ASH 31Mi

On Dec 19, 5:30*pm, John Galloway wrote:
The thing that caught my eye is this sentence:

"Our newly-developed wing structure allows for a wing span of 21m despite
of a wing section as thin as 13%."

Anyone got any information about what is new about the wing structure?
Anything that might make the surfaces have a low susceptibility to
shrinkage and deformity?

John Galloway

Hi John,
the newly-developed structure means mainly some stronger wing
structure to get the MTOW up to 600kg (or maybe more).
The fuselage, tail and wings are mostly the same from the 26. Only wih
slight changes and with new extension tips for the 21m. These
extension tips are exactly from the ASG-29 from the same molds. This
makes it very easy to create this new ship within a few months. I
expect the first 31 should be ready in March or April, 2009.

Dieter

"John Galloway" wrote in message
...
The thing that caught my eye is this sentence:

"Our newly-developed wing structure allows for a wing span of 21m despite
of a wing section as thin as 13%."

Anyone got any information about what is new about the wing structure?
Anything that might make the surfaces have a low susceptibility to
shrinkage and deformity?

John Galloway

John,

My ASH26E is six years old with no sign of wing deformity (spar showing
etc). I understand this was a problem for Schleicher at one point, and some
ordering new ships were insisting that wings be cured twice etc.

I sometimes fly winter wave and have no gel coat cracks to show for it at
all. My glider is most always left assembled and hangared.

bumper
zz
Minden

Dieter Reuter wrote:
On Dec 19, 5:30 pm, John Galloway wrote:
The thing that caught my eye is this sentence:

"Our newly-developed wing structure allows for a wing span of 21m despite
of a wing section as thin as 13%."

Anyone got any information about what is new about the wing structure?
Anything that might make the surfaces have a low susceptibility to
shrinkage and deformity?

John Galloway

Hi John,
the newly-developed structure means mainly some stronger wing
structure to get the MTOW up to 600kg (or maybe more).
The fuselage, tail and wings are mostly the same from the 26. Only wih
slight changes and with new extension tips for the 21m. These
extension tips are exactly from the ASG-29 from the same molds. This
makes it very easy to create this new ship within a few months. I
expect the first 31 should be ready in March or April, 2009.

Dieter

The leading edge of the -26 wing is straight to about 60% of span, where
it transitions to a sweptback to the tip. The transition on the -31
wing is much less distinct, so I don't see how the -26 wing could be
used at that point. So they must be using more than just the -29
extensions.

Interesting news.
Can 31 wings be retrofitted to the 26?
Are the AS-H31 18m panels the AS-G29 15m panels, etc? That would
make sense.
With the inner panels having a 14m span it would be possible to
build 15m tips for the 31 and fly three classes.
It would be faster than the AS-W17 with wooden 15m tips, and that was
a rocket ship in it's time!
Basics of the KS review of the AS-W17/15m was: "Two speeds, thermal
and red line."
Jim

On Dec 20, 3:56 am, Dieter Reuter wrote:

the newly-developed structure means mainly some stronger wing
structure to get the MTOW up to 600kg (or maybe more).
The fuselage, tail and wings are mostly the same from the 26. Only wih
slight changes and with new extension tips for the 21m. These
extension tips are exactly from the ASG-29 from the same molds. This
makes it very easy to create this new ship within a few months. I
expect the first 31 should be ready in March or April, 2009.

Dieter

Greg Arnold wrote:

The leading edge of the -26 wing is straight to about 60% of span, where
it transitions to a sweptback to the tip. The transition on the -31
wing is much less distinct, so I don't see how the -26 wing could be
used at that point. So they must be using more than just the -29
extensions.

By overlaying the 3 view drawings for the 26 and 31, it's clear the 26
wing is swept back more than the 31 wing at the "break" in the leading
edge; i.e., the chord at the parting point is larger for the 31 than the
26. It also appears the chord at the wingtip is slightly less for the
31, but that may be asking too much of the 3 views I have.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Greg Arnold wrote:

The leading edge of the -26 wing is straight to about 60% of span,
where it transitions to a sweptback to the tip. The transition on the
-31 wing is much less distinct, so I don't see how the -26 wing could
be used at that point. So they must be using more than just the -29
extensions.

By overlaying the 3 view drawings for the 26 and 31, it's clear the 26
wing is swept back more than the 31 wing at the "break" in the leading
edge; i.e., the chord at the parting point is larger for the 31 than the
26. It also appears the chord at the wingtip is slightly less for the
31, but that may be asking too much of the 3 views I have.


For the 30, didn't they take the 29 wings, and add extensions to each
root to get to a wingspan of 26.5 meters? My guess is that for the 31
they took the 30 wings, and cut off most of what they had added, leaving
a 1.5 meter root extension on each 29 wing. Sort of like what they have
done for the 18 and 20 meter versions of the Antares:
http://tinyurl.com/9qeydy.

If so, the 31 wing would not use any part of the 26 wing. It seems to me
that this would be less costly than trying to combine the inner section
of the 26 wing with the outer section of the 29 wing.

On Dec 20, 7:32*pm, JS wrote:
* With the inner panels having a 14m span it would be possible to
build 15m tips for the 31 and fly three classes.
It would be faster than the AS-W17 with wooden 15m tips, and that was
a rocket ship in it's time!
Basics of the KS review of the AS-W17/15m was: "Two speeds, thermal
and red line."
Jim

On Dec 20, 3:56 am, Dieter Reuter wrote

Hi Jim,
interesting idea to get a new 15m wing for the 26 or 31. But with such
a high minimum wing load, this makes not really sense for me. The
empty weight of the ASH-31Mi will increase to 400-420kg, some of the
first ASH-26E reaches 390-400kg.
Maybe if a lot of customers ask Schleicher to build 15m tips. I'll try
to ask Martin Heide if this could be a future option, next time when I
pick up my 29 in a few weeks.

Dieter

On Dec 20, 9:47*am, "bumper" wrote:
I understand this was a problem for Schleicher at one point, and some
ordering new ships were insisting that wings be cured twice etc.

What curing is done at Schleicher? I did not think they had or used
an autoclave. I think my 28 was cured in Arizona.

Andy

Bumper,

How often do you fly with water ballast?

I have seen several Schleicher wings in Arizona and New Mexico that
had visible wing spar bumps (when viewed from the right angle),
gliders less than 5 years young.

The flight and maintenance manuals for my ASG29 are emphatic about
completely emptying the wings after flights with water ballast. They
even added additional drain plugs at the wing root rib leading edge,
to ensure complete drainage when trailered, and the manuals go so far
as to suggest removing the wing root gaskets when ballast will not be
used for a while.

So, the factory seems to be firmly convinced that residual moisture is
the shrinkage culprit. I am going to take their word for it, and keep
those wings ventilated on the ground.

2NO

On Dec 22, 7:06*am, Tuno wrote:
Bumper,

How often do you fly with water ballast?

I have seen several Schleicher wings in Arizona and New Mexico that
had visible wing spar bumps (when viewed from the right angle),
gliders less than 5 years young.

The flight and maintenance manuals for my ASG29 are emphatic about
completely emptying the wings after flights with water ballast. They
even added additional drain plugs at the wing root rib leading edge,
to ensure complete drainage when trailered, and the manuals go so far
as to suggest removing the wing root gaskets when ballast will not be
used for a while.

So, the factory seems to be firmly convinced that residual moisture is
the shrinkage culprit. I am going to take their word for it, and keep
those wings ventilated on the ground.

2NO

Ted

As already mentioned, the ASH-26E has water bags not wing tanks.

And because of wing loading, some ASH-26E do not see much water,
especially if they have the optional wing fuel bags. Whether Bumper's
26E has water bags and they are used much, he will need to answer.

Darryl