I had considered a longer more complex rejoinder to Mike's reply below, but on reflection it simply boils down to, in my opinion, the fact that a well chosen World Class Glider was the last opportunity for wage earners and youth to participate in the sport at a meaningful level.
Chris McDonnell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Borgelt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring inAustralia." <aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net> Sent: Wednesday, 6 April 2005 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] World Class Glider > At 07:15 PM 5/04/05 +0930, you wrote: > >Mike, before I weigh into this issue, when you said: > > > >"The PW5 was a really dumb idea that saw the light of day because not enough > > IGC delegates were smart enough to vote against it." > > > >Did you mean the "World Class Glider" concept was a dumb idea or the PW5 was > >a dumb selection? > > > >Regards > > > >Chris McDonnell > > > Both. > > 1. The trailer, instruments, launches, time off, travel, etc cost about the > same regardless of the airframe type. There may be small savings in weight > towed and a smaller car might be possible but against a 15m/Standard glider > we are talking less than 100Kg empty sailplane weight. So any cost savings > are largely illusory. > > 2.The premise was that there was a large pent up demand for contest gliding > which could be realised by providing a "cheaper" glider that would not > rapidly become obsolete. The estimate was that they would sell 3000 in the > first 5 years. They sold about 200 or a few more. Obviously something was > wrong. > > 3.The PW5 is *ugly*. It doesn't even look much like a modern glider. If > they had put the same wings on say an SZD55 fuselage they might have been > on to something. The PW6 two seater looks much nicer. > > 4. The PW5 wasn't particularly cheap. It was far more expensive than an > older glider with 30% better performance. > > 5.Choosing to go with performance that was typical of production gliders 30 > years before the selection is inexplicable. In that thirty years the > fiberglass revolution occurred. More performance = fewer > outlandings(outlandings are not fun) and more days that can be contest > days.(wind etc). Performance is also *fun* in itself. The selection > guidelines were faulty. > > 6.The "club" class is the "world class". It allows use of gliders that are > obsolete for current FAI class contests.(Why "sports class" got renamed has > to do with political correctness and more flogging of dead horses I > suspect). There may be a need for an A and B club class as time goes on. > Handicapping is easier and fairer if the performance disparity is too great. > > 7. The IGC only promised to freeze the World class rules for 10 years I > think. Currently and for some time before, the life of a top FAI contest > glider has been at least that long. > > 8. Choosing a winner in a contest structured like the World Class selection > is guaranteed to result in production of a prototype. Most machines benefit > from engineering improvements. If you are going to do this select a short > list and tell them to go away for 12 months and improve their products. > Then make a selection. > > 9. Given what showed up the committee could have said none of the machines > are suitable. It has been done before in design contests sponsored by the > BGA and GFA. There may be other instances. > > 10. This kind of contest is like governments "picking winners". That works > out well usually doesn't it? Private citizens vote with their wallets > and/or feet. > > 11. Much(but not all - the advent of carbon fiber and custom designed wing > sections in that 1970's was another small revolution - the last one so far) > of the "obsolescence" of gliders during the 70's 80's and 90's was simply > due to ever increasing wing loadings. We now have 600Kg 18m missiles. > The simple way to guard against this would have been to limit the max > flying weight in contests of limited span classes. It happened in open > class for a while but the IGC seems intent on stuffing that up too by > upping the max weight limit. Wing loading won't do it as the next > generation simply gets more chord. Limit the span and the weight and you > are then free to do the best aerodynamic design. You will find there has > been very little improvement in that for the last 25 years. > I cannot think why in contests the glider weight should not be limited to > the heaviest glider/pilot combination flying in that contest. Others > ballast to that weight. > > That's just a random selection of thoughts. > > Mike > > > > > > Borgelt Instruments - manufacturers of quality soaring instruments > phone Int'l + 61 746 355784 > fax Int'l + 61 746 358796 > cellphone Int'l + 61 428 355784 > Int'l + 61 429 355784 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > website: www.borgeltinstruments.com > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
