Open Class Super-Ship from Windward Performance

On Friday, August 3, 2012 10:29:52 AM UTC-6, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Aug 3, 8:48*am, Tony wrote:

It's designed to hit $100,000 in 2010 dollars. That includes
convertible gear (nose roller and tail dragger), basic instruments,
removable nose and tail ballast, and open trailer.

I would very seriously consider a covered trailer - at least as an option. If the glider is made extremely easy to rig, many will consider a covered trailer a hangar on wheels and rig every day they fly. I do this with CAP K-21's and find it no worse than fitting a glider into a hangar. Just a bit of thought on rigging ease would make it a no-brainer.

A side-by-side fuselage could easily accommodate two main wheels making the fuselage self-stable thus eliminating the ubiquitous fuselage dolly and jack-able ramp. A hard points with 1/2-13 threaded holes at each wing panel CG allows a compact one-man rigging dolly's no bigger than a wing stand. The hard points also serve as tie-down points. A one-wheel wing tip dolly would allow walking the wings out of the trailer without lifting. As long as the tailplane is easily handled by one person, you have a easy one-man rig-able glider.

This is a particularly fitting time to consider producing a new 2-seat trainer. I think the market in the US is at least 400 gliders considering the demise of the L-13's and the rapidly shrinking Schweizer fleet combined with (hopefully) resumed growth in soaring. Internationally, the ASK-21 is the most popular trainer which, while excellent, is a 1980 design. The world market could be in excess of 1000 units

On Aug 3, 12:50*pm, Bill D wrote:

I would very seriously consider a covered trailer - at least as an option..

Absolutely! It's just that the covered trailer wouldn't be part of the
base package. The customer can convert the open trailer to covered by
skinning the sides and assembling the optional clamshell top.

If the glider is made extremely easy to rig, many will consider a covered
trailer a hangar on wheels and rig every day they fly...

That is as intended. The controls will be auto-connecting, too.

A side-by-side fuselage could easily accommodate two main wheels
making the fuselage self-stable thus eliminating the ubiquitous fuselage
dolly and jack-able ramp...

I'd have to take that under advisement. It would give this glider
different touchdown handling, especially in crosswinds. That's not bad
in and of itself, but may prove an obstacle to transition training to
single-place gliders or higher-performance twins.

*A hard points with 1/2-13 threaded holes at each wing panel CG allows a
compact one-man rigging dolly's no bigger than a wing stand. *The hard points
also serve as tie-down points. A one-wheel wing tip dolly would allow walking
the wings out of the trailer without lifting. As long as the tailplane is easily
handled by one person, you have a easy one-man rig-able glider.

That's a good idea. Threaded hard points could be used for trailering
fixtures as well. Glider finishes, even urethanes, can bubble when
exposed to moisture trapped between dollies and the paint.

This is a particularly fitting time to consider producing a new 2-seat trainer.
*I think the market in the US is at least 400 gliders considering the demise
of the L-13's and the rapidly shrinking Schweizer fleet combined with
(hopefully) resumed growth in soaring. Internationally, the ASK-21 is the
most popular trainer which, while excellent, is a 1980 design. *The world
market could be in excess of 1000 units

I hope that is so. I think I would have to sell at least 150 units to
amortize the tooling and development. At today's rate of US training
glider consumption, that is still a tough proposition. So this would
have to be a good glider for joyrides and sightseeing as well.

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

On Aug 3, 9:06*am, wrote:

And, move one seat back a few inches so those of us with wider shoulders
will have room to work. *When can I put in my order? 8^)

Marc, there will be enough fore-aft adjustability in the seats so that
you can arrange shoulders. Additionally, we might place the central
divider an inch and a half or so off center so that one seat is
naturally a bit wider than the other.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 2:32:29 AM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

Bob, good luck with this project - we need it!

However, I have to admit I would prefer the cockpit configuration to be tandem instead of side-by-side.

It's been tried, but with no real success so far in the gliding community. For good or bad, glider pilots seem to be fashion conscious and are attracted to the sleek lines of our racing gliders, and by extension, tandem 2 seaters.

As far as instructing, the quieter cockpits of gliders takes away some of the advantage of side-side seating during initial training. Once at the solo stage, I think the tandem configuration is better.

And for all those pilots who fly club or rental trainers solo - there is no doubt the tandem configuration is superior - if nothing else than the visibility out the empty side of the cockpit.

Kirk
66

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 9:28:40 AM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
However, I have to admit I would prefer the cockpit
configuration to be tandem instead of side-by-side.

Add my vote for side-by-side. I still have my whale
(RHJ-8), and most pilots have really enjoyed the
seating. No shouting back and forth down a long tube,
MUCH friendlier for rides, shared set of instruments.
Easier for instructor to see what's going on with
student and hit him. Visibility impact is not so much !

CG management is more challenging especially if
pilots are far enough in front of wing for good
visibility.

Much-appreciated side-by-side designs include
Platypus and Akaflieg Darmstadt D41 (sadly no
more). Most pilots who have flown these really
like the arrangement !

Always lots of opinions out there ;-)
Best Regards, Dave

The Taurus is available now. Side by side seating modern carbon construction and decent performance.

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 9:50:07 AM UTC-6, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Saturday, August 4, 2012 9:28:40 AM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:

However, I have to admit I would prefer the cockpit

configuration to be tandem instead of side-by-side.



Add my vote for side-by-side. I still have my whale

(RHJ-8), and most pilots have really enjoyed the

seating. No shouting back and forth down a long tube,

MUCH friendlier for rides, shared set of instruments.

Easier for instructor to see what's going on with

student and hit him. Visibility impact is not so much !



CG management is more challenging especially if

pilots are far enough in front of wing for good

visibility.



Much-appreciated side-by-side designs include

Platypus and Akaflieg Darmstadt D41 (sadly no

more). Most pilots who have flown these really

like the arrangement !



Always lots of opinions out there ;-)

Best Regards, Dave

On Aug 4, 9:09*am, Mike C wrote:

The Taurus is available now...

Absolutely. However, one the primary goals of the Aurora project is to
keep as much of the investment in the US as practical, and as much of
if it in the US soaring community as possible.

I wouldn't be entirely averse to outsourcing some of the parts, but
I'd like to keep all of the most steeply value-add portions of the
process onshore. It will promote soaring from the production line all
the way to the flight line.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Aug 4, 8:50*am, Dave Nadler wrote:

Add my vote for side-by-side. I still have my whale
(RHJ-8), and most pilots have really enjoyed the
seating. No shouting back and forth down a long tube,
MUCH friendlier for rides, shared set of instruments.
Easier for instructor to see what's going on with
student and hit him. Visibility impact is not so much !

CG management is more challenging especially if
pilots are far enough in front of wing for good
visibility...

Thanks, Dave! I have always been inspired by Henry Preiss's designs,
and by the practical get-it-done development ethic that let him and
Dick Schreder toss so many two-seaters into the sky.

The reason the canopy rail is so low on the sides is to promote
visibility down and offside, which is sometimes sub-par in side-by-
side designs.

Bob K.

the heading now seems off-topic.
Among many mods to my RHJ-8 were two ballast boxes
under the knees, and a 10lb slug to slide into the tail cone
for 2 pilots of over 300 lb total.
Easy and quick CG control.
John F


At 19:03 04 August 2012, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Aug 4, 8:50=A0am, Dave Nadler wrote:

Add my vote for side-by-side. I still have my whale
(RHJ-8), and most pilots have really enjoyed the
seating. No shouting back and forth down a long tube,
MUCH friendlier for rides, shared set of instruments.
Easier for instructor to see what's going on with
student and hit him. Visibility impact is not so much !

CG management is more challenging especially if
pilots are far enough in front of wing for good
visibility...

Thanks, Dave! I have always been inspired by Henry Preiss's designs,
and by the practical get-it-done development ethic that let him and
Dick Schreder toss so many two-seaters into the sky.

The reason the canopy rail is so low on the sides is to promote
visibility down and offside, which is sometimes sub-par in side-by-
side designs.

Bob K.

the heading now seems off-topic.
Among many mods to my RHJ-8 were two ballast boxes
under the knees, and a 10lb slug to slide into the tail cone
for 2 pilots of over 300 lb total.
Easy and quick CG control.
John F


At 19:03 04 August 2012, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Aug 4, 8:50=A0am, Dave Nadler wrote:

Add my vote for side-by-side. I still have my whale
(RHJ-8), and most pilots have really enjoyed the
seating. No shouting back and forth down a long tube,
MUCH friendlier for rides, shared set of instruments.
Easier for instructor to see what's going on with
student and hit him. Visibility impact is not so much !

CG management is more challenging especially if
pilots are far enough in front of wing for good
visibility...

Thanks, Dave! I have always been inspired by Henry Preiss's designs,
and by the practical get-it-done development ethic that let him and
Dick Schreder toss so many two-seaters into the sky.

The reason the canopy rail is so low on the sides is to promote
visibility down and offside, which is sometimes sub-par in side-by-
side designs.

Bob K.