ASH 31Mi

http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/p...h31_main_e.htm

At 13:14 19 December 2008, wrote:
http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/p...h31_main_e.htm

Can anyone lend me £200,000 at 1% ??

Jim

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:00:05 +0000, Jim White wrote:

At 13:14 19 December 2008, wrote:
http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/p...h31_main_e.htm

Can anyone lend me £200,000 at 1% ??

Give Gordon another month and he'll do it.


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

On Dec 19, 6:14*am, wrote:
http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/p...h31_main_e.htm

I have revised my Christmas list!

Interesting that they are going back to water bags.

Also interesting that they claim no need for a tail tank. They said
the same for the 28 but then offered it as an option. I ordered one
with mine and I use it. Did anyone actually buy a 28 without the tail
tank?

Andy

The thing that caught my eye is this sentence:

"Our newly-developed wing structure allows for a wing span of 21m despite
of a wing section as thin as 13%."

Anyone got any information about what is new about the wing structure?
Anything that might make the surfaces have a low susceptibility to
shrinkage and deformity?

John Galloway

At 15:52 19 December 2008, Andy wrote:
On Dec 19, 6:14=A0am, wrote:
http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/p...h31_main_e.htm

I have revised my Christmas list!

Interesting that they are going back to water bags.

Also interesting that they claim no need for a tail tank. They said
the same for the 28 but then offered it as an option. I ordered one
with mine and I use it. Did anyone actually buy a 28 without the tail
tank?

Andy


Schleicher seem to have an interesting slant on this. I have a 27 without
a fin tank. Although ballast does move the cofg forward they say this is
no bad thing as you want to be nose heavy for running ridges and on good
days and tail heavy for weak thermals. Therefore, they argue that you put
water in for good days moving the cofg slightly forward, and drop it when
thermals are weak moving cofg further aft.

They see no need for pilot adjustment of balance through a fin tank. Some
owners obviously disagree as they pay extra for the tank.

I just add / remove tail lead as I feel for the day / season / type of
flying (within limits of course)

Jim

On Dec 19, 9:45*am, Jim White wrote:
At 15:52 19 December 2008, Andy wrote:
. Although ballast does move the cofg forward they say this is
no bad thing as you want to be nose heavy for running ridges and on good
days and tail heavy for weak thermals. Therefore, they argue that you put
water in for good days moving the cofg slightly forward, and drop it when
thermals are weak moving cofg further aft.

I agree with that. My ballasted CG is forward of my unballasted CG
despite the use of the tail tank. I only need about 1.5l to put
ballasted CG where I want it so maybe I don't really need it. My
unballasted CG is set for weak conditions and I had to add nose
ballast at a no water ballast contest as I got very tired of pushing
the stick when running between strong thermals.

Andy

That is the idea.
This was the first flapped airfoil on a 15 meter class glider of that
design to shift the C of P forward at high cruise. I can go as far forward
as 28% chord in the normal operating range. It was the insistence of G.
Waibel that one could carry laminar flow over 90% chord at the bottom
surface over a sealed hinge. The rest was up to L. Boermans to figure out.
Variation of that airfoil design are in used on all kinds of modern
gliders now. The side benefit is, that the normal H stab down load is
reduced or even contributing to the over all lift, when cruising faster.
The DU89-134/14 in its zero line configuration (#2 flap setting in an
ASW27) looks more like an airfoil for a tail less glider.

When you fly with out water you fly with the C of G back ( weaker
conditions) when adding water
(stronger condition) the C of G moves forward, this matches the design
outcome, hence, I personally think ,that lead to the idea of no tail tank
required initially.

As to stick force i.e. trim load on the stick and how they exactly relate
with water I do not know. I fly with no water till now because I fly
mostly in weak condition. I have my C of G back in the 80% range and with
that I have normal trim loads, Trim all the way back no stick load in a
steady 40 deg. bank and I can cruise with out stick load with trim
forward.
Udo

Schleicher seem to have an interesting slant on this. I have a 27
without
a fin tank. Although ballast does move the cofg forward they say this is
no bad thing as you want to be nose heavy for running ridges and on good
days and tail heavy for weak thermals. Therefore, they argue that you
put
water in for good days moving the cofg slightly forward, and drop it
when
thermals are weak moving cofg further aft.

They see no need for pilot adjustment of balance through a fin tank.
Some
owners obviously disagree as they pay extra for the tank.

I just add / remove tail lead as I feel for the day / season / type of
flying (within limits of course)

Jim

On Dec 19, 7:52*am, Andy wrote:
On Dec 19, 6:14*am, wrote:

http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/p...h31_main_e.htm

I have revised my Christmas list!

Interesting that they are going back to water bags.

Also interesting that they claim no need for a tail tank. *They said
the same for the 28 but then offered it as an option. *I ordered one
with mine and I use it. *Did anyone actually buy a 28 without the tail
tank?

Andy


I know the change to wing tanks on the ASW-27B but Schleicher are not
necessarily "going back to water bags", I suspect their motorgliders
use bags as this makes the installation of wing fuel bladders easier/
more flexible although I'm sure they could do it either way. And on a
26 (not many of those) or a 26E with engine removed you can add inner
water bag in each wing - although I wonder if anybody does this.
Although you can fit both fuel bladders and the standard (outer) water
bags into a 26E the issue is you pretty much run out of allowable wing
loading. And some owners (like me) don't even bother to fit the water
bags. The higher wingloading on the -31 will be nice on strong days
and allow better use of water and combined water/fuel loads. But who
knows, maybe they will use bags on their next non-motorized gliders as
well. We'll have to wait and see what the ASG-32 comes with...


Darryl
26E driver.

Try the US government. They give money away easily enough.

Tom
OD2

"Jim White" wrote in message
...
At 13:14 19 December 2008, wrote:
http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/p...h31_main_e.htm

Can anyone lend me £200,000 at 1% ??

Jim