Performance World Class design proposal

I do not think that soaring community to trash current World Class. There are some gliders out there
at least and there are competitions. And PW-5 seems to be a perfect glider for beginning pilots in
clubs.

But I still believe that although the idea of the monoclass is very good, the problem is the
relatively high cost of the glider with performance from the 60-s. Therefore i propse a new
monoclass which is more performance than beginner oriented and which should be our primary hope to
get the gliding into olympic games.

Objective:
To develop new monclass glider which offers the better or equal performance per price when compared
to all current production and aftermarket gliders with L/D above 42.
Glider has to satisfy several general requirements
safe handling in the air and on the ground
a single design, stabilized for a period of years (proposedly 15 as in WC)
performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
simple construction

Design objectives

compliance with JAR-22, Category U, including cloud flying
max stall 80 km/h at max mass, most unfavorable cg, airbrakes opened or closed
airbrakes for speed limiting & glidepath control required
sideslip possible with brakes opened or closed
effective wheel brake
automatic elevator hookup
a "crash-friendly" panel
ddtwo-handed canopy jettison actuating releases on both sides
seat & harness good to 15g's forward
battery, oxygen, equipment restraint good to 20g's
adequate cockpit ventilation
retractable landing gear
no flaps or camber-changing devices
possiblity to use water or in-flight adjustable ballast
no restrictions in wingtip extensions
no blowing or sucking of boundary layer
maximum L/D: 40 or greater
max roll rate at 1.4 Vs = b w 3.5 sec (b=span in meters)
accommodate pilots to 6"4"
provision for non-disposable ballast
panel to hold ASI, altimeter, compass, 2 varios, T&S ind
space for radio, O2, battery, datalogger
winch, aero & auto launches possible & safe
rigged easily by two average people
easily moved on ground.

Otherwise applicable to FAI Standard Class rules


Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.

Regards,
Kaido

An another Estonian Idea
The glider should be manufactured not only in one one factory. So the
designer manufactures wing and fuselage moulds to all producers who are able
to manufacture by licence exactly the same world class glider.
: )

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:29:58 +0300, "iPilot"
wrote:

Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.

You just gave a perfect description of LS-4, LS8, DG-300,
Discus,......

In good ole Europe we call this "Club Class" and it's extremely
successful. Guess why...



Bye
Andreas

Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:29:58 +0300, "iPilot"
wrote:


Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.


You just gave a perfect description of LS-4, LS8, DG-300,
Discus,......

In good ole Europe we call this "Club Class" and it's extremely
successful. Guess why...

I suspect there is little overall for support for the concept of a true
"one design" class, for several reasons:

* the current Standard, 15M, and 18M classes are nearly one design
classes anyway, because the performance difference from
manufacturer-to-manufacturer and year-to-year is very small

* the Club Class makes so many different used gliders competitive, the
potential cost advantage of a one-design class is eliminated

* the top pilots have little trouble getting the glider they want, most
of the rest of us are losing contests because of our ability, not our
glider, so there is little value to the majority of contest pilots to
have a one design class.

* the major interest in the one-design class seems to be from people
that hope it would result in a new 40+ L/D glider that doesn't cost any
more than a 20 year old used glider

I can't see the last item ever being more than a dream.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Earlier, "Tanel" wrote:

...So the designer manufactures wing and fuselage
moulds to all producers who are able to manufacture
by licence exactly the same world class glider.

My thoughts exactly. It shouldn't matter much what is under the skin,
just the exterior profiles. Different manufacturers could offer
exterior finishes, treatments, interior enhacements, amenities, and
levels of completion according to what their customers are willing to
pay. They could use internal structures commensurate with their skills
and competencies. But the ships would all have the same shapes, and
would all perform about the same.

I would further postulate a monoclass that allows freedom of exterior
profile in some areas of potential development. Specifically, I'd like
to see the outboard 200mm of wing span implemented at the
participants' option. That would allow for continued development of
winglet design, and also for expression of individuality. It would
also, to some tiny degree, allow for optimization for different
conditions. And the participant could even extend the span at that
point to improve their ship's performance for non-competition events.

