Is everybody afraid of World Class?

[Jacek Kobiesa]

I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in Olympic Games, some
other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion that most people
who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class gliders. Why?
What is so difficult in understanding the concept of the glider, the
cost of building it, its performance, etc. Most of you bashing the
concept. Is this because your skill is so limited that you need to
have a bird with max. L/D 10,000 (that is minimum) and a best L/D
speed Mach 1? Anything which doesn't meet this cryteria needs to be
rejected? You are bringing to this equation sailing in Olympic Games
as a comparison? Some of you have never even seen, and most of you
have never flown this glider. So, what is wrong with this picture.
Maybe is time for some of you to take on golfing, for example. I am
realy offended by some of the postings on group. You are not beeing
constructive, you are distructive. To the sport primarly. Do you
suppose that by promoting Discus and Ventus and who know what else you
doing justice to this sport? What about those guys or girls who don't
have $250,000 to waist on a new bird every summer? Is this making them
less qualified or skilled pilots that those of you bashing everything
around and flying supersonic, unlimited L/D gliders? Before anyone of
you decide to bash something without having slightest idea or concept
about what is going on in the small world of gliding, you need to stop
and think about it. We all are saying that numbers of glider pilots
are declining world wide. Do you know why? That is because of buch of
arrogant glider pilots who are acting like the gods; they know
everything, they have been everywhere, they've done it all. Yet when
we go to the world contest results, we don't see those names of the
people who are making this derogatory statements. If you want to help
our sport, think first and then act accordingly. It is only good for
all of the glider pilots worldwide.

[Tony Verhulst]

Jacek Kobiesa wrote:
> I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in Olympic Games, some
> other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion that most people
> who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class gliders.

You've got to be kidding.

> What is so difficult in understanding the concept of the glider, the
> cost of building it, its performance, etc.

Not difficult at all.

> Most of you bashing the
> concept. Is this because your skill is so limited that you need to
> have a bird with max. L/D 10,000 (that is minimum) and a best L/D
> speed Mach 1? Anything which doesn't meet this cryteria needs to be
> rejected?

If this were true, you'd see Russia's getting criticized in this forum -
not to mention the Silent-in, plus a lot of other ships. You don't see
that, do you? IMHO, the PW5 doesn't get criticized for being a PW5, it
gets criticized for being chosen as the world class glider - when they
could have done so much better.

Tony V.

[Richard Brisbourne]

Jacek Kobiesa wrote:

> I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in Olympic Games, some
> other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion that most people
> who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class gliders. Why?
> What is so difficult in understanding the concept of the glider, the
> cost of building it, its performance, etc. Most of you bashing the
> concept. Is this because your skill is so limited that you need to
> have a bird with max. L/D 10,000 (that is minimum) and a best L/D
> speed Mach 1? Anything which doesn't meet this cryteria needs to be
> rejected? You are bringing to this equation sailing in Olympic Games
> as a comparison? Some of you have never even seen, and most of you
> have never flown this glider. So, what is wrong with this picture.
> Maybe is time for some of you to take on golfing, for example. I am
> realy offended by some of the postings on group. You are not beeing
> constructive, you are distructive. To the sport primarly. Do you
> suppose that by promoting Discus and Ventus and who know what else you
> doing justice to this sport? What about those guys or girls who don't
> have $250,000 to waist on a new bird every summer? Is this making them
> less qualified or skilled pilots that those of you bashing everything
> around and flying supersonic, unlimited L/D gliders? Before anyone of
> you decide to bash something without having slightest idea or concept
> about what is going on in the small world of gliding, you need to stop
> and think about it. We all are saying that numbers of glider pilots
> are declining world wide. Do you know why? That is because of buch of
> arrogant glider pilots who are acting like the gods; they know
> everything, they have been everywhere, they've done it all. Yet when
> we go to the world contest results, we don't see those names of the
> people who are making this derogatory statements. If you want to help
> our sport, think first and then act accordingly. It is only good for
> all of the glider pilots worldwide.

Four words:

Great concept
Lousy glider

Hence the success of Club class.
--
Soar the big sky
The real name on the left is richard

[Mark James Boyd]

Speaking of Russias,

The BGA site has three problems with the Russia, it seems.
One was even a 87 knot limitation (!). I was surprised to see
this (apparently the result of an aileron problem on a
factory test flight(?)

I've flown a Russia (the retract version) and really enjoyed the
polar, but the auto-connecting ailerons had just a smidge of
click/slop. Our towpilot, who owns a Russia and is an A&P,
thinks they are a little underbuilt. He thought the PW-5 we had
for two years was a bit more rugged.

I personally liked the retract Russia polar so much, and the low weight,
and the assembly, that I'd consider buying one, but I'd like to see
how the "ruggedness factor" plays out first with the ones at the field.

Of course in the meantime I'm aching for the time and opportunity
to visit a place with a sparrowhawk. Being 5'6" (when hung from
my heels) and maybe 160# soaking wet, I love little short wings and
a light glider.

Any Russia guys have any "ruggedness" stories?

Tony Verhulst > wrote:
>
>If this were true, you'd see Russia's getting criticized in this forum -
>not to mention the Silent-in, plus a lot of other ships. You don't see
>that, do you? IMHO, the PW5 doesn't get criticized for being a PW5, it
>gets criticized for being chosen as the world class glider - when they
>could have done so much better.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Brian Iten]

I don't think the PW-5 is that bad of a glider. I only
know one person who owns one and I have yet to fly
one. My only draw back on the idea is that you can
spend the same amount of money for a slower, less L/D,
less performance PW-5 as you can for a faster, higher
L/D, higher performance ASW-20, LS-3, LS-4, DG300 and
so on. I would actually rather own a Libelle than a
PW-5 and I can find Libelle's that are several thousand
dollars cheaper than any PW-5 and they are better performers.
Just my opinion,
Brian
MB1


At 21:54 20 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>Speaking of Russias,
>
> The BGA site has three problems with the Russia,
>it seems.
>One was even a 87 knot limitation (!). I was surprised
>to see
>this (apparently the result of an aileron problem on
>a
>factory test flight(?)
>
> I've flown a Russia (the retract version) and really
>enjoyed the
>polar, but the auto-connecting ailerons had just a
>smidge of
>click/slop. Our towpilot, who owns a Russia and is
>an A&P,
>thinks they are a little underbuilt. He thought the
>PW-5 we had
>for two years was a bit more rugged.
>
> I personally liked the retract Russia polar so much,
>and the low weight,
>and the assembly, that I'd consider buying one, but
>I'd like to see
>how the 'ruggedness factor' plays out first with the
>ones at the field.
>
> Of course in the meantime I'm aching for the time
>and opportunity
>to visit a place with a sparrowhawk. Being 5'6' (when
>hung from
>my heels) and maybe 160# soaking wet, I love little
>short wings and
>a light glider.
>
> Any Russia guys have any 'ruggedness' stories?
>
>Tony Verhulst wrote:
>>
>>If this were true, you'd see Russia's getting criticized
>>in this forum -
>>not to mention the Silent-in, plus a lot of other ships.
>>You don't see
>>that, do you? IMHO, the PW5 doesn't get criticized
>>for being a PW5, it
>>gets criticized for being chosen as the world class
>>glider - when they
>>could have done so much better.
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark Boyd
>Avenal, California, USA
>

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Jacek Kobiesa wrote:

> ...I am realy offended by some of the postings on
> group. You are not beeing constructive, you are
> distructive. To the sport primarly...

You are welcome to rebut any expression that you find
offensive. You have the rhetoric, you have the dialectic,
you have the technology.

However, asserting that expressions of opinion that
run counter to your own are destructive to the community
flies in the face of the essential liberties of freedom
of thought and freedom of expression. I continue to
hold the opinion that there must be a free marketplace
for ideas, and that every idea deserves frank discussion
of its merits and liabilities. Should the Stemme S-10VT
be the next World Class glider? Or perhaps the Lockheed
TR-1? I don't think so, but I wouldn't mind having
it discussed.

Getting back to the original topic, having flown against
the PW-5 in handicapped regional competition, I very
much appreciate that it is a very capable little ship.
And you can see why when you look my name up in the
US contest results.

I personally regret the choice of the PW-5 as the World
Class glider, if only from an aesthetic standpoint.
I think that the world soaring community as a whole
would have been better served if there had been an
opportunity to select a sailplane that is more stylistically
and aesthetically similar to higher performance ships.

The short span and modest performance are OK by me.
The light weight is OK, too. But I think that the choice
of a glider that looks so completely unlike higher-performance
ships was unfortunate. I firmly believe that the World
Class would have a fighting chance if its participants
could park their ships next to the latest racing ships
and feel like theirs lies on the same continuum. Such
'baby racers' would have been a lot easier to promote
to potential WC racers as well as to the non-competition
soaring pilots.

I freely admit that such thinking speaks volumes about
human weakness and susceptibility to emotion. But even
the best soaring pilots are human. And even the most
logical person has to worry about what their less-logical
fellows think when it comes time to sell.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Ray Lovinggood]

Bob,

Well Stated! Too bad the SparrowHawk wasn't in contention
for the World Class. And, of course, it couldn't have
been since the World Class is several years (what,
10 or 15?) older than the SparrowHawk.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 22:18 20 August 2004, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

snip:

>I personally regret the choice of the PW-5 as the World
>Class glider, if only from an aesthetic standpoint.
>I think that the world soaring community as a whole
>would have been better served if there had been an
>opportunity to select a sailplane that is more stylistically
>and aesthetically similar to higher performance ships.
>
>The short span and modest performance are OK by me.
>The light weight is OK, too. But I think that the choice
>of a glider that looks so completely unlike higher-performance
>ships was unfortunate. I firmly believe that the World
>Class would have a fighting chance if its participants
>could park their ships next to the latest racing ships
>and feel like theirs lies on the same continuum. Such
>'baby racers' would have been a lot easier to promote
>to potential WC racers as well as to the non-competition
>soaring pilots.
>
>I freely admit that such thinking speaks volumes about
>human weakness and susceptibility to emotion. But even
>the best soaring pilots are human. And even the most
>logical person has to worry about what their less-logical
>fellows think when it comes time to sell.
>
>Thanks, and best regards to all
>
>Bob K.
>http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Ray Lovinggood]

Bob,

Well Stated! Too bad the SparrowHawk wasn't in contention
for the World Class. And, of course, it couldn't have
been since the World Class is several years (what,
10 or 15?) older than the SparrowHawk.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 22:18 20 August 2004, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

snip:

>I personally regret the choice of the PW-5 as the World
>Class glider, if only from an aesthetic standpoint.
>I think that the world soaring community as a whole
>would have been better served if there had been an
>opportunity to select a sailplane that is more stylistically
>and aesthetically similar to higher performance ships.
>
>The short span and modest performance are OK by me.
>The light weight is OK, too. But I think that the choice
>of a glider that looks so completely unlike higher-performance
>ships was unfortunate. I firmly believe that the World
>Class would have a fighting chance if its participants
>could park their ships next to the latest racing ships
>and feel like theirs lies on the same continuum. Such
>'baby racers' would have been a lot easier to promote
>to potential WC racers as well as to the non-competition
>soaring pilots.
>
>I freely admit that such thinking speaks volumes about
>human weakness and susceptibility to emotion. But even
>the best soaring pilots are human. And even the most
>logical person has to worry about what their less-logical
>fellows think when it comes time to sell.
>
>Thanks, and best regards to all
>
>Bob K.
>http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Brian Iten > wrote:

> I don't think the PW-5 is that bad of a glider. I only
> know one person who owns one and I have yet to fly
> one. My only draw back on the idea is that you can
> spend the same amount of money for a slower, less L/D,
> less performance PW-5 as you can for a faster, higher
> L/D, higher performance ASW-20, LS-3, LS-4, DG300 and
> so on. I would actually rather own a Libelle than a
> PW-5 and I can find Libelle's that are several thousand
> dollars cheaper than any PW-5 and they are better performers.

You can do that because the sport is declining.

If the sport was growing then there wouldn't be enough older high
performance gliders to go around, and no one is going to make a *new*
LS-4 (for example) for the price a PW-5 goes for.

And isn't growing the sport what we all hope for?


I really don't know what people have against the PW-5. Sure, I like
higher performance ships too. I fly a Janus more than anything else,
and I've flown both Duo Discus and DG1000, and they're all decent
gliders which, as I understand it, perform similarly to the current best
Standard Class gliders. So I think I have some idea of what you'd find
acceptable. (I haven't flown anything else on your list except the
Libelle, in both "std" and "club" versions). But I have no problem at
all with strapping myself into a PW-5 at a contest along with a dozen
other people in the same type of aircraft (or similar, such as the Ka6),
and we have a lot of fun on our little 200 km tasks.

-- Bruce

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[[email protected]]

It's nice to see communist style thinking is alive and well somewhere
in the world.

The Central Comittee has determined that the PW-5 is the glider for the
common man. You will gather $30K US dollars at once and purchase a
PW-5. Those who advocate $20K used glass gliders or newer designs such
as the Sparrowhawk are hereby declared elitist, arrogant,
conterrevolutionary running dogs and are ordered to report for
re-education or else.

[Chris Rollings]

Jacek, do you have a commercial interest to declare
in the World Class?

At 20:18 20 August 2004, Jacek Kobiesa wrote:
>I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in
>Olympic Games, some
>other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion
>that most people
>who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class
>gliders. Why?
>What is so difficult in understanding the concept of
>the glider, the
>cost of building it, its performance, etc. Most of
>you bashing the
>concept. Is this because your skill is so limited that
>you need to
>have a bird with max. L/D 10,000 (that is minimum)
>and a best L/D
>speed Mach 1? Anything which doesn't meet this cryteria
>needs to be
>rejected? You are bringing to this equation sailing
>in Olympic Games
>as a comparison? Some of you have never even seen,
>and most of you
>have never flown this glider. So, what is wrong with
>this picture.
>Maybe is time for some of you to take on golfing, for
>example. I am
>realy offended by some of the postings on group. You
>are not beeing
>constructive, you are distructive. To the sport primarly.
>Do you
>suppose that by promoting Discus and Ventus and who
>know what else you
>doing justice to this sport? What about those guys
>or girls who don't
>have $250,000 to waist on a new bird every summer?
>Is this making them
>less qualified or skilled pilots that those of you
>bashing everything
>around and flying supersonic, unlimited L/D gliders?
>Before anyone of
>you decide to bash something without having slightest
>idea or concept
>about what is going on in the small world of gliding,
>you need to stop
>and think about it. We all are saying that numbers
>of glider pilots
>are declining world wide. Do you know why? That is
>because of buch of
>arrogant glider pilots who are acting like the gods;
>they know
>everything, they have been everywhere, they've done
>it all. Yet when
>we go to the world contest results, we don't see those
>names of the
>people who are making this derogatory statements. If
>you want to help
>our sport, think first and then act accordingly. It
>is only good for
>all of the glider pilots worldwide.
>

[elZee]

"Jacek Kobiesa" > wrote in message
om...
> I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in Olympic Games, some
> other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion that most people
> who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class gliders. Why?

Well it wouldn't surprise me if the Olympics looked past Gliders and go for Hang
Gliders!

Too much politics and BS in gliding .. go the hang gliders ;)

IMHO elZee

[Udo Rumpf]

> Jacek, do you have a commercial interest to declare
> in the World Class?
Even if he had one, it still would be a vocation.

[Pete Reinhart]

Bob,
You hit the nail squarely on the head.
Cheers!

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
...
> Earlier, Jacek Kobiesa wrote:
>
> > ...I am realy offended by some of the postings on
> > group. You are not beeing constructive, you are
> > distructive. To the sport primarly...
>
> You are welcome to rebut any expression that you find
> offensive. You have the rhetoric, you have the dialectic,
> you have the technology.
>
> However, asserting that expressions of opinion that
> run counter to your own are destructive to the community
> flies in the face of the essential liberties of freedom
> of thought and freedom of expression. I continue to
> hold the opinion that there must be a free marketplace
> for ideas, and that every idea deserves frank discussion
> of its merits and liabilities. Should the Stemme S-10VT
> be the next World Class glider? Or perhaps the Lockheed
> TR-1? I don't think so, but I wouldn't mind having
> it discussed.
>
> Getting back to the original topic, having flown against
> the PW-5 in handicapped regional competition, I very
> much appreciate that it is a very capable little ship.
> And you can see why when you look my name up in the
> US contest results.
>
> I personally regret the choice of the PW-5 as the World
> Class glider, if only from an aesthetic standpoint.
> I think that the world soaring community as a whole
> would have been better served if there had been an
> opportunity to select a sailplane that is more stylistically
> and aesthetically similar to higher performance ships.
>
> The short span and modest performance are OK by me.
> The light weight is OK, too. But I think that the choice
> of a glider that looks so completely unlike higher-performance
> ships was unfortunate. I firmly believe that the World
> Class would have a fighting chance if its participants
> could park their ships next to the latest racing ships
> and feel like theirs lies on the same continuum. Such
> 'baby racers' would have been a lot easier to promote
> to potential WC racers as well as to the non-competition
> soaring pilots.
>
> I freely admit that such thinking speaks volumes about
> human weakness and susceptibility to emotion. But even
> the best soaring pilots are human. And even the most
> logical person has to worry about what their less-logical
> fellows think when it comes time to sell.
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24
>
>
>
>

[Pete]

how about something in between like the Ariane swift?

http://www.ping.be/~ping4026/swift.htm

">
> Well it wouldn't surprise me if the Olympics looked past Gliders and go
for Hang
> Gliders!
>
> Too much politics and BS in gliding .. go the hang gliders ;)
>
> IMHO elZee
>
>

[Ruud]

On 20 Aug 2004 12:58:51 -0700, (Jacek
Kobiesa) wrote:

Re: Is everybody afraid of World Class?

No, but it sure is ONE BIG MISTAKE.
IGC better admit this and put the club class in place of the world
class and make the 20 meter 2-seater class an official FAI-class.

[Stewart Kissel]

>Too much politics and BS in gliding .. go the hang
>gliders ;)
>
>IMHO elZee


Gee elZee,

R we talking about the same sport here...the one that
Davis Straub has a popular ezine for? And that ezine
has a full BS quota of politics? I gotta call u on
that statement, because I am the first to agree with
the first half of your statement. But if you think
hangliding/paragliding is BS and politics free...that
is the pot calling the kettle black :)

Best I can tell, the HG community consider PG's their
version of the PW5.

[G.Kurek]

Jacek:
Poles won club class flying Jantar std.Bravo's this year, would it
be so much more expensive to start building Bravo for the same price
of Pw5? Only three Bravos where ever made and it was just proven what
a great glider it is, the guys managed to beat LS-4's,LS-7's,
Pegasuses, DG300's and whole bunch of other club class gliders. We
(Poland) where making better gliders 40+ years ago (SZD Foka), so why
are we going in circles?
If you can bring Bravo or Std.3 for the price of Pw5 it would be a
dream come true.

[CL]

wrote in message >...
> It's nice to see communist style thinking is alive and well somewhere
> in the world.
>
> The Central Comittee has determined that the PW-5 is the glider for the
> common man. You will gather $30K US dollars at once and purchase a
> PW-5. Those who advocate $20K used glass gliders or newer designs such
> as the Sparrowhawk are hereby declared elitist, arrogant,
> conterrevolutionary running dogs and are ordered to report for
> re-education or else.

You are wasting your time Mr. Kobiesa, for such a individuals like one
above the best sailplane would be something: "German Engineered",
Israel test flown, assembled in Mexico, price tag around 100K and with
gallant name like: "The Greatest American Freedom Eagle 1a"...

[Bruce Greeff]

CL wrote:
> wrote in message >...
>
>>It's nice to see communist style thinking is alive and well somewhere
>>in the world.
>>
>>The Central Comittee has determined that the PW-5 is the glider for the
>>common man. You will gather $30K US dollars at once and purchase a
>>PW-5. Those who advocate $20K used glass gliders or newer designs such
>>as the Sparrowhawk are hereby declared elitist, arrogant,
>>conterrevolutionary running dogs and are ordered to report for
>>re-education or else.
>
>
> You are wasting your time Mr. Kobiesa, for such a individuals like one
> above the best sailplane would be something: "German Engineered",
> Israel test flown, assembled in Mexico, price tag around 100K and with
> gallant name like: "The Greatest American Freedom Eagle 1a"...

Now now children, let's not squabble...

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:49:52 UTC, Bruce Hoult > wrote:

: f the sport was growing then there wouldn't be enough older high
: performance gliders to go around

Only if it was growing faster than people bought new gliders.
Basically, wooden gliders rot away and plastic ones don't, so it's
inevitable that cheap old plastic gliders dominate the budget end of
the market. I find the comparison with sailing interesting: hardly
anyone makes entry-level 21 footers in the UK market, because there
are just so many second hand boats to choose from at the same price.

Ian

--

[Eric Greenwell]

Ian Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:49:52 UTC, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
> : f the sport was growing then there wouldn't be enough older high
> : performance gliders to go around
>
> Only if it was growing faster than people bought new gliders.
> Basically, wooden gliders rot away and plastic ones don't, so it's
> inevitable that cheap old plastic gliders dominate the budget end of
> the market.

It is inevitable, but not because of rot: the factories stopped making
wooden gliders about 35 years ago, so their number decreases as they are
crashed or neglected. Plastic gliders also suffer from crashes and
neglect, but they are still being built, so there is a ready supply of
"new" old ones.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-ItubrYhRIIMd@localhost>,
"Ian Johnston" > wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:49:52 UTC, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
> : f the sport was growing then there wouldn't be enough older high
> : performance gliders to go around
>
> Only if it was growing faster than people bought new gliders.
> Basically, wooden gliders rot away and plastic ones don't, so it's
> inevitable that cheap old plastic gliders dominate the budget end of
> the market.

Not in NZ, as far as I can see. I see ads for airworthy Oly's and K6's
and the like for NZ$6k - $12k. I don't think you've get anything much
glass for under $20k and I include PW-5's in that.

-- Bruce

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Robertmudd1u]

> I personally liked the retract Russia polar so much, and the low weight,
>and the assembly, that I'd consider buying one, but I'd like to see
>how the "ruggedness factor" plays out first with the ones at the field.


Mark,

You should look into the Apis line of gliders, www.apisgliders.com.

Better engineered and built than the Russia and more bang for the buck than the
Sparrowhawk.

There is one Apis 13 based in San Diego.

Robert Mudd
Apis Saiplanes inc.

[szd-55 flyer]

Jacek, you,re so right.
3 years ago a polish junior was invited to our world class national
comp.
He did not have a glider for 2 (1000pts ea) days....and you know what
happened.
The same kid won world championships in PW-5 next year.
And the same "kid"(he is not a junior now) won this year's club class
world championship.
Lets look at the american champion.
U.S. is a nobody on the world's arena for the last 20 years. There is
no role model.
In his life time ,US average instructor did not fly further from
airport than his L/D would alow ( off duty, his glider has to have min
40 L/D).This is why a american pilot would be afraid of the
PW-5.(Germans just don't want to lose the customers buying expensive
fiber).
U.S. average junior gets discounts (great start) on flying but nobody
(except his father or his uncle) will coach him in cross country
flying.
Juniors here don't deserve to have their own regionals or nationals.
Instructors wannabes don't have yearly camps to get their licence and
be new soaring leaders/cross country promoters for juniors.
Lately the only bright star in the U.S. sky is Garret Willat and his
friends from New Mexico and Colorado, whose successful struggle to
form and unite U.S. junior's commiunity.
Juniors don't mind flying PW-5 or Libelle, they are not afraid.
They don't cry if they get a 7 hour task like most comp pilots in US.
US World Class pilots support fully every year juniors (paying for
tows and entry fees and for the glider) at PW-5 competitions.
Ryszard Krolikowski

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:53:31 UTC, Bruce Hoult > wrote:

: In article <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-ItubrYhRIIMd@localhost>,
: "Ian Johnston" > wrote:

: > Only if it was growing faster than people bought new gliders.
: > Basically, wooden gliders rot away and plastic ones don't, so it's
: > inevitable that cheap old plastic gliders dominate the budget end of
: > the market.
:
: Not in NZ, as far as I can see. I see ads for airworthy Oly's and K6's
: and the like for NZ$6k - $12k. I don't think you've get anything much
: glass for under $20k and I include PW-5's in that.

I don't doubt that there may be special situations - places a long
shipping charge away from glider manufacturers - where things are
different. In the UK, the 8 grand which it would have taken to buy a
nice Ka6E ten years ago will now buy you something quite respectable
in the Astir line.

Ian

[Mark James Boyd]

I'm a big fan of light aircraft with light wings. So yes, the
Apis is interesting.

Unfortunately, there aren't too many around. It's easier for me to
research accident reports and prices of the PW-5 and Russia because
there are so darned many of them. There are at least 3 Russias at
Avenal alone.

I'm just not sure there's enough market for the half-dozen or so
light gliders designed in the past ten years. Silent and PW-5 and
Apis and Russia and Sparrowhawk and L-33 and Junior...hmmm...it will
be interesting to see the competition for the next World Class glider.

I'm still not decided on side opening canopy or front. The PW-5
was a bit "athletic" to get into, but at least if one left the canopy
unlocked, there was no issue with it (ask me how I know).
The PW-5 and the Russia also both have inadequate ventilation for
100+ degree heat. If the thermals couldn't get to 4K, it was
just a freakin' sauna. I guess most European test pilots
fly in the winter, eh?

Robertmudd1u > wrote:
>> I personally liked the retract Russia polar so much, and the low weight,
>>and the assembly, that I'd consider buying one, but I'd like to see
>>how the "ruggedness factor" plays out first with the ones at the field.
>
>
>Mark,
>
>You should look into the Apis line of gliders, www.apisgliders.com.
>
>Better engineered and built than the Russia and more bang for the buck than the
>Sparrowhawk.
>
>There is one Apis 13 based in San Diego.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[stephanevdv]

It strikes me as odd that the most vocal argument against the PW-5 seems
to be the "unconventional" aesthetics. Compared to some of the
Schweizer designs or old European mixed construction types, I can't see
the problem. If you compare it with our usual sleek plastic machines, I
agree the high tail boom and conventional tail seem strange, but there
is a logical explanation: a T-tail needs to have a much stronger tail
boom to absorb the torsion loads. To have a conventional tail with
sufficient ground clearance for field landings in crops, it has to be
high-mounted. This design feature thus helps to keep the price down.
Handsome is as handsome does, or?

The second argument is the low performance and high price compared to
some older club class gliders. In a monotype contest, absolute
performance should not really be a point. And financially, I think it
is totally unjustified to compare the price of a new or near new PW-5
with that of a 30-year old club class glider. Their philosophies are
also completely different. You can let a low-hour solo pilot fly the
PW-5 (easy flight characteristics were part of the World Class design,
in order for a young pilot to be able to fly it as his first solo
glider, and fly his first competition in it while being on equal
footing with the other competitors), but I sure wouldn't advocate
putting him in a Standard Cirrus, to name but a very popular club class
glider. And I have seen enough cases of sloppy repairs camouflaged
under a "complete respray" to be very cautious when evaluating such an
old composite glider.

The World Class project was a contest with a deadline; some interesting
projects never left the drawing board, others had an unfinished or
unsatisfactory prototype (for example, I remember the Russia 1
prototype being structurally weak, and the stronger Russia 2 being not
completely up to standard at the time of the testing), others had less
than desirable flight characteristics. At the time, the PW-5 was the
one corresponding most to the letter and spirit of the contest. You
have to take these limitations into account.

But from the start of the project, the top manufacturers (all German)
refused to believe in it, because performance-wise, it was a big leap
backwards. The lack of interest of most of the known competitors (there
were some who played the game, participating at least at the first
World Class contest, like Karl Striedieck and Bruno Gantenbrink) sealed
the fate of the World Class. If FAI itself had really been convinced of
the value of a monotype contest, perhaps it should have decided that
only the World Class Champion could be "World Champion". I bet the
attitude of some competitors would have been completely different.

Aesthetics where not taken into account in the World Class contest.
Perhaps this was a mistake. But I seem to remember that not everybody
was convinced at first that the Discus-wing was appealing to the eye.
It's only when the glider started to win every contest that it suddenly
looked right to everybody.


--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

[Eric Greenwell]

Ian Johnston wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:53:31 UTC, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
> : In article <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-ItubrYhRIIMd@localhost>,
> : "Ian Johnston" > wrote:
>
> : > Only if it was growing faster than people bought new gliders.
> : > Basically, wooden gliders rot away and plastic ones don't, so it's
> : > inevitable that cheap old plastic gliders dominate the budget end of
> : > the market.
> :
> : Not in NZ, as far as I can see. I see ads for airworthy Oly's and K6's
> : and the like for NZ$6k - $12k. I don't think you've get anything much
> : glass for under $20k and I include PW-5's in that.
>
> I don't doubt that there may be special situations - places a long
> shipping charge away from glider manufacturers - where things are
> different. In the UK, the 8 grand which it would have taken to buy a
> nice Ka6E ten years ago will now buy you something quite respectable
> in the Astir line.

Wouldn't 8 grand in the UK be about $20K in NZ?

But the answer was about relative prices, really: What would it take to
buy something respectable in the Ka6 line in the UK?

And do you think the used glider prices have fallen because of reduced
demand (less people that want gliders) or increased supply (more people
are buying new ones)?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Vaughn]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:412874c6$1@darkstar...
> I'm still not decided on side opening canopy or front. The PW-5
> was a bit "athletic" to get into, but at least if one left the canopy
> unlocked, there was no issue with it (ask me how I know).

You just touched on my pet peeve. At least one Russia has come to grief
after a typical unlocked canopy incident. Unlocked side-opening, (and
front-opening back) canopies represent a continuing source of glider accidents
that could easily be "designed away" by manufacturers. We insist on automatic
control hookups on new gliders because they prevent accidents, so I don't
understand why we tolerate those crappy canopy latches that are so easily left
unlocked or accidentally unlocked in flight.

The L-13 canopy latch is a better (though far from perfect) example of a
side-canopy latch. If properly maintained, it is almost idiot proof because it
latches automatically, much like your car door or the hood of your car. Your
basic cam-acting door latch was probably invented hundreds of years ago; why
can't we have this "space-age" technology in our gliders?

Vaughn

[Ian Johnston]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:02:53 UTC, Eric Greenwell
> wrote:

: But the answer was about relative prices, really: What would it take to
: buy something respectable in the Ka6 line in the UK?

A friend of mine bught a very, very nice Ka6E kit (ie including
trailer and barograph, though no chute) for three and a half grand
about a year ago.

: And do you think the used glider prices have fallen because of reduced
: demand (less people that want gliders) or increased supply (more people
: are buying new ones)?

A bit of both. It's a shrinking sport, so the relative second-hand
supply is going up as the demand falls.

Ian


--

[NigelPocock]

UK junior nationals. An example of where the future of our sport lies. A full
entry list of 50 gliders ranging from SHK and Astir to Ventus C and DG505. No
gliders less than 15m were entered. They were too low performance/
uncompetative/ too expensive/ unavailable.
The best and most competative pilots will always try to find the best glider
available.
In typical weak UK conditions you need something with reasonable penetration to
make progress against any wind over 10 knots. That is why you do not see K8s,
K6 etc competing any more.
Having flown most of the common gliders around including the PW5 I find it
rather delicate for club use. It is thus mainly suitable for private owners.
They are reluctant to buy something that is less capable of completing the task
than the average 15m ship and thus stay away from them.
Not afraid of the World class just think that the PW5 is the wrong glider for
it

[PENN2P]

RYSZARD, you are full of SH--T!!!! , and you know it. You of all people have
been flying US regionals and consistently , even in 2004 , ignored SSA and
Regional contest rules. You have no humilitity or respect for those who fly
honestly and by the rules. SO DONT BLOW YOUR SMOKE TO THIS NEWSGROUP.
Penn Smith 2P

[szd-55 flyer]

How we get stupid people like you in soaring ?
If DG design and make new LS4 right now ,it would new cost about $70,000
Pw-5 new cost $22,000
All pilots be aware of idiots!!!

[Bert Willing]

Exactly. Just a bunch of say 50,000 arrogant European pilots who think that
it's an ugly ship and who rather spend $15,000 on a second hand ship having
much more performance...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Jacek Kobiesa" > a écrit dans le message
de om...
> I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in Olympic Games, some
> other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion that most people
> who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class gliders. Why?
> What is so difficult in understanding the concept of the glider, the
> cost of building it, its performance, etc. Most of you bashing the
> concept. Is this because your skill is so limited that you need to
> have a bird with max. L/D 10,000 (that is minimum) and a best L/D
> speed Mach 1? Anything which doesn't meet this cryteria needs to be
> rejected? You are bringing to this equation sailing in Olympic Games
> as a comparison? Some of you have never even seen, and most of you
> have never flown this glider. So, what is wrong with this picture.
> Maybe is time for some of you to take on golfing, for example. I am
> realy offended by some of the postings on group. You are not beeing
> constructive, you are distructive. To the sport primarly. Do you
> suppose that by promoting Discus and Ventus and who know what else you
> doing justice to this sport? What about those guys or girls who don't
> have $250,000 to waist on a new bird every summer? Is this making them
> less qualified or skilled pilots that those of you bashing everything
> around and flying supersonic, unlimited L/D gliders? Before anyone of
> you decide to bash something without having slightest idea or concept
> about what is going on in the small world of gliding, you need to stop
> and think about it. We all are saying that numbers of glider pilots
> are declining world wide. Do you know why? That is because of buch of
> arrogant glider pilots who are acting like the gods; they know
> everything, they have been everywhere, they've done it all. Yet when
> we go to the world contest results, we don't see those names of the
> people who are making this derogatory statements. If you want to help
> our sport, think first and then act accordingly. It is only good for
> all of the glider pilots worldwide.

[NigelPocock]

>If DG design and make new LS4 right now ,it would new cost about $70,000
>Pw-5 new cost $22,000

But a new Junior, 15m strong, good handling with better performance costs about
the same as a PeeWee.
No contest which I would buy

[Janos Bauer]

szd-55 flyer wrote:
> How we get stupid people like you in soaring ?
> If DG design and make new LS4 right now ,it would new cost about $70,000
> Pw-5 new cost $22,000
> All pilots be aware of idiots!!!

A new szd55 is about 35k... Maybe a Discus CS is also at this price range.

/Janos

[Todd Smith]

As a relative newcomer to flying sailplanes, ( I started flying sailplanes 4
years ago, with a background in power and hang gliders. )
here's my take on the world class concept.

There seems to be 2 different purposes that the 'World Class'
was supposed to fulfill.

1) good one-design competition
2) simple easy early solo glider

Does it fulfill these needs ?

1) good one-design competition ?
NO, it's too damn slow ! and ugly !
and there are not enough around to have good competition !

2) simple easy early solo glider ?

For a club, maybe. Our club bought a Blanik L-33
before I joined, and it seems to work pretty well for this
purpose. For really early solo pilots the 1-26 works well also.
The PW-5 seems to have no advantage over the L-33 or used glass.

As a newly licensed glider shopper, I wanted better performance than
the PW-5 would have given me. I bought a used Grob-102 and have had
lots of fun.

My question to the PW-5 supporters.

Would YOU buy one ? As the glider YOU flew every good soaring day ?
If you want the class to grow, sell whatever you have and buy a PW-5.


Todd Smith
Grob 102 3S

[iPilot]

The discussion about the value of PW-5 is just pointless. Value of the
glider is defined by the market and when nobody buys the glider it has no
value. Finito.


"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
> Jacek Kobiesa wrote:
> > I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in Olympic Games, some
> > other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion that most people
> > who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class gliders.
>
> You've got to be kidding.
>
> > What is so difficult in understanding the concept of the glider, the
> > cost of building it, its performance, etc.
>
> Not difficult at all.
>
> > Most of you bashing the
> > concept. Is this because your skill is so limited that you need to
> > have a bird with max. L/D 10,000 (that is minimum) and a best L/D
> > speed Mach 1? Anything which doesn't meet this cryteria needs to be
> > rejected?
>
> If this were true, you'd see Russia's getting criticized in this forum -
> not to mention the Silent-in, plus a lot of other ships. You don't see
> that, do you? IMHO, the PW5 doesn't get criticized for being a PW5, it
> gets criticized for being chosen as the world class glider - when they
> could have done so much better.
>
> Tony V.
>

[scurry]

iPilot wrote:
> The discussion about the value of PW-5 is just pointless. Value of the
> glider is defined by the market and when nobody buys the glider it has no
> value. Finito.

Must be supply siders.
;-)

Shawn

[[email protected]]

On 23 Aug 2004 06:36:44 -0700, (Todd Smith) wrote:

>
>1) good one-design competition ?
>NO, it's too damn slow ! and ugly !

Totally ignoring that it is flying ONLY against others of the same
type. It's no uglier than any other plastic ship. They all suck.

>
>My question to the PW-5 supporters.
>
>Would YOU buy one ? As the glider YOU flew every good soaring day ?
>If you want the class to grow, sell whatever you have and buy a PW-5.
>
If you can give any rational reason that you want them to disappear,
and the class to die, other than "it's not your thing", it might shed
a little light on the subject. From the many, many threads that have
blasted anything less than 40:1, it's quite obvious why it's not being
a success. In other words, if you're not interested, you are only
joining the small number of high volume bigmouths that wish only to
impress their "standards" on others and have pretty much killed the
class in the process.

When I started, my interest was in the 1-26, and in particular, MY
1-26, not a half a dozen others, and it was my intention to stick with
the one type. Net result, I haven't been in a cockpit for nearly
three years now, and have no intention of subjecting myself to the
verbal barrage of BS again. It's a blooming hobby, I don't have to do
it, much less seek the approval of someone else of how I choose to do
it. Now, if it were as easy to shut mouths as it is to stay away and
NOT do it. Guidance and help cease to be guidance and help when they
become blockheaded opinions, as are all of the PW threads here. It's
far easier and far cheaper for me to stay away and spend the money on
something that makes sense.

[Marcel Duenner]

Janos Bauer > wrote in message >...
> szd-55 flyer wrote:
> > How we get stupid people like you in soaring ?
> > If DG design and make new LS4 right now ,it would new cost about $70,000
> > Pw-5 new cost $22,000
> > All pilots be aware of idiots!!!
>
> A new szd55 is about 35k... Maybe a Discus CS is also at this price range.
>
> /Janos


Where can I buy it????
I don't think you can buy a new Discus CS for much less than 50k$ in
Europe.
Just before they went bust LS offered LS4b for 45k€ IIRC (54k$).

http://www.szdusa.com/catalog.html states the SZD at 39k$ with
delivery by June 1999! I doubt very much the price has gone down
since. And those prices are without instruments. PW-5 price then was
20k$ incl. basic instruments.

[Marcel Duenner]

stephanevdv > wrote in message >...
> It strikes me as odd that the most vocal argument against the PW-5 seems
> to be the "unconventional" aesthetics. Compared to some of the
> Schweizer designs or old European mixed construction types, I can't see
> the problem. If you compare it with our usual sleek plastic machines, I
> agree the high tail boom and conventional tail seem strange, but there
> is a logical explanation: a T-tail needs to have a much stronger tail
> boom to absorb the torsion loads. To have a conventional tail with
> sufficient ground clearance for field landings in crops, it has to be
> high-mounted. This design feature thus helps to keep the price down.
> Handsome is as handsome does, or?

Hmmm let me think....
Our club bounced forward and bought one of the first 50 or so PW5
because we thought the concept of the World Class was a good idea and
we should support it and enable our pilots to compete in such
competitions.
Very soon even the beginners realised that the PW5 was the poorest
winch launcher by far (average 1200feet instead of the 1500 with Ka8,
Ka6 or ASK23).
Around the same time the club in Innsbruck totalled two of theirs on
whinch launch and so for some strange reason nobody was really
interested in flying the thing any longer.
In it's second season someone landed in wheat only about 35" tall and
gone was the tail - that doesn't happen with a T-tail. The repair cost
almost as much as the new glider mainly because the spare parts are
where they make the money. The horiz. stabiliser alone cost about
$4500!
During the following season the sweet little thing flew another 50
hours, there where no comps held anywhere and so we sold it again.
And it happily lives in Belgium now. Hope it stays there.

Marcel

[Brian Iten]

Then why respond to posts about soaring if you have
no interest in flying? Why not respond to posts about
something that makes sense to you because apparantly
soaring makes absolutly no sense to you.......

At 17:18 23 August 2004, wrote:
>On 23 Aug 2004 06:36:44 -0700, (Todd
>Smith) wrote:
>
>>
>>1) good one-design competition ?
>>NO, it's too damn slow ! and ugly !
>
>Totally ignoring that it is flying ONLY against others
>of the same
>type. It's no uglier than any other plastic ship.
> They all suck.
>
>>
>>My question to the PW-5 supporters.
>>
>>Would YOU buy one ? As the glider YOU flew every good
>>soaring day ?
>>If you want the class to grow, sell whatever you have
>>and buy a PW-5.
>>
>If you can give any rational reason that you want them
>to disappear,
>and the class to die, other than 'it's not your thing',
>it might shed
>a little light on the subject. From the many, many
>threads that have
>blasted anything less than 40:1, it's quite obvious
>why it's not being
>a success. In other words, if you're not interested,
>you are only
>joining the small number of high volume bigmouths that
>wish only to
>impress their 'standards' on others and have pretty
>much killed the
>class in the process.
>
>When I started, my interest was in the 1-26, and in
>particular, MY
>1-26, not a half a dozen others, and it was my intention
>to stick with
>the one type. Net result, I haven't been in a cockpit
>for nearly
>three years now, and have no intention of subjecting
>myself to the
>verbal barrage of BS again. It's a blooming hobby,
>I don't have to do
>it, much less seek the approval of someone else of
>how I choose to do
>it. Now, if it were as easy to shut mouths as it is
>to stay away and
>NOT do it. Guidance and help cease to be guidance
>and help when they
>become blockheaded opinions, as are all of the PW threads
>here. It's
>far easier and far cheaper for me to stay away and
>spend the money on
>something that makes sense.
>
>

[[email protected]]

On 23 Aug 2004 17:57:00 GMT, Brian Iten
> wrote:

>Then why respond to posts about soaring if you have
>no interest in flying?

Make that not enough interest in soaring to spend myself into the hole
where I live only to fly, and you might be slightly more correct..
Flying is only one of many interesting things that the world has to
offer, and not very high on the "bang for the buck." Very time
consuming, very very expensive, and in most places, only seasonal.

> Why not respond to posts about
>something that makes sense to you because apparantly
>soaring makes absolutly no sense to you.......
>
IF flying gliders lived up to the promise, more or less that of one
person going up and doing his own thing then coming down and having a
good bull session with friends, it would be ok, but it does not. The
person that knows his limits, both in money to spend and risk he is
willing to take will put up with an unwarranted barrage of ****mouth
from a few that seem to think God only gave brains to them.
Unfortunately, what God gave them was a big mouth and an empty head.
What difference does it make to you if someone is flying only local in
a 1-26, 2-33 or PW? What difference does it make to you that maybe
he's happy with the situation as it is, content with what he has.
What does it take away from you if he's not interested in competition
or badges, even could care less about a diamond, microscopic as they
are? Just exactly what does it take away from you if someone follows
his own interests and ignores yours? How does it hurt you if he is
flying in a PW and liking it? What is it taking away from you if he
does? The activity itself, flying gliders, might make sense, it's the
pilots that don't.

[CL]

> Todd Smith
> Grob 102 3S

Yeah Todd you really gained a lot by going with used G102, about 1
more L/D and a paint job that is going to cost you another
G102...Right on!

[Mark James Boyd]

> The L-13 canopy latch is a better (though far from perfect) example of a
>side-canopy latch. If properly maintained, it is almost idiot proof because it
>latches automatically, much like your car door or the hood of your car. Your
>basic cam-acting door latch was probably invented hundreds of years ago; why
>can't we have this "space-age" technology in our gliders?
>
>Vaughn

The Cezznas have this technology for the side doors, and it is a cause
of occasional failure.

There seems to be a philosophical and legal issue: if it is a stone-cold
simple "pilot must move it to open or close" then it is obviously the
pilot's fault if it isn't closed. If it slightly more complex,
self-latching and it fails, the manufacturer is sued. So manufacturers
would have to make self-latching canopy latches that are simply
IMPOSSIBLE to fail. This is actually very, very challenging...
The other issue is what if they fail to open when someone wants
to eject? Or what if one can convince 12 senior citizens that
this might have happened?

Springs get debris in them or fail, latches and cams repeatedly
rubbed eventually wear, etc. From a manufacturers standpoint,
self-latching canopies are a no-no. I don't think we'll ever see
them in manufacture by any company that can ever be sued...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

>No gliders less than 15m were entered. They were too low performance/

>Not afraid of the World class just think that the PW5 is the wrong glider for
>it

In general, it seems like 15 meters is the shortest span which
can give good performance given the fairly wide range of pilot weights
and sizes and the need for cockpit comfort.

As a lightweight, I'd personally prefer something with less span.
Paying for more span and then needing to add lots of water seems silly
to me. But the market is what the market is, and manufacturers
need to make gliders to fit the bulkier, richer pilots too...

The lightweight construction techniques of the Sparrowhawk are
really the only things that might make shorter spans
competitive. I'm interested in seeing the performance of a
retractable Sparrowhawk.

For the next World Class glider, I wonder if retract will be allowed.
I'd still like to see specifications which keep the
cost down, however, and something's gotta give...

In any case, I think the PW-5 and the Russia were an excellent start
towards the World Class goals, but yes, in the intervening years
better technologies have come along and there has been some
learning. I hope this will make the next World Class glider
manufacturers come up with some interesting designs...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
NigelPocock > wrote:
>>If DG design and make new LS4 right now ,it would new cost about $70,000
>>Pw-5 new cost $22,000
>
>But a new Junior, 15m strong, good handling with better performance costs about
>the same as a PeeWee.
>No contest which I would buy

But how about the Junior vs. a retract Russia AC-4c or a Sparrowhawk?

The PeeWee simply won't be the next World Class glider. But
there are other < 15m gliders which may. Do you think
15m is simply the minimum span (a 12-13.5 meter glider
is just silly?)

And you glider makers and repairers out there (Bob K. and JJ),
is there enough savings in weight and money to make the extra
wing of 15m that a 12-13.5 meter glider costs significantly less?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I find them interesting.
For me personally, the answer is just plain yes, I'm happier
with less span. But if I weighed 225 lbs, I'd say just the
opposite, perhaps...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Vaughn]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:412a892d$1@darkstar...

> The Cezznas have this technology for the side doors, and it is a cause
> of occasional failure.
>
> There seems to be a philosophical and legal issue: if it is a stone-cold
> simple "pilot must move it to open or close" then it is obviously the
> pilot's fault if it isn't closed. If it slightly more complex,
> self-latching and it fails, the manufacturer is sued. So manufacturers
> would have to make self-latching canopy latches that are simply
> IMPOSSIBLE to fail.

NOTHING is impossible to fail, especially the silly canopy latches we have
today.

>This is actually very, very challenging...

Why?

> The other issue is what if they fail to open when someone wants
> to eject?

Simple design excercise, I can think of at least two ways of doing it right
now.

> Or what if one can convince 12 senior citizens that
> this might have happened?

You could just as easily convince those same 12 white-hairs that this simple
100-year-old technology could have prevented an accident if it were incorporated
into the design of a crashed glider.

> Springs get debris in them or fail, latches and cams repeatedly
> rubbed eventually wear, etc.

Sorry, don't agree. The latches we have now fail. Even the self-latching
canopy lock (as in the L-13) must be checked before flight (and should be a
checklist item) the difference is that its NORMAL CONDITION IS SAFE. If you
forget to check it, 99.999% of the time it won't kill you. What can be bad
about that?

>From a manufacturers standpoint,
> self-latching canopies are a no-no. I don't think we'll ever see
> them in manufacture by any company that can ever be sued...

By your logic, how did we ever get manufacturers to design self-connecting
control hookups? (which also should be a checklist item before flight)

Vaughn


> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Todd Smith > wrote:
>1) good one-design competition ?
>NO, it's too damn slow ! and ugly !
>and there are not enough around to have good competition !

I have to wonder if any brand new single class glider
could have sold well enough to have widespread competitions?

This is really the LS-4 argument. The real kicker is the
price. I must say if the LS-4s and the Sparrowhawks
of the world were offered at < $20k, they might make it as
a World Class glider. But at $40k+, I don't think these
gliders would ever make widespread competition...

>As a newly licensed glider shopper, I wanted better performance than
>the PW-5 would have given me. I bought a used Grob-102 and have had
>lots of fun.
>
>My question to the PW-5 supporters.
>
>Would YOU buy one ? As the glider YOU flew every good soaring day ?

I wouldn't buy one, but as a low time pilot I would (and did)
rent one, every good soaring day. A Grob-102 simply wasn't
available at that price, perhaps because the insurance
is higher. And the PW-5 cost was low enough it was affordable
for the club to do...

And it's sort of a silly question. At the point most soaring
pilots are ready to buy a glider, they're going to buy
a retract, not a fixed gear anyway, I would guess...

The real winner out of the whole "World Class" and medium
performance low-price competition, in the US at least,
was the Russia. Well, at least until the US distributor folded...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Vaughn > wrote:
>
> Sorry, don't agree. The latches we have now fail. Even the self-latching
>canopy lock (as in the L-13) must be checked before flight (and should be a
>checklist item) the difference is that its NORMAL CONDITION IS SAFE. If you
>forget to check it, 99.999% of the time it won't kill you. What can be bad
>about that?
>
> >From a manufacturers standpoint,
>> self-latching canopies are a no-no. I don't think we'll ever see
>> them in manufacture by any company that can ever be sued...
>
> By your logic, how did we ever get manufacturers to design self-connecting
>control hookups? (which also should be a checklist item before flight)

Market pressure. And if self-latching canopies are to come,
this is how they will happen. Lower insurance rates for
vehicles that have them.

Thank God for thermals. Because of them, all gliders (that I know of
anyway) have shoulder harnesses. This keeps glider insurance rates WAY
down. Coincidence, yes, but we were way ahead of the power guys,
thankfully.

You mentioned 12 people saying "why wasn't this put in?"
In a business class I remember reviewing a case where
a lawn-mover manufacturer had the opportunity to put
a safety bar in front of the rotor to stop fingers getting
chopped off (this had been a problem in the past). The
manufacturer management quietly declined in an internal
memo. This would have been seen as an admission that the
previous design was unsafe, and opened the door for those
darned 12 jurors...

Of course other competitors started doing this, and the manufacturer
simply and quietly stopped making lawnmowers...

So Vaughn, you have a great idea, but somebody is
gonna have to be the first to try it. And 12 high-school
graduates aged 65+ are pretty prone to think the newsy-bewsy
stuff failed vs. condemning the industry standard.

I'm not saying it's right, just that there's reasons.
If you have a good foolproof self-latch, pray tell...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[CL]

> IF flying gliders lived up to the promise, more or less that of one
> person going up and doing his own thing then coming down and having a
> good bull session with friends, it would be ok, but it does not. The
> person that knows his limits, both in money to spend and risk he is
> willing to take will put up with an unwarranted barrage of ****mouth
> from a few that seem to think God only gave brains to them.
> Unfortunately, what God gave them was a big mouth and an empty head.
> What difference does it make to you if someone is flying only local in
> a 1-26, 2-33 or PW? What difference does it make to you that maybe
> he's happy with the situation as it is, content with what he has.
> What does it take away from you if he's not interested in competition
> or badges, even could care less about a diamond, microscopic as they
> are? Just exactly what does it take away from you if someone follows
> his own interests and ignores yours? How does it hurt you if he is
> flying in a PW and liking it? What is it taking away from you if he
> does? The activity itself, flying gliders, might make sense, it's the
> pilots that don't.

This is so far the most intelligent statement out of this whole "meat
throwing" so called discussion...I know that its tempting for some,
but don't add anything else.

[Janos Bauer]

Marcel Duenner wrote:
> Janos Bauer > wrote in message >...
>
>>szd-55 flyer wrote:
>>
>>>How we get stupid people like you in soaring ?
>>>If DG design and make new LS4 right now ,it would new cost about $70,000
>>>Pw-5 new cost $22,000
>>>All pilots be aware of idiots!!!
>>
>> A new szd55 is about 35k... Maybe a Discus CS is also at this price range.
>>
>>/Janos
>
>
>
> Where can I buy it????
> I don't think you can buy a new Discus CS for much less than 50k$ in
> Europe.
> Just before they went bust LS offered LS4b for 45k€ IIRC (54k$).
>
> http://www.szdusa.com/catalog.html states the SZD at 39k$ with
> delivery by June 1999! I doubt very much the price has gone down
> since. And those prices are without instruments. PW-5 price then was
> 20k$ incl. basic instruments.

I don't know if it's outdated but try this link:
http://www.avionic.pl

/Janos

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
(Todd Smith) wrote:

> As a newly licensed glider shopper, I wanted better performance than
> the PW-5 would have given me. I bought a used Grob-102 and have had
> lots of fun.

A 102? That's a good few steps below a Libelle or Cirrus. In fact, I
think you'd have trouble beating a PW5 most days (in north island NZ
conditions at least). Hell, I remember when I was flying a K6 and a guy
in his G102 asked if I minded if he followed me.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Todd Smith]

> Totally ignoring that it is flying ONLY against others of the same
> type. It's no uglier than any other plastic ship. They all suck.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Oh well.
As far as only flying against other PW-5's most of the time, I
am just flying randomly XC to see where I can get to. Whenever
I cross bad sink, or a strong headwind, then I want speed.

> >My question to the PW-5 supporters.
> >
> >Would YOU buy one ? As the glider YOU flew every good soaring day ?
> >If you want the class to grow, sell whatever you have and buy a PW-5.
> >
> If you can give any rational reason that you want them to disappear,
> and the class to die, other than "it's not your thing", it might shed
<snip>

I don't want them to disappear, but this thread in particular accused us
"non-suporters" of being afraid of the WC and asked why we don't support it.
I think it was a poor idea and was poorly executed.

> When I started, my interest was in the 1-26, and in particular, MY
<snip>

I like the 1-26, and if I had a little less cash on hand would have bought
one instead of the Grob.

Todd Smith
G102 3S

[Todd Smith]

> Yeah Todd you really gained a lot by going with used G102, about 1
> more L/D and a paint job that is going to cost you another
> G102...Right on!

20 years old and the gelcoat is still beautiful !

[Todd Smith]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<412a94ee$1@darkstar>...
> Todd Smith > wrote:
> >1) good one-design competition ?
> >NO, it's too damn slow ! and ugly !
> >and there are not enough around to have good competition !
>
> I have to wonder if any brand new single class glider
> could have sold well enough to have widespread competitions?
>
> This is really the LS-4 argument. The real kicker is the
> price. I must say if the LS-4s and the Sparrowhawks
> of the world were offered at < $20k, they might make it as
> a World Class glider. But at $40k+, I don't think these
> gliders would ever make widespread competition...

The real issue with "any" new glider is that the instruments,
radio, trailer cost $10000us or more.

> >As a newly licensed glider shopper, I wanted better performance than
> >the PW-5 would have given me. I bought a used Grob-102 and have had
> >lots of fun.
> >
> >My question to the PW-5 supporters.
> >
> >Would YOU buy one ? As the glider YOU flew every good soaring day ?
>
> I wouldn't buy one, but as a low time pilot I would (and did)
> rent one, every good soaring day. A Grob-102 simply wasn't
> available at that price, perhaps because the insurance
> is higher. And the PW-5 cost was low enough it was affordable
> for the club to do...

As a low time pilot I would rent any glider that was available.

> And it's sort of a silly question. At the point most soaring
> pilots are ready to buy a glider, they're going to buy
> a retract, not a fixed gear anyway, I would guess...

That's my whole damn point !!! When it is time for a new pilot
to buy a glider he want's the best he can get for his money.
If the the WC was an LS-4 or Discus CS, then I at least would have
had no hesitation in buying one.


Todd Smith
Grob 102 "3S"

[Bob Kuykendall]

The problem as I see it with self-latching canopies on modern
sailplanes has several quite thorny aspects, and I have no intention
of going there.

The key to the problem is the activation impulse required to activate
self engaging latches: the slam.

As a first experiment, I'd suggest you go buy an ASW-27, remove the
gas spring from the canopy pivot mechanism, and then spam the canopy
closed several hundred times. Please report your findings in this
forum.

;)

Thanks, and best regards

Bob K.

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

> The problem as I see it with self-latching canopies on modern
> sailplanes has several quite thorny aspects, and I have no intention
> of going there.
>
> The key to the problem is the activation impulse required to activate
> self engaging latches: the slam.
>
> As a first experiment, I'd suggest you go buy an ASW-27, remove the
> gas spring from the canopy pivot mechanism, and then spam the canopy
> closed several hundred times. Please report your findings in this
> forum.

On my ASH 26 E, the gas spring and the weight of the canopy supply a
noticeable closing force when the canopy is held open a few inches. I
think this would be plenty to engage a simple latch that would keep the
canopy from opening in flight. By "opening", I mean it might allow the
rear edge of the canopy to rise an inch or two, but no more. The usual
latches would still be used to secure it closed.

In fact, the "Roeger hook" mechanism it has already works like this.
It's two small springs in the fuslage that the spike on the canopy
engage as it is lowered the last 10 mm or so. I don't think the canopy
needs to be totally self-latching, as a partial latch that keeps the
canopy from flying completely open would be a big improvement. It would
pop up and inch or two during tow, alerting the pilot to the situation
without causing him a problem. He could release and land, or perhaps
simply push it closed after releasing from a normal tow.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Todd Smith]

Bruce Hoult > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Todd Smith) wrote:
>
> > As a newly licensed glider shopper, I wanted better performance than
> > the PW-5 would have given me. I bought a used Grob-102 and have had
> > lots of fun.
>
> A 102? That's a good few steps below a Libelle or Cirrus. In fact, I
> think you'd have trouble beating a PW5 most days (in north island NZ
> conditions at least). Hell, I remember when I was flying a K6 and a guy
> in his G102 asked if I minded if he followed me.

I've only flown with a Libelle for 1 contest and don't really remember
how we compared. A std cirrus seems about equal to the G102 when I've
flown with them. No problem keeping up with a K6 or PW5.

My choice was really just a lucky combination of price, nearby location,
good condition and immediate availability. Any decent glider that had
no damage or other issues would have been fine with me.

Todd Smith
G102 "3S"

[Mark James Boyd]

>> And it's sort of a silly question. At the point most soaring
>> pilots are ready to buy a glider, they're going to buy
>> a retract, not a fixed gear anyway, I would guess...
>
>That's my whole damn point !!! When it is time for a new pilot
>to buy a glider he want's the best he can get for his money.
>Todd Smith
>Grob 102 "3S"

As is common here, we are now in violent agreement!
I think this is a good argument that the next WC glider
should be allowed to compete as a retract. The AC-4c
is a fine example of a low price, lightweight, short wing,
low insurance rate glider. Maybe just offer a tilt up
canopy, eh? ;)
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Robin Birch]

In message >,
writes
>On 23 Aug 2004 06:36:44 -0700, (Todd Smith) wrote:
>
>>
>>1) good one-design competition ?
>>NO, it's too damn slow ! and ugly !
>
>Totally ignoring that it is flying ONLY against others of the same
>type. It's no uglier than any other plastic ship. They all suck.
>
Most of us can't afford two reasonable performance modern sailplanes.
So, if you have a PW-5 you will not only be flying it in world class
comps you will be using it for normal club flying. If, when I bought a
glider, I was faced with the choice of something that would get me round
most of the local club comps and cross countries or a glider that
wouldn't but would be ideal for world class comps then I'm afraid the
"get me round most" wins.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a full advocate of the idea of a world single
class but it should be competitive with other sailplanes as most pilots
will be doing that sort of flying.
>>
>>My question to the PW-5 supporters.
>>
>>Would YOU buy one ? As the glider YOU flew every good soaring day ?
>>If you want the class to grow, sell whatever you have and buy a PW-5.
>>
>If you can give any rational reason that you want them to disappear,
>and the class to die, other than "it's not your thing", it might shed
>a little light on the subject. From the many, many threads that have
>blasted anything less than 40:1, it's quite obvious why it's not being
>a success. In other words, if you're not interested, you are only
>joining the small number of high volume bigmouths that wish only to
>impress their "standards" on others and have pretty much killed the
>class in the process.

