New low budget two seater

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:26:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Agnew wrote:
Meanwhile, the jigs for the Peregrine (Krosnos) are just sitting in shipping containers somewhere in Georgia. Could it be produced cost-effectively?

As I understand it, the problem with the Krosnos is that the engineering and certification are based on material specifications and thicknesses common in Europe but basically unobtanium here in the US. You'd need to either source all your materials from Europe, or re-engineer the aircraft to use US materials and thicknesses.

As a practical matter, it's not that hard. As a regulatory matter, however, it's a huge paperwork effort to go through every single blueprint and justify the change from some metric thickness to the nearest inch size. You basically have to re-engineer the entire structure.

Sourcing materials from Europe is a huge gamble. Here in the US there is a fairly fat supply pipeline supporting the homebuilt aircraft movement that currently produces the majority of all new general aviation aircraft. In Europe, the pipeline is a lot thinner and has a lot more friction and regulatory risk aversion, so it is likely that material costs would be a lot more.

Furthermore, given that prices for carbon fiber in terms of cost per unit mass and cost per unit stiffness are steadily declining, I think that carbon fiber is the way to go for any new design, even for a primary trainer.

Thanks, Bob K.

Another hurdle in producing the Puchatek / Krosno / Peregrine:
From memory, the existing 5000-hour limit never got to the point of having an inspection program for extension. This was to be worked on, but then Barry Aviation was awarded a contract that kept them quite busy.
The glider is a decent trainer: Roomy cockpit, good visibility, instruments front and rear, spin capable, aerotow or winch launching.
Jim


On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 1:14:31 PM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 12:26:35 PM UTC-7, Paul Agnew wrote:
Meanwhile, the jigs for the Peregrine (Krosnos) are just sitting in shipping containers somewhere in Georgia. Could it be produced cost-effectively?

As I understand it, the problem with the Krosnos is that the engineering and certification are based on material specifications and thicknesses common in Europe but basically unobtanium here in the US. You'd need to either source all your materials from Europe, or re-engineer the aircraft to use US materials and thicknesses.

As a practical matter, it's not that hard. As a regulatory matter, however, it's a huge paperwork effort to go through every single blueprint and justify the change from some metric thickness to the nearest inch size. You basically have to re-engineer the entire structure.

Sourcing materials from Europe is a huge gamble. Here in the US there is a fairly fat supply pipeline supporting the homebuilt aircraft movement that currently produces the majority of all new general aviation aircraft. In Europe, the pipeline is a lot thinner and has a lot more friction and regulatory risk aversion, so it is likely that material costs would be a lot more.

Furthermore, given that prices for carbon fiber in terms of cost per unit mass and cost per unit stiffness are steadily declining, I think that carbon fiber is the way to go for any new design, even for a primary trainer.

Thanks, Bob K.

Never mind, one day the US will progress past the 19th century and use the metric system.

On 6/15/2018 6:20 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
Never mind, one day the US will progress past the 19th century and use the
metric system.

Ha ha! Or maybe not. We (the US) built an early cruise missile you may be
familiar with; it was called "Snark."

We now build much better cruise missiles, though not metrically. I'm guessing
they have an engine-off L/D of around 10...as in 'somewhat less than' a 2-33.
Hence the engine assist, I guess.

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Thats why we call the US Retardistan.

Where are from, Charlie Quebec?Â* One of the countries the US has been
supporting since 1945?Â* Time to grow up and take care of yourselves.

On 6/15/2018 10:57 PM, Charlie Quebec wrote:
Thats why we call the US Retardistan.

--
Dan, 5J

Yeh, a civilised country, that sadly has supported every one of your wars since ww2 in battle.
Face reality, your protection is simply protecting your markets, Iraq, based on proven lies for example.
Retardistan is the first empire to go from rise to fall without an intervening period of civilisation.
Still, the rate at which you are ****ing off all your allies under cheetoh Hitler is impressive.

Off-topic, bitter, doubling-down, bile snipped...

While we're waiting for a new low-budget two-seater, is there a 2-33 available
for rent at Bitterwasser? I'd *love* to see how far she could go, there!

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:57:18 PM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
Thats why we call the US Retardistan.

So I have learned that the Aussies call Americans sepptos - Yank - skeptic tank = sepptos: And I have learned that some our country calls us "Retardistan". Perhaps it is the company I keep, but I can't think of one derogatory term for another country or their people that in the lexicon Americans'. I guess when one has it all they don't feel the need to disparage another. Just a point on this aviation related site, America exports more aviation goods and technologies than any other country!

On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:11:09 AM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 9:57:18 PM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
Thats why we call the US Retardistan.

Amazing the amount of jealousy around the world. But that's OK, it keeps them busy while they stare at US movies on their iPhones, while flying around the world in a Boeing airliner, before eating at McDonalds or getting coffee at Starbucks...

Last time I checked, it was a Tesla in orbit around the sun, not a (insert name of fancy car here).

Yep, 'Murica. Sucks to be the best.

Kirk
66