![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Those with long memories, and who followed the 'World
Class' saga from the beginning will recall that an initial part of the specification included a low production price. The objective was for an International affordable class. IGC delegates who neither supported nor opposed the concept didn't worry because any competent engineer knew that you couldn't manufacture a new glider for the target price, so the concept was a non-starter anyway. When that became obvious at a late stage, the price requirement was quietly dropped and the World Class had too much momentum to stop; meanwhile the very successful Club Class had already filled the objectives and we have a (albeit fun to fly) white elephant. All somewhat reminiscent of the confusion which resulted in 2 15 meter classes, and which took nearly 20 years to get to the 18 meter class we could have had in the 70s. At 08:48 27 December 2007, Cats wrote: On Dec 26, 10:54=A0pm, Marc Ramsey wrote: wrote: Well, the PW-5 did not failed. It was designed to meet the requirements and concept promoted by the FAI. That concept called for glider =A0with L/D in low 30-ties. So, it wasn't the glider as much as the pilots who failed by demanding more performance and not understanding the concept. The 'One Design' class will fail again in the future regardless of what kind of glider is used for that specific purpose. And that is sad. I agree, and that is why I say that some of us in the soaring community need to rethink what we are doing (those of you with an Antares on order, carry on 8^). Most of us can't afford an Antares, but many second-hand good- condition, well-equipped 40:1 ships are affordable, so why spend a lot more money on a 30:1 ship than on a 40:1 ship? Maybe the failure was the initial performance specification from the FAI. I can't remember if the Junior was a contender or not, but it fits a lot of the criteria - L/D, suitable for early solo, fixed gear and so on - and having just started flying a 40:1 ship instead there's no way I'd consider spending my hard-earned cash on a new PW5 instead of a second-hand 40:1 Club Class ship. Is it a failure of mine to want to be able to progress into wind? Or to want a glider where serious XC (not that I'm capable of that yet!) can be done in a wider range of conditions, not just on the 'day of the year' which just about *always* is a working day? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Colorado Soaring Pilots/SSA Governor 2007 Seminar and 2006 Soaring Awards Banquet | Frank Whiteley | Soaring | 0 | February 15th 07 04:52 PM |
The Soaring Server is dead; long live the Soaring Servers | John Leibacher | Soaring | 3 | November 1st 04 10:57 PM |
Possible future legal problems with "SOARING" | Bob Thompson | Soaring | 3 | September 26th 04 11:48 AM |
Soaring Server/Worldwide Soaring Turnpoint Exchange back online | John Leibacher | Soaring | 0 | June 21st 04 05:25 PM |
Soaring Server - Worldwide Soaring Turnpoint Exchange | John Leibacher | Soaring | 0 | June 19th 04 04:57 PM |