Short Wings Gliders

wrote:
One thing that may not have been covered is cost. I see in "Gliding
International" concern about the increasing cost of material and
labour ("exploding"). If a shorter wing were used, there would be
less of both.


There is not a single proof that this is true. The difference of cost
between 14 m span and 15 m is presumably totally insignificant.
One has to chase economies elsewhere.


--

Michel TALON

At 01:25 01 February 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:

BTW: At the moment the entire German 15m-class national team consists
of pilots of my club
I'm pretty content with the situation.

Am I safe to assume that all of these guys have been flying their own
gliders rather than club equipment?

Maybe one cause for that is that we have a very good social life (and
an own club house) - on weekends there's always an afternoon tea,
dinner and lunch, lots of wifes and children around. Many good causes
to land and have a coffee and some self-made cake...
I guess this is what makes many German clubs different from US clubs:
The social life often plays a part that is nearly as important as the
flying.

There are *some* clubs in the US that make the social aspects an
attractive part of the activity. At Blairstown, we do OK - on any decent
day you will find anywhere from four to a dozen folks hanging around the
field after the flying is over, drinking beer and BSing about what great
pilots we all are. Caesar Creek, Texas, Chillhowee, and many others have
very nice facilities. There seems to be some critical number that has to
be reached before this sort of thing can happen. Age also has something
to do with it. Our little group in Somerset has an average age probably
about half of what it is in Blairstown. The younger folks have families,
responsibilities, and even actual social lives beyond the airport, so they
are less inclined to stick around when flying ends.

Jim Beckman

At 09:45 01 February 2009, Derek Copeland wrote:

It seems that in America, there are two types of gliding clubs.

1) Commercial 'Gliderport' operations,

2) Private owner clubs,

I think you're leaving out a substantial number of clubs that own a
certain number of gliders for the use of all their members. The
performance level of the fleets varies, depending on what the clubs want
to accomplish, and how much their members are willing to pay for the
privilege.

Either way gliding works out to be very expensive,

Well, the third way doesn't have to be expensive. My club at Blairstown
costs a pilot who doesn't own a glider around $450
to $500 a year, including (arguably exorbitant) membership
fee to the national organization. Less if you own your own
glider or are in a partnership. For this you get pretty much unlimited
use of the gliders, but we don't have a towplane, so you pay the
commercial operator on the field for that. Now that *is* cheap flying,
wouldn't you say? Of course our fleet is pretty cheap, too. Currently
we've got two 1-26s, a 1-34, a 1-34R and a Blanik. Over the years we've
owned a few Larks, but somehow they didn't last too long in the hands of
our members.

Anyway, it *is* possible for gliding to be cheap, as long as one of your
goals is to make it as cheap as possible for as many people as possible.

Jim Beckman

On Feb 1, 9:30*am, Jim Beckman wrote:
At 01:25 01 February 2009, Andreas Maurer wrote:

BTW: At the moment the entire *German 15m-class national team consists
of pilots of my club
I'm pretty content with the situation.

Am I safe to assume that all of these guys have been flying their own
gliders rather than club equipment? *

Maybe one cause for that is that we have a very good social life (and
an own club house) - on weekends there's always an afternoon tea,
dinner and lunch, lots of wifes and children around. Many good causes
to land and have a coffee and some self-made cake...
I guess this is what makes many German clubs different from US clubs:
The social life often plays a part that is nearly as important as the
flying.

There are *some* clubs in the US that make the social aspects an
attractive part of the activity. *At Blairstown, we do OK - on any decent
day you will find anywhere from four to a dozen folks hanging around the
field after the flying is over, drinking beer and BSing about what great
pilots we all are. *Caesar Creek, Texas, Chillhowee, *and many others have
very nice facilities. *There seems to be some critical number that has to
be reached before this sort of thing can happen. *Age also has something
to do with it. *Our little group in Somerset has an average age probably
about half of what it is in Blairstown. *The younger folks have families,
responsibilities, and even actual social lives beyond the airport, so they
are less inclined to stick around when flying ends.

Jim Beckman

As one of the "younger" guys with a wife and family, I do believe one
of the critical issues we face in many US clubs is indeed the lack of
anything for the non-flying members to do while dad (or mom) is up
flying. Having travelled pretty extensively and visited about a
dozen clubs in Europe (UK, Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland) I'm
struck by how many of them (pretty much all that I've visited) have a
great winch operation, a "real" clubhouse, "real" maintenance hanger
(drool), and facilities for caravans (RVs). With all of the
amenities, a weekend at the field tends to look a bit less like
torture. Yeah, it may not exactly be the #1 choice for the gang, but
at least it's sellable when compared to say, hanging out at home all
weekend. When I was in England last week on a cold and rainy weekend
(i.e. pretty much a typical day), there was a huge amount of
activity at both clubs I visited. People were hanging out for lunch,
working on gliders, etc. even when there was no flying going on.

So, I do believe a lot of it comes back to land. Specifically, the
fact that land use policy (or lack thereof) in the US means that a
flat piece of land within say 90 minutes drive of most major
metropolitan areas is going to run into the several $milions. For
instance, a 30 acre property in a place equidistant from say NYC and
Philadelphia would set you back about $1M minimum... if you could even
find a town that would let you put in an airport. If you look at
the largest clubs in the US, almost without exception they are the
ones that had the foresight to secure their futures back in the 60s or
70s by purchasing their own land. Those that didn't continue to
limp along as they share busy public use airports and struggle with
the demands made by the airport owner/operator.

Now, I'm not saying that this is the ONLY reason nor is it an excuse
for some of the other trends, but I believe that a lack of a "place to
call our own" inhibits all but a few clubs in the US from hitting that
critical mass that it takes to fund the sorts of fleets and activities
that European clubs have. I'm certainly open to counter arguments.

One thing that may not have been covered is cost. I see in
"Gliding
International" concern about the increasing cost of material
and
labour ("exploding"). If a shorter wing were used, there
would be
less of both.


There is not a single proof that this is true. The difference of
cost
between 14 m span and 15 m is presumably totally
insignificant.
One has to chase economies elsewhere.


I have a Russia and an ASW20. I've been through both of them
pretty thoroughly, and I am amazed at the complexity of the
ASW20 and the simplicity of the Russia.

The Russia weighs 300 pounds. The ASW20 weighs almost twice
as much. I'll agree that just a few feet more wing probably does
not add that much to the cost, but all the complexity involved in
getting 40:1 or better sure does. Both ships were done by
brilliant designers, each shooting at a different target. If you
want performance, the 20's got it. Still going strong after all
these years. If you want a ship that assembles by one person in
10 minutes, is super easy to manufacture, has a really low parts
count and still has enough performance to go X/C, then the
Russia is hard to beat. I don't think anyone has discovered how
to do both. It will take the discovery of a new material that
lends itself to automated molding to get there.

One thing that I noticed last year is that it is hard to go
backwards in L/D. After flying a borrowed Libelle on a few
X/C's, I could hardly get myself back in the Russia. From this
point of view I understand the low opinions of the shortwings. It
does not alter the fact that I learned on it, loved it and it
provided a springboard to better opportunities. It is also cheap
and easy to fly. This is where the World Class can beat all other
classes. New blood can get into affordable, easy to fly, easy to
assemble ships and have huge fun. If they stick with it and want
to move up, they will find a way.

Brian

The ASW20 is complicated and heavy, because it is fitted with flaps and was
designed to win the 15 metre class world championship.

The original concept of the Standard Class was for a simple 15 metre
sailpane that would gave the best compromise between performance and cost.
I can't really see that anything has changed, apart from the use of exotic
high tech materials in the latest models. Just ban these to keep the costs
down.

I note that even the fairly old tech. Libelle (Standard Class?) gave Brian
noticeably better performance than the Russia. I have flown an example of
the latter when it was called the ME7. Although I didn't make any
measurements, it seemed to have about the same performance as a wooden K6,
maybe a bit better at higher speeds, but not exactly inspiring.

Derek Copeland


At 15:30 01 February 2009, Brian Bange wrote:
One thing that may not have been covered is cost. I see in
"Gliding
International" concern about the increasing cost of material
and
labour ("exploding"). If a shorter wing were used, there
would be
less of both.


There is not a single proof that this is true. The difference of
cost
between 14 m span and 15 m is presumably totally
insignificant.
One has to chase economies elsewhere.


I have a Russia and an ASW20. I've been through both of them
pretty thoroughly, and I am amazed at the complexity of the
ASW20 and the simplicity of the Russia.

The Russia weighs 300 pounds. The ASW20 weighs almost twice
as much. I'll agree that just a few feet more wing probably does
not add that much to the cost, but all the complexity involved in
getting 40:1 or better sure does. Both ships were done by
brilliant designers, each shooting at a different target. If you
want performance, the 20's got it. Still going strong after all
these years. If you want a ship that assembles by one person in
10 minutes, is super easy to manufacture, has a really low parts
count and still has enough performance to go X/C, then the
Russia is hard to beat. I don't think anyone has discovered how
to do both. It will take the discovery of a new material that
lends itself to automated molding to get there.

One thing that I noticed last year is that it is hard to go
backwards in L/D. After flying a borrowed Libelle on a few
X/C's, I could hardly get myself back in the Russia. From this
point of view I understand the low opinions of the shortwings. It
does not alter the fact that I learned on it, loved it and it
provided a springboard to better opportunities. It is also cheap
and easy to fly. This is where the World Class can beat all other
classes. New blood can get into affordable, easy to fly, easy to
assemble ships and have huge fun. If they stick with it and want
to move up, they will find a way.

Brian

Maybe, since the 18m and over, classes are becoming very popular, by
default the 15m wingspan will become the new and accepted shortwing
class.

Now the trick will be for a clever designer to combine modern
materials and manufacturing methods to design and build that 38-40:1
ship. And with an eye towards "affordability", it can be engineered
with the simplicity that went in to the Russia and Apis line of
sailplanes.

My HP-24 is being built along those lines; I expect to get at least
40:1, it will be under 500 pounds. Has the sleek sexy lines and
retractable gear we all want and should be a solid recreational
sailplane.

Brad

On Feb 1, 4:50*am, wrote:

Perhaps limit it to old-fashioned fibreglass, not
CRP, to control cost, perhaps.

I think that would be majorly counterproductive. I'd have bought into
that a year ago, but I've seen the light: The most expensive part of a
glider has no mass, it is person-hours.

With carbon, it takes substantially less material to get the same
strength and stiffness as fiberglass. Less material means less stuff
to cut to shape. Less material means less epoxy to saturate it with.
Less material and less epoxy means less time spent doing layups and
less time in tyvek suits. And not only do you have a structure with
fewer person-hours invested in it, it is lighter than its fiberglass
equivalent. And that lightness has a way of cascading through a
structure, making many other parts lighter as well.

Thanks, Bob K.

On Feb 1, 5:50*am, (Michel Talon) wrote:

There is not a single proof that this is true...

Any of several public domain wing weight estimators will show you
nearly exactly what the difference in structural weight is between 14m
and 15m. It's not to be sneezed at.

The difference of cost between 14 m span and 15 m is
presumably totally insignificant....

No, not true. As I've written elsewhere the manufacturing cost seems
to scale exponentially with span. A lot of that is due to the larger
tools required to make larger wings, the larger buildings required to
store and use the tools, the greater amount of energy and other area
and volume costs and business expenses associated with larger
buildings. It goes to worms in a right hurry, it does.

One has to chase economies elsewhere.

One must chase economies everywhere.

Thanks, Bob K.

On 1 Feb 2009 14:30:04 GMT, Jim Beckman
wrote:


Am I safe to assume that all of these guys have been flying their own
gliders rather than club equipment?

Nowadays they all have their own gliders, but they only bought them
after they had already been in the national team. Until then they flew
the club's gliders.


There are *some* clubs in the US that make the social aspects an
attractive part of the activity. At Blairstown, we do OK - on any decent
day you will find anywhere from four to a dozen folks hanging around the
field after the flying is over, drinking beer and BSing about what great
pilots we all are. Caesar Creek, Texas, Chillhowee, and many others have
very nice facilities. There seems to be some critical number that has to
be reached before this sort of thing can happen. Age also has something
to do with it. Our little group in Somerset has an average age probably
about half of what it is in Blairstown. The younger folks have families,
responsibilities, and even actual social lives beyond the airport, so they
are less inclined to stick around when flying ends.


And I guess that most members have quite a long way top drive to your
airfield, right? That's a general advantage of Europe: High population
density, hence most members live close to the airefield.