If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders
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 |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders
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 |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders
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. |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
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 |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
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 |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
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 |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
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. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders (25)
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. |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Short Wings Gliders
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
X-Wings and Canard Rotor Wings. | Charles Gray | Rotorcraft | 1 | March 22nd 05 12:26 AM |