World Championship gliders

[Tom Knauff]

I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size pilots are obliged to fly.

A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the wetted area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.

Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the wing span.

Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be interested in participating in competition flying.

I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for smaller people?

Tom Knauff

[kirk.stant]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:43:42 AM UTC-5, Tom Knauff wrote:
> I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size pilots are obliged to fly.
>
>
>
> A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the wetted area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the wing span.
>
>
>
> Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be interested in participating in competition flying.
>
>
>
> I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for smaller people?
>
>
>
> Tom Knauff

George Moffat long ago in his first "Winning on the Wind" predicted that the winning setup would be a smaller glider flown by a small woman...

Kirk
66

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 16:43 06 August 2014, Tom Knauff wrote:
>I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review
>the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage
>models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size
>pilots are obliged to fly.
>
>A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the
wetted
>area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.
>
>Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the
>wing span.
>
>Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable
>disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be
>interested in participating in competition flying.
>
>I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for
>smaller people?
>
>Tom Knauff
>

Well you where the agent for the manufacturer who brought in this trend -
notably when Klaus H brought out the Ventus a - did you adress this concern
then?

It is still Schempp - Hirth who predominately manufacture the sailplane for
the smaller pilot. Notabaly the Discus 2a which has an advantage over the
2b and LS8 and has dominated std class for far too long.

Personally think FAI IGC should adopt a minimum cockpit size for all
competition gliders to accomodate a 'reasonable sized pilot'. But many
things the FAI IGC do confound me. Whatever happened to the idea of
gettnig rid of pairs, (or even 3 pilot teams now!) in international
competition?

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Knauff wrote:
> I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size pilots are obliged to fly.
>
>
>
> A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the wetted area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the wing span.
>
>
>
> Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be interested in participating in competition flying.
>
>
>
> I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for smaller people?
>
>
>
> Tom Knauff

I suspect that the size of the intellect, motivation, commitment, and preparation on the part of the person in the cockpit has an order of magnitude more importance than the size of the fuselage he or she is in.
UH

[JS]

P7 seems to do just as well in ASG29 as D2a.
Jim

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:07:01 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> I suspect that the size of the intellect, motivation, commitment, and preparation on the part of the person in the cockpit has an order of magnitude more importance than the size of the fuselage he or she is in.
>
> UH

[Sean Fidler]

Interesting though Tom. Good point that you were the dealer though :-). I did not know the wings in the "a" models were allowed to be longer. But now that I think about it that does make sense. Shocking. Clearly the narrower fuselage and longer wings results in a dual performance advantage. Less drag/higher aspect ratio. Otherwise, why would the builder bother? This reminds me of the age of handicap sailing back in the 70s and 80s.

I have been a competitor and coach in the sport of sailing at a fairly high level. Sailing is a tremendously complex sport. One of my coaches taught me the following principle: focus on the controllable variables (positive) and don't get "caught up" in the frustration of uncontrollable variables. Or the only way to affect uncontrollable variables is to out perfect your competitors in controllable variable execution. More on this later...

The sport of "big boat" sailing became an all out designer/handicap war in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Back then a very big element of the sport was designers and owners spending tens to hundreds of thousands each year modifying and building new boats to "beat" the handicap rule. That is to gain a fixed performance advantage over your competitors! Meanwhile rule makers changed rules constantly to plug holes in the rule that designers were exploiting. Generally the owners willingness to spend money and the designers willingness to get paid won the battle over the rule makers. Today that market (custom big boat (28-55 ft) handicap racing) has been almost completely destroyed because of it. Everyone hated the fact that boats become uncompetitive in a meter of months as new "custom" boats were built. They also hated knowing they were better sailors but getting beat by an "uncontrollable variable!" That is a boat that had a "rigged" handicap. In fact this was the norm. Tremendous damage was done to the sport because of it.

Only "one design" sailing classes are meaningfully successful today. One design means not just the same wingspan or "design rule" but the same manufacturer and the exact same boat (glider) for all competitors. This is guaranteed as part of the class charter. The class runs independently from the builder in fact.

The reason for this "evolution" in the sport of sailing is that fewer and fewer owners enjoyed putting a lot of time and effort into a sport (mastering the controllable variables such as sail shape, tacking, jybing, tactics and starting) only to lose because a new design comes along that provides a competitive advantage (uncontrollable variables). Only one rich owner could win at a time :-)! People wanted an EVEN PLAYING FIELD on which to be measured. Standard boats guaranteed to be identical, standardized race courses, condition limits, crew weights, etc.

I think soaring could use the concept of one design gliders. Something new and modern, of reasonable performance, reasonable price in which a large group of owners can buy with the confidence that in 5 years something new isn't going to come along with the specific goal of making what you own uncompetitive. It's a nasty cycle if you really think about it. Soaring has the same thing going on as sailing did back then, albeit at a slower pace.

Perhaps a change in course (owner driven) is in need?

Sean

[Wojciech Scigala]

Użytkownik Tom Knauff napisał:

> I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for smaller people?
Most sports have some preferred body shape. Usually height and mass
matters the most, and no one denies that.

In my opinion however, introducing "obesity handicaps" won't help our
sport in any way. Let's search for ways to simplify it.

