JS3 chatter

JS3 fuselage: leading edge forward is a blend from the ASW-17 and ASW-22; definitely influenced by Schleicher. Notice the '17 also had a higher shoulder position. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tibenham/6150202179

On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's aerodynamicist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3. http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039

As suggested, the Akaflieg München Mü31 article is also a good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en

Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS Ka-6E shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups. Really like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan Bosman.

We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.

The 26 fueselage is considerably different than a Ventus. Place the two side by side and there is no doubt. Different shape, different cockpit, different canopy. Everything different. Place a 26 fuselage next to a JS1 and you cannot tell them apart. Even many of the details inside are the same. I'm not complaining about it, I doubt the 26 fuselage is legally protectable intellectual property. But the question was posed above.

On Sunday, 18 December 2016 17:46:45 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's aerodynamicist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3. http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039

As suggested, the Akaflieg München Mü31 article is also a good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en

Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS Ka-6E shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups. Really like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan Bosman.

We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.

The 26 fueselage is considerably different than a Ventus. Place the two side by side and there is no doubt. Different shape, different cockpit, different canopy. Everything different. Place a 26 fuselage next to a JS1 and you cannot tell them apart. Even many of the details inside are the same. I'm not complaining about it, I doubt the 26 fuselage is legally protectable intellectual property. But the question was posed above.




The aerodynamic shape of the JS1b/c is a 100% direct copy of the ASH26. They took an existing ASH26 fuselage, and made a negative mould of it.

The internals are different.

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 3:28:59 PM UTC-5, TS wrote:
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 17:46:45 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's aerodynamicist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3. http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039

As suggested, the Akaflieg München Mü31 article is also a good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en

Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS Ka-6E shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups. Really like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan Bosman.

We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.

The 26 fueselage is considerably different than a Ventus. Place the two side by side and there is no doubt. Different shape, different cockpit, different canopy. Everything different. Place a 26 fuselage next to a JS1 and you cannot tell them apart. Even many of the details inside are the same. I'm not complaining about it, I doubt the 26 fuselage is legally protectable intellectual property. But the question was posed above.




The aerodynamic shape of the JS1b/c is a 100% direct copy of the ASH26. They took an existing ASH26 fuselage, and made a negative mould of it.

The internals are different.

also, all this business about canopy shape is irrelevant. once you have a negative mold for the 26, you can define the canopy shape however you want.

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 9:09:21 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 3:28:59 PM UTC-5, TS wrote:
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 17:46:45 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's aerodynamicist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3. http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosman/697025039

As suggested, the Akaflieg München Mü31 article is also a good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en

Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS Ka-6E shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups. Really like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan Bosman.

We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.

The 26 fueselage is considerably different than a Ventus. Place the two side by side and there is no doubt. Different shape, different cockpit, different canopy. Everything different. Place a 26 fuselage next to a JS1 and you cannot tell them apart. Even many of the details inside are the same. I'm not complaining about it, I doubt the 26 fuselage is legally protectable intellectual property. But the question was posed above.




The aerodynamic shape of the JS1b/c is a 100% direct copy of the ASH26. They took an existing ASH26 fuselage, and made a negative mould of it.

The internals are different.

also, all this business about canopy shape is irrelevant. once you have a negative mold for the 26, you can define the canopy shape however you want..

The canopy shape is defined by the aerodynamic profile. The trimmed configuration and contour of the canopy frame cut out may change, as it did in the evolution of the Schleicher fuselages.
I suspect that Bosman is really chasing details and reduced the canopy to change how it affects laminar flow on the forward fuselage.
FWIW
UH

At 20:20 19 December 2016, wrote:
On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 9:09:21 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 3:28:59 PM UTC-5, TS wrote:
On Sunday, 18 December 2016 17:46:45 UTC+1, jfitch wrote:
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:11:36 PM UTC-8,

=
wrote:
Thanks to J.Nieuwenhuize for posting this link Jonker's
aerodynamic=
ist Johan Bosman pictures of the JS3.
http://www.imgrum.net/user/johanjbosm=
an/697025039
=20
As suggested, the Akaflieg M=C3=BCnchen M=C3=BC31 article is
also
a=
good read. http://www.akaflieg.vo.tum.de/index.php/en/mue-31-en=20
=20
Go around-come around...interesting how we're back to the AS
Ka-6E
=
shoulder wing. Can't wait to inspect how they did the automatic hook-ups.
R=
eally like the retractable tail wheel too. Congratulations Johan
Bosman.=20
=20
We'll see...pretty is as pretty does.
=20
The 26 fueselage is considerably different than a Ventus. Place the
t=
wo side by side and there is no doubt. Different shape, different
cockpit,
=
different canopy. Everything different. Place a 26 fuselage next to a
JS1
=
and you cannot tell them apart. Even many of the details inside are the
sam=
e. I'm not complaining about it, I doubt the 26 fuselage is legally
protect=
able intellectual property. But the question was posed above.
=20
=20
=20
=20
The aerodynamic shape of the JS1b/c is a 100% direct copy of the
ASH26.=
They took an existing ASH26 fuselage, and made a negative mould of
it.=20
=20
The internals are different.
=20
also, all this business about canopy shape is irrelevant. once you have
a=
negative mold for the 26, you can define the canopy shape however you
want=
..

The canopy shape is defined by the aerodynamic profile. The trimmed
configu=
ration and contour of the canopy frame cut out may change, as it did in
the=
evolution of the Schleicher fuselages.
I suspect that Bosman is really chasing details and reduced the canopy to
c=
hange how it affects laminar flow on the forward fuselage.
FWIW
UH


With absolutely no knowlage at all I offer these speculations .
The JS1 polar as on their web site shows little difference between the 18
m
and the 21m at the same wing loading ,In other words the span makes less
difference than the wing loading.
There have been tales of JSI spinning off tow,I assume that is because
pilots
are loading to max water to get the performance .
When I look at the JS3 it looks as if they have added di hedral and washout

to increase the stability and shortened the wing span to get the wing
loading.
As high as possible .
It should be a rocket if the conditions are strong enough.

Would be interested to know all the functions of the second "LXNAV looking" instrument mounted below the LXNAV 9070 in the pictures of "UJ" panel.

Like the a model Ventus, the JS3 appears to have a small man's cockpit. Wonder if a 6'2" pilot with wide shoulders and a little extra "insulation" will fit? You guys in Benella give us the scoop.

No it doesn't. It is the same old ASH 26 cockpit size.

I am sure, and have been told by people who have seen it, that it is a good sized cockpit but I can't see the relevance of judging an obviously different newly designed fuselage and cockpit to the ASH 26. The JS1?- fair enough. But not the JS3.