Pw5 is the best for any class.

[pw5isthebest]

Time for the annual PW5 discussion.

After reading all the negative posts here for years about how bad the
PW5 is and how it is leading to the downfall of Soaring around the
world, I have come to a realization.

It is FEAR. Yes, all these hotshots who put down this ship simply could
not compete against other
sailplane pilots on a level playing field. They need their big wallets
to stay competitive.

Most of them couldn't stay in the air in a ship of less than 40:1. Put
these guys in a PW5 and Lennie
the Lurker could fly circles around them in his 1-26.

PW5's are the perfect ship for a new generation of competition pilots.
BAH, HUMBUG on your LS-4$, they stopped making them for a reason.
PW-5's Forever ; )

[Stewart Kissel]

Al?

Is that u posting under disguise?

To blatant of a troll to be a real message :)








At 19:00 20 December 2004, Pw5isthebest wrote:
>Time for the annual PW5 discussion.
>
>After reading all the negative posts here for years
>about how bad the
>PW5 is and how it is leading to the downfall of Soaring
>around the
>world, I have come to a realization.
>
>It is FEAR. Yes, all these hotshots who put down this
>ship simply could
>not compete against other
>sailplane pilots on a level playing field. They need
>their big wallets
>to stay competitive.
>
>Most of them couldn't stay in the air in a ship of
>less than 40:1. Put
>these guys in a PW5 and Lennie
>the Lurker could fly circles around them in his 1-26.
>
>PW5's are the perfect ship for a new generation of
>competition pilots.
>BAH, HUMBUG on your LS-4$, they stopped making them
>for a reason.
>PW-5's Forever ; )
>
>

[[email protected]]

Nah... not I...

Its something I might have posted here 2 years ago but RAS has turned
into one big love fest these days and everyone has lost their sense of
humour.
Where are the flame wars and flying wing bashing threads?

Al

[Mark James Boyd]

> wrote:
>Nah... not I...
>
>Its something I might have posted here 2 years ago but RAS has turned
>into one big love fest these days and everyone has lost their sense of
>humour.
>Where are the flame wars and flying wing bashing threads?

They're all huddled up there in Minden, CA trying to
stay warm :P
--

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

[[email protected]]

You are absolutely right, but PLEASE... it's impolite to disparage
those who, through no fault of their own, are cursed with the means to
buy the very best. Yes, they can only measure themselves against others
with the same special challenges. But the illusion is everything. So
please be gentle; most their egos are very fragile. Encourage their
effort. It means more to them than you can know. And they'll take their
fleeting moments of triumph, however small, into every other aspect of
their lives.

[Tim Shea]

Minden is in NEVADA dumb ass

(there's your attitude Al).
Tim

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>>Nah... not I...
>>
>>Its something I might have posted here 2 years ago but RAS has turned
>>into one big love fest these days and everyone has lost their sense of
>>humour.
>>Where are the flame wars and flying wing bashing threads?
>
>
> They're all huddled up there in Minden, CA trying to
> stay warm :P
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Tim Shea]

Minden is in NEVADA dumb ass!

(there's your flame war primer Al)
Tim

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> > wrote:
>
>>Nah... not I...
>>
>>Its something I might have posted here 2 years ago but RAS has turned
>>into one big love fest these days and everyone has lost their sense of
>>humour.
>>Where are the flame wars and flying wing bashing threads?
>
>
> They're all huddled up there in Minden, CA trying to
> stay warm :P
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Tim Shea > wrote:
>Minden is in NEVADA dumb ass!

ROFLMAO!!!
;)

>
>(there's your flame war primer Al)
>Tim
>
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Nah... not I...
>>>
>>>Its something I might have posted here 2 years ago but RAS has turned
>>>into one big love fest these days and everyone has lost their sense of
>>>humour.
>>>Where are the flame wars and flying wing bashing threads?
>>
>>
>> They're all huddled up there in Minden, CA trying to
>> stay warm :P
>> --
>>
>> ------------+
>> Mark J. Boyd


--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

You guys are SOOOOOO easy to poke at. And yes, Leonard
is my herooooo....

Merry Christmas fellas!

Cheers!

Mark

In article om>,
> wrote:
>yeah......
>Marks done that before....and he likes PW5's
>
>Claims to be a rated power pilot too but can't find NV from CA
>Bah humbug.....
>
>Guess Leonard the lunatic taught him to fly.
>
>Al
>


--

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

[[email protected]]

yeah......
Marks done that before....and he likes PW5's

Claims to be a rated power pilot too but can't find NV from CA
Bah humbug.....

Guess Leonard the lunatic taught him to fly.

Al

[[email protected]]

merry kwansa to you too Mark

Al

[Don Johnstone]

Nevada? All desert, cowboys and indians init (sorry
indiginous native persons). Is it really modern enuff
there to have something as advanced as a gliding site?

At 06:30 21 December 2004, Tim Shea wrote:
>Minden is in NEVADA dumb ass!
>
>(there's your flame war primer Al)
>Tim
>
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Nah... not I...
>>>
>>>Its something I might have posted here 2 years ago
>>>but RAS has turned
>>>into one big love fest these days and everyone has
>>>lost their sense of
>>>humour.
>>>Where are the flame wars and flying wing bashing threads?
>>
>>
>> They're all huddled up there in Minden, CA trying
>>to
>> stay warm :P
>> --
>>
>> ------------+
>> Mark J. Boyd
>

[John Sinclair]

Al wrote,---------------------------

>Where are the flame wars and flying wing bashing threads?

The flying wing bashing stopped when people realized
the Genesis 2 is a damned good little machine. I have
no desire to return to a boom-snapper. In an off field
landing at Hobbs this year, my nose wheel dug in and
caused the ship to pull to the left. Next thing I knew,
I was facing the other direction. Absolutely no damage
and I ground-looped at 45 knots! Bob Salvo came up
with a wing root mod that solves the climb problem.

She's a hummer,
JJ

[Eric Greenwell]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> In article >,
> Tim Shea > wrote:
>
>>Minden is in NEVADA dumb ass!
>
>
> ROFLMAO!!!

And Minden is also in Louisiana, Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia,
Missouri, Texas, Ontario (Canada - maybe that's the one he meant with
the CA), and North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany).


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

John Sinclair wrote:

> Al wrote,---------------------------
>
>
>>Where are the flame wars and flying wing bashing threads?
>
>
> The flying wing bashing stopped when people realized
> the Genesis 2 is a damned good little machine. I have
> no desire to return to a boom-snapper. In an off field
> landing at Hobbs this year, my nose wheel dug in and
> caused the ship to pull to the left. Next thing I knew,
> I was facing the other direction. Absolutely no damage
> and I ground-looped at 45 knots! Bob Salvo came up
> with a wing root mod that solves the climb problem.

Maybe staying away from gliders with a nose wheel would work, too? Or
that landed slower than 45 knots?


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Andy Blackburn]

At 16:30 21 December 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Maybe staying away from gliders with a nose wheel would
>work, too? Or
>that landed slower than 45 knots?


...or have enough rudder authority to keep going straight
once on the ground

;-)

[Stefan]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

>>> Minden is in NEVADA dumb ass!

>> ROFLMAO!!!

> And Minden is also in Louisiana, Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia,
> Missouri, Texas, Ontario (Canada - maybe that's the one he meant with
> the CA), and North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany).

Try http://www.ac-minden.de/ for a surprize!

Stefan

[pw5isthebest]

> John Sinclair wrote:
> >>Where are the flame wars and flying wing bashing threads?
_________________________________
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Maybe staying away from gliders with a nose wheel would work, too? Or
that landed slower than 45 knots?
__________________________________

Oh Really!

The PW-5 has a nosewheel and can land slower than 45 knots.

Well now Mr. Greenwell, I guess it's easy to criticize people when
you need 18 meters and a gas powered thermal behind your seat
to stay in the air. You probably have three variometers, a GPS,
Glide computer and Themi in your ship also.

Do you actually do any of the flying, or are you just along for the
ride?

Well, as I've heard, "The only substitute for wingspan is TALENT,
but you can always buy more span."
PW-5's rule the skies.
HA HA HA HA HA :P

[[email protected]]

OK I'll bite....

PW5's bite the big one....

Stupid little glider with low performance compared to current crop of
13M gliders offered.

The only reason they fly is they are so ugly the ground rejects them.
Al

[[email protected]]

Ah yes, the Genesis - the "flying wing" which just happens to have a
tail.

Kind of like the straight man who just happens to fool around with
other guys.

[John Sinclair]

Eric wrote-----------------------------

>Maybe staying away from gliders with a nose wheel would
>work, too? Or
>that landed slower than 45 knots?

Most ground-loops are caused by a wing tip catching
on something or other, not the nose wheel digging in.
The point is the Genesis doesn't have a boom, so it
can't break what it doesn't have. It's very short fuselage
is plenty strong enough to withstand a ground-loop
at 45 knots. BTW, most modern standard class ships
come over the fence at about 45 knots.
JJ

[[email protected]]

pw5isthebest wrote:
> Time for the annual PW5 discussion.
>
> After reading all the negative posts here for years about how bad the
> PW5 is and how it is leading to the downfall of Soaring around the
> world, I have come to a realization.
>
> It is FEAR. Yes, all these hotshots who put down this ship simply
could
> not compete against other
> sailplane pilots on a level playing field. They need their big
wallets
> to stay competitive.
>
> Most of them couldn't stay in the air in a ship of less than 40:1.
Put
> these guys in a PW5 and Lennie
> the Lurker could fly circles around them in his 1-26.
>
> PW5's are the perfect ship for a new generation of competition
pilots.
> BAH, HUMBUG on your LS-4$, they stopped making them for a reason.
> PW-5's Forever ; )

Amen. Amen. Amen and amen. I like it. Someone with guts. Yes, PW-5 is
damn good glider...and those who fly "whatever" and are concerned about
the looks and span....well, can't help you there.

[Steve Hill]

What a stupid comment towards Eric Greenwell...your presumption is that he
NEEDS 18 meters?? That's your logic based conclusion??? So then the rest of
the equation goes something like...the more span you get, the worse pilot
you are...and if you ad an engine the degradation probably multiplies by a
factor of two or so...

Man...I think you've turned me around....I'm gonna sell my DG-400 and go buy
a PW-5. I WANT to be the best...like you!!

I mean think how cool I'll be...sitting in my hangar, instead of going
flying during the middle of the week for the soaring season, because there's
no tow plane around...or no tow pilot...but I'll be cool, like you, sitting
in the hangar...

I can't believe you question a guy who promotes cross country soaring and is
a qualified and seasoned enthusiast and damn decent guy...not to mention a
damn fine sailplane pilot, one of whom I and many others look to for advice
and one who doesn't hide his good name or opinions behind a pseudonym.

I think I liked it better when we were just arguing election prophecy and
the downfall of western civilization...that was much more fun than this
stupidity.


Steve.

[pw5isthebest]

Steve Hill wrote:
> What a stupid comment towards Eric Greenwell...

Well now Steve, looks like I hit a nerve. Since it was Greenwell's
insult to all who own a ship with a nosewheel, why don't you
let him defend his own words?

Or are we gonna have another pile on about how so and so is
the greatest guy in the sport?
>
> Man...I think you've turned me around....I'm gonna sell my DG-400 and
go buy
> a PW-5. I WANT to be the best...like you!!

I don't think so. You probably need that motor in the back seat to keep
from
landing off field all the time.
>
> I mean think how cool I'll be...sitting in my hangar

If you had any friends, you might get a tow once in a while...
>
> I can't believe you question a guy (blah,blah,blah)
Let him fight his own battles.
> Steve.

