Expanded World Class

What killed the World Class was the World Class.
When the PW5 was awarded the World Class against a lot of opposition to the
design the proponents of the PW5 sat back fielding criticism and smugly
snubbed the others even after it was well apparent that few were going to
get on their band wagon.
Others that contended for the bid to be the world class glider and their
followers were shut out and left with no place to compete. There were other
good design entrants (most thought better than the committee picked PW5) and
rumors of unfair politics deciding on the PW5 clouded the class.
How the PW5 was picked over the other designs remains a topic of some
controversy but it was and it failed to gather the interest of the masses
(it really is homely) but there were however many other gliders that were in
contention for the title sold that already meet much the original design
criteria. If these models were all lumped together with the existing PW5
gliders the potential is there for a successful competition class to yet
emerge.... Call it World Class or whatever you like but stick with the
gliders already produced and there is no need to go through the process
another time only to end up with the same dismal results.
There is no need to start including Grob Astirs, Cirrus, LS4 and the likes
of these since they already fit nicely into the Club Class (The USA needs
also to finally adopt the rest of the worlds "Club Class" and "Racing Class"
rather than continuing to disguise Ventus 2's and ASW27's and the likes as
"Sports class" gliders)and there is no reason to start looking for a new
alternative "World Class" design... Simply include the L-33's, SZD solo,
Russia in with the PW5's and let them fight it out in a fair and balanced
contest.....choose your weapon and go into battle..... low cost, lower
performance racing.....easy enough.
tim

--
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com
,
"Ian Cant" wrote in message
...
Soon we will see a very good 13m glider ....for
$120,000.-only.
And the happy owner will be a World Class Champion.
Was that an original idea behind the World Class?

If I recall correctly, the major aim of the World Class
concept was to make competition soaring more accessible
by keeping the cost down. The lower performance level
and the single-design concepts arose from this aim
[one design to allow mass production and the savings
therefrom]. Unfortunately the masses did not buy the
PW-5.

Perhaps a reasonable class could be built from all
the 13m and below sailplanes that are now around, typically
with 30 or 35:1 L/Ds and easier retrieve characteristics
than bigger ships. A set of rules can be built around
the existing designs without denying entry to newer
and better designs. Contrary to advertised beliefs,
30:1 is plenty for X-C [20:1 is plenty for the 1-26
guys].

But how do we keep the cost under control ? Well,
my only semi-facetious suggestion would be to have
a rule that the top three in any National-level contest
have to offer their ships, fully equipped as flown,
for sale at a fixed price immediately afterwards.
Take $40,000 as a random number. Will anyone really
want to buy a championship with a $60,000 ship if he
has to sell it for $40,000 afterwards ? It would be
snapped up. But the $20,000 ship that wins would probably
not be sellable at $40,000 and the owner could keep
it to fly another day.

As a reference point, the Sparrowhawk is perhaps the
highest performance 13m ship around, and I believe
it still sells for below $40,000. And my aging Russia
would be competitive; it cost me $19,000 new a few
years ago; even with a trailer and flight recorder
and oxygen etc and CA sales tax, it still came in at
well below $25,000.

It could be done. With 60 or so Russias, maybe 50
PW-5s, a growing number of Sparrowhawks and a sprinkling
of Apis and Silents we should have a viable nucleus
of a fleet. And if it works, more people may be enticed
to join in affordable competive soaring.

Ian

Here, Here Tim:

The Club Class has definitely stepped up and filled the performance/
price niche the orginal World Class was meant to fill in the soaring
contest world. Club Class around the world offers some of the most
competitive racing in the world right now, in ships that more pilots
can afford - especially inthe US given the Euro/$ rate now. Every
country in the world offers Club Class racing except the US (and maybe
Canada?). Why are we so stubbornly against the concept, while we still
devote the time and effort to site a World Class Nationals every year?

