Some gliders safer than others?

Are some glider designs much safer than others? Or do certain designs put their pilots at risk for certain types of injuries during a crash?

Looking at the Libelle with the bubble canopy it makes me wonder if the glider flipped on you during a bad landing or crash if the pilot would suffer head/ neck injuries?

The dg website Has an interesting article on reinforcing the sides of the cockpit:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/index.p...oes-not-sell-e

Is there a source for information on this?

Modern Schleicher gliders (since mid 90's)have a crash cockpit
and a great landing gear strut to take the hit instead of
the pilots back. These are standard in all Schleichers.

I think they are the only one with the crash cockpit design.

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:45:03 AM UTC-4, joesimmers wrote:
I think [Schleichers] are the only one with the crash cockpit design.

Wrong. Many modern gliders have reinforced cockpits
and many have energy-absorbing gear. Lange also adds
a crush zone in nose:
http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/en...0e/safety.html

RAS - Rampant Aviation Speculation....

Just to expand a little bit more... all of the major manufacturers have changed their philosophy to a greater or lesser extent around cockpit design over time. I fly an LS8, which is largely based on the later model LS6. If you look at the cockpit of an early LS6, vs the later LS6 and the LS8, you can see significant changes in the construction of the cockpit area and the seat pan in particular. The same applies to Schemp-Hirth (e.g. later Ventus2 vs. original Ventus). So, other things being equal, a later generation of a given class of glider from a given manufacturer probably affords better crash protection than the prior generation (e.g. ASW-24 vs. ASW-19; LS8 vs. LS4; Ventus 2 vs. Ventus). How the various manufacturers stack up when comparing gliders of the same generation (e.g. LS8 vs. ASW28 vs. Discus2) is probably a little harder to quantify without extensive testing. I know some has been done (see the OSTIV link in this thread), and I'm sure the "conventional wisdom" gives the nod to Schleicher. It would be nice to see some more hard data.

P3


On Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:03:47 AM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:45:03 AM UTC-4, joesimmers wrote:

I think [Schleichers] are the only one with the crash cockpit design.



Wrong. Many modern gliders have reinforced cockpits

and many have energy-absorbing gear. Lange also adds

a crush zone in nose:

http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/en...0e/safety.html



RAS - Rampant Aviation Speculation....

In article ,
Papa3 wrote:

Just to expand a little bit more... all of the major manufacturers have
changed their philosophy to a greater or lesser extent around cockpit design
over time. I fly an LS8, which is largely based on the later model LS6.
If you look at the cockpit of an early LS6, vs the later LS6 and the LS8,
you can see significant changes in the construction of the cockpit area and
the seat pan in particular. The same applies to Schemp-Hirth (e.g. later
Ventus2 vs. original Ventus). So, other things being equal, a later
generation of a given class of glider from a given manufacturer probably
affords better crash protection than the prior generation (e.g. ASW-24 vs.
ASW-19; LS8 vs. LS4; Ventus 2 vs. Ventus). How the various manufacturers
stack up when comparing gliders of the same generation (e.g. LS8 vs. ASW28
vs. Discus2) is probably a little harder to quantify without extensive
testing. I know some has been done (see the OSTIV link in this thread),
and I'm sure the "conventional wisdom" gives the nod to Schleicher. It would
be nice to see some more hard data.

P3


I fly an early H-301 Libelle (serial #19). It has a significant safety
feature not seen in many other gliders. The fuselage is so thin that it
allows one see out if the canopy fogs over.

Seriously, Libelles would, in no way, be construed as having a "safety
cockpit", however, there have been relatively few fatalities in
Libelles. I think their slightly wobbly, unstable feel encourages pilots
to pay attention to their flying.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:17:44 AM UTC-4, WB wrote:

I fly an early H-301 Libelle (serial #19). It has a significant safety

feature not seen in many other gliders. The fuselage is so thin that it

allows one see out if the canopy fogs over.



Seriously, Libelles would, in no way, be construed as having a "safety

cockpit", however, there have been relatively few fatalities in

Libelles. I think their slightly wobbly, unstable feel encourages pilots

to pay attention to their flying.



An extra helping of humor, on toasted wry. I'm going to chuckle about that all afternoon.

T8

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:13:10 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
I'm sure the "conventional wisdom" gives the nod to Schleicher.

Say what ? The modern Schleicher cockpits are huge
improvements over earlier designs, however:
- no crush zone in front of your feet to absorb energy and
decelerate the glider before your feet do
- a giant hole is cut in the side beam for air ventilation
output, reducing the buckling strength needed here

Again, please look at:

http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/en...0e/safety.html

Hope that helps,
Best Regards, Dave "YO electric"

PS: Some of you will remember I donated a fuselage for crash
testing some decades back, hoping to help improve cockpit safety...

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:52:38 PM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:13:10 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote: I'm sure the "conventional wisdom" gives the nod to Schleicher. Say what ? The modern Schleicher cockpits are huge improvements over earlier designs, however: - no crush zone in front of your feet to absorb energy and decelerate the glider before your feet do - a giant hole is cut in the side beam for air ventilation output, reducing the buckling strength needed here Again, please look at: http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/en...0e/safety.html Hope that helps, Best Regards, Dave "YO electric" PS: Some of you will remember I donated a fuselage for crash testing some decades back, hoping to help improve cockpit safety...

A review of the lamination schemes for '24, 27, 28 reflects a designed in forward crush area in the nose with progressively stiffer structure once in the pilot protection zone. I have observed closely both a '24 and a'27 that had significant nose damage and niether had any failure in the area where the air vent is located. Waibel pioneered that aspect that others have wisely emulated.
UH

Dave Nadler wrote, On 10/24/2013 2:52 PM:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 10:13:10 AM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
I'm sure the "conventional wisdom" gives the nod to Schleicher.

Say what ? The modern Schleicher cockpits are huge
improvements over earlier designs, however:
- no crush zone in front of your feet to absorb energy and
decelerate the glider before your feet do
- a giant hole is cut in the side beam for air ventilation
output, reducing the buckling strength needed here

The air vent is not in structural ducting. All the buckling strength
needed is in the cockpit rails, which are clearly seen when the canopy
is open. They are straight to improve buckling resistance, and very
strong. Take a look at ASW-24, 26, and all later ones. I don't know
about the ASH-25, as I haven't looked at one closely enough.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:33:31 PM UTC-4, Nicholas L wrote:
Are some glider designs much safer than others? Or do certain designs put their pilots at risk for certain types of injuries during a crash?


To sharpen the question to match your intention, "Are some gliders more survivable in a crash?"

One of my favorite tidbits on this topic is that the much maligned SGS 2-33 has been shown to survive a crash better than most. Part of the reason for that is that a 2-33 will probably be going slower than most when it crashes.

Some gliders are easier to spin than others, and one could argue that those types are more likely to crash when improperly piloted.