WGC Open Design Comparison

With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
statistical variance):

11427 JS-1C (4)
11316 Concordia (1)
11240 EB-29 (2)
11089 Quintus (7)
11069 Antares 23 (1)
10339 Nimbus 4 (2)
9977 EB-28 (4)
8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
7631 ASW-22BL

I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.

The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
by any of them. Just the numbers.

An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
correct if I got anything wrong.

Best Regards,

Gary Osoba

On Monday, August 20, 2012 1:09:57 PM UTC-5, Gary Osoba wrote:
With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating statistical variance): 11427 JS-1C (4) 11316 Concordia (1) 11240 EB-29 (2) 11089 Quintus (7) 11069 Antares 23 (1) 10339 Nimbus 4 (2) 9977 EB-28 (4) 8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew 7631 ASW-22BL I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more, i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's. The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots. The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced by any of them. Just the numbers. An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to correct if I got anything wrong. Best Regards, Gary Osoba

It was an ASW-22BLE that withdrew, only flying 5 days, so the average of the 2 -22's that flew the entire contest was 9336. Although Ron Tabery' -22 isn't really a stock -22, wingspan stretched to 28.5 meters...

On Aug 20, 11:23*am, Tony wrote:
On Monday, August 20, 2012 1:09:57 PM UTC-5, Gary Osoba wrote:
With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating statistical variance): 11427 JS-1C (4) 11316 Concordia (1) 11240 EB-29 (2) 11089 Quintus (7) 11069 Antares 23 (1) 10339 Nimbus 4 (2) 9977 EB-28 (4) 8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew 7631 ASW-22BL I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more, i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's. The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots. The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced by any of them. Just the numbers. An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to correct if I got anything wrong. Best Regards, Gary Osoba

It was an ASW-22BLE that withdrew, only flying 5 days, so the average of the 2 -22's that flew the entire contest was 9336. Although Ron Tabery' -22 isn't really a stock -22, wingspan stretched to 28.5 meters...

Thanks, Tony.

Good point about learning to fly, Gary.
Amazing.
Jim

On Monday, August 20, 2012 11:27:41 AM UTC-7, Gary Osoba wrote:

Pilots in the top two designs above were essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations.

On Aug 20, 1:09*pm, Gary Osoba wrote:
With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
statistical variance):

11427 * JS-1C (4)
11316 * Concordia (1)
11240 * EB-29 (2)
11089 * Quintus (7)
11069 * Antares 23 (1)
10339 * Nimbus 4 (2)
* 9977 * EB-28 (4)
* 8962 * ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
* 7631 * ASW-22BL

I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.

The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
by any of them. Just the numbers.

An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
correct if I got anything wrong.

Best Regards,

Gary Osoba

That 21-23 meter highly ballasted gliders do well in open class under
strong conditions is very interesting.

However, the big -- shocking really -- news I see in reading the WGC
results is pilot technique not hot gliders. Here we're not talking
about 1-2%, we're talking huge margins. The US Uvalde gurus in 15 and
18 ended up quite low on the scoresheet. These guys are just
unbeatatable in US national contests. I speak with authority here!
When I go to Uvalde, I fly my butt off and they always beat me by 2-3
mph when I'm doing well, and much more when, inevitably, I get to the
hill country at 2000'. Sure, there were some clear bad luck days, but
where were the stellar days? The Europeans blew in to town, and flew
the pants off us. So much for the mysterious ways of Uvalde weather.
What are they doing differently? I can't see anything on the traces
except a magic ability to drive at 110 knots, achieve LDs in the 70
and 80 range while doing so, then roll right in to 5-8 knot thermals
without getting low. (Actually, some big names from Europe seemed to
have similar very disappointing performances. So maybe there is a more
general set of lessons learned)

What's the story? There is a 5 - 10 mph discrepancy in pilot
technique, gaggling strategy / start gate technique, bumping strategy
or something. I hope the US team will share some "lessons learned" at
some point. Or maybe those of you who were there have opinions.

John Cochrane

An another view, just for the first place in open class;

Quintus; 2
EB29; 3
JS1 C; 3
Antares; 3
Concirdia; 1

In strong conditions, 23 meters gliders have an avantage,

RC





"The trouble with weather forecasting is that it's right too often for us to
ignore it, and wrong too often for us to rely on it."


"John Cochrane" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
...

On Aug 20, 1:09 pm, Gary Osoba wrote:
With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various
designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number
of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating
statistical variance):

11427 JS-1C (4)
11316 Concordia (1)
11240 EB-29 (2)
11089 Quintus (7)
11069 Antares 23 (1)
10339 Nimbus 4 (2)
9977 EB-28 (4)
8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew
7631 ASW-22BL

I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships
were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with
only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,
i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.
The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very
similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were
essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be
true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have
the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.

