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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
At 19:00 15 March 2004, Liam Finley wrote:
Liam- A few years ago I was shopping for a glider. Peak Soaring in Colorado was going full blast at the time and pushing PW5's hard. I went and test flew one. The price and performance did not make sense for me, so I looked elsewhere. Curiously the guy who ran Peak Soaring and was pushing PW's was one of the reasons I did not investigate them further, like you and Ben he was a chest-beater. Check some of the old flame wars from him. Hell most of what you two say I agree with-but the tone I can live without. It serves no purpose IMHO. I suppose the PW group will probably learn from the 1-26ers and take their efforts to their own web site to avoid the abuse. That is to bad because the 1-26er's are a great bunch of guys. If PW-5 owners are really as content as they claim to be, why are they so touchy and defensive? SNIP. If PW-5'ers did more flying and less whining perhaps they could convince us otherwise. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Uri Saovray wrote:
Speaking of simple warning devices: How about a simple hookup to a horn which is activated when the airbrakes are opened while the towhook is engaged (i.e. open spoilers during tow)? A microswitch on the airbrake levers would be the no-brainer part. What about the towhook? Magnetic sensor? where? How? Other ideas? Uri This would be an easy addition to the typical gear warning system, with the new switch simply over-riding the gear switch. Fixed gear gliders would need to add a spoiler switch and warning buzzer. Pilots concerned about warning proliferation could consider using a voice chip to speak "Spoilers" and "Gear" for the two alerts, instead of a buzzer. Voice chips are cheap and simple to use these days. -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels wrote:
"cernauta" wrote in message ... "Bill Daniels" wrote: Tape two yaw strings (which then become pitch strings) on each side of the canopy at the lowest and most forward part you can still see. The string angle difference between minimum sink and stall is large so the bright red, wiggling strings angled up steeply are a good visual stall warning. That must be true only for unflapped gliders, or it's valid only for one specific flap setting in a flapped glider. Or you have to make different coloured markings for each and every flap setting. Aldo Cernezzi You're right about flaps making a difference in the calibration. I've only tried this on two flapped gliders and one without flaps. However, It seemed to work pretty well in all cases. I actually didn't see too much difference in the string indications at different flap settings. The flap issue is partly moot since the flap settings are related to airspeed bands. Stall concerns would likely arise only with the flaps in their most positive two settings, landing or slow thermalling. The near-stall indication is very obvious. Have you tried these in a shallow turning stall, when it is the wing tip that stalls, not the root? -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Meyer wrote:
I think you are missing the point that most people have made about the PW5, those that aren't ignorant anyway. The point is that it does not perform well enough to justify the price tag. I cannot understand the mentality of people who would rather fork out £20k+ for a sailplane with the performance only slightly better than a K6e when they could get a second hand LS4 or ASW20 for the same or less money! I would have thought that a one-type class based on an existing design (which could be very cheaply put back into production) would make far more sense. After all, some of us can't even afford a brand new PW5, but can afford an old ratty ASW20 or LS4. This is not about elitism in terms of money, its about common sense and value for money. The PW5 has an abundance of neither. LS4 for the world class! Does the World really need ANOTHER Standard Class competition class? That is what people seem to be proposing. This class would be nearly identical to the current Standard Class, but with a little less performance and a little less cost. Who would buy a new "LS4" when they could buy a better performing used Discus for the same or less money, just to compete in this class? I think proposing more of what we already have will not bring new pilots or new competitors into the sport, but merely divide them up between the Standard Class and "LS4 Standard Class". I think the current World class is bringing in pilots the other classes aren't; unfortunately, not in the amounts hoped for. I think the _goals_ of the Word Class are good, and the specifications appropriate to those goals. People seem to forget that a new PW5 will become a used PW5. Many pilots that will find a used PW5 much cheaper than a used LS4 or ASW 20, and buy them because they can afford it. This is good for those people, and good for the sport. -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Liam Finley wrote:
If PW-5 owners are really as content as they claim to be, why are they so touchy and defensive? I think it's pretty obvious that they are in denial. They invested in these machines thinking that the world class would take off, and instead it flopped, and they are stuck with these expensive fiberglass lawn ornanments, and that reality is just too disturbing for them to come to terms with. So they attack the messengers instead. It is a mistake to imagine the postings here come from PW5 owners in general. Ironically, some (most?) of the defense of the class and glider comes from pilots that don't even fly them, such as myself (I fly an 18 m motorglider). I'm sure most of the PW5 owners are elsewhere, enjoying discussing the gliders and World Class with people that believe in it. They aren't here, because they've learned that it is a fool's errand to attempt discussions with people that call their glider "rubbish". If people called your glider that, you'd probably be a bit touchy, too. It makes me irritable, and I don't even own one. If you want to know what PW5 owners are doing, you'll have to go to where they are. -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message ... Have you tried these in a shallow turning stall, when it is the wing tip that stalls, not the root? Yep, and the indication is still useful. No doubt the AOA measured near the centerline is lower than the actual AOA of the inside wingtip. (Your point, Eric.) But, the AOA indication you do get is significantly greater than minimum sink so that you would take it as a stall warning, or at least an indication that lowering the nose would result in better performance. YMMV, but my experience with them has been that the 10cm long strings are 25mm or so higher at stall than at min sink while the difference between best L/D and min sink is only 5 - 10mm. The strings angle upward and wiggle a lot near stall. All I can say is try it. If it doesn't do anything for you, rip 'em off. It's a pretty cheap experiment. Bill Daniels |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
