Performance World Class design proposal

[iPilot]

I do not think that soaring community to trash current World Class. There are some gliders out there
at least and there are competitions. And PW-5 seems to be a perfect glider for beginning pilots in
clubs.

But I still believe that although the idea of the monoclass is very good, the problem is the
relatively high cost of the glider with performance from the 60-s. Therefore i propse a new
monoclass which is more performance than beginner oriented and which should be our primary hope to
get the gliding into olympic games.

Objective:
To develop new monclass glider which offers the better or equal performance per price when compared
to all current production and aftermarket gliders with L/D above 42.
Glider has to satisfy several general requirements
safe handling in the air and on the ground
a single design, stabilized for a period of years (proposedly 15 as in WC)
performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
simple construction

Design objectives

compliance with JAR-22, Category U, including cloud flying
max stall 80 km/h at max mass, most unfavorable cg, airbrakes opened or closed
airbrakes for speed limiting & glidepath control required
sideslip possible with brakes opened or closed
effective wheel brake
automatic elevator hookup
a "crash-friendly" panel
ddtwo-handed canopy jettison actuating releases on both sides
seat & harness good to 15g's forward
battery, oxygen, equipment restraint good to 20g's
adequate cockpit ventilation
retractable landing gear
no flaps or camber-changing devices
possiblity to use water or in-flight adjustable ballast
no restrictions in wingtip extensions
no blowing or sucking of boundary layer
maximum L/D: 40 or greater
max roll rate at 1.4 Vs = b w 3.5 sec (b=span in meters)
accommodate pilots to 6"4"
provision for non-disposable ballast
panel to hold ASI, altimeter, compass, 2 varios, T&S ind
space for radio, O2, battery, datalogger
winch, aero & auto launches possible & safe
rigged easily by two average people
easily moved on ground.

Otherwise applicable to FAI Standard Class rules


Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.

Regards,
Kaido

[Tanel]

An another Estonian Idea
The glider should be manufactured not only in one one factory. So the
designer manufactures wing and fuselage moulds to all producers who are able
to manufacture by licence exactly the same world class glider.
: )

[Andreas Maurer]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:29:58 +0300, "iPilot" >
wrote:

>Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.

You just gave a perfect description of LS-4, LS8, DG-300,
Discus,......

In good ole Europe we call this "Club Class" and it's extremely
successful. Guess why... :)



Bye
Andreas

[Eric Greenwell]

Andreas Maurer wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:29:58 +0300, "iPilot" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.
>
>
> You just gave a perfect description of LS-4, LS8, DG-300,
> Discus,......
>
> In good ole Europe we call this "Club Class" and it's extremely
> successful. Guess why... :)

I suspect there is little overall for support for the concept of a true
"one design" class, for several reasons:

* the current Standard, 15M, and 18M classes are nearly one design
classes anyway, because the performance difference from
manufacturer-to-manufacturer and year-to-year is very small

* the Club Class makes so many different used gliders competitive, the
potential cost advantage of a one-design class is eliminated

* the top pilots have little trouble getting the glider they want, most
of the rest of us are losing contests because of our ability, not our
glider, so there is little value to the majority of contest pilots to
have a one design class.

* the major interest in the one-design class seems to be from people
that hope it would result in a new 40+ L/D glider that doesn't cost any
more than a 20 year old used glider

I can't see the last item ever being more than a dream.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Tanel" > wrote:

> ...So the designer manufactures wing and fuselage
> moulds to all producers who are able to manufacture
> by licence exactly the same world class glider.

My thoughts exactly. It shouldn't matter much what is under the skin,
just the exterior profiles. Different manufacturers could offer
exterior finishes, treatments, interior enhacements, amenities, and
levels of completion according to what their customers are willing to
pay. They could use internal structures commensurate with their skills
and competencies. But the ships would all have the same shapes, and
would all perform about the same.

I would further postulate a monoclass that allows freedom of exterior
profile in some areas of potential development. Specifically, I'd like
to see the outboard 200mm of wing span implemented at the
participants' option. That would allow for continued development of
winglet design, and also for expression of individuality. It would
also, to some tiny degree, allow for optimization for different
conditions. And the participant could even extend the span at that
point to improve their ship's performance for non-competition events.

And, responding to Mark Boyd's question from another thread, I believe
that the cost difference between 13m and 15m is certainly measurable
(all other things being equal, of course), but that with modern
commercially-available materials the difference is not prohibitvely
great, and that 15m is as good a monoclass span as any. My old HP-11
(1960 technology, 50-foot span, poorly sealed) had about the same
general performance as a PW-5, and there was many, many a time that I
wished for a few more points of glide to make the difference between
driving home and driving it home.

Thanks, and best regards to all

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

[Jacek Kobiesa]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:29:58 +0300, "iPilot" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.
> >
> >
> > You just gave a perfect description of LS-4, LS8, DG-300,
> > Discus,......
> >
> > In good ole Europe we call this "Club Class" and it's extremely
> > successful. Guess why... :)
>
> I suspect there is little overall for support for the concept of a true
> "one design" class, for several reasons:
>
> * the current Standard, 15M, and 18M classes are nearly one design
> classes anyway, because the performance difference from
> manufacturer-to-manufacturer and year-to-year is very small
>
> * the Club Class makes so many different used gliders competitive, the
> potential cost advantage of a one-design class is eliminated
>
> * the top pilots have little trouble getting the glider they want, most
> of the rest of us are losing contests because of our ability, not our
> glider, so there is little value to the majority of contest pilots to
> have a one design class.
>
> * the major interest in the one-design class seems to be from people
> that hope it would result in a new 40+ L/D glider that doesn't cost any
> more than a 20 year old used glider
>
> I can't see the last item ever being more than a dream.

Eric,
You just nailed the issue right on the head....

[Pete Reinhart]

Yeah, and there seems to be a bunch of pretty nice gliders in the 40+- l/d
range for sale in the 18K-20K ($US) range. They usually come with decent
trailers and usable instruments. Second generation 70's open class ships are
selling in the low 20's these days and have very long legs (l/d @ 45-50).
A recent article in Technical Soaring would indicate a usable airframe life
somewhere in excess of 200,000 hours, so you probabluy wouldn't have to
worry too much about using one up.

Cheers!
"Jacek Kobiesa" > wrote in message
om...
> Eric Greenwell > wrote in message
>...
> > Andreas Maurer wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:29:58 +0300, "iPilot" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it
interesting.
> > >
> > >
> > > You just gave a perfect description of LS-4, LS8, DG-300,
> > > Discus,......
> > >
> > > In good ole Europe we call this "Club Class" and it's extremely
> > > successful. Guess why... :)
> >
> > I suspect there is little overall for support for the concept of a true
> > "one design" class, for several reasons:
> >
> > * the current Standard, 15M, and 18M classes are nearly one design
> > classes anyway, because the performance difference from
> > manufacturer-to-manufacturer and year-to-year is very small
> >
> > * the Club Class makes so many different used gliders competitive, the
> > potential cost advantage of a one-design class is eliminated
> >
> > * the top pilots have little trouble getting the glider they want, most
> > of the rest of us are losing contests because of our ability, not our
> > glider, so there is little value to the majority of contest pilots to
> > have a one design class.
> >
> > * the major interest in the one-design class seems to be from people
> > that hope it would result in a new 40+ L/D glider that doesn't cost any
> > more than a 20 year old used glider
> >
> > I can't see the last item ever being more than a dream.
>
> Eric,
> You just nailed the issue right on the head....

[Tim Ward]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
> Earlier, "Tanel" > wrote:
>
> > ...So the designer manufactures wing and fuselage
> > moulds to all producers who are able to manufacture
> > by licence exactly the same world class glider.
>
> My thoughts exactly. It shouldn't matter much what is under the skin,
> just the exterior profiles. Different manufacturers could offer
> exterior finishes, treatments, interior enhacements, amenities, and
> levels of completion according to what their customers are willing to
> pay. They could use internal structures commensurate with their skills
> and competencies. But the ships would all have the same shapes, and
> would all perform about the same.
>
> I would further postulate a monoclass that allows freedom of exterior
> profile in some areas of potential development. Specifically, I'd like
> to see the outboard 200mm of wing span implemented at the
> participants' option. That would allow for continued development of
> winglet design, and also for expression of individuality. It would
> also, to some tiny degree, allow for optimization for different
> conditions. And the participant could even extend the span at that
> point to improve their ship's performance for non-competition events.
>
> And, responding to Mark Boyd's question from another thread, I believe
> that the cost difference between 13m and 15m is certainly measurable
> (all other things being equal, of course), but that with modern
> commercially-available materials the difference is not prohibitvely
> great, and that 15m is as good a monoclass span as any. My old HP-11
> (1960 technology, 50-foot span, poorly sealed) had about the same
> general performance as a PW-5, and there was many, many a time that I
> wished for a few more points of glide to make the difference between
> driving home and driving it home.
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Take it a step further:
Just use a standard wing mold. (Or, as in your suggestion, inner wing, with
span limitation for competition).
The wing is the thing. People have done all sorts of strange things to
1-26's (lowered canopies, faired wheels, taken the wheel off entirely and
flown with just a skid), and the L/D still stayed about the same
The variations in fuselage, empennage, materials, etc give people a shot at
"optimizing" their ship, and manufacturers a hook for for their advertising
(assuming there's ever more than one) but I bet they'd converge pretty
quickly. Small but real competitive advantages might actually exist, in
which case the super-competitive pilots will sell their ships to buy the
more competitive models, putting more ships in the class, and entry-level
ships on the market.
I believe something similar to that has happened in some of the sailing
monoclasses.

Homebuilders could buy a wing set and build the remainder however they
liked.

Tim Ward

[Eric Greenwell]

Tim Ward wrote:

>
> Take it a step further:
> Just use a standard wing mold. (Or, as in your suggestion, inner wing, with
> span limitation for competition).
> The wing is the thing. People have done all sorts of strange things to
> 1-26's (lowered canopies, faired wheels, taken the wheel off entirely and
> flown with just a skid), and the L/D still stayed about the same
> The variations in fuselage, empennage, materials, etc give people a shot at
> "optimizing" their ship, and manufacturers a hook for for their advertising
> (assuming there's ever more than one) but I bet they'd converge pretty
> quickly. Small but real competitive advantages might actually exist, in
> which case the super-competitive pilots will sell their ships to buy the
> more competitive models, putting more ships in the class, and entry-level
> ships on the market.

And what would be the point of a class that is essentially like what we
already have in the Standard and 15 meter classes? Having the exterior
wing shape defined would save very little in design costs because they
would all require substantial aerodynamic design and the complete
structural design, which is even more expensive than the aerodynamic
design. None would be built in enough quantity to make them any less
expensive than what we already have.



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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[iPilot]

No-one cares.

Of course, it's far mure fun to tell everybody how bad PW-5 instead of doing something constructive.



"iPilot" > wrote in message ...
> I do not think that soaring community to trash current World Class. There are some gliders out
there
> at least and there are competitions. And PW-5 seems to be a perfect glider for beginning pilots in
> clubs.
>
> But I still believe that although the idea of the monoclass is very good, the problem is the
> relatively high cost of the glider with performance from the 60-s. Therefore i propse a new
> monoclass which is more performance than beginner oriented and which should be our primary hope to
> get the gliding into olympic games.
>
> Objective:
> To develop new monclass glider which offers the better or equal performance per price when
compared
> to all current production and aftermarket gliders with L/D above 42.
> Glider has to satisfy several general requirements
> safe handling in the air and on the ground
> a single design, stabilized for a period of years (proposedly 15 as in WC)
> performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
> simple construction
>
> Design objectives
>
> compliance with JAR-22, Category U, including cloud flying
> max stall 80 km/h at max mass, most unfavorable cg, airbrakes opened or closed
> airbrakes for speed limiting & glidepath control required
> sideslip possible with brakes opened or closed
> effective wheel brake
> automatic elevator hookup
> a "crash-friendly" panel
> ddtwo-handed canopy jettison actuating releases on both sides
> seat & harness good to 15g's forward
> battery, oxygen, equipment restraint good to 20g's
> adequate cockpit ventilation
> retractable landing gear
> no flaps or camber-changing devices
> possiblity to use water or in-flight adjustable ballast
> no restrictions in wingtip extensions
> no blowing or sucking of boundary layer
> maximum L/D: 40 or greater
> max roll rate at 1.4 Vs = b w 3.5 sec (b=span in meters)
> accommodate pilots to 6"4"
> provision for non-disposable ballast
> panel to hold ASI, altimeter, compass, 2 varios, T&S ind
> space for radio, O2, battery, datalogger
> winch, aero & auto launches possible & safe
> rigged easily by two average people
> easily moved on ground.
>
> Otherwise applicable to FAI Standard Class rules
>
>
> Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.
>
> Regards,
> Kaido
>
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:23:01 +0300, "iPilot" >
wrote:

>No-one cares.
>
>Of course, it's far mure fun to tell everybody how bad PW-5 instead of doing something constructive.

Many people do something constructive.
They fly Club class, Standard class, 15m Class or Open class.

Bye
Andreas

[Patrick Edwards]

"iPilot" > wrote in message >...
> No-one cares.
>
> Of course, it's far mure fun to tell everybody how bad PW-5 instead of doing something constructive.
>
>
>
> "iPilot" > wrote in message ...
> > I do not think that soaring community to trash current World Class. There are some gliders out
> there
> > at least and there are competitions. And PW-5 seems to be a perfect glider for beginning pilots in
> > clubs.
> >
> > But I still believe that although the idea of the monoclass is very good, the problem is the
> > relatively high cost of the glider with performance from the 60-s. Therefore i propse a new
> > monoclass which is more performance than beginner oriented and which should be our primary hope to
> > get the gliding into olympic games.
> >
> > Objective:
> > To develop new monclass glider which offers the better or equal performance per price when
> compared
> > to all current production and aftermarket gliders with L/D above 42.
> > Glider has to satisfy several general requirements
> > safe handling in the air and on the ground
> > a single design, stabilized for a period of years (proposedly 15 as in WC)
> > performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
> > simple construction
> >
> > Design objectives
> >
> > compliance with JAR-22, Category U, including cloud flying
> > max stall 80 km/h at max mass, most unfavorable cg, airbrakes opened or closed
> > airbrakes for speed limiting & glidepath control required
> > sideslip possible with brakes opened or closed
> > effective wheel brake
> > automatic elevator hookup
> > a "crash-friendly" panel
> > ddtwo-handed canopy jettison actuating releases on both sides
> > seat & harness good to 15g's forward
> > battery, oxygen, equipment restraint good to 20g's
> > adequate cockpit ventilation
> > retractable landing gear
> > no flaps or camber-changing devices
> > possiblity to use water or in-flight adjustable ballast
> > no restrictions in wingtip extensions
> > no blowing or sucking of boundary layer
> > maximum L/D: 40 or greater
> > max roll rate at 1.4 Vs = b w 3.5 sec (b=span in meters)
> > accommodate pilots to 6"4"
> > provision for non-disposable ballast
> > panel to hold ASI, altimeter, compass, 2 varios, T&S ind
> > space for radio, O2, battery, datalogger
> > winch, aero & auto launches possible & safe
> > rigged easily by two average people
> > easily moved on ground.
> >
> > Otherwise applicable to FAI Standard Class rules
> >
> >
> > Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kaido
> >
> >

This is a great topic.
I do like the idea of a class designed around a set of parameters but
I am not in favor of a one design class.
It's too bad that cost is a factor, otherwise it would make sense for
each of us to have a glider for different occasions.
When the World Class was announced I was in favor of multiple
designers competing to meet the parameters set by OSTIV.


Patrick Edwards

[Jacek Kobiesa]

"Pete Reinhart" > wrote in message >...
> Yeah, and there seems to be a bunch of pretty nice gliders in the 40+- l/d
> range for sale in the 18K-20K ($US) range. They usually come with decent
> trailers and usable instruments. Second generation 70's open class ships are
> selling in the low 20's these days and have very long legs (l/d @ 45-50).
> A recent article in Technical Soaring would indicate a usable airframe life
> somewhere in excess of 200,000 hours, so you probabluy wouldn't have to
> worry too much about using one up.
>
> Cheers!
> "Jacek Kobiesa" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Eric Greenwell > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Andreas Maurer wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:29:58 +0300, "iPilot" >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it
> interesting.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You just gave a perfect description of LS-4, LS8, DG-300,
> > > > Discus,......
> > > >
> > > > In good ole Europe we call this "Club Class" and it's extremely
> > > > successful. Guess why... :)
> > >
> > > I suspect there is little overall for support for the concept of a true
> > > "one design" class, for several reasons:
> > >
> > > * the current Standard, 15M, and 18M classes are nearly one design
> > > classes anyway, because the performance difference from
> > > manufacturer-to-manufacturer and year-to-year is very small
> > >
> > > * the Club Class makes so many different used gliders competitive, the
> > > potential cost advantage of a one-design class is eliminated
> > >
> > > * the top pilots have little trouble getting the glider they want, most
> > > of the rest of us are losing contests because of our ability, not our
> > > glider, so there is little value to the majority of contest pilots to
> > > have a one design class.
> > >
> > > * the major interest in the one-design class seems to be from people
> > > that hope it would result in a new 40+ L/D glider that doesn't cost any
> > > more than a 20 year old used glider
> > >
> > > I can't see the last item ever being more than a dream.
> >
> > Eric,
> > You just nailed the issue right on the head....

Yeah, and there seems to be a bunch of pretty nice gliders in the 40+- l/d
range for sale in the 18K-20K ($US) range. They usually come with decent
trailers and usable instruments. Second generation 70's open class ships are
selling in the low 20's these days and have very long legs (l/d @ 45-50).
A recent article in Technical Soaring would indicate a usable airframe life
somewhere in excess of 200,000 hours, so you probabluy wouldn't have to
worry too much about using one up.

Cheers!

Where did you get this data from?

[stephanevdv]

The problem with club class is that it's in no way a monotype class, and
that given the problems with handicapping, there will never be a true
equality between participants. The French used to fly their national
"Pegase" in club class competition, this year they switched to
"Standard Cirrus" in Elverum because the "Pegase" was badly handicapped
with the current rules.

Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but doesn't want to
produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the production rights
to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all the LS4's already
flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class glider...


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

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Eric Greenwell >

> Having the exterior wing shape defined
> would save very little in design costs
> because they would all require substantial
> aerodynamic design and the complete
> structural design, which is even more
> expensive than the aerodynamic design...

Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses. I continue to
believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.

Sure, DG says it costs them $1 million (say it in Mike Meyers' Dr.
Evil voice for best effect) to design, develop, and validate a new
sailplane. But factored into that is a lot of uncertainty and risk
that it takes to push the envelope with a new and competitive
high-performance design. And also a lot of business expenses and
overhead.

The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass
is half empty. The reengineer says, hey, we've got twice as much glass
as we need here, how much did we spend on that?

Thanks again, Bob K.

[iPilot]

BTW. While writing the requirements, I had LS 4 in mind. It seems to be a
good candidate for that purporse.


"stephanevdv" > wrote in
message ...
>
> The problem with club class is that it's in no way a monotype class, and
> that given the problems with handicapping, there will never be a true
> equality between participants. The French used to fly their national
> "Pegase" in club class competition, this year they switched to
> "Standard Cirrus" in Elverum because the "Pegase" was badly handicapped
> with the current rules.
>
> Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but doesn't want to
> produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the production rights
> to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all the LS4's already
> flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class glider...
>
>
> --
> stephanevdv
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
> - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they
fly -
>

[iPilot]

I kept those people in mind who waste their time in topic called "Is
everybody afraid of World Class".


"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:23:01 +0300, "iPilot" >
> wrote:
>
> >No-one cares.
> >
> >Of course, it's far mure fun to tell everybody how bad PW-5 instead of
doing something constructive.
>
> Many people do something constructive.
> They fly Club class, Standard class, 15m Class or Open class.
>
> Bye
> Andreas

[Tim Ward]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> Tim Ward wrote:
>
> >
> > Take it a step further:
> > Just use a standard wing mold. (Or, as in your suggestion, inner wing,
with
> > span limitation for competition).
> > The wing is the thing. People have done all sorts of strange things to
> > 1-26's (lowered canopies, faired wheels, taken the wheel off entirely
and
> > flown with just a skid), and the L/D still stayed about the same
> > The variations in fuselage, empennage, materials, etc give people a
shot at
> > "optimizing" their ship, and manufacturers a hook for for their
advertising
> > (assuming there's ever more than one) but I bet they'd converge pretty
> > quickly. Small but real competitive advantages might actually exist, in
> > which case the super-competitive pilots will sell their ships to buy the
> > more competitive models, putting more ships in the class, and
entry-level
> > ships on the market.
>
> And what would be the point of a class that is essentially like what we
> already have in the Standard and 15 meter classes? Having the exterior
> wing shape defined would save very little in design costs because they
> would all require substantial aerodynamic design and the complete
> structural design, which is even more expensive than the aerodynamic
> design. None would be built in enough quantity to make them any less
> expensive than what we already have.

> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

Non-obsolescence in competition would be the point.
Personally, I doubt that if all sailplanes built every year were exactly the
same model, built by the same manufacturer, that there would be enough
volume to bring prices down very much.

Tim Ward

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

> Earlier, Eric Greenwell >
>
>
>>Having the exterior wing shape defined
>>would save very little in design costs
>>because they would all require substantial
>>aerodynamic design and the complete
>>structural design, which is even more
>>expensive than the aerodynamic design...
>
>
> Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses.

I wasn't suggesting the design expenses were huge so much as pointing
out defining the wing shape would not yield a one-design class OR cost
savings. Each potential manufacturer would have to bear these expenses
plus the costs of molds, jigs, and so forth to build the glider. Each
manufacturer would have to certificate his design, since it would be
different, and split the market with the other manufacturers.

A _real_ one-design class would avoid the redundant design and
certification costs, and could offer the glider at a lower cost.

I continue to
> believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
> commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
> is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.

I agree with you, but I don't see the connection with a FAI class
defined by the wing shape.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

iPilot > wrote:
>BTW. While writing the requirements, I had LS 4 in mind. It seems to be a
>good candidate for that purporse.
>>
>> Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but doesn't want to
>> produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the production rights
>> to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all the LS4's already
>> flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class glider...

Hmmm...8 fatal accidents in LS-3 or LS-4 in the USA in 24 years.
0 in the Russia. Of course, there are likely a TON more LS-3/4s,
and flying for a lot longer. Interesting, half the LS fatals were
high timers ridge flying...

So I'm gonna say both the AC-4c (maybe with back opening canopy)
and the LS-4 might be good World Class competitors, if retract
were allowed.

Never flown an LS-4 though. Good for a low time pilot? (20-50
hours?) I suppose the easiest way to tell is to call an
insurance company, and get quotes for a typically priced
LS-4 and AC-4c, and compare...
--

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

[Pete Reinhart]

Well,
You could start at Tim Mara'S site.
If you kepp looking for a while yoou will get a fel for the market. The good
deals only show up for a few days. The ones poorly priced stay ther for
months...and months....and months.
cheers!
"Jacek Kobiesa" > wrote in message
om...
> "Pete Reinhart" > wrote in message
>...
> > Yeah, and there seems to be a bunch of pretty nice gliders in the 40+-
l/d
> > range for sale in the 18K-20K ($US) range. They usually come with decent
> > trailers and usable instruments. Second generation 70's open class ships
are
> > selling in the low 20's these days and have very long legs (l/d @
45-50).
> > A recent article in Technical Soaring would indicate a usable airframe
life
> > somewhere in excess of 200,000 hours, so you probabluy wouldn't have to
> > worry too much about using one up.
> >
> > Cheers!
> > "Jacek Kobiesa" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Eric Greenwell > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Andreas Maurer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:29:58 +0300, "iPilot"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it
> > interesting.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You just gave a perfect description of LS-4, LS8, DG-300,
> > > > > Discus,......
> > > > >
> > > > > In good ole Europe we call this "Club Class" and it's extremely
> > > > > successful. Guess why... :)
> > > >
> > > > I suspect there is little overall for support for the concept of a
true
> > > > "one design" class, for several reasons:
> > > >
> > > > * the current Standard, 15M, and 18M classes are nearly one design
> > > > classes anyway, because the performance difference from
> > > > manufacturer-to-manufacturer and year-to-year is very small
> > > >
> > > > * the Club Class makes so many different used gliders competitive,
the
> > > > potential cost advantage of a one-design class is eliminated
> > > >
> > > > * the top pilots have little trouble getting the glider they want,
most
> > > > of the rest of us are losing contests because of our ability, not
our
> > > > glider, so there is little value to the majority of contest pilots
to
> > > > have a one design class.
> > > >
> > > > * the major interest in the one-design class seems to be from people
> > > > that hope it would result in a new 40+ L/D glider that doesn't cost
any
> > > > more than a 20 year old used glider
> > > >
> > > > I can't see the last item ever being more than a dream.
> > >
> > > Eric,
> > > You just nailed the issue right on the head....
>
> Yeah, and there seems to be a bunch of pretty nice gliders in the 40+- l/d
> range for sale in the 18K-20K ($US) range. They usually come with decent
> trailers and usable instruments. Second generation 70's open class ships
are
> selling in the low 20's these days and have very long legs (l/d @ 45-50).
> A recent article in Technical Soaring would indicate a usable airframe
life
> somewhere in excess of 200,000 hours, so you probabluy wouldn't have to
> worry too much about using one up.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Where did you get this data from?

[Gerhard Wesp]

Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses. I continue to
> believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
> commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
> is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.

I disagree. IMHO, sailplane development is an extremely complex task
far out of reach of anybody without some very sound aeronautical
engineering education. And not only that, it also requires a good deal
of experience---read: your first design will not necessarily be the best
one. :-)

That said, I'm open to be proven wrong by counter-examples. Anybody
knows any?

Cheers
-Gerhard

[Diederik]

A ls-4 is a very good glider for low time pilots. At my gliding club
in Holland they use for people who are flying solo and have about 20
solo launches on the Junior (training on the twin II astir and the
blanik). I know that the friesian aeroclub (FAC) uses the ls-4 as
their first single seat solo aircraft (after the first 5 solo flights
in the twin II astir).

You can't realy compare the ls-4 with the ls-3 because of the flaps.
The ls-3 has an airfoile that is highly sensitive to rain. Workload
with the ls-3 during tow is also high because you have to begin at
negative flaps and after gaining some speed you have to change to zero
or +5 flaps. The workload is even increased by the fact that most
ls-3's only have centre of gravity tow hooks. There is a modification
for the ls-4 (maybe also ls-3?) to fit a nose hook. You should also
change the flap setting during landing (from +5 or +10 to zero, to
keep the ailerons effective). The ls-4 has very good aileron
effectivity even at low speeds (read at the beginning of the tow)

Diederik

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<412e8f46$1@darkstar>...
> iPilot > wrote:
> >BTW. While writing the requirements, I had LS 4 in mind. It seems to be a
> >good candidate for that purporse.
> >>
> >> Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but doesn't want to
> >> produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the production rights
> >> to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all the LS4's already
> >> flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class glider...
>
> Hmmm...8 fatal accidents in LS-3 or LS-4 in the USA in 24 years.
> 0 in the Russia. Of course, there are likely a TON more LS-3/4s,
> and flying for a lot longer. Interesting, half the LS fatals were
> high timers ridge flying...
>
> So I'm gonna say both the AC-4c (maybe with back opening canopy)
> and the LS-4 might be good World Class competitors, if retract
> were allowed.
>
> Never flown an LS-4 though. Good for a low time pilot? (20-50
> hours?) I suppose the easiest way to tell is to call an
> insurance company, and get quotes for a typically priced
> LS-4 and AC-4c, and compare...

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:45:22 +0300, "iPilot"
> wrote:

>I kept those people in mind who waste their time in topic called "Is
>everybody afraid of World Class".

I know... but couldn't resist. :)

Bye
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer]

On 26 Aug 2004 18:32:54 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:


>Never flown an LS-4 though. Good for a low time pilot? (20-50
>hours?) I suppose the easiest way to tell is to call an
>insurance company, and get quotes for a typically priced
>LS-4 and AC-4c, and compare...

The LS-4 is widely regared as one of the gliders with the best
handling you can get. The sheer number of produced LS-4 says it all.



Bye
Andreas

[Peter F]

LS4 Pah!

Isn't this whole thread down to LS-4 owners who a just
miffed that their beloved glider has only won two Worlds!

Couldn't hack it in Std class,

Can't hack it in club class,

Let's make a class just for them!!

OK so you can fly further & faster in an LS-4 than
a PW5, but do these flights have any more merit. NO!!

We have a monotype class.

Why would you buy a 'new' LS4 when you can buy a new
Discus CS for similar money, or a D2 for a little more?

The same arguments will always apply

;-)

At 12:24 27 August 2004, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>The LS-4 is widely regared as one of the gliders with
>the best
>handling you can get. The sheer number of produced
>LS-4 says it all.
>
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas
>

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Peter F
> writes

snip

>you can fly further & faster in an
XXX type glider
>than
>a
YYY type glider
>, but do these flights have any more merit
??

You raise an interesting point.

Myself, I have always thought that, other things being equal (I know
that that is difficult!), further and/or faster in soaring flights was a
sort of a merit in its own right.

Such as, longer and/or further flights in glider XXX over YYY. Of
course, if XXX is in an IGC/FAI class of its own, records and other
performances can be claimed below those (at world level) in Open Class
or with other gliders of higher performance.

--
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

[Gldcomp]

This looks like a bunch of "America's Cup Boat Owners" discussing how poor
the performance of an olympic "Laser" is and how if you strech-it here,
change it there, it becomes an almost-Keelboat that goes faster than the
poor Laser.

Good grief, you guys are still missing the point altogether.

Go spend your millions and compete in the America's cup, stop bitching about
the Olympic classes and how poor they all perform.
Let the sailors with more merit prove their worth against tens of other guys
with the exact same equipment.

Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen one
day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made PUBLIC
and available to a central organizing body.
It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable cost.
External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.

Cheers.


"iPilot" > wrote in message
...
> I do not think that soaring community to trash current World Class. There
are some gliders out there
> at least and there are competitions. And PW-5 seems to be a perfect glider
for beginning pilots in
> clubs.
>
> But I still believe that although the idea of the monoclass is very good,
the problem is the
> relatively high cost of the glider with performance from the 60-s.
Therefore i propse a new
> monoclass which is more performance than beginner oriented and which
should be our primary hope to
> get the gliding into olympic games.
>
> Objective:
> To develop new monclass glider which offers the better or equal
performance per price when compared
> to all current production and aftermarket gliders with L/D above 42.
> Glider has to satisfy several general requirements
> safe handling in the air and on the ground
> a single design, stabilized for a period of years (proposedly 15 as in WC)
> performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
> simple construction
>
> Design objectives
>
> compliance with JAR-22, Category U, including cloud flying
> max stall 80 km/h at max mass, most unfavorable cg, airbrakes opened or
closed
> airbrakes for speed limiting & glidepath control required
> sideslip possible with brakes opened or closed
> effective wheel brake
> automatic elevator hookup
> a "crash-friendly" panel
> ddtwo-handed canopy jettison actuating releases on both sides
> seat & harness good to 15g's forward
> battery, oxygen, equipment restraint good to 20g's
> adequate cockpit ventilation
> retractable landing gear
> no flaps or camber-changing devices
> possiblity to use water or in-flight adjustable ballast
> no restrictions in wingtip extensions
> no blowing or sucking of boundary layer
> maximum L/D: 40 or greater
> max roll rate at 1.4 Vs = b w 3.5 sec (b=span in meters)
> accommodate pilots to 6"4"
> provision for non-disposable ballast
> panel to hold ASI, altimeter, compass, 2 varios, T&S ind
> space for radio, O2, battery, datalogger
> winch, aero & auto launches possible & safe
> rigged easily by two average people
> easily moved on ground.
>
> Otherwise applicable to FAI Standard Class rules
>
>
> Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.
>
> Regards,
> Kaido
>
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp" >
wrote:

>Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen one
>day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
>As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made PUBLIC
>and available to a central organizing body.
>It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable cost.
>External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.

.... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
with the PW-5.


Bye
Andreas

[iPilot]

Racing with PW-5's on Olympics is more like racing with Optimist class of
sailboats. We're working to get the Laser done. Or at least Dragon.


"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp" >
> wrote:
>
> >Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen one
> >day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
> >As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made
PUBLIC
> >and available to a central organizing body.
> >It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable
cost.
> >External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.
>
> ... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
> with the PW-5.
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

[iPilot]

I don't believe that monoclass as a principle has failed. It is PW-5 which
failed. And it failed because it doesn't stand the competition on glider
market.



"Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp" >
> wrote:
>
> >Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen one
> >day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
> >As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made
PUBLIC
> >and available to a central organizing body.
> >It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable
cost.
> >External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.
>
> ... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
> with the PW-5.
>
>
> Bye
> Andreas

[Paul Repacholi]

(Patrick Edwards) writes:

> This is a great topic.

> I do like the idea of a class designed around a set of parameters but
> I am not in favor of a one design class.
> It's too bad that cost is a factor, otherwise it would make sense for
> each of us to have a glider for different occasions.
> When the World Class was announced I was in favor of multiple
> designers competing to meet the parameters set by OSTIV.

Talking to the sailors would be a good idea I think. `One Design' can
mean several things:

A set of design parameters that closely define the craft.

A single design that must be followed within very close limits and no
variation is allowed to be built in.

One, or a very few, aproved builders of boats and only boats built by
them are able to be entered. All mods are totally verbootten. Every so
often builder bid from rights to build for the class.

Also, for Worlds or Olympics it is not unusual for a single batch of
hulls and rigging to be done, with the compeditors getting one by
lot. After they are sold off, thus pumping new ships into the class,
and normally saving the buyers some $$ over a from scratch.



--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, iPilot
> writes
>Racing with PW-5's on Olympics is more like racing with Optimist class of
>sailboats. We're working to get the Laser done. Or at least Dragon.

How about the IGC Club Class, which already exists and can embrace the
soaring equivalent of Optimist, Dragon and Laser because it is not just
"one design" but compensates over a small performance bracket by
handicapping according to glider performance. You can certainly have a
viable IGC Club Class competition with PW5, Russia, K6, Skylarks and
gliders of similar performance. The organisers simply set the
performance bracket a bit lower than is normally done for Club Class
competitions (which rather sums up why the PW5 has not caught the
imagination of the world gliding movement).

It would appear that the world gliding movement is either too small or
too fragmented to embrace a successful one-design class. It might have
succeeded in the 1940 Olympics (which did not happen for obvious
reasons) with Hans Jacobs' great design, the Meise (also known as the
Olympia), but things have moved on since then. The Standard Class of
the 1950s was a great step forward in making gliders of reasonable cost
viable in competition up to the world level. It also spawned that fine
design the K6 and others. But it did not attempt to be a one-design
class and maybe that is why not only succeeded but is still with us
today. Is there a moral here that we should heed?

--

Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre

[iPilot]

Club Class will never make it to Olympics becuse of the coeficent system and
the fact that technical differences can still make the difference.


"Ian Strachan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, iPilot
> > writes
> >Racing with PW-5's on Olympics is more like racing with Optimist class of
> >sailboats. We're working to get the Laser done. Or at least Dragon.
>
> How about the IGC Club Class, which already exists and can embrace the
> soaring equivalent of Optimist, Dragon and Laser because it is not just
> "one design" but compensates over a small performance bracket by
> handicapping according to glider performance. You can certainly have a
> viable IGC Club Class competition with PW5, Russia, K6, Skylarks and
> gliders of similar performance. The organisers simply set the
> performance bracket a bit lower than is normally done for Club Class
> competitions (which rather sums up why the PW5 has not caught the
> imagination of the world gliding movement).
>
> It would appear that the world gliding movement is either too small or
> too fragmented to embrace a successful one-design class. It might have
> succeeded in the 1940 Olympics (which did not happen for obvious
> reasons) with Hans Jacobs' great design, the Meise (also known as the
> Olympia), but things have moved on since then. The Standard Class of
> the 1950s was a great step forward in making gliders of reasonable cost
> viable in competition up to the world level. It also spawned that fine
> design the K6 and others. But it did not attempt to be a one-design
> class and maybe that is why not only succeeded but is still with us
> today. Is there a moral here that we should heed?
>
> --
>
> Ian Strachan
> Lasham Gliding Centre
>
>
>
>
>

[Gldcomp]

"iPilot" > wrote in message
...
> Club Class will never make it to Olympics becuse of the coeficent system
and
> the fact that technical differences can still make the difference.
>
Correct.

