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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
What's needed is a breakthrough in materials and processes. I don't know what that is or if it's even possible but if we are to succeed, it will require thinking WAY "outside the box". Agreed it certainly will need some creativity but I am sure it can happen. It is presumably no more of a step forward than that made by the first composite sailplanes (Phoebus and Libelle) when compared to the state of the art at the time, gliders such as the K-6. It is also probably not something that one person can do in isolation. I believe we need a 'think tank' (possibly an OSTIV or SSA committee) composed of existing glider designers, composite specialists, people with certification background and experienced glider pilots and maintainers. This would however require careful management because you know what they say about things designed by a committee. I guess the think tank would generate concepts and ideas that members could take away (i.e. by direct involvement in discussions or through published papers and reports) to use in developing gliders. I don't envisage such a committee actually designing a glider. I don't think advances such as this can come from academia (with a few exceptions such as Boermans at Delft but then this is not about aerodynamics). Academics don't understand commercial pressures and I doubt they would have a good enough grip on the practical side of manufacturing and certification. Rapid advances are currently being made in improving the producability of composites in yachts, wind turbines and many other commercial applications (for example see some of the articles at www.compositesworld.com and subscribe to one of the free magazines they offer). I would also like to make one additional point re certification. One other post touched on this subject with reference to the BGA. I think we need to take a careful look at whether the regulator side of the certification process could be delegated to an industry body by the FAA and by other airworthiness authorities around the world. This is not easy to do in a strict regulatory sence (only the FAA can issue a TC) but it would make certification cheaper and potentially easier to achieve (for instance the FAA would simply consider a glider certification program a nuisance, an industry group with gliding in their blood could encourage and help the applicant - something they could never expect from the FAA). Costs could also be lower because a lot of the compliance finding could be done by enthusiasts for much lower rates than the FAA would charge. I think it is time that the SSA took a lead in this area and looked at what can be done under the Sport Plane category. To be honest I don't know quite how something similar could be done in Europe with their current regulatory environment. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels wrote:
Welcome to soaring, John. The 'crowded skies' bogy is largely a fabrication of the evening news 'talking heads' and their editors who want to frighten people into watching their programs (and their sponsors commercials). In actuality, on the busiest days, there are only about 5000 aircraft airborne over the 48 states at any time. Most of these are at altitudes much higher than gliders usually fly or in the vicinity of major airports. As avgas prices increase, the private piston fleet flies fewer and fewer hours so the traffic density below 18,000 feet may actually be decreasing. Most glider flying is done in remote areas where air traffic is very low. In summary, there's LOTS of room in the sky to fly gliders. The glider fleet could increase tenfold or more without problems. Where a problem might arise is with the 'uphill capacity' of a local soaring operation to launch a large number of gliders. A solution is 'self-launch' gliders or my preferred solution - winches. Unfortunately, it's a fact that the population of glider pilots is shrinking which translates into fewer businesses and clubs where one can find gliders to fly or tows to launch privately owned gliders. The choice is a shrinking sport, a stagnant one or a growing one. I think the happiest choice is a growing one. Cheaper gliders are a part of the solution. Bill Daniels Hey Bill Happy to announce that in some parts soaring is growing. We had four gliders in one thermal on Sunday for the first time since I joined the club four years ago. We could have launched one more, but the bridle for the Blanik failed launching #1, so #2 had to go back to the hangar. Used to be we battled to have enough members around to get an instructor and student up reliably. On a good day we might launch two simultaneously, but three was very very rare. For what it is worth we had a very strange day with 7/8 or more cloud a lot of the time, but lots of lift. Presumably the cold air caused by rain in the area was drifting in and displacing relatively warmer air. In the occasional bit of sunshine the thermals were very tight but very strong. Had the unusual experience of getting 3-4m/s up at 20minutes to legal sunset. Airbrakes open for most of the last fifteen minutes... (Thinks, maybe this is how the British weather works) Strange but fun. Which is the point, focus on it being fun and people join, I am no longer the youngster at the club (at 40). This is also good. "JohnWN in Burke, VA" wrote in message news:Uvpld.1596$iR.1168@lakeread04... I'm so new at soaring that I have only taken one glider ride in my life. Having established that I'm not an expert on much of anything, here's my 2 cents worth. The VOLUME envisioned to make an affordable plane would possibly make VFR flight impossible because of the huge number of planes in the air. So getting a cheap sailplane, might kill the sport that you want to promote. I can imagine having to apply for an airspace usage permit much as we have to apply months or years in advance for reservations at some of the most popular National Parks. On the other hand, I'm one of the people that will have to join a club to have afford access to a plane. My two cents ...john___________________________________________ __________________________ _____________________________________ "smjmitchell" wrote in message .au... I don't think that performance is a big cost driver. The major cost drivers a * development costs * certification costs * labour (for production) * raw material costs I suspect that all of these drivers will have a similar value irrespective of whether the glider is a APIS, 1-26 or LS-4. OK ... maybe the material cost will vary a little but the difference is not going to result in a glider that is 1/3 or 1/2 cheaper. The biggest issue with the cost of airplanes is quite simply VOLUME. ... |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
What about the Discus CS?
Made in the Czech republic. Design costs amortised years ago. All the approvals. Better performance than the LS4. Better handling (yes I have flown both) Since it is still in production you wouldnt have to start new production lines etc. Just get it voted as the new world class and we will all be happy |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
OscarCVox wrote:
What about the Discus CS? Made in the Czech republic. Design costs amortised years ago. All the approvals. Better performance than the LS4. Better handling (yes I have flown both) Since it is still in production you wouldnt have to start new production lines etc. Just get it voted as the new world class and we will all be happy Is it significantly cheaper (65% or less) than a glider competitive in the Standard Class? If it isn't, what's the point? Then we'd have two Standard Classes. Is it as cheap as the gliders in the Club class? If it is, what's the point? Why have two club classes? I hope the World Class will keep it's vision of low cost competition, not just "a bit cheaper" competition. I know "we will all be happy" won't happen if the World Class becomes a "me too" class. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Użytkownik "F.L. Whiteley" napisał w wiadomości ... I don't know if production methods have changed much. Last I knew, composite 15m was 1000 hours labor, by far the largest cost component. (for comparison C-172 was something like 372 hours 30 years ago). So... then we return to what I was talking about previously: move to the countries where the cost of the workhour is low. Just like here (Poland). We have experienced tradespersons who are into the glider production technology (wood, glassfibre, and metal as well). Those guys are well qualified, and don't want too much in reward - the German worker often wants even 30Euros for his hour. A Pole here woll be happy working for 3-4 US Dollars per hour. See the difference? If the production of glider demands 1000 workhours, then labour cost for Germany may be 39000US$ (at Euro/Dollar = 1.30) and for Poland 3500US $ (at 3.5US$/h) that makes 35500US $ saved just by moving production from Germany (just an example) to Poland. Add to this that lots of other things necessary for production are a lot more affordable here, as well as the social insurance and taxes too. We may manufacture the same product at tenth part of the cost employing same skilled persons. Not only glider's but other manufacturers can (and they do!) move here to benefit from this. If memory serves, development was done by volunteers and university staff if memory serves, so there was only a modest license cost per unit. The design was simply a Masters Thesis for a group of students of Politechnika Warszawska (Warsaw University of Technology: http://www.pw.edu.pl) done under direction of one of the scientists employed there. Doesn't have to be the LS-4b either. The 304 is another very worthy candidate. Continuing the PW-5 as a sub-class might also have some benefit. Unlike many others, I still say the PW-5 is a good design, which can be flown by any pilot, at any moment of his development as a pilot, even the first solo level. The World Class glider was intended to be a 'glider for everyone', and it is indeed. Maybe LS-4 is very docile, but still requires 'a little bit' more experience than just after the first solo. Regards, -- Janusz Kesik Poland to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl ------------------------------------- See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography, The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today. http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Uzytkownik "Charles Yeates" napisal w wiadomosci ... Frank Doesn't have to be the LS-4b either. The 304 is another very worthy candidate. Continuing the PW-5 as a sub-class might also have some benefit. New = LS-4b @ 39,000 Euro 304 @ 40,000 Euro Smyk @ 17,000 Euro Why jump up the price of a "one class" ship? Charles, I believe it's all about the labour costs. See my post which I have sent just few minutes ago for details. Regards, -- Janusz Kesik Poland to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl ------------------------------------- See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography, The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today. http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Użytkownik "Mark James Boyd" napisał w wiadomości news:4194f9b2$1@darkstar... The SZD 50-3 looked to me to be a neat glider on paper, but the abrupt stall/spin characteristics and accident record seem to betray it. It's just a glider which was been designed to spin when asked, and not 'to be afraid' of full acro. Nothing more. It just needs more attention of the pilot. Regards, -- Janusz Kesik Poland to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl ------------------------------------- See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography, The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today. http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Użytkownik "smjmitchell" napisał w wiadomości u... Minestones in Glider Design: The point I was trying to make in several earlier posts is that it is time for a new designer to emerge with ideas that will take gliding in a new direction. The current gliders designs have matured to an almost uniform degree of conformity. Think back through history and the names of several designers loom large that have shaped modern soaring: Rudolf Kaiser (KA-6/7 and AS-K series) Karel Dlouhy (Blanik) Eugen Hanle (Libelle) Gerhard Waible (AS-W series) Klaus Holligaus (Cirrus, Nimbus, Janus, Discuss) and there are others .... just like Okarmus & Mynarski (Foka 4/5 + Cobra 15/17) http://www.piotrp.de/SZYBOWCE/pszd24.htm and Edward Marganski (Swift S-1 & Fox) http://www.piotrp.de/SZYBOWCE/pszd24.htm http://www.piotrp.de/SZYBOWCE/ps1.htm Regards, -- Janusz Kesik Poland to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl ------------------------------------- See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography, The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today. http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Uzytkownik "Bill Daniels" napisal w wiadomosci news:50Nld.85500$HA.42160@attbi_s01... Finding a way to produce a 'cheap' LS4 isn't going to be the result of re-shuffling the compromises that produced the LS4 in the first place. Composite gliders are made the way they are because hand labor can produce a high performance product in low quantities. There's not a lot a room for improvement in that process. (Finding cheap labor will be a short term solution since once they can produce a quality product, they won't be cheap anymore.) Not only cheap, but also qualified enough. If You move the production to China, then when they reach the moment they will be able to produce a brand new LS-4 which will be of acceptable quality there may be too late, and the learining process also costs. Isn't it better to move the production some 500km East to the place where there is a lot of guys which are able to produce it 'with their eyes closed' and still at 3-4US$ / workhour, huh? Regards, -- Janusz Kesik Poland to reply put my name.surname[at]gazeta.pl ------------------------------------- See Wroclaw (Breslau) in photography, The XIX Century, the Festung Breslau, and photos taken today. http://www.wroclaw.dolny.slask.pl |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Janusz Kesik wrote:
U=BFytkownik "Mark James Boyd" napisa=B3 w wiado= mo=B6ci news:4194f9b2$1@darkstar... =20 The SZD 50-3 looked to me to be a neat glider on paper, but the abrupt stall/spin characteristics and accident record seem to betray it= =2E =20 It's just a glider which was been designed to spin when asked, and not = 'to be afraid' of full acro. Nothing more. It just needs more attention of = the pilot. =20 Regards, =20 =20 -- Janusz Kesik Hi Janusz Whilst I must admit limited experience, 200 odd hours, 200 odd flights=20 over 3 years, and thus my opinion might not be worth much, I am truly=20 mystified by the bad reputation the Puchatz has. I think it is one of=20 the nicest gliders to fly. I fly some limited aerobatics (loops,=20 chandelles, stall turns and spins) and it always seem predictable and=20 controllable. Sure it scared the hell out me when my instructor first=20 showed me the spin, the transition from level flight to nose down=20 attitude was rather quick, but once you experience it know what to=20 expect it is not a problem. Our club has a firm rule that all aerobatic = maneuvers must finish 1500 ft AGL and maybe that improves the safety=20 margins. I am wondering if the higher rate of spin accidents relates to = the frequency with which it is used for spin training. After all if a=20 glider is not used to spin, it will have a lower rate of spin accidents. = I have flown some 9 different glider types, from Blaniks to Ventus B=20 and the Puchatz would have to be the easiest glider to fly. The part I=20 found most curious is the fact that very experienced pilots seem to have = got them selves into trouble. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|