Why does PW-5 get no respect?

[ISoar]

Newbie here. I ran across a joke that said the market value for a
used PW-5 was based entirely on what the instruments and trailer were
worth. It appears this issue was beaten to death at one time, but I'm
curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the ship gets no
respect.

Thanks

[BTIZ]

The PW5 was the apparent winner of a design competition to create a "single
design" cross country contest glider. And still be usable for the club
(affordable) and beginning (novice) pilot. It came out at about 30 or 31 to
1 L/d. Not truly blistering performance. Others in the competition were the
Blanik L-33 Solo, Russia AC4 (and I think there was another )

There are many very good used gliders on the market for under $30K with a
much higher (41/1 L/d) performance. Most people look to "trade up" to
something with higher performance.

If they learned in a SGS 2-33, then yes, a PW-5 is a "trade up", but if they
learned in ASK-21 or Grob 103s, then the PW-5 is a drastic trade down in
performance. Better to go by the trusty Libelle 201 at 36/1 L/d.

All are good aircraft for what the owner pilot may want to achieve, the L-33
is "all metal" and can sit out in the weather. All are "easy assembly" ,
easy to fly, and good gliders to learn the art of soaring and cross country.
Getting that student more than one thermal away from home airport. But for
the money.. it's hard to compete with 42/1 L/d in the used market.

JMHO
BT

"ISoar" > wrote in message
om...
> Newbie here. I ran across a joke that said the market value for a
> used PW-5 was based entirely on what the instruments and trailer were
> worth. It appears this issue was beaten to death at one time, but I'm
> curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the ship gets no
> respect.
>
> Thanks

[Larry Pardue]

It has been beaten to death and it is kind of sad that that may have damaged
the reputation of the glider. The idea is that a one design class glider
tests the pilot, not the pocketbook. Ultimate performance is not really
significant given this design mission, just performance enough to be fair,
which the PW-5 has.

Many apparently think L/D per dollar is important. If you are one of these,
the PW-5 is probably not for you. Look at things like LAK-17's and
ASW-12's. If all your buddies fly around in 40-1 ships and you want to fly
with them, it is probably not for you either. If beauty is a big factor,
and it kinda is for me, get an ASW-27.

If you want a nice flying glider that has performance for all badge work,
that will give you good experience and that will be competitive in contests
for years and years and years ahead and that is very suitable for record
work and that will not need expensive refinishing every few years and that
will never need the hassles of disposable ballast, you might give it a look.

After owning an obsolete high performance glider in the past I have been
very happy with the B1-PW-5 I got in a partnership a couple of years ago.
This one has all automatic hookups, it is incredibly easy to rig, with very
light wings, and simple to push around, single handed, on the ground. It
seems to be competitive in Sports Class and is cutting edge in PW-5 National
and World Competitions, although one must deal with the unpleasant reality
that bad results are not the fault of an obsolete glider, but to a personal
lack of skill. For record work it is hard to beat at all levels, state,
national and world records are available with equal opportunity for all.
This is not true of many of the gliders it is compared with.

If you need to make up for anatomical deficiences get a Corvette glider. If
you want flying fun and a level competitive playing field at a reasonable
price, you could do worse than a PW-5.

Larry Pardue PW-5 2I


"ISoar" > wrote in message
om...
> Newbie here. I ran across a joke that said the market value for a
> used PW-5 was based entirely on what the instruments and trailer were
> worth. It appears this issue was beaten to death at one time, but I'm
> curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the ship gets no
> respect.
>
> Thanks

[F1y1n]

A PW5 is a disaster of a glider that handles on par with a fat cow.
Don't even get me started on it's aesthetic looks.

On a more serious note - a lot of the aversion comes from it's couple
decades-old selection as the World Class glider. This was an extremely
poor choice. We could have had a widely available glider type for a
reasonable price and with a reasonable performance. Instead, we ended
up with an overpriced monster of a 1950's vintage performance. This in
essence killed the World Class.

(ISoar) wrote in message >...
> Newbie here. I ran across a joke that said the market value for a
> used PW-5 was based entirely on what the instruments and trailer were
> worth. It appears this issue was beaten to death at one time, but I'm
> curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the ship gets no
> respect.
>
> Thanks

[Stewart Kissel]

Assuming this is not a troll, do a PW5 search of RAS
and you can keep yourself occupied for hours with assorted
threads.



At 23:54 19 November 2003, Isoar wrote:
>Newbie here. I ran across a joke that said the market
>value for a
>used PW-5 was based entirely on what the instruments
>and trailer were
>worth. It appears this issue was beaten to death at
>one time, but I'm
>curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the
>ship gets no
>respect.
>
>Thanks
>

[Al]

Lets just say its the automotive equivalent of a Trabant in the sailplane
world.