Nothing in the olympics has any form of handicapping because it has to be a
strictly athlete agains athlete kind of thing.

A simple handicap system like the German will benefit some gliders in weak
weather and others in strong weather.
Certain Handicaps systems, such as the Brazilian one, do compensate for the
effects of weather by applying a "Thermal Index" to the final handicap,
which is extracted from the first glider to complete the task.

But it still is nearly impossible to compensate for longer wingspans having
the freedom to search for the strongest thermals while the "short wings"
have to take more thermal, including weak ones.

In other words, no Handicap system is perfect and they do not work with
olympic sports.

[Bert Willing]

I think that's a theoretical discussion.
The biggest market for sailplanes is in Europe, and it's exactly there where
the idea of a monoclass or a PW5 doesn't interest anybody - at least nobody
who has money to put on the table (be it private owners or clusbs).
Soaring in the rest of the world is just not big enough that anybody could
make a decent living by making monoclass gliders.

And in these conditions, talking about an Olympic Class with an event every
4 years ?! ...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"iPilot" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> I don't believe that monoclass as a principle has failed. It is PW-5 which
> failed. And it failed because it doesn't stand the competition on glider
> market.
>
>
>
> "Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen
one
> > >day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
> > >As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made
> PUBLIC
> > >and available to a central organizing body.
> > >It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable
> cost.
> > >External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.
> >
> > ... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
> > with the PW-5.
> >
> >
> > Bye
> > Andreas
>
>

[iPilot]

Gerhard. You should look at the Bob's webpage (www.hpaircraft.com) about the work he's doing on HP
24. I personally know a person wh's self educated in aerodynamics and who's building a modern
version of the Horten 3 (different seating position, different profiles, stiffer construction) and
there's and Australian (or NZ?) group of people who are building a short-tailed glider. All of them
are amateurs and afaik, none of them is learned aerodynamics in school.

About the Performance World Class. If the outer shape of the glider is defined precisely enough,
anyone can build a copy without aerodynamical analysis - only construction has to be engineered.


Regards,
Kaido



"Gerhard Wesp" > wrote in message ...
> Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> > Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses. I continue to
> > believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
> > commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
> > is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.
>
> I disagree. IMHO, sailplane development is an extremely complex task
> far out of reach of anybody without some very sound aeronautical
> engineering education. And not only that, it also requires a good deal
> of experience---read: your first design will not necessarily be the best
> one. :-)
>
> That said, I'm open to be proven wrong by counter-examples. Anybody
> knows any?
>
> Cheers
> -Gerhard

[iPilot]

Once more. The reason, why PW5 failed was the fact that it's performance per money spent was dismal.
But the fact that it still got sold somewhat, talks that there is an interest towards monoclass.

If, for example we declare LS-4 a monoclass it'd have a huge number of gliders available already on
the market plus additional production.

And when it's good for a FINN sailor to buy a $20 000 boat for a one competition in 4 years, why it
shall be bad for a LS-4 pilot. National pride is going to open many currently closed pockets forl
gliding.



"Bert Willing" > wrote in message
...
> I think that's a theoretical discussion.
> The biggest market for sailplanes is in Europe, and it's exactly there where
> the idea of a monoclass or a PW5 doesn't interest anybody - at least nobody
> who has money to put on the table (be it private owners or clusbs).
> Soaring in the rest of the world is just not big enough that anybody could
> make a decent living by making monoclass gliders.
>
> And in these conditions, talking about an Olympic Class with an event every
> 4 years ?! ...
>
> --
> Bert Willing
>
> ASW20 "TW"
>
>
> "iPilot" > a écrit dans le message de
> ...
> > I don't believe that monoclass as a principle has failed. It is PW-5 which
> > failed. And it failed because it doesn't stand the competition on glider
> > market.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Andreas Maurer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen
> one
> > > >day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
> > > >As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made
> > PUBLIC
> > > >and available to a central organizing body.
> > > >It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable
> > cost.
> > > >External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.
> > >
> > > ... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
> > > with the PW-5.
> > >
> > >
> > > Bye
> > > Andreas
> >
> >
>
>

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Gldcomp
> writes

>Nothing in the olympics has any form of handicapping because it has to be a
>strictly athlete agains athlete kind of thing.

OK, if that is so, it's probably the Standard and/or 15 metre class, if
the IGC want to try and get into the Olympics in the future.

The main barrier to new sports getting in seems to be the Olympic
organisation itself. I understand that the President and General
Secretary of FAI have made presentations about air sports to IOC
meetings, particularly on parachuting. The International Parachuting
Commission of FAI have wanted to get into the Olympics for some years
now.

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre
UK

[Robert Ehrlich]

iPilot wrote:
>
> Racing with PW-5's on Olympics is more like racing with Optimist class of
> sailboats. We're working to get the Laser done. Or at least Dragon.
>

Another difference with the Laser is that, as far as I remember, it was not
designed for Olympics, just as a modern sailboat with good performance and
state of the art design operated by a single person. The success of the design
later made it an Olympic class, not the opposite.

[Robert Ehrlich]

iPilot wrote:
>
> Club Class will never make it to Olympics becuse of the coeficent system and
> the fact that technical differences can still make the difference.
>

On the point of technical differences, the same thing could be said
about ski, which is nevertherless an olympic discipline.

[iPilot]

Parachuting will never make it to Olympics. Reason? Look at what happened in
gymnastics or other heavily judges-depending sport - there are always
scandals around those.


"Ian Strachan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Gldcomp
> > writes
>
> >Nothing in the olympics has any form of handicapping because it has to be
a
> >strictly athlete agains athlete kind of thing.
>
> OK, if that is so, it's probably the Standard and/or 15 metre class, if
> the IGC want to try and get into the Olympics in the future.
>
> The main barrier to new sports getting in seems to be the Olympic
> organisation itself. I understand that the President and General
> Secretary of FAI have made presentations about air sports to IOC
> meetings, particularly on parachuting. The International Parachuting
> Commission of FAI have wanted to get into the Olympics for some years
> now.
>
> --
> Ian Strachan
> Lasham Gliding Centre
> UK
>
>
>
>
>

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

In the 1936 Olympics one of the sailing classes was the six metre class,
which was a development class, not a one design. The six metre class was
not invented for the Olympics, it had been raced for many years.

Gold went to the British boat Lalage, designed by David Boyd.

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

"Ian Strachan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Gldcomp
> > writes
>
> >Nothing in the olympics has any form of handicapping because it has to be
a
> >strictly athlete agains athlete kind of thing.
>
> OK, if that is so, it's probably the Standard and/or 15 metre class, if
> the IGC want to try and get into the Olympics in the future.
>
> The main barrier to new sports getting in seems to be the Olympic
> organisation itself. I understand that the President and General
> Secretary of FAI have made presentations about air sports to IOC
> meetings, particularly on parachuting. The International Parachuting
> Commission of FAI have wanted to get into the Olympics for some years
> now.
>
> --
> Ian Strachan
> Lasham Gliding Centre
> UK
>
>
>
>
>

[Gldcomp]

Stephanevdv,

> The problem with club class is that it's in no way a monotype class, and
> that given the problems with handicapping, there will never be a true
> equality between participants. (..............)
I don't know where you get your info, but :
1) There is no handicap in the World Class competitions.
2)Yes, the PW-5 is a true monotype for olympic specs : design is public
domain, manufacturable in any part of the world.
You can get full detailed copy of plans and dimensions yourself from the
Univesity of Varsaw.
>
> Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but doesn't want to
> produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the production rights
> to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all the LS4's already
> flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class glider...
>
Any glider Manufactured by ONE company is not public domain and not
manufacturable in any part of the world
>
> --
> stephanevdv
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
> - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they
fly -
>

[Jeremy Hood]

Peter F

Obviously you have a problem with the LS4. maybe its
a bit too high
performance for you - or not 'home built kit looking'
enough for you- i
don't know

As this has been discussed at great length, i wont
add much, other than
to reiterate that the PW5 is a crap glider that will
die off, sooner rather
than later, I hope. This is not just my opinion, it
is fact.

The idea of a monotype class, I think we all agree,
is a great idea. So
get a great glider to represent it - the LS4.

There clearly is problems with licensing and cost to
enable it to be a
viable option, but i think its not an impossible solution.


BTW - If, as you say, the ls4 has won 2 worlds - i
think that definately
means that it could hack it in the std class - it was
merely overtaken by
progress.
Something that the pw5 design clearly disregards.

Jez


At 08:06 02 September 2004, Gldcomp wrote:
>Stephanevdv,
>
>> The problem with club class is that it's in no way
>>a monotype class,
and
>> that given the problems with handicapping, there will
>>never be a true
>> equality between participants. (..............)
>I don't know where you get your info, but :
>1) There is no handicap in the World Class competitions.
>2)Yes, the PW-5 is a true monotype for olympic specs
>: design is public
>domain, manufacturable in any part of the world.
>You can get full detailed copy of plans and dimensions
>yourself from
the
>Univesity of Varsaw.
>>
>> Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but
>>doesn't want to
>> produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the
>>production
rights
>> to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all
>>the LS4's already
>> flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class
>>glider...
>>
>Any glider Manufactured by ONE company is not public
>domain and not
>manufacturable in any part of the world
>>
>> --
>> stephanevdv
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>-------
>> Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au
>>]
>> - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when,
>>why, or what
they
>fly -
>>
>
>
>

[iPilot]

Christ! You haven't understood a single line correctly from the message you were commenting. Sry.



"Gldcomp" > wrote in message
om...
> Stephanevdv,
>
> > The problem with club class is that it's in no way a monotype class, and
> > that given the problems with handicapping, there will never be a true
> > equality between participants. (..............)
> I don't know where you get your info, but :
> 1) There is no handicap in the World Class competitions.
> 2)Yes, the PW-5 is a true monotype for olympic specs : design is public
> domain, manufacturable in any part of the world.
> You can get full detailed copy of plans and dimensions yourself from the
> Univesity of Varsaw.
> >
> > Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but doesn't want to
> > produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the production rights
> > to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all the LS4's already
> > flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class glider...
> >
> Any glider Manufactured by ONE company is not public domain and not
> manufacturable in any part of the world
> >
> > --
> > stephanevdv
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
> > - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they
> fly -
> >
>
>

[Ben Flewett]

'> Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but
>doesn't want to
> produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the
>production rights
> to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? '

This is not a good idea. The problem is retaining
the build quality to a level such that performance
does not vary from glider to glider (otherwise the
point of a mono type class is lost). The build quality
of the PW5 is so poor that variations between gliders
can easily be seen with a cursory glance.

If you want a glider built properly - pay the Germans
to do it. Everyone else gets it wrong.

I am a huge fan of making the LS4 the world class glider
but please don't lets stuff it up by having them built
too cheaply.

Ben.

PS. If you want proof look at the bits that Schempp
outsourced - the Duo Discus wing and the D2 rudder.


At 08:06 02 September 2004, Gldcomp wrote:
>Stephanevdv,
>
>> The problem with club class is that it's in no way
>>a monotype class, and
>> that given the problems with handicapping, there will
>>never be a true
>> equality between participants. (..............)
>I don't know where you get your info, but :
>1) There is no handicap in the World Class competitions.
>2)Yes, the PW-5 is a true monotype for olympic specs
>: design is public
>domain, manufacturable in any part of the world.
>You can get full detailed copy of plans and dimensions
>yourself from the
>Univesity of Varsaw.
>>
>> Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but
>>doesn't want to
>> produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the
>>production rights
>> to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all
>>the LS4's already
>> flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class
>>glider...
>>
>Any glider Manufactured by ONE company is not public
>domain and not
>manufacturable in any part of the world
>>
>> --
>> stephanevdv
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>-------
>> Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au
>>]
>> - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when,
>>why, or what they
>fly -
>>
>
>
>

[Vorsanger1]

Ben Flewett wrote

"If you want a glider built properly - pay the Germans to do it. Everyone else
gets it wrong."

