Russia Gliders??
Mark Webb
about purchasing a glider. Should I be thinking of something like a Ka6 or a
Libelle or a Russia? Soaring is something that I will probably be staying
with for many years to come. My wife has always been a nervous flyer so most
of my in-flight activities are solo. I'm way board of the $100. hamburger
routine. I would like something that I can work cross country but obviously
do not want to buy more aircraft than a low time guy can handle. Any
thoughts?
CDabolt
You don't mention how many power/glider hours you have, nor what your budget
is. In general, I would recomend that you buy the newest Standard or 15M ship
that you can afford. They are easy to fly, safe, and when you want to trade up,
they are easy to sell. Consider a Discus if it's in your budget..
Chris
Janusz Kesik
ontest as one of the equally good performers.
It's cheap and extremely easy to fly.
Otherwise go for a std / club class glass ship.
--
Janusz Kesik
Aero Club of Czestochowa, Poland
jant...@interia.pl
www.soaring.enter.net.pl
CDabolt <cda...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20010423143511.04236.0000069
2...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
Mark Webb
have approx 250 hrs power. I'm the former owner of a American AA1A an
aircraft thought to be a little bit hot. Lately I have been flying the
Cherokee line. My budget is under $20,000. I have seen Libelles' in the mid
teens which would be perfect. I am 5'10 145 lbs so a small cockpit is not a
drastic problem but how is the comfort on a long flight? Is there enough
room to read a chart, stretch, walk around :), take care of personal
business etc? Is the BRS chute option in the Russia a plus? My ultimate goal
is to get as good at this as I can and work up to some long x cntrys and
maybe tow out to western Pa or Sugarbush Vt from there who knows.I just love
to fly. Maybe someday down the pike competition, by then my daughter will be
out of school and I'll upgrade. Thanks all, Mark
Jay and Dale Pokorski
I just went through the same decision and decided to go with a Standard
Libelle. I seriously considered the Russia, but a former owner talked me
out of it - no negatives for the Russia, simply a significant step up in
performance. I believe I got a lot more airplane for the money - age does
not seem to be a major problem if it's in good shape. At 5'10 and 190lbs,
I'm snug but not uncomfortable so you should be fine. I find the handling
to be much more responsive/sensitive than anything else I've flown (1-23H,
1-26, L-33), so don't jump into one until you're ready.
Jay Pokorski
"Mark Webb" <mr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ueZE6.32917$IJ1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
BTIZ
I'm 5-10 and a snug fit.. but had no problems on a 135nm trip... my problem
was the width at the shoulders... the owner of the ship weighs in at 165 and
has plenty of room..
Get a Libelle!!! easy to rig.. and a great performer for the money...
TIZ
"Mark Webb" <mr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:w21F6.901$AU4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Tim Mara
I'm 5'11" and about 215 pounds......I still find the Libelle comfortable
though not spacious...and the Libelle is a wonderful sailplane to
fly!....Decent performance, great handling though it does require more
flying from the pilot than some later designs, super in weak lift, wonderful
to assemble, very good quality (not many gliders look as good as a Libelle
after 30 years!) and a good investment since the prices on Libelle's have
remained pretty steady at $15,000-$20,000 for the last 10-15 years...
I know of no one who has ever lived with a Libelle who regretted it.....just
a great ship....
tim
"BTIZ" <bt...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:teck1qt...@corp.supernews.com...
George Emsden
almost think of it as an open Libelle. Might have bought a Libelle if I were
smaller but having tried open class, I am reluctant to go back to standard
class.
My second choice would have been a LAK.
HTH
--
George Emsden
"Jay and Dale Pokorski" <pokor...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2koF6.2266$G04.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Doug Hoffman
performance if you check out the HP series. HP-18, RS-15, HP-14,
HP-11.
There are some real good buys available now and there is
surprisingly excellent support in terms of parts, technical
information, etc.
Check out http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/ for an
extensive used glider list and http://www.hpaircraft.com/
where you can buy new and used parts and more.
I'm "pickled tink" with my RS-15.
-Doug
CDabolt
I for sure would not advise any low timer to buy one. Even if you don't have
any trouble with it, there will likely be a long, long list of fix ups to do.
And no matter how hard you try, it will never be a glass ship, and will never
run with them either... If you are going to spend $20k; get glass.
--Chris
Armand A. Medeiros
not compare with glass. Also, the rigging is a bit more complicated and the
construction is a shot in the dark.
Armand
"CDabolt" <cda...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010425225838...@ng-mc1.aol.com...
Doug Hoffman
cda...@aol.com writes:
>Do you really think the HP line of sailplanes is a good choice for a new pilot?
No. Although I had a grand total of 25 hours of flying anything when I
first flew mine. Is he really "new" with 250 hours of power flight?
>I for sure would not advise any low timer to buy one.
Depends on your definition of low timer.
>Even if you don't have
>any trouble with it, there will likely be a long, long list of fix ups to do.
What?? I don't understand this statement. Mine was good to go.
>And no matter how hard you try, it will never be a glass ship, and will never
>run with them either...
*Any* of the HP ships will outrun the Russia (38-41 L/D) and do just fine
with a lot of the glass in that price range.
>If you are going to spend $20k; get glass.
That's my point, he need not spend $20,000. He did say that his
budget was "under" $20,000.
-Doug
Doug Hoffman
and Kestrel as only a 3 where most other gliders rate a
4 or 5 (reference Soaring July 1997). Now I've never flown
either of these ships so I can't comment beyond what Piggott
says. But I have flown 1-26 and G103 and prefer the
easier handling of the RS-15. Perhaps it's the winglets,
but my RS-15 is simply docile and tends to "mush" instead
of stall at very low speeds. The G103 has spooked me
more than once.
-Doug
Wayne Paul
A HP-16, HP-18 and RS-15 will run with glass ships priced under 20k. Anyway
my old HP-16T does and Tony Burton's RS-15 has been very competitive in
Region 8 (See http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/EH_TEAM.htm )
Tony currently is asking $11,400 US for his RS-15 (See:
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RS-15/C-GPUB.html )
For a more complete listing of Schreder designs take a look at
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Trading_Post/The_Trading_Post.html
Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/
Bob Kuykendall
>I have to agree with this post. Though they were
>nice 'kit' ships, they do not compare with glass.
Yo, Armand:
Howzabout you come race the Air Sailing contest and prove it? We'll do the first two turns together, and see what gives.
Bob '18K' K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: h201s25a82n47.user.nortelnetworks.com
==============================================================
Bob Kuykendall
Armand A. Medeiros
My comparison wasn't with flight characteristics so much as construction. I
agree they fly well etc. I simply don't trust in the chance that a homebuilt
ship with glued skins was constructed properly.
GLASS ships typically go together and come apart much easier than the HP-1x
(i think it was a 15). I helped a guy rig/derig his metal bird and it was a
pain with several little parts all over the place. I like a SINGLE pin
myself. The fit & finish is better on glass compared to most metal birds
I've seen.
Who built it? How do you KNOW FOR A FACT that it is constructed properly? At
least with a commercial ship, you have some notion of the quality. (not
meaning to put down anybody!!!) Factory built versions excepted of course...
As far as coming to Air Sailing...can't make it now. Hows about you buz over
to Minden the end of May and we can see how the 304CZ does against you? (all
friendly!!!!) I'll be there for a few days to inspect (and maybe
confiscate!) the plastic Jesus I hear so much about...
8-)
Armand
"Bob Kuykendall" <REMOVE_TO...@hpaircraft.com> wrote in message
news:9c9hko$ckpgj$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
F.L. Whiteley
"Armand A. Medeiros" <zar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ezYF6.13$Xc5....@news.pacbell.net...
> Excuse me for not being clearer... my fault.
>
> My comparison wasn't with flight characteristics so much as construction.
I
> agree they fly well etc. I simply don't trust in the chance that a
homebuilt
> ship with glued skins was constructed properly.
>
cross section of G103 wing to the SSA convention in Portland. Let me tell
you, there's not much inside of those wings. The interesting thing was the
mention of the amount of glue voids between the spar and skin when the
clamshells were put together. But the design, like most, is overbuilt and
the voids are not considered a significant issue. I gathered from JJ's
comments that he thought maybe they could do better though. Similarly, the
Vegas were known to suffer substantial delamination if the wing took a knock
from a rock or something on an outlanding. This was a design problem. You
may say that quality control could be better on a production line, but it's
still subject to variations, like a Ford built on a Monday in the UK. The
quality control on a homebuilt may be significantly better than a factory
job.
Frank Whiteley
Colorado
Armand A. Medeiros
for sure about anything and any given kit ship may indeed be built better
than any given glass ship. But, were I to put my money between any two
examples -commercial vs kit ship- , I would bet "commercially built" over
"kit built" any day of the week.
JMHO
Armand
"F.L. Whiteley" <gre...@greeleynet.com> wrote in message
news:i0ZF6.82$T3.171...@news.frii.net...
George Emsden
I also wonder if DP's rating was for an early Kestrel which was
under-ruddered. Now they all have larger rudders.
--
George Emsden
"Doug Hoffman" <dhof...@oakland-info.com> wrote in message
news:rQRF6.5134$Uu6.4...@monger.newsread.com...
Bob Kuykendall
>Excuse me for not being clearer... my fault.
>
>My comparison wasn't with flight characteristics so
>much as construction. I agree they fly well etc. I simply
>don't trust in the chance that a homebuilt ship with
>glued skins was constructed properly.
Fair enough. Choosing a glider is a very personal thing, and you've got to operate within your own criteria and comfort zone. I don't go out of my way to sell HPs to people who aren't inclined to tinker with things a bit. But that's a-gonna change...
>GLASS ships typically go together and come apart
>much easier than the HP-1x (i think it was a 15).
>I helped a guy rig/derig his metal bird and it was a
>pain with several little parts all over the place.
>I like a SINGLE pin myself. The fit & finish is better on
>glass compared to most metal birds I've seen.
I can't argue much with that, either, except to say that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL to the Heinlinear crowd), and that you pay for what you get.
And, BTW, the HP-24 will have two-pin assembly and auto-hookups. There will probably even be [sigh] a T-tail option.
>As far as coming to Air Sailing...can't make it now.
>Hows about you buz over to Minden the end of May and
>we can see how the 304CZ does against you? (all
>friendly!!!!) I'll be there for a few days to inspect
>(and maybe confiscate!) the plastic Jesus I hear so much
>about...
May do. I'll see if my testbed HP-18 is off its 50-mile test leash by then.
Bob K.
Armand A. Medeiros
The specs look good on the proposed HP-24 except for one thing, the V tail.
Two drivers of V tails I talked to don't like the crosswind performance.
Might you try a conventional tail too?
Nice web sight!
8-)
Armand
> And, BTW, the HP-24 will have two-pin assembly and auto-hookups. There
will probably even be [sigh] a T-tail option.
>
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com
F.L. Whiteley
> HP-24? WOW! I never even heard of anything past the HP-18!
>
> The specs look good on the proposed HP-24 except for one thing, the V
tail.
> Two drivers of V tails I talked to don't like the crosswind performance.
> Might you try a conventional tail too?
>
T-tail. New HP's might be better served by an all flying V ruddervator,
both in simplicity of construction and design, and shear effectiveness. The
SH design was both elegant and effective.
I thought the HP-20 flew, but the HP-21 was never completed. I'm not
surprised that there might have been some other designs conceptualized or on
the drawing board. The 24 is likely a more modern derivative.
Frank
Colorado
Doug Hoffman
zar...@pacbell.net writes:
>My comparison wasn't with flight characteristics so much as construction. I
>agree they fly well etc. I simply don't trust in the chance that a homebuilt
>ship with glued skins was constructed properly.
>Who built it? How do you KNOW FOR A FACT that it is constructed properly? At
>least with a commercial ship, you have some notion of the quality. (not
>meaning to put down anybody!!!)
>
Armand,
I shared this concern when I was making my decision of what to buy.
After carefully researching the NTSB accident database I could find
only 2 cases since 1965 where mis-assembly of the kit caused an
accident (a flap hinge was pop-rivetted on instead of solid rivets,
and a rudder cable was improperly swaged - an inspection by a
qualified person should have revealed both deficiencies).
Interesting that you should use the glued skins as an
example concern because I could find no instance where
a problem there caused an incident.
I concluded that the HP kits were were inherently well done and
likely resulted in a safe glider. In my search I did come across
an HP-18 that was obviously incredibly poorly put together. A
simply visual showed lots of waves in the wing skins and other
deficiencies. I was simply amazed that this fellow had logged
many hours in the piece of junk without incident! As with a
factory built, one has to carefully inspect the goods before buying.
The RS-15 I ultimately purchased is very well put together.
Many who have seen it up close were surprised to learn that
it is from a kit.
Dick Schreder's kits were perhaps unique in that they were
extremely well executed with all of the critical stuff
like welding and bending of metal already done.
In many cases one can meet and talk with the builder, such
as Tony Burton who built his RS-15 which is now for sale.
In short, the Schreder kits are perhaps unique and there
are *many* fine examples out there flying now.
-Doug
Udo Rumpf
"F.L. Whiteley" wrote:
> > HP-24? WOW! I never even heard of anything past the HP-18!
> >
> > The specs look good on the proposed HP-24 except for one thing, the V
> tail.
> > Two drivers of V tails I talked to don't like the crosswind performance.
> > Might you try a conventional tail too?
> >
> My old SHK could handle as much crosswind or more than conventional or
> T-tail. New HP's might be better served by an all flying V ruddervator,
> both in simplicity of construction and design, and shear effectiveness. The
> SH design was both elegant and effective.
>
> I thought the HP-20 flew, but the HP-21 was never completed. I'm not
> surprised that there might have been some other designs conceptualized or on
> the drawing board. The 24 is likely a more modern derivative.
>
> Frank
> Colorado
The only shortcoming of a Vtail, in the case of an HP, is its large rudder /
elevator,
in order to allow to do the work of the two separated controls in a conventional
tail.
This precludes extensive laminar flow on those surfaces, also in max deflections
exceed optimum values. A single surface maybe better aerodynamically in a Vtail
configuration but has other short coming. The handling on the ground is not an
issue.
as it relates to the HP Vtails. I do not know where the stories come from.
There maybe other issues that make the HP a glider not an easy glider
to handle on the ground, in a few individual cases, certainly not the Vtail.
The HP 24 is a new design by the new owner of <www.hpaircraft.com>
Regards
Udo
--
http://www.wingdolly.reach.net
Armand A. Medeiros
series. From what I have recently learned, it seems they were great kits.
Your conclusions seem valid and I will let it stand there. Even with glass
ships, things happen. I seem to recall an internal elevator bellcrank
disconnected due to a faulty nut at Minden? I think it was a DG 800???
Interesting you mention accident reports...only 2 incidents/accidents eah?
How do the percentages compare against glass? How many are actually flying
in the world? Oh oh...that is a whole 'nuther bag of worms!
Nobody is perfect, but my money is still on the professionally built product
(of course, I am not a test pilot either).
Armand
PS: There was recently (and may still be) and ASW-20 in good shape for sale
for less than 20,000!!! I would get that!
Bob Kuykendall
>Two drivers of V tails I talked to don't like the crosswind
>performance. Might you try a conventional tail too?
As others have posted, V-tails are not inherently problematical. They can, however, be applied suboptimally.
Sine and cosine being what they are, a V-tail is not as effective as a conventional tail of equivalent volume. However, this doesn't mean that a V-tail will always be less effective than a conventional tail. It just means that you'll need a little more tail volume with the V-tail.
As for the HP V-tails, Dick Schreder's original intent was to make all-out American soaring hot rods that could be built in the home workshop. As such, he had a lot of tradeoffs to make between cost, performance, handling, and ease of construction. I agree, as many have proposed, that the standard HP V-tail is a tad shy of volume, especially in comparison with more modern ships that have handling more in line with that expected by the average pilot. However, even after ten years of reverse-engineering Dick's designs, I'm still amazed that he was able to accomplish so much with the HP series.
V-tails do have one inherent advantage over conventional tails that pays off big in the home workshop: there's a bunch fewer parts to make and fit together. Even with the slight increase in complexity of the required mixer, the V-tail HPs have a lot fewer parts than (to compare apples to apples) the HP T-tails.
As for the HP-24 tail, I've spent a handful of time sketching out mechanical detail on a T-tail option. I was hoping that it wouldn't be necessary, but based on survey and (ugh) focus feedback, it looks like a viable T-tail option will be a fiscal and marketing necessity. This may even be the configuration for the Block I prototype aircraft.
The T-tail option will use a composite aft fuselage and vertical fin manufactured in right and left halves. I'll try to get a 3-view of it up on the Web soon.
Thanks, and best regards to all
Sula
>V-tails do have one inherent advantage over conventional tails that pays
>The T-tail option will use a composite aft fuselage and vertical fin
manufactured in right and left halves.
Sounds like this T-tail is fairly simple. Why is a V-tail simpler?
Bob Kuykendall
>Sounds like this T-tail is fairly simple. Why is a V-tail
>simpler?
There's no simple anser to that. You're trying to compare a specific ('this T-tail') with a a generic ('a v-tail'). Remember, we have to keep our comparisons relevant by considering the structural systems as well as the shapes that you're trying to achieve with them.
One relevant comparison is between the HP-14 V-tail and the HP-14 T-tail. Both are designed to the same general parameters, and both are about as simple as they can get. The T-tail is heavier, and has 35% more parts.
The general complexities of T-tails are these:
* necessity to reinforce the vertical fin to accomodate the static and dynamic loads applied by the horizontal stabilizer
* necessity to transfer control hookups up the vertical stabilizer to the elevator or stabilator (further complicated by demand for auto-hookup)
* necessity to design and manufacture the structural and control systems so that they don't bump into each other
Beyond that, the HP-24 T-option sounds and looks relatively simple because I've chosen to execute the vertical fin and aft fuselage for that option in composites. As to whether that junction actually is simple is a matter of opinion. You're welcome to come help us execute the molds for those parts and decide for yourself.
Getting back to our historical context, the original HPs were designed for construction without complex tooling in the home workshop environment. Given that, and the fact that the HPs predate a lot of the composite technologies now applied in sport aviation, metal was one of several reasonable choices. Dick Schreder was a Naval Aviator and a midwestern mechanical engineer, familiar with metal. So, metal it was.
Anyhow, working in metal, structural junctions such as that found at the intersection of a vertical stabilizer and horizontal stabilizer can get really complicated. Everywhere that you have a break in topology, you need either another part (with all its fasteners and handling overhead), or you need a complicating feature to the existing part. There's a lot of corners that you need to transfer substantial stresses around. Add to that the necessity of folding or removing the surfaces, and the number of parts goes up again. And, you have to add to that the extra parts required to meet the current demand for auto-hookup.
With composites, however, there are inherently a lot fewer parts. You don't need a structural junction everywhere you have a topological deviation from a ruled surface. You don't need a bunch of rivets, or holes for rivets, or even provisions for the holes. The composite matrix will easily follow almost any curve you can throw at it (within reason). You can reinforce it with extra fibers (or even prefabricated pultruded elements) where you need extra strength or stiffness. You can make it as thin as paper where you don't.
The upside of composites for the assembler of the parts is that there are a lot fewer parts to assemble, and that there are a lot fewer fasteners. The downside is that composite parts are generally more expensive to manufacture, and therefore more costly to the builder.
The reason I've chosen composites for that area of the T-option are based on fundamental social, technological, and economic changes in the landscape of homebuilt aviation since the HP heyday. These days, people generally value their free time more than they used to, and are more willing to invest their dollars in ways that reduce the overall build time.
Hope that helps some.
Bill Dean.
know Derek Piggott because I flew at Lasham for many years when he was Chief
Flying Instructor.
The biggest problem with the Libelle is poor air-brakes; this is in
comparison with later types such as the Pegasus or ASW19 (with double paddle
brakes). I can remember Derek saying that he noticed early pilots flying
the Libelle tended to land all over the airfield (Lasham is a full sized
WWII airfield); they just could not manage accurate energy control on the
approach. 10 knots too much when you flare and you go on for ever.
In addition Libelle handling requires more and constant attention compared
with say a Pegasus, it does not just sit there. Experienced pilots soon
learn to cope with this without thinking about it, but it adds a lot to the
workload for early pilots.
The Libelle 301 has worse airbrakes than the 201, and the flaps do not help
much. The tailchute is another complication which an early pilot can
easily get very wrong. I knew one 301 owner, experienced on other types,
who flew his ship for over a year before he dared try the tailchute.
The Kestrel19 seems big, heavy and ponderous to anyone used to a good
standard class ship; a K6 pilot would be in for a surprise. It is also
complicated; undercarriage, 2 flap levers (one for landing flaps with two
positions and one for flying flaps), tailchute deploy and jettison.
Landing flap limit speed is 65 knots. An early pilot on his first flights
on type may well wonder whether he is flying the aircraft, or it is flying
him.
The Kestrel19 wingtip clearance is not large, the fuselage is short and the
wings are heavy. You must not land with drift, and you must not try
steering on the ground (unless you actually want to groundloop). Keep it
level, keep it straight.
Don't misunderstand me, both the Libelle (201 & 301) and the Kestrel19 are
excellent machines in their price range, very good performance for the
money. But if I wanted to buy something as a club or rental ship, or for
an early pilot, I think I would look elsewhere.
Bill Dean U.K.
> Doug Hoffman <dhof...@oakland-info.com> wrote in message
> news:rQRF6.5134$Uu6.4...@monger.newsread.com...
>
> Doug.
Eric Greenwell
are talking about HP gliders? You are missing some people that would
be interested in HPs, and instead getting people like me that aren't.
In article <9c9onb$cj3tv$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de>,
REMOVE_TO...@hpaircraft.com says...
--
Remove REMOVE from my e-mail address to reply
Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)
Doug Hoffman
Now you're going to have to go admonish the guys in the
"Who should require PCC?" thread for discussing airbags
in cars. ;-)
-Doug
In article <9ccipr$31f0$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com> Eric Greenwell,
lennie_the_lurker
<zar...@pacbell.net> Did cause babble to appear with:
> But, were I to put my money between any two
>examples -commercial vs kit ship- , I would bet "commercially built" over
>"kit built" any day of the week.
>
In the world of the commercial, quality control is a buzzword used to
reassure the customer that he is getting the best product possible.
The rest of the buzzword is that production control has more to say
about it than quality. In the world of fact, companies that do not
produce profits don't last long. In the kit built world, the
constructor really doesn't have to meet any time factor and is liable
to do a much better job than the factory built ships. The kit builder
has no idea what safety factor has been built in, and is more likely
to assume that it has to be perfect. Perfection and production are
two different worlds, and production doesn't want to know about
perfection.
For the kit builder, knowing that the ass in the sling will be his is
a pretty good incentive to do it right. The production worker knows
how much imperfection is allowed. From my 40+years of working in the
shops, I'm not ashamed to state that to do better than factory quality
is easy. To make something not as good would be more difficult.
Richard
lennie_the_lurker
<dhof...@oakland-info.com> Did cause babble to appear with:
>
>*Any* of the HP ships will outrun the Russia (38-41 L/D) and do just fine
>with a lot of the glass in that price range.
It is very easy to point out the "superiority" of one design over
another while ignoring design criteria. But it's not very smart.
>
>That's my point, he need not spend $20,000. He did say that his
>budget was "under" $20,000.
>
I had the opportunity today, to be one of three people that had never
rigged a Russia before to do it. From the time we opened the box
until we were looking at a flyable airplane was 15 minutes. It didn't
fly today, it's only 4 years out of annual, but,,,
I'm quite certain, now that we know what has to be done, that it will
take no more than five minutes to get it out and have it rigged the
next time. The wings are light, two people can handle one with
absolutely no problem. Hookup is automatic, and they connected
properly the first time without problems. One pin holds the wings,
and one more holds the stab and elevator. Safety pins through both
and it's done.
The cockpit is roomy. That's the reason for the fat nose, it's called
"creature comfort". Most things fall nicely to hand and are about
where you would expect to find them. The seating position is similar
to my 1-26, quite comfortable. The finish of the interior of the
cockpit is nothing to write home about, but it wouldn't fly any better
if it was platinum plated. The exterior finish could use a little
wax, but after four years "in the box", one would expect that.
And the owner paid less than the $20k, including one of the nicest
trailers I've ever seen.
But really, offering other designs over what the original poster asked
about is about as helpful as me telling you to buy a lathe if you
asked where to get 11/16 OD tubing.
Ummmm, no. I don't know how it flys, probably never will. I've never
heard anything bad about it, nor that it has any "bad habits". Based
on what I've seen, were I looking for something in plastic, I'd give
it serious consideration.
Richard.
Armand A. Medeiros
<Lennie the Lurker> wrote in message news:3aeb8769...@news.mwci.net...
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 11:23:49 -0700, "Armand A. Medeiros"
> <zar...@pacbell.net> Did cause babble to appear with:
> > But, were I to put my money between any two
> >examples -commercial vs kit ship- , I would bet "commercially built"
over
> >"kit built" any day of the week.
> >
> Not that I hesitate to disagree with anyone Armand, but...
>
> In the world of the commercial, quality control is a buzzword used to
> reassure the customer that he is getting the best product possible.
> The rest of the buzzword is that production control has more to say
> about it than quality. In the world of fact, companies that do not
> produce profits don't last long. In the kit built world, the
> constructor really doesn't have to meet any time factor and is liable
> to do a much better job than the factory built ships. The kit builder
> has no idea what safety factor has been built in, and is more likely
> to assume that it has to be perfect. Perfection and production are
> two different worlds, and production doesn't want to know about
> perfection.
The people at HpH Ltd Certainly DO KNOW about perfection! I suspect others
do as well! I also suspect that most kit builders know quite a bit more
about what they are building than you give them credit for. I suggest you
talk to them. A lot of them are extremely smart and well versed.
> For the kit builder, knowing that the ass in the sling will be his is
> a pretty good incentive to do it right.
I have personal knowledge of an individual "Kit Builder" who killed himself
on maiden flight. He did it "right" according to his definition. He made
mistakes and died for it. Incentive means not much sometimes...whitness the
lack of PCC and the results thereof.
> The production worker knows
> how much imperfection is allowed. From my 40+years of working in the
> shops, I'm not ashamed to state that to do better than factory quality
> is easy. To make something not as good would be more difficult.
>
> Richard
I sure hope you never built anything I ever sat in...piss poor attitude
about people and what they do. It may be true to some extent, but not
generally. Most people like to do a good job!
I would also like to know WHERE in those 40 years you worked so I could warn
others about what you built.
Armand
Doug Hoffman
In article <3aeb8f50...@news.mwci.net> Lennie the Lurker, writes:
>I'm quite certain, now that we know what has to be done, that it will
>take no more than five minutes to get it out and have it rigged the
>next time.
Yep. There is one Russia where I fly and we are all amazed at
how quickly and easily he can rig/derig. This is a large
advantage. Easier on the back too.
>The cockpit is roomy.
Yep. Cockpit comfort is *not* an issue with the Russia.
Also, the short wings make off-field landings less worrisome.
Also, the option to install a BRS is nice.
There is a lot to like about the Russia, and the factors you
mention should be considered by anyone in the market.
-Doug
O'Neal
you and one for the club! Both come with fresh annuals.
Bob
Russia AC-4B, #013, NDH, Winter ASI and Variometer, Cambridge Electric
Vario, altimeter, compass, Delcom, canopy cover, trailer available. $13,500
w/o trailer. $15,000 w/trailer. 817.448.0003. TX Email: dmoc...@flash.net
RUSSIA AC-4A, #008, NDH, Winter ASI, Variometer, Cambridge Electric Vario,
altimeter, compass, Delcom, canopy cover, Johnson Fairings, trailer
available. 14,000 w/o trailer. $15,500 w/trailer. 817.448.0003. TX Email:
dmoc...@flash.net
DJA
DJA
"O'Neal" <bob....@home.net> wrote in message
news:3AEBFD52...@home.net...
lennie_the_lurker
>do as well! I also suspect that most kit builders know quite a bit more
>about what they are building than you give them credit for. I suggest you
>talk to them. A lot of them are extremely smart and well versed.
Not suggesting that HpH doesn't know about perfection, but they also
know where the limits of need for perfection are.
>
>I sure hope you never built anything I ever sat in...piss poor attitude
>about people and what they do. It may be true to some extent, but not
>generally. Most people like to do a good job!
Not about the people, but about the bean counters. In the 15 years
that I was an inspector, I never saw quality control win an argument
with production control. It is very difficult to have much pride in
what the workers do when the controling factor is the man with the
stopwatch, and the bean counter that doesn't understand anything but
the numbers on the ledger. The world of production is anything but
forgiving, but the worker is the one that usually pays the price. If
a man "under-produces", he is out of a job within a short time, and
someone that doesn't understand the processes involved is the one
calling the shots. Been there.
>
>I would also like to know WHERE in those 40 years you worked so I could warn
>others about what you built.
>
Pick a company, Armand. None of them are any different. The world is
not as it was 100 years ago, and the craftsman is not in control of
what leaves his work station. Not that "old time craftsmanship" is
completely dead, it survives in the hands of those that are amateurs
or no longer under the pressure to "produce".
No, Armand, exceeding the quality of a factory built unit is not
difficult, all one has to do is not allow anything that is less than
perfect to remain that way. Not that I will apply this to everything,
there are some things that just are not practical when applied to a
"one off" unit, However, I demand more of myself when working at
home than I ever did when working production, and as I'm the only one
I have to answer to, I usually get it. I'm also certain that if I
kept strict track of the time that I spent, and charged it back to the
customer, they would never be back. I have a reputation for doing
excellent work, but also for being able to point out every tiny
imperfection, most of which nobody else would ever see.
Richard
Jim
(as well as several of the production Russias) at:
Just type in "ac-4c" (without the quotes) in the search window.
I'm building the Russia in the photos and, from my experience, it would be
hard to improve on the quality of the parts that I have in my kit.
Jim
Armand A. Medeiros
Regarding work qualtiy,
There are those that do ONLY what they are told to do.
There are those that do as much as they can do within the alloted time and
budget. This is buisness.
There are those that take "pride in craftsmanship" and those that don't know
what the words mean.
In short, there is a whole world of different people out there with as many
views and capabilities.
We can at least give credit where credit is due...
Armand
<Lennie the Lurker> wrote in message news:3aec1517...@news.mwci.net...
Walt Konecny
<zar...@pacbell.net>
>The people at HpH Ltd Certainly DO KNOW about perfection
Too bad they forgot about it on 304 CZ serial #23.
wk
lennie_the_lurker
>
>Regarding work qualtiy,
>
>There are those that do ONLY what they are told to do.
You're showing an unfamiliarity with modern production methods,
Armand. You no longer take a blueprint to a skilled person and expect
him to do his best. NOW, the skilled one is handed a packet
containing not only the blue print but a detailed method and process
sheet, prescribing all tooling, coolants, feeds and speeds. Lastly
but not the least, a time study methods sheet which prescribed how
long you had to produce one standard piece, and if you didn't produce
125% of that, you were unemployed. None of these were actually
written by people that made the parts, but by "process engineers" that
were barely capable of telling one machine from another without signs
on them. Such is the "way of the future" and modern production
methods.
>
>There are those that do as much as they can do within the alloted time and
>budget. This is buisness.
Yes. And the fact that a homebuilder or hobbyist is free from these
constraints makes possible much finer workmanship and quality. At any
of the airshows, you will not see any factory ship taking any awards,
simply because none of them measure up to the work by a dedicated
workman.
>
>There are those that take "pride in craftsmanship" and those that don't know
>what the words mean.
In view of the "way of the future", it's hard to take pride in being
just another drone. Business can complain all they want, but nobody
has done any more to eliminate pride of craftsmanship than business
itself.
>
>In short, there is a whole world of different people out there with as many
>views and capabilities.
>
>We can at least give credit where credit is due...
Knowing that most quality problems in any production facility are the
result of saving pennies, I have a very hard time coming to sympathy
with them. I like to produce work that I can be proud of, and
fortunately, I don't have to answer to anyone but myself. I am my own
worst critic, and no inspector will ever be harder on me than I am. I
also know that not every home craftsman has the benefit of 40 years in
a profession, nor the willingness to throw out a marginal part and
start over. But most of them are still better than what will come
from a production facility.
Richard
>
Walt Konecny
> <zar...@pacbell.net>
>Lennie,
>
>Regarding work qualtiy,
>
>There are those that do ONLY what they are told to do.
Reality 101: Brokers have promised stockholders that the stock price will
climb.
All else is secondary, if that.
wk
Armand A. Medeiros
> You're showing an unfamiliarity with modern production methods,
> Armand.
Not really...suppose I was just dreaming of the day that someone could make
parts better than the CNC can. It takes a PRO to do that. In fact, some of
the best work we have hired out (machine shop wise) is through a retired
machinist who does work in his own shop...cheaper, faster, more accurately
and with pride!
I do know what can be done...I expect it from everyone and am constantly
disappointed...
> >There are those that do as much as they can do within the alloted time
and
> >budget. This is buisness.
>
> Yes. And the fact that a homebuilder or hobbyist is free from these
> constraints makes possible much finer workmanship and quality. At any
> of the airshows, you will not see any factory ship taking any awards,
> simply because none of them measure up to the work by a dedicated
> workman.
Agree with you unfortunately...for most things.
> >
> >There are those that take "pride in craftsmanship" and those that don't
know
> >what the words mean.
> In view of the "way of the future", it's hard to take pride in being
> just another drone. Business can complain all they want, but nobody
> has done any more to eliminate pride of craftsmanship than business
> itself.
True...bottom line is the dollar...
> >
> >In short, there is a whole world of different people out there with as
many
> >views and capabilities.
> >
> >We can at least give credit where credit is due...
> Knowing that most quality problems in any production facility are the
> result of saving pennies, I have a very hard time coming to sympathy
> with them.
I have to agree. As a company, first we sell it, then we put it
together..then we ship it...then we design it...then we fix it...then
document it...and if we get real lucky, it might come close to what the
customer wants! Sheesh...
But these sailplanes...they are art objects in themselves and I have to
admire the work! I couldn't do better than them...
Armand
> Richard
> >
>
lennie_the_lurker
<wkon...@uswest.net> Did cause babble to appear with:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:52:42 -0700, "Armand A. Medeiros"
>> <zar...@pacbell.net>
>
> >Lennie,
> >
> >Regarding work qualtiy,
> >
> >There are those that do ONLY what they are told to do.
>
>Reality 101: Brokers have promised stockholders that the stock price will
>climb.
>
bought by a european firm and promptly moved overseas.
Look for the name of J.I.Case to disappear after a 160 year history.
The plant in the original location is to be closed and razed next
year. Bought by New Holland. Founded by Jerome Increase Case in
Racine, Wisconsin. New Holland opened their benevolent nature by
announcing that this will be the first plant closed. Maybe some
indication of their intentions?
Richard
lennie_the_lurker
>> Armand.
>
>Not really...suppose I was just dreaming of the day that someone could make
>parts better than the CNC can. It takes a PRO to do that. In fact, some of
>the best work we have hired out (machine shop wise) is through a retired
>machinist who does work in his own shop...cheaper, faster, more accurately
>and with pride!
I was fortunate enough to have my first machine experience under the
"kind guidance" of several toolmakers that were getting close to
retirement. But this was back in the '60s, before things like SPC,
Demming, and the "japanese management methods" were in fad, or even in
existance. Unfortunately, most of us that were trained during this
period are retired, or dead. Training became looked at as simply an
expense to be eliminated, and those of us that can do the work without
the computer didn't have a chance to pass it along. On the day that I
retired, along with several others, the company lost the skill and
knowledge of a combined 220 years of experience. I was the last gage
technician to use as simple a device as a sine bar. It is now done
with a CMM. The sine bar cost in the area of $200. The CMM cost
nearly 1000 times as much.
>
>But these sailplanes...they are art objects in themselves and I have to
>admire the work! I couldn't do better than them...
>
What I have found, Armand, is that you are limited only in your
knowledge of the subject at hand, which can be increased easily, or
your faith in your own ability to accomplish what you want to. When I
find myself thinking "I don't think I can do.....", it's time to quit
thinking and just do it. I did not get to be the metalworker I am by
not pushing my limits, and I know many others that are by far my
masters. Being retired, or a hobbyist, removes the time constraint
and allows us to do the absolute best we can. Something we could
never do in a production situation. I don't have a lot of money, but
all the time I need.
Richard
Robert Ehrlich
>
> But these sailplanes...they are art objects in themselves and I have to
> admire the work! I couldn't do better than them...
>
time constraints probably don't exist by them.
Walt Konecny
> Reality 201: When the price has climbed enough, the company will be
> bought by a european firm and promptly moved overseas.
>
> Look for the name of J.I.Case to disappear after a 160 year history.
> The plant in the original location is to be closed and razed next
> year. Bought by New Holland. Founded by Jerome Increase Case in
> Racine, Wisconsin. New Holland opened their benevolent nature by
> announcing that this will be the first plant closed. Maybe some
> indication of their intentions?
Stanley tools, the "American" tool company (tools, hardware, etc) made
decent tools and hardware, not the finest, but decent. Now, their name is
synonymous with junk, not one piece made in the US, all comes from China. A
lot of the street junk sold by our "big 3" auto manufacturers is made and
assembled in Mexico - - and performs as well. Our "next leap into the
future" with sailplanes, the mostly stillborn Genesis, is manufactured
somewhere in lower Slobbovia, because here we just don't have the know-how
to build a piece of plastic. Gee, I wonder where all the boats we have in
the US come from? We can build million $$ boats in molds, but not a $40K
glider? Hmmmm.... Now, with David Habercom, the lead trumpeteer for the
should-be 6000-strong-by-now PW-5 world class debacle selling his PW-5, does
that signal the official end of the PW-5 World Class, as seen through the
eyes of PW- lovers?
Let's hope so.
wk
BAToulson
>Reality 201: When the price has climbed enough, the company will be
>bought by a european firm and promptly moved overseas.
>
>Look for the name of J.I.Case to disappear after a 160 year history.
>The plant in the original location is to be closed and razed next
>year. Bought by New Holland. Founded by Jerome Increase Case in
>Racine, Wisconsin. New Holland opened their benevolent nature by
>announcing that this will be the first plant closed. Maybe some
>indication of their intentions?
Before there can be a buyer there has to be a seller!
If Case were that good a company they could have been bought by some of your
countrymen - so where were they at auction time?
Also, the same has applied to Ford, Fiat and Massey Ferguson etc., all have
changed hands in recent years as they have to trade in the global market and
this often means joining with the opposition to ensure survival rather than
competing with them where no one wins means. It is a similar scenario in most
businesses.
But the seller has the final say - if he's still solvent!
Barney
UK
BAToulson
>NOW, the skilled one is handed a packet
>containing not only the blue print but a detailed method and process
>sheet, prescribing all tooling, coolants, feeds and speeds. Lastly
>but not the least, a time study methods sheet which prescribed how
>long you had to produce one standard piece, and if you didn't produce
>125% of that, you were unemployed. None of these were actually
>written by people that made the parts, but by "process engineers" that
>were barely capable of telling one machine from another without signs
>on them. Such is the "way of the future" and modern production
>methods.
>>
I'm afraid even you are dated! You do not need process engineers of the type
you describe but robots and computer programmers and state of the art software.
How many man hours are spent actually making your car? Almost none I bet, they
do little more than remove the dust at the end of the assembly line, the real
hero's are the software designers and robot makers!
Yet we have the most reliable cars ever made!
The British car industry died in the 70's, to a large extent because of the
unwillingness of unions to accept that cars could not be made by craftsmen
anymore - too expensive - and, by the time management got to grips with that
the Japanese had opened new, modern factories, using high tech manufacture, in
the UK making cars the customer wanted to buy and at prices they could afford.
None of these were in the area's of traditional craft skills but on green field
sites where they could establish new management practises without having a
strike verey week.
An old English (or was he Danish?) King (Canute) also tried to stop the
inevitable tide coming in and look what happened to him!
Barney
UK
Parkito
Parke
Michael
> I shared this concern when I was making my decision of what to buy.
> After carefully researching the NTSB accident database I could find
> only 2 cases since 1965 where mis-assembly of the kit caused an
> accident (a flap hinge was pop-rivetted on instead of solid rivets,
> and a rudder cable was improperly swaged - an inspection by a
> qualified person should have revealed both deficiencies).
Well, maybe. I've seen aircraft that were professionally inspected
(just out of annual) come out of the shop with worse.
I would also caution you that searching the NTSB database for
accidents of experimental aircraft is not as simple as it looks.
The builder is free to give his aircraft whatever make and model
number he likes, and the NTSB will use that. As a result, any
search on a homebuilt is likely to be incomplete.
