Suggestion: wind energy will make gliders cheaper

[RichardFreytag]

Sailplane designers,

Modern wind turbine blades are strikingly similar to glider wings.
They are now now coming out in sizes approaching 50 meters. The market
expansion for wind energy is expected to grow rapidly. The ensuing
economies of scale from mass produced wind turbine blades just might
offer significant cost advantages to glider manufactures.

I realize the "flight" regime of a glider wing and turbine blade are
not exactly the same but the cost advantage could be so significant
that the compromise is acceptable; you decide. Also many requirements
ARE the same: lightweight, long, strong, and low maintenance. Back to
cost reduction, economies of scale can reduce manufacturing costs for
things like CRTs factors of 1,000th to 100,000. Imagine a glider
market with wings costing 100th of what they cost now (would we throw
away wings like razor blades when they start crazing - crazy?).

Used as wing turbine blades would require regulatory approval (or do
they if used on an ultralight?). That could kill the idea right there.


In fact this idea is just CRAZY so don't bother telling me its crazy
and why it can't work. There are dozens of reasons not to consider
this. Nonetheless, I'm tossing this out so that some glider designer
might have in the back of his/her mind and some day pursue it in case
there is one way it might work.

Here is a list of the current wind turbine manufacturers in order of
2005 market share:
1. Vestas Wind Systems (Denmark)
http://www.vestas.com/uk/Home/index.asp
2. Gamesa Corporation Tecnologica (Spain)
http://www.gamesa.es/gamesa/index.html
3. LM Glasfiber (Denmark)
http://www.lmglasfiber.com/DK/home/default.htm

Largest US manufacturer:
GE Energy - wind arm (USA)
http://www.gepower.com/about/info/en/windmill.htm

Have fun,
Richard

[Alan Baker]

In article om>,
"RichardFreytag" > wrote:

> Sailplane designers,
>
> Modern wind turbine blades are strikingly similar to glider wings.
> They are now now coming out in sizes approaching 50 meters. The market
> expansion for wind energy is expected to grow rapidly. The ensuing
> economies of scale from mass produced wind turbine blades just might
> offer significant cost advantages to glider manufactures.
>
> I realize the "flight" regime of a glider wing and turbine blade are
> not exactly the same but the cost advantage could be so significant
> that the compromise is acceptable; you decide. Also many requirements
> ARE the same: lightweight, long, strong, and low maintenance. Back to
> cost reduction, economies of scale can reduce manufacturing costs for
> things like CRTs factors of 1,000th to 100,000. Imagine a glider
> market with wings costing 100th of what they cost now (would we throw
> away wings like razor blades when they start crazing - crazy?).
>
> Used as wing turbine blades would require regulatory approval (or do
> they if used on an ultralight?). That could kill the idea right there.
>
>
> In fact this idea is just CRAZY so don't bother telling me its crazy
> and why it can't work. There are dozens of reasons not to consider
> this. Nonetheless, I'm tossing this out so that some glider designer
> might have in the back of his/her mind and some day pursue it in case
> there is one way it might work.

The idea won't work for one very simple reason: twist.

I wind turbine blade has twist to compensate for the varying apparent
wind angle, since the blade is moving much faster across the wind at its
tip than it is at its root.

>
> Here is a list of the current wind turbine manufacturers in order of
> 2005 market share:
> 1. Vestas Wind Systems (Denmark)
> http://www.vestas.com/uk/Home/index.asp
> 2. Gamesa Corporation Tecnologica (Spain)
> http://www.gamesa.es/gamesa/index.html
> 3. LM Glasfiber (Denmark)
> http://www.lmglasfiber.com/DK/home/default.htm
>
> Largest US manufacturer:
> GE Energy - wind arm (USA)
> http://www.gepower.com/about/info/en/windmill.htm
>
> Have fun,
> Richard

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[Marc Ramsey]

RichardFreytag wrote:
> Modern wind turbine blades are strikingly similar to glider wings.
> They are now now coming out in sizes approaching 50 meters. The market
> expansion for wind energy is expected to grow rapidly. The ensuing
> economies of scale from mass produced wind turbine blades just might
> offer significant cost advantages to glider manufactures.

Nice idea, but among other things, a turbine blade is designed to cope
with the fact that the effective airspeed of the inner portion of the
"wing" is always somewhat less than the outer portion. If you look at
one up close, you'll notice it has a good deal of twist. They also use
differing airfoils along the length of the blade. Finally, I suspect
they are a good deal heavier than what we would need.

By the way, one of the oddest things I've seen on the tracks through the
waterfront in downtown Oakland (California), was what turned out to be a
train load of large unassembled wind turbines headed somewhere up north...

Marc

[RichardFreytag]

I was curious who would come back within 14 minutes to confirm what a
crazy idea I had so I typed 'Alan Baker' into the Google Groups search
field. Interesting reading.

You're right Alan, using wind turbine blades on gliders just can't
work. <grin>

Cheers,
Richard

[Bill Daniels]

The blades themselves are not useful as glider wings but some parts of the
manufacturing base that makes them might be adapted to produce wings.

"RichardFreytag" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Sailplane designers,
>
> Modern wind turbine blades are strikingly similar to glider wings.
> They are now now coming out in sizes approaching 50 meters. The market
> expansion for wind energy is expected to grow rapidly. The ensuing
> economies of scale from mass produced wind turbine blades just might
> offer significant cost advantages to glider manufactures.
>
> I realize the "flight" regime of a glider wing and turbine blade are
> not exactly the same but the cost advantage could be so significant
> that the compromise is acceptable; you decide. Also many requirements
> ARE the same: lightweight, long, strong, and low maintenance. Back to
> cost reduction, economies of scale can reduce manufacturing costs for
> things like CRTs factors of 1,000th to 100,000. Imagine a glider
> market with wings costing 100th of what they cost now (would we throw
> away wings like razor blades when they start crazing - crazy?).
>
> Used as wing turbine blades would require regulatory approval (or do
> they if used on an ultralight?). That could kill the idea right there.
>
>
> In fact this idea is just CRAZY so don't bother telling me its crazy
> and why it can't work. There are dozens of reasons not to consider
> this. Nonetheless, I'm tossing this out so that some glider designer
> might have in the back of his/her mind and some day pursue it in case
> there is one way it might work.
>
> Here is a list of the current wind turbine manufacturers in order of
> 2005 market share:
> 1. Vestas Wind Systems (Denmark)
> http://www.vestas.com/uk/Home/index.asp
> 2. Gamesa Corporation Tecnologica (Spain)
> http://www.gamesa.es/gamesa/index.html
> 3. LM Glasfiber (Denmark)
> http://www.lmglasfiber.com/DK/home/default.htm
>
> Largest US manufacturer:
> GE Energy - wind arm (USA)
> http://www.gepower.com/about/info/en/windmill.htm
>
> Have fun,
> Richard
>

[Shawn]

RichardFreytag wrote:
> Sailplane designers,
>
> Modern wind turbine blades are strikingly similar to glider wings.
> They are now now coming out in sizes approaching 50 meters. The market
> expansion for wind energy is expected to grow rapidly. The ensuing
> economies of scale from mass produced wind turbine blades just might
> offer significant cost advantages to glider manufactures.
>
> I realize the "flight" regime of a glider wing and turbine blade are
> not exactly the same but the cost advantage could be so significant
> that the compromise is acceptable; you decide. Also many requirements
> ARE the same: lightweight, long, strong, and low maintenance. Back to
> cost reduction, economies of scale can reduce manufacturing costs for
> things like CRTs factors of 1,000th to 100,000. Imagine a glider
> market with wings costing 100th of what they cost now (would we throw
> away wings like razor blades when they start crazing - crazy?).
>
> Used as wing turbine blades would require regulatory approval (or do
> they if used on an ultralight?). That could kill the idea right there.
>
>
> In fact this idea is just CRAZY so don't bother telling me its crazy
> and why it can't work. There are dozens of reasons not to consider
> this. Nonetheless, I'm tossing this out so that some glider designer
> might have in the back of his/her mind and some day pursue it in case
> there is one way it might work.

I thought of something similar in the recent past. Wind turbine
manufacturers could probably build glider wings pretty easily. The
turbine blades themselves are wrong for aviation use, but I suspect
their aerodynamics, engineering, and fabrication techniques are very
similar to a gliders. Google found this:
http://www.compositesworld.com/hpc/issues/2004/May/450
Turbine blades are made big and in big numbers (The GE site said they
have nearly 3000 1.5 MW turbines out there. That's 4500 gliders worth
of wings!), but it's a young industry. The glider manufacturers would
do well to cross pollinate with the turbine manufacturers, and may do
well "borrowing" some of there manufacturing capacity.

Shawn

[GM]

RichardFreytag wrote:
> Sailplane designers,
>
> Modern wind turbine blades are strikingly similar to glider wings.
> They are now now coming out in sizes approaching 50 meters. The
market
> expansion for wind energy is expected to grow rapidly. The ensuing
> economies of scale from mass produced wind turbine blades just might
> offer significant cost advantages to glider manufactures.
>
> I realize the "flight" regime of a glider wing and turbine blade are
> not exactly the same but the cost advantage could be so significant
> that the compromise is acceptable; you decide. Also many
requirements
> ARE the same: lightweight, long, strong, and low maintenance. Back
to
> cost reduction, economies of scale can reduce manufacturing costs for
> things like CRTs factors of 1,000th to 100,000. Imagine a glider
> market with wings costing 100th of what they cost now (would we throw
> away wings like razor blades when they start crazing - crazy?).
>
> Used as wing turbine blades would require regulatory approval (or do
> they if used on an ultralight?). That could kill the idea right
there.
>
>
> In fact this idea is just CRAZY so don't bother telling me its crazy
> and why it can't work. There are dozens of reasons not to consider
> this. Nonetheless, I'm tossing this out so that some glider designer
> might have in the back of his/her mind and some day pursue it in case
> there is one way it might work.
>
> Here is a list of the current wind turbine manufacturers in order of
> 2005 market share:
> 1. Vestas Wind Systems (Denmark)
> http://www.vestas.com/uk/Home/index.asp
> 2. Gamesa Corporation Tecnologica (Spain)
> http://www.gamesa.es/gamesa/index.html
> 3. LM Glasfiber (Denmark)
> http://www.lmglasfiber.com/DK/home/default.htm
>
> Largest US manufacturer:
> GE Energy - wind arm (USA)
> http://www.gepower.com/about/info/en/windmill.htm
>
> Have fun,
> Richard


Intriguing idea, except that all the large wind turbines I have seen
usually turn in one direction. They make only either left or right
wings.

Uli Neumann

[Bob Kuykendall]

During the 2003 Sailplane Homebuilder's Association Western Workshop at
Tehachapi, I got to tour the Tehachapi facility of GE Windpower
(formerly Enron Windpower). In the tour group with me was Gerhard
Waibel, arguably one of the best sailplane designers and developers in
the world.

I think both of us were impressed with the size and effectiveness of
the blades we saw, but I don't think either of us saw any direct
application of windpower blades to sailplane manufacturing. The blades
we got the closest look at (which, by the way, we were specifically
instructed not to photograph) weighed a couple tons each, and had very
deep sections in terms of T/C. And they were designed for turning
flight of the spins-and-plummeting-only sort.

Energy economics being what they are, all of the heavy development
effort in wind turbines is currently concentrated on very large units,
with rotor diameters coming up to 100m or so. They tend to give the
best bang for the buck, and tend to kill the fewest birds doing it.

But, yeah, if we were playing some sort of Junkyard Wars game, and
there happened to be 15-meter diameter wind turbine rotors in the yard
in both clockwise and counterclockwise rotations, we might be able to
cob something together that might sort of fly and might sort of sustain
2g or so of loading. But beyond that the very specialized requirements
of effective soaring flight make it unlikely that there is any
technology cross-over except in terms of basic materials and
manufacturing techniques.

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

[dhaluza]

So, in addition to the structural, left/right, and twist problems
previously mentioned, turbine blades have an airfoil optimized for a
narrow angle of attack range. Glider wings need to operate over a very
wide angle of attack range (landing to high speed cruise). So there is
very little direct application of the technology. The possibiity of
cross polination is interesting, however.


RichardFreytag wrote:
> Sailplane designers,
>
> Modern wind turbine blades are strikingly similar to glider wings.
> They are now now coming out in sizes approaching 50 meters. The
market
> expansion for wind energy is expected to grow rapidly. The ensuing
> economies of scale from mass produced wind turbine blades just might
> offer significant cost advantages to glider manufactures.
>
> I realize the "flight" regime of a glider wing and turbine blade are
> not exactly the same but the cost advantage could be so significant
> that the compromise is acceptable; you decide. Also many
requirements
> ARE the same: lightweight, long, strong, and low maintenance. Back
to
> cost reduction, economies of scale can reduce manufacturing costs for
> things like CRTs factors of 1,000th to 100,000. Imagine a glider
> market with wings costing 100th of what they cost now (would we throw
> away wings like razor blades when they start crazing - crazy?).
>
> Used as wing turbine blades would require regulatory approval (or do
> they if used on an ultralight?). That could kill the idea right
there.
>
>
> In fact this idea is just CRAZY so don't bother telling me its crazy
> and why it can't work. There are dozens of reasons not to consider
> this. Nonetheless, I'm tossing this out so that some glider designer
> might have in the back of his/her mind and some day pursue it in case
> there is one way it might work.
>
> Here is a list of the current wind turbine manufacturers in order of
> 2005 market share:
> 1. Vestas Wind Systems (Denmark)
> http://www.vestas.com/uk/Home/index.asp
> 2. Gamesa Corporation Tecnologica (Spain)
> http://www.gamesa.es/gamesa/index.html
> 3. LM Glasfiber (Denmark)
> http://www.lmglasfiber.com/DK/home/default.htm
>
> Largest US manufacturer:
> GE Energy - wind arm (USA)
> http://www.gepower.com/about/info/en/windmill.htm
>
> Have fun,
> Richard

[Alan Baker]

In article . com>,
"RichardFreytag" > wrote:

> I was curious who would come back within 14 minutes to confirm what a
> crazy idea I had so I typed 'Alan Baker' into the Google Groups search
> field. Interesting reading.

How exactly did you know to type 'Alan Baker', hmmm? <g>

>
> You're right Alan, using wind turbine blades on gliders just can't
> work. <grin>
>
> Cheers,
> Richard

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

[[email protected]]

"Nice idea, but among other things, a turbine blade is designed to cope
with the fact that the effective airspeed of the inner portion of the
"wing" is always somewhat less than the outer portion"

Not a problem, as long as you always thermal in the same direction.

Of course you'd fall out of the sky if you tried to fly straight, kind
of like a PW5.

[Graeme Cant]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> The blades themselves are not useful as glider wings but some parts of the
> manufacturing base that makes them might be adapted to produce wings.

Other way around, perhaps? I "read" (my German is very rudimentary)a
history of Schempp-Hirth a few years ago and saw photos of wind turbine
blades being manufactured some time in the late 50s/early 60s. Does
anybody have any details?

I also understand that a lot of glider wing aerodynamics is actually a
spinoff from research paid for by wind turbine builders. Eppler, for
one, did turbine work I believe. Again, does anyone know any facts?

GC

[Raphael Warshaw]

I remember seeing wood-epoxy wind-turbine blades being built at Gudgeon
Bros. in Bay City, MI in the seventies. Their primary business at the time
was building cold-molded DN iceboats, multihull ocean racers and packaging
and selling WEST System epoxy. Meade Gudgeon said they got the windmill
business because of their demonstrated ability to build long, thin, light
hydrodynamically efficient structures. My guess would be that the windmill
folks learned more from the sailboat and glider folks than the other way
round.

Ray Warshaw
1LK

"Graeme Cant" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>> The blades themselves are not useful as glider wings but some parts of
>> the
>> manufacturing base that makes them might be adapted to produce wings.
>
> Other way around, perhaps? I "read" (my German is very rudimentary)a
> history of Schempp-Hirth a few years ago and saw photos of wind turbine
> blades being manufactured some time in the late 50s/early 60s. Does
> anybody have any details?
>
> I also understand that a lot of glider wing aerodynamics is actually a
> spinoff from research paid for by wind turbine builders. Eppler, for one,
> did turbine work I believe. Again, does anyone know any facts?
>
> GC

[F.L. Whiteley]

Graeme Cant wrote:

> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>> The blades themselves are not useful as glider wings but some parts of
>> the manufacturing base that makes them might be adapted to produce wings.
>
> Other way around, perhaps? I "read" (my German is very rudimentary)a
> history of Schempp-Hirth a few years ago and saw photos of wind turbine
> blades being manufactured some time in the late 50s/early 60s. Does
> anybody have any details?
>
> I also understand that a lot of glider wing aerodynamics is actually a
> spinoff from research paid for by wind turbine builders. Eppler, for
> one, did turbine work I believe. Again, does anyone know any facts?
>
> GC
Not sure when they may have actually started wind turbine construction, but
I was shown some composite turbine blades when I visited Schempp-Hirch
Kirchheim in 1980. Saw some of the first Ventus production also. Very
kind of them to show a drop in visitor around.

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

Graeme Cant wrote:
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> > The blades themselves are not useful as glider wings but some parts
of the
> > manufacturing base that makes them might be adapted to produce
wings.
>
> Other way around, perhaps? I "read" (my German is very rudimentary)a

> history of Schempp-Hirth a few years ago and saw photos of wind
turbine
> blades being manufactured some time in the late 50s/early 60s. Does
> anybody have any details?
>
> I also understand that a lot of glider wing aerodynamics is actually
a
> spinoff from research paid for by wind turbine builders. Eppler, for

> one, did turbine work I believe. Again, does anyone know any facts?
>
> GC

Mr Hanle of Glasflugel(Glasswing) was very active in the development of
turbine blades as a parallel activity to many contributions to
developing the art of building sailplanes. Possibly the photos of
blades were taken about the time that S/H was in the process of
absorbing Glasflugel after his death.
UH

[Andreas Maurer]

On 13 Apr 2005 05:26:07 -0700, wrote:

>
>Mr Hanle of Glasflugel(Glasswing) was very active in the development of
>turbine blades as a parallel activity to many contributions to
>developing the art of building sailplanes. Possibly the photos of
>blades were taken about the time that S/H was in the process of
>absorbing Glasflugel after his death.

S/H built the blades for the first truly huge wind energy rotor,
called GROWIAN, with a rotor diameter of about 300 ft. Afaik this
happened in the early 80's.

We have a couple of guys in my club who earn their living by designing
and building such rotors (blade length up to 200 ft - per blade!) -
believe me, noone is going to want a glider that is built with the
same quality as a wind energy rotor. :)


Bye
Andreas

[Eric Greenwell]

Andreas Maurer wrote:

>
> We have a couple of guys in my club who earn their living by designing
> and building such rotors (blade length up to 200 ft - per blade!) -
> believe me, noone is going to want a glider that is built with the
> same quality as a wind energy rotor. :)

Is that because the quality is too poor, or because the quality is too
high to afford?


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Brian]

Also as I recall the last Turbine Blade I saw did look very simlar to
my glider wing. However if i remember correctly I believe it weighed
almost 1200 lbs (maybe it was 600) for one blade. My whole glider
weighs less than 600 lbs. I suspect they like the weight in the turbine
blades to help reduce the effects of gusts on it.

Brian Case
HP16T

[Bert Willing]

Well, I have been on a tour of the wind energy installation on the Tehachapi
Pass, and there were a couple of broken blades around. Having looked at
them, I wouldn't dare to bord a glider made with that level of quality...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Eric Greenwell" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> Andreas Maurer wrote:
>
>>
>> We have a couple of guys in my club who earn their living by designing
>> and building such rotors (blade length up to 200 ft - per blade!) -
>> believe me, noone is going to want a glider that is built with the
>> same quality as a wind energy rotor. :)
>
> Is that because the quality is too poor, or because the quality is too
> high to afford?
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Is that because the quality is too poor,
> or because the quality is too high to
> afford?

I've always been fascinated by the use of the word "high" to mean
"great," "strong," "good," and "senior." I think that it speaks to the
nature in which the appreciation for flight is hardwired into at least
some people. Like us, for example...

Anyhow, based on the blade crawled into at Tehachapi, I would
definitely not say that wind turbines are lesser quality, they are just
optimized differently. And those optimizations seem to favor low cost
and low build hours over freedom from waviness and fine surface finish.
They are also optimized to operate unattended for long periods of time,
so the airfoil selection for them is predicated on a certain amount of
roughness from dust and bird crap.

Beyond that, many of you know that I ascribe to Pirsig's view of
quality, that it lies at the interface between subject and object (in
fact, it _is_ the interface!) and is not inherent in either the subject
or the object. Aristotle and his cronies get way too much credit for
founding western philosophy on the unstable underpinnings of absolute
truth and relative quality.

Thanks, and best regards to all

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

[paulmartin483]

I began thinking about how to couple that light little glider with a similarly light and portable "simulator" structure. I was looking for a complete setup that could be easily carried a long distance by one person in one trip so it could be set up in a park or on campus or in a shopping center.