new Soaring article

I wrote an article for Soaring, that will appear in the July issue.
Title: "Gizmo Future." A somewhat unusual view of the "what's in the
future for Soaring" kind of article. It's on my webpage if you just
can't wait for July,

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...ers/gizmo.html

John Cochrane

John,

One of the best soaring related articles I have read in a long time!

You ask about a military application for thermal detectors. I seem to
remember reading somewhere that the US military is involved in exactly this
technology, to make their light UAV's able to stay airborne much longer on a
given amount of fuel/battery.

And you state that your ASW-27 will outfly any ETA if you had these modern
technologies. -But.... Then you'd have trouble with ETA's that also have the
gizmo's, right? Well, I guess that is what drives innovation, anyway.

Cheers,
Lars Peder
DG-600, Denmark



"John Cochrane" wrote in message
...
I wrote an article for Soaring, that will appear in the July issue.
Title: "Gizmo Future." A somewhat unusual view of the "what's in the
future for Soaring" kind of article. It's on my webpage if you just
can't wait for July,

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...ers/gizmo.html

John Cochrane

yes, very nice article John. Thanks!

On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony wrote:
yes, very nice article John. Thanks!

I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
$15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.

On May 12, 3:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony wrote:

yes, very nice article John. Thanks!

I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
$15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.

Thanks for the important thought.
There is a big difference between "push" or "require" and "allow."
I also notice the same difference of opinion in cheaper classes
though. Everyone seems to love $2000 winglets on Club class gliders.
Why allow these but ban $2000 electronics?
John

On May 12, 4:19*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
On May 12, 3:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony wrote:

yes, very nice article John. Thanks!

I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
$15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.

Thanks for the important thought.
There is a big difference between "push" or "require" and "allow."
I also notice the same difference of opinion in cheaper classes
though. Everyone seems to love $2000 winglets on Club class gliders.
Why allow these but ban $2000 electronics?
John

I think "allow" is the operative word. One thing that all of the
various sanctioning bodies (FAI/IGC/NACs) will have to address at some
point is a class that is primarily aimed at lowest possible cost. In
the US we have the 1-26, but that's not necessarily a long-term or
broad enough solution. Every other racing sport I can think of has
events and classes that are very specifically aimed at low cost of
entry (Sunfish or equivalent in sailing; all sorts of "stock" classes
in various forms of motor racing). If "Club Class" starts to mean
$30K or more investment, to be competitive, then it probably serves
us right if the "racing" aspect of the sport declines.

Probably kind of hard to swallow coming from a guy with an LS8 and a
brand new ClearNav, but believe me, the conversation around the dinner
table certainly gravitates to "So, what was in that box from [insert
name of soaring instrument supplier here] that arrived via UPS more
often than I'd like..."

P3

On May 12, 1:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony wrote:

yes, very nice article John. Thanks!

I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
$15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.

Andrzej -

Good point. However, I would like to point out that the current club/
sports class prohibits water-ballast, right? So there's already a
precedent for limiting equipment in specific competition classes. And
as prices and equipment changes over time, these limitations can be
reviewed and adjusted.

--Noel

On May 12, 5:08*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On May 12, 1:09*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

On May 12, 2:56*pm, Tony wrote:

yes, very nice article John. Thanks!

I don't agree with you John. Yes from the prospective of an ASW-27
owner or an ASG-29 owner spending $2,000 on a new gizmo is not a
problem but it is a competition entry barrier for people who fly
$15,000-20,000 gliders. If we keep pushing new gizmos into our
cockpits and require them we will cut off many potential competition
pilots from the pleasures of participating in contests. Something to
think about it. Not everyone flies an expensive glider.

Andrzej -

Good point. *However, I would like to point out that the current club/
sports class prohibits water-ballast, right? *So there's already a
precedent for limiting equipment in specific competition classes. *And
as prices and equipment changes over time, these limitations can be
reviewed and adjusted.

--Noel

I can see yet another sailplane class...."Unlimited Electronics Class "

On May 12, 1:40*pm, "Lars Peder Hansen"
wrote:
John,
CLIP . I seem to
remember reading somewhere that the US military is involved in exactly this
technology, to make their light UAV's able to stay airborne much longer on a
given amount of fuel/battery.
CLIP

Correct - this is a DARPA funded project. I do not know if it is still running but it was two years ago

dbn

Hi John,

Thanks for the article. I enjoyed it.

Do you have a list of references? I am particularly interested in
what is described in the section "New Varios and Dynamic Soaring."
The hardware for the vario you describe could probably be built for
$500 in parts. I'd love to see any papers or other documentation on
the state-estimation techniques that would use the information from
those sensors to make a more sensitive vario.

-Lyle


On May 11, 6:36*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
I wrote an article for Soaring, that will appear in the July issue.
Title: "GizmoFuture." A somewhat unusual view of the "what's in thefuturefor Soaring" kind of article. It's on my webpage if you just
can't wait for July,

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...ers/gizmo.html

John Cochrane