And, responding to Mark Boyd's question from another thread, I believe
that the cost difference between 13m and 15m is certainly measurable
(all other things being equal, of course), but that with modern
commercially-available materials the difference is not prohibitvely
great, and that 15m is as good a monoclass span as any. My old HP-11
(1960 technology, 50-foot span, poorly sealed) had about the same
general performance as a PW-5, and there was many, many a time that I
wished for a few more points of glide to make the difference between
driving home and driving it home.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:29:58 +0300, "iPilot"
wrote:


Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.


You just gave a perfect description of LS-4, LS8, DG-300,
Discus,......

In good ole Europe we call this "Club Class" and it's extremely
successful. Guess why...

I suspect there is little overall for support for the concept of a true
"one design" class, for several reasons:

* the current Standard, 15M, and 18M classes are nearly one design
classes anyway, because the performance difference from
manufacturer-to-manufacturer and year-to-year is very small

* the Club Class makes so many different used gliders competitive, the
potential cost advantage of a one-design class is eliminated

* the top pilots have little trouble getting the glider they want, most
of the rest of us are losing contests because of our ability, not our
glider, so there is little value to the majority of contest pilots to
have a one design class.

* the major interest in the one-design class seems to be from people
that hope it would result in a new 40+ L/D glider that doesn't cost any
more than a 20 year old used glider

I can't see the last item ever being more than a dream.

Eric,
You just nailed the issue right on the head....

Yeah, and there seems to be a bunch of pretty nice gliders in the 40+- l/d
range for sale in the 18K-20K ($US) range. They usually come with decent
trailers and usable instruments. Second generation 70's open class ships are
selling in the low 20's these days and have very long legs (l/d @ 45-50).
A recent article in Technical Soaring would indicate a usable airframe life
somewhere in excess of 200,000 hours, so you probabluy wouldn't have to
worry too much about using one up.

Cheers!
"Jacek Kobiesa" wrote in message
om...
Eric Greenwell wrote in message
...
Andreas Maurer wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:29:58 +0300, "iPilot"
wrote:


Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it
interesting.


You just gave a perfect description of LS-4, LS8, DG-300,
Discus,......

In good ole Europe we call this "Club Class" and it's extremely
successful. Guess why...

I suspect there is little overall for support for the concept of a true
"one design" class, for several reasons:

* the current Standard, 15M, and 18M classes are nearly one design
classes anyway, because the performance difference from
manufacturer-to-manufacturer and year-to-year is very small

* the Club Class makes so many different used gliders competitive, the
potential cost advantage of a one-design class is eliminated

* the top pilots have little trouble getting the glider they want, most
of the rest of us are losing contests because of our ability, not our
glider, so there is little value to the majority of contest pilots to
have a one design class.

* the major interest in the one-design class seems to be from people
that hope it would result in a new 40+ L/D glider that doesn't cost any
more than a 20 year old used glider

I can't see the last item ever being more than a dream.

Eric,
You just nailed the issue right on the head....

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
om...
Earlier, "Tanel" wrote:

...So the designer manufactures wing and fuselage
moulds to all producers who are able to manufacture
by licence exactly the same world class glider.

My thoughts exactly. It shouldn't matter much what is under the skin,
just the exterior profiles. Different manufacturers could offer
exterior finishes, treatments, interior enhacements, amenities, and
levels of completion according to what their customers are willing to
pay. They could use internal structures commensurate with their skills
and competencies. But the ships would all have the same shapes, and
would all perform about the same.

I would further postulate a monoclass that allows freedom of exterior
profile in some areas of potential development. Specifically, I'd like
to see the outboard 200mm of wing span implemented at the
participants' option. That would allow for continued development of
winglet design, and also for expression of individuality. It would
also, to some tiny degree, allow for optimization for different
conditions. And the participant could even extend the span at that
point to improve their ship's performance for non-competition events.

And, responding to Mark Boyd's question from another thread, I believe
that the cost difference between 13m and 15m is certainly measurable
(all other things being equal, of course), but that with modern
commercially-available materials the difference is not prohibitvely
great, and that 15m is as good a monoclass span as any. My old HP-11
(1960 technology, 50-foot span, poorly sealed) had about the same
general performance as a PW-5, and there was many, many a time that I
wished for a few more points of glide to make the difference between
driving home and driving it home.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Take it a step further:
Just use a standard wing mold. (Or, as in your suggestion, inner wing, with
span limitation for competition).
The wing is the thing. People have done all sorts of strange things to
1-26's (lowered canopies, faired wheels, taken the wheel off entirely and
flown with just a skid), and the L/D still stayed about the same
The variations in fuselage, empennage, materials, etc give people a shot at
"optimizing" their ship, and manufacturers a hook for for their advertising
(assuming there's ever more than one) but I bet they'd converge pretty
quickly. Small but real competitive advantages might actually exist, in
which case the super-competitive pilots will sell their ships to buy the
more competitive models, putting more ships in the class, and entry-level
ships on the market.
I believe something similar to that has happened in some of the sailing
monoclasses.

Homebuilders could buy a wing set and build the remainder however they
liked.

Tim Ward

Tim Ward wrote:


Take it a step further:
Just use a standard wing mold. (Or, as in your suggestion, inner wing, with
span limitation for competition).
The wing is the thing. People have done all sorts of strange things to
1-26's (lowered canopies, faired wheels, taken the wheel off entirely and
flown with just a skid), and the L/D still stayed about the same
The variations in fuselage, empennage, materials, etc give people a shot at
"optimizing" their ship, and manufacturers a hook for for their advertising
(assuming there's ever more than one) but I bet they'd converge pretty
quickly. Small but real competitive advantages might actually exist, in
which case the super-competitive pilots will sell their ships to buy the
more competitive models, putting more ships in the class, and entry-level
ships on the market.

And what would be the point of a class that is essentially like what we
already have in the Standard and 15 meter classes? Having the exterior
wing shape defined would save very little in design costs because they
would all require substantial aerodynamic design and the complete
structural design, which is even more expensive than the aerodynamic
design. None would be built in enough quantity to make them any less
expensive than what we already have.



--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

No-one cares.

Of course, it's far mure fun to tell everybody how bad PW-5 instead of doing something constructive.



"iPilot" wrote in message ...
I do not think that soaring community to trash current World Class. There are some gliders out
there
at least and there are competitions. And PW-5 seems to be a perfect glider for beginning pilots in
clubs.

But I still believe that although the idea of the monoclass is very good, the problem is the
relatively high cost of the glider with performance from the 60-s. Therefore i propse a new
monoclass which is more performance than beginner oriented and which should be our primary hope to
get the gliding into olympic games.

Objective:
To develop new monclass glider which offers the better or equal performance per price when
compared
to all current production and aftermarket gliders with L/D above 42.
Glider has to satisfy several general requirements
safe handling in the air and on the ground
a single design, stabilized for a period of years (proposedly 15 as in WC)
performance sufficient for badges & challenging competition
simple construction

Design objectives

compliance with JAR-22, Category U, including cloud flying
max stall 80 km/h at max mass, most unfavorable cg, airbrakes opened or closed
airbrakes for speed limiting & glidepath control required
sideslip possible with brakes opened or closed
effective wheel brake
automatic elevator hookup
a "crash-friendly" panel
ddtwo-handed canopy jettison actuating releases on both sides
seat & harness good to 15g's forward
battery, oxygen, equipment restraint good to 20g's
adequate cockpit ventilation
retractable landing gear
no flaps or camber-changing devices
possiblity to use water or in-flight adjustable ballast
no restrictions in wingtip extensions
no blowing or sucking of boundary layer
maximum L/D: 40 or greater
max roll rate at 1.4 Vs = b w 3.5 sec (b=span in meters)
accommodate pilots to 6"4"
provision for non-disposable ballast
panel to hold ASI, altimeter, compass, 2 varios, T&S ind
space for radio, O2, battery, datalogger
winch, aero & auto launches possible & safe
rigged easily by two average people
easily moved on ground.

Otherwise applicable to FAI Standard Class rules


Just my stupid ideé fixe, but I hope that someone finds it interesting.

Regards,
Kaido