One Design viability?

[Stewart Kissel]

With winter upon us in the northern hemisphere, the annual PW5 thread had=
reappeared. I started thinking about this ship and one design racing an=
d thought I might post this. I started thinking about this topic in the =
summer when I saw two full size bus conversion RV's pulling two brand-new=
looking glider trailers on what appeared to be a trip to a national cont=
est. From my location in Colorado and then license plates on the caravan=
, it was at least a 3 day drive. Pilots have every right to spend their=
hard earned money in whatever way they see fit, but watching $200K+ roll=
ing down the road reminded me of the yacht racing aspect of our sport.

With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim=
e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be=
ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P=
articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r=
equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s=
till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers =
love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to=
another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi=
ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20

And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself =
below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe=
we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the =
idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor=
t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o=
ut. =20

[Greg Arnold]

Good points.

The people who buy PW-5's generally are newer pilots who are buying
their first ship. Often, it is while owning the PW-5 that they get
interested in XC, and decide that they need a ship with longer legs.

Thus, the entire premise of the World Class is questionable. It is
designed to be a one-design racing ship, but it is bought by pilots who
are at the opposite end of the spectrum from racing pilots.

Why don't racing pilots buy it? Well, In essence, we already have
several one-design classes -- the Standard, the 15-Meter, and the
18-Meter. In terms of performance, there is no appreciable difference
between the various gliders that fly in these classes. Why would a
racing pilot sell his "one-design" Standard ship for a one-design World
Class glider with lower performance?

I suspect any World Class glider would be a flop, even if it was an
LS-4. Who would buy a World Class LS-4? The racers won't trade down
from their LS-8s. And the current PW-5 owners would view the '4 as too
high performance for their skill level. The market likely would be
limited to those who presently buy used LS-4s, LS-3, Mosquitoes, etc,
but to reach that market the glider fully outfitted would have to sell
for $30,000 or less (at $35,000 it would have to compete with used LS-6s
and Ventuses). Is that price possible? Even with minimal instruments
and a basic trailer, after shipping only about $15,000 would be left for
the glider.



Stewart Kissel wrote:
> With winter upon us in the northern hemisphere, the annual PW5 thread had=
> reappeared. I started thinking about this ship and one design racing an=
> d thought I might post this. I started thinking about this topic in the =
> summer when I saw two full size bus conversion RV's pulling two brand-new=
> looking glider trailers on what appeared to be a trip to a national cont=
> est. From my location in Colorado and then license plates on the caravan=
> , it was at least a 3 day drive. Pilots have every right to spend their=
> hard earned money in whatever way they see fit, but watching $200K+ roll=
> ing down the road reminded me of the yacht racing aspect of our sport.
>
> With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim=
> e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be=
> ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P=
> articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r=
> equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s=
> till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers =
> love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to=
> another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi=
> ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20
>
> And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself =
> below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe=
> we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the =
> idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor=
> t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o=
> ut. =20
>
>
>
>

[apusapus]

"Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
news:VzMxb.7716$ZE1.5967@fed1read04...

IMHO, you're all a day late and a dollar short.

Back in the days when the summers lasted forever and I had a full head of
hair, I was minded to take up the sport of gliding. I stumbled along to
the Scottish Gliding Union where a crazy old German by the name of Ansgar
Samble (Hi, Ansgar. I still remember your full brake approaches, you
*******!) proceeded to try to teach me how to fly. Eventually, that task
was finished by the tiny but perfectly-formed Alan Middleton from Deeside,
and I became a fully-fledged glider pilot, ready to take on the world.

What happened next? I'll tell you what, me boyos! I'd spend days, weeks,
months, at the club working my ass off and maybe - maybe - as a reward get a
fifteen minute flight in a knackered Swallow, which taught me naught but the
folly of not owning my own piece of plastic. Sure, I could have beavered
away and in 3 or 4 years have accumulated a Silver C or some such nonsense,
but I'd also have had to dedicate my life and soul to the club merely to
have the opportunity to do so in a club machine. So I buggered off,
competed with varying degrees of success in a half-dozen other sports at a
quarter of the cost in terms of finance and time, and had a great life.

Fast forward thirty years. Youngest son sees glider in air and says, "That
looks like fun". "Ah", says I, "It is, but it requires that you commit
your entire existence to the sport or that you drain your meagre Trust fund
dry. Do either of these options appeal to you?". "Piffle", says youngest
son, "Point the car at the SGU and prove your lies!" So I did.

He'll find that times have changed, I hear you mutter. And you're correct.
They have a nice all-glass fleet, a subsidised youth training scheme, and an
ample supply of early solo machines. They even have a big cool-looking
ASH-25 thingie that looks just like the sort of thing you could fly for
1000's of k's. HOWEVER, it's still a sport that demands time, time and
more time. Time to learn to fly - you can't simply turn up and go, time to
rig or drag the beast out of a hanger, time to wait for a launch, time to
derig or hanger pack. And all before you ever get to the stage of
attempting to fly cross country.

What kid has the price of a PW-5, LS-4, or whatever sitting around in his
back pocket? Sure, they've enough for two weeks snowboarding in the Alps,
or for scuba diving in the Red Sea, but by and large they have neither the
cash, nor the desire, to commit a large amount of time or money to one
particular activity. In other words, it isn't the *type* of plane you fly
that makes the sport accessible or keeps people coming back for more, it's
the *structure*. Get that right and you'll be inundated with new pilots,
some of who will be wealthy enough to provide a buoyant glider market,
others will ensure that clubs will be able to afford a varied and healthy
club fleet.

Youngest son was impressed by the SGU, as was I, but is too young to start
training. So we're back to the usual round of karting (A full race
championship winning outfit can be bought for less than £3000. You turn
up, practice, race and go home. Over in two hours. The afternoon's still
free for swimming.), snowboarding and mountainbiking. I reckon he'll give
gliding a try, and I reckon he'll last as long as I did - i.e. long enough
to go solo, then walk away.

Gliding is an anachronism, a sport left over from a different age. I'll
give you guys your due, you haven't simply rolled over and died, but die you
must and die you will. And I suspect you'll do it all the quicker if you
spend your time obsessing over glider design rather than addressing the cost
or time constraints of your sport.


Roger.

[Eric Greenwell]

Stewart Kissel wrote:

> With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim=
> e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be=
> ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P=
> articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r=
> equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s=
> till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers =
> love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to=
> another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi=
> ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20
>
> And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself =
> below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe=
> we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the =
> idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor=
> t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o=
> ut. =20

[The following opinion is not founded on careful research. I offer it
from the viewpoint of someone that was on the SSA Board of Directors
when Paul Schweizer first proposed the World Class, and has observed the
debate since then]

I've wondered about this also. We have, in effect, one-design contests
in the STD, 15 M, and 18 M classes, because there is little difference
between the top gliders from each manufacturer. It's not a low cost,
one-design, situation, of course, but because the gliders offer what
most pilots want in a glider, they sell well to pilots that aren't
serious competitors.

We have low(er) cost racing via the Sport Class (USA) and the Club Class
(elsewhere). The Sports Class isn't one-design by any measure, but it's
popular anyway. The Club Class isn't one-design, either, but it's method
for selecting gliders for the class comes close in matching
performances, and when the handicap is used, it's just as effective as a
one-design class at equalizing performance.

[I'm not a historian of the 1-26, so I hope knowledgeable people will
correct the following if it needs it]

The 1-26 is a successful one-design class, but it didn't start as a
competition class, but was designed to be the single seat follow-on to
the 2-22 trainer. The class came later, after there were many
(hundreds?) already in existence, and the much smaller number of pilots
interested in competition began competing. An important factor in the
creation and continuing vigor of the class is it's much lower
performance than the other common gliders, making it's own class the
only way it can have a good competition.

In other words, only a very few pilots bought the 1-26 because it
offered one-design competition. The huge majority of owners are
attracted to it for other reasons.

So, what must a one-design class glider have to be successful in this
environment? I think these things:

- look good, like a "real" glider
- have Std Cirrus or better performance (38:1 or better)
- robust and easy to fly for low-time club members
- weather-proof finish to allow outdoor parking
- cost no higher than similar used German gliders

A glider like the above should have enough sales to be profitable to
produce, even if it isn't the World Class glider. Making it the World
Class glider might add a few sales, but I think these will be so few,
that most of the sales must come for other reasons; i.e., because it is
a desirable glider.

A glider like the above would also fit in the Club Class (and the Sports
Class in the USA), giving it another place to compete in addition to
it's own class. Since these two Classes have numerous competitions
already, I suspect most of the competitions the new World Class gliders
would compete in would not be World Class competitions!

So, by my analysis, a successful World Class glider must be successful
even it it isn't the World Class glider, which makes me wonder what
value there would be to having the World Class. Perhaps the effort it
takes to develop and maintain the concept would be better spent on other
aspects of soaring that would be more likely to increase our numbers.
--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Scott Correa]

All a one design class needs to be successful is a sanctioning
body making it THE choice for contests. Look at the olympics.
Solings for gods sake, tornado's and other low performance
boats. Very strict rules on planform and construction. IMHO
there are much better race boats in the world than what theey use.
The key is that they use them, have contests and promote it as a
class boat.

The PW5 only needs for the sanctioning body of soaring to adopt it
and have a world championship at the venue that the other classes
are held. There are people who would fly for a world title in the class
if it was flown and promoted that way.

Scott.

[Eric Greenwell]

Scott Correa wrote:
> All a one design class needs to be successful is a sanctioning
> body making it THE choice for contests. Look at the olympics.
> Solings for gods sake, tornado's and other low performance
> boats. Very strict rules on planform and construction. IMHO
> there are much better race boats in the world than what theey use.
> The key is that they use them, have contests and promote it as a
> class boat.
>
> The PW5 only needs for the sanctioning body of soaring to adopt it
> and have a world championship at the venue that the other classes
> are held. There are people who would fly for a world title in the class
> if it was flown and promoted that way.

I agree that if you hold a contest, they will come. My observation is
that "they" are high level pilots who are already competing, and see the
another class as simply another avenue to pursue their interest in
competition. I don't think a one-design class has an extra attraction to
the new or less serious pilot, as long as they have similar cost
competitions available, such as the Sports Class, the Club Class, and
regional competitions.
--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Greg Arnold]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Scott Correa wrote:
>
>> All a one design class needs to be successful is a sanctioning
>> body making it THE choice for contests. Look at the olympics.
>> Solings for gods sake, tornado's and other low performance
>> boats. Very strict rules on planform and construction. IMHO
>> there are much better race boats in the world than what theey use.
>> The key is that they use them, have contests and promote it as a
>> class boat.
>>
>> The PW5 only needs for the sanctioning body of soaring to adopt it
>> and have a world championship at the venue that the other classes
>> are held. There are people who would fly for a world title in the class
>> if it was flown and promoted that way.
>
>
> I agree that if you hold a contest, they will come.

They didn't come to the World Class contests, though.

My observation is
> that "they" are high level pilots who are already competing, and see the
> another class as simply another avenue to pursue their interest in
> competition. I don't think a one-design class has an extra attraction to
> the new or less serious pilot, as long as they have similar cost
> competitions available, such as the Sports Class, the Club Class, and
> regional competitions.

[Matthew Mazerowski]

"apusapus" > wrote in message >...
> "Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
> news:VzMxb.7716$ZE1.5967@fed1read04...
>
> IMHO, you're all a day late and a dollar short.
>
> Back in the days when the summers lasted forever and I had a full head of
> hair, I was minded to take up the sport of gliding. I

Trolling the aviation groups with your BS about flying. What is next?
You have a hundred thousand hours and have test flown 5000 types, flew
relief missions to Africa and are the world's greatest physican?
Replace the ZZZ with RRR
Yes people here comes the next one...

[Eric Greenwell]

Matthew Mazerowski wrote:
> "apusapus" > wrote in message >...
>
>>"Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
>>news:VzMxb.7716$ZE1.5967@fed1read04...
>>
>>IMHO, you're all a day late and a dollar short.
>>
>>Back in the days when the summers lasted forever and I had a full head of
>>hair, I was minded to take up the sport of gliding. I
>
>
> Trolling the aviation groups with your BS about flying. What is next?
> You have a hundred thousand hours and have test flown 5000 types, flew
> relief missions to Africa and are the world's greatest physican?
> Replace the ZZZ with RRR
> Yes people here comes the next one...

Actually, I'm afraid his story is true. We've heard it before from other
people. If it's true, it'd be better to remain silent than offer this
response; if false, no need to reply at all.
--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Chris OCallaghan]

Stewart,

I came to the conclusion many years ago that sailplane racing is
expensive, no two ways around it. You can reduce the cost by racing
older gliders in the sports class at local venues, but if you want to
improve, you'll have to bite the bullet. A national contest costs
about $4K to attend and takes two weeks of precious vacation. To get
good, really good, you'll need to fly at least one national contest
and two to three regional contests (typically about $2K) attended by a
significant number of Category One pilots. There's four to five weeks
of vacation. Then you'll want to spend every available weekend racing
with your Category Two and One friends. To do this effectively, you'll
need a glider within 5 percent of theirs.

That's the level of commitment you are competing against. Many of the
pilots you'll compete against at a National contenst have more than 50
nationals under their belts. So when you get right down to it, owning
a glider under 40:1 won't allow an inexperienced pilot to grow fast
enough to keep his interest. There are some notable exceptions, but
they are, after all, exceptions. I've noted in our club that it's only
when pilots get into better gliders (LS-6, ASW-20, Ventus, and up)
that their cross-country skills really take off since they can now
stay in contact longer with more skillfull pilots -- that is, they are
afforded the opportunity to learn.

The PeeWee just isn't suited to learning racing skills.

BTW, others point to sailing as an example of the viability of a one
type class. The World Class was built on this concept; however, there
are so few glider pilots that we cannot hope to replicate the support
infrastructure that leads young sailors into these classes, and
defines a path to grow out of them into other classes. I've seen over
a hundred little sailboats at a time tearing around a variety of
harbors, piloted by kids from 10 to 50, with almost as many support
and spectator boats. We just don't live in that world.



Stewart Kissel > wrote in message >...
> With winter upon us in the northern hemisphere, the annual PW5 thread had=
> reappeared. I started thinking about this ship and one design racing an=
> d thought I might post this. I started thinking about this topic in the =
> summer when I saw two full size bus conversion RV's pulling two brand-new=
> looking glider trailers on what appeared to be a trip to a national cont=
> est. From my location in Colorado and then license plates on the caravan=
> , it was at least a 3 day drive. Pilots have every right to spend their=
> hard earned money in whatever way they see fit, but watching $200K+ roll=
> ing down the road reminded me of the yacht racing aspect of our sport.
>
> With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim=
> e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be=
> ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P=
> articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r=
> equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s=
> till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers =
> love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to=
> another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi=
> ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20
>
> And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself =
> below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe=
> we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the =
> idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor=
> t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o=
> ut. =20

[Scott Correa]

"Greg Arnold" > wrote in message
news:oGTxb.9111$ZE1.3417@fed1read04...
> They didn't come to the World Class contests, though.
>


Agreed.
They also didn't have the support or stature of the Real Soaring WC.
But they out drew 18 meter for entries, and 18 meter is a REAL
race class.......... So they weren't that unpopular......

