Short Wings Gliders

Jim Beckman wrote:
At 04:52 29 January 2009, Greg Arnold wrote:
I would be surprised if they ever get enough gliders together to have a
contest. If you are into racing, you will buy something with at least
15 meters of span.

http://www.126association.org/graphics/tsa_grid.jpg

Jim Beckman



Yep. But that is the 1-26. We were talking about a new 13.5 meter
class -- such a class would soon disappear without a trace due to the
lack of interest.

On Jan 28, 8:30*pm, Dan Silent wrote:

think about the PIK without spoilers, so designed to win,
and it did..... but what a mistake to have such a solid
and durable sailplane with flaps and no spoilers because of a new class or
a new regulation!

A mistake to embody simple, effective, terminal-limiting glidepath
control that reduces stall speed instead of increasing it?

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:30 pm, Dan Silent wrote:

think about the PIK without spoilers, so designed to win,
and it did..... but what a mistake to have such a solid
and durable sailplane with flaps and no spoilers because of a new class or
a new regulation!

A mistake to embody simple, effective, terminal-limiting glidepath
control that reduces stall speed instead of increasing it?

I flew a spoiler-less flaps-only glider for years. Not once did any of
the following happen:

1) forget to connect the spoilers during assembly
2) have an automatic spoiler hookup fail to work during assembly
3) fail to perform a spoilers PCC if needed
4) accidentally leave the spoilers open during take-off
5) accidentally have the spoilers "pop open" during take-off or flight
6) feel the need to install a Piggot hook to prevent 5)
7) have the flaps-only glide path control fail to get me down very
quickly even if I was grossly too high on final approach

We are aware of perhaps the only downside of such a configuration: If we
are being sucked upwards by unwanted strong lift, if the airspeed is
high it may not be possible to deploy the flaps in order to come down.
I don't believe this has been much of an issue in practice.

Regards,

-Doug

On Jan 28, 9:01*pm, DRN wrote:

Aaaarrrgggg....

It's not too late to let your representative know how you think he
should vote on this issue.

On Jan 28, 6:01*pm, DRN wrote:

Tooling and engineering for a new glider costs millions...

Oops, I forgot to respond to that earlier: Sure, you can spend a
million bucks on a program like that if you do nothing but throw money
at all of the problems and issues. It's like when your only tool is a
hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But, no, it doesn't have to
cost "millions" or even the better part of a single million.

Thanks, Bob K.

At 18:40 31 January 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Jan 28, 6:01=A0pm, DRN wrote:

Tooling and engineering for a new glider costs millions...

Oops, I forgot to respond to that earlier: Sure, you can spend a
million bucks on a program like that if you do nothing but throw money
at all of the problems and issues. It's like when your only tool is a
hammer, every problem looks like a nail. But, no, it doesn't have to
cost "millions" or even the better part of a single million.

Thanks, Bob K.


Bob,
Schleicher may have spent a million on there innovative designs, the ASW24
&27.
If you were to condense your 10 year plus program into a 2 years, that
would mean 100% of the work has to be funded in a commercial setting to
pay for design, labour, shop floor and more. If you have personally
invested (a guess) 3000 hr and if you would have charged out at a rate of
$ 75.00 per/hr, all costs inclusive, we are now talking real bucks.
Adding a new airfoil design could cost tenth of thousand of $ if done
commercially. Delft University charges big bucks for there services. Your
New HP has proven design elements, including the airfoil, which keeps the
cost down. Yours is a big project and I admire your determination.
Udo

At 03:09 28 January 2009, RRK wrote:
How many gliders with a wing span of 13.5 or less do you know?


1 Apis-13 13.3
2 BG135
3 Carbon Dragon 13.4
4 Cessna CG-2 11.0
5 Cherokee II 12.2
6 Duster 13.1 m 13.1
7 H101 Salto
8 L0 100
9 Monarch 12.8
10 Monerai S 11.0
11 MU xyz
12 Pioneer II 13.0
13 PW-5 13.4
14 Russia
15 Schweizer 1-26 12.2
16 Silent 2 13.0
17 Silent 2 Targa 13.3
18 Silent Club 12.0
19 Slingaby Swallow
20 Sparrowhawk 11.0
21 SW-1 Swift
22 SZD-59 Acro 13.2
23 WindRose 12.7
24 Woodstock
25 Ka6 14.1

One thing that may not have been covered is cost. I see in "Gliding
International" concern about the increasing cost of material and
labour ("exploding"). If a shorter wing were used, there would be
less of both. The trend to larger span concerns me for three reasons
- first, the cost (I think this is obvious); second, the weight (with
the glider population aging, back backs seem to be the norm); and
third, the decreased number of places to land (particularly
outland).

Also, if we want to get the younger generation involved, the
increasing costs of the state of the art has to be controlled. I
think a 13.5 or 14 m class would be a good idea. It would let the
designers have a new challenge. Perhaps limit it to old-fashioned
fibreglass, not CRP, to control cost, perhaps. Some will prefer older
15 m glass; let them fly it. I think the world class was a great
idea, but the PW's 32:1 reach just wasn't enough. It's 15 years
later, let's see what the designers can do!

For what it's worth, when the Russia series was still in production, I
was waiting for the AC-4D to come out to buy one (that's the one with
flaps). Sadly, it never did.

wrote:
One thing that may not have been covered is cost. I see in "Gliding
International" concern about the increasing cost of material and
labour ("exploding"). If a shorter wing were used, there would be
less of both.


There is not a single proof that this is true. The difference of cost
between 14 m span and 15 m is presumably totally insignificant.
One has to chase economies elsewhere.


--

Michel TALON

One thing that may not have been covered is cost. I see in
"Gliding
International" concern about the increasing cost of material
and
labour ("exploding"). If a shorter wing were used, there
would be
less of both.


There is not a single proof that this is true. The difference of
cost
between 14 m span and 15 m is presumably totally
insignificant.
One has to chase economies elsewhere.


I have a Russia and an ASW20. I've been through both of them
pretty thoroughly, and I am amazed at the complexity of the
ASW20 and the simplicity of the Russia.

The Russia weighs 300 pounds. The ASW20 weighs almost twice
as much. I'll agree that just a few feet more wing probably does
not add that much to the cost, but all the complexity involved in
getting 40:1 or better sure does. Both ships were done by
brilliant designers, each shooting at a different target. If you
want performance, the 20's got it. Still going strong after all
these years. If you want a ship that assembles by one person in
10 minutes, is super easy to manufacture, has a really low parts
count and still has enough performance to go X/C, then the
Russia is hard to beat. I don't think anyone has discovered how
to do both. It will take the discovery of a new material that
lends itself to automated molding to get there.

One thing that I noticed last year is that it is hard to go
backwards in L/D. After flying a borrowed Libelle on a few
X/C's, I could hardly get myself back in the Russia. From this
point of view I understand the low opinions of the shortwings. It
does not alter the fact that I learned on it, loved it and it
provided a springboard to better opportunities. It is also cheap
and easy to fly. This is where the World Class can beat all other
classes. New blood can get into affordable, easy to fly, easy to
assemble ships and have huge fun. If they stick with it and want
to move up, they will find a way.

Brian