A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

LS-4 ? What about 1-26 ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 13th 04, 12:49 PM
Charles Yeates
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 14th 04, 03:19 AM
Brad
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 14th 04, 04:55 PM
Pete Reinhart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 15th 04, 12:43 AM
Bob Kuykendall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.