Short Wings Gliders

One thing that may not have been covered is cost. I see in
"Gliding
International" concern about the increasing cost of material
and
labour ("exploding"). If a shorter wing were used, there
would be
less of both.


There is not a single proof that this is true. The difference of
cost
between 14 m span and 15 m is presumably totally
insignificant.
One has to chase economies elsewhere.


I have a Russia and an ASW20. I've been through both of them
pretty thoroughly, and I am amazed at the complexity of the
ASW20 and the simplicity of the Russia.

The Russia weighs 300 pounds. The ASW20 weighs almost twice
as much. I'll agree that just a few feet more wing probably does
not add that much to the cost, but all the complexity involved in
getting 40:1 or better sure does. Both ships were done by
brilliant designers, each shooting at a different target. If you
want performance, the 20's got it. Still going strong after all
these years. If you want a ship that assembles by one person in
10 minutes, is super easy to manufacture, has a really low parts
count and still has enough performance to go X/C, then the
Russia is hard to beat. I don't think anyone has discovered how
to do both. It will take the discovery of a new material that
lends itself to automated molding to get there.

One thing that I noticed last year is that it is hard to go
backwards in L/D. After flying a borrowed Libelle on a few
X/C's, I could hardly get myself back in the Russia. From this
point of view I understand the low opinions of the shortwings. It
does not alter the fact that I learned on it, loved it and it
provided a springboard to better opportunities. It is also cheap
and easy to fly. This is where the World Class can beat all other
classes. New blood can get into affordable, easy to fly, easy to
assemble ships and have huge fun. If they stick with it and want
to move up, they will find a way.

Brian

The ASW20 is complicated and heavy, because it is fitted with flaps and was
designed to win the 15 metre class world championship.

The original concept of the Standard Class was for a simple 15 metre
sailpane that would gave the best compromise between performance and cost.
I can't really see that anything has changed, apart from the use of exotic
high tech materials in the latest models. Just ban these to keep the costs
down.

I note that even the fairly old tech. Libelle (Standard Class?) gave Brian
noticeably better performance than the Russia. I have flown an example of
the latter when it was called the ME7. Although I didn't make any
measurements, it seemed to have about the same performance as a wooden K6,
maybe a bit better at higher speeds, but not exactly inspiring.

Derek Copeland


At 15:30 01 February 2009, Brian Bange wrote:
One thing that may not have been covered is cost. I see in
"Gliding
International" concern about the increasing cost of material
and
labour ("exploding"). If a shorter wing were used, there
would be
less of both.


There is not a single proof that this is true. The difference of
cost
between 14 m span and 15 m is presumably totally
insignificant.
One has to chase economies elsewhere.


I have a Russia and an ASW20. I've been through both of them
pretty thoroughly, and I am amazed at the complexity of the
ASW20 and the simplicity of the Russia.

The Russia weighs 300 pounds. The ASW20 weighs almost twice
as much. I'll agree that just a few feet more wing probably does
not add that much to the cost, but all the complexity involved in
getting 40:1 or better sure does. Both ships were done by
brilliant designers, each shooting at a different target. If you
want performance, the 20's got it. Still going strong after all
these years. If you want a ship that assembles by one person in
10 minutes, is super easy to manufacture, has a really low parts
count and still has enough performance to go X/C, then the
Russia is hard to beat. I don't think anyone has discovered how
to do both. It will take the discovery of a new material that
lends itself to automated molding to get there.

One thing that I noticed last year is that it is hard to go
backwards in L/D. After flying a borrowed Libelle on a few
X/C's, I could hardly get myself back in the Russia. From this
point of view I understand the low opinions of the shortwings. It
does not alter the fact that I learned on it, loved it and it
provided a springboard to better opportunities. It is also cheap
and easy to fly. This is where the World Class can beat all other
classes. New blood can get into affordable, easy to fly, easy to
assemble ships and have huge fun. If they stick with it and want
to move up, they will find a way.

Brian

Maybe, since the 18m and over, classes are becoming very popular, by
default the 15m wingspan will become the new and accepted shortwing
class.

Now the trick will be for a clever designer to combine modern
materials and manufacturing methods to design and build that 38-40:1
ship. And with an eye towards "affordability", it can be engineered
with the simplicity that went in to the Russia and Apis line of
sailplanes.

My HP-24 is being built along those lines; I expect to get at least
40:1, it will be under 500 pounds. Has the sleek sexy lines and
retractable gear we all want and should be a solid recreational
sailplane.

Brad