70 kg 31:1 glider is here to stay?

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:33:47 UTC, Jack wrote:

: Ian Johnston wrote:
:
: And that, with all due respect, is the sort of attitude that explains
: why gliding is in such trouble. I, on the contrary, have enormous
: sympathy for those whose burning desire to fly is thwarted by The
: System, and I'm all in favour of making things cheaper and simpler
: whenever possible.
:
: Cheaper and simpler is good.
:
: But Hang Gliding is not Para Gliding is not Soaring.

I am suret here are hang glider and paraglider pilots who would
disagree.

: Going first class always costs a little more. Your argument that the
: best experience should be available for a price and a degree of effort
: commensurate with the most basic experience flies in the face of all
: human history, Ian.

And since when have I said that? Not only that, it's a very arrogant
assumption to claim that any one of us knows what the "best
experience" is. My point is simply that there are people who love
flying and also want to so it simply or cheaply. I am very happy with
34:1 wood, thank you. Sure, I could spend five times as much on 40:1
glass, but I, personally, would not get five times as much fun out of
it. Others might - that would be their fun, their choice and non of my
business.

: Those who whine or "whinge" (UK), about the cost of fast glass, and
: yet find a 1-26 or a PW-5 beneath them

Who are these people? My point, you may recall, is that having cheap
and cheerful gliders available may well attract people into soaring.
Don't know know anyone who flies a Ka6 or 1-26 who wouldn't fly if it
was Discus or nothing?

:, those who complain that the
: air field is too far away but can't be bothered to move their tent,
: and those who can't abide a bit of study and compliance sound a
: similar note to yours.

You are welcome to say, as I think you are, that real glider pilots
will dedicate every aspect of their lives to flying, and that anyone
who concedes any other pressures or interest isn't worthy of the name.
It's a point of view, I suppose, though not one that I feel would work
very well at UK clubs.

Regards,

Ian

Ian Johnston wrote:

My point is simply that there are people who love
flying and also want to so it simply or cheaply. I am very happy with
34:1 wood, thank you. Sure, I could spend five times as much on 40:1
glass, but I, personally, would not get five times as much fun out of
it. Others might - that would be their fun, their choice and non of my
business.

Then we find nothing about which to disagree.

Cheaper and more accessible is better, all else being equal.


Jack

You've got to take a look at the bungee launch vidro they;ve got.

For this, and any light sailplane, this is 1000% better than foot launch.
Just take 20ft of linoleum and a bungee to the launch site and you're off.

Love that acceleration.
http://www.zhwin.ch/archaeopteryx/vi...ngeelaunch.mpg

Trike (just) gear and low stall speed leaves little chance of a wing drop.

Chris

Paul Little wrote:

Of course here is the latest in FL sailplanes - not
even in production yet...

http://www.zhwin.ch/archaeopteryx/english.php

At 18:24 20 November 2004, Mike Ziaskas wrote:


Though this ship looks like a hoot to fly, I have my
doubts whether this ship could be aerotowed by conventional
towplanes. __Mike


At 02:12 20 November 2004, Slick wrote:


To me this plane is fascinating. I'm amazed by the
stall speed of 20 mph. It
sounds like it would be a great idea for soaring around
very scenic areas,
where you don't want to rush around all of the time.
As well, it would be
comforting to know that if an emergency landing was
needed in an
un-inhabitable area, that the crash could be at very
slow speed. If it's
durable, easy to assemble/disassemble, and reasonably
priced I believe this
would make and excellent club ship.
'Andre Volant' wrote in message
e.com...


For soaring, this is it.
New racing class?
Why fly fast when you can fly slower.
What's a rush anyway?
Race slower, cover less ground, easier retrieve.
Stalls at 31.4 km/h

http://www.revilo-france.fr/avgauchesthil2.jpg
http://www.revilo-france.fr/3vues.jpg

Empty weight env. 70 Kg
Span 15 meters
Lenght 5,35 meters
Aspect ratio 21,3
Area 10,56 m2
Glide ratio 31 at 54 Km/h
Stall 31,4 Km/h
Minimum sink rate 0,42 m/s at 40 Km/h
VNE 140 Km/h

Andre




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure
Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in
the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via
Encryption =---



Mike Z

Hi Janusz,

I'm actively "biwingual" (sailplane,435 hrs and paraglider,31 hrs).
Both aircraft require a high level of risk management but, for me, the
paraglider requires more. I've only been "scared" in paraglider one
time and I used it as a learning experience (it's also the reason I
fly a DHV 1 paraglider intended for novices). I can't say that I've
really been "scared" in the sailplane but have had moments of anxiety
from time to time.

I like the slow flying speed and convenience of the paraglider.
Yesterday, I decided to fly the paraglider - drove 10 minutes from my
house to the launch site and was in the air after a total of 20
minutes from leaving my house. The sailplane takes a bit more time to
get airborne.
Cu skies,
Steve
Tehachapi, CA

PS: Ian, I'm not sure that HG and PG are "booming" in the US. I don't
have the latest memebership statistics at hand but I recently heard
someone bemoaning the small membership numbers of USHGA. However, in
2002, membership increased 1,000 over the previous year to a total of
11,200 members.

"Janusz Kesik" wrote in message ...
Uzytkownik "Ian Johnston" napisal w
wiadomosci
...

On the other hand, traditional soaring is dying all over the world
while hang/paragliding are booming.

Ian

I have tried paragliding once, and I know: never again. Too scary experience
as for me. In a glider, I sit in a cockpit, and feel without any doubt much
safer.
If it comes to hanggliding, seems to be safer, but I have seen enough
accidents to think a lot until I'll give it a try, however recently I have
started to compare the costs of beginning to learn hang-gliding and staying
here as a glider pilot.

Regards,

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:04:04 -0800, Chris Ashburn
wrote:

For this, and any light sailplane, this is 1000% better than foot launch.
Just take 20ft of linoleum and a bungee to the launch site and you're off.

.... not to mention the car, trailer and time to get the glider up the
hill to the launch site. vbg



Love that acceleration.
http://www.zhwin.ch/archaeopteryx/vi...ngeelaunch.mpg

Look at the flexing on the side of the fuselage during the
acceleration. Scary.



Bye
Andreas

----------
Dans l'article
, "Ian
Johnston" a écrit :

...
On the other hand, if I want to fly a paraglider in
the UK I have to

a) take a training course over a few weekends

b) climb up a convenient hll

c) jump off.
...`

You forgot:

a1) buy a paraglider;

c1) have somebody who takes me back from my landing place to
the place where I started and left my car, or make the way
with my feet.

a) may be also much longer than the drive to the next glider
field if you are in very flat land and the next convenient hill
is far away.

Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:04:04 -0800, Chris Ashburn
wrote:


For this, and any light sailplane, this is 1000% better than foot launch.
Just take 20ft of linoleum and a bungee to the launch site and you're off.


... not to mention the car, trailer and time to get the glider up the
hill to the launch site. vbg

You still need those things if you foot launch.



Love that acceleration.
http://www.zhwin.ch/archaeopteryx/vi...ngeelaunch.mpg


Look at the flexing on the side of the fuselage during the
acceleration. Scary.

Shouldn't be - it's just a lightweight fairing, not structural. The tail
on my ASH 26 E oscillates side to side when the engine is at full
throttle, causing some concern in bystanders unfamiliar with gliders,
but the tail hasn't fallen off any of them yet! Appearances can be
deceiving.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Look at the flexing on the side of the fuselage during the
acceleration. Scary.

I think the fuselage is metal tube structure with a FRP or just P shell around
it. Given that, all the loads are taken by the metal tube structure; the shell
is for aerodynamic and cosmetic reasons.

Jim Vincent
N483SZ
illspam

Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:04:04 -0800, Chris Ashburn
wrote:


For this, and any light sailplane, this is 1000% better than foot
launch.
Just take 20ft of linoleum and a bungee to the launch site and you're
off.


... not to mention the car, trailer and time to get the glider up the
hill to the launch site. vbg

You still need those things if you foot launch.



Love that acceleration.
http://www.zhwin.ch/archaeopteryx/vi...ngeelaunch.mpg


Look at the flexing on the side of the fuselage during the
acceleration. Scary.

If you think that looks scary, take a look at the fuselage skin of this
A-3D.
http://www.a3skywarrior.com/donatedp...%20Cat%203.jpg

Wayne
(Been there, done that.)

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 18:11:04 UTC, "Robert Ehrlich"
wrote:

: ----------
: Dans l'article
: , "Ian
: Johnston" a ‚crit :
:
: ...
: On the other hand, if I want to fly a paraglider in
: the UK I have to
:
: a) take a training course over a few weekends
:
: b) climb up a convenient hll
:
: c) jump off.
: ...`
:
: You forgot:
:
: a1) buy a paraglider;

That is very true. But then, I left out "Buy a glider" as well...in
some cases flying a club glider will be fine, but that tends to make
the wait longer and the flight shorter ...

: c1) have somebody who takes me back from my landing place to
: the place where I started and left my car, or make the way
: with my feet.

If I land out. Same goes for a glider.

: a) may be also much longer than the drive to the next glider
: field if you are in very flat land and the next convenient hill
: is far away.

Or much closer. My gliding club is 100 miles away, and there are good
hills - should I ever choose to risk life and limb in one of those
dratted things - within a few miles of me.

Ian