 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wingCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Aviation Forum / General / Soaring / February 2010Racers Edge - Laser Wind Sensor
Can measure vertical wind aka thermal [catchthewindinc.com] > Can measure vertical wind aka thermal > > [catchthewindinc.com] Yes, but.... http://catchthewindinc.com/files/images/RLU_240pix_Width.png - 300 m range isn't all that much, OK for centering, not for locating a thermal - given its form and volume, the sensor will cut your glide angle by half if you place it on your glider (and at 50 pounds, play hell with your weight and balance) - I think the vertical wind information will be hidden by the relative wind - I couldn't find the listed price, but they suggest leasing one; sounds rather costly... > > Can measure vertical wind aka thermal > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > - I couldn't find the listed price, but they suggest leasing one; > sounds rather costly... I would disagree a bit. 300M would probably deliver more than 50% of the expected benefit of a remote thermal sensor. There will be diminished returns at longer ranges since thermals will dissipate (or be later in their life cycle) by the time you could get there. This particular unit is designed for years of service atop windmills but nonetheless indicates the underlying science is valid. Tech always gets smaller and cheaper with time. Give it a few years. > > > Can measure vertical wind aka thermal > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > but nonetheless indicates the underlying science is valid. Tech > always gets smaller and cheaper with time. Give it a few years. 18 lb and 1000m range. It looks like it just takes snapshots, but that would still be a great advantage. http://www.catchthewindinc.com/racers-edge Craig > > - 300 m range isn't all that much, OK for centering, not for locating > > a thermal > > 300M would probably deliver more than 50% of the expected benefit of a > remote thermal sensor. I agree, 300M is enough to win the worlds. Imagine f you always knew which way to turn! And people are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars / euros to do that. I wrote a "contest corner" on some thoughts about how thermal detectors will change things -- mostly for the better http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/thermal_detectors.mht John Cochrane Soaring friends, I called the company and confirmed it is $149,500.00 dollars for this wind/thermal detector. They are very aware of the sailplane community and are in the planning stages for a smaller and cheaper units for us. The sales guy said for my to stay tuned because it will be coming. It is all very exciting but overwhelmingly expensive. I have a hard enough time trying to explain to my wife the value of a $75K euros JS1 revelation dream ship a saw at the convention. I haven't even mentioned that the trailer and instruments are extra and the poor euro/dollar exchange rate. I see the great value but she is very very skeptical. As every man knows, the guy code clearly states that better-faster-nicer-cooler is always more fun! I'm sure this thermal detector at $150K would not go over well with the misses. At least the Eta guys set the bar quite high for an expensive ship and I can always use them as an example of what a really expensive ship might cost. Hey dear, this $250k ship with a thermal sensor is 75% cheaper than the million the Eta guys paid. What a deal! Maybe future technology should not be so focused on significant increases in performance but significant decreases in manufacturing cost and construction time. How many pilots might have sprung for the JS1 listed at $30-$40K which would be more similar to the cost of my car or boat and not more like my $150K house. The cost of new ships is cooling the sport and possibly a few marriages! Enough of my ranting, lets just go fly and enjoy because I feel very privileged to be one of the few in the world who knows what it is to soar! John Ackerson O.D. > Soaring friends, > I called the company and confirmed it is $149,500.00 dollars for [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > be one of the few in the world who knows what it is to soar! > John Ackerson O.D. The developers are just trying to recoup their R&D costs with high prices the 'early adopters' will pay. Electronic tech drops in price as manufacturers climb their learning curve. Bet: 5 years from now short range thermal detectors will cost < $2500. LIDAR developers probably have little knowledge they can contribute to reducing glider production costs - that's another group of people altogether. Gliders are a classic example of excessive choice leading to high costs. If we want 8 or more competition classes and a choice among scores of designs in each class, unit costs will be high because production runs will be short. Short production runs mean gliders are essentially hand built at high cost. The key to reducing glider costs is to increase the number of units in a production run by reducing the number of designs we expect manufacturers to produce. A good step in that direction would be to reduce the number of competition classes. I suggest the 18M class plus a handicapped club/sports class for everything else. > Gliders are a classic example of excessive choice leading to high > costs. If we want 8 or more competition classes and a choice among [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > plus a handicapped club/sports class for everything else. > I suggest that we eliminate the distortion caused by "building to class", and simply let the market figure out what kind of glider people are willing to pay for. All contest classes would be like the Club Class, and each country could pick the number of classes, and the performance spread in each, that worked best for them. No more "Meter" classes, no more Sports Class, no one design class, even no more Club Class. A small regional might decide on three classes, meaning "handicap spread": Class 1 =0.5 to .9, Class 2 = 0.91 to 1.1, Class 3 = 1.11 to 2. A big regional might go for four. National contest bands might be set by SSA each year after negotiations with the regions putting on a Nationals. Got lots of sites that want a Nationals? Set up narrow bands. Only a few? Set up wider bands. The manufactures would then build gliders of different sizes, performances, and costs, much like the automobile market, but every owner would know his glider was competitive in a class when he bought it, and even 20 years later, it would still be competitive in a class. I was saying stuff like this 25 years ago. Maybe it's time has come!  SignatureEric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me) - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz" Eric said, "A small regional might decide on three classes, meaning "handicap spread": Class 1 =0.5 to .9, Class 2 = 0.91 to 1.1, Class 3 = 1.11 to 2. A big regional might go for four. National contest bands might be set by SSA each year after negotiations with the regions putting on a Nationals. Got lots of sites that want a Nationals? Set up narrow bands. Only a few? Set up wider bands." An excellent idea! In theory, I love the *idea* of handicapping everything and making everyone competitive. However, my first Regional contest was a great illustration of the weakness of a handicap system. Michael Reid flew his Libelle (handicap of 1.02) against my DG-300 (handicap of 0.95). The weather consisted of isolated weak waves around the task area, with large blue holes in-between and little or no thermal activity. My superior glide- ratio gave me a large advantage when "jumping waves", much more than the handicap difference between our gliders would suggest. If you divide the handicaps up so finely that you account for these sorts of effects, you end up with a lot of classes! Dividing up by L/D or perhaps wing-loading might work better when it comes to squirrelly weather; but the bottom line is that no system works perfectly, and a lot of these suggestions - while nice in theory - are just a different way of solving the same problem in an incomplete and imperfect way... (and this is coming from a DG-300 driver who wishes his ship was competitive in more than just the Sports class) Take care, --Noel > Eric said, "A small regional might decide on three classes, meaning > "handicap [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > An excellent idea! > In theory, I love the *idea* of handicapping everything and making > everyone competitive. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ratio gave me a large advantage when "jumping waves", much more than > the handicap difference between our gliders would suggest. I'll take yet another stab at the idea of "weather handicapping" applied after the fact. When all the .igc files are in, it should be possible for the scorer to determine whether the conditions favored higher L/D gliders. If so, the scorer could choose one of say, five layers of "weather correction" to adjust the relative handicaps to better level the playing field. Taking your example, the Libelle's handicap would rise to perhaps 1.05 and the DG-300 would fall to .92 or whatever would level the field. >> In theory, I love the *idea* of handicapping everything and making >> everyone competitive. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Taking your example, the Libelle's handicap would rise to perhaps 1.05 > and the DG-300 would fall to .92 or whatever would level the field. This has been done at the South African Nationals during the past several years. For example, in the most recent contest, an ASH-25 had a stiffer handicap than the 18 M ships on weak days, but on strong days the 18M ships had the stiffer handicap. http://tinyurl.com/yzvx2ts > In theory, I love the *idea* of handicapping everything and making > everyone competitive. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > --Noel Noel, Your experience is a very good reason to expand the handicapped classes. It could work quite well. Mike > In theory, I love the *idea* of handicapping everything and making > everyone competitive. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the handicap difference between our gliders would suggest. > You got lucky that day. Think about how would he have fared WITHOUT the handicap. No one claims handicapping is, or can be, perfect, only that it will be better than no handicapping. And, that was just one day. Over several days, the effect of unique conditions like that can be diminished to the level of the "luck factor" that affects every contest day. I think the Club Class has shown limited performance band handicapping can work well. SignatureEric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me) - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz > I think the Club Class has shown limited performance band handicapping > can work well. For the record: I'm not saying Club or Sports Class isn't a good thing. I enjoy it and I *do* think it works for most of the time. BUT I don't believe it should be the MAIN way of creating/ differentiating racing classes. --Noel > >> I think the Club Class has shown limited performance band handicapping [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > differentiating racing classes. > Currently, we use handicapping for Sports and Club, one design for World Class, span limit for 15 M, span limit and flap prohibition for Standard, and weight for Open. At present, it doesn't appear we have "main" way (a way that defines a majority of gliders flying in contests?). What do you suggest for defining classes that cover the majority of gliders competing? And what goal would the method serve? The method I suggest serves the goals of 1. Pilots can buy the glider they prefer ("the market at work"), picking the size, performance, and cost that matches their desires the most. 2. Every glider will be competitive it's entire life. 3. There will always be enough gliders for full classes, because class participation can be set by local, regional, national, and international groups to match the numbers of gliders in their area, and the wishes of the pilots, just by adjusting the class handicap band to produce the number of classes needed. SignatureEric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me) - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz > 3. There will always be enough gliders for full classes, because > class participation can be set by local, regional, national, and > international groups to match the numbers of gliders in their > area, and the wishes of the pilots, just by adjusting the class > handicap band to produce the number of classes needed. Huh. And what happens at a Regional when only 10 pilots register, with "large" (perceived at least) handicap differences? If the organizers don't split up the classes finely enough, I predict pilots will drop out of the contest because they'll feel that they're being forced to race in an uncompetitive class. This is regardless of the fact that their performance may be at a bigger disadvantage NOW (in Std or 15m) than it would be in a handicapped class - because once you go to all-handicap classes, you set the attitude in people's minds that they are going to be guaranteed to be competitive. Once they realize that they still might not be, you're going to have a bunch of people upset and you'll find yourself right back in this mess... At least, IMHO. ;-) --Noel > 3. There will always be enough gliders for full classes, because > class participation can be set by local, regional, national, and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > forced to race in an uncompetitive class. > You are still better off than now; after all you could simply set handicap bands to mimic the current classes, if that makes the pilots happy. The racing within the classes would still be more competitive with handicaps than without. > This is regardless of the fact that their performance may be at a > bigger disadvantage NOW (in Std or 15m) than it would be in a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yourself right back in this mess... > Nonsense, anyone that shows up a regional with only ten gliders will realize the whole contest is in trouble already, and adjust his expectations accordingly. The regional organizers are going to be a grumpy group with such a low turnout, because they are losing money, and all but the most clueless pilot will realize whining might mean the whole thing is canceled. The problem is, you need a minimum number of pilots to make contest class count, and with only 10 gliders, it might mean only the Sports class could reach that number. My point is you are never worse off, because you can always use handicap bands that mimic the current classes, and generally you'd be better off because you can shuffle the bands around to match what shows up. SignatureEric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me) - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz However, my first Regional contest was a great illustration of the weakness of a handicap system. <snip> My superior glide- ratio gave me a large advantage when "jumping waves", much more than the handicap difference between our gliders would suggest. If you divide the handicaps up so finely that you account for these sorts of effects, you end up with a lot of classes! Dividing up by L/D or perhaps wing-loading might work better when it comes to squirrelly weather; but the bottom line is that no system works perfectly, <snip> ************************* How about 2 or 3 different handicap systems, and the system to be used is only to be chosen the morning of the flight after considering factors such as weather and thermal and wave strengths. That way, the most accurate system for the conditions could be used to give the most accurate and fair results. SignatureJim in NC > Gliders are a classic example of excessive choice leading to high > costs. If we want 8 or more competition classes and a choice among [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > reduce the number of competition classes. I suggest the 18M class > plus a handicapped