wrote:

To the contrary, Schleicher and the others have chosen not to use a
"safety cell" design. The nose would have to extend several feet beyond
were it does now to have sufficient crush distance, and they do not
believe pilots will buy such a glider.

Lange does use a crush zone, and it certainly did not
require "several feet longer fuselage" for Antares. See:
http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.de/htm/...0e/safety.html
The crushable nose-cone is a separate part from the
remainder of the safety cockpit, attached late in the
manufacturing.

It looks like a good design; still, an additional 4" over a "normal"
fuselage is not much compared to the several feet of crush zone
available in an automobile. Is it intended that the cockpit function in
the "safety cell" manner that Dan G was describing, or is it designed to
crumple progressively to absorb energy, like the Schleicher cockpits?

I wish there indpendent tests of glider crash protection that were
released to the public, because it is very difficult for us to determine
the effectiveness of a design, especially new designs that have not had
any crashes yet.

I'll try get some pictures on my
web site...

I'd love to see those.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org