Short Wings Gliders

On Feb 4, 7:41*am, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Feb 3, 11:40*pm, (Alan) wrote:

* I suspect that there would be difficulty moving the aircraft and all
the manufacturing parts and tools around between the 10,000 individual
workers.

Could be. But it doesn't seem to have been a huge issue among the
folks who have built and flown 6069 RVs. I can't see why modest-span
gliders would be much different.

Thanks, Bob K.

I think that's how they did the Beijing Olympics.

9B

On Feb 4, 11:12*am, wrote:

I think that's how they did the Beijing Olympics.

Sorry, you lost me there.

Bob "Miners, not minors!" K.

At 22:00 04 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
On Feb 4, 11:12=A0am, wrote:

I think that's how they did the Beijing Olympics.

Sorry, you lost me there.

Bob "Miners, not minors!" K.


Klear as mud to me!

On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:44:44 -0800 (PST), Brad
wrote:

On Feb 3, 5:07*pm, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad wrote:





On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams wrote:

This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
build.

Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
can tell you how much it costs to build it."

This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
particular location and with any particular construction method.

At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:

I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
sustainable.

Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
mine.

Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.

Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for
*small
cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free,
over
all those years...

If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.

Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
each, but I think it can work the other way as well.

Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
to build the craft painting and polishing it.

Brad- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brad,
* That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. *It took 42 hours
to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
finish. *This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to
justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to
build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was a
lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and
pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed!

Brad
************************************************** *************

Ever hear a McCoy 60 at 20K RPM and a 100++++++?

Big John

On Feb 4, 5:34*pm, Tech Support wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:44:44 -0800 (PST), Brad
wrote:





On Feb 3, 5:07*pm, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad wrote:

On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams wrote:

This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
build.

Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
can tell you how much it costs to build it."

This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
particular location and with any particular construction method.

At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:

I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
sustainable.

Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
mine.

Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.

Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for
*small
cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free,
over
all those years...

If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.

Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
each, but I think it can work the other way as well.

Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
to build the craft painting and polishing it.

Brad- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brad,
* That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. *It took 42 hours
to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
finish. *This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to
justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to
build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was a
lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and
pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed!

Brad

************************************************** *************

Ever hear a McCoy 60 at 20K RPM and a 100++++++?

Big John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

on a U/C?
need to anchor yerself down!

Brad

At 01:48 05 February 2009, Brad wrote:
On Feb 4, 5:34=A0pm, Tech Support wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:44:44 -0800 (PST), Brad
wrote:
SNIP

Brad,
=A0 That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. =A0It took 42
hou=
rs
to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
finish. =A0This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.-
Hide=
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to
justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to
build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was
a
lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and
pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed!

Brad

************************************************** *************

Ever hear a McCoy 60 at 20K RPM and a 100++++++?

Big John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

on a U/C?
need to anchor yerself down!

Brad


I had one of those! What I never did hear was my GHQ fire more than a
half-dozen times in a row.

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:34:04 -0600, Tech Support wrote:


Ever hear a McCoy 60 at 20K RPM and a 100++++++?

A Nelson .15 at 31,000 rpm on a fast, vertical climbing F1C or a Cyclon
06 at 30K going vertical on a quick F1J both do it for me.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Yep.

Won the contest with my McCoy 60 in Salt Lake City in 1946 )

We're getting off the soaring threads except after fuel ran out and
glided several circuits.

Big John

************************************************
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:48:46 -0800 (PST), Brad
wrote:

On Feb 4, 5:34*pm, Tech Support wrote:
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:44:44 -0800 (PST), Brad
wrote:





On Feb 3, 5:07*pm, Uncle Fuzzy wrote:
On Feb 2, 6:28*pm, Brad wrote:

On Feb 2, 6:15*pm, Nyal Williams wrote:

This comes from EAA, IIRC. In the US, about 5% of the homebuilt aircraft
started up ever get finished. *Of those that do, many pass through three
owner/builders during the course of the completion, and the process
usually takes about eight years. * Of course, gliders are much simpler to
build.

Bill Piper was famous for saying, and I paraphrase, "It costs as much to
build a bad design as a good one. *Tell me the weight of an airplane and I
can tell you how much it costs to build it."

This formula would probably be true for any [X]RP structure in any
particular location and with any particular construction method.

At 01:31 03 February 2009, Bob Kuykendall wrote:

On Feb 2, 3:27=A0pm, (Michel Talon) wrote:

I agree with all you said, but i don't think this model is
sustainable.

Michel, I do agree with you in that as well; in the greater scheme of
things the way sailplane manufacturers have operated cannot continue
indefinitely. However, I don't think that how they are operating is
damaging to the sport of soaring or to the worldwide community of
soaring pilots, so I do think it is my place to tell them how to run
their businesses. I can, of course, think of ways that they could do
more to benfit the sport and its enthusiasts, but only at the cost of
damage to their profitability. But again, it is their business, not
mine.

Getting back to your point, there is one thing that the 19th century
robber barons got right when they used social darwinism to justify
their avarice and greed: natural selection in the business environment
will force businesses to adapt or to evolve, and those that do neither
can be counted upon to wither and die. So I think that if their
current business model is not sustainable, then the manufacturers will
develop one that is, or will leave the business altogether.

Gliding is still living because there has been tens of thousands
of people learning to fly in Germany, Brittany, France, etc. for
*small
cost*, thanks to the dedication of instructors doing that for free,
over
all those years...

If only we could get those tens of thousands of people to spend a few
days each building gliders. If, for example, 10000 people spent three
workdays (24 hours) building gliders, that'd be enough labor to
produce 120 training gliders or about 180 single-seaters.

Of course, you can't do that with a glider factory, the logistics of
transporting and accommodating that many temporary workers at a single
facility would be a nightmare. But if you look closely at the world of
homebuilt aircraft that is very nearly what you see, with thousands of
distributed "manufacturing centers" in tiny workshops all across the
world. Of course, instead of thousands of people spending a few hours
each what we have is hundreds of people spending a thousand hours
each, but I think it can work the other way as well.

Thanks again, Bob K.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

imagine then, being the one who designes the craft, builds the plugs,
tools, parts, systems and then assembles the whole
thing...............then spends about the same amount of time it took
to build the craft painting and polishing it.

Brad- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Brad,
* That comment brought a mental chuckle... The last Control Line
Precision Stunt plane I built was over 35 years ago. *It took 42 hours
to build the airframe, and over 120 hours for the covering and
finish. *This was a plane of around 500 square INCH wing area.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ah, I remember those days too. mine never lasted long enough to
justify spending too much time with covering/painting. we used to
build voodoo's and nemisis' and smash em up pretty regularly. it was a
lot of fun making the pressure tanks out of pudding cans and
pacifiers! nothing like the sound of a 36XBB at full speed!

Brad

************************************************** *************

Ever hear a McCoy 60 at 20K RPM and a 100++++++?

Big John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

on a U/C?
need to anchor yerself down!

Brad

Martin

Had a couple of Nelsons. Good engines. Flew in RC racers. Only
Cyclone's (note spelling) I had were pre WWII gas engines, with
ignition, and Class C size in those days.

Why did a lot of model flyers get into gliders as they got older?

Big John

************************************************** *************************

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:54:03 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:34:04 -0600, Tech Support wrote:


Ever hear a McCoy 60 at 20K RPM and a 100++++++?

A Nelson .15 at 31,000 rpm on a fast, vertical climbing F1C or a Cyclon
06 at 30K going vertical on a quick F1J both do it for me.

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:07:59 -0600, Tech Support wrote:

Martin

Had a couple of Nelsons. Good engines. Flew in RC racers. Only Cyclone's
(note spelling) I had were pre WWII gas engines, with ignition, and
Class C size in those days.

No, that's a very different engine. See:
http://www.gregorie.org/freeflight/f.../cyclon06.html

for more about the Cyclon 06. They use Nelson plugs and are very sweet
engines.

Why did a lot of model flyers get into gliders as they got older?

A good question. My club has quite a lot of modellers in it, many still
active on the modelling scene. I flew a bit of CL and single channel RC
when I was a kid, but discovered the competition free flight scene at
University around 1970 and never looked back. I flew mostly towline
glider (A/2, F1A) and a bit of small power (1/2A, then F1J). I've always
built my own models and designed my F1As and F1Js. I got a bit less
interested in model flying with the rise of bought models and this,
combined with my first ride in glass (an ASK-21) in 1999 kick-started my
move into soaring. I joined my present club and started learning to fly
in 2000.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |