Performance World Class design proposal

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
om...
Earlier, "Tanel" wrote:

...So the designer manufactures wing and fuselage
moulds to all producers who are able to manufacture
by licence exactly the same world class glider.

My thoughts exactly. It shouldn't matter much what is under the skin,
just the exterior profiles. Different manufacturers could offer
exterior finishes, treatments, interior enhacements, amenities, and
levels of completion according to what their customers are willing to
pay. They could use internal structures commensurate with their skills
and competencies. But the ships would all have the same shapes, and
would all perform about the same.

I would further postulate a monoclass that allows freedom of exterior
profile in some areas of potential development. Specifically, I'd like
to see the outboard 200mm of wing span implemented at the
participants' option. That would allow for continued development of
winglet design, and also for expression of individuality. It would
also, to some tiny degree, allow for optimization for different
conditions. And the participant could even extend the span at that
point to improve their ship's performance for non-competition events.

And, responding to Mark Boyd's question from another thread, I believe
that the cost difference between 13m and 15m is certainly measurable
(all other things being equal, of course), but that with modern
commercially-available materials the difference is not prohibitvely
great, and that 15m is as good a monoclass span as any. My old HP-11
(1960 technology, 50-foot span, poorly sealed) had about the same
general performance as a PW-5, and there was many, many a time that I
wished for a few more points of glide to make the difference between
driving home and driving it home.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Take it a step further:
Just use a standard wing mold. (Or, as in your suggestion, inner wing, with
span limitation for competition).
The wing is the thing. People have done all sorts of strange things to
1-26's (lowered canopies, faired wheels, taken the wheel off entirely and
flown with just a skid), and the L/D still stayed about the same
The variations in fuselage, empennage, materials, etc give people a shot at
"optimizing" their ship, and manufacturers a hook for for their advertising
(assuming there's ever more than one) but I bet they'd converge pretty
quickly. Small but real competitive advantages might actually exist, in
which case the super-competitive pilots will sell their ships to buy the
more competitive models, putting more ships in the class, and entry-level
ships on the market.
I believe something similar to that has happened in some of the sailing
monoclasses.

Homebuilders could buy a wing set and build the remainder however they
liked.

Tim Ward

Tim Ward wrote:


Take it a step further:
Just use a standard wing mold. (Or, as in your suggestion, inner wing, with
span limitation for competition).
The wing is the thing. People have done all sorts of strange things to
1-26's (lowered canopies, faired wheels, taken the wheel off entirely and
flown with just a skid), and the L/D still stayed about the same
The variations in fuselage, empennage, materials, etc give people a shot at
"optimizing" their ship, and manufacturers a hook for for their advertising
(assuming there's ever more than one) but I bet they'd converge pretty
quickly. Small but real competitive advantages might actually exist, in
which case the super-competitive pilots will sell their ships to buy the
more competitive models, putting more ships in the class, and entry-level
ships on the market.

And what would be the point of a class that is essentially like what we
already have in the Standard and 15 meter classes? Having the exterior
wing shape defined would save very little in design costs because they
would all require substantial aerodynamic design and the complete
structural design, which is even more expensive than the aerodynamic
design. None would be built in enough quantity to make them any less
expensive than what we already have.



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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Earlier, Eric Greenwell

Having the exterior wing shape defined
would save very little in design costs
because they would all require substantial
aerodynamic design and the complete
structural design, which is even more
expensive than the aerodynamic design...

Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses. I continue to
believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.

Sure, DG says it costs them $1 million (say it in Mike Meyers' Dr.
Evil voice for best effect) to design, develop, and validate a new
sailplane. But factored into that is a lot of uncertainty and risk
that it takes to push the envelope with a new and competitive
high-performance design. And also a lot of business expenses and
overhead.

The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass
is half empty. The reengineer says, hey, we've got twice as much glass
as we need here, how much did we spend on that?

Thanks again, Bob K.

Bob Kuykendall wrote:

Earlier, Eric Greenwell


Having the exterior wing shape defined
would save very little in design costs
because they would all require substantial
aerodynamic design and the complete
structural design, which is even more
expensive than the aerodynamic design...


Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses.

I wasn't suggesting the design expenses were huge so much as pointing
out defining the wing shape would not yield a one-design class OR cost
savings. Each potential manufacturer would have to bear these expenses
plus the costs of molds, jigs, and so forth to build the glider. Each
manufacturer would have to certificate his design, since it would be
different, and split the market with the other manufacturers.

A _real_ one-design class would avoid the redundant design and
certification costs, and could offer the glider at a lower cost.

I continue to
believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.

I agree with you, but I don't see the connection with a FAI class
defined by the wing shape.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Bob Kuykendall wrote:
Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses. I continue to
believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.

I disagree. IMHO, sailplane development is an extremely complex task
far out of reach of anybody without some very sound aeronautical
engineering education. And not only that, it also requires a good deal
of experience---read: your first design will not necessarily be the best
one. :-)

That said, I'm open to be proven wrong by counter-examples. Anybody
knows any?

Cheers
-Gerhard

Gerhard. You should look at the Bob's webpage (www.hpaircraft.com) about the work he's doing on HP
24. I personally know a person wh's self educated in aerodynamics and who's building a modern
version of the Horten 3 (different seating position, different profiles, stiffer construction) and
there's and Australian (or NZ?) group of people who are building a short-tailed glider. All of them
are amateurs and afaik, none of them is learned aerodynamics in school.

About the Performance World Class. If the outer shape of the glider is defined precisely enough,
anyone can build a copy without aerodynamical analysis - only construction has to be engineered.


Regards,
Kaido



"Gerhard Wesp" wrote in message ...
Bob Kuykendall wrote:
Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses. I continue to
believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.

I disagree. IMHO, sailplane development is an extremely complex task
far out of reach of anybody without some very sound aeronautical
engineering education. And not only that, it also requires a good deal
of experience---read: your first design will not necessarily be the best
one. :-)

That said, I'm open to be proven wrong by counter-examples. Anybody
knows any?

Cheers
-Gerhard

The short tailed glider link is here,It is NZ by the way ,can't have the
Aussies
claiming credit for this one )))
http://www.foamworks.co.nz/sg/people.htm
"iPilot" wrote in message
...
Gerhard. You should look at the Bob's webpage (www.hpaircraft.com) about
the work he's doing on HP
24. I personally know a person wh's self educated in aerodynamics and
who's building a modern
version of the Horten 3 (different seating position, different profiles,
stiffer construction) and
there's and Australian (or NZ?) group of people who are building a
short-tailed glider. All of them
are amateurs and afaik, none of them is learned aerodynamics in school.

About the Performance World Class. If the outer shape of the glider is
defined precisely enough,
anyone can build a copy without aerodynamical analysis - only construction
has to be engineered.


Regards,
Kaido



"Gerhard Wesp" wrote in message
...
Bob Kuykendall wrote:
Eric, you know I disagree that these are huge expenses. I continue to
believe that with modern softwares, and using modern
commercially-available composite products, that sailplane development
is within the grasp of a conscientious amateur.

I disagree. IMHO, sailplane development is an extremely complex task
far out of reach of anybody without some very sound aeronautical
engineering education. And not only that, it also requires a good deal
of experience---read: your first design will not necessarily be the best
one. :-)

That said, I'm open to be proven wrong by counter-examples. Anybody
knows any?

Cheers
-Gerhard

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
Tim Ward wrote:


Take it a step further:
Just use a standard wing mold. (Or, as in your suggestion, inner wing,
with
span limitation for competition).
The wing is the thing. People have done all sorts of strange things to
1-26's (lowered canopies, faired wheels, taken the wheel off entirely
and
flown with just a skid), and the L/D still stayed about the same
The variations in fuselage, empennage, materials, etc give people a
shot at
"optimizing" their ship, and manufacturers a hook for for their
advertising
(assuming there's ever more than one) but I bet they'd converge pretty
quickly. Small but real competitive advantages might actually exist, in
which case the super-competitive pilots will sell their ships to buy the
more competitive models, putting more ships in the class, and
entry-level
ships on the market.

And what would be the point of a class that is essentially like what we
already have in the Standard and 15 meter classes? Having the exterior
wing shape defined would save very little in design costs because they
would all require substantial aerodynamic design and the complete
structural design, which is even more expensive than the aerodynamic
design. None would be built in enough quantity to make them any less
expensive than what we already have.

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


Non-obsolescence in competition would be the point.
Personally, I doubt that if all sailplanes built every year were exactly the
same model, built by the same manufacturer, that there would be enough
volume to bring prices down very much.

Tim Ward