Is everybody afraid of World Class?

I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in Olympic Games, some
other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion that most people
who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class gliders. Why?
What is so difficult in understanding the concept of the glider, the
cost of building it, its performance, etc. Most of you bashing the
concept. Is this because your skill is so limited that you need to
have a bird with max. L/D 10,000 (that is minimum) and a best L/D
speed Mach 1? Anything which doesn't meet this cryteria needs to be
rejected? You are bringing to this equation sailing in Olympic Games
as a comparison? Some of you have never even seen, and most of you
have never flown this glider. So, what is wrong with this picture.
Maybe is time for some of you to take on golfing, for example. I am
realy offended by some of the postings on group. You are not beeing
constructive, you are distructive. To the sport primarly. Do you
suppose that by promoting Discus and Ventus and who know what else you
doing justice to this sport? What about those guys or girls who don't
have $250,000 to waist on a new bird every summer? Is this making them
less qualified or skilled pilots that those of you bashing everything
around and flying supersonic, unlimited L/D gliders? Before anyone of
you decide to bash something without having slightest idea or concept
about what is going on in the small world of gliding, you need to stop
and think about it. We all are saying that numbers of glider pilots
are declining world wide. Do you know why? That is because of buch of
arrogant glider pilots who are acting like the gods; they know
everything, they have been everywhere, they've done it all. Yet when
we go to the world contest results, we don't see those names of the
people who are making this derogatory statements. If you want to help
our sport, think first and then act accordingly. It is only good for
all of the glider pilots worldwide.

Jacek Kobiesa wrote:
I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in Olympic Games, some
other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion that most people
who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class gliders.

You've got to be kidding.

What is so difficult in understanding the concept of the glider, the
cost of building it, its performance, etc.

Not difficult at all.

Most of you bashing the
concept. Is this because your skill is so limited that you need to
have a bird with max. L/D 10,000 (that is minimum) and a best L/D
speed Mach 1? Anything which doesn't meet this cryteria needs to be
rejected?

If this were true, you'd see Russia's getting criticized in this forum -
not to mention the Silent-in, plus a lot of other ships. You don't see
that, do you? IMHO, the PW5 doesn't get criticized for being a PW5, it
gets criticized for being chosen as the world class glider - when they
could have done so much better.

Tony V.

Jacek Kobiesa wrote:

I've been reading the articles about sailplanes in Olympic Games, some
other postings about PW-5 and I came to conclusion that most people
who are posting this articles are afraid of World Class gliders. Why?
What is so difficult in understanding the concept of the glider, the
cost of building it, its performance, etc. Most of you bashing the
concept. Is this because your skill is so limited that you need to
have a bird with max. L/D 10,000 (that is minimum) and a best L/D
speed Mach 1? Anything which doesn't meet this cryteria needs to be
rejected? You are bringing to this equation sailing in Olympic Games
as a comparison? Some of you have never even seen, and most of you
have never flown this glider. So, what is wrong with this picture.
Maybe is time for some of you to take on golfing, for example. I am
realy offended by some of the postings on group. You are not beeing
constructive, you are distructive. To the sport primarly. Do you
suppose that by promoting Discus and Ventus and who know what else you
doing justice to this sport? What about those guys or girls who don't
have $250,000 to waist on a new bird every summer? Is this making them
less qualified or skilled pilots that those of you bashing everything
around and flying supersonic, unlimited L/D gliders? Before anyone of
you decide to bash something without having slightest idea or concept
about what is going on in the small world of gliding, you need to stop
and think about it. We all are saying that numbers of glider pilots
are declining world wide. Do you know why? That is because of buch of
arrogant glider pilots who are acting like the gods; they know
everything, they have been everywhere, they've done it all. Yet when
we go to the world contest results, we don't see those names of the
people who are making this derogatory statements. If you want to help
our sport, think first and then act accordingly. It is only good for
all of the glider pilots worldwide.

Four words:

Great concept
Lousy glider

Hence the success of Club class.
--
Soar the big sky
The real name on the left is richard

Speaking of Russias,

The BGA site has three problems with the Russia, it seems.
One was even a 87 knot limitation (!). I was surprised to see
this (apparently the result of an aileron problem on a
factory test flight(?)

I've flown a Russia (the retract version) and really enjoyed the
polar, but the auto-connecting ailerons had just a smidge of
click/slop. Our towpilot, who owns a Russia and is an A&P,
thinks they are a little underbuilt. He thought the PW-5 we had
for two years was a bit more rugged.

I personally liked the retract Russia polar so much, and the low weight,
and the assembly, that I'd consider buying one, but I'd like to see
how the "ruggedness factor" plays out first with the ones at the field.

Of course in the meantime I'm aching for the time and opportunity
to visit a place with a sparrowhawk. Being 5'6" (when hung from
my heels) and maybe 160# soaking wet, I love little short wings and
a light glider.

Any Russia guys have any "ruggedness" stories?

Tony Verhulst wrote:

If this were true, you'd see Russia's getting criticized in this forum -
not to mention the Silent-in, plus a lot of other ships. You don't see
that, do you? IMHO, the PW5 doesn't get criticized for being a PW5, it
gets criticized for being chosen as the world class glider - when they
could have done so much better.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

I don't think the PW-5 is that bad of a glider. I only
know one person who owns one and I have yet to fly
one. My only draw back on the idea is that you can
spend the same amount of money for a slower, less L/D,
less performance PW-5 as you can for a faster, higher
L/D, higher performance ASW-20, LS-3, LS-4, DG300 and
so on. I would actually rather own a Libelle than a
PW-5 and I can find Libelle's that are several thousand
dollars cheaper than any PW-5 and they are better performers.
Just my opinion,
Brian
MB1


At 21:54 20 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
Speaking of Russias,

The BGA site has three problems with the Russia,
it seems.
One was even a 87 knot limitation (!). I was surprised
to see
this (apparently the result of an aileron problem on
a
factory test flight(?)

I've flown a Russia (the retract version) and really
enjoyed the
polar, but the auto-connecting ailerons had just a
smidge of
click/slop. Our towpilot, who owns a Russia and is
an A&P,
thinks they are a little underbuilt. He thought the
PW-5 we had
for two years was a bit more rugged.

I personally liked the retract Russia polar so much,
and the low weight,
and the assembly, that I'd consider buying one, but
I'd like to see
how the 'ruggedness factor' plays out first with the
ones at the field.

Of course in the meantime I'm aching for the time
and opportunity
to visit a place with a sparrowhawk. Being 5'6' (when
hung from
my heels) and maybe 160# soaking wet, I love little
short wings and
a light glider.

Any Russia guys have any 'ruggedness' stories?

Tony Verhulst wrote:

If this were true, you'd see Russia's getting criticized
in this forum -
not to mention the Silent-in, plus a lot of other ships.
You don't see
that, do you? IMHO, the PW5 doesn't get criticized
for being a PW5, it
gets criticized for being chosen as the world class
glider - when they
could have done so much better.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Earlier, Jacek Kobiesa wrote:

...I am realy offended by some of the postings on
group. You are not beeing constructive, you are
distructive. To the sport primarly...

You are welcome to rebut any expression that you find
offensive. You have the rhetoric, you have the dialectic,
you have the technology.

However, asserting that expressions of opinion that
run counter to your own are destructive to the community
flies in the face of the essential liberties of freedom
of thought and freedom of expression. I continue to
hold the opinion that there must be a free marketplace
for ideas, and that every idea deserves frank discussion
of its merits and liabilities. Should the Stemme S-10VT
be the next World Class glider? Or perhaps the Lockheed
TR-1? I don't think so, but I wouldn't mind having
it discussed.

Getting back to the original topic, having flown against
the PW-5 in handicapped regional competition, I very
much appreciate that it is a very capable little ship.
And you can see why when you look my name up in the
US contest results.

I personally regret the choice of the PW-5 as the World
Class glider, if only from an aesthetic standpoint.
I think that the world soaring community as a whole
would have been better served if there had been an
opportunity to select a sailplane that is more stylistically
and aesthetically similar to higher performance ships.

The short span and modest performance are OK by me.
The light weight is OK, too. But I think that the choice
of a glider that looks so completely unlike higher-performance
ships was unfortunate. I firmly believe that the World
Class would have a fighting chance if its participants
could park their ships next to the latest racing ships
and feel like theirs lies on the same continuum. Such
'baby racers' would have been a lot easier to promote
to potential WC racers as well as to the non-competition
soaring pilots.

