World Championship gliders

I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size pilots are obliged to fly.

A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the wetted area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.

Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the wing span.

Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be interested in participating in competition flying.

I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for smaller people?

Tom Knauff

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:43:42 AM UTC-5, Tom Knauff wrote:
I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size pilots are obliged to fly.



A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the wetted area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.



Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the wing span.



Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be interested in participating in competition flying.



I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for smaller people?



Tom Knauff

George Moffat long ago in his first "Winning on the Wind" predicted that the winning setup would be a smaller glider flown by a small woman...

Kirk
66

At 16:43 06 August 2014, Tom Knauff wrote:
I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review
the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage
models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size
pilots are obliged to fly.

A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the
wetted
area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.

Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the
wing span.

Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable
disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be
interested in participating in competition flying.

I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for
smaller people?

Tom Knauff


Well you where the agent for the manufacturer who brought in this trend -
notably when Klaus H brought out the Ventus a - did you adress this concern
then?

It is still Schempp - Hirth who predominately manufacture the sailplane for
the smaller pilot. Notabaly the Discus 2a which has an advantage over the
2b and LS8 and has dominated std class for far too long.

Personally think FAI IGC should adopt a minimum cockpit size for all
competition gliders to accomodate a 'reasonable sized pilot'. But many
things the FAI IGC do confound me. Whatever happened to the idea of
gettnig rid of pairs, (or even 3 pilot teams now!) in international
competition?

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Knauff wrote:
I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I review the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size pilots are obliged to fly.



A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the wetted area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.



Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the wing span.



Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be interested in participating in competition flying.



I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for smaller people?



Tom Knauff

I suspect that the size of the intellect, motivation, commitment, and preparation on the part of the person in the cockpit has an order of magnitude more importance than the size of the fuselage he or she is in.
UH

P7 seems to do just as well in ASG29 as D2a.
Jim

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:07:01 AM UTC-7, wrote:

I suspect that the size of the intellect, motivation, commitment, and preparation on the part of the person in the cockpit has an order of magnitude more importance than the size of the fuselage he or she is in.

UH

Interesting though Tom. Good point that you were the dealer though :-). I did not know the wings in the "a" models were allowed to be longer. But now that I think about it that does make sense. Shocking. Clearly the narrower fuselage and longer wings results in a dual performance advantage. Less drag/higher aspect ratio. Otherwise, why would the builder bother? This reminds me of the age of handicap sailing back in the 70s and 80s.

I have been a competitor and coach in the sport of sailing at a fairly high level. Sailing is a tremendously complex sport. One of my coaches taught me the following principle: focus on the controllable variables (positive) and don't get "caught up" in the frustration of uncontrollable variables. Or the only way to affect uncontrollable variables is to out perfect your competitors in controllable variable execution. More on this later...

The sport of "big boat" sailing became an all out designer/handicap war in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Back then a very big element of the sport was designers and owners spending tens to hundreds of thousands each year modifying and building new boats to "beat" the handicap rule. That is to gain a fixed performance advantage over your competitors! Meanwhile rule makers changed rules constantly to plug holes in the rule that designers were exploiting. Generally the owners willingness to spend money and the designers willingness to get paid won the battle over the rule makers. Today that market (custom big boat (28-55 ft) handicap racing) has been almost completely destroyed because of it. Everyone hated the fact that boats become uncompetitive in a meter of months as new "custom" boats were built. They also hated knowing they were better sailors but getting beat by an "uncontrollable variable!" That is a boat that had a "rigged" handicap. In fact this was the norm. Tremendous damage was done to the sport because of it.

Only "one design" sailing classes are meaningfully successful today. One design means not just the same wingspan or "design rule" but the same manufacturer and the exact same boat (glider) for all competitors. This is guaranteed as part of the class charter. The class runs independently from the builder in fact.

The reason for this "evolution" in the sport of sailing is that fewer and fewer owners enjoyed putting a lot of time and effort into a sport (mastering the controllable variables such as sail shape, tacking, jybing, tactics and starting) only to lose because a new design comes along that provides a competitive advantage (uncontrollable variables). Only one rich owner could win at a time :-)! People wanted an EVEN PLAYING FIELD on which to be measured. Standard boats guaranteed to be identical, standardized race courses, condition limits, crew weights, etc.

I think soaring could use the concept of one design gliders. Something new and modern, of reasonable performance, reasonable price in which a large group of owners can buy with the confidence that in 5 years something new isn't going to come along with the specific goal of making what you own uncompetitive. It's a nasty cycle if you really think about it. Soaring has the same thing going on as sailing did back then, albeit at a slower pace.

Perhaps a change in course (owner driven) is in need?

Sean

Użytkownik Tom Knauff napisał:

I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller for smaller people?
Most sports have some preferred body shape. Usually height and mass
matters the most, and no one denies that.

In my opinion however, introducing "obesity handicaps" won't help our
sport in any way. Let's search for ways to simplify it.

--
WojtuÅ›

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 3:17:24 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
Interesting though Tom. Good point that you were the dealer though :-). I did not know the wings in the "a" models were allowed to be longer. But now that I think about it that does make sense. Shocking. Clearly the narrower fuselage and longer wings results in a dual performance advantage. Less drag/higher aspect ratio. Otherwise, why would the builder bother? This reminds me of the age of handicap sailing back in the 70s and 80s.



I have been a competitor and coach in the sport of sailing at a fairly high level. Sailing is a tremendously complex sport. One of my coaches taught me the following principle: focus on the controllable variables (positive) and don't get "caught up" in the frustration of uncontrollable variables. Or the only way to affect uncontrollable variables is to out perfect your competitors in controllable variable execution. More on this later...



The sport of "big boat" sailing became an all out designer/handicap war in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. Back then a very big element of the sport was designers and owners spending tens to hundreds of thousands each year modifying and building new boats to "beat" the handicap rule. That is to gain a fixed performance advantage over your competitors! Meanwhile rule makers changed rules constantly to plug holes in the rule that designers were exploiting. Generally the owners willingness to spend money and the designers willingness to get paid won the battle over the rule makers. Today that market (custom big boat (28-55 ft) handicap racing) has been almost completely destroyed because of it. Everyone hated the fact that boats become uncompetitive in a meter of months as new "custom" boats were built. They also hated knowing they were better sailors but getting beat by an "uncontrollable variable!" That is a boat that had a "rigged" handicap. In fact this was the norm. Tremendous damage was done to the sport because of it.



Only "one design" sailing classes are meaningfully successful today. One design means not just the same wingspan or "design rule" but the same manufacturer and the exact same boat (glider) for all competitors. This is guaranteed as part of the class charter. The class runs independently from the builder in fact.



The reason for this "evolution" in the sport of sailing is that fewer and fewer owners enjoyed putting a lot of time and effort into a sport (mastering the controllable variables such as sail shape, tacking, jybing, tactics and starting) only to lose because a new design comes along that provides a competitive advantage (uncontrollable variables). Only one rich owner could win at a time :-)! People wanted an EVEN PLAYING FIELD on which to be measured. Standard boats guaranteed to be identical, standardized race courses, condition limits, crew weights, etc.



I think soaring could use the concept of one design gliders. Something new and modern, of reasonable performance, reasonable price in which a large group of owners can buy with the confidence that in 5 years something new isn't going to come along with the specific goal of making what you own uncompetitive. It's a nasty cycle if you really think about it. Soaring has the same thing going on as sailing did back then, albeit at a slower pace.



Perhaps a change in course (owner driven) is in need?



Sean

In the US, we don't have "one design", except for the failed PW-5 experiment, and 1-26's, but we do have excellent parity in 15M, Std, and 18M with the first two having plenty of competitive gliders available at pretty reasonable prices.
I'm not sure what change would make for more stability or accessibility.
UH

At 18:07 06 August 2014, wrote:
On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:43:42 PM UTC-4, Tom Knauff wrote:
I suppose this subject must have been posted before, however, as I
review
the world championship daily results, it is obvious the smaller fuselage
models have a distinct advantage over gliders many average to larger size
pilots are obliged to fly.



A smaller fuselage means each wing length is longer. Of course, the
wetted area of the smaller fuselage is also significantly less.



Perhaps the rules need to limit the length of each wing rather than the
wing span.



Those pilots of typical average size will always be at a measurable
disadvantage, and this is a discouraging factor to those who might be
interested in participating in competition flying.



I wonder if racing canoes in the Olympics are permitted to be smaller
for
smaller people?



Tom Knauff

I suspect that the size of the intellect, motivation, commitment, and
preparation on the part of the person in the cockpit has an order of
magnitude more importance than the size of the fuselage he or she is in.
UH

Those being equal (which probably is in the top 10 at the Worlds level)
somebody in an a fuselage will win out over somebody in a b fuselage. Look
at Std Class everybody tries to squeeze into the a model Discus 2 -
designed for pilots under 5ft 9in. So unfair advantage to the short arses
of the world?

I agree the 15/18 meter thing is going well, for now. No glider in these classes has a clear advantage (perhaps the Diana 2 but the company is a mess....) but only a certain subset of gliders are competitive in each class. If you don't have a 27, V2 in 15m (http://www.wgc2014.hb.pl/wyniki/15m/486_15m.htm) or a 29, V2 or JS1 in 18m (http://www.wgc2014.hb.pl/wyniki/18m/486_18m.htm), good luck! This has been the case for 10 years or so. But for how much longer will that last?

If a new glider comes along that is a "game changer" in either class (only a matter of time) the delicate balance that we currently enjoy would likely collapse pretty quickly. And hundreds of gliders that are today competitive will become basically obsolete.

Imagine if the Duckhawk had turned out to be "unbeatable" or clearly better in 15m and 20 US guys/gals ordered them. Imagine if 1st-8th at the US 15m nationals was composed of Duckhawks (every year), then a mix of 27s and V2's, etc. For how long would the Nationals attract 27s and D2s? Sure, a few would upgrade their gliders to the new performance level but many would simply no longer attend.

In 18m (and 15m as well), the rumored Ventus 3 approaches perhaps as early next year. Deposits are already flying into the US dealers hands. Why? Because pilots all want to buy a competitive advantage. This is part of the game in soaring today. If the V3 turns out to be dominant (its design goal!) then the V2's, 29's etc all the sudden scramble for the new performance level. But a certain number will simply give up on the Nationals.

If a designer/builder "nails it" and designs/builds a game changing glider....all bets are off. The risk is that the 15/18 meter classes get destroyed and not enough new buyers are willing to spend the money to "be competitive." A net loss initially that may never recover.

In the US, our already delicate Nationals scene would be severely disputed by such a glider. The SSA response would likely need to be handicapping. Etc, etc. A whole new set of problems there.

The PW5 was WAY too low of a performance level for One Design to work. If a glider of the 45:1 or greater performance was available at a reasonable price, a builder could get tremendous buy in for a one design class at all levels (Nationals and World level). One Design is a completely different mindset than trying to leapfrog other builders performance level. In leapfrogging, a builder gets a surge of sales and then a steep taper. In One Design the builder gets a gradual build in sales after an initial commitment from perhaps 50-100 buyers, then a steady track of sales over 20-30 years or more.

I for one would be very interested and supportive of a mid/high performance One Design glider concept being offered by a builder.

One Design is also less about the builder and more about developing a large consortium of like minded pilots. A group of pilots who are thinking long term.

Imagine is the ASW27 or LS8 or D2, etc was introduced as a one design class.. Or look at it this way. The Olympics does not even allow different builders of their One Design boats. All boats are built in the same run, etc. Soaring could learn a thing or two from sailing I think.

Sean