US Dollar sinks to new low against Euro

Mike Hessington wrote:
(but nothing touches an LS4 for handling)

Hmmm, Discus2?

/Jancsika

Well our intrepid billionaire is going to try and solo
it around the world non-stop



At 00:00 10 November 2004, Shawn wrote:
Stewart Kissel wrote:
http://www.scaled.com/projects/globalflyer.html

That's quite a beasty. I hope it has automated independent
pitch
stabilization for each of the booms. I suspect they
could get
oscillating relative to each other and cause some nasty
problems.

Shawn

What? I don't know of any 13 span glider that comes
close to an LS4.

Knocking a couple of meters off the wings doesn't reduce
your manufacturing costs much. If you're going to
build a glider it's worth the extra $$$ to make it
15M. Otherwise you end up with a PW5.

Ben.


Bob Kuykendall wrote:


At production run rates of several thousand gliders
per manufacturer
per year, I would guess that it would be economically
viable to apply
existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically
reduce the
per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by
drastically, I
mean between to between a quarter and a third of current
prices.


Many people say they would be delighted to have a
glider with the
performance of an LS4. This performance can now be
achieved with a
smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess
at the cost reduction
that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider
compared to the 15M
LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially
if hand
finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping
costs (RO-RO is by
volume, I think).


Eric

Comes close:

http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent2.htm


"Ben Flewett" wrote in message
...
What? I don't know of any 13 span glider that comes
close to an LS4.

Knocking a couple of meters off the wings doesn't reduce
your manufacturing costs much. If you're going to
build a glider it's worth the extra $$$ to make it
15M. Otherwise you end up with a PW5.

Ben.


Bob Kuykendall wrote:


At production run rates of several thousand gliders
per manufacturer
per year, I would guess that it would be economically
viable to apply
existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically
reduce the
per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And by
drastically, I
mean between to between a quarter and a third of current
prices.


Many people say they would be delighted to have a
glider with the
performance of an LS4. This performance can now be
achieved with a
smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess
at the cost reduction
that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider
compared to the 15M
LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor (especially
if hand
finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping
costs (RO-RO is by
volume, I think).


Eric

No it doesn't...

1. Wing loading is 34 kg.
2. No water
3. Polar curve is very steep at high speeds
4. It’s got a low VNE
5. It’s got flaps
6. And an engine!

It’s nothing like an LS4.

This actually looks like a good glider in it own right
but it's in a completely different category to LS4.



At 14:12 10 November 2004, Bob Salvo wrote:
Comes close:

http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent2.htm


'Ben Flewett' wrote in message
...
What? I don't know of any 13 span glider that comes
close to an LS4.

Knocking a couple of meters off the wings doesn't
reduce
your manufacturing costs much. If you're going to
build a glider it's worth the extra $$$ to make it
15M. Otherwise you end up with a PW5.

Ben.


Bob Kuykendall wrote:


At production run rates of several thousand gliders
per manufacturer
per year, I would guess that it would be economically
viable to apply
existing manufacturing technologies that could drastically
reduce the
per-unit price of a typical 15-meter glider. And
by
drastically, I
mean between to between a quarter and a third of
current
prices.


Many people say they would be delighted to have a
glider with the
performance of an LS4. This performance can now be
achieved with a
smaller span glider of 13 M or less. Can you guess
at the cost reduction
that would be possible with a 12 or 13 meter glider
compared to the 15M
LS4? Smaller factory, less materials, less labor
(especially
if hand
finishing is needed), smaller trailer, lower shipping
costs (RO-RO is by
volume, I think).


Eric

At 15:36 11 November 2004, Andreas Maurer wrote:

Frankly spoken, I doubt that this is possible without
major compromises concerning cockpit size and crash
protection. I need a certain cockpit cross-section
to be able to sit comfortably, so the cross-section
of the fuselage (which defines most of its drag) is
fixed, independent of the wing span. Fuselage surface
area is also fixed.... One solution could be to build
the whole glider extremely light (like the Apis or
Sparrowhawk) to get normal wing loadings of about 33
kg/m^2 at a high aspect ratio, but this is going to
result in the inability to carry water, low Vne (hence
the comparably bad penetration of the Apis compared
to club class gliders with similar L/D and wing loading)
and questionable crash protection. The Sparrowhawk
and Apis look really good and are definitely state
of the art - but to be honest, I would not like to
rely on their cockpit shell strength when I impact
at 50 kts or above.


As to the question of fuselage integrety in smaller,
lighter gliders the Apis manufactures seem to have
given this some thought. See: http://www.albastar.si/
and look under construction on the menu bar

Mike

At 02:12 12 November 2004, Mike Ziaskas wrote:
At 15:36 11 November 2004, Andreas Maurer wrote:

Well, Andreas wrote to the effect that he did not
want compromise in fuselage crashworthyness in the
lightweight gliders (MZ)

As to the question of fuselage integrety in smaller,
lighter gliders the Apis manufactures seem to have
given this some thought. See: http://www.albastar.si/
and look under construction on the menu bar

Mike



Mike Z

For what it is worth, I offer you 'Rollings Law of
Price and Performance'. 'For a given state of the
art, performance increases with the square root of
wingspan; price increases with the square of wing span.'

At 07:36 12 November 2004, Bruce Hoult wrote:
In article ,
(Erik mann) wrote:
Or, maybe the design goal should be 40:1 performance
at the lowest cost,
irrespective of span?

40:1 isn't actually what people want, otherwise the
Phoebus would be a
lot more popular than it is.

What is the reason for more span? It decreases induced
drag at high
angles of attack. So less span is worse because it
means you won't be
able to thermal slowly and efficiently, right? Just
like the PW-5.
Well, no, the PW5 thermals beautifully. The problem
with it is that it
needs very thick wings to do that, and this actually
penalises it at
*high* speed, not low speed. A glider similar to the
PW-5 could easily
have thinner wings, a better best L/D and *much* better
high speed
performance. It just wouldn't be able to fly as slowly
for thermalling
and -- perhaps more importantly for low time pilots
-- for landing.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

It seems to me that as long as there is such a disparity amongst the ranks
of sailplane enthusiasts financially, we'll never really be able to reach
any meaningful solution...I for one wouldn't consider a sailplane that
didn't have the ability to self launch and then turn into a pretty high
performance soaring machine, simply because it suits my goals...There's lots
of 1-26's and many other veritable gliders in the under 10k price range that
there should always be a home for...If it seems one thing is missing, it
seems like that is a self launched kit sailplane, for the enthusiast who
truly wants to be free of the encumbrance of waiting in line for tows...and
all the associated headaches of retrieves...it would seem to me that the
HP-24 project could place itself into being one of a kind in that regard,
instead of simply another nice sailplane...for the money the LAK-12 and
numerous other longer winged mounts seem to be plentiful and I agree with
Bob Kuykendal about L/D claims being largely over-rated...

the one thing I notice more and more, is that self launchers are turning up
on the State records and badge flights more and more...and I think it will
continue...I don't think the overall performance is near as much an issue,
as the convenience and ability to go...when the weather is good...I started
in hang gliders and have owned wood, aluminum and glass...I don't want to go
back in performance any more than anyone...a less expensive self launcher
would seem to me to be much more meaningful for growing our sport...than
just another sailplane to add to the long and confusing list that is already
out there...



Steve.

Steve Hill wrote:

the one thing I notice more and more, is that self launchers are turning up
on the State records and badge flights more and more...and I think it will
continue...I don't think the overall performance is near as much an issue,
as the convenience and ability to go...when the weather is good...I started
in hang gliders and have owned wood, aluminum and glass...I don't want to go
back in performance any more than anyone...a less expensive self launcher
would seem to me to be much more meaningful for growing our sport...than
just another sailplane to add to the long and confusing list that is already
out there...

I agree with Steve. As an example, the Russia AC-5 sold very well
because it had a good price and decent performance. It has about 70% of
the L/D of ASH 26 E, but was about 40% of the price, and 30+ pilots
found that very attractive. Unfortunately, it's not available new now,
and the manufacturer's intentions aren't known.

L/D is somewhat overrated as Bob K and others point out, especially for
a motorglider. A Russia pilot might have to use his engine more often
than I do in my ASH 26, but what's an extra 10-15 minutes of engine, 5
or 6 times a year? Nothing really, but it sure can expand your soaring
options.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA