JS3 chatter

[[email protected]]

Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's aerodynamicist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3. http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039

As suggested, the Akaflieg München Mü31 article is also a good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en

Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS Ka-6E shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups. Really like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan Bosman.

We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.

[Dan Marotta]

On 12/11/2016 5:11 PM, wrote:
> ...Really like the retractable tail wheel too...
>
>

Yup, just like the Slingsby Vega.
--
Dan, 5J

[Iain Baker]

Photos on https://www.facebook.com/jonkersailplanes/ ;-D

[Pieter Oosthuizen[_3_]]

At 08:01 12 December 2016, Iain Baker wrote:
>Photos on https://www.facebook.com/jonkersailplanes/ ;-D
>
>
https://www.facebook.com/MDFlugzeugbauGmbH/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

https://www.facebook.com/MDFlugzeugbauGmbH/photos/a.40017591
3328638.101822.232132770132954/1393824190630467/?type=3

https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-
9/15390719_1393808377298715_9048016110461718121_n.jp g?
oh=3cb6f3ce5adf1b531eca4629f1292730&oe=58F2322B

[krasw]

Looks nice, congrats for the new bird! According to fb rumours it is not going to make Australia WGC, if that is true, too bad.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:15:26 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> Looks nice, congrats for the new bird! According to fb rumours it is not going to make Australia WGC, if that is true, too bad.

Because?

[ND]

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 7:11:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's aerodynamicist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3. http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039
>
> As suggested, the Akaflieg München Mü31 article is also a good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en
>
> Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS Ka-6E shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups. Really like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan Bosman.
>
> We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.

the probes look stupid, i hate asymmetry. the rest of it looks really good though! will be very interesting to put the V3, 29, and JS3 in the same room.

[krasw]

maanantai 12. joulukuuta 2016 15.26.23 UTC+2 kirjoitti:
> On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:15:26 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> > Looks nice, congrats for the new bird! According to fb rumours it is not going to make Australia WGC, if that is true, too bad.
>
> Because?

I guess glider being in the different continent three weeks before WGC might have something to do with it?

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 8:49:30 AM UTC-6, krasw wrote:
>
> I guess glider being in the different continent three weeks before WGC might have something to do with it?

Development and flight testing requirements. Air freight could have it there overnight if they wanted to.

[JS]

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 8:24:04 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
> Air freight could have it there overnight if they wanted to.

We know they want to.
+
Todd Clark, the Australian rep for Jonker, knows a few people at Qantas.
=
Probable!

Jim

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

Ah, should have put the news in a fresh thread.

Anyhow, congrats to Jonkers.

I'm surprised that they haven't gone for a center-wing with two light short tips. The high wing is a natural for using a one-piece center wing. By eliminating the most complex structural and control joint, there could be a significant reduction in build time, cost and weight. Putting it together should also be easier.

I hope their considerations to go conventional (as opposed to for example the Mü31) will one day be discussed.

For those interested in the aero background, a thread I started a few years ago discussed the aero of higher positioned wings in a bit more detail: http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15371

[Roy Pentecost[_2_]]

At 14:49 12 December 2016, krasw wrote:
>maanantai 12. joulukuuta 2016 15.26.23 UTC+2
kirjoitti:
>> On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:15:26 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
>> > Looks nice, congrats for the new bird! According to fb rumours it is
>not going to make Australia WGC, if that is true, too bad.
>>
>> Because?
>
>I guess glider being in the different continent three weeks before WGC
>might have something to do with it?
>
Look at the WGC 2017 Benalla entry list, Joncker brothers x2 entered in 15m

class!
Of course they will be there!

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Sure have three weeks to test fly and ship bird to Benalla, clear customs. What are they going to do with the extra time?


On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 12:45:05 PM UTC-8, Roy Pentecost wrote:
> At 14:49 12 December 2016, krasw wrote:
> >maanantai 12. joulukuuta 2016 15.26.23 UTC+2
> kirjoitti:
> >> On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:15:26 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> >> > Looks nice, congrats for the new bird! According to fb rumours it is
> >not going to make Australia WGC, if that is true, too bad.
> >>
> >> Because?
> >
> >I guess glider being in the different continent three weeks before WGC
> >might have something to do with it?
> >
> Look at the WGC 2017 Benalla entry list, Joncker brothers x2 entered in 15m
>
> class!
> Of course they will be there!

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 6:44:34 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Sure have three weeks to test fly and ship bird to Benalla, clear customs. What are they going to do with the extra time?
>
Certificate of Airworthiness comes to mind...

[Sean[_2_]]

The glider is rumored to be on a Quantus 747 headed this way...

I really dont care much about how it looks (beautiful in my opinion). I care how it performs (all aspects) in "the big show."

It is obvious to me that (far) more development time/effort/energy went into this glider than the Ventus 2's new wing ;-). But that said, what's the payoff going to be? Sometimes great computer designs are miserable in reality. We shall see the results start to come in fairly soon. It's a bummer that they will not both be in flying in both 15 & 18m.

I have a feeling this JS3 is going to be the real deal.

Sean

[[email protected]]

New panel and cockpit pictures posted on Facebook.

Hooray! The mechanical altimeter and compass are missing on the new panel. Hopefully the JS3 minimum equipment list will allow GPS to replace these steam gauges.

The instrument below the LXNAV 9070 flight computer is in a LXNAV case. Guessing this is a water ballast or battery management system.

The two switches mounted above the jet management system are marked master something. Guessing this is power on/off.

Perhaps the switches on to left side of the seat pan are bug wipers.

New canopy releases (very sexy) hopefully will reduce glare.

Very tidy panel. A++

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 8:00:40 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> New panel and cockpit pictures posted on Facebook.


Some things I notice:

Eyeball vent on the side of the cockpit is gone. We are back to the little flip out vent in the sliding window?

The cockpit extraction vent on the fuselage behind the pilot’s head is gone. In one of the photos there is something on the bottom of the fuselage just in front of the gear doors – has the vent been relocated there?

Due to the nose up attitude, on the takeoff roll it will be hard to see the towplane, and after landing it will be hard to see the runway. True, those are only a few seconds on each flight, but those are important seconds.

Maybe it is an optical illusion, but the canopy appears “squished” – from the side, the curve of the canopy appears flatter than the contour of the fuselage. Less headroom.

Wing shape appears almost identical to the one on the 18 meter version. It fact, without knowing better, I would think that this is just the 18m wing on a new fuselage.

Tail appears substantially higher than on the JS1B -- more like the tail on the JS1A. This might improve handling, but wouldn't it increase drag?

[[email protected]]

Interesting design. With higher wing you'll have a better chance of clearing low obstacles, benefits landout situations, narrow runways. Nice on an 18m.

[[email protected]]

Would be interested to know details of four tubing connector fittings required to "plumb" the probes in the tail each assembly and disassembly sequence. Surely its not a "press tubing onto a barbed in-line connector" process. Thinking it would be a two person job...one to balance the horizontal and the other to connect the fittings.
Better yet...you assemble once at beginning of contest, tie out every night, and disassemble once at end of contest. Awh... the convenience of good weather, a sustainer, poly paint, and good covers.

[Tim Taylor]

Jonkers posted an update this morning with technical details.


Wing area under 94 ft^2 and wing loading over 12 lb/ft^2 possible. Minimum wing loading will be well over 8 pounds for most pilots.


http://www.jonkersailplanes.co.za/js3revealed.htm

[[email protected]]

The included 3-view only shows 15M. Is it not intended to be 15-18M?

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 10:01:02 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> The included 3-view only shows 15M. Is it not intended to be 15-18M?

Spec page says it has a 4 piece wing. Doesn't look like enough "crank" in the wing to be a real trailer issue. I would guess there may be another span option to follow soon.

Steve Leonard

[Tony[_5_]]

It was noted on Facebook that the Vne chart on the panel lists 15m and 18m spans. Jump to your own conclusions...

[krasw]

My calculator says 267 kg empty with 8,7m2 wing.

[[email protected]]

Polydihedral wing already has an increased roll stability, moving the wing upward increase further roll stability.

I don't know if this is an advantage.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 05:43:36 -0800, orsica wrote:

> Polydihedral wing already has an increased roll stability, moving the
> wing upward increase further roll stability.
>
More to the point, tip dihedral and polyhedral both give more stability
that a single panel dihedralled wing for a given tip rise jjust as a gull
wing gives less stability.

Whether you get more or less stability from a given dihedral schema
depends on both the amount of wing sweepback and the hight of the tip
above the root.

The JS3 and Arcus both use sweepback as well as polyhedral, so can use
less dihedral to achieve the required lateral stability.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Beautiful sailplane. Does anyone else think the forward fuselage, looks like it barrowed lines from the Schleicher series, ASW-24,27,28, ASG-29? The tapper looks different.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 9:31:01 AM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Beautiful sailplane. Does anyone else think the forward fuselage, looks like it barrowed lines from the Schleicher series, ASW-24,27,28, ASG-29? The tapper looks different.


A South African newsgroup has some more info about the glider:

http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=183997

Looking at the 3-view drawing on the Jonker website, and based on the above website, I think that the JS3 wing is the JS1C wing with the inner 1.5 meters removed, and with appropriate changes such as relocated spoilers. The 18m version will use the outer panels from the 21m version of the JS1C. That will give it a wing area of only 106 sq ft in the 18 meter mode (for comparison, the ASG29 is 113).

Interesting that FES will be an option. At the Reno Convention, Luka told me that the Jonkers didn't like FES because they thought the disturbed airflow from the folded props would reduce performance. They wanted a prop design like the one that has recently appeared on the GP14. Perhaps with the JS3's low nose and high mounted wing the Jonkers now feel that the disturbed airflow will not reach high enough to affect the wing.

Video here of the takeoff roll on the first flight. No use of spoilers, and the glider had no tendency to drop a wing:

http://tinyurl.com/z57pvhx

The only problem I see with the JS3 is that the side mounted swiveling vent is gone. I wonder why they got rid of it. Will there be an option to mount a vent in the panel?

[[email protected]]

More interesting tidbits here: http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=183997

Such as:

" Here is a little info released about the prototype machine .
It was flown in the 15 meter configuration .It has 18 meter tip option .really clean at the end of the tailfeathers - retractable tailwheel / no horn on the rudder / all ASI and pressure sensing probes on the tailplane extremities instead of the fin post to reduce interference drag .
Higher aspect ratio than current 15 meter crop with a 8.7 squ. meter wing .
Projected higher max wing loading at perhaps 61 kg. / squ. meter still to be ratified ?"

"The canopy now seals with car type door seals, ensuring no airflow/pressure gets lost at the joints. It also has an electrically operated air vent in front of the instrument panel, which works opposite to the conventional air vent. This is to ensure a better closing seal and prevent air flow coming in when you dont want it. The tanks are forward and aft of the main spar, to allow it to get to the 525kg mark on the small wing (I heard a figure of up to 68kg/m2, but I'm sure I heard wrong) The tips are interchangable direct from the Js1 Evo to the Js3 to make it the 18m version It also has an electric operated back rest

The 2 Js3's are going to be shipped via airfrieght to Aus for the word champs "

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

The product placement is a bit perplexing to me. The thought the JS-1B was a 15/18 glider. They stopped production of the B in favor of the JS1c. Now the Js1c and the Js3 will be competing for many of the same customers who want an 18 meter bird. If the reports are to be believed a wing area of 106 sq. ft. does not leave much area to support the weight of a sustainer system. 2/3 of the ASG-29's built have been sustainers and are flying with a min wing loading of 8.6-8.8 pounds.

The self launch Js1c is a great idea and will likely take away much demand from the ASH-31. Just wondering why make a 15/18 to compete with your already successful 18 meter bird. Why not build a 2 seat 20 meter glider, with an option for clubs to buy it at 18 meters with fixed gear. Just musings from a rainy Southern California.

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 2:32:44 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> More interesting tidbits here: http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=183997
>
> Such as:
>
> " Here is a little info released about the prototype machine .
> It was flown in the 15 meter configuration .It has 18 meter tip option .really clean at the end of the tailfeathers - retractable tailwheel / no horn on the rudder / all ASI and pressure sensing probes on the tailplane extremities instead of the fin post to reduce interference drag .
> Higher aspect ratio than current 15 meter crop with a 8.7 squ. meter wing

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 3:02:19 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> The product placement is a bit perplexing to me. The thought the JS-1B was a 15/18 glider. They stopped production of the B in favor of the JS1c. Now the Js1c and the Js3 will be competing for many of the same customers who want an 18 meter bird. If the reports are to be believed a wing area of 106 sq. ft. does not leave much area to support the weight of a sustainer system. 2/3 of the ASG-29's built have been sustainers and are flying with a min wing loading of 8.6-8.8 pounds.
>
> The self launch Js1c is a great idea and will likely take away much demand from the ASH-31. Just wondering why make a 15/18 to compete with your already successful 18 meter bird. Why not build a 2 seat 20 meter glider, with an option for clubs to buy it at 18 meters with fixed gear. Just musings from a rainy Southern California.


I think the product placement is similar to Schleicher's. JS3 and ASG29 for 15/18. JS2 (original name and probable final name?) and ASH31 for 18/21. The JS2 will be bought by those who want to self-launch or want to fly in Open Class, and everyone else will buy the JS3.

One interesting tidbit from Uys's talk at the last SSA Convention was his comment that they were planning to do a self-launch jet for the American market. Presumably that would be an option for the JS3, if they still intend to follow that path.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 6:30:13 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 3:02:19 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > The product placement is a bit perplexing to me. The thought the JS-1B was a 15/18 glider. They stopped production of the B in favor of the JS1c.. Now the Js1c and the Js3 will be competing for many of the same customers who want an 18 meter bird. If the reports are to be believed a wing area of 106 sq. ft. does not leave much area to support the weight of a sustainer system. 2/3 of the ASG-29's built have been sustainers and are flying with a min wing loading of 8.6-8.8 pounds.
> >
> > The self launch Js1c is a great idea and will likely take away much demand from the ASH-31. Just wondering why make a 15/18 to compete with your already successful 18 meter bird. Why not build a 2 seat 20 meter glider, with an option for clubs to buy it at 18 meters with fixed gear. Just musings from a rainy Southern California.
>
>
> I think the product placement is similar to Schleicher's. JS3 and ASG29 for 15/18. JS2 (original name and probable final name?) and ASH31 for 18/21. The JS2 will be bought by those who want to self-launch or want to fly in Open Class, and everyone else will buy the JS3.
>
> One interesting tidbit from Uys's talk at the last SSA Convention was his comment that they were planning to do a self-launch jet for the American market. Presumably that would be an option for the JS3, if they still intend to follow that path.

Self launching jet would not sell well in the USA due to noise issues.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 4:05:10 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

>
> Self launching jet would not sell well in the USA due to noise issues.


Maybe. Many USA glider locations already have corporate jets flying in and out, and they are noisier than a jet glider. Places in the west like Hollister, Ely, Tonopah, Bishop, Inyokern, Santa Ynez, Minden and so on. I am not familiar with the rest of the country, but perhaps some gliding locations there are based at airports that take jets?

[Renny[_2_]]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 4:05:10 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
> >
> > Self launching jet would not sell well in the USA due to noise issues.
>
>
> Maybe. Many USA glider locations already have corporate jets flying in and out, and they are noisier than a jet glider. Places in the west like Hollister, Ely, Tonopah, Bishop, Inyokern, Santa Ynez, Minden and so on. I am not familiar with the rest of the country, but perhaps some gliding locations there are based at airports that take jets?

The Moriarty Municipal airport in New Mexico is also just fine for jets. We have corporate jets that visit on occasion and we have two jet gliders based at the airport. We also have jet gliders that visit during the soaring season, so if you've got a jet, a (quiet) FES, a 2-cycle, a rotary, a rocket assist or whatever... come visit....After all, we are used to loud noises.....Trinity Site is really not that far away....Thx - Renny

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 6:02:19 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> The product placement is a bit perplexing to me. The thought the JS-1B was a 15/18 glider.

Nope. Production JS1 was 18M from the beginning.

[Dan Marotta]

Most bizjets use turbofan engines which are significantly quieter than
the turbojets used on gliders.

On 12/16/2016 5:58 PM, wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 4:05:10 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
>
>> Self launching jet would not sell well in the USA due to noise issues.
>
> Maybe. Many USA glider locations already have corporate jets flying in and out, and they are noisier than a jet glider. Places in the west like Hollister, Ely, Tonopah, Bishop, Inyokern, Santa Ynez, Minden and so on. I am not familiar with the rest of the country, but perhaps some gliding locations there are based at airports that take jets?
>
>
>
>
>

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

As far as IYK is concerned I doubt there will be many noise complaints with a Jet glider. While the jet may be noisy it will be nothing like the F-18's in full afterburner that we see all the time out of China Lake.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 9:18:01 PM UTC-5, Renny wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 5:58:30 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 4:05:10 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Self launching jet would not sell well in the USA due to noise issues..
> >
> >
> > Maybe. Many USA glider locations already have corporate jets flying in and out, and they are noisier than a jet glider. Places in the west like Hollister, Ely, Tonopah, Bishop, Inyokern, Santa Ynez, Minden and so on. I am not familiar with the rest of the country, but perhaps some gliding locations there are based at airports that take jets?
>
> The Moriarty Municipal airport in New Mexico is also just fine for jets. We have corporate jets that visit on occasion and we have two jet gliders based at the airport. We also have jet gliders that visit during the soaring season, so if you've got a jet, a (quiet) FES, a 2-cycle, a rotary, a rocket assist or whatever... come visit....After all, we are used to loud noises....Trinity Site is really not that far away....Thx - Renny

This might be so in the west but not in heavily populated areas in the east.. If you have a self launcher you want to fly it from airport as close to you as possible. It is nice to roll the glider out of the hangar and go flying after a short drive. This means local airports in populated areas. The rate of climb of a jet glider is going to be such that you will be flying low at the end of the runway over people's houses. I witnessed a jet glider and I can tell you it is way more noisy than 737, plus 737 will climb rapidly getting away from the houses below quickly. The glider jet will be crawling up. Many clubs have noise complains because they fly their tow planes low after take off.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 6:02:19 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>Why not build a 2 seat 20 meter glider, with an option for clubs to buy it at 18 meters with fixed gear. Just >musings from a rainy Southern California.

I would be highly surprised if we don't see a JS-4 20m 2-seater by the end of the decade. The fixed gear market and compromises required is pretty much locked up by the DG-1001 Club. A 20/~23m glider could be very interesting.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Well here is a noise story. For ten years I lived at an airport, attached 800 sq.ft., condo to a 5,000 sqft hangar. This is an airport with airport people. My neighbor would always raise holly hell, when I did a compressor wash or any maintenance runs outside the hangar. Neighbor would come over and tell me to take it out to taxiway (not practical). It was a Turbine helicopter (the quietest one made). Haters are going to hate. Show up with a jet self launch and soon you will find out if your neighbors will accept, my guess is they will not. Turbofan are much quieter. This is why (among other reasons) early Lear Jets are not permitted at many airports (jet engine = noise)turbofan, much less noise.

[jfitch]

On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 9:31:01 AM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Beautiful sailplane. Does anyone else think the forward fuselage, looks like it barrowed lines from the Schleicher series, ASW-24,27,28, ASG-29? The tapper looks different.

The JS1 fuselage is a near exact copy of the ASH26E. Close enough that I suspect they simply took a mold off of one. Imitation is flattery I guess.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Not sure why Schliecher did not copyright the design of the fuselage.

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 8:26:48 AM UTC-8, jfitch wrote:
> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 9:31:01 AM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Beautiful sailplane. Does anyone else think the forward fuselage, looks like it barrowed lines from the Schleicher series, ASW-24,27,28, ASG-29? The tapper looks different.
>
> The JS1 fuselage is a near exact copy of the ASH26E. Close enough that I suspect they simply took a mold off of one. Imitation is flattery I guess.

[[email protected]]

The 26 and the JS3 fuselages are identical in overall shape but the 26 has deeper sides on the canopy cutout.

[Tim Taylor]

I always thought the 26 fuselage was a copy of the Ventus. Much better lines than the 27 & 29. We don't call them Schleicher spoilers. Who was copying whom?

[Sean[_2_]]

The JS3 fuselage is NOT a 26 copy. Please.

[krasw]

On Sunday, 18 December 2016 10:47:31 UTC+2, Sean wrote:
> The JS3 fuselage is NOT a 26 copy. Please.

After you notice new canopy shape, wing-fuselage junction and new tail, the fuselage plug shape is very close to old '26. I guess after designing structure and opening for JS1 jet option it's not realistic to really do much else.

I read SA aviation forum and it appears that JS3 has JS1 EVO wing that is cut 1,5 m from the root, thus 15m span from original 18m wing.

I have no doubt it can be great 15m glider for extremely good or even moderately good weather and surely it is beautiful, but I'm only seeing normal evolution of design instead of all-encompassing revolution. Probably most 3s will be flown with 18m span.

[[email protected]]

JS3 fuselage: leading edge forward is a blend from the ASW-17 and ASW-22; definitely influenced by Schleicher. Notice the '17 also had a higher shoulder position. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tibenham/6150202179

[jfitch]

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's aerodynamicist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3. http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039
>
> As suggested, the Akaflieg München Mü31 article is also a good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en
>
> Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS Ka-6E shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups. Really like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan Bosman.
>
> We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.

The 26 fueselage is considerably different than a Ventus. Place the two side by side and there is no doubt. Different shape, different cockpit, different canopy. Everything different. Place a 26 fuselage next to a JS1 and you cannot tell them apart. Even many of the details inside are the same. I'm not complaining about it, I doubt the 26 fuselage is legally protectable intellectual property. But the question was posed above.

[TS]

On Sunday, 18 December 2016 17:46:45 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's aerodynamicist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3. http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039
> >
> > As suggested, the Akaflieg München Mü31 article is also a good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en
> >
> > Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS Ka-6E shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups. Really like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan Bosman.
> >
> > We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.
>
> The 26 fueselage is considerably different than a Ventus. Place the two side by side and there is no doubt. Different shape, different cockpit, different canopy. Everything different. Place a 26 fuselage next to a JS1 and you cannot tell them apart. Even many of the details inside are the same. I'm not complaining about it, I doubt the 26 fuselage is legally protectable intellectual property. But the question was posed above.




The aerodynamic shape of the JS1b/c is a 100% direct copy of the ASH26. They took an existing ASH26 fuselage, and made a negative mould of it.

The internals are different.

[ND]

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 9:13:58 AM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Well here is a noise story. For ten years I lived at an airport, attached 800 sq.ft., condo to a 5,000 sqft hangar. This is an airport with airport people. My neighbor would always raise holly hell, when I did a compressor wash or any maintenance runs outside the hangar. Neighbor would come over and tell me to take it out to taxiway (not practical). It was a Turbine helicopter (the quietest one made). Haters are going to hate. Show up with a jet self launch and soon you will find out if your neighbors will accept, my guess is they will not. Turbofan are much quieter. This is why (among other reasons) early Lear Jets are not permitted at many airports (jet engine = noise)turbofan, much less noise.

*haters gonna hate* in the parlance of our times.

[ND]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 3:28:59 PM UTC-5, TS wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 December 2016 17:46:45 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's aerodynamicist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3. http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039
> > >
> > > As suggested, the Akaflieg München Mü31 article is also a good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en
> > >
> > > Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS Ka-6E shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups. Really like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan Bosman.
> > >
> > > We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.
> >
> > The 26 fueselage is considerably different than a Ventus. Place the two side by side and there is no doubt. Different shape, different cockpit, different canopy. Everything different. Place a 26 fuselage next to a JS1 and you cannot tell them apart. Even many of the details inside are the same. I'm not complaining about it, I doubt the 26 fuselage is legally protectable intellectual property. But the question was posed above.
>
>
>
>
> The aerodynamic shape of the JS1b/c is a 100% direct copy of the ASH26. They took an existing ASH26 fuselage, and made a negative mould of it.
>
> The internals are different.

also, all this business about canopy shape is irrelevant. once you have a negative mold for the 26, you can define the canopy shape however you want.

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 02:41 17 December 2016, wrote:
>On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 6:02:19 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St.
Cloud wrote:
>> The product placement is a bit perplexing to me. The thought the
JS-1B
>was a 15/18 glider.
>
>Nope. Production JS1 was 18M from the beginning.
>

Actually the option of 15m tips was a consideration for Jonkers in the
initial stages of JS1 production but most customers did not want it!

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 9:09:21 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
> On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 3:28:59 PM UTC-5, TS wrote:
> > On Sunday, 18 December 2016 17:46:45 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > > > Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's aerodynamicist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3. http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039
> > > >
> > > > As suggested, the Akaflieg München Mü31 article is also a good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en
> > > >
> > > > Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS Ka-6E shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups. Really like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan Bosman.
> > > >
> > > > We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.
> > >
> > > The 26 fueselage is considerably different than a Ventus. Place the two side by side and there is no doubt. Different shape, different cockpit, different canopy. Everything different. Place a 26 fuselage next to a JS1 and you cannot tell them apart. Even many of the details inside are the same. I'm not complaining about it, I doubt the 26 fuselage is legally protectable intellectual property. But the question was posed above.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The aerodynamic shape of the JS1b/c is a 100% direct copy of the ASH26. They took an existing ASH26 fuselage, and made a negative mould of it.
> >
> > The internals are different.
>
> also, all this business about canopy shape is irrelevant. once you have a negative mold for the 26, you can define the canopy shape however you want..

The canopy shape is defined by the aerodynamic profile. The trimmed configuration and contour of the canopy frame cut out may change, as it did in the evolution of the Schleicher fuselages.
I suspect that Bosman is really chasing details and reduced the canopy to change how it affects laminar flow on the forward fuselage.
FWIW
UH

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 20:20 19 December 2016, wrote:
>On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 9:09:21 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 3:28:59 PM UTC-5, TS wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 18 December 2016 17:46:45 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-8,

>=
>wrote:
>> > > > Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's
>aerodynamic=
>ist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3.
>http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosm=
>an/697025039
>> > > >=20
>> > > > As suggested, the Akaflieg M=C3=BCnchen M=C3=BC31 article is
also
>a=
> good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en=20
>> > > >=20
>> > > > Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS
Ka-6E
>=
>shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups.
>R=
>eally like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan
Bosman.=20
>> > > >=20
>> > > > We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.
>> > >=20
>> > > The 26 fueselage is considerably different than a Ventus. Place the
>t=
>wo side by side and there is no doubt. Different shape, different
cockpit,
>=
>different canopy. Everything different. Place a 26 fuselage next to a
JS1
>=
>and you cannot tell them apart. Even many of the details inside are the
>sam=
>e. I'm not complaining about it, I doubt the 26 fuselage is legally
>protect=
>able intellectual property. But the question was posed above.
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> >=20
>> > The aerodynamic shape of the JS1b/c is a 100% direct copy of the
>ASH26.=
> They took an existing ASH26 fuselage, and made a negative mould of
it.=20
>> >=20
>> > The internals are different.
>>=20
>> also, all this business about canopy shape is irrelevant. once you have
>a=
> negative mold for the 26, you can define the canopy shape however you
>want=
>..
>
>The canopy shape is defined by the aerodynamic profile. The trimmed
>configu=
>ration and contour of the canopy frame cut out may change, as it did in
>the=
> evolution of the Schleicher fuselages.
>I suspect that Bosman is really chasing details and reduced the canopy to
>c=
>hange how it affects laminar flow on the forward fuselage.
>FWIW
>UH
>

With absolutely no knowlage at all I offer these speculations .
The JS1 polar as on their web site shows little difference between the 18
m
and the 21m at the same wing loading ,In other words the span makes less
difference than the wing loading.
There have been tales of JSI spinning off tow,I assume that is because
pilots
are loading to max water to get the performance .
When I look at the JS3 it looks as if they have added di hedral and washout

to increase the stability and shortened the wing span to get the wing
loading.
As high as possible .
It should be a rocket if the conditions are strong enough.

[[email protected]]

Hi
Some interesting speculations. Here are a few facts:

The JS3 wing is in essence the same as that of the JS1 Evo except for the inner 1m were the transition to fuselage starts. The evo wingtip was designed for the JS3 but was used on the JS1 as the JS3 fuse was not yet ready 3 years ago. The evo wingtip proved to be very good in terms of performance and handling improvement. That served to confirm the new wingtip airfoil and 3rd generation winglet design methodology.

The fuselage is the result of a huge basic research effort. We took 2 year to learn how to design a modern glider fuselage. The fuselage was just about ready when we discovered a fundamental problem inherent to most high wing configurations that will offset any gains due to the high wing. We then had to redesign the fuse to remove that problem. That took about 2 years. We use CFD analysis exclusively for this development work. Bossie (Johan Bosman) spent 3 years (PhD) to properly calibrate the software for our flow regime. A lot of effort went into the wing fuse junction. This is still a very difficult area to design properly.

The moulds for the wings was started in Feb 2016 and completed in June 2016.. (we used the mould-plug-mould route to composite moulds). The detail design on the JS3 was started in March 2016 and was basically completed in beginning of NOv 2016. The total design effort(not building of anything, just design) took approx 25000 man hours( 16 engineers)

The fuselage mould was started on 4 Aug 2016. We stated building the fuse in Oct 2016 and the wings in Nov 2016. An integrated design approach was used where everything was designed simultaneously, ie airframe, moulds, tooling and manufacturing method. So when the design was completed, so was most of moulds, tooling and jigging. The prototype were therefore really built as close to as is possible to a production aircraft. We tried to use as many JS1 parts as possible but most systems and parts are completely new.

The first prototype as accumulated 20 h over the week since the test flight and the envelope is opened to full wing loading (60 kg/sqm) and 270 kph. The stall speed matches the calculated value perfectly. The handling is really good, JS1++. The performance.. well we are satisfied.

Regards
Attie Jonker

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

Thank you, Attie! You guys have made another beautiful sailplane!

Steve Leonard

[JS]

Thanks for the update, Attie.
Jim

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 9:41:33 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Hi
> Some interesting speculations. Here are a few facts:
>
> The JS3 wing is in essence the same as that of the JS1 Evo except for the inner 1m were the transition to fuselage starts. The evo wingtip was designed for the JS3 but was used on the JS1 as the JS3 fuse was not yet ready 3 years ago. The evo wingtip proved to be very good in terms of performance and handling improvement. That served to confirm the new wingtip airfoil and 3rd generation winglet design methodology.
>
> The fuselage is the result of a huge basic research effort. We took 2 year to learn how to design a modern glider fuselage. The fuselage was just about ready when we discovered a fundamental problem inherent to most high wing configurations that will offset any gains due to the high wing. We then had to redesign the fuse to remove that problem. That took about 2 years. We use CFD analysis exclusively for this development work. Bossie (Johan Bosman) spent 3 years (PhD) to properly calibrate the software for our flow regime. A lot of effort went into the wing fuse junction. This is still a very difficult area to design properly.
>
> The moulds for the wings was started in Feb 2016 and completed in June 2016. (we used the mould-plug-mould route to composite moulds). The detail design on the JS3 was started in March 2016 and was basically completed in beginning of NOv 2016. The total design effort(not building of anything, just design) took approx 25000 man hours( 16 engineers)
>
> The fuselage mould was started on 4 Aug 2016. We stated building the fuse in Oct 2016 and the wings in Nov 2016. An integrated design approach was used where everything was designed simultaneously, ie airframe, moulds, tooling and manufacturing method. So when the design was completed, so was most of moulds, tooling and jigging. The prototype were therefore really built as close to as is possible to a production aircraft. We tried to use as many JS1 parts as possible but most systems and parts are completely new.
>
> The first prototype as accumulated 20 h over the week since the test flight and the envelope is opened to full wing loading (60 kg/sqm) and 270 kph. The stall speed matches the calculated value perfectly. The handling is really good, JS1++. The performance.. well we are satisfied.
>
> Regards
> Attie Jonker

Thanks so much for taking the time to explain the process to us. I had to double check the number of man hours spent in the design effort. 25k hours?!?!? Wow! Congrats on another beautiful ship and I can't wait to fly one.. :)

Bruno - B4

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 04:54 20 December 2016, JS wrote:
>Thanks for the update, Attie.
>Jim
>
Thank you Attie that is very illuminating
Jon

[Sean[_2_]]

Mic drop.

[[email protected]]

Bruno, did you say "can't wait to BUY one"?

[[email protected]]

What amazes me is the extent of the intellectual and financial investment committed to the JS3 (clearly targeted at the new Ventus) all on the back of the proceeds of only a little over 100 JS1s. There was also the major contribution to the development of the M+D jet system and the impressive new factory building 3 years ago. They must have total confidence that their design and manufacturing teams will ensure long term sales success.

[Casey[_2_]]

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 10:57:28 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> What amazes me is the extent of the intellectual and financial investment committed to the JS3 (clearly targeted at the new Ventus) all on the back of the proceeds of only a little over 100 JS1s. There was also the major contribution to the development of the M+D jet system and the impressive new factory building 3 years ago. They must have total confidence that their design and manufacturing teams will ensure long term sales success.

As long as it takes in development of a new glider, do you think any manufacture knows of another is beginning development of their new glider, or any particulars? Or is it a coincidence that new Ventus and JS3 come out in same year?

[ND]

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 10:57:28 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> What amazes me is the extent of the intellectual and financial investment committed to the JS3 (clearly targeted at the new Ventus) all on the back of the proceeds of only a little over 100 JS1s. There was also the major contribution to the development of the M+D jet system and the impressive new factory building 3 years ago. They must have total confidence that their design and manufacturing teams will ensure long term sales success.

The new Ventus is and 18 meter glider. i've seen nothing on 15 meter tips. the JS3 can be targeted at the new ventus specifically, because it's being advertised and flown as a 15meter glider. probably they will have 18 meter tips for it, but for right now, it seems like it was designed to be a 15 meter glider.

[[email protected]]

The new Ventus design 15/18 - they have just introduced it with 18m tips first. The JS3 is also a 15/18m design (I have the pricelists and 3-view specs for both spans) and the 18m version will use the same tips as the 21m JS1c - just as the 15m version uses the tips designed for it but that were first used as the 18m JS1 EVO tips.

[[email protected]]

Would be interested to know all the functions of the second "LXNAV looking" instrument mounted below the LXNAV 9070 in the pictures of "UJ" panel.

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

Op dinsdag 20 december 2016 05:41:33 UTC+1 schreef :
> Hi
> Some interesting speculations. Here are a few facts:
>(...)
> Regards
> Attie Jonker
Interesting, thanks for sharing Attie!

Did you by any change consider using a mid-wing (like the Mü31) and if so, what was the reason not to pursue it into production?

[[email protected]]

The MU31 project examined options for the wing/fuselage intersection and focussed on using a high wing solution rather than a mid wing.

By "mid wing" do you really mean a high mounted centre wing panel?? Those are horrible to rig.

[Sean[_2_]]

It's official...the JS3's will fly flown into Australia from SA in the next few days. Such a bummer the V3 will not go head to head with the JS3 in 18m.

http://wgc2017.com/news_add_here/list-of-news/js3-at-benalla.aspx

[[email protected]]

.... but with the JS3 going in the 15m class then JS and the South African team have entries in all three classes.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Interesting to note, While Jonkers has many gliders in each class, Schleicher only has one glider (probably not competitive) in the open class and Schempp-Hirth only has two gliders (one probably not competitive) in the opens!



On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 4:11:11 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> ... but with the JS3 going in the 15m class then JS and the South African team have entries in all three classes.

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 16:23 25 December 2016, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>Interesting to note, While Jonkers has many gliders in each class,
>Schleicher only has one glider (probably not competitive) in the open
>class and Schempp-Hirth only has two gliders (one probably not
competitive)
>in the opens!
>
>
>
>On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 4:11:11 AM UTC-8,
wrote:
>> ... but with the JS3 going in the 15m class then JS and the South
African
>team have entries in all three classes.
>
>

and Schempp-Hirth have 4 ex-world champions flying the Ventus 3.

[Tango Eight]

Too bad they have to fly according to those silly darned FAI rules.
/s



Merry Christmas everyone!

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean[_2_]]

Oh Evan,

FAI rules make US rules look like a liberal romper room. I would not be surprised if the US rules soon began mandating the handing out "participation trophies" and not even keep score. Good Job! With FAI, in start contrast to US rules, at least half of the tasks will be racing tasks (for good weather, could be 75% or more in Australia) and half "minimum possible/necessary radius" TAT (for poor weather). This ratio of tasking is exactly right and this is why the rest of the world (all counties other than the USA and Canada by default I guess) have happily adopted FAI rules as their rules for decades? What is truly "silly" is US rules (participation trophies and OLC tasking) and the people who drive them. It is so nice to be here in Australia for a FAI SGP (all racing tasks) and a FAI WGC which will be primarily about objective racing rather than subjective weather guessing, computer management, scoring software and luck.

Merry Xmas from Australia!

Sean
7T

[Tango Eight]

On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 4:28:21 PM UTC-5, Sean wrote:
> Oh Evan,
>
> FAI rules make US rules look like a liberal romper room. I would not be surprised if the US rules soon began mandating the handing out "participation trophies" and not even keep score. Good Job! With FAI, in start contrast to US rules, at least half of the tasks will be racing tasks (for good weather, could be 75% or more in Australia) and half "minimum possible/necessary radius" TAT (for poor weather). This ratio of tasking is exactly right and this is why the rest of the world (all counties other than the USA and Canada by default I guess) have happily adopted FAI rules as their rules for decades? What is truly "silly" is US rules (participation trophies and OLC tasking) and the people who drive them. It is so nice to be here in Australia for a FAI SGP (all racing tasks) and a FAI WGC which will be primarily about objective racing rather than subjective weather guessing, computer management, scoring software and luck.
>
> Merry Xmas from Australia!
>
> Sean
> 7T


Make us proud Sean!

oh, and fyi
https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1zo2l4/what_does_s_mean/

Merry Christmas,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean[_2_]]

I know. But US rules are my trigger ;-)

Merry Xmas!

Sean

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Take a breath, good, now think of pleasant thoughts, a happier time. Wow, that was close.

Merry Xmas,
Jon
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 2:52:59 PM UTC-8, Sean wrote:
> I know. But US rules are my trigger ;-)
>
> Merry Xmas!
>
> Sean

[Sean[_2_]]

The rumor is that the JS3's arrived at the Sydney airport yesterday. They should be in Benalla today or tomorrow. It will be fun to watch this all play out.

[JS]

On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 7:42:26 PM UTC-8, Sean wrote:
> The rumor is that the JS3's arrived at the Sydney airport yesterday. They should be in Benalla today or tomorrow. It will be fun to watch this all play out.

Apparently they are both registered in Australia and one is registered VH-VJS.
Steve Leonard will be pleased to know he has a JS3. He bought VH-VJS a few years ago.
Jim

[Frank Whiteley]

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 6:56:12 PM UTC-7, JS wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 7:42:26 PM UTC-8, Sean wrote:
> > The rumor is that the JS3's arrived at the Sydney airport yesterday. They should be in Benalla today or tomorrow. It will be fun to watch this all play out.
>
> Apparently they are both registered in Australia and one is registered VH-VJS.
> Steve Leonard will be pleased to know he has a JS3. He bought VH-VJS a few years ago.
> Jim

http://www.wgc2017.com/ Two JS3's are ready to fly 12/31

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 7:56:12 PM UTC-6, JS wrote:

> Apparently they are both registered in Australia and one is registered VH-VJS.
> Steve Leonard will be pleased to know he has a JS3. He bought VH-VJS a few years ago.
> Jim

I am ready to take delivery any time they are ready to part with it. :-)

Steve Leonard

[Justin Couch]

On Saturday, 31 December 2016 12:56:12 UTC+11, JS wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 7:42:26 PM UTC-8, Sean wrote:
> > The rumor is that the JS3's arrived at the Sydney airport yesterday. They should be in Benalla today or tomorrow. It will be fun to watch this all play out.
>
> Apparently they are both registered in Australia and one is registered VH-VJS.
> Steve Leonard will be pleased to know he has a JS3. He bought VH-VJS a few years ago.
> Jim

Not quite :)

http://www.regosearch.com/aircraft/au/VJS

Both registered to the aussie agent here. They're also just a bit short of paperwork. CofA not issued yet due to some messed up paperwork from RSA is what I've been hearing through the grapevine. I believe it's related to serial numbers messed up/swapped. GFA is madly scrambling to get it all resolved ASAP.

[JS]

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:59:49 PM UTC-8, Justin Couch wrote:
> On Saturday, 31 December 2016 12:56:12 UTC+11, JS wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 27, 2016 at 7:42:26 PM UTC-8, Sean wrote:
> > > The rumor is that the JS3's arrived at the Sydney airport yesterday. They should be in Benalla today or tomorrow. It will be fun to watch this all play out.
> >
> > Apparently they are both registered in Australia and one is registered VH-VJS.
> > Steve Leonard will be pleased to know he has a JS3. He bought VH-VJS a few years ago.
> > Jim
>
> Not quite :)
>
> http://www.regosearch.com/aircraft/au/VJS
>
> Both registered to the aussie agent here. They're also just a bit short of paperwork. CofA not issued yet due to some messed up paperwork from RSA is what I've been hearing through the grapevine. I believe it's related to serial numbers messed up/swapped. GFA is madly scrambling to get it all resolved ASAP.

Aww, no need to spoil the fun, Justin!
Know Todd very well, my second VH-VJS flown was his JS1B.
Todd grabbed the registration when the Nimbus 3 was shipped to Steve in the USA. VJS is still on the glider, there never was a VH-.
A photo link to the JS3s and a Ventus 3 in Benalla, posted by AJ Wesley on [Aus-Soaring].
https://www.instagram.com/johanjbosman/
Jim

[Chris Davison[_3_]]

>. GFA is madly scrambling to get it all resolved ASAP.
>
I hope the JS3 vs Ventus 3 battle takes place as it will help me to decided

which Libelle to buy next.

Chris

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 6:45:06 PM UTC-5, Chris Davison wrote:
> >. GFA is madly scrambling to get it all resolved ASAP.
> >
> I hope the JS3 vs Ventus 3 battle takes place as it will help me to decided
>
> which Libelle to buy next.
>
> Chris

JS3 flying in 15m, V3 in 18m.

[Casey[_2_]]

Quite diverse in pilot rankings.

[krasw]

Uys presenting JS3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8UmGiBrJ7o

[Renny[_2_]]

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 11:25:56 PM UTC-7, krasw wrote:
> Uys presenting JS3:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8UmGiBrJ7o

More info via Sean....

Thanks, Sean!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnGPF3eVAy4&feature=youtu.be

[[email protected]]

More info on air venting inside the cockpit ?

I've seen the central channel and the sealed hole for instruments cooling but I don't see any vent directing air flow to the pilot.

How can the pilot avoid boiling in the Australian hot weather ? Only the slide window ?

[[email protected]]

I like that they relocated the wheel brake on the stick, uncoupling it from the airbrake. That and the airbrake locking mechanism should simplify the landing roll.

CG

[Dan Marotta]

Wish I had the airbrake locking feature on the Stemme. Currently I have
to have my wife dump the flaps after landing. If I let go of the
airbrake lever to retract the flaps (to increase weight on the gear),
the brakes are as likely to close as not. In cross winds that can be a
problem with a wing wanting to lift.

On 1/2/2017 10:56 AM, wrote:
> I like that they relocated the wheel brake on the stick, uncoupling it from the airbrake. That and the airbrake locking mechanism should simplify the landing roll.
>
> CG

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> More info on air venting inside the cockpit ?
>
> I've seen the central channel and the sealed hole for instruments cooling but I don't see any vent directing air flow to the pilot.
>
> How can the pilot avoid boiling in the Australian hot weather ? Only the slide window ?


In the long video on the WGC webpage, the right side of the cockpit above the landing gear handle has two small vents with a circular knob in between. Perhaps a small hidden electric fan controlled by the knob takes in air through one of these two vents and sends it out toward the pilot through the other. Just a guess.

[[email protected]]

Like the a model Ventus, the JS3 appears to have a small man's cockpit. Wonder if a 6'2" pilot with wide shoulders and a little extra "insulation" will fit? You guys in Benella give us the scoop.

[krasw]

No it doesn't. It is the same old ASH 26 cockpit size.

[Duster]

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 1:22:43 PM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Wish I had the airbrake locking feature on the Stemme. Currently I have
> to have my wife dump the flaps after landing.
> Dan, 5J

Now we know the real reason Dan brings his wife along to fly... we were misled into thinking he was just being a thoughtful husband!

[[email protected]]

I am sure, and have been told by people who have seen it, that it is a good sized cockpit but I can't see the relevance of judging an obviously different newly designed fuselage and cockpit to the ASH 26. The JS1?- fair enough. But not the JS3.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 12:18:41 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> No it doesn't. It is the same old ASH 26 cockpit size.

To me, it appears Uys "fills" his JS3 cockpit but looks can deceive. Seeing the likes of Bruce Taylor or one of the Goudriaan brothers flying it will be more convincing.

[Dan Marotta]

Bingo! Happy wife, happy life!

On 1/4/2017 10:28 AM, Duster wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 1:22:43 PM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> Wish I had the airbrake locking feature on the Stemme. Currently I have
>> to have my wife dump the flaps after landing.
>> Dan, 5J
> Now we know the real reason Dan brings his wife along to fly... we were misled into thinking he was just being a thoughtful husband!

--
Dan, 5J

[krasw]

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 20:28:19 UTC+2, wrote:
> I am sure, and have been told by people who have seen it, that it is a good sized cockpit but I can't see the relevance of judging an obviously different newly designed fuselage and cockpit to the ASH 26. The JS1?- fair enough. But not the JS3.

I think this was dicussed earlier, but judging from the photos JS3 fuselage shape is extremely close/identical to JS1 which is "borrowed" aerodynamically from ASH 26. I do not wan't to downplay the importance of new structure, wing-fuselage junction and several other detail improvements, and the design work associated, but general shape still looks identical to '26. Making small size cockpit is just plain stupid, people are not getting smaller in future.

[Iain Baker]

At 07:29 05 January 2017, krasw wrote:
>I think this was dicussed earlier, but judging from the photos JS3
>fuselage=
> shape is extremely close/identical to JS1 which is "borrowed"
>aerodynamica=
>lly from ASH 26. I do not wan't to downplay the importance of new
>structure=
>, wing-fuselage junction and several other detail improvements,
and the
>des=
>ign work associated, but general shape still looks identical to '26.
>Making=
> small size cockpit is just plain stupid, people are not getting
smaller
>in=
> future.
>

It is not a small size cockpit.

Doubt that anyone has ever described Oscar Goudriaan as a small
man yet he has flown at least five 1000km+ flights in his JS1, flight
times up to eight hours. His brother Laurens is larger and at times
has had back problems, yet has flown multiple flights of 750km+ in
his JS1. If the cockpit was cramped then they would not have been
able to do these long flights - and not at such high speeds with
impaired decision-making due to discomfort.

There was a Dutch JS1 owner who - if I recall correctly - is at least
1.96m tall. That's 6'5"...

Gordon Boettger is also 6'5" and has commented that "after
removing the seat back and still wearing a parachute, I was able to
comfortably fit into the JS1. I wouldn't think that 9-10 hours in the
glider would be a problem."

[ND]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 2:29:45 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 20:28:19 UTC+2, wrote:
> > I am sure, and have been told by people who have seen it, that it is a good sized cockpit but I can't see the relevance of judging an obviously different newly designed fuselage and cockpit to the ASH 26. The JS1?- fair enough. But not the JS3.
>
> I think this was dicussed earlier, but judging from the photos JS3 fuselage shape is extremely close/identical to JS1 which is "borrowed" aerodynamically from ASH 26. I do not wan't to downplay the importance of new structure, wing-fuselage junction and several other detail improvements, and the design work associated, but general shape still looks identical to '26. Making small size cockpit is just plain stupid, people are not getting smaller in future.

i don't think it's just pain stupid to make a small fuselage. i've watched boyd willat squeeze into his discus A and he's got broad shoulders and probably about 6'. for the guys at the highest level of competition who don't mind the feeling of wearing a glider, a few percentage points of eliminated drag are a big deal.

-ND

[ND]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 8:24:23 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 2:29:45 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 20:28:19 UTC+2, wrote:
> > > I am sure, and have been told by people who have seen it, that it is a good sized cockpit but I can't see the relevance of judging an obviously different newly designed fuselage and cockpit to the ASH 26. The JS1?- fair enough. But not the JS3.
> >
> > I think this was dicussed earlier, but judging from the photos JS3 fuselage shape is extremely close/identical to JS1 which is "borrowed" aerodynamically from ASH 26. I do not wan't to downplay the importance of new structure, wing-fuselage junction and several other detail improvements, and the design work associated, but general shape still looks identical to '26. Making small size cockpit is just plain stupid, people are not getting smaller in future.
>
> i don't think it's just pain stupid to make a small fuselage. i've watched boyd willat squeeze into his discus A and he's got broad shoulders and probably about 6'. for the guys at the highest level of competition who don't mind the feeling of wearing a glider, a few percentage points of eliminated drag are a big deal.
>
> -ND

also, you can make a long, skinny fuselage, future "A" style fuselages don't have to be short. that can still be narrow though. my understanding is the the V3 has a narrow, but long fuselage to accommodate tall pilots as well..

