'Nother PW-5/World Class question

[Bob Kuykendall]

Somebody posted on this topic a while back, but I can't find it now.
So my apologies for repeating it:

For how long is the PW-5 the official glider of the World Class? Are
there any provisions in the FAI or IGC rules for the eventual
retirement of the design and a switch to a second-generation WC
glider?

Just wondering...

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Janusz Kesik]

AFAIK since about 1995, and I think there is at least ten years interval
between any changes.

Regards,

Janusz.

> For how long is the PW-5 the official glider of the World Class? Are
> there any provisions in the FAI or IGC rules for the eventual
> retirement of the design and a switch to a second-generation WC
> glider?

[cernauta]

"Janusz Kesik" > wrote:

>AFAIK since about 1995, and I think there is at least ten years interval
>between any changes.
>
I think there was a proposal to extend the time interval to 15 years
(2010); I am just not sure that it was approved.

Aldo Cernezzi

[JohnD]

The original IGC committment was for 15 years taking the class to
2009. However at a recent IGC meeting there was discussion regarding
what to do in 2006 and there might be changes for that year. Some in
the committee consider the 15 year committment to be firm. There is no
clear idea as to how they would replace the WC.

Hope all is well with you and your family Bob. Happy Holiday & see ya
next June!


"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message >...
> AFAIK since about 1995, and I think there is at least ten years interval
> between any changes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Janusz.
>
> > For how long is the PW-5 the official glider of the World Class? Are
> > there any provisions in the FAI or IGC rules for the eventual
> > retirement of the design and a switch to a second-generation WC
> > glider?

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (JohnD) wrote:

> The original IGC committment was for 15 years taking the class to
> 2009. However at a recent IGC meeting there was discussion regarding
> what to do in 2006 and there might be changes for that year. Some in
> the committee consider the 15 year committment to be firm. There is no
> clear idea as to how they would replace the WC.
>
> Hope all is well with you and your family Bob. Happy Holiday & see ya
> next June!

Thanks for that info. And thanks, we're all well and I am very much
looking forward to next year's contest!

Bob K.

[Mark James Boyd]

>The original IGC committment was for 15 years taking the class to
>2009. However at a recent IGC meeting there was discussion regarding
>what to do in 2006 and there might be changes for that year. Some in
>the committee consider the 15 year committment to be firm. There is no
>clear idea as to how they would replace the WC.
>

I wonder if the IGC would consider something like the Centrair Pegasus
101D for the new WC. Maybe a slightly shrunk wingspan version? It sure
would be nice to have a retractable main wheel...

[Andreas Maurer]

On 26 Nov 2003 10:25:05 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>I wonder if the IGC would consider something like the Centrair Pegasus
>101D for the new WC. Maybe a slightly shrunk wingspan version? It sure
>would be nice to have a retractable main wheel...

I fail completely to understand why a smaller span (and crippled
performance) should lower production costs significantly. Why no
outgrown glider with up-to-date performance?

Changing wing span to, say, 14 meters will cost about 5 points of L/D,
and I doubt that it will safe more than $500 (slightly less material
needed, and three man-hours saved for finish).

I like the Pegase, but there are gliders out there that are easier to
fly with better performance, e. g. the LS-4.


Bye
Andreas

[Mike Borgelt]

On 26 Nov 2003 10:25:05 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:


>
>I wonder if the IGC would consider something like the Centrair Pegasus
>101D for the new WC. Maybe a slightly shrunk wingspan version? It sure
>would be nice to have a retractable main wheel...


Now that DG have killed the LS4 maybe the molds and info package are
for sale?

Then again do you really want any investment you make to be at the
mercy of an IGC decision?

Mike Borgelt

[Mark James Boyd]

>> >I wonder if the IGC would consider something like the Centrair Pegasus
>> >101D for the new WC. Maybe a slightly shrunk wingspan version? It sure

>> fly with better performance, e. g. the LS-4.

Hmmm...so is there anything that would prevent the 101D or LS-4
from being the next World Class glider? Were there limitations
on wingspan or retract for the world class? Weight limitations?
Ballast limitations?

From a practical standpoint, the LS-4 seems to be mildly
competitive in the Standard class as well. One also
wonders how insurance compares between the LS-4, 101D, and PW-5.
Is insurance based on ballast, retract, or handling?
How would the price differ if the LS-4 was delivered without
the water ballast option? Could the ballast option be easily
added later by an A&P?

There are some real disadvantages to an LS-4 instead of
a PW-5 (weight, assembly/wing weight, landout wingspan,
retract/ballast complexity, insurance) but it seems none
of these are elegantly avoidable if we want more performance
in the World Class.

Hmmm...I'm going to do a little investigation into
insurance for LS-4, PW-5, and 101D. Then perhaps a flight
to Minden, CA for an LS-4 flight ;-)

[Robert Ehrlich]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
> On 26 Nov 2003 10:25:05 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
> wrote:
>
> >I wonder if the IGC would consider something like the Centrair Pegasus
> >101D for the new WC. Maybe a slightly shrunk wingspan version? It sure
> >would be nice to have a retractable main wheel...
>
> I fail completely to understand why a smaller span (and crippled
> performance) should lower production costs significantly. Why no
> outgrown glider with up-to-date performance?
>
> Changing wing span to, say, 14 meters will cost about 5 points of L/D,
> and I doubt that it will safe more than $500 (slightly less material
> needed, and three man-hours saved for finish).
>
> I like the Pegase, but there are gliders out there that are easier to
> fly with better performance, e. g. the LS-4.
>

Such a decision should have been taken earlier in order to have some
success. Centrair stopped the production of Pegases one year ago as
they had only one order for the year, Schneider stopped the production of
the LS-4 when DG took them over. Anyway if one of these gliders could be
built in a country of low cost, licensed from the original manufacturer,
it would probably have a better chance of success of success than the PW5
for a similar cost, as all initial investments (design, molds, tools,
certification) are already done. Reducing the wingspan will just re-introduce
such investments and related costs, and nobody is going to take such a risk
with a number of produced units difficult to foresee.

On the question of which of Pegase and LS-4 has the better performance,
opinions vary. In my club, almost everybody including myself consider
them as equivallent in performance, although the LS-4 is considered as
a little easier to handle, and some people think than in strong days with
max water, the Pegase is slightly better. The Germans, like Andreas, prefer
their own production and this is reflected in the handicap tables made by
them. This is probably the reason why in the National French Club Class
Championship almost only Pegases are persent, although LS-4 are also well
spread in France, because the German handicap is used and so Pegases have
a little advantage.

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:29:12 +0000, Robert Ehrlich
> wrote:


>On the question of which of Pegase and LS-4 has the better performance,
>opinions vary. In my club, almost everybody including myself consider
>them as equivallent in performance, although the LS-4 is considered as
>a little easier to handle, and some people think than in strong days with
>max water, the Pegase is slightly better. The Germans, like Andreas, prefer
>their own production and this is reflected in the handicap tables made by
>them. This is probably the reason why in the National French Club Class
>Championship almost only Pegases are persent, although LS-4 are also well
>spread in France, because the German handicap is used and so Pegases have
>a little advantage.

I don't think that there are too many technical differences between
LS-4 and Pegase. Performance doesn't matter in this case (how many
student pilot's club ships are ever flown with water?) as long as the
L/D is in the range of 40.
The only advantage of the LS-4 I can think of at the moment is that
it's a little less prone to drop a wing during aerotow.


Bye
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer]

On 27 Nov 2003 11:19:47 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>Hmmm...so is there anything that would prevent the 101D or LS-4
>from being the next World Class glider?

Yes.. the commitee that decided that this was the job af the PW-5...
lol.

>Were there limitations
>on wingspan or retract for the world class? Weight limitations?
>Ballast limitations?

I guess ballast limitations (no water ballast), maybe fixed gear. But
these limitations are up to discussion if a new glider was selected -
the selling price plays an important role here.


>From a practical standpoint, the LS-4 seems to be mildly
>competitive in the Standard class as well. One also
>wonders how insurance compares between the LS-4, 101D, and PW-5.

More or less identical.

>Is insurance based on ballast, retract, or handling?
>How would the price differ if the LS-4 was delivered without
>the water ballast option?

It might help a little (some standard class gliders are /have been
available without water bags or even with fixed gear.. but I don't
remember how much cheaper they were).
But the main problem of the high price is the finish - this is where
most man-hours could be saved, still delivering as glider with a
relatively good finish that can be enhanced in a club if necessary.

>Could the ballast option be easily
>added later by an A&P?

In Pegase and LS-4 - definitely yes.


>There are some real disadvantages to an LS-4 instead of
>a PW-5 (weight, assembly/wing weight, landout wingspan,
>retract/ballast complexity, insurance) but it seems none
>of these are elegantly avoidable if we want more performance
>in the World Class.

Hmm... the PW-5 wings are a little lighter... but you barely feel a
difference. The same goes for the slightly higher ramp weight of the
LS-4.
If you have trouble to hit a field with 15 meters wingspan, you'll
definitely have the same trouble with 13.6 either.
Retractable gear and water would be eliminated to lower the costs -
and if the "World Class LS4" would be sold for a similar price as the
PW-5 (No doubt about that this is possible), insurance costs would be
similar.


>Hmmm...I'm going to do a little investigation into
>insurance for LS-4, PW-5, and 101D. Then perhaps a flight
>to Minden, CA for an LS-4 flight ;-)
Don't do that. You will not want to fly a PW-5 again.
Bye
Andreas

[CH]

I like this idea Mike!
but maybe not Morelli
Chris


"Mike Borgelt" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Nov 2003 10:25:05 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I wonder if the IGC would consider something like the Centrair Pegasus
> >101D for the new WC. Maybe a slightly shrunk wingspan version? It sure
> >would be nice to have a retractable main wheel...
>
>
> Now that DG have killed the LS4 maybe the molds and info package are
> for sale?
>
> Then again do you really want any investment you make to be at the
> mercy of an IGC decision?
>
> Mike Borgelt

[Waduino]

Well, I guess some entrepreneurial chap could head off to China and find a
way to manufacture a dry LS4, maybe with fixed gear for a relatively good
price, assuming DG wanted to play along.
If it wasn't a new "World Class", and you probably wouldn't want to count on
it even if it was rumoured, could such a sailplane find a niche in today's
market?
Hmmmm.....
Wad.


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:3fc64e53$1@darkstar...
> >> >I wonder if the IGC would consider something like the Centrair Pegasus
> >> >101D for the new WC. Maybe a slightly shrunk wingspan version? It
sure
>
> >> fly with better performance, e. g. the LS-4.
>
> Hmmm...so is there anything that would prevent the 101D or LS-4
> from being the next World Class glider? Were there limitations
> on wingspan or retract for the world class? Weight limitations?
> Ballast limitations?
>
> From a practical standpoint, the LS-4 seems to be mildly
> competitive in the Standard class as well. One also
> wonders how insurance compares between the LS-4, 101D, and PW-5.
> Is insurance based on ballast, retract, or handling?
> How would the price differ if the LS-4 was delivered without
> the water ballast option? Could the ballast option be easily
> added later by an A&P?
>
> There are some real disadvantages to an LS-4 instead of
> a PW-5 (weight, assembly/wing weight, landout wingspan,
> retract/ballast complexity, insurance) but it seems none
> of these are elegantly avoidable if we want more performance
> in the World Class.
>
> Hmmm...I'm going to do a little investigation into
> insurance for LS-4, PW-5, and 101D. Then perhaps a flight
> to Minden, CA for an LS-4 flight ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[tango4]

> Hmmm...so is there anything that would prevent the or LS-4
> from being the next World Class glider? Were there limitations
> on wingspan or retract for the world class? Weight limitations?
> Ballast limitations?
>

How about all the current LS-4 or 101D owners who would just love to see
their ships value dive because a brand new one could be bought for fraction
of their current value?

Ian

[Eric Greenwell]

tango4 wrote:

> How about all the current LS-4 or 101D owners who would just love to see
> their ships value dive because a brand new one could be bought for fraction
> of their current value?

Would the new manufacturer be so foolish as to sell new gliders for less
than the price of an old one, when he could easily get a higher price?
It would be more profitable to sell them for more than the price of a
used one, and set the price for enough sales for a suitable production
rate.

The used prices might drop a bit, but the owners of the used gliders
would be pleased to know that parts are available.

--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Andreas Maurer > wrote:
>>What are the WC limitations?
>I guess ballast limitations (no water ballast), maybe fixed gear. But
>these limitations are up to discussion if a new glider was selected -
>
>>how insurance compares between the LS-4, 101D, and PW-5.
>More or less identical.
>
>But the main problem of the high price is the finish - this is where
>most man-hours could be saved, still delivering as glider with a
>relatively good finish that can be enhanced in a club if necessary.
>
>>Could the ballast option be easily
>>added later by an A&P?
>In Pegase and LS-4 - definitely yes.
>
>>I think I'll try a LS-4
>Don't do that. You will not want to fly a PW-5 again.

Hmmm...it seems that an LS-4 manufactured without ballast but
with retract gear might be an excellent new World Class glider.
A good polar and standard class capability adds to the appeal.
Those who wanted to could add ballast later if wanted.
I personally wouldn't be interested in a WC fixed gear
LS-4, however. Hopefully this is not a WC requirement.

Andreas, thank you very kindly for your input and
response.

[tango4]

But part of the whole purpose of the WCG was to provide a reasonably priced
entry level ship!

I'm not saying that thats the way it should have been. I think that a ship
like the Discus perhaps should have emerged as the world class. The cost
aspect should have been given lower priority in the selection process.
People then would have wanted to compete in a class that leveled the playing
field performance wise but still was an optimum performer at the time. In
sailing the olympic class boats are far from veing the cheapies!

Perhaps the IGC could come up with a brief that allowed the entry into the
selection process on the basis that the manufacturer would share design info
after a period of time allowing all other manufacturers to produce an
identical ship after the initial period.

This would have got ships like the Discus and LS8's into the process. Who
knows by the time the process starts again maybe one of the manufacturers
will give up their exclusive rights and allow this to happen with an
existing ship?

With several manufacturers producing ships to varying levels of finish
state, Kit, part assembled, complete, there would be natural price
competition as well as some preference for a particular manufacturers
product.

Ian



"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> tango4 wrote:
>
> > How about all the current LS-4 or 101D owners who would just love to see
> > their ships value dive because a brand new one could be bought for
fraction
> > of their current value?
>
> Would the new manufacturer be so foolish as to sell new gliders for less
> than the price of an old one, when he could easily get a higher price?
> It would be more profitable to sell them for more than the price of a
> used one, and set the price for enough sales for a suitable production
> rate.
>
> The used prices might drop a bit, but the owners of the used gliders
> would be pleased to know that parts are available.
>
> --
> -----
> Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Marcel Duenner]

"Waduino" > wrote in message >...
> Well, I guess some entrepreneurial chap could head off to China and find a
> way to manufacture a dry LS4, maybe with fixed gear for a relatively good
> price, assuming DG wanted to play along.

Unfortunately DG has no more say in this...

I seriously doubt a newly built LS4 would be anywhere near the price
of a PW5.

The last LS4s built by Schneider costed about 15% less than an LS8.
Take production to Lithuania and cut another 10-15%.
Your new LS4-WC price is still double the PW5's! Talking of prices ex
works. Of course, shipping overeas will cost about the same.

Saving money by having a fixed gear - I don't know. Might save
3000Euros or so but also costs 2 points L/D. I think the original idea
of choosing the LS4 was to have a WC with 40/1.
Save money on the finish? Please! Anyone competing seriously will have
it re-sanded and polished - so what's the point?

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Andreas Maurer > wrote:

> Hmm... the PW-5 wings are a little lighter... but you barely feel a
> difference. The same goes for the slightly higher ramp weight of the
> LS-4.

The PW-5 wings are like feathers compared to anything else I've rigged.

-- Bruce

[Andreas Maurer]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:18:07 +1300, Bruce Hoult >
wrote:


>The PW-5 wings are like feathers compared to anything else I've rigged.

:)
I rigged the prototype of the Russia-1 - at 11 meters span (L/D of 27
iirc) each wing had a weight of 22 kg. Now this is what I'd call
feather weight... :)

The test pilot Yuri Kuznezov displayed some nice aerobatics to
convince us that the wings were string enough before we took flights.


Bye
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer]

On 27 Nov 2003 23:23:56 -0800, (Marcel
Duenner) wrote:


>The last LS4s built by Schneider costed about 15% less than an LS8.
>Take production to Lithuania and cut another 10-15%.
>Your new LS4-WC price is still double the PW5's! Talking of prices ex
>works. Of course, shipping overeas will cost about the same.

Of course, you are correct. But let's face it: The PW-5 is a little
smaller (very little) than the LS-4...but this is the only difference
(if you build an LS-4 with fixed gear, no water bags and similar
finish). I still see no cause why workers with the same wages would
make an LS-4 a lot more expensive.


>Saving money by having a fixed gear - I don't know. Might save
>3000Euros or so but also costs 2 points L/D. I think the original idea
>of choosing the LS4 was to have a WC with 40/1.

I don't think the L/D is the critical part - it's the acceptance of
clubs to use such an aircraft as a trainer (and create the numbers of
aircraft and pilots) - and an LS-4 would definitely be accepted.
The manufacturer might sell the retracting gear as an option (like it
was done for the DG-300 Club for some years) - but to cut costs a
fixed gear is essential imho.


>Save money on the finish? Please! Anyone competing seriously will have
>it re-sanded and polished - so what's the point?

If you want to save the money - do the finish yourself... or fly with
the defaut finish. I saw one of the earlier PW-5's... and the finish
was absolutely horrible. But the PW-5 was cheap. Guess why. :)



Bye
Andreas

[nafod40]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
> I fail completely to understand why a smaller span (and crippled
> performance) should lower production costs significantly. Why no
> outgrown glider with up-to-date performance?
>
> Changing wing span to, say, 14 meters will cost about 5 points of L/D,
> and I doubt that it will save more than $500 (slightly less material
> needed, and three man-hours saved for finish).

There's design, and then there is design for manufacture. If you look at
models for manufacturing costs of things, airplanes included, the
biggest factors are the choice of materials, the mass of whatever it is
you are making, and the complexity. The big things that affect
complexity are parts count and the ease/difficulty of working with the
material. Drops in parts count can have *big* impact on touch labor.
Think fixed wheels, for example.

After that, there are big learning curves for how many you make, with
the cost per unit dropping significantly. Aerospace thingies typically
have about an 80% learning curve, which means each time you double the
number of things you make, you drop the cost of manufacture by 80%. So
if it costs $10K to make the 20th plane, it will cost $8K to make 40th.
That's not saying the manufacture will pass on the savings, of course.

There are probably enough gliders out there against which to do build a
semblance of a cost models for gliders.