Is everybody afraid of World Class?

On 23 Aug 2004 06:36:44 -0700, (Todd Smith) wrote:


1) good one-design competition ?
NO, it's too damn slow ! and ugly !

Totally ignoring that it is flying ONLY against others of the same
type. It's no uglier than any other plastic ship. They all suck.


My question to the PW-5 supporters.

Would YOU buy one ? As the glider YOU flew every good soaring day ?
If you want the class to grow, sell whatever you have and buy a PW-5.

If you can give any rational reason that you want them to disappear,
and the class to die, other than "it's not your thing", it might shed
a little light on the subject. From the many, many threads that have
blasted anything less than 40:1, it's quite obvious why it's not being
a success. In other words, if you're not interested, you are only
joining the small number of high volume bigmouths that wish only to
impress their "standards" on others and have pretty much killed the
class in the process.

When I started, my interest was in the 1-26, and in particular, MY
1-26, not a half a dozen others, and it was my intention to stick with
the one type. Net result, I haven't been in a cockpit for nearly
three years now, and have no intention of subjecting myself to the
verbal barrage of BS again. It's a blooming hobby, I don't have to do
it, much less seek the approval of someone else of how I choose to do
it. Now, if it were as easy to shut mouths as it is to stay away and
NOT do it. Guidance and help cease to be guidance and help when they
become blockheaded opinions, as are all of the PW threads here. It's
far easier and far cheaper for me to stay away and spend the money on
something that makes sense.

Janos Bauer wrote in message . ..
szd-55 flyer wrote:
How we get stupid people like you in soaring ?
If DG design and make new LS4 right now ,it would new cost about $70,000
Pw-5 new cost $22,000
All pilots be aware of idiots!!!

A new szd55 is about 35k... Maybe a Discus CS is also at this price range.

/Janos


Where can I buy it????
I don't think you can buy a new Discus CS for much less than 50k$ in
Europe.
Just before they went bust LS offered LS4b for 45k€ IIRC (54k$).

http://www.szdusa.com/catalog.html states the SZD at 39k$ with
delivery by June 1999! I doubt very much the price has gone down
since. And those prices are without instruments. PW-5 price then was
20k$ incl. basic instruments.

stephanevdv wrote in message .. .
It strikes me as odd that the most vocal argument against the PW-5 seems
to be the "unconventional" aesthetics. Compared to some of the
Schweizer designs or old European mixed construction types, I can't see
the problem. If you compare it with our usual sleek plastic machines, I
agree the high tail boom and conventional tail seem strange, but there
is a logical explanation: a T-tail needs to have a much stronger tail
boom to absorb the torsion loads. To have a conventional tail with
sufficient ground clearance for field landings in crops, it has to be
high-mounted. This design feature thus helps to keep the price down.
Handsome is as handsome does, or?

Hmmm let me think....
Our club bounced forward and bought one of the first 50 or so PW5
because we thought the concept of the World Class was a good idea and
we should support it and enable our pilots to compete in such
competitions.
Very soon even the beginners realised that the PW5 was the poorest
winch launcher by far (average 1200feet instead of the 1500 with Ka8,
Ka6 or ASK23).
Around the same time the club in Innsbruck totalled two of theirs on
whinch launch and so for some strange reason nobody was really
interested in flying the thing any longer.
In it's second season someone landed in wheat only about 35" tall and
gone was the tail - that doesn't happen with a T-tail. The repair cost
almost as much as the new glider mainly because the spare parts are
where they make the money. The horiz. stabiliser alone cost about
$4500!
During the following season the sweet little thing flew another 50
hours, there where no comps held anywhere and so we sold it again.
And it happily lives in Belgium now. Hope it stays there.

Marcel

Then why respond to posts about soaring if you have
no interest in flying? Why not respond to posts about
something that makes sense to you because apparantly
soaring makes absolutly no sense to you.......

At 17:18 23 August 2004, wrote:
On 23 Aug 2004 06:36:44 -0700, (Todd
Smith) wrote:


1) good one-design competition ?
NO, it's too damn slow ! and ugly !

Totally ignoring that it is flying ONLY against others
of the same
type. It's no uglier than any other plastic ship.
They all suck.


My question to the PW-5 supporters.

Would YOU buy one ? As the glider YOU flew every good
soaring day ?
If you want the class to grow, sell whatever you have
and buy a PW-5.

If you can give any rational reason that you want them
to disappear,
and the class to die, other than 'it's not your thing',
it might shed
a little light on the subject. From the many, many
threads that have
blasted anything less than 40:1, it's quite obvious
why it's not being
a success. In other words, if you're not interested,
you are only
joining the small number of high volume bigmouths that
wish only to
impress their 'standards' on others and have pretty
much killed the
class in the process.

When I started, my interest was in the 1-26, and in
particular, MY
1-26, not a half a dozen others, and it was my intention
to stick with
the one type. Net result, I haven't been in a cockpit
for nearly
three years now, and have no intention of subjecting
myself to the
verbal barrage of BS again. It's a blooming hobby,
I don't have to do
it, much less seek the approval of someone else of
how I choose to do
it. Now, if it were as easy to shut mouths as it is
to stay away and
NOT do it. Guidance and help cease to be guidance
and help when they
become blockheaded opinions, as are all of the PW threads
here. It's
far easier and far cheaper for me to stay away and
spend the money on
something that makes sense.

On 23 Aug 2004 17:57:00 GMT, Brian Iten
wrote:

Then why respond to posts about soaring if you have
no interest in flying?

Make that not enough interest in soaring to spend myself into the hole
where I live only to fly, and you might be slightly more correct..
Flying is only one of many interesting things that the world has to
offer, and not very high on the "bang for the buck." Very time
consuming, very very expensive, and in most places, only seasonal.

Why not respond to posts about
something that makes sense to you because apparantly
soaring makes absolutly no sense to you.......

IF flying gliders lived up to the promise, more or less that of one
person going up and doing his own thing then coming down and having a
good bull session with friends, it would be ok, but it does not. The
person that knows his limits, both in money to spend and risk he is
willing to take will put up with an unwarranted barrage of ****mouth
from a few that seem to think God only gave brains to them.
Unfortunately, what God gave them was a big mouth and an empty head.
What difference does it make to you if someone is flying only local in
a 1-26, 2-33 or PW? What difference does it make to you that maybe
he's happy with the situation as it is, content with what he has.
What does it take away from you if he's not interested in competition
or badges, even could care less about a diamond, microscopic as they
are? Just exactly what does it take away from you if someone follows
his own interests and ignores yours? How does it hurt you if he is
flying in a PW and liking it? What is it taking away from you if he
does? The activity itself, flying gliders, might make sense, it's the
pilots that don't.

Todd Smith
Grob 102 3S

Yeah Todd you really gained a lot by going with used G102, about 1
more L/D and a paint job that is going to cost you another
G102...Right on!

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

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

In article ,
NigelPocock wrote:
If DG design and make new LS4 right now ,it would new cost about $70,000
Pw-5 new cost $22,000

But a new Junior, 15m strong, good handling with better performance costs about
the same as a PeeWee.
No contest which I would buy

But how about the Junior vs. a retract Russia AC-4c or a Sparrowhawk?

The PeeWee simply won't be the next World Class glider. But
there are other 15m gliders which may. Do you think
15m is simply the minimum span (a 12-13.5 meter glider
is just silly?)

And you glider makers and repairers out there (Bob K. and JJ),
is there enough savings in weight and money to make the extra
wing of 15m that a 12-13.5 meter glider costs significantly less?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I find them interesting.
For me personally, the answer is just plain yes, I'm happier
with less span. But if I weighed 225 lbs, I'd say just the
opposite, perhaps...
--

------------+
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