WGC Open Design Comparison

[Gary Osoba]

With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
statistical variance):

11427 JS-1C (4)
11316 Concordia (1)
11240 EB-29 (2)
11089 Quintus (7)
11069 Antares 23 (1)
10339 Nimbus 4 (2)
9977 EB-28 (4)
8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
7631 ASW-22BL

I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.

The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
by any of them. Just the numbers.

An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
correct if I got anything wrong.

Best Regards,

Gary Osoba

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, August 20, 2012 1:09:57 PM UTC-5, Gary Osoba wrote:
> With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating statistical variance): 11427 JS-1C (4) 11316 Concordia (1) 11240 EB-29 (2) 11089 Quintus (7) 11069 Antares 23 (1) 10339 Nimbus 4 (2) 9977 EB-28 (4) 8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew 7631 ASW-22BL I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more, i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's. The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots. The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced by any of them. Just the numbers. An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to correct if I got anything wrong. Best Regards, Gary Osoba

It was an ASW-22BLE that withdrew, only flying 5 days, so the average of the 2 -22's that flew the entire contest was 9336. Although Ron Tabery' -22 isn't really a stock -22, wingspan stretched to 28.5 meters...

[Gary Osoba[_3_]]

On Aug 20, 11:23*am, Tony > wrote:
> On Monday, August 20, 2012 1:09:57 PM UTC-5, Gary Osoba wrote:
> > With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating statistical variance): 11427 JS-1C (4) 11316 Concordia (1) 11240 EB-29 (2) 11089 Quintus (7) 11069 Antares 23 (1) 10339 Nimbus 4 (2) 9977 EB-28 (4) 8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew 7631 ASW-22BL I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more, i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's. The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots. The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced by any of them. Just the numbers. An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to correct if I got anything wrong. Best Regards, Gary Osoba
>
> It was an ASW-22BLE that withdrew, only flying 5 days, so the average of the 2 -22's that flew the entire contest was 9336. Although Ron Tabery' -22 isn't really a stock -22, wingspan stretched to 28.5 meters...

Thanks, Tony.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Aug 20, 1:09*pm, Gary Osoba > wrote:
> With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
> designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
> of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
> statistical variance):
>
> 11427 * JS-1C (4)
> 11316 * Concordia (1)
> 11240 * EB-29 (2)
> 11089 * Quintus (7)
> 11069 * Antares 23 (1)
> 10339 * Nimbus 4 (2)
> * 9977 * EB-28 (4)
> * 8962 * ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
> * 7631 * ASW-22BL
>
> I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
> were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
> only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
> i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
> The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
> similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
> essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
> true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
> the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.
>
> The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
> the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
> affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
> by any of them. Just the numbers.
>
> An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
> correct if I got anything wrong.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Gary Osoba

That 21-23 meter highly ballasted gliders do well in open class under
strong conditions is very interesting.

However, the big -- shocking really -- news I see in reading the WGC
results is pilot technique not hot gliders. Here we're not talking
about 1-2%, we're talking huge margins. The US Uvalde gurus in 15 and
18 ended up quite low on the scoresheet. These guys are just
unbeatatable in US national contests. I speak with authority here!
When I go to Uvalde, I fly my butt off and they always beat me by 2-3
mph when I'm doing well, and much more when, inevitably, I get to the
hill country at 2000'. Sure, there were some clear bad luck days, but
where were the stellar days? The Europeans blew in to town, and flew
the pants off us. So much for the mysterious ways of Uvalde weather.
What are they doing differently? I can't see anything on the traces
except a magic ability to drive at 110 knots, achieve LDs in the 70
and 80 range while doing so, then roll right in to 5-8 knot thermals
without getting low. (Actually, some big names from Europe seemed to
have similar very disappointing performances. So maybe there is a more
general set of lessons learned)

What's the story? There is a 5 - 10 mph discrepancy in pilot
technique, gaggling strategy / start gate technique, bumping strategy
or something. I hope the US team will share some "lessons learned" at
some point. Or maybe those of you who were there have opinions.

John Cochrane

[JS]

Good point about learning to fly, Gary.
Amazing.
Jim

On Monday, August 20, 2012 11:27:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Osoba wrote:

Pilots in the top two designs above were essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations.

