Does anyone care to guess at why some more modern designs (Ventus 3, JS-3) have several stages of wing kink while some older designs (ASG29, Diana 2) don't?
Aerodynamics or economics? Rich On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 6:55 AM, DMcD <slutsw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>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. > > Agreed. The German certified glider industry is not innovative these > days. All the fuss about electric gliders is only possible because > most glider pilots don't look to anywhere other than 3 factories in > Germany. > > Their construction methods have not changed in 50 years. It's > staggering to see a worker with a jam jar fully of poxy bog and a pop > stick about to join a wing. The last place I saw a working manual > typewriter in use was Schleichers, about 6 years ago. > > Of course, a little investment in ATL machines and proper moulds would > help. I can't understand why yacht mast makers and boat builders can > mill a mould from solid alu for a single boat while glider > manufacturers stay with low-temp resin moulds which are reused for a > decade or more. > > Maybe we're not paying enough? Though I believe the problem is almost > entirely certification. > > D > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.base64.com.au http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