> Interesting that you should use the glued skins as an
> example concern because I could find no instance where
> a problem there caused an incident.
Sure - but how do they age with flexing? Anyone who has
ever flown a long-winged metal ship has gotten used to the
at-first disconcerting oilcanning sound. I have to ask -
how many of these wings have over 1000 hours? How
are they doing? Have any of them failed on the ground?
Are there any that old at all? In many aircraft, problems in
the design are discovered right around the 1000 hour mark,
where the design turns out not to have aged gracefully.
> I concluded that the HP kits were were inherently well done and
> likely resulted in a safe glider. In my search I did come across
> an HP-18 that was obviously incredibly poorly put together. A
> simply visual showed lots of waves in the wing skins and other
> deficiencies. I was simply amazed that this fellow had logged
> many hours in the piece of junk without incident! As with a
> factory built, one has to carefully inspect the goods before buying.
But there are two important differences between homebuilt and
factory built. The first one you've just mentioned. The quality
of workmanship is in question. Lennie's ranting on the poor
quality of mass manufactured goods notwithstanding, there is
a lot of quality control that goes on in aircraft manufacturing,
some of it regulatory (meaning driven by bureaucrats rather than
bean counters). Thus a certain minimum is met. This is not
true when someone builds something in his garage. On average
the amateur-built product may be better, but the worst done
by the amateur will be apalling to even the most lackadaisical
professional. Of course this takes a special kind of amateur -
the kind who thinks he is smarter than everyone else and
either doesn't get anyone to check his work or ignores the
advice of the professionals - but aviation tends to draw a
fair aliquot of those.
However, in general I must agree with Lennie - the quality of
the work in an amateur-built and amateur-maintained aircraft
is usually much higher than what you see when built at the factory
and maintained at the repair shop. An owner will carefully,
lovingly, painstakingly do things that an employee can't. When
I annualed my glider I spent at least 50 hours and $200 in
parts and materials fixing all the things I just could not live with,
including things a shop owner (IA - person certified to work on
aircraft for non-US readers) signed off on the year before. And
there really was nothing seriously wrong. At a nominal $40/hr,
$2200 to annual a $7000 glider is ridiculous, and yet I only did
what I considered the bare minimum. I am selling the glider
because I simply do not have time to maintain it to my standards
and fly it enough to make the investment in time worth it. But
I also know an owner who repairs his aircraft with baling wire
and duct tape.
When the work is metal or fabric, poor workmanship is relatively
easy to spot if you know what you are looking for. Not so in glass,
where errors, once made, are not easily detectable. Of course
the latter may only be my ignorance - I've worked a fair amount
in metal and did a complete restoration in fabric, but my glass
experience is minimal so I may simply not know what to look for.
The problem is that I also don't know anyone I trust who knows
what to look for, and thus would not consider the purchase of
a used or amateur-built glass aircraft.
At any rate, issues of poor workmanship where such is detectable
are no more (and often less) significant in a homebuilt aircraft
than in an older factory built one, since poor maintenance can
have as much impact as poor construction. Where they are
not detectable, I have a lot more faith that a glider built in a
factory with an approved production certificate meets minimum
standards than one built in a garage.
The real issue with homebuilts is not that they are amateur built -
it is that they are amateur designed. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to build an aircraft that is solid, rugged, and handles well
if provided with a kit or even detailed plans. It DOES take a
rocket scientist to desigh such an aircraft, and thus create the
plans.
Every certified aircraft leaves the factory conforming to the
plans. Any changes to the type design must undergo a
long and complex approval process, to ensure a mistake is
not made. Changes made after the aircraft leaves the
factory have a similarly stringent approval process.
An individual builder is free to deviate from the kit or
plans at will, to substitute parts, or to redesign any system
or component for any reason. Since (at least in the US)
there is no requirement for the plans to be kept on file
anywhere, for all practical purposes every subsequent
owner is free to make any changes he sees fit, without
documenting anything. It's not legal, but it happens and
there's no way to do anything about it.
> Dick Schreder's kits were perhaps unique in that they were
> extremely well executed with all of the critical stuff
> like welding and bending of metal already done.
They are perhaps unique in the soaring homebuilt world - in
the power homebuilt world, there are quite a few such kits.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, homebuilding is a lot more popular
among power pilots than glider pilots.
> In short, the Schreder kits are perhaps unique and there
> are *many* fine examples out there flying now.
I happen to own one. It's an HP-11 with a T-tail (shameless
plug: it's for sale) and I've been very happy with it. But there are
issues. What's the polar? Nobody really knows. How did
conversion to fixed gear affect the best L/D, the polar, etc?
Nobody really knows. What's the optimal flap setting for
thermalling? Nobody really knows.
HP's have a very good reputation in the soaring community,
and virtually any US soaring pilot (and quite a few outside the
US) knows of and about them. But the fact is they are small
potatoes in the homebuilding world - there are probably no
more than 300 out there, all models combined, and no more
than 100 of any model. And the ones out there are just not
flying that many hours. I've never seen one with more than
1000 hours. Keeping in mind that no two are really alike, I
really don't think the statement that they have a good reputation
has all that much meaning.
One must also remember what they are by design. They
were designed to have good SOARING qualities - not
necessarily good flying qualities. They CAN land very
short and very steep - far more so than anything I've seen
with comparable soaring performance made in that era -
which is great if you must outland one. But I also know
that when I bought mine, I made quite a few flights where
I was terrified of getting out of gliding range of the home field
because I could not consistently put it within 500 ft of
where I wanted it. Eventually I learned how to handle it,
and now it's not an issue.
The takeoffs were also quite exciting until I figured out
how to handle it on the ground - once I almost popped
off tow but decided I could save it. And the landings
were, well, scary until someone told me about going
to negative flaps once on the ground.
Bottom line, I don't think the HP's are for the novice
pilot. In general, I think that's true of most homebuilts.
Usually, when a homebuilt becomes popular it's
because nothing you can buy at a reasonable price
will do what it will do. But there's no free lunch.
Despite the hype of the homebuilt world, the guys
who design the homebuilts are not any better than
the guys who design certified aircraft - and quite often
not nearly as good. They don't have access to better
tools, or materials, or data. The people who will
build the kits may be more careful than the guys
who work in the airplane factory, but they are not
more skilled. Bottom line, the only way a homebuilt
can outperform a certified aircraft is to use an
unproven technology (scary) or to trade off some
flying qualities. The latter is what the HP's do.
You can buy an HP-11 (mine, for example) for less
money than a 1-26 goes for. It will outperform the
1-26 in every way - it will glide flatter, it will core
tighter (with flaps), and it will land steeper and
shorter. But man am I ever glad that my first flight
in a single seat aircraft was in a 1-26 and not an
HP-11, and I had 300+ hours before I first got into
a single seat aircraft. (I was a power pilot before I
started flying gliders). I think at 300 hours I would
probably have done OK with the HP-11. I think
putting an average student pilot with 10 hours total
time into an HP would be insane. I think putting
the same student into a 1-26 is just fine, and soaring
clubs do it all the time.
I spent a lot of time hashing this out not so much for
Doug's benefit (obviously he made his decision and is
happy with it) but because I am seeing a lot of glider
pilots looking for a first ship taking a careful look at the
HP's (including mine). I've sent a couple of them looking
elsewhere. I can understand why they are looking - it's
a lot of bang for the buck. It can be kept tied down
and assembled, since it's all metal. And there is that
'good reputation.'
But I think in reality they are a specialty item. They really
do not have the performance to satisfy an experienced
soaring pilot, unless his finances are so strapped that
he just can't afford better. Their handling qualities make
them unsuitable for the low time pilot. About the only
real market for them is the transition pilot - a power
pilot who won't find the handling qualities all that
difficult but is only just getting into soaring and will be
satisfied by the performance for quite a while.
In fact, I bought mine from such a pilot. He bought a
Mosquito to replace it.
Michael
BPattonsoa
>1000 hours.
Come to the Sports Nats this year and look at my HP-18 with over 1200 hours
chase the latest glass. Great handicap too.
.>Bottom line, I don't think the HP's are for the novice
>pilot. In general, I think that's true of most homebuilts.
I flew my HP-18 with less than 50 hours in gliders and none in power. Even
though I would not recommend doing test flights at that stage, the ship is not
hard to fly. Might even be easier because the method of landing with flaps is
a lot different than spoilers and the "bad" habits are not so deeply
ingrained.. I hate to do bi-annuals because I end up in a spoilered ship and
generally blow the first landing.
By the way, I also flew my RV-6A (solo) with a power ticket with the ink just
dry. This time I gave the first flight to an experienced RV pilot, my
instructor. My first RV flight was with the same instructor, and we did 15
hours of my training in the RV.
Bruce Patton.
lennie_the_lurker
babble to appear with:
>
>
>Before there can be a buyer there has to be a seller!
>
>If Case were that good a company they could have been bought by some of your
>countrymen - so where were they at auction time?
Good question. I suggest you ask Jean-Pierre Russo, who has been the
president of Case for the last ten years. But the pattern is the same
as has been followed in almost every merger with a european company.
There are six plants in the US slated to be closed within the next
five years, only one in europe. Which I find strange, having worked
in the recieving inspection department for a while, and knowing that
the reject rate for the gears made in the former David Brown plant is
close to 30%. As soon as the closings are completed, we will import
gears from england, assemble transmissions for the US market, export
those same transmissions overseas to have them assembled into
tractors, which we will then import for sale in the US market. IF
something here doesn't make sense to you, don't feel lonesome.
>
>But the seller has the final say - if he's still solvent!
>
With the international market the way it is today, I don't believe
that any company has the final say unless it's entirely family owned.
International stock market ya know. At any rate, as far as the US is
concerned, this merger is nothing but a total loss. Loss of an old
company, loss of job opportunities, loss of manufacturing facilities.
No gain anywhere. It will be interesting to see how new holland
attempts to deal with the country that was once the biggest single
customer for our larger equipment. The former Soviet Union.
Richard
lennie_the_lurker
babble to appear with:
>Ford?
>
merger with Fiat-Allis, if I'm right. Chrysler with Daimler-Benz.
Richard
lennie_the_lurker
babble to appear with:
>In article <3aec8f1...@news.mwci.net>, Lennie the Lurker writes:
>
>I'm afraid even you are dated! You do not need process engineers of the type
>you describe but robots and computer programmers and state of the art software.
Yes, I did forget about that. and as the wrong parts are routinely
delivered by a man that knows absolutely nothing about the machine
that is to process them, they can happily produce scrap for months on
end.
>
Barney, if I find that I cannot far exceed the quality of any mass
produced part, whether produced by a drone of a computer, I have no
business calling myself a machinist.
And I see you are also prone to ignore the fact that the compuker
controlled machine will average 5 to 10 times the average cost of the
manual machine it will replace. Not to mention that the programmer,
technicians, and others needed to keep them running are not about to
work without compensation. TANSTAAFL.
When it comes to short run production, usually my old turret lathes
and I will be delivering parts before a programmer has software that
works. Which will be cheaper?
Richard. (BTW, take it easy on the unions, I owe the position I am
now in to 30 years in the UAW. It's called retirement.)
Danrihn
making the transistion to flying the HP. I did study the very well written
articles on the HP web site, Schreder Sailplane Designs,
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/.
I stopped listening to the horror stories from pilots who had never flown them.
Instead I talked to a few HP pilots and their advice was super. I only had
about 40 hours in gliders, much of that was over 30 years ago. I do have a lot
of high performance, tailwheel power time which was a big help.
I bought into the HP because it was inexpensive (It is now my 3rd airplane
er... toy), I could leave it outside and it has great performance.
I actually enjoy the flaps as it brings a whole new challenge and adventure to
Soaring.
Dan Rihn
Parkito
foreign entity is something else completely different. Chrysler, on the other
hand, apparently has been sent down the tubes by the German acquisition. The
only question remaining is if they can disengage in time and get out from
under. Still, there have been other American car companies that have gone down
all be themselves. Packard anyone?
Parke
Richard Kiray
might not deliver on time"?
Xray Diffraction Lab
>
> Come to the Sports Nats this year and look at my HP-18 with over 1200 hours
> chase the latest glass. Great handicap too.
>
Hear Hear.
'nuff HP trashing. Udo Rumpf's Super HP18, which I now proudly own, easily
runs the Rockies equal to some pretty respectable glass, has an exceptional
finish, is easy to fly, and looks great.
Guess the builder makes the difference! Thanks Udo!
Mike Glatiotis
CFETQ Invermere
Udo Rumpf
Xray Diffraction Lab wrote:
> BPattonsoa wrote:
>
>
> Hear Hear.
> 'nuff HP trashing. Udo Rumpf's Super HP18, which I now proudly own, easily
> runs the Rockies equal to some pretty respectable glass, has an exceptional
> finish, is easy to fly, and looks great.
>
> Guess the builder makes the difference! Thanks Udo!
>
> Mike Glatiotis
> CFETQ Invermere
Thanks Mike,
You made my day,
Udo
Bob Kuykendall
>What's the polar? Nobody really knows.
[Warning: Wicked tongue-in-cheek attitude ahead]
Well, that leads into a rather deep philosophical discussion. What are the essential natures of 'knowing' and 'knowledge,' and what are their boundaries? At the quantum level, what are the granularities, and how does Heisenberg's uncertainty principle fit into it? This is bread-and-butter for Liberal Studies victims like me. :)
But, seriously, you can get just as close to the HP-11 or HP-11A polars as most people need to by just using the inside edge of the Standard Cirrus polar. If you want to split hairs, you can rescale the Standard Cirrus polar so that the min sink orthogonal is about 120 fpm, and the best L/D tangent is somewhere between 34:1 and 37:1, depending on the fit, finish, and sealing of your particular ship. That's what I did when I first started flying my HP-11A about ten years ago. Also, I used the 'shifted origin' (geometric, not Darwinian) technique to derive MacCready values to put on the speed ring. The numbers I got from that polar (along with my innate brand of cowardice) have served me well in the ten years since.
And, of course, if knowing the exact polar is really important to you, you can reconstruct the entire polar using simple measurements. There are books about stuff like that, with pictures and everything.
>How did conversion to fixed gear affect the best L/D,
>the polar, etc?
I'm pretty sure that it made it worse. [Warning: Shameless advertisement ahead] Pity, too; I think I've got entire retractable gear weldment sets for HP-11A in stock. They're not pretty, but they can be made to work - but what would you expect for $75 (FOB Arnold, CA, excludes shipping)?
>What's the optimal flap setting for thermalling?
>Nobody really knows.
Again, that phrase, 'Nobody really knows.' I have about 300 hours in HP-11A now, and I've got a pretty good idea what the thermalling flap settings (note the plural) are, and I've circulated my findings on the HP-Gliders forum, and had them posted on the Schreder Sailplane Designs web site.
So anyhow, to apply formal logic to rhetoric (a perilous pursuit, just ask Phaedrus), either 'a pretty good idea' does not equal 'really knows,' (a quite plausible hypothesis) or (to complete our implied syllogism) I'm Nobody. :)
Huh. Who'd a' thunk it? I think, therefore I am (I think). Maybe everybody else is just a figment of my imagination, eh?
Thanks, and best regards to all
Bob Kuykendall
http://www.hpaircraft.com
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: h201s25a82n47.user.nortelnetworks.com
==============================================================
BPattonsoa
MONEY), but with the 1.063 handicap, actually about 1.02 after winglets and
weight corrections, you don't need to catch them. I do remember one fifty mile
final glide at the Minden Sports with a LS-6 and a Discus where the LS-6
driver came over to ask where Schreader hid the motor.
Bruce Patton
Doug Hoffman
cre...@flash.net writes:
>I would also caution you that searching the NTSB database for
>accidents of experimental aircraft is not as simple as it looks.
>The builder is free to give his aircraft whatever make and model
>number he likes, and the NTSB will use that. As a result, any
>search on a homebuilt is likely to be incomplete.
I'm quite familiar with the use of databases and took
precautions as you mentioned. Feel free to check my
work.
>> Interesting that you should use the glued skins as an
>> example concern because I could find no instance where
>> a problem there caused an incident.
>Sure - but how do they age with flexing? Anyone who has
>ever flown a long-winged metal ship has gotten used to the
>at-first disconcerting oilcanning sound.
If you are referring to RS-15, HP-16, HP-18 I have no
idea what you are talking about. They make no noise.
Not sure about other HPs.
>I have to ask - how many of these wings have over 1000 hours?
More than a few.
>How are they doing?
Just fine, apparently.
>Have any of them failed on the ground?
I don't understand the question.
>Are there any that old at all?
Yes.
Michael, you seem to try come across as someone who "knows"
HPs. Your questions make me think otherwise.
I won't get into the kit-built vs. factory thing. That's
an issue each person must decide for themselves.
>I think putting an average student pilot with 10 hours total
>time into an HP would be insane.
Agreed. Who ever suggested otherwise? Wasn't me. Go back
and read what I have said. I had my private license.
I had 25 hours, not 10. Just as importantly, I took several
hours of dual instruction in a G103 before trying the RS.
>But I think in reality they are a specialty item. They really
>do not have the performance to satisfy an experienced
>soaring pilot, unless his finances are so strapped that
>he just can't afford better.
Careful with that one Michael. I suspect that there are
more than a few 1-26 pilots out there that are *far*
better pilots than either you or I. They fly what they
fly for personal reasons.
I'm not sure what you were trying to say with all that.
I am hazarding a wild guess that you are not fond of HPs.
Certainly you are entitled to your opinion. Others will
differ with you.
-Doug
Robert Ehrlich
> What's the optimal flap setting for
> thermalling? Nobody really knows.
>
Nobody really knows what is the optimal flap setting or optimal
flying speed or bank angle for thermalling with any glider because
in order to know that, beside knowing the exact polar of the glider
at every flap setting, you need to kown how the lift decreases with
increasing distance from its center, and nobody really knows that.
So we all proceed with trial and corrections.
Michael
> >I have to ask - how many of these wings have over 1000 hours?
> More than a few.
That's not an answer. Give me a number and an estimated error.
For example 100 +/- 15. That would be more than a few.
So would 300 +/- 35. Be prepared to cite your source.
> >I think putting an average student pilot with 10 hours total
> >time into an HP would be insane.
>
> Agreed. Who ever suggested otherwise? Wasn't me. Go back
> and read what I have said. I had my private license.
> I had 25 hours, not 10. Just as importantly, I took several
> hours of dual instruction in a G103 before trying the RS.
Personally, I think the transition at 25 hours was pushing it.
I think if we had a lot of people trying to make that transition
at 25 hours, we would be seeing a lot of planes bent and
maybe some injuries. Not that it can't be done - but you
are kicking the odds up against yourself. Perhaps you
are an exceptionally good pilot - most of the glider pilots
in my club who started ab initio have significantly more
than 25 hours before getting the ticket. Or perhaps you
were lucky. But in general, I do not think an HP is
a good glider for someone with 25 hrs TT.
There's a big difference between transitioning to a
two-seater and a singleseater. You can transition
almost anyone, regardless of hours, into almost
any two-seater safely. It may take a while, but it
will not be dangerous because the instructor is
there to allow the student to explore the envelope
and bail him out if need be.
In a single-seater, especially one that has handling
characteristics that are different from anything that
the transitioning pilot has ever flown, there is always
a risk. No ground briefing can ever be complete,
and no ground briefing can ever adequately describe
exactly what the ship will do in any given situation.
It is thus a given that the transitioning pilot will encounter
situations that he was not prepared to handle. This is
where the pilot will draw on his experience flying a
variety of other types in a variety of situations and
make a reasonable guess as to what he should do. A
pilot with very few hours who has flown very few types
is far more likely to guess grossly wrong. The more
dissimilar the handling of the single seater and the
aircraft previously flown, the more likely the guess is
to be grossly wrong. The less experience and air
awareness, the longer it will take the pilot to realize
his guess was grossly wrong and try something else.
Having flown a G-103, I also don't think there is any
comparison except in performance. I think I had maybe
10-15 glider hours before getting in the G-103, having
previously flown only an L-23, 2-33, and 1-26, and I
was perfectly comfortable in the G-103 from the first
flight. It has very docile, predictable handling and is
perfectly suitable as a primary trainer. In fact it was
used as such in the UK for years, and I would think
nothing of seeing a 10 hour glider student soloing a
G-103 - happens all the time. When preparing to
transition to an HP, it would of course be better to
fly a G-103 than not - more variety of experience is
ALWAYS better - but to say it's good preparation is
not realistic.
> I'm not sure what you were trying to say with all that.
> I am hazarding a wild guess that you are not fond of HPs.
It's a very wild guess, and entirely wrong. I own an HP and
love it. If I could find a partner to share the work of
maintaining it to a standard I consider acceptable, I would
not even consider selling it. I think the tradeoffs made
between ease of handling and performance are perfectly
acceptable ones, and I actually enjoy the challenge of
flying the ship. My first XC experiences were in it, and I
would not have traded it for anything else I could possibly
afford. Even though I am not likely to find a partner in the
ship who is as anal about maintenance as I am and will
probably wind up selling it, I do not regret buying it. I
had experiences in it, and learned things in it, that I could
not have otherwise.
That does not change the facts. The handling characteristics
are significantly more challenging than those of any
certificated glider in that price range. It is not a suitable
glider for a novice pilot, especially since it is generally not
possible to get dual instruction in a ship of similar handling
characteristics. That is not a putdown of the HP. It was
never meant to be a docile glider suitable for a low time
pilot. It was designed as a racer that could be homebuilt
with relative ease, and as such it is a success - depending
of course on the individual glider.
What it's not is a ship for someone who is flying a 1-26
and wants something just like it but with better penetration
and flatter glide. What I'm seeing, though, ever since I
put my glider up for sale, is that these are exactly the
people who are looking.
Michael
Michael
> Well, that leads into a rather deep philosophical discussion. What are the
essential natures of 'knowing' and 'knowledge,' and what are their
boundaries? At the quantum level, what are the granularities, and how does
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle fit into it? This is bread-and-butter for
Liberal Studies victims like me. :)
Well, that's fine, but hard science types like me won't even consider
listening to your discussions of quantum uncertainty until you can
demonstrate that you can at least solve the Schrodinger equation
in the simplest cases.
In an engineering sense, you KNOW when you can answer with a
number and an uncertainty much smaller than that number.
> But, seriously, you can get just as close to the HP-11 or HP-11A polars as
most people need to by just using the inside edge of the Standard Cirrus
polar. If you want to split hairs, you can rescale the Standard Cirrus polar
so that the min sink orthogonal is about 120 fpm, and the best L/D tangent
is somewhere between 34:1 and 37:1, depending on the fit, finish, and
sealing of your particular ship. That's what I did when I first started
flying my HP-11A about ten years ago.
Wow. That's much more than I did. I just got in it, flew it around the
field for
a while, and took off on my first XC :) Seriously, I've never really
considered
that stuff important. Some people do, though.
> And, of course, if knowing the exact polar is really important to you, you
can reconstruct the entire polar using simple measurements. There are books
about stuff like that, with pictures and everything.
Yes, there are. And what you are describing is called being a test pilot.
Which is fine if that's what you want to do, but lots of people don't.
> >How did conversion to fixed gear affect the best L/D,
> >the polar, etc?
> I'm pretty sure that it made it worse.
Ya think? The obvious questions is HOW MUCH worse?
> Pity, too; I think I've got entire retractable gear weldment sets for
HP-11A in stock. They're not pretty, but they can be made to work - but what
would you expect for $75 (FOB Arnold, CA, excludes shipping)?
If I find a partner and thus keep the glider, I will probably take you
up on that. If not, well, I don't want to put the time in if I will
just sell the glider anyway.
My point is that someone who wanted to buy my glider asked me the
same question. I gave him the same answer you just gave, minus the ad.
He did not consider that adequate. I told him that his options were to
determine the new polar himself or buy something else. I think he chose
the latter option, and that's fine. I doubt he is unique.
> >What's the optimal flap setting for thermalling?
> >Nobody really knows.
>
> Again, that phrase, 'Nobody really knows.' I have about 300 hours in
HP-11A now, and I've got a pretty good idea what the thermalling flap
settings (note the plural) are, and I've circulated my findings on the
HP-Gliders forum, and had them posted on the Schreder Sailplane Designs web
site.
>
> So anyhow, to apply formal logic to rhetoric (a perilous pursuit, just ask
Phaedrus), either 'a pretty good idea' does not equal 'really knows,' (a
quite plausible hypothesis) or (to complete our implied syllogism) I'm
Nobody. :)
Or maybe both. I've seen your postings. My results have differed. Is that
because I haven't flown the plane enough? Is it because the thermals where
I
fly are different in structure? Were our ships simply built differently?
So who are you anyway? A qualified factory test pilot? How did you
determine the rate at which the air was rising (not the rate at which your
ship was)? Did you do still air sink rate tests at various flap settings
and bank angles? Did you do aerodynamic modelling?
Bottom line, I think you have a pretty good idea of how your individual
ship performs with various flap settings in the areas where you fly it.
That's about it.
You know, I'm not trying to knock you or the HP's. I think HP's are
great bang for the buck, I'd really prefer to keep mine and find a
partner rather than sell it, and in general my enthusiasm for flying it is
high and for selling it is low. I also think it's a good thing you're
doing,
keeping plans and parts available to those of us who fly them, and
distributing what information you have.
I also hear a lot of horror stories from people who have never flown
an HP, or flew one once and got scared off. The stories are way
overblown, but some of them have a basis in fact.
To hear some people tell it, all homebuilts are poison (someone
actually wrote that when I asked for advice on buying a glider on
this newsgroup). To hear others tell it, homebuilts are the
salvation of sport aviation and better than certified aircraft in
every way that matters.
Some people will actually tell you HP's are hell to fly and
you should have 1000 glider flights before you even get in one.
Still others would have you believe there are no handling issues
at all, and a few flights in a Grob 103 will prepare someone with
25 hours total time to fly one.
What I tried to do in the original post is organize the issues in a form
that would provide not a final answer, but a starting point, for
a low time glider pilot considering an HP as a first ship (and I know
there are more than a few of those). I do not pretend to be an
authority on HP's, or on homebuilt aircraft in general. I own one,
I have some friends that own HP's and other homebuilts, and I've
worked on and flown some other homebuilts.
My goal was not to sing their praises (there are enough people out
there doing that) nor to repeat horror stories (ditto) but to
summarize what I consider to be important issues to consider in
purchasing a homebuilt aircraft in general and an HP in particular.
Michael
Martin Gregorie
>On 30 Apr 2001 22:08:03 GMT, bato...@aol.com (BAToulson) Did cause
>babble to appear with:
>>
>>
>>Before there can be a buyer there has to be a seller!
>>
>>If Case were that good a company they could have been bought by some of your
>>countrymen - so where were they at auction time?
>
>Good question. I suggest you ask Jean-Pierre Russo, who has been the
>president of Case for the last ten years. But the pattern is the same
>as has been followed in almost every merger with a european company.
There's a 'business reason' for that. When the company has surplus
capacity and there's a slump the factory closures happen in the
country with the laxest labour laws. Within the Western world the
order is something like:
(1) USA
(2) UK
(3) Europe
Put simply, its harder and more expensive to fire somebody in France
or Germany than in the UK or the US - especially if the employee has
done nothing wrong. This fact outweighs virtually everything else in
the bean counting mind.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie.| Harlow
demon. | UK.
co. |
uk |
Bill Dean.
The bean counters, both those within a manufacturing company and those who
have funds to invest, prefer to go to countries where management can manage
without being hamstrung by labour laws.
Perhaps this is why the USA is economically number 1, and the UK has been
gaining fast over Europe.
This is tough on those who lose, some always do. Would you prefer the
system in the old East Europe and USSR, "You pretend to pay us, and we
pretend to work"? Some people lost out there, too; which is why they had
to have a wall to keep them in.
Or would you like the same number of people working underground in coal
mines as in 1947? Sad when the mines closed, and miners were out of work.
Or is there a third way, so that the miners could keep their jobs but not
mine coal?
The countries with the laxest labour laws are the ones to gain new
businesses.
You can either have a command economy, or free enterprise. There are snags
with either, I think history now shows which is best.
As it was put some 45 years ago, we need the ladder and the net. Not
enough ladders the other side of the Channel, there may be holes in our net.
Bill Dean, U.K.
>
> Martin Gregorie <ki...@see.sig.for.address> wrote in message
> news:3af09af1...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> There's a 'business reason' for that. When the company has surplus
> capacity and there's a slump the factory closures happen in the
> country with the laxest labour laws. Within the Western world the
> order is something like:
>
> (1) USA
> (2) UK
> (3) Europe
>
> Put simply, its harder and more expensive to fire somebody in France
> or Germany than in the UK or the US - especially if the employee has
> done nothing wrong. This fact outweighs virtually everything else in
> the bean counting mind.
>
Greybeard
Bill Dean. <bill...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:988853772.741053@dionysos...
> Yes, and this works both ways.
>
> The bean counters, both those within a manufacturing company and those who
> have funds to invest, prefer to go to countries where management can
manage
> without being hamstrung by labour laws.
I'm going to go as far as to suggest that maybe if the management treated
the workers fairly to begin with, the labor laws might not be needed.
>
To answer Martin, layoff and periods of plant closing are nothing new here,
been there a few times myself. The twist now being added, and new holland
has stated their intention, is to raze the plant, and donate the land to the
city for another park. This does several things, eliminates the possibility
of a competitor buying the plant, evades any tax liability, and most
importantly, dumps the responsibility for the toxic waste cleanup on the
city. I am hoping that the city of Racine will decline the "gift", and deny
the demolition permit.
But to put it in a perspective that most can understand, what I am seeing is
the direct equivalent to seeing Rolls Royce bought by Toyota, and production
moved to Japan.
Richard
Birger.W...@dnv.com
>Doug Hoffman <dhof...@oakland-info.com> wrote
>> >I have to ask - how many of these wings have over 1000 hours?
>> More than a few.
>
>That's not an answer. Give me a number and an estimated error.
>For example 100 +/- 15. That would be more than a few.
>So would 300 +/- 35. Be prepared to cite your source.
SNIP
In this thread I haven't seen the real cause for the "problem"
mentioned at all:
As far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) all Schreder designs have
90 degree landing flaps and no airbrakes.
If a low time glider pilot has plenty of power time in flapped planes,
they would have a good chance of "surviving" the first few landings in
an HP. For someone without this experience they would really have
problems. Simply because using the 90 degree flap is very different
from using airbrakes as they have been training with. (I have the
experience from X00 hours in the PIK-20B).
So in general I share the opinion that low time pilots would be wise
not to try gliders with 90 degree landing flap, at least not if their
landing field is short, until they they get more experience. This
experience could partly be gained by doing power plane landing
circuits using lots of flaps, and not cheat with the throttle, on the
final.
Birger
Bruce Hoult
<bill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
Very good post, despite being offtopic here.
And I say this as a person who just this week got layed off from a job
before even starting it.
-- Bruce
Bob Kuykendall
>In this thread I haven't seen the real cause for >the 'problem' mentioned at all:
Different? Definitely. Something to prepare for, and to approach cautiously and methodically? That too. A problem in and of themselves? Not in my book.
Stephen DuPont wrote it better than I could:
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Large-span_flaps.html
Although that hasn't stopped me from trying:
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Stories/Preparing_for_first_HP_flight.htm
Thanks, and best regards to all
Bob K.
Michael
> At 07:20 03 May 2001, Birger.W...@dnv.com wrote:
> >In this thread I haven't seen the real cause for >the 'problem' mentioned
at all:
Yes you have. That's part of what everyone was talking about
when discussing the challenging handling characteristics.
Bob Kuykendall <REMOVE_TO...@hpaircraft.com> wrote
> Different? Definitely. Something to prepare for, and to approach
> cautiously and methodically? That too. A problem in and of
> themselves? Not in my book.
Like you, I don't consider the flaps to be a problem in and of
themselves. IMO they are a perfectly acceptable device for
glideslope control. Of course I also learned to fly in a Cessna
150 with 40 degrees of flaps, and learned to land it at idle
power using the flaps for glideslope control. There's no
problem with that. A student pilot can do it. A student pilot
did, on his first solo flight. I was that student pilot.
Flaps are not the same as spoilers. They are not used the
same way. The pattern is planned differently, and the
plane handles differently.
They are not as easy to use as spoilers - they cause far more
pitch change and are more speed limited. That in itself is
not a major problem - it really only takes a few landings
to get used to how the ship handles and learn to put it
down on the spot.
Now here comes the big question - how are you going to
get those few landings? THAT is the problem.
If there is a two seater with Schreder-type flaps and no
spoilers available for training, this is a total non-issue. You
simply go up with an instructor, do a few landings with him,
and then you can solo the two-seater or just move to the
single seater with similar handling. No problem.
If you don't have such a two-seater available, you will
have to learn to fly an aircraft with unfamiliar and possibly
more difficult handling characteristics and you will have
to get it right the first time because there is no go-around.
That is a problem in and of itself.
Michael
Bill Dean.
Richard Greybeard said:
"I'm going to go as far as to suggest that maybe if the management treated
the workers fairly to begin with, the labor laws might not be needed."
If there were no thieves, we would not need a law against theft, or police,
courts or prisons. But few people are thieves, and most would not thieve
even if there were no law, police etc. Because there are some thieves, we
have to have the law, etc.
Most of us most of the time have to take precautions against theft (I always
leave my car locked), but this makes no difference to where or when I drive
or park (since I never need to go to some of the worst inner cities).
There are probably still parts of the U.K. where people don't lock their
cars, I may even be in one, but habits die hard. And we have some rough
places, where sensible people don't go.
MODERNISATION & REDUNDANCY.
Schleicher used to make gliders of welded steel tube, timber and fabric.
Now they make them of plastic, fibreglass, kevlar, carbonfibre etc.; with
not much metalwork or steel tube, or timber. So they remain in business
and thrive.
What happened to those who used to work for Schleichers, including the
outworkers who made bits of ribs in their bedrooms? They have learnt new
trades and new ways of working, or they are not working.
Schleichers had to change, adapt, work in entirely new ways, the alternative
was to go out of business. Their employees have had to change with them,
or go. They have to make good gliders, and they have to make money.
Whatever happened to the British motorcycle industry? Where is Norton and
the Manx and International? Where is Velocette, and the Venom?
Vincent-HRD and the Rapide and Shadow? They did not modernise, that was a
time of union influence and power and labour laws; was this a factor?
You still see on the roads in Britain the modern equivalent of those old
bikes, but they are Japanese (or Ducati or BMW). I remember a motorbike
specialist of long standing (he used to sponsor racing entrants to the I. of
M. TT). He imported some of the first Hondas (175 cc? twin) and was amazed
at the sheer quality of the engines - and they did'nt leak oil after
running! The Brits. did not keep up, they went.
Toyoto make the Lexus, I understand that in one jump they produced a model
which it is not ridiculous to compare with a Roller. Perhaps they will not
need to buy Rolls-Royce, whose cars may go the way of Sunbeam or Velocette.
Bill Dean, U.K.
> Greybeard <grey...@mwci.net> wrote in message
> news:tf1h2ot...@corp.supernews.com...
Bruce Hoult
<bill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> You still see on the roads in Britain the modern equivalent of those old
> bikes, but they are Japanese (or Ducati or BMW).
I take your point (and agree with it) but the good news is that Triumph
have made a big comeback in the past half decade and are now regarded as
one of the better "sportbike" manufacturers, in the approximate style of
BMW and Ducati.
-- Bruce
mic...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
Perhaps you can begin to land on a very large field, so that
if you have difficulties no big problem will ensue. I remember
having flown once a glider with flaps instead of spoilers (an old
french glider) and having been quite surprised, but the field was
fortunately long enough! Of course spoilers are much more
convenient.
--
Michel Talon
Doug Hoffman
writes:
>Perhaps you can begin to land on a very large field, so that
>if you have difficulties no big problem will ensue.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Michel.
Also, with flaps the wing surface is not "spoiled" by the spoilers.
Every time I look at closed spoilers the fit seems not good. Worse in
flight I believe.
Having the spoilers "pop open" unexpectedly during launch is a non
issue when you have none.
It is nice when flying the landing pattern to use a glide path
control device that results in "lower" stall speed instead of
higher. Also, with flaps cranked on the pitch stability is
increased due to an increase in longitudinal dihedral.
I'm not knocking spoilers. They clearly work. But there seems
to be continued misconceptions about large span landing flaps.
-Doug
Michael
> >Perhaps you can begin to land on a very large field, so that
> >if you have difficulties no big problem will ensue.
Well, that's what I did. My club has a field of over 3400 ft.
Normally, I can just pick any 500 ft and use it. On my
first landing in the HP, I used almost 3000 ft. No big problem
ensued. Maybe a less experienced pilot might have needed
4000 ft. That would have been a problem.
Of course landing long is not the only issue. The other big
issue is a low altitude stall.
I remember from my first flight in my HP-11 that the pitch
attitude seemed radically nose low. Because I had seen the
prior owner land it (I made a demonstration flight a
condition of sale) and because I had been briefed by
him on the handling qualities, I expected that. Still, it
seemed extreme. At about 100 ft, it looked like I was
going just way too fast, diving straight at the ground.
I put my faith in the airspeed indicator
and flew 55 mph. I waited until I was sure I would
crash, then waited a little longer and flared. The result
was an OK landing. On the second or third landing I
flared at what looked like a very low height, but still
somewhat reasonable. I stalled at (I guess) about 2
feet and dropped in hard on the main gear. I can
see why it was converted to fixed gear - the retract
would not have taken it.
I hate to think what the landing would be like if I had
ever flared at what looked like a normal height. I'm
guessing damage to the ship and maybe my spine.
Mind you, by the 10 th landing none of this was
an issue. I was used to the ship.
Doug Hoffman <dhof...@oakland-info.com> wrote
> Also, with flaps the wing surface is not "spoiled" by the spoilers.
> Every time I look at closed spoilers the fit seems not good. Worse in
> flight I believe.
That's absolutely true, and is a good reason not to have spoilers.
In fact, that's why HP's don't have them.
> Having the spoilers "pop open" unexpectedly during launch is a non
> issue when you have none.
Now I think you're reaching. It's a non-issue period if you
are even marginally on the ball.
> It is nice when flying the landing pattern to use a glide path
> control device that results in "lower" stall speed instead of
> higher.
This is not strictly true. The stall speed will hit a minimum
somewhere around 25 degrees, will stay there until about
50, and then will begin to increase again due to an effectively
reduced wing area and airflow separation.
> Also, with flaps cranked on the pitch stability is
> increased due to an increase in longitudinal dihedral.
What the hell is longitudinal dihedral???
Of course pitch stability will be increased - the flaps add lots
of drag, and draggier aircraft are always more pitch stable.
The same is true of spoilers.
> I'm not knocking spoilers. They clearly work. But there seems
> to be continued misconceptions about large span landing flaps.
Some of them seem to be coming from you.
Michael
Wallace Berry
<dhof...@oakland-info.com> wrote:
The only flaps-for-glidepath control birds I have flown have been
Cessnas and such. The old 150's with the 40 degree flaps are very easy
to land in small spots. I've got a question about the landing flap
gliders though. Do the landing flaps reduce aileron effectiveness? When
I've flown 15 meter class gliders, it seems that aileron responsiveness
is reduced when the flaps are full down for landing. Maybe this is just
on certain models. On my 301 Libelle, I usually keep the flaps at
neutral when landing in turbulent conditions for this reason. Oh, and
the stall characteristics are more abrupt with flaps down on a Libelle.
With flaps fully up for cruise, the ailerons will keep flying well into
a stall, sort of like a Grob twin.
Wally
Bob Kuykendall
It took me, as the punk-ass kid I was ten years ago, maybe three flights to get the hang of the HP roundout. Since then, I've regularly plopped the HP-11A onto the ground where I wanted it. Anybody who's seen me plummet out of the sky at Air Sailing can tell you about it.
As for the implication that the HP-11A won't take being dropped in from a foot or two, well, I've done it enough to say that it may not be comfortable or elegant, but it sure isn't a structural problem. I regularly drop my HP-11A from a full stall at a foot or so with no problem, and I've heard of drop-ins from as high as five feet. The standard nitrogen-pressurized oleo gear on the HPs is a great shock-absorber, and takes an incredible amount of abuse.
That's one area in which I suspect that Michael's HP-11 may have been mis-configured. I don't know what he's got for a shock absorber. But if it's the truly fixed arrangement depicted as an option in the HP-11/HP-11A plans, then there is no shock absorber there at all. That would certainly contribute to a great deal of landing harshness. I would hazard a guess that that arrangement is much more of a structural liability than the retractable gear and its shock-absorbing oleo struts.
I think that most of the ships that started out as HP-11s were reconfigured as retractable HP-11As very early in their lives; I think that Michael's is the only one left that's in fixed gear config. It's sure as heck the only one I've ever heard of that was deverted from retract back to fixed gear.
The specified 13-5.00x4 tire will give adequate shock absorption with the fixed gear, but just barely. The more expensive (but still available) Goodyear 5.00x4 6-ply is about the same. If the tire has been replaced with the more common 4.00x4, or even a 5.00x5 tire and wheel, there's that much less air and rubber between the ship and the landscape.
Bob Kuykendall
>I've got a question about the landing flap
>gliders though. Do the landing flaps reduce
>aileron effectiveness? When I've flown 15
>meter class gliders, it seems that aileron
>responsiveness is reduced when the flaps are
>full down for landing. Maybe this is just on
>certain models. On my 301 Libelle, I usually
>keep the flaps at neutral when landing in
>turbulent conditions for this reason. Oh,
>and the stall characteristics are more abrupt
>with flaps down on a Libelle. With flaps fully
>up for cruise, the ailerons will keep flying well
>into a stall, sort of like a Grob twin.
As for whether the landing flaps reduce the aileron effectiveness, that depends on a handful of factors. The most important factor is whether the ship has an interconnect that sets the neutral point of the ailerons to follow the flaps.
The early HPs like the HP-11, HP-14, most HP-16, and many RS-15, usually don't have interconnect. That is, the ailerons are completely independant of the flaps. On those ships, the aileron effectiveness is pretty much independant of the flap settings. Actually, the effectiveness may be slightly greater at positive flap settings, since that tends to decrease the effective angle of attack of the non-flapped portion of the wing. But that effect is small, and many will argue that it is non-existant.
The later HPs, like some HP-16 and RS-15, and all HP-18, have a simple cam-based interconnect that causes the neutral point of the ailerons to follow the flap setting. These ships have are generally more effecient, since they can maintain a more effective spanwise lift distribution over a wider variety of flight regimes. However, at high angles of attack the aileron effectiveness is definitely reduced at positive flap settings. This is, as you note, more pronounced on takeoff and landing.
The usual procedure for takeoff in an interconnected HP is to start out with negative flaps, and roll the crank over to a positive setting at some point in the takeoff. However, this maneuver definitely absorbs some attention that might better be applied preparing for a takeoff excursion and reacing for the release. Like almost everything, it's a tradeoff, a compromise that should take into account the pilot's as well as the aircraft's abilities.
As for landing, again, positive flap will reduce the aileron effectiveness. Again, there are choices to be made about whether to roll into negative flap or not. What I usually do is touch down within a few hundred feet of where I want to stop, and modulate the flaps and wheel brake to execute a short rollout with as few as possible opportunities for excursion.
As for the stall characteristics with positive flap, my experience is that the non-interconnected HPs (like my HP-11A) have a relatively docile stall, with lots of warning. However, my experience with the interconnected HP-18 is that the stall with positive flap is quick and sharp. Of course, the aifoil differences between these ships makes that comparison largely meaningless. However, my guess is that the interconnection has no small contribution to it.
Thanks, and best regards to all
Bob K.
Michael
Bob Kuykendall <REMOVE_TO...@hpaircraft.com> wrote
> Sometimes, when I hear people talk about HPs, I wonder if they're
> talking about the same things as I'm familiar with.
Maybe, maybe not. Remember what I said about no two being alike?
That's the nature of homebuilts.
> It took me, as the punk-ass kid I was ten years ago, maybe three flights
to get the hang of the HP roundout. Since then, I've regularly plopped the
HP-11A onto the ground where I wanted it. Anybody who's seen me plummet out
of the sky at Air Sailing can tell you about it.
>
> As for the implication that the HP-11A won't take being dropped in from a
foot or two, well, I've done it enough to say that it may not be comfortable
or elegant, but it sure isn't a structural problem. I regularly drop my
HP-11A from a full stall at a foot or so with no problem,
So which is it? Have you gotten the hang of it in three flights, or are you
still
regularly dropping it in from a foot or so? If you're willing to drop it
in,
it's pretty easy to put it on a dime (that's what I was trying to do when I
did it). Landing on a dime AND making it feather smooth is much
harder.
> That's one area in which I suspect that Michael's HP-11 may have been
mis-configured. I don't know what he's got for a shock absorber. But if it's
the truly fixed arrangement depicted as an option in the HP-11/HP-11A plans,
then there is no shock absorber there at all.
Right - it's done according to plans by a certified repair station.
Why you would call it a misconfiguration is beyond me. Lots of
homebuilt light aircraft are built that way. It saves weight, it
saves cost, it reduces maintenance. But it does demand better
piloting technique. There's enough shock absorption for normal
landings, but limited tolerance for a screwup. You pays your
money, you takes your choice.
> That would certainly contribute to a great deal of landing harshness.
Well, let's just say it lets you know you're making a mistake
in no uncertain terms.
After the one time when I dropped it in from a foot or two,
I have not repeated my error. My subsequent landings
have been smooth, with the stall occurring just at
touchdown or a second after. Once I stalled it so low that
I was already hearing the grass bruch my belly. The drop
in was still noticeable. I suppose with an oleo I would
never have felt it. I can feel every bump on takeoof and
landing.
I once flew a Champ that had the original oleo gear off a
grass strip. Half the time I would not be able to tell you the
exact moment of touchdown, it was so smooth. That gear
system was discontinued in favor of spring steel - cheaper
and less maintenance. Everything is a tradeoff.
> I would hazard a guess that that arrangement is much more
> of a structural liability than the retractable gear and its
> shock-absorbing oleo struts.
Clearly the owner who had the conversion done did not think so.
I've taken a very close look at a friend's HP-18 gear system.
It's an elegant design. But the reason I had an opportunity
to take such a close look at it is because he is working on it.
He had to land in a less-desirable area of our field recently
because the smoother areas were taken. He hopes to have
it flying again this summer .
On the other hand, the gear is repairable. The fixed gear
without shocks will transmit the stress of every bad landing
to the airframe. Make enough bad landings, and you will
see cracks in the structure. Then it will be time to junk the
fuselage. You can replace gear mechanisms indefinitely.
Again - everything is a tradeoff.
Michael
Robert Ehrlich
> ...
> This is not strictly true. The stall speed will hit a minimum
> somewhere around 25 degrees, will stay there until about
> 50, and then will begin to increase again due to an effectively
> reduced wing area and airflow separation.
I never flew a glider with flaps only for glide path control and
probably will never do it, since such gliders are not common in
France, only the PIK 20 comes to my mind and as far as I know the
latest models had spoilers. However I am interested in the discussion
from a theorical point of view. My understanding of the way spoilers
and flaps work is that spoilers increase drag and decrease lift, thus
decreasing L/D, while flaps increase both lift and drag, but L/D is
again decreased. The above statement about the stall speed seems to
imply that when deflected more than 50 degrees, flaps will increase
drag and decrease lift, i.e. work in the same way as spoilers. Is this
the cause of the handling that was said more difficult than with spoilers
by sombody, i.e. having the same effect as spoilers in some range
and a partially opposite effect in some other range? Do you use the range
with this opposite effect (less than 50 (or 25) degrees) during final?
How does the glider react in this case? My guess is that it should have
opposite short and long term effects, i.e. less flaps should first cause
a steeper glide path and later a flater one.
Michael
> My understanding of the way spoilers
> and flaps work is that spoilers increase drag and decrease lift, thus
> decreasing L/D, while flaps increase both lift and drag, but L/D is
> again decreased.
That depends on the flap design. For some aircraft, the best L/D
performance is obtained at some flap setting. However, these
will invariably be far more sophisticated flaps than are generally
to be found in light aircraft and gliders.
> The above statement about the stall speed seems to
> imply that when deflected more than 50 degrees, flaps will increase
> drag and decrease lift, i.e. work in the same way as spoilers.
That is pretty much correct, at least in my experience. Of course
the 50 degree number is only approximate.
> Is this
> the cause of the handling that was said more difficult than with spoilers
> by sombody, i.e. having the same effect as spoilers in some range
> and a partially opposite effect in some other range?
That's part of it. I know that on my HP-11, there is no loss
of lift when retracting flaps from 90 to 60 degrees, and a
significant loss of drag. Thus fine control of the glidepath
is not not a problem, as long as one is prepared for the
fact that the glide angle range will vary from steep to
extremely steep.
> Do you use the range
> with this opposite effect (less than 50 (or 25) degrees) during final?
No. Never. I always plan my approach such that I will be using
45 to 90 degrees of flaps down final. Others may differ, when I
do glideslope adjustment down final, I don't ever want to be in a
situation where I am retracting flaps enough to be losing lift.
Based on my experiments (at altitude, of course) flap retraction
to about 30 degrees does not cause an associated drop. However,
if you quickly go from 30 to 0, you can really feel the bottom
drop out.
> How does the glider react in this case? My guess is that it should have
> opposite short and long term effects, i.e. less flaps should first cause
> a steeper glide path and later a flater one.
Absolutely. There is initially a drop as lift is lost, and then the
glidepath flattens. Thus the decision to retract flaps beyond
about 25 degrees must be made early. Doing it to pop over
an obstacle will not have the intended effect.
Typically, my procedure is to use about 15-20 degrees of flap on the
downwind. This reduces stall speed appreciably, and also makes
the best L/D speed lower. Thus I can make small adjustments
in glideslope simply by speeding up or slowing down, since I am
flying downwind well above best L/D (with flaps).
I typically hold the same setting on base, and once I turn final I
wait for my key point - the position from which I think I will
hit my target at about 70 degrees of flap. Since I am already
at 20 degrees of flaps, little additional lift is gained when I go
to a higher flap setting. I crank in flaps, push the nose down,
and dive for the runway.
Of course the pitch change is radical, and I keep one eye on
the airspeed needle. I point the nose at the target, and if I
see I'm getting slow I retract some flap. If I see I'm getting
fast, I add some. The nose always stays pointed at the
target. I aim for about 50 ft short of my intended touchdown
point, and just hold my airspeed.
At about 40 ft AGL, I stop moving the flaps - I just keep what
I have, and hold my pitch attitude until I get really low. Just
before touchdown I bring the nose to about 5 degrees below
the horizon and fly it onto the runway at about 30-35 mph.
It's rather a lot like wheel landing a powered taildragger,
only there is never a need to pin it on with forward stick.
With anything more than about 60 degrees of flaps (I never
land with less) the wing will stall almost immediately allowing
the weight to come on the wheel. The tail comes down soon
thereafter. The rollout is very short - maybe 250 ft with
no wind - unless I immediately retract the flaps. Even then the
rollout is short - this is not a glider you can put on the ground
and then roll 2000 ft to your hangar.
Michael
Bob Kuykendall
>So which is it? Have you gotten the hang of it
>in three flights, or are you still regularly
>dropping it in from a foot or so?
Both. T'ain't no lemma there, let alone a pair of the rascals. Asking it like that is somewhat inflammatory; I might as well ask if you've stopped yelling 'Movie!' in crowded firehouses yet. :)
I'm generally satisfied when I get a full stall break at 8' +/-4'. The high side of the range tends to be bumpier and less elegant; the low side is desirable up to a point, but is close to the negative range where you get a bounce. But anywhere in that range yields a safe, effective, low-energy touchdown.
Bob Kuykendall
>I'm generally satisfied when I get a full
>stall break at 8' +/-4'
Inches, darn it, as in 8 inches +/- 4 inches. Looks like the gliderpilot.net posting client has trouble telling single quotes from double quotes. My bad for not noticing it earlier.
Doug Hoffman
Michael, cre...@flash.net writes:
>> Having the spoilers "pop open" unexpectedly during launch is a non
>> issue when you have none.
>
>are even marginally on the ball.
Apparently it's enough of an issue that a special tow plane
signal was created to alert the glider pilot (reference SSA
Soaring Flight Manual, Airborne Emergency Signals). A review
of accidents over the years will reveal why the signal was
created. A reach? I don't think so.
>> It is nice when flying the landing pattern to use a glide path
>> control device that results in "lower" stall speed instead of
>> higher.
>
>This is not strictly true. The stall speed will hit a minimum
>somewhere around 25 degrees, will stay there until about
>50, and then will begin to increase again due to an effectively
>reduced wing area and airflow separation.
More than 50 degrees flap before sqyared up on final isn't
recommended by anything I've seen. Original statement stands.
>> Also, with flaps cranked on the pitch stability is
>> increased due to an increase in longitudinal dihedral.
>
>What the hell is longitudinal dihedral???
It is also known as decalage.
>Of course pitch stability will be increased - the flaps add lots
>of drag, and draggier aircraft are always more pitch stable.
>The same is true of spoilers.
No. These are two completely different phenomena. Flaps
increase pitch stability by increasing *decalage*, something
that spoilers cannot do.
>> I'm not knocking spoilers. They clearly work. But there seems
>> to be continued misconceptions about large span landing flaps.
>
>Some of them seem to be coming from you.
Please tell me, what did I say that was incorrect?
-Doug
Doug Hoffman
that there are two less control connections to worry about
when assembling.
Anyway, I'm no expert on flaps. The following words are
from someone who is.
Below is an excerpt from the Soaring Symposia Archive.
Dick Schreder, designer of the HP series of gliders.
A Synopsis On Design - Present And Future
by
Dick Schreder
(presented here are just Dick's discussion of flaps from the
above titled symposium discussion)
"One of the problems we are having now is getting people to use the
simple flap. They have been approved by the CIVV for world competition
in 1974, and by vote of the SSA Board of Directors for immediate use in
the U.S. I have a list of the advantages of the simple flap and I would
like to run through it. I know some of you people have flown HP-11's,
HP-13's, or -14's, and you realize what some of these advantages are.
Most sailplanes, of course, that meet the standard class specification
now have dive brakes, and they have some pretty serious drawbacks.
First, when you pull out the dive brakes on the average ship that has
the DFS type, the stalling speed increases. In other words, if you are
coming in to land with open dive brakes, you are landing about 10 miles
an hour faster. With a simple flap, you land about 10 miles an hour
slower. This means that when landing in a very bad field, you will do
less damage if you run into rocks or stumps, or a very rough terrain
type of field. Also, you will land shorter. By actual test in the HP-14
with no wind, we found that we could land in 88 feet from the time we
touched ground until we stopped. The flaps are more effective at low
speeds.
Most of the DFS type dive brakes are very powerful at high
speeds but as you slow up they get less effective. The DFS type of brake
is very difficult to build because you have to have a slot in your wing
anywhere from 5 to 8 feet long. From a structural standpoint, it is very
difficult to build. As the wing flexes you get differential bending at
that point. It also weakens your torque tube, your torque box, and it
gives you problems when the wing flexes because the wing structure bends
while the dive brake itself stays straight. Some of the European ships
have solved this problem by having a small strip that is spring loaded
so that it will lie on the surface as the wing bends.. Also, with all of
this complicated structure right in the most critical part of the wing,
cost of construction is seriously increased. The simple flap, on the
other hand, is nothing but an aluminum triangular shaped box usually
with no spar in it. They can be driven from one end so that no parts are
required out in the wing to operate the flap.
Another problem with the
DFS type dive brake is with extra drag when retracted. All of you who
have owned ships with a DFS type brake have tried to fill them. When you
are flying in a contest and get into the air, the wing bends, thus
forcing the clay to pop out. You no longer have laminar flow over that
section. The simple flap is lighter in weight because the mechanism and
brake boxes are eliminated.
One of the reasons the standard class requires the speed limiting dive
brake is that if a student pilot gets caught in a cloud he is supposed
to be able to slow up the ship and get out of the cloud. I have found,
in flying in Europe, especially in England, that every time you get up
in clouds you usually get icing and usually come out of the bottom of
the cloud with a load of ice all over the airplane and hope that it will
melt off before you get to the ground. With the DFS type dive brake
sticking out, that is the first thing that the ice builds up on and I am
not too sure you will always -be able to get them back in the wing. When
we flew in the Internationals over in England, we iced up in every cloud
above 8000 or 9000 feet.
Another advantage of the trailing edge simple flap is, when making an
approach to land, you can come in at a steeper angle than you can with
any of the ships I have ever flown with the DFS type dive brakes. Also,
when you put the flap down, it puts the nose of the ship down so you
have very good visibility over the nose to see the field in which you
are landing.
A further feature that you get with the trailing edge flap when you put
the flap down is that the decalage angle between the wing and the
horizontal tail is increased. This tends to increase the longitudinal
stability. In most of the HP's, when you are making an approach with the
flaps down, you can let go of the stick and be very stable. When the
stick is pushed forward and then released the nose will pop right back
up to the trim speed.
An additional flap advantage is realized on takeoff. You can get off the
ground much quicker because down flaps have the effect of increasing the
angle of attack of the wing and gives a higher lift coefficient.
Therefore, if you are taking off in a crosswind or under adverse
conditions, you can get into the air much quicker than you can without a
flap. I have mentioned that this type of flap does not require any
special bracing in the wing as would be required with the DFS type.
When you are flying at relatively high speeds in gusty air with the
trailing edge flap, you actually strengthen the wing when you put the
flap down because it moves the center of pressure inboard towards the
fuselage. If you are flying at high speed you can lock out at your wings
and they will actually bend down because at the higher speeds the angle
of attack of your wing outboard of the flaps is negative and you are
getting negative lift on that portion of the wing. The reverse is
usually true on the DFS type dive brakes because you kill off your lift
in the area that has the brakes, and then the wing from the brake to the
tip has to carry the weight of the ship. They had some severe problems
with this phenomenon on the Dart. In some of the early tests, the wings
bent up very sharply. Subsequent calculations revealed that the spars
were below the necessary strength in this condition. The spars had to be
reinforced before flight tests could be continued. There is also a
possibility with a trailing edge flap of getting some improvement in
performance at low speed and at high speeds by varying flap position
settings.
There is a definite increase in performance when you are
running at high speed and can put your flaps up slightly because it
lines up the fuselage better with the airflow and instead of flying
along with a nose down, the nose comes up and the ship trims in a more
level attitude. At low speed there are flap advantages because you can
fly a little slower, which allows a smaller turn radius and allows the
sailplane to circle a little closer to the core of the thermal. On
approach, you have much better visibility as you are coming into the
field.
Question: The arguments that have frequently been heard of dive brakes
over flaps is that in the landing approach, when you get slowed down
with the flap configuration, what do you do when you get in sink and
need to dump the flaps in order to make the field? The argument is that,
well, if you've got dive brakes, you turn them off and that improves the
flying characteristics so that you can get the extra penetration to make
it in to the field.
Schreder: This is really the only valid question against flaps but it
really doesn't have any bearing and I'll tell you why. In the first
place, when you make an approach with any sailplane, it is my theory
that you should have 15 or 20 mph above your stalling speed, according
to how gusty it is. You use either your flaps or your dive brakes, not
to control your air speed, but to control your glide path as you
approach. In other words, you always use the same pattern around the
field and then when it looks like you are too high you begin cranking in
your dive brakes or your flaps; and you maintain that same speed all the
way down to your flare out. Now, this, I'm sure, is the best method to
make an approach. In the case of using dive brakes, as soon as you see
you are a little low you immediately retract but you still maintain that
same speed unless you have to slow down to reach the field. But, if you
are coming in on a normal approach angle and you can see you are getting
a little below it you retract your dive brakes, You do the same thing
with flaps. If you are coming around on final and it looks like you are
a little too low, you immediately retract your flaps and, of course,
your glide flattens right out. You continue until you get back on your
glide path where you crank them down again. Now. the one thing you don't
ever do is leave your flaps down and just keep pulling the stick back
trying to zoom in to the field, any more than you would leave your dive
brakes out and keep pulling your nose up trying to hold altitude to get
to the field. So, I really don't think it is a valid question. Now, it's
true, if you left them out and kept slowing down until you got to your
stall speed with the flaps down and saw you weren't going to reach the
field, there is nothing you could do.
Question; The question is, what if you slowed down too much for a flaps
up configuration and, in reality, you're saying that this should never
happen.
Schreder: That's right. They don't know how to use the flaps. And, the
only people who ask this question are the people who have never used
them.
Comment: I've been flying HP's a lot since '66 and the situation
he describes will never happen to a fellow who has made two or three or
four landings with them. One of the advantages that Dick mentioned was a
steeper approach. That immediately takes the situation and wipes it out.
On final approach I'm anywhere from 200 to 400 feet higher than I would
come in with a conventional glider and I could either overshoot the
field flaps up or put both flaps on and undershoot the field. With these
type of flaps you've got such a wide angle that you will never find
yourself doing it short.
Comment: The advantage, then, is the slower speed on actual touchdown?
Schreder: That's right. If you did get yourself into a position where
you couldn't make the field, you would be much better off with flaps
than you would with dive brakes because if you are going to run into a
fence or you are going to go into the boondocks across the road from the
airport, you are much better off with flaps because when you see you are
going to go in there, you just crank them down all the way, and, if you
have a 10 mph wind you touch down at about 25 or 30 mph, whereas if you
had dive brakes, you'd be going maybe 10 mph faster, and if you put the
dive brakes out, you'd be going even faster. So, this is the extra
safety feature of the flaps."
Alex Upchurch
"Bob Kuykendall" <REMOVE_TO...@hpaircraft.com> wrote in message
> As for the stall characteristics with positive flap, my experience is that
the
> non-interconnected HPs (like my HP-11A) have a relatively docile stall,
with
> lots of warning. However, my experience with the interconnected HP-18 is
> that the stall with positive flap is quick and sharp. Of course, the
aifoil differences
> between these ships makes that comparison largely meaningless. However, my
> guess is that the interconnection has no small contribution to it.
Think of what happens to the effective twist of the wing when the flaps are
deflected down.
The large "washout" results in a docile stall. If you look at Terry
Heally's cam modification for the HP-18, you can see that it restores this
"washout" to the wing once you lower the flaps past the thermalling range.
Now, if you stall with the flaps in a negative setting your wing has
"washin". Can you say "tip-stall"? :-)
Alex.
Armand A. Medeiros
learning a lot. The 304CZ has flaps, but I have not used them to their full
extent on landings yet due to high winds and the need for speed.
However, I have used FULL spoilers and they are an awesome thing. With full
spoilers, I need to point the nose down to keep the speed up and the rate of
decent can be...how should I put this...inspiring! Now, here I am at zero
flap, full spoilers, and I put them away. No problem IF the speed is kept
way up...don't do it slow! It drops when you put them away with zero flaps
set.
At altitude, I have tried full flaps and full spoilers with somewhat mild
results, but full spoilers without full flaps is something to be avoided
when low and slow for sure. If you pull them out, you leave them out or move
them in just a little slowly...at least that is what I discovered.
Sooo, my question is, how do the spoilers affect the flap efficiency and
wing dynamics? Do the spoilers actually disrupt the airflow over the flaps
enough to cause some other problems I am not aware of? Do they end up making
the outter wing carry most of the load?
Armand
"Alex Upchurch" <al...@sentex.net> wrote in message
news:3af4...@news.sentex.net...
Don
http://freespace.virgin.net/donald.brown1/flaps
Don Brown
Nth Wales
UK
Dennis Brown
of the Sperry Rand Corporation. What has happened since then?
As I recall, when I visited the New Holland facility it was located in New
Holland, Pa. I always thought it was interesting when one of my hosts
made the observation "we don't sell much equipment around here". Watching
one of the local farmers handle a 6 abreast team of horses in front of a
large rake was one of my most memorable sights. Talk about teamwork and
coordination, incredible! Turns on a dime.
Now back to sailplanes, please.
Dennis Brown
In article <3aecd931...@news.mwci.net>, Your...@if.you.know.how wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 19:19:39 -0600, "Walt Konecny"
><wkon...@uswest.net> Did cause babble to appear with:
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:52:42 -0700, "Armand A. Medeiros"
>>> <zar...@pacbell.net>
>>
>> >Lennie,
>> >
>> >Regarding work qualtiy,
>> >
>> >There are those that do ONLY what they are told to do.
>>
>>Reality 101: Brokers have promised stockholders that the stock price will
>>climb.
>>
>Reality 201: When the price has climbed enough, the company will be
>bought by a european firm and promptly moved overseas.
>
>Look for the name of J.I.Case to disappear after a 160 year history.
>The plant in the original location is to be closed and razed next
>year. Bought by New Holland. Founded by Jerome Increase Case in
>Racine, Wisconsin. New Holland opened their benevolent nature by
>announcing that this will be the first plant closed. Maybe some
>indication of their intentions?
>
>Richard
>
To reply:
replace the xxx in the address with the 3 digit
model designation of the Glasflugel Mosquito
Udo Rumpf
flaps only, as you alluded to,
then your friend did not do his home work before
this flight .
The results are tricky indeed.
Are the pictures to be proof of flaps being
inferior then spoiler for glide path control?
I can show you similar pictures of gliders with
spoilers only.
But I would not say: Landings with spoilers can be
tricky.
Udo
--
http://www.wingdolly.reach.net
Armand A. Medeiros
the left and very close? Looks like rising terrain...maybe some wind and a
downdraft?
Armand
"Don" <donald...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:K88J6.3484$7_1.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Ludovic Launer
Most important : the pilot was unhurt.
But don't you think that :
Lack of training / judgment can lead to tricky situations ?
Ludovic Launer
ludovic...@iname.com
Bill Dean.
Landing with normal (Schempp Hirth type) brakes can be tricky. It can be
tricky with very powerful brakes (K7) or with rather weak brakes (Libelle);
it can be tricky with average brakes, there have been plenty of accidents to
show this.
It is a good idea to get proper training; both flying, explanation and
briefing.
I owned a Kestrel 19 for some 8 seasons, and an ASW20L early model for some
3 or 4. I regularly changed landing flap setting both in and out during
the approach, this can be done with safety. This should be understood,
learnt and practised until it is as much second nature as the ordinary use
of Schempp Hirth brakes.
I can think of two accidents due to incorrect use of a tail chute. Both
were experienced pilots, both were field landings. In each case, this was
the first time the pilot had ever tried using the tail chute, enough said?
Bill Dean, U.K.
>
> Don <donald...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:K88J6.3484$7_1.4...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
Robert Ehrlich
>
> You do not say what type of glider it was, it looks like a Kestrel 19.
>
> Landing with normal (Schempp Hirth type) brakes can be tricky. It can be
> tricky with very powerful brakes (K7) or with rather weak brakes (Libelle);
> it can be tricky with average brakes, there have been plenty of accidents to
> show this.
>
> It is a good idea to get proper training; both flying, explanation and
> briefing.
Certainly training is the most important thing for successful landings. But there
is an objective fact in favor of spoilers vs flaps: by closing the spoilers you
can immediately regain the best glide path of the glider, which you can't do with
flaps. I was happy to be able to do this one day when a pedestrian decided to cross
the runway just at my aiming point when I was halfway of the final.
Don
The point I was trying to make, rather graphically, is that (IMHO) in a very
stressful situation (which this was), misuse of landing flaps can probably
be more dangerous than closing the airbrakes.
I dont want to go on about this more. - ask Keith Mansell about it, he
helped retrieve the bits. BTW the pilot was the club CFI at the time !
Don Brown
Nth Wales
UK
Bill Dean. <bill...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:989180483.147537@dionysos...