Expanded World Class

On Oct 7, 1:37 am, Papa3 wrote:
On Oct 6, 3:29 pm, (Doug Hoffman) wrote:





Eric Greenwell wrote:
Do people buy a dinghy just to go sailing most of the time,
and race
only once or twice a year? Or are they bought primarily for
racing? If
it's the later, we may not learn anything by comparing one
design racers
in gliders and sailboats, because most people don't/won't buy
a glider
for just racing.

Speaking as one who raced/sailed one design small sailboats for
several
decades (Lightnings, Flying Juniors, two classes of scows), I
can tell you it is 95% racing. This my own experience and from
observing others.

If people are buying gliders mostly for non-contest flying, a
new,
"low-cost", one design racer will never be able to compete in
value with
the used market. It will either be "priced right" but have
lower
performance, or "perform right" and cost a lot more. I think
the flaw in
the one-design concept is thinking a lot pilots like the
concept enough
to actually make any sacrifice in cost or performance to get
one.

Excellent point. The sailboat analogy breaks down.

Regards,
Doug

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

If you look at something like the Lightning (I crewed on one for two
seasons) it was actually designed to be a reasonably pleasant day
sailer that also raced (or, a good racer that also was capable of
being a family day sailer). Again, though, the issue is price.
If I could get a second generation 30 foot Pearson for the same price
as a Lightning, how many Lightnings do you think would sell?

Very confusing. In the UK the Lightning is a self-draining 12' single-
hander with an unstayed very flexible mast and loose-footed sail!
Spending 5 consecutive hours in one is a similar hell to a 5-hour
glider flight except that 'comfort' arrangements are easier - unless
it's winter and one is wearing a dry suit...

On Oct 6, 6:26 pm, Roger Hurley
wrote:
Plenty of interesting stuff in this lengthening thread.
Assuming (big assume I know) that the concept of one-design
racing, at the lower end of the performance range,
could be a good idea, could work like dinghy racing
classes, and could attract 'new' people to sporting
gliding, can we arrive at some king of concensus about
the spec. No, don't just say why not the LS4 or the
S-H D(a) because there are almost certainly liability
issues that would preclude an open and widespread re-start
manufacture of those, and they are anyway 'old-technology'
now.

The LS4 is being built by AMS Flight and the Discus is still in
production and available through SH (as the CS model, built in the
Czech Rebublic). The Discus is only just outclassed by newer designs,
and only when conditions are strong. Either should have been the one-
design, being competitive and easy to fly, especially so compared to
first-gen GRP gliders. Heck, so there's so many of both flying today
it would be easy to create a one-design class for either now.

However all that's beside the point. There no demand for a one-design
class. If you want cheap competition, you enter the Club Class and fly
against some of the best pilots around (including some _very_ talented
youngsters who have been flying since they could reach the controls)
with minimal cost. The class is accurately handicapped and nobody ever
complains that a glider has the wrong handicap - everything is down to
pilot skill. Mind you, getting a place in a Club Class comp can be
tricky - it's very popular.

BTW you can't make a "cheap" glider that could be priced competively
against older second-hand gliders. Gliders are hand-built and that
does not scale - they cannont be "mass produced". Neither is the cost
in the materials - the glass and resin in a 15m glider costs little
more than what's in a 13m one. The production cost is in the highly
skilled labour and time that building a GRP sailplane demands.


Dan

We in the old world tried to give gliding a new start
with the one design class but we failed. The reasons
are probably many but at least in my club I think it
was that the PW-5 didn’t look good enough and also
to some extent didn’t perform past the critical 37-39
point. What the world of gliding really lacks to once
more start grooving is a cheap and attractive singleseater
that can be bought by clubs in numbers and that can
be the core in a single design class. If it were possible
to reduce the cost to that of a new family car or there
about it would come into reach of the common man.
I don’t think that such a glider can be built in Europe
because as i see it there are to strong economical
interests to keep thing where they are here. Of reasons
previously mentioned in this thread I also think that
it has the be built with techniques more adopted to
mass production than the now commonly used. I don’t
think that we Europeans will do that in the foreseeable
future. Why don’t you take the lead for a while? America
has the know-how and the guts. Do not wait for us.
You could do it!

Jannica / Sweden

Cats wrote:
That would suggest to me also ruling out it being suitable for clubs,
though the SZD Junior has the fixed wheel but doesn't have a nose
wheel.

If a fixed wheel is specified it would be a very good idea to specify
its minimum size and require the axle to be on the glider's underside,
not internal. The latter would prevent really bad ideas such as a 95%
buried wheel from surfacing again.

I think that the design point to aim for is a glider that a newly
licensed pilot, who has done some XC in a club glider and wants a
glider to fly, would find roughly comparable to a Grob 102, Std
Cirrus, LS4.

Agreed. The sort of thing a new Silver pilot would be happy in. Easy to
fly, possibly with retractable gear and probably without water ballast.

Mention of a Grob reminds me that being easy to rig is a very useful
attribute as well. What I mean is that it doesn't require people with
the size & strength of a gorilla - it should be a reasonably easy rig
for two average women, without any fancy rigging aids.

That sounds like an updated Standard Libelle H.201B to me. Easy to fly,
good all-round vis and light to rig. I'm certain the airframe could be
brought up to modern standards without any weight increase and only
minor design changes would be needed to match contemporary expectations:

- revised brakes for those who don't like slipped approaches
- hinged canopy
- self-connecting ailerons to make the controls fully self-connecting.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Martin Gregorie wrote:
That sounds like an updated Standard Libelle H.201B to me. Easy to fly,
good all-round vis and light to rig. I'm certain the airframe could be
brought up to modern standards without any weight increase and only
minor design changes would be needed to match contemporary expectations:

- revised brakes for those who don't like slipped approaches
- hinged canopy
- self-connecting ailerons to make the controls fully self-connecting.

And, of course:

- Larger cockpit allowing most pilots to actually move their extremities
once inside.

Marc

Why doesn't one brave country step up to the plate
and organise a one off 'one design' competition. If
it works, keep it up!

ie, there'd have to be a very healthy amount of Cirrus's
in the UK, or LS1's in Germany, maybe Discus's in the
States..?

Obviously many people and their dog have winglets these
days, just hit them a 1% handicap penalty or have them
put their old wingtip stubs on for the comp..

Keen on your thoughts..

Marc Ramsey wrote:
Martin Gregorie wrote:
That sounds like an updated Standard Libelle H.201B to me. Easy to
fly, good all-round vis and light to rig. I'm certain the airframe
could be brought up to modern standards without any weight increase
and only minor design changes would be needed to match contemporary
expectations:

- revised brakes for those who don't like slipped approaches
- hinged canopy
- self-connecting ailerons to make the controls fully self-connecting.

And, of course:

- Larger cockpit allowing most pilots to actually move their extremities
once inside.

I forgot that, probably because the cockpit suits me well, though I must
admit I feel I'm putting it on rather than climbing in.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

I work in a machine shop with 3 multi-axis CNC machines. We have a
HAAS multi-axis mill, a HAAS lathe and a Precix bed router. We have
full capability to cut molds, parts and design and develop tooling for
a sailplane. We are under contract right now to develop a UAV, and
have made several molds and are making carbon parts right now for the
UAV.

I also am working on a sailplane design that probably would appeal as
a world class sailplane. It is a 15m ship, and is quite nice looking.
We plan on using the Graphlite rods for the spar caps and would like
to use carbon as much as possible throgu out the airframe. The price
has come down and the availability has gotten better.

We also have total control of the design and manufacturing process via
a complete suite of CAD/CAM design and machining software. Solidworks
and Siemens.

Now...................can it be built?

Let the flames begin!

Brad



On Oct 3, 4:12 pm, wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:10 pm, toad wrote:





On Oct 3, 3:52 pm, wrote:

Soon we will see a very good 13m glider ....for $120,000.-only.
And the happy owner will be a World Class Champion.
Was that an original idea behind the World Class?

Richard,

The original idea behind the World Class has been a failure. That much
is obvious (to me) and should be acknowledged. We need to try a new
and different idea. I can see opening the PW5 only contests to
similar designs to increase the number of gliders. More gliders would
mean a better competition.

I personally would propose the following criteria:

a) Fairly strict 1 design.
b) Decent performance for the cheapest cost.

For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
performance is just frustrating when trying XC.

I would not "dumb down" the design to accommodate early solo pilots,
but aim for entry level comp pilots.

Todd Smith
Grob 102 "3S"

Todd,
OK, some of the aspects of original idea had to be a failure and the
whole undertaking simply didn't work.
But, can you tell which specs were wrong?

* substantially lower costs than then-current new gliders
* easy & safe handling in the air and on the ground
* a single design, stabilized for a period of years
* performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
* simple construction
* suitable for clubs, private owners & early solo pilots.

What would be your new World Class glider ?
Try to stay below $ 60,000.-please.
Richard/ PW-5/N153PW- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, Brad wrote:
We also have total control of the design and manufacturing process via
a complete suite of CAD/CAM design and machining software. Solidworks
and Siemens.

Now...................can it be built?

From your post I understand that you can design and build the molds,
but who would actually do the lay up? I understand that's the hard
part...


Dan

We can machine out molds, or machine out plugs and then make molds
from them. We've done both and have made parts using either method.
Also have made plugs using the old school method of foam and
fiberglasss over a form, and then make a mold off of that. It is
totally do-able, but there is never any substitute for hard work.

Same can be said for laying up the airframe skins. It takes a crew
anywhere from 3 to 6 eople and you just work till it's done.

We are starting to use vacuum infusion on our UAV parts. That is new
for us, but it sure keeps the mess and smell down and also means less
manpower during layups. You are not really doing a layup with VIP, you
are more setting up the laminates and preparing the infusion system.
It remains to be seen if VIP will work with wing skins, typically VIP
cores are scored to allow resin flow, but glider wings use foam core
that might not tolerate being scored. I have more investigation.

Cheers,
Brad





On Oct 11, 1:42 am, Dan G wrote:
On Oct 10, 5:24 pm, Brad wrote:

We also have total control of the design and manufacturing process via
a complete suite of CAD/CAM design and machining software. Solidworks
and Siemens.

Now...................can it be built?
From your post I understand that you can design and build the molds,

but who would actually do the lay up? I understand that's the hard
part...

Dan