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:
> With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
>
> designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
>
> of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
>
> statistical variance):
>
>
>
> 11427 JS-1C (4)
>
> 11316 Concordia (1)
>
> 11240 EB-29 (2)
>
> 11089 Quintus (7)
>
> 11069 Antares 23 (1)
>
> 10339 Nimbus 4 (2)
>
> 9977 EB-28 (4)
>
> 8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
>
> 7631 ASW-22BL
>
>
>
> I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
>
> were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
>
> only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
>
> i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
>
> The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
>
> similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
>
> essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
>
> true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
>
> the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.
>
>
>
> The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
>
> the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
>
> affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
>
> by any of them. Just the numbers.
>
>
>
> An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
>
> correct if I got anything wrong.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Gary Osoba


Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"
stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?
Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?

See ya, Dave

[François Hersen]

An another view, just for the first place in open class;

Quintus; 2
EB29; 3
JS1 C; 3
Antares; 3
Concirdia; 1

In strong conditions, 23 meters gliders have an avantage,

RC





"The trouble with weather forecasting is that it's right too often for us to
ignore it, and wrong too often for us to rely on it."


"John Cochrane" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
...

On Aug 20, 1:09 pm, Gary Osoba > wrote:
> With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
> designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
> of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
> statistical variance):
>
> 11427 JS-1C (4)
> 11316 Concordia (1)
> 11240 EB-29 (2)
> 11089 Quintus (7)
> 11069 Antares 23 (1)
> 10339 Nimbus 4 (2)
> 9977 EB-28 (4)
> 8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
> 7631 ASW-22BL
>
> I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
> were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
> only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
> i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
> The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
> similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
> essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
> true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
> the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.
>
> The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
> the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
> affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
> by any of them. Just the numbers.
>
> An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
> correct if I got anything wrong.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Gary Osoba

That 21-23 meter highly ballasted gliders do well in open class under
strong conditions is very interesting.

However, the big -- shocking really -- news I see in reading the WGC
results is pilot technique not hot gliders. Here we're not talking
about 1-2%, we're talking huge margins. The US Uvalde gurus in 15 and
18 ended up quite low on the scoresheet. These guys are just
unbeatatable in US national contests. I speak with authority here!
When I go to Uvalde, I fly my butt off and they always beat me by 2-3
mph when I'm doing well, and much more when, inevitably, I get to the
hill country at 2000'. Sure, there were some clear bad luck days, but
where were the stellar days? The Europeans blew in to town, and flew
the pants off us. So much for the mysterious ways of Uvalde weather.
What are they doing differently? I can't see anything on the traces
except a magic ability to drive at 110 knots, achieve LDs in the 70
and 80 range while doing so, then roll right in to 5-8 knot thermals
without getting low. (Actually, some big names from Europe seemed to
have similar very disappointing performances. So maybe there is a more
general set of lessons learned)

What's the story? There is a 5 - 10 mph discrepancy in pilot
technique, gaggling strategy / start gate technique, bumping strategy
or something. I hope the US team will share some "lessons learned" at
some point. Or maybe those of you who were there have opinions.

John Cochrane

[Dave Nadler]

On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:
> With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
>
> designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
>
> of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
>
> statistical variance):
>
>
>
> 11427 JS-1C (4)
>
> 11316 Concordia (1)
>
> 11240 EB-29 (2)
>
> 11089 Quintus (7)
>
> 11069 Antares 23 (1)
>
> 10339 Nimbus 4 (2)
>
> 9977 EB-28 (4)
>
> 8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
>
> 7631 ASW-22BL
>
>
>
> I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
>
> were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
>
> only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
>
> i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
>
> The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
>
> similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
>
> essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
>
> true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
>
> the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.
>
>
>
> The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
>
> the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
>
> affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
>
> by any of them. Just the numbers.
>
>
>
> An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
>
> correct if I got anything wrong.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Gary Osoba

One more suggestion: normalize by pilot-ranking
(use the world ranking for each pilot prior this contest).
That will further separate out some noise
(very low ranking pilots flying some hot ships)...
Have fun,
Best Regards, Dave

[Gary Osoba[_3_]]

>
> Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"
> stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?
> Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?
>
> See ya, Dave

Hi Dave:

All of the JS-1's in Open were 21 meter span, regardless of how listed
or reported.

Gary

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Aug 20, 1:09*pm, Gary Osoba > wrote:
> With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
> designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
> of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
> statistical variance):
>
> 11427 * JS-1C (4)
> 11316 * Concordia (1)
> 11240 * EB-29 (2)
> 11089 * Quintus (7)
> 11069 * Antares 23 (1)
> 10339 * Nimbus 4 (2)
> * 9977 * EB-28 (4)
> * 8962 * ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
> * 7631 * ASW-22BL
>
> I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
> were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
> only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
> i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
> The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
> similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
> essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
> true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
> the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.
>
> The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
> the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
> affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
> by any of them. Just the numbers.
>
> An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
> correct if I got anything wrong.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Gary OsobaB

Another point to remember. The new designs represent reaction to a
change in rules, not a change in technology. The open class isn't the
"open" class, it's the 850 kg class. What's happening is the design
response to 850 kg. To achieve a modern wingloading at 850 kg, you
need shorter (than 28 meters) span or shorter chord. Concordia went
one way, but in a design that could never be mass marketed. The 23 m
span seems an optimum for 850 kg, "normal" construction techniques,
and a price under a million bucks. But if there were not a weight
limit, the winning design might well look more like an Eta, cost as
much as a B2 bomber and fly at 1500 kg. And have a production run of
about two. I'm not advocating it -- for once I think the IGC did
something right, as 850 seems to be revitalizing the open class.

John Cochrane

[Brad Alston]

On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:
With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various

designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number

of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating

statistical variance):



11427 JS-1C (4)

11316 Concordia (1)

11240 EB-29 (2)

11089 Quintus (7)

11069 Antares 23 (1)

10339 Nimbus 4 (2)

9977 EB-28 (4)

8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew

7631 ASW-22BL



I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships

were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with

only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,

i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.

The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very

similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were

essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be

true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have

the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.



The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by

the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an

affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced

by any of them. Just the numbers.



An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to

correct if I got anything wrong.



Best Regards,



Gary Osoba


Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"
stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?
Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?

See ya, Dave

Sorry, this is a bit off topic of design...

I am not a competition pilot so my question are out of total ignorance...please forgive. I enjoyed following the 2012 WGC online very much.

The one thing I notice as the days progressed was that it seemed, and totally anecdotal of course, was that pilots from the same country finished very close to each other. Could it be that team flying techniques are more refined outside the U.S.?...thus giving the advantage of having at least two ships, instead of one, finding/utilizing the best lift lines to the benefit of the team. Is that sort of thing common practice in these sorts of contests? Do the U.S. pilots get a chance to develop their team flying skills?

Brad.

[Ventus_a]

[QUOTE=François Hersen;821806]An another view, just for the first place in open class;

Quintus; 2
EB29; 3
JS1 C; 3
Antares; 3
Concirdia; 1

In strong conditions, 23 meters gliders have an avantage,

RC

<snip>

The Concordia won 2 days and the EB29 is 25.3m span in its shortest configuration.

As noted elsewhere the JS1's were 21m span

Colin

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 20 August 2012 16:40:44 UTC-6, Brad Alston wrote:
> Dave Nadler;821793 Wrote:
>
> > On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:-
>
> > With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
>
> >
>
> > designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
>
> >
>
> > of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
>
> >
>
> > statistical variance):
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 11427 JS-1C (4)
>
> >
>
> > 11316 Concordia (1)
>
> >
>
> > 11240 EB-29 (2)
>
> >
>
> > 11089 Quintus (7)
>
> >
>
> > 11069 Antares 23 (1)
>
> >
>
> > 10339 Nimbus 4 (2)
>
> >
>
> > 9977 EB-28 (4)
>
> >
>
> > 8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
>
> >
>
> > 7631 ASW-22BL
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
>
> >
>
> > were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
>
> >
>
> > only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
>
> >
>
> > i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
>
> >
>
> > The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
>
> >
>
> > similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
>
> >
>
> > essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
>
> >
>
> > true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
>
> >
>
> > the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
>
> >
>
> > the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
>
> >
>
> > affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
>
> >
>
> > by any of them. Just the numbers.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
>
> >
>
> > correct if I got anything wrong.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Best Regards,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Gary Osoba-
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"
>
> > stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?
>
> > Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?
>
> >
>
> > See ya, Dave
>
>
>
> Sorry, this is a bit off topic of design...
>
>
>
> I am not a competition pilot so my question are out of total
>
> ignorance...please forgive. I enjoyed following the 2012 WGC online very
>
> much.
>
>
>
> The one thing I notice as the days progressed was that it seemed, and
>
> totally anecdotal of course, was that pilots from the same country
>
> finished very close to each other. Could it be that team flying
>
> techniques are more refined outside the U.S.?...thus giving the
>
> advantage of having at least two ships, instead of one,
>
> finding/utilizing the best lift lines to the benefit of the team. Is
>
> that sort of thing common practice in these sorts of contests? Do the
>
> U.S. pilots get a chance to develop their team flying skills?
>
>
>
> Brad.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Brad Alston

The glider models designations for the JS-1's are accurate on the score sheets. Exact gliders models were listed after Leo submitted to scoring the correct designation. For open they are listed JS1-C and 18 meter are JS-1B.

Ron Gleason

[Darryl Ramm]

On Monday, August 20, 2012 10:05:29 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Monday, 20 August 2012 16:40:44 UTC-6, Brad Alston wrote:
>
> > Dave Nadler;821793 Wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:-
>
> >
>
> > > With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > statistical variance):
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 11427 JS-1C (4)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 11316 Concordia (1)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 11240 EB-29 (2)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 11089 Quintus (7)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 11069 Antares 23 (1)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 10339 Nimbus 4 (2)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 9977 EB-28 (4)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 7631 ASW-22BL
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > by any of them. Just the numbers.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > correct if I got anything wrong.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Best Regards,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Gary Osoba-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"
>
> >
>
> > > stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?
>
> >
>
> > > Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > See ya, Dave
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sorry, this is a bit off topic of design...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I am not a competition pilot so my question are out of total
>
> >
>
> > ignorance...please forgive. I enjoyed following the 2012 WGC online very
>
> >
>
> > much.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The one thing I notice as the days progressed was that it seemed, and
>
> >
>
> > totally anecdotal of course, was that pilots from the same country
>
> >
>
> > finished very close to each other. Could it be that team flying
>
> >
>
> > techniques are more refined outside the U.S.?...thus giving the
>
> >
>
> > advantage of having at least two ships, instead of one,
>
> >
>
> > finding/utilizing the best lift lines to the benefit of the team. Is
>
> >
>
> > that sort of thing common practice in these sorts of contests? Do the
>
> >
>
> > U.S. pilots get a chance to develop their team flying skills?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Brad.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > Brad Alston
>
>
>
> The glider models designations for the JS-1's are accurate on the score sheets. Exact gliders models were listed after Leo submitted to scoring the correct designation. For open they are listed JS1-C and 18 meter are JS-1B.
>
>
>
> Ron Gleason

Just to be clear, a JS-1C does not mean 21m, they can fly with 18m wings as well. The C is basically the stronger wing to allow the 21m option. It would be nice to use nomeclature that make the span perfectly clear, like JS-1C-18m, JS-1C-21m etc.

Darryl

[Ventus_a]

;821812']On Aug 20, 1:09*pm, Gary Osoba wrote:[color=blue][i]

snip

Another point to remember. The new designs represent reaction to a
change in rules, not a change in technology. The open class isn't the
"open" class, it's the 850 kg class. What's happening is the design
response to 850 kg. To achieve a modern wingloading at 850 kg, you
need shorter (than 28 meters) span or shorter chord. Concordia went
one way, but in a design that could never be mass marketed. The 23 m
span seems an optimum for 850 kg, "normal" construction techniques,
and a price under a million bucks. But if there were not a weight
limit, the winning design might well look more like an Eta, cost as
much as a B2 bomber and fly at 1500 kg. And have a production run of
about two. I'm not advocating it -- for once I think the IGC did
something right, as 850 seems to be revitalizing the open class.

John Cochrane

I was exchanging emails with Michael Sommer before the worlds and he was wondering how competitive the EB29 would be at 'only' 55kg wingloading against the newer ships.

Based on his result you would have to say it was very competitve. How much of that is down to his undoubted ability is for better men than me to ponder

:-) Colin

[Muttley]

Hi Brad

You are correct, Europeans are mostly flying as Teams. There was an interesting
article about this by Ms Tarberry on the Main Competition Website and also the same on the US Blog.

[Mike the Strike]

It is well-known that the US scores high on cultural scales of individualism, especially compared with Europe, and even in team games scores each individual competitor. Team flying is seen as one notch away from communism and will never happen here in contests. That's why the Europeans often win!

Mike

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 20 August 2012 23:37:12 UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Monday, August 20, 2012 10:05:29 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 20 August 2012 16:40:44 UTC-6, Brad Alston wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Dave Nadler;821793 Wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > statistical variance):
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 11427 JS-1C (4)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 11316 Concordia (1)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 11240 EB-29 (2)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 11089 Quintus (7)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 11069 Antares 23 (1)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 10339 Nimbus 4 (2)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 9977 EB-28 (4)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > 7631 ASW-22BL
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > by any of them. Just the numbers.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > correct if I got anything wrong.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Best Regards,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Gary Osoba-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > See ya, Dave
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Sorry, this is a bit off topic of design...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I am not a competition pilot so my question are out of total
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ignorance...please forgive. I enjoyed following the 2012 WGC online very
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > much.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The one thing I notice as the days progressed was that it seemed, and
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > totally anecdotal of course, was that pilots from the same country
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > finished very close to each other. Could it be that team flying
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > techniques are more refined outside the U.S.?...thus giving the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > advantage of having at least two ships, instead of one,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > finding/utilizing the best lift lines to the benefit of the team. Is
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > that sort of thing common practice in these sorts of contests? Do the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > U.S. pilots get a chance to develop their team flying skills?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Brad.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > --
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Brad Alston
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The glider models designations for the JS-1's are accurate on the score sheets. Exact gliders models were listed after Leo submitted to scoring the correct designation. For open they are listed JS1-C and 18 meter are JS-1B.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ron Gleason
>
>
>
> Just to be clear, a JS-1C does not mean 21m, they can fly with 18m wings as well. The C is basically the stronger wing to allow the 21m option. It would be nice to use nomeclature that make the span perfectly clear, like JS-1C-18m, JS-1C-21m etc.
>
>
>
> Darryl

look the open class score sheets, it states JS-1C 21. I entered the data myself when Leo requested the change.

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Aug 21, 7:54*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> It is well-known that the US scores high on cultural scales of individualism, especially compared with Europe, and even in team games scores each individual competitor. *Team flying is seen as one notch away from communism and will never happen here in contests. *That's why the Europeans often win!
>
> Mike

Cultural explanations are too easy. US pilots will do what it takes to
win. The US team has put huge effort in to team flying in the past
three years. Look at the start times. OK, no great results this time
around, but that's not from some cultural aversion to team flying.

The US has rules against team flying in our national contests. These
were put in many years ago, not in praise of "individualism" but
because it was felt that the presence of teams of top pilots would
discourage "little guy" participation. That issue is constantly under
review, and will be on the upcoming pilot opinion poll. Again. If US
pilots want to team fly, just say so loudly on the opinion poll. It
will happen as soon as pilots want it. (Especially if the "little
guys" write in and say this won't discourage them) I actually think
team flying is a lot of fun, and might encourage people to come to
contests. But we have to hear from pilots on this.

Meanwhile the IGC talks frequently about taking steps to limit team
flying, such as only one pilot per country, but never does anything
about it. I guess countries who are good at it like to keep the rules
the way they are.

It's not about culture. It's about rules. Same with gaggling. IGC
rules make gaggling, start roulette and leaching a mandatory part of
contest flying. US rules make those strategies much less important.
(This is in the distance/speed formulas, day devaluation rules, and
guidance on assigned vs. area tasks. US formulas and prevalence of
assigned tasks make tactical flying much less important) The result
is, much less tactical flying in the US. That is, I think, a bigger
part of why we don't do so well at worlds than team flying. And IMHO
makes US contest flying much more fun. But it has nothing to do with
culture, it's just an outcome of the rules.

Take those "collectivist" or "cooperative" europeans, who seem to like
to gaggle and play start games, put them in a race with different
rules, like the grand prix, and all of a sudden they take on a risk-
taking individualist streak that would embarrass the most redneck
American!

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:19:02 PM UTC+1, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Aug 21, 7:54*am, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > It is well-known that the US scores high on cultural scales of individualism, especially compared with Europe, and even in team games scores each individual competitor. *Team flying is seen as one notch away from communism and will never happen here in contests. *That's why the Europeans often win!
>
> >
>
> > Mike
>
>
>
> Cultural explanations are too easy. US pilots will do what it takes to
>
> win. The US team has put huge effort in to team flying in the past
>
> three years. Look at the start times. OK, no great results this time
>
> around, but that's not from some cultural aversion to team flying.
>
>
>
> The US has rules against team flying in our national contests. These
>
> were put in many years ago, not in praise of "individualism" but
>
> because it was felt that the presence of teams of top pilots would
>
> discourage "little guy" participation. That issue is constantly under
>
> review, and will be on the upcoming pilot opinion poll. Again. If US
>
> pilots want to team fly, just say so loudly on the opinion poll. It
>
> will happen as soon as pilots want it. (Especially if the "little
>
> guys" write in and say this won't discourage them) I actually think
>
> team flying is a lot of fun, and might encourage people to come to
>
> contests. But we have to hear from pilots on this.
>
>
>
> Meanwhile the IGC talks frequently about taking steps to limit team
>
> flying, such as only one pilot per country, but never does anything
>
> about it. I guess countries who are good at it like to keep the rules
>
> the way they are.
>
>
>
> It's not about culture. It's about rules. Same with gaggling. IGC
>
> rules make gaggling, start roulette and leaching a mandatory part of
>
> contest flying. US rules make those strategies much less important.
>
> (This is in the distance/speed formulas, day devaluation rules, and
>
> guidance on assigned vs. area tasks. US formulas and prevalence of
>
> assigned tasks make tactical flying much less important) The result
>
> is, much less tactical flying in the US. That is, I think, a bigger
>
> part of why we don't do so well at worlds than team flying. And IMHO
>
> makes US contest flying much more fun. But it has nothing to do with
>
> culture, it's just an outcome of the rules.
>
>
>
> Take those "collectivist" or "cooperative" europeans, who seem to like
>
> to gaggle and play start games, put them in a race with different
>
> rules, like the grand prix, and all of a sudden they take on a risk-
>
> taking individualist streak that would embarrass the most redneck
>
> American!
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

It's about rules, not culture.
Two pilots are gathering more information about soaring conditions than one..
Team flying and individual flying are different skills, so let's have contests with either, or perhaps even both.

To be scored in the individual contest you just need a rule which says that two pilots representing the same country can't start within, say, 20 minutes (maybe more?) of one another, and that managers must demonstrate that one of their pilots is not acting as sacrificial for the other.

Iain Murdoch

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 9:24:55 AM UTC-5, (unknown) wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:19:02 PM UTC+1, John Cochrane wrote: > On Aug 21, 7:54*am, Mike the Strike > wrote: > > > It is well-known that the US scores high on cultural scales of individualism, especially compared with Europe, and even in team games scores each individual competitor. *Team flying is seen as one notch away from communism and will never happen here in contests. *That's why the Europeans often win! > > > > > > Mike > > > > Cultural explanations are too easy. US pilots will do what it takes to > > win. The US team has put huge effort in to team flying in the past > > three years. Look at the start times. OK, no great results this time > > around, but that's not from some cultural aversion to team flying. > > > > The US has rules against team flying in our national contests. These > > were put in many years ago, not in praise of "individualism" but > > because it was felt that the presence of teams of top pilots would > > discourage "little guy" participation. That issue is constantly under > > review, and will be on the upcoming pilot opinion poll. Again. If US > > pilots want to team fly, just say so loudly on the opinion poll. It > > will happen as soon as pilots want it. (Especially if the "little > > guys" write in and say this won't discourage them) I actually think > > team flying is a lot of fun, and might encourage people to come to > > contests. But we have to hear from pilots on this. > > > > Meanwhile the IGC talks frequently about taking steps to limit team > > flying, such as only one pilot per country, but never does anything > > about it. I guess countries who are good at it like to keep the rules > > the way they are. > > > > It's not about culture. It's about rules. Same with gaggling. IGC > > rules make gaggling, start roulette and leaching a mandatory part of > > contest flying. US rules make those strategies much less important. > > (This is in the distance/speed formulas, day devaluation rules, and > > guidance on assigned vs. area tasks. US formulas and prevalence of > > assigned tasks make tactical flying much less important) The result > > is, much less tactical flying in the US. That is, I think, a bigger > > part of why we don't do so well at worlds than team flying. And IMHO > > makes US contest flying much more fun. But it has nothing to do with > > culture, it's just an outcome of the rules. > > > > Take those "collectivist" or "cooperative" europeans, who seem to like > > to gaggle and play start games, put them in a race with different > > rules, like the grand prix, and all of a sudden they take on a risk- > > taking individualist streak that would embarrass the most redneck > > American! > > > > John Cochrane It's about rules, not culture. Two pilots are gathering more information about soaring conditions than one. Team flying and individual flying are different skills, so let's have contests with either, or perhaps even both. To be scored in the individual contest you just need a rule which says that two pilots representing the same country can't start within, say, 20 minutes (maybe more?) of one another, and that managers must demonstrate that one of their pilots is not acting as sacrificial for the other. Iain Murdoch

Peter Harvey, Team GB, was the only British open class pilot and did very well on his own. He had the fastest task speed in an Antares 23 and was 5th overall, winning 3 days.

[Dave Nadler]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:10:08 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Peter Harvey, Team GB, was the only British open class pilot
> and did very well on his own. He had the fastest task speed in an
> Antares 23 and was 5th overall, winning 3 days.

And only pilot to break 100mph.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:33:48 PM UTC-5, François Hersen wrote:
An another view, just for the first place in open class;

Quintus; 2
EB29; 3
JS1 C; 3
Antares; 3
Concirdia; 1

In strong conditions, 23 meters gliders have an avantage, RC

Correction and comments. Correction: Concordia won 2 days. Comment: the two slowest winning speeds in Open Class were both days won by the JS1-C. So, maybe we haven't seen the threshold for 21 meters being too little for Open Class?

Also, John C, Open Class used to be the 750 KG Class. Until, I believe, Eta came along. They were barely able to stay under 750KG if they put two people onboard, so the rule was changed to allow some planes to go to 850 KG, but with other requirements (I believe you had to self launch if you were flying at anything over 750 KG). As to "revitalizing", we will see how pilots like being towed at 12 plus psf wing loadings by towplanes that don't like to tow at 90 MPH.

Steve Leonard
ZL Crew at FAI WGC 2012

[Darryl Ramm]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 6:12:11 AM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Monday, 20 August 2012 23:37:12 UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
> > On Monday, August 20, 2012 10:05:29 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Monday, 20 August 2012 16:40:44 UTC-6, Brad Alston wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Dave Nadler;821793 Wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > statistical variance):
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 11427 JS-1C (4)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 11316 Concordia (1)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 11240 EB-29 (2)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 11089 Quintus (7)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 11069 Antares 23 (1)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 10339 Nimbus 4 (2)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 9977 EB-28 (4)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > 7631 ASW-22BL
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > by any of them. Just the numbers.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > correct if I got anything wrong.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Best Regards,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Gary Osoba-
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > See ya, Dave
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Sorry, this is a bit off topic of design...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > I am not a competition pilot so my question are out of total
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > ignorance...please forgive. I enjoyed following the 2012 WGC online very
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > much.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The one thing I notice as the days progressed was that it seemed, and
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > totally anecdotal of course, was that pilots from the same country
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > finished very close to each other. Could it be that team flying
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > techniques are more refined outside the U.S.?...thus giving the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > advantage of having at least two ships, instead of one,
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > finding/utilizing the best lift lines to the benefit of the team. Is
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > that sort of thing common practice in these sorts of contests? Do the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > U.S. pilots get a chance to develop their team flying skills?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Brad.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > --
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Brad Alston
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The glider models designations for the JS-1's are accurate on the score sheets. Exact gliders models were listed after Leo submitted to scoring the correct designation. For open they are listed JS1-C and 18 meter are JS-1B.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Ron Gleason
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Just to be clear, a JS-1C does not mean 21m, they can fly with 18m wings as well. The C is basically the stronger wing to allow the 21m option. It would be nice to use nomeclature that make the span perfectly clear, like JS-1C-18m, JS-1C-21m etc.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Darryl
>
>
>
> look the open class score sheets, it states JS-1C 21. I entered the data myself when Leo requested the change.

