Expanded World Class

[Ian Cant]

If you refer to

http://www.fai.org/gliding/bureau2006_2

minutes of the FAI Gliding Commission Bureau meeting,
you will find:

'A2.8 Discussion on Class structure in the “light-end”
RS explained the problem we have at the light end,
where a fairly limited number of aircraft are divided
into 3 categories.

It was decided to work towards a solution where the
existing World Class was extended to include the other
gliders after 2009. This could e.g. be with a max take
off weight of 300 kg, including motor gliders, and
possibly with max. 13 meter wingspan. The PW-5 should
be allowed under grandfather rules.
Action: RS and AR to develop year-2 proposal for extension
of the World Class after 2009.
Action: BH to check the FAI rules about changing a
class definition.

It was not considered worth creating a competition
class for the “less than 80 kg” class.'

This seems to indicate that from 2009 aircraft other
than PW-5s will be eligible to compete in a new World
Class. Heads up for Sparrowhawks and Russias, among
others.

Ian

[[email protected]]

On Sep 29, 3:22 pm, Ian Cant >
wrote:
> If you refer to
>
> http://www.fai.org/gliding/bureau2006_2
>
> minutes of the FAI Gliding Commission Bureau meeting,
> you will find:
>
> 'A2.8 Discussion on Class structure in the "light-end"
> RS explained the problem we have at the light end,
> where a fairly limited number of aircraft are divided
> into 3 categories.
>
> It was decided to work towards a solution where the
> existing World Class was extended to include the other
> gliders after 2009. This could e.g. be with a max take
> off weight of 300 kg, including motor gliders, and
> possibly with max. 13 meter wingspan. The PW-5 should
> be allowed under grandfather rules.
> Action: RS and AR to develop year-2 proposal for extension
> of the World Class after 2009.
> Action: BH to check the FAI rules about changing a
> class definition.
>
> It was not considered worth creating a competition
> class for the "less than 80 kg" class.'
>
> This seems to indicate that from 2009 aircraft other
> than PW-5s will be eligible to compete in a new World
> Class. Heads up for Sparrowhawks and Russias, among
> others.
>
> Ian


Soon we will see a very good 13m glider ....for $120,000.-only.
And the happy owner will be a World Class Champion.
Was that an original idea behind the World Class?

[toad]

On Oct 3, 3:52 pm, wrote:
> Soon we will see a very good 13m glider ....for $120,000.-only.
> And the happy owner will be a World Class Champion.
> Was that an original idea behind the World Class?

Richard,

The original idea behind the World Class has been a failure. That much
is obvious (to me) and should be acknowledged. We need to try a new
and different idea. I can see opening the PW5 only contests to
similar designs to increase the number of gliders. More gliders would
mean a better competition.

I personally would propose the following criteria:

a) Fairly strict 1 design.
b) Decent performance for the cheapest cost.

For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
performance is just frustrating when trying XC.

I would not "dumb down" the design to accommodate early solo pilots,
but aim for entry level comp pilots.

Todd Smith
Grob 102 "3S"

[[email protected]]

On Oct 3, 5:10 pm, toad > wrote:
> On Oct 3, 3:52 pm, wrote:
>
> > Soon we will see a very good 13m glider ....for $120,000.-only.
> > And the happy owner will be a World Class Champion.
> > Was that an original idea behind the World Class?
>
> Richard,
>
> The original idea behind the World Class has been a failure. That much
> is obvious (to me) and should be acknowledged. We need to try a new
> and different idea. I can see opening the PW5 only contests to
> similar designs to increase the number of gliders. More gliders would
> mean a better competition.
>
> I personally would propose the following criteria:
>
> a) Fairly strict 1 design.
> b) Decent performance for the cheapest cost.
>
> For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
> performance is just frustrating when trying XC.
>
> I would not "dumb down" the design to accommodate early solo pilots,
> but aim for entry level comp pilots.
>
> Todd Smith
> Grob 102 "3S"

Todd,
OK, some of the aspects of original idea had to be a failure and the
whole undertaking simply didn't work.
But, can you tell which specs were wrong?

* substantially lower costs than then-current new gliders
* easy & safe handling in the air and on the ground
* a single design, stabilized for a period of years
* performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
* simple construction
* suitable for clubs, private owners & early solo pilots.

What would be your new World Class glider ?
Try to stay below $ 60,000.-please.
Richard/ PW-5/N153PW

[toad]

On Oct 3, 7:12 pm, wrote:
> On Oct 3, 5:10 pm, toad > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 3:52 pm, wrote:
>
> > > Soon we will see a very good 13m glider ....for $120,000.-only.
> > > And the happy owner will be a World Class Champion.
> > > Was that an original idea behind the World Class?
>
> > Richard,
>
> > The original idea behind the World Class has been a failure. That much
> > is obvious (to me) and should be acknowledged. We need to try a new
> > and different idea. I can see opening the PW5 only contests to
> > similar designs to increase the number of gliders. More gliders would
> > mean a better competition.
>
> > I personally would propose the following criteria:
>
> > a) Fairly strict 1 design.
> > b) Decent performance for the cheapest cost.
>
> > For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
> > performance is just frustrating when trying XC.
>
> > I would not "dumb down" the design to accommodate early solo pilots,
> > but aim for entry level comp pilots.
>
> > Todd Smith
> > Grob 102 "3S"
>
> Todd,
> OK, some of the aspects of original idea had to be a failure and the
> whole undertaking simply didn't work.
> But, can you tell which specs were wrong?
>
> * substantially lower costs than then-current new gliders

Great.

> * easy & safe handling in the air and on the ground

Great

> * a single design, stabilized for a period of years

Great

> * performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition

Great idea, but the PW5 performance is not enough.

> * simple construction

Great

> * suitable for clubs, private owners & early solo pilots.

Bad idea to require suitability for early solo pilot. This led to
unneeded "dumbing down" of the design. Specific features such as the
nose wheel and non-retractable landing gear. It also leads to
sacrificing performance for easier handling.

I think that the design point to aim for is a glider that a newly
licensed pilot, who has done some XC in a club glider and wants a
glider to fly, would find roughly comparable to a Grob 102, Std
Cirrus, LS4. The possiblilty of one design competition would be a
good additional incentive to buy the "2nd generation" world class
glider. But the glider would have to be similar in performance to
other gliders that the new XC pilot might also want.

>
> What would be your new World Class glider ?
> Try to stay below $ 60,000.-please.
> Richard/ PW-5/N153PW


Maybe the new Sparrowhawk or Silent has enough performance for cheap
enough ? Maybe build Std Cirrus's or LS4's. Simplify the
construction if needed. But if a design can not be found that has
sufficiently good performance for a low enough price, then the world
class idea will never work.

It doesn't have to be 50/1, but it does have to be good enough that
weak days are not so painful.

Todd
3S

[Ian Cant]

>> > > Soon we will see a very good 13m glider ....for
>>>>$120,000.-only.
>> > > And the happy owner will be a World Class Champion.
>> > > Was that an original idea behind the World Class?

If I recall correctly, the major aim of the World Class
concept was to make competition soaring more accessible
by keeping the cost down. The lower performance level
and the single-design concepts arose from this aim
[one design to allow mass production and the savings
therefrom]. Unfortunately the masses did not buy the
PW-5.

Perhaps a reasonable class could be built from all
the 13m and below sailplanes that are now around, typically
with 30 or 35:1 L/Ds and easier retrieve characteristics
than bigger ships. A set of rules can be built around
the existing designs without denying entry to newer
and better designs. Contrary to advertised beliefs,
30:1 is plenty for X-C [20:1 is plenty for the 1-26
guys].

But how do we keep the cost under control ? Well,
my only semi-facetious suggestion would be to have
a rule that the top three in any National-level contest
have to offer their ships, fully equipped as flown,
for sale at a fixed price immediately afterwards.
Take $40,000 as a random number. Will anyone really
want to buy a championship with a $60,000 ship if he
has to sell it for $40,000 afterwards ? It would be
snapped up. But the $20,000 ship that wins would probably
not be sellable at $40,000 and the owner could keep
it to fly another day.

As a reference point, the Sparrowhawk is perhaps the
highest performance 13m ship around, and I believe
it still sells for below $40,000. And my aging Russia
would be competitive; it cost me $19,000 new a few
years ago; even with a trailer and flight recorder
and oxygen etc and CA sales tax, it still came in at
well below $25,000.

It could be done. With 60 or so Russias, maybe 50
PW-5s, a growing number of Sparrowhawks and a sprinkling
of Apis and Silents we should have a viable nucleus
of a fleet. And if it works, more people may be enticed
to join in affordable competive soaring.

Ian

[[email protected]]

> Perhaps a reasonable class could be built from all
> the 13m and below sailplanes that are now around, typically
> with 30 or 35:1 L/Ds and easier retrieve characteristics
> than bigger ships.


> It could be done. With 60 or so Russias, maybe 50
> PW-5s, a growing number of Sparrowhawks and a sprinkling
> of Apis and Silents we should have a viable nucleus
> of a fleet. And if it works, more people may be enticed
> to join in affordable competive soaring.


It's nice to hear there is now consideration to expand the world class
beyond the PW5. I've enjoyed the last two Region 9 competitions flying
my L33. The Solo was designed as a candidate for the world class one
design and, as of this year, has the identical hadicap as the PW5 for
SSA Sports class and OLC. Hopefully it will also be considered as
eligible for the expanded world class.

Horst
L33

[[email protected]]

On Oct 3, 10:25 pm, wrote:
> > Perhaps a reasonable class could be built from all
> > the 13m and below sailplanes that are now around, typically
> > with 30 or 35:1 L/Ds and easier retrieve characteristics
> > than bigger ships.
> > It could be done. With 60 or so Russias, maybe 50
> > PW-5s, a growing number of Sparrowhawks and a sprinkling
> > of Apis and Silents we should have a viable nucleus
> > of a fleet. And if it works, more people may be enticed
> > to join in affordable competive soaring.
>
> It's nice to hear there is now consideration to expand the world class
> beyond the PW5. I've enjoyed the last two Region 9 competitions flying
> my L33. The Solo was designed as a candidate for the world class one
> design and, as of this year, has the identical hadicap as the PW5 for
> SSA Sports class and OLC. Hopefully it will also be considered as
> eligible for the expanded world class.
>
> Horst
> L33

Russia, Sparrowhawk, Apis, Silent, L33, PW-5....... you all are very
welcome in Club B .

Why you need to include them into World Class ?.Why pretend that
this odd bunch of gliders makes a One Design Class ? They are a very
different gliders. They do not have much in common. O, maybe except
for fact that nobody can make any profit on their production.
Leave the PW-5 alone. If it as a World Class die...it will die, let it
be. Possibly with a Club B we don't need a World Class at all.
Richard/ PW-5

[Stewart Kissel]

Cheap with performance...then lets pitch the one design(which
is really who can trick out their ship the most and
gain L/d, thus defeating the concept) Run any ship
within certain handicaps...a range that go from Russias
and PW5 up to LS4? Keep the handicap.

One can try to get the cheapest glider with the best
handicap, or something a little more expensive that
takes a bigger hit. Not including LS4's in this group
would be a big mistake IMVHO, they are good performers
and relatively cheap used...is that not the objective?

[Eric Greenwell]

Stewart Kissel wrote:
> Cheap with performance...then lets pitch the one design(which
> is really who can trick out their ship the most and
> gain L/d, thus defeating the concept)

I don't think so, as the usual "tricks" won't add more than a few
percentage points, and are available to all of the competitors anyway.

In any case, the cost of these "tricks" is a lot less than the "tricks"
the manufacturers can add to their new gliders, and then the competitors
do the usual tricks in addition. New glider + usual tricks is a
significant gain in performance and cost.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Cats]

On Oct 4, 12:40 am, toad > wrote:
> On Oct 3, 7:12 pm, wrote:
<snip>

> > * suitable for clubs, private owners & early solo pilots.
>
> Bad idea to require suitability for early solo pilot. This led to
> unneeded "dumbing down" of the design. Specific features such as the
> nose wheel and non-retractable landing gear. It also leads to
> sacrificing performance for easier handling.

That would suggest to me also ruling out it being suitable for clubs,
though the SZD Junior has the fixed wheel but doesn't have a nose
wheel.

>
> I think that the design point to aim for is a glider that a newly
> licensed pilot, who has done some XC in a club glider and wants a
> glider to fly, would find roughly comparable to a Grob 102, Std
> Cirrus, LS4.

Mention of a Grob reminds me that being easy to rig is a very useful
attribute as well. What I mean is that it doesn't require people with
the size & strength of a gorilla - it should be a reasonably easy rig
for two average women, without any fancy rigging aids.

<snip>

[Dan G]

The World Class is a dead end, replaced by the highly successful Club
Class:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_Competition_Classes#Club_Class

The FAI should just let it quietly die. Back in 1989 there were no old
plastic gliders to populate what could be a "club class" and so a low-
cost "entry-level" design made sense, but nearly twenty years on
there's just no point in flying such a compromised aircraft as the
PW5. For a fraction of the cost of a new one, you can just pick up a
used Cirrus, Grob or Libelle and get a glider with considerably better
performance, and compete in the Club Class if you want to.


Dan

[toad]

On Oct 4, 3:37 am, Cats > wrote:
> Mention of a Grob reminds me that being easy to rig is a very useful
> attribute as well. What I mean is that it doesn't require people with
> the size & strength of a gorilla - it should be a reasonably easy rig
> for two average women, without any fancy rigging aids.
>
> <snip>

As a Grob owner, I'll make the claim that they're not too hard to
rig. If you know how !

Todd

[toad]

On Oct 4, 5:38 am, Dan G > wrote:
> The World Class is a dead end, replaced by the highly successful Club
> Class:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_Competition_Classes#Club_Class
>
> The FAI should just let it quietly die. Back in 1989 there were no old
> plastic gliders to populate what could be a "club class" and so a low-
> cost "entry-level" design made sense, but nearly twenty years on
> there's just no point in flying such a compromised aircraft as the
> PW5. For a fraction of the cost of a new one, you can just pick up a
> used Cirrus, Grob or Libelle and get a glider with considerably better
> performance, and compete in the Club Class if you want to.
>
> Dan

The PW5 as a world class glider is dead and will fade away. But a
cheaper one-design class is still a good idea. It might not ever
happen, but it's a good idea.

Todd

[Vsoars]

On Oct 4, 6:58 am, toad > wrote:
> On Oct 4, 5:38 am, Dan G > wrote:
>
> > The World Class is a dead end, replaced by the highly successful Club
> > Class:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_Competition_Classes#Club_Class
>
> > The FAI should just let it quietly die. Back in 1989 there were no old
> > plastic gliders to populate what could be a "club class" and so a low-
> > cost "entry-level" design made sense, but nearly twenty years on
> > there's just no point in flying such a compromised aircraft as the
> > PW5. For a fraction of the cost of a new one, you can just pick up a
> > used Cirrus, Grob or Libelle and get a glider with considerably better
> > performance, and compete in the Club Class if you want to.
>
> > Dan
>
> The PW5 as a world class glider is dead and will fade away. But a
> cheaper one-design class is still a good idea. It might not ever
> happen, but it's a good idea.
>
> Todd

"Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

I know most of you want soaring to grow and know that the rising cost
of gliders threaten the sport. Don't you wonder why a few people are
trying to kill World Class? Perhaps these are some of the reasons:

Diminished impact. - A few pilots want to impress others with their
terrific flight. They may not want to share the glory with a person
flying a ship costing a fraction of what they spent. Recent World
records speak volumes about the PW 5's suitability for long tasks,
even over difficult terrain. We are just beginning to see what the
ship can do. Does the growing list of people who frequently fly 300K
or better threaten the justifications for spending huge sums of money
on other glass ships?

Not part of a close group- Even at contest, where protests abound, the
PW 5 group is enjoying themselves. The only thing that is not easy to
do with a PW 5 is come up with excuses for losing in a contest. It is
the pilot not the plane.

Safety. This sturdy, high winged, easy to fly ship makes land-outs
easy. A very ill-informed contributor to this group suggested that a
PW 5 couldn't deal with strong lift. I have flown in wave and in
thermals in Cal. City, Minden, and Parowan with confidence in a well-
tested design.

Makes the "club" less exclusive - I became a cross-county pilot and
fly in contests because I fly a ship I can afford. Modest initial
cost, inexpensive insurance, zero maintenance - all contribute to my
being able to fly all over the country.

I don't need to explain to you that one class design is the way to
build our sport. Look at one design sailboats. I have never heard a
J Boat owner berate a Sunfish enthusiast. Maybe it's because he/she
learned to sail in that boat. If the World Class loses its one design
status, we will be back to people buying their way into the winner's
circle.

Most of you don't feel threatened by the World Class glider. Why not
support the ideals that brought World Class into existence?

[Eric Greenwell]

toad wrote:

> Bad idea to require suitability for early solo pilot. This led to
> unneeded "dumbing down" of the design. Specific features such as the
> nose wheel and non-retractable landing gear. It also leads to
> sacrificing performance for easier handling.

Time to update your knowledge to at least the 1980s, when the LS4,
Discus, and other gliders showed you don't have to sacrifice performance
to have a glider with wonderful, forgiving handling.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[toad]

On Oct 4, 11:12 am, Vsoars > wrote:
> On Oct 4, 6:58 am, toad > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 5:38 am, Dan G > wrote:
>
> > > The World Class is a dead end, replaced by the highly successful Club
> > > Class:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider_Competition_Classes#Club_Class
>
> > > The FAI should just let it quietly die. Back in 1989 there were no old
> > > plastic gliders to populate what could be a "club class" and so a low-
> > > cost "entry-level" design made sense, but nearly twenty years on
> > > there's just no point in flying such a compromised aircraft as the
> > > PW5. For a fraction of the cost of a new one, you can just pick up a
> > > used Cirrus, Grob or Libelle and get a glider with considerably better
> > > performance, and compete in the Club Class if you want to.
>
> > > Dan
>
> > The PW5 as a world class glider is dead and will fade away. But a
> > cheaper one-design class is still a good idea. It might not ever
> > happen, but it's a good idea.
>
> > Todd
>
> "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
>
> I know most of you want soaring to grow and know that the rising cost
> of gliders threaten the sport. Don't you wonder why a few people are
> trying to kill World Class? Perhaps these are some of the reasons:
>
> Diminished impact. - A few pilots want to impress others with their
> terrific flight. They may not want to share the glory with a person
> flying a ship costing a fraction of what they spent. Recent World
> records speak volumes about the PW 5's suitability for long tasks,
> even over difficult terrain. We are just beginning to see what the
> ship can do. Does the growing list of people who frequently fly 300K
> or better threaten the justifications for spending huge sums of money
> on other glass ships?
>
> Not part of a close group- Even at contest, where protests abound, the
> PW 5 group is enjoying themselves. The only thing that is not easy to
> do with a PW 5 is come up with excuses for losing in a contest. It is
> the pilot not the plane.
>
> Safety. This sturdy, high winged, easy to fly ship makes land-outs
> easy. A very ill-informed contributor to this group suggested that a
> PW 5 couldn't deal with strong lift. I have flown in wave and in
> thermals in Cal. City, Minden, and Parowan with confidence in a well-
> tested design.
>
> Makes the "club" less exclusive - I became a cross-county pilot and
> fly in contests because I fly a ship I can afford. Modest initial
> cost, inexpensive insurance, zero maintenance - all contribute to my
> being able to fly all over the country.
>
> I don't need to explain to you that one class design is the way to
> build our sport. Look at one design sailboats. I have never heard a
> J Boat owner berate a Sunfish enthusiast. Maybe it's because he/she
> learned to sail in that boat. If the World Class loses its one design
> status, we will be back to people buying their way into the winner's
> circle.
>
> Most of you don't feel threatened by the World Class glider. Why not
> support the ideals that brought World Class into existence?

I don't know if this is directed at me, but I'll respond anyway.

I support most of the ideals of the World Class concept, except for
the "early solo" pilots part. But the specific design criteria that
resulted in the PW5's low performance is what killed the class, not
disdain from other pilots. When I've been to contests where there was
a PW5 flying, they did not seem to be having much fun, because they
landed out all the damn time.

People keep comparing to sailboat one design racing, but there is a
big difference between sailing a Sunfish in weak conditions and flying
a PW5 in weak conditions, the PW5 lands out and the Sunfish does NOT
sink. Avoiding landing out in weak conditions is why a minimum of
performance is needed.

The only way I can support the "World class" is to buy one myself or
with a club. But before I did this, the glider has to have enough
performance that I would have fun. So I express what I think should
be changed to allow this to happen. This doesn't mean that I am
threatened, but I feel the concept has not been well executed.

Todd Smith
Grob 102
3S

[Andreas Maurer]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:12:17 -0000, Vsoars > wrote:


>I know most of you want soaring to grow and know that the rising cost
>of gliders threaten the sport. Don't you wonder why a few people are
>trying to kill World Class? Perhaps these are some of the reasons:

None is trying to kill the World class.
In fact, by choosing the PW-5 it commited suicide.

The market has decided. Face it - there are simply very few people
who are excited by flying a PW-5.


>Diminished impact. - A few pilots want to impress others with their
>terrific flight. They may not want to share the glory with a person
>flying a ship costing a fraction of what they spent.

Sharing the glory is not part of the problem.
The problem is that extremely few pilots love to spend big $$$ on a
glider whose performance is inferior to even basic two-seat trainers,
not to mention 1st-generation glass gliders like Libelle, ASW-15 et
cetera that can be bought for one third of the price for PW-5 - and
which outperform the poor PW-5 hands-down.


>Recent World
>records speak volumes about the PW 5's suitability for long tasks,
>even over difficult terrain. We are just beginning to see what the
>ship can do.

Depends on the definition of a "long task". The PW-5 offers the same
performance as an ancient Ka-6E - but today's pilots standards are way
higher.


>I don't need to explain to you that one class design is the way to
>build our sport. Look at one design sailboats. I have never heard a
>J Boat owner berate a Sunfish enthusiast. Maybe it's because he/she
>learned to sail in that boat. If the World Class loses its one design
>status, we will be back to people buying their way into the winner's
>circle.

There's one difference though: People actually BUY one-design-class
boats in significant numbers.


>Most of you don't feel threatened by the World Class glider. Why not
>support the ideals that brought World Class into existence?

Why not simply buy a much cheaper glider that offers far better
perfomance and have fun flying Club Class or Sports Class contests?


Bye
Andreas

[toad]

On Oct 4, 12:35 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> toad wrote:
> > Bad idea to require suitability for early solo pilot. This led to
> > unneeded "dumbing down" of the design. Specific features such as the
> > nose wheel and non-retractable landing gear. It also leads to
> > sacrificing performance for easier handling.
>
> Time to update your knowledge to at least the 1980s, when the LS4,
> Discus, and other gliders showed you don't have to sacrifice performance
> to have a glider with wonderful, forgiving handling.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

Then why doesn't the PW5 have better performance ?

Trade offs between handling and performance might be:
span, easier handling with lower span.
wing loading, high for performance, low for safety, happy medium ?
airfoil and twist for better performance or stall ?
fixed gear vs retract.
high wing for safety vs lower drag mid wing ?

All of these items can be optimized one way or the other. The LS4/
Discus got a really good happy medium with both good handling and
performance. If the PW5 had near the performance of either of these
gliders, I would own a PW5, but the PW5 does not.

Todd

[Tim Mara]

What killed the World Class was the World Class.
When the PW5 was awarded the World Class against a lot of opposition to the
design the proponents of the PW5 sat back fielding criticism and smugly
snubbed the others even after it was well apparent that few were going to
get on their band wagon.
Others that contended for the bid to be the world class glider and their
followers were shut out and left with no place to compete. There were other
good design entrants (most thought better than the committee picked PW5) and
rumors of unfair politics deciding on the PW5 clouded the class.
How the PW5 was picked over the other designs remains a topic of some
controversy but it was and it failed to gather the interest of the masses
(it really is homely) but there were however many other gliders that were in
contention for the title sold that already meet much the original design
criteria. If these models were all lumped together with the existing PW5
gliders the potential is there for a successful competition class to yet
emerge.... Call it World Class or whatever you like but stick with the
gliders already produced and there is no need to go through the process
another time only to end up with the same dismal results.
There is no need to start including Grob Astirs, Cirrus, LS4 and the likes
of these since they already fit nicely into the Club Class (The USA needs
also to finally adopt the rest of the worlds "Club Class" and "Racing Class"
rather than continuing to disguise Ventus 2's and ASW27's and the likes as
"Sports class" gliders)and there is no reason to start looking for a new
alternative "World Class" design... Simply include the L-33's, SZD solo,
Russia in with the PW5's and let them fight it out in a fair and balanced
contest.....choose your weapon and go into battle..... low cost, lower
performance racing.....easy enough.
tim

--
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com
,
"Ian Cant" > wrote in message
...
>>> > > Soon we will see a very good 13m glider ....for
>>>>>$120,000.-only.
>>> > > And the happy owner will be a World Class Champion.
>>> > > Was that an original idea behind the World Class?
>
> If I recall correctly, the major aim of the World Class
> concept was to make competition soaring more accessible
> by keeping the cost down. The lower performance level
> and the single-design concepts arose from this aim
> [one design to allow mass production and the savings
> therefrom]. Unfortunately the masses did not buy the
> PW-5.
>
> Perhaps a reasonable class could be built from all
> the 13m and below sailplanes that are now around, typically
> with 30 or 35:1 L/Ds and easier retrieve characteristics
> than bigger ships. A set of rules can be built around
> the existing designs without denying entry to newer
> and better designs. Contrary to advertised beliefs,
> 30:1 is plenty for X-C [20:1 is plenty for the 1-26
> guys].
>
> But how do we keep the cost under control ? Well,
> my only semi-facetious suggestion would be to have
> a rule that the top three in any National-level contest
> have to offer their ships, fully equipped as flown,
> for sale at a fixed price immediately afterwards.
> Take $40,000 as a random number. Will anyone really
> want to buy a championship with a $60,000 ship if he
> has to sell it for $40,000 afterwards ? It would be
> snapped up. But the $20,000 ship that wins would probably
> not be sellable at $40,000 and the owner could keep
> it to fly another day.
>
> As a reference point, the Sparrowhawk is perhaps the
> highest performance 13m ship around, and I believe
> it still sells for below $40,000. And my aging Russia
> would be competitive; it cost me $19,000 new a few
> years ago; even with a trailer and flight recorder
> and oxygen etc and CA sales tax, it still came in at
> well below $25,000.
>
> It could be done. With 60 or so Russias, maybe 50
> PW-5s, a growing number of Sparrowhawks and a sprinkling
> of Apis and Silents we should have a viable nucleus
> of a fleet. And if it works, more people may be enticed
> to join in affordable competive soaring.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Paul Hanson]

At 17:18 04 October 2007, Toad wrote:
>On Oct 4, 12:35 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> toad wrote:
>> > Bad idea to require suitability for early solo pilot.
>>> This led to
>> > unneeded 'dumbing down' of the design. Specific
>>>features such as the
>> > nose wheel and non-retractable landing gear. It
>>>also leads to
>> > sacrificing performance for easier handling.

I agree about the 'dumbing down' aspect, but performance
can be built in as mentioned in the Discus/LS4 rebuttal,
so it's performance disadvantage is to cut costs in
addition to 'dumbing down'.

>> Time to update your knowledge to at least the 1980s,
>>when the LS4,
>> Discus, and other gliders showed you don't have to
>>sacrifice performance
>> to have a glider with wonderful, forgiving handling.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
>Then why doesn't the PW5 have better performance ?

As mentioned, due to cost/dumbing down (read fixed
gear).

>Trade offs between handling and performance might be:
> span, easier handling with lower span.
> wing loading, high for performance, low for safety,
>happy medium ?
> airfoil and twist for better performance or stall
>?
> fixed gear vs retract.
> high wing for safety vs lower drag mid wing ?

Actually a high wing is more efficient (I believe due
to better lift distribution). Don't believe me though,
find some technical reports by OSTIV and look at what
will probably be the newest Shleicher ubership. It
is called the MU: 31, and it is essentially a 27 (it's
fuselage is considered to be just about optimal, drag
wise, since it has to house a human and be crash safe
it is hard to get much better) with the wing moved
to the high position. The trailing edge actually terminates
on a pylon to maintain it's optimal hight at optimal
angle of incidence. It has -7 degrees of inboard washout
(wash-in?) in the first meter which gives it a strange
anhedral sort of look, and these nifty little dimples
in front of the wing/fuselage juncture to discourage
horseshoe vortecies. Due to these mods, it has 16%
less induced drag, and induced being 1/3 of total drag
has around a 5% lower sink rate than a normal 27, but
the high wing is said by them to be more efficient,
although admittedly it does not look as cool. If you
can't find anything on the MU: 31 and want to see it,
I can archive and link my scanned version of it I have
on disk. It really is cool.

>All of these items can be optimized one way or the
>other. The LS4/
>Discus got a really good happy medium with both good
>handling and
>performance. If the PW5 had near the performance of
>either of these
>gliders, I would own a PW5, but the PW5 does not.
>
>Todd
>
The PW-5's performance is not too bad, but it sure
ain't no looker. That is what I believe turns a lot
of people off the idea, when they can get a much cooler
looking ship for less money! I do think there ought
to be a one design ship though, but I would much rather
see the Sparrowhawk be it.

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

[[email protected]]

you guys are funny!

>For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
>performance is just frustrating when trying XC.

i have no experience flying cross country in anything 35:1 or higher,
but it seems to me like it may be kind of boring, i mean you are way
up in the air all the time, never get close to the ground until youve
made the goal, wheres the excitement??

>Makes the "club" less exclusive - I became a cross-county pilot and
>fly in contests because I fly a ship I can afford. Modest initial
>cost, inexpensive insurance, zero maintenance -

amen and this is why i bought the Cherokee

>they did not seem to be having much fun, because they
>landed out all the damn time.

now im afraid to move up to high performance soaring, if landing out
isnt fun, of course as long as nothing gets broken, then what is fun?
ive had nearly as much fun on some of my retrieves as some of my
flights.


oh i like the 'claim' idea. reminds me of when i used to go to the
local dirt track races. other racers had the opportunity to claim
parts of the top 5 cars at the end of the race. preset prices for
standard items. kept costs down for everyone and helped even the
playing field.

i think we should just leave those poor PW-5's alone, i mean usually
RAS doesnt start picking on them until at least later into the fall or
winter. I personally like the idea of a one design class for
contests. I wouldnt even care WHICH design it was but as long as it
was affordable enough for an average pilot to get into. when the
entire field is running the same glider in the same weather over the
same course the only way you win is by being the best pilot and isnt
that what we are trying to figure out anyway?

[toad]

On Oct 4, 3:20 pm, wrote:
> you guys are funny!
>
> >For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
> >performance is just frustrating when trying XC.
>
> i have no experience flying cross country in anything 35:1 or higher,
> but it seems to me like it may be kind of boring, i mean you are way
> up in the air all the time, never get close to the ground until youve
> made the goal, wheres the excitement??

Wow, I must be doing it wrong, I get close to the ground pretty
often.

>
> >Makes the "club" less exclusive - I became a cross-county pilot and
> >fly in contests because I fly a ship I can afford. Modest initial
> >cost, inexpensive insurance, zero maintenance -
>
> amen and this is why i bought the Cherokee
>
> >they did not seem to be having much fun, because they
> >landed out all the damn time.
>
> now im afraid to move up to high performance soaring, if landing out
> isnt fun, of course as long as nothing gets broken, then what is fun?
> ive had nearly as much fun on some of my retrieves as some of my
> flights.

I've had a few fun retrieves, but landing out every other flight is
not fun for me. I have already driven 2 hours to the airport, and
have to drive home afterwards. Put in there a 1-4 hour retrieve and
it's a damn long day. And at contests, you have to have a crew if
you're going to land out that often. Most of us don't have enough
people volunteering to hang out at an airport for a week.

>
> oh i like the 'claim' idea. reminds me of when i used to go to the
> local dirt track races. other racers had the opportunity to claim
> parts of the top 5 cars at the end of the race. preset prices for
> standard items. kept costs down for everyone and helped even the
> playing field.
>
> i think we should just leave those poor PW-5's alone, i mean usually
> RAS doesnt start picking on them until at least later into the fall or
> winter. I personally like the idea of a one design class for
> contests. I wouldnt even care WHICH design it was but as long as it
> was affordable enough for an average pilot to get into. when the
> entire field is running the same glider in the same weather over the
> same course the only way you win is by being the best pilot and isnt
> that what we are trying to figure out anyway?

I also like one design, but I go to contests to have fun, not to
figure out who the best pilot is.

Todd

[Tony Verhulst]

> But, can you tell which specs were wrong?
>
> * substantially lower costs than then-current new gliders
> * easy & safe handling in the air and on the ground
> * a single design, stabilized for a period of years
> * performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
> * simple construction
> * suitable for clubs, private owners & early solo pilots.


Replace bullet #4 with:
* Minimum performance on par with 20+ year old std class ships.

That would do it, I think.

Tony V.

[Eric Greenwell]

toad wrote:

>> Time to update your knowledge to at least the 1980s, when the LS4,
>> Discus, and other gliders showed you don't have to sacrifice performance
>> to have a glider with wonderful, forgiving handling.
>
> Then why doesn't the PW5 have better performance ?

The requirement for low cost.

>
> Trade offs between handling and performance might be:
> span, easier handling with lower span.

Smaller span is one way to reduce cost. No designer has problem making a
15 meter glider handle easily. How many trainers have a small span?

> wing loading, high for performance, low for safety, happy medium ?

Wing loading is not an important aspect of "handling", as I understand
it; however, prohibiting ballast is another way to reduce cost.

> airfoil and twist for better performance or stall ?

Wing design has gone way beyond the need for crude twisting or
inefficient airfoils to provide good stall behavior.

> fixed gear vs retract.

This has little to do with "handling", but it does increase cost to have
a retractable gear.

> high wing for safety vs lower drag mid wing ?

I've never seen an article on the relative safety merits of high wing
versus low wing. Have you? I'd like to read it.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Bruce]

I have limited XC experience in a nominally greater than 1:35 Std Cirrus, and
early XC in a 1:27 Blanik L13, and a couple of flights in a Kestrel 19. Of the
three performance bands the Standard class Cirrus is the most fun for me -
probably because it is mine, and I have the most experience in it. The lower
performance is very frustrating because it is so slow getting anywhere. The
performance of the Kestrel means that you have to fly far to be challenging -
in high winds even the Cirrus can get tiresome trying to go upwind...

Getting low is a consequence of weather and pilot choices. Where I fly there is
usually lots of energy and anything less than 2000 feet AGL is "low" and wasting
time because the thermals tend to get scrappy and disorganised. That said I have
spent my fair share of time grinding away from some low position. Usually as a
consequence of my poor decision making.

Landouts happen to all of them, even the 1:60+ uber bugsmashers. They just tend
to happen a lot further away from home. Which can make retrieves a real
adventure, or unmitigated pain. Consider the crew a little while ago who I
watched scurrying around for a second trailer that could handle an 18m racer
when both of their pilots called below glide 150km away at 17:00... On rural
dirt roads in the part of the world these guys were in that could be a very long
process. Consider that the area these guys were getting low in is pretty
uninhabited. As one French pilot found out in the 2001 worlds, there are places
you can land in a tilled field and have , no radio comms, no cell phone and no
building in sight from the circuit.

How pleasant an outlanding is depends largely on crew and how easy it is to get
your glider home. The one outlanding involving the L13 was a nightmare. The
trailer is open, and the fittings badly designed, and now old and abused. Then
he lands where the rocks prevent getting a trailer in close. Conversely, the
Cirrus is easy to derig and has a good trailer, so it is no major problem most
of the time. Never tried it , but there is an adage that you know who your real
friends are the second time you ask them to retrieve you with a Kestrel 19.

How much fun you have depends on your attitude - not on your equipment.

wrote:
> you guys are funny!
>
>> For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
>> performance is just frustrating when trying XC.
>
> i have no experience flying cross country in anything 35:1 or higher,
> but it seems to me like it may be kind of boring, i mean you are way
> up in the air all the time, never get close to the ground until youve
> made the goal, wheres the excitement??
>
>> Makes the "club" less exclusive - I became a cross-county pilot and
>> fly in contests because I fly a ship I can afford. Modest initial
>> cost, inexpensive insurance, zero maintenance -
>
> amen and this is why i bought the Cherokee
>
>> they did not seem to be having much fun, because they
>> landed out all the damn time.
>
> now im afraid to move up to high performance soaring, if landing out
> isnt fun, of course as long as nothing gets broken, then what is fun?
> ive had nearly as much fun on some of my retrieves as some of my
> flights.
>
>
> oh i like the 'claim' idea. reminds me of when i used to go to the
> local dirt track races. other racers had the opportunity to claim
> parts of the top 5 cars at the end of the race. preset prices for
> standard items. kept costs down for everyone and helped even the
> playing field.
>
> i think we sould just leave those poor PW-5's alone, i mean usually
> RAS doesnt start picking on them until at least later into the fall or
> winter. I personally like the idea of a one design class for
> contests. I wouldnt even care WHICH design it was but as long as it
> was affordable enough for an average pilot to get into. when the
> entire field is running the same glider in the same weather over the
> same course the only way you win is by being the best pilot and isnt
> that what we are trying to figure out anyway?
>

[Cats]

On Oct 4, 8:20 pm, wrote:
> you guys are funny!
>
> >For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
> >performance is just frustrating when trying XC.
>
> i have no experience flying cross country in anything 35:1 or higher,
> but it seems to me like it may be kind of boring, i mean you are way
> up in the air all the time, never get close to the ground until youve
> made the goal, wheres the excitement??

