Performance World Class design proposal

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:23:01 +0300, "iPilot"
wrote:

No-one cares.

Of course, it's far mure fun to tell everybody how bad PW-5 instead of doing something constructive.

Many people do something constructive.
They fly Club class, Standard class, 15m Class or Open class.

Bye
Andreas

"iPilot" wrote in message ...
No-one cares.

Of course, it's far mure fun to tell everybody how bad PW-5 instead of doing something constructive.



"iPilot" wrote in message ...
I do not think that soaring community to trash current World Class. There are some gliders out
there
at least and there are competitions. And PW-5 seems to be a perfect glider for beginning pilots in
clubs.

But I still believe that although the idea of the monoclass is very good, the problem is the
relatively high cost of the glider with performance from the 60-s. Therefore i propse a new
monoclass which is more performance than beginner oriented and which should be our primary hope to
get the gliding into olympic games.

Objective:
To develop new monclass glider which offers the better or equal performance per price when
compared
to all current production and aftermarket gliders with L/D above 42.
Glider has to satisfy several general requirements
safe handling in the air and on the ground
a single design, stabilized for a period of years (proposedly 15 as in WC)
performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
simple construction

Design objectives

compliance with JAR-22, Category U, including cloud flying
max stall 80 km/h at max mass, most unfavorable cg, airbrakes opened or closed
airbrakes for speed limiting & glidepath control required
sideslip possible with brakes opened or closed
effective wheel brake
automatic elevator hookup
a "crash-friendly" panel
ddtwo-handed canopy jettison actuating releases on both sides
seat & harness good to 15g's forward
battery, oxygen, equipment restraint good to 20g's
adequate cockpit ventilation
retractable landing gear
no flaps or camber-changing devices
possiblity to use water or in-flight adjustable ballast
no restrictions in wingtip extensions
no blowing or sucking of boundary layer
maximum L/D: 40 or greater
max roll rate at 1.4 Vs = b w 3.5 sec (b=span in meters)
accommodate pilots to 6"4"
provision for non-disposable ballast
panel to hold ASI, altimeter, compass, 2 varios, T&S ind
space for radio, O2, battery, datalogger
winch, aero & auto launches possible & safe
rigged easily by two average people
easily moved on ground.

Otherwise applicable to FAI Standard Class rules


Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.

Regards,
Kaido



This is a great topic.
I do like the idea of a class designed around a set of parameters but
I am not in favor of a one design class.
It's too bad that cost is a factor, otherwise it would make sense for
each of us to have a glider for different occasions.
When the World Class was announced I was in favor of multiple
designers competing to meet the parameters set by OSTIV.


Patrick Edwards

"Pete Reinhart" wrote in message .. .
Yeah, and there seems to be a bunch of pretty nice gliders in the 40+- l/d
range for sale in the 18K-20K ($US) range. They usually come with decent
trailers and usable instruments. Second generation 70's open class ships are
selling in the low 20's these days and have very long legs (l/d @ 45-50).
A recent article in Technical Soaring would indicate a usable airframe life
somewhere in excess of 200,000 hours, so you probabluy wouldn't have to
worry too much about using one up.

Cheers!
"Jacek Kobiesa" wrote in message
om...
Eric Greenwell wrote in message
...
Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:29:58 +0300, "iPilot"
wrote:


Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it
interesting.


You just gave a perfect description of LS-4, LS8, DG-300,
Discus,......

In good ole Europe we call this "Club Class" and it's extremely
successful. Guess why...

I suspect there is little overall for support for the concept of a true
"one design" class, for several reasons:

* the current Standard, 15M, and 18M classes are nearly one design
classes anyway, because the performance difference from
manufacturer-to-manufacturer and year-to-year is very small

* the Club Class makes so many different used gliders competitive, the
potential cost advantage of a one-design class is eliminated

* the top pilots have little trouble getting the glider they want, most
of the rest of us are losing contests because of our ability, not our
glider, so there is little value to the majority of contest pilots to
have a one design class.

* the major interest in the one-design class seems to be from people
that hope it would result in a new 40+ L/D glider that doesn't cost any
more than a 20 year old used glider

I can't see the last item ever being more than a dream.

Eric,
You just nailed the issue right on the head....

Yeah, and there seems to be a bunch of pretty nice gliders in the 40+- l/d
range for sale in the 18K-20K ($US) range. They usually come with decent
trailers and usable instruments. Second generation 70's open class ships are
selling in the low 20's these days and have very long legs (l/d @ 45-50).
A recent article in Technical Soaring would indicate a usable airframe life
somewhere in excess of 200,000 hours, so you probabluy wouldn't have to
worry too much about using one up.

Cheers!

Where did you get this data from?

The problem with club class is that it's in no way a monotype class, and
that given the problems with handicapping, there will never be a true
equality between participants. The French used to fly their national
"Pegase" in club class competition, this year they switched to
"Standard Cirrus" in Elverum because the "Pegase" was badly handicapped
with the current rules.

Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but doesn't want to
produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the production rights
to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all the LS4's already
flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class glider...


--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

Earlier, Eric Greenwell

Having the exterior wing shape defined
would save very little in design costs
because they would all require substantial
aerodynamic design and the complete
structural design, which is even more
expensive than the aerodynamic design...

Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses. I continue to
believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.

Sure, DG says it costs them $1 million (say it in Mike Meyers' Dr.
Evil voice for best effect) to design, develop, and validate a new
sailplane. But factored into that is a lot of uncertainty and risk
that it takes to push the envelope with a new and competitive
high-performance design. And also a lot of business expenses and
overhead.

The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass
is half empty. The reengineer says, hey, we've got twice as much glass
as we need here, how much did we spend on that?

Thanks again, Bob K.

BTW. While writing the requirements, I had LS 4 in mind. It seems to be a
good candidate for that purporse.


"stephanevdv" wrote in
message ...

The problem with club class is that it's in no way a monotype class, and
that given the problems with handicapping, there will never be a true
equality between participants. The French used to fly their national
"Pegase" in club class competition, this year they switched to
"Standard Cirrus" in Elverum because the "Pegase" was badly handicapped
with the current rules.

Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but doesn't want to
produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the production rights
to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all the LS4's already
flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class glider...


--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they
fly -

I kept those people in mind who waste their time in topic called "Is
everybody afraid of World Class".


"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:23:01 +0300, "iPilot"
wrote:

No-one cares.

Of course, it's far mure fun to tell everybody how bad PW-5 instead of
doing something constructive.

Many people do something constructive.
They fly Club class, Standard class, 15m Class or Open class.

Bye
Andreas

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
Tim Ward wrote:


Take it a step further:
Just use a standard wing mold. (Or, as in your suggestion, inner wing,
with
span limitation for competition).
The wing is the thing. People have done all sorts of strange things to
1-26's (lowered canopies, faired wheels, taken the wheel off entirely
and
flown with just a skid), and the L/D still stayed about the same
The variations in fuselage, empennage, materials, etc give people a
shot at
"optimizing" their ship, and manufacturers a hook for for their
advertising
(assuming there's ever more than one) but I bet they'd converge pretty
quickly. Small but real competitive advantages might actually exist, in
which case the super-competitive pilots will sell their ships to buy the
more competitive models, putting more ships in the class, and
entry-level
ships on the market.

And what would be the point of a class that is essentially like what we
already have in the Standard and 15 meter classes? Having the exterior
wing shape defined would save very little in design costs because they
would all require substantial aerodynamic design and the complete
structural design, which is even more expensive than the aerodynamic
design. None would be built in enough quantity to make them any less
expensive than what we already have.

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


Non-obsolescence in competition would be the point.
Personally, I doubt that if all sailplanes built every year were exactly the
same model, built by the same manufacturer, that there would be enough
volume to bring prices down very much.

Tim Ward

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

Earlier, Eric Greenwell


Having the exterior wing shape defined
would save very little in design costs
because they would all require substantial
aerodynamic design and the complete
structural design, which is even more
expensive than the aerodynamic design...


Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses.

I wasn't suggesting the design expenses were huge so much as pointing
out defining the wing shape would not yield a one-design class OR cost
savings. Each potential manufacturer would have to bear these expenses
plus the costs of molds, jigs, and so forth to build the glider. Each
manufacturer would have to certificate his design, since it would be
different, and split the market with the other manufacturers.

A _real_ one-design class would avoid the redundant design and
certification costs, and could offer the glider at a lower cost.

I continue to
believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.

I agree with you, but I don't see the connection with a FAI class
defined by the wing shape.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

iPilot wrote:
BTW. While writing the requirements, I had LS 4 in mind. It seems to be a
good candidate for that purporse.

Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but doesn't want to
produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the production rights
to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all the LS4's already
flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class glider...

Hmmm...8 fatal accidents in LS-3 or LS-4 in the USA in 24 years.
0 in the Russia. Of course, there are likely a TON more LS-3/4s,
and flying for a lot longer. Interesting, half the LS fatals were
high timers ridge flying...

So I'm gonna say both the AC-4c (maybe with back opening canopy)
and the LS-4 might be good World Class competitors, if retract
were allowed.

Never flown an LS-4 though. Good for a low time pilot? (20-50
hours?) I suppose the easiest way to tell is to call an
insurance company, and get quotes for a typically priced
LS-4 and AC-4c, and compare...
--

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