![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |