Open Class Super-Ship from Windward Performance

On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:29:52 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:48*am, Tony wrote: how affordable is affordable? It's designed to hit $100,000 in 2010 dollars. That includes convertible gear (nose roller and tail dragger), basic instruments, removable nose and tail ballast, and open trailer. type certified or kit built? Type certificated and built in series production. An experimental glider of this size and shape would be economically and socially unviable. This is a workhorse designed for operationality and transposition rate, and engineered for ease of repair using common composite materials. There is also the ethical concern of carrying people who have not necessarily made an informed decision to ride in a non-type- certificated aircraft. I think that they deserve an aircraft that has been tested to a higher standard than the typical kit aircraft. going to be opening an engineering office in Wichita??? I hadn't thought of that. Didn't they used to make airplanes there? Thanks, Bob K.

Just because it is a kit aircarft, Homebuilt, dose'nt mean it has not been tested. All of Windwards aircraft are tested to part 21 standards and beyond the reason for not certifing in the Standard Catagory is cost. With this thinking Bob there must be a lot of unethical people out there flying experimental aircraft, or the EAA is unethical, or building your own airplane is unethical, or you must be a left wing tree hugger to be flying that, what an electric airplane, you fly an experimental aircraft you must be a socialist.

John

On Friday, August 3, 2012 1:14:15 PM UTC-5, (unknown) wrote:
On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:29:52 AM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote: On Aug 3, 8:48*am, Tony wrote: how affordable is affordable? It's designed to hit $100,000 in 2010 dollars. That includes convertible gear (nose roller and tail dragger), basic instruments, removable nose and tail ballast, and open trailer. type certified or kit built? Type certificated and built in series production. An experimental glider of this size and shape would be economically and socially unviable. This is a workhorse designed for operationality and transposition rate, and engineered for ease of repair using common composite materials. There is also the ethical concern of carrying people who have not necessarily made an informed decision to ride in a non-type- certificated aircraft. I think that they deserve an aircraft that has been tested to a higher standard than the typical kit aircraft. going to be opening an engineering office in Wichita??? I hadn't thought of that. Didn't they used to make airplanes there? Thanks, Bob K. Just because it is a kit aircarft, Homebuilt, dose'nt mean it has not been tested. All of Windwards aircraft are tested to part 21 standards and beyond the reason for not certifing in the Standard Catagory is cost. With this thinking Bob there must be a lot of unethical people out there flying experimental aircraft, or the EAA is unethical, or building your own airplane is unethical, or you must be a left wing tree hugger to be flying that, what an electric airplane, you fly an experimental aircraft you must be a socialist. John

interesting...

I agree with Bob though, for a 2 seater to be successful as a trainer it really needs to be type certified, for many reasons including the ones that Bob points out.

On Aug 3, 11:14*am, wrote:

* Just because it is a kit aircarft, Homebuilt, dose'nt mean it has not been tested...

Oh, yeah, I get that. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt:

http://hpaircraft.com/hp-24/update_10_dec_11.htm

All of Windwards aircraft are tested to part 21 standards and
beyond the reason for not certifing in the Standard Catagory is cost.
With this thinking Bob there must be a lot of unethical people
out there flying experimental aircraft, or the EAA is unethical, or
building your own airplane is unethical, or you must be a left wing
tree hugger to be flying that, what an electric airplane, you fly an
experimental aircraft you must be a socialist.

That last run-on sentence makes the grammar a bit difficult to parse,
but I'll take a crack at it:

I didn't mean that those who develop, build, and operate non-
certificated multiplace aircraft are unethical. In fact, I have been
one of those people, and probably will be again.

I just happen to think that developing and testing multiplace aircraft
to a higher standard than single place aircraft has value for ethical
reasons that I have already stated: They often carry people who have
not made, and are perhaps not qualified to make, an informed decision
to ride in the machine. Therefore, the designer and builder hold an
increased obligation to protect the uninformed from the possible
consequences of such activity. Also, I happen to think, for a variety
of reasons outside the scope of this particular discussion, that this
is a bit more important for sailplanes than for powered aircraft.

I think that once you execute on this obligation to a degree
commensurate with what is at stake, you are about 90% of the way to
certification, so you might as well finish it off.

I have incredible respect for those who fought for and won our
privilege of building and operating amateur-built aircraft, and I have
a great deal of respect for the responsibility that is bound to it. I
think that the EAA is doing a good job of providing guidance and
protection for those who choose to exercise this privilege.

However, there have indeed been a few unethical people in experimental
aviation, and the sport has suffered mightily for it on occasion.
Folks who took deposits and returned only empty promises. Folks who
designed structurally inadequate aircraft that broke before even
reaching limit load. I intend to avoid, by whatever practical means,
being one of those people.

And, for the record, I am indeed a tree-hugging liberal, though not in
the strictest sense a socialist. More along the lines of a social
engineering-ist.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com