The goalposts move, the fun remains.

<snip>

> >they did not seem to be having much fun, because they
> >landed out all the damn time.
>
> now im afraid to move up to high performance soaring, if landing out
> isnt fun, of course as long as nothing gets broken, then what is fun?

Soaring? :)

> ive had nearly as much fun on some of my retrieves as some of my
> flights.
<snip>

[Vsoars]

On Oct 4, 6:28 pm, Tony Verhulst > wrote:
> > But, can you tell which specs were wrong?
>
> > * substantially lower costs than then-current new gliders
> > * easy & safe handling in the air and on the ground
> > * a single design, stabilized for a period of years
> > * performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
> > * simple construction
> > * suitable for clubs, private owners & early solo pilots.
>
> Replace bullet #4 with:
> * Minimum performance on par with 20+ year old std class ships.
>
> That would do it, I think.
>
> Tony V.

A World Class glider should have the performance to do 300K flights in
coastal areas where the lift usually starts at 2,500 AGL by noon and
rises to 4-5,000' later in the day. It should do 500K flights with
higher ceilings and/or ridge lift. It should win some Sports Class
regional contests, even over roughed terrain and weak conditions.

In other words, it should be a PW 5.

Someone asked what I would consider "a long task" for a PW 5.
Currently, along the Gulf Coast, where cloud base rarely gets over
5,000', we do lots of 300K flights in PW 5s. Here a long task would
have to be at least 300K. Out West, 500K would be called a long task.
US records show that you would have to fly quite a bit further than
that for a record.

As for contests, PW 5's have won Sports Class Regionals. Look at Bill
Snead's flights in this year's Region 10 contest. His flights were
over rough terrain and in challenging conditions.

You may have heard the excuse, "I flew as far as I could; after all, I
was flying a PW 5 ( or another short-winged ship)." But it's often
our skills, not the ship that limits us.

None of us should accept arbitrary limits. Isn't soaring a sport that
breaks limits and preconceptions?

[Tim[_2_]]

Here, Here Tim:

The Club Class has definitely stepped up and filled the performance/
price niche the orginal World Class was meant to fill in the soaring
contest world. Club Class around the world offers some of the most
competitive racing in the world right now, in ships that more pilots
can afford - especially inthe US given the Euro/$ rate now. Every
country in the world offers Club Class racing except the US (and maybe
Canada?). Why are we so stubbornly against the concept, while we still
devote the time and effort to site a World Class Nationals every year?

Yes, some rules makers have said to me : "well look at the Club Class
in Europe, with all of its highly modified Cirruses, etc., that will
just mean pilots will take $20K Cirruses and trick them out for $40K ,
and then where is the affordability?"

I was once of that thought. But after having seen the 3rd French Pilot
in a run-of-the mill Std Cirrus place 3rd at Club Worlds ahead of the
supposedly tricked out Cirrus' the top two French pilots flew, I just
do not think that is much of an issue. There is only so much you can
do with Cirrus, Libelles, etc. And now that the IGC Club Class list is
adding the Discus (and like ships) to the list of ships allowed, the
Club class alows a huge portion of the US fleet of gliders to compete
at a high level again. Isn't that a good thing?

Oh, and even if it takes $40k to trick out and old ship to be fully
competitive, I've still saved a good number 10's of thousands of $'s
with which I can compete at more contests. Isn't the possibility of
increased contest participation a good thing as well?

Others have said to me: "why should I have to purchase an old Libelle
to compete in a contest where I can make the US Team?" And good/great
pilots (often younger) who can only afford crappy gliders or who's
dads don't have a D2 for them to fly should have to buy $100k new
ships to compete on an even palying field in the only handicapped
class the US offers pilots?

The concept of the US Sports Natioanls has outlived its usefullness -
other than to offer pilots more options of flying a nationals each
year. If I own a new ASW-15 meter ship, my nationals should be the 15
meter class. If I own a Schempp-Std Class glider my nationals should
be Stds Nationals. If I own a whatever-Open Class ship, I might be
clamoring for a handicapped Open Class to attract more ships to that
nationals since Sports Class does not cater to me at all. etc. But if
I own a Libelle, or Elfe, or whatever older ship, I am S.O.L. for my
own Nationals.

The current Sports Class Nationals has become a joke for entry level
racing here in the US - unless you can afford to buy a brand new ship
and start racing it as a newbie, OR you can find a glider that has not
been raced in the last 20-30 years and has an overly generous handicap
so you can try and "work" the current system. Otherwise, you need to
depend on a lot of luck fromt he weather gods and superior pilot
skills to have any hope of winning.

Instead Sports Class has become just another "option" for pilots of
the latest and best ships. Many pilots I am sure say: "Well, I own an
ASW-50, my nationals is in XXX. I don't like XXX, but Sports Nationals
is in a place I do like... I might as well just fly Sports Nats and
maybe even pick up a high nationals placing since the tasking is,
after all, more and more set up for ships like mine because that is
(mostly) who goes to it anymore."

Keep the Sports Class at the regional level - its fun to race agaisnt
others outside of your class and to learn in, BUT give US pilots their
own Club Class Nationals like everyone else in the world has!

Let the World Class, as a separate nationals, die quietly and maybe
set up an A and B Club Class Nationals system and give the US soaring
population a Club Class Nationals to fill the entry level/affordable/
very competitive contest niche.

Tim McAllister EY

On Oct 4, 11:44 am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> What killed the World Class was the World Class.
> When the PW5 was awarded the World Class against a lot of opposition to the
> design the proponents of the PW5 sat back fielding criticism and smugly
> snubbed the others even after it was well apparent that few were going to
> get on their band wagon.
> Others that contended for the bid to be the world class glider and their
> followers were shut out and left with no place to compete. There were other
> good design entrants (most thought better than the committee picked PW5) and
> rumors of unfair politics deciding on the PW5 clouded the class.
> How the PW5 was picked over the other designs remains a topic of some
> controversy but it was and it failed to gather the interest of the masses
> (it really is homely) but there were however many other gliders that were in
> contention for the title sold that already meet much the original design
> criteria. If these models were all lumped together with the existing PW5
> gliders the potential is there for a successful competition class to yet
> emerge.... Call it World Class or whatever you like but stick with the
> gliders already produced and there is no need to go through the process
> another time only to end up with the same dismal results.
> There is no need to start including Grob Astirs, Cirrus, LS4 and the likes
> of these since they already fit nicely into the Club Class (The USA needs
> also to finally adopt the rest of the worlds "Club Class" and "Racing Class"
> rather than continuing to disguise Ventus 2's and ASW27's and the likes as
> "Sports class" gliders)and there is no reason to start looking for a new
> alternative "World Class" design... Simply include the L-33's, SZD solo,
> Russia in with the PW5's and let them fight it out in a fair and balanced
> contest.....choose your weapon and go into battle..... low cost, lower
> performance racing.....easy enough.
> tim
>

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> you guys are funny!
>
>> For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
>> performance is just frustrating when trying XC.
>
> i have no experience flying cross country in anything 35:1 or higher,
> but it seems to me like it may be kind of boring, i mean you are way
> up in the air all the time, never get close to the ground until youve
> made the goal, wheres the excitement??

Some people just enjoy the heck out flying the glider and looking at the
scenery; others are excited very easily. Ocasionally, I'm in the former
case.

snip

>> they did not seem to be having much fun, because they
>> landed out all the damn time.
>
> now im afraid to move up to high performance soaring, if landing out
> isnt fun, of course as long as nothing gets broken, then what is fun?

Landing means the flight is over. If it happens when there is still a
bunch of soaring left, it's a big disappointment.

> ive had nearly as much fun on some of my retrieves as some of my
> flights.

Ditto, but after many years of doing it, a lot of the thrill is gone. I
get a lot more soaring now that I don't have to land out, and my wife
thinks our latest glider is worth every penny it cost every time it
avoids a land out!

when the
> entire field is running the same glider in the same weather over the
> same course the only way you win is by being the best pilot and isnt
> that what we are trying to figure out anyway?

THere are many personal reasons for flying a contest, not just that one.
I think one reason the World Class did not become popular is a lot
pilots really don't care if the other pilot is flying a different
glider, as long as the performance (actual or handicapped) is "close
enough". The Club Class and Sports Class popularity appears to support
this view.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Dan G]

On Oct 6, 3:12 am, Vsoars > wrote:
> A World Class glider should have the performance to do 300K flights in
> coastal areas where the lift usually starts at 2,500 AGL by noon and
> rises to 4-5,000' later in the day. It should do 500K flights with
> higher ceilings and/or ridge lift. It should win some Sports Class
> regional contests, even over roughed terrain and weak conditions.
>
> In other words, it should be a PW 5.

You've just described Club Class performance. Why pay three times as
much for a PW5 when you can do the same flights with a Cirrus, Libelle
or Astir? That is, of course, what everyone asked themselves when the
PW5 finally became available (years late iirc), and why it failed.


Dan

[Ian]

On 4 Oct, 18:10, Andreas Maurer > wrote:

> Depends on the definition of a "long task". The PW-5 offers the same
> performance as an ancient Ka-6E - but today's pilots standards are way
> higher.

Er-hem. An awful lot of us are still very happy, and having a lot of
sun, flying things with the performance of a Ka-6E. We just don't see
the need to spend £15,000 getting that performance ...

I wonder how things would have turned out if the Discus had been made
the World Class glider?

Ian

[Ian]

On 5 Oct, 05:40, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> Smaller span is one way to reduce cost. No designer has problem making a
> 15 meter glider handle easily. How many trainers have a small span?

Alliance (or SF) 34.

Ian

[Dan G]

On Oct 6, 4:10 am, Tim > wrote:
> Yes, some rules makers have said to me : "well look at the Club Class
> in Europe, with all of its highly modified Cirruses, etc., that will
> just mean pilots will take $20K Cirruses and trick them out for $40K ,
> and then where is the affordability?"

Really nobody "tricks out" their gliders. Everybody seals their
glider properly but that doesn't cost much. If you add winglets (~
$2,000) or wing-root fillets (which probably don't work unless you've
done wind tunnel time) you get extra handicap, so it doesn't make any
difference, and so pilots don't bother.

Certainly nobody is spending tens of thousands of dollars, not even
close.


Dan

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:27:34 -0700, Ian >
wrote:


>Er-hem. An awful lot of us are still very happy, and having a lot of
>sun, flying things with the performance of a Ka-6E. We just don't see
>the need to spend £15,000 getting that performance ...

Well.... let me say it that way: No student pilot in my club would
volunteer to fly a glider with less performance than out DG-300s... ;)

>I wonder how things would have turned out if the Discus had been made
>the World Class glider?

It would have been a success. Definitely.



Bye
Andreas

[Ian]

On 6 Oct, 11:50, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:27:34 -0700, Ian >
> wrote:
>
> >Er-hem. An awful lot of us are still very happy, and having a lot of
> >sun, flying things with the performance of a Ka-6E. We just don't see
> >the need to spend £15,000 getting that performance ...
>
> Well.... let me say it that way: No student pilot in my club would
> volunteer to fly a glider with less performance than out DG-300s... ;)

It used to be like that at Sutton Bank. People would queue all day for
an hour in a DG-300 ... leaving the Ka-8 free for me to fly whenever I
wanted, for as long as I wanted. I wonder how much of that sort of
attitude is desire or need for performance, and how much is sheer
snobbery?

> >I wonder how things would have turned out if the Discus had been made
> >the World Class glider?
>
> It would have been a success. Definitely.

There was a condition, wasn't there, that the plans had to be
available to multiple manufacturers? I suppose that would have put S-H
off a bit. But then, how many manufacturers ever made PW-5's?

Ian

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:11:12 -0700, Ian >
wrote:

>It used to be like that at Sutton Bank. People would queue all day for
>an hour in a DG-300 ... leaving the Ka-8 free for me to fly whenever I
>wanted, for as long as I wanted. I wonder how much of that sort of
>attitude is desire or need for performance, and how much is sheer
>snobbery?

Our Ka-8 is still used extensively, since the students need to fly 40
hrs (total) till they are allowed to fly the 300.

>There was a condition, wasn't there, that the plans had to be
>available to multiple manufacturers? I suppose that would have put S-H
>off a bit. But then, how many manufacturers ever made PW-5's?

Did anyone ever ask SH or LS to publish the blueprints of their
out-of-production Discus and LS-4? :)


Bye
Andreas

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Ian wrote:
> There was a condition, wasn't there, that the plans had to be
> available to multiple manufacturers? I suppose that would have put S-H
> off a bit. But then, how many manufacturers ever made PW-5's?

Two, actually, PZL Swidnik and PZL Bielsko which, despite the similarity
in names, are competing companies. There is also a third set of molds
from which one glider was built, the builder was killed in an off-field
landing accident...

Marc

[Roger Hurley]

Plenty of interesting stuff in this lengthening thread.
Assuming (big assume I know) that the concept of one-design
racing, at the lower end of the performance range,
could be a good idea, could work like dinghy racing
classes, and could attract 'new' people to sporting
gliding, can we arrive at some king of concensus about
the spec. No, don't just say why not the LS4 or the
S-H D(a) because there are almost certainly liability
issues that would preclude an open and widespread re-start
manufacture of those, and they are anyway 'old-technology'
now. Consider also that the 'one-type' could be a
homebuild (a kit) and in the microlight class (see
Euro rules for this), or generally de-regulated or
lightly regulated. The comments about how to minimise
cost are correct for sure, so we are looking at a 'small'
glider, and a simple one, so that it can become numerous
rapidly, both as a multi-manufacturer ready-to-fly,
and as a kit. That's not to say it cannot be sexy
or, in the eyes of the oh so conservative existing
glider pilot community, just look cool - whatever that
is!

Generally, it seems that L/D around 38 would be enough
- that would be better than an old Std Cirrus, not
quite as good as a Discus A, but close to the LS4.
Can we agree on that?

And the cost? What would folks be prepared to pay
for this one-class 'new' glider - ready-to-fly bare
hull? Or as a kit?

Club Class, or Sport Class is fine, but the great leveller
is everybody in exactly the same type, and flying at
the same weight. One of the reasons the idea of one-design
got rubbished was that some of the pilots could not
hack it at that level (of performance) and just blamed
the tool.

So, be constructive, iron out the spec, and maybe there
will be interest in designing the glider, and in producing
it quickly enough, in enough places, and in sufficient
quantity to make the one-design concept fly again.
Who knows, maybe more than one one-design will emerge
- just like dinghy racing. And that would be cool.

Roger H




At 16:36 06 October 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Ian wrote:
>> There was a condition, wasn't there, that the plans
>>had to be
>> available to multiple manufacturers? I suppose that
>>would have put S-H
>> off a bit. But then, how many manufacturers ever made
>>PW-5's?
>
>Two, actually, PZL Swidnik and PZL Bielsko which, despite
>the similarity
>in names, are competing companies. There is also a
>third set of molds
>from which one glider was built, the builder was killed
>in an off-field
>landing accident...
>
>Marc
>

[Roger Hurley]

Plenty of interesting stuff in this lengthening thread.
Assuming (big assume I know) that the concept of one-design
racing, at the lower end of the performance range,
could be a good idea, could work like dinghy racing
classes, and could attract 'new' people to sporting
gliding, can we arrive at some king of concensus about
the spec. No, don't just say why not the LS4 or the
S-H D(a) because there are almost certainly liability
issues that would preclude an open and widespread re-start
manufacture of those, and they are anyway 'old-technology'
now. Consider also that the 'one-type' could be a
homebuild (a kit) and in the microlight class (see
Euro rules for this), or generally de-regulated or
lightly regulated. The comments about how to minimise
cost are correct for sure, so we are looking at a 'small'
glider, and a simple one, so that it can become numerous
rapidly, both as a multi-manufacturer ready-to-fly,
and as a kit. That's not to say it cannot be sexy
or, in the eyes of the oh so conservative existing
glider pilot community, just look cool - whatever that
is!

Generally, it seems that L/D around 38 would be enough
- that would be better than an old Std Cirrus, not
quite as good as a Discus A, but close to the LS4.
Can we agree on that?

And the cost? What would folks be prepared to pay
for this one-class 'new' glider - ready-to-fly bare
hull? Or as a kit?

Club Class, or Sport Class is fine, but the great leveller
is everybody in exactly the same type, and flying at
the same weight. One of the reasons the idea of one-design
got rubbished was that some of the pilots could not
hack it at that level (of performance) and just blamed
the tool.

So, be constructive, iron out the spec, and maybe there
will be interest in designing the glider, and in producing
it quickly enough, in enough places, and in sufficient
quantity to make the one-design concept fly again.
Who knows, maybe more than one one-design will emerge
- just like dinghy racing. And that would be cool.

Roger H




At 16:36 06 October 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Ian wrote:
>> There was a condition, wasn't there, that the plans
>>had to be
>> available to multiple manufacturers? I suppose that
>>would have put S-H
>> off a bit. But then, how many manufacturers ever made
>>PW-5's?
>
>Two, actually, PZL Swidnik and PZL Bielsko which, despite
>the similarity
>in names, are competing companies. There is also a
>third set of molds
>from which one glider was built, the builder was killed
>in an off-field
>landing accident...
>
>Marc
>

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Andreas Maurer wrote:
> Did anyone ever ask SH or LS to publish the blueprints of their
> out-of-production Discus and LS-4? :)

RS no longer exists, so the LS4 molds are again being used to produce
gliders. Given the actual difference in performance, do you really
imagine that SH would be willing to risk potential market share to
another company selling "World Class" Discus clones at 50% (or even 75%)
of the cost of a Discus 2?

Marc

[J a c k[_2_]]

Andreas Maurer wrote:


> Well.... let me say it that way: No student pilot in my club would
> volunteer to fly a glider with less performance than out DG-300s... ;)



You say that like it's a good thing.


Jack

[Papa3]

On Oct 4, 1:07 pm, toad > wrote:

>
> People keep comparing to sailboat one design racing, but there is a
> big difference between sailing a Sunfish in weak conditions and flying
> a PW5 in weak conditions, the PW5 lands out and the Sunfish does NOT
> sink. Avoiding landing out in weak conditions is why a minimum of
> performance is needed.
>
> The only way I can support the "World class" is to buy one myself or
> with a club. But before I did this, the glider has to have enough
> performance that I would have fun. So I express what I think should
> be changed to allow this to happen. This doesn't mean that I am
> threatened, but I feel the concept has not been well executed.
>
> Todd Smith
> Grob 102
> 3S- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Another issue I see in the comparison between sailboat racing and
gliding is cost. We're talking about vastly different price points.

Here's the problem. For the same price as a PW-5, I can buy an
LS-3. This cost is somewhere just north of $25K, with an LS-3 maybe
a shade lower than the PW-5. I don't think anyone would argue
that the LS-3 has significantly better performance, not just at Max L/
D but more importantly at 60kts and above. At 70kts, in fact, the
LS-3 has more or less double the L/D of the PW-5. In gliding,
that's a BIG difference.

We can look at single-handed dinghy sailboats as a comparison. We're
looking at a used Laser at anywhere from maybe $1000 for a ratty one
with a lot of time on it to maybe $4,000 for a newer one in cherry
condition. At the same time, a ratty Sunfish can be had for
probably $300 while a cherry might fetch $1000. To make a fair
comparison, let's assume both boats in similar age and condition; say
10 years old and solid mechanical shape with hull scratches and
cosmetically poor deck. We'll put the Sunfish at $500 and the Laser
at $1500. There's no doubt that the Laser is a "better" boat for
reasonably accomplished sailors. It's harder to sail (almost killed
myself in one once) than the Sunfish but it handles better and can go
a bit faster, and the price seems to reflect that. However, even
though it's better, as Todd noted you can still sail on the same
course with the Sunfish and finish 10 times out of 10.

Let's say that Sunfish was the only recognized one design class in
dinghy sailing. I could buy one for $500 and race in Sunfish
regattas to my heart's content. I might also buy a Laser for fun.
The combined cost is less than a used Cobra trailer.

Cutting to the point, the economics don't favor the PW-5. If the
PW-5 was maybe $10K, it might have been a big seller. But, at $25K
plus it's not in the running, especially with Club Class offering very
competitive racing for even less money.

P3

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:47:24 -0500, J a c k >
wrote:

>You say that like it's a good thing.

It is.
By the way:
No member in my club pays more than 600$ per year for gliding, all
costs included.
Lots of you people, too.


Bye
Andreas

[Andreas Maurer[_1_]]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:47:24 -0500, J a c k >
wrote:

>You say that like it's a good thing.

It is.
By the way:
No member in my club pays more than 600$ per year for gliding, all
costs included.
Lots of young people, too.

Bye
Andreas



Edit: spelling
Bye
Andreas

[Eric Greenwell]

Roger Hurley wrote:

> So, be constructive, iron out the spec, and maybe there
> will be interest in designing the glider, and in producing
> it quickly enough, in enough places, and in sufficient
> quantity to make the one-design concept fly again.
> Who knows, maybe more than one one-design will emerge
> - just like dinghy racing. And that would be cool.

Do people buy a dinghy just to go sailing most of the time, and race
only once or twice a year? Or are they bought primarily for racing? If
it's the later, we may not learn anything by comparing one design racers
in gliders and sailboats, because most people don't/won't buy a glider
for just racing.

If people are buying gliders mostly for non-contest flying, a new,
"low-cost", one design racer will never be able to compete in value with
the used market. It will either be "priced right" but have lower
performance, or "perform right" and cost a lot more. I think the flaw in
the one-design concept is thinking a lot pilots like the concept enough
to actually make any sacrifice in cost or performance to get one.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Tony Verhulst]

> Generally, it seems that L/D around 38 would be enough
> - that would be better than an old Std Cirrus, not
> quite as good as a Discus A, but close to the LS4.
> Can we agree on that?


No. As Papa3 pointed out in another post *best* glide is pretty
meaningless. It's the L/D at 70 or 80 knots that counts. That's why you
pay $40,000 for a used 40/1 glider when another 40/1 glider, in similar
condition, sells for $26,000.

Tony V.

[Doug Hoffman]

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Do people buy a dinghy just to go sailing most of the time,
> and race
> only once or twice a year? Or are they bought primarily for
> racing? If
> it's the later, we may not learn anything by comparing one
> design racers
> in gliders and sailboats, because most people don't/won't buy
> a glider
> for just racing.

Speaking as one who raced/sailed one design small sailboats for
several
decades (Lightnings, Flying Juniors, two classes of scows), I
can tell you it is 95% racing. This my own experience and from
observing others.

> If people are buying gliders mostly for non-contest flying, a
> new,
> "low-cost", one design racer will never be able to compete in
> value with
> the used market. It will either be "priced right" but have
> lower
> performance, or "perform right" and cost a lot more. I think
> the flaw in
> the one-design concept is thinking a lot pilots like the
> concept enough
> to actually make any sacrifice in cost or performance to get
> one.

Excellent point. The sailboat analogy breaks down.

Regards,
Doug


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ian]

On 6 Oct, 23:44, Eric Greenwell > wrote:

> Do people buy a dinghy just to go sailing most of the time, and race
> only once or twice a year? Or are they bought primarily for racing? If
> it's the later, we may not learn anything by comparing one design racers
> in gliders and sailboats, because most people don't/won't buy a glider
> for just racing.

My perception of the dinghy racing folk (I'm strictly a cruising
sailor) is that it's almost all racing - not least because there are
generally races every weekend throughout the season. It's probably
also important that most sailing clubs concentrate on a particular
class (or two). To get the equivalent in gliding would require a club
to have ten or twenty PW-5's on the club/PO fleet, with competitions
every Saturday and Sunday throughout the local soaring season.

> I think the flaw in
> the one-design concept is thinking a lot pilots like the concept enough
> to actually make any sacrifice in cost or performance to get one.

The good thing about the World Class competition was in stimulating
interest in smaller, less complicated gliders once again. The bad
thing was thinking that top-notch competition pilots would want to
give up their Venti / Nimbi / ASWs /ASHs to fly them. I don't expect
there would be any difficulty in getting entrants for a World Class
competition if some nice sponsor provided a fleet of identical Discus
2's ...

Ian

[Cats]

On Oct 6, 11:44 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Roger Hurley wrote:
> > So, be constructive, iron out the spec, and maybe there
> > will be interest in designing the glider, and in producing
> > it quickly enough, in enough places, and in sufficient
> > quantity to make the one-design concept fly again.
> > Who knows, maybe more than one one-design will emerge
> > - just like dinghy racing. And that would be cool.
>
> Do people buy a dinghy just to go sailing most of the time, and race
> only once or twice a year? Or are they bought primarily for racing? If
> it's the later, we may not learn anything by comparing one design racers
> in gliders and sailboats, because most people don't/won't buy a glider
> for just racing.

It varies. There is no single pattern in dinghy sailing. I brought
mine to go dinghy racing - it's the only way to make sailing on a tiny
puddle interesting. However a friend who races the same class also
has another different one-design dinghy he uses to potter around with
his son. He & I race Lightning 368, I think his pottering boat is a
Heron.

Dinghy sailing has gone through a sea-change in the past 30 years.
Firstly GRP boats became a practical proposition, and good designs
intended to be built in GRP came along. Secondly, in the UK racing
world there has been a big move away from the more complicated 2-man
boats to simple 1-man boats, like the Laser. There are lots of
reasons, include that developing an effective 2-man racing team takes
a lot of time & effort, that 2-man boats are more expensive to buy &
keep (maintenance, insurance), and that both members of the team need
pretty much equal amounts of time & money to dedicate to their sport.

[Cats]

On Oct 7, 1:37 am, Papa3 > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 3:29 pm, (Doug Hoffman) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > > Do people buy a dinghy just to go sailing most of the time,
> > > and race
> > > only once or twice a year? Or are they bought primarily for
> > > racing? If
> > > it's the later, we may not learn anything by comparing one
> > > design racers
> > > in gliders and sailboats, because most people don't/won't buy
> > > a glider
> > > for just racing.
>
> > Speaking as one who raced/sailed one design small sailboats for
> > several
> > decades (Lightnings, Flying Juniors, two classes of scows), I
> > can tell you it is 95% racing. This my own experience and from
> > observing others.
>
> > > If people are buying gliders mostly for non-contest flying, a
> > > new,
> > > "low-cost", one design racer will never be able to compete in
> > > value with
> > > the used market. It will either be "priced right" but have
> > > lower
> > > performance, or "perform right" and cost a lot more. I think
> > > the flaw in
> > > the one-design concept is thinking a lot pilots like the
> > > concept enough
> > > to actually make any sacrifice in cost or performance to get
> > > one.
>
> > Excellent point. The sailboat analogy breaks down.
>
> > Regards,
> > Doug
>
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> If you look at something like the Lightning (I crewed on one for two
> seasons) it was actually designed to be a reasonably pleasant day
> sailer that also raced (or, a good racer that also was capable of
> being a family day sailer). Again, though, the issue is price.
> If I could get a second generation 30 foot Pearson for the same price
> as a Lightning, how many Lightnings do you think would sell?

Very confusing. In the UK the Lightning is a self-draining 12' single-
hander with an unstayed very flexible mast and loose-footed sail!
Spending 5 consecutive hours in one is a similar hell to a 5-hour
glider flight except that 'comfort' arrangements are easier - unless
it's winter and one is wearing a dry suit...

[Dan G]

On Oct 6, 6:26 pm, Roger Hurley
> wrote:
> Plenty of interesting stuff in this lengthening thread.
> Assuming (big assume I know) that the concept of one-design
> racing, at the lower end of the performance range,
> could be a good idea, could work like dinghy racing
> classes, and could attract 'new' people to sporting
> gliding, can we arrive at some king of concensus about
> the spec. No, don't just say why not the LS4 or the
> S-H D(a) because there are almost certainly liability
> issues that would preclude an open and widespread re-start
> manufacture of those, and they are anyway 'old-technology'
> now.

The LS4 is being built by AMS Flight and the Discus is still in
production and available through SH (as the CS model, built in the
Czech Rebublic). The Discus is only just outclassed by newer designs,
and only when conditions are strong. Either should have been the one-
design, being competitive and easy to fly, especially so compared to
first-gen GRP gliders. Heck, so there's so many of both flying today
it would be easy to create a one-design class for either now.

However all that's beside the point. There no demand for a one-design
class. If you want cheap competition, you enter the Club Class and fly
against some of the best pilots around (including some _very_ talented
youngsters who have been flying since they could reach the controls)
with minimal cost. The class is accurately handicapped and nobody ever
complains that a glider has the wrong handicap - everything is down to
pilot skill. Mind you, getting a place in a Club Class comp can be
tricky - it's very popular.

BTW you can't make a "cheap" glider that could be priced competively
against older second-hand gliders. Gliders are hand-built and that
does not scale - they cannont be "mass produced". Neither is the cost
in the materials - the glass and resin in a 15m glider costs little
more than what's in a 13m one. The production cost is in the highly
skilled labour and time that building a GRP sailplane demands.


Dan

[Jannica Wunge]

We in the old world tried to give gliding a new start
with the one design class but we failed. The reasons
are probably many but at least in my club I think it
was that the PW-5 didn’t look good enough and also
to some extent didn’t perform past the critical 37-39
point. What the world of gliding really lacks to once
more start grooving is a cheap and attractive singleseater
that can be bought by clubs in numbers and that can
be the core in a single design class. If it were possible
to reduce the cost to that of a new family car or there
about it would come into reach of the common man.
I don’t think that such a glider can be built in Europe
because as i see it there are to strong economical
interests to keep thing where they are here. Of reasons
previously mentioned in this thread I also think that
it has the be built with techniques more adopted to
mass production than the now commonly used. I don’t
think that we Europeans will do that in the foreseeable
future. Why don’t you take the lead for a while? America
has the know-how and the guts. Do not wait for us.
You could do it!

Jannica / Sweden

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Cats wrote:
> That would suggest to me also ruling out it being suitable for clubs,
> though the SZD Junior has the fixed wheel but doesn't have a nose
> wheel.
>
If a fixed wheel is specified it would be a very good idea to specify
its minimum size and require the axle to be on the glider's underside,
not internal. The latter would prevent really bad ideas such as a 95%
buried wheel from surfacing again.

>> I think that the design point to aim for is a glider that a newly
>> licensed pilot, who has done some XC in a club glider and wants a
>> glider to fly, would find roughly comparable to a Grob 102, Std
>> Cirrus, LS4.
>
Agreed. The sort of thing a new Silver pilot would be happy in. Easy to
fly, possibly with retractable gear and probably without water ballast.

> Mention of a Grob reminds me that being easy to rig is a very useful
> attribute as well. What I mean is that it doesn't require people with
> the size & strength of a gorilla - it should be a reasonably easy rig
> for two average women, without any fancy rigging aids.
>
That sounds like an updated Standard Libelle H.201B to me. Easy to fly,
good all-round vis and light to rig. I'm certain the airframe could be
brought up to modern standards without any weight increase and only
minor design changes would be needed to match contemporary expectations:

- revised brakes for those who don't like slipped approaches
- hinged canopy
- self-connecting ailerons to make the controls fully self-connecting.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Marc Ramsey]

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> That sounds like an updated Standard Libelle H.201B to me. Easy to fly,
> good all-round vis and light to rig. I'm certain the airframe could be
> brought up to modern standards without any weight increase and only
> minor design changes would be needed to match contemporary expectations:
>
> - revised brakes for those who don't like slipped approaches
> - hinged canopy
> - self-connecting ailerons to make the controls fully self-connecting.

And, of course:

- Larger cockpit allowing most pilots to actually move their extremities
once inside.

Marc

[Adam Woolley]

Why doesn't one brave country step up to the plate
and organise a one off 'one design' competition. If
it works, keep it up!

ie, there'd have to be a very healthy amount of Cirrus's
in the UK, or LS1's in Germany, maybe Discus's in the
States..?

Obviously many people and their dog have winglets these
days, just hit them a 1% handicap penalty or have them
put their old wingtip stubs on for the comp..

Keen on your thoughts..

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> That sounds like an updated Standard Libelle H.201B to me. Easy to
>> fly, good all-round vis and light to rig. I'm certain the airframe
>> could be brought up to modern standards without any weight increase
>> and only minor design changes would be needed to match contemporary
>> expectations:
>>
>> - revised brakes for those who don't like slipped approaches
>> - hinged canopy
>> - self-connecting ailerons to make the controls fully self-connecting.
>
> And, of course:
>
> - Larger cockpit allowing most pilots to actually move their extremities
> once inside.
>
I forgot that, probably because the cockpit suits me well, though I must
admit I feel I'm putting it on rather than climbing in.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Brad[_2_]]

I work in a machine shop with 3 multi-axis CNC machines. We have a
HAAS multi-axis mill, a HAAS lathe and a Precix bed router. We have
full capability to cut molds, parts and design and develop tooling for
a sailplane. We are under contract right now to develop a UAV, and
have made several molds and are making carbon parts right now for the
UAV.

I also am working on a sailplane design that probably would appeal as
a world class sailplane. It is a 15m ship, and is quite nice looking.
We plan on using the Graphlite rods for the spar caps and would like
to use carbon as much as possible throgu out the airframe. The price
has come down and the availability has gotten better.

We also have total control of the design and manufacturing process via
a complete suite of CAD/CAM design and machining software. Solidworks
and Siemens.

Now...................can it be built?

Let the flames begin!

Brad



On Oct 3, 4:12 pm, wrote:
> On Oct 3, 5:10 pm, toad > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 3:52 pm, wrote:
>
> > > Soon we will see a very good 13m glider ....for $120,000.-only.
> > > And the happy owner will be a World Class Champion.
> > > Was that an original idea behind the World Class?
>
> > Richard,
>
> > The original idea behind the World Class has been a failure. That much
> > is obvious (to me) and should be acknowledged. We need to try a new
> > and different idea. I can see opening the PW5 only contests to
> > similar designs to increase the number of gliders. More gliders would
> > mean a better competition.
>
> > I personally would propose the following criteria:
>
> > a) Fairly strict 1 design.
> > b) Decent performance for the cheapest cost.
>
> > For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
> > performance is just frustrating when trying XC.
>
> > I would not "dumb down" the design to accommodate early solo pilots,
> > but aim for entry level comp pilots.
>
> > Todd Smith
> > Grob 102 "3S"
>
> Todd,
> OK, some of the aspects of original idea had to be a failure and the
> whole undertaking simply didn't work.
> But, can you tell which specs were wrong?
>
> * substantially lower costs than then-current new gliders
> * easy & safe handling in the air and on the ground
> * a single design, stabilized for a period of years
> * performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
> * simple construction
> * suitable for clubs, private owners & early solo pilots.
>
> What would be your new World Class glider ?
> Try to stay below $ 60,000.-please.
> Richard/ PW-5/N153PW- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dan G]

On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, Brad > wrote:
> We also have total control of the design and manufacturing process via
> a complete suite of CAD/CAM design and machining software. Solidworks
> and Siemens.
>
> Now...................can it be built?

>From your post I understand that you can design and build the molds,
but who would actually do the lay up? I understand that's the hard
part...


Dan

[Brad[_2_]]

We can machine out molds, or machine out plugs and then make molds
from them. We've done both and have made parts using either method.
Also have made plugs using the old school method of foam and
fiberglasss over a form, and then make a mold off of that. It is
totally do-able, but there is never any substitute for hard work.

Same can be said for laying up the airframe skins. It takes a crew
anywhere from 3 to 6 eople and you just work till it's done.

We are starting to use vacuum infusion on our UAV parts. That is new
for us, but it sure keeps the mess and smell down and also means less
manpower during layups. You are not really doing a layup with VIP, you
are more setting up the laminates and preparing the infusion system.
It remains to be seen if VIP will work with wing skins, typically VIP
cores are scored to allow resin flow, but glider wings use foam core
that might not tolerate being scored. I have more investigation.

Cheers,
Brad





On Oct 11, 1:42 am, Dan G > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, Brad > wrote:
>
> > We also have total control of the design and manufacturing process via
> > a complete suite of CAD/CAM design and machining software. Solidworks
> > and Siemens.
>
> > Now...................can it be built?
> >From your post I understand that you can design and build the molds,
>
> but who would actually do the lay up? I understand that's the hard
> part...
>
> Dan