Sailplane Classes - a different perspective

[David Bingham]

Sailplane Classes

Initially I came to soaring via paragliders and then my wife
suggested sailplanes (because she thought they were safer - maybe) and
I have flown many different gliders and motorgliders (plus single
engine power planes both tricycle and tail dragger types). I have
ended up with a DG800B, a Lancair ES and a Stemme S10-VT with a
SparrowHawk on order. I have noted the different classes, Std, Sports,
World, Open etc with amusement. Are people serious? I have flown them
all and all have minor advantages and disadvantages. The bottom line
is nearly always "It's the pilot stupid". Subtle differences between
say the most popular Std class gliders are so small its only the pilot
who matters.
Now I want to suggest that, in my humble opinion, the way the
classes are currently set up by the SSA don't make any sense. Lets
take a step back, reset our prejudices, and see if we can't make our
grey matter operate at a higher level than usual.
What do we know? Well actually quite a lot! A large heavy glider has
a better Reynolds Number for lowering effective air resistance –
suggests better L/D. All things being equal the L/D is improved by
having a high wing aspect ratio. A smaller light glider will perform
better in light conditions. Flaps marginally improve the extremes of
the polar and so on and so on.
I think when all is said and done the most significant parameter
that affects the overall performance of a glider is its weight! So I
propose that we consider just 3 classes of sailplanes based solely on
their weights.
Lets forget about wing spans, flaps and other enhancements. All 3
classes would be free to choose their own goodies as long as they kept
to prescribed weight limits. Wouldn't this make glider design so much
more fun?
I propose that:
Class 1 be limited to 70kilos maximum
(plus safety equipment such as a ballistic parachute).
Class 2 be limited to 250kilos max

Class 3 be limited to 250kilos minimum

Note that in theory a Class 1 type glider could, if suitably
ballisted and structurally strong enough, be flown in all 3 classes.

Innovations are usually assisted not by having strict rules such as
today's strict glider classes but rather the freedom to exploit the
limits of technology and the mind. Bert Rutan with Spaceship 1 was not
encumbered by prejudices of what a space ship should look like
according to NASA. He designed it to do a job. Likewise forget this
nonsense about glider wingspan etc. Let the designers use modern
materials for best advantage to push the state of art of sailplanes.
My hat's off to people like Rutan and Greg Cole (SparrowHawk) who defy
outdated traditions. If you don't believe me go and demo a
SparrowHawk.
Dave

[Shawn]

David Bingham wrote:
> Sailplane Classes
>
> Initially I came to soaring via paragliders and then my wife
> suggested sailplanes (because she thought they were safer - maybe) and
> I have flown many different gliders and motorgliders (plus single
> engine power planes both tricycle and tail dragger types). I have
> ended up with a DG800B, a Lancair ES and a Stemme S10-VT with a
> SparrowHawk on order. I have noted the different classes, Std, Sports,
> World, Open etc with amusement. Are people serious? I have flown them
> all and all have minor advantages and disadvantages. The bottom line
> is nearly always "It's the pilot stupid". Subtle differences between
> say the most popular Std class gliders are so small its only the pilot
> who matters.
> Now I want to suggest that, in my humble opinion, the way the
> classes are currently set up by the SSA don't make any sense. Lets
> take a step back, reset our prejudices, and see if we can't make our
> grey matter operate at a higher level than usual.
> What do we know? Well actually quite a lot! A large heavy glider has
> a better Reynolds Number for lowering effective air resistance –
> suggests better L/D. All things being equal the L/D is improved by
> having a high wing aspect ratio. A smaller light glider will perform
> better in light conditions. Flaps marginally improve the extremes of
> the polar and so on and so on.
> I think when all is said and done the most significant parameter
> that affects the overall performance of a glider is its weight! So I
> propose that we consider just 3 classes of sailplanes based solely on
> their weights.
> Lets forget about wing spans, flaps and other enhancements. All 3
> classes would be free to choose their own goodies as long as they kept
> to prescribed weight limits. Wouldn't this make glider design so much
> more fun?
> I propose that:
> Class 1 be limited to 70kilos maximum
> (plus safety equipment such as a ballistic parachute).
> Class 2 be limited to 250kilos max
>
> Class 3 be limited to 250kilos minimum
>
> Note that in theory a Class 1 type glider could, if suitably
> ballisted and structurally strong enough, be flown in all 3 classes.
>
> Innovations are usually assisted not by having strict rules such as
> today's strict glider classes but rather the freedom to exploit the
> limits of technology and the mind. Bert Rutan with Spaceship 1 was not
> encumbered by prejudices of what a space ship should look like
> according to NASA. He designed it to do a job. Likewise forget this
> nonsense about glider wingspan etc. Let the designers use modern
> materials for best advantage to push the state of art of sailplanes.
> My hat's off to people like Rutan and Greg Cole (SparrowHawk) who defy
> outdated traditions. If you don't believe me go and demo a
> SparrowHawk.
> Dave

So what you're saying is, as I interpret it, "It's the pilot's wallet,
stupid." It's not a bad idea, but some other constraint would be needed
to limit the cost, or soaring competition will become as relevant to the
regular sailplane pilot as F1 racing is to most car owners.

Shawn

[John H. Campbell]

Just, for Pete's sake, keep the Sports Class, which is the non-class or
all-class, thank you. Libertarian class, "I respect your decision on what
to fly" class. After all the theorizing and the social engineering and the
enforcing of arbitrary fashions, there will always be left-over people
(hmm... like paraglider pilots turned Sparrohawk fans?) whose aesthetic or
aerodynamic opinion, wallet, access, whatever, leaves them wedded to some
"dis-enfranchised" mount ("rare", "old", "non-mainstream", "orphaned",
"one-design", who cares?). Or furthermore, unattached people who alternate,
share, borrow, train in various ships. Let them feel welcome to achieve and
compete with the rest. In a big country with a small spread-out fleet, you
at least stand a chance of pulling enough pilots together to make a contest
possible.

[Pat Russell]

> Now I want to suggest that, in my humble opinion, the way the
>classes are currently set up by the SSA don't make any sense.

In fact the classes are set up by FAI. If the SSA did it, they
would probably make even less sense.

[Chris OCallaghan]

False premises.

They are not all the same. Though subtle, each model in a class has
its peculiarities. For example, the LS-8 is a better climber than a
D2. The Ventus 2 is a better climber than the 27. This translates into
differences in tactics. The 27 and D2 are better suited to meandering,
the 8 and V2 to saw-toothing.

There is, in fact, more than just a subtle difference between models.
Cockpits are shaped differently, the low speed bucket is wider for
some models, dump rates vary, handling varies, all of these factors
shift the spectrum of pilot options for a given situation. There is no
doubt that some model families are better suited to a particular pilot
than others.

And I won't even start on the advantages of optimizing wingspan. A
savvy CD could easily design tasks that would cripple any glider with
less than 20 meters, regardless of how heavy the 15M racers.

Of course, that's not to say that your idea isn't interesting. But
your foundation is weak. You need another, better reason to launch
this revolution. (:-D>

[Stewart Kissel]

You need another, better reason to launch
>this revolution. (:-D>


Another requirement for change is popular support...I
will be verrry generous and estimate the entire glider
racing population in the US at 10% of SSA members...1400
pilots. I suspect 500 pilots is a more accurate number,
but not wanting to debate this I will use the larger
number.

How many of them see this as an issue? Does redoing
the class requirements solve the issue of driving halfway
across the USA to sit on the tarmac waiting for the
rain to stop? Or reduce the time expenditure to do
that?

And if a handicap system is not used...then an arms
race starts with pilots spending big bucks to buy performance.
I admire the enthusiasm racers have for their niche.
But I don't see your suggestion increasing the numbers.
And Sparrowhawks probably will do quite well in Sports
Class.

[Nyal Williams]

At 01:00 28 November 2004, David Bingham wrote:
>Sailplane Classes

> <snip>


If you don't believe me go and demo a
>SparrowHawk.
>Dave
>

Dave, they won't let anyone unless the person plunks
down a non-refundable chunk of money on a purchase
order. No flights by an insured pilot/instructor or
whoever.

[OscarCVox]

Why does the US have different classes to the rest of the world? OK I know
std, 15m and Open are all the same, but US has a Sport class wheras the rest of
the world has the Club class. I dont believe that there is a 18m class in the
US either. Please correct me if I am wrong.

On a slightly different note. Since the PW5 is relatively popular in the US and
deeply unpopular (and thus cheap) in europe why dont we send them all to you.
In the return container you can send us your 15m gliders which due to the weak
dollar would be relatively cheap for us.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, (David Bingham) wrote:

>...I propose that:
> Class 1 be limited to 70kilos maximum
> (plus safety equipment such as a ballistic parachute).
> Class 2 be limited to 250kilos max
>
> Class 3 be limited to 250kilos minimum...

So, if these classes were suddenly instituted tomorrow, would you compete in them?

Bob K.

[Mark James Boyd]

Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>
>So, if these classes were suddenly instituted tomorrow, would you compete in them?

If there was a Sports Class competition nearby, that's the one I'd most likely
compete in.

The year I had the most time and interest, there was unfortunately no
Sports Class at Avenal. Too bad :(

--

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

[Kevin Christner]

Good idea, if you want to limit sailplane racing to people with the
money to buy 4 gliders like you (or maybe that is your goal?). The
problem is that you'd need a different glider for every contest site.
Longer wingspan/lower wingloading in the east with shorter span/higher
loading out west. Thousands of variations in between meaning that
you'd probably need a new glider every year to be competitive based on
expected conditions at the contest site and new developements by
designers within your formula.

Oh yah, you better get a second glider too so you'll be competitve in
that regional back east, and a third glider for Mifflin. Now theres a
tough one, should you go to mifflin with a lead sled expecting 3-4
ridge days or a light wingloading glider expecting weak conditiond.
Oh, and get another one for Tonopah and Uvlade. Your idea turns
gliding competition into a crap shoot of who shows up with the right
glider.

[Kevin Christner]

Quote: The bottom line is nearly always "It's the pilot stupid"
And isnt that the point?

[Stewart Kissel]

>So, if these classes were suddenly instituted tomorrow,
>would you compete in them?
>
>Bob K.


Well if I suddenly obtained a bunch of spare time in
the summer, and the desire to spend it driving...and
possibly sitting at the airport.

And won the lotto so I could afford a competitive ship
in one of those classes.

And became skilled enough to not finish dead last.

[Brad]

> Good idea, if you want to limit sailplane racing to people with the
> money to buy 4 gliders like you (or maybe that is your goal?).

yah, and how many sailplane pilots out there have a hard time affording 1 glider?

Brad

[Steve Bralla]

In article >,
(Brad) writes:

>
>> Good idea, if you want to limit sailplane racing to people with the
>> money to buy 4 gliders like you (or maybe that is your goal?).
>
>yah, and how many sailplane pilots out there have a hard time affording 1
>glider?
>

How about classes defined by cost? I have some memory of hearing that there
were (are?) auto racing classes defined this way. To keep out cheating the
cars are always "for sale" at the maximum allowable class cost.

Steve

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Stewart Kissel >
wrote:

> ...And became skilled enough to not finish dead last.

Hey, don't knock it till you've tried it. One year at the Air Sailing
I finished the contest with 15 points, and that was with launching
every day save one. I swear, that last was so dead I was expecting to
see the CSI team and a bunch of yellow crime scene tape at the awards
dinner. I still had a pretty good time.

The thing that got me onto the grid in the first place was realizing
that it didn't really matter if I had a hot ship or understood the
rules completely or comprehended all the subtleties of 1000-point POST
scoring. What was important was that I fly safely and have a good time
while I figured it out on a one-week soaring-only vacation. After
about the third contest I was out there playing it with the big boys
and girls, and it didn't cost me no five-eigths mil, neither. I just
run what I brung as hard as I felt safe.

Thanks, and best regards to all

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Pat Russell wrote:
>> Now I want to suggest that, in my humble opinion, the way the
>>classes are currently set up by the SSA don't make any sense.
>
>
> In fact the classes are set up by FAI. If the SSA did it, they
> would probably make even less sense.

In fact, the USA classes are set by the SSA. We can have any kind of
classes that we want. For the last few decades, the SSA has chosen FAI
classes (with a wing-loaing modification for the Standard class), plus
it's own invention, the very popular Sports Class. A little more
respect, please!

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

OscarCVox wrote:

> Why does the US have different classes to the rest of the world? OK I know
> std, 15m and Open are all the same, but US has a Sport class wheras the rest of
> the world has the Club class. I dont believe that there is a 18m class in the
> US either. Please correct me if I am wrong.

There is an 18 meter class in the USA, the FAI 18 meter. The 18 Meter
Nationals will be at Montague, California, in 2005. I don't know of any
Regional 18 M class being scheduled.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Marc Ramsey]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> There is an 18 meter class in the USA, the FAI 18 meter. The 18 Meter
> Nationals will be at Montague, California, in 2005. I don't know of any
> Regional 18 M class being scheduled.

We had a successful (7 total, 4 motorgliders) 18M class in the Region 11
FAI contest at Minden last year, and we'll likely do it again next year.

Marc

[Paul]

Funny attitude.
How the hell would you know if you had learnt anything?
Whats your "pass grade" so you would know you would not finish dead last?
I entered contests in a poorly performing glider. Makes you work harder to
get around and you learn alot faster then if you have a higher glide angle.


"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
>
> >So, if these classes were suddenly instituted tomorrow,
> >would you compete in them?
> >
> >Bob K.
>
>
> Well if I suddenly obtained a bunch of spare time in
> the summer, and the desire to spend it driving...and
> possibly sitting at the airport.
>
> And won the lotto so I could afford a competitive ship
> in one of those classes.
>
> And became skilled enough to not finish dead last.
>
>
>
>

[hannu]

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Funny attitude.
> How the hell would you know if you had learnt anything?
> Whats your "pass grade" so you would know you would not finish dead last?
> I entered contests in a poorly performing glider. Makes you work harder to
> get around and you learn alot faster then if you have a higher glide
angle.

Yes and no :) You learn to survive alone - as others leave you - yes, and
especially me ;) - behind. I fly with two gliders in cometitions and always
with a glider that is in the bottom of the heap (performance-wise, now we
aren't even talking about my mediocre piloting skills ;)). Astir CS and K-8b
are the ironing hardware here.

With a lower performance glider you learn by mistake. With a glider with
alike or better performance you learn by example, as you fly with others. I
think one needs BOTH ways of learning. WHEN you really know waht to do, you
can go also with the lower performance and even compete, but lesser
experience and performance leaves you on your own.

It would be fun if EVEN JUST FOR ONCE I could fly with a matching glassaware
:)

hannu

[Graeme Cant]

Stewart Kissel wrote:
>>So, if these classes were suddenly instituted tomorrow,
>>would you compete in them?
>>
>>Bob K.
>
> Well if I suddenly obtained a bunch of spare time in
> the summer, and the desire to spend it driving...and
> possibly sitting at the airport.
>
> And won the lotto so I could afford a competitive ship
> in one of those classes.
>
> And became skilled enough to not finish dead last.
>

He said "NO".

[David Bingham]

Hi Gang
For approximately 30 years the performance of gliders has hardly
advanced at all and yet we now have the tools (computer programs) and
much stronger materials (carbon composites) to surely advance the
state of the art of gliders. Has this happened? Yes there are marginal
improvements but so small. What's the reason for this slowdown in
innovation? I believe in no small part it is due to the sailplane
classes. With the establishing of the classes that are so rigid and,
in my mind, so restrictive, innovation has suffered. What a breath of
fresh air the SparrowHawk is! However there is no sailplane class for
it. So I got to thinking. Is the present setup of the classes
rational, reasonable? Could a better system be envisioned? OK, taking
this further if there were no classes today, and it was suggested to
set up classes, what would they look like? I think closer to what I'm
suggesting than what they are now. I hope my posting keeps the gang
thinking.

A couple of specific comments:

It is true Greg Cole required me to write him a check before demoing
the SparrowHawk but he also told me he would return the check if I
didn't like it.

Bob K wrote:
"So, if these classes were suddenly instituted tomorrow, would you
compete in them?"

A tough question. I just might participate in a class 1 competition
if were held close to home.
Dave

[Bill Daniels]

"David Bingham" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Gang
> For approximately 30 years the performance of gliders has hardly
> advanced at all and yet we now have the tools (computer programs) and
> much stronger materials (carbon composites) to surely advance the
> state of the art of gliders. Has this happened? Yes there are marginal
> improvements but so small. What's the reason for this slowdown in
> innovation? I believe in no small part it is due to the sailplane
> classes. With the establishing of the classes that are so rigid and,
> in my mind, so restrictive, innovation has suffered.

(Snip------)

Yep.

The first class, (Standard Class) was intended to reduce glider costs by
virtually eliminating innovation which, it was felt at the time, was leading
to ever larger and more expensive gliders.

The flap enthusiasts insisted on splitting off as the 15 meter class.

Both classes became successful at the expense of the open class where carbon
composites make the most difference. In a 15 meter design, the main benefit
of carbon is lighter wings for easier assembly.

Manufacturers were forced to produce special gliders for two similar 15
meter classes. Designers were forced by the same class rules to pursue ever
more expensive ways to improve performance such as extremely smooth
surfaces. They wound up producing expensive gliders anyway because of short
production runs.

It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if the competition
organizations had resisted creating competition classes. Innovation would
have run free. It's even possible that large span, ultra-high performance
gliders would be priced the same as 15 meter gliders are today because of
much larger production runs.

I've heard interesting speculation that there's a 'natural best span' around
18 - 20 meters that would be the best compromise for all conditions. If the
market had settled on that, we might have had innovation AND low costs.
We'll never know.

Bill Daniels

p.s. I recently listened as a 'pundit' was holding forth on the reasons for
the demise of the open class. He was saying that they were just too hard to
rig. A short distance behind him an ASH-25 owner was whistling softly to
himself as he rigged solo using simple aids.

[Andreas Maurer]

On 30 Nov 2004 10:37:21 -0800, (David Bingham)
wrote:

> For approximately 30 years the performance of gliders has hardly
>advanced at all and yet we now have the tools (computer programs) and
>much stronger materials (carbon composites) to surely advance the
>state of the art of gliders.

Hmm... do you know something that noone else knows?
30 years ago the maximum L/D was about 46:1, now it's 70:1... I would
dare to call this anything but marginal.
Or standard class: LD went up from 35:1 to 48:1.

Just compare the current world record lists to the ones 30 years ago:
Performances have at least gone up factor 2. 30 years ago there were
less than one handfull of people in my club who had flown a 300 km
triangle. Today student pilots fly this on their student gliders that
happen to have an L/D of 40:1.


>Has this happened? Yes there are marginal
>improvements but so small. What's the reason for this slowdown in
>innovation?

Limitations caused by physics and depth of purse?
Eta shows what's possible. For an impossible price.

>I believe in no small part it is due to the sailplane
>classes. With the establishing of the classes that are so rigid and,
>in my mind, so restrictive, innovation has suffered. What a breath of
>fresh air the SparrowHawk is!

Well... what is the Sparrowhawk?
- performance 37:1, about the same as the first glass gliders (40
years ago)
- not certified
- anything but cheap

Sorry, but i do not see its light weight and the small span as a
breathtaking innovation.


>However there is no sailplane class for
>it.
Sports class?


>So I got to thinking. Is the present setup of the classes
>rational, reasonable? Could a better system be envisioned? OK, taking
>this further if there were no classes today, and it was suggested to
>set up classes, what would they look like? I think closer to what I'm
>suggesting than what they are now. I hope my posting keeps the gang
>thinking.

There are tens of thousands of gliders out there that match the
current classes. So you propose to throw them all away and buy new
ones that don't even exist yet? Remember: Extremely few people on this
planet can affort to buy one new aircraft, let alone four.


Bye
Andreas

[Chiefsvr]

An interesting aspect of RAS: People not involved in sailplane racing and know
little about it seem to have a lot of ideas on how to fix it (presuming that it
is somehow broken in the first place).
First, (no reflection on the sparrowhawk), but it isn't any great
innovation. Secondly, there is, in fact, a class for the sparrowhawk. It's
called the sports class. Thirdly, there are continual improvements in sailplane
design, which is why competition pilots buy news designs when they are
available. Fourthly, restrictions on design haven't hampered progress in
NASCAR, Indy racing or sailplane racing. Finally, the open class is not
restricted.

[Pete Reinhart]

Bill,
I think you have a solid point. i've been re-reading for the 8th or 10th
time Fred Thomas' book on sailplane design and some of the information on
cross country speed vs span mskes it look like the sweet spot is somewhere
in the 18-20 meter range, just as you say.
Cabon makes the wings lighter and easier to rig that's for sure and maybe
more stable dimensionally.
Thirty meters seems excessive but we would all like to experience "wretched
excess" for the pure fun of it once in a while and 13 meters seems just
excessively limiting (at least to me).
Cheers!

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
news:ff4rd.181115$R05.60069@attbi_s53...
>
> "David Bingham" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi Gang
> > For approximately 30 years the performance of gliders has hardly
> > advanced at all and yet we now have the tools (computer programs) and
> > much stronger materials (carbon composites) to surely advance the
> > state of the art of gliders. Has this happened? Yes there are marginal
> > improvements but so small. What's the reason for this slowdown in
> > innovation? I believe in no small part it is due to the sailplane
> > classes. With the establishing of the classes that are so rigid and,
> > in my mind, so restrictive, innovation has suffered.
>
> (Snip------)
>
> Yep.
>
> The first class, (Standard Class) was intended to reduce glider costs by
> virtually eliminating innovation which, it was felt at the time, was
leading
> to ever larger and more expensive gliders.
>
> The flap enthusiasts insisted on splitting off as the 15 meter class.
>
> Both classes became successful at the expense of the open class where
carbon
> composites make the most difference. In a 15 meter design, the main
benefit
> of carbon is lighter wings for easier assembly.
>
> Manufacturers were forced to produce special gliders for two similar 15
> meter classes. Designers were forced by the same class rules to pursue
ever
> more expensive ways to improve performance such as extremely smooth
> surfaces. They wound up producing expensive gliders anyway because of
short
> production runs.
>
> It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if the competition
> organizations had resisted creating competition classes. Innovation would
> have run free. It's even possible that large span, ultra-high performance
> gliders would be priced the same as 15 meter gliders are today because of
> much larger production runs.
>
> I've heard interesting speculation that there's a 'natural best span'
around
> 18 - 20 meters that would be the best compromise for all conditions. If
the
> market had settled on that, we might have had innovation AND low costs.
> We'll never know.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
> p.s. I recently listened as a 'pundit' was holding forth on the reasons
for
> the demise of the open class. He was saying that they were just too hard
to
> rig. A short distance behind him an ASH-25 owner was whistling softly to
> himself as he rigged solo using simple aids.
>

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
David Bingham > wrote:
>Hi Gang
> For approximately 30 years the performance of gliders has hardly
>advanced at all and yet we now have the tools (computer programs) and
>much stronger materials (carbon composites) to surely advance the
>state of the art of gliders. Has this happened? Yes there are marginal
>improvements but so small. What's the reason for this slowdown in
>innovation?

Not enough glider pilots. 625 thousand active pilots in the USA
(based on medicals applied for). Maybe 1 in 30 fly gliders.
Van's making a self-launch LSA glider would be a big help.

I recently was counseling a Park Ranger who flies a Husky
on patrol. She told me she wanted to improve her radio calls and
thought also that an IFR rating would help. I told her based on
the mountains she flies around, glider training would be much
more valuable. She was quite surprised.

If we get more glider pilots, we'll get enough mass to get the
innovations going. Turbine powered gliders, LSA transitions,
and the Sparrowhawks of the community are a good start...

I don't believe it has much to do with classes. There are a
lot of people on RAS that care, but of the 20,000 others,
most just get a glider they like...

I believe in no small part it is due to the sailplane
>classes. With the establishing of the classes that are so rigid and,
>in my mind, so restrictive, innovation has suffered. What a breath of
>fresh air the SparrowHawk is! However there is no sailplane class for
>it. So I got to thinking. Is the present setup of the classes
>rational, reasonable? Could a better system be envisioned? OK, taking
>this further if there were no classes today, and it was suggested to
>set up classes, what would they look like? I think closer to what I'm
>suggesting than what they are now. I hope my posting keeps the gang
>thinking.
>
> A couple of specific comments:
>
> It is true Greg Cole required me to write him a check before demoing
>the SparrowHawk but he also told me he would return the check if I
>didn't like it.
>
> Bob K wrote:
>"So, if these classes were suddenly instituted tomorrow, would you
>compete in them?"
>
> A tough question. I just might participate in a class 1 competition
>if were held close to home.
>Dave


--

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

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> The first class, (Standard Class) was intended to reduce glider costs by
> virtually eliminating innovation which, it was felt at the time, was leading
> to ever larger and more expensive gliders.

And it worked! Standard class gliders were a lot cheaper!

>
> The flap enthusiasts insisted on splitting off as the 15 meter class.
>
> Both classes became successful at the expense of the open class where carbon
> composites make the most difference.

Wait a minute - these classes came into being years before carbon was
used. The first really successful Standard Class glider, the Ka-6, was wood!

In a 15 meter design, the main benefit
> of carbon is lighter wings for easier assembly.

Also a higher aspect ratio leading to better L/D, and thinner wings,
leading to higher cross-country speed.

>
> Manufacturers were forced to produce special gliders for two similar 15
> meter classes. Designers were forced by the same class rules to pursue ever
> more expensive ways to improve performance such as extremely smooth
> surfaces. They wound up producing expensive gliders anyway because of short
> production runs.

Baloney! Far more gliders in EACH class were produced than ever would
have been produced for even a single Open class. THe classes weren't
popular because they were FAI classes, but became popular because they
were such an outstanding combination of cost and performance. That
magical "sweet spot" some people talk about.

snip
>
> I've heard interesting speculation that there's a 'natural best span' around
> 18 - 20 meters that would be the best compromise for all conditions. If the
> market had settled on that, we might have had innovation AND low costs.
> We'll never know.

The market is moving there, to some extent. Remember, the 'natural best
span' is _very_ dependent on the materials available (and their costs),
and will be different for wood, metal, fiberglass, and carbon. There is
nothing magic about 18 meters, because it depends on a value judgment
(performance versus costs). So, the market couldn't settle on 18 meters
sooner, but had to wait for technology to advance, material costs to
come down, and for pilots to decide that they were now willing to pay
for a certain level of performance.

A lot of ras pilots seem to think 15 meters is the 'natural best span',
when embodied in a low cost LS4.

>
> Bill Daniels
>
> p.s. I recently listened as a 'pundit' was holding forth on the reasons for
> the demise of the open class. He was saying that they were just too hard to
> rig. A short distance behind him an ASH-25 owner was whistling softly to
> himself as he rigged solo using simple aids.

And taking far longer than an ASW 27, which cost far less. If your
pundit talked only about putting it together, he hasn't been around one
enough to know what a bloody pig it is on the ground, and how much real
estate they need just to be tied down, or pushed around on a ramp, or
taken down a taxiway, and how wide the runway needs to be to take off or
land on, the size of the towplane, and how many people had better show
up if he ever hopes to get it out of a field! Shucks, just trying to
push the empty trailer around to hook it up is more than my crew can
handle. It's not ignorance that keeps people from falling all over
themselves to get a 25 meter glider.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Leon McAtee]

Shawn > wrote in message >...
> David Bingham wrote:
> > Sailplane Classes
>> > Now I want to suggest that, in my humble opinion, the way the
> > classes are currently set up by the SSA don't make any sense. Lets
> > take a step back, reset our prejudices, and see if we can't make our
> > grey matter operate at a higher level than usual.
> > What do we know? Well actually quite a lot! A large heavy glider has
> > a better Reynolds Number for lowering effective air resistance –
> > suggests better L/D. All things being equal the L/D is improved by
> > having a high wing aspect ratio. A smaller light glider will perform
> > better in light conditions. Flaps marginally improve the extremes of
> > the polar and so on and so on.
> > I think when all is said and done the most significant parameter
> > that affects the overall performance of a glider is its weight! So I
> > propose that we consider just 3 classes of sailplanes based solely on
> > their weights.
> > Lets forget about wing spans, flaps and other enhancements. All 3
> > classes would be free to choose their own goodies as long as they kept
> > to prescribed weight limits. Wouldn't this make glider design so much
> > more fun?
>> > Dave
>
> So what you're saying is, as I interpret it, "It's the pilot's wallet,
> stupid." It's not a bad idea, but some other constraint would be needed
> to limit the cost, or soaring competition will become as relevant to the
> regular sailplane pilot as F1 racing is to most car owners.
>
> Shawn

There is an often overlooked method to keep things affordable and
still let individuals be creative and innovative. Racing is racing, be
it gliders, autos, or pogo sticks and "claiming races" are one way to
keep things cheap. For those not familiar with the concept here is
how it works.

Set a cash value, say $25,000, on the glider class. The top 3
finishers (not including first place) have the opportunity to purchase
the glider that placed above them for the predetermined amount. In
this case $25,000.

A slight modification of this is that instead of an outright purchase
the gliders are swapped, with a smaller cash fee paid to the winner
loosing their glider. In this class the fee might be on the order of
$3,000 to $5,000. If it turns out that it was the pilot, and not the
glider, that was superior then at the next meet the original owner has
a reasonable chance to redeem his glide, if they want to finish one
spot back. If he still places ahead of his former mount then he has a
fairly comparable glider - and some cash in his pocket.

This works for other sports where there is a potential to dominate a
class with nothing more than a fat wallet. The trick is to make the
swap price steep enough to allow for some investment in "high tech"
without the fear that you will only get one use of it, yet low enough
that the average participant can come up with the cash when they see
the need.
===============
Leon McAtee

[Michel Talon]

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> A lot of ras pilots seem to think 15 meters is the 'natural best span',
> when embodied in a low cost LS4.
>

And as far as performance is concerned, look at was has been achieved
with the Diana, sticking with normal sized wings. Much more than a lot
of open class gliders.


--

Michel TALON

[Stefan]

Michel Talon wrote:

> And as far as performance is concerned, look at was has been achieved
> with the Diana, sticking with normal sized wings. Much more than a lot
> of open class gliders.

Maximum L/D is only one little part of the story. Much more important
than 2 or even 5 nominal points are the flatness of the polar curve, how
it behaves in turbuence, with bugs, in rain, and, of course, for fun
flyers like myself, the overall feel of the glider.

E.g. many pilots in our club fly the LS8 with 15 meters rather than with
18, because above ca. 150 km/h, the L/D is better with the short wings.
I personally fly it always with 15 meters and unballasted, just because
of the feel. There's much more in a glider than maximum L/D.

Stefan

[Clint]

> p.s. I recently listened as a 'pundit' was holding forth on the reasons for
> the demise of the open class. He was saying that they were just too hard to
> rig. A short distance behind him an ASH-25 owner was whistling softly to
> himself as he rigged solo using simple aids.


Try a carry-out of an open class glider when you can't get the trailer
to the glider because it's in the middle of a corn field :-)

Quickly wish for short little wings.

Clinton Birch
LAK 12 (20.4m - one piece wings - 4 outlandings - three involving a
bit of carrying)

[Michel Talon]

Stefan > wrote:
> Michel Talon wrote:
>
>> And as far as performance is concerned, look at was has been achieved
>> with the Diana, sticking with normal sized wings. Much more than a lot
>> of open class gliders.
>
> Maximum L/D is only one little part of the story. Much more important
> than 2 or even 5 nominal points are the flatness of the polar curve, how
> it behaves in turbuence, with bugs, in rain, and, of course, for fun
> flyers like myself, the overall feel of the glider.
>
> E.g. many pilots in our club fly the LS8 with 15 meters rather than with
> 18, because above ca. 150 km/h, the L/D is better with the short wings.
> I personally fly it always with 15 meters and unballasted, just because
> of the feel. There's much more in a glider than maximum L/D.

Yes, and the Diana performs reasonably well at high speed, as far as i
can see on the loaded polar ...
So i was saying, and you confirm, that 15m wings allow very good
performance when good design is achieved. This also allows light enough
wings, hence easy retreival when outlanding, and doesn't take too much
room in hangars. As far as price is considered i remember that an ASH25
was something like 3 times more expensive than an LS4, which should draw
the attention of people who want more affordable gliding.

>
> Stefan

--

Michel TALON

[CV]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
>> For approximately 30 years the performance of gliders has hardly
>>advanced at all and yet we now have the tools (computer programs) and
>>much stronger materials (carbon composites) to surely advance the
>>state of the art of gliders.
>
> Hmm... do you know something that noone else knows?
> 30 years ago the maximum L/D was about 46:1, now it's 70:1... I would
> dare to call this anything but marginal.
> Or standard class: LD went up from 35:1 to 48:1.

Absolutely true.

But let's not commit the all too common mistake of "maximum L/D"
fixation when it comes to performance.

I suppose we can agree that "performance" should include
everything that contributes to improving our cross-country
speed under varying conditions. And maximum L/D is only one
of those factors.

It is just as important to consider L/D at varying speeds.
If we do, we get even bigger differences than the above.

(eg. what was the best L/D at 180 kph 30 years ago and compare
that to today's performance).

Cheers CV

[CV]

David Bingham wrote:
> Class 1 be limited to 70kilos maximum
> (plus safety equipment such as a ballistic parachute).

Say what ? Where is there a 70 kg glider ?????

(assuming you don't mean hang gliders - 70 kg is approx 150 pounds.)

CV

[Eric Greenwell]

CV wrote:
> David Bingham wrote:
>
>> Class 1 be limited to 70kilos maximum
>> (plus safety equipment such as a ballistic parachute).
>
>
> Say what ? Where is there a 70 kg glider ?????
>
> (assuming you don't mean hang gliders - 70 kg is approx 150 pounds.)

Currently, the only high performance sailplane being manufactured that
fits the class is the SparrowHawk (www.windward-performance.com/). I
think David is thinking these gliders would appear in greater numbers
when there was a specific class for them.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bruce]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>> The first class, (Standard Class) was intended to reduce glider costs by
>> virtually eliminating innovation which, it was felt at the time, was
>> leading
>> to ever larger and more expensive gliders.
>
>
> And it worked! Standard class gliders were a lot cheaper!
>
>>
>> The flap enthusiasts insisted on splitting off as the 15 meter class.
>>
>> Both classes became successful at the expense of the open class where
>> carbon
>> composites make the most difference.
>
>
> Wait a minute - these classes came into being years before carbon was
> used. The first really successful Standard Class glider, the Ka-6, was
> wood!
>
> In a 15 meter design, the main benefit
>
>> of carbon is lighter wings for easier assembly.
>
>
> Also a higher aspect ratio leading to better L/D, and thinner wings,
> leading to higher cross-country speed.
>
>>
>> Manufacturers were forced to produce special gliders for two similar 15
>> meter classes. Designers were forced by the same class rules to
>> pursue ever
>> more expensive ways to improve performance such as extremely smooth
>> surfaces. They wound up producing expensive gliders anyway because of
>> short
>> production runs.
>
>
> Baloney! Far more gliders in EACH class were produced than ever would
> have been produced for even a single Open class. THe classes weren't
> popular because they were FAI classes, but became popular because they
> were such an outstanding combination of cost and performance. That
> magical "sweet spot" some people talk about.
>
> snip
>
>>
>> I've heard interesting speculation that there's a 'natural best span'
>> around
>> 18 - 20 meters that would be the best compromise for all conditions.
>> If the
>> market had settled on that, we might have had innovation AND low costs.
>> We'll never know.
>
>
> The market is moving there, to some extent. Remember, the 'natural best
> span' is _very_ dependent on the materials available (and their costs),
> and will be different for wood, metal, fiberglass, and carbon. There is
> nothing magic about 18 meters, because it depends on a value judgment
> (performance versus costs). So, the market couldn't settle on 18 meters
> sooner, but had to wait for technology to advance, material costs to
> come down, and for pilots to decide that they were now willing to pay
> for a certain level of performance.
>
> A lot of ras pilots seem to think 15 meters is the 'natural best span',
> when embodied in a low cost LS4.
>
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>>
>> p.s. I recently listened as a 'pundit' was holding forth on the
>> reasons for
>> the demise of the open class. He was saying that they were just too
>> hard to
>> rig. A short distance behind him an ASH-25 owner was whistling softly to
>> himself as he rigged solo using simple aids.
>
>
> And taking far longer than an ASW 27, which cost far less. If your
> pundit talked only about putting it together, he hasn't been around one
> enough to know what a bloody pig it is on the ground, and how much real
> estate they need just to be tied down, or pushed around on a ramp, or
> taken down a taxiway, and how wide the runway needs to be to take off or
> land on, the size of the towplane, and how many people had better show
> up if he ever hopes to get it out of a field! Shucks, just trying to
> push the empty trailer around to hook it up is more than my crew can
> handle. It's not ignorance that keeps people from falling all over
> themselves to get a 25 meter glider.
>
Personally I love my 15m standard class plane. Might be tempted by flaps one
day. Might be nice to have optional longer wings for the few days weak enough to
warrant them but still soarable each year.

Both of the nice to haves equate to a lot more money - think I'll settle for a
lot of flying in my cheap, simple toy... Maybe I'm just spoiled by the weather
here, but sometimes less is more.

Think about it >1:35, easy to rig, light trailer, minimal maintenance, minimal
capital cost could land in small fields (never had to so far)

Only thing I would pay for is self launch, so I can fly when the rest of the
club is not in operation. Only cost/risk of doing that is losing touch with the
mainstream, and seeing less of some friends. But to be perfectly honest my
ambition at present is to see as little as possible of them while flying as much
cross country as possible.

[CV]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Currently, the only high performance sailplane being manufactured that
> fits the class is the SparrowHawk (www.windward-performance.com/). I
> think David is thinking these gliders would appear in greater numbers
> when there was a specific class for them.

OK, interesting concept and looks like a lot of fun.

Calling it "high performance" is a bit of a stretch
though, if we are talking conventional gliders:
Best L/D 36 at 50 KTS and 24 at 75 KTS, would put
it somewhere in the club-class performance-wise.

I'm sure it is very "high performance" within its own
UL-category.

Cheers CV

[Tim Taylor]

I think the number of classes has gotten out of hand also. My memory
is getting bad, but I thought when the 18M class was proposed the 15M
class was suppose to be phased out.

The logic for creating the standard class was we needed an inexpensive
class of glider so ships without flaps should were thought to fit that
bill. How much difference is there between the cost of a 15M and
Standard today? Not much.

18M was proposed as the optimum wingspan to performance to cost
solution and it was suppose to become the "racing class" in the future
and replace the 15M. Instead we now have both. As some have noted,
often the 15M ships are faster than the 18M's on any given day.

It is time to reduce the classes back down to a reasonable number; I
think standard, 15 and 18 should be combined into a "racing class"
again and with maximum wingspan of 18M. Change the "world class" to a
sub 13M class and have the open class. Then the only thing needed is
a "sports" or "club" class for those learning or flying older ships
that need a handicap.

Tim

[Eric Greenwell]

Tim Taylor wrote:

> I think the number of classes has gotten out of hand also. My memory
> is getting bad, but I thought when the 18M class was proposed the 15M
> class was suppose to be phased out.

I think there was some talk about it, but nothing serious, because it
was such a popular class.
>
> The logic for creating the standard class was we needed an inexpensive
> class of glider so ships without flaps should were thought to fit that
> bill.

It was a lot more than flaps: the main limitation for cost control was
the 15 meter span, as the gliders back then (1950's) were tending to get
bigger and more expensive (no span limitations). In addition, fixed gear
was specified, and I think even radios were prohibited.

How much difference is there between the cost of a 15M and
> Standard today? Not much.

I'd like to see them combined and handicaps used to equalize them, like
in the Club Class.

>
> 18M was proposed as the optimum wingspan to performance to cost
> solution and it was suppose to become the "racing class" in the future
> and replace the 15M.

I think it was more about giving motorgliders a class they could compete
in, as the greater span would make up for the weight of the motor.

> Instead we now have both. As some have noted,
> often the 15M ships are faster than the 18M's on any given day.
>
> It is time to reduce the classes back down to a reasonable number; I
> think standard, 15 and 18 should be combined into a "racing class"
> again and with maximum wingspan of 18M. Change the "world class" to a
> sub 13M class and have the open class. Then the only thing needed is
> a "sports" or "club" class for those learning or flying older ships
> that need a handicap.

While the idea of fewer, but more distinct, classes is appealing, I'm
wondering what problem we are trying to solve by doing so? I'd rather
see all classes become like the Club Class, with maybe 5 performance
ranges, each with it's handicap list to equalize the performance within
a class. THat way, the gliders offered by the manufacturers could be
whatever they thought people most desired, and not arbitrary sizes like
15 meters, 18 meters, etc. For example, if a manufacturer thought a 17
meter glider could give the best value, it could sold without the
disadvantage of not quite fitting into the 18 meter class.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Amen. Both the world class and sports class seem to provide
wonderful stepping stones and low barriers to entry.

Especially for youth...

In article >,
John H. Campbell > wrote:
>Just, for Pete's sake, keep the Sports Class, which is the non-class or
>all-class, thank you. Libertarian class, "I respect your decision on what
>to fly" class. After all the theorizing and the social engineering and the
>enforcing of arbitrary fashions, there will always be left-over people
>(hmm... like paraglider pilots turned Sparrohawk fans?) whose aesthetic or
>aerodynamic opinion, wallet, access, whatever, leaves them wedded to some
>"dis-enfranchised" mount ("rare", "old", "non-mainstream", "orphaned",
>"one-design", who cares?). Or furthermore, unattached people who alternate,
>share, borrow, train in various ships. Let them feel welcome to achieve and
>compete with the rest. In a big country with a small spread-out fleet, you
>at least stand a chance of pulling enough pilots together to make a contest
>possible.
>
>


--

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