-ND

[krasw]

torstai 5. tammikuuta 2017 16.22.15 UTC+2 ND kirjoitti:
>
> also, you can make a long, skinny fuselage, future "A" style fuselages don't have to be short. that can still be narrow though. my understanding is the the V3 has a narrow, but long fuselage to accommodate tall pilots as well.
>
> -ND

So they say, but no, it does not accomodate tall or wide pilots. The cockpit size is basically the same on all Schempp A-fuselages since 80's Ventus a.. I'm 6'4 and I cannot close the canopy, not even close as large portion of my head is outside cockpit if I wear normal parachute (last tried V2CXA). Narrowness is not particularly big problem for me. Some tallish pilots manage to cramp inside A-cockpit with special parachute that sits on the hat shelf. It looks as enjoyable as travelling inside ski box for 8 hrs.

Waibel solved the compromise between comfort and aerodynamics with ASW 24 fuselage in 80's. It is aerodynamically very close to optimum since it is not designed to big take self launcher engine, quite strong and can take sustainer engine. And most importantly, it is the most beautiful fuselage ever created.

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 14:49 05 January 2017, krasw wrote:
>torstai 5. tammikuuta 2017 16.22.15 UTC+2 ND kirjoitti:
>>=20
>> also, you can make a long, skinny fuselage, future "A" style
fuselages
>do=
>n't have to be short. that can still be narrow though. my
understanding is
>=
>the the V3 has a narrow, but long fuselage to accommodate tall
pilots as
>we=
>ll.
>>=20
>> -ND
>
>So they say, but no, it does not accomodate tall or wide pilots. The
>cockpi=
>t size is basically the same on all Schempp A-fuselages since 80's
Ventus
>a=
>.. I'm 6'4 and I cannot close the canopy, not even close as large
portion
>of=
> my head is outside cockpit if I wear normal parachute (last tried
V2CXA).
>=
>Narrowness is not particularly big problem for me. Some tallish
pilots
>mana=
>ge to cramp inside A-cockpit with special parachute that sits on
the hat
>sh=
>elf. It looks as enjoyable as travelling inside ski box for 8 hrs.
>
>Waibel solved the compromise between comfort and aerodynamics
with ASW 24
>f=
>uselage in 80's. It is aerodynamically very close to optimum since
it is
>no=
>t designed to big take self launcher engine, quite strong and can
take
>sust=
>ainer engine. And most importantly, it is the most beautiful
fuselage ever
>=
>created.

Got to wonder re: SH, two seaters designed to carry two elephants,
single seaters to carry stick insects. FAI should set minimum size
for cockpits or it will only be jockeys wining contests in the future.

[Tony[_5_]]

George moffat was saying the same thing 40-50 yrs ago...

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 17:00 05 January 2017, Tony wrote:
>George moffat was saying the same thing 40-50 yrs ago...
>

First practic day results are on the web
Jon

[JS]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 12:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
> At 17:00 05 January 2017, Tony wrote:
> >George moffat was saying the same thing 40-50 yrs ago...
> >
>
> First practic day results are on the web
> Jon

http://www.wgc2017.com/

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Interesting to note that team members from other countries are obviously more practiced at team flying, they seem to finish one place apart.

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 12:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
> At 17:00 05 January 2017, Tony wrote:
> >George moffat was saying the same thing 40-50 yrs ago...
> >
>
> First practic day results are on the web
> Jon

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 22:01 05 January 2017, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
>Interesting to note that team members from other countries are obviously
>more practiced at team flying, they seem to finish one place apart.
>
>On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 12:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
>> At 17:00 05 January 2017, Tony wrote:
>> >George moffat was saying the same thing 40-50 yrs ago...
>> >
>>
>> First practic day results are on the web
>> Jon
>

I don't trust them could be over watered or dry just to confuse .

[Jock Proudfoot]

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 6:15:06 PM UTC-5, Jonathon May wrote:
> At 22:01 05 January 2017, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> >Interesting to note that team members from other countries are obviously
> >more practiced at team flying, they seem to finish one place apart.
> >
> >On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 12:45:05 PM UTC-8, Jonathon May wrote:
> >> At 17:00 05 January 2017, Tony wrote:
> >> >George moffat was saying the same thing 40-50 yrs ago...
> >> >
> >>
> >> First practic day results are on the web
> >> Jon
> >
>
> I don't trust them could be over watered or dry just to confuse .

They are weighed at scrutineering (with pilot and chute) to ensure they are under max gross, then again hooked up to the tow vehicle (less pilot) for a reference weight; then weighed daily on the way to the grid and compared to the reference. If they relight and re-water, they're weighed again on the way to the launch point. On practice days, same as when it counts. They could be underweight, but not over. This is standard at IGC Level 1 events (e.g., also done at 1st PAGC in Chilhowee/McMinn (and at WGC Uvalde)).

[Michael Opitz]

>Got to wonder re: SH, two seaters designed to carry two
elephants,
>single seaters to carry stick insects. FAI should set minimum size
>for cockpits or it will only be jockeys wining contests in the future.
>
>
Come on now... Really? Klaus designed the "a" fuselage for himself
and any other person approximately his size. For everyone else, he
designed the "b" fuselage which has more room in the cockpit. He
started this process with the original Ventus and Discus lines. I am
6'2", and had a Discus-b which I flew in 2 WGC's between 1985
and 1988. I did have to remove the seat back to fit in comfortably
with a normal chute. My head was fairly far back though, so I used
2 small dash mounted mirrors to help with the rear view which was
somewhat obstructed by the rear canopy frame. That small
concession did not stop me from 5th and 2nd place WGC finishes
though.

In 1999, I bought my present Discus-2b which I have had now for
going on 18 years. When I went to test fit in the prototype at the
S-H factory, I was amazed that I could get in with a normal chute,
not have to remove the seat back, lay my legs flat on the floor, and
had to pull back the rudder pedals 2 notches for my feet to be
comfortable. Tilo and Biggo just smiled and said that they had
decided to build a glider that almost anyone can comfortably sit in.
The current S-H "b" fuselage design should accommodate pilots up
to 6'5" with no special mods.

I had to laugh after my test flight in the prototype. Helmut Treiber
(wing designer) asked me if I didn't want an "a" instead. He told
me that he thought I could squeeze into one. I just laughed and
told him that I just wanted to be as comfortable in the cockpit as my
competition was for a change.... My old co-worker buddies at S-H
built me a great glider, and I have never had any regrets with this
one at all. I don't think you will be able to find many of my
competitors bad-mouthing the performance of my glider either, even
though it has the larger "b" fuselage....

RO

[Pieter Oosthuizen[_2_]]

Congrats team JS!!!
http://www.facebook.com/KranskopGliding

[Pieter Oosthuizen[_2_]]

Congrats team JS!!!
http://www.facebook.com/KranskopGliding

[Pieter Oosthuizen[_2_]]

Congrats team JS!!!
http://www.facebook.com/KranskopGliding

[Tony[_5_]]

Bravo Uys and Attie for the 1-2 finish today. One month since first flight... Wow!

[[email protected]]

TALK LESS....WIN MORE!! :)

CONGRATULATIONS!!