Sparrowhawk 300 km in Utah

On May 3, 10:39 am, Papa3 wrote:

It simply blows the doors off a PW-5 in all respects.

Would you include crash worthiness? I looked at one and sat in it. I
was impressed by how frail the cockpit and canopy seemed to be. Of
course I'm comparing it to my ASW-28 not a hang glider, but do you
really think it's a crash worthy as a PW5?


Andy

On May 3, 7:03 pm, Andy wrote:
On May 3, 10:39 am, Papa3 wrote:

It simply blows the doors off a PW-5 in all respects.

Would you include crash worthiness? I looked at one and sat in it. I
was impressed by how frail the cockpit and canopy seemed to be. Of
course I'm comparing it to my ASW-28 not a hang glider, but do you
really think it's a crash worthy as a PW5?

Andy

Andy,

Setting a pretty low bar there aren't ya :-) ? The couple of times
I've looked at some of the structures of damaged or wrecked PW-5s I
was not overly impressed.

Anyway, I quote the following from the Windward specs: "Fuselage
cockpit cell utilizes four carbon longerons with four transverse
bulkheads in addition to the carbon monocoque shell for crash
protection." Given what I've seen with some of the slick
engineering that went into the ship, I have to believe they took more
than a casual interest in cockpit safety.

P3

Ummmm...who crashes anyways?

Like they say, any landing you walk away from is a good landing. A
great landing is one where you can still use the plane.



Andy wrote:
On May 3, 10:39 am, Papa3 wrote:

It simply blows the doors off a PW-5 in all respects.

Would you include crash worthiness? I looked at one and sat in it. I
was impressed by how frail the cockpit and canopy seemed to be. Of
course I'm comparing it to my ASW-28 not a hang glider, but do you
really think it's a crash worthy as a PW5?


Andy



--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)

On May 3, 4:03 pm, Andy wrote:
On May 3, 10:39 am, Papa3 wrote:

It simply blows the doors off a PW-5 in all respects.

Would you include crash worthiness? I looked at one and sat in it. I
was impressed by how frail the cockpit and canopy seemed to be. Of
course I'm comparing it to my ASW-28 not a hang glider, but do you
really think it's a crash worthy as a PW5?

Andy

Andy how would you compare the inertia of your ASW-28 to that of the
Sparrowhawk?

George

On May 4, 12:27 am, bikensoar wrote:

Andy how would you compare the inertia of your ASW-28 to that of the
Sparrowhawk?

Obviously it's higher. I think the original comparison was with PW5
in which case the difference would be smaller. Sparrow Hawk max GW is
415lb and PW-5 660lb. You asked about inertia but isn't kinetic
energy is more relevant to crash survivability. Speed depends more on
the accident type than the aircraft type and in a higher speed
accident may be more important than the mass.

Andy

On May 4, 8:07 am, Andy wrote:
On May 4, 12:27 am, bikensoar wrote:



Andy how would you compare the inertia of your ASW-28 to that of the
Sparrowhawk?

Obviously it's higher. I think the original comparison was with PW5
in which case the difference would be smaller. Sparrow Hawk max GW is
415lb and PW-5 660lb. You asked about inertia but isn't kinetic
energy is more relevant to crash survivability. Speed depends more on
the accident type than the aircraft type and in a higher speed
accident may be more important than the mass.

Andy

You are right about the speed factor. If it is going to be a high
speed, high
energy crash in a Sparrowhawk the obvious answer is the ballistic
chute.
Having a ballistic chute for the entire aircraft, IMHO, makes the
Sparrowhawk
the safest glider out there.

George