[[email protected]]

My reply supposed to go under the very first posting. It has nothing to
do with Eric Greenwell so don't imply on anything.

[pw5isthebest]

Tsk Tsk now you have hurt my little gliders feelings.
We all know that gliders aren't stupid, only pilots with no skill.
See my previous post about wingspan vs. talent.

I see you have gone the wingspan route.

The ASW-22, yes the Luftwaffe's finest creation.
comes with autopilot, yes?

Do you have the 22m or the 25m version?
I believe my PW's turn radius is inside your wingspan.
Probably bites to watch me climb thermals right past you.

AAAAHHHH, now were having a good time.
Where's good 'ol Lennie when we need him?

[Steve Hill]

Well well...lol...great topical conversation...I'd be glad to back up any of
my flights with logs from my data recorder. Of course I don't sit nameless
and faceless and act like I have the best sailplane around either...though I
will admit I love having that engine...I love not having to trouble my
friends with the hassles of retrieving me when I do have to set down
somewhere...and I really love getting to go when and where I want to go
soaring.

What a funny path you've chosen to go down...I simply don't see enough PW5's
around to justify the commentary that they have any affect on soaring at
all...but, to each their own. Guys have flown farther in far less
performance than they have to offer...I just think you ought to examine your
motives for stating your opinion, without stating your name. If you really
believe what you say, then stand up, tell everybody your opinion and let
them know who you are...don't be afraid...

As for me...I'm quite happy running my "thermal generator" and going soaring
when and where the weather is good...I'm also very happy with the level of
autonomy the self launcher affords me.

As for fighting ones own battles...why bother? I'd rather go flying...we
might have wave tomorrow. I will say maybe you should just back up your
comments with an offer of a duel...use the Sports Class Handicaps and go
prove your points based on actual accomplishments, instead of nameless
insults...Maybe you're right...maybe the PW-5 really IS better...give it a
shot!! See if you can back up your comments.


Steve.

[Eric Greenwell]

pw5isthebest wrote:

> Tsk Tsk now you have hurt my little gliders feelings.
> We all know that gliders aren't stupid, only pilots with no skill.
> See my previous post about wingspan vs. talent.
>
> I see you have gone the wingspan route.
>
> The ASW-22, yes the Luftwaffe's finest creation.
> comes with autopilot, yes?
>
> Do you have the 22m or the 25m version?
> I believe my PW's turn radius is inside your wingspan.
> Probably bites to watch me climb thermals right past you.
>
> AAAAHHHH, now were having a good time.
> Where's good 'ol Lennie when we need him?

Now I'm wondering if Al is arguing with himself (or maybe it's Lennie
impersonating Al and trolling for both sides? Or a new player
entirely?). That'd be fun: be on both sides of a flame war! Why irritate
half the people when you can irritate all of them?

It's going to be a long winter...

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

Steve Hill wrote:


> As for fighting ones own battles...why bother? I'd rather go flying...we
> might have wave tomorrow. I will say maybe you should just back up your
> comments with an offer of a duel...use the Sports Class Handicaps and go
> prove your points based on actual accomplishments, instead of nameless
> insults...Maybe you're right...maybe the PW-5 really IS better...give it a
> shot!! See if you can back up your comments.

I suggest the OLC contest as a battleground. I hope some PW5 pilot will
try to wrest the OLC championship from the 1-26 next year. I've decided
to enter the contest, after ignoring it since it's start, because I've
talked to a number of enthusiastic participants this year. Some of the
clubs really encourage their members to get out and fly cross-country to
build up the club's rating. It seems to be a good tool for motivating
members.

I'm looking forward to some flights great enough to overcome my glider's
1.20 handicap (currently ranked 467 - it's the slow time of the year for
us!).

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Greybeard]

On 21 Dec 2004 15:34:35 -0800, "pw5isthebest" >
wrote:


>AAAAHHHH, now were having a good time.

Me too.

>Where's good 'ol Lennie when we need him?

Building a model of a german gliderport in HO scale.

(Ever try to get styrene wings to crumple like glass does? And
getting the nose of that asw something or other to look like it had
just busted through the back of the hangar after shearing off it's
wings on the partly open hangar doors was a real bitch. Getting
accurate hash marks from the Robin up the back of the motor glider was
much easier.)

But I'm not completely heartless, there _is_ a horse drawn beer wagon
parked next to the building. The lineboy is a meticulous chap,
picking up the fruit of the horse and depositing it in the nearest
open cockpit. With eight Clydesdales, he isn't going to be out of
work soon.

"NIce horsie, pick up your foot so Kurt can move his."

[Edward Lockhart]

As someone with more hang-gliding time than sailplane
time, I can only applaud your appreciation for low
performance gliding.

I hope that you can live up to your principles and
exchange that expensive hunk of glass fibre for a real
man's flying machine, i.e. a paraglider.

After all, if 30:1 makes you twice the pilot of a 40:1
glider, just think how much more macho you will be
beneath a 7:1 wing.

Amaze us all with your tales of 50km cross countries;
astound us with your epic retrieves over not one but
two fences; astonish us with thermal by thermal accounts
of your 10km triangles.

Any schmuck can soar an over designed, overpriced agglomeration
of glass fibres glued together with epoxy but it takes
real skill to remain airborne under a bag of washing.

And they cost a fraction of the price of a PW5. That's
want you want isn't it? Low cost flying that places
more emphasis on skill than on the depth of the pilot's
wallet.

Go on, take up paragliding and prove how skillful you
are.
http://www.ushga.org/default.asp

On the other hand, you could appreciate that more performance
gives you more options, helps you stay up longer, fly
further and still land back by your car in crappy conditions.

Ed
Pilatus B4 and loving it
(its metal and its not German so Lennie can't complain)

At 19:00 20 December 2004, Pw5isthebest wrote:
>Time for the annual PW5 discussion.
>
>After reading all the negative posts here for years
>about how bad the
>PW5 is and how it is leading to the downfall of Soaring
>around the
>world, I have come to a realization.
>
>It is FEAR. Yes, all these hotshots who put down this
>ship simply could
>not compete against other
>sailplane pilots on a level playing field. They need
>their big wallets
>to stay competitive.
>
>Most of them couldn't stay in the air in a ship of
>less than 40:1. Put
>these guys in a PW5 and Lennie
>the Lurker could fly circles around them in his 1-26.
>
>PW5's are the perfect ship for a new generation of
>competition pilots.
>BAH, HUMBUG on your LS-4$, they stopped making them
>for a reason.
>PW-5's Forever ; )
>
>

[Stewart Kissel]

Hey Ed...

I visited the USHGA site and noticed the poll on the
name change. It seems to me that a rigid wing has
a lot more in common with a sailplane then the floating
bags...maybe time to get everyone in one big tent?




At 03:00 22 December 2004, Edward Lockhart wrote:
>As someone with more hang-gliding time than sailplane
>time, I can only applaud your appreciation for low
>performance gliding.
>
>I hope that you can live up to your principles and
>exchange that expensive hunk of glass fibre for a real
>man's flying machine, i.e. a paraglider.
>
>After all, if 30:1 makes you twice the pilot of a 40:1
>glider, just think how much more macho you will be
>beneath a 7:1 wing.
>
>Amaze us all with your tales of 50km cross countries;
>astound us with your epic retrieves over not one but
>two fences; astonish us with thermal by thermal accounts
>of your 10km triangles.
>
>Any schmuck can soar an over designed, overpriced agglomeration
>of glass fibres glued together with epoxy but it takes
>real skill to remain airborne under a bag of washing.
>
>And they cost a fraction of the price of a PW5. That's
>want you want isn't it? Low cost flying that places
>more emphasis on skill than on the depth of the pilot's
>wallet.
>
>Go on, take up paragliding and prove how skillful you
>are.
>http://www.ushga.org/default.asp
>
>On the other hand, you could appreciate that more performance
>gives you more options, helps you stay up longer, fly
>further and still land back by your car in crappy conditions.
>
>Ed
>Pilatus B4 and loving it
>(its metal and its not German so Lennie can't complain)
>
>At 19:00 20 December 2004, Pw5isthebest wrote:
>>Time for the annual PW5 discussion.
>>
>>After reading all the negative posts here for years
>>about how bad the
>>PW5 is and how it is leading to the downfall of Soaring
>>around the
>>world, I have come to a realization.
>>
>>It is FEAR. Yes, all these hotshots who put down this
>>ship simply could
>>not compete against other
>>sailplane pilots on a level playing field. They need
>>their big wallets
>>to stay competitive.
>>
>>Most of them couldn't stay in the air in a ship of
>>less than 40:1. Put
>>these guys in a PW5 and Lennie
>>the Lurker could fly circles around them in his 1-26.
>>
>>PW5's are the perfect ship for a new generation of
>>competition pilots.
>>BAH, HUMBUG on your LS-4$, they stopped making them
>>for a reason.
>>PW-5's Forever ; )
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Ah now we are getting back to the old RAS....

PW5's

Flames...

JJ's flying wing

All we need now is Redsell chiming in about his Monarch.
Man this thread rocks...

Al
world renowned PW5 hater.

[Gordon Schubert]

Speaking of JJ's flying wing, I bought one myself in
February. Some of you guys can make fun of it or cut
it down, but it is one of the roomiest, easiest to
fly, best performing sailplanes around. And it's design
sure draws a lot of attention.
GORDY

[F.L. Whiteley]

USSA, United States Soaring Association. A circus with three rings or more.
Only the motorized paras and trikes having trouble qualifying.

Frank Whiteley

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> Hey Ed...
>
> I visited the USHGA site and noticed the poll on the
> name change. It seems to me that a rigid wing has
> a lot more in common with a sailplane then the floating
> bags...maybe time to get everyone in one big tent?
>
>
>
>
> At 03:00 22 December 2004, Edward Lockhart wrote:
> >As someone with more hang-gliding time than sailplane
> >time, I can only applaud your appreciation for low
> >performance gliding.
> >
> >I hope that you can live up to your principles and
> >exchange that expensive hunk of glass fibre for a real
> >man's flying machine, i.e. a paraglider.
> >
> >After all, if 30:1 makes you twice the pilot of a 40:1
> >glider, just think how much more macho you will be
> >beneath a 7:1 wing.
> >
> >Amaze us all with your tales of 50km cross countries;
> >astound us with your epic retrieves over not one but
> >two fences; astonish us with thermal by thermal accounts
> >of your 10km triangles.
> >
> >Any schmuck can soar an over designed, overpriced agglomeration
> >of glass fibres glued together with epoxy but it takes
> >real skill to remain airborne under a bag of washing.
> >
> >And they cost a fraction of the price of a PW5. That's
> >want you want isn't it? Low cost flying that places
> >more emphasis on skill than on the depth of the pilot's
> >wallet.
> >
> >Go on, take up paragliding and prove how skillful you
> >are.
> >http://www.ushga.org/default.asp
> >
> >On the other hand, you could appreciate that more performance
> >gives you more options, helps you stay up longer, fly
> >further and still land back by your car in crappy conditions.
> >
> >Ed
> >Pilatus B4 and loving it
> >(its metal and its not German so Lennie can't complain)
> >
> >At 19:00 20 December 2004, Pw5isthebest wrote:
> >>Time for the annual PW5 discussion.
> >>
> >>After reading all the negative posts here for years
> >>about how bad the
> >>PW5 is and how it is leading to the downfall of Soaring
> >>around the
> >>world, I have come to a realization.
> >>
> >>It is FEAR. Yes, all these hotshots who put down this
> >>ship simply could
> >>not compete against other
> >>sailplane pilots on a level playing field. They need
> >>their big wallets
> >>to stay competitive.
> >>
> >>Most of them couldn't stay in the air in a ship of
> >>less than 40:1. Put
> >>these guys in a PW5 and Lennie
> >>the Lurker could fly circles around them in his 1-26.
> >>
> >>PW5's are the perfect ship for a new generation of
> >>competition pilots.
> >>BAH, HUMBUG on your LS-4$, they stopped making them
> >>for a reason.
> >>PW-5's Forever ; )
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Shawn]

pw5isthebest wrote:
> Tsk Tsk now you have hurt my little gliders feelings.
> We all know that gliders aren't stupid, only pilots with no skill.
> See my previous post about wingspan vs. talent.
>
> I see you have gone the wingspan route.
>
> The ASW-22, yes the Luftwaffe's finest creation.
> comes with autopilot, yes?
>
> Do you have the 22m or the 25m version?
> I believe my PW's turn radius is inside your wingspan.
> Probably bites to watch me climb thermals right past you.