I freely admit that such thinking speaks volumes about
human weakness and susceptibility to emotion. But even
the best soaring pilots are human. And even the most
logical person has to worry about what their less-logical
fellows think when it comes time to sell.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Bob,

Well Stated! Too bad the SparrowHawk wasn't in contention
for the World Class. And, of course, it couldn't have
been since the World Class is several years (what,
10 or 15?) older than the SparrowHawk.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 22:18 20 August 2004, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

snip:

I personally regret the choice of the PW-5 as the World
Class glider, if only from an aesthetic standpoint.
I think that the world soaring community as a whole
would have been better served if there had been an
opportunity to select a sailplane that is more stylistically
and aesthetically similar to higher performance ships.

The short span and modest performance are OK by me.
The light weight is OK, too. But I think that the choice
of a glider that looks so completely unlike higher-performance
ships was unfortunate. I firmly believe that the World
Class would have a fighting chance if its participants
could park their ships next to the latest racing ships
and feel like theirs lies on the same continuum. Such
'baby racers' would have been a lot easier to promote
to potential WC racers as well as to the non-competition
soaring pilots.

I freely admit that such thinking speaks volumes about
human weakness and susceptibility to emotion. But even
the best soaring pilots are human. And even the most
logical person has to worry about what their less-logical
fellows think when it comes time to sell.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Bob,

Well Stated! Too bad the SparrowHawk wasn't in contention
for the World Class. And, of course, it couldn't have
been since the World Class is several years (what,
10 or 15?) older than the SparrowHawk.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

At 22:18 20 August 2004, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

snip:

I personally regret the choice of the PW-5 as the World
Class glider, if only from an aesthetic standpoint.
I think that the world soaring community as a whole
would have been better served if there had been an
opportunity to select a sailplane that is more stylistically
and aesthetically similar to higher performance ships.

The short span and modest performance are OK by me.
The light weight is OK, too. But I think that the choice
of a glider that looks so completely unlike higher-performance
ships was unfortunate. I firmly believe that the World
Class would have a fighting chance if its participants
could park their ships next to the latest racing ships
and feel like theirs lies on the same continuum. Such
'baby racers' would have been a lot easier to promote
to potential WC racers as well as to the non-competition
soaring pilots.

I freely admit that such thinking speaks volumes about
human weakness and susceptibility to emotion. But even
the best soaring pilots are human. And even the most
logical person has to worry about what their less-logical
fellows think when it comes time to sell.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

In article ,
Brian Iten wrote:

I don't think the PW-5 is that bad of a glider. I only
know one person who owns one and I have yet to fly
one. My only draw back on the idea is that you can
spend the same amount of money for a slower, less L/D,
less performance PW-5 as you can for a faster, higher
L/D, higher performance ASW-20, LS-3, LS-4, DG300 and
so on. I would actually rather own a Libelle than a
PW-5 and I can find Libelle's that are several thousand
dollars cheaper than any PW-5 and they are better performers.

You can do that because the sport is declining.

If the sport was growing then there wouldn't be enough older high
performance gliders to go around, and no one is going to make a *new*
LS-4 (for example) for the price a PW-5 goes for.

And isn't growing the sport what we all hope for?


I really don't know what people have against the PW-5. Sure, I like
higher performance ships too. I fly a Janus more than anything else,
and I've flown both Duo Discus and DG1000, and they're all decent
gliders which, as I understand it, perform similarly to the current best
Standard Class gliders. So I think I have some idea of what you'd find
acceptable. (I haven't flown anything else on your list except the
Libelle, in both "std" and "club" versions). But I have no problem at
all with strapping myself into a PW-5 at a contest along with a dozen
other people in the same type of aircraft (or similar, such as the Ka6),
and we have a lot of fun on our little 200 km tasks.

-- Bruce

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

It's nice to see communist style thinking is alive and well somewhere
in the world.

The Central Comittee has determined that the PW-5 is the glider for the
common man. You will gather $30K US dollars at once and purchase a
PW-5. Those who advocate $20K used glass gliders or newer designs such
as the Sparrowhawk are hereby declared elitist, arrogant,
conterrevolutionary running dogs and are ordered to report for
re-education or else.