Performance World Class design proposal

I don't believe that monoclass as a principle has failed. It is PW-5 which
failed. And it failed because it doesn't stand the competition on glider
market.



"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp"
wrote:

Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen one
day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made
PUBLIC
and available to a central organizing body.
It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable
cost.
External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.

... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
with the PW-5.


Bye
Andreas

I think that's a theoretical discussion.
The biggest market for sailplanes is in Europe, and it's exactly there where
the idea of a monoclass or a PW5 doesn't interest anybody - at least nobody
who has money to put on the table (be it private owners or clusbs).
Soaring in the rest of the world is just not big enough that anybody could
make a decent living by making monoclass gliders.

And in these conditions, talking about an Olympic Class with an event every
4 years ?! ...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"iPilot" a écrit dans le message de
...
I don't believe that monoclass as a principle has failed. It is PW-5 which
failed. And it failed because it doesn't stand the competition on glider
market.



"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp"
wrote:

Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen
one
day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made
PUBLIC
and available to a central organizing body.
It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable
cost.
External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.

... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
with the PW-5.


Bye
Andreas

Once more. The reason, why PW5 failed was the fact that it's performance per money spent was dismal.
But the fact that it still got sold somewhat, talks that there is an interest towards monoclass.

If, for example we declare LS-4 a monoclass it'd have a huge number of gliders available already on
the market plus additional production.

And when it's good for a FINN sailor to buy a $20 000 boat for a one competition in 4 years, why it
shall be bad for a LS-4 pilot. National pride is going to open many currently closed pockets forl
gliding.



"Bert Willing" wrote in message
...
I think that's a theoretical discussion.
The biggest market for sailplanes is in Europe, and it's exactly there where
the idea of a monoclass or a PW5 doesn't interest anybody - at least nobody
who has money to put on the table (be it private owners or clusbs).
Soaring in the rest of the world is just not big enough that anybody could
make a decent living by making monoclass gliders.

And in these conditions, talking about an Olympic Class with an event every
4 years ?! ...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"iPilot" a écrit dans le message de
...
I don't believe that monoclass as a principle has failed. It is PW-5 which
failed. And it failed because it doesn't stand the competition on glider
market.



"Andreas Maurer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:06:58 GMT, "Gldcomp"
wrote:

Applied to Soaring, where a possible "Olympic Class" may still happen
one
day, the L/D DOES NOT MATTER.
As it happens with other olympic equipment, the design has to be made
PUBLIC
and available to a central organizing body.
It has to be manufacturable in any part of the world at a reasonable
cost.
External shapes and CGs have to be ABSOLUTELY the same.

... which is unfortunately precisely the concept that already failed
with the PW-5.


Bye
Andreas