--
Wojtuś

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 3:17:24 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Interesting though Tom. Good point that you were the dealer though :-). I did not know the wings in the "a" models were allowed to be longer. But now that I think about it that does make sense. Shocking. Clearly the narrower fuselage and longer wings results in a dual performance advantage. Less drag/higher aspect ratio. Otherwise, why would the builder bother? This reminds me of the age of handicap sailing back in the 70s and 80s.
>
>
>
> I have been a competitor and coach in the sport of sailing at a fairly high level. Sailing is a tremendously complex sport. One of my coaches taught me the following principle: focus on the controllable variables (positive) and don't get "caught up" in the frustration of uncontrollable variables. Or the only way to affect uncontrollable variables is to out perfect your competitors in controllable variable execution. More on this later...
>
>
>
> The sport of "big boat" sailing became an all out designer/handicap war in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Back then a very big element of the sport was designers and owners spending tens to hundreds of thousands each year modifying and building new boats to "beat" the handicap rule. That is to gain a fixed performance advantage over your competitors! Meanwhile rule makers changed rules constantly to plug holes in the rule that designers were exploiting. Generally the owners willingness to spend money and the designers willingness to get paid won the battle over the rule makers. Today that market (custom big boat (28-55 ft) handicap racing) has been almost completely destroyed because of it. Everyone hated the fact that boats become uncompetitive in a meter of months as new "custom" boats were built. They also hated knowing they were better sailors but getting beat by an "uncontrollable variable!" That is a boat that had a "rigged" handicap. In fact this was the norm. Tremendous damage was done to the sport because of it.
>
>
>
> Only "one design" sailing classes are meaningfully successful today. One design means not just the same wingspan or "design rule" but the same manufacturer and the exact same boat (glider) for all competitors. This is guaranteed as part of the class charter. The class runs independently from the builder in fact.
>
>
>
> The reason for this "evolution" in the sport of sailing is that fewer and fewer owners enjoyed putting a lot of time and effort into a sport (mastering the controllable variables such as sail shape, tacking, jybing, tactics and starting) only to lose because a new design comes along that provides a competitive advantage (uncontrollable variables). Only one rich owner could win at a time :-)! People wanted an EVEN PLAYING FIELD on which to be measured. Standard boats guaranteed to be identical, standardized race courses, condition limits, crew weights, etc.
>
>
>
> I think soaring could use the concept of one design gliders. Something new and modern, of reasonable performance, reasonable price in which a large group of owners can buy with the confidence that in 5 years something new isn't going to come along with the specific goal of making what you own uncompetitive. It's a nasty cycle if you really think about it. Soaring has the same thing going on as sailing did back then, albeit at a slower pace.
>
>
>
> Perhaps a change in course (owner driven) is in need?
>
>
>
> Sean

In the US, we don't have "one design", except for the failed PW-5 experiment, and 1-26's, but we do have excellent parity in 15M, Std, and 18M with the first two having plenty of competitive gliders available at pretty reasonable prices.
I'm not sure what change would make for more stability or accessibility.
UH

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 18:07 06 August 2014, wrote:
>On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Knauff wrote:
>> I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I
review
>the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage
>models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size
>pilots are obliged to fly.
>>
>>
>>
>> A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the
>wetted area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the
>wing span.
>>
>>
>>
>> Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable
>disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be
>interested in participating in competition flying.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller
for
>smaller people?
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Knauff
>
>I suspect that the size of the intellect, motivation, commitment, and
>preparation on the part of the person in the cockpit has an order of
>magnitude more importance than the size of the fuselage he or she is in.
>UH

Those being equal (which probably is in the top 10 at the Worlds level)
somebody in an a fuselage will win out over somebody in a b fuselage. Look
at Std Class everybody tries to squeeze into the a model Discus 2 -
designed for pilots under 5ft 9in. So unfair advantage to the short arses
of the world?

[Sean Fidler]

I agree the 15/18 meter thing is going well, for now. No glider in these classes has a clear advantage (perhaps the Diana 2 but the company is a mess....) but only a certain subset of gliders are competitive in each class. If you don't have a 27, V2 in 15m (http://www.wgc2014.hb.pl/wyniki/15m/486_15m.htm) or a 29, V2 or JS1 in 18m (http://www.wgc2014.hb.pl/wyniki/18m/486_18m.htm), good luck! This has been the case for 10 years or so. But for how much longer will that last?

If a new glider comes along that is a "game changer" in either class (only a matter of time) the delicate balance that we currently enjoy would likely collapse pretty quickly. And hundreds of gliders that are today competitive will become basically obsolete.

Imagine if the Duckhawk had turned out to be "unbeatable" or clearly better in 15m and 20 US guys/gals ordered them. Imagine if 1st-8th at the US 15m nationals was composed of Duckhawks (every year), then a mix of 27s and V2's, etc. For how long would the Nationals attract 27s and D2s? Sure, a few would upgrade their gliders to the new performance level but many would simply no longer attend.

In 18m (and 15m as well), the rumored Ventus 3 approaches perhaps as early next year. Deposits are already flying into the US dealers hands. Why? Because pilots all want to buy a competitive advantage. This is part of the game in soaring today. If the V3 turns out to be dominant (its design goal!) then the V2's, 29's etc all the sudden scramble for the new performance level. But a certain number will simply give up on the Nationals.

If a designer/builder "nails it" and designs/builds a game changing glider....all bets are off. The risk is that the 15/18 meter classes get destroyed and not enough new buyers are willing to spend the money to "be competitive." A net loss initially that may never recover.

In the US, our already delicate Nationals scene would be severely disputed by such a glider. The SSA response would likely need to be handicapping. Etc, etc. A whole new set of problems there.

