FAA to ground 80% of Glider Training Fleet... it's just a question of when

I think Bob K's post just above yours says it all. We already have wonderful XC trainers with engines - they're called Duo Discuses (Discii). They cost a lot of money, and very few blue collar glider training operations are going to buy one, at least here in the US. I'm sorry, but Greg may be disconnected from the realities of a typical club or low budget FBO. Managing a sophisticated system like you describe? Hah! I watch what the ASK-21s, Blanik L-23s, and 2-33s go through at our operation and those nearby. We're lucky if we can keep the 12V SLA battery charged with working connectors in order to run the radio and electric vario :-)

Seriously: Simple. Robust. User Friendly. Repairable. ASK-21 performance.

That's the high level requirement IMO.



On Friday, April 5, 2013 12:03:48 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/5/2013 4:24 AM, Evan Ludeman wrote:

No motors! That adds cost, complexity and training issues all out of

proportion to any supposed benefit as a trainer. We need *trainers*

and a safe, reliable, economical way to launch them. The PW-6 is the

closest thing on the market.



Greg's belief is we need *soaring* and *XC* trainers, not just

"trainers". He absolutely wants to avoid the cost, complexity and

training issues of the current gasoline engine systems, and that is why

he want to use a TFP system ("Tractor folding propeller" - same concept

as the FES, but that name belongs to another company). The cost,

complexity, and training issues are far smaller with an electric folding

propeller sustainer than gasoline sustainers, or self-launcher systems

like the ASK-21 Mi. Any instructor should be able to make good use of a

TFP after a few flights, and students could be ready to use it as well

by the time they are solo.



The TFP addresses the "safe, reliable, economical way" to launch the

glider, using a car launch to 500 feet.



I think training effectiveness would be increased if the instructor

could extend the flight with another climb instead of landing, and with

just a flick of a switch.



Think how exciting it would be for a student who isn't solo, but has

progressed to flying the glider for most of the flight, if part (or

all!) of the flight included real XC flying, beyond gliding range of the

airport? I think that would eliminate the huge "rubber band" effect most

solo students experience, and that continues to haunt them even when

they get their license.



That excitement would keep them coming back better than the typical

training program does now, don't you think?



--

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to

email me)

On Apr 4, 8:50*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:

I talked to Greg Cole of Windward performance today about this subject.
He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer...

+ should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21

I think that Greg is right, but only if what we want to do is train an
elite cadre of cross-country and competition pilots. And I happen to
think that that is not necessarily what we want to do.

I worked at one of the busiest training gliderports in the US for
about five years, and I saw the kind of abuse that a real training
glider gets, and I saw what a real training glider does. And I know
that performance better than ASK21 might sound good and look good, and
might be an interesting design challenge, but it is to a great extent
secondary to what we want to do, and is in some ways counterproductive
to what we need.

I have talked with several commercial operators, and what they seem to
value above all else is operational availability. The glider has to be
functional and ready to go when it is needed. That means more than
rugged construction, it means minimum downtime. It means that the
glider is easy to repair, and that replacement parts are easily
available, and easy to install. It means that you can change a wheel,
tire, and brake assembly in fifteen minutes. It means that FedEx can
deliver a replacement canopy, with frame, ready to latch on and fly
with, overnight. It means wings that interchange so you can mix and
match your fleet when things get rough.

What we need is a glider that will launch 7200 times a year, every
year. A glider that will expose thousands of potential pilots to the
experience of soaring flight in a way that shows them the potential
and makes them want more. Because the reality is that, while soaring
is a wonderful and fascinating and engrossing activity, it is not for
everyone. Maybe one in person in what, 300? 500? maybe 1000? takes a
20 minute ride and sticks with it through to the license.

Another important thing is that the glider has to offer a pleasant and
effective training environment for those that do stick. And that means
ease of entry and exit, good seating, and good communication with the
instructor.

Electric motor in nose? Sure, that's a reasonable option. But the
important thing is to produce new starts. We have to launch a few
thousand people into the air and see which ones stick. The ones that
stick can get their own gliders with performance "significantly better
than an ASK 21," because that's easy to do with single-seaters.

Thanks, Bob K.
https://www.facebook.com/AuroraTrainingSailplaneProject

I for one couldn't agree more with everything that Bob says. However, I'm not convinced side-by-side seating is necessary or even a good thing for people who will be mainly flying in line seating singles. I'm trying hard to be convinced, I want to be convinced, because everything else about the Aurora concept is awesome. I've instructed in both types and admittedly communication is an issue in tandems. If designing and building a tandem cockpit is cheaper and easier, I'd say address communication issues with a nice lightweight intercom. Whatever the case, I applaud Bob's efforts with Aurora and his well-informed sound practical thinking.

On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:14:36 AM UTC-6, wrote:
I for one couldn't agree more with everything that Bob says. However, I'm not convinced side-by-side seating is necessary or even a good thing for people who will be mainly flying in line seating singles. I'm trying hard to be convinced, I want to be convinced, because everything else about the Aurora concept is awesome. I've instructed in both types and admittedly communication is an issue in tandems. If designing and building a tandem cockpit is cheaper and easier, I'd say address communication issues with a nice lightweight intercom. Whatever the case, I applaud Bob's efforts with Aurora and his well-informed sound practical thinking.

Tandem vs. side-by-side is a non-issue. I learned in LK-10's and Pratt Reads. The only people who thought side-by-side seating might be hard had never flown the PR. The PR's seating seemed odd for about 10 seconds on the first flight then it became perfectly natural. If anything, the LK was harder to learn in because I sometimes couldn't quite understand what the instructor wanted.

I really liked the PR in that I could see the instructor point to things and it was much easier to follow his demonstrations of a maneuver when sitting beside him. Being able to watch the instructor do a "handie" of a maneuver was invaluable.

I for one couldn't agree more with everything that Bob says. However, I'm not convinced side-by-side seating is necessary or even a good thing for people who will be mainly flying in line seating singles. I'm trying hard to be convinced, I want to be convinced, because everything else about the Aurora concept is awesome. I've instructed in both types and admittedly communication is an issue in tandems. If designing and building a tandem cockpit is cheaper and easier, I'd say address communication issues with a nice lightweight intercom. Whatever the case, I applaud Bob's efforts with Aurora and his well-informed sound practical thinking.

At 15:26 05 April 2013, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:50=A0pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:

I talked to Greg Cole of Windward performance today about this subject.
He thinks the ideal two-seat trainer...

+ should have good performance, significantly better than an ASK 21

I think that Greg is right, but only if what we want to do is train an
elite cadre of cross-country and competition pilots. And I happen to
think that that is not necessarily what we want to do.

I worked at one of the busiest training gliderports in the US for
about five years, and I saw the kind of abuse that a real training
glider gets, and I saw what a real training glider does. And I know
that performance better than ASK21 might sound good and look good, and
might be an interesting design challenge, but it is to a great extent
secondary to what we want to do, and is in some ways counterproductive
to what we need.

I have talked with several commercial operators, and what they seem to
value above all else is operational availability. The glider has to be
functional and ready to go when it is needed. That means more than
rugged construction, it means minimum downtime. It means that the
glider is easy to repair, and that replacement parts are easily
available, and easy to install. It means that you can change a wheel,
tire, and brake assembly in fifteen minutes. It means that FedEx can
deliver a replacement canopy, with frame, ready to latch on and fly
with, overnight. It means wings that interchange so you can mix and
match your fleet when things get rough.

What we need is a glider that will launch 7200 times a year, every
year. A glider that will expose thousands of potential pilots to the
experience of soaring flight in a way that shows them the potential
and makes them want more. Because the reality is that, while soaring
is a wonderful and fascinating and engrossing activity, it is not for
everyone. Maybe one in person in what, 300? 500? maybe 1000? takes a
20 minute ride and sticks with it through to the license.

Another important thing is that the glider has to offer a pleasant and
effective training environment for those that do stick. And that means
ease of entry and exit, good seating, and good communication with the
instructor.

Electric motor in nose? Sure, that's a reasonable option. But the
important thing is to produce new starts. We have to launch a few
thousand people into the air and see which ones stick. The ones that
stick can get their own gliders with performance "significantly better
than an ASK 21," because that's easy to do with single-seaters.

Thanks, Bob K.
https://www.facebook.com/AuroraTrainingSailplaneProject

Apologies if I say something that has already been said, but I haven't read
all the postings. You are obviously in a similar situation to that which
the UK was in many years ago, no local manufacturers, so the only place to
go was Europe, which most clubs have done.
However, you are a lot further away, and by the sound of it, there could be
a good market, so why does not some composite aircraft manufacturer try for
a licence? Why re-invent the wheel? There are a number of good designs
available.
Dave

On Apr 5, 9:38*am, David Salmon wrote:

Apologies if I say something that has already been said, but I haven't read
all the postings. You are obviously in a similar situation to that which
the UK was in many years ago, no local manufacturers, so the only place to
go was Europe, which most clubs have done.
However, you are a lot further away, and by the sound of it, there could be
a good market, so why does not some composite aircraft manufacturer try for
a licence? Why re-invent the wheel? There are a number of good designs
available.

Dave, those are excellent questions!

Part of the genesis of the Aurora project was the suggestion that a
license might be obtained to manufacture ASK21s locally. The question
then became, how would you manufacture them cost-effectively, with
minimum ramp-up time, and what might you do differently?

One of the big issues is that of obtaining production certification.
You don't just have to obtain license to manufacture a design that has
been certificated to meet regulatory requirements. You also have to
prove to the authorities that you can manufacture it so that every
single unit meets certification requirements. And that means
developing and implementing a variety of technologies that ensure that
you stay within allowable tolerances in several dimensions.

These considerations led to the idea that a training glider should be
designed from the start with the idea of making it as cost-effective
as possible to meet both design and production certification
requirements. And that led back towards a clean-sheet design. But this
isn't reinventing the wheel. This is developing a wheel that meets our
current needs, not someone else's needs from a bygone era.

Thanks, Bob K.

Bob K said:
Because the reality is that, while soaring
is a wonderful and fascinating and engrossing activity, it is not for
everyone. Maybe one in person in what, 300? 500? maybe 1000? takes a
20 minute ride and sticks with it through to the license.

From what I have seen of this sport it is mostly made up of airplane
pilots who have
also taken up soaring. At least in my club it is. I would guess it is
the same elsewhere in the US.
It seems this makes it an easy license transition to get into a
glider.
Some of you have talked about what trainers were used in the 50's and
60's. This is largely irrelevant
now because in ~1975 flex wing hang gliding was born. And later,
paragliding.
Now anyone who has that (cursed) soaring gene can afford to soar, buy
a new glider and a complete vario/altimeter/ IGC logger for a few
thousand $ and
fly XC 100 to 300 km. on good days. And it is every bit as thrilling
as going 500 km in a sailplane. Without the towing fees.
The only things driving these soaring aficionados to sailplanes is
that some are getting too old to lug gliders
around AND they now have a little more cash.

What I am trying to point out is that we are not realistically looking
at the whole picture when thinking about how to grow sailplane
activity.
It is a lot harder than it was in the 60s when that was the only game
in town for motorless flight.
My prediction is that sailplane soaring will continue to be a
shrinking sport and there is nothing you can do about it unless
you can a). ban other forms of gliding and b.) greatly reduce the
cost.
A third item might be to try and get today's youth away from their
glowing screens long enough to participate in real-world activities.
HG and PG numbers are declining as well!

Now Eric, you need to get off of your high horse.
The SZD 54-2 Perkoz is ready for purchase as well as the PW-6U.
http://soaringcafe.com/2012/04/world...ilplanes-dead/
http://soaringcafe.com/2012/12/the-szd-50-puchacz/
http://soaringcafe.com/2012/12/szd-54-2-perkoz-part-2/

Jacek

On 4/5/2013 8:28 PM, ASM wrote:
Now Eric, you need to get off of your high horse.
The SZD 54-2 Perkoz is ready for purchase as well as the PW-6U.
http://soaringcafe.com/2012/04/world...ilplanes-dead/
http://soaringcafe.com/2012/12/the-szd-50-puchacz/
http://soaringcafe.com/2012/12/szd-54-2-perkoz-part-2/

I don't have horse in this discussion. I'm just answering questions
people have about Windward Performance's abilities and offerings. I've
already ordered my two-seater, and it's a side-by-side with tractor
propeller!

Practically speaking, I know very little about the gliders you mention,
so I'm not qualified to discuss them.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)