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

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 9:50:05 PM UTC-6, 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)

Greg hinted at this at the Barnaby Lecture, but at that time said it would not be Type-Certificated, possibly Light Sport, due to the cost of a TC. I don't know how evolved his design is. That's okay for clubs, not for commercial operators. Bob Kuykendall has a design , and TC goals, as the glider design was influenced by commercial operators. Both are composite designs. Barry Aviation owns the Type Certificate for the Krosno Kr03a, aiming to bring it to production as the Peregrine. It's metal, which was the most popular choice of the two-seater survey. Barry Aviation did secure Part Manufacturing Authorization from the FAA in support of existing Kr-03a's while working on manufacturing certification. Manufacturing certification requires building three satisfactorily under FAA inspection in order to become self-certifying. However, if the FAA finds something that needs correction, the process stop and the problem gets worked on. In the meantime, you have to maintain your production facility awaiting the next FAA visit. As explained to me, the FAA budget would allow for three visits per year. When the economy tanked, money dried up, and they lost their assembly facility, thus all tooling and materials returned to storage. They estimate it would take $1M to bring it to production. Tim Barry stated that with trained production staff, they could build glider per week on the assembly line. Forty years ago, when composite glider production really ramped up, there were some articles about build times. A composite glider required about 1000 man hours. Schempp-Hirth delivered some models, certainly Nimbus 2's, to some customers with a final finishing option because owners were re-contouring the wings anyway. I found it noteworthy that a C-172 required 372 man hours to produce. No idea where those numbers have gone or if the ratio has changed. Can't say it appears there is much, if any, demand for metal gliders, despite the survey, as no one was ordering L-23's. Barry Aviation's goal was and remains domestic and international sales. But, like any other, will require a significant capital injection to even ramp up production.

Frank Whiteley

On Friday, April 5, 2013 12:12:38 AM UTC-6, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2013 9:50:05 PM UTC-6, 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)



Greg hinted at this at the Barnaby Lecture, but at that time said it would not be Type-Certificated, possibly Light Sport, due to the cost of a TC. I don't know how evolved his design is. That's okay for clubs, not for commercial operators. Bob Kuykendall has a design , and TC goals, as the glider design was influenced by commercial operators. Both are composite designs. Barry Aviation owns the Type Certificate for the Krosno Kr03a, aiming to bring it to production as the Peregrine. It's metal, which was the most popular choice of the two-seater survey. Barry Aviation did secure Part Manufacturing Authorization from the FAA in support of existing Kr-03a's while working on manufacturing certification. Manufacturing certification requires building three satisfactorily under FAA inspection in order to become self-certifying. However, if the FAA finds something that needs correction, the process stop and the problem gets worked on. In the meantime, you have to maintain your production facility awaiting the next FAA visit. As explained to me, the FAA budget would allow for three visits per year. When the economy tanked, money dried up, and they lost their assembly facility, thus all tooling and materials returned to storage. They estimate it would take $1M to bring it to production. Tim Barry stated that with trained production staff, they could build glider per week on the assembly line. Forty years ago, when composite glider production really ramped up, there were some articles about build times. A composite glider required about 1000 man hours. Schempp-Hirth delivered some models, certainly Nimbus 2's, to some customers with a final finishing option because owners were re-contouring the wings anyway. I found it noteworthy that a C-172 required 372 man hours to produce. No idea where those numbers have gone or if the ratio has changed. Can't say it appears there is much, if any, demand for metal gliders, despite the survey, as no one was ordering L-23's. Barry Aviation's goal was and remains domestic and international sales. But, like any other, will require a significant capital injection to even ramp up production.



Frank Whiteley

The ASK-21 is essentially a perfect training glider. Its superb handling qualities match its beautiful appearance. Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.

The only things I would change are convenience items like wing hard points for one-man assembly tools and maybe some hand grips to help lever a creaky old instructor out of the back seat. I think quick and easy rigging/de-rigging is important for those without a hangar.

On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41:37 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.

If capital cost were no problem, we would not have a problem.


T8

On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:54:11 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41:37 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:

Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.


If capital cost were no problem, we would not have a problem.

T8

Buying the cheapest glider without regard for value is part of what got us into this jam.

On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:01:20 AM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:54:11 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote: On Friday, April 5, 2013 10:41:37 AM UTC-4, Bill D wrote: Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back. If capital cost were no problem, we would not have a problem. T8 Buying the cheapest glider without regard for value is part of what got us into this jam.

at one time the SSA was working on developing a program with Lea County State Bank to offer attractive financing options to clubs for two seaters. Sort of a group buy discount or something? Has there been any progress on that?

Yes, it's expensive up-front but they have a long life and will pay that investment back.

If capital cost were no problem, we would not have a problem.
T8

Buying the cheapest glider without regard for value is part of what got us into this jam.

If capital cost is the problem, utilization is the answer. As an
economist, it's a bit funny to see a $120,000 asset sitting on the
ground except for 12-5 pm on weekends 6 months of the year. An ASK 21
would pay for itself really quickly if training started at 7 am --
much better for students anyway -- and went on until dusk, 7 days a
week, and then moved to Florida/Arizona/Texas/California for the
winter. That it doesn't -- that commercial operators don't give
discounts for off peak utilization for example -- has always struck me
as a bit of a mystery. Capital cost must not be that big a deal in the
end...


John Cochrane

On 4/5/2013 7:41 AM, Bill D wrote:
The only things I would change are convenience items like wing hard
points for one-man assembly tools and maybe some hand grips to help
lever a creaky old instructor out of the back seat. I think quick
and easy rigging/de-rigging is important for those without a hangar.

How about rigging or retrieving from a farm field? The wings look big
and heavy, and so does the fuselage.

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

On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:38:57 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:

How about rigging or retrieving from a farm field? The wings look big and heavy, and so does the fuselage.


ASK-21 wings are not that heavy. I rig two of them every time we fly. It's the easiest 2-seat glider I know of to rig. I really makes sense to store them de-rigged in a covered trailer if you don't have a hangar.

My usual crew is teenage CAP Cadets who have never seen a glider before and we get it done in about half an hour. I can lift the root by myself but it's too wide for me to align the spigots so I need someone on the trailing edge. The fun part is to get the smallest Cadet to do the wing pins - their grin is priceless.

A one-man dolly would be helpful but the wings are so wide it would need a huge saddle which is why I mentioned hard points. That way the dolly could be really small for storage.

On Friday, April 5, 2013 9:11:06 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:38:57 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote:



How about rigging or retrieving from a farm field? The wings look big and heavy, and so does the fuselage.





ASK-21 wings are not that heavy. I rig two of them every time we fly. It's the easiest 2-seat glider I know of to rig. I really makes sense to store them de-rigged in a covered trailer if you don't have a hangar.



My usual crew is teenage CAP Cadets who have never seen a glider before and we get it done in about half an hour. I can lift the root by myself but it's too wide for me to align the spigots so I need someone on the trailing edge. The fun part is to get the smallest Cadet to do the wing pins - their grin is priceless.



A one-man dolly would be helpful but the wings are so wide it would need a huge saddle which is why I mentioned hard points. That way the dolly could be really small for storage.

A K-21 can be rigged and derigged by two moderately strong persons without a wing dolly and good wing stands. Can be, but not preferred. Been there, done that.

A PW-6 can be done reasonably easily by two. I watched, offered to help two gents well older then me, and they said 'just watch'. I did and they did..

Frank Whiteley

On Friday, April 5, 2013 11:11:06 PM UTC-4, Bill D wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2013 8:38:57 PM UTC-6, Eric Greenwell wrote: How about rigging or retrieving from a farm field? The wings look big and heavy, and so does the fuselage. ASK-21 wings are not that heavy. I rig two of them every time we fly. It's the easiest 2-seat glider I know of to rig. I really makes sense to store them de-rigged in a covered trailer if you don't have a hangar. My usual crew is teenage CAP Cadets who have never seen a glider before and we get it done in about half an hour. I can lift the root by myself but it's too wide for me to align the spigots so I need someone on the trailing edge. The fun part is to get the smallest Cadet to do the wing pins - their grin is priceless. A one-man dolly would be helpful but the wings are so wide it would need a huge saddle which is why I mentioned hard points. That way the dolly could be really small for storage.

We use a rigger and can assemble using 2 people in about 15-20 minutes.
Lots less lifting that way.
UH