Ron, great. I have no idea what I looked at that was different, maybe an old cached version in my browser?

Thanks

Darryl

[Brad Alston]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:19:02 PM UTC+1, John Cochrane wrote:
On Aug 21, 7:54*am, Mike the Strike wrote:

It is well-known that the US scores high on cultural scales of individualism, especially compared with Europe, and even in team games scores each individual competitor. *Team flying is seen as one notch away from communism and will never happen here in contests. *That's why the Europeans often win!



Mike



Cultural explanations are too easy. US pilots will do what it takes to

win. The US team has put huge effort in to team flying in the past

three years. Look at the start times. OK, no great results this time

around, but that's not from some cultural aversion to team flying.



The US has rules against team flying in our national contests. These

were put in many years ago, not in praise of "individualism" but

because it was felt that the presence of teams of top pilots would

discourage "little guy" participation. That issue is constantly under

review, and will be on the upcoming pilot opinion poll. Again. If US

pilots want to team fly, just say so loudly on the opinion poll. It

will happen as soon as pilots want it. (Especially if the "little

guys" write in and say this won't discourage them) I actually think

team flying is a lot of fun, and might encourage people to come to

contests. But we have to hear from pilots on this.



Meanwhile the IGC talks frequently about taking steps to limit team

flying, such as only one pilot per country, but never does anything

about it. I guess countries who are good at it like to keep the rules

the way they are.



It's not about culture. It's about rules. Same with gaggling. IGC

rules make gaggling, start roulette and leaching a mandatory part of

contest flying. US rules make those strategies much less important.

(This is in the distance/speed formulas, day devaluation rules, and

guidance on assigned vs. area tasks. US formulas and prevalence of

assigned tasks make tactical flying much less important) The result

is, much less tactical flying in the US. That is, I think, a bigger

part of why we don't do so well at worlds than team flying. And IMHO

makes US contest flying much more fun. But it has nothing to do with

culture, it's just an outcome of the rules.



Take those "collectivist" or "cooperative" europeans, who seem to like

to gaggle and play start games, put them in a race with different

rules, like the grand prix, and all of a sudden they take on a risk-

taking individualist streak that would embarrass the most redneck

American!



John Cochrane

It's about rules, not culture.
Two pilots are gathering more information about soaring conditions than one..
Team flying and individual flying are different skills, so let's have contests with either, or perhaps even both.

To be scored in the individual contest you just need a rule which says that two pilots representing the same country can't start within, say, 20 minutes (maybe more?) of one another, and that managers must demonstrate that one of their pilots is not acting as sacrificial for the other.

Iain Murdoch

Interesting. To me, again the non-competition pilot, the concept of rules determining flying techniques and potential outcomes seems logical...especially when couched as the development of "tactical flying" skills.

Thank you to those who responded and provided food for thought. I know it's not a simple issue and has many factors to consider. I find the idea of a "team only" competition, the allowance for teams, attractive. To me it would give "us new guys" an opportunity to learn from someone with experience (assuming those experienced guys would want to pair up with a newbie) and potential contribute to a successful outcome...but then again, I've enjoyed the concept of team sports for some time!

Thanks again for your responses!

[[email protected]]

After 13 days of racing there was only one overall winner in each class...

Open - Quintus
18M - ASG-29
15M - Diana 2

[Peter F[_2_]]

After 13 days of racing there was only one overall winner in each class...

Open - Laurent Aboulin
18m - Zbigniew Nieradka
15m - Sebastian Kawa


At 22:48 22 August 2012, wrote:
>After 13 days of racing there was only one overall winner in each
class...
>
>Open - Quintus
>18M - ASG-29
>15M - Diana 2
>