Flat Spin

Eric Greenwell wrote:
I'm sure improvements in glider manufacturing will continue, but I don't
see any thing dramatic coming along. To build a cheap glider now can be
done: make it small, make it light, and build 3 a week so the molds are
always busy and the factory space is all in use.

How cheap would this 11-12 meter, 35:1 glider have to be so they could
sell that many? Already, I can hear people saying "That is silly! for
only a little extra you make a 15 meter glider!" and "That is silly! for
the same price you can buy a used glider with more performance!".

I think we could build a good, cheap glider, but I don't think we could
sell it.

I'll toss out my idea again. With airplanes, cost very closely
correlates with mass, and goes down rapidly with the number of
gliders/cars/toasters produced. Setting up racing and record classes
based on mass rather than wingspan would create a motivation for low
mass gliders, which would be lower cost. The ultralight class is too
light, I think, but has the right idea. There's records to be set all
over the place in that class.

Maybe to avoid the race for exotic materials, have a kind of standard
material class (Al, glass) and an exotics class (carbon fibre).

"nafod40" wrote in message
...

Maybe to avoid the race for exotic materials, have a kind of standard
material class (Al, glass) and an exotics class (carbon fibre).


Materials cost is tiny in comparison to the labor cost. Use exotic
materials if they cut labor or improve performance.

I remember an engineer who responded to the suggestion that gliders use
carbon fiber. "You can't use that stuff, he said, "it costs $100 a pound".
"How may pounds do you plan to use?", I asked.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:
"nafod40" wrote in message
...


Maybe to avoid the race for exotic materials, have a kind of standard
material class (Al, glass) and an exotics class (carbon fibre).



Materials cost is tiny in comparison to the labor cost. Use exotic
materials if they cut labor or improve performance.

Ah, good point.

"nafod40" wrote in message
...
Bill Daniels wrote:
"nafod40" wrote in message
...


Maybe to avoid the race for exotic materials, have a kind of standard
material class (Al, glass) and an exotics class (carbon fibre).



Materials cost is tiny in comparison to the labor cost. Use exotic
materials if they cut labor or improve performance.

Ah, good point.


There's a great example in the Space Shuttle. The bean counters at NASA
(and the US Congress) insisted that it be built of ordinary aircraft
aluminum - "Because it's cheaper". There are more than a few engineers who
think that Columbia might have survived the breach in the heat shield if the
basic airframe had been titanium. I wonder how much they think the choice
of aluminum saved them now?

Bill Daniels

Papa3 wrote:

Don't know if it's the French per se. Maybe it's just socialism. I
remember the Peugot 404 my parents bought in 1965 or so. That car was
indestructible. Ran for 12 years without a single repair, other than
replacing parts of the muffler system that rusted out.

The first car I bought in 1963 was a Peugeot (notice the 2nd "e") 203.
When i bought it, it was 12 years old. Had it not been destroyed in an
accident, maybe it could be always running.