Why does PW-5 get no respect?

It is UGLY. All of the other problems (except cost maybe)
could be overcome it the PW-5 was not such an insult to the eye.

Todd Smith

Owain Walters wrote:
The PW5 is ugly, has a lower performance than the early
1970's gliders (Cirrus and Libelles) and is roughly
the price of a second hand LS4. The entries to the
World Class are falling and is very unlikely to ever
make a popular competition.

It wouldnt have been so bad but it was also was not
the best choice out of the 'World Class' options. Should
have been the L33. Or a more sensible option would
have been to sanction an all LS4/Discus (or similar)
class.

My apologies to PW5 fans but thats my opinion.

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.

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.

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

Reno is in Nevada dumbass...
Thats NV.... not CA...
That means less taxes.... unlike CA...

Al


There really is something to be said for flying
a super-fast glider in super-strong lift all the
time. This is why some of these pilots live near
Reno, CA :-P

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.

It ultimately wouldn't work. You can get more glider for the same
weight, by using more exotic materials. Exotic materials are called
"exotic" because they cost more per pound.

A limit on span and and a fixed contest weight would do the job, as long
as the weight was fairly generous for the span. Lighter gliders/pilots
would have to be ballasted with fixed weights.

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:
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.

It ultimately wouldn't work. You can get more glider for the same
weight, by using more exotic materials. Exotic materials are called
"exotic" because they cost more per pound.

Once you pick a material, within that choice weight and cost are highly
correlated. You can use special materials on big gliders too.

The APIS in its FAI form, with carbon fibre instead of glass, is not too
much more heinously expensive, as I recall.

My thought is, there is already an "arms race" in gliders, and there
always will be. The world class flew in the face of that. Which way do
you want the race go?

nafod40 wrote:
The APIS in its FAI form, with carbon fibre instead of glass, is not too
much more heinously expensive, as I recall.

But, it is more expensive, and each new generation of gliders competing
in this class would increase performance by increasing the span with the
latest wonder of technology. At some point, the winners will be flying
a lightweight ultra high aspect ratio 18M glider that costs more than
current 18M gliders.

My thought is, there is already an "arms race" in gliders, and there
always will be. The world class flew in the face of that. Which way do
you want the race go?

You can't have it both ways. Either limit the range of possible designs
to limit the costs, or accept the fact that to remain competitive in a
class, costs will rise to the point where the "average" pilot can no
longer afford to compete.

Weight can serve to slow the increase in cost, as long as span is also
limited. Ultimately, though, the costs will always increase to
unreasonable levels. As an example, the costs of the latest generation
of standard class gliders (ASW-28, D2) have risen to a point relative to
my income, that I no longer give much consideration to purchasing one,
even in a partnership.

In my mind, the world class failed almost entirely due to the glider
picked. Not that I see anything particularly wrong with the PW-5, I've
flown them a number of times, and they are perfectly nice gliders,
though a bit lacking in higher speed performance. For whatever reason
(and I don't think it is just performance), it simply doesn't do enough
to excite a critical mass of pilots into purchasing and competing with
them.

If the IGC reformed the world class around the Apis, Silent,
Sparrowhawk, or all three of them, they'd probably have to beat
competitors away with sticks within a couple of years...

Marc

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.

"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

(ISoar) wrote in message . com...
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.

Hey, I think I was the one who said that. And I didn't mean it as a
joke.

The PW-5 bubble has burst. It's a shame, because so much money and so
many hopes were invested in it, but it's even more of a shame to see
people living in denial. Time to move on.

Marc Ramsey wrote:

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.

It ultimately wouldn't work. You can get more glider for the same
weight, by using more exotic materials. Exotic materials are called
"exotic" because they cost more per pound.

A limit on span and and a fixed contest weight would do the job, as long
as the weight was fairly generous for the span. Lighter gliders/pilots
would have to be ballasted with fixed weights.

Marc

I disagree, nothing else than a monotype class can avoid the race for increasing
costs, and even this can hardly avoid it. For any set of design rules, there always
will be people ready to spent a lot of money for having a specifically designed
ship using some exotic feature that is supposed to give its owner some advantage.
This has been proven since a long time in the domain of sailing boats. Even in
the monotype classes, as several manufacturers produce the same type, there is
always some rumor ending as a general consensus among top competitors that the
units built by some manufacturer are better than others, but the price also is
higher, even if not at the beginning, the preference of top competitors gives
a motivation for rising the price.