Yes, some rules makers have said to me : "well look at the Club Class
in Europe, with all of its highly modified Cirruses, etc., that will
just mean pilots will take $20K Cirruses and trick them out for $40K ,
and then where is the affordability?"

I was once of that thought. But after having seen the 3rd French Pilot
in a run-of-the mill Std Cirrus place 3rd at Club Worlds ahead of the
supposedly tricked out Cirrus' the top two French pilots flew, I just
do not think that is much of an issue. There is only so much you can
do with Cirrus, Libelles, etc. And now that the IGC Club Class list is
adding the Discus (and like ships) to the list of ships allowed, the
Club class alows a huge portion of the US fleet of gliders to compete
at a high level again. Isn't that a good thing?

Oh, and even if it takes $40k to trick out and old ship to be fully
competitive, I've still saved a good number 10's of thousands of $'s
with which I can compete at more contests. Isn't the possibility of
increased contest participation a good thing as well?

Others have said to me: "why should I have to purchase an old Libelle
to compete in a contest where I can make the US Team?" And good/great
pilots (often younger) who can only afford crappy gliders or who's
dads don't have a D2 for them to fly should have to buy $100k new
ships to compete on an even palying field in the only handicapped
class the US offers pilots?

The concept of the US Sports Natioanls has outlived its usefullness -
other than to offer pilots more options of flying a nationals each
year. If I own a new ASW-15 meter ship, my nationals should be the 15
meter class. If I own a Schempp-Std Class glider my nationals should
be Stds Nationals. If I own a whatever-Open Class ship, I might be
clamoring for a handicapped Open Class to attract more ships to that
nationals since Sports Class does not cater to me at all. etc. But if
I own a Libelle, or Elfe, or whatever older ship, I am S.O.L. for my
own Nationals.

The current Sports Class Nationals has become a joke for entry level
racing here in the US - unless you can afford to buy a brand new ship
and start racing it as a newbie, OR you can find a glider that has not
been raced in the last 20-30 years and has an overly generous handicap
so you can try and "work" the current system. Otherwise, you need to
depend on a lot of luck fromt he weather gods and superior pilot
skills to have any hope of winning.

Instead Sports Class has become just another "option" for pilots of
the latest and best ships. Many pilots I am sure say: "Well, I own an
ASW-50, my nationals is in XXX. I don't like XXX, but Sports Nationals
is in a place I do like... I might as well just fly Sports Nats and
maybe even pick up a high nationals placing since the tasking is,
after all, more and more set up for ships like mine because that is
(mostly) who goes to it anymore."

Keep the Sports Class at the regional level - its fun to race agaisnt
others outside of your class and to learn in, BUT give US pilots their
own Club Class Nationals like everyone else in the world has!

Let the World Class, as a separate nationals, die quietly and maybe
set up an A and B Club Class Nationals system and give the US soaring
population a Club Class Nationals to fill the entry level/affordable/
very competitive contest niche.

Tim McAllister EY

On Oct 4, 11:44 am, "Tim Mara" wrote:
What killed the World Class was the World Class.
When the PW5 was awarded the World Class against a lot of opposition to the
design the proponents of the PW5 sat back fielding criticism and smugly
snubbed the others even after it was well apparent that few were going to
get on their band wagon.
Others that contended for the bid to be the world class glider and their
followers were shut out and left with no place to compete. There were other
good design entrants (most thought better than the committee picked PW5) and
rumors of unfair politics deciding on the PW5 clouded the class.
How the PW5 was picked over the other designs remains a topic of some
controversy but it was and it failed to gather the interest of the masses
(it really is homely) but there were however many other gliders that were in
contention for the title sold that already meet much the original design
criteria. If these models were all lumped together with the existing PW5
gliders the potential is there for a successful competition class to yet
emerge.... Call it World Class or whatever you like but stick with the
gliders already produced and there is no need to go through the process
another time only to end up with the same dismal results.
There is no need to start including Grob Astirs, Cirrus, LS4 and the likes
of these since they already fit nicely into the Club Class (The USA needs
also to finally adopt the rest of the worlds "Club Class" and "Racing Class"
rather than continuing to disguise Ventus 2's and ASW27's and the likes as
"Sports class" gliders)and there is no reason to start looking for a new
alternative "World Class" design... Simply include the L-33's, SZD solo,
Russia in with the PW5's and let them fight it out in a fair and balanced
contest.....choose your weapon and go into battle..... low cost, lower
performance racing.....easy enough.
tim

On Oct 6, 4:10 am, Tim wrote:
Yes, some rules makers have said to me : "well look at the Club Class
in Europe, with all of its highly modified Cirruses, etc., that will
just mean pilots will take $20K Cirruses and trick them out for $40K ,
and then where is the affordability?"

Really nobody "tricks out" their gliders. Everybody seals their
glider properly but that doesn't cost much. If you add winglets (~
$2,000) or wing-root fillets (which probably don't work unless you've
done wind tunnel time) you get extra handicap, so it doesn't make any
difference, and so pilots don't bother.

Certainly nobody is spending tens of thousands of dollars, not even
close.


Dan

Cheap with performance...then lets pitch the one design(which
is really who can trick out their ship the most and
gain L/d, thus defeating the concept) Run any ship
within certain handicaps...a range that go from Russias
and PW5 up to LS4? Keep the handicap.

One can try to get the cheapest glider with the best
handicap, or something a little more expensive that
takes a bigger hit. Not including LS4's in this group
would be a big mistake IMVHO, they are good performers
and relatively cheap used...is that not the objective?

Stewart Kissel wrote:
Cheap with performance...then lets pitch the one design(which
is really who can trick out their ship the most and
gain L/d, thus defeating the concept)

I don't think so, as the usual "tricks" won't add more than a few
percentage points, and are available to all of the competitors anyway.

In any case, the cost of these "tricks" is a lot less than the "tricks"
the manufacturers can add to their new gliders, and then the competitors
do the usual tricks in addition. New glider + usual tricks is a
significant gain in performance and cost.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

At 17:18 04 October 2007, Toad wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:35 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
toad wrote:
Bad idea to require suitability for early solo pilot.
This led to
unneeded 'dumbing down' of the design. Specific
features such as the
nose wheel and non-retractable landing gear. It
also leads to
sacrificing performance for easier handling.

I agree about the 'dumbing down' aspect, but performance
can be built in as mentioned in the Discus/LS4 rebuttal,
so it's performance disadvantage is to cut costs in
addition to 'dumbing down'.

Time to update your knowledge to at least the 1980s,
when the LS4,
Discus, and other gliders showed you don't have to
sacrifice performance
to have a glider with wonderful, forgiving handling.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

Then why doesn't the PW5 have better performance ?

As mentioned, due to cost/dumbing down (read fixed
gear).

Trade offs between handling and performance might be:
span, easier handling with lower span.
wing loading, high for performance, low for safety,
happy medium ?
airfoil and twist for better performance or stall
?
fixed gear vs retract.
high wing for safety vs lower drag mid wing ?

Actually a high wing is more efficient (I believe due
to better lift distribution). Don't believe me though,
find some technical reports by OSTIV and look at what
will probably be the newest Shleicher ubership. It
is called the MU: 31, and it is essentially a 27 (it's
fuselage is considered to be just about optimal, drag
wise, since it has to house a human and be crash safe
it is hard to get much better) with the wing moved
to the high position. The trailing edge actually terminates
on a pylon to maintain it's optimal hight at optimal
angle of incidence. It has -7 degrees of inboard washout
(wash-in?) in the first meter which gives it a strange
anhedral sort of look, and these nifty little dimples
in front of the wing/fuselage juncture to discourage
horseshoe vortecies. Due to these mods, it has 16%
less induced drag, and induced being 1/3 of total drag
has around a 5% lower sink rate than a normal 27, but
the high wing is said by them to be more efficient,
although admittedly it does not look as cool. If you
can't find anything on the MU: 31 and want to see it,
I can archive and link my scanned version of it I have
on disk. It really is cool.

All of these items can be optimized one way or the
other. The LS4/
Discus got a really good happy medium with both good
handling and
performance. If the PW5 had near the performance of
either of these
gliders, I would own a PW5, but the PW5 does not.

Todd

The PW-5's performance is not too bad, but it sure
ain't no looker. That is what I believe turns a lot
of people off the idea, when they can get a much cooler
looking ship for less money! I do think there ought
to be a one design ship though, but I would much rather
see the Sparrowhawk be it.

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

you guys are funny!

For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
performance is just frustrating when trying XC.

i have no experience flying cross country in anything 35:1 or higher,
but it seems to me like it may be kind of boring, i mean you are way
up in the air all the time, never get close to the ground until youve
made the goal, wheres the excitement??

Makes the "club" less exclusive - I became a cross-county pilot and
fly in contests because I fly a ship I can afford. Modest initial
cost, inexpensive insurance, zero maintenance -

amen and this is why i bought the Cherokee

they did not seem to be having much fun, because they
landed out all the damn time.

now im afraid to move up to high performance soaring, if landing out
isnt fun, of course as long as nothing gets broken, then what is fun?
ive had nearly as much fun on some of my retrieves as some of my
flights.


oh i like the 'claim' idea. reminds me of when i used to go to the
local dirt track races. other racers had the opportunity to claim
parts of the top 5 cars at the end of the race. preset prices for
standard items. kept costs down for everyone and helped even the
playing field.

i think we should just leave those poor PW-5's alone, i mean usually
RAS doesnt start picking on them until at least later into the fall or
winter. I personally like the idea of a one design class for
contests. I wouldnt even care WHICH design it was but as long as it
was affordable enough for an average pilot to get into. when the
entire field is running the same glider in the same weather over the
same course the only way you win is by being the best pilot and isnt
that what we are trying to figure out anyway?

On Oct 4, 3:20 pm, wrote:
you guys are funny!

For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
performance is just frustrating when trying XC.

i have no experience flying cross country in anything 35:1 or higher,
but it seems to me like it may be kind of boring, i mean you are way
up in the air all the time, never get close to the ground until youve
made the goal, wheres the excitement??

Wow, I must be doing it wrong, I get close to the ground pretty
often.


Makes the "club" less exclusive - I became a cross-county pilot and
fly in contests because I fly a ship I can afford. Modest initial
cost, inexpensive insurance, zero maintenance -

amen and this is why i bought the Cherokee

they did not seem to be having much fun, because they
landed out all the damn time.

now im afraid to move up to high performance soaring, if landing out
isnt fun, of course as long as nothing gets broken, then what is fun?
ive had nearly as much fun on some of my retrieves as some of my
flights.

I've had a few fun retrieves, but landing out every other flight is
not fun for me. I have already driven 2 hours to the airport, and
have to drive home afterwards. Put in there a 1-4 hour retrieve and
it's a damn long day. And at contests, you have to have a crew if
you're going to land out that often. Most of us don't have enough
people volunteering to hang out at an airport for a week.


oh i like the 'claim' idea. reminds me of when i used to go to the
local dirt track races. other racers had the opportunity to claim
parts of the top 5 cars at the end of the race. preset prices for
standard items. kept costs down for everyone and helped even the
playing field.

i think we should just leave those poor PW-5's alone, i mean usually
RAS doesnt start picking on them until at least later into the fall or
winter. I personally like the idea of a one design class for
contests. I wouldnt even care WHICH design it was but as long as it
was affordable enough for an average pilot to get into. when the
entire field is running the same glider in the same weather over the
same course the only way you win is by being the best pilot and isnt
that what we are trying to figure out anyway?

I also like one design, but I go to contests to have fun, not to
figure out who the best pilot is.

Todd

I have limited XC experience in a nominally greater than 1:35 Std Cirrus, and
early XC in a 1:27 Blanik L13, and a couple of flights in a Kestrel 19. Of the
three performance bands the Standard class Cirrus is the most fun for me -
probably because it is mine, and I have the most experience in it. The lower
performance is very frustrating because it is so slow getting anywhere. The
performance of the Kestrel means that you have to fly far to be challenging -
in high winds even the Cirrus can get tiresome trying to go upwind...

Getting low is a consequence of weather and pilot choices. Where I fly there is
usually lots of energy and anything less than 2000 feet AGL is "low" and wasting
time because the thermals tend to get scrappy and disorganised. That said I have
spent my fair share of time grinding away from some low position. Usually as a
consequence of my poor decision making.

Landouts happen to all of them, even the 1:60+ uber bugsmashers. They just tend
to happen a lot further away from home. Which can make retrieves a real
adventure, or unmitigated pain. Consider the crew a little while ago who I
watched scurrying around for a second trailer that could handle an 18m racer
when both of their pilots called below glide 150km away at 17:00... On rural
dirt roads in the part of the world these guys were in that could be a very long
process. Consider that the area these guys were getting low in is pretty
uninhabited. As one French pilot found out in the 2001 worlds, there are places
you can land in a tilled field and have , no radio comms, no cell phone and no
building in sight from the circuit.

How pleasant an outlanding is depends largely on crew and how easy it is to get
your glider home. The one outlanding involving the L13 was a nightmare. The
trailer is open, and the fittings badly designed, and now old and abused. Then
he lands where the rocks prevent getting a trailer in close. Conversely, the
Cirrus is easy to derig and has a good trailer, so it is no major problem most
of the time. Never tried it , but there is an adage that you know who your real
friends are the second time you ask them to retrieve you with a Kestrel 19.

How much fun you have depends on your attitude - not on your equipment.

wrote:
you guys are funny!

For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
performance is just frustrating when trying XC.

i have no experience flying cross country in anything 35:1 or higher,
but it seems to me like it may be kind of boring, i mean you are way
up in the air all the time, never get close to the ground until youve
made the goal, wheres the excitement??

Makes the "club" less exclusive - I became a cross-county pilot and
fly in contests because I fly a ship I can afford. Modest initial
cost, inexpensive insurance, zero maintenance -

amen and this is why i bought the Cherokee

they did not seem to be having much fun, because they
landed out all the damn time.

now im afraid to move up to high performance soaring, if landing out
isnt fun, of course as long as nothing gets broken, then what is fun?
ive had nearly as much fun on some of my retrieves as some of my
flights.


oh i like the 'claim' idea. reminds me of when i used to go to the
local dirt track races. other racers had the opportunity to claim
parts of the top 5 cars at the end of the race. preset prices for
standard items. kept costs down for everyone and helped even the
playing field.

i think we sould just leave those poor PW-5's alone, i mean usually
RAS doesnt start picking on them until at least later into the fall or
winter. I personally like the idea of a one design class for
contests. I wouldnt even care WHICH design it was but as long as it
was affordable enough for an average pilot to get into. when the
entire field is running the same glider in the same weather over the
same course the only way you win is by being the best pilot and isnt
that what we are trying to figure out anyway?

On Oct 4, 8:20 pm, wrote:
you guys are funny!

For decent performance I think 35/1 would be good enough. Lower
performance is just frustrating when trying XC.

i have no experience flying cross country in anything 35:1 or higher,
but it seems to me like it may be kind of boring, i mean you are way
up in the air all the time, never get close to the ground until youve
made the goal, wheres the excitement??

The goalposts move, the fun remains.

snip

they did not seem to be having much fun, because they
landed out all the damn time.

now im afraid to move up to high performance soaring, if landing out
isnt fun, of course as long as nothing gets broken, then what is fun?

Soaring?

ive had nearly as much fun on some of my retrieves as some of my
flights.
snip