Hi all

This has been thrashed out before but a search didnt come up with any difinitive answers, only general observations and personal views.

What opinions have you all on canopy tinting - what color and why?

The tinted canopy looks better from the outside - Yep, I reckon so

The tints seem to lower the temperature inside -really? -HOW? I would have thought the darker color retains more heat than a clear canopy does- am I wrong?
Is there a significant difference in heat reduction from the tint, once the cockpit has cooled after launch?

The lower light within the cockpit makes reading some instruments difficult, especially with age modified eyeballs - I can imagine this to be true, is it a big problem, does it outweigh any benefits?

Does the color chosen improve visibility outside- for seeing haze domes, distanct CU or other aircraft? And therefore, should the color be chosen specifically for where one intends to fly?
For example, the terrain over Australia is generally an entirely different color to that of rural UK or snowy area's in the European Alps or northern US, should the color be matched to these areas?

Aside from reflections being reduced in the darker cockpit, an obvios benefit -especially for DG type canopies, is it mainly a glam thing that only makes the craft look better from outside?

Thanks,

Bagger

bagmaker wrote:

> Does the color chosen improve visibility outside- for seeing haze
> domes, distanct CU or other aircraft?

With a tinted canopy you are "locked in" to that particular tint. I
prefer to apply my own tint where it counts the most, using sunglasses
(and no tint on the canopy). When flying heat buildup shouldn't be an
issue with proper cockpit venting. On the ground use a canopy cover.

My .02

Regards,

-Doug

On Jul 30, 11:46 pm, bagmaker >
wrote:
> Hi all
>
>
>
> The tints seem to lower the temperature inside -really? -HOW? I would
> have thought the darker color retains more heat than a clear canopy
> does- am I wrong?
> Is there a significant difference in heat reduction from the tint, once
> the cockpit has cooled after launch?

The reason canopy tints tend to be blue/green is to reduce IR (not UV)
transmission into the cockpit and it is noticeable when you go from a
tinted canopy to a clear one (as I have done at present) that direct
sun on the face feels hotter. The tint won't significantly reduce
heat buildup from the greenhouse effect from the light wavelengths
that get through.
>
> Does the color chosen improve visibility outside- for seeing haze
> domes, distanct CU or other aircraft? And therefore, should the color
> be chosen specifically for where one intends to fly?
> For example, the terrain over Australia is generally an entirely
> different color to that of rural UK or snowy area's in the European
> Alps or northern US, should the color be matched to these areas?
>
The tint colour is not usually amber/yellow (that would be expected to
be better for haze penetration and UV protection) because the
intention is to filter IR rather than blue/UV. UV is already mostly
blocked by a good quality clear canopy. There is a body of opinion
that a blue or green canopy will reduce haze penetration (which it
should do in theory) but a few years ago I reported on RAS trials that
my syndicate partner and I made in a blue tinted canopy Duo comparing
looking through the canopy versus the clear view panel while wearing a
variety of coloured sunglasses. We could find no subjective reduction
in haze penetration.

John Galloway

> Thanks,
>
> Bagger
>
> --
> bagmaker

Couple of points.

Light scatters more at the higher wavelengths, ie blue. This is why the
orange colored "blue blockers" improve visibility. They block the
scattered light from haze, dust, etc. If you want this effect, you'd
need your canopy tinted the same reddish color of the "blue blocker"
sunglasses.

If the canopy is tinted, the canopy itself should absorb more light.
Because some of the light is blocked and not able to pass through to the
cockpit interior there should be a reduction in temperature in the
cockpit. I suspect that this would not yield a significant difference
in cockpit temperature. One potential downside is that if more light is
absorbed by the canopy, you could potentially experience issues with the
canopy not wanting to close nicely on a hot day due to the additional
thermal expansion.

. *When flying heat buildup shouldn't be an
> issue with proper cockpit venting. *On the ground use a canopy cover.
>
> My .02
>
> Regards,
>
> -Doug

Never flown a glider in Arizona, I bet!

Mike

bagmaker wrote:
>Hi all
>Aside from reflections being reduced in the darker cockpit, an obvio
>benefit -especially for DG type canopies, is it mainly a glam thin
>that only makes the craft look better from outside?
>--
>bagmaker

I've flown clear and kinda brown tinted.
It was cooler in the tinted one.
I wear sunglasses so I'm not sure I remember how the tints affected
visibility.

it was just cooler inside

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200807/1

There were a few assumptions made in the original post that were
probably wrong and most of them have been corrected in later postings.
I've been involved in lighting and perception for 25 years (see
brianhoodlightingdesign.com for more about that) and can offer some
more opinions.

From the original post:
"I would have thought the darker color retains more heat than a clear
canopy" was responded to with-
'The reason canopy tints tend to be blue/green is to reduce IR (not
UV) transmission into the cockpit and it is noticeable when you go
from a tinted canopy to a clear one (as I have done at present) that
direct sun on the face feels hotter. The tint won't significantly
reduce heat buildup from the greenhouse effect from the light
wavelengths that get through.'

This is mostly correct in my view. First, UV filters made of plastic
tend to be clear while glass UV filters are slightly yellow, but this
has more to do with other factors. UV is by definition not a visible
spectrum so there is no reason for tint to affect UV transmission. On
the other hand, sunlight that is absorbed by a dark canopy (down-
converted to heat in the plastic) would then be cooled by cool air (if
present) passing over the canopy so there could be some benefit there,
plus radiant heat (clear canopy) is much more efficient at heating you
than convective (tinted canopy). In my opinion, tinted is better in
this respect.

From the original post:
"The lower light within the cockpit makes reading some instruments
difficult, especially with age modified eyeballs - I can imagine this
to be true, is it a big problem, does it outweigh any benefits?"

I have to disagree with this. I can't think of any case where the
light levels in the cockpit would fall so low as to prevent easy
viewing of the ASI or altimeter. If you use a PDA it will be much more
visible under a tinted canopy because the contrast ratio (contrast
ratio is a much more important factor than total luminance) is so much
less. The ability of the eye to respond to the very different amounts
of light as it is directed first at a diffuse sky dome and then back
to a dim PDA is the difficult visual task here. In my opinion, tinted
is better in this respect.

Finally,
From the original post:
" no definitive answers, only general observations and personal views"
there will be no definitive answers, because in the end very little is
known about light and how it works on a basic level. That light is
photons that go 186,000mps is a nice theory that is popular but is
contradicted by a lot of other known facts. More to the point, the old
theories of how the eye and brain detect and respond to light via rods
and cones has been quite upset by the research into non-visual
photoreceptors or 'Intrinsically photoreceptive retinal ganglion
cells'. If that is of any interest google 'melanopsin' and go from
there. It's all quite fascinating really, and some of it relates
directly to this question.

Brian





On Jul 30, 3:46 pm, bagmaker >
wrote:
> Hi all
>
> This has been thrashed out before but a search didnt come up with any
> difinitive answers, only general observations and personal views.
>
> What opinions have you all on canopy tinting - what color and why?
>
> The tinted canopy looks better from the outside - Yep, I reckon so

Hi Guys.
I manufacture transparencies

I really believe in changing sunglasses to match conditions.

First, I hate the idea that you can't lighten a canopy on a murky day.

Second, I feel that tinted canopies are a hit and miss quality issue.
Think for a minute about how the canopies are made. A flat piece
of material is stretched either by free blowing or in contact with a tool
surface. This produces areas of flow that make the canopy thinner in
some places than others. The non-uniform thickness means some places are
darker
than others as tint values are depth dependant.

If you are getting roasted in Arizona, stick a piece of dark green cling
film tinting
to the inside of the canopy above your head. You dont spend a lot of time
looking straight up
so the abrupt change from light to dark will not matter, and the temps will
still drop dramatically..

Scott Correa
Spektr Products.

Having flown with a variety of tinted/non-tinted canopies, I would say that
on an average soaring day they seem to make very little difference to
vision and/or heating. In very low light levels (twilight/dark) I'd
prefer to be under a clear lid but practically it wouldn't make a huge
difference.

IMHO you're probably better off with a clear canopy + cover + a decent
pair of sunglasses: at least you can change/remove the sunglasses...

The "Perspex" normally used for glider canopies is transparent from
about 350nm and longer wavelengths, which includes part of the UVA band.
There is enough energy in the photons there to cause skin/tissue damage,
so although you might not visibly "burn" as much as in direct sunlight,
it's not at all good for you. I'm a bit sensitive in this respect so for
me high-factor sunblock is a must in a glider. You can get "UV 400"
Perspex which only lets in visible light but I've never heard of a canopy
being made with it (maybe I should ask!)

On Aug 1, 5:55 am, Ed Downham > wrote:
> Having flown with a variety of tinted/non-tinted canopies, I would say that
> on an average soaring day they seem to make very little difference to
> vision and/or heating. In very low light levels (twilight/dark) I'd
> prefer to be under a clear lid but practically it wouldn't make a huge
> difference.
>
> IMHO you're probably better off with a clear canopy + cover + a decent
> pair of sunglasses: at least you can change/remove the sunglasses...
>
> The "Perspex" normally used for glider canopies is transparent from
> about 350nm and longer wavelengths, which includes part of the UVA band.
> There is enough energy in the photons there to cause skin/tissue damage,
> so although you might not visibly "burn" as much as in direct sunlight,
> it's not at all good for you. I'm a bit sensitive in this respect so for
> me high-factor sunblock is a must in a glider. You can get "UV 400"
> Perspex which only lets in visible light but I've never heard of a canopy
> being made with it (maybe I should ask!)

Well, you didn't really ask, but here is is anyhow... http://www.thermotecusa.com/
Ray Poquette has been making 98% UV blocker canopies of ALL flavors
for along time. Here is a link to his UV canopy chart:
http://www.thermotecusa.com/ThermoTec%20UV%20Block%20Canopy%20Info.htm

-Paul

Most art museums use some version of the Littlemore Scientific
Engineering Co (ELSEC) Crawford 760 or 763 UV meter. I've got one that
I use to evaluate window glazing and tinting systems. For instance,
there is a belief that all glazing that's laminated will stop UV, but
I've found that sometimes a glazing unit made with .030 laminating
interlayer won't stop quite enough so we have to spec it up to .060
interlayer which so far has always made the cut. 100% of the materials
that pass or fail the UV test are branded "stops 99.9% UV" so that
claim doesn't mean much.

My understanding is that most plastics are heavily doped with UV
inhibitors to prevent failure of the plastic and not out of any desire
to protect the end user from skin cancer. All the plastic I've bought
from the local plastic store has been well within the accepted limits.
Anyway, one day I took the meter out to the line and started checking
canopies with the expectation that all the canopies would stop enough
UV to make it a non-issue. All of the DG canopies I checked were 100%
good. On an LS1, the fixed section was good and the removable section
very poor. In general most of the older canopies were not that great.

Now the meter is designed to measure all of the UV, not just the
cancer causing part of the spectrum, so using this meter for this use
seems likely to cause a lot of false negatives. All I take from it is
that newer canopies, in particular DG canopies are probably blocking
enough UV.


On Aug 1, 7:05 am, sisu1a > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 5:55 am, Ed Downham > wrote:

> > Having flown with a variety of tinted/non-tinted canopies, I would say that
> > on an average soaring day they seem to make very little difference to
> > vision and/or heating. In very low light levels (twilight/dark) I'd
> > prefer to be under a clear lid but practically it wouldn't make a huge
> > difference.
>
> > IMHO you're probably better off with a clear canopy + cover + a decent
> > pair of sunglasses: at least you can change/remove the sunglasses...
>
> > The "Perspex" normally used for glider canopies is transparent from
> > about 350nm and longer wavelengths, which includes part of the UVA band.
> > There is enough energy in the photons there to cause skin/tissue damage,
> > so although you might not visibly "burn" as much as in direct sunlight,
> > it's not at all good for you. I'm a bit sensitive in this respect so for
> > me high-factor sunblock is a must in a glider. You can get "UV 400"
> > Perspex which only lets in visible light but I've never heard of a canopy
> > being made with it (maybe I should ask!)
>
> Well, you didn't really ask, but here is is anyhow...http://www.thermotecusa.com/
> Ray Poquette has been making 98% UV blocker canopies of ALL flavors
> for along time. Here is a link to his UV canopy chart:http://www.thermotecusa.com/ThermoTec%20UV%20Block%20Canopy%20Info.htm
>
> -Paul

Due to some interesting medical procedures UV exposure is a "bad
thing" for me. Based on this and the fact we fly higher in the
atmosphere here in Colorado I decided to replace my canopy with one of
Ray Poquette's 98% UV blocking canopies. When I ordered it Ray
talked me into getting a fairly dark brown tint as well. I have
actually been very pleased with it. It does a very nice job of
keeping the cockpit a bit cooler, especially since I tend to fly in
the hotter parts of the west. As noted I find it easier to see my PDA
and I have had no problems seeing my instruments. When I talked to
Ray he thought the tint would "shorten the day" by about 15 min due to
the tint. I think this is pretty accurate. I still wear sunglasses,
but since they don't need to be as dark as before I have a lot more
options on the ones I can use as my eyes have always been a bit
sensitive to bright light.

For a while I had a bit of trouble closing my canopy on hot days. But
I figured out that the new installation was a little tight around the
forward canopy bow. Once I made sure there was a 1/16 inch gap on a
70 degree day with a bit of sanding, I have not had any more
problems. (I do keep a canopy cover on it until I am ready to fly.)

Besides, my daughter thinks my ship looks "really cool" with the dark
canopy

AA

At 14:05 01 August 2008, sisu1a wrote:
>On Aug 1, 5:55 am, Ed Downham wrote:
>> Having flown with a variety of tinted/non-tinted canopies, I would say
>that
>> on an average soaring day they seem to make very little difference to
>> vision and/or heating. In very low light levels (twilight/dark) I'd
>> prefer to be under a clear lid but practically it wouldn't make a
huge
>> difference.
>>
>> IMHO you're probably better off with a clear canopy + cover + a
decent
>> pair of sunglasses: at least you can change/remove the sunglasses...
>>
>> The "Perspex" normally used for glider canopies is transparent from
>> about 350nm and longer wavelengths, which includes part of the UVA
band.
>> There is enough energy in the photons there to cause skin/tissue
damage,
>> so although you might not visibly "burn" as much as in direct
sunlight,
>> it's not at all good for you. I'm a bit sensitive in this respect so
for
>> me high-factor sunblock is a must in a glider. You can get "UV 400"
>> Perspex which only lets in visible light but I've never heard of a
>canopy
>> being made with it (maybe I should ask!)
>
>Well, you didn't really ask, but here is is anyhow...
>http://www.thermotecusa.com/
>Ray Poquette has been making 98% UV blocker canopies of ALL flavors
>for along time. Here is a link to his UV canopy chart:
>http://www.thermotecusa.com/ThermoTec%20UV%20Block%20Canopy%
20Info.htm
>
>-Paul
>
Thanks Paul,

Interesting. I'm getting a new canopy for next season so will
investigate...

Ed.

Hi,

Below is a photo of an interesting canopy tint. It is a F-22 raptor photo
taken at Oshkosh (not by me). The F-22 seems to have an amber (blue
blocker) tinted canopy. It also appears to be mirrored - but that may or may
not be true.
http://www.avweb.com/newspics/airventure-2008_wallpaper_f-22_raptor.jpg

P.S. - One of the gliders I owned in the past was a lovely red 1-35c with a
dark tinted canopy. It looked very cool with the tinted canopy. I'm always
in favor of anything that makes a slightly old glider look new and cool. My
best guess on the heating in the cockpit is that the more heating will
happen in the canopy itself that with a clear canopy. The heating in the
canopy should be pulled away by the air passing over it in flight. I do
remember feeling that it was a bit dark in the cockpit when flying under
dark overcast areas of cloud cover, but it was not a problem. I didn't fly
with a PDA back then so I don't know how that would be. I imagine that a
PDA with a powerful backlight like an iPAQ hx4700 would appear brighter
inside the darkened cockpit.

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde

"Ed Downham" > wrote in message
...
> At 14:05 01 August 2008, sisu1a wrote:
>>On Aug 1, 5:55 am, Ed Downham wrote:
>>> Having flown with a variety of tinted/non-tinted canopies, I would say
>>that
>>> on an average soaring day they seem to make very little difference to
>>> vision and/or heating. In very low light levels (twilight/dark) I'd
>>> prefer to be under a clear lid but practically it wouldn't make a
> huge
>>> difference.
>>>
>>> IMHO you're probably better off with a clear canopy + cover + a
> decent
>>> pair of sunglasses: at least you can change/remove the sunglasses...
>>>
>>> The "Perspex" normally used for glider canopies is transparent from
>>> about 350nm and longer wavelengths, which includes part of the UVA
> band.
>>> There is enough energy in the photons there to cause skin/tissue
> damage,
>>> so although you might not visibly "burn" as much as in direct
> sunlight,
>>> it's not at all good for you. I'm a bit sensitive in this respect so
> for
>>> me high-factor sunblock is a must in a glider. You can get "UV 400"
>>> Perspex which only lets in visible light but I've never heard of a
>>canopy
>>> being made with it (maybe I should ask!)
>>
>>Well, you didn't really ask, but here is is anyhow...
>>http://www.thermotecusa.com/
>>Ray Poquette has been making 98% UV blocker canopies of ALL flavors
>>for along time. Here is a link to his UV canopy chart:
>>http://www.thermotecusa.com/ThermoTec%20UV%20Block%20Canopy%
> 20Info.htm
>>
>>-Paul
>>
> Thanks Paul,
>
> Interesting. I'm getting a new canopy for next season so will
> investigate...
>
> Ed.

Hi Paul.

The effects you see are from the EMI coatings used to keep electromagnetic
emissions from the instruments/displays inside the cockpit. This is part of
the
stealth package. These canopys are multi layered assemblies with lots of
different stuff to do a number of things. On a 777 for instance, the
plastic windows
have integral heaters to keep them from freexing and having degraded
mechanical
properties. In fact, if you lose the window heaters in flight, there is an
aircraft speed limit
applied to keep Q at an acceptable level. There was also a service bulletin
a while
back, because the window heaters would ignite in flight. It was pretty cool
beacause
the event occured between the window panes and you could watch it progress
across the
window.

Scott


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Remde" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: canopy tint


> Hi,
>
> Below is a photo of an interesting canopy tint. It is a F-22 raptor photo
> taken at Oshkosh (not by me). The F-22 seems to have an amber (blue
> blocker) tinted canopy. It also appears to be mirrored - but that may or
> may not be true.
> http://www.avweb.com/newspics/airventure-2008_wallpaper_f-22_raptor.jpg
>
> P.S. - One of the gliders I owned in the past was a lovely red 1-35c with
> a dark tinted canopy. It looked very cool with the tinted canopy. I'm
> always in favor of anything that makes a slightly old glider look new and
> cool. My best guess on the heating in the cockpit is that the more
> heating will happen in the canopy itself that with a clear canopy. The
> heating in the canopy should be pulled away by the air passing over it in
> flight. I do remember feeling that it was a bit dark in the cockpit when
> flying under dark overcast areas of cloud cover, but it was not a problem.
> I didn't fly with a PDA back then so I don't know how that would be. I
> imagine that a PDA with a powerful backlight like an iPAQ hx4700 would
> appear brighter inside the darkened cockpit.
>
> Good Soaring,
>
> Paul Remde
>

Here is a pair of the dark gray canopies made by Ray Poquette of
Thermotec. He made them for one of my Grob 103s about a month ago.
http://www.crosscountrysoaring.com/gpage1.html (scroll to the bottom
of the page where I misspelled his name - dang.)
They were installed beautifully by Fidel at Applebay Aviation in
Moriarty, NM. You can see the before/after effect on the appearance
since it is sitting next to the other Grob with the clear canopies.
There is no question that the tinted canopies are FAR cooler. The tint
seems to be very similar to Serengeti Driver sunglasses. If fact, I
have been taking my Serengetis off when I close the canopy and notice
that my eyes hardly adjust at all. I love them. On the other hand,
when it starts getting cold, as it sometimes does in Minnesota, those
clear canopies are going to start getting more and more air time. :-)
The first day we had over 90 degrees the front canopy did get tight
after sitting in the sun. It was easy to see where the gap had closed
though (front-center and back-center, the longest stretch). Some light
sanding took care of it. I have no problems seeing instruments/LCDs.
And even when I fly right up to sundown, I think the cloud-contrast is
still sharper with the tint - it just looks later than it is, which is
the only downside I have found so far. The tint isn't so dark that
wingrunners can't see your signals either. My 2 cents......

At 03:58 03 August 2008, wrote:
>
>Here is a pair of the dark gray canopies made by Ray Poquette of
>Thermotec. He made them for one of my Grob 103s about a month ago.
>http://www.crosscountrysoaring.com/gpage1.html (scroll to the bottom
>of the page where I misspelled his name - dang.)
>They were installed beautifully by Fidel at Applebay Aviation in
>Moriarty, NM. You can see the before/after effect on the appearance
>since it is sitting next to the other Grob with the clear canopies.
>There is no question that the tinted canopies are FAR cooler. The tint
>seems to be very similar to Serengeti Driver sunglasses. If fact, I
>have been taking my Serengetis off when I close the canopy and notice
>that my eyes hardly adjust at all. I love them. On the other hand,
>when it starts getting cold, as it sometimes does in Minnesota, those
>clear canopies are going to start getting more and more air time. :-)
>The first day we had over 90 degrees the front canopy did get tight
>after sitting in the sun. It was easy to see where the gap had closed
>though (front-center and back-center, the longest stretch). Some light
>sanding took care of it. I have no problems seeing instruments/LCDs.
>And even when I fly right up to sundown, I think the cloud-contrast is
>still sharper with the tint - it just looks later than it is, which is
>the only downside I have found so far. The tint isn't so dark that
>wingrunners can't see your signals either. My 2 cents......
>
>
>

Yes, they do look good...

I've always fancied a midnight/stealth black glider with a mirror canopy.
That would put the wind up the competition: evil or what!

Maybe leave off the gelcoat and just have carbon. ;)

"Ed Downham" > wrote in message
...
> At 03:58 03 August 2008, wrote:
> Yes, they do look good...
>
> I've always fancied a midnight/stealth black glider with a mirror canopy.
> That would put the wind up the competition: evil or what!
>
> Maybe leave off the gelcoat and just have carbon. ;)


At first blush, an intriguing idea. However, there is a fatal flaw. The
black glider would absorb so much heat energy that it would soon become a
mobile thermal trigger. The competition would quickly figure this out and
simply leach along above you, gaining altitude the whole way.

bumper
zz

On Aug 4, 8:15*am, (Doug Hoffman) wrote:
> Ed Downham wrote:
> > Yes, they do look good...
>
> > I've always fancied a midnight/stealth black glider with a
> > mirror canopy.
> > That would put the wind up the competition: evil or what!
>
> How about oleo struts on the landing gear with an air pump that
> raised and lowered the whole glider in sync with a loud boom
> shacka lacka from the built in music system loudspeakers. *
> Combine that with bright glowing lights from under the fuse. *Get
> it all going during roll outs on the ground (take off and
> landing). *That would the fear into the competition!
>
> --
> Doug
>
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Don't forget the 22" spinner hubs on that beast :-)

Pete

Ed Downham wrote:

> Yes, they do look good...
>
> I've always fancied a midnight/stealth black glider with a
> mirror canopy.
> That would put the wind up the competition: evil or what!

How about oleo struts on the landing gear with an air pump that
raised and lowered the whole glider in sync with a loud boom
shacka lacka from the built in music system loudspeakers.
Combine that with bright glowing lights from under the fuse. Get
it all going during roll outs on the ground (take off and
landing). That would the fear into the competition!

--
Doug

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Aug 1, 9:05*am, sisu1a > wrote:
> On Aug 1, 5:55 am, Ed Downham > wrote:
>
> > Having flown with a variety of tinted/non-tinted canopies, I would say that
> > on an average soaring day they seem to make very little difference to
> > vision and/or heating. In very low light levels (twilight/dark) I'd
> > prefer to be under a clear lid but practically it wouldn't make a huge
> > difference.
>
> > IMHO you're probably better off with a clear canopy + cover + a decent
> > pair of sunglasses: at least you can change/remove the sunglasses...
>
> > The "Perspex" normally used for glider canopies is transparent from
> > about 350nm and longer wavelengths, which includes part of the UVA band..
> > There is enough energy in the photons there to cause skin/tissue damage,
> > so although you might not visibly "burn" as much as in direct sunlight,
> > it's not at all good for you. I'm a bit sensitive in this respect so for
> > me high-factor sunblock is a must in a glider. You can get "UV 400"
> > Perspex which only lets in visible light but I've never heard of a canopy
> > being made with it (maybe I should ask!)
>
> Well, you didn't really ask, but here is is anyhow...http://www.thermotecusa.com/
> Ray Poquette has been making 98% UV blocker canopies of ALL flavors
> for along time. Here is a link to his UV canopy chart:http://www.thermotecusa.com/ThermoTec%20UV%20Block%20Canopy%20Info.htm

The canopy chart is interesting - I normally fly a Ventus Cm, and have
never been bothered by sunburn;a couple of years ago I gave a ride to
a friend in a Grob, and was aware in less tha half an hour, through
that typical sensation of early sunburn, that UV was not as well
blocked. After checking out in it, I applied sunscreen liberally. The
difference really can be felt by the person with untanned, susceptible
skin.

Dan Johnson

Doug Hoffman wrote:


> How about oleo struts on the landing gear with an air pump that
> raised and lowered the whole glider in sync with a loud boom
> shacka lacka from the built in music system loudspeakers.
> Combine that with bright glowing lights from under the fuse. Get
> it all going during roll outs on the ground (take off and
> landing). That would the fear into the competition!


All I wanna know is, how much?


Jack