Volume 32 No 1 Feb-Mar 1981.pdf - Lakes Gliding Club

Tftl~fEftTHERSFirst in a new seriesof irreverent columnsbyP~flTYPUSAre Glider Pilots Mad?(See last issue. p306)For Or Brennig James, self-confessed hero of innumerable(but not untold) gliding escapades 'in many countries, includingan abortive and rllinousexpedition to the Himalayas (where the·inscr\ltable local rulers rendered him every assist1lnce short ofactual help) to suggest that his fellow glider pilots may not haveall the marbles Ihal God gave them, verges, some would say, onrhutzpah. (See the last issue, p·306.) The burden of Doe James'sargument, in case you are interested,is thal by ftyiAg a motorglider (HI a 'light throttle you can get 40: I and obviate the needfor a £ 14 000 racing ship. A bit more power and you emulate thebest the OpeA Class can tlilrow at you. Hm. The I'etlllclio (/dabSlIl'dulI1 of that logic is to pack all the Booker members inlo a747 (or beller still, a OC·IO, suggests a Ollnstable pilot) and flyAs to cost I was impressed by ,the argument of the distinguishedPror R. Eppler'" that for the cos·t of a napped 15 metrewing one can build a much more efficient 'Unflapped wing of 18metres, or more. A 1981 equivalent of the Dart 17 or SH K willnot be buill however, because there .is no pl~H:e for them inNational and International contests. A pity, since it wouldalmost certainly be the most efJicient machine by the criteria Ihave suggested. !'vejust had a thought: why don't we persuadethe owner of an ASW-20L to tly with lip extensions but withr-I~~9~~GUD~. ~~:rERNATIONALuthe whole show round the world on a light throttle. The cost perpassenger mile would be far cheaper than gliding. I'm surethere's a flaw -there somewhere, but 1'm Ilot sure what it is.Neverthe'less the strange thirngs that Brennig says usuallyhave embedded in them some nugget of truth: in this case he israising Ihe valid questions, are we paying an unnecessarily highIprice for p~rformance these days and what is the most costeffectiveway of covering the ground in soaring Oight?An incomplete allsw,er ,to the first question (see Platypus.October issue, p21O) is that it doesn't cost any more in realterms than twenty years ago. But of course we could still bepaying more than necessary because of the artificial constraintsof contest flying, which may improve the breed but onlyimproves it from the point of view of contest pilots. The chiefdistorting factors are the entirely arbitrary 15 metre limit on theStandard and Racing Classes and the emphasis on speed-flyingin the best Pilrl of ,the day. The best definition of cross-countrycost-efficiency for the ordinary club pilot would be the cost perdosed-rircllit mile aer·oss 1/ whole yelll'. Clearly the glider thatcould soar cross-cOuntry before Ilam and after 6pm not just inthe summertime but ,in the eady spring and IHte autumn or eventhe winter, day'light p.ennitting, would do well ,in the mileagestakes. Let us therefore encourage the Nationalladcler and anyother scheme that puts a premium on maximum utilisation.~~naps fixed in one position (to simulate a 16Y2 metre untlappedg1ider) against an ASW-20 without tips but having full use of allthe tlappery? My money would be on the unflapped version ­except for landing in smalli fiel'ds where the tlaps are said to besuperb. However that does not really alTect the argument, sinceon a purpose-built ulltlapped glider a cheap but effective airbrakesystem is quite feasible. You see (if he says it again Iswear I'll scream Eo) - oh all right. out of respect for herfeelings I'll say it under my breath: Th':'r*'s n* s*bst'T'T"Pr sp*n!'Foolllote: See 5&G, JUM 1977. plt5 - "All ;llcYl'me ill lI'illl: .'pall cosl... 'Tr.\'lillle compared willl lite ill.'lallill/! o[flaps. An 18m Class .dl/, all vlller reslri