"Andy Durbin" wrote in message
om...
(Doug Taylor) wrote in message
. com...
First I should mention that the performance goals were very carefully
considered. One of the primary goals was to have extremely safe low
speed handling qualities. Good cross country performance was also
important. In most places it is uncommon for glider pilots to exceed
80 knots for very long. These high speed excursions have very small
effect on the overall speed of a task. Time spent climbing has a more
pronounced effect on task speed. So good climb was important, as well
as good performance in the "normal" speed range around 60 knots. It
was decided that it would be okay to trade some of the "high" (above
80 knots) speed performance to acheive the low speed handling
qualities. (The DuckHawk has nearly the exact opposite goals although
low speed handling is always important.)

I have flown with quite a few different types of gliders. Most of the
time, everyone was running around at about 60 knots,


Sounds like you are saying it wouldn't do well in SW USA. It's a
pretty poor day in Arizona that doesn't see ballasted standard class
ships running above 80kts and 95kt inter-thermal speeds are common.

Andy

Andy's right. Damn, Doug, I carry more ballast than your gross weight.

My 500Km XC last week averaged 105 Kts interthermal cruise with 24%
thermalling, M=2Kts on the glide computer and 500 pounds of water in the
wings. I can dump that ballast and continue at 6 pounds wing loading.

Big wings rule. Good performance from little wings is an illusion.

Bill Daniels
Nimbus 2C (III)