I believe that some DGs are built in Slovenia. Also, what about the quality of
the LAKs, CZs, and some others which are not built in Germany. Does that make
them c..p? Finally, although we are moving away from gliders, VW is having a
real QC problem evidenced by increased customer complaints and dropping sales.
Yet they are built in Germany. Perhaps it's the fault of the foreign workers
there !

Cheers, Charles

[Gldcomp]

Perhaps you should go over it again.

"iPilot" > wrote in message
...
> Christ! You haven't understood a single line correctly from the message
you were commenting. Sry.
>
>
>
> "Gldcomp" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Stephanevdv,
> >
> > > The problem with club class is that it's in no way a monotype class,
and
> > > that given the problems with handicapping, there will never be a true
> > > equality between participants. (..............)
> > I don't know where you get your info, but :
> > 1) There is no handicap in the World Class competitions.
> > 2)Yes, the PW-5 is a true monotype for olympic specs : design is public
> > domain, manufacturable in any part of the world.
> > You can get full detailed copy of plans and dimensions yourself from the
> > Univesity of Varsaw.
> > >
> > > Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but doesn't want to
> > > produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the production rights
> > > to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all the LS4's already
> > > flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class glider...
> > >
> > Any glider Manufactured by ONE company is not public domain and not
> > manufacturable in any part of the world
> > >
> > > --
> > > stephanevdv
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
> > > - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what
they
> > fly -
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[tango4]

The LS4 is/was a great sailplane.

Do you think that DG really wants competition from a low wage, low health
and safety, low production cost country offering a product in competition to
its current range?

I don't think so!

Ian

"iPilot" > wrote in message
...
> Christ! You haven't understood a single line correctly from the message
you were commenting. Sry.
>
>
>
> "Gldcomp" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Stephanevdv,
> >
> > > The problem with club class is that it's in no way a monotype class,
and
> > > that given the problems with handicapping, there will never be a true
> > > equality between participants. (..............)
> > I don't know where you get your info, but :
> > 1) There is no handicap in the World Class competitions.
> > 2)Yes, the PW-5 is a true monotype for olympic specs : design is public
> > domain, manufacturable in any part of the world.
> > You can get full detailed copy of plans and dimensions yourself from the
> > Univesity of Varsaw.
> > >
> > > Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but doesn't want to
> > > produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the production rights
> > > to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all the LS4's already
> > > flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class glider...
> > >
> > Any glider Manufactured by ONE company is not public domain and not
> > manufacturable in any part of the world
> > >
> > > --
> > > stephanevdv
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
> > > - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what
they
> > fly -
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[[email protected]]

tango4 > wrote:
> The LS4 is/was a great sailplane.

> Do you think that DG really wants competition from a low wage, low health
> and safety, low production cost country offering a product in competition to
> its current range?

> I don't think so!

I think you have it perfectly right. One could produce the LS4, say for
example in India, with perfect quality and ridiculous price. But this would
kill the market for expensive new gliders and even used ones, so nobody wants
to engage this way. This being said, yes, it is clear that the LS4 would be
the best choice for a monoclass, since it is very easy to fly, hence would
be perfect for beginners, and still has good performance.




--
Michel Talon

[Ben Flewett]

Do you honestly believe you could produce a glider
in India with 'perfect quality'? I don't.

The Germans have been refining their production processes
for years. The people that work in the factories are
highly skilled and highly experienced.

You can't just pick that up and replicate it in India
overnight. It's just not that simple. If you go and
look around the factory you will see what is involved
- it's amazingly complex.

Also, the Germans have lots of checks in place to ensure
the final product is safe.


At 07:12 03 September 2004,
wrote:
>tango4 wrote:
>> The LS4 is/was a great sailplane.
>
>> Do you think that DG really wants competition from
>>a low wage, low health
>> and safety, low production cost country offering a
>>product in competition to
>> its current range?
>
>> I don't think so!
>
>I think you have it perfectly right. One could produce
>the LS4, say for
>example in India, with perfect quality and ridiculous
>price. But this would
>kill the market for expensive new gliders and even
>used ones, so nobody wants
>to engage this way. This being said, yes, it is clear
>that the LS4 would be
>the best choice for a monoclass, since it is very easy
>to fly, hence would
>be perfect for beginners, and still has good performance.
>
>
>
>
>--
>Michel Talon
>

[Doug Hoffman]

In article >,
wrote:

> tango4 > wrote:
> > The LS4 is/was a great sailplane.
>
> > Do you think that DG really wants competition from a low wage, low health
> > and safety, low production cost country offering a product in competition to
> > its current range?
>
> > I don't think so!
>
> I think you have it perfectly right. One could produce the LS4, say for
> example in India, with perfect quality and ridiculous price. But this would
> kill the market for expensive new gliders and even used ones, so nobody wants
> to engage this way.

"So nobody wants to engage this way"? I presume you must mean the
current owner of the LS4 design and in that case of course you are right.

However, if *someone* finds a very inexpensive (wage) but skilled-enough
workforce somewhere on this planet and has them produce a nicely
designed and built glider (wouldn't have to be exactly the LS4) for a
significantly reduced price, then I suspect many consumers would be all
for it.

Welcome to the world of global economic competition.

Regards,

-Doug

[[email protected]]

Ben Flewett > wrote:
> Do you honestly believe you could produce a glider
> in India with 'perfect quality'? I don't.

Yes. The Indians are able to produce software of excellent quality,
as good not to say better than what is produced in our countries.
The very expensive French cloth makers delocalize a lot of their production in
India, and they expect perfect results. I cannot count the number of high
precision objects made in China such as electronic cameras and so on.
By comparison gliders are absolutely trivial objects and they should not
cost the tenth of what they are sold.

> The Germans have been refining their production processes
> for years. The people that work in the factories are
> highly skilled and highly experienced.

Come on, this sort of argument covers vacuum.


--
Michel Talon

[iPilot]

"Gldcomp" > wrote
> Perhaps you should go over it again.

Well. I went. Statement by statement. Look below.

> "Gldcomp" > wrote

> > > I don't know where you get your info, but :
> > > 1) There is no handicap in the World Class competitions.

Nobody has said that there is. World Class does not equal Club Class.

> > > 2)Yes, the PW-5 is a true monotype for olympic specs : design is
public

What is so special in PW-5 model that cant be replicated in LS-4 if it's
being made public? You described the very idea of the monoclass. It is
independent of the specific model and can be applied on LS-4 as well.
About racing PW-5 in Olympics - it's the same as if in the sailing an
Optimist would be Olympic class. Leave the beginners gliders for beginners
and competition gliders for competitors.


> > > Any glider Manufactured by ONE company is not public domain and not
> > > manufacturable in any part of the world

How many companies currently produce PW-5? More or less than one? Overall I
agree with You. Monoclass does not mean that it has to be produced by one
manufacturer. The glider drawings have to be public.

[For Example John Smith]

"Doug Hoffman" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> wrote:
> > tango4 > wrote:
> > > Do you think that DG really wants competition from a low wage, low
health
> > > and safety, low production cost country offering a product in
competition to
> > > its current range?
> > > I don't think so!
> >
> > I think you have it perfectly right. One could produce the LS4, say for
> > example in India, with perfect quality and ridiculous price. But this
would
> > kill the market for expensive new gliders and even used ones, so nobody
wants
> > to engage this way.
>
> "So nobody wants to engage this way"? I presume you must mean the
> current owner of the LS4 design and in that case of course you are right.
>
> However, if *someone* finds a very inexpensive (wage) but skilled-enough
> workforce somewhere on this planet and has them produce a nicely
> designed and built glider (wouldn't have to be exactly the LS4) for a
> significantly reduced price, then I suspect many consumers would be all
> for it.
>
> Welcome to the world of global economic competition.
>
They might be all for it, but unable to buy it--here's why. Many/most folks
sell their current glider and upgrade to a newer, higher performance ship.
If a cheap new ship enters the market it would destroy the market for older
ships. If that happens, it also destroys much of the market for the new
cheap ships by taking 'trade in cash' out of the pockets of potential
buyers.
Welcome to the world of existing markets and investments.

[tango4]

Cost of entry to the gliding market must be quite high. Factory, ovens,
Moulds, jigs, training, worldwide certification of the desig etc etc etc.
say 5 million Euros.

Now what's the annual global market for new sailplanes? Must be a couple of
hundred at the very most.

Even if through some fantastic media coup a whole new demand was created for
say an extra 500 gliders per year and the company made say Euro 2500 per
glider ( difficult when you are trying to make a low cost, high performance
glider for say Euro 20000 ) you are going to take between 3 and 5 years to
get back into the black. at which time market saturation would be reached by
current levels!

Now,
* Gliding is not an Olympic sport ( and won't be for at least 20 years ),
gets little or no TV airtime and as far as the general population is
concerned is an elitist, expensive pass time with no benefit to society.
* Private aviation is increasingly under pressure and is likely to become
more and more restricted rather than less!
* Western countries are becoming increasingly risk averse.
* Then there's the complete resistance of the current market to 'new'
suppliers. Just look at the comments in this forum disparaging the
capabilities of the Lithuanians, Czechs or Poles.

If you had money to invest would you even consider building gliders given
the above scenario? Venture capital investors these days want cast iron
guarantees of at least 30% ROI within 36 months at the very least.

Tell you what . If I win the lottery I'll might go and buy a share of a
glider manufacturer and subsidise the production of a side-by-side two
seater high performance turbo ship ( like a Stemme turbo ) But I'm under no
illusions that all I'll be doing is paying a lot of money for a personal
dream. You know what they say, to make a small fortune in aviation it's best
if you start with a large one.

The best way you can help the cost of gliding is either to have already
bought a PW-5 ( support for the concept of a one-design class would have
worked wonders ) or to refuse any german manufactured ships and be
vociferous in your support for the newer manufacturers in Eastern Europe.

The market cannot afford, nor does it want cheap sailplanes!

Ian



"Doug Hoffman" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > tango4 > wrote:
> > > The LS4 is/was a great sailplane.
> >
> > > Do you think that DG really wants competition from a low wage, low
health
> > > and safety, low production cost country offering a product in
competition to
> > > its current range?
> >
> > > I don't think so!
> >
> > I think you have it perfectly right. One could produce the LS4, say for
> > example in India, with perfect quality and ridiculous price. But this
would
> > kill the market for expensive new gliders and even used ones, so nobody
wants
> > to engage this way.
>
> "So nobody wants to engage this way"? I presume you must mean the
> current owner of the LS4 design and in that case of course you are right.
>
> However, if *someone* finds a very inexpensive (wage) but skilled-enough
> workforce somewhere on this planet and has them produce a nicely
> designed and built glider (wouldn't have to be exactly the LS4) for a
> significantly reduced price, then I suspect many consumers would be all
> for it.
>
> Welcome to the world of global economic competition.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Doug

[Eric Greenwell]

For Example John Smith wrote:

>>
>>Welcome to the world of global economic competition.
>>
>
> They might be all for it, but unable to buy it--here's why. Many/most folks
> sell their current glider and upgrade to a newer, higher performance ship.
> If a cheap new ship enters the market it would destroy the market for older
> ships. If that happens, it also destroys much of the market for the new
> cheap ships by taking 'trade in cash' out of the pockets of potential
> buyers.
> Welcome to the world of existing markets and investments.

Speaking as someone who has bought and sold several gliders (new and
used), I think it's cheaper for pilots if the new gliders are, well,
cheaper! The only person that benefits from high prices on new gliders
is someone selling his glider and leaving the sport, because high priced
new gliders lead to high priced used gliders. If you are buying a new
glider, you want it to be as cheap as possible.

Take a look at new prices and used prices. Are you better off buying a
new glider for $100,000 and selling your old one for $50,000, or buying
a new one for $50,000 and selling your old one for $15,000? As a pilot
in the USA, I've seen this kind of situation come and go as currency
rates change.

As I said, my observation and personal experience is cheap new gliders
are good for the new pilot wanting a used glider, they are good the
experienced pilot wanting the latest new one, and they are good for the
sport. The only loser is the person leaving the sport and selling his
glider but not buying another one, because he doesn't get as much money
for it.

Further, it's cheaper to insure a cheap glider and it's cheaper to get
spare parts for it. Still costs as much to tow, though.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>As I said, my observation and personal experience is cheap new gliders
>are good for the new pilot wanting a used glider, they are good the
>experienced pilot wanting the latest new one, and they are good for the
>sport. The only loser is the person leaving the sport and selling his
>glider but not buying another one, because he doesn't get as much money
>for it.
>
>Further, it's cheaper to insure a cheap glider and it's cheaper to get
>spare parts for it. Still costs as much to tow, though.

Yep. Really the retract Russia AC-4c looks to be the likeliest
contestant for the next WC, if retract is allowed.
I dunno about the Silent or Sparrowhawk or others, they may
not want to bother entering, or may not meet some of the
specs...

I just don't see the LS-4 meeting a good price point, even assuming
the owners of the rights would enter it or produce it at all...
--

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

[Doug Hoffman]

In article >,
"For Example John Smith" > wrote:

> They might be all for it, but unable to buy it--here's why. Many/most folks
> sell their current glider and upgrade to a newer, higher performance ship.
> If a cheap new ship enters the market it would destroy the market for older
> ships. If that happens, it also destroys much of the market for the new
> cheap ships by taking 'trade in cash' out of the pockets of potential
> buyers.

You are assuming that many/most have already "invested" in a relatively
expensive glider. I don't believe this is the case. Although I
completely agree with you that it would be very disappointing to have
invested in a high dollar ship and then have its value go down due to
the sudden appearance of high-quality/low-cost competition. Welcome to
the free market.

Aren't we already seeing some *very* nice ships at significantly less
cost (LAK, HpH, Apis, others?)?


Recently, the auto market has had to react to some surprisingly high
quality products at very low prices from places like Korea. Hyundai,
Kia. The consumer is the winner. I say this even though I work for
DCX. Facts are facts. We work harder at DCX because of the Koreans and
others. Nothing wrong with that.

Regards,

-Doug

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
"iPilot" > wrote:

> > > > 2)Yes, the PW-5 is a true monotype for olympic specs : design is
> public
>
> What is so special in PW-5 model that cant be replicated in LS-4 if it's
> being made public? You described the very idea of the monoclass. It is
> independent of the specific model and can be applied on LS-4 as well.
> About racing PW-5 in Olympics - it's the same as if in the sailing an
> Optimist would be Olympic class. Leave the beginners gliders for beginners
> and competition gliders for competitors.

You're way off.

The PW-5 is more like a Laser (and I own one). Not very fast but a lot
of fun. Both can actually go places, if not as quite quickly as some.
The optimist is more like ... well it's probably worse than even a 1-26.


The LS-4 I'd compare to a 12m yacht such as KZ-7 (the first fibreglass
12m). The best you could at one time get in a money-is-no-object class,
but now bypassed.

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

[Andreas Maurer]

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:40:14 +0000 (UTC), wrote:


>> The Germans have been refining their production processes
>> for years. The people that work in the factories are
>> highly skilled and highly experienced.
>
>Come on, this sort of argument covers vacuum.

How long did it take for Centrair till their ASW-20 copies had similar
quality than the Schleicher originals?
Ten years? :)



Bye
Andreas

[iPilot]

Well. You may be right about PW-5. However, I'm not so sure about the LS-4
comparision. Nonetheless - making LS-4 a Performance World Class glider does
not mean that current WC has to be declared obsolescent - they both can
excist side-by-side.

Regards,
Kaido

"Bruce Hoult" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "iPilot" > wrote:
>
> > > > > 2)Yes, the PW-5 is a true monotype for olympic specs : design is
> > public
> >
> > What is so special in PW-5 model that cant be replicated in LS-4 if it's
> > being made public? You described the very idea of the monoclass. It is
> > independent of the specific model and can be applied on LS-4 as well.
> > About racing PW-5 in Olympics - it's the same as if in the sailing an
> > Optimist would be Olympic class. Leave the beginners gliders for
beginners
> > and competition gliders for competitors.
>
> You're way off.
>
> The PW-5 is more like a Laser (and I own one). Not very fast but a lot
> of fun. Both can actually go places, if not as quite quickly as some.
> The optimist is more like ... well it's probably worse than even a 1-26.
>
>
> The LS-4 I'd compare to a 12m yacht such as KZ-7 (the first fibreglass
> 12m). The best you could at one time get in a money-is-no-object class,
> but now bypassed.
>
> --
> Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
> Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[[email protected]]

Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:40:14 +0000 (UTC), wrote:


>>> The Germans have been refining their production processes
>>> for years. The people that work in the factories are
>>> highly skilled and highly experienced.
>>
>>Come on, this sort of argument covers vacuum.

> How long did it take for Centrair till their ASW-20 copies had similar
> quality than the Schleicher originals?
> Ten years? :)

Centrair is far from being an example of quality and efficiency. Nevertheless
their Pegase were good enough for my taste. I have never flewn a German ASW20
but i have flown several ASW19 and i don't see anything in them obviously
better than in the Pegase for example - an understatement. Yes i maintain that
the so-called high quality of such or such product is mainly commercial
bull**** which covers nothing real.



> Bye
> Andreas

--
Michel Talon

[goneill]

The short tailed glider link is here,It is NZ by the way ,can't have the
Aussies
claiming credit for this one :))))
http://www.foamworks.co.nz/sg/people.htm
"iPilot" > wrote in message
...
> Gerhard. You should look at the Bob's webpage (www.hpaircraft.com) about
the work he's doing on HP
> 24. I personally know a person wh's self educated in aerodynamics and
who's building a modern
> version of the Horten 3 (different seating position, different profiles,
stiffer construction) and
> there's and Australian (or NZ?) group of people who are building a
short-tailed glider. All of them
> are amateurs and afaik, none of them is learned aerodynamics in school.
>
> About the Performance World Class. If the outer shape of the glider is
defined precisely enough,
> anyone can build a copy without aerodynamical analysis - only construction
has to be engineered.
>
>
> Regards,
> Kaido
>
>
>
> "Gerhard Wesp" > wrote in message
...
> > Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> > > Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses. I continue to
> > > believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
> > > commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
> > > is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.
> >
> > I disagree. IMHO, sailplane development is an extremely complex task
> > far out of reach of anybody without some very sound aeronautical
> > engineering education. And not only that, it also requires a good deal
> > of experience---read: your first design will not necessarily be the best
> > one. :-)
> >
> > That said, I'm open to be proven wrong by counter-examples. Anybody
> > knows any?
> >
> > Cheers
> > -Gerhard
>
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 18:59:00 +0000 (UTC), wrote:


>Centrair is far from being an example of quality and efficiency. Nevertheless
>their Pegase were good enough for my taste. I have never flewn a German ASW20
>but i have flown several ASW19 and i don't see anything in them obviously
>better than in the Pegase for example - an understatement. Yes i maintain that
>the so-called high quality of such or such product is mainly commercial
>bull**** which covers nothing real.

Most license-built 20F's and the early Pegase were a disaster
concerning airfoil precision. Fortunately it got better then.

I think (potential) glider owners are extremely snotty, especially if
they speak German.
Non-german gliders hardly have a chance on the huge German market,
even if they offer similar performance, handling and quality for a
substantial lower price. I'm thinking about the Genesis and especially
the current Lak's here.

I think quality and durable detail solutions need a certain
experience, which itself needs a certain number of planes built.




Bye
Andreas

[Ben Flewett]

You must be having a laugh! The quality of Centrair
gliders is far below the quality of the German manufacturers
from whom they stole (yes, stole) the IP and moulds.

Ben.

PS. I once read an article about what happened between
Centrair and Schliecher - most interesting.


At 11:48 04 September 2004, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:40:14 +0000 (UTC),
>wrote:
>
>
>>> The Germans have been refining their production processes
>>> for years. The people that work in the factories
>>>are
>>> highly skilled and highly experienced.
>>
>>Come on, this sort of argument covers vacuum.
>
>How long did it take for Centrair till their ASW-20
>copies had similar
>quality than the Schleicher originals?
>Ten years? :)
>
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas
>

[Michel Talon]

Ben Flewett > wrote:
> You must be having a laugh! The quality of Centrair
> gliders is far below the quality of the German manufacturers
> from whom they stole (yes, stole) the IP and moulds.
>
>

You are both a snob and uninformed. First "Intellectual Property"
doesn't exist, and so cannot be stolen. What exists is copyrights,
which is clearly not of any concern here and patents, which could apply
to the situation, but don't in fact since nobody has claimed that there
has been patent violation in this case.
Second Centrair has certainly not stolen moulds, or Schleicher would have
prosecuted them. What they have done is building ASW20 under license
from Schleicher, and i don't see anything wrong there except the quality
of the products, which seems according to some of the posts here, to
have been inferior to the quality of the corresponding German products.

Things became unfriendly when Centrair offered the Pegase at a price
largely inferior to similar German gliders. Saying that the Pegase was a
copy of the ASW20 is bull****, the wing had been redesigned completely
by the French aerospace organisation called ONERA, and it was such a
success that the Pegase was in par with other similar gliders up to the
introduction of the Discus which was markedly better. I have seen and
flied a lot of Pegases, they are wonderful gliders of perfectly adequate
quality, and certainly better than the similar ASW19 from Schleicher.
Snobs of your sort that would only consider flying a German glider, and
preferably a 100 000$ glider are also very common in France. They
are the main responsible from the decline of soaring worldwide.

This being said i don't pretend that Centrair was a wonderful factory,
no more than Schleicher and so on. These are small factories with
limited resources, on the other hand building gliders in not rocket
science.


--

Michel TALON

[Bert Willing]

Well, the fuselage is a perfect copy, the wing planform is a perfect copy,
the structure is a suboptimal copy and the airfoil is a new (and
definitively better) development.

So with all these copies and the French government paying for the airfoil -
no wonder why the selling price of a Pégase is fairly interesting if you
don't need amortization.

And even though development cost was low, pricing was interesting and
marketing was largely supported by FFVV subventions, Centrair went bust. Now
if you can't make money under these conditions, how to make money if you
have to pay for engineering ?!

But of course, that's all the fault of German manufacturers...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Michel Talon" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Ben Flewett > wrote:
> > You must be having a laugh! The quality of Centrair
> > gliders is far below the quality of the German manufacturers
> > from whom they stole (yes, stole) the IP and moulds.
> >
> >
>
> You are both a snob and uninformed. First "Intellectual Property"
> doesn't exist, and so cannot be stolen. What exists is copyrights,
> which is clearly not of any concern here and patents, which could apply
> to the situation, but don't in fact since nobody has claimed that there
> has been patent violation in this case.
> Second Centrair has certainly not stolen moulds, or Schleicher would have
> prosecuted them. What they have done is building ASW20 under license
> from Schleicher, and i don't see anything wrong there except the quality
> of the products, which seems according to some of the posts here, to
> have been inferior to the quality of the corresponding German products.
>
> Things became unfriendly when Centrair offered the Pegase at a price
> largely inferior to similar German gliders. Saying that the Pegase was a
> copy of the ASW20 is bull****, the wing had been redesigned completely
> by the French aerospace organisation called ONERA, and it was such a
> success that the Pegase was in par with other similar gliders up to the
> introduction of the Discus which was markedly better. I have seen and
> flied a lot of Pegases, they are wonderful gliders of perfectly adequate
> quality, and certainly better than the similar ASW19 from Schleicher.
> Snobs of your sort that would only consider flying a German glider, and
> preferably a 100 000$ glider are also very common in France. They
> are the main responsible from the decline of soaring worldwide.
>
> This being said i don't pretend that Centrair was a wonderful factory,
> no more than Schleicher and so on. These are small factories with
> limited resources, on the other hand building gliders in not rocket
> science.
>
>
> --
>
> Michel TALON
>

[Michel Talon]

Bert Willing > wrote:
> Well, the fuselage is a perfect copy, the wing planform is a perfect copy,
> the structure is a suboptimal copy and the airfoil is a new (and
> definitively better) development.
>

The Pegase fuselage looks like the ASW20 fuselage but not the point of
being a perfect copy, i don't think so. All fuselages of this period
look the same.

> So with all these copies and the French government paying for the airfoil -

The same as universities paying for airfoil development everywhere in
the world.

> no wonder why the selling price of a Pégase is fairly interesting if you
> don't need amortization.
>
> And even though development cost was low, pricing was interesting and
> marketing was largely supported by FFVV subventions, Centrair went bust. Now
> if you can't make money under these conditions, how to make money if you
> have to pay for engineering ?!
>

As i said Centrair is not an exemple of an efficient business, and this
was un understatement. Even RS who had an extremely successfull glider,
the LS4, went bust. There is no limit to the amount of money incompetent
and greedy managers can throw through the windows, just take a look at
Messier and Vivendi.

> But of course, that's all the fault of German manufacturers...
>

German manufacturers have done wonderful job, i will not discuss that.
What they are completely unable is keeping the prices under control.
Each and every successfull business has to focus on keeping prices
under control, even Daimler-Benz and BMW have done great efforts in this
direction and are able to deliver cars at reasonable price considering
the quality and performance of their products. There is absolutely
nothing anti german in what i am saying, i am only criticizing the
german glider manufacturers for their unability in stabilizing prices.
My salary has not augmented the last ten years, basically, i don't see
a single reason why a glider price should augment in the same time
frame. But in fact they have more than doubled. I am quite sure that the
salaries of the workers doing the job are as stagnant as my own. Hence
the problem is the vast inefficiency in the leadership of these
businesses, exactly the same inefficiency you very rightly criticize at
Centrair. Sorry to say that but building gliders is not a place to make
money, if you want to become billionaire, you better sell toothbrushes.







--

Michel TALON

[Bert Willing]

On the copy of fuselages - it IS a fairly perfect copy. I have quite some
hours in Pégase (which I like), ASW19 and ASW20.

You're right that the prices of new sailplanes do skyrocket. However, it
might not have been rocket science to make a 40/1 glider with 15m span, but
then pushing the performance towards 50/1 with 15m means more and more
development work for just another extra point (and, you need to switch to
carbon/kevlar fibers which do have another price tag).
I'm not ready to pay for this extra point (because at the end of the day,
someone has to pay for that work plus a mark-up) but appearently there are a
lot of customers out there who are ready to pay for it. These customers sell
there 10-15 years old ships to pay for the new one, and the second hand
market in Europe is fairly large.

I don't think that this is the reason for a decline in soaring - it's rather
the attitude of many a club member who thinks he needs to fly an ASW27
instead of an ASW20, or a Discus2 instead of a Pégase - without having ever
reached a personal performance limit on a Pégase...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Michel Talon" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Bert Willing > wrote:
> > Well, the fuselage is a perfect copy, the wing planform is a perfect
copy,
> > the structure is a suboptimal copy and the airfoil is a new (and
> > definitively better) development.
> >
>
> The Pegase fuselage looks like the ASW20 fuselage but not the point of
> being a perfect copy, i don't think so. All fuselages of this period
> look the same.
>
> > So with all these copies and the French government paying for the
airfoil -
>
> The same as universities paying for airfoil development everywhere in
> the world.
>
> > no wonder why the selling price of a Pégase is fairly interesting if you
> > don't need amortization.
> >
> > And even though development cost was low, pricing was interesting and
> > marketing was largely supported by FFVV subventions, Centrair went bust.
Now
> > if you can't make money under these conditions, how to make money if you
> > have to pay for engineering ?!
> >
>
> As i said Centrair is not an exemple of an efficient business, and this
> was un understatement. Even RS who had an extremely successfull glider,
> the LS4, went bust. There is no limit to the amount of money incompetent
> and greedy managers can throw through the windows, just take a look at
> Messier and Vivendi.
>
> > But of course, that's all the fault of German manufacturers...
> >
>
> German manufacturers have done wonderful job, i will not discuss that.
> What they are completely unable is keeping the prices under control.
> Each and every successfull business has to focus on keeping prices
> under control, even Daimler-Benz and BMW have done great efforts in this
> direction and are able to deliver cars at reasonable price considering
> the quality and performance of their products. There is absolutely
> nothing anti german in what i am saying, i am only criticizing the
> german glider manufacturers for their unability in stabilizing prices.
> My salary has not augmented the last ten years, basically, i don't see
> a single reason why a glider price should augment in the same time
> frame. But in fact they have more than doubled. I am quite sure that the
> salaries of the workers doing the job are as stagnant as my own. Hence
> the problem is the vast inefficiency in the leadership of these
> businesses, exactly the same inefficiency you very rightly criticize at
> Centrair. Sorry to say that but building gliders is not a place to make
> money, if you want to become billionaire, you better sell toothbrushes.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Michel TALON
>

[Owain Walters]

>I don't think that this is the reason for a decline
>in soaring - it's rather
>the attitude of many a club member who thinks he needs
>to fly an ASW27
>instead of an ASW20, or a Discus2 instead of a Pégase
>- without having ever
>reached a personal performance limit on a Pégase...

How do you define your 'Personal performance limit'?
And why do you need to acheive this before you buy
a better glider?

As has been touched on, the cost increase certainly
is effected by research and develpment - a well known
expensive area that shows no immediate profits. However,
without this R+D we would still be faffing around in
Prefects. There is plenty of choice for gliders in
all price ranges, if someone wants to buy a brand new
D2 then let them. Similarly, if someone wants to buy
a k6, then let them. I do not see what is wrong with
spending the money you work for on something that is
important to you. Regardless of how much it is. And
to be honest, regardless of how good you are.


Owain

[Andreas Maurer]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 16:18:37 +0000 (UTC),
(Michel Talon) wrote:


>German manufacturers have done wonderful job, i will not discuss that.
>What they are completely unable is keeping the prices under control.

Well... unfortunately aviation business seems to result in a fairly
expensive product if a certain level of quality and reliability needs
to be achieved.
Looking at the price list for a Cirrus SR20 or even the 60-year-old
design Cessna 182S I get the desire to cry.

Or take a look at the prices for the great Lak gliders - they are not
that far below comparable German designs although I'd bet that the
wages are 80 percent lower there.



Bye
Andreas

[Mark James Boyd]

Owain Walters > wrote:
>
>How do you define your 'Personal performance limit'?
>And why do you need to acheive this before you buy
>a better glider?

I've been using sink rate at 80 knots as a metric for a while.

SGS 1-26 700
AC-4 500
LS-4 320
ASW-20 300
PIK-20B 280
ASH-25 220

And it looks like the

square of 700 49
------------- = -- = ~5
square of 300 9

So an ASW-20 costs about 5 x what an SGS 1-26 costs.

Blanik L-13 550
PZL PW-5 500
DG-100 375
Grob 102 CS 360
Grob 103 350
Libelle 201b 350
SGS 1-35 321
Cirrus Open 318
Pegasus 101A 270

It seems to me that the low perf. trainers are in the 700 range,
medium performance and non-retract are in the 500 range,
and higher performance in the 300 range.

And from what I've seen, a lot of even fairly experienced soaring
pilots are pretty happy with anything better than 300fpm sink
at 80 knots. Well, some will insist on ballast and flaps at that
point too, but a lot seem ok < 300fpm sink.
--

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

[Pete Reinhart]

Mark,
A most thoughtful metric.
It might lead to a very interesting way of valueing the gider market as
opposed to $perL/D.
This might be a way to determine various cut off points for gliders under
consideration.
Have you extended the reasoning to other aspects?
Cheers!, Pete
"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:413ce507$1@darkstar...
> Owain Walters > wrote:
> >
> >How do you define your 'Personal performance limit'?
> >And why do you need to acheive this before you buy
> >a better glider?
>
> I've been using sink rate at 80 knots as a metric for a while.
>
> SGS 1-26 700
> AC-4 500
> LS-4 320
> ASW-20 300
> PIK-20B 280
> ASH-25 220
>
> And it looks like the
>
> square of 700 49
> ------------- = -- = ~5
> square of 300 9
>
> So an ASW-20 costs about 5 x what an SGS 1-26 costs.
>
> Blanik L-13 550
> PZL PW-5 500
> DG-100 375
> Grob 102 CS 360
> Grob 103 350
> Libelle 201b 350
> SGS 1-35 321
> Cirrus Open 318
> Pegasus 101A 270
>
> It seems to me that the low perf. trainers are in the 700 range,
> medium performance and non-retract are in the 500 range,
> and higher performance in the 300 range.
>
> And from what I've seen, a lot of even fairly experienced soaring
> pilots are pretty happy with anything better than 300fpm sink
> at 80 knots. Well, some will insist on ballast and flaps at that
> point too, but a lot seem ok < 300fpm sink.
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark Boyd
> Avenal, California, USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Pete Reinhart > wrote:
>Mark,
>A most thoughtful metric.
>It might lead to a very interesting way of valueing the gider market as
>opposed to $perL/D.
> This might be a way to determine various cut off points for gliders under
>consideration.
>Have you extended the reasoning to other aspects?
>Cheers!, Pete


The only other really good metric I think might be useful is the
insurance rate for the glider. This takes into account the
safety/training cost aspect of a glider. It seems PIKs are
undervalued, and the LS-4 overvalued, without this metric.
I can't really think of a more useful metric for encompassing
a lot of different factors.

And insurance quotes are pretty easy to get. So it wouldn't
be a lot of trouble to get a list. And hey, if the bean
counters think it's accurate, then maybe it is...

Insurance cost seems to cover a lot of otherwise intangibles, like
cost of getting replacement parts, too...

Beyond this metric, I dunno what else is a good summary.

P.S. I also prefer to use handicap squared instead of straight handicap
to compare performances in racing results, but I don't think this
is what you meant :P

>"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
>news:413ce507$1@darkstar...
>> Owain Walters > wrote:
>> >
>> >How do you define your 'Personal performance limit'?
>> >And why do you need to acheive this before you buy
>> >a better glider?
>>
>> I've been using sink rate at 80 knots as a metric for a while.
>>
>> SGS 1-26 700
>> AC-4 500
>> LS-4 320
>> ASW-20 300
>> PIK-20B 280
>> ASH-25 220
>>
>> And it looks like the
>>
>> square of 700 49
>> ------------- = -- = ~5
>> square of 300 9
>>
>> So an ASW-20 costs about 5 x what an SGS 1-26 costs.
>>
>> Blanik L-13 550
>> PZL PW-5 500
>> DG-100 375
>> Grob 102 CS 360
>> Grob 103 350
>> Libelle 201b 350
>> SGS 1-35 321
>> Cirrus Open 318
>> Pegasus 101A 270
>>
>> It seems to me that the low perf. trainers are in the 700 range,
>> medium performance and non-retract are in the 500 range,
>> and higher performance in the 300 range.
>>
>> And from what I've seen, a lot of even fairly experienced soaring
>> pilots are pretty happy with anything better than 300fpm sink
>> at 80 knots. Well, some will insist on ballast and flaps at that
>> point too, but a lot seem ok < 300fpm sink.
>> --
>>
>> ------------+
>> Mark Boyd
>> Avenal, California, USA
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Bert Willing]

I've reached my personal performance limit in a glider when I am sure that
on a certain day I would have gone further with a better glider. Where I fly
(French & Swiss Alps) this hasn't happened yet because there are many more
factors than just the glider performance.

That doesn't mean that I disregard people who buy a better glider even
though this don't stretch their legs - everybody spends his money for his
toys as it pleases him, there is nothing wrong with one pilot buying a
L-Spatz (or a 1-26 for those on the strange side of the pond :-), and the
other one buying a Ventus2cx.

