On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:17:35 -0800, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

From the perspective of an inveterate pragmatist:

I think it comes down to operationality. Yes, the autoconnects add
complexity. Yes, placing the wing panel separation at the station of
maximum bending moment adds weight.

But what you get in return is a system of parts that allows for easy
storage and transport, rapid assembly, and high reliability. That system
has been proven to result in good soaring performance at the lowest
possible cost in terms of operator fatigue. And that makes for a more
enjoyable soaring experience. And when it comes down to it, quality of
experience is what we should be trying to maximize here, not necessarily
quality of performance.

Good point.

I've helped rig one of the Slingsbys which had a three piece wing.
Getting the C/s on was quite a hassle. While it can be done by three
people, having five on the job makes it a lot easier. The problem is that
you have to lift the wing quite high to clear the fuselage and keep it up
while the odd-numbered man attaches the wing to the fuselage. Putting the
tips on is easy but that doen't matter compared with handling the c/s.

One of the local clubs where I fly gas an SZD Pirat, which has a 15m
three-piece wing. They consider attaching and removing the c/s is such a
hassle that its normally left on and just the tips are removed when the
Pirat is put in the hangar.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |