Rowland,
Maybe wishful thinking on their part. We all wish them well but the recent
"Swiftfest"
that took place at the RAeS in London indicated they have a very long
way to go before getting to a prototype let alone a production aircraft. In
homebuild circles we say that when the project looks 90% complete there is 90%
to go. In aircraft certification the starting gun is fired when the authorities
are engaged, the process is time limited (although extensions can be authorised)
and does not end until the TCDS is issued. The production phase is normally
triggered following the successful demonstration and flight trials of
prototypes,
freezing of the design and the success of key structural tests. Even
then there is a need for a launch customer.
Swift are forging a path that we hope will result in a viable, sustainable and
desirable aircraft. Being composite means the high cost of tooling needs to be
committed to very early in the process. This is risky unless sufficient R&D
is done - enough to absolutely confirm the OML (outer mould line) is final and
often (depending upon the production method) that structures are sufficient
to pass the necessary strength tests (wing static ~13.5g for an aerobatic
aircraft).
Over-design results in a heavy, poorly performing aircraft. It is a tight-rope
walk for sure.
I am sure that if they heed advice and adhere to a conventional R&D,
prototype/test
and debugging program they will achieve their aims. But in all probability
it will take 3 times longer and cost 5x as much as they initially planned.
I speak from experience.
--------
John Wighton
Europa XS trigear G-IPOD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=463103#463103
|