How do you like your PW-5
Snead1
glider with some of the owners.
WBY0NDER
Zealand (I think it's called Gliding Wellington now and is easily found by
searching) that covers my experience flying the PW-5 as a XC novice during a
one day club class competition on the north island. There are 4 stories of
mine in the story section of the site and I think the one about the PW-5 is
called Team America something... I think anyone who is interested in flying
the PW-5 would find it useful. If you have trouble finding it just email me
and I'd be happy to dig it up and send it to you directly. VERY nice handling,
delightful for cross country, in a nutshell
Matt Michael
CFIG
Note that the 0 in "wby0...@aol.com" is a zero
Brent Sullivan
experiences so far are off-season flying (Texas, Soaring Club of Houston).
That said, here are my impressions:
It climbs well in weak, disorganized thermals.
Penetrates headwind better than I had been lead to believe.
Very responsive.
You could land it in a large back yard (slight hyperbole)
Good visibility except on slow tows (just talk to the pilot)
I've spun it 3 ways:
Pull the nose up hard and kick the rudder as it stalls--recovers as advertised,
just neutralize the controls. I simply let go of the controls as it began spinning
and it recovered at about one revolution.
Thermalling turn--I used about 45 degree bank and went slower and slower until it
fell out. It was very obvious by noise, attitude and progressively mushier control
response that a stall was emminent. I don't recall any buffeting. This time I
applied opposite rudder and neutralized the stick resulting in a recovery at about
one revolution.
Bad approach - at altitude I simulated a bad base to final turn with minimal bank
and too much rudder. Here too control response became mushy and this time there
was noticable buffeting. I used an aggressive response providing full opposite
rudder, neutralizing and then easing the stick forward. The ship recovered in 1/2
to 3/4 revolution.
I didn't focus on altitude loss in any of those situations but I believe it was
very slight, maybe in the 100-125' range.
I'm very excited about flying the PW-5 in the coming season. I've been defining
tasks using Waypoint+ and planning my Silver distance. I won't even need a booming
day to do it.
One other thing--I have 3 co-owners. We belong to a club that has about 170
members. In December, only the clubs' primary training ship flew more tows than we
did in our PW-5.
Marty Eiler and all those other speed/distance demons I've been reading about here
lately have nothing to fear from a PW-5 jockey. On the other hand, the grin
capacity of the PW-5 must be among the largest in the world--it's one heck of a lot
of fun to fly.
(Jeez, I just read what I wrote. Attribute it to a young man in love, not a paid
advertisement)
Tomasz Sielicki
far. It is surely not a racing airship, but otherwise... a power pack of pluses.
Delightfully easy and pleasant to steer in the air, safe and robust enough for
outlandings on short fields. Very easy to handle on the ground. I have made my 300
km diamond in it in 1997 and several 200+ flights in 1998 - and hope for a 500 km
this coming season - just can't wait for it.
Have a look at my PW-5 site at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7112/pw5smyk.htm
Greetings,
Tomasz Sielicki
PW-5 SP-3603 TS
Snead1 napisal:
Theodore Grussing
is truly a fun ship to fly and like Brent Sullivan says, it does do better in wind
than many people think. It is not a hot racing machine, but it is a great medium
performance ship (about 33/1) and will provide you with many enjoyable hours of
flying, both cross country and local. Don Dorrell who picked up his PW-5 the same
day I did was a former Discus driver - he compares them as a sports car and an indy
racer - he truly enjoys his PW-5 as do I. I've done my ABC, & silver badge work in
it, and plan to complete my gold in it this Spring and work on the diamond as well.
Also there is nothing close to it in price for a new glass ship - I believe you can
buy one new for about $18,500 now with basic instruments. If you like to race,
there is a separate class for it where you go head to head with other PW-5 drivers
and your skill is the determining factor.
Regards
Ted Grussing
PW-5 N77FZ
Robert Herndon
You might want to check in with the PW-5 mailing list. It hasn't
been terribly active of late, but a question or two would certainly
be well received. Though it might be somewhat biased, since most
people on the list own PW-5s.
Send e-mail to 'pw5-r...@varsanyi.com' with the word "subscribe"
in the text. You'll get back a notice subscribing you to the list
telling you how to post and how to unusubscribe.
Robert Herndon
N529PW
wmh...@my-dejanews.com
sne...@aol.com (Snead1) wrote:
> I am seriously considering the purchase of a PW-5. I would like to discuss the
>
It would be interesting to hear owner's comments on these excerpts
from comments by Derek Piggott found via Tomasz Sielicki's web page
mentioned in this thread:
[The PW-5] is fitted with a nose hook as well as a C of G hook
that is further back than on most gliders, making it
essential to keep careful control over the early stages of a
wire launch.Any surge of power could result in an
uncontrollable near vertical climb with disastrous results
for an inexperienced or lightweight pilot if the cable
breaks.
The lower attachment of the seat back needs to be more
positive. In turbulence or even bumping over rough ground it
could become free and move back, which is potentially
dangerous.
The other worrying feature is that it probably
needs three hands to jettison the canopy. I believe that
steps are in hand to modify this on future aircraft.
The PW-5 sits on the main and nose wheel on the ground...
[this] makes it extremely nose heavy with the pilot aboard...
impossible to steer during the ground run and until the nose
wheel can be persuaded to leave the ground it goes in one
direction. Similarly on landing it goes down on to the nose
wheel immediately and the only hope of avoiding an
obstruction is to stop the glider with the wheel brake.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tomasz Sielicki
What sort of behaviour is this? You forgot or did not want to sign the posting with
your name, but were 'clever' enough to put together a list of the few critical notes
on the PW-5 from Derek Piggott's report.
What about the other side of the coin, beginning with: 'I had no worries about taking
it cross-country from Sutton Bank because it is so easy to fly and has such good
approach control. I enjoyed every minute in the PW-5.' etc., etc......
Tomasz Sielicki
wmh...@my-dejanews.com napisal:
> It would be interesting to hear owner's comments on these excerpts
> from comments by Derek Piggott found via Tomasz Sielicki's web page
> mentioned in this thread:
>
> [The PW-5] is fitted with a nose hook as well as a C of G hook
> (..)
>
> The lower attachment of the seat back needs to be more
> (...)
>
> The other worrying feature is (...)
> The PW-5 sits on the main and nose wheel on the ground...
> (...)
Bill Jackson
glass ship". The growing number of Russia AC-4 owners would disagree. The Russia is
now available in several different models, including a retractable gear version. (Not
in the same price bracket, but the motorglider version should be on display at the SSA
Convention this month). As a Russia owner I have to say that, IMHO, all the same
positive points apply to the ship - it is a delight to fly and personally I think it
looks better and it should rig easier than the PW5 (true automatic hookups). Last time
I checked the Russia base price was in the $18K range and the PW5 was around $22K,
maybe they have had to drop their price to match the competition?
Theodore Grussing wrote:
> I don't think you will hear anything but good things about it from the owners. It
> is truly a fun ship to fly and like Brent Sullivan says, it does do better in wind
> than many people think. It is not a hot racing machine, but it is a great medium
> performance ship (about 33/1) and will provide you with many enjoyable hours of
> flying, both cross country and local. Don Dorrell who picked up his PW-5 the same
> day I did was a former Discus driver - he compares them as a sports car and an indy
> racer - he truly enjoys his PW-5 as do I. I've done my ABC, & silver badge work in
> it, and plan to complete my gold in it this Spring and work on the diamond as well.
>
> Also there is nothing close to it in price for a new glass ship - I believe you can
> buy one new for about $18,500 now with basic instruments. If you like to race,
> there is a separate class for it where you go head to head with other PW-5 drivers
> and your skill is the determining factor.
> Regards
> Ted Grussing
> PW-5 N77FZ
>
PkSoaring
>I am seriously considering the purchase of a PW-5. I would like to discuss
>the
>glider with some of the owners.
Bill,
Here are some PW-5 owners you can talk with:
dor...@abac.com (Don Dorrell)
th...@sedona.net (Ted Grussing)
rus...@juno.com (Russ McAnerny)
HAR...@ORSP.Rutgers.edu (Robert Harris)
Best Wishes,
John Duprey
Peak Soaring, Inc.
719-784-9536
Brent Sullivan
wmh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <19990209204915...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
> sne...@aol.com (Snead1) wrote:
> > I am seriously considering the purchase of a PW-5. I would like to discuss the
> > glider with some of the owners.
> >
>
> It would be interesting to hear owner's comments on these excerpts
> from comments by Derek Piggott found via Tomasz Sielicki's web page
> mentioned in this thread:
>
> [The PW-5] is fitted with a nose hook as well as a C of G hook
> that is further back than on most gliders, making it
> essential to keep careful control over the early stages of a
> wire launch.Any surge of power could result in an
> uncontrollable near vertical climb with disastrous results
> for an inexperienced or lightweight pilot if the cable
> breaks.
>
Can't comment, I've only done aero tows
>
> The lower attachment of the seat back needs to be more
> positive. In turbulence or even bumping over rough ground it
> could become free and move back, which is potentially
> dangerous.
>
Don't see this as a problem if you're sitting in the seat and have your belts on
properly. If you're in the seat your weight pushes the seatback into the locked
position. Your weight would have to move forward and up to allow the seatback to
move AND the seat would need a lot of upward pressure. Just doesn't seem likely. I
admit I may look for a more positive locking mechanism.
>
> The other worrying feature is that it probably
> needs three hands to jettison the canopy. I believe that
> steps are in hand to modify this on future aircraft.
>
You need six or eight to put it back on but only one to remove it. Once the
emergency release handle is pulled, it will jettison w/out unlocking the canopy.
The locking pins will be bent but I don't see that as an issue at that stage of the
game.
>
> The PW-5 sits on the main and nose wheel on the ground...
> [this] makes it extremely nose heavy with the pilot aboard...
> impossible to steer during the ground run and until the nose
> wheel can be persuaded to leave the ground it goes in one
> direction. Similarly on landing it goes down on to the nose
> wheel immediately and the only hope of avoiding an
> obstruction is to stop the glider with the wheel brake.
>
??? Mine turns fine. So does the Grob 103 which has a similar configuration.
PkSoaring
I'll give this a try!
In article <79tsue$4pu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, wmh...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> It would be interesting to hear owner's comments on these excerpts
>from comments by Derek Piggott found via Tomasz Sielicki's web page
>mentioned in this thread:
>
> [The PW-5] is fitted with a nose hook as well as a C of G hook
> that is further back than on most gliders, making it
> essential to keep careful control over the early stages of a
> wire launch.Any surge of power could result in an
> uncontrollable near vertical climb with disastrous results
> for an inexperienced or lightweight pilot if the cable
> breaks.
Any true CG hook has this problem. Start gradual and stick forward with any
ground launch. Note that Derek states later that the PW-5 is nose heavy with
the pilot on board. These two statements would tend to counteract each other.
> The lower attachment of the seat back needs to be more
> positive. In turbulence or even bumping over rough ground it
> could become free and move back, which is potentially
> dangerous.
The pilots weight and gravity against the seat back holds the seat back into a
locking wedge. I don't think this statement is justified.
> The other worrying feature is that it probably
> needs three hands to jettison the canopy. I believe that
> steps are in hand to modify this on future aircraft.
Current versions would only require a single handle action.
> The PW-5 sits on the main and nose wheel on the ground...
> [this] makes it extremely nose heavy with the pilot aboard...
> impossible to steer during the ground run and until the nose
> wheel can be persuaded to leave the ground it goes in one
> direction. Similarly on landing it goes down on to the nose
> wheel immediately and the only hope of avoiding an
> obstruction is to stop the glider with the wheel brake.
This makes the PW-5 very stable in tracking the runway both on takeoff and
landing with crosswinds and in fact the PW-5 can handle a 12 knot crosswind.
Good news for any pilot with little crosswind experience. As any glider slows
down after landing you lose control authority. Regardless of what glider you
fly, you had better be pointed where you intend to go by the time you get that
slow. An experienced pilot will tell you that when you slow down and lose
rudder authority is when you become vulnerable to the crosswind component. This
is less of a problem with the PW-5.
John Duprey
Peak Soaring, Inc.
Sole US Agent for the PZL-Swidnik PW-5
PkSoaring
In article <79v2ad$m8f$1...@services.analogy.com>, Bill Jackson
<"bjackson@NOSPAM"@analogy.com> writes:
>Have to correct the statement that "there is nothing close to it in price for
>a new
>glass ship". The growing number of Russia AC-4 owners would disagree. The
>Russia is
>now available in several different models, including a retractable gear
>version. (Not
>in the same price bracket, but the motorglider version should be on display
>at the SSA
>Convention this month). As a Russia owner I have to say that, IMHO, all the
>same
>positive points apply to the ship - it is a delight to fly and personally I
>think it
>looks better and it should rig easier than the PW5 (true automatic hookups).
>Last time
>I checked the Russia base price was in the $18K range and the PW5 was around
>$22K,
>maybe they have had to drop their price to match the competition?
Bill opened the can of worms so lets talk...
The Russia was the loser of the international design competition for the World
Class glider. Do you want to get involved with a loser?
There are over 65 PW-5s in the US and over 250 world-wide. These are all one
model and one design. Obviously parts will be readily available for the PW-5
well into the future. All the different models of the Russia combined don't
come close to these numbers.
The World Class (PW-5) has been accepted by the FAI and SSA as a racing and
records class. International and regional one-design competitions have been and
will be held for the PW-5. This will not happen with the Russia.
You may see the PW-5 in Olympic competition in the future. You will not see a
Russia there.
Given the above information I think you can easily see that even if the
purchase price were higher your money would be better invested since the PW-5
will have a higher resale value if you decide to sell it.
Need I say more?
Gary Boggs
I always thought that the PW-5 was picked over the Russia more for
political reasons than for design reasons. Didn't Dick Johnson pick the
Russia as his top choice? And as to how the PW-5 looks, well.... I do
prefer the Russia.
Gary Boggs
Roelant van der Bos
> > uncontrollable near vertical climb with disastrous results
> > for an inexperienced or lightweight pilot if the cable
> > breaks.
>
> Any true CG hook has this problem. Start gradual and stick forward with any
> ground launch. Note that Derek states later that the PW-5 is nose heavy with
> the pilot on board. These two statements would tend to counteract each other.
This is true as long as you stay on the ground because then the aircraft rotates on
it's rear wheel. But as soon as you leave the ground the aircraft doesn't rotate
around that wheel anymore , it rotates around the center of gravity , and then you
can indeed get into a dangerous situation according to Derek's comments
> > The lower attachment of the seat back needs to be more
> > positive. In turbulence or even bumping over rough ground it
> > could become free and move back, which is potentially
> > dangerous.
>
> The pilots weight and gravity against the seat back holds the seat back into a
> locking wedge. I don't think this statement is justified.
As long as you stay under positive g, but as soon as you go into negative the
weight of the pilot doesn't lean onto the seatback any more and then the seat will
get loose. This will happen when you indeed encounter turbulence or roll over a
bump.
> This makes the PW-5 very stable in tracking the runway both on takeoff and
> landing with crosswinds and in fact the PW-5 can handle a 12 knot crosswind.
> Good news for any pilot with little crosswind experience. As any glider slows
> down after landing you lose control authority. Regardless of what glider you
> fly, you had better be pointed where you intend to go by the time you get that
> slow. An experienced pilot will tell you that when you slow down and lose
> rudder authority is when you become vulnerable to the crosswind component. This
> is less of a problem with the PW-5.
I haven't flown it but if this is true it may be that it is too stable, or said
different, difficult too steer when on the ground, so that you can only steer when
the speed is high, and that you are unable to steer when other aircraft still have
good control. This get's worse when the pilot is get's heavier.
Roelant van der Bos
CraigJ
what they thought of Mr. Piggott's report but took the time to include the portions
which may be of concern to the purchasers of new gliders (and certainly to Mr. Howe). If
you don't agree with those portions, perhaps you should take this up with Mr. Piggott
instead of attacking Mr. Howe. Or even share your rebuttal with the rest of us.
Lastly, it looks to me as if "wmhowe" did use his real name: W. M. Howe. Even if he
hadn't, not using one's real name on the Internet is reasonable "behaviour", especially
for those of us who still have our names and addresses in telephone books and children
at home to answer the phones.
CraigJ <---- not my whole real name but enough to make this credible, at least in my
opinion
Tomasz Sielicki wrote:
> Hello Mr 'wmhowe',
>
> What sort of behaviour is this? You forgot or did not want to sign the posting with
> your name, but were 'clever' enough to put together a list of the few critical notes
> on the PW-5 from Derek Piggott's report.
> What about the other side of the coin, beginning with: 'I had no worries about taking
> it cross-country from Sutton Bank because it is so easy to fly and has such good
> approach control. I enjoyed every minute in the PW-5.' etc., etc......
>
> Tomasz Sielicki
>
> wmh...@my-dejanews.com napisal:
>
Tomasz Sielicki
on the r.a.s. regarding the PW-5 have made me very sensible for unjustified negative
opinions originating in prejudices and not based on personal experience with the glider. I
will try to correct my 'behaviour' in the future.
And now to one point of the report:
> The lower attachment of the seat back needs to be more
> positive. In turbulence or even bumping over rough ground it
> could become free and move back, which is potentially
> dangerous.
Funny enough, while defending the PW-5 in many aspects, I have to admit Derek Piggott's
remark here IS justified. It DID happen to me, and this exactly as foreseen above, i.e. in a
turbulence. The seat back got free and moved back, giving me a very unpleasant feeling.
Fortunately, there isn't much place left for it to move backwards so you get back the
control very quickly - but it still is a problem. Ever since then I lock the attachment
hole with some sort of 'stopper' to prevent such a case from happening again.
Tomasz Sielicki
CraigJ napisal:
Sean
World
Class glider. Do you want to get involved with a loser?<<
The Let L33 Solo was also "a loser" by this definition but it remains a
beautiful sailplane and a pleasure to fly none the less..
If the " Sole US Agent for the PZL-Swidnik PW-5 " has to resort to this
type of marketing to protect his line of sailplane it makes me wonder how
quickly he ran out of viable arguments in its favour.
I've never flown the PW5 and can't comment on the pleasures of flying with
it. Up until now though, everything I had read sparked my interest. This
branding of a world class glider competitor as "a loser" by the "winner's"
sole US distributer is the first really bad feeling I've received re the
PW5.
Is there any chance you had intended on putting a smiley face at the end of
that comment?
That would have changed everything.
Sean
--
se...@direct.ca
PkSoaring <pkso...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990211141537...@ngol07.aol.com>...
Marc Ramsey
I do have some concerns about a specific aspect of the design, and
I wonder if anyone can shed any light on the subject. There have been
two accidents, that I know of, where the tip of the wing that has the
forward spar stub (left?) has contacted an obstruction during roll-out.
One apparently resulted in the death of the pilot, as the spar stub
swung forward and hit him in the back of the neck. The second caused
compression damage to the rear fuselage and trailing edge of the
wing, following contact with a (large) rubber traffic pylon. Many
designs have rather hefty steel tube spreaders between the front and
rear pins to prevent this type of damage. Is the PW-5 more
susceptible to this type of damage from tip strikes, or is this just a
coincidence?
__________________________
Marc Ramsey, ma...@ranlog.com
http://www.ranlog.com/ramsey/
Armand A. Medeiros
could have taken it for a ride, but the thing looked so much like a tadpol
that I just couldn't get by the esthetics. Having a stub come and kill you
with a tip strike is scary too.
Still, it is a glider and I find I must promote all safe soaring!
@
Snead1
dl...@my-dejanews.com
where I flew the PW-5. There is a write-up on my club's
web page at: http://www.utahsoaring.org/stories/peaksoar.htm
In a nutshell, I enjoyed the PW-5 a great deal. Peak Soaring
is a beautiful facility as well.
David Lane
wmh...@my-dejanews.com
Tomasz Sielicki <tsie...@tchr.org> wrote:
> Hello Mr 'wmhowe',
>
> What sort of behaviour is this? You forgot or did not want to sign the posting with
> your name, but were 'clever' enough to put together a list of the few critical notes
> on the PW-5 from Derek Piggott's report.
> What about the other side of the coin, beginning with: 'I had no worries about taking
> it cross-country from Sutton Bank because it is so easy to fly and has such good
> approach control. I enjoyed every minute in the PW-5.' etc., etc......
>
> Tomasz Sielicki
>
> wmh...@my-dejanews.com napisal:
>
> > It would be interesting to hear owner's comments on these excerpts
> > from comments by Derek Piggott found via Tomasz Sielicki's web page
> > mentioned in this thread:
> >
> >
> > The lower attachment of the seat back needs to be more
> >
> > The other worrying feature is (...)
>
> > The PW-5 sits on the main and nose wheel on the ground...
>
Sorry about not posting my name. Didn't know people did that- thought info on
sender cam on automatically.
The reason I only posted the negative is that was what I thought the person
was asking about. I referred to the article so people could read the whole
thing. Not trying to be "clever". Just interested in response to the some of
possible problems. Bill Howe
PkSoaring
In article <79vse6$7gr$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, "Marc Ramsey" <ma...@ranlog.com>
writes:
Marc,
I have been a dealer for the PW-5 for over a year and had never heard of this
fatal accident in a PW-5. Before we start any rumors here can you clarify the
information you presented and validate it. What aircraft and pilot was killed?
If you are refering to the accident and death of Oran Nicks, first that was not
a PW-5. That aircraft met the configuration of the World Class by its outer
shape, but internally and structurally it was Oran's design and craftsmanship
and thus not comparible to a PW-5 in the context you stated.
The other accident you refered to was damaged as one would expect it to be. No
surprises here. If you have a serious ground loop in any fiberglass sailplane
or put large load at the forward tip you can expect a compression in the wing
skin aft of the spar. You can verify this with anyone that does fiberglass
repair. They've seen it before. My source is for that information is George
Applebay. Previous postings of the cone accident (including a posting by the
owner of the a/c) did not mention any damage to the fuselage as you have.
All too often rec.aviation.soaring has become a source of rumors and
mis-information quoted by self proclaimed authorities. The sole purpose of my
response here is to end any misguided rumors. I also ask that people using the
newsgroup do so in a responsible manner. Anyone making a statement with the
detrimental impact of Marc's statement above should provide enough details to
back their statement. Any readers of this type of statement should beware and
consider the source and the lack of details. If what you are writing about is
rumor, say so. Anything else could be considered slanderous and open to
litigation.
John Duprey
Peak Soaring, Inc.
US agent for the PZL-Swidnik PW-5
Sean
>>... If what you are writing about is
rumor, say so. Anything else could be considered slanderous and open to
litigation...<<
Corporate censorship on an internet newsgroup ? I hadn't expected this.
...not that I have any direct evidence of censorship mind you, It's just a
feeling I got reading the post.
...not even a rumour actually. In any event, I am hardly an authority on
the subject. In fact I am a low-time sailplane pilot and perhaps not
qualified to be reading OR posting here.
Is there another source of information you might suggest where one IS
allowed to seek opinions and clarification on touchy questions (or rumours)
? ;-]
Sean
PkSoaring <pkso...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990212122357...@ngol05.aol.com>...
T. Duck
>>The Russia was the loser of the international design competition
>>for the World Class glider. Do you want to get involved with a loser?
>
>The Let L33 Solo was also "a loser" by this definition but it remains a
>beautiful sailplane and a pleasure to fly none the less..
I too found the statement you quoted to be *incredibly* crass, especially
for someone who's supposed to be a representative. Where I a manufacturer,
I'd prefer to see sales based on positive aspects of the craft, rather than
taking shots at the competition, especially statements as silly as the above
quote. There really weren't any 'losers' in the competition- they're all
for sale, and all doing pretty well in the market.
In any case, if it comes to calling airplanes 'losers', I guess the PW-5
'lost' in my case- I bought an L-33 Solo. :-)
Jorge Antonio Blanco Montagut
> I am seriously considering the purchase of a PW-5. I would like to
discuss the glider with some of the owners.
Would be interesting to know what you are looking for when you think in a
PW-5, but anyway, I´ve flown a PW-5 a couple of times and my impresion is
that it´s an enjoyable ship to "take a walk", but honestly, I would never
buy one, if I had some money 8'''-( I would buy any of the used glider that
offer me a lot more of everything except it´s virginity.
Jorge
pd.- Of course, if you are looking for a World Class ship, the PW-5 is the
right choice ;-)
Walt Konecny
>The Russia was the loser of the international design competition for the
World
>Class glider. Do you want to get involved with a loser?
The winner of a rigged contest is not necessarily the "real" winner. Also,
the rabid supporters of PW-5s are always deflecting any criticizm by saying
that any glider which comes along is a benefit to soaring. They are now
calling other gliders "losers"? Good gawd.......
wk
Torben Kristensen
relative to the wing, contributing even more to nose up tendency during
winchlaunch. Having winchlaunched the PW-5 I can say that this is the only
glider, I have flown, which required positive stick forward during launch!
In my opinion this is NOT at safe behavoiur in the hands of an inexperienced
pilot!
Further points of critisism:
The rudder is heavy.
Ground clearance is very small, - requiring a smooth field for off-field
landings.
Having said that I found flying characteristics a bit weird, but it climbed
surprisingly well in weak thermals.
Walt Konecny
>
>All too often rec.aviation.soaring has become a source of rumors and
>mis-information quoted by self proclaimed authorities.
You mean like the hyping of the PW-5?
wk
Greg
Anything is open to litigation, I guess. But before you threaten Marc with
a lawsuit, please check with your lawyer -- isn't a statement slander only
if it is (1) false and (2) the speaker knows it is false? Also, who is the
person being slandered -- the PW-5? Finally, if the PW-5 is so great, why
are you so sensitive to a little criticism?
Greg
LS-3 (about the same price as a PW-5, but 40:1 and it looks good)
PkSoaring wrote
Chad Moore
pkso...@aol.com (PkSoaring) wrote:
> The Russia was the loser of the international design competition for the World
> Class glider. Do you want to get involved with a loser?
> The World Class (PW-5) has been accepted by the FAI and SSA as a racing and
> records class. International and regional one-design competitions have
been and
> will be held for the PW-5. This will not happen with the Russia.
Actually, there is no reason why the Russia could not be in a one design
race. The 1-26 is a "one design racing class". And I believe there is a
successful Blanik L-33 "fun meet" in Virginia every year. Anytime a group
of owners get together and have a competition, it can only benefit the
sport. Just because you don't have the FAI and SSA "certification",
doesn't mean you can't do it.
> You may see the PW-5 in Olympic competition in the future. You will not see a
> Russia there.
You are probably right, then again I'm not counting on making the team!
Chad Moore
Walt Konecny
>> The World Class (PW-5) has been accepted by the FAI and SSA as a racing
and
>> records class
Yup. That and $2.95 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Maybe if
some emphasis was put back in the "flying for fun, or flying for the sake of
flying", without always involving blessings from FAI / SSA, we could attract
more new members to the sport (and maybe even keep more of our existing
members). While SSA has done a great job in keeping airspace available to
our sport with few restrictions as possible, their recruitment efforts have
been a bust. This is not aimed at any person in particular, but at the
general prevailing attitude of the organization. I think way too much
effort (hype) has been put into this (inappropriately named) World Class
glider, and too little elsewhere.
Now, I wish the very best of luck to those selling PW-5s for a living. I
hope their business thrives and that they do well. In the same breath,
however, I hope they can do so without derogatory remarks about other
gliders.
I can't remember the exact numbers, but some PW-5 hype a few years ago cited
some marketing research indicating there is a market for 2000 (or some such
number) of these things by 1999 in either the US or the world. Either way,
we seem to be a tad shy of those numbers. Given that we have, what, 65 in
the US, and at least 5 are for sale by private parties (a high percentage),
it appears the demand isn't there. Comparably equipped PW-5s and LS-4s go
for about the same price, and yes, the PW is new, and the LS is 15 years
old. Let's see, do I want a 15 year old Porsche or a brand new
Yugo...hmmmm....
wk
Bruce Bartley
>
> In article <19990209204915...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
> sne...@aol.com (Snead1) wrote:
> > glider with some of the owners.
> >
In New Zealand, PW5s are now the most numerically popular glider.
ie; there are more PW5s than any other single type in New Zealand.
We have excellent racing in the North Island ( where most of the PW5s are), and a series
sponsored this year by Garmin.
I have owned my PW5 for 15 months, and have flown (approx) 130 flights, 150 hours, and have
made 12 outlandings in it. Much of this flying has been cross-country or competition flying,
and I am the current NZ Sports Class and PW5 class champion.
It is interesting to see that the PW5 comments on the ras attract as much opiniated comment
as ever. It was the same 15 months ago when I bought mine.
Re your specific queries;
> [The PW-5] is fitted with a nose hook as well as a C of G hook
> that is further back than on most gliders, making it
> essential to keep careful control over the early stages of a
> wire launch.Any surge of power could result in an
> uncontrollable near vertical climb with disastrous results
> for an inexperienced or lightweight pilot if the cable
> breaks.
> I have only done aerotows.
> The lower attachment of the seat back needs to be more
> positive. In turbulence or even bumping over rough ground it
> could become free and move back, which is potentially
> dangerous.
Could be. I am 6ft2" tall and have the seat near the rearmost position.
I have sweaters, pickets etc behind the seat which prevent any
rearward movement anyway, but in all the flying I have done, which
includes some major turbulence, the seat has shown no inclination to move.>
> The other worrying feature is that it probably
> needs three hands to jettison the canopy. I believe that
> steps are in hand to modify this on future aircraft.
> Maybe. I mentally rehearse the bailout drill everytime I fly. Remember once
the canopy has gone you still need to release the straps and exit the a/c.
I would rather bail out of the PW5 with it's large canopy than our club's
jantar std which needs 2 hands for canopy release, plus wriggling your legs out.
> The PW-5 sits on the main and nose wheel on the ground...
> [this] makes it extremely nose heavy with the pilot aboard...
> impossible to steer during the ground run and until the nose
> wheel can be persuaded to leave the ground it goes in one
> direction. Similarly on landing it goes down on to the nose
> wheel immediately and the only hope of avoiding an
> obstruction is to stop the glider with the wheel brake.
In practise this is just not an issue. If you're not lined up straight on
launch, the pull on the tow rope will straighten you out if necessary. I've
done this several times.
On landing, by the time the nose wheel has enough weight on it to prevent
steering, your speed is so low the excellent wheel brake will stop you in about
30 paces. I wouldnt presume to question Derek Piggot but I can say that for me
this feature has been absolutely a non event.
In summary, I'm delighted with the aircraft. It has done everything I expected. I've flown
tasks over 300 km, Ive been to 12,500', and the longest flight has been 6hrs 20mins. Event at
6'2" I'm perfectly comfortable in the a/c. People have said to me " ah well you'll be moving
up to higher performance soon" but I really cant see the point. When I fly the 38:1 Jantar do
I have more fun? No, I don't.
There will be those who will knock the PW5 concept, nearly always grumpy old men with their eyes
firmly fixed on the rear view mirror.
I made my own considered decision to go with the PW5 and for me, it's worked out 100%.
Bruce Bartley
Taupo New Zealand
PW5 - ZX
vaughn simon
>litigation.
>
>John Duprey
>Peak Soaring, Inc.
>US agent for the PZL-Swidnik PW-5
First; he calls the Russia a "Loser", now this guy is going to sue us. I
have nothing against the PW-5, but you can be sure that I will never buy one
from Peak Soaring.
Vaughn Simon
Eric June
> The Russia was the loser of the international design competition for
> the World
> Class glider. Do you want to get involved with a loser?
Calling the competition a "loser" in a public forum demonstrates a
complete lack of understanding of Marketing 1A. Such an obvious deficit
of knowledge leads one to question the poster's knowledge and competence
in other areas as well.
Rather than accept the opinion of such an individual at face value, one
might want to hear what someone of unquestionable knowledge and
integrity has to say about the gliders. Derek Piggot is such an
individual. Unlike the poster, he has no economic ties to either
manufacturer. His comparison article may be found at:
http://airsports.fai.org/mar98/mar9803.html
In reading Derek's article, I find it hard to characterize either the
Russia or the PW-5 as being a "loser".
--
Regards,
Eric June
er...@kudonet.com
SZD-59 "SE"
Hang Gliding Page: http://home.kudonet.com/~ericj/hang.htm
Marc Ramsey
>If you are refering to the accident and death of Oran Nicks, first that
>was not a PW-5. That aircraft met the configuration of the World
>Class by its outer shape, but internally and structurally it was Oran's
>design and craftsmanship and thus not comparible to a PW-5 in the
>context you stated.
Fine, do I therefore have your assurance that the design decision
that led to Mr. Nicks unfortunate demise is not present in the
PZL-Swidnik PW-5s?
>The other accident you refered to was damaged as one would expect
>it to be. No surprises here. If you have a serious ground loop in any
>fiberglass sailplane or put large load at the forward tip you can expect
>a compression in the wing skin aft of the spar. You can verify this with
>anyone that does fiberglass repair. They've seen it before. My source
>is for that information is George Applebay. Previous postings of the
>cone accident (including a posting by the owner of the a/c) did not
>mention any damage to the fuselage as you have.
Assuming we are speaking of the same incident, accounts from two
separate eyewitnesses did not mention the phrase 'ground loop'. If
that is what it was, then I won't further consider it in this context.
So, answer the implied question. Is there, or is there not, a steel
tube carry-through structure in the fuselage to prevent rearward
pivoting of the wing with the forward spar stub?
>Anything else could be considered slanderous and open to litigation.
Good luck.
Fred Steadman
comments.
Walt Konecny wrote:
>
> PkSoaring wrote in message <19990211141537...@ngol07.aol.com>...
>
> >The Russia was the loser of the international design competition for the
> World
> >Class glider. Do you want to get involved with a loser?
>
> The winner of a rigged contest is not necessarily the "real" winner. Also,
> the rabid supporters of PW-5s are always deflecting any criticizm by saying
> that any glider which comes along is a benefit to soaring. They are now
> calling other gliders "losers"? Good gawd.......
>
> wk
--
Fred Steadman
Irving, Texas
John Wren
>for about the same price, and yes, the PW is new, and the LS is 15 years
>old. Let's see, do I want a 15 year old Porsche or a brand new
>Yugo...hmmmm....
I'll agree that PK put his foot in his mouth, but let's set the price thing
correctly. I owned one of the newest (15yrs old) and best LS4a's in the US
and except for a hiccup in prices last season prices are going up for most
LS4's. In todays market (US) there is still $10k between contest ready LS4
and a PW5. Also, don't laugh at the number of PW5s in the US. Sixty five is
A LOT of gliders. Check and see how many LS4s there are in the US after 20
years. I bet there aren't 65.
JW
Past LS4a "YN"
Current PW5 "I1"
John Wright
Bruce Bartley wrote in message <36C4B5...@reap.org.nz>...
>wmh...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <19990209204915...@ng-cr1.aol.com>,
>> sne...@aol.com (Snead1) wrote:
>> > I am seriously considering the purchase of a PW-5. I would like to
discuss the
>> > glider with some of the owners.
>> >
>> Hello Bill,
>
>In New Zealand, PW5s are now the most numerically popular glider.
>ie; there are more PW5s than any other single type in New Zealand.
>
>
As the gliders in NZ have to be imported half way round the world, the costs
are a bit higher than anywhere else. Could this have something to do with
it? Just as a matter of interest, how many gliders are there in NZ in
total? How many clubs? How many pilots?
John Wright
Walt Konecny wrote in message <7a3396$h3a$1...@twin.wasatch.com>...
>
>I can't remember the exact numbers, but some PW-5 hype a few years ago
cited
>some marketing research indicating there is a market for 2000 (or some such
>number) of these things by 1999 in either the US or the world. Either way,
>we seem to be a tad shy of those numbers. Given that we have, what, 65 in
>the US, and at least 5 are for sale by private parties (a high percentage),
>it appears the demand isn't there. Comparably equipped PW-5s and LS-4s go
>for about the same price, and yes, the PW is new, and the LS is 15 years
>old. Let's see, do I want a 15 year old Porsche or a brand new
>Yugo...hmmmm....
>
>wk
>
>
I've mentioned this as well, but I seem to remember a quoted world wide
market of 7000 sales by year 2000. I considered making a bet with the
poster (World Class Chairman but I can't remember his name) of his PW5
versus my Pegasus on the success or failure of the PW5 to reach the sales
target, but taking candy from babies is cruel, so I didn't. But if he wants
to take up the bet on the lower figure you quote for say 2000 PW5s by year
2001 to give him a chance, well, I'm game for a laugh. :-)
Of course the figure of 7000 probably came from a survey question that was
rigged like this one;-
"Would you consider buying a cross country racing glider that cost under
20,000 dollars/pounds and could take part in its own single class World
Championships?"
Note the word "consider" and the lack of the word PW5. Saying yes doesn't
mean you'd actually buy one.
Personally I've always said we should push the Club Class as the true poor
pilot's alternative, as there are literally thousands of such gliders out
there, and the European club class championships is very successful and held
every two years. In the Club Class the handicap maximum is equal to or less
than the LS4 for those who don't know. The UK Club class attracts 30+
entries and is great fun.
john wright, 742
Walt Konecny
>... and threatening you with litigation if you make "irresponsible"
>comments.
Yup. Marketing at its finest.
*You vill fly ze PW-5, und you vill ENJOY flying ze PW-5! Zat iss an
order!*
wk
PkSoaring
In article <7a3d0q$jdi$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, "Marc Ramsey" <ma...@ranlog.com>
writes:
>So, answer the implied question. Is there, or is there not, a steel
>tube carry-through structure in the fuselage to prevent rearward
>pivoting of the wing with the forward spar stub?
>
Take a good look at the design of the PW-5 it is completely different. The
spars are sandwiched between the main load bearing bulkheads. for the spar to
pivot forward it will have to break through a structure that is designed to
carry the entire airframe loads between the wings and fuselage.
A carry-through structure will not prevent the pivoting action you refer to.
Look at the design of the LS-3. The trailing edge of the wing will crush in
compression and then the carry through is of no use, the forward pin then pulls
straight out allowing the spar to pivot.
Anyhow, the point that needed to be aired was that Oran Nick's aircraft,
although looking similar, was not a PW-5 and should not be used for any
comparison. Hopefully the end of a rumor.
John Duprey
Peak Soaring, Inc.
PkSoaring
Someone please dose those flames with water.
Its good to see all the publicity for the PW-5 carried on by you fine folks.
All right, maybe that "loser" question sounds harsh when not prefaced by the
preceding statement and taken out of context. I would not have done a negative
comparison at all had Bill Jackson not opened the floor with his comments.
My point about slander etc is that we all need to being responsible
journalists. Sure the i-net provides us with terrific freedoms, allowing any
individual to publish to a large audience, it also puts a burden of
responsibility on us not to abuse those freedoms just as the news media has
these responsibilities. We need to be as accurate as possible and not propigate
rumors at the speed of electrons. Sure we are all entitled to an opinion. Just
make sure your opinion isn't stated as fact or confused by the uninformed
audience.
Good to see your all awake and guarding your rights to an opinion.
John Duprey
Peak Soaring, Inc.
US agent for PZL Swidnik
Armand A. Medieros
NOT YET!
>All right, maybe that "loser" question sounds harsh when not prefaced by
the
>preceding statement and taken out of context.
Loser? Such a comment is bound to shake some leaves off the tree. What did
you expect? This forum is specifically for debate, exchange of knowledge,
and voicing opinions. The only problem YOU created was to make yourself look
biased and anti-anything not a PW-5.
>My point about slander etc is that we all need to being responsible
>journalists.
B.S. This is not a journalistic media. It is the voices of everyday people
with a common interest. Tread lightly lest you stub your toes! This is where
we ask questions, enquire about rumor, obtain advice, and a thousands other
things. This is the ultimate 1st amendment hall of voices.
>Sure the i-net provides us with terrific freedoms, allowing any
>individual to publish to a large audience, it also puts a burden of
>responsibility on us not to abuse those freedoms just as the news media has
>these responsibilities.
More B.S.!!!! Anyone who (in someone else's opinion) abuses this freedom of
expression is quickly disabused and flamed on! Just like happened to you as
a matter of fact...
