![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I would always choose the 15 meter glider.......following what you have been
saying the 15 meter would then not be the "same" performance as the 13 meter glider.....but better! Also.having flown a lot of different types of glider and airplanes over several years, including some ultra-lite or 'lite" types there is still no way to compare these with the extra mass and groovy feeling of the (for the lack of a better word) real sailplanes..... tim "Eric Greenwell" wrote in message ... Erik mann wrote: What is it that economists always throw out... ceteris paribus... I agree that if one started with a clean sheet of paper, then maybe you can lop off a few pounds on the fuselage, change the planform, etc. (though, having looked at the structure of some of these ships, I'm not so sure I would want to fly them or land them off-field... but I digress). Keeping everthing else equal, is the "best" use of engineering to start with a shorter span as a design goal? Maybe it is, as the weight savings on the spar and carry-through structure allows for a good range of wingloading while bringing along the other benefits mentioned elswhere (ease of assembly, transport, etc.)? Or, maybe the design goal should be 40:1 performance at the lowest cost, irrespective of span? That was my proposed goal: LS4 performance at the lowest manufacturing cost. The obvious solution will be a smaller glider, made possible by the improved aerodynamics, design, and materials that became available in the 24 years since the LS4 was designed. A few have suggested 40:1 is not possible at less than 15 meter span, but when 15 meter spans can now do 48:1 or better, this is not sensible. Most people that have objected to this smaller span solution have done so mainly on the "it doesn't cost THAT much more to ..." grounds; i.e., proposing a more expensive glider than one that will just match the LS4. This might indeed yield a more viable product, but it doesn't meet the goal of a "cheaper LS4". Which would you prefer, at the same price: a new LS4, or an new 13 meter with identical performance, handling, and safety? I would choose the 13 meter glider, but many/most would not, even though it's smaller size and lighter weight would make it easier to rig, to push around, to retrieve, to tow (in it's trailer or behind a tow plane), even to wax! Old habits and dreams die slowly, I think. Glider pilots are mostly a very conservative bunch. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New flying books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | July 3rd 04 02:40 PM |
New War publications | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | December 20th 03 01:47 PM |
New Military Aviation Books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | November 23rd 03 11:43 PM |
New Military Aviation Books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | October 29th 03 02:33 AM |
New WWII books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | October 13th 03 12:54 AM |