Al

"ISoar" > wrote in message
om...
> Newbie here. I ran across a joke that said the market value for a
> used PW-5 was based entirely on what the instruments and trailer were
> worth. It appears this issue was beaten to death at one time, but I'm
> curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the ship gets no
> respect.
>
> Thanks

[goneill]

I am not a pilot who flys a PW5 but my club has several plus several grob
102s
for general flying and competition work.
The one thing is becoming clear the PW5 is a fibreglass equivalent of the K8
,
a low penetration,moderate performance easy to fly and land anywhere
machine.
To get good performance out of them really requires quite a lot of skill .
With their light weight and inertia, when an accident happens the damage to
the glider is usually minimal and the pilot just dusts off their clothes.
The structure damage in an accident is relatively minor and their simple to
fix.
What I have seen in competitions is usually very close tight hard racing
In essence the one design concept works but everybody voices loudly their
opinions on whether the PW5 is "THE" design
gary

"ISoar" > wrote in message
om...
> Newbie here. I ran across a joke that said the market value for a
> used PW-5 was based entirely on what the instruments and trailer were
> worth. It appears this issue was beaten to death at one time, but I'm
> curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the ship gets no
> respect.
>
> Thanks

[Mark James Boyd]

It seems that in the sport of gliding there are the
poke around the field folks (who don't fly that much)
and the fly 500k+ folks (some of whom fly
a ton every year) and not too many in between.

The PW-5 is a bit advanced for the 5 hr/year poker,
and really a poor penetrator for most 500km+, 100+hr/yr
pilots.

So it finds a kind of lonely niche in hard-core
one-type record/competition pilots, or pilots
who live at a gliderport which favors its kind
of lift (lots of little lift every few miles).

Midlothian Texas maybe, but the rest of the hard
core glider pilots prefer a PIK-20 or ASW-20 or better
for the penetration. The PW-5 draggy double wheels
don't help a lot for speed...

So the serious X-C pilots guffaw at it. Personally
I would dread a 500k in it just because it would
take over 8 hours. Just planning
and trying to fly a half-dozen 300k flights,
leaving at 2PM means I might not make
it back for Letterman ;-( .

I don't have a clue how those 1-26 pilots did
300k, much less 500k. 10+ hours in
a freakin' glider? Jeez...

There really is something to be said for flying
a super-fast glider in super-strong lift all the
time. This is why some of these pilots live near
Reno, CA :-P

[Owain Walters]

The PW5 is ugly, has a lower performance than the early
1970's gliders (Cirrus and Libelles) and is roughly
the price of a second hand LS4. The entries to the
World Class are falling and is very unlikely to ever
make a popular competition.

It wouldnt have been so bad but it was also was not
the best choice out of the 'World Class' options. Should
have been the L33. Or a more sensible option would
have been to sanction an all LS4/Discus (or similar)
class.

My apologies to PW5 fans but thats my opinion.

Owain

>'ISoar' wrote in message
om...
>> Newbie here. I ran across a joke that said the market
>>value for a
>> used PW-5 was based entirely on what the instruments
>>and trailer were
>> worth. It appears this issue was beaten to death
>>at one time, but I'm
>> curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why
>>the ship gets no
>> respect.
>>
>> Thanks
>
>
>

[Janusz Kesik]

I am going to join Your opinion that PW-5 is a good design. It flies =
well, and is considerably affordable when we talk about the price of a =
*NEW* ship, what is most often forgotten by those who criticize the =
"Smyk". There are still some people who don't want to buy pre-owned ship =
with not always clear history.
The second thing what the sceptics foget is that the World Class was =
brought to life to allow joining contests to as wide as possible range =
of pilots. Not only the masters and those who fly 100 hrs a year, but =
also for those who fly just few times a year, but stil would like to =
join the race just for fun. That means that the glider should be very =
easy to fly, and the PW-5 really is...

Of course the performance could be better, but for what price (even =
literally thinking of money)? For harder handling in the air? For =
heavier wings (15m of span would add some kgs to their weight)? Or for =
more problems when building one's own glider from the plans, which was =
also a requirement for the World Class design.

In my opinion the PW-5 is a superb glider (yes, I have flown one a lot) =
for the requirements it had to meet. The only thing I would be different =
is that I would prefer the PW-5 as a taildragger just like the Junior.

Regards,


--=20
Janusz Kesik

visit www.leszno.pl - home of the www.css-leszno.it.pl



U=BFytkownik goneill > w wiadomo=B6ci do grup =
dyskusyjnych ...
> I am not a pilot who flys a PW5 but my club has several plus several =
grob
> 102s
> for general flying and competition work.
> The one thing is becoming clear the PW5 is a fibreglass equivalent of =
the K8
> ,
> a low penetration,moderate performance easy to fly and land anywhere
> machine.
> To get good performance out of them really requires quite a lot of =
skill .
> With their light weight and inertia, when an accident happens the =
damage to
> the glider is usually minimal and the pilot just dusts off their =
clothes.
> The structure damage in an accident is relatively minor and their =
simple to
> fix.
> What I have seen in competitions is usually very close tight hard =
racing
> In essence the one design concept works but everybody voices loudly =
their
> opinions on whether the PW5 is "THE" design
> gary

[Todd Smith]

It is UGLY. All of the other problems (except cost maybe)
could be overcome it the PW-5 was not such an insult to the eye.

Todd Smith

[nafod40]

Owain Walters wrote:
> The PW5 is ugly, has a lower performance than the early
> 1970's gliders (Cirrus and Libelles) and is roughly
> the price of a second hand LS4. The entries to the
> World Class are falling and is very unlikely to ever
> make a popular competition.
>
> It wouldnt have been so bad but it was also was not
> the best choice out of the 'World Class' options. Should
> have been the L33. Or a more sensible option would
> have been to sanction an all LS4/Discus (or similar)
> class.
>
> My apologies to PW5 fans but thats my opinion.

Coming in from the outside, I thought they should have made a class
based on weight rather than wing span or a fixed choice. Weight is THE
primary factor correlating to costs of airplanes. Cap the weight and you
cap the cost.

Glider pilots are gear-heads, and restricting them to a single platform
was a non-starter. By fixing an upper bound weight and making it a
records criteria and a weight class, there might have been a cluster of
new gliders at that design point.

[ISoar]

Thanks for the responses. Ya'll have given me enough to understand
the core of the argument. In software develoment we call these sorts
of discussions "religious arguments" because of the passion involved.

Good air


On 19 Nov 2003 15:42:41 -0800, (ISoar) wrote:

>It appears this issue was beaten to death at one time, but I'm
>curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the ship gets no
>respect.
>
>Thanks

[Al]

Reno is in Nevada dumbass... :)
Thats NV.... not CA...
That means less taxes.... unlike CA...

Al


> There really is something to be said for flying
> a super-fast glider in super-strong lift all the
> time. This is why some of these pilots live near
> Reno, CA :-P

[Marc Ramsey]

nafod40 wrote:
> Coming in from the outside, I thought they should have made a class
> based on weight rather than wing span or a fixed choice. Weight is THE
> primary factor correlating to costs of airplanes. Cap the weight and you
> cap the cost.

It ultimately wouldn't work. You can get more glider for the same
weight, by using more exotic materials. Exotic materials are called
"exotic" because they cost more per pound.

A limit on span and and a fixed contest weight would do the job, as long
as the weight was fairly generous for the span. Lighter gliders/pilots
would have to be ballasted with fixed weights.

Marc

[nafod40]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> nafod40 wrote:
>
>> Coming in from the outside, I thought they should have made a class
>> based on weight rather than wing span or a fixed choice. Weight is THE
>> primary factor correlating to costs of airplanes. Cap the weight and
>> you cap the cost.
>
> It ultimately wouldn't work. You can get more glider for the same
> weight, by using more exotic materials. Exotic materials are called
> "exotic" because they cost more per pound.

Once you pick a material, within that choice weight and cost are highly
correlated. You can use special materials on big gliders too.

The APIS in its FAI form, with carbon fibre instead of glass, is not too
much more heinously expensive, as I recall.

My thought is, there is already an "arms race" in gliders, and there
always will be. The world class flew in the face of that. Which way do
you want the race go?

[Marc Ramsey]

nafod40 wrote:
> The APIS in its FAI form, with carbon fibre instead of glass, is not too
> much more heinously expensive, as I recall.

But, it is more expensive, and each new generation of gliders competing
in this class would increase performance by increasing the span with the
latest wonder of technology. At some point, the winners will be flying
a lightweight ultra high aspect ratio 18M glider that costs more than
current 18M gliders.

> My thought is, there is already an "arms race" in gliders, and there
> always will be. The world class flew in the face of that. Which way do
> you want the race go?

You can't have it both ways. Either limit the range of possible designs
to limit the costs, or accept the fact that to remain competitive in a
class, costs will rise to the point where the "average" pilot can no
longer afford to compete.

Weight can serve to slow the increase in cost, as long as span is also
limited. Ultimately, though, the costs will always increase to
unreasonable levels. As an example, the costs of the latest generation
of standard class gliders (ASW-28, D2) have risen to a point relative to
my income, that I no longer give much consideration to purchasing one,
even in a partnership.

In my mind, the world class failed almost entirely due to the glider
picked. Not that I see anything particularly wrong with the PW-5, I've
flown them a number of times, and they are perfectly nice gliders,
though a bit lacking in higher speed performance. For whatever reason
(and I don't think it is just performance), it simply doesn't do enough
to excite a critical mass of pilots into purchasing and competing with
them.

If the IGC reformed the world class around the Apis, Silent,
Sparrowhawk, or all three of them, they'd probably have to beat
competitors away with sticks within a couple of years...

Marc

[Arnold Pieper]

Reading all the responses, it's clear that most people are missing the point
and some of the history behind the world class.

For the longest time the FAI/IGC has been trying to make the sport more
popular by making it an olympic sport, like it used to be many decades ago.
There was even a glider at the time called the "Olympia" because of it.