At 19:24 15 March 2004, G.Kurek wrote:
And you think that you can find a legitimate company that will make LS-4 in the same price range? Where/how do I put down payment?!! You missed my point.....If it was an LS4 class you wouldn't need a new one, you could fly a second hand one (which you can get for equivalent or cheaper price). If you wanted a new one then you could pay extra and have a new one, though I don't understand why you would. Composite gliders in general have a much longer life in terms of hours and launches than you would ever need, and if you want it shiny you can get it re-gelled in poland pretty cheap (or even do it yourself). My point is that designing a new glider for the world class was a mistake, as was most of the design philosophy behind the concept. If you want proof then just look at the number of people that bother buying them/entering the world class. I have no problem with people that fly any kind of glider, I just think that as a one-class contest design the PW5 was a complete failure, and that a class incorporating an existing 20ish year old design would have been much more succesful. Just my opinion. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Does the World really need ANOTHER Standard Class competition
class? That is what people seem to be proposing. This class would be nearly identical to the current Standard Class, but with a little less performance and a little less cost. Who would buy a new 'LS4' when they could buy a better performing used Discus for the same or less money, just to compete in this class? Are you therefore saying that the world class must have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed as being equivalent to one of the existing classes? I think that such a suggestion is completely contrary to the aims of the world class, which are in my opinion, very good. The aim was to have a one-design class. This would enable us to compete in the olympics, and would ensure a level playing field for all competitors regardless of their wealth. An LS4 only class would not be another standard class, precisely for the reason that you could not buy a discus or LS8 and enter it. It would be a one-design contest, and as such would achieve the aims of the world class. Fixed undercarriage, no waterballast, even the requirement for no flaps, are in my opinion all unnecessary requirements for a world class glider, it could be an ASW22BWL for all I care as long as they were cheap and plentiful (I can dream....). The only requirements are that the design should be plentiful (the PW5 is not), cheap (2nd Hand LS4's are), and of the best performance possible that satisfy these criteria. The LS4 is ideal, as would many existing designs have been. I think proposing more of what we already have will not bring new pilots or new competitors into the sport, but merely divide them up between the Standard Class and 'LS4 Standard Class'. I think the current World class is bringing in pilots the other classes aren't; unfortunately, not in the amounts hoped for. I think the _goals_ of the Word Class are good, and the specifications appropriate to those goals. People seem to forget that a new PW5 will become a used PW5. Many pilots that will find a used PW5 much cheaper than a used LS4 or ASW 20, and buy them because they can afford it. This is good for those people, and good for the sport. -- ----- change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Meyer wrote:
I have no problem with people that fly any kind of glider, I just think that as a one-class contest design the PW5 was a complete failure, and that a class incorporating an existing 20ish year old design would have been much more succesful. If you believe that, then the glider you desire so much would NOT be an LS4, because at the beginning of the World Class discussions, the LS4 was only 5 years old and competitive in the Standard Class. So, using your criteria, a "20ish year old design" would be a Standard Cirrus! It costs just as much to build a Standard Cirrus as an LS4, would you buy one, or would you say, "Why should I buy a World Class Cirrus when for less money I can get a used LS4?". -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Meyer wrote:
Are you therefore saying that the world class must have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed as being equivalent to one of the existing classes? No, I'm saying it must be smaller to be cheaper. Bigger costs money. I think that such a suggestion is completely contrary to the aims of the world class, which are in my opinion, very good. Here was an important goal: "substantially lower costs than then-current new gliders". It's the first one on the list in the history section of the World Class Soaring Association (www.wcsa.org/history.htm). The aim was to have a one-design class. A big part of this was to achieve "cheap". This would enable us to compete in the olympics, This was truly a minor side issue. and would ensure a level playing field for all competitors regardless of their wealth. An LS4 only class would not be another standard class, precisely for the reason that you could not buy a discus or LS8 and enter it. It would be a one-design contest, and as such would achieve the aims of the world class. Fixed undercarriage, no waterballast, even the requirement for no flaps, are in my opinion all unnecessary requirements for a world class glider, If you want cheap, you have to leave off the things that make it costly. These are expensive additions. The glider manufacturers were asked what must be done to make a glider cheaply, and these things were on their list. They add far more cost than performance, and make it more complicated to fly. Simple to fly was also a goal. The people that came up with the specifications didn't just make this stuff up. -- ----- change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Auction: Thermal Imaging Camera - One Day Left | sell2all | Rotorcraft | 0 | April 29th 04 08:29 PM |
For Auction: Thermal Imaging Camera - One Day Left | sell2all | Naval Aviation | 0 | April 29th 04 08:09 PM |
For Auction: Thermal Imaging Camera - One Day Left | sell2all | General Aviation | 0 | April 29th 04 08:09 PM |
Spin on thermal entry - how-to | Bill Daniels | Soaring | 0 | January 29th 04 05:43 PM |
Thermal to Wave contact! | C.Fleming | Soaring | 1 | January 21st 04 01:54 PM |