Aesthetics?
Sent from my Samsung GALAXY S5
-------- Original message --------
From: Richard Hatch <[email protected]>
Date: 14/12/2016 08:30 (GMT+10:00)
To: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia."
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] JS3
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 <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
