Maxim Magazine soaring article

[[email protected]]

The March issue of Maxim magazine has a multi page illustrated article on gliders. Haven't seen it yet, but it is apparently pretty well done. YMMV

[Tim Taylor]

http://www.maxim.com/rides/perlan-project-glider-2017-2

[BobW]

On 3/23/2017 7:56 PM, wrote:
> The March issue of Maxim magazine has a multi page illustrated article on
> gliders. Haven't seen it yet, but it is apparently pretty well done. YMMV
>
And Tim Taylor posted the link...

http://www.maxim.com/rides/perlan-project-glider-2017-2

Am I the only one dismayed to find 'political correctness' now apparently and
solidly a part of the reporting of soaring stories 'for/by the mainstream
press' too?!? Ever since Airbus money entered the picture (allowing completion
of the raw ship Greg Cole (Windward Performance) designed and created, it
seems all mention of Cole's contributions have disappeared from 'the Perlan II
story.'

I'm not bashing Airbus (OTOH I thank them for keeping the project alive!), nor
am I taking a stance on the alleged fallout (which is none of my business and
of which I am 100% ignorant), but at a fundamental level, this recasting of
the story is at best misleading, and at worst fundamentally dishonest in my view.

Thumbs down on the 'whomevers' behind it.

Respectfully,
Bob W.

[Kevin Brooker]

On the plus side, at least they didn't contaminate the pictures of the glider with scantily clad beautiful buxom women.

[Renny[_2_]]

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:24:25 AM UTC-6, BobW wrote:
> On 3/23/2017 7:56 PM, wrote:
> > The March issue of Maxim magazine has a multi page illustrated article on
> > gliders. Haven't seen it yet, but it is apparently pretty well done. YMMV
> >
> And Tim Taylor posted the link...
>
> http://www.maxim.com/rides/perlan-project-glider-2017-2
>
> Am I the only one dismayed to find 'political correctness' now apparently and
> solidly a part of the reporting of soaring stories 'for/by the mainstream
> press' too?!? Ever since Airbus money entered the picture (allowing completion
> of the raw ship Greg Cole (Windward Performance) designed and created, it
> seems all mention of Cole's contributions have disappeared from 'the Perlan II
> story.'
>
> I'm not bashing Airbus (OTOH I thank them for keeping the project alive!), nor
> am I taking a stance on the alleged fallout (which is none of my business and
> of which I am 100% ignorant), but at a fundamental level, this recasting of
> the story is at best misleading, and at worst fundamentally dishonest in my view.
>
> Thumbs down on the 'whomevers' behind it.
>
> Respectfully,
> Bob W.

Bob, my friend...not to worry! Most folks who read Maxim only look at the photos. The articles are rarely read.....So, as long as they like the photos of the Perlan glider....all is well!!

You see...Nothing to worry about! ;-)
Renny

[BobW]

On 3/29/2017 12:26 PM, firsys wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 10:24:25 AM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
>> On 3/23/2017 7:56 PM, wrote:
>>> The March issue of Maxim magazine has a multi page illustrated article
>>> on gliders. Haven't seen it yet, but it is apparently pretty well done.
>>> YMMV
>>>
>> And Tim Taylor posted the link...
>>
>> http://www.maxim.com/rides/perlan-project-glider-2017-2
>>
>> Am I the only one dismayed to find 'political correctness' now apparently
>> and solidly a part of the reporting of soaring stories 'for/by the
>> mainstream press' too?!? Ever since Airbus money entered the picture
>> (allowing completion of the raw ship Greg Cole (Windward Performance)
>> designed and created, it seems all mention of Cole's contributions have
>> disappeared from 'the Perlan II story.'
>>
>> I'm not bashing Airbus (OTOH I thank them for keeping the project
>> alive!), nor am I taking a stance on the alleged fallout (which is none
>> of my business and of which I am 100% ignorant), but at a fundamental
>> level, this recasting of the story is at best misleading, and at worst
>> fundamentally dishonest in my view.
>>
>> Thumbs down on the 'whomevers' behind it.
>>
>> Respectfully, Bob W.
>
> I have read the article and , even if there are sins of omission, it seems
> to me that this is a generally accurate article about Perlan and wave
> soaring; just what is the issue for Bob W?

Perhaps I erred via brevity?

I agree the article as-written is quite well done and am glad Maxim magazine
has seen fit to run it. Further, for various reasons listed at the end of this
sentence, I'm in no way trying to call out the author or Maxim magazine for
'sins of omission,' e.g.: I have no insight into the reasons underlying the
article's structure (e.g. space, author didn't think to ask, etc.); Maxim
magazine has every right to edit every article they run as they see fit; I've
no pretensions of being an Article King of any beyond those of my own authorship.

'[T]he issue for Bob W' is simply that this particular article happens to not
say one word about how Perlan II's sailplane came into existence...as has 100%
of every other 'post [alleged] monetary issue' article I've seen since Steve
Fosset's death, and 'the (year-plus?) assembly halt' of Perlan II pieces that
followed and ultimately was resolved through the influx of Airbus money. That
includes more than one subsequent mention in the USA's "Soaring" magazine.

