Is everybody afraid of World Class?

Jacek Kobiesa wrote:
I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in Olympic Games, some
other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion that most people
who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class gliders.

You've got to be kidding.

What is so difficult in understanding the concept of the glider, the
cost of building it, its performance, etc.

Not difficult at all.

Most of you bashing the
concept. Is this because your skill is so limited that you need to
have a bird with max. L/D 10,000 (that is minimum) and a best L/D
speed Mach 1? Anything which doesn't meet this cryteria needs to be
rejected?

If this were true, you'd see Russia's getting criticized in this forum -
not to mention the Silent-in, plus a lot of other ships. You don't see
that, do you? IMHO, the PW5 doesn't get criticized for being a PW5, it
gets criticized for being chosen as the world class glider - when they
could have done so much better.

Tony V.

Speaking of Russias,

The BGA site has three problems with the Russia, it seems.
One was even a 87 knot limitation (!). I was surprised to see
this (apparently the result of an aileron problem on a
factory test flight(?)

I've flown a Russia (the retract version) and really enjoyed the
polar, but the auto-connecting ailerons had just a smidge of
click/slop. Our towpilot, who owns a Russia and is an A&P,
thinks they are a little underbuilt. He thought the PW-5 we had
for two years was a bit more rugged.

I personally liked the retract Russia polar so much, and the low weight,
and the assembly, that I'd consider buying one, but I'd like to see
how the "ruggedness factor" plays out first with the ones at the field.

Of course in the meantime I'm aching for the time and opportunity
to visit a place with a sparrowhawk. Being 5'6" (when hung from
my heels) and maybe 160# soaking wet, I love little short wings and
a light glider.

Any Russia guys have any "ruggedness" stories?

Tony Verhulst wrote:

If this were true, you'd see Russia's getting criticized in this forum -
not to mention the Silent-in, plus a lot of other ships. You don't see
that, do you? IMHO, the PW5 doesn't get criticized for being a PW5, it
gets criticized for being chosen as the world class glider - when they
could have done so much better.
--

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

I personally liked the retract Russia polar so much, and the low weight,
and the assembly, that I'd consider buying one, but I'd like to see
how the "ruggedness factor" plays out first with the ones at the field.


Mark,

You should look into the Apis line of gliders, www.apisgliders.com.

Better engineered and built than the Russia and more bang for the buck than the
Sparrowhawk.

There is one Apis 13 based in San Diego.

Robert Mudd
Apis Saiplanes inc.

I'm a big fan of light aircraft with light wings. So yes, the
Apis is interesting.

Unfortunately, there aren't too many around. It's easier for me to
research accident reports and prices of the PW-5 and Russia because
there are so darned many of them. There are at least 3 Russias at
Avenal alone.

I'm just not sure there's enough market for the half-dozen or so
light gliders designed in the past ten years. Silent and PW-5 and
Apis and Russia and Sparrowhawk and L-33 and Junior...hmmm...it will
be interesting to see the competition for the next World Class glider.

I'm still not decided on side opening canopy or front. The PW-5
was a bit "athletic" to get into, but at least if one left the canopy
unlocked, there was no issue with it (ask me how I know).
The PW-5 and the Russia also both have inadequate ventilation for
100+ degree heat. If the thermals couldn't get to 4K, it was
just a freakin' sauna. I guess most European test pilots
fly in the winter, eh?

Robertmudd1u wrote:
I personally liked the retract Russia polar so much, and the low weight,
and the assembly, that I'd consider buying one, but I'd like to see
how the "ruggedness factor" plays out first with the ones at the field.


Mark,

You should look into the Apis line of gliders, www.apisgliders.com.

Better engineered and built than the Russia and more bang for the buck than the
Sparrowhawk.

There is one Apis 13 based in San Diego.
--

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

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:412874c6$1@darkstar...
I'm still not decided on side opening canopy or front. The PW-5
was a bit "athletic" to get into, but at least if one left the canopy
unlocked, there was no issue with it (ask me how I know).

You just touched on my pet peeve. At least one Russia has come to grief
after a typical unlocked canopy incident. Unlocked side-opening, (and
front-opening back) canopies represent a continuing source of glider accidents
that could easily be "designed away" by manufacturers. We insist on automatic
control hookups on new gliders because they prevent accidents, so I don't
understand why we tolerate those crappy canopy latches that are so easily left
unlocked or accidentally unlocked in flight.

The L-13 canopy latch is a better (though far from perfect) example of a
side-canopy latch. If properly maintained, it is almost idiot proof because it
latches automatically, much like your car door or the hood of your car. Your
basic cam-acting door latch was probably invented hundreds of years ago; why
can't we have this "space-age" technology in our gliders?

Vaughn

The L-13 canopy latch is a better (though far from perfect) example of a
side-canopy latch. If properly maintained, it is almost idiot proof because it
latches automatically, much like your car door or the hood of your car. Your
basic cam-acting door latch was probably invented hundreds of years ago; why
can't we have this "space-age" technology in our gliders?

Vaughn

The Cezznas have this technology for the side doors, and it is a cause
of occasional failure.

There seems to be a philosophical and legal issue: if it is a stone-cold
simple "pilot must move it to open or close" then it is obviously the
pilot's fault if it isn't closed. If it slightly more complex,
self-latching and it fails, the manufacturer is sued. So manufacturers
would have to make self-latching canopy latches that are simply
IMPOSSIBLE to fail. This is actually very, very challenging...
The other issue is what if they fail to open when someone wants
to eject? Or what if one can convince 12 senior citizens that
this might have happened?

Springs get debris in them or fail, latches and cams repeatedly
rubbed eventually wear, etc. From a manufacturers standpoint,
self-latching canopies are a no-no. I don't think we'll ever see
them in manufacture by any company that can ever be sued...
--

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

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:412a892d$1@darkstar...

The Cezznas have this technology for the side doors, and it is a cause
of occasional failure.

There seems to be a philosophical and legal issue: if it is a stone-cold
simple "pilot must move it to open or close" then it is obviously the
pilot's fault if it isn't closed. If it slightly more complex,
self-latching and it fails, the manufacturer is sued. So manufacturers
would have to make self-latching canopy latches that are simply
IMPOSSIBLE to fail.

NOTHING is impossible to fail, especially the silly canopy latches we have
today.

This is actually very, very challenging...

Why?

The other issue is what if they fail to open when someone wants
to eject?

Simple design excercise, I can think of at least two ways of doing it right
now.

Or what if one can convince 12 senior citizens that
this might have happened?

You could just as easily convince those same 12 white-hairs that this simple
100-year-old technology could have prevented an accident if it were incorporated
into the design of a crashed glider.

Springs get debris in them or fail, latches and cams repeatedly
rubbed eventually wear, etc.

Sorry, don't agree. The latches we have now fail. Even the self-latching
canopy lock (as in the L-13) must be checked before flight (and should be a
checklist item) the difference is that its NORMAL CONDITION IS SAFE. If you
forget to check it, 99.999% of the time it won't kill you. What can be bad
about that?

From a manufacturers standpoint,
self-latching canopies are a no-no. I don't think we'll ever see
them in manufacture by any company that can ever be sued...

By your logic, how did we ever get manufacturers to design self-connecting
control hookups? (which also should be a checklist item before flight)

Vaughn


--

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

UK junior nationals. An example of where the future of our sport lies. A full
entry list of 50 gliders ranging from SHK and Astir to Ventus C and DG505. No
gliders less than 15m were entered. They were too low performance/
uncompetative/ too expensive/ unavailable.
The best and most competative pilots will always try to find the best glider
available.
In typical weak UK conditions you need something with reasonable penetration to
make progress against any wind over 10 knots. That is why you do not see K8s,
K6 etc competing any more.
Having flown most of the common gliders around including the PW5 I find it
rather delicate for club use. It is thus mainly suitable for private owners.
They are reluctant to buy something that is less capable of completing the task
than the average 15m ship and thus stay away from them.
Not afraid of the World class just think that the PW5 is the wrong glider for
it

No gliders less than 15m were entered. They were too low performance/

Not afraid of the World class just think that the PW5 is the wrong glider for
it

In general, it seems like 15 meters is the shortest span which
can give good performance given the fairly wide range of pilot weights
and sizes and the need for cockpit comfort.

As a lightweight, I'd personally prefer something with less span.
Paying for more span and then needing to add lots of water seems silly
to me. But the market is what the market is, and manufacturers
need to make gliders to fit the bulkier, richer pilots too...

The lightweight construction techniques of the Sparrowhawk are
really the only things that might make shorter spans
competitive. I'm interested in seeing the performance of a
retractable Sparrowhawk.

For the next World Class glider, I wonder if retract will be allowed.
I'd still like to see specifications which keep the
cost down, however, and something's gotta give...

In any case, I think the PW-5 and the Russia were an excellent start
towards the World Class goals, but yes, in the intervening years
better technologies have come along and there has been some
learning. I hope this will make the next World Class glider
manufacturers come up with some interesting designs...
--

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

The discussion about the value of PW-5 is just pointless. Value of the
glider is defined by the market and when nobody buys the glider it has no
value. Finito.


"Tony Verhulst" wrote in message
...
Jacek Kobiesa wrote:
I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in Olympic Games, some
other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion that most people
who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class gliders.

You've got to be kidding.

What is so difficult in understanding the concept of the glider, the
cost of building it, its performance, etc.

Not difficult at all.

Most of you bashing the
concept. Is this because your skill is so limited that you need to
have a bird with max. L/D 10,000 (that is minimum) and a best L/D
speed Mach 1? Anything which doesn't meet this cryteria needs to be
rejected?

If this were true, you'd see Russia's getting criticized in this forum -
not to mention the Silent-in, plus a lot of other ships. You don't see
that, do you? IMHO, the PW5 doesn't get criticized for being a PW5, it
gets criticized for being chosen as the world class glider - when they
could have done so much better.

Tony V.