If it's coming to club fleets, that's where the cost of gliders is important
(a private owner anyways better don't think about $ per hour :-)). There are
clubs out there, especially in Germany, which operate many latest model
fleets for reasonable prices, but that doesn't hold for every place.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Owain Walters" > a écrit
dans le message de ...
>
> >I don't think that this is the reason for a decline
> >in soaring - it's rather
> >the attitude of many a club member who thinks he needs
> >to fly an ASW27
> >instead of an ASW20, or a Discus2 instead of a Pégase
> >- without having ever
> >reached a personal performance limit on a Pégase...
>
> How do you define your 'Personal performance limit'?
> And why do you need to acheive this before you buy
> a better glider?
>
> As has been touched on, the cost increase certainly
> is effected by research and develpment - a well known
> expensive area that shows no immediate profits. However,
> without this R+D we would still be faffing around in
> Prefects. There is plenty of choice for gliders in
> all price ranges, if someone wants to buy a brand new
> D2 then let them. Similarly, if someone wants to buy
> a k6, then let them. I do not see what is wrong with
> spending the money you work for on something that is
> important to you. Regardless of how much it is. And
> to be honest, regardless of how good you are.
>
>
> Owain
>
>
>

[Michel Talon]

Bert Willing > wrote:

> I'm not ready to pay for this extra point (because at the end of the day,
> someone has to pay for that work plus a mark-up) but appearently there are a
> lot of customers out there who are ready to pay for it. These customers sell
> there 10-15 years old ships to pay for the new one, and the second hand
> market in Europe is fairly large.
>

Yes, you are right. The best solution by far at present for someone who
wants to buy a glider is to buy a second hand one in the category of
the LS4, Pegase and so on, or an ASW20 or similar if he wants a flapped
glider and is reasonably confident in his piloting abilities.


> I don't think that this is the reason for a decline in soaring - it's rather
> the attitude of many a club member who thinks he needs to fly an ASW27
> instead of an ASW20, or a Discus2 instead of a Pégase - without having ever
> reached a personal performance limit on a Pégase...
>

I agree 100%, however one must not neglect the fact that the clubs have
to renew their fleet to counter depreciation. To come back to
generalities, it is impossible that the prices keep going up like they
are doing, the system will hit a wall fast.


--

Michel TALON

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
"Pete Reinhart" > wrote:

> Mark,
> A most thoughtful metric.
> It might lead to a very interesting way of valueing the gider market as
> opposed to $perL/D.

Of course this is just L/D at 80 knots, with his 300 fpm cutoff being
an L/D of about 26.6:1 and an LS4 being 25:1.

It appears that you need (-ve) flaps to get as low as 300 fpm, but then
there are lots of missing interesting gliders. The Discus and ASW28 may
prove me wrong, for example.

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

[Bruce Greeff]

Bert Willing wrote:
> On the copy of fuselages - it IS a fairly perfect copy. I have quite some
> hours in Pégase (which I like), ASW19 and ASW20.
>
> You're right that the prices of new sailplanes do skyrocket. However, it
> might not have been rocket science to make a 40/1 glider with 15m span, but
> then pushing the performance towards 50/1 with 15m means more and more
> development work for just another extra point (and, you need to switch to
> carbon/kevlar fibers which do have another price tag).
> I'm not ready to pay for this extra point (because at the end of the day,
> someone has to pay for that work plus a mark-up) but appearently there are a
> lot of customers out there who are ready to pay for it. These customers sell
> there 10-15 years old ships to pay for the new one, and the second hand
> market in Europe is fairly large.
>
> I don't think that this is the reason for a decline in soaring - it's rather
> the attitude of many a club member who thinks he needs to fly an ASW27
> instead of an ASW20, or a Discus2 instead of a Pégase - without having ever
> reached a personal performance limit on a Pégase...
>
Touche Bert

I fully plan to trade my 1971 Std Cirrus in the moment I am a better pilot than
it is a glider...

May take a looong time.

[Mark James Boyd]

Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>In article >,
> "Pete Reinhart" > wrote:
>
>> Mark,
>> A most thoughtful metric.
>> It might lead to a very interesting way of valueing the gider market as
>> opposed to $perL/D.
>
>Of course this is just L/D at 80 knots, with his 300 fpm cutoff being
>an L/D of about 26.6:1 and an LS4 being 25:1.
>
>It appears that you need (-ve) flaps to get as low as 300 fpm, but then
>there are lots of missing interesting gliders. The Discus and ASW28 may
>prove me wrong, for example.

Getting lower fpms seems to also have at least one downside
too: higher stall speed. I personally would like something
like a Russia AC-4c, with a fairly low stall speed, but
with ballast too. Short wings and slow stall speed when I want it
are good. I wonder about getting one with a motor and
then just putting a big water bag in the hatch instead ;)

30 knot stall vs. 40 knot stall is
900 vs. 1600 energy units at landing.
Almost twice as much energy to dissapate at touchdown.

Once the unballasted stall speed of a glider gets past
40 knots, I'd be a little hesitant to be "happy'
about the great penetration...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> Getting lower fpms seems to also have at least one downside
> too: higher stall speed. I personally would like something
> like a Russia AC-4c, with a fairly low stall speed, but
> with ballast too. Short wings and slow stall speed when I want it
> are good. I wonder about getting one with a motor and
> then just putting a big water bag in the hatch instead ;)
>
> 30 knot stall vs. 40 knot stall is
> 900 vs. 1600 energy units at landing.
> Almost twice as much energy to dissapate at touchdown.

Your arithmetic is right, but the Russia stalls closer to 40 knots than
30 knots at the weight I flew one several years ago (180 pounds with
parachute). It landed noticeably faster than a Blanik or PW5.
>
> Once the unballasted stall speed of a glider gets past
> 40 knots, I'd be a little hesitant to be "happy'
> about the great penetration...

There is a world of difference landing off field with a glider that
touches down at 30 knots vs 40. I've known pilots that got spooked by
the faster landings when they moved from slower speed gliders to a "high
performance" one. Landing in a field just didn't seem like a such a good
idea anymore. Training can overcome this, but some just quietly slipped
away from the sport.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Bruce Greeff wrote:


>
> I fully plan to trade my 1971 Std Cirrus in the moment I am a better
> pilot than it is a glider...
>
> May take a looong time.

I know you are talking about performance, but let me suggest you are
wrong anyway. If you are a decent pilot, you are already better overall
than a 35 year old design; if you AREN'T a decent pilot, you really
would benefit from a better glider! The newer gliders, as John Cochrane
pointed out in a recent post, handle better (more pleasant and safer to
fly), usually have automatic hookups, and offer much more pilot
protection if the first two aren't sufficient.

Speaking as a former owner of Std Cirrus ... unless you don't have much
money, the twitchiness over 70 knots, poor stall and spin
characteristics, the poor airbrakes, and the poor wheel brake, don't add
up to a glider you should have any loyalty to when there are so many
better choices nowadays. Try a better glider - "better" isn't just about
L/D - even a 20 year old design like an LS4 is a distinct improvement.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bruce Greeff]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Bruce Greeff wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I fully plan to trade my 1971 Std Cirrus in the moment I am a better
>> pilot than it is a glider...
>>
>> May take a looong time.
>
>
> I know you are talking about performance, but let me suggest you are
> wrong anyway. If you are a decent pilot, you are already better overall
> than a 35 year old design; if you AREN'T a decent pilot, you really
> would benefit from a better glider! The newer gliders, as John Cochrane
> pointed out in a recent post, handle better (more pleasant and safer to
> fly), usually have automatic hookups, and offer much more pilot
> protection if the first two aren't sufficient.
>
> Speaking as a former owner of Std Cirrus ... unless you don't have much
> money, the twitchiness over 70 knots, poor stall and spin
> characteristics, the poor airbrakes, and the poor wheel brake, don't add
> up to a glider you should have any loyalty to when there are so many
> better choices nowadays. Try a better glider - "better" isn't just about
> L/D - even a 20 year old design like an LS4 is a distinct improvement.
>
>
Hi Eric

I tend to agree that one can always benefit from better equipment, irrespective
of capability. As long as the skill demands of the new equipment remains within
your capabilities. Failing which, it is worse, for you. My point is that the
primary limitation in most cockpits is the capability of the nut on the stick,
rather than the structure the stick is part of.

So - I am a reasonable pilot I guess, and able to push the Cirrus sometimes. My
point was that for the money, and considering the available fleet in my part of
the world, I have a pretty satisfactory toy for my relatively undeveloped
capabilities. I would love to buy a higher performance/more forgiving etc./newer
airplane, but I am not forgetting to enjoy and USE what I have. Consider, the
Cirrus has generally sweet handling, works well in our generally strong
conditions and is teaching me a lot about XC with very low financial risk. Sure
I have to accomodate the characteristics of the aircraft - the wheel brake is
worse than the airbrake, which is not the most powerful ever met. (so I learn to
plan carefully for outlandings) The controls are very sensitive in pitch ,
especially at high speed (so I learn precision - this is good) She is not
particularly fast, so I learn to make the most of the soaring time available.

Given that I do not have unlimited funds available, I think it is better for me
to spend as much time flying my cheap to own, and quite capable 1970s design. My
evaluation is that the quantum of experience/time/launches will benefit me far
more than being able to just afford to fly, once a month in a one generation
newer plane, or not at all in a brand new supership... If funds were no limit I
would be flying more, and working less ;-) irrespective of the mount. I would
also benefit from a better glider, all other things being equal, and I suspect
this applies to most.

[Mark James Boyd]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>
>> 30 knot stall vs. 40 knot stall is
>> 900 vs. 1600 energy units at landing.
>> Almost twice as much energy to dissapate at touchdown.
>
>Your arithmetic is right, but the Russia stalls closer to 40 knots than
>30 knots at the weight I flew one several years ago (180 pounds with
>parachute). It landed noticeably faster than a Blanik or PW5.

Not fair! The Blanik has (fowler?) flaps! :P But yes, the PW-5 was
noticably slower on landing. What's really amazing is the Sparrowhawk.
Look at the penetration and then look at the low stall speed. And
fixed gear? Amazing... I haven't flown one yet (and I missed
my chance at the Labor Day weekend at Tehachapi) but I drool...

>> Once the unballasted stall speed of a glider gets past
>> 40 knots, I'd be a little hesitant to be "happy'
>> about the great penetration...
>
>There is a world of difference landing off field with a glider that
>touches down at 30 knots vs 40. I've known pilots that got spooked by
>the faster landings when they moved from slower speed gliders to a "high
>performance" one. Landing in a field just didn't seem like a such a good
>idea anymore.

Agreed completely. $30k worth of glider with twice as much energy to
dissipate over ruts or rocks or a caught wing is a lot more $$$$$ of
damage. I honestly think with the excellent harnesses and cockpit
energy absorption of modern aircraft (15 years old or less), anything
landing/stalling nearly level below 40 knots will result in minor
injuries, at most. But $$$$$s of damage? That's a different
story...

Carl Herold has words about this. I suspect his conservatism in
outlandings is directly proportional to the $$$$s of glider he's
piloting. Makes the cheapo 1-26 look pretty sweet, eh? :PPPPP
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Kirk Stant]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message

> Once the unballasted stall speed of a glider gets past
> 40 knots, I'd be a little hesitant to be "happy'
> about the great penetration...

Ahh, but the beauty of great penetration is that you are less likely
to need a slower stall speed to squeeze into a small strip!

Until you have gone XC in a ship with great legs, you cannot
appreciate the value of high performance. I don't worry about the
relatively high stalling speed of my LS6, because I have the
performance (and instruments, and discipline) to always keep a nice
big place to land in reach. Yes, I said always - I treat landing out
off an airstrip like running out of gas in a power plane - extremely
poor airmanship, to say the least! Of course, in Arizona, with a
little homework, it's really not too hard to always have some sort of
airstrip in glide range at all times. Not that I don't land out
occasionally; I average about 2 landouts a year.

One thing to think about - the days of blithely landing out in any old
patch of open land in your 1-26/PW-5/K-8 are probably going to be gone
soon (unless you live in Nebraska). Too many damn lawyers and grumpy
landowners... So you might as well have the performance to make it
comfortably from airport to airport.

Kirk