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

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:50:05 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/4/2013 4:41 PM, GM wrote:

Please - someone explain to me why a manufacturer

like Windward Performance does not jump at the opportunity to build a

modern two-seat trainer rather than trying to compete with the latest

super orchid grown in Germany. I think something like this would

sell.



Let me explain...



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

+ be light weight (but rugged) with wing panels weighing less than 140

pounds each, so club members don't mind rigging it each weekend

+ have very nice handling



And ultimately, it should have a front mounted electric motor with a

folding propeller ("TFP" - tractor folding propeller). That would allow

it to use a car launch to 500', turn on the motor, and look for

thermals. No thermals? Climb with the motor.



When it lands, the battery can be exchanged for a fully charged one if

it needs recharging, and the depleted one put on charge (maybe you need

three batteries if the thermals are weak).



But even if a conventional towplane is used for the launch, the TFP lets

the student and instructor go soaring, even cross country, almost every

flight. Imagine how cool that is! Students would be much more enthused

about soaring if they actually got to do some soaring on every flight,

rather than being told "XC after you have your license", or "XC when you

have your own glider".



Whether it's car launch or towplane, the TFP would allow and encourage

more soaring, even XC, during instruction, and more XC when flown solo.

The light weight and easy rigging would subdue the concerns about

landing out (unlikely with the TFP), and the utilization of the glider

would be much higher than the typical heavy low/medium performance

two-seater.



Greg thinks it would sell, but bringing this glider (any glider!) to

market is very expensive. The full design, molds, production tooling,

and testing will easily exceed a million dollars (aka $1,000,000). So,

for Windward Performance to jump at this opportunity means coming up

with a lot of money. That will a lot easier to do if there are some

orders, so if you want one of these, or think you can find some money

for Windward, please call Greg Cole, and talk to him about it.



Get his contact details he



http://windward-performance.com/contact-us/



--

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

email me)

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.

Evan Ludeman / T8

There are 97 L-23's in the US...what about those?

On Friday, April 5, 2013 7:24:28 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
We need *trainers* and a safe, reliable, economical way to launch them. The PW-6 is the closest thing on the market.

I'm just beginning to appreciate the ballsy and audacious mindset of XC pilots; the mindset that it takes to fly 500 km without a motor...

But that mindset may be one of the reasons why the trainer problem goes unsolved. Some propose (in typical XC pilot fashion) that to solve the trainer problem, we need to be extremely clever and expertly negotiate an interdependent series of bold but calculated risks. These risks include bringing skilled labor intensive manufacturing back to the USA economy. Oh really?

On the other hand, we already have a glider factory in Poland http://www.szdjezow.com.pl/ofirmie_eng.html that would be a lot more viable and long-surviving if it got some more orders from the USA. Do you really think that soaring is big enough to support two trainer manufacturers at the same time? Let's just shoot ourselves in the foot and try to compete with The Glider Factory "JEŻÓW". Nobody wins and if JEZOW goes bankrupt, the clubs that have invested in a PW-6 lose.

Nationalistic competitive attitudes are counter-productive to solving the trainer problem. The way to demonstrate the greatness of the USA soaring community is to step up now and invest in some new trainers. The Founding Fathers (of soaring) did that once already when they ponied up the money for 314 SGS 2-33s. Where did that kind of audaciousness go?

Is the PW-6 built any better than a PW-5? I can't imagine a trainer built like a PW-5 able to withstand the kind of abuse a trainer takes.



On Friday, April 5, 2013 4:24:28 AM UTC-7, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2013 11:50:05 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:

On 4/4/2013 4:41 PM, GM wrote:



Please - someone explain to me why a manufacturer



like Windward Performance does not jump at the opportunity to build a



modern two-seat trainer rather than trying to compete with the latest



super orchid grown in Germany. I think something like this would



sell.







Let me explain...







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



+ be light weight (but rugged) with wing panels weighing less than 140



pounds each, so club members don't mind rigging it each weekend



+ have very nice handling







And ultimately, it should have a front mounted electric motor with a



folding propeller ("TFP" - tractor folding propeller). That would allow



it to use a car launch to 500', turn on the motor, and look for



thermals. No thermals? Climb with the motor.







When it lands, the battery can be exchanged for a fully charged one if



it needs recharging, and the depleted one put on charge (maybe you need



three batteries if the thermals are weak).







But even if a conventional towplane is used for the launch, the TFP lets



the student and instructor go soaring, even cross country, almost every



flight. Imagine how cool that is! Students would be much more enthused



about soaring if they actually got to do some soaring on every flight,



rather than being told "XC after you have your license", or "XC when you



have your own glider".







Whether it's car launch or towplane, the TFP would allow and encourage



more soaring, even XC, during instruction, and more XC when flown solo.



The light weight and easy rigging would subdue the concerns about



landing out (unlikely with the TFP), and the utilization of the glider



would be much higher than the typical heavy low/medium performance



two-seater.







Greg thinks it would sell, but bringing this glider (any glider!) to



market is very expensive. The full design, molds, production tooling,



and testing will easily exceed a million dollars (aka $1,000,000). So,



for Windward Performance to jump at this opportunity means coming up



with a lot of money. That will a lot easier to do if there are some



orders, so if you want one of these, or think you can find some money



for Windward, please call Greg Cole, and talk to him about it.







Get his contact details he







http://windward-performance.com/contact-us/







--



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



email me)



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.



Evan Ludeman / T8

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)

Car towing adds a number of significant hazard variables. The rubber band effect can be and is effectively dealt with by implementing progressive XC minded training. I didn't have it but all my students do. Dual XC land outs can work wonders!

On 4/5/2013 9:42 AM, wrote:
Car towing adds a number of significant hazard variables.

What "hazard variables" does it add, compared to aerotow? Doesn't it
also subtract some "hazard variables"?

If you are operating from a glider-only airfield, I'd guess the hazards
of a 500' agl car launch are less than a 2000' aerotow launch,
particularly if you include the hazards to the tow pilot. If operating
from a GA airport, I know it will have different hazards than aerotow,
but it's not clear they would be greater.

The rubber
band effect can be and is effectively dealt with by implementing
progressive XC minded training. I didn't have it but all my students
do. Dual XC land outs can work wonders!

I agree the rubber band effect can be mitigated, but my observation is
it isn't most of the time. My experience as an instructor trying to get
students to go XC was disappointing: even with all their training being
from an experienced XC pilot (me), with some XC flight with an
experienced XC pilot (me), with offers to retrieve the Blanik from a
field, with cheap aero retrieves available from airports, with plenty of
airports in reach of a Blanik, very few even attempted a XC flight.

The only students to do it as soon as they were allowed to were former
hang glider pilots, and they were already XC pilots when they joined!

So, I still think a glider with an FES/TFP will result in many more
experiencing it as students, attempting it when solo, and continuing
with it when they own their own glider (and be more likely to get their
own glider). It will have to be tried to see if it is effective.

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

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 4/5/2013 10:22 AM, Papa3 wrote:
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 :-)

The engine system Greg proposes is nothing like the ones on the Duo
Discus. It is far simpler to operate: turn on a switch and it starts
providing power in a couple seconds (no mast to raise); move the power
lever to get level flight or climb. Got your thermal? Power back, switch
off, and you are a glider again in less than 5 seconds (no propeller to
stop, no mast to put away). Compare that to managing the gasoline motor
on a Duo.

If the instructor can't manage getting the propulsion battery put on
charge, he has no business being an instructor. That part of the
operation is simple compared everything else in an instructional flight:
"Jerry, take this here battery to the clubhouse and plug it into the big
charger. Bring the one that was on the charger back with you, or you
don't fly next."

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

It's not engine operation per-se I'm worried about. It's all of the mechanical and electronic wizardry that has to work to go along with it. Yeah, it's electic. No fuel system. No mags or plugs. Great. What happens I have a prop strike or Joe Pilot forgets to swap out the battery pack (assume that it can be swapped out) or..

If someone wants to design the capability in as an "add on" rather than as a required element, go for it. Just let me buy it without that stuff and don't charge me for it if I don't want it. Build me a robust trainer that can take the real world abuse of your typical club or FBO.

A lot of engineers love to build something that "pushes the envelope". I see it at work every single day. Yet we forget about design for maintainability or design for manufacturing.



On Friday, April 5, 2013 2:09:35 PM UTC-4, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 4/5/2013 10:22 AM, Papa3 wrote:

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 :-)



The engine system Greg proposes is nothing like the ones on the Duo

Discus. It is far simpler to operate: turn on a switch and it starts

providing power in a couple seconds (no mast to raise); move the power

lever to get level flight or climb. Got your thermal? Power back, switch

off, and you are a glider again in less than 5 seconds (no propeller to

stop, no mast to put away). Compare that to managing the gasoline motor

on a Duo.



If the instructor can't manage getting the propulsion battery put on

charge, he has no business being an instructor. That part of the

operation is simple compared everything else in an instructional flight:

"Jerry, take this here battery to the clubhouse and plug it into the big

charger. Bring the one that was on the charger back with you, or you

don't fly next."



--

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

email me)