The PW5 was WAY too low of a performance level for One Design to work. If a glider of the 45:1 or greater performance was available at a reasonable price, a builder could get tremendous buy in for a one design class at all levels (Nationals and World level). One Design is a completely different mindset than trying to leapfrog other builders performance level. In leapfrogging, a builder gets a surge of sales and then a steep taper. In One Design the builder gets a gradual build in sales after an initial commitment from perhaps 50-100 buyers, then a steady track of sales over 20-30 years or more.

I for one would be very interested and supportive of a mid/high performance One Design glider concept being offered by a builder.

One Design is also less about the builder and more about developing a large consortium of like minded pilots. A group of pilots who are thinking long term.

Imagine is the ASW27 or LS8 or D2, etc was introduced as a one design class.. Or look at it this way. The Olympics does not even allow different builders of their One Design boats. All boats are built in the same run, etc. Soaring could learn a thing or two from sailing I think.

Sean

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 2:31:34 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I agree the 15/18 meter thing is going well, for now. No glider in these classes has a clear advantage (perhaps the Diana 2 but the company is a mess...) but only a certain subset of gliders are competitive in each class. If you don't have a 27, V2 in 15m (http://www.wgc2014.hb.pl/wyniki/15m/486_15m.htm) or a 29, V2 or JS1 in 18m (http://www.wgc2014.hb.pl/wyniki/18m/486_18m.htm), good luck! This has been the case for 10 years or so. But for how much longer will that last?
>
>
>
> If a new glider comes along that is a "game changer" in either class (only a matter of time) the delicate balance that we currently enjoy would likely collapse pretty quickly. And hundreds of gliders that are today competitive will become basically obsolete.
>
>
>
> Imagine if the Duckhawk had turned out to be "unbeatable" or clearly better in 15m and 20 US guys/gals ordered them. Imagine if 1st-8th at the US 15m nationals was composed of Duckhawks (every year), then a mix of 27s and V2's, etc. For how long would the Nationals attract 27s and D2s? Sure, a few would upgrade their gliders to the new performance level but many would simply no longer attend.
>
>
>
> In 18m (and 15m as well), the rumored Ventus 3 approaches perhaps as early next year. Deposits are already flying into the US dealers hands. Why? Because pilots all want to buy a competitive advantage. This is part of the game in soaring today. If the V3 turns out to be dominant (its design goal!) then the V2's, 29's etc all the sudden scramble for the new performance level. But a certain number will simply give up on the Nationals.
>
>
>
> If a designer/builder "nails it" and designs/builds a game changing glider...all bets are off. The risk is that the 15/18 meter classes get destroyed and not enough new buyers are willing to spend the money to "be competitive." A net loss initially that may never recover.
>
>
>
> In the US, our already delicate Nationals scene would be severely disputed by such a glider. The SSA response would likely need to be handicapping. Etc, etc. A whole new set of problems there.
>
>
>
> The PW5 was WAY too low of a performance level for One Design to work. If a glider of the 45:1 or greater performance was available at a reasonable price, a builder could get tremendous buy in for a one design class at all levels (Nationals and World level). One Design is a completely different mindset than trying to leapfrog other builders performance level. In leapfrogging, a builder gets a surge of sales and then a steep taper. In One Design the builder gets a gradual build in sales after an initial commitment from perhaps 50-100 buyers, then a steady track of sales over 20-30 years or more.
>
>
>
> I for one would be very interested and supportive of a mid/high performance One Design glider concept being offered by a builder.
>
>
>
> One Design is also less about the builder and more about developing a large consortium of like minded pilots. A group of pilots who are thinking long term.
>
>
>
> Imagine is the ASW27 or LS8 or D2, etc was introduced as a one design class. Or look at it this way. The Olympics does not even allow different builders of their One Design boats. All boats are built in the same run, etc.. Soaring could learn a thing or two from sailing I think.
>
>
>
> Sean

Of course a massive shift to a one design glider costs the same to the participants as a massive shift to a new competitive glider.

Even in one design yacht racing, some boats seem to be faster than others whether is it newer sails, a 3 sigma light hull, or whatever. That's why the fairest racing is done in collegiate, where in many regattas crews rotate boats every race of the series. Bringing a "hot" or tweaked boat then gives you no advantage. Somehow I don't see that being agreed to in soaring....

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 9:43:42 AM UTC-7, Tom Knauff wrote:
> I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size pilots are obliged to fly.
>

After seven days, the highest ranking for a slim fuselage glider in 18m is 20th. The top 19 are all "wide fuselage" gliders -- either ASG-29 or JS-1.



>
> Tom Knauff

[Tony[_5_]]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 5:00:12 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 2:31:34 PM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
>
> > I agree the 15/18 meter thing is going well, for now. No glider in these classes has a clear advantage (perhaps the Diana 2 but the company is a mess...) but only a certain subset of gliders are competitive in each class.. If you don't have a 27, V2 in 15m (http://www.wgc2014.hb.pl/wyniki/15m/486_15m.htm) or a 29, V2 or JS1 in 18m (http://www.wgc2014.hb.pl/wyniki/18m/486_18m.htm), good luck! This has been the case for 10 years or so. But for how much longer will that last?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If a new glider comes along that is a "game changer" in either class (only a matter of time) the delicate balance that we currently enjoy would likely collapse pretty quickly. And hundreds of gliders that are today competitive will become basically obsolete.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Imagine if the Duckhawk had turned out to be "unbeatable" or clearly better in 15m and 20 US guys/gals ordered them. Imagine if 1st-8th at the US 15m nationals was composed of Duckhawks (every year), then a mix of 27s and V2's, etc. For how long would the Nationals attract 27s and D2s? Sure, a few would upgrade their gliders to the new performance level but many would simply no longer attend.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In 18m (and 15m as well), the rumored Ventus 3 approaches perhaps as early next year. Deposits are already flying into the US dealers hands. Why? Because pilots all want to buy a competitive advantage. This is part of the game in soaring today. If the V3 turns out to be dominant (its design goal!) then the V2's, 29's etc all the sudden scramble for the new performance level. But a certain number will simply give up on the Nationals.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If a designer/builder "nails it" and designs/builds a game changing glider...all bets are off. The risk is that the 15/18 meter classes get destroyed and not enough new buyers are willing to spend the money to "be competitive." A net loss initially that may never recover.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In the US, our already delicate Nationals scene would be severely disputed by such a glider. The SSA response would likely need to be handicapping. Etc, etc. A whole new set of problems there.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The PW5 was WAY too low of a performance level for One Design to work. If a glider of the 45:1 or greater performance was available at a reasonable price, a builder could get tremendous buy in for a one design class at all levels (Nationals and World level). One Design is a completely different mindset than trying to leapfrog other builders performance level. In leapfrogging, a builder gets a surge of sales and then a steep taper. In One Design the builder gets a gradual build in sales after an initial commitment from perhaps 50-100 buyers, then a steady track of sales over 20-30 years or more.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I for one would be very interested and supportive of a mid/high performance One Design glider concept being offered by a builder.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > One Design is also less about the builder and more about developing a large consortium of like minded pilots. A group of pilots who are thinking long term.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Imagine is the ASW27 or LS8 or D2, etc was introduced as a one design class. Or look at it this way. The Olympics does not even allow different builders of their One Design boats. All boats are built in the same run, etc. Soaring could learn a thing or two from sailing I think.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean
>
>
>
> Of course a massive shift to a one design glider costs the same to the participants as a massive shift to a new competitive glider.
>
>
>
> Even in one design yacht racing, some boats seem to be faster than others whether is it newer sails, a 3 sigma light hull, or whatever. That's why the fairest racing is done in collegiate, where in many regattas crews rotate boats every race of the series. Bringing a "hot" or tweaked boat then gives you no advantage. Somehow I don't see that being agreed to in soaring.....

maybe we need to adopt a claim rule like the hometown dirt track does with IMCA hobby stocks and the like. If we think you've been tweaking a bit too much on your (insert glider here), I get to buy it!

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Knauff wrote:
> [...] it is obvious [...]

Well played sir. Wind 'em up, watch 'em go. Very amusing.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean Fidler]

True but your one design glider would be competitive for many years. Currently your looking at 5-10 years before it becomes obsolete.

[Ventus_a]

True but your one design glider would be competitive for many years. Currently your looking at 5-10 years before it becomes obsolete.

That may well prove to be the case but the Ventus 2 first won a worlds in 1995 (15m) and still figures prominently even today. There have been incremental improvements for sure but it's fundamentally the same glider.

Colin

[glen]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:43:42 AM UTC-6, Tom Knauff wrote:
> I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size pilots are obliged to fly.
>
>
>
> A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the wetted area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.
>
>
>
> Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the wing span.
>
>
>
> Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be interested in participating in competition flying.
>
>
>
> I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for smaller people?
>
>
>
> Tom Knauff

It's the Indian, not the Arrow!!
Glen

[Sean Fidler]

I stand corrected. 10-20 years. Impressive that the V2 has been competitive for so long. Regardless of specific competitive lifespan of each design, at current its only a matter of time before each design gets leapfrogged (and made obsolete in 15/18 or even standard). If the strength of the economy or popularity of the sport improves (often linked) under the current model, the pace of new designs leapfrogging eachother would increase significantly.

Do we really need a new 15 meter glider with 1-2% more performance (Duckhawk goal)? Do we really need a new 18 meter glider with 1-2% more performance which makes everything else on the market basically obsolete (Ventus 3)? Perhaps the leap in performance could be even more than 2%?

I am happy buying a new 29 or V2, ESPECIALLY IF I knew that it was going to be competitive for a long period in the future. But right now, buying a new 29 or V2 is unwise until we know what the Ventus 3 is capable of doing.... I actually wanted to buy a new glider at the beginning of this season and passed.

This current marketplace and international organization mindset in the sport of soaring is very interesting...

The only fact is that the sport is slowly shrinking, new glider sales are slowing and new glider prices are rapidly increasing. Hmmm, where have I seen this before?

Sean



On Thursday, August 7, 2014 4:02:07 AM UTC-4, Ventus_a wrote:
> Sean Fidler;887505 Wrote:
>
> > True but your one design glider would be competitive for many years.
>
> > Currently your looking at 5-10 years before it becomes obsolete.
>
>
>
> That may well prove to be the case but the Ventus 2 first won a worlds
>
> in 1995 (15m) and still figures prominently even today. There have been
>
> incremental improvements for sure but it's fundamentally the same
>
> glider.
>
>
>
> Colin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ventus_a

[Sean Fidler]

Hi Glen, I agree but only to a point. Its a bummer knowing that you are in a glider that is "slightly" less performance than the others. For example, if a guy in a a model beats a b model in a contest by 1 point, does he really feel that he has won? Or a 29 vs a 27 in 15m? Is the 29 better?

One design would level this and make a better sport of it!

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 7:54:50 AM UTC-4, glen wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 10:43:42 AM UTC-6, Tom Knauff wrote:
>
> > I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size pilots are obliged to fly.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the wetted area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the wing span.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be interested in participating in competition flying.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for smaller people?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Tom Knauff
>
>
>
> It's the Indian, not the Arrow!!
>
> Glen

[[email protected]]

I think we could address a number of concerns by moving to a one design competition format utilizing the Schweizer 2-33A sailplane. Each competitor would be towed aloft and once everyone was airborne, the contest would begin. Competitors would be scored based on Altitude Gained after the start, Time Aloft after the start and then the Accuracy of their Spot Landings upon return. All of the competitors would need to remain within sight of the Glider Field so that spectators would be able to watch and enjoy the competition..

This would provide a level playing field, a format which involves the spectators which will help promote the sport, eliminate far away land-outs and retrieves, provide aspiring soaring students an attainable type of competition that they could soon participate in. I think, in some ways, it may provide a true test as to who the BEST glider pilot really is.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 11:42:35 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> I think we could address a number of concerns by moving to a one design competition format utilizing the Schweizer 2-33A sailplane. Each competitor would be towed aloft and once everyone was airborne, the contest would begin. Competitors would be scored based on Altitude Gained after the start, Time Aloft after the start and then the Accuracy of their Spot Landings upon return. All of the competitors would need to remain within sight of the Glider Field so that spectators would be able to watch and enjoy the competition.
>
>
>
> This would provide a level playing field, a format which involves the spectators which will help promote the sport, eliminate far away land-outs and retrieves, provide aspiring soaring students an attainable type of competition that they could soon participate in. I think, in some ways, it may provide a true test as to who the BEST glider pilot really is.

It's called the Snowbird and it happens every Thanksgiving in Elmira.
Been going on for more than 60 years.
Make a joke out of it but folks do have fun.
UH

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 12:37:38 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Thursday, August 7, 2014 11:42:35 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>
> > I think we could address a number of concerns by moving to a one design competition format utilizing the Schweizer 2-33A sailplane. Each competitor would be towed aloft and once everyone was airborne, the contest would begin. Competitors would be scored based on Altitude Gained after the start, Time Aloft after the start and then the Accuracy of their Spot Landings upon return. All of the competitors would need to remain within sight of the Glider Field so that spectators would be able to watch and enjoy the competition.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This would provide a level playing field, a format which involves the spectators which will help promote the sport, eliminate far away land-outs and retrieves, provide aspiring soaring students an attainable type of competition that they could soon participate in. I think, in some ways, it may provide a true test as to who the BEST glider pilot really is.
>
>
>
> It's called the Snowbird and it happens every Thanksgiving in Elmira.
>
> Been going on for more than 60 years.
>
> Make a joke out of it but folks do have fun.
>
> UH

Who said I was joking?

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

If, instead of calling for more rules, more complex rules, "one-design" designs, "cheaper" competitive planes, we'd simply focus our attention and energy to designing and building a competitive glider, we'd have a much better outcome.

I call for the Shift 18M design. The more I look into it, the more feasible it looks...

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 00:45 07 August 2014, Sean Fidler wrote:
>True but your one design glider would be competitive for many years.
>Currently your looking at 5-10 years before it becomes obsolete.
>

Discus 2a/LS8 - getting on for 20 year old designs now - well the 8 is
even older considering its essentialy an unflapped 6.

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 00:45 07 August 2014, Sean Fidler wrote:
>True but your one design glider would be competitive for many years.
>Currently your looking at 5-10 years before it becomes obsolete.
>

Discus 2a/LS8 - getting on for 20 year old designs now - well the 8 is
even older considering its essentialy an unflapped 6.

[GM]

>> But now that I think about it that does make sense. Shocking. Clearly the narrower fuselage and longer wings results in a dual performance advantage. Less drag/higher aspect ratio. <<

Many moons ago, SH built a 'Baby-Cirrus' and I think this longer wing/higher aspect ratio thing was part of the experiment. For some reason or another, I can't find a picture of it on the web but it was a Std.-Cirrus with the wings elevated on a pylon very much like the Grunau Baby was configured. It got converted back to a normal Std.-Cirrus after the experiment was done.
Uli
GM

[Kevin Christner]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 3:17:24 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Interesting though Tom. Good point that you were the dealer though :-). I did not know the wings in the "a" models were allowed to be longer. But now that I think about it that does make sense. Shocking.

Wait a minute something Sean didn't know? I'm sure I will wake up from my dream shortly to find out this was a figment of my imagination.

Oh wait Sean is bullying Noel Wade is another thread. I guess I am awake because he does plenty of bullying...

[waremark]

Sean said: 'new glider sales are slowing'.

Is that true? Schleicher and S-H seem to be operating at capacity (I was quoted 3 years delivery on an Arcus, so bought a pre-owned one) and they are bringing out new models thick and fast. And as mentioned in the Shark thread, there is an unusually wide range of choice of high performance rivals from other manufacturers - Lak, Shark, JS1, Binder, Antares, and DG come to mind. Most of them seem to have full order books. Then there are the new generation of lighter gliders such as Silent, Pipistrel and Phoenix.

These gliders are not only being bought because the buyers all expect to win world championships with them.

If you want to fly a lower performance cheaper class, what is wrong with the Club class?

[Sean Fidler]

Club class is very good, but it is based on handicap racing and (mainly) very old glider designs. The handicap range is fairly wide. Also, certain gliders become more competitive/less competitive based on the conditions. I know of several pilots that had "weak weather gliders" and "strong weather gliders." I find this annoying.

I agree there is little chance of a one design glider class coming to fruition. The current manufacturer driven climate in the sport is fairly locked in for now. They are good people and design and build great products. But I stand behind the idea that a one design concept could improve their business model and the enjoyment of racing pilots in the future. I believe a one design class could strengthen the sport of soaring.

Perhaps organizing a one design class from an existing glider which has been built in large numbers (ASW-20 for example) could be successful. The only problem is that Schleicher is not going to build new ASW20's. I would have more fun flying against 30 almost identical gliders then flying in a handicap class (or maybe even the "rule" class of 15 or 18 meter). Imagine the ASW20 Nationals. Or the ASW20 Worlds? For your SH folks, the D2 Nationals or Worlds.

Oh well, one can dream. Its pretty clear that few here are receptive to the idea of a mid-high performance one design glider at this time. At least I have plenty of One Design sailing to enjoy.

Sean

[Paul T[_4_]]

Single design class - LS4 would be best choice. Most produced composite
single seat glider -over 1000. Simple to fly - large cockpit - many
European clubs use as first solo machine. Solid 40:1 performance. Cost just
a little bit more than a new PW5. When PW5 came out - many said the LS4
would have made a much better choice - yet IGC continued with their
misguided aproach, much as they have done with 13.5 m class.

[Paul T[_4_]]

Single design class - LS4 would be best choice. Most produced composite
single seat glider -over 1000. Simple to fly - large cockpit - many
European clubs use as first solo machine. Solid 40:1 performance. Cost just
a little bit more than a new PW5. When PW5 came out - many said the LS4
would have made a much better choice - yet IGC continued with their
misguided aproach, much as they have done with 13.5 m class.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

We have excellent one-design racing right now. It's called 15 meter class. V2 or ASW27, take your pick. Performance basically indistinguishable, less than 5 points per day, and the variation across gliders of one make is far greater than the variation across designs. That's especially true now as they get older and need some TLC. No new production, so they are going to be competitive for decades. And there is a huge supply of them sitting around..

Looking at the worlds, ability to fly in atrocious weather seems a lot more important than a centimeter or so of cockpit width and a point of LD.

John Cochrane

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, August 8, 2014 10:20:46 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> We have excellent one-design racing right now. It's called 15 meter class.. V2 or ASW27, take your pick. Performance basically indistinguishable, less than 5 points per day, and the variation across gliders of one make is far greater than the variation across designs. That's especially true now as they get older and need some TLC. No new production, so they are going to be competitive for decades. And there is a huge supply of them sitting around.
>
>
>
> Looking at the worlds, ability to fly in atrocious weather seems a lot more important than a centimeter or so of cockpit width and a point of LD.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

Thank you for injecting some rationality!

At the Regional level, I would add LS6s, V1s, and even tricked out ASW-20s - all are so close that the stick actuator makes the real difference!

Why would I give up my LS6 for an LS4? Nice plane (I've partnered in one) but I like going faster!

As usual, Sean is babbling about his alternate reality without, apparently, understanding how the real world works...

Kirk
66

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 08/08/2014 11:20 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> We have excellent one-design racing right now. It's called 15 meter class. V2 or ASW27, take your pick. Performance basically indistinguishable, less than 5 points per day, and the variation across gliders of one make is far greater than the variation across designs. That's especially true now as they get older and need some TLC. No new production, so they are going to be competitive for decades. And there is a huge supply of them sitting around.
>
> Looking at the worlds, ability to fly in atrocious weather seems a lot more important than a centimeter or so of cockpit width and a point of LD.
>
> John Cochrane
>
Couldn't agree more.

Luke

[[email protected]]

Why not try a "soaring regatta"? Gliders types that commit with say more than five entries get their own class and are scored as a one design. If fewer than the specific number of like sailplanes want to participate, they could be scored in one or two handicap divisions based on performance to round out the field.

There are plenty of less than state of the art racing machines that may have owners who would like to meet, compete, and compare notes on their particular model sailplane. Assigned task could be preferred and set according to performance of the sailplane/pilots in each class. Many of the more popular model types have newsgroups so this could be discussed among themselves to see if there is enough interest. I'm sure after an initial contest or two it would become apparent what the more popular designs will be. Maybe a poll could be taken to find out if there is enough interest in this concept before a contest organizer sticks their neck out too far.

Seems I remember a gathering a few years back of Libelle's at Air Sailing that was quite popular and successful.

Barry

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 15:20 08 August 2014, John Cochrane wrote:
>
>We have excellent one-design racing right now. It's called 15 meter
class.
>=
> V2 or ASW27, take your pick. Performance basically indistinguishable,
>less=
> than 5 points per day, and the variation across gliders of one make is
>far=
> greater than the variation across designs. That's especially true now as
>t=
>hey get older and need some TLC. No new production, so they are going to
>be=
> competitive for decades. And there is a huge supply of them sitting
>around=

Try less rich North American thinking
1 x V2/ASW27= 1.5 - 2 x LS4
V2a/b + W27 production< LS4production
LS 4 Better club ship? More accessible to wider range of pilots. One design
means one design.


>Looking at the worlds, ability to fly in atrocious weather seems a lot
>more=
> important than a centimeter or so of cockpit width and a point of LD.=20

of course having both helps - Kawa, D2a and SZD56-2

Its not atrocious weather - its 'European' weather - learn to fly in it..

>John Cochrane
>

[Ventus_a]

Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the wing span.







. . . .And roll on a wide lifting body fuselage that pushes the span out a couple of metres while keeping the wings the same 'length'

Can't see that being an easy rule to write and police, oh and mega bucks could make it happen to the detriment of all existing 15m gliders.

:-) Colin

[Ventus_a]

;887618']We have excellent one-design racing right now. It's called 15 meter class. V2 or ASW27, take your pick. Performance basically indistinguishable, less than 5 points per day, and the variation across gliders of one make is far greater than the variation across designs. That's especially true now as they get older and need some TLC. No new production, so they are going to be competitive for decades. And there is a huge supply of them sitting around..

Looking at the worlds, ability to fly in atrocious weather seems a lot more important than a centimeter or so of cockpit width and a point of LD.

John Cochrane

A bit of sense, must agree

[Sean Fidler]

John,

I agree that 15 meter class is as close to a "one-design" as we have today (a good balance exists between the various gliders currently competing). 45:1 is a good performance level albeit a little expensive for many (85k used).

All,

I think the LS6-ASW20 price/performance range is very interesting. Are there enough LS-6's in the US to be relevant?

The market and the most proactive consortium of pilots/owners will really decide what gliders form into a one design. This could be a real game changer. I also like the idea of scoring regatta's (perhaps sub scoring one designs within contests to gain traction for the idea?)

If the V3 comes along and is truly a step above...perhaps the older generation 15m glider owners (27s, V2's etc) will suddenly become "motivated" to form a one design class vs. writing SH a 175k check for the privilege of remaining competitive in 15m!

Honestly, I think 15m is a bit to expensive to be successful (85k for a used 27 these days). Again, I think the ASW20 level performance has great promise to form a one design. The price is right at 30-40k. All they have to compete in now is sports class (and club).

OK, Ive made my point. Moving on ;-)

Sean

On Friday, August 8, 2014 11:20:46 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
> We have excellent one-design racing right now. It's called 15 meter class.. V2 or ASW27, take your pick. Performance basically indistinguishable, less than 5 points per day, and the variation across gliders of one make is far greater than the variation across designs. That's especially true now as they get older and need some TLC. No new production, so they are going to be competitive for decades. And there is a huge supply of them sitting around.
>
>
>
> Looking at the worlds, ability to fly in atrocious weather seems a lot more important than a centimeter or so of cockpit width and a point of LD.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

[Sean Fidler]

Great idea!

On Friday, August 8, 2014 2:59:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Why not try a "soaring regatta"? Gliders types that commit with say more than five entries get their own class and are scored as a one design. If fewer than the specific number of like sailplanes want to participate, they could be scored in one or two handicap divisions based on performance to round out the field.
>
>
>
> There are plenty of less than state of the art racing machines that may have owners who would like to meet, compete, and compare notes on their particular model sailplane. Assigned task could be preferred and set according to performance of the sailplane/pilots in each class. Many of the more popular model types have newsgroups so this could be discussed among themselves to see if there is enough interest. I'm sure after an initial contest or two it would become apparent what the more popular designs will be. Maybe a poll could be taken to find out if there is enough interest in this concept before a contest organizer sticks their neck out too far.
>
>
>
> Seems I remember a gathering a few years back of Libelle's at Air Sailing that was quite popular and successful.
>
>
>
> Barry

[Tony[_5_]]

The only successful one design competition in the world for sailplanes that I know of is the Schweizer 1-26 Championships. I will say that it is a lot of fun setting out on task with a group all in the exact same glider. Differences in pilots get sorted out very quickly.

The one design concept for 1-26's came about due to a lot of effort in the early days by Schweizer to establish the Championships as well as supporting the early 1-26 Association. I think any future successful one design contest will also require major manufacturer support or a strong type club to get the ball rolling.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, August 11, 2014 1:33:07 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> The only successful one design competition in the world for sailplanes that I know of is the Schweizer 1-26 Championships.


Sorry, but I will have to disagree a bit on the 1-26 as a "One Design" class. Same external shape of the wing and horizontal, same general layout on fuselage, differeing vertical based on model and the real big change: 1-26 and 1-26A gross weight 575 lbs. 1-26B and 1-26C gross weight 600 lbs. 1-26 D and E gross weight 700 lbs. With empty weights changing almost to match.

But, the guys flying them are willing to accept the differences, and still call it a "one design contest."

Now, back to the original discussion. Small fuselages and skinny pilots have an unfair advantage. Talk to an aerodynamicist. Wing span is measured from tip to tip. You don't have "longer wings" by having a "skinnier fuselage". Wing Area INCLUDES the planform "in" the fuselage, so a skinnier fuselage does NOT change area or aspect ratio. Any performance change is due to reduced total wetted area (less on fuselage, slightly more exposed wing skin). And the benefit is likely to be larger the faster you fly. But, as others have said, the difference between planes of the same type is likely as big or bigger than what is seen between a small fuselage and the "average" fuselage of otherwise the same type.

Just my opinion.

Steve

[[email protected]]

Steve,

After flying 12 of the last 14 years in the 1-26 Champs, I can assure you that it is a one design class, and there is very very little performance differences between models. Much more difference in a well sealed and cleaned up ship and one that is not. And a real hoot to fly in the Champs.

I have seen all models win.

It is the nut on the end of the stick that makes the difference.

Kevin
92
(former 192)

[[email protected]]

On Monday, August 11, 2014 9:54:14 PM UTC+2, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Monday, August 11, 2014 1:33:07 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
>
> > The only successful one design competition in the world for sailplanes that I know of is the Schweizer 1-26 Championships.
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry, but I will have to disagree a bit on the 1-26 as a "One Design" class. Same external shape of the wing and horizontal, same general layout on fuselage, differeing vertical based on model and the real big change: 1-26 and 1-26A gross weight 575 lbs. 1-26B and 1-26C gross weight 600 lbs. 1-26 D and E gross weight 700 lbs. With empty weights changing almost to match.
>
>
>
> But, the guys flying them are willing to accept the differences, and still call it a "one design contest."
>
>
>
> Now, back to the original discussion. Small fuselages and skinny pilots have an unfair advantage. Talk to an aerodynamicist. Wing span is measured from tip to tip. You don't have "longer wings" by having a "skinnier fuselage". Wing Area INCLUDES the planform "in" the fuselage, so a skinnier fuselage does NOT change area or aspect ratio. Any performance change is due to reduced total wetted area (less on fuselage, slightly more exposed wing skin). And the benefit is likely to be larger the faster you fly. But, as others have said, the difference between planes of the same type is likely as big or bigger than what is seen between a small fuselage and the "average" fuselage of otherwise the same type.
>
>
>
> Just my opinion.
>
>
>
> Steve

Is an a-model theoretically or practically 'faster'? Almost certainly. Measurably or perceptibly so? Not in my experience (disappointingly).

What does make a substantial difference (to me, at least) is the closeness of the fuselage sides to your shoulders, giving much better feel of the air - which I imagine larger pilots enjoy in b and c model fuselages.

</-a model owner>

[GC[_2_]]

On 12/08/2014 05:54, Steve Leonard wrote:
....
> Now, back to the original discussion. Small fuselages and skinny
> pilots have an unfair advantage. Talk to an aerodynamicist. Wing
> span is measured from tip to tip. You don't have "longer wings" by
> having a "skinnier fuselage". Wing Area INCLUDES the planform "in"
> the fuselage, so a skinnier fuselage does NOT change area or aspect
> ratio. Any performance change is due to reduced total wetted area
> (less on fuselage, slightly more exposed wing skin).

The usual "A" in the drag equation in this context is cross-sectional
area of the fuselage (and wing, maybe), not wetted area.

GC

And the benefit
> is likely to be larger the faster you fly. But, as others have said,
> the difference between planes of the same type is likely as big or
> bigger than what is seen between a small fuselage and the "average"
> fuselage of otherwise the same type.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> Steve
>

[Mark628CA]

The guy who suggested the one-design contest using the Schweizer 2-33 and scoring altitude gain, time aloft and spot landing just described the 1975 Hang Gliding National Championships, except the 2-33 would have placed LAST!

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, August 11, 2014 6:47:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Steve, After flying 12 of the last 14 years in the 1-26 Champs, I can assure you that it is a one design class, and there is very very little performance differences between models. Much more difference in a well sealed and cleaned up ship and one that is not. And a real hoot to fly in the Champs. I have seen all models win. It is the nut on the end of the stick that makes the difference. Kevin 92 (former 192)

Kevin, they are "one design" only in that they are all on the same TCDS. Agree completely that a lot depends on the driver. Also, that a well prepared, clean, straight, sealed A can probably knock the socks off of a crappy E on a strong day, even if flown at its much lower permitted gross weight.

As I said, you guys that race them are willing to accept that each one is different, but they are all close enough to the same to go race as a one design class.

Steve

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Actually, GC, in the context I am talking about, "A" is Wing Area. CD varies with CL. There is a portion of CD that is independent of CL, and that part will be lower with a smaller fuselage because it has less wetted area. Smaller cross section usually comes along with less surface area. Chicken and egg, maybe?

You will likely find that it has less to do with the cross sectional area of the fuselage at max size than with fineness ratio of the fuselage and total wetted area. Looked at wheel pants on fixed gear airplanes lately? They have gotten bigger cross sections, and the drag has gone down. Proper shaping in the right places is the key. It seems to be less about what happens when getting thicker than how you handle getting thinner.

Steve

[[email protected]]

Damn right.

2T
> I suspect that the size of the intellect, motivation, commitment, and preparation on the part of the person in the cockpit has an order of magnitude more importance than the size of the fuselage he or she is in.
>
> UH

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 10:09:50 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Monday, August 11, 2014 6:47:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > Steve, After flying 12 of the last 14 years in the 1-26 Champs, I can assure you that it is a one design class, and there is very very little performance differences between models. Much more difference in a well sealed and cleaned up ship and one that is not. And a real hoot to fly in the Champs. I have seen all models win. It is the nut on the end of the stick that makes the difference. Kevin 92 (former 192)
>
>
>
> Kevin, they are "one design" only in that they are all on the same TCDS. Agree completely that a lot depends on the driver. Also, that a well prepared, clean, straight, sealed A can probably knock the socks off of a crappy E on a strong day, even if flown at its much lower permitted gross weight..
>
>
>
> As I said, you guys that race them are willing to accept that each one is different, but they are all close enough to the same to go race as a one design class.
>
>
>
> Steve

It is very very rarely that the slight differences in the 1-26s ever standout. I prefer the D and the E because I like the thicker spar for ridge flying, but I would not have any qualms if someone offered me to fly an A, B or C in a 1-26 contest. If you look at results, all of the different models have been represented at the top of the scoresheet. The one that has been least represented, ironically is the E model, which has the highest wing loading. That is more due to that the E is mostly flown as a club ship rather than owned by those who race 1-26s. This is since that the E, while more durable for club operations is harder to repair if damaged in an landout. Ultimately, it is really a wash... come fly 1-26s if you want real one-design racing!

Best Regards,
Daniel