So in the early 90s the issue was taken more seriously. To be an olympic
sport, you have to have a "One design" (like the sailboats used in the
olympics).
There was a requirement that whatever the design was, it had to be
accessible to people from all countries, it had to be possible to even build
your own glider and go compete with it in the olympics.

The PW-5 was the winning design for several of its qualities, and it came
out of the Warsaw University (as opposed to any particular glider
manufacturer).
Sticking to the original idea, it is possible to go ask the Warsaw
University for a full copy of the plans, and go build it yourself.
That's why there are more than one manufacturer, and there may even be more
in the future as the class grows bigger (and I think it will).

For whatever reason, the IGC and the International Olympic Committee didn't
come to an agreement and the World Air Games were than created by the FAI
directly.

So, for a buying decision :
For those of you who are purely interested in performance, a used Nimbus 2,
ASW-17, Lak-12, Jantar 2a are probably the most L/D per dollar.
But they are not competitive in anything except handicapped competition,
which fails to truly compensate other minor differences between different
gliders.

If you want to compete in a Global competition, buy one of the latest and
greatest gliders from any of the FAI classes, running the risk that MAYBE
the glider you decided to buy is outperformed by the latest design from
another manufacturer, and thus, to keep up you have to keep buying new
gliders as they come up.
The latest in the Open class is undoubtedly the ETA (US$1 Million+ ), with
the smaller classes ships going for US$80k+ for the Racing class, US$60k+
for the Standard Class.
Or, for a LOT LESS you can spend 20+ and get a PW-5 and be sure that
everybody will be flying the EXACT SAME EQUIPMENT.

In the World Class, the weight of the pilot HAS to be compensated so that
everyone has the exact same WING LOADING and CG location.

That's it.

It's a ship for those who want to compete for World recognition both in
competition and also in Records (yes, there's a World Class record
category), without spending 3 times the money or many times more.

Just like in Sailing, there's no point in bashing the Lasers, Daysailers,
Tornadoes, etc.
They have their own class, their own competitions, their own world
champions, etc.

If you can afford it, go buy one of the latest Americas's cup yachts and
leave everyone else alone.


AP.

"ISoar" > wrote in message
om...
> Newbie here. I ran across a joke that said the market value for a
> used PW-5 was based entirely on what the instruments and trailer were
> worth. It appears this issue was beaten to death at one time, but I'm
> curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the ship gets no
> respect.
>
> Thanks

[Liam Finley]

(ISoar) wrote in message >...
> Newbie here. I ran across a joke that said the market value for a
> used PW-5 was based entirely on what the instruments and trailer were
> worth.

Hey, I think I was the one who said that. And I didn't mean it as a
joke.

The PW-5 bubble has burst. It's a shame, because so much money and so
many hopes were invested in it, but it's even more of a shame to see
people living in denial. Time to move on.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
> nafod40 wrote:
> > Coming in from the outside, I thought they should have made a class
> > based on weight rather than wing span or a fixed choice. Weight is THE
> > primary factor correlating to costs of airplanes. Cap the weight and you
> > cap the cost.
>
> It ultimately wouldn't work. You can get more glider for the same
> weight, by using more exotic materials. Exotic materials are called
> "exotic" because they cost more per pound.
>
> A limit on span and and a fixed contest weight would do the job, as long
> as the weight was fairly generous for the span. Lighter gliders/pilots
> would have to be ballasted with fixed weights.
>
> Marc

I disagree, nothing else than a monotype class can avoid the race for increasing
costs, and even this can hardly avoid it. For any set of design rules, there always
will be people ready to spent a lot of money for having a specifically designed
ship using some exotic feature that is supposed to give its owner some advantage.
This has been proven since a long time in the domain of sailing boats. Even in
the monotype classes, as several manufacturers produce the same type, there is
always some rumor ending as a general consensus among top competitors that the
units built by some manufacturer are better than others, but the price also is
higher, even if not at the beginning, the preference of top competitors gives
a motivation for rising the price.

[Mark James Boyd]

I wonder what the L/D and penetration would be like
if the PW-5 AND the L-33 had retractable gear?
Would the polar look more like the Pegasus 101?
Anyone have a Pegasus 101 club (fixed gear) polar
we can look at?

Mark


P.S. In a previous post I'd mentioned vibration on
tow at about 80 knots in the PW-5. After reading

www.ssa.org/Johnson/85-1997-04.pdf

it seems this is from the elevator, and "taping up
the relatively large openings on both the
top and bottom surface of the elevator control attach
location, and at the base of the rudder" makes the
elevator vibration problem go away.
Also in the article take a look at
the "wing root air seals," very interesting...
I wonder how many other gliders have these
similar big air holes in the fuse-to-wing.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Arnold Pieper wrote:
>
> Reading all the responses, it's clear that most people are missing the point
> and some of the history behind the world class.
>
> For the longest time the FAI/IGC has been trying to make the sport more
> popular by making it an olympic sport, like it used to be many decades ago.
> There was even a glider at the time called the "Olympia" because of it.
>
> So in the early 90s the issue was taken more seriously. To be an olympic
> sport, you have to have a "One design" (like the sailboats used in the
> olympics).
> There was a requirement that whatever the design was, it had to be
> accessible to people from all countries, it had to be possible to even build
> your own glider and go compete with it in the olympics.
>
> The PW-5 was the winning design for several of its qualities, and it came
> out of the Warsaw University (as opposed to any particular glider
> manufacturer).
> Sticking to the original idea, it is possible to go ask the Warsaw
> University for a full copy of the plans, and go build it yourself.
> That's why there are more than one manufacturer, and there may even be more
> in the future as the class grows bigger (and I think it will).
>
> For whatever reason, the IGC and the International Olympic Committee didn't
> come to an agreement and the World Air Games were than created by the FAI
> directly.
>
> So, for a buying decision :
> For those of you who are purely interested in performance, a used Nimbus 2,
> ASW-17, Lak-12, Jantar 2a are probably the most L/D per dollar.
> But they are not competitive in anything except handicapped competition,
> which fails to truly compensate other minor differences between different
> gliders.
>
> If you want to compete in a Global competition, buy one of the latest and
> greatest gliders from any of the FAI classes, running the risk that MAYBE
> the glider you decided to buy is outperformed by the latest design from
> another manufacturer, and thus, to keep up you have to keep buying new
> gliders as they come up.
> The latest in the Open class is undoubtedly the ETA (US$1 Million+ ), with
> the smaller classes ships going for US$80k+ for the Racing class, US$60k+
> for the Standard Class.
> Or, for a LOT LESS you can spend 20+ and get a PW-5 and be sure that
> everybody will be flying the EXACT SAME EQUIPMENT.
>
> In the World Class, the weight of the pilot HAS to be compensated so that
> everyone has the exact same WING LOADING and CG location.
>
> That's it.
>
> It's a ship for those who want to compete for World recognition both in
> competition and also in Records (yes, there's a World Class record
> category), without spending 3 times the money or many times more.
>
> Just like in Sailing, there's no point in bashing the Lasers, Daysailers,
> Tornadoes, etc.
> They have their own class, their own competitions, their own world
> champions, etc.
>
> If you can afford it, go buy one of the latest Americas's cup yachts and
> leave everyone else alone.
>
> AP.
>

Almost all was good in these ideas from FAi/IGC, except the idea that constraining
the design in what would necessarily produce a lower performance glider was
THE mean to reduce the cost. Even if a reduced span, a non retracting gear and
other features have some influence on the price, these are not the main factors,
which are rather the country of manufacture, the cost of manpower in this country,
the care and time devoted to the construction, the time and complexity of
certifcation process. The last LAK-12 built in Lithuania were sold new to nearly
the same price as the PW5.

[Janusz Kesik]

A very good posting, I completely share Your point of view.

Regards,


--=20
Janusz Kesik

visit www.leszno.pl - home of the www.css-leszno.it.pl

[303pilot]

Reminds me of an old tech joke:
Q - How many layers in the OSI model?
A - 7
Punchline: Wrong, there are 9. 7 + religion and politics

I bought a PW5 pretty early on and flew it for several years, from first XC
to a Regional Contest and then Sports Class Nationals. Last spring I traded
up. A PW5 won the Sports Class Regionals in Hobbs this past summer, making
it difficult to claim that the PW5's not competitive. Folks like Bill Snead
and Pat Tuckey have flown much farther and much faster than I ever did so I
can't say I'd gotten everything out of the ship that it has to offer.

Why did I "move on" from the PW5? The first reason was that there were too
many days that I could stay up as long as I wanted but couldn't go XC
because of the ships' L:D and penetration characteristics, the local
cloudbase and thermal distribution, and my own skill level and willingness
to land out.

The second reason was that the PW5 didn't reach a critical mass that would
drive a lively contest calendar. I wanted to see that "community" develop
and it hasn't happened.

I guess the third reason was something another poster alluded to, and is
related to my first reason. To fly farther/faster in the PW5 would have
been a process of honing my skills--by definition a long, slow and
excruciatingly incremental process. Trading up allowed longer distance
flights immediately due to higher L:D and higher speed of best L:D. It'll
be a while before I'm able to trade up again, so I am now just 'honing a
different blade'. But I get to do that over new territory instead of the
same old patch. ;-)

Brent

"ISoar" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks for the responses. Ya'll have given me enough to understand
> the core of the argument. In software develoment we call these sorts
> of discussions "religious arguments" because of the passion involved.
>
> Good air
>
>
> On 19 Nov 2003 15:42:41 -0800, (ISoar) wrote:
>
> >It appears this issue was beaten to death at one time, but I'm
> >curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the ship gets no
> >respect.
> >
> >Thanks
>

[Albert Gold]

I don't know about the fixed gear Pegasus, though I owned and loved a
101A for several years. The Russia, another entry in the World Class
design competition, comes in two fixed gear variants and with a
retracting main wheel. IIRC the retract brings the best L/D up to about
35 from about 31 for the fixed version.

Al
Now with a Discus B

Mark James Boyd wrote:

>I wonder what the L/D and penetration would be like
>if the PW-5 AND the L-33 had retractable gear?
>Would the polar look more like the Pegasus 101?
>Anyone have a Pegasus 101 club (fixed gear) polar
>we can look at?
>
>Mark
>
>
>P.S. In a previous post I'd mentioned vibration on
>tow at about 80 knots in the PW-5. After reading
>
>www.ssa.org/Johnson/85-1997-04.pdf
>
>it seems this is from the elevator, and "taping up
>the relatively large openings on both the
>top and bottom surface of the elevator control attach
>location, and at the base of the rudder" makes the
>elevator vibration problem go away.
>Also in the article take a look at
>the "wing root air seals," very interesting...
>I wonder how many other gliders have these
>similar big air holes in the fuse-to-wing.
>
>
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On 20 Nov 2003 13:31:02 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>I wonder what the L/D and penetration would be like
>if the PW-5 AND the L-33 had retractable gear?
>Would the polar look more like the Pegasus 101?
>Anyone have a Pegasus 101 club (fixed gear) polar
>we can look at?

Performance difference two points of max. L/D.

>it seems this is from the elevator, and "taping up
>the relatively large openings on both the
>top and bottom surface of the elevator control attach
>location, and at the base of the rudder" makes the
>elevator vibration problem go away.
>Also in the article take a look at
>the "wing root air seals," very interesting...
>I wonder how many other gliders have these
>similar big air holes in the fuse-to-wing.

<sarcasm on>
None that was designed after 1965.
<sarcasm off>

It's not only the performance that makes the PW-5 hard to sell. As a
Ka-8 replacement the performance does not matter... but it were the
many sub-standard technical solutions on the (early) PW-5 that made me
(and all of my club members) laugh.




Bye
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:31:29 -0500, nafod40 >
wrote:

>Coming in from the outside, I thought they should have made a class
>based on weight rather than wing span or a fixed choice. Weight is THE
>primary factor correlating to costs of airplanes. Cap the weight and you
>cap the cost.

Hmm... I fail to see this point. THe current standard and 15m giders
are all a lot lighter than their predecessors... yet a lot more
expensive.

>Glider pilots are gear-heads, and restricting them to a single platform
>was a non-starter. By fixing an upper bound weight and making it a
>records criteria and a weight class, there might have been a cluster of
>new gliders at that design point.

Believe me: If the chosen glider had been good (and halfways cheap),
the World Class had become a huge success.
In Europe many, many clubs are looking for a replacement for the old
Ka-8/Ka-6 gliders these days, and they'd be more than willing to pay
for a good replacement glider with up-to-date technical solutions.

The problem is that the PW-5 was never regarded as adequate for clubs
(why take two steps back into the sixties if you get an ASW-19 or
LS-1f for less money?). But they surely would have been wiling to pay
even more money for a, say, simplified LS-4 with fixed gear and no
water ballast that had been built in Poland.





Bye
Andreas

[Al]

Why are you worried about penetration into wind when its obvious that you
would get lost the moment you got out of sight of the airfield trying to
find your way to Reno CA.

The L33 has a wing section like a size 9 slipper compared to the 101 and as
such the 101 fixed gear or even retractable with the gear down would blow
the doors off the L33.

Al
www.gliderforum.com - Home of the real soaring pilots for real soaring
discussion club.



"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:3fbd3296$1@darkstar...
> I wonder what the L/D and penetration would be like
> if the PW-5 AND the L-33 had retractable gear?
> Would the polar look more like the Pegasus 101?
> Anyone have a Pegasus 101 club (fixed gear) polar
> we can look at?
>
> Mark
>
>
> P.S. In a previous post I'd mentioned vibration on
> tow at about 80 knots in the PW-5. After reading
>
> www.ssa.org/Johnson/85-1997-04.pdf
>
> it seems this is from the elevator, and "taping up
> the relatively large openings on both the
> top and bottom surface of the elevator control attach
> location, and at the base of the rudder" makes the
> elevator vibration problem go away.
> Also in the article take a look at
> the "wing root air seals," very interesting...
> I wonder how many other gliders have these
> similar big air holes in the fuse-to-wing.
>

[Buck Wild]

"Al" > wrote in message >...
> Why are you worried about penetration into wind when its obvious that you
> would get lost the moment you got out of sight of the airfield trying to
> find your way to Reno CA.
>
Hey Al, where the hell is Reno, Ca?
Are you sure YOU can find it?

-Dan

[CH]

The decision to select the PW5 as the World Class glider
was too early taken and not very wise.

It would have been better to give the designers 6 month
more time and then decide.

I flew the PW5 and the Russia just after the decision had
been made. I could not believe why the PW5 has been taken
because the Russia flew and handled better.

The visibility out of the PW5 is not good, the over all view
in the Russia much better.

If the PW5 was the best decision, then why the pilots are not
rushing to get their hands on it? Because - as several others
have written before - it is just an ugly looking and flying thing.

I am flying an ASW27 and lately I flew a Libelle 304 - hey -
that was fun - easy and good handling - excellent visibility -
looks good - is easy to rig ..... everything what a world class
glider should be like. The PW5 cannot match one of the old
Haehnle design.

PW5? I flew it once - that's enough.
The Libelle 304? I will fly it again as soon as I can.

Chris Hostettler





"ISoar" > wrote in message
om...
> Newbie here. I ran across a joke that said the market value for a
> used PW-5 was based entirely on what the instruments and trailer were
> worth. It appears this issue was beaten to death at one time, but I'm
> curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the ship gets no
> respect.
>
> Thanks

[Chris OCallaghan]

The selection was based on much more than handling or aesthetics.
Cost, licensing for manufacture, home building options, long-term
factory support...

The point is not which glider was selected, but that any selection
would have failed. Perhaps the PW-5 kept the dream alive longer than
another, perhaps not. Unfortunately, the dream wasn't particularly
suited to the sport. Too few pilots, too many choices. As you
observed, for half the price of a PW-5, a newbie can buy a Libelle and
fly competitively in the sports class. Why buy a less desireable
glider at twice the price, then limit your opportunities for learning
(you need enough performance to keep up with your betters... it takes
time and proximity for their experience to rub off). We already had a
single-type class in the US. And while it was successful, it was
fueled more by camaraderie than competitive zeal. For a quarter the
price of a PeeWee, you could (and still can) join the fun. Though even
the 1-26ers are in decline, though no less enthusiastic.

[Kirk Stant]

(Chris OCallaghan) wrote in message >...
> The selection was based on much more than handling or aesthetics.
> Cost, licensing for manufacture, home building options, long-term
> factory support...

And how many homebuilt PW-5s have been completed? Or for that matter,
it seems the factory support has been a bit iffy?
>
> The point is not which glider was selected, but that any selection
> would have failed. (snip)

Good point, unfortunately. If they used the sailing model for
one-design classes, they completely missed the point. The popular
one-designs in sailing are either relatively inexpensive (such as
Lasers) so beginners can easily get into racing (Sorry, the PW-5 is
not inexpensive!), or very high performance and/or very expensive
(Finn, America's cup etc) so that they attract the serious racers. So
the World class concept was doomed unless it sanctioned a hot racing
ship (let's say LS-8), or came up with a design that 18 year olds
could afford to buy (like a used 1-26).

Obviously, neither happened. Some of the other criteria are bogus.
Homebuilding! Give me a break. Racers do not want to spend their time
building it, they want to be out flying it so they can win! The
emphasis should have been on mass production, not homebuilding.

And unfortunately, aethetics do count a lot in this sport. Sorry all
you PW-5 fans out there, but it just doesn't look like a racing
glider, by current standards. So most serious racers just blow it off
(probably unfortunately, since in the right conditions I'm sure it's a
lot of fun to race!).

If it ever gets common and inexpensive enough (think 1-26) it may then
have a chance, by default. I hope so, because nothing else seems to
be out there in sufficient numbers yet.

Our experience out here in AZ is that several pilots (both new glider
pilots and experienced racers) bought PW-5s a few years ago - and
after a few seasons most got rid of them and either moved up to higher
performance used ships or motorgliders!

Hopefully the PW-5 will have a future as a 1-26 replacement in club
and commercial rental fleets (in the US at least).

Kirk

[Robert Ehrlich]

Kirk Stant wrote:
> ...
> So the World class concept was doomed unless it sanctioned a hot racing
> ship (let's say LS-8), or came up with a design that 18 year olds
> could afford to buy (like a used 1-26).
> ...

The second possibility doesn't really exist. Used ships can't be a World
Class since their availablity depends on the used market. Building new
1-26s, if anyone would be sufficiently mad to try that, would bring these
new ships in the same price range as other new ships, i.e. not for the
average 18 year olds, and there is no way at the present time that any
new built glider would be affordable for them (or for anybody of any age
without higher than average income).

[Kirk Stant]

Robert Ehrlich > wrote in message >...
> Kirk Stant wrote:
> > ...
> > So the World class concept was doomed unless it sanctioned a hot racing
> > ship (let's say LS-8), or came up with a design that 18 year olds
> > could afford to buy (like a used 1-26).
> > ...
>
> The second possibility doesn't really exist. Used ships can't be a World
> Class since their availablity depends on the used market. Building new
> 1-26s, if anyone would be sufficiently mad to try that, would bring these
> new ships in the same price range as other new ships, i.e. not for the
> average 18 year olds, and there is no way at the present time that any
> new built glider would be affordable for them (or for anybody of any age
> without higher than average income).


Robert, you are absolutely correct. What I was trying to get across
was that unless the cost of the new World Class glider was about the
same as the cost of a used 20 year old 1-26, it would be hard to get
any real interest started in it.

I must admit that I havn't flown a PW-5 yet (planning on checking one
out this spring) but have some time in the old 1-26 - on a hot day,
with the sports canopy option (open canopy), it is a real hoot to fly.
No performance to speak of, but still a lot of fun. Maybe what
should have been done is to select the 1-26 as the world class glider!

Naaah... never happen...

Anyway, what is the response to the PW-5 in France these days?

Kirk

[Bert Willing]

Zero.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


....
>
> Anyway, what is the response to the PW-5 in France these days?
>
> Kirk

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
"Bert Willing" > wrote:
>> Anyway, what is the response to the PW-5 in France these days?
> Zero.

While here in New Zealand it is the numerically most popular glider at
the moment, and possibly of all time (may be close if you lump together
all varients of the Ka6).

-- Bruce

[Spider]

> Anyway, what is the response to the PW-5 in France these days?

I don't know if it's current, but here you are:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/steve_smyk/EuropeanDN.htm
Just scroll down for France

Jarek

[Bert Willing]

Well, of course there are some of these things around, but I don't know
anybody who is eager to fly one, let alone buy...

The average, low-end single seater you would fly in a French club is a
Pégase, and if you want to race, there are plenty of competitions where you
can do that with Libelles, Pégases, LS4 and whatever, from a regional level
up to european Championships. These are no single-design contests, but who
gives a ****.

If you want to buy a glider in Europe with a limited budget, 15-20kEuros
bring you a long way, and the idea to buy a performance-limited nutshell
which then is also the most ugliest glider ever designed in composite seems
to be just ridiculous.

The concept may have had a chance in countries where the local glider market
is not well developed.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Spider" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> > Anyway, what is the response to the PW-5 in France these days?
>
> I don't know if it's current, but here you are:
> http://members.lycos.co.uk/steve_smyk/EuropeanDN.htm
> Just scroll down for France
>
> Jarek

[Charles Yeates]

95 or 96 in North America flown by happy pilots -- clubs and private

Even 20 plus in little Austria --

Bert Willing wrote:
> Well, of course there are some of these things around, but I don't know
> anybody who is eager to fly one, let alone buy...

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Charles Yeates > wrote:

> 95 or 96 in North America flown by happy pilots -- clubs and private
>
> Even 20 plus in little Austria --

And I think 25 or so here in NZ, making it the numerically strongest
glider on the register.

I don't know what the scorn is about. I fly Grob twins, Janus, Libelle
and PW-5's. I prefer the Janus for just zooming around having fun, and
the PW-5 for going to contests, because then there are lots of people
flying exactly the same aircraft so when I lose I know it's my fault,
not the gliders (and when I *win* ... :-)

-- Bruce

[Bert Willing]

I (to some extent .-) understand why PW5's exist in the US, NZ, AUS.
But referring to "World Class", there world is a bit bigger than these
countries, and most of the glider pilots happen to fly in Europe...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Bruce Hoult" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> In article >,
> Charles Yeates > wrote:
>
> > 95 or 96 in North America flown by happy pilots -- clubs and private
> >
> > Even 20 plus in little Austria --
>
> And I think 25 or so here in NZ, making it the numerically strongest
> glider on the register.
>
> I don't know what the scorn is about. I fly Grob twins, Janus, Libelle
> and PW-5's. I prefer the Janus for just zooming around having fun, and
> the PW-5 for going to contests, because then there are lots of people
> flying exactly the same aircraft so when I lose I know it's my fault,
> not the gliders (and when I *win* ... :-)
>
> -- Bruce

[Janusz Kesik]

Yes, it was a good dacision and by the way it seems that PW-5 is one of =
the best options for 1-26 driver willing to move up boh in performance =
and in technology but without losing a chance to race in one-design =
competitions.

Regards,


--=20
Janusz Kesik

visit www.leszno.pl - home of the www.css-leszno.it.pl

[Robert Ehrlich]

Kirk Stant wrote:
> ...
> Anyway, what is the response to the PW-5 in France these days?
>

As far as I know, 5 of them are registred. 2 of them were bought
for the first World Air Games where they were flown by Julien
Henry and Frederic Hoyeau who got the 2 first places. A third one
came in France on this occasion as the winner's prize and is always
in the club of Chartres, the club of the 2 winners, as Fred considered
that the whole team rather than just himself won the glider and so
it should belong to the club. The same both pilots won also in a different
order the first World Class Championship, after that they returned to
more common gliders of higher performance. I don't know who owns the
2 remaning ones. During my last stay in St Auban, our national center,
for my intructor rating, I saw one of them in a hangar, never out,
maybe it is one of the 2 who were at the first Air Games. There was also
a PW6 and I had some flights on it, at this time it was the only glider
allowed to spin, formerly this was done on Grobs, but a recent AD prohibit
it now.