50+:1 15m sailplanes

Earlier, (Kirk Stant) wrote:

...The whole Sparrowhawk thing
scares me to death! When I'm
bashing around at 130 knots,
I want my glider to have a
certain structural authority!...

Kirk, have you ever actually handled one of those things?

Bob K.

SZD-56-2, Diana 2: Newest 15-meter Sailplane

The technologically advanced SZD-56-2 Diana 2 will
soar on new wings next summer. Bogumil Beres, chief
design engineer of the Diana and owner of Biuro Projektowe
'B' Bogumil Beres, recently announced the design project
of a breakthrough Diana 2, featuring a curved wing
platform with a continuously varying airfoil and high-performance
winglets. The original Diana fuselage will be retained,
but with a lower drag fuselage-wing junction. The wing
loading range will be 6.08 - 11.7 psf. Most remarkably,
the Diana 2 will break the long-standing 15-meter glide
ratio barrier of 50/1 with room to spa forecast
performance includes a max L/D of 52/1. Krzysztof Kubrynski
Ph.D of the Warsaw Institute of Technology has created
the Diana 2 airfoils using his custom 3-D computer
software. Mr. Kubrynski has worked extensively with
Delft University's Prof. Loek Boremans, who has designed
airfoils for many of the latest German competition
sailplanes. The prototype Diana 2 wings will fly next
August. Diana 2's will be delivered in the Spring of
2005.

Ventus 2cM (AR)

In article ,
Kirk Stant wrote:

The problem with this approach is that you are tailoring your glider
to one specific condition - and give away the wonderful game of
tailoring a glider's wingloading to the actual condition you are
flying in. A floater in the spring is nice, but is no fun in the
middle of summer when 10 knotters roam the desert and you need an IFR
clearance to climb to cloudbase! BTW, that is probably a big part of
the PW-5 problem - too much of a one-trick pony...IMHO.


I think a glider which is designed to be good in a wide variety of
conditions is great in none of them. Having said that, I think the
gliders which weigh less AND have a higher aspect ratio provide
more promise for the sport than the ETA's of the world. I was
pleased by the choices of the Diana and Sparrowhawk designers
to make a fast airfoil instead of focussing on low stall speed
and minimum sink. Neat, neat stuff...

The whole Sparrowhawk thing scares me to death! When I'm bashing
around at 130 knots, I want my glider to have a certain structural
authority! Same thing when landing on some strange desert airstrip

Having never flown it, and having no experience with any glider structural
failure, I may have to wait until a few reports have come in.
Sort of like the difference between the DA-40 and the Cirrus, which
really only became starkly clear after they'd flown quite a bit,
some accident reports had come in, and the insurance carriers
made their conclusions. I am hopeful and optimistic, but only
the test of time will tell...


It sure is fun to browse all the exciting equipment at each extreme...

You're damn right about that! And congratulations on your CFIG, BTW!

Thank you, Kirk. I'm glad to be a part of the sport.


Kirk
A not very lightweight pilot

Mark

Not a very heavyweight pilot

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message . com...

Kirk, have you ever actually handled one of those things?

No, unfortunately I havn't, so my opinion is worth precisely what you
paid for it! I am obviously making an assumption, and I hope I'm
proven wrong, by the way, as the Sparrowhawk looks like a nice little
glider, but my real concern is triggered by the emphasis on the
"ultralight" aspect, which obviously drives the 155lb (!) weight of
the glider - I can't help but wonder where the weight has been saved.
By the VNE and G limits, it seems to have faily strong wings, so I'm
guessing the fuselage is a real eggshell...

And I truly hope that an "ultralight" Sparrowhawk (i.e. no N number)
never shows up in the hands of an untrained, unlicenced non-pilot,
because I think that is a sure way to kill or injure someone, real
quick!

Has anyone out there actually touched and/or flown a Sparrowhawk? How
about an eyewitness report - I havn't eaten any crow in a while...

Kirk

Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...

I beg your pardon, but what isn't "real" about the SparrowHawk? From the
FAA registration database:

N-number : N40437
Aircraft Serial Number : 004
Aircraft Manufacturer : COLE GREGORY M
Model : SPARROW HAWK
Aircraft Year :
Owner Name : COLE GREGORY M
Owner Address : 2988 NE ROCKCHUCK DR
BEND, OR, 97701-6515
Type of Owner : Individual
Registration Date : 12-Jun-2003
Airworthiness Certificate Type : Not Specified

Eric,

Sorry, no disrespect intended, in your case the N number absolutely
makes it real. I have no problem with a registered glider flown by a
licenced pilot, which is obviously what you are - and from what I've
read it sounds like you are having a lot of fun. My fear if for the
unlicenced pilot flying an unregistered (or deregistered?)
Sparrowhawk. That is a dangerous situation, in my opinion. Push the
Sparrowhawk as a 1-26 replacement - or the saviour of fun soaring in
the US, fine, go for it!; sell it as an ultralight that "anybody" can
fly is scary! And sure, the manufacturer can insist on training, but
what happens when that Sparrowhawk is resold? Off comes the
N-number...

I guess I should shut up until I've been able to put my grubby little
paws on a real live Sparrowhawk. Or better yet a Duckhawk - can't
wait to fly against one of those and see if it is really a
breakthrough concept! Time - and a few competitions - will tell!

Kirk

Armando Pucci wrote in message ...
SZD-56-2, Diana 2: Newest 15-meter Sailplane

The technologically advanced SZD-56-2 Diana 2 will
soar on new wings next summer. Bogumil Beres, chief
design engineer of the Diana and owner of Biuro Projektowe
'B' Bogumil Beres, recently announced the design project
of a breakthrough Diana 2, featuring a curved wing
platform with a continuously varying airfoil and high-performance
winglets. The original Diana fuselage will be retained,
but with a lower drag fuselage-wing junction. The wing
loading range will be 6.08 - 11.7 psf. Most remarkably,
the Diana 2 will break the long-standing 15-meter glide
ratio barrier of 50/1 with room to spa forecast
performance includes a max L/D of 52/1. Krzysztof Kubrynski
Ph.D of the Warsaw Institute of Technology has created
the Diana 2 airfoils using his custom 3-D computer
software. Mr. Kubrynski has worked extensively with
Delft University's Prof. Loek Boremans, who has designed
airfoils for many of the latest German competition
sailplanes. The prototype Diana 2 wings will fly next
August. Diana 2's will be delivered in the Spring of
2005.

Ventus 2cM (AR)




............AND It is called the Duckhawk????? Tranlated from Polish?

Kirk Stant wrote:

Eric,

Sorry, no disrespect intended, in your case the N number absolutely
makes it real. I have no problem with a registered glider flown by a
licenced pilot, which is obviously what you are - and from what I've
read it sounds like you are having a lot of fun.

I don't own one, but I have flown one a couple of times, and have talked
with a couple of the owners quite bit.

My fear if for the
unlicenced pilot flying an unregistered (or deregistered?)
Sparrowhawk. That is a dangerous situation, in my opinion.

Not if the pilot is competent, of course, but I think I know what you
mean: potentially, the pilot might be untrained and outside the usual
network of oversight, such as biennials. Windward Performance knows
this, and if you look at their website, you will see that they don't
push this aspect of the glider. Windward Performance wants this to be a
successful glider, and crashes are bad news.

Push the
Sparrowhawk as a 1-26 replacement - or the saviour of fun soaring in
the US, fine, go for it!; sell it as an ultralight that "anybody" can
fly is scary!

As I said, they don't do this. Remember that Greg Cole, the designer,
makes his living designing real aircraft (e.g., he was the principal
engineer on Lancair's certified Columbia 300 and currently consults for
Adam Aircraft). It's my understanding every current customer will be a
licensed glider pilot by the time they take delivery (most of them were
before they ordered one, anyway).

Practically speaking, it's expensive enough that it's very unlikely that
an inexperienced person is going to by one, anyway.

And sure, the manufacturer can insist on training, but
what happens when that Sparrowhawk is resold? Off comes the
N-number...

If someone wants to fly, say, a 1-26 without a license or training,
there is little to stop them. Buy one, take it to dry lake, and car tow
it. Determined ignorance, stupidity, or arrogance can easily work
outside the system.

I guess I should shut up until I've been able to put my grubby little
paws on a real live Sparrowhawk. Or better yet a Duckhawk - can't
wait to fly against one of those and see if it is really a
breakthrough concept! Time - and a few competitions - will tell!

I'm waiting until they have a chance to put that motor in the SparrowHawk...

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Kirk Stant wrote:
(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message
. com...


Kirk, have you ever actually handled one of those things?


No, unfortunately I havn't, so my opinion is worth precisely what you
paid for it! I am obviously making an assumption, and I hope I'm
proven wrong, by the way, as the Sparrowhawk looks like a nice little
glider, but my real concern is triggered by the emphasis on the
"ultralight" aspect, which obviously drives the 155lb (!) weight of
the glider - I can't help but wonder where the weight has been saved.
By the VNE and G limits, it seems to have faily strong wings, so I'm
guessing the fuselage is a real eggshell...

It's light but strong, and the wing spars are fabricated before
installation. The weight isn't saved so much as _avoided_ by using an 11
meter span, a lower Vne (123 knots) than higher wing loading gliders,
fixed gear, no flaps, and pre-preg carbon fiber construction instead of
wet lay-up. There is some weight savings from using a few custom items
like the towhook.


And I truly hope that an "ultralight" Sparrowhawk (i.e. no N number)
never shows up in the hands of an untrained, unlicenced non-pilot,
because I think that is a sure way to kill or injure someone, real
quick!

Has anyone out there actually touched and/or flown a Sparrowhawk?
How about an eyewitness report - I havn't eaten any crow in a
while...

I wrote two articles for Soaring, one on the design and construction
(Jan 2001 - also available on their website), and one on flying it (July
2002). Number 10 is due to be delivered this month, so there are a
number flying, and you are probably aware of Gary Osoba's World records
set with the glider.


--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

In article ,
Mike Borgelt wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:40:25 -0800, Eric Greenwell
wrote:



I'm waiting until they have a chance to put that motor in the SparrowHawk...

Take a look at the movie clip of the Silent IN with the Jet engines. I
ran some numbers on the engines over the weekend and I'm convinced
I've seen the future of soaring.

Mike Borgelt

I've come to much the same conclusion as Mike. I'd use a single
more powerful turbine (maybe the 1500) instead of 2, but
the numbers seem to work for even fairly short fields.

The heat on the tail scares me though. Hmmm...how do we
get rid of the glider tail?

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 09:40:25 -0800, Eric Greenwell
wrote:



I'm waiting until they have a chance to put that motor in the SparrowHawk...

Take a look at the movie clip of the Silent IN with the Jet engines. I
ran some numbers on the engines over the weekend and I'm convinced
I've seen the future of soaring.

Mike Borgelt