I think the real problem is that the current idea behind the world class
is that it is too many things to too many people. The proponents of it
should decide whether they want a machine that can be used for comps or
whether they want a machine for early solos and so on. There is nothing
that says a reasonable performance machine has to be very expensive but
unfortunately it has to compete with the second hand machines that exist
and so if a large number of them are required then this is a barrier to
entry that has to be over come.

My first glider was, and still is come to that, an Astir 77. Not
sparkling performance and it climbs like a lump of concrete compared to,
say, a DG300, however it was cheap, probably cost me 8k ukp when I
bought it. Is a very nice glider to fly and is quite capable (shame I'm
not :-)) of doing a 300k task in UK conditions. This is what any glider
that is being introduced as a cheap, early solo, machine has to compete
with. If I am going to spend, say, 30k ukp I will buy myself something
with a lot of performance as when I can say that I have reached the
limits of my Astir then I can easily use the performance of a DG, Discus
or so on, and second hand high performance ships can be bought for this
sort of money.

Given this I am never going to be in the market for a new glider, unless
I win the lottery, as I am never going to be capable of reaching the
limits of something like a good LS4/6 or a discus 2. So I am always
likely to be in the second hand market and I would venture that this is
true of an awful lot of people.

So, either decide that you want a competition glider - performance and
the like, or a cheap early solo machine and don't mix the two up.

Flame pants on

Robin
--
Robin Birch

[Vaughn]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
>...a simple latch that would keep the
> canopy from opening in flight. By "opening", I mean it might allow the
> rear edge of the canopy to rise an inch or two, but no more. The usual
> latches would still be used to secure it closed.

Sure! You mean like the safety latch on the hood of a car. A good idea,
but it would have to be incorporated into the design of the latch/handle so that
the canopy could be raised in one operation (so as not to trap someone inside
who urgently wants to depart). Again, this dual function would operate just
like the hood latch on many (older) cars! When was the last time you saw an
accident caused by the hood of a car opening accidently?

>... I don't think the canopy
> needs to be totally self-latching, as a partial latch that keeps the
> canopy from flying completely open would be a big improvement. It would
> pop up and inch or two during tow, alerting the pilot to the situation
> without causing him a problem. He could release and land, or perhaps
> simply push it closed after releasing from a normal tow.

I agree.

Vaughn

[CL]

> That's my whole damn point !!! When it is time for a new pilot
> to buy a glider he want's the best he can get for his money.
> If the the WC was an LS-4 or Discus CS, then I at least would have
> had no hesitation in buying one.

No hasitation in buying one??? Take wild guess how much would you have
to spend on newly manufactured Ls-4 or Discus Cs???? There goes your
major DAMN hesitation!!!! Thats why you're flying 20 year old G102 NOT
even used Ls-4 or Discus Cs. Sorry but no glider is worth 80 - 100
thousand, it is truly sad to see one country gaining monopoly on
glider manufacturing and dictating the prices. I'm no fan of Pewee but
making a glider thats going to cost 80 grand a new WC is not going to
make gliding more popular either!

[Vaughn]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
> The problem as I see it with self-latching canopies on modern
> sailplanes has several quite thorny aspects, and I have no intention
> of going there.

It may not qualify as a "modern sailplane" but the L-13 has such a latch.
Have you ever heard of an L-13 having a canopy accident? I haven't, (though
someone probably will dredge one up); the G-103 is a different matter!

>
> The key to the problem is the activation impulse required to activate
> self engaging latches: the slam.

It is a matter of design and training. First, no slam should be necessary.
The mechanism should be designed so that the canopy always latches with gravity,
so that the canopy will always be latched when closed. An inadvertant slam
could also be damped with padding or mechanical dampers. Furthermore, slams can
(and should) be minimized with training. Every student of mine comes away from
his/her first lesson having heard the "canopy lecture", which includes
instructions to not slam or stress the canopy in any way, to always check that
the canopy is latched when it is closed (particularly if you are going flying),
and to never walk away from an open canopy, and the "checklist lecture" (the
canopy is on the checklist).

> As a first experiment, I'd suggest you go buy an ASW-27, remove the
> gas spring from the canopy pivot mechanism, and then spam the canopy
> closed several hundred times. Please report your findings in this
> forum.

Though I respectfully disagree with you that canopy cracks must result from
self-latching mechanisms, how many cracked canopies would it be worth to prevent
an accident like this one below which (as I recall) killed a young girl taking
her first glider ride?

Aircraft: Burkhart Grob G 103C, registration: N103VT
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Serious, 1 Minor.
During takeoff for a glider tow operation, the towplane and the glider both
became airborne. An FAA Inspector witnessed the takeoff and said his attention
was drawn to the 'erratic pitch changes' of the glider. The glider pilot's
canopy was open, and the pilot repeatedly attempted to close the canopy. Pitch
changes and climbs above the tow plane accompanied each attempt to close the
canopy. As the towrope reached a vertical position, the towplane struck the
ground, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. The towrope separated, and the
glider continued past the towplane, rolled left to an inverted position and
impacted the ground.
http://www2.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X11267&key=2



Vaughn


>
> ;)
>
> Thanks, and best regards
>
> Bob K.

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Robin Birch > wrote:

> My first glider was, and still is come to that, an Astir 77. Not
> sparkling performance and it climbs like a lump of concrete compared to,
> say, a DG300, however it was cheap, probably cost me 8k ukp when I
> bought it. Is a very nice glider to fly and is quite capable (shame I'm
> not :-)) of doing a 300k task in UK conditions. This is what any glider
> that is being introduced as a cheap, early solo, machine has to compete
> with.

UK conditions must be even more ****e than I've been lead to believe if
you can't do a 300k in a PW-5 there. Surely people were (and are) doing
that sort of flight in K6's?

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Chris Nicholas]

The UK has usually 0-3 absolutely superb days each year (like this year,
1000km in an ASW22, lots of 750's and more, and possible 750 in PW5 or
500+ in a Ka6E, 300km in a K8 - all those have been done at times).
Rarely more than 3 such days and sometimes none in a year.

More frequent days happen when usually 500km in good glass is possible
or 300+ in lower perfomance glass and Ka6E is possible - I doubt if many
years happen with no such days, there are usually maybe 5-10 or more
most years. It is that kind of weather I imagine Robin was talking
about. Weekend only pilots many take several years of trying, however,
before they, the glider availability, and the weather all work out OK at
the same time.

I believe that the emergence of 1:40+ gliders has transformed UK soaring
from a struggle to do long tasks except on the few really good days to a
pattern of lots of days of 300km+ capability. A lot of pilots (I was
one such until very recently) plug on with wood or low performance
glass, either out of financial necessity or stubbornness/enjoying the
challenge. Others find the wherewithal to go to better glass and are
more often able to do long flights. There are also the factors of
spreadout - sometimes the wooden glider simply cannot jump the gaps
between areas with lift; and penetration, when wood/PW5's etc. cannot
complete closed circuit tasks because the into-wind leg is impossible.
(I speak from experience, e.g. 4 outlandings downwind in 5 days flying
in Competition Enterprise this year, because of strong winds all week.
The 6th and last flyable day I did not compete in my Ka6E because of the
wind strength, though a few glass gliders did.)

Chris N.

[Andy Durbin]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
>
> On my ASH 26 E, the gas spring and the weight of the canopy supply a
> noticeable closing force when the canopy is held open a few inches. I
> think this would be plenty to engage a simple latch that would keep the
> canopy from opening in flight. By "opening", I mean it might allow the
> rear edge of the canopy to rise an inch or two, but no more. The usual
> latches would still be used to secure it closed.


I suppose there is a first time for everything and at Parowan I manged
to launch with my P tube trapped under the instrument panel of my
ASW-28. Didn't notice the problem until well out on course so my
options were don't pee, or open the canopy to free it.

I very carefully held the canopy frame on one side and released the
latch on that side. Nothing happened. I then repeated the procedure
on the other side holding on even more strongly. Again nothing
happened. I was very surprised that I had to strongly push up on the
canopy to get it to open the half inch I need to free the P tube. I
was trimmed for about 60kts I think. It may behave differently at
different speeds.


Andy

[Eric Greenwell]

Andy Durbin wrote:
> Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
>
>>On my ASH 26 E, the gas spring and the weight of the canopy supply a
>>noticeable closing force when the canopy is held open a few inches. I
>>think this would be plenty to engage a simple latch that would keep the
>>canopy from opening in flight. By "opening", I mean it might allow the
>>rear edge of the canopy to rise an inch or two, but no more. The usual
>>latches would still be used to secure it closed.
>
>
>
> I suppose there is a first time for everything and at Parowan I manged
> to launch with my P tube trapped under the instrument panel of my
> ASW-28. Didn't notice the problem until well out on course so my
> options were don't pee, or open the canopy to free it.
>
> I very carefully held the canopy frame on one side and released the
> latch on that side. Nothing happened. I then repeated the procedure
> on the other side holding on even more strongly. Again nothing
> happened. I was very surprised that I had to strongly push up on the
> canopy to get it to open the half inch I need to free the P tube. I
> was trimmed for about 60kts I think. It may behave differently at
> different speeds.

I am curious about how different canopies will react to being unlatched.
The Schleicher design appears to have air pressure holding it down, at
least in the closed position. I don't know what happens if turbulence
were to bounce it up a few inches.

A friend had his DG 400 canopy open in flight, and stay open, so he had
to pull it closed. His headphones and various things flew out of the
cockpit. Fortunately, he was quite high at the time, and dealt with it
successively, but (as I recall) could not retrieve the headphones, so
the cord kept the canopy from latching after he pulled it back down.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Robin Birch]

In message >, Bruce
Hoult > writes
>In article >,
> Robin Birch > wrote:
>
>> My first glider was, and still is come to that, an Astir 77. Not
>> sparkling performance and it climbs like a lump of concrete compared to,
>> say, a DG300, however it was cheap, probably cost me 8k ukp when I
>> bought it. Is a very nice glider to fly and is quite capable (shame I'm
>> not :-)) of doing a 300k task in UK conditions. This is what any glider
>> that is being introduced as a cheap, early solo, machine has to compete
>> with.
>
>UK conditions must be even more ****e than I've been lead to believe if
>you can't do a 300k in a PW-5 there. Surely people were (and are) doing
>that sort of flight in K6's?
>
Oh yes. It is the total package that I was referring to. In fact I
would have been quite happy with a good K6 E as there have been several
come up locally since I bought my Astir that would have been cheaper.

Regards

Robin
--
Robin Birch

[Robin Birch]

In message >, Chris Nicholas
> writes
>The UK has usually 0-3 absolutely superb days each year (like this year,
>1000km in an ASW22, lots of 750's and more, and possible 750 in PW5 or
>500+ in a Ka6E, 300km in a K8 - all those have been done at times).
>Rarely more than 3 such days and sometimes none in a year.
>
>More frequent days happen when usually 500km in good glass is possible
>or 300+ in lower perfomance glass and Ka6E is possible - I doubt if many
>years happen with no such days, there are usually maybe 5-10 or more
>most years. It is that kind of weather I imagine Robin was talking
>about. Weekend only pilots many take several years of trying, however,
>before they, the glider availability, and the weather all work out OK at
>the same time.
>
Yes I was. You summary is fairly typical of the conditions we see in
the UK
>I believe that the emergence of 1:40+ gliders has transformed UK soaring
>from a struggle to do long tasks except on the few really good days to a
>pattern of lots of days of 300km+ capability. A lot of pilots (I was
>one such until very recently) plug on with wood or low performance
>glass, either out of financial necessity or stubbornness/enjoying the
>challenge. Others find the wherewithal to go to better glass and are
>more often able to do long flights. There are also the factors of
>spreadout - sometimes the wooden glider simply cannot jump the gaps
>between areas with lift; and penetration, when wood/PW5's etc. cannot
>complete closed circuit tasks because the into-wind leg is impossible.
>(I speak from experience, e.g. 4 outlandings downwind in 5 days flying
>in Competition Enterprise this year, because of strong winds all week.
>The 6th and last flyable day I did not compete in my Ka6E because of the
>wind strength, though a few glass gliders did.)
>
Yes, mind you it was fun. I think I managed 3 outlandings but inly
because I didn't go far on one day actually made it back. Despite that
Enterprise was fun, the first "real" comp that I'd been in and a great
education. I'd happily do it again.

Robin
>Chris N.
>
>
>
>
>

--
Robin Birch

[Mark James Boyd]

In an RV-3, recently an unlatched side opening canopy
ripped off with a loud bang in flight and a friend of mine
lost his glasses with it. 100 knots in the open air
isn't fun.

He landed safely, but said it was exciting.

Katana canopies (clamshell) and side opening canopies
don't sound so great to me. Yep, the L-13 canopy
with self-latch seems pretty good, but for one seaters,
the rear-opening canopy seems like the best.
Besides, I like the vis a lot better than with
bars in the way...

>I am curious about how different canopies will react to being unlatched.
> The Schleicher design appears to have air pressure holding it down, at
>least in the closed position. I don't know what happens if turbulence
>were to bounce it up a few inches.
>
>A friend had his DG 400 canopy open in flight, and stay open, so he had
>to pull it closed. His headphones and various things flew out of the
>cockpit. Fortunately, he was quite high at the time, and dealt with it
>successively, but (as I recall) could not retrieve the headphones, so
>the cord kept the canopy from latching after he pulled it back down.
>
>--
>Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>


--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Chris Nicholas
> writes

snip

>I believe that the emergence of 1:40+ gliders has transformed UK soaring
>from a struggle to do long tasks except on the few really good days to a
>pattern of lots of days of 300km+ capability.

>A lot of pilots (I was
>one such until very recently) plug on with wood or low performance
>glass, either out of financial necessity or stubbornness/enjoying the
>challenge.

>Others find the wherewithal to go to better glass and are
>more often able to do long flights.

>There are also the factors of
>spreadout - sometimes the wooden glider simply cannot jump the gaps
>between areas with lift; and penetration, when wood/PW5's etc. cannot
>complete closed circuit tasks because the into-wind leg is impossible.
>(I speak from experience, e.g. 4 outlandings downwind in 5 days flying
>in Competition Enterprise this year, because of strong winds all week.
>The 6th and last flyable day I did not compete in my Ka6E because of the
>wind strength, though a few glass gliders did.)

A breath of common sense and fresh air from Chris!

If I might put it another way: In not very good soaring conditions,
glider performance has its own merit, particularly high L/D. So as to
penetrate from one set of soaring to another, without landing. Is not
soaring without regular land-outs, the very essence of our sport?

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

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

[Vaughn]

"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:412d0013$1@darkstar...
> In an RV-3, recently an unlatched side opening canopy
> ripped off with a loud bang in flight and a friend of mine
> lost his glasses with it. 100 knots in the open air
> isn't fun.
>
> He landed safely, but said it was exciting.
>
> Katana canopies (clamshell) and side opening canopies
> don't sound so great to me.

Yes, they open in front and can not maintain level flight with them open.
I think about three Katanas have been shot down by their canopies. I notice
they turned the canopy around on the 4-seater.

> Yep, the L-13 canopy
> with self-latch seems pretty good, but for one seaters,
> the rear-opening canopy seems like the best.

Without a doubt!

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:46:51 +0100, Ian Strachan
> wrote:

> Is not
>soaring without regular land-outs, the very essence of our sport?

Ian, what is the "essence" of any sport will vary for every person
that participates. There is no "One" thing that will apply to
everyone equally. For someone in a higher buck glider, it may be a
sign of total failure, for someone in a 1-26 it may be only the price
he pays for having too much fun and not watching close enough.

OT: Happiness is victory over Aurora health care,

and I AM HAPPY!

[Stewart Kissel]

Chris-

I like your analysis...and the same can be said for
the western United State...it really helps to have
a ship that can make it across the large gaps, and
that takes penetration. Not a lot of PW5's seen in
these parts...although the 1-26ers make some impressive
flights(and land out a lot)

Ian-
I understand your point, but Reichman would disagree
:)




At 22:06 25 August 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
>In article , Chris Nicholas
> writes
>>>There are also the factors of
>>spreadout - sometimes the wooden glider simply cannot
>>jump the gaps
>>between areas with lift; and penetration, when wood/PW5's
>>etc. cannot
>>complete closed circuit tasks because the into-wind
>>leg is impossible.
SNIPPED

Is not
>soaring without regular land-outs, the very essence
>of our sport?
>
>--
>Ian Strachan
>Lasham Gliding Centre, UK
>
Bentworth
>Hall West
>Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth,
>Alton
>Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire
>GU34 5LA, ENGLAND
>
>
>

[Robert Ehrlich]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> In article >,
> NigelPocock > wrote:
> >>If DG design and make new LS4 right now ,it would new cost about $70,000
> >>Pw-5 new cost $22,000
> >
> >But a new Junior, 15m strong, good handling with better performance costs about
> >the same as a PeeWee.
> >No contest which I would buy
>
> But how about the Junior vs. a retract Russia AC-4c or a Sparrowhawk?
>
> The PeeWee simply won't be the next World Class glider. But
> there are other < 15m gliders which may. Do you think
> 15m is simply the minimum span (a 12-13.5 meter glider
> is just silly?)
>
> And you glider makers and repairers out there (Bob K. and JJ),
> is there enough savings in weight and money to make the extra
> wing of 15m that a 12-13.5 meter glider costs significantly less?
>
> I don't know the answer to these questions, but I find them interesting.
> For me personally, the answer is just plain yes, I'm happier
> with less span. But if I weighed 225 lbs, I'd say just the
> opposite, perhaps...

Some element of answer about the influence of the wing span on the
price of the glider: IIRC just before the production was stoppped
a few years ago, the LAK12 (20m wingspan) was sold new at about $20k.
It seems that the major factor of cost is the country where the glider
is built and the cost of manpower in this country, rather than the
wing span.

[Robert Ehrlich]

Bert Willing wrote:
>
> Exactly. Just a bunch of say 50,000 arrogant European pilots who think that
> it's an ugly ship and who rather spend $15,000 on a second hand ship having
> much more performance...
>

Remember a high number of pilots among these 50,000 are not owning nor buying
any glider, but just fly club gliders. And the choice of which glider a club
should buy is another thing. If a glider costs twice the price of a PW5, but
flies twice the number of hours a PW5 would fly because of better performance,
there is no hesitation on the choice. My club owned 2 old gliders (wood, metal
frame and fabric) that were donated, not sold, some years ago because the annual
number of hours they were flown were not worth the simple cost of maintaining them
airworthy.

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Robert Ehrlich > wrote:
>Bert Willing wrote:
>>
>> Exactly. Just a bunch of say 50,000 arrogant European pilots who think that
>> it's an ugly ship and who rather spend $15,000 on a second hand ship having
>> much more performance...
>>
>
>Remember a high number of pilots among these 50,000 are not owning nor buying
>any glider, but just fly club gliders. And the choice of which glider a club
>should buy is another thing. If a glider costs twice the price of a PW5, but
>flies twice the number of hours a PW5 would fly because of better performance,
>there is no hesitation on the choice. My club owned 2 old gliders (wood, metal
>frame and fabric) that were donated, not sold, some years ago because the annual
>number of hours they were flown were not worth the simple cost of maintaining them
>airworthy.

The flip side is the 1-34 that BASA owns. They have a DG1000,
grob 103, and pegasi, but kept the 1-34 because it's just so dang
cheap to maintain.

And a local power FBO just sold two 152s and a 172 to
buy a brand new 172 because it's less maintenance.

So I think the door swings both ways. Operators may buy or
keep old stuff that is sturdy, and discard old stuff that
breaks a lot.

The L-13 seems to be a good example. Old, and with lots of
parts, but it doesn't need a new gelcoat, so it
makes a good tiedown glider. But an old glider with wood wings?
Man, now you're talkin' el rotto...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA