Expanded World Class

On Oct 6, 3:12 am, Vsoars wrote:
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.

You've just described Club Class performance. Why pay three times as
much for a PW5 when you can do the same flights with a Cirrus, Libelle
or Astir? That is, of course, what everyone asked themselves when the
PW5 finally became available (years late iirc), and why it failed.


Dan

On 4 Oct, 18:10, Andreas Maurer wrote:

Depends on the definition of a "long task". The PW-5 offers the same
performance as an ancient Ka-6E - but today's pilots standards are way
higher.

Er-hem. An awful lot of us are still very happy, and having a lot of
sun, flying things with the performance of a Ka-6E. We just don't see
the need to spend £15,000 getting that performance ...

I wonder how things would have turned out if the Discus had been made
the World Class glider?

Ian

On 5 Oct, 05:40, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Smaller span is one way to reduce cost. No designer has problem making a
15 meter glider handle easily. How many trainers have a small span?

Alliance (or SF) 34.

Ian

On Oct 6, 4:10 am, Tim wrote:
Yes, some rules makers have said to me : "well look at the Club Class
in Europe, with all of its highly modified Cirruses, etc., that will
just mean pilots will take $20K Cirruses and trick them out for $40K ,
and then where is the affordability?"

Really nobody "tricks out" their gliders. Everybody seals their
glider properly but that doesn't cost much. If you add winglets (~
$2,000) or wing-root fillets (which probably don't work unless you've
done wind tunnel time) you get extra handicap, so it doesn't make any
difference, and so pilots don't bother.

Certainly nobody is spending tens of thousands of dollars, not even
close.


Dan

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:27:34 -0700, Ian
wrote:


Er-hem. An awful lot of us are still very happy, and having a lot of
sun, flying things with the performance of a Ka-6E. We just don't see
the need to spend £15,000 getting that performance ...

Well.... let me say it that way: No student pilot in my club would
volunteer to fly a glider with less performance than out DG-300s...

I wonder how things would have turned out if the Discus had been made
the World Class glider?

It would have been a success. Definitely.



Bye
Andreas

On 6 Oct, 11:50, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:27:34 -0700, Ian
wrote:

Er-hem. An awful lot of us are still very happy, and having a lot of
sun, flying things with the performance of a Ka-6E. We just don't see
the need to spend £15,000 getting that performance ...

Well.... let me say it that way: No student pilot in my club would
volunteer to fly a glider with less performance than out DG-300s...

It used to be like that at Sutton Bank. People would queue all day for
an hour in a DG-300 ... leaving the Ka-8 free for me to fly whenever I
wanted, for as long as I wanted. I wonder how much of that sort of
attitude is desire or need for performance, and how much is sheer
snobbery?

I wonder how things would have turned out if the Discus had been made
the World Class glider?

It would have been a success. Definitely.

There was a condition, wasn't there, that the plans had to be
available to multiple manufacturers? I suppose that would have put S-H
off a bit. But then, how many manufacturers ever made PW-5's?

Ian

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 05:11:12 -0700, Ian
wrote:

It used to be like that at Sutton Bank. People would queue all day for
an hour in a DG-300 ... leaving the Ka-8 free for me to fly whenever I
wanted, for as long as I wanted. I wonder how much of that sort of
attitude is desire or need for performance, and how much is sheer
snobbery?

Our Ka-8 is still used extensively, since the students need to fly 40
hrs (total) till they are allowed to fly the 300.

There was a condition, wasn't there, that the plans had to be
available to multiple manufacturers? I suppose that would have put S-H
off a bit. But then, how many manufacturers ever made PW-5's?

Did anyone ever ask SH or LS to publish the blueprints of their
out-of-production Discus and LS-4?


Bye
Andreas

Ian wrote:
There was a condition, wasn't there, that the plans had to be
available to multiple manufacturers? I suppose that would have put S-H
off a bit. But then, how many manufacturers ever made PW-5's?

Two, actually, PZL Swidnik and PZL Bielsko which, despite the similarity
in names, are competing companies. There is also a third set of molds
from which one glider was built, the builder was killed in an off-field
landing accident...

Marc

Plenty of interesting stuff in this lengthening thread.
Assuming (big assume I know) that the concept of one-design
racing, at the lower end of the performance range,
could be a good idea, could work like dinghy racing
classes, and could attract 'new' people to sporting
gliding, can we arrive at some king of concensus about
the spec. No, don't just say why not the LS4 or the
S-H D(a) because there are almost certainly liability
issues that would preclude an open and widespread re-start
manufacture of those, and they are anyway 'old-technology'
now. Consider also that the 'one-type' could be a
homebuild (a kit) and in the microlight class (see
Euro rules for this), or generally de-regulated or
lightly regulated. The comments about how to minimise
cost are correct for sure, so we are looking at a 'small'
glider, and a simple one, so that it can become numerous
rapidly, both as a multi-manufacturer ready-to-fly,
and as a kit. That's not to say it cannot be sexy
or, in the eyes of the oh so conservative existing
glider pilot community, just look cool - whatever that
is!

Generally, it seems that L/D around 38 would be enough
- that would be better than an old Std Cirrus, not
quite as good as a Discus A, but close to the LS4.
Can we agree on that?

And the cost? What would folks be prepared to pay
for this one-class 'new' glider - ready-to-fly bare
hull? Or as a kit?

Club Class, or Sport Class is fine, but the great leveller
is everybody in exactly the same type, and flying at
the same weight. One of the reasons the idea of one-design
got rubbished was that some of the pilots could not
hack it at that level (of performance) and just blamed
the tool.

So, be constructive, iron out the spec, and maybe there
will be interest in designing the glider, and in producing
it quickly enough, in enough places, and in sufficient
quantity to make the one-design concept fly again.
Who knows, maybe more than one one-design will emerge
- just like dinghy racing. And that would be cool.

Roger H




At 16:36 06 October 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Ian wrote:
There was a condition, wasn't there, that the plans
had to be
available to multiple manufacturers? I suppose that
would have put S-H
off a bit. But then, how many manufacturers ever made
PW-5's?

Two, actually, PZL Swidnik and PZL Bielsko which, despite
the similarity
in names, are competing companies. There is also a
third set of molds
from which one glider was built, the builder was killed
in an off-field
landing accident...

Marc

Plenty of interesting stuff in this lengthening thread.
Assuming (big assume I know) that the concept of one-design
racing, at the lower end of the performance range,
could be a good idea, could work like dinghy racing
classes, and could attract 'new' people to sporting
gliding, can we arrive at some king of concensus about
the spec. No, don't just say why not the LS4 or the
S-H D(a) because there are almost certainly liability
issues that would preclude an open and widespread re-start
manufacture of those, and they are anyway 'old-technology'
now. Consider also that the 'one-type' could be a
homebuild (a kit) and in the microlight class (see
Euro rules for this), or generally de-regulated or
lightly regulated. The comments about how to minimise
cost are correct for sure, so we are looking at a 'small'
glider, and a simple one, so that it can become numerous
rapidly, both as a multi-manufacturer ready-to-fly,
and as a kit. That's not to say it cannot be sexy
or, in the eyes of the oh so conservative existing
glider pilot community, just look cool - whatever that
is!

Generally, it seems that L/D around 38 would be enough
- that would be better than an old Std Cirrus, not
quite as good as a Discus A, but close to the LS4.
Can we agree on that?

And the cost? What would folks be prepared to pay
for this one-class 'new' glider - ready-to-fly bare
hull? Or as a kit?

Club Class, or Sport Class is fine, but the great leveller
is everybody in exactly the same type, and flying at
the same weight. One of the reasons the idea of one-design
got rubbished was that some of the pilots could not
hack it at that level (of performance) and just blamed
the tool.

So, be constructive, iron out the spec, and maybe there
will be interest in designing the glider, and in producing
it quickly enough, in enough places, and in sufficient
quantity to make the one-design concept fly again.
Who knows, maybe more than one one-design will emerge
- just like dinghy racing. And that would be cool.

Roger H




At 16:36 06 October 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Ian wrote:
There was a condition, wasn't there, that the plans
had to be
available to multiple manufacturers? I suppose that
would have put S-H
off a bit. But then, how many manufacturers ever made
PW-5's?

Two, actually, PZL Swidnik and PZL Bielsko which, despite
the similarity
in names, are competing companies. There is also a
third set of molds
from which one glider was built, the builder was killed
in an off-field
landing accident...

Marc