World Contest - 15m class

[Jock Proudfoot]

[AS]

On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 11:15:07 AM UTC-5, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
>

Ahhh... the suspense is killing me! ;-)

[C-FFKQ (42)]

On Saturday, 19 November 2016 11:55:21 UTC-5, AS wrote:
> On Saturday, November 19, 2016 at 11:15:07 AM UTC-5, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
> >
>
> Ahhh... the suspense is killing me! ;-)

Jock is being more cryptic than his norm.

[Jock Proudfoot]

The Jonker brothers are entered in the 15m class
What model glider will they fly ?

[Tim Taylor]

The contest will be exciting with the V3 in the 18M and the JS-? in 15M. Nice to see the new gliders in the mix.

[[email protected]]

URL?

[Iain Baker]

At 05:19 20 November 2016, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
>The Jonker brothers are entered in the 15m class
>What model glider will they fly ?
>
>
Should have watched the SGP World Final live broadcasts...

[Iain Baker]

At 05:19 20 November 2016, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
>The Jonker brothers are entered in the 15m class
>What model glider will they fly ?
>
>
Should have watched the SGP World Final live broadcasts...

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

The new Jonker 13.5/15 meter glider.

On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 1:15:08 AM UTC-8, Iain Baker wrote:
> At 05:19 20 November 2016, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
> >The Jonker brothers are entered in the 15m class
> >What model glider will they fly ?
> >

[Sean[_2_]]

The JS2 with the Yonker brothers driving is going to be an awesome combination. I thought it was going to be a 15/18m.

I will be routing for them in 15 (behind our guys of course). It would be great to see the 15m class shaken up and the Diana2 dethroned.

I know this is a huge effort for them to get this glider prepared in time. I wish them safety and success!

[Casey[_2_]]

On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 10:24:54 AM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> The new Jonker 13.5/15 meter glider.
>
> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 1:15:08 AM UTC-8, Iain Baker wrote:
> > At 05:19 20 November 2016, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
> > >The Jonker brothers are entered in the 15m class
> > >What model glider will they fly ?
> > >

What....13.5/15? Must be stealthy, but why keep that under wraps when most start leaking new models to get some to hold off on a competitor purchase. Do tell more?

[Iain Baker]

At 00:16 21 November 2016, Casey wrote:
>On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 10:24:54 AM UTC-5, Jonathan St.
Cloud
>wrote:
>> The new Jonker 13.5/15 meter glider.
>>
>> > At 05:19 20 November 2016, Jock Proudfoot wrote:
>> > >The Jonker brothers are entered in the 15m class
>> > >What model glider will they fly ?
>> > >
>
>What....13.5/15? Must be stealthy, but why keep that under wraps
when most
>start leaking new models to get some to hold off on a competitor
purchase.
> Do tell more?
>

In 7th FAI SGP World Final - Race 4 video on YouTube 1:52:15 onwards
listen to Uys Jonker reveal some information...first public mention of
the JS3.

And in 7th FAI SGP World Final – Race 6 video on YouTube at 1:16:00
the commentators Shaun Lapworth and Brian Spreckley mention a
Jonker Sailplanes factory tour looking at the new JS3, a 15/18m
glider….and that the 18m version will be better than today’s JS1-18m.

[Sean[_2_]]

Uys made an excellent 45 minute presentation on the JS2 (or 3?) in Nephi last summer. He talked about their innovative CFD philosophy and robust computational processing power. As with many industries, highly iterative "trail and error" testing has proven to be very successful vs the more traditional iteration processes used by the established sailplane manufacturing firms.

For example, the V3 has not resulted in a new fuselage design. It's basically the same fuselage as the V2. Only very minor changes. Same control system, etc. But Yonkers believes any major performance improvements MUST include total design innovation. The fuselage is as critical as the wing. They are symbiotic, not individual parts. They both require highly integrated design attention in order to deliver maximum performance gains. As improvements in glider design are harder and harder to come by, a complete design philosophy including total fuselage innovation (such as shaping, wing position [high, mid or low], structure, total wetted area minimization, boom shape, tail improvements, etc) is required to realize significant performance (and safety) improvement. With traditional, less iterative processes (not highly iterative CFD modeling), the other companies cannot afford the testing time required to prove benefits in total design enhancements. So, SH focused on the wing primarily for the V3. They left performance on the table by not putting the same effort into the fuselage and the integration between the two elements. I found this argument to be fairly interesting.

It was a very interesting presentation Uys gave us in Nephi. Unfortunately, we will likely only see the 15 meter version JS2 in Australia. We will have to wait a bit to see the JS2, V3 and 29 do battle.

I think the JS2 is going to be impressive. Obviously they intend to beat (not match) the current 15/18 gliders, by a compelling margin. The JS2 will be the first completely new 18 meter design since the JS1 and JS1c Evo. The V2 and 29 came years earlier. I think the JS1 is equal (or slightly better in weak) to the 29. I think the JS2 will certainly be better than the JS1. And I honestly think the V3 was intended to be "competitive" with the JS1 and 29. I have my doubts that the V3 will be a significantly better performer in any condition. I believe it may struggle in weak, rough weather. We will see in a month or so...

So, I'm sitting on my hands for now. Until the 29 is uncompetitive, why change? The 29 is a highly proven glider and still the king to this moment.

[krasw]

On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 06:17:23 UTC+2, Sean wrote:
> For example, the V3 has not resulted in a new fuselage design. It's basically the same fuselage as the V2. Only very minor changes. Same control system, etc. But Yonkers believes any major performance improvements MUST include total design innovation. The fuselage is as critical as the wing.

Does this mean that Jonkers is actually going to make their first original fuselage design? :)

[Sean[_2_]]

I guess so. Did they copy something?

[krasw]

On Tuesday, 22 November 2016 21:17:50 UTC+2, Sean wrote:
> I guess so. Did they copy something?

If I remember the story right, Schleicher provided an ASH26 fuselage for S-African Tech. University for research purposes. Few years later it was copied into JS1 fuselage. Others may fill in if I missed some facts, it's been 10 years since I heard the story from Heide (who was not very happy about it). Are you saying you haven't noticed the obvious similarity between '26 and JS?

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 12:42:55 PM UTC-7, krasw wrote:

> If I remember the story right, Schleicher provided an ASH26 fuselage for S-African Tech. University for research purposes. Few years later it was copied into JS1 fuselage. Others may fill in if I missed some facts, it's been 10 years since I heard the story from Heide (who was not very happy about it). Are you saying you haven't noticed the obvious similarity between '26 and JS?

IIRC, The story used to be on the JS website. They did start with an AS fuse (Purchased with the companys blessing) with the intention of making a new wing. It was determined that too many changes would need to be made for this to be practical so the idea was scraped and the fuse was later used for the repair of an AS glider. Much of the presentation at Nephi centered around the development of the fuse and the wing junction.
I will say that form follows function and when you look close there are similarities among many modern gliders.
Just filling in "Facts"

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 10:09:27 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 12:42:55 PM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
>
> > If I remember the story right, Schleicher provided an ASH26 fuselage for S-African Tech. University for research purposes. Few years later it was copied into JS1 fuselage. Others may fill in if I missed some facts, it's been 10 years since I heard the story from Heide (who was not very happy about it). Are you saying you haven't noticed the obvious similarity between '26 and JS?
>
> IIRC, The story used to be on the JS website. They did start with an AS fuse (Purchased with the companys blessing) with the intention of making a new wing. It was determined that too many changes would need to be made for this to be practical so the idea was scraped and the fuse was later used for the repair of an AS glider. Much of the presentation at Nephi centered around the development of the fuse and the wing junction.
> I will say that form follows function and when you look close there are similarities among many modern gliders.
> Just filling in "Facts"

http://www.postfrontal.com/PDF/prove_alianti/JS1.pdf

Some people might be forgiven for seeing things a bit differently.

-Evan

[Sean[_2_]]

I had not really noticed the 26 being very similar to the JS1... I'm looking now and the fin and nose. It does not look the same to me. Maybe a bit. The mid position of the wing looks similar. If true, I give them a pass as they were just starting out as a brand new company. It actually makes sense from an economic perspective, but of course copying an existing fuselage is a big compromise on achieving maximum possible performance. The 26 is a beautiful glider so at least they have good taste.

My opinion (years of CAE experience with racing sailboat design, from keel bulbs and fins to rudders and hulls and especially sails) is that Uys is correct. By not including the fuselage in any "new" design, much potential performance gain is naturally "left on the table." This is of course not rocket science. This is a matter of economics.

What is the minimum required performance gain required to get the flock to "fly over the the new pond?" Obviously, the new wing on the V3 was "enough" to get many SH owners "into the air!" But will that prove to be a mistake?

To have the best chance at significant performance improvement, the whole sailplane and all of its critical aerodynamic interrelationships must be iterated (extensively and carefully) together. Again, this is not rocket science. It's a simple matter of potential opportunity for aerodynamic improvement. 50% of the glider or 100%?

I often helped racing sailboat owners redesign their rudder or the keel fin in the never ending struggling to remain competitive (early 90's). But this conservative approach was never really competitive with the totally new designs (several each season) in a period of rapid advancement in sailing technology. This effort to "stem the tide" was almost always futile! Most serious owners could only procure new boat every 3-5 years. The design process alone took over a year, then a year or two to build, and so on. Sailplane design is on a much slower pace that sailing is/was. Significant, new sailplane designs seem to come along every ten years or so. That might slow as the sport slows. That makes each sailplane purchase decision critical, especially if you cannot afford a new glider every season. The million dollar question is: "How long will your new glider be the competitive?"

1 year, 3 years, 10 years? 6 months? Never?

So, the ASG29 was not truly new when it was released ten years ago. My registration actually says ASG 27-18 - SN4! But it used airfoils from very proven gliders (part 27 airfoil and part new airfoil, I believe) but it has also been the clear king of 18m and very competitive in 15m for years. The 29 is the baseline of all 18m gliders to this day.

At about the same time (?) the V2 came along. I'm not sure of its design background but it has also not been competitive with the ASG29, especially in strong conditions. Even with the "X" version. I don't believe th 29 has ever been changed in the slightest.

Then came the JS1, three or four years later. It seems to basically match the ASG29 and truly challenges its performance in weaker conditions. Later yet came the JS1 EVO improvement and this might have tipped the scales slightly in the JS1s favor in weak conditions.

Today, SH designed what is essentially a "new wing" for the V2 and aptly calls it V3! Ta da! The wing is much thinner than the V2s and is intended to run "extremely well" compared to the V2 based on contest flying behavior research. But will it climb effectively in weaker conditions? The same fuselage as the V2 appears to have been used for the V3. This calls into question how large the improvement "can be" as the V2 was already a step behind the 29 and JS1 in most conditions. The V2 fuselage is, obviously, VERY FAT (lots of wetted area) and therefore so is the V3 fuselage. Results of the V3 design strategy are still largely unknown.

Finally the new JS2 appears on the scene. This is (apparently) the first "ground up" brand new sailplane design that any of us have seen in a long time. It has less (perhaps none) of the traditional compromises. It appears to be a totally new sailplane design with the stated design goal of significant performance improvement over its own already leading product. A completely redesigned fuselage, new wing, new tail, new cockpit, etc. Everything was intensely studied and iterated via their rapid CFD design process. Their design process is proving to be a tremendous business advantage. It offers JS maybe a 10-20x improvement in iteration speed and therefore refinement opportunity. Time is truly money. They are able to "keep the pressure on!"

JS had the advantage of already having one of the top two 18m racing sailplanes (essentially tied with the 29). Their design strategy and process, in my eyes, appears to be highly credible. So credible that the German sailplane manufacturers have recently begged their government for money to catch up and compete in terms of CFD computing power. Great, but they are now years behind JS is experience in this kind of iterative design process. Their time to market is obviously slower. We do not know if the V3 will actually be a match for the JS1 EVO yet (I believe that 'match or slightly exceed' the current benchmark was the design goal for the V3).

Exciting times as some very big, strategic cards are about to be put down down on the table...

[krasw]

On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 18:16:58 UTC+2, Sean wrote:
> The 26 is a beautiful glider so at least they have good taste.

Agreed. No matter what the story is (there is always two sides of coin), AS did not willingly donate the aerodynamic shape of '26 fuselage to competing manufacturer.

>
> So, the ASG29 was not truly new when it was released ten years ago. My registration actually says ASG 27-18

That is just paperwork. Factory has to pay annually to EASA for every type-certificate data sheet it owns. Schleicher has over 20 of these, Airbus only four. So they decided to use '27 data sheet for '29. Sure it inherits a lot from '27, but it is still different animal. I think it was 29 and 18m tips that revealed the full potential of Waibel's original design.

>
> Today, SH designed what is essentially a "new wing" for the V2 and aptly calls it V3! Ta da! The wing is much thinner than the V2s and is intended to run "extremely well" compared to the V2 based on contest flying behavior research. But will it climb effectively in weaker conditions? The same fuselage as the V2 appears to have been used for the V3. This calls into question how large the improvement "can be" as the V2 was already a step behind the 29 and JS1 in most conditions. The V2 fuselage is, obviously, VERY FAT (lots of wetted area) and therefore so is the V3 fuselage. Results of the V3 design strategy are still largely unknown.


Using same fuselage for different types is quite normal. LS1-f/LS6/LS7/LS8/LS10, ASW24/27/28/ASG29, Ventus a/2a/3a/Discus a/2a, ASH26/JS1 etc. I think the Ventus 3 has flown only with a-cockpit, which has lowest wetted area of anything because it is so small. You are confusing Schempp's big b/c-model fuselage with small a-model. Your speculation about V3 wing is based on what exactly?

[Bruce Hoult]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 8:29:04 PM UTC+3, krasw wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 18:16:58 UTC+2, Sean wrote:
> > The 26 is a beautiful glider so at least they have good taste.
>
> Agreed. No matter what the story is (there is always two sides of coin), AS did not willingly donate the aerodynamic shape of '26 fuselage to competing manufacturer.
>
> >
> > So, the ASG29 was not truly new when it was released ten years ago. My registration actually says ASG 27-18
>
> That is just paperwork. Factory has to pay annually to EASA for every type-certificate data sheet it owns. Schleicher has over 20 of these, Airbus only four. So they decided to use '27 data sheet for '29. Sure it inherits a lot from '27, but it is still different animal. I think it was 29 and 18m tips that revealed the full potential of Waibel's original design.
>
> >
> > Today, SH designed what is essentially a "new wing" for the V2 and aptly calls it V3! Ta da! The wing is much thinner than the V2s and is intended to run "extremely well" compared to the V2 based on contest flying behavior research. But will it climb effectively in weaker conditions? The same fuselage as the V2 appears to have been used for the V3. This calls into question how large the improvement "can be" as the V2 was already a step behind the 29 and JS1 in most conditions. The V2 fuselage is, obviously, VERY FAT (lots of wetted area) and therefore so is the V3 fuselage. Results of the V3 design strategy are still largely unknown.
>
>
> Using same fuselage for different types is quite normal. LS1-f/LS6/LS7/LS8/LS10, ASW24/27/28/ASG29, Ventus a/2a/3a/Discus a/2a, ASH26/JS1 etc. I think the Ventus 3 has flown only with a-cockpit, which has lowest wetted area of anything because it is so small. You are confusing Schempp's big b/c-model fuselage with small a-model. Your speculation about V3 wing is based on what exactly?

The same canopy fits a mid 1970s Janus and a modern Duo Discus!

[Sean[_2_]]

The Ventus 3 is not represented yet on the Schempp Hirth website...

https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en.html

Interesting.

The general design brief for the V3 (wing only) is, therefore, not well marketed (or even formally published) although I suspect that a purchase of the SH presentation from the recent SSA convention from 'Wings and Wheels' would discuss the V3 design brief in great detail. Take a look at DVD #14 here: http://wingsandwheels.com/pilot-supplies/books/2016-ssa-convention-dvd..html

https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en.html

It essentially goes like this: "by studying flight traces (glide/climb ratios, speeds, climb rates, etc) from actual competition flights, they believe the current airfoils are not optimized (essentially to thick, too high drag) so the adopted a new airfoil (thinner essentially) optimized for better high speed glide performance and (likely) slightly less performance in climb. In other words they cite that competition gliders are flying faster than optimum (for their current V2 airfoils) and climbing less that predicted.. So they have built a new wing optimized for the speeds and climb percentages that are actually being flown in real competition."

This design strategy is well known among the SH community and is the basis for the arguement that the V3 will have exceptional performance in competition. It has also resulted in a large book of pre-orders.

We shall see the results of the new wing shortly.

Sean

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Loved flying the Janus and a Nimbus4D (looks like the same cockpit), but SH left much performance on the table by not updating their fuselage, I think the ASH-25 outsold the Nimbus 4D three to one and the ASH-25 was just a better performing glider, having placed as high at the podium in World Gliding Championships.

As for SH and their adherence to a 1970's fuselage design with a side hinged canopy... I has the fuselage really been updated since the first ventus C? I know they updated the tail feathers from the Vents 2C to the Ventus 2CX, not sure why they could not have designed it right the first time!!! I think it was 8 weeks after I got my new Ventus 2C licensed that SH announced they had finished the design and were now offering the Ventus 2CX. After waiting two years receive a glider that SH knew needed more design work before it was released, I was unhappy. Plus it arrived with x kilograms of weight in the tail when it should have had x pounds, that's right 2.2 times the tail weight it should have had. If you haven't flown a glider past the aft limits, I can tell you it is very squirrly, had difficultly keeping the airspeed between 45 and 75 knots.

Does anyone actually like the side hinged canopy?


On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 10:30:39 AM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:

> The same canopy fits a mid 1970s Janus and a modern Duo Discus!

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Interesting that the Quintus is listed on their web site, even after they updated it last year. The Quintus is not in production and since SH never went through any of the certification process they cannot build any more of the quintus, too bad the world needs another true open class gliders with long wings.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 7:55:24 AM UTC-8, Sean wrote:
> The Ventus 3 is not represented yet on the Schempp Hirth website...
>
> https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en.html
>
> Interesting.
>

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 8:55:24 AM UTC-7, Sean wrote:
> The Ventus 3 is not represented yet on the Schempp Hirth website...
>
> https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en.html
>
> Interesting.
>
> The general design brief for the V3 (wing only) is, therefore, not well marketed (or even formally published) although I suspect that a purchase of the SH presentation from the recent SSA convention from 'Wings and Wheels' would discuss the V3 design brief in great detail. Take a look at DVD #14 here: http://wingsandwheels.com/pilot-supplies/books/2016-ssa-convention-dvd.html
>
> https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en.html
>
> It essentially goes like this: "by studying flight traces (glide/climb ratios, speeds, climb rates, etc) from actual competition flights, they believe the current airfoils are not optimized (essentially to thick, too high drag) so the adopted a new airfoil (thinner essentially) optimized for better high speed glide performance and (likely) slightly less performance in climb. In other words they cite that competition gliders are flying faster than optimum (for their current V2 airfoils) and climbing less that predicted. So they have built a new wing optimized for the speeds and climb percentages that are actually being flown in real competition."
>
> This design strategy is well known among the SH community and is the basis for the arguement that the V3 will have exceptional performance in competition. It has also resulted in a large book of pre-orders.
>
> We shall see the results of the new wing shortly.
>
> Sean

Well, the V3 has already been raced. UK 18 Meter Nationals Aug 20 thru 26th..

Steve Jones is one of the best.
I cut this link(may not work) but full results are here.
http://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/tibenham-18m-.

1 565 Brian Birlison ASG 29E 1,918
2 80 Andy Davis JS1c Evo 1,915
3 E1 Russell Cheetham JS1c Evo 1,822
4 E11 Stephen Ell ASG 29E 1,812
5 10 Gary Stingemore ASG 29E 1,806
6 N1 Peter Harvey JS1c 1,763
7 601 Tim Jenkinson ASG29E 1,752
8 9 Rory Ellis ASG 29E 1,695
9 3V Steve Jones Ventus 3 1,681
10 XS Richard Browne JS1c 1,629

Bet. Tom #711.

[[email protected]]

OK Leo L-B, time to step in; curious minds have questions.

Like many, I've been following the Jonker JS1 18-21 self launcher webpage found here http://www.js1.co.za/js2selflaun.htm . First thing I noticed was JS2 in the URL. So after awing over all the pictures (I love that kind of stuff) curiosity set in. Why would Jonker go to the expense and trouble of designing a new fuselage for the SL when the current JS1 fuselage was a "knock-off" of an outstanding self launch fuselage being the ASH-26? And, why would they show a new wing mold when there isn't an announced wing change to the 18-21 EVO? Obviously, they get only so many "pulls" off a mold before it has to be replaced but it came across as a "something different" mold.

The recent SA FAI SGP YouTube broadcasts got my attention when the JS3 was mentioned...news to me. Even more surprised to learn Jonker discussed it at 2016 Nephi and that "scoop" didn't make it to R.A.S.

What does make since...at least to me...is the pictures on the above self launching site are actually the JS3 which I understand will have a 15-18 wing and not a 13.5-15 wing that has also been mentioned. New fuselage and wing molds certainly make sense here.

Shaking my head in disbelief that I'm agreeing with Sean, I think the Jonker brothers have taken the lead in current competition sailplane design. Great job Team Jonker.

[Sean[_2_]]

Interesting Tom. Schempp Hirth would have been all over these results (social media, etc) if they were favorable. News of the V3 has been fairly difficult to find. They probably still have a bit of tuning left to do. Let's hope, for their sake, the glider ends up performing better than that.

[Sean[_2_]]

Looks like this was a really weak comment test. Only 1900 points in 5 days. But weak is what worries me about the V3

http://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/tibenham-18m-and-junior-nationals-2016-tibenham-2016/results/uk-18m-nationals

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:44:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> OK Leo L-B, time to step in; curious minds have questions.
>
> Like many, I've been following the Jonker JS1 18-21 self launcher webpage found here http://www.js1.co.za/js2selflaun.htm . First thing I noticed was JS2 in the URL. So after awing over all the pictures (I love that kind of stuff) curiosity set in. Why would Jonker go to the expense and trouble of designing a new fuselage for the SL when the current JS1 fuselage was a "knock-off" of an outstanding self launch fuselage being the ASH-26? And, why would they show a new wing mold when there isn't an announced wing change to the 18-21 EVO? Obviously, they get only so many "pulls" off a mold before it has to be replaced but it came across as a "something different" mold.
>
> The recent SA FAI SGP YouTube broadcasts got my attention when the JS3 was mentioned...news to me. Even more surprised to learn Jonker discussed it at 2016 Nephi and that "scoop" didn't make it to R.A.S.
>
> What does make since...at least to me...is the pictures on the above self launching site are actually the JS3 which I understand will have a 15-18 wing and not a 13.5-15 wing that has also been mentioned. New fuselage and wing molds certainly make sense here.
>
> Shaking my head in disbelief that I'm agreeing with Sean, I think the Jonker brothers have taken the lead in current competition sailplane design. Great job Team Jonker.

The reason they needed to create a new fuselage for the SL version is because the Schleicher engine is narrower than lawn mower engines found in other gliders :). They had no access to the Wankel engine.

[Ron Gleason]

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 10:44:42 UTC-7, wrote:
> OK Leo L-B, time to step in; curious minds have questions.
>
> Like many, I've been following the Jonker JS1 18-21 self launcher webpage found here http://www.js1.co.za/js2selflaun.htm . First thing I noticed was JS2 in the URL. So after awing over all the pictures (I love that kind of stuff) curiosity set in. Why would Jonker go to the expense and trouble of designing a new fuselage for the SL when the current JS1 fuselage was a "knock-off" of an outstanding self launch fuselage being the ASH-26? And, why would they show a new wing mold when there isn't an announced wing change to the 18-21 EVO? Obviously, they get only so many "pulls" off a mold before it has to be replaced but it came across as a "something different" mold.
>
> The recent SA FAI SGP YouTube broadcasts got my attention when the JS3 was mentioned...news to me. Even more surprised to learn Jonker discussed it at 2016 Nephi and that "scoop" didn't make it to R.A.S.
>


> What does make since...at least to me...is the pictures on the above self launching site are actually the JS3 which I understand will have a 15-18 wing and not a 13.5-15 wing that has also been mentioned. New fuselage and wing molds certainly make sense here.
>
> Shaking my head in disbelief that I'm agreeing with Sean, I think the Jonker brothers have taken the lead in current competition sailplane design. Great job Team Jonker.

At Nephi in late June, Ace delivered a presentation on the overall approach that Jonkers is taking towards their business and designing and delivering current and new products to the marketplace. There were very few if any specifics provided on new models etc.

In private conversations Ace provided more details but again was careful not to promise anything or spill the beans.

I am aware that some pilots were approached and signed non-disclosure documents for forth coming specifics.

Regarding new molds, the company realizes that they need to ramp up production and tweak their processes when additional models are in production. They brought a lot to the table from the days of a repair shop and used that to get their first model(s) to the market. Now they are taking the next steps.

Marketing is not a strength of any glider manufacturer and IMO Jonkers is doing as well as anybody in the industry.

I look forward to seeing what all the manufacturers do and I for one am grateful for what they are producing and supporting for such a small finicky marketplace. I am also grateful for the companies that are delivering electronics and other accessories to the marketplace we utilize to have fun.

Ron Gleason

[[email protected]]

Is the JS-3 using a new wing, or are they just chopping off the existing wing inboard of 15m, and using new 15m tips?

[Bruce Hoult]

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 7:48:10 PM UTC+3, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Loved flying the Janus and a Nimbus4D (looks like the same cockpit), but SH left much performance on the table by not updating their fuselage, I think the ASH-25 outsold the Nimbus 4D three to one and the ASH-25 was just a better performing glider, having placed as high at the podium in World Gliding Championships.
>
> As for SH and their adherence to a 1970's fuselage design with a side hinged canopy... I has the fuselage really been updated since the first ventus C? I know they updated the tail feathers from the Vents 2C to the Ventus 2CX, not sure why they could not have designed it right the first time!!! I think it was 8 weeks after I got my new Ventus 2C licensed that SH announced they had finished the design and were now offering the Ventus 2CX. After waiting two years receive a glider that SH knew needed more design work before it was released, I was unhappy. Plus it arrived with x kilograms of weight in the tail when it should have had x pounds, that's right 2.2 times the tail weight it should have had. If you haven't flown a glider past the aft limits, I can tell you it is very squirrly, had difficultly keeping the airspeed between 45 and 75 knots.
>
> Does anyone actually like the side hinged canopy?
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 10:30:39 AM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> > The same canopy fits a mid 1970s Janus and a modern Duo Discus!

I've seldom flown anything else!

Blanik -- side hinged
Twin Astir -- 2x side hinged
Janus -- side hinged
Duo -- side hinged
DG1000 -- 2x side hinged

PW5 -- front hinged
Club Libelle -- rear hinged
ASK21 -- 1x front hinged, 1x rear hinged

Ka6 and Std Libelle -- totally unhinged

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Must be late in Moscow! Side hinged is a pain when assembly or if you take two steps away from canopy and there is a wind gust.


On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 1:55:39 PM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 7:48:10 PM UTC+3, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Loved flying the Janus and a Nimbus4D (looks like the same cockpit), but SH left much performance on the table by not updating their fuselage, I think the ASH-25 outsold the Nimbus 4D three to one and the ASH-25 was just a better performing glider, having placed as high at the podium in World Gliding Championships.
> >
> > As for SH and their adherence to a 1970's fuselage design with a side hinged canopy... I has the fuselage really been updated since the first ventus C? I know they updated the tail feathers from the Vents 2C to the Ventus 2CX, not sure why they could not have designed it right the first time!!! I think it was 8 weeks after I got my new Ventus 2C licensed that SH announced they had finished the design and were now offering the Ventus 2CX. After waiting two years receive a glider that SH knew needed more design work before it was released, I was unhappy. Plus it arrived with x kilograms of weight in the tail when it should have had x pounds, that's right 2.2 times the tail weight it should have had. If you haven't flown a glider past the aft limits, I can tell you it is very squirrly, had difficultly keeping the airspeed between 45 and 75 knots.
> >
> > Does anyone actually like the side hinged canopy?
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 10:30:39 AM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> >
> > > The same canopy fits a mid 1970s Janus and a modern Duo Discus!
>
> I've seldom flown anything else!
>
> Blanik -- side hinged
> Twin Astir -- 2x side hinged
> Janus -- side hinged
> Duo -- side hinged
> DG1000 -- 2x side hinged
>
> PW5 -- front hinged
> Club Libelle -- rear hinged
> ASK21 -- 1x front hinged, 1x rear hinged
>
> Ka6 and Std Libelle -- totally unhinged

[Renny[_2_]]

