![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
May be way off but I recall Tom knauff talking about Schemp Hirth using
about 400 hours per Discus / Ventus ? What I think we need is a new way of building gliders. You cannot reduce certification costs nor development costs but you can reduce material and labour costs. What I had in mind when I made my earlier post re mass production was not a production line that produces a glider a day or anything that optimistic. However there has got be another smallish step up from what we currently do that will result in a dramatic reduction in the costs and hence price. The question is what is the critical mass number that will give us this production advantage ... I dunno the answer - I doubt anyone does. It is well known (as one other post states) that Cessna produced airplanes in approx 300 hours. That is a long way from where we are currently at for composite gliders ... and that is for a much more complex airplane than any glider. The question is simply what level of tooling and investment is required to get to this next level and what gains will that give us in production cost and hence volume. Assuming a composite glider, what I have in mind is tape laying machines, filament winding, RTM methods etc. All other areas of the composites industry are moving this way - I am sure sailplanes will eventually. There are also other innovative ways to build sailplanes if we are really willing to think outside the square. Also CNC machines for all metal parts etc. Also the design is important we need more efficient design processes and tools and more effort needs to be invested to reduce parts count. Perhaps there is a better way to build a composite airframe than the standard foam sandwich approach. We will not know unless we challenge ourselves to do it. The Sparrow Hawk while a commendable design effort will never be a commercial success (as another poster pointed out). It is too labour intensive to build, the cost of materials (Toray carbon prepregs I seem to recall) are too expensive (carbon prepreg tape is 1/4 the price woven cloth per metre sq for instance) and it is not certificated which significantly reduces the size of the potential market (and the design is barely legal under Part 103). Similarly the discussion on kits gliders is a bad example when compared to say an LS-4. These are only cheap because the builder has to invest a lot of labour and because they are not certificated. There is ample evidence in the hang glider world and indeed in other leisure sport products that the volume would increase dramatically if the price could be reduced. Imagine if you could sell a certified APIS for 150% of a current list price of a competition standard hang glider what that would do to the volume of glider sales. Waiting in a queue for a club glider would be a thing of the past - you would simply buy your own - the increase in volume would come from within the existing gliding fraterity, not to mention the more people the sport would attract and retain through greater affordability. I don't know exactly how many hang gliders are sold annually but recent articles I have read indicate that it is thousands a year. Anyone got any hard data ????? How many gliders do Schempp Hirth, DG, et al sell a year ... anyone got some data ????? Finally you don't need to point out that the above is somewhat idealistic. I am very aware of this but unless we look to the future, challenge ourselves to do better and make significant progress in the direction of costs and affordability we will not have a viable sport. Someone has to start to do the dreaming if we are going to have any hope of solving the problem. Anyone share that vision ? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Finally you don't need to point out that the above is somewhat idealistic. I
am very aware of this but unless we look to the future, challenge ourselves to do better and make significant progress in the direction of costs and affordability we will not have a viable sport. Someone has to start to do the dreaming if we are going to have any hope of solving the problem. Anyone share that vision ? Well, since I seem to dwell a lot in the idealistic sense when it comes to glider design/building I'll chime in. My vision of my idealistic glider would be a self-launcher. It would be something between a TST-10 and an Apis 15m. The engine installation would be an engine on a stick, I would look into using the extension/retraction system the Russia AC-5M uses, electric start would be good.......since this engine already exists with the MZ-35, I would probably choose this engine.....although it seems 2-stroke technology is booming these days....just look at the power plants being developed for the powered parachutes........the Cors-Air Black devil would even work for what I have in mind. Probably there are even more out there that I am unaware of, and I have done lot's of homework on this subject. The mission statement for this sailplane would not be for racing, it would be tailored towards recreational flying. It would look sexy; D2 type planform with a modified D2/V2 type fuselage shape.....because I think these are archetypes of modern sailplane design......here is where I end my similarities.........I do not need a racer, or a heavy ship, or a ship with all the modern accoutrements......these are the refinements that make a glider so expensive. I believe the R & D that goes into these ships is cutting edge: airfoils, boundry layer devices, tooling......this all adds up, as it should, and pilots who buy and fly these masterpieces have every right to be proud and have high expectations for performance and quality. Now.....back to my dream machine. This ship would be built using wet layup technolgy, it would use a lot of carbon, the wings would be sandwich construction and the fuselage would be carbon with ring bulkheads and stringers. It is somewhat true that the cockpits of these "lightweights" are sparse, but I believe with proper use of Kevlar and a combination of integral seat and cockpit longerons a safe and lightweight fuselage could be made. I would strive to make the parts count as small as possible to minimize the cost in time and $$. A set of molds could be made if there was interest in such an idea, to facilitate making multiple bits, but there are other tried and true manufacturing methods a guy could use to make it a one-off and not incur the expense of hard tooling......the trade off is hours of labor to fair the outer surfaces to your level of quality. I really believe that an elegant, nice performing ship is possible to manufacture and with diligence could be done and sold for a price a lot of us would find appealing. Well, that's my dream of a west-side sailplane. Cheers, Brad 199Ak |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Brad,
It's starting to sound a bit like an HP-24, only smaller. Cheers! "Brad" wrote in message om... Finally you don't need to point out that the above is somewhat idealistic. I am very aware of this but unless we look to the future, challenge ourselves to do better and make significant progress in the direction of costs and affordability we will not have a viable sport. Someone has to start to do the dreaming if we are going to have any hope of solving the problem. Anyone share that vision ? Well, since I seem to dwell a lot in the idealistic sense when it comes to glider design/building I'll chime in. My vision of my idealistic glider would be a self-launcher. It would be something between a TST-10 and an Apis 15m. The engine installation would be an engine on a stick, I would look into using the extension/retraction system the Russia AC-5M uses, electric start would be good.......since this engine already exists with the MZ-35, I would probably choose this engine.....although it seems 2-stroke technology is booming these days....just look at the power plants being developed for the powered parachutes........the Cors-Air Black devil would even work for what I have in mind. Probably there are even more out there that I am unaware of, and I have done lot's of homework on this subject. The mission statement for this sailplane would not be for racing, it would be tailored towards recreational flying. It would look sexy; D2 type planform with a modified D2/V2 type fuselage shape.....because I think these are archetypes of modern sailplane design......here is where I end my similarities.........I do not need a racer, or a heavy ship, or a ship with all the modern accoutrements......these are the refinements that make a glider so expensive. I believe the R & D that goes into these ships is cutting edge: airfoils, boundry layer devices, tooling......this all adds up, as it should, and pilots who buy and fly these masterpieces have every right to be proud and have high expectations for performance and quality. Now.....back to my dream machine. This ship would be built using wet layup technolgy, it would use a lot of carbon, the wings would be sandwich construction and the fuselage would be carbon with ring bulkheads and stringers. It is somewhat true that the cockpits of these "lightweights" are sparse, but I believe with proper use of Kevlar and a combination of integral seat and cockpit longerons a safe and lightweight fuselage could be made. I would strive to make the parts count as small as possible to minimize the cost in time and $$. A set of molds could be made if there was interest in such an idea, to facilitate making multiple bits, but there are other tried and true manufacturing methods a guy could use to make it a one-off and not incur the expense of hard tooling......the trade off is hours of labor to fair the outer surfaces to your level of quality. I really believe that an elegant, nice performing ship is possible to manufacture and with diligence could be done and sold for a price a lot of us would find appealing. Well, that's my dream of a west-side sailplane. Cheers, Brad 199Ak |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Earlier, "Pete Reinhart" wrote:
Brad, It's starting to sound a bit like an HP-24, only smaller. Funny about that... ![]() Seriously, I do have a 13m ship on the drawing board, and I'm holding a project number for it. It will use a lot of the shapes and internal parts I've already developed for the HP-24. But it'll stay a paper airplane until either a) I get at least one or two -24s in the air or b) the prospective 13m market shows signs of heating up. Bob K. http://www.hpaircraft.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|