![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kirk Stant wrote:
The US on the other hand, seems (IMHO) to have a substantial anti-XC / racing majority - which would explain the "success" (?) of the Sparrowhawk and PW-5 over here. (Sound of loud buzzer for wrong answer) The people buying and flying the SparrowHawk are most definitely cross-country pilots! You don't buy a glider like that to float around the airport. It'd be a heck of fun ship for that purpose, but the people that want to do that seem to buy cheaper gliders or use the club ships. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
... Kirk Stant wrote: The US on the other hand, seems (IMHO) to have a substantial anti-XC / racing majority - which would explain the "success" (?) of the Sparrowhawk and PW-5 over here. (Sound of loud buzzer for wrong answer) The people buying and flying the SparrowHawk are most definitely cross-country pilots! You don't buy a glider like that to float around the airport. It'd be a heck of fun ship for that purpose, but the people that want to do that seem to buy cheaper gliders or use the club ships. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA I still don't think the question of repairability has been adequately addressed by the producer. If you ding a wing, a factory repair may be required. Same as the Diana 2. This may ultimately impact your insure charges. If I were your underwriter, I'd certainly be looking at this. This, of course, is strictly conjecture based on what I know of pre-preg composite construction and what was stated by the Diana 2 design team at Atlanta. Frank Whtieley |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
F.L. Whiteley wrote:
I still don't think the question of repairability has been adequately addressed by the producer. If you ding a wing, a factory repair may be required. Same as the Diana 2. This may ultimately impact your insure charges. If I were your underwriter, I'd certainly be looking at this. This, of course, is strictly conjecture based on what I know of pre-preg composite construction and what was stated by the Diana 2 design team at Atlanta. Anyone with a serious interest in the SparrowHawk doesn't have to rely on conjecture, but can discuss things like this directly with the designer, Greg Cole. I don't own one, and I don't have the answers. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
Kirk Stant wrote: The US on the other hand, seems (IMHO) to have a substantial anti-XC / racing majority - which would explain the "success" (?) of the Sparrowhawk and PW-5 over here. (Sound of loud buzzer for wrong answer) The people buying and flying the SparrowHawk are most definitely cross-country pilots! You don't buy a glider like that to float around the airport. It'd be a heck of fun ship for that purpose, but the people that want to do that seem to buy cheaper gliders or use the club ships. Sorry, Eric, I disagree. The US soaring scene is unfortunately biased by the prevalence of commerial operations - "show up, fly a 1-26 for an hour, then go home and pull out the honey-do list". XC is the most fun (to me and my friends, at least), when done in company with friends, in similar performing ships. With most of the established 15m and Standard ships, that works well. Somehow, I don't see a Sparrowhawk keeping up with a V2, ASW-27, or LS8. And if you go for the Sparrowhawk option, you are opting out of most racing - unless you go for sports class. I've seen several people out here buy PW-5s (all enthusiastic), do a little XC, then give it up and sell them because everybody else leaves them behind. I see the Sparrowhawk as a typical US "we do it different here" approach. I'm sure it's a nice little glider, but not sure where it fits in the big picture. I know I have no desire to trade my ship for it - it's easy to get addicted to high performance! Kirk |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kirk Stant wrote:
The US on the other hand, seems (IMHO) to have a substantial anti-XC / racing majority - which would explain the "success" (?) of the Sparrowhawk and PW-5 over here. (Sound of loud buzzer for wrong answer) The people buying and flying the SparrowHawk are most definitely cross-country pilots! You don't buy a glider like that to float around the airport. It'd be a heck of fun ship for that purpose, but the people that want to do that seem to buy cheaper gliders or use the club ships. Sorry, Eric, I disagree. The US soaring scene is unfortunately biased by the prevalence of commerial operations - "show up, fly a 1-26 for an hour, then go home and pull out the honey-do list". This might be true, but is irrelevant when discussing SparrowHawk owners. XC is the most fun (to me and my friends, at least), when done in company with friends, in similar performing ships. With most of the established 15m and Standard ships, that works well. Somehow, I don't see a Sparrowhawk keeping up with a V2, ASW-27, or LS8. And if you go for the Sparrowhawk option, you are opting out of most racing - unless you go for sports class. I made no mention of racing or keeping up with an LS8. I was indicating the people buying the SparrowHawk are very much interested in cross-country flying. I don't think they are "anti-racing", just not especially interested in it. Racing and keeping up with an LS8 are YOUR priorities, not theirs. I've seen several people out here buy PW-5s (all enthusiastic), do a little XC, then give it up and sell them because everybody else leaves them behind. And I've seen people get that high performance ship, scare themselves with a high speed landing in a field, and go back to floating around the airport in it. The glider and the pilot need to be matched to the situation; it's not one size fits all, for sure. I see the Sparrowhawk as a typical US "we do it different here" approach. Are you saying more choices are problem? I don't think so. We already have a lot of companies "doing it the same". The people I've seen buying the SparrowHawk are not dewy-eyed newcomers to soaring, but serious pilots looking for something different. I'm sure it's a nice little glider, but not sure where it fits in the big picture. You have a lot company, as there are lots of pilots can't see past their habits and preferences to that big picture. I know I have no desire to trade my ship for it - it's easy to get addicted to high performance! And I wouldn't have your glider - no motor - it's easy to get addicted to flying when you want to, where you want to, the whole convenience and independence bit! I can see why you like it, however. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
This might be true, but is irrelevant when discussing SparrowHawk owners. Tangential, perhaps, but not irrelevant in the overall picture? I made no mention of racing or keeping up with an LS8. I was indicating the people buying the SparrowHawk are very much interested in cross-country flying. I don't think they are "anti-racing", just not especially interested in it. Racing and keeping up with an LS8 are YOUR priorities, not theirs. True. But based on what I have seen out here, unless you have a group flying similar performance gliders, you will lose some (a lot?) of the "individualist" beginning XC pilots. If you are lucky enough to have a critical mass of Sparrowawk (or similar) ships, then those lucky pilots will have a lot of fun, no doubt about it. And I've seen people get that high performance ship, scare themselves with a high speed landing in a field, and go back to floating around the airport in it. The glider and the pilot need to be matched to the situation; it's not one size fits all, for sure. I've seen that here several times - with such docile ships as ASW-19s! I suspect the problem is training - the curse of the 2-33 strikes again! Anyone who says a modern Std ship (which includes the LS4) is any harder to fly than a 1-26 is delusional and/or poorly trained. But it is true that all some people want (or can handle )is a simple floater to putt around the glider port. Are you saying more choices are problem? I don't think so. We already have a lot of companies "doing it the same". The people I've seen buying the SparrowHawk are not dewy-eyed newcomers to soaring, but serious pilots looking for something different. No, more choices are fine if the market can support it. I'm not sure the Sparrowhawh adds much new to the equation, however - it has a high enough wingloading that it is more of a "small, light, regular glider" than a different approach to soaring. I would like to see something along the lines of the Carbon Dragon that could really use microlift - that would fill a hole in the current range of gliders, IMHO. You have a lot company, as there are lots of pilots can't see past their habits and preferences to that big picture. True, but that knife cuts both ways - there are a lot of "advocates" of specific ships/classes/types of flying that think that there way is the only way. And I wouldn't have your glider - no motor - it's easy to get addicted to flying when you want to, where you want to, the whole convenience and independence bit! I can see why you like it, however. I would love to have a self-launch, as long as I didn't give up any performance - when I win the lottery I'm buying an Antares! But it would be in addition to my pure glider - I love the whole routine of soaring - arriving early, rigging, waiting for the best time to launch, the tow (or winch launch), getting home or landing out (and the adventure that ensues), then putting everything away in the evening. Self launch seems to me to trade convenience for solitude - I like the company of other gliders! Again, thats a typical US "lonesome cowboy" attitude (and there is nothing wrong with that!) - unlike the european social approach to soaring. I've done it both ways, and much prefer doing it with friends! Kirk |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Kirk Stant wrote:
True. But based on what I have seen out here, unless you have a group flying similar performance gliders, you will lose some (a lot?) of the "individualist" beginning XC pilots. If you are lucky enough to have a critical mass of Sparrowawk (or similar) ships, then those lucky pilots will have a lot of fun, no doubt about it. It depends on the person and culture of organization, I think. Thirty years ago, I learned in and flew with a club where even pilots of similar skill and gliders did not fly "together" (meaning in sight of each other, or within a mile or two), but with radio contact as they scattered in different directions to explore on their own. We still fly this way: individuals doing their own thing in the company of friends. This kind of social flying doesn't require the pilots have the same abilities or similar gliders, so the pilot in the Ka-6 participates just as well as the pilot in 18 meter motorglider. And I've seen people get that high performance ship, scare themselves with a high speed landing in a field, and go back to floating around the airport in it. The glider and the pilot need to be matched to the situation; it's not one size fits all, for sure. I've seen that here several times - with such docile ships as ASW-19s! I suspect the problem is training - the curse of the 2-33 strikes again! Anyone who says a modern Std ship (which includes the LS4) is any harder to fly than a 1-26 is delusional and/or poorly trained. The LS4 isn't harder to fly, I'm sure, but a landing it in a farmer's field is more difficult and intimidating the new pilot. The larger size and especially the higher landing speed are the cause. Every time I've landed our club's Blanik, I would think "this is SO easy compared to a glass ship!". And that's from a pilot with 2000+ hours in glass ships. snip You have a lot company, as there are lots of pilots can't see past their habits and preferences to that big picture. True, but that knife cuts both ways - there are a lot of "advocates" of specific ships/classes/types of flying that think that there way is the only way. These pilots are included in my "lots of pilots can't see past their habits and preferences to that big picture" remark. snip Self launch seems to me to trade convenience for solitude - It's not a trade - options are increased, none are removed. Fly from the glider port at the same time as your friends, fly from airports where the soaring is great but there are no tows, fly with other motorglider pilots: it's the pilot's choice if he flies alone. I like the company of other gliders! So do I, and as do most of the motorglider pilots I know. I know one that gives tows mid-week when there aren't any other towpilots, then self-launches when the tow line is empty! Again, thats a typical US "lonesome cowboy" attitude (and there is nothing wrong with that!) - unlike the european social approach to soaring. With over half the German manufacturers' production being motorgliders, the Europeans must be buying a lot of them! -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New flying books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | July 3rd 04 02:40 PM |
New War publications | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | December 20th 03 01:47 PM |
New Military Aviation Books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | November 23rd 03 11:43 PM |
New Military Aviation Books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | October 29th 03 02:33 AM |
New WWII books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | October 13th 03 12:54 AM |