18m and L/D 60+...

[[email protected]]

http://flyshift.com/

[BTIZ]

I'd like to read more about it.. but could not find a link to the English
web page
BT

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> http://flyshift.com/
>

[Andy Blackburn]

Try this. It's not perfect, but it helps:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/

9B

At 18:00 09 October 2005, Btiz wrote:
>I'd like to read more about it.. but could not find
>a link to the English
>web page
>BT
>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> http://flyshift.com/
>>
>
>
>

[Steve Leonard]

Hmmm. 18 meter span, 265 pound empty weight, 48.7
aspect ratio wing, about 72 square feet of wing area.
Wonder how they plan to make it less than half the
empty weight of any other 18 meter ship? Maybe they
think that if they have half the wing area, it will
weigh half as much?

Where is the AFLAC! Duck when I need him?

Steve

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Steve Leonard wrote:

> Hmmm. 18 meter span, 265 pound empty weight, 48.7
> aspect ratio wing, about 72 square feet of wing area.
> Wonder how they plan to make it less than half the
> empty weight of any other 18 meter ship? Maybe they
> think that if they have half the wing area, it will
> weigh half as much?

What I'd like to know is how they expect to approach that kind of empty
weight with such a shallow wing and still get the deflections shown in
the artists renderings. Or perhaps it was rendered in the 0.5g
condition...

And check out the landing gear geometry - in the retracted condition
the yoke is in line with the lower leg of the aft links. As Dick
Schreder learned with the HP-11, that's a sure recipe for peek-a-boo
gear unless you either drive both the yoke and the aft links or include
an up-lock. And given how low they've anchored the gear pivots in the
fuselage, either of those will add quite a handful of mechanical
complexity.

All that said, I think that it is definitely possible to develop and
build a ship that is substantially similar to the artists renderings,
and have it acheve within a handful of percent the claimed performance.
However, I believe that such an aircraft will be quite expensive - it
would require a lot of some rather exotic materials, and the
construction would be quite labor-intensive. I think it approaches the
sailplane in the context of ultimate racing machine, not as a product
to be series- manufactured cost-effectively so as to be available to
soaring pilots of more typical means. Not that that's bad, mind you,
just that I think it is sort of irrelevant to the majority of pilots.

Bob K.

[Nyal Williams]

They are announcing the construction of the prototype
of a new 18m glider with an L/D better than 60/1, and
they suggest that if it is successful and enough interest
is shown,the glider could be made available as a kit.

HAH!


At 18:06 09 October 2005, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>Try this. It's not perfect, but it helps:
>
>http://babelfish.altavista.com/
>
>9B
>
>At 18:00 09 October 2005, Btiz wrote:
>>I'd like to read more about it.. but could not find
>>a link to the English
>>web page
>>BT
>>
>> wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> http://flyshift.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Wallace Berry]

In article . com>,
"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote:


How about that cutaway of the wing structure! Looks like multiple foam
(or glassfibre maybe?) spars with diagonal carbon trusses. Anyone know
if a wing has been built this way before? What makes this structure
lighter or cheaper or easier to build than conventional wings?

[chris]

Wallace Berry wrote:
>What makes this structure
> lighter or cheaper or easier to build than conventional wings?

Who ever said the generation of gliders would even begin to consider
the idea of cheaper??? That has not been the recent trend.
If it is lighter, it appears that the concept is to spread the wing
load over a much wider area [more of the chord], so that the stresses
do not need to concentrate on a single heavy spar. The wing skin can
possibly be made thinner/lighter this way too since it does not have to
transmit the load as far.

Chris

[titoa]

If you allow me to change a bit the line of discussion, without opening
a new thread, this airplane really brings me to an issue, mostly when
I compare it with the not so successfull World Class competitions, of
what sort of airplane does the soaring sport really needs today ? That
is, what would be its mission ( e.g. trainer/single, moderate or
advanced cross country) and its main configuration parameters (span,
pure/motorized, glide, min sink, speed range) and what should be its
m=E1x cost (also kit availability ? )

Any opinions ?

chris ha escrito:

> Wallace Berry wrote:
> >What makes this structure
> > lighter or cheaper or easier to build than conventional wings?
>
> Who ever said the generation of gliders would even begin to consider
> the idea of cheaper??? That has not been the recent trend.
> If it is lighter, it appears that the concept is to spread the wing
> load over a much wider area [more of the chord], so that the stresses
> do not need to concentrate on a single heavy spar. The wing skin can
> possibly be made thinner/lighter this way too since it does not have to
> transmit the load as far.
>=20
> Chris

[titoa]

If you allow me to change a bit the line of discussion, without opening
a new thread, this airplane really brings me to an issue, mostly when
I compare it with the not so successfull World Class competitions, of
what sort of airplane does the soaring sport really needs today ? That
is, what would be its mission ( e.g. trainer/single, moderate or
advanced cross country) and its main configuration parameters (span,
pure/motorized, glide, min sink, speed range) and what should be its
m=E1x cost (also kit availability ? )

Any opinions ?

chris ha escrito:

> Wallace Berry wrote:
> >What makes this structure
> > lighter or cheaper or easier to build than conventional wings?
>
> Who ever said the generation of gliders would even begin to consider
> the idea of cheaper??? That has not been the recent trend.
> If it is lighter, it appears that the concept is to spread the wing
> load over a much wider area [more of the chord], so that the stresses
> do not need to concentrate on a single heavy spar. The wing skin can
> possibly be made thinner/lighter this way too since it does not have to
> transmit the load as far.
>=20
> Chris