Pw5 is the best for any class.

Edward Lockhart wrote:
As someone with more hang-gliding time than sailplane
time, I can only applaud your appreciation for low
performance gliding.

Geez Edward, you really put me in my place.

Lighten up, will ya. Nobody's interested in your bags of rags and
strings,
that's fodder for a different thread.

I got a gold badge and distance diamond, so I've been more than
two fences over.

On the upside, I like your sailplane. I have flown a Pilatus and
enjoyed it.
Flies like a 1-35 and I always did like Schweizer sailplanes.

PW-5flyer

The local library carries the USHGA mag...and I also
read Davis Straub's webzine....I find the distinction
between the latest rigid wing, control surface HG's,
and the 13 Meter sailplanes on the market, rapidly
closing.

I know that 'foot launching' seems to be the key difference,
but with the number of HG's winch and aero-towed...it
would seem 'foot landing' is actually more accurate.

And it seems the PG crowd's sheer numbers are starting
to marginalize the HG's aging group. In fact I dare
say the HG crowd may have more in common with sailplane
pilots now(gasp, grown).

Just throwing this out for discussion...it seems to
me the groups have more then enough in common to band
together. But no doubt there must be some good reasons
this has not happened, I suppose




At 15:30 22 December 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
Stewart Kissel wrote:
Hey Ed...

I visited the USHGA site and noticed the poll on the
name change.

some poll - Only 3 choices and they all suck.

Tony V
USHGA #7826 (yes, four digits :-( )

Well well...lol...great topical conversation...

Thank you, I think I got the ball rolling on this one.

What a funny path you've chosen to go down..

It's winter, I'm bored and you guys are so easy to provoke.

I will say maybe you should just back up your
comments with an offer of a duel..

Did you mean Dual? cause I don't instruct anymore.

Maybe you're right...maybe the PW-5 really IS better..

Thanks for playing the game. I've enjoyed it immensely.

I'll be out of the office and out of town for the holidays,
please continue to flame me as much as you all would like.
Maybe we can do this again after the new year.
Hope you all have a safe and happy holidays.
PW-5 flyer

please continue to flame me as much as you all would
like.
Maybe we can do this again after the new year.


Hey, if owning a PW5 makes you so much smarter the
us, how come you still belong to aol?

AFAIK, SSA rejected the HG community in the 1970's. Someone doubtless has
the specific story.

Frank Whiteley

"Stewart Kissel" wrote in
message ...
The local library carries the USHGA mag...and I also
read Davis Straub's webzine....I find the distinction
between the latest rigid wing, control surface HG's,
and the 13 Meter sailplanes on the market, rapidly
closing.

I know that 'foot launching' seems to be the key difference,
but with the number of HG's winch and aero-towed...it
would seem 'foot landing' is actually more accurate.

And it seems the PG crowd's sheer numbers are starting
to marginalize the HG's aging group. In fact I dare
say the HG crowd may have more in common with sailplane
pilots now(gasp, grown).

Just throwing this out for discussion...it seems to
me the groups have more then enough in common to band
together. But no doubt there must be some good reasons
this has not happened, I suppose




At 15:30 22 December 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
Stewart Kissel wrote:
Hey Ed...

I visited the USHGA site and noticed the poll on the
name change.

some poll - Only 3 choices and they all suck.

Tony V
USHGA #7826 (yes, four digits :-( )

Shawn wrote:

AAAAHHHH, now were having a good time.
Where's good 'ol Lennie when we need him?

Apparently he's making models of horse **** in his basement.
:-)

Gliders, germans, horse****, what's the difference? In HO scale, one's
as hard as another to do right.

Ah, we let them season for 30 years...and then get
them as gray beards eh?


At 18:00 22 December 2004, F.L. Whiteley wrote:
AFAIK, SSA rejected the HG community in the 1970's.
Someone doubtless has
the specific story.

Frank Whiteley

'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
message ...
The local library carries the USHGA mag...and I also
read Davis Straub's webzine....I find the distinction
between the latest rigid wing, control surface HG's,
and the 13 Meter sailplanes on the market, rapidly
closing.

I know that 'foot launching' seems to be the key difference,
but with the number of HG's winch and aero-towed...it
would seem 'foot landing' is actually more accurate.

And it seems the PG crowd's sheer numbers are starting
to marginalize the HG's aging group. In fact I dare
say the HG crowd may have more in common with sailplane
pilots now(gasp, grown).

Just throwing this out for discussion...it seems to
me the groups have more then enough in common to band
together. But no doubt there must be some good reasons
this has not happened, I suppose




At 15:30 22 December 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
Stewart Kissel wrote:
Hey Ed...

I visited the USHGA site and noticed the poll on
the
name change.

some poll - Only 3 choices and they all suck.

Tony V
USHGA #7826 (yes, four digits :-( )

Hang glider? I don't need no stinking hang glider. Real pilots go cross
country in this:

http://www.skydiveelsinore.com/around-the-dz/birdman/

(-;

Sorry, but the idea of cross country is to GO SOMEWHERE. I like to go
somewhere far, to enjoy the scenery and the challenge, and then be sure to
get back home for the barbecue and favorite beverage.
-Bob

One of the older threads mentioned that the Pegasus has pretty severe
wing flex.

I wonder how important this is. Does anyone think wing flex
has been a big deal during landing (esp. landouts) and catching
a wingtip?

Has anyone changed aircraft and used this (flex) as a metric that
pushed them one way or another?

It's very interesting to me how this issue is dealt with. Clearly
designers are favoring mid or high-mid wings to high wing
gliders (for performance reasons) and I've seen minimal
dihedral in gliders (although in flight there is some, esp. the
ETA, right?). I thought it was so incredibly funny that the
ETA sketches (before it ever flew) showed very little curve,
but in flight the flex was astonishing.

Shorter span gliders (Sparrowhawk, PW-5, 1-26, AC-4) clearly
have much less flex. I wonder to what extent the "landout
willingness" is a factor of span, and how much is really a factor of flex.

We talked about how flex may actually be helpful for getting extra
energy out of turbulence "flapping wings like a seagull" but
not so much about the downside (tips hitting on landing, ground
clearance, etc.).

The spaniest thing I've ever flown was the DG-1000, but it has what
seem to be fairly stiff wings, and the tip extensions have pretty
significant "dihedral." I don't know if this is the correct term
for it since it is just for the tips, and not related
to the fuselage, but it sure does give a bit more clearance.

In this glider, span is certainly a consideration for runway lights,
etc, but flex didn't seem to even come into play at all.

I don't think I've ever even SEEN a 22 or 25 meter glider.
How much flex do they have on the ground? Do the tips
"almost touch" on every 1.2G landing? Are there any standards
for landing tests?

This is certainly something we don't encounter in airplan...err
towplanes




--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

I saw a G103 slap both wing tips on the ground at the same time. (It was
just a normal landing for that particular pilot.) It didn't ground loop
though.

I guess the landout issue is still how high the grass or crop is. If the
landing is gentle, the wings will keep some dihedral until the glider slows
down.

I think the term is "Polyhedral".

There's a guy I know who flies a Jantar 2A and, despite the long droopy
wings, he seems to handle it very well in the rough. He really likes the
glider and is not particularly worried about a landout.

Bill Daniels


"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41ca34cc$1@darkstar...
One of the older threads mentioned that the Pegasus has pretty severe
wing flex.

I wonder how important this is. Does anyone think wing flex
has been a big deal during landing (esp. landouts) and catching
a wingtip?

Has anyone changed aircraft and used this (flex) as a metric that
pushed them one way or another?

It's very interesting to me how this issue is dealt with. Clearly
designers are favoring mid or high-mid wings to high wing
gliders (for performance reasons) and I've seen minimal
dihedral in gliders (although in flight there is some, esp. the
ETA, right?). I thought it was so incredibly funny that the
ETA sketches (before it ever flew) showed very little curve,
but in flight the flex was astonishing.

Shorter span gliders (Sparrowhawk, PW-5, 1-26, AC-4) clearly
have much less flex. I wonder to what extent the "landout
willingness" is a factor of span, and how much is really a factor of flex.

We talked about how flex may actually be helpful for getting extra
energy out of turbulence "flapping wings like a seagull" but
not so much about the downside (tips hitting on landing, ground
clearance, etc.).

The spaniest thing I've ever flown was the DG-1000, but it has what
seem to be fairly stiff wings, and the tip extensions have pretty
significant "dihedral." I don't know if this is the correct term
for it since it is just for the tips, and not related
to the fuselage, but it sure does give a bit more clearance.

In this glider, span is certainly a consideration for runway lights,
etc, but flex didn't seem to even come into play at all.

I don't think I've ever even SEEN a 22 or 25 meter glider.
How much flex do they have on the ground? Do the tips
"almost touch" on every 1.2G landing? Are there any standards
for landing tests?

This is certainly something we don't encounter in airplan...err
towplanes




--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd