World Contest - 15m class

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 8:29:04 PM UTC+3, krasw wrote:
On Wednesday, 23 November 2016 18:16:58 UTC+2, Sean wrote:
The 26 is a beautiful glider so at least they have good taste.

Agreed. No matter what the story is (there is always two sides of coin), AS did not willingly donate the aerodynamic shape of '26 fuselage to competing manufacturer.


So, the ASG29 was not truly new when it was released ten years ago. My registration actually says ASG 27-18

That is just paperwork. Factory has to pay annually to EASA for every type-certificate data sheet it owns. Schleicher has over 20 of these, Airbus only four. So they decided to use '27 data sheet for '29. Sure it inherits a lot from '27, but it is still different animal. I think it was 29 and 18m tips that revealed the full potential of Waibel's original design.


Today, SH designed what is essentially a "new wing" for the V2 and aptly calls it V3! Ta da! The wing is much thinner than the V2s and is intended to run "extremely well" compared to the V2 based on contest flying behavior research. But will it climb effectively in weaker conditions? The same fuselage as the V2 appears to have been used for the V3. This calls into question how large the improvement "can be" as the V2 was already a step behind the 29 and JS1 in most conditions. The V2 fuselage is, obviously, VERY FAT (lots of wetted area) and therefore so is the V3 fuselage. Results of the V3 design strategy are still largely unknown.


Using same fuselage for different types is quite normal. LS1-f/LS6/LS7/LS8/LS10, ASW24/27/28/ASG29, Ventus a/2a/3a/Discus a/2a, ASH26/JS1 etc. I think the Ventus 3 has flown only with a-cockpit, which has lowest wetted area of anything because it is so small. You are confusing Schempp's big b/c-model fuselage with small a-model. Your speculation about V3 wing is based on what exactly?

The same canopy fits a mid 1970s Janus and a modern Duo Discus!

The Ventus 3 is not represented yet on the Schempp Hirth website...

https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en.html

Interesting.

The general design brief for the V3 (wing only) is, therefore, not well marketed (or even formally published) although I suspect that a purchase of the SH presentation from the recent SSA convention from 'Wings and Wheels' would discuss the V3 design brief in great detail. Take a look at DVD #14 he http://wingsandwheels.com/pilot-supp...tion-dvd..html

https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en.html

It essentially goes like this: "by studying flight traces (glide/climb ratios, speeds, climb rates, etc) from actual competition flights, they believe the current airfoils are not optimized (essentially to thick, too high drag) so the adopted a new airfoil (thinner essentially) optimized for better high speed glide performance and (likely) slightly less performance in climb. In other words they cite that competition gliders are flying faster than optimum (for their current V2 airfoils) and climbing less that predicted.. So they have built a new wing optimized for the speeds and climb percentages that are actually being flown in real competition."

This design strategy is well known among the SH community and is the basis for the arguement that the V3 will have exceptional performance in competition. It has also resulted in a large book of pre-orders.

We shall see the results of the new wing shortly.

Sean

Loved flying the Janus and a Nimbus4D (looks like the same cockpit), but SH left much performance on the table by not updating their fuselage, I think the ASH-25 outsold the Nimbus 4D three to one and the ASH-25 was just a better performing glider, having placed as high at the podium in World Gliding Championships.

As for SH and their adherence to a 1970's fuselage design with a side hinged canopy... I has the fuselage really been updated since the first ventus C? I know they updated the tail feathers from the Vents 2C to the Ventus 2CX, not sure why they could not have designed it right the first time!!! I think it was 8 weeks after I got my new Ventus 2C licensed that SH announced they had finished the design and were now offering the Ventus 2CX. After waiting two years receive a glider that SH knew needed more design work before it was released, I was unhappy. Plus it arrived with x kilograms of weight in the tail when it should have had x pounds, that's right 2.2 times the tail weight it should have had. If you haven't flown a glider past the aft limits, I can tell you it is very squirrly, had difficultly keeping the airspeed between 45 and 75 knots.

Does anyone actually like the side hinged canopy?


On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 10:30:39 AM UTC-8, Bruce Hoult wrote:

The same canopy fits a mid 1970s Janus and a modern Duo Discus!

Interesting that the Quintus is listed on their web site, even after they updated it last year. The Quintus is not in production and since SH never went through any of the certification process they cannot build any more of the quintus, too bad the world needs another true open class gliders with long wings.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 7:55:24 AM UTC-8, Sean wrote:
The Ventus 3 is not represented yet on the Schempp Hirth website...

https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en.html

Interesting.

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 8:55:24 AM UTC-7, Sean wrote:
The Ventus 3 is not represented yet on the Schempp Hirth website...

https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en.html

Interesting.

The general design brief for the V3 (wing only) is, therefore, not well marketed (or even formally published) although I suspect that a purchase of the SH presentation from the recent SSA convention from 'Wings and Wheels' would discuss the V3 design brief in great detail. Take a look at DVD #14 he http://wingsandwheels.com/pilot-supp...ntion-dvd.html

https://www.schempp-hirth.com/en.html

It essentially goes like this: "by studying flight traces (glide/climb ratios, speeds, climb rates, etc) from actual competition flights, they believe the current airfoils are not optimized (essentially to thick, too high drag) so the adopted a new airfoil (thinner essentially) optimized for better high speed glide performance and (likely) slightly less performance in climb. In other words they cite that competition gliders are flying faster than optimum (for their current V2 airfoils) and climbing less that predicted. So they have built a new wing optimized for the speeds and climb percentages that are actually being flown in real competition."

This design strategy is well known among the SH community and is the basis for the arguement that the V3 will have exceptional performance in competition. It has also resulted in a large book of pre-orders.

We shall see the results of the new wing shortly.

Sean

Well, the V3 has already been raced. UK 18 Meter Nationals Aug 20 thru 26th..

Steve Jones is one of the best.
I cut this link(may not work) but full results are here.
http://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/tibenham-18m-.

1 565 Brian Birlison ASG 29E 1,918
2 80 Andy Davis JS1c Evo 1,915
3 E1 Russell Cheetham JS1c Evo 1,822
4 E11 Stephen Ell ASG 29E 1,812
5 10 Gary Stingemore ASG 29E 1,806
6 N1 Peter Harvey JS1c 1,763
7 601 Tim Jenkinson ASG29E 1,752
8 9 Rory Ellis ASG 29E 1,695
9 3V Steve Jones Ventus 3 1,681
10 XS Richard Browne JS1c 1,629

Bet. Tom #711.

OK Leo L-B, time to step in; curious minds have questions.

Like many, I've been following the Jonker JS1 18-21 self launcher webpage found here http://www.js1.co.za/js2selflaun.htm . First thing I noticed was JS2 in the URL. So after awing over all the pictures (I love that kind of stuff) curiosity set in. Why would Jonker go to the expense and trouble of designing a new fuselage for the SL when the current JS1 fuselage was a "knock-off" of an outstanding self launch fuselage being the ASH-26? And, why would they show a new wing mold when there isn't an announced wing change to the 18-21 EVO? Obviously, they get only so many "pulls" off a mold before it has to be replaced but it came across as a "something different" mold.

The recent SA FAI SGP YouTube broadcasts got my attention when the JS3 was mentioned...news to me. Even more surprised to learn Jonker discussed it at 2016 Nephi and that "scoop" didn't make it to R.A.S.

What does make since...at least to me...is the pictures on the above self launching site are actually the JS3 which I understand will have a 15-18 wing and not a 13.5-15 wing that has also been mentioned. New fuselage and wing molds certainly make sense here.

Shaking my head in disbelief that I'm agreeing with Sean, I think the Jonker brothers have taken the lead in current competition sailplane design. Great job Team Jonker.

Interesting Tom. Schempp Hirth would have been all over these results (social media, etc) if they were favorable. News of the V3 has been fairly difficult to find. They probably still have a bit of tuning left to do. Let's hope, for their sake, the glider ends up performing better than that.

Looks like this was a really weak comment test. Only 1900 points in 5 days. But weak is what worries me about the V3

http://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/tib...-18m-nationals

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 12:44:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
OK Leo L-B, time to step in; curious minds have questions.

Like many, I've been following the Jonker JS1 18-21 self launcher webpage found here http://www.js1.co.za/js2selflaun.htm . First thing I noticed was JS2 in the URL. So after awing over all the pictures (I love that kind of stuff) curiosity set in. Why would Jonker go to the expense and trouble of designing a new fuselage for the SL when the current JS1 fuselage was a "knock-off" of an outstanding self launch fuselage being the ASH-26? And, why would they show a new wing mold when there isn't an announced wing change to the 18-21 EVO? Obviously, they get only so many "pulls" off a mold before it has to be replaced but it came across as a "something different" mold.

The recent SA FAI SGP YouTube broadcasts got my attention when the JS3 was mentioned...news to me. Even more surprised to learn Jonker discussed it at 2016 Nephi and that "scoop" didn't make it to R.A.S.

What does make since...at least to me...is the pictures on the above self launching site are actually the JS3 which I understand will have a 15-18 wing and not a 13.5-15 wing that has also been mentioned. New fuselage and wing molds certainly make sense here.

Shaking my head in disbelief that I'm agreeing with Sean, I think the Jonker brothers have taken the lead in current competition sailplane design. Great job Team Jonker.

The reason they needed to create a new fuselage for the SL version is because the Schleicher engine is narrower than lawn mower engines found in other gliders . They had no access to the Wankel engine.

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 10:44:42 UTC-7, wrote:
OK Leo L-B, time to step in; curious minds have questions.

Like many, I've been following the Jonker JS1 18-21 self launcher webpage found here http://www.js1.co.za/js2selflaun.htm . First thing I noticed was JS2 in the URL. So after awing over all the pictures (I love that kind of stuff) curiosity set in. Why would Jonker go to the expense and trouble of designing a new fuselage for the SL when the current JS1 fuselage was a "knock-off" of an outstanding self launch fuselage being the ASH-26? And, why would they show a new wing mold when there isn't an announced wing change to the 18-21 EVO? Obviously, they get only so many "pulls" off a mold before it has to be replaced but it came across as a "something different" mold.

The recent SA FAI SGP YouTube broadcasts got my attention when the JS3 was mentioned...news to me. Even more surprised to learn Jonker discussed it at 2016 Nephi and that "scoop" didn't make it to R.A.S.



What does make since...at least to me...is the pictures on the above self launching site are actually the JS3 which I understand will have a 15-18 wing and not a 13.5-15 wing that has also been mentioned. New fuselage and wing molds certainly make sense here.

Shaking my head in disbelief that I'm agreeing with Sean, I think the Jonker brothers have taken the lead in current competition sailplane design. Great job Team Jonker.

At Nephi in late June, Ace delivered a presentation on the overall approach that Jonkers is taking towards their business and designing and delivering current and new products to the marketplace. There were very few if any specifics provided on new models etc.

In private conversations Ace provided more details but again was careful not to promise anything or spill the beans.

I am aware that some pilots were approached and signed non-disclosure documents for forth coming specifics.

Regarding new molds, the company realizes that they need to ramp up production and tweak their processes when additional models are in production. They brought a lot to the table from the days of a repair shop and used that to get their first model(s) to the market. Now they are taking the next steps.

Marketing is not a strength of any glider manufacturer and IMO Jonkers is doing as well as anybody in the industry.

I look forward to seeing what all the manufacturers do and I for one am grateful for what they are producing and supporting for such a small finicky marketplace. I am also grateful for the companies that are delivering electronics and other accessories to the marketplace we utilize to have fun.

Ron Gleason