A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Thermal right, land left



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old March 15th 04, 08:38 PM
Stewart Kissel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

At 19:00 15 March 2004, Liam Finley wrote:
Liam-

A few years ago I was shopping for a glider. Peak
Soaring in Colorado was going full blast at the time
and pushing PW5's hard. I went and test flew one.


The price and performance did not make sense for me,
so I looked elsewhere. Curiously the guy who ran Peak
Soaring and was pushing PW's was one of the reasons
I did not investigate them further, like you and Ben
he was a chest-beater. Check some of the old flame
wars from him. Hell most of what you two say I agree
with-but the tone I can live without. It serves no
purpose IMHO.

I suppose the PW group will probably learn from the
1-26ers and take their efforts to their own web site
to avoid the abuse. That is to bad because the 1-26er's
are a great bunch of guys.




If PW-5 owners are really as content as they claim
to be, why are they
so touchy and defensive?

SNIP.

If PW-5'ers did more flying and less whining perhaps
they could
convince us otherwise.




  #112  
Old March 15th 04, 08:55 PM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Uri Saovray wrote:
Speaking of simple warning devices:
How about a simple hookup to a horn which is activated when the
airbrakes are opened while the towhook is engaged (i.e. open spoilers
during tow)?
A microswitch on the airbrake levers would be the no-brainer part.
What about the towhook? Magnetic sensor? where? How? Other ideas?
Uri


This would be an easy addition to the typical gear warning system, with
the new switch simply over-riding the gear switch. Fixed gear gliders
would need to add a spoiler switch and warning buzzer.

Pilots concerned about warning proliferation could consider using a
voice chip to speak "Spoilers" and "Gear" for the two alerts, instead of
a buzzer. Voice chips are cheap and simple to use these days.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

  #113  
Old March 15th 04, 08:57 PM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Daniels wrote:

"cernauta" wrote in message
...

"Bill Daniels" wrote:


Tape two yaw strings (which then become pitch strings) on each side of


the

canopy at the lowest and most forward part you can still see.


The string angle difference between minimum sink and stall is large so


the

bright red, wiggling strings angled up steeply are a good visual stall
warning.


That must be true only for unflapped gliders, or it's valid only for
one specific flap setting in a flapped glider. Or you have to make
different coloured markings for each and every flap setting.

Aldo Cernezzi



You're right about flaps making a difference in the calibration. I've only
tried this on two flapped gliders and one without flaps. However, It seemed
to work pretty well in all cases. I actually didn't see too much difference
in the string indications at different flap settings.

The flap issue is partly moot since the flap settings are related to
airspeed bands. Stall concerns would likely arise only with the flaps in
their most positive two settings, landing or slow thermalling. The
near-stall indication is very obvious.


Have you tried these in a shallow turning stall, when it is the wing tip
that stalls, not the root?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

  #114  
Old March 15th 04, 09:27 PM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Meyer wrote:

I think you are missing the point that most people
have made about the PW5, those that aren't ignorant
anyway. The point is that it does not perform well
enough to justify the price tag. I cannot understand
the mentality of people who would rather fork out £20k+
for a sailplane with the performance only slightly
better than a K6e when they could get a second hand
LS4 or ASW20 for the same or less money! I would have
thought that a one-type class based on an existing
design (which could be very cheaply put back into production)
would make far more sense. After all, some of us can't
even afford a brand new PW5, but can afford an old
ratty ASW20 or LS4.
This is not about elitism in terms of money, its about
common sense and value for money. The PW5 has an abundance
of neither.
LS4 for the world class!


Does the World really need ANOTHER Standard Class competition class?
That is what people seem to be proposing. This class would be nearly
identical to the current Standard Class, but with a little less
performance and a little less cost. Who would buy a new "LS4" when they
could buy a better performing used Discus for the same or less money,
just to compete in this class?

I think proposing more of what we already have will not bring new pilots
or new competitors into the sport, but merely divide them up between the
Standard Class and "LS4 Standard Class". I think the current World class
is bringing in pilots the other classes aren't; unfortunately, not in
the amounts hoped for. I think the _goals_ of the Word Class are good,
and the specifications appropriate to those goals.

People seem to forget that a new PW5 will become a used PW5. Many pilots
that will find a used PW5 much cheaper than a used LS4 or ASW 20, and
buy them because they can afford it. This is good for those people, and
good for the sport.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

  #115  
Old March 15th 04, 09:35 PM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Liam Finley wrote:

If PW-5 owners are really as content as they claim to be, why are they
so touchy and defensive?

I think it's pretty obvious that they are in denial. They invested in
these machines thinking that the world class would take off, and
instead it flopped, and they are stuck with these expensive fiberglass
lawn ornanments, and that reality is just too disturbing for them to
come to terms with. So they attack the messengers instead.


It is a mistake to imagine the postings here come from PW5 owners in
general. Ironically, some (most?) of the defense of the class and glider
comes from pilots that don't even fly them, such as myself (I fly an 18
m motorglider).

I'm sure most of the PW5 owners are elsewhere, enjoying discussing the
gliders and World Class with people that believe in it. They aren't
here, because they've learned that it is a fool's errand to attempt
discussions with people that call their glider "rubbish". If people
called your glider that, you'd probably be a bit touchy, too. It makes
me irritable, and I don't even own one.

If you want to know what PW5 owners are doing, you'll have to go to
where they are.
--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

  #116  
Old March 15th 04, 09:46 PM
Bill Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...


Have you tried these in a shallow turning stall, when it is the wing tip
that stalls, not the root?


Yep, and the indication is still useful. No doubt the AOA measured near the
centerline is lower than the actual AOA of the inside wingtip. (Your point,
Eric.)

But, the AOA indication you do get is significantly greater than minimum
sink so that you would take it as a stall warning, or at least an indication
that lowering the nose would result in better performance.

YMMV, but my experience with them has been that the 10cm long strings are
25mm or so higher at stall than at min sink while the difference between
best L/D and min sink is only 5 - 10mm. The strings angle upward and wiggle
a lot near stall.

All I can say is try it. If it doesn't do anything for you, rip 'em off.
It's a pretty cheap experiment.

Bill Daniels

  #117  
Old March 15th 04, 11:22 PM
Jon Meyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

At 19:24 15 March 2004, G.Kurek wrote:
And you think that you can find a legitimate company
that will make
LS-4 in the same price range? Where/how do I put down
payment?!!

You missed my point.....If it was an LS4 class you
wouldn't need a new one, you could fly a second hand
one (which you can get for equivalent or cheaper price).
If you wanted a new one then you could pay extra and
have a new one, though I don't understand why you would.
Composite gliders in general have a much longer life
in terms of hours and launches than you would ever
need, and if you want it shiny you can get it re-gelled
in poland pretty cheap (or even do it yourself).
My point is that designing a new glider for the world
class was a mistake, as was most of the design philosophy
behind the concept. If you want proof then just look
at the number of people that bother buying them/entering
the world class.
I have no problem with people that fly any kind of
glider, I just think that as a one-class contest design
the PW5 was a complete failure, and that a class incorporating
an existing 20ish year old design would have been much
more succesful.
Just my opinion.



  #118  
Old March 15th 04, 11:36 PM
Jon Meyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Does the World really need ANOTHER Standard Class competition
class?
That is what people seem to be proposing. This class
would be nearly
identical to the current Standard Class, but with a
little less
performance and a little less cost. Who would buy a
new 'LS4' when they
could buy a better performing used Discus for the same
or less money,
just to compete in this class?



Are you therefore saying that the world class must
have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed
as being equivalent to one of the existing classes?
I think that such a suggestion is completely contrary
to the aims of the world class, which are in my opinion,
very good.
The aim was to have a one-design class. This would
enable us to compete in the olympics, and would ensure
a level playing field for all competitors regardless
of their wealth. An LS4 only class would not be another
standard class, precisely for the reason that you could
not buy a discus or LS8 and enter it. It would be a
one-design contest, and as such would achieve the aims
of the world class.
Fixed undercarriage, no waterballast, even the requirement
for no flaps, are in my opinion all unnecessary requirements
for a world class glider, it could be an ASW22BWL for
all I care as long as they were cheap and plentiful
(I can dream....).
The only requirements are that the design should be
plentiful (the PW5 is not), cheap (2nd Hand LS4's are),
and of the best performance possible that satisfy these
criteria.
The LS4 is ideal, as would many existing designs have
been.


I think proposing more of what we already have will
not bring new pilots
or new competitors into the sport, but merely divide
them up between the
Standard Class and 'LS4 Standard Class'. I think the
current World class
is bringing in pilots the other classes aren't; unfortunately,
not in
the amounts hoped for. I think the _goals_ of the Word
Class are good,
and the specifications appropriate to those goals.

People seem to forget that a new PW5 will become a
used PW5. Many pilots
that will find a used PW5 much cheaper than a used
LS4 or ASW 20, and
buy them because they can afford it. This is good for
those people, and
good for the sport.

--
-----
change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA





  #119  
Old March 16th 04, 12:04 AM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Meyer wrote:
I have no problem with people that fly any kind of
glider, I just think that as a one-class contest design
the PW5 was a complete failure, and that a class incorporating
an existing 20ish year old design would have been much
more succesful.


If you believe that, then the glider you desire so much would NOT be an
LS4, because at the beginning of the World Class discussions, the LS4
was only 5 years old and competitive in the Standard Class. So, using
your criteria, a "20ish year old design" would be a Standard Cirrus! It
costs just as much to build a Standard Cirrus as an LS4, would you buy
one, or would you say, "Why should I buy a World Class Cirrus when for
less money I can get a used LS4?".

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

  #120  
Old March 16th 04, 12:17 AM
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jon Meyer wrote:

Are you therefore saying that the world class must
have less than 15m span just so that it cannot be construed
as being equivalent to one of the existing classes?


No, I'm saying it must be smaller to be cheaper. Bigger costs money.

I think that such a suggestion is completely contrary
to the aims of the world class, which are in my opinion,
very good.


Here was an important goal: "substantially lower costs than then-current
new gliders". It's the first one on the list in the history section of
the World Class Soaring Association (www.wcsa.org/history.htm).

The aim was to have a one-design class.


A big part of this was to achieve "cheap".

This would
enable us to compete in the olympics,


This was truly a minor side issue.

and would ensure
a level playing field for all competitors regardless
of their wealth. An LS4 only class would not be another
standard class, precisely for the reason that you could
not buy a discus or LS8 and enter it. It would be a
one-design contest, and as such would achieve the aims
of the world class.
Fixed undercarriage, no waterballast, even the requirement
for no flaps, are in my opinion all unnecessary requirements
for a world class glider,


If you want cheap, you have to leave off the things that make it costly.
These are expensive additions. The glider manufacturers were asked what
must be done to make a glider cheaply, and these things were on their
list. They add far more cost than performance, and make it more
complicated to fly. Simple to fly was also a goal. The people that came
up with the specifications didn't just make this stuff up.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Auction: Thermal Imaging Camera - One Day Left sell2all Rotorcraft 0 April 29th 04 08:29 PM
For Auction: Thermal Imaging Camera - One Day Left sell2all Naval Aviation 0 April 29th 04 08:09 PM
For Auction: Thermal Imaging Camera - One Day Left sell2all General Aviation 0 April 29th 04 08:09 PM
Spin on thermal entry - how-to Bill Daniels Soaring 0 January 29th 04 06:43 PM
Thermal to Wave contact! C.Fleming Soaring 1 January 21st 04 02:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.