{"id":13478,"date":"2016-12-02T13:16:02","date_gmt":"2016-12-02T12:16:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dg-flugzeugbau.de\/en\/?page_id=13478"},"modified":"2016-12-02T13:16:02","modified_gmt":"2016-12-02T12:16:02","slug":"back-to-the-roots","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.dg-aviation.de\/en\/library\/back-to-the-roots","title":{"rendered":"Back to the roots"},"content":{"rendered":"

Or: Are we manoeuvring ourselves into a dead end?<\/h3>\n

We’d like to hear your views.<\/h4>\n

I received the following mail and thought long and hard about what I was going to do about it.
\nBut see for yourself:<\/p>\n

Dear Mr Weber,<\/p>\n

in light of the French study, wouldn’t it be an idea to offer a glider type for less testosterone? A glider type that admittedly doesn’t reach the performance of gliders with a wing loading the other side of 40kg\/m\u00b2 in great conditions, but which, for exactly that reason, may be available to “normal” pilots on those kind of days, and which climbs well in weak thermals due to its lower wing loading – in conditions when the “top people” can only fly around the thermals and lose out. A type that can be landed at 27kts on a sprung and at least 3\/4 retractable main wheel, thus reducing the risk of damage and injury in a field landing in a much more primitive way than by fitting an engine.<\/p>\n

Such a glider type doesn’t need to be a primitive thing like the Czech Banjo, but a wing area of approx. 11m\u00b2 at 15m wing span, a thicker and more curved profile (approx. 16%) and the use of mainly carbon fibre could make an empty weight of 310lb (140kg) with a vne of approx. 80kts (150kph) a real possibility. Designing a glider like this would present a totally different challenge to building the heavy high-performance ships. To achieve such a low wing loading (approx. 22kg\/m\u00b2), slightly different profiles will be necessary, maybe one of the Eppler profiles would be suitable – the fs-24 profile was not bad, after all. (And I would also have an idea for a different, lighter, spar construction). An impeccable finish is probably even more challenging and important to achieve on such a light aircraft than on one of its heavier colleagues.<\/p>\n

I don’t think that your company would lower its standards if you started building this kind of glider. Quite the opposite, it would be a great addition to the product range.
\nIn brief: a glider for the majority of pilots!<\/p>\n

I believe that club gliders should not just always be basic versions of competition glider types, they should not aim to meet lower expectations, but instead they should be able to provide a satisfying gliding experience in weaker weather conditions and thus enable pilots to do more flights, more hours, per flight as well as over the whole year! It was possible, after all, to carry out thermal cross-country flights in December with the second version of the Windspiel (78kg). Wouldn’t it be great if this were possible again, and not just with an L\/D of 22 then, and (allegedly) 28 today, like the Banjo, but with an L\/D of 37, like the fs-24 Ph\u00f6nix (admittedly with 16 m wing span).<\/p>\n

And even if people can’t do without the adrenalin and testosterone-rich advertising effect of record flights and competitions: Why not organise a weak weather comp in the Northern German flatlands in mid October? Whoever would win such a comp would do so because of the nature of their mostly second-hand gliders rather than any high-performance ship, which would be too heavy for this kind of event. In addition, there are always days in autumn – from the end of September – where there are cloud streets building over the (western part of the) Mediterranean as the sea is still warm and the air above it therefore generally unstable. A lightweight, high-performance glider designed for weak weather conditions should be able to put those to good use! How does that sound – to Mallorca in a glider? The first 300km flight over open water?<\/p>\n

In the same way as the DG brand has a Mercedes-like reputation, and LS is seen as the Porsche equivalent of the gliding world, surely there must be a niche for something similar to the (technically not necessarily simple) brand VW. That would be a big step towards getting an ex-glider pilot like me back into the movement.<\/p>\n

(If you then fitted a twin undercarriage and a winch that’s remotely controlled from the glider so that one man can launch his glider without any help, you would create the perfect situation for the ex-pilots (who may be more suitable as role models) who want to fly again but also want to spend time with their wife and children, and who don’t want to be subtly kicked out by the “ambitious pilots” (who often have less responsibility for others) via family-unfriendly morning briefings.<\/p>\n

There is always a close relation between the fleet and social network in a club. You could open a very important door there.<\/p>\n

Oh, I would be delighted, I would almost love to help design it.<\/p>\n

Kind regards,<\/p>\n

Klaus Kleinhoff<\/p>\n

\n

Here my quick reply:<\/p>\n

Dear Mr Kleinhoff,<\/p>\n

your detailed mail is, as ever, a joy to read.<\/p>\n

My response to your suggestions is that the whole thing is a non-starter, for the simple reason that it is not cheaper to build a “bad” glider than a “good” one.
\nAn alternative may be to spend \u008015,000 (or \u00a310,000 \/ $20,000) on a good DG-100 or LS1f – they can give you joy for many decades.<\/p>\n

Another option would be a UL glider like e.g. the “Apis”. It is light and easy to rig, but it doesn’t fit into the German certification regulations. For that the MTOW of 120kg (265lb) would have to be increased a little.<\/p>\n

Regarding your mail – I would love to open this subject up for discussion. Believe me, I don’t fancy building gliders which are mainly aimed at the few competition pilots and only moderately suitable for the masses. To kick-start that discussion it would really be worth publishing a new article.<\/p>\n

Should I?<\/p>\n

\n

Dear Mr Weber,<\/p>\n

for heaven’s sake, no, I don’t want you to build a cheap, and by no means a bad glider.
\nWhat I had in mind would not be much cheaper than a 15m LS8 or a 15m DG, because only the material costs will be slightly lower (due to less mass), but not the labour cost. You should definitely use (expensive) carbon fibre – indeed in the wing you should use it nearly exclusively. And of course it should be a non-strutted wing.<\/p>\n

My idea is not about a different financial budget but a different time budget. Someone who is highly flexible in their job (even if it’s only because they have to be, in order to feed and educate a bunch of children), has to be less flexible in their spare time, whether they like it or not. When such pilots have some spare time, they probably want to go and fly – instead of waiting for the “stonking thermal days”, which are rather rare and tend to happen exactly during the annual family holiday, or when they are away on business. Or when the “better” fellow club member has taken the glider away on a “bigger” task. The most likely time they will be able to fly will probably be later in the afternoon\/evening, but the average, competition-tuned glider will not be able to find sufficient lift.<\/p>\n

If such a glider were flown by club members for about 400 instead of, say, 150 hours per year then it would actually be cheaper to run even if it’s only maybe 15% cheaper to buy, as the cost of interest to be paid on the money raised for its purchase is less if you see it in relation to the glider’s utilisation.<\/p>\n

Because of the much lighter wings (preferably split into three sections), frequent rigging and derigging would cause much less back pain. This would be of interest to private pilots as they would not have to find a hangar space, which in turn eliminates the risk of hangar rash.<\/p>\n

Please feel free to publish this, in fact I’d be glad if I may have contributed just a little bit to a new development.<\/p>\n

Kind regards,<\/p>\n

Klaus Kleinhoff<\/p>\n

\n

What are your thoughts on this?<\/h3>\n

To our surprise, the study mentioned earlier indeed revealed that the vast majority of glider pilots are not interested in competition flying. (In the three age sections, 79%, 88% and 78% did not want to fly in competitions!) If this is the case, why do we build such narrow cockpits which are supposed to reduce drag by tiny, immeasurable percentages, but stop slightly bigger club members from flying those gliders? Surely this doesn’t help ensure the future of our sport either!
\nI can tell you why we do it:<\/p>\n

“Win on Sunday, sell on Monday!” – it seems that the competition results are an important criterion for a lot of potential buyers after all, and the “better” fellow pilots mentioned above often seem to be the decision makers in clubs. All this despite the fact that the performance of all modern gliders is so similar that the competition results are almost entirely down to the pilots’ skills and a bit of luck!<\/p>\n

But what do you think? Please write your opinion to<\/p>\n

weber@dg-flugzeugbau.de<\/a><\/p>\n

– friedel weber –<\/h5>\n

Translation: Claudia B\u00fcngen<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Your Comments:<\/h2>\n

Dear Mr Weber,<\/p>\n

I think this is an interesting discussion.\u00a0 I agree with Mr. Kleinhoff’s basic proposition that there should be a glider for maximum pleasure for the typical pilot rather than maximum performance for the minority of competition pilots. I do not agree on his proposal for the type of glider to do this and I can understand your initial response.<\/p>\n

I think the PW-5 gives a good example. This was designed based on mistaken
\nlogic:<\/p>\n