Sparrowhawk Ultralight

wrote:

Eric

It's more of a marketing blurb than an actual account of what happened
at an event.

some people would consider it a bit misleading to say that on May 14 a
sparrowhawk flew the longest distance of the crystal squadron. While
failing to also say that the sparrowhawk was the only glider of the
crystal squadron to fly xc from crystal that day!

I think how many flew is irrelevant to the original question: Is it a
serious cross-country flier? I think Mike's flight indicates it is.

Hang gliders have flown diamond distance, so they should be considered
serious cross
country fliers also.

It didn't seem like the time to get into a philosophical discussion of
what a "serious cross country flier" is (it certainly meets my
standards, but that's another thread), but what I posted indicates it's
not just a local flier, and gave Hombres a way to assess the glider
himself, to his definition of "serious cross country flier".

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

My Russia works out at about 7 lbs/sq ft. Last September
I shared a thermal with a Sparrowhawk - it was turning
tight and climbing just a shade better than me. And
it's probably a little faster in cruise as well. To
my mind a 'serious cross-country ship' in the West
needs to carry 'serious landout and safety equipment'.
How much space and weight can the Sparrowhawk offer
when you're sitting in the cockpit ?

Ian



At 05:42 09 June 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Tim.Ward wrote:

Well, while the weight is low, the wing is small,
so the wing loading
is probably similar to a 1-26.

It's actually much higher than a 1-26. The 1-26 is
rated at 3.6
pounds/sq ft; the SparrowHawk is typically 5 to 6 pounds/sq
ft. This
makes a big difference! This wing loading is about
the same as Russia
AC-4, which is similar in performance.

As to resale price, that's a tougher one, because
I have not seen one
offered on the used market. I find that interesting,
because I seem to
remember that nearly as soon as the Russias and PW5s
became available
new, they became available used.

Tim Ward



--
Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Hmmm...not to dis' the PW5 or Russia, which I think
fit their missions well, the Sparrowhawk
seems to be very, very different from a typical
sailplane, while the PW-5 and Russia are not.

Something of an engineering marvel, in my opinion.
Haven't flown one yet, but the idea of a 145# or so
glider with that kind of no-flap performance is
simply mindblowing to me. If it weren't for the
over 50% price increase (over the past few
years) listed on the website, I suspect it
would have generated quite a few more sales.

$22k vs. $35k is enough to make some tilters (like
me)
consider other options. But it looks like they are
still gaining interested buyers.

At 23:24 08 June 2005, Tim.Ward wrote:

As to resale price, that's a tougher one, because I
have not seen one
offered on the used market. I find that interesting,
because I seem to
remember that nearly as soon as the Russias and PW5s
became available
new, they became available used.

Tim Ward


Mark J. Boyd

Something of an engineering marvel, in my opinion.

Pleaseee, if SH is an "engineering marvel" then constructor of Pewee
should get a Nopel prize...

M B wrote:

Something of an engineering marvel, in my opinion.
Haven't flown one yet, but the idea of a 145# or so
glider with that kind of no-flap performance is
simply mindblowing to me.

What kind of performance? I am still waiting on an
independent flight test of this ship.

The idea of an 11 meter ship with 36:1 glide ratio
seems unrealistic. I also wondered how a 150 pound
sailplane would have any penetration into the wind.

$22k vs. $35k is enough to make some tilters (like
me) consider other options.

I briefly considered this ship until I saw the price vs
performance. With instruments and trailer, this comes
out to $40k, for that I can buy that's two used libelles
that can really go 38:1.

On 9 Jun 2005 05:57:34 GMT, Ian Cant
wrote:

My Russia works out at about 7 lbs/sq ft. Last September
I shared a thermal with a Sparrowhawk - it was turning
tight and climbing just a shade better than me. And
it's probably a little faster in cruise as well. To
my mind a 'serious cross-country ship' in the West
needs to carry 'serious landout and safety equipment'.
How much space and weight can the Sparrowhawk offer
when you're sitting in the cockpit ?

Ian


The cockpit is very roomy, and the instrument panel lifts up with
the canopy.

On 9 Jun 2005 06:45:35 -0700, "Willie G" wrote:



M B wrote:

Something of an engineering marvel, in my opinion.
Haven't flown one yet, but the idea of a 145# or so
glider with that kind of no-flap performance is
simply mindblowing to me.

What kind of performance? I am still waiting on an
independent flight test of this ship.

The idea of an 11 meter ship with 36:1 glide ratio
seems unrealistic. I also wondered how a 150 pound
sailplane would have any penetration into the wind.


Isn't it the wing loading, rather than the gross weight of the
aircraft, that is a factor?

$22k vs. $35k is enough to make some tilters (like
me) consider other options.

I briefly considered this ship until I saw the price vs
performance. With instruments and trailer, this comes
out to $40k, for that I can buy that's two used libelles
that can really go 38:1.

In January both Dean Carswell and I performed a number of test
flights with the Sparrow Hawk at Caddo Mills, and we both were quite
pleased with it. The results will appear in Soaring soon.
It was very easy to fly, and to prove that, I somehow made 8 perfect
(in my opinion anyway) landings in a row. My wing loading was 5.15 psf,
but that included the 25 lb BRS parachute system.
Dick Johnson

The PW-5 has performance and materials and
weight within 30% of quite a few other gliders, including

the Russia and Grob 102 club.

If you are aware of a glider which has more than
a dozen produced by the factory which is within
30% of the performance and empty weight of the
Sparrowhawk, I would love to read about it. Please
post this info or e-mail it to me.

The Carbon Dragon seems the closest (and I also
consider it an engineering marvel) but the
difference is there is no factory producing a
finished glider in any noticeable quantity.
To my knowledge it is a
onesy or twosy amateur built glider.

flame suit on
It also gets its
performance by use of flaps, which I (being
a tilter) consider cheating...
:P

At 11:00 09 June 2005, Gk wrote:

Something of an engineering marvel, in my opinion.

Pleaseee, if SH is an 'engineering marvel' then constructor
of Pewee
should get a Nopel prize...


Mark J. Boyd

Ian Cant wrote:
To
my mind a 'serious cross-country ship' in the West
needs to carry 'serious landout and safety equipment'.
How much space and weight can the Sparrowhawk offer
when you're sitting in the cockpit ?

There is plenty of room behind the cockpit for the tiedowns and
emergency kit you'd want to carry, and the 5-10 pounds of weight won't
be a problem, except for the heaviest pilots with the BRS option installed.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA