On Oct 4, 6:28 pm, Tony Verhulst wrote:
But, can you tell which specs were wrong?

* substantially lower costs than then-current new gliders
* easy & safe handling in the air and on the ground
* a single design, stabilized for a period of years
* performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
* simple construction
* suitable for clubs, private owners & early solo pilots.

Replace bullet #4 with:
* Minimum performance on par with 20+ year old std class ships.

That would do it, I think.

Tony V.

A World Class glider should have the performance to do 300K flights in
coastal areas where the lift usually starts at 2,500 AGL by noon and
rises to 4-5,000' later in the day. It should do 500K flights with
higher ceilings and/or ridge lift. It should win some Sports Class
regional contests, even over roughed terrain and weak conditions.

In other words, it should be a PW 5.

Someone asked what I would consider "a long task" for a PW 5.
Currently, along the Gulf Coast, where cloud base rarely gets over
5,000', we do lots of 300K flights in PW 5s. Here a long task would
have to be at least 300K. Out West, 500K would be called a long task.
US records show that you would have to fly quite a bit further than
that for a record.

As for contests, PW 5's have won Sports Class Regionals. Look at Bill
Snead's flights in this year's Region 10 contest. His flights were
over rough terrain and in challenging conditions.

You may have heard the excuse, "I flew as far as I could; after all, I
was flying a PW 5 ( or another short-winged ship)." But it's often
our skills, not the ship that limits us.

None of us should accept arbitrary limits. Isn't soaring a sport that
breaks limits and preconceptions?