club/sports class for everything else. It appears that the market has chosen to go there. I believe essentially the only new gliders being built these days are single-seat 18m and double-seat 20m. Not many people are buying Standard Class or 15M Class. In a few years, we can eliminate the Standard and 15M Nationals, keeping only the 18M and Club/Sports. > > Gliders are a classic example of excessive choice leading to high > > costs. If we want 8 or more competition classes and a choice among [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 15M Class. In a few years, we can eliminate the Standard and 15M > Nationals, keeping only the 18M and Club/Sports. Actually Greg I think the reason there are no new 15m and Std ships being sold is no one knows if those classes are going to be around in the future. If there was a clear statement of what classes will exist in the future we would likely still be able to have a Std or 15M class. I still prefer a 15M ship with a 510 pound empty weight to an 18M ship. > I still prefer a 15M ship with a 510 pound empty weight How many of those are there? Any examples? (not brochure weight but actual, as delivered, empty weight). The only one that I would guess may be that light is the Dianna 2 but I haven't checked the specs since I don't think I can't fit in one. Andy > > I still prefer a 15M ship with a 510 pound empty weight > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Andy My Ventus 2a with instruments and oxygen is 513 pounds (233 kg). You guys flying those bloated ASX gliders ;-). My crew loves the glider, says it is her favorite. The only one she liked before that was my Std. Cirrus. No one runs away when I rig/derig. I would guess the D2's are about as light or lighter. As I said the 15M and Standards have been done a large disservice by the lack of clear plans for classes. Some try to argue that everyone just wanted 18M. My memory was that the 18M was sold on the bases that it was a better wingspan for a motor glider platform and in theory was the optimum wingspan for cost/performance ratio to build. Which class still has the highest number of participants at the Nationals? > > Gliders are a classic example of excessive choice leading to high > > costs. If we want 8 or more competition classes and a choice among [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 15M Class. In a few years, we can eliminate the Standard and 15M > Nationals, keeping only the 18M and Club/Sports. People will buy what they want to buy, race what they want to race. Given adequate participation, there is no reason to 'kill' a class. People have been predicting the imminent demise of 15m in my hearing since 1992. *Shrug* -Evan Ludeman / T8 > > Gliders are a classic example of excessive choice leading to high > > costs. If we want 8 or more competition classes and a choice among [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 15M Class. In a few years, we can eliminate the Standard and 15M > Nationals, keeping only the 18M and Club/Sports. Scenario: No new evolving technology to drive the development of a new (fill in std or 15m) glider. Market is pretty much satisfied as far as demand- top players all have "new" stuff and recreational pilots are absorbing some production capacity at lower rate. Need to keep production going. Promote and develop a new class. Sound familiar? Std is a slowly shrinking class in competition. 15M is relatively stable. 18M has taken some from std(&arguably 15M) and absorbed the effect of any new influx. I'm not sure this says any will be dead any time soon. It does show , in my view ,that the only people buying gliders are the ones that can afford the big ones. Everybody else just trades up, down, or sideways. FWIW UH > Scenario: > No new evolving technology to drive the development of a new (fill in [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Not "everybody else" trades up, down, or sideways. Some of us (one of us?) stay faithful to the same old glider year after year after year... :-) Ray Lovinggood Carrboro, North Carolina, USA LS1-d, s/n 27, driver since 1994. >Not "everybody else" trades up, down, or sideways. Some of us (one of >us?) stay faithful to the same old glider year after year after [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Carrboro, North Carolina, USA >LS1-d, s/n 27, driver since 1994. Well Ray, it's those spoil-sports like you (refusing to buy new gliders) who will eventually kill the last glider manufacturer... ;) Cheers Andreas, who's also driving a 26 year old ship... p.s. We just sold our 1994 DG-505 for a little more money than we spent on it when we bought it from the factory. What a pity that the new Duo is so much more expensive... > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:02:39 -0800 (PST), rlovinggood > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > it when we bought it from the factory. What a pity that the new Duo is > so much more expensive... Andreas, How can I kill the last glider manufacturer when I'll probably end up paying him several hundred Euro per year to stay a member "in good standing" in his club? In return for my donation to his Country Club, I will get, hmmm, I will get, hmmm, I will get poorer. Ray > > On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:02:39 -0800 (PST), rlovinggood > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Ray C'mon Ray, you could also get a new coversheet for your flight manual. Lets not undervalue your contribution. >Andreas, > >How can I kill the last glider manufacturer when I'll probably end up >paying him several hundred Euro per year to stay a member "in good >standing" in his club? In return for my donation to his Country Club, >I will get, hmmm, I will get, hmmm, I will get poorer. Ray, don't worry - I dare to predict that you are not going to have to pay the DG-fee for a long time... Bye Andreas >The key to reducing glider costs is to increase the number of units in >a production run by reducing the number of designs we expect >manufacturers to produce. A good step in that direction would be to >reduce the number of competition classes. I suggest the 18M class >plus a handicapped club/sports class for everything else. Hi Bill, as soon as you can demonstrate that it is possible to build (and sell) an 18m class glider for the same (or less) costs as a Standard class glider, I'm with you. Unfortunately I have my doubts... I'd really like a handicapped class. This summer I'll be taking part in a competition where I have a 4-7 meter wing span disadvantage to the competitors... :) Bye Andreas > >The key to reducing glider costs is to increase the number of units in > >a production run by reducing the number of designs we expect [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Bye > Andreas There are plenty of examples of manufacturing economies of scale in the literature. It would be interesting to see unit production cost vs. production volume figures for composite windmill blades which are somewhat similar to sailplanes. Aircraft unit costs, regardless of construction materials, are usually closely related to the length of a production run. We don't know where the economies of scale 'kick in' for sailplanes since no production run has been long enough. Some productions runs are 'accidental' in that the manufacturer didn't expect a long run so didn't invest in tooling up front. To make that investment in tooling, he has to be very sure of a long run before production starts. Manufacturer's look to us as consumers of his product for that information. That's where a reduction in the number of competition classes would help. Unit costs usually follow a downward curve as production rates rise enough to make labor saving tooling economical. (http://tinyurl.com/ ycoa3k7) That same tooling usually produces products with tighter tolerances than hand builds. I know Bob K has looked into this. >There are plenty of examples of manufacturing economies of scale in >the literature. It would be interesting to see unit production cost >vs. production volume figures for composite windmill blades which are >somewhat similar to sailplanes. Aircraft unit costs, regardless of >construction materials, are usually closely related to the length of a >production run. Sounds great in theory - but so far noone ever was able to demonstrate this with composites - even the biggest windmill blades ares still produced the traditional way in huge numbers. >That's where a reduction in the number of >competition classes would help. Well - the market these days definitely demands 18m gliders with an engine. Soon it will be 21m gliders. Hard to produce such a glider for the cost of a much simpler 15m fixed wing glider. >Unit costs usually follow a downward curve as production rates rise >enough to make labor saving tooling economical. (http://tinyurl.com/ >ycoa3k7) That same tooling usually produces products with tighter >tolerances than hand builds. I know Bob K has looked into this. Nice idea - if it really works, and if the investment is affordable for a glider manufacturer. Bye Andreas > ...as soon as you can demonstrate that it is possible to build (and sell) > an 18m class glider for the same (or less) costs as a Standard class > glider, I'm with you. > > Unfortunately I have my doubts... An 18m is never going to be the same or less as a standard. However, look at the TOTAL PACKAGE price, including trailer, instruments, delivery, etc. If 18m is just a few % more, why would anyone choose standard ? That's the question to ask. Even before considering motor possibilities... That logic reflects how purchasers are voting with their wallets... See ya, Dave >- I couldn't find the listed price, but they suggest leasing one; >sounds rather costly... I have been told around 140.000 Euro. "Winning the nationals? priceless!" ;-) Aldo > I have been told around 140.000 Euro. > > "Winning the nationals? priceless!" > ;-) > > Aldo But this won't help win the US nationals because it would be prohibited by rule 6.6.1. Maybe if they becaome cheap enough that rule will go away just like the prohibition on using GPS for navigation. Do other counties allow remote thermal sensing equipment for comps? Andy >But this won't help win the US nationals because it would be >prohibited by rule 6.6.1. ... >Do other counties allow remote thermal sensing equipment for comps? > >Andy I don't know that rule, but the FAI sporting code (I think) prohibits the use of _external_ aids for locating lift. You can watch out for gliders in the climb, you can talk with your team partner on the official radio frequency, but you can't get info from a non-competing-glider. So, I would guess that electronic instruments brought by the pilot himself, are not banned. Aldo |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.