Performance World Class design proposal

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