Thread: Pre-Preg
View Single Post
  #25  
Old December 6th 16, 02:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Daly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 718
Default Pre-Preg

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 7:59:28 PM UTC-5, Casey wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 4:58:14 PM UTC-5, Casey wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 2:23:59 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
For the guys with an engine weight does make a difference. Imagine if the 100 pounds of engine and fuel were offset by construction methods that lowered the empty weight of the glider by even 50-70 pounds. YOu would functionally have the same wing loading range as a pure glider.

Just saying.
On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 4:09:14 PM UTC-8, wrote:
4 Pretty much nobody cares much about weight, except the little gliders. For all the rest we just want to know how much water can we get in it..


Different building methods in same factory brings several issues I could think of.
Cost of buying and storing different materials, cost of process, possible mistakes in manufacturing, return on investment, different flying characteristics. Just throwing this out there.


Maybe this is why GP decided to put the batteries in the wings. Removal for light days without changing CG. All other FES gliders have batteries behind cockpit and have to fly with batteries.


Aren't the light days the ones where you most need the batteries?