Is everybody afraid of World Class?

In article , Chris Nicholas
writes

snip

I believe that the emergence of 1:40+ gliders has transformed UK soaring
from a struggle to do long tasks except on the few really good days to a
pattern of lots of days of 300km+ capability.

A lot of pilots (I was
one such until very recently) plug on with wood or low performance
glass, either out of financial necessity or stubbornness/enjoying the
challenge.

Others find the wherewithal to go to better glass and are
more often able to do long flights.

There are also the factors of
spreadout - sometimes the wooden glider simply cannot jump the gaps
between areas with lift; and penetration, when wood/PW5's etc. cannot
complete closed circuit tasks because the into-wind leg is impossible.
(I speak from experience, e.g. 4 outlandings downwind in 5 days flying
in Competition Enterprise this year, because of strong winds all week.
The 6th and last flyable day I did not compete in my Ka6E because of the
wind strength, though a few glass gliders did.)

A breath of common sense and fresh air from Chris!

If I might put it another way: In not very good soaring conditions,
glider performance has its own merit, particularly high L/D. So as to
penetrate from one set of soaring to another, without landing. Is not
soaring without regular land-outs, the very essence of our sport?

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:46:51 +0100, Ian Strachan
wrote:

Is not
soaring without regular land-outs, the very essence of our sport?

Ian, what is the "essence" of any sport will vary for every person
that participates. There is no "One" thing that will apply to
everyone equally. For someone in a higher buck glider, it may be a
sign of total failure, for someone in a 1-26 it may be only the price
he pays for having too much fun and not watching close enough.

OT: Happiness is victory over Aurora health care,

and I AM HAPPY!

Chris-

I like your analysis...and the same can be said for
the western United State...it really helps to have
a ship that can make it across the large gaps, and
that takes penetration. Not a lot of PW5's seen in
these parts...although the 1-26ers make some impressive
flights(and land out a lot)

Ian-
I understand your point, but Reichman would disagree





At 22:06 25 August 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
In article , Chris Nicholas
writes
There are also the factors of
spreadout - sometimes the wooden glider simply cannot
jump the gaps
between areas with lift; and penetration, when wood/PW5's
etc. cannot
complete closed circuit tasks because the into-wind
leg is impossible.
SNIPPED

Is not
soaring without regular land-outs, the very essence
of our sport?

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Bentworth
Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth,
Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire
GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

Exactly. Just a bunch of say 50,000 arrogant European pilots who think that
it's an ugly ship and who rather spend $15,000 on a second hand ship having
much more performance...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Jacek Kobiesa" a écrit dans le message
de om...
I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in Olympic Games, some
other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion that most people
who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class gliders. Why?
What is so difficult in understanding the concept of the glider, the
cost of building it, its performance, etc. Most of you bashing the
concept. Is this because your skill is so limited that you need to
have a bird with max. L/D 10,000 (that is minimum) and a best L/D
speed Mach 1? Anything which doesn't meet this cryteria needs to be
rejected? You are bringing to this equation sailing in Olympic Games
as a comparison? Some of you have never even seen, and most of you
have never flown this glider. So, what is wrong with this picture.
Maybe is time for some of you to take on golfing, for example. I am
realy offended by some of the postings on group. You are not beeing
constructive, you are distructive. To the sport primarly. Do you
suppose that by promoting Discus and Ventus and who know what else you
doing justice to this sport? What about those guys or girls who don't
have $250,000 to waist on a new bird every summer? Is this making them
less qualified or skilled pilots that those of you bashing everything
around and flying supersonic, unlimited L/D gliders? Before anyone of
you decide to bash something without having slightest idea or concept
about what is going on in the small world of gliding, you need to stop
and think about it. We all are saying that numbers of glider pilots
are declining world wide. Do you know why? That is because of buch of
arrogant glider pilots who are acting like the gods; they know
everything, they have been everywhere, they've done it all. Yet when
we go to the world contest results, we don't see those names of the
people who are making this derogatory statements. If you want to help
our sport, think first and then act accordingly. It is only good for
all of the glider pilots worldwide.

Bert Willing wrote:

Exactly. Just a bunch of say 50,000 arrogant European pilots who think that
it's an ugly ship and who rather spend $15,000 on a second hand ship having
much more performance...


Remember a high number of pilots among these 50,000 are not owning nor buying
any glider, but just fly club gliders. And the choice of which glider a club
should buy is another thing. If a glider costs twice the price of a PW5, but
flies twice the number of hours a PW5 would fly because of better performance,
there is no hesitation on the choice. My club owned 2 old gliders (wood, metal
frame and fabric) that were donated, not sold, some years ago because the annual
number of hours they were flown were not worth the simple cost of maintaining them
airworthy.

In article ,
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
Bert Willing wrote:

Exactly. Just a bunch of say 50,000 arrogant European pilots who think that
it's an ugly ship and who rather spend $15,000 on a second hand ship having
much more performance...


Remember a high number of pilots among these 50,000 are not owning nor buying
any glider, but just fly club gliders. And the choice of which glider a club
should buy is another thing. If a glider costs twice the price of a PW5, but
flies twice the number of hours a PW5 would fly because of better performance,
there is no hesitation on the choice. My club owned 2 old gliders (wood, metal
frame and fabric) that were donated, not sold, some years ago because the annual
number of hours they were flown were not worth the simple cost of maintaining them
airworthy.

The flip side is the 1-34 that BASA owns. They have a DG1000,
grob 103, and pegasi, but kept the 1-34 because it's just so dang
cheap to maintain.

And a local power FBO just sold two 152s and a 172 to
buy a brand new 172 because it's less maintenance.

So I think the door swings both ways. Operators may buy or
keep old stuff that is sturdy, and discard old stuff that
breaks a lot.

The L-13 seems to be a good example. Old, and with lots of
parts, but it doesn't need a new gelcoat, so it
makes a good tiedown glider. But an old glider with wood wings?
Man, now you're talkin' el rotto...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA