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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul" wrote in message ... Funny attitude. How the hell would you know if you had learnt anything? Whats your "pass grade" so you would know you would not finish dead last? I entered contests in a poorly performing glider. Makes you work harder to get around and you learn alot faster then if you have a higher glide angle. Yes and no You learn to survive alone - as others leave you - yes, and especially me - behind. I fly with two gliders in cometitions and always with a glider that is in the bottom of the heap (performance-wise, now we aren't even talking about my mediocre piloting skills ). Astir CS and K-8b are the ironing hardware here. With a lower performance glider you learn by mistake. With a glider with alike or better performance you learn by example, as you fly with others. I think one needs BOTH ways of learning. WHEN you really know waht to do, you can go also with the lower performance and even compete, but lesser experience and performance leaves you on your own. It would be fun if EVEN JUST FOR ONCE I could fly with a matching glassaware hannu |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Kissel wrote:
So, if these classes were suddenly instituted tomorrow, would you compete in them? Bob K. Well if I suddenly obtained a bunch of spare time in the summer, and the desire to spend it driving...and possibly sitting at the airport. And won the lotto so I could afford a competitive ship in one of those classes. And became skilled enough to not finish dead last. He said "NO". |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Gang
For approximately 30 years the performance of gliders has hardly advanced at all and yet we now have the tools (computer programs) and much stronger materials (carbon composites) to surely advance the state of the art of gliders. Has this happened? Yes there are marginal improvements but so small. What's the reason for this slowdown in innovation? I believe in no small part it is due to the sailplane classes. With the establishing of the classes that are so rigid and, in my mind, so restrictive, innovation has suffered. What a breath of fresh air the SparrowHawk is! However there is no sailplane class for it. So I got to thinking. Is the present setup of the classes rational, reasonable? Could a better system be envisioned? OK, taking this further if there were no classes today, and it was suggested to set up classes, what would they look like? I think closer to what I'm suggesting than what they are now. I hope my posting keeps the gang thinking. A couple of specific comments: It is true Greg Cole required me to write him a check before demoing the SparrowHawk but he also told me he would return the check if I didn't like it. Bob K wrote: "So, if these classes were suddenly instituted tomorrow, would you compete in them?" A tough question. I just might participate in a class 1 competition if were held close to home. Dave |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"David Bingham" wrote in message ... Hi Gang For approximately 30 years the performance of gliders has hardly advanced at all and yet we now have the tools (computer programs) and much stronger materials (carbon composites) to surely advance the state of the art of gliders. Has this happened? Yes there are marginal improvements but so small. What's the reason for this slowdown in innovation? I believe in no small part it is due to the sailplane classes. With the establishing of the classes that are so rigid and, in my mind, so restrictive, innovation has suffered. (Snip------) Yep. The first class, (Standard Class) was intended to reduce glider costs by virtually eliminating innovation which, it was felt at the time, was leading to ever larger and more expensive gliders. The flap enthusiasts insisted on splitting off as the 15 meter class. Both classes became successful at the expense of the open class where carbon composites make the most difference. In a 15 meter design, the main benefit of carbon is lighter wings for easier assembly. Manufacturers were forced to produce special gliders for two similar 15 meter classes. Designers were forced by the same class rules to pursue ever more expensive ways to improve performance such as extremely smooth surfaces. They wound up producing expensive gliders anyway because of short production runs. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if the competition organizations had resisted creating competition classes. Innovation would have run free. It's even possible that large span, ultra-high performance gliders would be priced the same as 15 meter gliders are today because of much larger production runs. I've heard interesting speculation that there's a 'natural best span' around 18 - 20 meters that would be the best compromise for all conditions. If the market had settled on that, we might have had innovation AND low costs. We'll never know. Bill Daniels p.s. I recently listened as a 'pundit' was holding forth on the reasons for the demise of the open class. He was saying that they were just too hard to rig. A short distance behind him an ASH-25 owner was whistling softly to himself as he rigged solo using simple aids. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
An interesting aspect of RAS: People not involved in sailplane racing and know
little about it seem to have a lot of ideas on how to fix it (presuming that it is somehow broken in the first place). First, (no reflection on the sparrowhawk), but it isn't any great innovation. Secondly, there is, in fact, a class for the sparrowhawk. It's called the sports class. Thirdly, there are continual improvements in sailplane design, which is why competition pilots buy news designs when they are available. Fourthly, restrictions on design haven't hampered progress in NASCAR, Indy racing or sailplane racing. Finally, the open class is not restricted. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Bill,
I think you have a solid point. i've been re-reading for the 8th or 10th time Fred Thomas' book on sailplane design and some of the information on cross country speed vs span mskes it look like the sweet spot is somewhere in the 18-20 meter range, just as you say. Cabon makes the wings lighter and easier to rig that's for sure and maybe more stable dimensionally. Thirty meters seems excessive but we would all like to experience "wretched excess" for the pure fun of it once in a while and 13 meters seems just excessively limiting (at least to me). Cheers! "Bill Daniels" wrote in message news:ff4rd.181115$R05.60069@attbi_s53... "David Bingham" wrote in message ... Hi Gang For approximately 30 years the performance of gliders has hardly advanced at all and yet we now have the tools (computer programs) and much stronger materials (carbon composites) to surely advance the state of the art of gliders. Has this happened? Yes there are marginal improvements but so small. What's the reason for this slowdown in innovation? I believe in no small part it is due to the sailplane classes. With the establishing of the classes that are so rigid and, in my mind, so restrictive, innovation has suffered. (Snip------) Yep. The first class, (Standard Class) was intended to reduce glider costs by virtually eliminating innovation which, it was felt at the time, was leading to ever larger and more expensive gliders. The flap enthusiasts insisted on splitting off as the 15 meter class. Both classes became successful at the expense of the open class where carbon composites make the most difference. In a 15 meter design, the main benefit of carbon is lighter wings for easier assembly. Manufacturers were forced to produce special gliders for two similar 15 meter classes. Designers were forced by the same class rules to pursue ever more expensive ways to improve performance such as extremely smooth surfaces. They wound up producing expensive gliders anyway because of short production runs. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if the competition organizations had resisted creating competition classes. Innovation would have run free. It's even possible that large span, ultra-high performance gliders would be priced the same as 15 meter gliders are today because of much larger production runs. I've heard interesting speculation that there's a 'natural best span' around 18 - 20 meters that would be the best compromise for all conditions. If the market had settled on that, we might have had innovation AND low costs. We'll never know. Bill Daniels p.s. I recently listened as a 'pundit' was holding forth on the reasons for the demise of the open class. He was saying that they were just too hard to rig. A short distance behind him an ASH-25 owner was whistling softly to himself as he rigged solo using simple aids. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
David Bingham wrote: Hi Gang For approximately 30 years the performance of gliders has hardly advanced at all and yet we now have the tools (computer programs) and much stronger materials (carbon composites) to surely advance the state of the art of gliders. Has this happened? Yes there are marginal improvements but so small. What's the reason for this slowdown in innovation? Not enough glider pilots. 625 thousand active pilots in the USA (based on medicals applied for). Maybe 1 in 30 fly gliders. Van's making a self-launch LSA glider would be a big help. I recently was counseling a Park Ranger who flies a Husky on patrol. She told me she wanted to improve her radio calls and thought also that an IFR rating would help. I told her based on the mountains she flies around, glider training would be much more valuable. She was quite surprised. If we get more glider pilots, we'll get enough mass to get the innovations going. Turbine powered gliders, LSA transitions, and the Sparrowhawks of the community are a good start... I don't believe it has much to do with classes. There are a lot of people on RAS that care, but of the 20,000 others, most just get a glider they like... I believe in no small part it is due to the sailplane classes. With the establishing of the classes that are so rigid and, in my mind, so restrictive, innovation has suffered. What a breath of fresh air the SparrowHawk is! However there is no sailplane class for it. So I got to thinking. Is the present setup of the classes rational, reasonable? Could a better system be envisioned? OK, taking this further if there were no classes today, and it was suggested to set up classes, what would they look like? I think closer to what I'm suggesting than what they are now. I hope my posting keeps the gang thinking. A couple of specific comments: It is true Greg Cole required me to write him a check before demoing the SparrowHawk but he also told me he would return the check if I didn't like it. Bob K wrote: "So, if these classes were suddenly instituted tomorrow, would you compete in them?" A tough question. I just might participate in a class 1 competition if were held close to home. Dave -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Daniels wrote:
The first class, (Standard Class) was intended to reduce glider costs by virtually eliminating innovation which, it was felt at the time, was leading to ever larger and more expensive gliders. And it worked! Standard class gliders were a lot cheaper! The flap enthusiasts insisted on splitting off as the 15 meter class. Both classes became successful at the expense of the open class where carbon composites make the most difference. Wait a minute - these classes came into being years before carbon was used. The first really successful Standard Class glider, the Ka-6, was wood! In a 15 meter design, the main benefit of carbon is lighter wings for easier assembly. Also a higher aspect ratio leading to better L/D, and thinner wings, leading to higher cross-country speed. Manufacturers were forced to produce special gliders for two similar 15 meter classes. Designers were forced by the same class rules to pursue ever more expensive ways to improve performance such as extremely smooth surfaces. They wound up producing expensive gliders anyway because of short production runs. Baloney! Far more gliders in EACH class were produced than ever would have been produced for even a single Open class. THe classes weren't popular because they were FAI classes, but became popular because they were such an outstanding combination of cost and performance. That magical "sweet spot" some people talk about. snip I've heard interesting speculation that there's a 'natural best span' around 18 - 20 meters that would be the best compromise for all conditions. If the market had settled on that, we might have had innovation AND low costs. We'll never know. The market is moving there, to some extent. Remember, the 'natural best span' is _very_ dependent on the materials available (and their costs), and will be different for wood, metal, fiberglass, and carbon. There is nothing magic about 18 meters, because it depends on a value judgment (performance versus costs). So, the market couldn't settle on 18 meters sooner, but had to wait for technology to advance, material costs to come down, and for pilots to decide that they were now willing to pay for a certain level of performance. A lot of ras pilots seem to think 15 meters is the 'natural best span', when embodied in a low cost LS4. Bill Daniels p.s. I recently listened as a 'pundit' was holding forth on the reasons for the demise of the open class. He was saying that they were just too hard to rig. A short distance behind him an ASH-25 owner was whistling softly to himself as he rigged solo using simple aids. And taking far longer than an ASW 27, which cost far less. If your pundit talked only about putting it together, he hasn't been around one enough to know what a bloody pig it is on the ground, and how much real estate they need just to be tied down, or pushed around on a ramp, or taken down a taxiway, and how wide the runway needs to be to take off or land on, the size of the towplane, and how many people had better show up if he ever hopes to get it out of a field! Shucks, just trying to push the empty trailer around to hook it up is more than my crew can handle. It's not ignorance that keeps people from falling all over themselves to get a 25 meter glider. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Shawn wrote in message ...
David Bingham wrote: Sailplane Classes Now I want to suggest that, in my humble opinion, the way the classes are currently set up by the SSA don't make any sense. Lets take a step back, reset our prejudices, and see if we can't make our grey matter operate at a higher level than usual. What do we know? Well actually quite a lot! A large heavy glider has a better Reynolds Number for lowering effective air resistance – suggests better L/D. All things being equal the L/D is improved by having a high wing aspect ratio. A smaller light glider will perform better in light conditions. Flaps marginally improve the extremes of the polar and so on and so on. I think when all is said and done the most significant parameter that affects the overall performance of a glider is its weight! So I propose that we consider just 3 classes of sailplanes based solely on their weights. Lets forget about wing spans, flaps and other enhancements. All 3 classes would be free to choose their own goodies as long as they kept to prescribed weight limits. Wouldn't this make glider design so much more fun? Dave So what you're saying is, as I interpret it, "It's the pilot's wallet, stupid." It's not a bad idea, but some other constraint would be needed to limit the cost, or soaring competition will become as relevant to the regular sailplane pilot as F1 racing is to most car owners. Shawn There is an often overlooked method to keep things affordable and still let individuals be creative and innovative. Racing is racing, be it gliders, autos, or pogo sticks and "claiming races" are one way to keep things cheap. For those not familiar with the concept here is how it works. Set a cash value, say $25,000, on the glider class. The top 3 finishers (not including first place) have the opportunity to purchase the glider that placed above them for the predetermined amount. In this case $25,000. A slight modification of this is that instead of an outright purchase the gliders are swapped, with a smaller cash fee paid to the winner loosing their glider. In this class the fee might be on the order of $3,000 to $5,000. If it turns out that it was the pilot, and not the glider, that was superior then at the next meet the original owner has a reasonable chance to redeem his glide, if they want to finish one spot back. If he still places ahead of his former mount then he has a fairly comparable glider - and some cash in his pocket. This works for other sports where there is a potential to dominate a class with nothing more than a fat wallet. The trick is to make the swap price steep enough to allow for some investment in "high tech" without the fear that you will only get one use of it, yet low enough that the average participant can come up with the cash when they see the need. =============== Leon McAtee |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ultralight sailplane aerotow liability | Caracole | Soaring | 18 | April 1st 04 09:17 PM |
AL-12: New ultralight sailplane | ISoar | Soaring | 4 | March 24th 04 01:52 AM |
Any sailplane pilots? | Larry Dighera | Soaring | 99 | January 7th 04 03:46 AM |
An Historical Perspective on the Wright Accomplishment | Gary Osoba | Soaring | 5 | December 19th 03 12:35 AM |
Electro-self-launching sailplane | clement | Soaring | 5 | September 12th 03 05:03 AM |