If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
There have been 8 APIS kit imported into the United States.
6 have been complete and were flown by their original owner/builders. 1 of these has subsequently been sold and is flying with a new owner. 1 was lost in a fatal accident 2 are still being actively completed by their original owners. John Scott |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:27:48 +0000, Michel Talon wrote:
Bugatti does airplane parts nowadays, similarly Hispano-Suiza, etc. Hispano-Suiza isn't really a good example of a car company that changed into an aviation engine company since they have built aero engines since the start of WW1 and aircraft guns since 1936. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (RV)
At 16:29 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/flights.htm I work on an RV-8 two nights a week, and I've been to Vans factory in Aurora, Oregon, and it has been an incredible experience to see what you can do with a rational and balanced approach to a kit airplane. With the pre-punched and pre-drilled holes, relatively few jigs are required and the whole thing sort of just falls together in the correct alignment. It is easy to get started, and easy to keep making progress. The comparison to even the fairly complete Schreder kits of the 1960s and 1970s is like night and day. There's no stress and anxiety around transferring measurements and doing hole layouts and wondering if you're about to ruin a part by drilling a hole in the wrong spot. All the bulkheads and ribs are formed to shape, and almost all the skins are trimmed to outline. What's really amazing about the RVs, and is definitely an example to look to, is the resale value. Any reasonably well-built and flyable RV will command a price that is substantially greater than the cost of the kit plus the cost of the engine and avionics and other items that went into it. Thanks again, Bob K. RV is the marvelous example of modern technology!!! In the open minded high volume USA aviation contest. Same apply to some Ultralite kits. I have seen an Ultralight Rotax 912 Landafrica, which is an exact copy of the Zenair, built in two months. We'll see soon a kit glider with the same success of the RVs, in my mind the HP24 will sell like candies, if the price is right!!!!! So many para/delta gliders pilots are getting old and are ready to transition to the comfort of soaring!!!! They already know how to fly. They want to fly cheapo and often.............. They are used to go nowhere........... They will be able to fly into stronger winds....... They will have more time because of the economy. etc etc etc Only a few of them are millionaires. |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (RV)
At 16:29 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/flights.htm I work on an RV-8 two nights a week, and I've been to Vans factory in Aurora, Oregon, and it has been an incredible experience to see what you can do with a rational and balanced approach to a kit airplane. With the pre-punched and pre-drilled holes, relatively few jigs are required and the whole thing sort of just falls together in the correct alignment. It is easy to get started, and easy to keep making progress. The comparison to even the fairly complete Schreder kits of the 1960s and 1970s is like night and day. There's no stress and anxiety around transferring measurements and doing hole layouts and wondering if you're about to ruin a part by drilling a hole in the wrong spot. All the bulkheads and ribs are formed to shape, and almost all the skins are trimmed to outline. What's really amazing about the RVs, and is definitely an example to look to, is the resale value. Any reasonably well-built and flyable RV will command a price that is substantially greater than the cost of the kit plus the cost of the engine and avionics and other items that went into it. Thanks again, Bob K. RV is the marvelous example of modern technology!!! In the open minded high volume USA aviation contest. Same apply to some Ultralite kits. I have seen an Ultralight Rotax 912 Landafrica, which is an exact copy of the Zenair, built in two months. We'll see soon a kit glider with the same success of the RVs, in my mind the HP24 will sell like candies, if the price is right!!!!! So many para/delta gliders pilots are getting old and are ready to transition to the comfort of soaring!!!! They already know how to fly. They want to fly cheapo and often.............. They are used to go nowhere........... They will be able to fly into stronger winds....... They will have more time because of the economy. etc etc etc Only a few of them are millionaires. |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams wrote: This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to build. Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I can tell you how much it costs to build it." This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any particular location and with any particular construction method. At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote: On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote: I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is sustainable. Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not mine. Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether. Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for *small cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free, over all those years... If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters. Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours each, but I think it can work the other way as well. Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs, tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took to build the craft painting and polishing it. Brad- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Brad, That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. It took 42 hours to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and finish. This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area. |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (RV)
On Feb 3, 12:45*pm, Dan Silent wrote:
RV is the marvelous example of modern technology!!! In the open minded high volume USA aviation contest. Same apply to some Ultralite kits. I have seen an Ultralight Rotax 912 Landafrica, which is an exact copy of the Zenair, built in two months. We'll see soon a kit glider with the same success of the RVs, in my mind the HP24 will sell like candies, if the price is right!!!!! So many para/delta gliders pilots are getting old and are ready to transition to the comfort of soaring!!!! They already know how to fly. They want to fly cheapo and often.............. They are used to go nowhere........... They will be able to fly into stronger winds....... They will have more time because of the economy. etc etc etc Only a few of them are millionaires. Thanks, I do appreciate your enthusiasm and encouragement! Bob K. |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
On Feb 3, 5:07*pm, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad wrote: On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams wrote: This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to build. Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I can tell you how much it costs to build it." This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any particular location and with any particular construction method. At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote: On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote: I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is sustainable. Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not mine. Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether. Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for *small cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free, over all those years... If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters. Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours each, but I think it can work the other way as well. Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs, tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took to build the craft painting and polishing it. Brad- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Brad, * That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. *It took 42 hours to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and finish. *This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was a lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed! Brad |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
On Feb 3, 5:44*pm, Brad wrote:
On Feb 3, 5:07*pm, Uncle Fuzzy wrote: On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad wrote: On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams wrote: This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to build. Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I can tell you how much it costs to build it." This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any particular location and with any particular construction method. At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote: On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote: I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is sustainable. Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not mine. Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether. Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for *small cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free, over all those years... If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters. Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours each, but I think it can work the other way as well. Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs, tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took to build the craft painting and polishing it. Brad- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Brad, * That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. *It took 42 hours to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and finish. *This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was a lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed! Brad Fun stuff, Kinda like having a freight train at the end of the lines. Craig |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
In article Bob Kuykendall writes:
On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote: Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for *small cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free, over all those years... If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters. Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours each, but I think it can work the other way as well. I suspect that there would be difficulty moving the aircraft and all the manufacturing parts and tools around between the 10,000 individual workers. Alan |
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
On Feb 3, 11:40*pm, (Alan) wrote:
* I suspect that there would be difficulty moving the aircraft and all the manufacturing parts and tools around between the 10,000 individual workers. Could be. But it doesn't seem to have been a huge issue among the folks who have built and flown 6069 RVs. I can't see why modest-span gliders would be much different. Thanks, Bob K. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
X-Wings and Canard Rotor Wings. | Charles Gray | Rotorcraft | 1 | March 22nd 05 12:26 AM |