70 kg 31:1 glider is here to stay?

For soaring, this is it.
New racing class?
Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
What's a rush anyway?
Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
Stalls at 31.4 km/h

http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg

Empty weight env. 70 Kg
Span 15 meters
Lenght 5,35 meters
Aspect ratio 21,3
Area 10,56 m2
Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
Stall 31,4 Km/h
Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
VNE 140 Km/h

Andre

Very, very true.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Tim Mara" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
can you say the word "homely" ?
again.....part of the reasons that many people have been drawn to soaring,
especially those who have joined the ranks from general aviation, is the
slick beautiful lines of (most) sailplanes....We can "visualize" ourselves
transformed into the same heroic and stunning figure as our machine we
then occupy...
Part of, (IMHO) the lack of success and mixed emotions toward some
sailplanes has been the novelty and shall I say "unique" appearance of
some......this is not a new phenomenon .it's not just the PW5's, Russia's,
Genesis types (only to name a few)that have created such arguments, but
look back at other failed designs over the past 30 years, I'm sure you'll
see plenty of other "novel" designs that never made a lasting impact or
even made it to the market.....
We all admit it or not, still look at lovely models, beautiful cars and ,
of course sleek airplanes and let our emotions empty our pocket books a
lot quicker than we study the specifications sheets and make our decisions
from excel comparisons and graphs..
tim

"Andre Volant" wrote in message
om...
For soaring, this is it.
New racing class?
Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
What's a rush anyway?
Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
Stalls at 31.4 km/h

http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg

Empty weight env. 70 Kg
Span 15 meters
Lenght 5,35 meters
Aspect ratio 21,3
Area 10,56 m2
Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
Stall 31,4 Km/h
Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
VNE 140 Km/h

Andre

"Tim Mara" wrote in message
...
can you say the word "homely" ?
again.....part of the reasons that many people have been drawn to soaring,
especially those who have joined the ranks from general aviation, is the
slick beautiful lines of (most) sailplanes....We can "visualize" ourselves
transformed into the same heroic and stunning figure as our machine we
then
occupy...
Part of, (IMHO) the lack of success and mixed emotions toward some
sailplanes has been the novelty and shall I say "unique" appearance of
some......this is not a new phenomenon .it's not just the PW5's, Russia's,
Genesis types (only to name a few)that have created such arguments, but
look
back at other failed designs over the past 30 years, I'm sure you'll see
plenty of other "novel" designs that never made a lasting impact or even
made it to the market.....
We all admit it or not, still look at lovely models, beautiful cars and ,
of
course sleek airplanes and let our emotions empty our pocket books a lot
quicker than we study the specifications sheets and make our decisions
from
excel comparisons and graphs..
tim


Tim's viewpoint is, as usual, insightful. However, esthetic values can
change over time. It seems that at some point after everyone agrees on what
is 'beautiful', that esthetic value becomes a little 'boring' and a new
esthetic arises. I'm sure that the wooden, gull winged pre-WWII gliders
were (and to me, still are) considered beautiful. Of course, a proven
contest winner has a beauty all its own quite independent of its geometry.

Where I object to these low performance gliders is that they fly in the face
of a century of soaring progress. They seem to say, "since we can't compete
with the fast guys, lets change the rules".

If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want all
the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
rules.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:


Tim's viewpoint is, as usual, insightful. However, esthetic values can
change over time. It seems that at some point after everyone agrees on what
is 'beautiful', that esthetic value becomes a little 'boring' and a new
esthetic arises. I'm sure that the wooden, gull winged pre-WWII gliders
were (and to me, still are) considered beautiful. Of course, a proven
contest winner has a beauty all its own quite independent of its geometry.

Where I object to these low performance gliders is that they fly in the face
of a century of soaring progress. They seem to say, "since we can't compete
with the fast guys, lets change the rules".

I didn't see anything on their web site about "changing the rules". They
want to expand peoples options with a high performance _foot-launched_
glider. It was characterized as a better choice than the Carbon Dragon,
which, in the hands of Gary Osoba and others, has shown us there are
other "rules" out there that we didn't even know about (e.g., microlift).


If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want all
the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
rules.

And this glider may fit in very well with this philosophy. Think about
hang glider pilots and what they fly. Remember, it's designed for foot
launching. I didn't get the impression they thought the high performance
sailplane crowd would push their lead sleds into the trash heap!

--
Eric Greenwell
USA

can you say the word "homely" ?
again.....part of the reasons that many people have been drawn to soaring,
especially those who have joined the ranks from general aviation, is the
slick beautiful lines of (most) sailplanes....We can "visualize" ourselves
transformed into the same heroic and stunning figure as our machine we then
occupy...
Part of, (IMHO) the lack of success and mixed emotions toward some
sailplanes has been the novelty and shall I say "unique" appearance of
some......this is not a new phenomenon .it's not just the PW5's, Russia's,
Genesis types (only to name a few)that have created such arguments, but look
back at other failed designs over the past 30 years, I'm sure you'll see
plenty of other "novel" designs that never made a lasting impact or even
made it to the market.....
We all admit it or not, still look at lovely models, beautiful cars and , of
course sleek airplanes and let our emotions empty our pocket books a lot
quicker than we study the specifications sheets and make our decisions from
excel comparisons and graphs..
tim

"Andre Volant" wrote in message
om...
For soaring, this is it.
New racing class?
Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
What's a rush anyway?
Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
Stalls at 31.4 km/h

http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg

Empty weight env. 70 Kg
Span 15 meters
Lenght 5,35 meters
Aspect ratio 21,3
Area 10,56 m2
Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
Stall 31,4 Km/h
Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
VNE 140 Km/h

Andre

Depends on pocketbook, eh? Some can afford a PW-5 and some ASH25M
Enjoyment of each can be equal.

Bill Daniels wrote:

If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want all
the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
rules.

Bill Daniels

Perfect example of miscommunication! Neither wrong.
Bill said 'over hostile terrain,' and he said all
he could buy. Charlie said one can have as much enjoyment
in other circumstances. This wasn't even a discussion;
it was a drive-by.

At 19:18 19 November 2004, Charles Yeates wrote:
Depends on pocketbook, eh? Some can afford a PW-5
and some ASH25M
Enjoyment of each can be equal.

Bill Daniels wrote:

If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile
terrain, I want all
the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't
let you change her
rules.

Bill Daniels

One guy buys a PW5. Another guy buys a Libelle or Std Cirrus, flys
circles around the PW5, and has $10K or so left over to spend on booze
or hookers or whatever. Who has got more enjoyment for his money?

Charles,
I'll bet he paid less for the Nimbus he's flying than you could sell him a
PW-5.
A Nimbus won the region 9 sports class this year and the Nimbus isn't that
much harder to rig than a PW-5 (I've done both).
For me, I'm flying a nice Open Jantar that I know I paid less for than even
some of the used PW-5's currently on the market.
It is true that I probably can't land it in as small a field as a PW-5, but
then I can cover a lot more ground when I'm looking for a place to land, and
thus, have more options.
It is my opinion (and not only mine) that the older open class ships
represent some of the best values in soaring machines there are. Most have
nice comfy cockpits that aren't too sensitive to weight, most are fairly
easy to fly, and most of them climb really well and stay up well on weak
days. With the right rigging equipment, they aren't any more trouble to
assemble than your average 15 meter ship.
As for the one design aspect, I raced sailboats for 30 years at a fairly
high level both one design and handicap. I think one design sailboat racing
is a joke because no two are _exactly_ the same and the various class rules
range from ridiculously specific to almost meaningless. Most one design
classes ultimately end up something like the 1-26 class just to get the
participation.

Cheers! (flame suit on)


"Charles Yeates" wrote in message
...
Depends on pocketbook, eh? Some can afford a PW-5 and some ASH25M
Enjoyment of each can be equal.

Bill Daniels wrote:

If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want
all
the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
rules.

Bill Daniels

Gee...that sure explains how a 1-26 won the OLC...with
a lot of very long flights.




At 23:06 19 November 2004, wrote:
One guy buys a PW5. Another guy buys a Libelle or
Std Cirrus, flys
circles around the PW5, and has $10K or so left over
to spend on booze
or hookers or whatever. Who has got more enjoyment
for his money?