I realize that as the Perlan II project moves forward, so too will the general
focus within media articles, and don't expect - at this stage of the Project -
every article to spotlight the (years ago, now) design and creation of the
ship. But the suddenness with which *any* mention of its origin has completely
vanished in every article I've seen that has been written following renewal of
ship-build/completion, seems as abrupt as darkness follows upon opening a
circuit's light switch. It was literally, a (100% sweeping, to date, in my
exposure) night-and-day sort of change in public presentation.

THAT's my issue. The sudden and utter ignoring of a fascinating (to me and I
suspect to many engineers who [unlike me] are not also 'glider nuts') aspect
of the Perlan II Project. So my initial post's question was not intended
rhetorically. It's as if somewhere related to the most recent infusion of cash
into the project, decisions were made to actively attempt to wipe part of the
Project's historical (and to be hoped, historic) slate clean. For example,
last time I checked, I could find on Windward Performance's website no mention
at all of its part in Perlan II's creation. Taken as a whole, the shift in
public presentation just seems 'beyond odd' to me.

Renny R: "Roger all you wrote!" I'm not worried, just perplexed...and more
than a touch skeptical of how the present state of 'article affairs' has come
to be! :)

Respectfully,
Bob W.

P.S. Here's my generic summary of the Perlan II Project relating to the
sailplane and how it's arrived at its present state, for readers perhaps not
so familiar with the story...

Perlan II was started and almost completed under Steve Fossett's financial
sponsorship. Fossett subsequently perished in a thoroughly-reported power
plane accident in the Sierras some years ago now, and after several 'Project
apparently quiescent' years, Airbus eventually agreed to assume ongoing
sponsorship of a Project, taking up this torch with a completed glider
*design*, completed design molds, partially completed glider, etc. I'm under
the impression (could be wrong) there was some level of 'interim financial
support' from another 'Fossett-like' individual who lacked the financial
wherewithal to bring the ship to a completed state...leading, ultimately, to
Airbus's participation. Understandably, that part of the story wasn't
generally made known to the public-at-large.

'Somewhere along the post-Fossett participation' that above-mentioned
'reporting switch' was thrown, and today, we seem to exist in a reporting
world 100% uncurious (at least in the reporting sense of things) about all
aspects of how the ship has come to be. It required an extremely talented
original designer (Greg Cole), etc., to get as far as it did before Fossett's
death. Today, ALL mention of Cole has dropped off every one of the 'post
Project renewal' story lines I've encountered. Seems a little unjust NOT to
credit Cole's design and development work even IF there were a harsh falling
out of the players.

For the record, I have zero financial interest in Windward Performance or
Airbus. I'm simply a 'curious/presently-dismayed glider nut.'

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

BobW wrote on 3/29/2017 6:52 PM:
> P.S. Here's my generic summary of the Perlan II Project relating to the sailplane
> and how it's arrived at its present state, for readers perhaps not so familiar
> with the story...
>
> Perlan II was started and almost completed under Steve Fossett's financial
> sponsorship.

The Perlan II was an incomplete design and just molds at the time of Fossett's
death. Not even a fuselage had been built.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[BobW]

On 3/29/2017 9:54 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> BobW wrote on 3/29/2017 6:52 PM:
>> P.S. Here's my generic summary of the Perlan II Project relating to the
>> sailplane and how it's arrived at its present state, for readers perhaps
>> not so familiar with the story...
>>
>> Perlan II was started and almost completed under Steve Fossett's
>> financial sponsorship.
>
> The Perlan II was an incomplete design and just molds at the time of
> Fossett's death. Not even a fuselage had been built.
>

Thanks for the correction. The folks behind Perlan II have traveled a long,
torturous path, and my generic summary was working entirely from memory.

Bob W.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 10:50:28 AM UTC-4, BobW wrote:
> On 3/29/2017 9:54 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > BobW wrote on 3/29/2017 6:52 PM:
> >> P.S. Here's my generic summary of the Perlan II Project relating to the
> >> sailplane and how it's arrived at its present state, for readers perhaps
> >> not so familiar with the story...
> >>
> >> Perlan II was started and almost completed under Steve Fossett's
> >> financial sponsorship.
> >
> > The Perlan II was an incomplete design and just molds at the time of
> > Fossett's death. Not even a fuselage had been built.
> >
>
> Thanks for the correction. The folks behind Perlan II have traveled a long,
> torturous path, and my generic summary was working entirely from memory.
>
> Bob W.

That 'interim financial support' from another 'Fossett-like' individual I believe was Dennis Tito.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> The Perlan II was ... just molds at the time of Fossett's death...

Ah, but they were the best molds a crap-ton of money could buy!

I tried to interest Einar in a soft-tooled approach that would have cost about 1/20 of the CNC-cut, resin-infused molds that Windward eventually made, but he went with Greg's approach instead. We're currently using that soft-tool tech to make racing airplane wings, and it's working fine.

--Bob K.

[ND]

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 7:50:40 PM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > The Perlan II was ... just molds at the time of Fossett's death...
>
> Ah, but they were the best molds a crap-ton of money could buy!
>
> I tried to interest Einar in a soft-tooled approach that would have cost about 1/20 of the CNC-cut, resin-infused molds that Windward eventually made, but he went with Greg's approach instead. We're currently using that soft-tool tech to make racing airplane wings, and it's working fine.
>
> --Bob K.

soft tooling would have been a really good approach, given that P2 is a one-off. why did they elect to go with much more expensive mold materials?

[[email protected]]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-4, ND wrote:
> On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 7:50:40 PM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > The Perlan II was ... just molds at the time of Fossett's death...
> >
> > Ah, but they were the best molds a crap-ton of money could buy!
> >
> > I tried to interest Einar in a soft-tooled approach that would have cost about 1/20 of the CNC-cut, resin-infused molds that Windward eventually made, but he went with Greg's approach instead. We're currently using that soft-tool tech to make racing airplane wings, and it's working fine.
> >
> > --Bob K.
>
> soft tooling would have been a really good approach, given that P2 is a one-off. why did they elect to go with much more expensive mold materials?

Possibly the materials and methods of construction may have made use of those tools unworkable. If they used autoclaved prepreg, the molds may have needed to be less economical.
UH

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 7:25:29 AM UTC-7, wrote:

> Possibly the materials and methods of construction may have made use
> of those tools unworkable. If they used autoclaved prepreg, the molds
> may have needed to be less economical.

I ran the numbers on that, along with a bunch of other stuff. Prepregs have a lot of advantages, especially in strength, but they offer only a relatively modest premium in stiffness per unit mass. Stiffness is a lot more critical than strength when it comes to glider type structures.

I think that the main issue was that my Indigo Skye proposal was for a glider about 15% larger and 25% heavier than Greg's, predicated on space suits as backup for a pressure cabin, and also predicated on a 12 hour nominal mission profile as opposed to Greg's 8 hours. I think that that more conservative approach to the aero design did not adequately compensate for my agile RP approach to the fabrication.

--Bob K.

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

wrote on 3/31/2017 7:25 AM:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-4, ND wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 7:50:40 PM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>>> The Perlan II was ... just molds at the time of Fossett's death...
>>>
>>> Ah, but they were the best molds a crap-ton of money could buy!
>>>
>>> I tried to interest Einar in a soft-tooled approach that would have cost about 1/20 of the CNC-cut, resin-infused molds that Windward eventually made, but he went with Greg's approach instead. We're currently using that soft-tool tech to make racing airplane wings, and it's working fine.
>>>
>>> --Bob K.
>>
>> soft tooling would have been a really good approach, given that P2 is a one-off. why did they elect to go with much more expensive mold materials?
>
> Possibly the materials and methods of construction may have made use of those tools unworkable. If they used autoclaved prepreg, the molds may have needed to be less economical.

Because the Perlan II is almost entirely autoclaved prepreg, the molds are also of
carbon fiber (and also pre-preg, as best I remember). The oven is huge because the
wing panels are so long.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-2014A.pdf

[Jonathon May[_2_]]

At 16:52 31 March 2017, Eric Greenwell wrote:
wrote on 3/31/2017 7:25 AM:
>> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-4, ND wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 7:50:40 PM UTC-4, Bob Kuykendall
wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 8:54:45 PM UTC-7, Eric Greenwell
wrote:
>>>>> The Perlan II was ... just molds at the time of Fossett's death...
>>>>
>>>> Ah, but they were the best molds a crap-ton of money could buy!
>>>>
>>>> I tried to interest Einar in a soft-tooled approach that would have
>cost about 1/20 of the CNC-cut, resin-infused molds that Windward
>eventually made, but he went with Greg's approach instead. We're
currently
>using that soft-tool tech to make racing airplane wings, and it's working
>fine.
>>>>
>>>> --Bob K.
>>>
>>> soft tooling would have been a really good approach, given that P2 is
a
>one-off. why did they elect to go with much more expensive mold
materials?
>>
>> Possibly the materials and methods of construction may have made use
of
>those tools unworkable. If they used autoclaved prepreg, the molds may
have
>needed to be less economical.
>
>Because the Perlan II is almost entirely autoclaved prepreg, the molds
are
>also of
>carbon fiber (and also pre-preg, as best I remember). The oven is huge
>because the
>wing panels are so long.
>
>
>--
>Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email
>me)
>- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
>
>https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications/download-the-
guide-1
>- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
>
>http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/Guide-to-transponders-in-sailplanes-
2014A.pdf
>

Sorry to blunder on to this thread with less knowledge than the other
contributors.
As I understood the problems when you approach "coffin corner " the stall
speed and vne meet,so the trick is to raise vne ,but flutter control is way

beyond me ,but it's not just a case of making the wing stronger.
Intresting isn't it.

[[email protected]]

This thread is getting pretty far from the original post. Not nearly a record for RAS, but still impressive drift.