'Nother PW-5/World Class question

Somebody posted on this topic a while back, but I can't find it now.
So my apologies for repeating it:

For how long is the PW-5 the official glider of the World Class? Are
there any provisions in the FAI or IGC rules for the eventual
retirement of the design and a switch to a second-generation WC
glider?

Just wondering...

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

AFAIK since about 1995, and I think there is at least ten years interval
between any changes.

Regards,

Janusz.

For how long is the PW-5 the official glider of the World Class? Are
there any provisions in the FAI or IGC rules for the eventual
retirement of the design and a switch to a second-generation WC
glider?

"Janusz Kesik" wrote:

AFAIK since about 1995, and I think there is at least ten years interval
between any changes.

I think there was a proposal to extend the time interval to 15 years
(2010); I am just not sure that it was approved.

Aldo Cernezzi

The original IGC committment was for 15 years taking the class to
2009. However at a recent IGC meeting there was discussion regarding
what to do in 2006 and there might be changes for that year. Some in
the committee consider the 15 year committment to be firm. There is no
clear idea as to how they would replace the WC.

Hope all is well with you and your family Bob. Happy Holiday & see ya
next June!


"Janusz Kesik" wrote in message ...
AFAIK since about 1995, and I think there is at least ten years interval
between any changes.

Regards,

Janusz.

For how long is the PW-5 the official glider of the World Class? Are
there any provisions in the FAI or IGC rules for the eventual
retirement of the design and a switch to a second-generation WC
glider?

Earlier, (JohnD) wrote:

The original IGC committment was for 15 years taking the class to
2009. However at a recent IGC meeting there was discussion regarding
what to do in 2006 and there might be changes for that year. Some in
the committee consider the 15 year committment to be firm. There is no
clear idea as to how they would replace the WC.

Hope all is well with you and your family Bob. Happy Holiday & see ya
next June!

Thanks for that info. And thanks, we're all well and I am very much
looking forward to next year's contest!

Bob K.

The original IGC committment was for 15 years taking the class to
2009. However at a recent IGC meeting there was discussion regarding
what to do in 2006 and there might be changes for that year. Some in
the committee consider the 15 year committment to be firm. There is no
clear idea as to how they would replace the WC.


I wonder if the IGC would consider something like the Centrair Pegasus
101D for the new WC. Maybe a slightly shrunk wingspan version? It sure
would be nice to have a retractable main wheel...

On 26 Nov 2003 10:25:05 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

I wonder if the IGC would consider something like the Centrair Pegasus
101D for the new WC. Maybe a slightly shrunk wingspan version? It sure
would be nice to have a retractable main wheel...

I fail completely to understand why a smaller span (and crippled
performance) should lower production costs significantly. Why no
outgrown glider with up-to-date performance?

Changing wing span to, say, 14 meters will cost about 5 points of L/D,
and I doubt that it will safe more than $500 (slightly less material
needed, and three man-hours saved for finish).

I like the Pegase, but there are gliders out there that are easier to
fly with better performance, e. g. the LS-4.


Bye
Andreas

Andreas Maurer wrote:

On 26 Nov 2003 10:25:05 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

I wonder if the IGC would consider something like the Centrair Pegasus
101D for the new WC. Maybe a slightly shrunk wingspan version? It sure
would be nice to have a retractable main wheel...

I fail completely to understand why a smaller span (and crippled
performance) should lower production costs significantly. Why no
outgrown glider with up-to-date performance?

Changing wing span to, say, 14 meters will cost about 5 points of L/D,
and I doubt that it will safe more than $500 (slightly less material
needed, and three man-hours saved for finish).

I like the Pegase, but there are gliders out there that are easier to
fly with better performance, e. g. the LS-4.


Such a decision should have been taken earlier in order to have some
success. Centrair stopped the production of Pegases one year ago as
they had only one order for the year, Schneider stopped the production of
the LS-4 when DG took them over. Anyway if one of these gliders could be
built in a country of low cost, licensed from the original manufacturer,
it would probably have a better chance of success of success than the PW5
for a similar cost, as all initial investments (design, molds, tools,
certification) are already done. Reducing the wingspan will just re-introduce
such investments and related costs, and nobody is going to take such a risk
with a number of produced units difficult to foresee.

On the question of which of Pegase and LS-4 has the better performance,
opinions vary. In my club, almost everybody including myself consider
them as equivallent in performance, although the LS-4 is considered as
a little easier to handle, and some people think than in strong days with
max water, the Pegase is slightly better. The Germans, like Andreas, prefer
their own production and this is reflected in the handicap tables made by
them. This is probably the reason why in the National French Club Class
Championship almost only Pegases are persent, although LS-4 are also well
spread in France, because the German handicap is used and so Pegases have
a little advantage.

Andreas Maurer wrote:

I fail completely to understand why a smaller span (and crippled
performance) should lower production costs significantly. Why no
outgrown glider with up-to-date performance?

Changing wing span to, say, 14 meters will cost about 5 points of L/D,
and I doubt that it will save more than $500 (slightly less material
needed, and three man-hours saved for finish).

There's design, and then there is design for manufacture. If you look at
models for manufacturing costs of things, airplanes included, the
biggest factors are the choice of materials, the mass of whatever it is
you are making, and the complexity. The big things that affect
complexity are parts count and the ease/difficulty of working with the
material. Drops in parts count can have *big* impact on touch labor.
Think fixed wheels, for example.

After that, there are big learning curves for how many you make, with
the cost per unit dropping significantly. Aerospace thingies typically
have about an 80% learning curve, which means each time you double the
number of things you make, you drop the cost of manufacture by 80%. So
if it costs $10K to make the 20th plane, it will cost $8K to make 40th.
That's not saying the manufacture will pass on the savings, of course.

There are probably enough gliders out there against which to do build a
semblance of a cost models for gliders.

On 26 Nov 2003 10:25:05 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:



I wonder if the IGC would consider something like the Centrair Pegasus
101D for the new WC. Maybe a slightly shrunk wingspan version? It sure
would be nice to have a retractable main wheel...


Now that DG have killed the LS4 maybe the molds and info package are
for sale?

Then again do you really want any investment you make to be at the
mercy of an IGC decision?

Mike Borgelt