Performance World Class design proposal

Well,
You could start at Tim Mara'S site.
If you kepp looking for a while yoou will get a fel for the market. The good
deals only show up for a few days. The ones poorly priced stay ther for
months...and months....and months.
cheers!
"Jacek Kobiesa" wrote in message
om...
"Pete Reinhart" wrote in message
.. .
Yeah, and there seems to be a bunch of pretty nice gliders in the 40+-
l/d
range for sale in the 18K-20K ($US) range. They usually come with decent
trailers and usable instruments. Second generation 70's open class ships
are
selling in the low 20's these days and have very long legs (l/d @
45-50).
A recent article in Technical Soaring would indicate a usable airframe
life
somewhere in excess of 200,000 hours, so you probabluy wouldn't have to
worry too much about using one up.

Cheers!
"Jacek Kobiesa" wrote in message
om...
Eric Greenwell wrote in message
...
Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:29:58 +0300, "iPilot"

wrote:


Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it
interesting.


You just gave a perfect description of LS-4, LS8, DG-300,
Discus,......

In good ole Europe we call this "Club Class" and it's extremely
successful. Guess why...

I suspect there is little overall for support for the concept of a
true
"one design" class, for several reasons:

* the current Standard, 15M, and 18M classes are nearly one design
classes anyway, because the performance difference from
manufacturer-to-manufacturer and year-to-year is very small

* the Club Class makes so many different used gliders competitive,
the
potential cost advantage of a one-design class is eliminated

* the top pilots have little trouble getting the glider they want,
most
of the rest of us are losing contests because of our ability, not
our
glider, so there is little value to the majority of contest pilots
to
have a one design class.

* the major interest in the one-design class seems to be from people
that hope it would result in a new 40+ L/D glider that doesn't cost
any
more than a 20 year old used glider

I can't see the last item ever being more than a dream.

Eric,
You just nailed the issue right on the head....

Yeah, and there seems to be a bunch of pretty nice gliders in the 40+- l/d
range for sale in the 18K-20K ($US) range. They usually come with decent
trailers and usable instruments. Second generation 70's open class ships
are
selling in the low 20's these days and have very long legs (l/d @ 45-50).
A recent article in Technical Soaring would indicate a usable airframe
life
somewhere in excess of 200,000 hours, so you probabluy wouldn't have to
worry too much about using one up.

Cheers!

Where did you get this data from?

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses. I continue to
believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.

I disagree. IMHO, sailplane development is an extremely complex task
far out of reach of anybody without some very sound aeronautical
engineering education. And not only that, it also requires a good deal
of experience---read: your first design will not necessarily be the best
one. :-)

That said, I'm open to be proven wrong by counter-examples. Anybody
knows any?

Cheers
-Gerhard

A ls-4 is a very good glider for low time pilots. At my gliding club
in Holland they use for people who are flying solo and have about 20
solo launches on the Junior (training on the twin II astir and the
blanik). I know that the friesian aeroclub (FAC) uses the ls-4 as
their first single seat solo aircraft (after the first 5 solo flights
in the twin II astir).

You can't realy compare the ls-4 with the ls-3 because of the flaps.
The ls-3 has an airfoile that is highly sensitive to rain. Workload
with the ls-3 during tow is also high because you have to begin at
negative flaps and after gaining some speed you have to change to zero
or +5 flaps. The workload is even increased by the fact that most
ls-3's only have centre of gravity tow hooks. There is a modification
for the ls-4 (maybe also ls-3?) to fit a nose hook. You should also
change the flap setting during landing (from +5 or +10 to zero, to
keep the ailerons effective). The ls-4 has very good aileron
effectivity even at low speeds (read at the beginning of the tow)

Diederik

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:412e8f46$1@darkstar...
iPilot wrote:
BTW. While writing the requirements, I had LS 4 in mind. It seems to be a
good candidate for that purporse.

Perhaps DG, who has taken over the assets of LS but doesn't want to
produce the LS4, could be persuaded to transmit the production rights
to a manufacturer in a low-wages country? With all the LS4's already
flying, it would make a great monotype Word Class glider...

Hmmm...8 fatal accidents in LS-3 or LS-4 in the USA in 24 years.
0 in the Russia. Of course, there are likely a TON more LS-3/4s,
and flying for a lot longer. Interesting, half the LS fatals were
high timers ridge flying...

So I'm gonna say both the AC-4c (maybe with back opening canopy)
and the LS-4 might be good World Class competitors, if retract
were allowed.

Never flown an LS-4 though. Good for a low time pilot? (20-50
hours?) I suppose the easiest way to tell is to call an
insurance company, and get quotes for a typically priced
LS-4 and AC-4c, and compare...

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:45:22 +0300, "iPilot"
wrote:

I kept those people in mind who waste their time in topic called "Is
everybody afraid of World Class".

I know... but couldn't resist.

Bye
Andreas

On 26 Aug 2004 18:32:54 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:


Never flown an LS-4 though. Good for a low time pilot? (20-50
hours?) I suppose the easiest way to tell is to call an
insurance company, and get quotes for a typically priced
LS-4 and AC-4c, and compare...

The LS-4 is widely regared as one of the gliders with the best
handling you can get. The sheer number of produced LS-4 says it all.



Bye
Andreas

LS4 Pah!

Isn't this whole thread down to LS-4 owners who a just
miffed that their beloved glider has only won two Worlds!

Couldn't hack it in Std class,

Can't hack it in club class,

Let's make a class just for them!!

OK so you can fly further & faster in an LS-4 than
a PW5, but do these flights have any more merit. NO!!

We have a monotype class.

Why would you buy a 'new' LS4 when you can buy a new
Discus CS for similar money, or a D2 for a little more?

The same arguments will always apply

;-)

At 12:24 27 August 2004, Andreas Maurer wrote:
The LS-4 is widely regared as one of the gliders with
the best
handling you can get. The sheer number of produced
LS-4 says it all.



Bye
Andreas

In article , Peter F
writes

snip

you can fly further & faster in an
XXX type glider
than
a
YYY type glider
, but do these flights have any more merit
??

You raise an interesting point.

Myself, I have always thought that, other things being equal (I know
that that is difficult!), further and/or faster in soaring flights was a
sort of a merit in its own right.

Such as, longer and/or further flights in glider XXX over YYY. Of
course, if XXX is in an IGC/FAI class of its own, records and other
performances can be claimed below those (at world level) in Open Class
or with other gliders of higher performance.

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

This looks like a bunch of "America's Cup Boat Owners" discussing how poor
the performance of an olympic "Laser" is and how if you strech-it here,
change it there, it becomes an almost-Keelboat that goes faster than the
poor Laser.

Good grief, you guys are still missing the point altogether.

Go spend your millions and compete in the America's cup, stop bitching about
the Olympic classes and how poor they all perform.
Let the sailors with more merit prove their worth against tens of other guys
with the exact same equipment.

Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen one
day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made PUBLIC
and available to a central organizing body.
It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable cost.
External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.

Cheers.


"iPilot" wrote in message
...
I do not think that soaring community to trash current World Class. There
are some gliders out there
at least and there are competitions. And PW-5 seems to be a perfect glider
for beginning pilots in
clubs.

But I still believe that although the idea of the monoclass is very good,
the problem is the
relatively high cost of the glider with performance from the 60-s.
Therefore i propse a new
monoclass which is more performance than beginner oriented and which
should be our primary hope to
get the gliding into olympic games.

Objective:
To develop new monclass glider which offers the better or equal
performance per price when compared
to all current production and aftermarket gliders with L/D above 42.
Glider has to satisfy several general requirements
safe handling in the air and on the ground
a single design, stabilized for a period of years (proposedly 15 as in WC)
performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
simple construction

Design objectives

compliance with JAR-22, Category U, including cloud flying
max stall 80 km/h at max mass, most unfavorable cg, airbrakes opened or
closed
airbrakes for speed limiting & glidepath control required
sideslip possible with brakes opened or closed
effective wheel brake
automatic elevator hookup
a "crash-friendly" panel
ddtwo-handed canopy jettison actuating releases on both sides
seat & harness good to 15g's forward
battery, oxygen, equipment restraint good to 20g's
adequate cockpit ventilation
retractable landing gear
no flaps or camber-changing devices
possiblity to use water or in-flight adjustable ballast
no restrictions in wingtip extensions
no blowing or sucking of boundary layer
maximum L/D: 40 or greater
max roll rate at 1.4 Vs = b w 3.5 sec (b=span in meters)
accommodate pilots to 6"4"
provision for non-disposable ballast
panel to hold ASI, altimeter, compass, 2 varios, T&S ind
space for radio, O2, battery, datalogger
winch, aero & auto launches possible & safe
rigged easily by two average people
easily moved on ground.

Otherwise applicable to FAI Standard Class rules


Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.

Regards,
Kaido

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp"
wrote:

Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen one
day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made PUBLIC
and available to a central organizing body.
It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable cost.
External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.

.... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
with the PW-5.


Bye
Andreas

Racing with PW-5's on Olympics is more like racing with Optimist class of
sailboats. We're working to get the Laser done. Or at least Dragon.


"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp"
wrote:

Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen one
day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made
PUBLIC
and available to a central organizing body.
It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable
cost.
External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.

... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
with the PW-5.


Bye
Andreas