Sailplane Classes - a different perspective

"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

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".

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

"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.

On 30 Nov 2004 10:37:21 -0800, (David Bingham)
wrote:

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.

Hmm... do you know something that noone else knows?
30 years ago the maximum L/D was about 46:1, now it's 70:1... I would
dare to call this anything but marginal.
Or standard class: LD went up from 35:1 to 48:1.

Just compare the current world record lists to the ones 30 years ago:
Performances have at least gone up factor 2. 30 years ago there were
less than one handfull of people in my club who had flown a 300 km
triangle. Today student pilots fly this on their student gliders that
happen to have an L/D of 40:1.


Has this happened? Yes there are marginal
improvements but so small. What's the reason for this slowdown in
innovation?

Limitations caused by physics and depth of purse?
Eta shows what's possible. For an impossible price.

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!

Well... what is the Sparrowhawk?
- performance 37:1, about the same as the first glass gliders (40
years ago)
- not certified
- anything but cheap

Sorry, but i do not see its light weight and the small span as a
breathtaking innovation.


However there is no sailplane class for
it.
Sports class?


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.

There are tens of thousands of gliders out there that match the
current classes. So you propose to throw them all away and buy new
ones that don't even exist yet? Remember: Extremely few people on this
planet can affort to buy one new aircraft, let alone four.


Bye
Andreas

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.

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.

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

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

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