Scott

[Janusz Kesik]

We have solved (in Poland) the problem of costs and time needed to =
compete in the contests by setting up a year-round "Bitner memorial" =
contest.
The rules are very simple: contest lasts for one calender year, and =
pilots willing to join it simply fill the "flight submission form" prior =
to take off, take a photo or write down the logger info, then fly the =
task. After the flight, they just put it into an envelope along with a =
photo film or floppy disk with file downloaded from logger and then send =
them for scoring. Each of pilots is allowed to submit three flights, =
freely selected by him - just those best ones. There's no limitation of =
glider type, and the pilots aren't divided for juniors or seniors. All =
the pilots fly when they want / have time to fly, what they want to fly =
(handicaps of couse are present here) and where they want to fly. The =
only limit is that the flight has to be done in Poland.

It really works here, this year competing have been some 150 pilots (and =
compare population of Poland and USA). There were some 40 editions of =
this contest. And the winners have right to enter the nationals, just as =
it they had won one of the regional contests.

I think it's a perfect formula for adding the World Class, at least in =
the USA more momentum. This means, that any PW-5 user could fly whenever =
want - after work, during weekend, and fly at the nearest airfield, =
where he keeps his little glider. This means no additional cost, no =
wasting of time for travel or waiting for the "right" weather. And it =
fits the idea of World Class - affordable glider, the same for all =
competitors and class which's purpose is to make gliding more popular by =
giving a chance to fly the contests as the equal competitor at low cost, =
and without extra cost or spending time.

Of course, the weather conditions in the US (and in other countries =
surely too) vary a lot, so there should be something like =
"regional/state handicap" which should make competition more equal =
countrywide. This could be a chance for 1-26 drivers willing to move up =
in performance and in technology (yes, I hear laugh of some guys from =
the back rows, but I am sure this is true).

That are my tro cents...

Regards,


--=20
Janusz Kesik

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


> With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of =
tim=3D
> e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship =
be=3D
> ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? =
P=3D
> articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design =
still r=3D
> equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. =
It s=3D
> till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. =
1-26ers =3D
> love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm =
to=3D
> another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship =
whi=3D
> ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =
=3D20

[Stewart Kissel]

Chris-

Some good data you generated on that post. If the
idea pushing the one design concept is: 'More racing
generates more interest in the sport of soaring,
which causes our numbers to grow'-maybe it is time
to revisit that concept.



At 14:48 29 November 2003, Chris Ocallaghan wrote:
>Stewart,
>
>I came to the conclusion many years ago that sailplane
>racing is
>expensive, no two ways around it. You can reduce the
>cost by racing
>older gliders in the sports class at local venues,
>but if you want to
>improve, you'll have to bite the bullet. A national
>contest costs
>about $4K to attend and takes two weeks of precious
>vacation. To get
>good, really good, you'll need to fly at least one
>national contest
>and two to three regional contests (typically about
>$2K) attended by a
>significant number of Category One pilots. There's
>four to five weeks
>of vacation. Then you'll want to spend every available
>weekend racing
>with your Category Two and One friends. To do this
>effectively, you'll
>need a glider within 5 percent of theirs.
>
>That's the level of commitment you are competing against.
>Many of the
>pilots you'll compete against at a National contenst
>have more than 50
>nationals under their belts. So when you get right
>down to it, owning
>a glider under 40:1 won't allow an inexperienced pilot
>to grow fast
>enough to keep his interest. There are some notable
>exceptions, but
>they are, after all, exceptions. I've noted in our
>club that it's only
>when pilots get into better gliders (LS-6, ASW-20,
>Ventus, and up)
>that their cross-country skills really take off since
>they can now
>stay in contact longer with more skillfull pilots --
>that is, they are
>afforded the opportunity to learn.
>
>The PeeWee just isn't suited to learning racing skills.
>
>BTW, others point to sailing as an example of the viability
>of a one
>type class. The World Class was built on this concept;
>however, there
>are so few glider pilots that we cannot hope to replicate
>the support
>infrastructure that leads young sailors into these
>classes, and
>defines a path to grow out of them into other classes.
>I've seen over
>a hundred little sailboats at a time tearing around
>a variety of
>harbors, piloted by kids from 10 to 50, with almost
>as many support
>and spectator boats. We just don't live in that world.
>
>
>
>Stewart Kissel wrote in message news:...
>> With winter upon us in the northern hemisphere, the
>>annual PW5 thread had=
>> reappeared. I started thinking about this ship and
>>one design racing an=
>> d thought I might post this. I started thinking about
>>this topic in the =
>> summer when I saw two full size bus conversion RV's
>>pulling two brand-new=
>> looking glider trailers on what appeared to be a
>>trip to a national cont=
>> est. From my location in Colorado and then license
>>plates on the caravan=
>> , it was at least a 3 day drive. Pilots have every
>>right to spend their=
>> hard earned money in whatever way they see fit, but
>>watching $200K+ roll=
>> ing down the road reminded me of the yacht racing
>>aspect of our sport.
>>
>> With such a small percentage of pilots who compete,
>>and the amount of tim=
>> e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless
>>of the ship be=
>> ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low
>>cost 'one design'? P=
>> articularly in light of sports class here in the USA.
>> One design still r=
>> equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to
>>be competitive. It s=
>> till requires long travels and much(all) vacation
>>time used up. 1-26ers =
>> love their ships, but I am not so sure they would
>>take that enthusiasm to=
>> another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different
>>models of the ship whi=
>> ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship
>>somewhat suspect. =20
>>
>> And I just don't see how any bird being built currently
>>can price itself =
>> below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up
>>the little PW5, maybe=
>> we need to look harder at the concept of one design
>>racing. I like the =
>> idea but am not sure that in this day and age that
>>is where so much effor=
>> t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought
>>I would write this o=
>> ut. =20
>

[Janusz Kesik]

U=BFytkownik Eric Greenwell > w wiadomooci do grup =
dyskusyjnych ...
> I agree that if you hold a contest, they will come. My observation is=20
> that "they" are high level pilots who are already competing, and see =
the=20
> another class as simply another avenue to pursue their interest in=20
> competition.=20

I agree that there will be some guys who will come just because this is =
an additional chance to get a title of a world champion, but consider =
also that those grey clubs' members will also see that winning a world =
champion's title doesn't have to mean buying a $100000 ship and that it =
can be done in a ship which they are used to fly just for fun on =
weekends which costs some over $15000 brand new (of course more or less =
theoretically considering the contidion in which the club ships are =
often maintaned compared to these which compete in the World Class =
championships).

Regards,


--=20
Janusz Kesik

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

[Janusz Kesik]

U=BFytkownik Scott Correa > w =
wiadomo=B6ci do grup dyskusyjnych =
...
> Agreed.
> They also didn't have the support or stature of the Real Soaring WC.
> But they out drew 18 meter for entries, and 18 meter is a REAL
> race class.......... So they weren't that unpopular......

Especially considerind the cumulative number of 18m gliders is higher =
than all PW-5s produced so far, this is an argument FOR World Class.

Regards,


--=20
Janusz Kesik

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

[Janusz Kesik]

> If the
> idea pushing the one design concept is: 'More racing
> generates more interest in the sport of soaring,
> which causes our numbers to grow'

Wasn't that the absolutely first aim of generating the World Class?
Making equal racing possible in a $15000 worth PW-5, which is also easy =
to fly makes it more accesible.
And that means more racing the most probably. :)

Regards,


--=20
Janusz Kesik

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Janusz Kesik wrote:

> U¿ytkownik Eric Greenwell > w wiadomooci do grup dyskusyjnych ...
>
>>I agree that if you hold a contest, they will come. My observation is
>>that "they" are high level pilots who are already competing, and see the
>>another class as simply another avenue to pursue their interest in
>>competition.
>
>
> I agree that there will be some guys who will come just because this is an additional chance to get a title of a world champion, but consider also that those grey clubs' members will also see that winning a world champion's title doesn't have to mean buying a $100000 ship and that it can be done in a ship which they are used to fly just for fun on weekends which costs some over $15000 brand new (of course more or less theoretically considering the contidion in which the club ships are often maintaned compared to these which compete in the World Class championships).

But isn't this already possible with the Club Class? How many pilots
would be interested in competing because of the World Class, but would
not be interested in competing in the Club Class? I think it would be a
very small number.
--
-----
Replace "SPAM" with "charter" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Waduino]

For the benefit of a newbie (me), could someone provide the short, i.e. not
the long, technical, legal, or whatever definition of the following:
1. Club Class
2. Sport Class
3. 15m Class - OK, I can guess wing span limited to 15m
4. 18m Class - another guess, wing span limited to 18m.
Thanks.
Wad.

----

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Stewart Kissel wrote:
>
> I've wondered about this also. We have, in effect, one-design contests
> in the STD, 15 M, and 18 M classes, because there is little difference
> between the top gliders from each manufacturer. It's not a low cost,
> one-design, situation, of course, but because the gliders offer what
> most pilots want in a glider, they sell well to pilots that aren't
> serious competitors.
>
> We have low(er) cost racing via the Sport Class (USA) and the Club Class
> (elsewhere). The Sports Class isn't one-design by any measure, but it's
> popular anyway. The Club Class isn't one-design, either, but it's method
> for selecting gliders for the class comes close in matching
> performances, and when the handicap is used, it's just as effective as a
> one-design class at equalizing performance.
>

[Nyal Williams]

Just in case you really have no clue about this, The
Standard Class is also a 15meter wing class. This
class does not allow a flapped wing. The 15 meter class
allows flaps. Beyond these two classes there was/is
the Open Class. This one allows any wing length available.
In the past, most of these were 18meters or thereabouts.
Twenty and twenty-two meter wings began showing up
often enough that a special 18 meter class was needed
to separate these two.

At 01:12 30 November 2003, Waduino wrote:
>For the benefit of a newbie (me), could someone provide
>the short, i.e. not
>the long, technical, legal, or whatever definition
>of the following:
>1. Club Class
>2. Sport Class
>3. 15m Class - OK, I can guess wing span limited to
>15m
>4. 18m Class - another guess, wing span limited to
>18m.
>Thanks.
>Wad.
>
>----
>
>'Eric Greenwell' wrote in message
...
>> Stewart Kissel wrote:
>>
>> I've wondered about this also. We have, in effect,
>>one-design contests
>> in the STD, 15 M, and 18 M classes, because there
>>is little difference
>> between the top gliders from each manufacturer. It's
>>not a low cost,
>> one-design, situation, of course, but because the
>>gliders offer what
>> most pilots want in a glider, they sell well to pilots
>>that aren't
>> serious competitors.
>>
>> We have low(er) cost racing via the Sport Class (USA)
>>and the Club Class
>> (elsewhere). The Sports Class isn't one-design by
>>any measure, but it's
>> popular anyway. The Club Class isn't one-design, either,
>>but it's method
>> for selecting gliders for the class comes close in
>>matching
>> performances, and when the handicap is used, it's
>>just as effective as a
>> one-design class at equalizing performance.
>>
>
>
>

[tango4]

"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
...
>Of course, the weather conditions in the US (and in other countries surely
too) vary a lot, so there should be >something like "regional/state
handicap" which should make competition more equal countrywide.

And therein lies the problem......!

Ian

[Janusz Kesik]

> But isn't this already possible with the Club Class?

Well, not really. The Clubs consist mostly of the aging standard class =
gliders (first it was a different class truly, but now it's the mostly =
made of the old standards) and they're most often harder to drive than =
the PW-5. For someone who had flown thousand of hours it has virtually =
no importance, but for someone with 50 hours the importance of this fact =
may be really big. I know what I am saying, just because I had flown the =
PW-5 and the Jantar Standard (41a) for the first time in almost the same =
week, and I assure You, there's a huge difference in handling, =
especially if one lands in a limited area paddock and has low number of =
hours logged. I just remember from these flights that the PW-5 is just =
the fun to fly, and the Jantar Standard experience was a bit stressing =
in the first few flights, even if I had large amount of hours in Cobra. =
Following this track, I'd say the PW-5 gives more possibilities for a =
low time pilot to feel the spirit of racing, still keeping his flying =
very safe and allowing to learn racing from the very basics and =
practicing the fundamentals of cross country flying including e.g. =
altitude management which surely will show it's interest rate later, if =
one will switch to hotter ships. Plus of course the NEW PW-5 is one of =
the most affordable on the market, but it's a second thread. Personally =
if I was to buy a new glider, I'd choose between Junior and PW-5 only.

Regards,


--=20
Janusz Kesik

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

[Bob Korves]

As I see it, the only thing that would get the world class moving would be
for it to be accepted as an Olympic sport. Then we would really see some
interest.
-Bob Korves

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> With winter upon us in the northern hemisphere, the annual PW5 thread had=
> reappeared. I started thinking about this ship and one design racing an=
> d thought I might post this. I started thinking about this topic in the =
> summer when I saw two full size bus conversion RV's pulling two brand-new=
> looking glider trailers on what appeared to be a trip to a national cont=
> est. From my location in Colorado and then license plates on the caravan=
> , it was at least a 3 day drive. Pilots have every right to spend their=
> hard earned money in whatever way they see fit, but watching $200K+ roll=
> ing down the road reminded me of the yacht racing aspect of our sport.
>
> With such a small percentage of pilots who compete, and the amount of tim=
> e it consumes, and the amount of money it costs regardless of the ship be=
> ing used-is their really any sort of demand for low cost "one design"? P=
> articularly in light of sports class here in the USA. One design still r=
> equires $4K+ of instruments/loggers/software/PDA to be competitive. It s=
> till requires long travels and much(all) vacation time used up. 1-26ers =
> love their ships, but I am not so sure they would take that enthusiasm to=
> another bird. And 1-26 racing involves different models of the ship whi=
> ch makes the idea of an identical performing ship somewhat suspect. =20
>
> And I just don't see how any bird being built currently can price itself =
> below a nice used LS3 or 4. So rather then beat up the little PW5, maybe=
> we need to look harder at the concept of one design racing. I like the =
> idea but am not sure that in this day and age that is where so much effor=
> t needs to go IMVHO. While digesting turkey thought I would write this o=
> ut. =20
>
>
>
>

[Papa3]

Scott,

One problem with this idea is that the difference in "performance" in
sailing has a different impact than in gliding. I used to race Lightnings
as well as Sunfish. Two very different boats, one MUCH higher
"performance." However, as long as the wind was blowing even a little bit,
you could have a good, fair race regardless of the craft. So, we were able
to race almost every time we went to the marina. And, we could even run
the same courses, just a little slower.

Now think about soaring. Especially outside of those few areas that have
ideal conditions most of the time, the difference between 30:1 and a sharply
descending polar vs. 40:1 and a relatively flat polar is the difference
between going somewhere and flying locally. Already in the US, we've had a
number of "World Class" competitions in conjunction with the other FAI
classes. Almost without fail, the World Class folks have struggled to get
in a day (even a drastically shortened course) while the FAI guys were off
doing 300K. In some cases, these World Class ships were flown by good
competition pilots.

My conclusion is that performance matters more in soaring than in sailing.
Given that, the next question that pops up is purely one of economics. If I
can have much better performance for a similar price, making the ship usable
not only for races but badges and fun flying as well, then . . .






"Scott Correa" > wrote in message
...
> All a one design class needs to be successful is a sanctioning
> body making it THE choice for contests. Look at the olympics.
> Solings for gods sake, tornado's and other low performance
> boats. Very strict rules on planform and construction. IMHO
> there are much better race boats in the world than what theey use.
> The key is that they use them, have contests and promote it as a
> class boat.
>
> The PW5 only needs for the sanctioning body of soaring to adopt it
> and have a world championship at the venue that the other classes
> are held. There are people who would fly for a world title in the class
> if it was flown and promoted that way.
>
> Scott.
>
>
>
>
>

[Papa3]

Janusz,

Show me a "$15,000" PW5 (with competition instruments,a trailer, and
imported into the US) and I'll buy it. Of course, I'll turn around and
sell it for the $28,000 or so it really costs, then buy a nice LS-4.




"Janusz Kesik" > wrote in message
...
> If the
> idea pushing the one design concept is: 'More racing
> generates more interest in the sport of soaring,
> which causes our numbers to grow'

Wasn't that the absolutely first aim of generating the World Class?
Making equal racing possible in a $15000 worth PW-5, which is also easy to
fly makes it more accesible.
And that means more racing the most probably. :)

Regards,


--
Janusz Kesik

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

[Papa3]

Forgot to mention as well that a good, used Sunfish can be had for some
$2,000 (or less) with sail and trailer and a lightning with sails (maybe no
spinnaker) and trailer should set you back less than $5,000.


"Papa3" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Scott,
>
> One problem with this idea is that the difference in "performance" in
> sailing has a different impact than in gliding. I used to race Lightnings
> as well as Sunfish. Two very different boats, one MUCH higher
> "performance." However, as long as the wind was blowing even a little
bit,
> you could have a good, fair race regardless of the craft. So, we were
able
> to race almost every time we went to the marina. And, we could even run
> the same courses, just a little slower.
>
> Now think about soaring. Especially outside of those few areas that have
> ideal conditions most of the time, the difference between 30:1 and a
sharply
> descending polar vs. 40:1 and a relatively flat polar is the difference
> between going somewhere and flying locally. Already in the US, we've had
a
> number of "World Class" competitions in conjunction with the other FAI
> classes. Almost without fail, the World Class folks have struggled to get
> in a day (even a drastically shortened course) while the FAI guys were off
> doing 300K. In some cases, these World Class ships were flown by good
> competition pilots.
>
> My conclusion is that performance matters more in soaring than in sailing.
> Given that, the next question that pops up is purely one of economics. If
I
> can have much better performance for a similar price, making the ship
usable
> not only for races but badges and fun flying as well, then . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Scott Correa" > wrote in message
> ...
> > All a one design class needs to be successful is a sanctioning
> > body making it THE choice for contests. Look at the olympics.
> > Solings for gods sake, tornado's and other low performance
> > boats. Very strict rules on planform and construction. IMHO
> > there are much better race boats in the world than what theey use.
> > The key is that they use them, have contests and promote it as a
> > class boat.
> >
> > The PW5 only needs for the sanctioning body of soaring to adopt it
> > and have a world championship at the venue that the other classes
> > are held. There are people who would fly for a world title in the class
> > if it was flown and promoted that way.
> >
> > Scott.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Christian Husvik]

Hei,

Waduino wrote:


> For the benefit of a newbie (me), could someone provide the short, i.e. not
> the long, technical, legal, or whatever definition of the following:
> 1. Club Class

Basically older no longer competitive standard class gliders. Contests
are scored according to a handicaping system. Only a limited handicap
range is permitted. See www.wgc2004.no.

> 2. Sport Class

Same as Club Class, but wider handicap ranges permitted to enter, I
beleive. Also older 15m class gliders are permitted. Basically the US
counterpart to the European/international club class, but is also
popular in other countries. Propably not as "serious" as club class.
Rules and definitions might vary between countries.

Standard class has wing span limmited to 15m, and no chamber changing
flaps are allowed.

> 3. 15m Class - OK, I can guess wing span limited to 15m

Jepp. And chamber chainging flaps are permitted. Also, for some
reason, called "racing class".

> 4. 18m Class - another guess, wing span limited to 18m.

Jepp.

Christian 8-)

[Scott Correa]

"Bob Korves" <bkorves@winfirstPOINTcom> wrote in message
...
> As I see it, the only thing that would get the world class moving would be
> for it to be accepted as an Olympic sport. Then we would really see some
> interest.
> -Bob Korves


Absolutely correct.
It is the VENUE in which the class flys that makes or
breaks the class participation.

Scott

[W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\).]

Ansgar Sambale I think, I remember him well.
Not at all crazy, and not particularly old in the days when you and I knew
him.

He was certainly German, he had been in the Hitler youth and had got to the
UK by being shot down in his Me109. He never went back after the war, I
think his home was in what became E. Germany.

I first met Ansgar in September 1965 when I visited Portmoak with the first
Lasham expedition organised by Alan Purnell, he was the professional in
charge mid-week. I then went again every year until about 1985, Ansgar was
always there, but in the later years he was working for the Fife schools and
not the club. We all had the greatest respect for him.

I learnt to fly on a public course at the London club, Dunstable in October
1963, my instructor was Mike Denham-Till and the other instructor was John
Jeffries. Last season the course instructors at Dunstable were John
Jeffries and Mike Till, and I gather they will be back there next year.
The only change is that in the early 1960's Mike spent his winters ski
instructing in the Alps, now he spends the winters gliding instructing in
New Zealand.

W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Remove "ic" to reply.

>
> "apusapus" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
>
> Back in the days when the summers lasted forever and I had a full head of
> hair, I was minded to take up the sport of gliding. I stumbled along to
> the Scottish Gliding Union where a crazy old German by the name of Ansgar
> Samble (Hi, Ansgar. I still remember your full brake approaches, you
> *******!) proceeded to try to teach me how to fly. Eventually, that task
> was finished by the tiny but perfectly-formed Alan Middleton from Deeside,
> and I became a fully-fledged glider pilot, ready to take on the world.
>
> <snip>
>
> Roger.
>

[apusapus]

"W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.)." > wrote in message
...

> Ansgar Sambale I think, I remember him well.
> Not at all crazy, and not particularly old in the days when you and I knew
> him.

Sorry, I didn't intend to come across as rude. 'Crazy' was a term I was
using, in this instance, with affection.

Having said that, I can't imagine why on my very first flight EVER, Ansgar
considered it appropriate to demonstrate a full brake approach in a creaky
Capstan which left me dangling from the straps as we pointed down at what
felt like 90 degrees. I think it was all part of his "treat 'em rough,
make 'em tough" philosophy. I remember him muttering darkly one spring
morning that in his younger days the gliders would be on the field ready to
fly at sunrise. He couldn't understand why we didn't share his enthusiasm
for flying from early dawn 'til dusk.

Unsurprisingly, he was at Portmoak the day I arrived with youngest son and
offered to fly him in the Falke as he didn't qualify for a 'friends and
family' flight in a pure glider. I politely declined, lacking the courage
to see my favourite child thrown about the sky by a pilot who is no longer
in the first flush of youth. However, it was a typically generous gesture
by a man who has a life-long commitment to flying in all its forms, and to
passing on his love of gliding to subsequent generations. As you
suggested, he's a fine guy, and those of us that have met him are all the
better for the experience.

Your mention of the legendary Jeffries - together with your own notoriety
(another term being used with affection) within the gliding community - has
turned this into one of those "they don't make 'em like the used to" posts.
And, sadly, they don't. However, before I get too misty-eyed, why the hell
didn't you guys sort out gliding when it was salvageable? If you chaps had
acted in the 70's and 80's instead of swanning around in your Kestrels, we
might have had a vibrant and challenging sport, rather than a refuge for the
wealthy but largely talentless individuals cluttering the thermals today.


Roger.

[Steve Sovis]

You are right on, performance is critical to glider competition. 40:1 is
the magic threshold (with a decent high speed polar for penetration, see
below for definition) for really going cross country, at least in the
Eastern US.

Ah, the endless World Class thread. Heck, its 22 degrees outsde, here's the
" whole story". Might help someone brand new to soaring.

As an avid one design sailor coming to soaring 10 years ago, I was an active
supporter of the PW-5 movement to the point that I bought a half share in
one. I did this against the advise of very experienced competition pilots
and ultimately found that they were right. I also had a 1/2 share in a Grob
102 (15 meter Standard Class, about 36:1). The PW was a delightful handling
ship with limited penetration ability (the ability to fly fast without
falling out of the sky, handy for going upwind which is essential for out
and return cross country) due to its high flat plate area (that upright
cockpit has a price) and a low L/D (32:1) due to its short wing span (13.6
meters). For me it was easier and safer to take the Grob cross country
since it penetrated better.

After a few years I bit the bullet, sold the 1/2 shares and bought my own
ASW-20 (15 meter class 42:1 machine with excellent penetration for its
span). After my first flight I got out saying that "this is a different
sport now". What seemed like unachievable flights before became almost
routine. The learning curve accellerated. After attending a few
competitions where it was difficult to get in three days in the 20, I
couldn't imagine trying to get in a decent competition in the PW.
Performance not only matters, but it is critical to get to the 40:1
threshold. Strangely, this fact is generally accepted, but somehow it was
set aside by the World Class Committee in the interest of lower cost. Also,
twice the performance of a 1-26 probably seemed pretty attractive to many
even though it didn't meet the 40:1 threshold.

I am now in the camp of those competition veterans I once ignored. One
Design cross county out and back racing makes some sense, but only in a
glider of at least LS-4 performance. I was always bugged by those that said
they would rather buy a used LS-4 rather than a PW since the supply of used
gliders is by definition finite. IMHO, if we want a One Design, let's make
it something like the LS-4 and put enough promotion and infrastructure
behind it to be able to realize some economies of volume. Better yet let's
make it the 20, that way I could keep what I got forever, something I'll
probably do anyway :-).

Hope this story helps someone out there.

Best Regards,
Steve Sovis
ASW-20CL "US"



"Papa3" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Scott,
>
> One problem with this idea is that the difference in "performance" in
> sailing has a different impact than in gliding. I used to race Lightnings
> as well as Sunfish. Two very different boats, one MUCH higher
> "performance." However, as long as the wind was blowing even a little
bit,
> you could have a good, fair race regardless of the craft. So, we were
able
> to race almost every time we went to the marina. And, we could even run
> the same courses, just a little slower.
>
> Now think about soaring. Especially outside of those few areas that have
> ideal conditions most of the time, the difference between 30:1 and a
sharply
> descending polar vs. 40:1 and a relatively flat polar is the difference
> between going somewhere and flying locally. Already in the US, we've had
a
> number of "World Class" competitions in conjunction with the other FAI
> classes. Almost without fail, the World Class folks have struggled to get
> in a day (even a drastically shortened course) while the FAI guys were off
> doing 300K. In some cases, these World Class ships were flown by good
> competition pilots.
>
> My conclusion is that performance matters more in soaring than in sailing.
> Given that, the next question that pops up is purely one of economics. If
I
> can have much better performance for a similar price, making the ship
usable
> not only for races but badges and fun flying as well, then . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Scott Correa" > wrote in message
> ...
> > All a one design class needs to be successful is a sanctioning
> > body making it THE choice for contests. Look at the olympics.
> > Solings for gods sake, tornado's and other low performance
> > boats. Very strict rules on planform and construction. IMHO
> > there are much better race boats in the world than what theey use.
> > The key is that they use them, have contests and promote it as a
> > class boat.
> >
> > The PW5 only needs for the sanctioning body of soaring to adopt it
> > and have a world championship at the venue that the other classes
> > are held. There are people who would fly for a world title in the class
> > if it was flown and promoted that way.
> >
> > Scott.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[goneill]

The one factor that makes a huge difference is the local conditions ,areas
that have
the thermals closer together, more landable terrain under the course area
then
the PW5 is viable and doing what it was designed for. eg: upper North Island
of
New Zealand The last World Class Championships in Poland had similar
conditions
and was quite successful.
I used to fly a K6E xcountry and did regular flights in the 250-350km range
and
that is roughly the performance of the PW5 but say desert or arid land
conditions
then speeds get to high then the reputation suffers because the flight
/performance
envelope does not match the local conditions.
Another interesting point to notice is that the strongest opposing opinions
seem to
originate in areas with stronger conditions where the PW5 does not go well.
gary

"Steve Sovis" > wrote in message
news:srHzb.424799$Fm2.428081@attbi_s04...
> You are right on, performance is critical to glider competition. 40:1 is
> the magic threshold (with a decent high speed polar for penetration, see
> below for definition) for really going cross country, at least in the
> Eastern US.
>
> Ah, the endless World Class thread. Heck, its 22 degrees outsde, here's
the
> " whole story". Might help someone brand new to soaring.
>
> As an avid one design sailor coming to soaring 10 years ago, I was an
active
> supporter of the PW-5 movement to the point that I bought a half share in
> one. I did this against the advise of very experienced competition pilots
> and ultimately found that they were right. I also had a 1/2 share in a
Grob
> 102 (15 meter Standard Class, about 36:1). The PW was a delightful
handling
> ship with limited penetration ability (the ability to fly fast without
> falling out of the sky, handy for going upwind which is essential for out
> and return cross country) due to its high flat plate area (that upright
> cockpit has a price) and a low L/D (32:1) due to its short wing span (13.6
> meters). For me it was easier and safer to take the Grob cross country
> since it penetrated better.
>
> After a few years I bit the bullet, sold the 1/2 shares and bought my own
> ASW-20 (15 meter class 42:1 machine with excellent penetration for its
> span). After my first flight I got out saying that "this is a different
> sport now". What seemed like unachievable flights before became almost
> routine. The learning curve accellerated. After attending a few
> competitions where it was difficult to get in three days in the 20, I
> couldn't imagine trying to get in a decent competition in the PW.
> Performance not only matters, but it is critical to get to the 40:1
> threshold. Strangely, this fact is generally accepted, but somehow it was
> set aside by the World Class Committee in the interest of lower cost.
Also,
> twice the performance of a 1-26 probably seemed pretty attractive to many
> even though it didn't meet the 40:1 threshold.
>
> I am now in the camp of those competition veterans I once ignored. One
> Design cross county out and back racing makes some sense, but only in a
> glider of at least LS-4 performance. I was always bugged by those that
said
> they would rather buy a used LS-4 rather than a PW since the supply of
used
> gliders is by definition finite. IMHO, if we want a One Design, let's
make
> it something like the LS-4 and put enough promotion and infrastructure
> behind it to be able to realize some economies of volume. Better yet
let's
> make it the 20, that way I could keep what I got forever, something I'll
> probably do anyway :-).
>
> Hope this story helps someone out there.
>
> Best Regards,
> Steve Sovis
> ASW-20CL "US"
>
>
>
> "Papa3" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Scott,
> >
> > One problem with this idea is that the difference in "performance" in
> > sailing has a different impact than in gliding. I used to race
Lightnings
> > as well as Sunfish. Two very different boats, one MUCH higher
> > "performance." However, as long as the wind was blowing even a little
> bit,
> > you could have a good, fair race regardless of the craft. So, we were
> able
> > to race almost every time we went to the marina. And, we could even
run
> > the same courses, just a little slower.
> >
> > Now think about soaring. Especially outside of those few areas that
have
> > ideal conditions most of the time, the difference between 30:1 and a
> sharply
> > descending polar vs. 40:1 and a relatively flat polar is the difference
> > between going somewhere and flying locally. Already in the US, we've
had
> a
> > number of "World Class" competitions in conjunction with the other FAI
> > classes. Almost without fail, the World Class folks have struggled to
get
> > in a day (even a drastically shortened course) while the FAI guys were
off
> > doing 300K. In some cases, these World Class ships were flown by good
> > competition pilots.
> >
> > My conclusion is that performance matters more in soaring than in
sailing.
> > Given that, the next question that pops up is purely one of economics.
If
> I
> > can have much better performance for a similar price, making the ship
> usable
> > not only for races but badges and fun flying as well, then . . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Scott Correa" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > All a one design class needs to be successful is a sanctioning
> > > body making it THE choice for contests. Look at the olympics.
> > > Solings for gods sake, tornado's and other low performance
> > > boats. Very strict rules on planform and construction. IMHO
> > > there are much better race boats in the world than what theey use.
> > > The key is that they use them, have contests and promote it as a
> > > class boat.
> > >
> > > The PW5 only needs for the sanctioning body of soaring to adopt it
> > > and have a world championship at the venue that the other classes
> > > are held. There are people who would fly for a world title in the
class
> > > if it was flown and promoted that way.
> > >
> > > Scott.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Jack]

on 2003/12/04 11:42 "goneill" as > in
posted the following:
> The one factor that makes a huge difference is the local conditions, areas
> that have the thermals closer together, more landable terrain under the
> course area then the PW5 is viable and doing what it was designed for.
[....]
> ...the strongest opposing opinions seem to originate in areas with stronger
> conditions where the PW5 does not go well.

> "Steve Sovis" > wrote:
>> You are right on, performance is critical to glider competition. 40:1 is
>> the magic threshold....

Steve is from Massachusetts, Gary -- not an area noted for its wave, nor for
booming all-day thermals.

The terrain has some good and some bad areas -- in general not as good as
northwestern Ohio, perhaps, but not as bad as West Virginia.


--
Jack

[Matthew Mazerowski]

However, before I get too misty-eyed, why the hell
> didn't you guys sort out gliding when it was salvageable? If you chaps had
> acted in the 70's and 80's instead of swanning around in your Kestrels, we
> might have had a vibrant and challenging sport, rather than a refuge for the
> wealthy but largely talentless individuals cluttering the thermals today.


Telling tales about being a pilot now. Go ahead fraser. Tell them how
you are a doctor. Tell them about your children. Tell them how your a
brave soldier in an elite unit in the Rhodesian army. Tell them about
how you are a master troller. Time to start adding RRRR to the threads
like ZZZZ's. Here is another one.

[Stewart Kissel]

After sifting through the thread and some email discussions
with others, I thought I might direct this thread back
to where
it started from. With the number of racing classes
available, and
particularly the sports class-maybe one design is the
problem
as much as the PW5. I get a lot of LS4 promoters,
but a new
LS-4 built in Eastern Europe(with instruments, trailer,
software,
parachute) is still going to cost considerably more
then the used
ASW-20, Ventus, LS6 that are in the low $30k range
these days.

It would be difficult for me to trade in my Ventus
plus at least $20k in order to play the one design
game. Now I am not a
racer type, but I suspect the one design concept was
geared to
entry level racers, which I qualify as. So perhaps
one design is
an idea which was not to be in our current environment.

[Christian Husvik]

Stewart Kissel wrote:
> I get a lot of LS4 promoters, but a new LS-4 built
> in Eastern Europe(with instruments, trailer, software,
> parachute) is still going to cost considerably more
> then the used ASW-20, Ventus, LS6 that are in the low
> $30k range these days.

Or a used LS-4, which would be in the high $20k range, I guess. The
point a lot seem to miss, is that the LS-4 one design class already
exists, there are more than 1000 of them around. It's just that noone
has held any contests for them yet ;-)

Christian 8-)

>
> It would be difficult for me to trade in my Ventus
> plus at least $20k in order to play the one design
> game. Now I am not a
> racer type, but I suspect the one design concept was
> geared to
> entry level racers, which I qualify as. So perhaps
> one design is
> an idea which was not to be in our current environment.
>
>
>

[Janusz Kesik]

U¿ytkownik Christian Husvik > w wiadomooci do grup
dyskusyjnych ...
> Stewart Kissel wrote:

> Or a used LS-4, which would be in the high $20k range, I guess. The
> point a lot seem to miss, is that the LS-4 one design class already
> exists, there are more than 1000 of them around. It's just that noone
> has held any contests for them yet ;-)

Wouldn't any of Standard Jantars do better? There are similar amounts of
both gliders (ca. 1000 both), but Jantars are considerably more
affordable, stronger
built, and also over 40:1. This could save a lot of money, and their
production can be resumed in any time, as the molds and all the parts are
already at Bielsko, as well as all the people who used to produce these
gliders.

JK

[Bob Whelan]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Janusz Kesik" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 4:33 AM
Subject: Re: One Design viability?

> > Or a used LS-4, which would be in the high $20k range, I guess. The
> > point a lot seem to miss, is that the LS-4 one design class already
> > exists, there are more than 1000 of them around. It's just that noone
> > has held any contests for them yet ;-)
>
> Wouldn't any of Standard Jantars do better? There are similar amounts of
> both gliders (ca. 1000 both), but Jantars are considerably more
> affordable, stronger
> built, and also over 40:1. This could save a lot of money, and their
> production can be resumed in any time, as the molds and all the parts are
> already at Bielsko, as well as all the people who used to produce these
> gliders.
>
> JK

Janusz,

Thanks for today's chuckle (whether intentional or unintentional!). Humor
too rarely enters these sort of 'religious discussions'.

For the record, I have no horse in this race, preferring to enjoy soaring
for its (and my own) naturally inherent reasons; I see no reason to feel
strongly about one-design racing, since the person I compete against is
myself.

That noted, I've enjoyed the way you've stuck to your (thoughtful and
well-reasoned) guns in this particular discussion. Having been flying
'non-German glass' - worse, *American* glass (gasp) - for 20+ years, I still
get a chuckle from the attitude (not uncommon in the U.S.), "If it's not
German glass, it's [crap, unsafe, beneath discussion, etc.]." I imagine
owners of some other high-time [American, Finnish, French, Polish, Czech,
Latvian, etc.] gliders might also harbor their own less adamant views...

Thanks again!
Bob - pot-stirring - Whelan


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date: 11/10/2003

[Stewart Kissel]

So if there are 1000+ LS4's and 1000+ Jantars, why
not figure
out the handicap and let them race together? What
a minute,
that already exists as sports class. And since one
design means
tweaking, refinishing, reprofiling, etc, etc,....what
is the likelihood of a completely level playing field
anyway? Well the
winter solstice is just around the corner, so another
thread can
deal with the PW5.





At 18:00 06 December 2003, Bob Whelan wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: 'Janusz Kesik'
>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
>Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 4:33 AM
>Subject: Re: One Design viability?
>
>> > Or a used LS-4, which would be in the high $20k range,
>>>I guess. The
>> > point a lot seem to miss, is that the LS-4 one design
>>>class already
>> > exists, there are more than 1000 of them around.
>>> It's just that noone
>> > has held any contests for them yet ;-)
>>
>> Wouldn't any of Standard Jantars do better? There
>>are similar amounts of
>> both gliders (ca. 1000 both), but Jantars are considerably
>>more
>> affordable, stronger
>> built, and also over 40:1. This could save a lot of
>>money, and their
>> production can be resumed in any time, as the molds
>>and all the parts are
>> already at Bielsko, as well as all the people who
>>used to produce these
>> gliders.
>>
>> JK
>
>Janusz,
>
>Thanks for today's chuckle (whether intentional or
>unintentional!). Humor
>too rarely enters these sort of 'religious discussions'.
>
>For the record, I have no horse in this race, preferring
>to enjoy soaring
>for its (and my own) naturally inherent reasons; I
>see no reason to feel
>strongly about one-design racing, since the person
>I compete against is
>myself.
>
>That noted, I've enjoyed the way you've stuck to your
>(thoughtful and
>well-reasoned) guns in this particular discussion.
> Having been flying
>'non-German glass' - worse, *American* glass (gasp)
>- for 20+ years, I still
>get a chuckle from the attitude (not uncommon in the
>U.S.), 'If it's not
>German glass, it's [crap, unsafe, beneath discussion,
>etc.].' I imagine
>owners of some other high-time [American, Finnish,
>French, Polish, Czech,
>Latvian, etc.] gliders might also harbor their own
>less adamant views...
>
>Thanks again!
>Bob - pot-stirring - Whelan
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.538 / Virus Database: 333 - Release Date:
>11/10/2003
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

>So if there are 1000+ LS4's and 1000+ Jantars, why
>not figure
>out the handicap and let them race together? What
>a minute,
>that already exists as sports class. And since one
>design means
>tweaking, refinishing, reprofiling, etc, etc,....what
>is the likelihood of a completely level playing field
>anyway? Well the
>winter solstice is just around the corner, so another
>thread can
>deal with the PW5.
>
>

From doing a bit more research, it seems the IGC
World Class goal was really just lowest cost. It
wasn't really aimed at seasoned racing pilots.

So I suppose it succeeded in its goal. Hmmm...
maybe the Russia will be the next World Class glider...
Boy wouldn't it be nice if it was at least
an AC-4c (retractable) though? :-P

[Arnold Pieper]

Jeez,

This things comes full circle about once every 2 weeks it seems...

The only one-design class I know of is the "World Class" (the PW-5), there
are no others.

The LS-4 and the Jantars are "Standard Class" gliders, which were
competitive in this class during the 70s.
Today, you can fly all of them in the sports class (since this class uses
handicap), where you can in fact mix both old and new together.

The PW-5 was designed to be the Olympic class glider, and therefore be
easily manufactured by anybody (in the same way the Olympic sail boats such
as the Star, Laser, 49er, etec which are manufacture in many countries at
various costs).
For those who want to compete in the olympic games, this is the way.
For those with big budgets and ocean crossing aspirations, there are many
other "Professional" classes, all the way up to the Maxis, Volvo Ocean
Racers, or the Americas Cup (for those who like spending millions in local
"drag racing").

Likewise in Soaring, PW-5 are for the World Air Games.

If you like more performance, buy one of the other classes and have fun.
Stop bitching about it.




"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> After sifting through the thread and some email discussions
> with others, I thought I might direct this thread back
> to where
> it started from. With the number of racing classes
> available, and
> particularly the sports class-maybe one design is the
> problem
> as much as the PW5. I get a lot of LS4 promoters,
> but a new
> LS-4 built in Eastern Europe(with instruments, trailer,
> software,
> parachute) is still going to cost considerably more
> then the used
> ASW-20, Ventus, LS6 that are in the low $30k range
> these days.
>
> It would be difficult for me to trade in my Ventus
> plus at least $20k in order to play the one design
> game. Now I am not a
> racer type, but I suspect the one design concept was
> geared to
> entry level racers, which I qualify as. So perhaps
> one design is
> an idea which was not to be in our current environment.
>
>
>

[Stewart Kissel]

At 01:36 10 December 2003, Arnold Pieper wrote:
>Jeez,
>
>This things comes full circle about once every 2 weeks
>it seems...
>
>The only one-design class I know of is the 'World Class'
>(the PW-5), there
>are no others.

Gee, where I come from the most active one design is
1-26ers.
>
>The LS-4 and the Jantars are 'Standard Class' gliders,
>which were
>competitive in this class during the 70s.
>Today, you can fly all of them in the sports class
>(since this class uses
>handicap), where you can in fact mix both old and new
>together.
>
>The PW-5 was designed to be the Olympic class glider,
>and therefore be
>easily manufactured by anybody (in the same way the
>Olympic sail boats such
>as the Star, Laser, 49er, etec which are manufacture
>in many countries at
>various costs).
>For those who want to compete in the olympic games,
>this is the way.

I was not aware that soaring was in the Olympics.

>For those with big budgets and ocean crossing aspirations,
>there are many
>other 'Professional' classes, all the way up to the
>Maxis, Volvo Ocean
>Racers, or the Americas Cup (for those who like spending
>millions in local
>'drag racing').
>
>Likewise in Soaring, PW-5 are for the World Air Games.

So traveling to the World games is considered low budget?
>
>If you like more performance, buy one of the other
>classes and have fun.
>Stop bitching about it.


>
>
>
>
>'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
>message ...
>> After sifting through the thread and some email discussions
>> with others, I thought I might direct this thread
>>back
>> to where
>> it started from. With the number of racing classes
>> available, and
>> particularly the sports class-maybe one design is
>>the
>> problem
>> as much as the PW5. I get a lot of LS4 promoters,
>> but a new
>> LS-4 built in Eastern Europe(with instruments, trailer,
>> software,
>> parachute) is still going to cost considerably more
>> then the used
>> ASW-20, Ventus, LS6 that are in the low $30k range
>> these days.
>>
>> It would be difficult for me to trade in my Ventus
>> plus at least $20k in order to play the one design
>> game. Now I am not a
>> racer type, but I suspect the one design concept was
>> geared to
>> entry level racers, which I qualify as. So perhaps
>> one design is
>> an idea which was not to be in our current environment.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Arnold Pieper]

> Gee, where I come from the most active one design is
> 1-26ers.
Only available in the US, design is proprietary.

(..........)
> I was not aware that soaring was in the Olympics.

It was going to be, but it was aborted in the early 90s.
Hence the World Air Games.

(................)
> So traveling to the World games is considered low budget?

The same way as traveling to compete in the Olympics with Lasers, Stars,
49rs etc.