clear! The US-training fleet needs an infusion of new equipment much sooner than later.

Okay then. Should I put you down to make a $3000 or a $6000 loan pledge to your local club?

We - Carolina Soaring Assoc. - are actively looking for a modern two-seater.. Since there is nothing useable on the open US-market, we have expanded our search to overseas. We are also discussing various financing models and yes, soliciting pledges from members is on the list.
Uli

At 23:41 04 April 2013, GM wrote:
I hear you loud and clear! The US-training fleet needs an infusion of new
e=
quipment much sooner than later. What I don't understand is this: we have
t=
alented and gifted glider designers in the US yet nobody seems to be able
t=
o come up with a US-version of a K21 or DuoDiscus? Looking across the
pond,=
most clubs in Europe have said good-by to their wood&fabric gliders and
up=
graded to pastic one or two decades ago while the US is still holding on
to=
their Schweizer-Saurus'!
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
th=
ink something like this would sell.

Uli Neumann

That is not strictly true, a lot of clubs in the UK still have at least one
K13 in their fleet, in many cases it is the only glider that can be used
for spin training. The apparent failure of a K7 wing is a little worrying,
there was a similar accident here a few years ago.

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 8:17:35 PM UTC-4, GM wrote:

We - Carolina Soaring Assoc. - are actively looking for a modern two-seater. Since there is nothing useable on the open US-market, we have expanded our search to overseas. We are also discussing various financing models and yes, soliciting pledges from members is on the list.


Excellent!

When we looked at the tax advantages of accelerated depreciation and lease back arrangements, we found that buying a new glider was more feasible. A new glider built by a currently viable company makes the loan more secure for the lenders, and for that reason it becomes easier to raise the money. Our situation is unique, but it's worthwhile to get some expert advice on the tax angle.

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)

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