70 kg 31:1 glider is here to stay?

For soaring, this is it.
New racing class?
Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
What's a rush anyway?
Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
Stalls at 31.4 km/h

http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg

Empty weight env. 70 Kg
Span 15 meters
Lenght 5,35 meters
Aspect ratio 21,3
Area 10,56 m2
Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
Stall 31,4 Km/h
Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
VNE 140 Km/h

Andre

can you say the word "homely" ?
again.....part of the reasons that many people have been drawn to soaring,
especially those who have joined the ranks from general aviation, is the
slick beautiful lines of (most) sailplanes....We can "visualize" ourselves
transformed into the same heroic and stunning figure as our machine we then
occupy...
Part of, (IMHO) the lack of success and mixed emotions toward some
sailplanes has been the novelty and shall I say "unique" appearance of
some......this is not a new phenomenon .it's not just the PW5's, Russia's,
Genesis types (only to name a few)that have created such arguments, but look
back at other failed designs over the past 30 years, I'm sure you'll see
plenty of other "novel" designs that never made a lasting impact or even
made it to the market.....
We all admit it or not, still look at lovely models, beautiful cars and , of
course sleek airplanes and let our emotions empty our pocket books a lot
quicker than we study the specifications sheets and make our decisions from
excel comparisons and graphs..
tim

"Andre Volant" wrote in message
om...
For soaring, this is it.
New racing class?
Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
What's a rush anyway?
Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
Stalls at 31.4 km/h

http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg

Empty weight env. 70 Kg
Span 15 meters
Lenght 5,35 meters
Aspect ratio 21,3
Area 10,56 m2
Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
Stall 31,4 Km/h
Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
VNE 140 Km/h

Andre

Very, very true.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Tim Mara" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
can you say the word "homely" ?
again.....part of the reasons that many people have been drawn to soaring,
especially those who have joined the ranks from general aviation, is the
slick beautiful lines of (most) sailplanes....We can "visualize" ourselves
transformed into the same heroic and stunning figure as our machine we
then occupy...
Part of, (IMHO) the lack of success and mixed emotions toward some
sailplanes has been the novelty and shall I say "unique" appearance of
some......this is not a new phenomenon .it's not just the PW5's, Russia's,
Genesis types (only to name a few)that have created such arguments, but
look back at other failed designs over the past 30 years, I'm sure you'll
see plenty of other "novel" designs that never made a lasting impact or
even made it to the market.....
We all admit it or not, still look at lovely models, beautiful cars and ,
of course sleek airplanes and let our emotions empty our pocket books a
lot quicker than we study the specifications sheets and make our decisions
from excel comparisons and graphs..
tim

"Andre Volant" wrote in message
om...
For soaring, this is it.
New racing class?
Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
What's a rush anyway?
Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
Stalls at 31.4 km/h

http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg

Empty weight env. 70 Kg
Span 15 meters
Lenght 5,35 meters
Aspect ratio 21,3
Area 10,56 m2
Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
Stall 31,4 Km/h
Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
VNE 140 Km/h

Andre

"Tim Mara" wrote in message
...
can you say the word "homely" ?
again.....part of the reasons that many people have been drawn to soaring,
especially those who have joined the ranks from general aviation, is the
slick beautiful lines of (most) sailplanes....We can "visualize" ourselves
transformed into the same heroic and stunning figure as our machine we
then
occupy...
Part of, (IMHO) the lack of success and mixed emotions toward some
sailplanes has been the novelty and shall I say "unique" appearance of
some......this is not a new phenomenon .it's not just the PW5's, Russia's,
Genesis types (only to name a few)that have created such arguments, but
look
back at other failed designs over the past 30 years, I'm sure you'll see
plenty of other "novel" designs that never made a lasting impact or even
made it to the market.....
We all admit it or not, still look at lovely models, beautiful cars and ,
of
course sleek airplanes and let our emotions empty our pocket books a lot
quicker than we study the specifications sheets and make our decisions
from
excel comparisons and graphs..
tim


Tim's viewpoint is, as usual, insightful. However, esthetic values can
change over time. It seems that at some point after everyone agrees on what
is 'beautiful', that esthetic value becomes a little 'boring' and a new
esthetic arises. I'm sure that the wooden, gull winged pre-WWII gliders
were (and to me, still are) considered beautiful. Of course, a proven
contest winner has a beauty all its own quite independent of its geometry.

Where I object to these low performance gliders is that they fly in the face
of a century of soaring progress. They seem to say, "since we can't compete
with the fast guys, lets change the rules".

If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want all
the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
rules.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:


Tim's viewpoint is, as usual, insightful. However, esthetic values can
change over time. It seems that at some point after everyone agrees on what
is 'beautiful', that esthetic value becomes a little 'boring' and a new
esthetic arises. I'm sure that the wooden, gull winged pre-WWII gliders
were (and to me, still are) considered beautiful. Of course, a proven
contest winner has a beauty all its own quite independent of its geometry.

Where I object to these low performance gliders is that they fly in the face
of a century of soaring progress. They seem to say, "since we can't compete
with the fast guys, lets change the rules".

I didn't see anything on their web site about "changing the rules". They
want to expand peoples options with a high performance _foot-launched_
glider. It was characterized as a better choice than the Carbon Dragon,
which, in the hands of Gary Osoba and others, has shown us there are
other "rules" out there that we didn't even know about (e.g., microlift).


If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want all
the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
rules.

And this glider may fit in very well with this philosophy. Think about
hang glider pilots and what they fly. Remember, it's designed for foot
launching. I didn't get the impression they thought the high performance
sailplane crowd would push their lead sleds into the trash heap!

--
Eric Greenwell
USA

Good points.

Let me think back... there was a day when the 2-33 sufficiently
inspired me. And not long after when the 1-26 was as pretty and nimble
as you could want a glider to be. There were glass gliders on the
field, but they didn't diminish my interest in those gliders I had
access to.

Let's be clear about something... real pilots need to fly. When I
decided I wanted to fly the best, I changed my career goals and found
a way to afford it, rather than whining about a lack of acceptably
cheap, aesthetically pleasing, high performance sailplanes.

Whining about what I don't have seems to me an exercise in futility.
Even worse, whining about other people who are honestly trying to keep
others from whining... well, it's a sad thing, indeed. If you are a
real pilot, as opposed to someone who just likes to tell his friends
he's a pilot, you'll fly what you can afford and love it. Or you'll
find a way to affort your dreams. All the better if someone is
inspired to find you a better price/performance ratio. Who cares what
it looks like?

Chris OCallaghan wrote:


Whining about what I don't have seems to me an exercise in futility.
Even worse, whining about other people who are honestly trying to keep
others from whining... well, it's a sad thing, indeed. If you are a
real pilot, as opposed to someone who just likes to tell his friends
he's a pilot, you'll fly what you can afford and love it. Or you'll
find a way to affort your dreams. All the better if someone is
inspired to find you a better price/performance ratio. Who cares what
it looks like?

I agree. My priorities, in order, are safety, comfort, handling, with
cost, performance, and rigging ease, being in the "trade-offs" category,
with appearance as the last one. I've bought 5 gliders in the 30 years
I've been flying, and never chose between gliders based on their appearance!

I love looking beautiful sailplanes, but I don't have fly one; after
all, it's either in the trailer, or I'm inside it looking out.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Depends on pocketbook, eh? Some can afford a PW-5 and some ASH25M
Enjoyment of each can be equal.

Bill Daniels wrote:

If I am to joust with the forces of nature over hostile terrain, I want all
the performance I can buy. Mother Nature just won't let you change her
rules.

Bill Daniels

One guy buys a PW5. Another guy buys a Libelle or Std Cirrus, flys
circles around the PW5, and has $10K or so left over to spend on booze
or hookers or whatever. Who has got more enjoyment for his money?

wrote:
One guy buys a PW5. Another guy buys a Libelle or Std Cirrus, flys
circles around the PW5, and has $10K or so left over to spend on booze
or hookers or whatever. Who has got more enjoyment for his money?

Tell me who the pilots are and I'll ask them, then report to you. I
can't possibly guess, and neither can you.

If they land with smiles on their faces, I'm happy!
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA