Future of Glass Goose?

The future of the Glass Goose is in doubt. I e-mailed Tom Scott about seeing
the GG while I was in Dallas but it seems he is having health issues & ready
to retire. I sure hope he finds a buyer to keep production going. The GG is
really in a class of its own; it really deserves to be the amphibian Europa
in terms of success. I was hoping to get one but as a first time buyer I
really need a company that's going to be around for a while for support. I
hope I don't have to resort to a SeaRey. I wish Tom the best.

Why don't you check out a few float planes? Some go just about as fast
(or faster), they are much easier to dock, they carry a lot more
baggage, etc.


In article ,
"geo" wrote:

The future of the Glass Goose is in doubt. I e-mailed Tom Scott about seeing
the GG while I was in Dallas but it seems he is having health issues & ready
to retire. I sure hope he finds a buyer to keep production going. The GG is
really in a class of its own; it really deserves to be the amphibian Europa
in terms of success. I was hoping to get one but as a first time buyer I
really need a company that's going to be around for a while for support. I
hope I don't have to resort to a SeaRey. I wish Tom the best.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:09:14 GMT, "geo" wrote:

The future of the Glass Goose is in doubt. I e-mailed Tom Scott about seeing
the GG while I was in Dallas but it seems he is having health issues & ready
to retire. I sure hope he finds a buyer to keep production going. The GG is
really in a class of its own; it really deserves to be the amphibian Europa
in terms of success. I was hoping to get one but as a first time buyer I
really need a company that's going to be around for a while for support. I
hope I don't have to resort to a SeaRey. I wish Tom the best.


Looks like a cool plane but I have trouble believing the 900lb empty
weight is possible.

"Legrande Harris" wrote in message
...
Why don't you check out a few float planes? Some go just about as fast
(or faster), they are much easier to dock, they carry a lot more
baggage, etc.

Do they burn 6.5gph? Plus no corrosion with composite. I'll be visiting more
beaches than docks. I think the total cost of ownership with the GG would be
a lot lower.

www.glassgoose.com

geo wrote...

Do they burn 6.5gph?

A floatplane with an O320 (the GG engine, according to the website)
will have the same fuel consumption as a Glass Goose with an O320
at the same % power setting.

I think the total cost of ownership with the GG would be
a lot lower.

How many are flying? How much to build and equip?

Dave 'carpe data' Hyde

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 00:07:45 GMT, "geo" wrote:

"Legrande Harris" wrote in message
...
Why don't you check out a few float planes? Some go just about as fast
(or faster), they are much easier to dock, they carry a lot more
baggage, etc.

Do they burn 6.5gph? Plus no corrosion with composite. I'll be visiting more
beaches than docks. I think the total cost of ownership with the GG would be
a lot lower.

www.glassgoose.com


Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
checked to see if it's insurable?

(Drew Dalgleish) wrote
Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
checked to see if it's insurable?

I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
sections of the wing in flight.

Michael

Michael wrote:
(Drew Dalgleish) wrote

Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
checked to see if it's insurable?

I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
sections of the wing in flight.

Avweb featured pictures of Cezch Airworks "Lake Sport" prototype, all
metal and appears to be a 2 seater...
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/0413_016.jpg
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/0414_057.JPG
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/0415_078.JPG
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/0415_082.JPG

This is the glassed "Sea Storm" from Italy, available in 2 and 4 seat
flavors (most of the pix on their website appear to be manufactured in
Photoshop):
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/SnF2004_0418132.JPG
http://www.sgaviation.com/Products/A...a_Storm_Z4.htm
http://www.storm-sg.it/nuovo/sea_line.asp?CAT=sea

Videos (some of them make me nervous):
http://www.sgaviation.com/Downloads/Download.htm

In article ,
(Michael) wrote:

(Drew Dalgleish) wrote
Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
checked to see if it's insurable?

I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
sections of the wing in flight.

Michael

They didn't originally balance the ailerons and flutter would get them.
Tom Scott lost a wing but managed to land in a field. The upper wing
folded over onto the other side. Biplanes do have their advantages

LG Harris

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
...
Michael wrote:
(Drew Dalgleish) wrote

Well you won't be visiting many docks with that design. Have you
checked to see if it's insurable?

I'll save you guys the trouble. I looked into buying one. It was a
great deal, and I was ready to write the check until I called the
insurance company. It was not insurable for hull at any price. There
was a reason for this, and to the owner's credit he was the one who
told me. Less than 40 were built, and half a dozen lost major
sections of the wing in flight.

That happened in the early stage of development, right? Those problems were
solved in the current version.