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 10:21:23 AM UTC-7, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 8:55:24 AM UTC-7, Sean wrote:
> > The Ventus 3 is not represented yet on the Schempp Hirth website...
> >
> > https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en.html
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > The general design brief for the V3 (wing only) is, therefore, not well marketed (or even formally published) although I suspect that a purchase of the SH presentation from the recent SSA convention from 'Wings and Wheels' would discuss the V3 design brief in great detail. Take a look at DVD #14 here: http://wingsandwheels.com/pilot-supplies/books/2016-ssa-convention-dvd.html
> >
> > https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en.html
> >
> > It essentially goes like this: "by studying flight traces (glide/climb ratios, speeds, climb rates, etc) from actual competition flights, they believe the current airfoils are not optimized (essentially to thick, too high drag) so the adopted a new airfoil (thinner essentially) optimized for better high speed glide performance and (likely) slightly less performance in climb. In other words they cite that competition gliders are flying faster than optimum (for their current V2 airfoils) and climbing less that predicted. So they have built a new wing optimized for the speeds and climb percentages that are actually being flown in real competition."
> >
> > This design strategy is well known among the SH community and is the basis for the arguement that the V3 will have exceptional performance in competition. It has also resulted in a large book of pre-orders.
> >
> > We shall see the results of the new wing shortly.
> >
> > Sean
>
> Well, the V3 has already been raced. UK 18 Meter Nationals Aug 20 thru 26th.
>
> Steve Jones is one of the best.
> I cut this link(may not work) but full results are here.
> http://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/tibenham-18m-.
>
> 1 565 Brian Birlison ASG 29E 1,918
> 2 80 Andy Davis JS1c Evo 1,915
> 3 E1 Russell Cheetham JS1c Evo 1,822
> 4 E11 Stephen Ell ASG 29E 1,812
> 5 10 Gary Stingemore ASG 29E 1,806
> 6 N1 Peter Harvey JS1c 1,763
> 7 601 Tim Jenkinson ASG29E 1,752
> 8 9 Rory Ellis ASG 29E 1,695
> 9 3V Steve Jones Ventus 3 1,681
> 10 XS Richard Browne JS1c 1,629
>
> Bet. Tom #711.

A Ventus 3T competed at the FAI Sailplane Grand Prix in Musbach Germany in August 2016. The Ventus 3T, flown by Mario Kiessling, finished in 3rd place out of 19 competitors. Here's the link to the results:

http://www.sgp.aero/germany2016/results-sgp/results.aspx?contestID=16082

We should know even more on the performance of the Ventus 3 after the WGCs in Benalla in January. There will be 7 Ventus 3s competing in the 18 meter class...Thanks!

[Sean[_2_]]

Yep. That was a much stronger contest. The other contest was weaker (like east coast USA) and it clearly struggled.

The 29 won both events. Hmmm. One trick pony?

[[email protected]]

On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 9:11:36 AM UTC-7, Sean wrote:
> Yep. That was a much stronger contest. The other contest was weaker (like east coast USA) and it clearly struggled.
>
> The 29 won both events. Hmmm. One trick pony?

Sean - "Roger.." It will be interesting to see how it all works out in Benalla. Your being there competing in the 18m will actually be tremendous as you will be able to see first hand how the Ventus 3 fares against 29s, JS-1s, etc, etc. I know you will be very busy during the contest, but hopefully when you get back you can post your impressions and observations! Thanks - Renny

[ND]

let's not forget that the pilot is a big factor in all of this and that he could have f@#$%'d up... it's not like we haven't all done that...

Also, in speaking with those guys at the convention they mentioned not wanting to race the V3 because of the temporary restricted VNE imposed because of certification stuff. not sure if that was a factor or not, but they at least made comments about skewed perception. I am interested to see how it performs as well.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-5, Sean wrote:
> Interesting Tom. Schempp Hirth would have been all over these results (social media, etc) if they were favorable. News of the V3 has been fairly difficult to find. They probably still have a bit of tuning left to do. Let's hope, for their sake, the glider ends up performing better than that.

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

Some pictures of the JS3 can be found here:
http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039

Looks very close in aerodynamics to the Akaflieg München Mü31

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 8:21:11 AM UTC-6, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
> Some pictures of the JS3 can be found here:
> http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039
>
> Looks very close in aerodynamics to the Akaflieg München Mü31

Retractable tailwheel, too.

Maybe George Applebay had the wing location on the fuselage right 40 years ago with the Zuni?

Looking forward to seeing how well it does!

Steve Leonard

[Sean[_2_]]

Heard a rumor about a 747 with a JS3 on-board...headed to Oz.....