Some gliders safer than others?

Are some glider designs much safer than others? Or do certain designs put their pilots at risk for certain types of injuries during a crash?

Looking at the Libelle with the bubble canopy it makes me wonder if the glider flipped on you during a bad landing or crash if the pilot would suffer head/ neck injuries?

The dg website Has an interesting article on reinforcing the sides of the cockpit:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/index.p...oes-not-sell-e

Is there a source for information on this?

Modern Schleicher gliders (since mid 90's)have a crash cockpit
and a great landing gear strut to take the hit instead of
the pilots back. These are standard in all Schleichers.

I think they are the only one with the crash cockpit design.

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:45:03 AM UTC-4, joesimmers wrote:
I think [Schleichers] are the only one with the crash cockpit design.

Wrong. Many modern gliders have reinforced cockpits
and many have energy-absorbing gear. Lange also adds
a crush zone in nose:
http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/en...0e/safety.html

RAS - Rampant Aviation Speculation....

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:33:31 PM UTC-4, Nicholas L wrote:
Are some glider designs much safer than others? Or do certain designs put their pilots at risk for certain types of injuries during a crash?


To sharpen the question to match your intention, "Are some gliders more survivable in a crash?"

One of my favorite tidbits on this topic is that the much maligned SGS 2-33 has been shown to survive a crash better than most. Part of the reason for that is that a 2-33 will probably be going slower than most when it crashes.

Some gliders are easier to spin than others, and one could argue that those types are more likely to crash when improperly piloted.

On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 9:33:31 PM UTC-6, Nicholas L wrote:
Are some glider designs much safer than others? Or do certain designs put their pilots at risk for certain types of injuries during a crash?

Is there a source for information on this?

The link you posted is from a lecture that is over a decade ago. I think since this time safety cockpits are no longer compulsory and they are a requirement for Certification in most Countries. I disagree with the conclusions drawn in that lecture. I think most pilots, with all other things being equal, would purchase the safer glider.
It is possible, but due to the short gear highly unlikely, that a glider will flip and pin the pilot. This does happen in powered aircraft and roll over protection is provided on the better designs.

You should join OSTIV - the scientific and technical organization for soaring. www.OSTIV.org. They have a Sailplane Development Panel, and a sub-group on Crashworthiness. On the sub-group page, there is a Safe and Crashworthy Cockpit
Short report by W. Röger, FH Aachen, from February 2007; it is interesting. There have been papers describing improved crashworthiness over the years in OSTIV. You can search the index for details on glider safety.

There is also a program for reporting cockpit damage, so that there is data that designers can use to design safer cockpits (disturbing but not graphic pictures of testing). As they say, without data, you are a person with an opinion.

OSTIV does good work, and we all benefit.

Just to expand a little bit more... all of the major manufacturers have changed their philosophy to a greater or lesser extent around cockpit design over time. I fly an LS8, which is largely based on the later model LS6. If you look at the cockpit of an early LS6, vs the later LS6 and the LS8, you can see significant changes in the construction of the cockpit area and the seat pan in particular. The same applies to Schemp-Hirth (e.g. later Ventus2 vs. original Ventus). So, other things being equal, a later generation of a given class of glider from a given manufacturer probably affords better crash protection than the prior generation (e.g. ASW-24 vs. ASW-19; LS8 vs. LS4; Ventus 2 vs. Ventus). How the various manufacturers stack up when comparing gliders of the same generation (e.g. LS8 vs. ASW28 vs. Discus2) is probably a little harder to quantify without extensive testing. I know some has been done (see the OSTIV link in this thread), and I'm sure the "conventional wisdom" gives the nod to Schleicher. It would be nice to see some more hard data.

P3


On Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:03:47 AM UTC-4, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:45:03 AM UTC-4, joesimmers wrote:

I think [Schleichers] are the only one with the crash cockpit design.



Wrong. Many modern gliders have reinforced cockpits

and many have energy-absorbing gear. Lange also adds

a crush zone in nose:

http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/en...0e/safety.html



RAS - Rampant Aviation Speculation....

In article ,
Papa3 wrote:

Just to expand a little bit more... all of the major manufacturers have
changed their philosophy to a greater or lesser extent around cockpit design
over time. I fly an LS8, which is largely based on the later model LS6.
If you look at the cockpit of an early LS6, vs the later LS6 and the LS8,
you can see significant changes in the construction of the cockpit area and
the seat pan in particular. The same applies to Schemp-Hirth (e.g. later
Ventus2 vs. original Ventus). So, other things being equal, a later
generation of a given class of glider from a given manufacturer probably
affords better crash protection than the prior generation (e.g. ASW-24 vs.
ASW-19; LS8 vs. LS4; Ventus 2 vs. Ventus). How the various manufacturers
stack up when comparing gliders of the same generation (e.g. LS8 vs. ASW28
vs. Discus2) is probably a little harder to quantify without extensive
testing. I know some has been done (see the OSTIV link in this thread),
and I'm sure the "conventional wisdom" gives the nod to Schleicher. It would
be nice to see some more hard data.

P3


I fly an early H-301 Libelle (serial #19). It has a significant safety
feature not seen in many other gliders. The fuselage is so thin that it
allows one see out if the canopy fogs over.

Seriously, Libelles would, in no way, be construed as having a "safety
cockpit", however, there have been relatively few fatalities in
Libelles. I think their slightly wobbly, unstable feel encourages pilots
to pay attention to their flying.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:17:44 AM UTC-4, WB wrote:

I fly an early H-301 Libelle (serial #19). It has a significant safety

feature not seen in many other gliders. The fuselage is so thin that it

allows one see out if the canopy fogs over.



Seriously, Libelles would, in no way, be construed as having a "safety

cockpit", however, there have been relatively few fatalities in

Libelles. I think their slightly wobbly, unstable feel encourages pilots

to pay attention to their flying.



An extra helping of humor, on toasted wry. I'm going to chuckle about that all afternoon.

T8

On Thursday, October 24, 2013 7:50:13 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

One of my favorite tidbits on this topic is that the much maligned SGS 2-33 has been shown to survive a crash better than most. Part of the reason for that is that a 2-33 will probably be going slower than most when it crashes.

What do you base this conclusion on? I've seen several 2-33s that have been crashed and sure wouldn't want to be in one! I know of a passenger that broke an ankle in a stalled 2-33 crash that broke the plane in two (behind the wing trailing edge), and having spent some time giving rides in the back seat of those horrible things, would sure not want to be in one during a hard landing!

Seriously, has anyone actually looked up the statistics on 2-seat crashes/injuries and compared 2-33/Blanik/K-13/G-103/ASK-21 stats?

There is a good reason the 2-33 is much maligned - it deserves it! Saying it is a good glider is like saying the Pinto was a good car - because it was cheap and it ran, no more. But I guess if your standards are low enough, just about anything will do.

Kirk
66
(waiting for the usual flurry of retorts about how wonderful the good old Gollywhomper is ;^)