I think they'll get over it. If a 22 is in the same thermal as you,
it's the first one after launch. The driver will have to look in
his/her mirror to see you any time after that.
>
> AAAAHHHH, now were having a good time.
> Where's good 'ol Lennie when we need him?
>
Apparently he's making models of horse **** in his basement.
:-)

[hannu]

"pw5isthebest" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Tsk Tsk now you have hurt my little gliders feelings.
> We all know that gliders aren't stupid, only pilots with no skill.
> See my previous post about wingspan vs. talent.
>
> I see you have gone the wingspan route.
>
> The ASW-22, yes the Luftwaffe's finest creation.
> comes with autopilot, yes?
>
> Do you have the 22m or the 25m version?
> I believe my PW's turn radius is inside your wingspan.
> Probably bites to watch me climb thermals right past you.
>
> AAAAHHHH, now were having a good time.
> Where's good 'ol Lennie when we need him?

Why PW? You could go for something that requires some REAL talent. Say 1-26
or K-8b.
It's just those whining little "think-I'm-an-ace" glassriders that think
that their "little ship" is the best.
Come on - why not fly with a hang glider?

The fact is, that if one flies cross-country in any powerless aircraft,
he/she must have some ability.
It's just the scale of the task that is different.

And I think I could out-climb you in that silly little flying sperm cell in
our club's K-8...

Sure you may win some real glider in the lift, only to find out that after 5
km of glide the other glider overpasses you and goes into the horizon.

And you surely cannot turn in 22 metres radius. Probably your other "facts"
are as good. And are you really saying that real talent comes with the
inverse of span? I think that it comes from the experience. And the
experience is much more than turning radius and how fast one climbs. Surely,
the latter is part of the experience. In the beginning of the gliding they
may equate, but later it's much more complicated. Maybe you find out... some
day ;)

For the humour-impaired: All of these musings are not my REAL opinions...
just played the game :)

hannu, still 5 months to the next season

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Ah yes, the Genesis - the "flying wing" which just happens to have a
> tail.
>
> Kind of like the straight man who just happens to fool around with
> other guys.

Kind of like.....an meaningless imbecile flying gliders with lazy
results and trying to comment them...kind of like you!

[John Jones]

Russia AC4 is the best.

But it is a big sky. So just consider all other gliders
as filler.

[Tony Verhulst]

Stewart Kissel wrote:
> Hey Ed...
>
> I visited the USHGA site and noticed the poll on the
> name change.

some poll - Only 3 choices and they all suck.

Tony V
USHGA #7826 (yes, four digits :-( )

[pw5isthebest]

Edward Lockhart wrote:
> As someone with more hang-gliding time than sailplane
> time, I can only applaud your appreciation for low
> performance gliding.

Geez Edward, you really put me in my place.

Lighten up, will ya. Nobody's interested in your bags of rags and
strings,
that's fodder for a different thread.

I got a gold badge and distance diamond, so I've been more than
two fences over.

On the upside, I like your sailplane. I have flown a Pilatus and
enjoyed it.
Flies like a 1-35 and I always did like Schweizer sailplanes.

PW-5flyer

[Stewart Kissel]

The local library carries the USHGA mag...and I also
read Davis Straub's webzine....I find the distinction
between the latest rigid wing, control surface HG's,
and the 13 Meter sailplanes on the market, rapidly
closing.

I know that 'foot launching' seems to be the key difference,
but with the number of HG's winch and aero-towed...it
would seem 'foot landing' is actually more accurate.

And it seems the PG crowd's sheer numbers are starting
to marginalize the HG's aging group. In fact I dare
say the HG crowd may have more in common with sailplane
pilots now(gasp, grown).

Just throwing this out for discussion...it seems to
me the groups have more then enough in common to band
together. But no doubt there must be some good reasons
this has not happened, I suppose :)




At 15:30 22 December 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
>Stewart Kissel wrote:
>> Hey Ed...
>>
>> I visited the USHGA site and noticed the poll on the
>> name change.
>
>some poll - Only 3 choices and they all suck.
>
>Tony V
>USHGA #7826 (yes, four digits :-( )
>

[pw5isthebest]

>Well well...lol...great topical conversation...

Thank you, I think I got the ball rolling on this one.

>What a funny path you've chosen to go down..

It's winter, I'm bored and you guys are so easy to provoke.

>I will say maybe you should just back up your
comments with an offer of a duel..

Did you mean Dual? cause I don't instruct anymore.

>Maybe you're right...maybe the PW-5 really IS better..

Thanks for playing the game. I've enjoyed it immensely.

I'll be out of the office and out of town for the holidays,
please continue to flame me as much as you all would like.
Maybe we can do this again after the new year.
Hope you all have a safe and happy holidays.
PW-5 flyer

[Stewart Kissel]

>please continue to flame me as much as you all would
>like.
>Maybe we can do this again after the new year.


Hey, if owning a PW5 makes you so much smarter the
us, how come you still belong to aol? :)

[F.L. Whiteley]

AFAIK, SSA rejected the HG community in the 1970's. Someone doubtless has
the specific story.

Frank Whiteley

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> The local library carries the USHGA mag...and I also
> read Davis Straub's webzine....I find the distinction
> between the latest rigid wing, control surface HG's,
> and the 13 Meter sailplanes on the market, rapidly
> closing.
>
> I know that 'foot launching' seems to be the key difference,
> but with the number of HG's winch and aero-towed...it
> would seem 'foot landing' is actually more accurate.
>
> And it seems the PG crowd's sheer numbers are starting
> to marginalize the HG's aging group. In fact I dare
> say the HG crowd may have more in common with sailplane
> pilots now(gasp, grown).
>
> Just throwing this out for discussion...it seems to
> me the groups have more then enough in common to band
> together. But no doubt there must be some good reasons
> this has not happened, I suppose :)
>
>
>
>
> At 15:30 22 December 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
> >Stewart Kissel wrote:
> >> Hey Ed...
> >>
> >> I visited the USHGA site and noticed the poll on the
> >> name change.
> >
> >some poll - Only 3 choices and they all suck.
> >
> >Tony V
> >USHGA #7826 (yes, four digits :-( )
> >
>
>
>

[lennie]

Shawn wrote:
>
> > AAAAHHHH, now were having a good time.
> > Where's good 'ol Lennie when we need him?
> >
> Apparently he's making models of horse **** in his basement.
> :-)

Gliders, germans, horse****, what's the difference? In HO scale, one's
as hard as another to do right.

[Stewart Kissel]

Ah, we let them season for 30 years...and then get
them as gray beards eh?


At 18:00 22 December 2004, F.L. Whiteley wrote:
>AFAIK, SSA rejected the HG community in the 1970's.
> Someone doubtless has
>the specific story.
>
>Frank Whiteley
>
>'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
>message ...
>> The local library carries the USHGA mag...and I also
>> read Davis Straub's webzine....I find the distinction
>> between the latest rigid wing, control surface HG's,
>> and the 13 Meter sailplanes on the market, rapidly
>> closing.
>>
>> I know that 'foot launching' seems to be the key difference,
>> but with the number of HG's winch and aero-towed...it
>> would seem 'foot landing' is actually more accurate.
>>
>> And it seems the PG crowd's sheer numbers are starting
>> to marginalize the HG's aging group. In fact I dare
>> say the HG crowd may have more in common with sailplane
>> pilots now(gasp, grown).
>>
>> Just throwing this out for discussion...it seems to
>> me the groups have more then enough in common to band
>> together. But no doubt there must be some good reasons
>> this has not happened, I suppose :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 15:30 22 December 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
>> >Stewart Kissel wrote:
>> >> Hey Ed...
>> >>
>> >> I visited the USHGA site and noticed the poll on
>>>>the
>> >> name change.
>> >
>> >some poll - Only 3 choices and they all suck.
>> >
>> >Tony V
>> >USHGA #7826 (yes, four digits :-( )
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Bob Korves]

Hang glider? I don't need no stinking hang glider. Real pilots go cross
country in this:

http://www.skydiveelsinore.com/around-the-dz/birdman/

(-;

Sorry, but the idea of cross country is to GO SOMEWHERE. I like to go
somewhere far, to enjoy the scenery and the challenge, and then be sure to
get back home for the barbecue and favorite beverage.
-Bob

[Mark James Boyd]

One of the older threads mentioned that the Pegasus has pretty severe
wing flex.

I wonder how important this is. Does anyone think wing flex
has been a big deal during landing (esp. landouts) and catching
a wingtip?

Has anyone changed aircraft and used this (flex) as a metric that
pushed them one way or another?

It's very interesting to me how this issue is dealt with. Clearly
designers are favoring mid or high-mid wings to high wing
gliders (for performance reasons) and I've seen minimal
dihedral in gliders (although in flight there is some, esp. the
ETA, right?). I thought it was so incredibly funny that the
ETA sketches (before it ever flew) showed very little curve,
but in flight the flex was astonishing.

Shorter span gliders (Sparrowhawk, PW-5, 1-26, AC-4) clearly
have much less flex. I wonder to what extent the "landout
willingness" is a factor of span, and how much is really a factor of flex.

We talked about how flex may actually be helpful for getting extra
energy out of turbulence "flapping wings like a seagull" but
not so much about the downside (tips hitting on landing, ground
clearance, etc.).

The spaniest thing I've ever flown was the DG-1000, but it has what
seem to be fairly stiff wings, and the tip extensions have pretty
significant "dihedral." I don't know if this is the correct term
for it since it is just for the tips, and not related
to the fuselage, but it sure does give a bit more clearance.

In this glider, span is certainly a consideration for runway lights,
etc, but flex didn't seem to even come into play at all.

I don't think I've ever even SEEN a 22 or 25 meter glider.
How much flex do they have on the ground? Do the tips
"almost touch" on every 1.2G landing? Are there any standards
for landing tests?

This is certainly something we don't encounter in airplan...err
towplanes ;)




--

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

[Bill Daniels]

I saw a G103 slap both wing tips on the ground at the same time. (It was
just a normal landing for that particular pilot.) It didn't ground loop
though.

I guess the landout issue is still how high the grass or crop is. If the
landing is gentle, the wings will keep some dihedral until the glider slows
down.

I think the term is "Polyhedral".

There's a guy I know who flies a Jantar 2A and, despite the long droopy
wings, he seems to handle it very well in the rough. He really likes the
glider and is not particularly worried about a landout.

Bill Daniels


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41ca34cc$1@darkstar...
> One of the older threads mentioned that the Pegasus has pretty severe
> wing flex.
>
> I wonder how important this is. Does anyone think wing flex
> has been a big deal during landing (esp. landouts) and catching
> a wingtip?
>
> Has anyone changed aircraft and used this (flex) as a metric that
> pushed them one way or another?
>
> It's very interesting to me how this issue is dealt with. Clearly
> designers are favoring mid or high-mid wings to high wing
> gliders (for performance reasons) and I've seen minimal
> dihedral in gliders (although in flight there is some, esp. the
> ETA, right?). I thought it was so incredibly funny that the
> ETA sketches (before it ever flew) showed very little curve,
> but in flight the flex was astonishing.
>
> Shorter span gliders (Sparrowhawk, PW-5, 1-26, AC-4) clearly
> have much less flex. I wonder to what extent the "landout
> willingness" is a factor of span, and how much is really a factor of flex.
>
> We talked about how flex may actually be helpful for getting extra
> energy out of turbulence "flapping wings like a seagull" but
> not so much about the downside (tips hitting on landing, ground
> clearance, etc.).
>
> The spaniest thing I've ever flown was the DG-1000, but it has what
> seem to be fairly stiff wings, and the tip extensions have pretty
> significant "dihedral." I don't know if this is the correct term
> for it since it is just for the tips, and not related
> to the fuselage, but it sure does give a bit more clearance.
>
> In this glider, span is certainly a consideration for runway lights,
> etc, but flex didn't seem to even come into play at all.
>
> I don't think I've ever even SEEN a 22 or 25 meter glider.
> How much flex do they have on the ground? Do the tips
> "almost touch" on every 1.2G landing? Are there any standards
> for landing tests?
>
> This is certainly something we don't encounter in airplan...err
> towplanes ;)
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Paul]

There is a video showing an LS8-18 during drop tests for the higher MAUW
they will recieve.
Its to test the U/C.
www.dg-flugzeugbau.de Go to the new stuff page and its near the top.
Goodly amount of wingflex in 18 mtr.
Paul

[[email protected]]

Mark James Boyd > wrote:
> One of the older threads mentioned that the Pegasus has pretty severe
> wing flex.

> I wonder how important this is. Does anyone think wing flex
> has been a big deal during landing (esp. landouts) and catching
> a wingtip?

The Pegase has the same type of flex as the ASW-20 (at least the french made
ASW-20) and the ASH-25 also has considerable flex. I have never heard this was
a notable problem for landing or whatever.



--
Michel Talon

[Don Johnstone]

It could be a problem in theory but in practice it
is one of the things you take into account. The procedure
with the ASW17 is to select full negative flap on touchdown,
it's well nailed to the ground then. On smooth concrete
no problem. You have to be careful on grass as it is
possible to put the wingtips into the ground if the
flaps are moved to negative too quickly.
I would suggest it is a factor in field selection by
those pilots that fly big wings, I certainly think
about it.
Bit of a mute point really because big wings get you
home. Landouts are only for those with inadequate span,
which is where we came in :-)


At 10:00 23 December 2004, wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> One of the older threads mentioned that the Pegasus
>>has pretty severe
>> wing flex.
>
>> I wonder how important this is. Does anyone think
>>wing flex
>> has been a big deal during landing (esp. landouts)
>>and catching
>> a wingtip?
>
>The Pegase has the same type of flex as the ASW-20
>(at least the french made
>ASW-20) and the ASH-25 also has considerable flex.
>I have never heard this was
>a notable problem for landing or whatever.
>
>
>
>--
>Michel Talon
>

[Andrew Warbrick]

If you watch an ASH25 landing, just at touchdown the
wing is at stalling angle of attack but is still generating
lift equal to the weight of the glider, this produces
an appreciable upward flex in the wing. At touchdown
the tips must be at least 8ft off the floor. The Pegasus
and ASW20 are similar, at touchdown the tips are deflected
upwards.

At 11:00 23 December 2004, Don Johnstone wrote:
>It could be a problem in theory but in practice it
>is one of the things you take into account. The procedure
>with the ASW17 is to select full negative flap on touchdown,
>it's well nailed to the ground then. On smooth concrete
>no problem. You have to be careful on grass as it is
>possible to put the wingtips into the ground if the
>flaps are moved to negative too quickly.
>I would suggest it is a factor in field selection by
>those pilots that fly big wings, I certainly think
>about it.
>Bit of a mute point really because big wings get you
>home. Landouts are only for those with inadequate span,
>which is where we came in :-)
>
>
>At 10:00 23 December 2004, wrote:
>>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>> One of the older threads mentioned that the Pegasus
>>>has pretty severe
>>> wing flex.
>>
>>> I wonder how important this is. Does anyone think
>>>wing flex
>>> has been a big deal during landing (esp. landouts)
>>>and catching
>>> a wingtip?
>>
>>The Pegase has the same type of flex as the ASW-20
>>(at least the french made
>>ASW-20) and the ASH-25 also has considerable flex.
>>I have never heard this was
>>a notable problem for landing or whatever.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Michel Talon
>>
>
>
>
>

[Andreas Maurer]

On 22 Dec 2004 19:00:28 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

>One of the older threads mentioned that the Pegasus has pretty severe
>wing flex.
>
>I wonder how important this is. Does anyone think wing flex
>has been a big deal during landing (esp. landouts) and catching
>a wingtip?

None at all.
Try to get a flight in a Pegasus or (even better) an ASW-20.
Amazing feeling. Very comfortable even up to high speeds, and gives an
extremely good feedback about the structure of the lift.
Flexible wings feel a bit like a water bed - always some slight, but
comfortable movement.


>Has anyone changed aircraft and used this (flex) as a metric that
>pushed them one way or another?

Compared to the 20, any other glider I've flown so far (e.g. LS-6,
ASW-27) has been a step backwards. :)


Bye
Andreas

[Andrew Warbrick]

At 13:30 23 December 2004, Andreas Maurer wrote:
>On 22 Dec 2004 19:00:28 -0700,
>(Mark James Boyd)
>wrote:
>
>>One of the older threads mentioned that the Pegasus
>>has pretty severe
>>wing flex.
>>
>>I wonder how important this is. Does anyone think
>>wing flex
>>has been a big deal during landing (esp. landouts)
>>and catching
>>a wingtip?
>
>None at all.
>Try to get a flight in a Pegasus or (even better) an
>ASW-20.
>Amazing feeling. Very comfortable even up to high speeds,
>and gives an
>extremely good feedback about the structure of the
>lift.
>Flexible wings feel a bit like a water bed - always
>some slight, but
>comfortable movement.
>
>
>>Has anyone changed aircraft and used this (flex) as
>>a metric that
>>pushed them one way or another?
>
>Compared to the 20, any other glider I've flown so
>far (e.g. LS-6,
>ASW-27) has been a step backwards. :)
>
>
>Bye
>Andreas
>
I'm intrigued. I've never flown a 27 but in only one
minor respect is my LS6 a step backward from the ASW20
I used to own. In every other respect it is a vast
step forward.

[Andreas Maurer]

On 23 Dec 2004 14:11:11 GMT, Andrew Warbrick
> wrote:

>I'm intrigued. I've never flown a 27 but in only one
>minor respect is my LS6 a step backward from the ASW20
>I used to own. In every other respect it is a vast
>step forward.

Isn't it beautiful that today all gliders are that good that in the
end it's a question of taste? :)))))

Where do you see the vast steps forward of the LS-6 over the 20
besides the automatic control hookups?


Bye
Andreas

[Eric Greenwell]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> I would suggest it is a factor in field selection by
> those pilots that fly big wings, I certainly think
> about it.
> Bit of a mute point really because big wings get you
> home. Landouts are only for those with inadequate span,
> which is where we came in :-)

If the pilots with "adequate" span were using their gliders to the
fullest, they'd be landing out, too. There's never enough span if you
are trying hard.

(Insert derisive comments here about pilots that fly around with
adequate span AND a motor in the back [21 restarts this year and counting]!)


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Bob Korves]

The wing tips flex upward more with the spoilers open than with them closed.
-Bob

"Andrew Warbrick" > wrote in message
...
> If you watch an ASH25 landing, just at touchdown the
> wing is at stalling angle of attack but is still generating
> lift equal to the weight of the glider, this produces
> an appreciable upward flex in the wing. At touchdown
> the tips must be at least 8ft off the floor. The Pegasus
> and ASW20 are similar, at touchdown the tips are deflected
> upwards.
>
> At 11:00 23 December 2004, Don Johnstone wrote:
> >It could be a problem in theory but in practice it
> >is one of the things you take into account. The procedure
> >with the ASW17 is to select full negative flap on touchdown,
> >it's well nailed to the ground then. On smooth concrete
> >no problem. You have to be careful on grass as it is
> >possible to put the wingtips into the ground if the
> >flaps are moved to negative too quickly.
> >I would suggest it is a factor in field selection by
> >those pilots that fly big wings, I certainly think
> >about it.
> >Bit of a mute point really because big wings get you
> >home. Landouts are only for those with inadequate span,
> >which is where we came in :-)
> >
> >
> >At 10:00 23 December 2004, wrote:
> >>Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >>> One of the older threads mentioned that the Pegasus
> >>>has pretty severe
> >>> wing flex.
> >>
> >>> I wonder how important this is. Does anyone think
> >>>wing flex
> >>> has been a big deal during landing (esp. landouts)
> >>>and catching
> >>> a wingtip?
> >>
> >>The Pegase has the same type of flex as the ASW-20
> >>(at least the french made
> >>ASW-20) and the ASH-25 also has considerable flex.
> >>I have never heard this was
> >>a notable problem for landing or whatever.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Michel Talon
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Next time you want to troll on this newsgroup, consult with someone
who's fluent in English, and who has a sense of humor.

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> Next time you want to troll on this newsgroup, consult with someone
> who's fluent in English, and who has a sense of humor.

Could you quote the name and a few lines, so I know who/what you are
referring to? When there are many posts in a thread, like this one, my
newsreader doesn't always align the thread postings correctly (I think
it's probably the ISP's fault, not really the newsreader), so I don't
know who you are replying to.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Don Johnstone]

Eric

If you knew about some of the fields we have in the
UK you might not be so keen to haul something as heavy
as a 17 out of it. Lifting a Ventus across a ditch
is one thing but doing that with a 17 is sure to strain
your farting clapper.

A 17 with a motor, I wish.

I wish you all the ability to keep it up (PW5 drivers
excepted)

:-)

At 18:00 23 December 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>> I would suggest it is a factor in field selection
>>by
>> those pilots that fly big wings, I certainly think
>> about it.
>> Bit of a mute point really because big wings get you
>> home. Landouts are only for those with inadequate
>>span,
>> which is where we came in :-)
>
>If the pilots with 'adequate' span were using their
>gliders to the
>fullest, they'd be landing out, too. There's never
>enough span if you
>are trying hard.
>
>(Insert derisive comments here about pilots that fly
>around with
>adequate span AND a motor in the back [21 restarts
>this year and counting]!)
>
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Don Johnstone wrote:
> Eric
>
> If you knew about some of the fields we have in the
> UK you might not be so keen to haul something as heavy
> as a 17 out of it.

I'm not keen on hauling anything out of a field anymore, which is one
reason I have a motorglider. If I had to haul gliders out, I'd like them
to be light, like a SparrowHawk (160 pounds) or a Russia (300 pounds).
Just watching the local ASW 17 go together strains my back.

> Lifting a Ventus across a ditch
> is one thing but doing that with a 17 is sure to strain
> your farting clapper.
>
> A 17 with a motor, I wish.

I've been to the UK and seen the fields! One look at the stone "hedges"
made me understand why you folks are so particular about field
selection, speed control on final, and the hazards of undershooting
("it's better to hit the far hedge slowly than the near hedge quickly").
I'd have to study the fields there very carefully, and brush up on my
field landing techniques to do it safely. Our fields are generally a
mile square and soft plowed dirt, so we're not very sharp at it - just
plunking it down almost anywhere works.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA