Best Glider for Altitude Record Attempt?

[Jerome Conners]

What glider will provide the best characteristics for
mountain wave ascents to record heights?

What are those characteristics...air foil design, lofting
characteristics, L/D ratio, oxygen system, etc.

What publications provide the design information for
mountain wave ascents?

Jer
Jerome Conners, PE
Comstock Aeronautics and Engineering
PO Box 509
Virginia City, NV 89440
775-834-8363 (work)
775-834-8364 (FAX)
775-847-0214 (home)

[John Shelton]

Grob 102

"Jerome Conners" > wrote in message
...
> What glider will provide the best characteristics for
> mountain wave ascents to record heights?
>
> What are those characteristics...air foil design, lofting
> characteristics, L/D ratio, oxygen system, etc.
>
> What publications provide the design information for
> mountain wave ascents?
>
> Jer
> Jerome Conners, PE
> Comstock Aeronautics and Engineering
> PO Box 509
> Virginia City, NV 89440
> 775-834-8363 (work)
> 775-834-8364 (FAX)
> 775-847-0214 (home)
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

John Shelton wrote:
> Grob 102
>
> "Jerome Conners" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>What glider will provide the best characteristics for
>>mountain wave ascents to record heights?

The Perlan project is using a DG 505M

http://www.firnspiegel.com/perlan/

They are also designing a special glider for the project. Their site is
a place to start.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Waduino]

Foster is using a modified DG505, I believe.
Wad.
---

"Jerome Conners" > wrote in message
...
> What glider will provide the best characteristics for
> mountain wave ascents to record heights?
>
> What are those characteristics...air foil design, lofting
> characteristics, L/D ratio, oxygen system, etc.
>
> What publications provide the design information for
> mountain wave ascents?
>
> Jer
> Jerome Conners, PE
> Comstock Aeronautics and Engineering
> PO Box 509
> Virginia City, NV 89440
> 775-834-8363 (work)
> 775-834-8364 (FAX)
> 775-847-0214 (home)
>
>

[Sam Fly]

2-32, all metal strong as hell, no gelcoat to crack.

Sam Fly

Jerome Conners wrote:
> What glider will provide the best characteristics for
> mountain wave ascents to record heights?
>
> What are those characteristics...air foil design, lofting
> characteristics, L/D ratio, oxygen system, etc.
>
> What publications provide the design information for
> mountain wave ascents?
>
> Jer
> Jerome Conners, PE
> Comstock Aeronautics and Engineering
> PO Box 509
> Virginia City, NV 89440
> 775-834-8363 (work)
> 775-834-8364 (FAX)
> 775-847-0214 (home)
>
>

[Ian Cant]

2-33. Same advantages as 2-32 plus a whole lot cheaper
if your only way down again is by parachute.

More seriously, is the glider critical or is it a question
of meteorology, breathing equipment and crew endurance
?

Ian



At 23:48 13 December 2003, Sam Fly wrote:
>2-32, all metal strong as hell, no gelcoat to crack.
>
>Sam Fly
>
>Jerome Conners wrote:
>> What glider will provide the best characteristics
>>for
>> mountain wave ascents to record heights?
>>
>> What are those characteristics...air foil design,
>>lofting
>> characteristics, L/D ratio, oxygen system, etc.
>>
>> What publications provide the design information for
>> mountain wave ascents?
>>
>> Jer
>> Jerome Conners, PE
>> Comstock Aeronautics and Engineering
>> PO Box 509
>> Virginia City, NV 89440
>> 775-834-8363 (work)
>> 775-834-8364 (FAX)
>> 775-847-0214 (home)
>>
>>
>
>

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

Read "Exploring the Monster" by Robert F. Whelan, Wind Canyon Books, Inc.,
ISBN 1-891118-32-3.

On 19th March 1952 Larry Edgar and Harold Klieforth set the world absolute
altitude record to 44,255ft. in a Pratt-Read two-seat glider. This had a
best glide ratio of about 24 at 60 mph, and a min. sink of about 3.45ft/sec.
at 51 mph (figures from the book), it also had poor penetration. They were
flying from Bishop, California.

They had state-of-the-art oxygen equipment and clothing, supplied by the
military because they were taking part in government funded research. In
those days military equipment was designed for unheated and unpressurised
cockpits.

They deliberately left 700 fpm lift when the altimeter read 44,000 ft
because they considered that they had reached the limit of their equipment.

I believe this two-seater record still stands, it was beaten by a single
seater in 1961.

I understand that the Perlan project is using a DG505M, with the engine
removed so that the space and weight allowance for the engine can be used
for high altitude equipment.

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

>
> "Jerome Conners" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> What glider will provide the best characteristics for
> mountain wave ascents to record heights?
>
> What are those characteristics...air foil design, lofting
> characteristics, L/D ratio, oxygen system, etc.
>
> What publications provide the design information for
> mountain wave ascents?
>
> Jer
> Jerome Conners, PE
> Comstock Aeronautics and Engineering
> PO Box 509
> Virginia City, NV 89440
> 775-834-8363 (work)
> 775-834-8364 (FAX)
> 775-847-0214 (home)
>

[Mark James Boyd]

Jerome Conners > wrote:
>What glider will provide the best characteristics for
>mountain wave ascents to record heights?
>
>What are those characteristics...air foil design, lofting
>characteristics, L/D ratio, oxygen system, etc.
>
>Jerome Conners, PE

I really think that a nice high Vne would be great,
since during a record attempt one would want wicked
winds aloft (120+ knots on the nose) and it would be
terrifying to choose between exceeding Vne/flutter
speed or drift downwind uncontrollably.

Sounds like a Jantar might be a real solid choice :)
Apparently without water ballast which might freeze...
Maybe an LS-4? I'm considering these factors myself...

[B Lacovara]

I believe the absolute record is 49,011 ft. set in 1986 by Bob Harris, flying a
Grob 102 out of California City.

Bob

[Doug Taylor]

SparrowHawk: All CARBON, strong as hell, no gelcoat to crack, and if
you can get above your release altitude, in most states you have set a
new ultralight climb record.

[Liam Finley]

PW-5.

You could set "World Class" altitude records without even using oxygen.

Jerome Conners > wrote in message >...
> What glider will provide the best characteristics for
> mountain wave ascents to record heights?
>
> What are those characteristics...air foil design, lofting
> characteristics, L/D ratio, oxygen system, etc.
>
> What publications provide the design information for
> mountain wave ascents?
>
> Jer
> Jerome Conners, PE
> Comstock Aeronautics and Engineering
> PO Box 509
> Virginia City, NV 89440
> 775-834-8363 (work)
> 775-834-8364 (FAX)
> 775-847-0214 (home)

[tango4]

If you are talking world records then anything you look at will need to be
either pressurised or big enough to allow you to fly in a spacesuit. You
will need the manufacturers assistance to develop a variant with a higher
VNE and probably control surfaces ballasted beyond the 100% range to get
their flutter speeds as high as possible.

If you want to go high for a national record most glass ships will get you
to the 40k mark given the right conditions.

Get ready to dig deep into your wallet, short of incredible luck setting
soaring records is IMHO purely a money thing. Any plonker with a big enough
wallet can do it.

Ian

[Phil Jeffery]

Why bother?

"Liam Finley" > wrote in message
om...
> PW-5.
>
> You could set "World Class" altitude records without even using oxygen.
>
> Jerome Conners > wrote in message
>...
> > What glider will provide the best characteristics for
> > mountain wave ascents to record heights?
> >
> > What are those characteristics...air foil design, lofting
> > characteristics, L/D ratio, oxygen system, etc.
> >
> > What publications provide the design information for
> > mountain wave ascents?
> >
> > Jer
> > Jerome Conners, PE
> > Comstock Aeronautics and Engineering
> > PO Box 509
> > Virginia City, NV 89440
> > 775-834-8363 (work)
> > 775-834-8364 (FAX)
> > 775-847-0214 (home)

[RWEpp]

I don't agree that it's "purely a money thing", but it certainly helps. Not
only with respect to altitude records, but also many distance and speed
records.I suppose that if you have enough money and interest you can hire a
real pilot to fly your two place ship for you and go down in the record books.
Perhaps it's my old age showing, but I think of the pioneering flights of
Scott, Streidick, ect. as legendary (See also Taming the Monster). These were
primarily individuals pushing the limits. Many contemporary records and record
attempts sound more like goverment projects. I wonder if they will be viewed
with the same awe.

[Mark James Boyd]

RWEpp > wrote:
> I don't agree that it's "purely a money thing", but it certainly helps. Not
>only with respect to altitude records, but also many distance and speed
>records.I suppose that if you have enough money and interest you can hire a
>real pilot to fly your two place ship for you and go down in the record books.
> Perhaps it's my old age showing, but I think of the pioneering flights of
>Scott, Streidick, ect. as legendary (See also Taming the Monster). These were
>primarily individuals pushing the limits. Many contemporary records and record
>attempts sound more like goverment projects. I wonder if they will be viewed
>with the same awe.

Well, I believe the National and World records for altitude
both require a "level 1" calibration facility for your
logger, and don't allow the use of trusty old barographs.
Something about a calibration within ten days after the
flight also...

I called the only level 1 listed on the www.ssa.org/Calibration.asp
website "Airtech Instrument Co." and thought I was talking to
aliens. They had no idea what I was asking, and
said they didn't do that, and wondered why anyone would want
to calibrate a Volkswagon.

So I sent it to trusy old Carl Herold, a level 2
calibration facility. No hassle, cheap, quick turnaround,
and got some state records instead.

I think some of the reason there are so many open records
(the NV motorglider records are all open), is the "hassle factor."

Instead of strong fingers to wind the $200 baro, some tape,
a pen and a bit of baro paper, one needs a thousand dollar device,
a continuous power source, a computer, and an O/O who is
sophisticated with computers. A much rarer find indeed.

There are times when perfection hinders efficiency...

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> I think some of the reason there are so many open records
> (the NV motorglider records are all open),

Uh, actually, they are some of the highest in the nation, as some of the
are also National records. Try this URL:

http://www.geocities.com/nvsoar/nv.html
Nevada State Soaring Records

and you will see that only two of the unrestricted records are open
(most of the Feminine records are open).

> is the "hassle factor."

But this remark is correct on a State level. It is easier now with
flight recorders, and for speed records, it's _much_ easier, but many
people don't realize this.

> Instead of strong fingers to wind the $200 baro, some tape,
> a pen and a bit of baro paper, one needs a thousand dollar device,
> a continuous power source, a computer, and an O/O who is
> sophisticated with computers. A much rarer find indeed.

You can still use the "$200 baro, some tape, a pen and a bit of baro
paper" if you wish, but now there are other options. If you don't want
to buy a flight recorder, try borrowing one (like we used to borrow
barographs) or buy one as a partnership. The power to run them is
minimal, computers are everywhere, and the OO doesn't need to be
computer "sophisticated". Running one of the programs (there are several
available) to check the flight is easy. We have more people in our club
that can run SeeYou than can qualify as OOs - computer "expertise" is
widespread these days.

I flew for five different records this year, including 3 speed records,
using a flight recorder, and the "hassle" is minimal and comes after
the flight, in the evening, with a beer in one hand. I would never have
tried the speed records without a flight recorder, because the visual
gate required is a big hassle. For non-speed records, the flight
recorder is still easier, but not by as much.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Ian Strachan]

In article <3fdcc446$1@darkstar>, Mark James Boyd >
writes

snip

>Well, I believe the National and World records for altitude
>both require a "level 1" calibration facility for your
>logger, and don't allow the use of trusty old barographs.
>Something about a calibration within ten days after the
>flight also...

Its mostly in the Sporting Code and is not quite what you say above.

There are no "levels" of IGC calibration facility, this must be an SSA
thing.

World records do indeed require a flight recorder that is IGC-approved
for world record flights. A straight drum baro is not enough, as you
say.

Pressure altitude calibrations must be done within 2 years before the
flight and also a check calibration up to one month after. This general
rule has been in for records for many years, the only difference being
that for non-IGC-approved recorders the period is one year, not two.
For badges the calibrations are "either/or" and not "both" as for
records. Earlier this year I proposed that for IGC-approved flight
recorders the post-flight period should be extended to the same ratio as
the pre-flight (ie to two months) but I cannot get through to the FAI
web site at the moment to see whether that got into the Code for the
edition valid from 1 Oct 2003.

--
Ian Strachan

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

[Mark James Boyd]

Ian Strachan > wrote:
>
>>Well, I believe the National and World records for altitude
>>both require a "level 1" calibration facility for your
>>logger, and don't allow the use of trusty old barographs.
>
>There are no "levels" of IGC calibration facility, this must be an SSA
>thing.

Perhaps they are just paraphrasing. I don't know the
validity of the information on the website. If in fact
Carl Herold's calibration of my Volkslogger is valid for
World Record altitude attempts, I would be interested, since this
directly contradicts www.ssa.org/Calibration.asp

>
>World records do indeed require a flight recorder that is IGC-approved
>for world record flights. A straight drum baro is not enough, as you
>say.
>

When did this change, and why? Drum baros are stone cold simple.
Flight recorders are not. I'm baffled why such a robust and
cheap system would be discarded.

>Pressure altitude calibrations must be done within 2 years before the
>flight and also a check calibration up to one month after. This general
>rule has been in for records for many years, the only difference being
>that for non-IGC-approved recorders the period is one year, not two.
>For badges the calibrations are "either/or" and not "both" as for
>records. Earlier this year I proposed that for IGC-approved flight
>recorders the post-flight period should be extended to the same ratio as
>the pre-flight (ie to two months) but I cannot get through to the FAI
>web site at the moment to see whether that got into the Code for the
>edition valid from 1 Oct 2003.
>

Ian, good for you trying to get the IGC to make the technicalities and
timelines less daunting. If it comes up, encourage those same
folks to continue to allow drum baros and to simplify the
technicalities of badge and record soaring whenever possible.
I for one was certainly daunted by the volume of technical
requirements, and ultimately choose to forego two world record
attempts because of these barriers (can't use drum baro,
calibration facilities rare, lack of O/O confident with
computer use, etc.).

>--
>Ian Strachan
>
Bentworth Hall West
>Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
>Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND
>
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

>To advance the world altitude record above its current level, or even
>to get where it is now, will take a ton of money _and_ incredible good
>luck.
>

I agree that the general record would take a great effort to
beat, but there are TONS of other records that are very ripe for
setting (still open) or breaking. And I think that these are
very fun to do as well. Perhaps most of all, these give
newer and more novice pilots something to strive for
and compare their flights to.

I for one applaud the efforts of the record keepers, and
use my little, framed, state soaring record certificate
to lure unsuspecting pilots into soaring :)

Now if I could only get that darned PASCO egg...

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "tango4" > wrote:

> Get ready to dig deep into your wallet, short of incredible luck setting
> soaring records is IMHO purely a money thing. Any plonker with a big enough
> wallet can do it.

I disagree on this simple basis:

To advance the world altitude record above its current level, or even
to get where it is now, will take a ton of money _and_ incredible good
luck.

The wave conditions that lofted Harris '86 and Bickle '61 were not
everyday or even every year kinds of conditions. From talking to
various folks, it seems that both days were some of the best wave
conditions for several years before and since.

As I've posted earlier, I've done a design survey of what it would
take to beat Fossett to the 100k mark (or as near as he's going to
get). Near as I can tell, the aircraft and systems and development
would cost on the order of $1.5 meg (Y2001 dollars), and the whole
program of schlepping it around the world for the three or six years
that it would probably take to hook the big one would cost many
millions more. Sure, your typical International Person of Adventure
has got the pocket change for that. But do they have the patience to
stick with it, and the luck to be at the right place at the right
time, with all their infrastructure ducks in a row?

I think that a relatively ordinary glider will get you to the
Bickle/Harris kinds of heights. But as others have pointed out, to get
much higher you're going to need pressurization and/or (preferably
_and_) space suits. And if you're going to go that far, you might as
well go whole hog.

Thanks again, and best regards to all

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

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>Uh, actually, they are some of the highest in the nation, as some of the
>are also National records. Try this URL:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/nvsoar/nv.html
>Nevada State Soaring Records
>
>and you will see that only two of the unrestricted records are open
>(most of the Feminine records are open).
>

This is my mistake. I sometimes browse too quickly through
files, on the internet, or get information which is
outdated. Eric is correct.

In that same vein, the NV state record seems to indicate
a record for multi-place motorglider altitude (C. Herold), but the US
www.ssa.org/records/natmotor2.pdf
records seem to leave that category open...why is that?
Perhaps these files are not accurate, the pilot
found it too much "hassle" to calibrate the equipment
after the flight, or the pilot simply opted to
not apply...

> > is the "hassle factor."
>
>But this remark is correct on a State level. It is easier now with
>flight recorders, and for speed records, it's _much_ easier, but many
>people don't realize this.

For speed and distance records, I agree that flight recorders have been
an absolute godsend.

>
>> Instead of strong fingers to wind the $200 baro, some tape,
>> a pen and a bit of baro paper, one needs a thousand dollar device,
>> a continuous power source, a computer, and an O/O who is
>> sophisticated with computers. A much rarer find indeed.
>
>You can still use the "$200 baro, some tape, a pen and a bit of baro
>paper" if you wish, but now there are other options. If you don't want
>to buy a flight recorder, try borrowing one (like we used to borrow
>barographs) or buy one as a partnership. The power to run them is
>minimal, computers are everywhere, and the OO doesn't need to be
>computer "sophisticated". Running one of the programs (there are several
>available) to check the flight is easy. We have more people in our club
>that can run SeeYou than can qualify as OOs - computer "expertise" is
>widespread these days.
>
>I flew for five different records this year, including 3 speed records,
> using a flight recorder, and the "hassle" is minimal and comes after
>the flight, in the evening, with a beer in one hand. I would never have
>tried the speed records without a flight recorder, because the visual
>gate required is a big hassle. For non-speed records, the flight
>recorder is still easier, but not by as much.

For me, the hassle came before the flight. It involved
getting a computer, purchasing a logger, getting
the logger calibrated, loading software,
downloading a manual, soldering several connectors,
designing a power source (portable drill
batteries worked best), configuring a hardware port,
arranging velcro attachment points so the
GPS antenna worked, and training the not terribly
computer savy O/O how to download the trace.

Compared to my 30 minute lesson on how to use a drum
baro and then sticking it in a box in the back,
this logger stuff was quite time consuming.

>--
>-----
>change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

[Larry Pardue]

>
> In that same vein, the NV state record seems to indicate
> a record for multi-place motorglider altitude (C. Herold), but the US
> www.ssa.org/records/natmotor2.pdf
> records seem to leave that category open...why is that?
> Perhaps these files are not accurate, the pilot
> found it too much "hassle" to calibrate the equipment
> after the flight, or the pilot simply opted to
> not apply...
>

I don't know about this case, but I do know people who have claimed a state
record but not the national record because of the significant expense
associated with applying for the national record.

Larry Pardue 2I

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> For me, the hassle came before the flight. It involved
> getting a computer, purchasing a logger, getting
> the logger calibrated, loading software,
> downloading a manual, soldering several connectors,
> designing a power source (portable drill
> batteries worked best), configuring a hardware port,
> arranging velcro attachment points so the
> GPS antenna worked, and training the not terribly
> computer savy O/O how to download the trace.

It sounds like you were setting up a club aircraft instead of your own.
That can vary from simple to complex. It can be a lot easier, if you buy
a new logger (Cambridge model 20), as I did:

-it came calibrated for two years, so that didn't have to be done
-cables came with it, so no soldering was needed
-the glider had a battery, so there was already power available
-my computers (and the ones at contests) recognized the flight recorder
immediately
-drilling one hole let me bolt it down
-and I didn't have to train the OO, because the OO is not required to do
the download, but merely observe it

> Compared to my 30 minute lesson on how to use a drum
> baro and then sticking it in a box in the back,
> this logger stuff was quite time consuming.

If all you need is the barograph function, a flight recorder is
overkill. If you need to round turnpoints, now you need a camera, a
written declaration (which you can also use with a flight recorder
instead of putting in turnpoints and declaring electronically, thus
requiring the computer for download only), and a lot more than the 30
minutes instruction to get it all right when you include mounting the
cameras and learning how to use them.

Then you need an OO that knows how to control the cameras, knows what
the turnpoints look like, knows how to interpret turnpoint photos, knows
how to get the altitudes off a paper chart, plus chasing down the
towpilot for release point, and of course, getting the film developed
without having the important frames severed from each other!

And, as you already realize, a speed task without a flight recorder
means setting up a visual gate, which is the biggest hassle of all.

Another "and": without a flight recorder, IGC approved or not, the pilot
misses out on some fun later on, when everyone else is replaying their
traces on SeeYou!
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Buck Wild]

Jerome Conners > wrote in message >...
> What glider will provide the best characteristics for
> mountain wave ascents to record heights?
>
> What are those characteristics...air foil design, lofting
> characteristics, L/D ratio, oxygen system, etc.
>
> What publications provide the design information for
> mountain wave ascents?
>
> Jer
> Jerome Conners, PE
> Comstock Aeronautics and Engineering
> PO Box 509
> Virginia City, NV 89440
> 775-834-8363 (work)
> 775-834-8364 (FAX)
> 775-847-0214 (home)

Head on down 395 to the Minden Airport, a few miles south of Carson
City.
There's a bunch of folks flying wave all winter & spring.
Been to 35K there myself.
Take a twin grob & you can put your redundant o2 systems & such in the
back seat. If you plan on exceeding the 49K record, you will need a
pressure suit, or your blood will boil. You will also need a specially
prepared aircraft, as described elsewhere, because at some point, VNE
meets VSO.

[Ruud Holswilder]

On 13 Dec 2003 22:17:25 GMT, Jerome Conners
> wrote:

>What glider will provide the best characteristics for
>mountain wave ascents to record heights?

This one:
http://home.quicknet.nl/mw/prive/hwl/new-JP.jpg