At 14:49 05 January 2017, krasw wrote:
torstai 5. tammikuuta 2017 16.22.15 UTC+2 ND kirjoitti:
=20
also, you can make a long, skinny fuselage, future "A" style
fuselages
do=
n't have to be short. that can still be narrow though. my
understanding is
=
the the V3 has a narrow, but long fuselage to accommodate tall
pilots as
we=
ll.
=20
-ND

So they say, but no, it does not accomodate tall or wide pilots. The
cockpi=
t size is basically the same on all Schempp A-fuselages since 80's
Ventus
a=
.. I'm 6'4 and I cannot close the canopy, not even close as large
portion
of=
my head is outside cockpit if I wear normal parachute (last tried
V2CXA).
=
Narrowness is not particularly big problem for me. Some tallish
pilots
mana=
ge to cramp inside A-cockpit with special parachute that sits on
the hat
sh=
elf. It looks as enjoyable as travelling inside ski box for 8 hrs.

Waibel solved the compromise between comfort and aerodynamics
with ASW 24
f=
uselage in 80's. It is aerodynamically very close to optimum since
it is
no=
t designed to big take self launcher engine, quite strong and can
take
sust=
ainer engine. And most importantly, it is the most beautiful
fuselage ever
=
created.

Got to wonder SH, two seaters designed to carry two elephants,
single seaters to carry stick insects. FAI should set minimum size
for cockpits or it will only be jockeys wining contests in the future.