On Dec 26, 10:54*pm, Marc Ramsey wrote:
wrote:
Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the
requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for
glider *with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as
the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not
understanding the concept. The "One Design" class will fail again in
the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific
purpose. And that is sad.

I agree, and that is why I say that some of us in the soaring community
need to rethink what we are doing (those of you with an Antares on
order, carry on 8^).

Most of us can't afford an Antares, but many second-hand good-
condition, well-equipped 40:1 ships are affordable, so why spend a lot
more money on a 30:1 ship than on a 40:1 ship?

Maybe the failure was the initial performance specification from the
FAI. I can't remember if the Junior was a contender or not, but it
fits a lot of the criteria - L/D, suitable for early solo, fixed gear
and so on - and having just started flying a 40:1 ship instead there's
no way I'd consider spending my hard-earned cash on a new PW5 instead
of a second-hand 40:1 Club Class ship.

Is it a failure of mine to want to be able to progress into wind? Or
to want a glider where serious XC (not that I'm capable of that yet!)
can be done in a wider range of conditions, not just on the 'day of
the year' which just about *always* is a working day?