Thermal right, land left

At 19:24 15 March 2004, G.Kurek wrote:
And you think that you can find a legitimate company
that will make
LS-4 in the same price range? Where/how do I put down
payment?!!

You missed my point.....If it was an LS4 class you
wouldn't need a new one, you could fly a second hand
one (which you can get for equivalent or cheaper price).
If you wanted a new one then you could pay extra and
have a new one, though I don't understand why you would.
Composite gliders in general have a much longer life
in terms of hours and launches than you would ever
need, and if you want it shiny you can get it re-gelled
in poland pretty cheap (or even do it yourself).
My point is that designing a new glider for the world
class was a mistake, as was most of the design philosophy
behind the concept. If you want proof then just look
at the number of people that bother buying them/entering
the world class.
I have no problem with people that fly any kind of
glider, I just think that as a one-class contest design
the PW5 was a complete failure, and that a class incorporating
an existing 20ish year old design would have been much
more succesful.
Just my opinion.

Jon Meyer wrote:
I have no problem with people that fly any kind of
glider, I just think that as a one-class contest design
the PW5 was a complete failure, and that a class incorporating
an existing 20ish year old design would have been much
more succesful.

If you believe that, then the glider you desire so much would NOT be an
LS4, because at the beginning of the World Class discussions, the LS4
was only 5 years old and competitive in the Standard Class. So, using
your criteria, a "20ish year old design" would be a Standard Cirrus! It
costs just as much to build a Standard Cirrus as an LS4, would you buy
one, or would you say, "Why should I buy a World Class Cirrus when for
less money I can get a used LS4?".

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
Jon Meyer wrote:
I have no problem with people that fly any kind of
glider, I just think that as a one-class contest design
the PW5 was a complete failure, and that a class incorporating
an existing 20ish year old design would have been much
more succesful.

If you believe that, then the glider you desire so much would NOT be an
LS4, because at the beginning of the World Class discussions, the LS4
was only 5 years old and competitive in the Standard Class. So, using
your criteria, a "20ish year old design" would be a Standard Cirrus! It
costs just as much to build a Standard Cirrus as an LS4, would you buy
one, or would you say, "Why should I buy a World Class Cirrus when for
less money I can get a used LS4?".

Please check your history book.
The Std. Cirrus was on the market in 1969. The LS4 went into
production in 1981 and there were over 800 built by the time the PW5
was introduced in 1994.
But that doesn't really matter since the statement was: it would have
been more successful.

Jon Meyer wrote in message ...
At 19:24 15 March 2004, G.Kurek wrote:
And you think that you can find a legitimate company
that will make
LS-4 in the same price range? Where/how do I put down
payment?!!

You missed my point.....If it was an LS4 class you
wouldn't need a new one, you could fly a second hand
one (which you can get for equivalent or cheaper price).
If you wanted a new one then you could pay extra and
have a new one, though I don't understand why you would.
Composite gliders in general have a much longer life
in terms of hours and launches than you would ever
need, and if you want it shiny you can get it re-gelled
in poland pretty cheap (or even do it yourself).
My point is that designing a new glider for the world
class was a mistake, as was most of the design philosophy
behind the concept. If you want proof then just look
at the number of people that bother buying them/entering
the world class.
I have no problem with people that fly any kind of
glider, I just think that as a one-class contest design
the PW5 was a complete failure, and that a class incorporating
an existing 20ish year old design would have been much
more succesful.
Just my opinion.


First of all, Poland from the capital letter. On the rest I could say
that I agree in almost 100%, if we would want to name a new glider to
be world class it should be a glider that is in the production and
relatively cheap. Someone mentioned that there is possibility of ls4
being produced in Slovakia. Fine but I'm almost sure that these
gliders will go for no less than $60,000 (equipped) just like
Glasflugels from Czech Rep. - that's the catch... In that price range
we, again, would be able to match a better glider. Gliding should be
more economical than flying Cezznaz and in majority of the clubs
already isn't, otherwise we'll share the future of hippies -
extinction.

Does the World really need ANOTHER Standard Class competition
class?
That is what people seem to be proposing. This class
would be nearly
identical to the current Standard Class, but with a
little less
performance and a little less cost. Who would buy a
new 'LS4' when they
could buy a better performing used Discus for the same
or less money,
just to compete in this class?


Are you therefore saying that the world class must
have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed
as being equivalent to one of the existing classes?
I think that such a suggestion is completely contrary
to the aims of the world class, which are in my opinion,
very good.
The aim was to have a one-design class. This would
enable us to compete in the olympics, and would ensure
a level playing field for all competitors regardless
of their wealth. An LS4 only class would not be another
standard class, precisely for the reason that you could
not buy a discus or LS8 and enter it. It would be a
one-design contest, and as such would achieve the aims
of the world class.
Fixed undercarriage, no waterballast, even the requirement
for no flaps, are in my opinion all unnecessary requirements
for a world class glider, it could be an ASW22BWL for
all I care as long as they were cheap and plentiful
(I can dream....).
The only requirements are that the design should be
plentiful (the PW5 is not), cheap (2nd Hand LS4's are),
and of the best performance possible that satisfy these
criteria.
The LS4 is ideal, as would many existing designs have
been.


I think proposing more of what we already have will
not bring new pilots
or new competitors into the sport, but merely divide
them up between the
Standard Class and 'LS4 Standard Class'. I think the
current World class
is bringing in pilots the other classes aren't; unfortunately,
not in
the amounts hoped for. I think the _goals_ of the Word
Class are good,
and the specifications appropriate to those goals.

People seem to forget that a new PW5 will become a
used PW5. Many pilots
that will find a used PW5 much cheaper than a used
LS4 or ASW 20, and
buy them because they can afford it. This is good for
those people, and
good for the sport.

--
-----
change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Jon Meyer wrote:

Are you therefore saying that the world class must
have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed
as being equivalent to one of the existing classes?

No, I'm saying it must be smaller to be cheaper. Bigger costs money.

I think that such a suggestion is completely contrary
to the aims of the world class, which are in my opinion,
very good.

Here was an important goal: "substantially lower costs than then-current
new gliders". It's the first one on the list in the history section of
the World Class Soaring Association (www.wcsa.org/history.htm).

The aim was to have a one-design class.

A big part of this was to achieve "cheap".

This would
enable us to compete in the olympics,

This was truly a minor side issue.

and would ensure
a level playing field for all competitors regardless
of their wealth. An LS4 only class would not be another
standard class, precisely for the reason that you could
not buy a discus or LS8 and enter it. It would be a
one-design contest, and as such would achieve the aims
of the world class.
Fixed undercarriage, no waterballast, even the requirement
for no flaps, are in my opinion all unnecessary requirements
for a world class glider,

If you want cheap, you have to leave off the things that make it costly.
These are expensive additions. The glider manufacturers were asked what
must be done to make a glider cheaply, and these things were on their
list. They add far more cost than performance, and make it more
complicated to fly. Simple to fly was also a goal. The people that came
up with the specifications didn't just make this stuff up.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
Jon Meyer wrote:

Are you therefore saying that the world class must
have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed
as being equivalent to one of the existing classes?

No, I'm saying it must be smaller to be cheaper. Bigger costs money.

It is my understanding that the wingspan was driven by the desire to keep
open the homebuilding option and 13 meter wings will fit in a typical US
garage but 15 meters won't. Given that only one World Class Glider has been
homebuilt (and that by the person on the comittee who championed the cause
of preserving the homebuilding option), homebuilding doesn't seem to be a
meaningful requirement.

As the cliche goes, "If you want to build, build. If you want to fly, buy"

While shorter wings are probably cheaper, what really costs a lot of money
are small production runs.

Would an LS-4-like 15 meter ship attract more folks to the World Class?
Probably.
Would it attract enough to make a difference? Probably not.
Reason? Switching costs. Most of us can't afford 2 ships. If I already
have an ASW-20 or a 303, or an LS-3, or a DG200, or, or, or... to get into
the World Class I'd be trading like for like. Why do that? The only upside
being competing in a single class--but that's likely what I do already (more
or less) via Sports or Club class.

My opinion is that the fundamental problem of the World Class lies in the
population of glider pilots. Several hundred people, some small but
meaningful % of glider pilots, bought PW5s. Many that I know of were bought
by fairly new pilots and clubs--exactly the right target. Only problem was
that % multiplied by the pilot population was too small to yeild a viable
pool of contestants. Not really the fault of the ship's performance,
design, price, or anything other than market size and target profile.

Brent

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Jon Meyer wrote:

I'm saying it must be smaller to be cheaper. Bigger costs money.

Here was an important goal: "substantially lower costs than then-current
new gliders". It's the first one on the list in the history section of
the World Class Soaring Association (www.wcsa.org/history.htm).

A big part of this was to achieve "cheap".

Fixed undercarriage, no waterballast, even the requirement
for no flaps, are in my opinion all unnecessary requirements
for a world class glider,

If you want cheap, you have to leave off the things that make it costly.

Having seen three used PW-5's/Russias in the past year for
half the price of an LS-4, cost is an issue...

I'd also have to classify myself not as a soaring performance
enthusiast, but as a soaring consumer. Sort of like I'd
have a boombox instead of a six-speaker Bose, a 32" TV instead of HDTV,
etc. As a soaring consumer, I fit what Carl Herold has profiled:
doing X-C in 1-2 years in the sport, having soaring as a hobby,
etc.

As a consumer, I'm thrilled about the NON-performance aspects of soaring
that the PW-5, Russia, and Sparrowhawk provide.
Namely, lower cost, lighter weight, simpler features, modern
technology (which does not necessarily mean better performance).

Having lighter wings to assemble, a smaller trailer, shorter
wings, no flaps/gear/water ballast certainly are not things
that help performance, they only appeal to me as a consumer/hobbyist.

I can completely understand why the soaring enthusiasts would be baffled
at anyone who wants a new glider which performs worse than
the top 50% of gliders in the world. From their perspective,
which is perfectly understandable, this is absurd.

But if you eliminate the word "performance," every single
aspect now goes the other way. This is what I as a
soaring "consumer" look for in value.

Model aircraft builders have a similar quandry. The motor
airplane builders enjoy much more performance, but the
electric models are much easier to start, cleaner, and
less expensive. Electric model aircraft are gaining a lot of
popularity with "consumers."

I don't expect a Yugo to be appreciated by Ferrari drivers...
But you can drive a Yugo by the Ferrari shop AND the
gas station every day...

I don't think the World Class will ever draw pilots out of their
retract gliders in any numbers. The fixed gear and low cost
(read short wings) simply can never challenge span and
reduced drag. The World Class is a consumer class, and I
don't expect the enthusiasts to accept reduced performance...

On another note, I would like to see the World Class develop in
2009. One change perhaps is the "homebuild" option. This may
have discouraged some entries, and I'm not sure added any benefit
(another poster said this too). I would also like to
see a 36:1 or better glide as a minimum. I think the Sparrowhawk
Russia, Apis and Silent all have the potential to compete
with only minor modifications (different wings, changes to eliminate
flaps, different landing gear designs, etc.). And a lot of
improvement can happen given five years...

Will any of this now attract soaring "enthusiasts" to trade in their LS-4s?
I don't think so. But hey, I'm comfortable with that...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Eric Greenwell wrote:

Jon Meyer wrote:

Are you therefore saying that the world class must
have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed
as being equivalent to one of the existing classes?

No, I'm saying it must be smaller to be cheaper. Bigger costs money.

I think that such a suggestion is completely contrary
to the aims of the world class, which are in my opinion,
very good.

Here was an important goal: "substantially lower costs than then-current
new gliders". It's the first one on the list in the history section of
the World Class Soaring Association (www.wcsa.org/history.htm).


At that time the LAK-12 was still in production and met the goal:
substantially lower costs than then-current new gliders". Although
size is certainly a factor of the price, it is not the main one.

In article ,
Robert Ehrlich wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:

Jon Meyer wrote:

Are you therefore saying that the world class must
have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed
as being equivalent to one of the existing classes?

No, I'm saying it must be smaller to be cheaper. Bigger costs money.

I think that such a suggestion is completely contrary
to the aims of the world class, which are in my opinion,
very good.

Here was an important goal: "substantially lower costs than then-current
new gliders". It's the first one on the list in the history section of
the World Class Soaring Association (www.wcsa.org/history.htm).


At that time the LAK-12 was still in production and met the goal:
substantially lower costs than then-current new gliders". Although
size is certainly a factor of the price, it is not the main one.

The WC requirement that the glider have construction plans
public and open to anyone for building seemed like a good way
to ensure the manufacturer wouldn't "gouge", but this seems to
have backfired. I don't think this requirement should be
put forth in 2009. Perhaps this will encourage more entries...
Perhaps make the plans and such public and buildable by
anyone, but have no requirement that it is easy to build...
Thus allowing the Sparrowhawk and others to compete...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA