WGC Open Design Comparison

Originally Posted by Dave Nadler

On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:
With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various

designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number

of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating

statistical variance):



11427 JS-1C (4)

11316 Concordia (1)

11240 EB-29 (2)

11089 Quintus (7)

11069 Antares 23 (1)

10339 Nimbus 4 (2)

9977 EB-28 (4)

8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew

7631 ASW-22BL



I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships

were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with

only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,

i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.

The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very

similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were

essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be

true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have

the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.



The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by

the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an

affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced

by any of them. Just the numbers.



An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to

correct if I got anything wrong.



Best Regards,



Gary Osoba


Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"
stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?
Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?

See ya, Dave

Sorry, this is a bit off topic of design...

I am not a competition pilot so my question are out of total ignorance...please forgive. I enjoyed following the 2012 WGC online very much.

The one thing I notice as the days progressed was that it seemed, and totally anecdotal of course, was that pilots from the same country finished very close to each other. Could it be that team flying techniques are more refined outside the U.S.?...thus giving the advantage of having at least two ships, instead of one, finding/utilizing the best lift lines to the benefit of the team. Is that sort of thing common practice in these sorts of contests? Do the U.S. pilots get a chance to develop their team flying skills?

Brad.

[quote=François Hersen;821806]An another view, just for the first place in open class;

Quintus; 2
EB29; 3
JS1 C; 3
Antares; 3
Concirdia; 1

In strong conditions, 23 meters gliders have an avantage,

RC

snip

The Concordia won 2 days and the EB29 is 25.3m span in its shortest configuration.

As noted elsewhere the JS1's were 21m span

Colin

On Monday, 20 August 2012 16:40:44 UTC-6, Brad Alston wrote:
Dave Nadler;821793 Wrote:

On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:-

With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various



designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number



of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating



statistical variance):







11427 JS-1C (4)



11316 Concordia (1)



11240 EB-29 (2)



11089 Quintus (7)



11069 Antares 23 (1)



10339 Nimbus 4 (2)



9977 EB-28 (4)



8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew



7631 ASW-22BL







I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships



were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with



only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,



i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.



The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very



similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were



essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be



true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have



the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.







The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by



the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an



affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced



by any of them. Just the numbers.







An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to



correct if I got anything wrong.







Best Regards,







Gary Osoba-





Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"

stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?

Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?



See ya, Dave



Sorry, this is a bit off topic of design...



I am not a competition pilot so my question are out of total

ignorance...please forgive. I enjoyed following the 2012 WGC online very

much.



The one thing I notice as the days progressed was that it seemed, and

totally anecdotal of course, was that pilots from the same country

finished very close to each other. Could it be that team flying

techniques are more refined outside the U.S.?...thus giving the

advantage of having at least two ships, instead of one,

finding/utilizing the best lift lines to the benefit of the team. Is

that sort of thing common practice in these sorts of contests? Do the

U.S. pilots get a chance to develop their team flying skills?



Brad.









--

Brad Alston

The glider models designations for the JS-1's are accurate on the score sheets. Exact gliders models were listed after Leo submitted to scoring the correct designation. For open they are listed JS1-C and 18 meter are JS-1B.

Ron Gleason

On Monday, August 20, 2012 10:05:29 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
On Monday, 20 August 2012 16:40:44 UTC-6, Brad Alston wrote:

Dave Nadler;821793 Wrote:



On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:-



With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various







designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number







of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating







statistical variance):















11427 JS-1C (4)







11316 Concordia (1)







11240 EB-29 (2)







11089 Quintus (7)







11069 Antares 23 (1)







10339 Nimbus 4 (2)







9977 EB-28 (4)







8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew







7631 ASW-22BL















I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships







were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with







only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,







i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.







The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very







similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were







essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be







true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have







the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.















The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by







the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an







affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced







by any of them. Just the numbers.















An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to







correct if I got anything wrong.















Best Regards,















Gary Osoba-











Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"



stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?



Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?







See ya, Dave







Sorry, this is a bit off topic of design...







I am not a competition pilot so my question are out of total



ignorance...please forgive. I enjoyed following the 2012 WGC online very



much.







The one thing I notice as the days progressed was that it seemed, and



totally anecdotal of course, was that pilots from the same country



finished very close to each other. Could it be that team flying



techniques are more refined outside the U.S.?...thus giving the



advantage of having at least two ships, instead of one,



finding/utilizing the best lift lines to the benefit of the team. Is



that sort of thing common practice in these sorts of contests? Do the



U.S. pilots get a chance to develop their team flying skills?







Brad.



















--



Brad Alston



The glider models designations for the JS-1's are accurate on the score sheets. Exact gliders models were listed after Leo submitted to scoring the correct designation. For open they are listed JS1-C and 18 meter are JS-1B.



Ron Gleason

Just to be clear, a JS-1C does not mean 21m, they can fly with 18m wings as well. The C is basically the stronger wing to allow the 21m option. It would be nice to use nomeclature that make the span perfectly clear, like JS-1C-18m, JS-1C-21m etc.

Darryl

Originally Posted by John Cochrane[_2_]

On Aug 20, 1:09*pm, Gary Osoba wrote:[color=blue][i]

snip

Another point to remember. The new designs represent reaction to a
change in rules, not a change in technology. The open class isn't the
"open" class, it's the 850 kg class. What's happening is the design
response to 850 kg. To achieve a modern wingloading at 850 kg, you
need shorter (than 28 meters) span or shorter chord. Concordia went
one way, but in a design that could never be mass marketed. The 23 m
span seems an optimum for 850 kg, "normal" construction techniques,
and a price under a million bucks. But if there were not a weight
limit, the winning design might well look more like an Eta, cost as
much as a B2 bomber and fly at 1500 kg. And have a production run of
about two. I'm not advocating it -- for once I think the IGC did
something right, as 850 seems to be revitalizing the open class.

John Cochrane

I was exchanging emails with Michael Sommer before the worlds and he was wondering how competitive the EB29 would be at 'only' 55kg wingloading against the newer ships.

Based on his result you would have to say it was very competitve. How much of that is down to his undoubted ability is for better men than me to ponder

:-) Colin

Hi Brad

You are correct, Europeans are mostly flying as Teams. There was an interesting
article about this by Ms Tarberry on the Main Competition Website and also the same on the US Blog.

It is well-known that the US scores high on cultural scales of individualism, especially compared with Europe, and even in team games scores each individual competitor. Team flying is seen as one notch away from communism and will never happen here in contests. That's why the Europeans often win!

Mike

On Monday, 20 August 2012 23:37:12 UTC-6, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Monday, August 20, 2012 10:05:29 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:

On Monday, 20 August 2012 16:40:44 UTC-6, Brad Alston wrote:



Dave Nadler;821793 Wrote:







On Monday, August 20, 2012 2:09:57 PM UTC-4, Gary Osoba wrote:-







With all the drama in the 2012 WGC Open Class, here's how the various















designs compared by total average points, followed by the total number















of ships flown through the end of the contest (for calculating















statistical variance):































11427 JS-1C (4)















11316 Concordia (1)















11240 EB-29 (2)















11089 Quintus (7)















11069 Antares 23 (1)















10339 Nimbus 4 (2)















9977 EB-28 (4)















8962 ASH-25 (1) Another damaged and withdrew















7631 ASW-22BL































I did not include powered models as separate designs since the ships















were all in high ballast most of the contest. Obviously, designs with















only 1 or 2 gliders in the contest can vary statistically much more,















i.e. it might not be a good idea to bet against 4 or 5 Concordia's.















The Antares 23 and Quintus share the same wing, and should be very















similar in performance. Pilots in the top two designs above were















essentially learning to fly them during the contest, and that may be















true for several of the other pilot/ship combinations. I did not have















the opportunity to speak with many of the pilots.































The numbers are for this contest only, and its conditions, flown by















the respective pilots, etc., etc. Further disclaimer- I do not have an















affiliation with any of the makers, nor have I owned a glider produced















by any of them. Just the numbers.































An interesting design revolution is going on here. Feel free to















correct if I got anything wrong.































Best Regards,































Gary Osoba-























Were all the JS-1 flown in open class the new "C"







stretch model, or were some of them "B" 18-meter ?







Score-sheet shows some B models IIRC ?















See ya, Dave















Sorry, this is a bit off topic of design...















I am not a competition pilot so my question are out of total







ignorance...please forgive. I enjoyed following the 2012 WGC online very







much.















The one thing I notice as the days progressed was that it seemed, and







totally anecdotal of course, was that pilots from the same country







finished very close to each other. Could it be that team flying







techniques are more refined outside the U.S.?...thus giving the







advantage of having at least two ships, instead of one,







finding/utilizing the best lift lines to the benefit of the team. Is







that sort of thing common practice in these sorts of contests? Do the







U.S. pilots get a chance to develop their team flying skills?















Brad.







































--







Brad Alston







The glider models designations for the JS-1's are accurate on the score sheets. Exact gliders models were listed after Leo submitted to scoring the correct designation. For open they are listed JS1-C and 18 meter are JS-1B.







Ron Gleason



Just to be clear, a JS-1C does not mean 21m, they can fly with 18m wings as well. The C is basically the stronger wing to allow the 21m option. It would be nice to use nomeclature that make the span perfectly clear, like JS-1C-18m, JS-1C-21m etc.



Darryl

look the open class score sheets, it states JS-1C 21. I entered the data myself when Leo requested the change.

On Aug 21, 7:54*am, Mike the Strike wrote:
It is well-known that the US scores high on cultural scales of individualism, especially compared with Europe, and even in team games scores each individual competitor. *Team flying is seen as one notch away from communism and will never happen here in contests. *That's why the Europeans often win!

Mike

Cultural explanations are too easy. US pilots will do what it takes to
win. The US team has put huge effort in to team flying in the past
three years. Look at the start times. OK, no great results this time
around, but that's not from some cultural aversion to team flying.

The US has rules against team flying in our national contests. These
were put in many years ago, not in praise of "individualism" but
because it was felt that the presence of teams of top pilots would
discourage "little guy" participation. That issue is constantly under
review, and will be on the upcoming pilot opinion poll. Again. If US
pilots want to team fly, just say so loudly on the opinion poll. It
will happen as soon as pilots want it. (Especially if the "little
guys" write in and say this won't discourage them) I actually think
team flying is a lot of fun, and might encourage people to come to
contests. But we have to hear from pilots on this.

Meanwhile the IGC talks frequently about taking steps to limit team
flying, such as only one pilot per country, but never does anything
about it. I guess countries who are good at it like to keep the rules
the way they are.

It's not about culture. It's about rules. Same with gaggling. IGC
rules make gaggling, start roulette and leaching a mandatory part of
contest flying. US rules make those strategies much less important.
(This is in the distance/speed formulas, day devaluation rules, and
guidance on assigned vs. area tasks. US formulas and prevalence of
assigned tasks make tactical flying much less important) The result
is, much less tactical flying in the US. That is, I think, a bigger
part of why we don't do so well at worlds than team flying. And IMHO
makes US contest flying much more fun. But it has nothing to do with
culture, it's just an outcome of the rules.

Take those "collectivist" or "cooperative" europeans, who seem to like
to gaggle and play start games, put them in a race with different
rules, like the grand prix, and all of a sudden they take on a risk-
taking individualist streak that would embarrass the most redneck
American!

John Cochrane

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 2:19:02 PM UTC+1, John Cochrane wrote:
On Aug 21, 7:54*am, Mike the Strike wrote:

It is well-known that the US scores high on cultural scales of individualism, especially compared with Europe, and even in team games scores each individual competitor. *Team flying is seen as one notch away from communism and will never happen here in contests. *That's why the Europeans often win!



Mike



Cultural explanations are too easy. US pilots will do what it takes to

win. The US team has put huge effort in to team flying in the past

three years. Look at the start times. OK, no great results this time

around, but that's not from some cultural aversion to team flying.



The US has rules against team flying in our national contests. These

were put in many years ago, not in praise of "individualism" but

because it was felt that the presence of teams of top pilots would

discourage "little guy" participation. That issue is constantly under

review, and will be on the upcoming pilot opinion poll. Again. If US

pilots want to team fly, just say so loudly on the opinion poll. It

will happen as soon as pilots want it. (Especially if the "little

guys" write in and say this won't discourage them) I actually think

team flying is a lot of fun, and might encourage people to come to

contests. But we have to hear from pilots on this.



Meanwhile the IGC talks frequently about taking steps to limit team

flying, such as only one pilot per country, but never does anything

about it. I guess countries who are good at it like to keep the rules

the way they are.



It's not about culture. It's about rules. Same with gaggling. IGC

rules make gaggling, start roulette and leaching a mandatory part of

contest flying. US rules make those strategies much less important.

(This is in the distance/speed formulas, day devaluation rules, and

guidance on assigned vs. area tasks. US formulas and prevalence of

assigned tasks make tactical flying much less important) The result

is, much less tactical flying in the US. That is, I think, a bigger

part of why we don't do so well at worlds than team flying. And IMHO

makes US contest flying much more fun. But it has nothing to do with

culture, it's just an outcome of the rules.



Take those "collectivist" or "cooperative" europeans, who seem to like

to gaggle and play start games, put them in a race with different

rules, like the grand prix, and all of a sudden they take on a risk-

taking individualist streak that would embarrass the most redneck

American!



John Cochrane

It's about rules, not culture.
Two pilots are gathering more information about soaring conditions than one..
Team flying and individual flying are different skills, so let's have contests with either, or perhaps even both.

To be scored in the individual contest you just need a rule which says that two pilots representing the same country can't start within, say, 20 minutes (maybe more?) of one another, and that managers must demonstrate that one of their pilots is not acting as sacrificial for the other.

Iain Murdoch