American Spirit / Falcon Owners

Hi Bob,
Thank you for all the information in your post. I know its been a few years now, but I am investigating the possibility of buying a falcon kit.
I have tried to track down your recommended contacts. Ralph appears to have left us, and I am having trouble finding Marty Eiler.
Are you able to get a message(email /phone number) to him, or do you have his contact details?
Cheers
Marco

Hi Marco, I cannot help you any more than Google can.

--Bob K.

Marco, I think you need help that I cannot provide.
--Bob K.

I have flown both versions and was part of the crew that blew up a wing during static load testing. There are at least two fixes for the structural issue which Bob correctly.identified.

Handling qualities and performance are average and somewhat reminiscent of the Ventus that was used to create the design. There were large variations in the wing profile and smoothness on the ship I worked on. I was unable to get a decent contour on the wings despite many hours of filling and sanding. There was a depression on the upper skin that was too large to fill. Having wing skins lying around unsupported and bonding them outside of a mold is a poor strategy.

This is NOT a project I would undertake. Overhaul a Std Cirrus or similar or get one of Bob's kits, if available. i like building and working on aircraft. I did not enjoy working on the Spirit and the end product was highly unremarkable. All 1st/2nd gen. Factory glass ships are far better and easier to rig, fly, and maintain. And you do not have to fit a trailer from first principles- a challenging exercise unto itself.

Buying a glass ship from a random builder? Pass. I would require a static load test on all lifting surfaces prior to sale. And I would want to see it first-person.

Tom Riley in Tehachapi has an exceptional Spirit and trailer but is replacing it with an AS-W27. Perhaps a clue?

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 3:35:26 PM UTC+11, wrote:
I have flown both versions and was part of the crew that blew up a wing during static load testing. There are at least two fixes for the structural issue which Bob correctly.identified.

Handling qualities and performance are average and somewhat reminiscent of the Ventus that was used to create the design. There were large variations in the wing profile and smoothness on the ship I worked on. I was unable to get a decent contour on the wings despite many hours of filling and sanding. There was a depression on the upper skin that was too large to fill.. Having wing skins lying around unsupported and bonding them outside of a mold is a poor strategy.

This is NOT a project I would undertake. Overhaul a Std Cirrus or similar or get one of Bob's kits, if available. i like building and working on aircraft. I did not enjoy working on the Spirit and the end product was highly unremarkable. All 1st/2nd gen. Factory glass ships are far better and easier to rig, fly, and maintain. And you do not have to fit a trailer from first principles- a challenging exercise unto itself.

Buying a glass ship from a random builder? Pass. I would require a static load test on all lifting surfaces prior to sale. And I would want to see it first-person.

Tom Riley in Tehachapi has an exceptional Spirit and trailer but is replacing it with an AS-W27. Perhaps a clue?

I guess it all comes down to $$. Do you have access to details for the fixes for the wing structural issues, and can you please connect me with any technical information for the falcon.

Hi Mark, I guess it all comes down to $$. Do you have access to (and can you share) details for the fixes for the wing structural issues, and can you please connect me with any technical information for the falcon.
I also believe someone produced a builders newsletter. Any copies laying around?

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 1:25:57 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Hi Mark, I guess it all comes down to $$. Do you have access to (and can you share) details for the fixes for the wing structural issues, and can you please connect me with any technical information for the falcon.
I also believe someone produced a builders newsletter. Any copies laying around?

The bump solution was Ralph Luebke's and was a post build effort. Ralph passed away earlier this year. Dr. Mark Maughmer's sailplane design course had a kit donated and they came up with a solution, though I'm not sure that generally made available. That kit was used for design studies and if completed would never be flown due to liability concerns. RPI similarly designed a glider or two but those were only flown 2-3 times before becoming design studies or display aircraft for similar reasons. Mississippi State University had a kit donated. That kit was completed and was sold to one of the retiring faculty I believe and is still flying as far as I know. No idea what, if any, solution was used. IIRC, in a brief discussion with Mark the concept is to unitize the spar, root rib, and spar carry-through layups with rovings to provide additional strength and keep the external design shape.

Frank Whiteley

Frank is correct on the failure mode: root rib and spar caps separated from the skins.

I have no data on the repair mods but they held a second static test.

If you want a glider of that performance and money is an issue, get a second job or work more hours at your current job and either save the money until you have enough or take out a loan and pay it off as quickly as possible.. A partner will reduce the necessary capital by half.

If you want to build / work on airplanes, find a factory ship in need of refurbishment or work for an aircraft repair shop for minimum wage. Either way, you will get a world-class education in aircraft, will have a decent glider to fly, and it makes economic sense.


Building a sailplane from an ASC kit is false economy, even if someone gave you the kit! Difficult to envision that wxiating wing Skins have a reasonable shape given that the two I have intimate knowledge of were in bad shape direct from the factory and any unfinished kits have been lying about unsupported for a really long time. The odds of getting a decent airfoil arw not good.

Don't forget about the trailer! Fitting a trailer is major work and time and you will likely never have anything as good as a Cobra, Comet, or even an old Eberle the first time you build one.

You will pay yourself less (far less) than minimum wage building a kit. Even overhauling/refinishing a factory ship and trailer will pay you less than minimum wage.

I do not know what you have available for tools and a workspace but both cost $ and doing composites in the garage is very suboptimal.

There are decent deals on the market today and they are not selling (hint, hint) A Std Cirrus, AS-W15, Libelle, et al are fantastic ships and great values.