Not only save weight but the wings wouldn't shrink, warp or develop waviness.
Using pre pregs in the fuselage would save non lifting parts weight
and save even more wing weight.
I don't know what the GP Gliders guys are using but they show a test
to destruction of the GP14 13.5 meter wing. Broke at over 10 G and
the wing weighs 31Kg.
I think using their technology they could build an 18M two seat
electric self launcher with an empty weight of 300 KG. I think the
GP14/15 looks even better than the JS3 although I must congratulate
the Jonkers for actually designing what looks like a complete new
glider instead of the German method of simply adding different wings
to an existing fuselage.
For moving gliders around on the ground it may be time to put two
wheel main landing gear on the things and steerable tailwheels with
electric motors in the main wheels for taxiing. This would also work
for motorless gliders.
Mike
/At 06:18 PM 12/13/2016, you wrote:
>>This makes the whole rigging and de-rigging issue almost irrelevant.
Yes, but makes the handling of the glider on a remote airstrip very
much more important because you don't have your mates around you to
help rotate the glider, push back beyond the cones, run a wing etc.
Gliders like the 25 are great if you always land back where you took
off from but if you are going away from home, you need to bring some
friends along.
My guess is that if the Germans went for pre-preg they'd save a heap
of weight in the wings.
D
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
Borgelt Instruments - design & manufacture of quality soaring
instrumentation since 1978
www.borgeltinstruments.com
tel: 07 4635 5784 overseas: int+61-7-4635 5784
mob: 042835 5784 : int+61-42835 5784
P O Box 4607, Toowoomba East, QLD 4350, Australia
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