The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by
the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an
affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced
by any of them. Just the numbers.

An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to
correct if I got anything wrong.

Best Regards,

Gary Osoba

That 21-23 meter highly ballasted gliders do well in open class under
strong conditions is very interesting.

However, the big -- shocking really -- news I see in reading the WGC
results is pilot technique not hot gliders. Here we're not talking
about 1-2%, we're talking huge margins. The US Uvalde gurus in 15 and
18 ended up quite low on the scoresheet. These guys are just
unbeatatable in US national contests. I speak with authority here!
When I go to Uvalde, I fly my butt off and they always beat me by 2-3
mph when I'm doing well, and much more when, inevitably, I get to the
hill country at 2000'. Sure, there were some clear bad luck days, but
where were the stellar days? The Europeans blew in to town, and flew
the pants off us. So much for the mysterious ways of Uvalde weather.
What are they doing differently? I can't see anything on the traces
except a magic ability to drive at 110 knots, achieve LDs in the 70
and 80 range while doing so, then roll right in to 5-8 knot thermals
without getting low. (Actually, some big names from Europe seemed to
have similar very disappointing performances. So maybe there is a more
general set of lessons learned)

What's the story? There is a 5 - 10 mph discrepancy in pilot
technique, gaggling strategy / start gate technique, bumping strategy
or something. I hope the US team will share some "lessons learned" at
some point. Or maybe those of you who were there have opinions.

John Cochrane

[quote=François Hersen;821806]An another view, just for the first place in open class;

Quintus; 2
EB29; 3
JS1 C; 3
Antares; 3
Concirdia; 1

In strong conditions, 23 meters gliders have an avantage,

RC

snip

The Concordia won 2 days and the EB29 is 25.3m span in its shortest configuration.

As noted elsewhere the JS1's were 21m span

Colin

On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:33:48 PM UTC-5, François Hersen wrote:
An another view, just for the first place in open class;

Quintus; 2
EB29; 3
JS1 C; 3
Antares; 3
Concirdia; 1

In strong conditions, 23 meters gliders have an avantage, RC

Correction and comments. Correction: Concordia won 2 days. Comment: the two slowest winning speeds in Open Class were both days won by the JS1-C. So, maybe we haven't seen the threshold for 21 meters being too little for Open Class?

Also, John C, Open Class used to be the 750 KG Class. Until, I believe, Eta came along. They were barely able to stay under 750KG if they put two people onboard, so the rule was changed to allow some planes to go to 850 KG, but with other requirements (I believe you had to self launch if you were flying at anything over 750 KG). As to "revitalizing", we will see how pilots like being towed at 12 plus psf wing loadings by towplanes that don't like to tow at 90 MPH.

Steve Leonard
ZL Crew at FAI WGC 2012

On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:
With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various

designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number

of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating

statistical variance):



11427 JS-1C (4)

11316 Concordia (1)

11240 EB-29 (2)

11089 Quintus (7)

11069 Antares 23 (1)

10339 Nimbus 4 (2)

9977 EB-28 (4)

8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew

7631 ASW-22BL



I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships

were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with

only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,

i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.

The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very

similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were

essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be

true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have

the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.



The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by

the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an

affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced

by any of them. Just the numbers.



An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to

correct if I got anything wrong.



Best Regards,



Gary Osoba


Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"
stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?
Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?

See ya, Dave

Originally Posted by Dave Nadler

On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:
With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various

designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number

of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating

statistical variance):



11427 JS-1C (4)

11316 Concordia (1)

11240 EB-29 (2)

11089 Quintus (7)

11069 Antares 23 (1)

10339 Nimbus 4 (2)

9977 EB-28 (4)

8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew

7631 ASW-22BL



I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships

were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with

only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,

i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.

The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very

similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were

essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be

true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have

the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.



The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by

the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an

affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced

by any of them. Just the numbers.



An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to

correct if I got anything wrong.



Best Regards,



Gary Osoba


Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"
stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?
Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?

See ya, Dave

Sorry, this is a bit off topic of design...

I am not a competition pilot so my question are out of total ignorance...please forgive. I enjoyed following the 2012 WGC online very much.

The one thing I notice as the days progressed was that it seemed, and totally anecdotal of course, was that pilots from the same country finished very close to each other. Could it be that team flying techniques are more refined outside the U.S.?...thus giving the advantage of having at least two ships, instead of one, finding/utilizing the best lift lines to the benefit of the team. Is that sort of thing common practice in these sorts of contests? Do the U.S. pilots get a chance to develop their team flying skills?

Brad.