Why does PW-5 get no respect?

I wonder what the L/D and penetration would be like
if the PW-5 AND the L-33 had retractable gear?
Would the polar look more like the Pegasus 101?
Anyone have a Pegasus 101 club (fixed gear) polar
we can look at?

Mark


P.S. In a previous post I'd mentioned vibration on
tow at about 80 knots in the PW-5. After reading

www.ssa.org/Johnson/85-1997-04.pdf

it seems this is from the elevator, and "taping up
the relatively large openings on both the
top and bottom surface of the elevator control attach
location, and at the base of the rudder" makes the
elevator vibration problem go away.
Also in the article take a look at
the "wing root air seals," very interesting...
I wonder how many other gliders have these
similar big air holes in the fuse-to-wing.

Arnold Pieper wrote:

Reading all the responses, it's clear that most people are missing the point
and some of the history behind the world class.

For the longest time the FAI/IGC has been trying to make the sport more
popular by making it an olympic sport, like it used to be many decades ago.
There was even a glider at the time called the "Olympia" because of it.

So in the early 90s the issue was taken more seriously. To be an olympic
sport, you have to have a "One design" (like the sailboats used in the
olympics).
There was a requirement that whatever the design was, it had to be
accessible to people from all countries, it had to be possible to even build
your own glider and go compete with it in the olympics.

The PW-5 was the winning design for several of its qualities, and it came
out of the Warsaw University (as opposed to any particular glider
manufacturer).
Sticking to the original idea, it is possible to go ask the Warsaw
University for a full copy of the plans, and go build it yourself.
That's why there are more than one manufacturer, and there may even be more
in the future as the class grows bigger (and I think it will).

For whatever reason, the IGC and the International Olympic Committee didn't
come to an agreement and the World Air Games were than created by the FAI
directly.

So, for a buying decision :
For those of you who are purely interested in performance, a used Nimbus 2,
ASW-17, Lak-12, Jantar 2a are probably the most L/D per dollar.
But they are not competitive in anything except handicapped competition,
which fails to truly compensate other minor differences between different
gliders.

If you want to compete in a Global competition, buy one of the latest and
greatest gliders from any of the FAI classes, running the risk that MAYBE
the glider you decided to buy is outperformed by the latest design from
another manufacturer, and thus, to keep up you have to keep buying new
gliders as they come up.
The latest in the Open class is undoubtedly the ETA (US$1 Million+ ), with
the smaller classes ships going for US$80k+ for the Racing class, US$60k+
for the Standard Class.
Or, for a LOT LESS you can spend 20+ and get a PW-5 and be sure that
everybody will be flying the EXACT SAME EQUIPMENT.

In the World Class, the weight of the pilot HAS to be compensated so that
everyone has the exact same WING LOADING and CG location.

That's it.

It's a ship for those who want to compete for World recognition both in
competition and also in Records (yes, there's a World Class record
category), without spending 3 times the money or many times more.

Just like in Sailing, there's no point in bashing the Lasers, Daysailers,
Tornadoes, etc.
They have their own class, their own competitions, their own world
champions, etc.

If you can afford it, go buy one of the latest Americas's cup yachts and
leave everyone else alone.

AP.


Almost all was good in these ideas from FAi/IGC, except the idea that constraining
the design in what would necessarily produce a lower performance glider was
THE mean to reduce the cost. Even if a reduced span, a non retracting gear and
other features have some influence on the price, these are not the main factors,
which are rather the country of manufacture, the cost of manpower in this country,
the care and time devoted to the construction, the time and complexity of
certifcation process. The last LAK-12 built in Lithuania were sold new to nearly
the same price as the PW5.

A very good posting, I completely share Your point of view.

Regards,


--=20
Janusz Kesik

visit www.leszno.pl - home of the www.css-leszno.it.pl

Reminds me of an old tech joke:
Q - How many layers in the OSI model?
A - 7
Punchline: Wrong, there are 9. 7 + religion and politics

I bought a PW5 pretty early on and flew it for several years, from first XC
to a Regional Contest and then Sports Class Nationals. Last spring I traded
up. A PW5 won the Sports Class Regionals in Hobbs this past summer, making
it difficult to claim that the PW5's not competitive. Folks like Bill Snead
and Pat Tuckey have flown much farther and much faster than I ever did so I
can't say I'd gotten everything out of the ship that it has to offer.

Why did I "move on" from the PW5? The first reason was that there were too
many days that I could stay up as long as I wanted but couldn't go XC
because of the ships' L and penetration characteristics, the local
cloudbase and thermal distribution, and my own skill level and willingness
to land out.

The second reason was that the PW5 didn't reach a critical mass that would
drive a lively contest calendar. I wanted to see that "community" develop
and it hasn't happened.

I guess the third reason was something another poster alluded to, and is
related to my first reason. To fly farther/faster in the PW5 would have
been a process of honing my skills--by definition a long, slow and
excruciatingly incremental process. Trading up allowed longer distance
flights immediately due to higher L and higher speed of best L. It'll
be a while before I'm able to trade up again, so I am now just 'honing a
different blade'. But I get to do that over new territory instead of the
same old patch. ;-)

Brent

"ISoar" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the responses. Ya'll have given me enough to understand
the core of the argument. In software develoment we call these sorts
of discussions "religious arguments" because of the passion involved.

Good air


On 19 Nov 2003 15:42:41 -0800, (ISoar) wrote:

It appears this issue was beaten to death at one time, but I'm
curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the ship gets no
respect.

Thanks

I don't know about the fixed gear Pegasus, though I owned and loved a
101A for several years. The Russia, another entry in the World Class
design competition, comes in two fixed gear variants and with a
retracting main wheel. IIRC the retract brings the best L/D up to about
35 from about 31 for the fixed version.

Al
Now with a Discus B

Mark James Boyd wrote:

I wonder what the L/D and penetration would be like
if the PW-5 AND the L-33 had retractable gear?
Would the polar look more like the Pegasus 101?
Anyone have a Pegasus 101 club (fixed gear) polar
we can look at?

Mark


P.S. In a previous post I'd mentioned vibration on
tow at about 80 knots in the PW-5. After reading

www.ssa.org/Johnson/85-1997-04.pdf

it seems this is from the elevator, and "taping up
the relatively large openings on both the
top and bottom surface of the elevator control attach
location, and at the base of the rudder" makes the
elevator vibration problem go away.
Also in the article take a look at
the "wing root air seals," very interesting...
I wonder how many other gliders have these
similar big air holes in the fuse-to-wing.

On 20 Nov 2003 13:31:02 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

I wonder what the L/D and penetration would be like
if the PW-5 AND the L-33 had retractable gear?
Would the polar look more like the Pegasus 101?
Anyone have a Pegasus 101 club (fixed gear) polar
we can look at?

Performance difference two points of max. L/D.

it seems this is from the elevator, and "taping up
the relatively large openings on both the
top and bottom surface of the elevator control attach
location, and at the base of the rudder" makes the
elevator vibration problem go away.
Also in the article take a look at
the "wing root air seals," very interesting...
I wonder how many other gliders have these
similar big air holes in the fuse-to-wing.

sarcasm on
None that was designed after 1965.
sarcasm off

It's not only the performance that makes the PW-5 hard to sell. As a
Ka-8 replacement the performance does not matter... but it were the
many sub-standard technical solutions on the (early) PW-5 that made me
(and all of my club members) laugh.




Bye
Andreas

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:31:29 -0500, nafod40
wrote:

Coming in from the outside, I thought they should have made a class
based on weight rather than wing span or a fixed choice. Weight is THE
primary factor correlating to costs of airplanes. Cap the weight and you
cap the cost.

Hmm... I fail to see this point. THe current standard and 15m giders
are all a lot lighter than their predecessors... yet a lot more
expensive.

Glider pilots are gear-heads, and restricting them to a single platform
was a non-starter. By fixing an upper bound weight and making it a
records criteria and a weight class, there might have been a cluster of
new gliders at that design point.

Believe me: If the chosen glider had been good (and halfways cheap),
the World Class had become a huge success.
In Europe many, many clubs are looking for a replacement for the old
Ka-8/Ka-6 gliders these days, and they'd be more than willing to pay
for a good replacement glider with up-to-date technical solutions.

The problem is that the PW-5 was never regarded as adequate for clubs
(why take two steps back into the sixties if you get an ASW-19 or
LS-1f for less money?). But they surely would have been wiling to pay
even more money for a, say, simplified LS-4 with fixed gear and no
water ballast that had been built in Poland.





Bye
Andreas

Why are you worried about penetration into wind when its obvious that you
would get lost the moment you got out of sight of the airfield trying to
find your way to Reno CA.

The L33 has a wing section like a size 9 slipper compared to the 101 and as
such the 101 fixed gear or even retractable with the gear down would blow
the doors off the L33.

Al
www.gliderforum.com - Home of the real soaring pilots for real soaring
discussion club.



"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:3fbd3296$1@darkstar...
I wonder what the L/D and penetration would be like
if the PW-5 AND the L-33 had retractable gear?
Would the polar look more like the Pegasus 101?
Anyone have a Pegasus 101 club (fixed gear) polar
we can look at?

Mark


P.S. In a previous post I'd mentioned vibration on
tow at about 80 knots in the PW-5. After reading

www.ssa.org/Johnson/85-1997-04.pdf

it seems this is from the elevator, and "taping up
the relatively large openings on both the
top and bottom surface of the elevator control attach
location, and at the base of the rudder" makes the
elevator vibration problem go away.
Also in the article take a look at
the "wing root air seals," very interesting...
I wonder how many other gliders have these
similar big air holes in the fuse-to-wing.

"Al" wrote in message ...
Why are you worried about penetration into wind when its obvious that you
would get lost the moment you got out of sight of the airfield trying to
find your way to Reno CA.

Hey Al, where the hell is Reno, Ca?
Are you sure YOU can find it?

-Dan

The decision to select the PW5 as the World Class glider
was too early taken and not very wise.

It would have been better to give the designers 6 month
more time and then decide.

I flew the PW5 and the Russia just after the decision had
been made. I could not believe why the PW5 has been taken
because the Russia flew and handled better.

The visibility out of the PW5 is not good, the over all view
in the Russia much better.

If the PW5 was the best decision, then why the pilots are not
rushing to get their hands on it? Because - as several others
have written before - it is just an ugly looking and flying thing.

I am flying an ASW27 and lately I flew a Libelle 304 - hey -
that was fun - easy and good handling - excellent visibility -
looks good - is easy to rig ..... everything what a world class
glider should be like. The PW5 cannot match one of the old
Haehnle design.

PW5? I flew it once - that's enough.
The Libelle 304? I will fly it again as soon as I can.

Chris Hostettler





"ISoar" wrote in message
om...
Newbie here. I ran across a joke that said the market value for a
used PW-5 was based entirely on what the instruments and trailer were
worth. It appears this issue was beaten to death at one time, but I'm
curious for a paragraph or two explanation of why the ship gets no
respect.

Thanks