Build a 1-34 from plans?!

"Wayne Paul" wrote:

It should also be noted that not all HP have a "V" tail. Many HP-14s and
HP-16s have the more popular "T" tail.

Of course Wayne is right.

For the metal home builder a V-tail is a simplification. Just build
2 identical parts, but mirror imaged. This assumes the mixer comes
with the kit.

-Doug

Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:

A modern day kit like the Vans RV series (with prepunched skins and a
high degree of prefabrication) could be shot together in short order.
I think that 500 to 700 hours is do-able.

Go for it!

I would like to think that a short build time, reasonable performance
and low cost (when compared to a new glass ship of similar
capabilities) would be enough to justify someones time and effort.

The business case for the HP-24 project is built on a series of
surveys that indicated that the social and economic landscape of
soaring has changed dramatically since the HP-18 (and 1-34) heyday.
Specifically:

* Very few people are building gliders for the pure pleasure of it
anymore

* People already in the sport of soaring tend to have more disposable
income than free time

* Far fewer people are interested in mid-30 L/D than previously.

* People want composite construction for its fidelity to contour and
ease of assembly

* People are less likely to want metal because it oilcans, and takes
thousands of rivets to hold together, and requires special tools and
skills that many find daunting.

And that's why the HP-24 kit glider is an all-composite, low-40s:1,
quickbuild kit with a T-tail and a center stick and a $17,500 base kit
price. It won't be the greatest show on earth, but if you fly it like
you stole it, you can win contests with it.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

(Bob Kuykendall) wrote in message om...
Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:

A modern day kit like the Vans RV series (with prepunched skins and a
high degree of prefabrication) could be shot together in short order.
I think that 500 to 700 hours is do-able.

Go for it!

I would like to think that a short build time, reasonable performance
and low cost (when compared to a new glass ship of similar
capabilities) would be enough to justify someones time and effort.

The business case for the HP-24 project is built on a series of
surveys that indicated that the social and economic landscape of
soaring has changed dramatically since the HP-18 (and 1-34) heyday.
Specifically:

* Very few people are building gliders for the pure pleasure of it
anymore

* People already in the sport of soaring tend to have more disposable
income than free time

* Far fewer people are interested in mid-30 L/D than previously.

* People want composite construction for its fidelity to contour and
ease of assembly

* People are less likely to want metal because it oilcans, and takes
thousands of rivets to hold together, and requires special tools and
skills that many find daunting.

And that's why the HP-24 kit glider is an all-composite, low-40s:1,
quickbuild kit with a T-tail and a center stick and a $17,500 base kit
price. It won't be the greatest show on earth, but if you fly it like
you stole it, you can win contests with it.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24



Bob,

All very good points from a man far more knowledgable than me in the
soaring world. The 1-34 kit is just an idea (or dream) from someone
on the fringes of soaring who is currently used to far lower Ld's (if
thats possible) and enjoys building when it isn't flyable.

GR

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
m...
Earlier, (Gus Rasch) wrote:

* People are less likely to want metal because it oilcans, and takes
thousands of rivets to hold together, and requires special tools and
skills that many find daunting.

Only a blind idiot would argue that composite gliders are not popular,
but there is a segment of the market for metal and/or fabric gliders because
they can be tied out in the weather just like any other aircraft that you
see at any airport and you can be flying ten minutes after you arrive at the
gliderport. Also, these machines can more likely be successfully repaired
and maintained by using the skills of an ordinary airframe mechanic. In
short, metal gliders are great for commercial rental operations and for
people who like to fly, but do not like to fuss and tinker.


And that's why the HP-24 kit glider is an all-composite, low-40s:1,
quickbuild kit with a T-tail and a center stick and a $17,500 base kit
price. It won't be the greatest show on earth, but if you fly it like
you stole it, you can win contests with it.

Sounds inviting!

Vaughn




Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Are plans available? I bet SSC could sell the dickens out of plans and kits
if they made them available. Thoughts?

I don't recall that the 1-34 was available as a kit, but the 1-36 "Sprite"
(the "original" World Class sailplane) was in the mid 1980s. I don't know
that anyone ever built one outside SAC, perhaps a kit or 2 is still in stock
in Elmira.

(Gus Rasch) wrote in message . com...
Group,

Are plans available? Has anyone ever done it? I bet SSC could sell
the dickens out of plans and kits if they made them available. I bet
it would be a quick build too! Thoughts?

GR

From Practical Experience:
The 1-34 is a great club type ship. Easy to fly, reasonable
performance, can be stored outside.
What is NOT, is easy to build. I and my partner have brought 4 back
from the dead, mostly having wing damage. The structures are
conventional, but complex, with a lot of pieces. In particular, the
fuselage has a lot of parts, many machined. By comparison, the 1-26 is
quite simple. BUT it has less performance.
It is no surprise that Schweizer stopped producing the 1-34. It is
simply too complex for really economical manufacture, and thus totally
unsuited for home building.
But, if you can find a good project- go for it.
UH