JS3 chatter

No it doesn't. It is the same old ASH 26 cockpit size.

I am sure, and have been told by people who have seen it, that it is a good sized cockpit but I can't see the relevance of judging an obviously different newly designed fuselage and cockpit to the ASH 26. The JS1?- fair enough. But not the JS3.

On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 20:28:19 UTC+2, wrote:
I am sure, and have been told by people who have seen it, that it is a good sized cockpit but I can't see the relevance of judging an obviously different newly designed fuselage and cockpit to the ASH 26. The JS1?- fair enough. But not the JS3.

I think this was dicussed earlier, but judging from the photos JS3 fuselage shape is extremely close/identical to JS1 which is "borrowed" aerodynamically from ASH 26. I do not wan't to downplay the importance of new structure, wing-fuselage junction and several other detail improvements, and the design work associated, but general shape still looks identical to '26. Making small size cockpit is just plain stupid, people are not getting smaller in future.

At 07:29 05 January 2017, krasw wrote:
I think this was dicussed earlier, but judging from the photos JS3
fuselage=
shape is extremely close/identical to JS1 which is "borrowed"
aerodynamica=
lly from ASH 26. I do not wan't to downplay the importance of new
structure=
, wing-fuselage junction and several other detail improvements,
and the
des=
ign work associated, but general shape still looks identical to '26.
Making=
small size cockpit is just plain stupid, people are not getting
smaller
in=
future.


It is not a small size cockpit.

Doubt that anyone has ever described Oscar Goudriaan as a small
man yet he has flown at least five 1000km+ flights in his JS1, flight
times up to eight hours. His brother Laurens is larger and at times
has had back problems, yet has flown multiple flights of 750km+ in
his JS1. If the cockpit was cramped then they would not have been
able to do these long flights - and not at such high speeds with
impaired decision-making due to discomfort.

There was a Dutch JS1 owner who - if I recall correctly - is at least
1.96m tall. That's 6'5"...

Gordon Boettger is also 6'5" and has commented that "after
removing the seat back and still wearing a parachute, I was able to
comfortably fit into the JS1. I wouldn't think that 9-10 hours in the
glider would be a problem."

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 2:29:45 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 20:28:19 UTC+2, wrote:
I am sure, and have been told by people who have seen it, that it is a good sized cockpit but I can't see the relevance of judging an obviously different newly designed fuselage and cockpit to the ASH 26. The JS1?- fair enough. But not the JS3.

I think this was dicussed earlier, but judging from the photos JS3 fuselage shape is extremely close/identical to JS1 which is "borrowed" aerodynamically from ASH 26. I do not wan't to downplay the importance of new structure, wing-fuselage junction and several other detail improvements, and the design work associated, but general shape still looks identical to '26. Making small size cockpit is just plain stupid, people are not getting smaller in future.

i don't think it's just pain stupid to make a small fuselage. i've watched boyd willat squeeze into his discus A and he's got broad shoulders and probably about 6'. for the guys at the highest level of competition who don't mind the feeling of wearing a glider, a few percentage points of eliminated drag are a big deal.

-ND

On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 8:24:23 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 2:29:45 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 20:28:19 UTC+2, wrote:
I am sure, and have been told by people who have seen it, that it is a good sized cockpit but I can't see the relevance of judging an obviously different newly designed fuselage and cockpit to the ASH 26. The JS1?- fair enough. But not the JS3.

I think this was dicussed earlier, but judging from the photos JS3 fuselage shape is extremely close/identical to JS1 which is "borrowed" aerodynamically from ASH 26. I do not wan't to downplay the importance of new structure, wing-fuselage junction and several other detail improvements, and the design work associated, but general shape still looks identical to '26. Making small size cockpit is just plain stupid, people are not getting smaller in future.

i don't think it's just pain stupid to make a small fuselage. i've watched boyd willat squeeze into his discus A and he's got broad shoulders and probably about 6'. for the guys at the highest level of competition who don't mind the feeling of wearing a glider, a few percentage points of eliminated drag are a big deal.

-ND

also, you can make a long, skinny fuselage, future "A" style fuselages don't have to be short. that can still be narrow though. my understanding is the the V3 has a narrow, but long fuselage to accommodate tall pilots as well..

-ND

torstai 5. tammikuuta 2017 16.22.15 UTC+2 ND kirjoitti:

also, you can make a long, skinny fuselage, future "A" style fuselages don't have to be short. that can still be narrow though. my understanding is the the V3 has a narrow, but long fuselage to accommodate tall pilots as well.

-ND

So they say, but no, it does not accomodate tall or wide pilots. The cockpit size is basically the same on all Schempp A-fuselages since 80's Ventus a.. I'm 6'4 and I cannot close the canopy, not even close as large portion of my head is outside cockpit if I wear normal parachute (last tried V2CXA). Narrowness is not particularly big problem for me. Some tallish pilots manage to cramp inside A-cockpit with special parachute that sits on the hat shelf. It looks as enjoyable as travelling inside ski box for 8 hrs.

Waibel solved the compromise between comfort and aerodynamics with ASW 24 fuselage in 80's. It is aerodynamically very close to optimum since it is not designed to big take self launcher engine, quite strong and can take sustainer engine. And most importantly, it is the most beautiful fuselage ever created.

At 14:49 05 January 2017, krasw wrote:
torstai 5. tammikuuta 2017 16.22.15 UTC+2 ND kirjoitti:
=20
also, you can make a long, skinny fuselage, future "A" style
fuselages
do=
n't have to be short. that can still be narrow though. my
understanding is
=
the the V3 has a narrow, but long fuselage to accommodate tall
pilots as
we=
ll.
=20
-ND

So they say, but no, it does not accomodate tall or wide pilots. The
cockpi=
t size is basically the same on all Schempp A-fuselages since 80's
Ventus
a=
.. I'm 6'4 and I cannot close the canopy, not even close as large
portion
of=
my head is outside cockpit if I wear normal parachute (last tried
V2CXA).
=
Narrowness is not particularly big problem for me. Some tallish
pilots
mana=
ge to cramp inside A-cockpit with special parachute that sits on
the hat
sh=
elf. It looks as enjoyable as travelling inside ski box for 8 hrs.

Waibel solved the compromise between comfort and aerodynamics
with ASW 24
f=
uselage in 80's. It is aerodynamically very close to optimum since
it is
no=
t designed to big take self launcher engine, quite strong and can
take
sust=
ainer engine. And most importantly, it is the most beautiful
fuselage ever
=
created.

Got to wonder SH, two seaters designed to carry two elephants,
single seaters to carry stick insects. FAI should set minimum size
for cockpits or it will only be jockeys wining contests in the future.

On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 12:18:41 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
No it doesn't. It is the same old ASH 26 cockpit size.

To me, it appears Uys "fills" his JS3 cockpit but looks can deceive. Seeing the likes of Bruce Taylor or one of the Goudriaan brothers flying it will be more convincing.