>We need to be as accurate as possible and not propigate
>rumors at the speed of electrons. Sure we are all entitled to an opinion.
Just
>make sure your opinion isn't stated as fact or confused by the uninformed
>audience.
Most people of good & moral character will do their best to express what
THEY believe is correct. However, in this forum, we have no constraints as
to liability, content, or accuracy so long as things are not directed
towards individual persons or companies in a hateful way.
Furthermore, who the hell are you imply we are uninformed? This is one of
the places where we continue to keep informed and inform others! Make
corrections to information as you see fit...at the risk of making a mistake
yourself! But don't EVER put down another airworthy sailplane here! When you
do, you are stepping on a lot of toes! (or had you not thought of that?)
Dangers we all need to know about. We can express concern and opinions
without degrading the sport or other owners ships.
>Good to see your all awake and guarding your rights to an opinion.
We listened to you, maybe you should listen to us.
Armand
Carl Stevens
PkSoaring wrote:
> Bill opened the can of worms so lets talk...
>
> The Russia was the loser of the international design competition for the World
> Class glider. Do you want to get involved with a loser?
Jumpin Mackerel! I cannot believe the sole agent of any product would
be able to get away with a negative slam like that.
As someone looking to buy his first glider I have to tell you that both the
Russia and the PW-5 were on my list of new gliders that I am looking at.
I also have to tell you that, since high school, I have had had a real aversion
to the kind of trash bully talk that the above quote exhibits.
The PW-5 may be a great ship but until there there is a secondary agent
in the US I am afraid I won't be buying.
> Given the above information I think you can easily see that even if the
> purchase price were higher your money would be better invested since the PW-5
> will have a higher resale value if you decide to sell it.
Given the information espoused I can see nothing of the sort. The only thing
that substansiates resale value is a track record of resale history. Neither
have that yet.
> Need I say more?
"I apologize and am sorry," would be a good start.
Carl Stevens
Phil Foster
says...
+>Someone please dose those flames with water.
+
+
+NOT YET!
<SNIP>
Well said Armand. Stomp those Thought Police as soon as they appear ;¬)
It'd be interesting to see what PK's comments cost in lost sales.
--
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny.
AJKsoar
out 100%. <<
Me too.
<AJK...@aol.com> Arthur J. Kover
David MacKenzie
>A LOT of gliders. Check and see how many LS4s there are in the US after 20
>years. I bet there aren't 65.
Arrrghh... PW-5 threads (and 1-26 threads) seem to be the r.a.s.
equivalent of other froups' g*n c*ntr*l or ab*rti*n threads.
Don't know about the US, but in Canada there appear to be a total
of six LS-4's and eight PW-5's, including mine. Probably roughly
equal numbers in other words.
If the original poster has not been utterly put off by the flaming,
fist shaking and ego waving which his question started off, I would
say go for it, the PW-5 is a delightful glider to fly. Mine has
been flown by at least five people, ranging from an 18 year old with
under 100 hours to a 70-ish instructor who is reputed to have sent
Daedalus solo, and they all came back grinning.
--
mac
Snead1
really liked the Ka-6 except for the wood construction and aways thought a
single class sailplane was a good idea.
Ian Strachan
<sne...@aol.com> writes
>When I was active in soaring about 20 years ago I owned a ka-6 and 201B. I
>really liked the Ka-6 except for the wood construction and aways thought a
>single class sailplane was a good idea.
I think you are right to compare the PW5 with the K-6. They have a lot
in common. I did some tests on the UK PW5 demonstrator at Lasham at
about the same time that Derek Pigott was doing his. It has very
responsive controls and is light to rig and de-rig. It can fly slowly
and goes up better than almost any other modern glider in a thermal.
Look at the slight reflex curvature under the wing, that section gives
it excellent low speed performance. But the trade-off is at the high
speed end, where I recorded an average of 595 ft/minute sink at 80 knots
(3.02 m/sec at 148 km/h); by modern standards this is not good and will
lead to reduced penetration in headwinds and strong sink. However, if
you do have to land out, it has very powerful airbrakes and can be
landed in a small field.
Overall, for thermal cross-countries, I rated its performance as
slightly less than the K6E I used to fly, although this would depend on
the conditions; in weak lift and light winds the PW5 would be similar or
possibly a bit better than the K6E, in strong lift and/or much wind or
areas of sink, not as good. Coming from the UK, my definition of a weak
thermal is 1 knot achieved climb (0.51 m/sec) and a strong thermal is
anything over 3 knots (1.54 m/sec) achieved climb. I understand that in
other fortunate countries, you get better lift than this! So, in terms
of cross country speeds, it would depend how much time you spent
climbing, where the PW is excellent, and gliding, where it is less good
than many other types which are available on the new and second hand
markets. I am afraid I know nothing about the "Russia", which has also
been mentioned on this thread.
To my mind, a crucial factor is the performance that you wish to pay
for. What types and sizes of cross-country flights do you want to do,
and how many times do you not mind landing out? If about K6 performance
satisfies you, OK, and you have the advantage of belonging to the IGC
World Class and a "band of brothers" of similar enthusiasts. As long as
you do not land out, there is just as much sense of achievement in
flying, say, a 300km compared to the 500 that your higher performance
(and possibly bankrupt!) brethren are flying in their expensive hot
ships.
There seems to be quite a national variation. In countries where the
PW5 has not so far proved popular, such as Germany and the UK, people
seem to prefer to buy a second hand 15 metre glass ship instead, and/or
to join a syndicate with a higher performance glider rather than be a
sole owner of a lower performance type. Clearly in New Zealand and the
USA there are keen groups of PW5 pilots, so conditions must suit it
there. Maybe it is something to do with average soaring heights and the
ability to cross gaps using a combination of altitude and moderate L/D,
compared with higher L/D which is particularly useful when low down.
There have been many subjective opinions on this thread, including some
of mine. But has anybody done independent performance testing either to
validate the published polar curve or to compare the PW5 by flying in
formation with other gliders at the low, middle, and high speed ends of
the curve? That would be a useful exercise.
--
Ian Strachan
Toulson017
In article <slrn7ccd...@shagbat.shakey.org>, m...@skinny.flakey.org (David
MacKenzie) writes:
>Subject: Re: How do you like your PW-5
>From: m...@skinny.flakey.org (David MacKenzie)
>Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:38:39 GMT
>
>> Also, don't laugh at the number of PW5s in the US. Sixty five is
>>A LOT of gliders. Check and see how many LS4s there are in the US after 20
>>years. I bet there aren't 65.
We had the PW5 demonstrator at my club (The Soaring Centre, Husbands Bosworth,
UK) two years ago and many members flew it. In my opinion it is OK, easy to
fly, but of low XC performance and rather nondescript and uninspiring with no
real realationship to the higher performance 15 metre gliders available. It's a
plastic K6!!!!
Although relatively low basic cost, by the time you add good instrumentation,
trailer, parachuutes etc. it is in fact more costly than a better performance
15 metre used glider.
Our Club fleet is Puchacz's (4) for basic training, Juniors (3) for first
solo's, Pegase (1) and Discus (2) for advanced club XC with a duo Discus due
this month.
No one who flew it took the PW 5 seriously as either a XC glider nor as a
possible addition to our club fleet given the state of todays art. None have
been bought by club members even though we have about 90 private/syndicate
gliders on site and a wide range of pilot abilities. However, we have several
LS4's and a growing number of LS 8's.
I think it depends on your expectations and club "culture" rather than the
glider performance. We have very few wooden gliders these days at our club but
do have a very active XC and competitive culture and, with gliders of the
performance of Libelle, Standard Cirrus, Kestrel, etc being available at far
lower second hand prices than the PW5 with more competitiveness, I do not
forsee many in our club wishing to buy one, instead they will go for better
performance from used gliders.
However, where a club culture is different to ours, clearly the numbers sold do
show there is a market.
Just a point of view!
Barney,
UK
John Wren
John Wright wrote in message <7a7p1o$q57$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>> Also, don't laugh at the number of PW5s in the US. Sixty five
>is
>>>A LOT of gliders. Check and see how many LS4s there are in the US after
20
>>>years. I bet there aren't 65.
>>
>
>
>LS4 recently, which tells you something about its popularity!!! Especially
>since it was replaced by two later models, but they still keep making it.
>
>john wright, 742
>
>
I understand that, but 1000 in almost twenty years. Having owned one for
seven years I understand why they are so popular. OTOH the PW5 has only been
in production for 2 or 3 years and has past 250. Will it keep up this pace,
perhaps not. All I'm saying is that it has not done too badly so far. I
wonder if the LS4 would have done as well if it had been bashed as bad as
the PW5 has been on the world stage.
Also, please remember that most of the people who now support and are behind
the World Class had little or nothing to do with the selection of the PW5 as
the WC glider. Having said that, do not read in to it that I'm saying the
PW5 was a bad choice. What I am saying is, if you support "one class" design
you only have one choice and that's the PW5 for a long time to come.
John Wren
Fred Steadman
PW5. Why do you say that?
As I understand it the plane was built from drawings and under license
from whomever has the authority to issue plans and grant license for the
PW5. He sure thought it was a PW5. He even brought his construction
photos up to TSA during the World Class Contest. He called it a PW5.
I'm told his whole idea was to spark interest in building PW5's
domestically and/or privately.
> John Duprey
> Peak Soaring, Inc.
Marc Ramsey
>Take a good look at the design of the PW-5 it is completely different.
>The spars are sandwiched between the main load bearing
>bulkheads. for the spar to pivot forward it will have to break through a
>structure that is designed to carry the entire airframe loads between
>the wings and fuselage.
This is really all you had to say. I feel an obligation to my family, if
not
myself, to minimize the hazards associated with participating in this
sport. If I am told of possible safety problems with an aircraft I'm likely
to fly, I'll do what I can to get to the truth of the matter, even if it
involves
posting rumors/questions to a public forum. I think it sad that you can
not appreciate the need to air these issues...
Marc
Bruce Bartley
Freight costs are about the same for PW5 as for a standard class glider.
A large part of the success revolves around John Roake importing PW5s
6 at a time, and many clubs quitting their ageing K6s in favour of the
PW5s.
New Zealand has approx 1,000 glider pilots, 28 clubs, 310 gliders of all
types and 21 PW5s. New Zealand also hosted the World Championships (FAI Classes)
in 1995, and the open class was won by New Zealander Ray Lynskey.
Bruce Bartley
Taupo NewZealand
Tim
> This is twice that you've asserted that Oran Nick's airplane was not a
> PW5. Why do you say that?
>
> As I understand it the plane was built from drawings and under license
> from whomever has the authority to issue plans and grant license for the
> PW5. He sure thought it was a PW5. He even brought his construction
> photos up to TSA during the World Class Contest. He called it a PW5.
>
> I'm told his whole idea was to spark interest in building PW5's
> domestically and/or privately.
Fred,
You may be misinterpreting John's comments. First we have to decide are we racing
PW5's or World Class gliders or both.
The world class glider is defined by an external shape criteria.
For clarification the PW5 World Class Glider sold by Peak Soaring is manufactured by
Swidnik. We should call it a PW5-Swidnik. The P5 flown by Oran Nicks would be a
PW5-Nicks. They are not the same aircraft. They conform to the same technical
specifications, but are not identical in terms of construction and design.
Hope this helps,
Tim
Energy
me... Why not take an existing aircraft and make it into a more production
line run thereby reducing the cost and keeping the performance up to the
90's instead what do they have..... a glider who's performance is down in
the 1980's or less?????????
I would consider myself an average joe in income I wouldn't dream of buying
a pw-5 I would try and scrape up some more dough ....... if necessary......
(mortgage the wife dog and cat) to buy a used LS-4. In fact that would have
been the first thing I would have done is go talk to rollanden scheinder
about licenseing it..... if I was on the commitee. :)
Im sorry but haveing flown a 2-33, 1-26, owned a 1-36, G-102, G-103, stnd
cirrus, LS-4 .... there is no way I would own anything less than 35 to 1
That to me is the threshold especially if you have any wind the penetration
below 35 to 1 abysmal. Sure you can cross country but I hope you get used to
circleing non stop.
Would it have cost that much more for a new LS-4 versus a PW-5? I dont know
the cost of the pw-5 so maybe Im spewing crap, But I tell you I sure would
have tried for more performance. The technology is there, is it that much
harder during manufacturing to get the performance up a little?
my .02
Jeff
PkSoaring
In article
<529AE9510032C1F7.412C70F8...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
Fred Steadman <fst...@fastlane.net> writes:
>This is twice that you've asserted that Oran Nick's airplane was not a
>PW5. Why do you say that?
>
>As I understand it the plane was built from drawings and under license
>from whomever has the authority to issue plans and grant license for the
>PW5. He sure thought it was a PW5. He even brought his construction
>photos up to TSA during the World Class Contest. He called it a PW5.
>
>I'm told his whole idea was to spark interest in building PW5's
>domestically and/or privately.
Oran used the plans to comply with the World Class design. Which only defines
the outer shape. The internal structures can be changed by any manufacturer as
long as wing loading is similar.
The PW-5 is entirely fiberglass. Oran used fiberglass for some components and
aluminum for others. The tailboom for example was made of aluminum mated to a
fiberglass cockpit. He was free to build the aircraft anyway he saw fit, and
did.
Snead1
Very thoughtful post. To me the thrill of soaring is working a thermal and
being able to feel the the interaction of the sailplane and convective
atmosphere. I used to hate the loss of feel resulting from putting water in
the 201B. I always felt that if I wanted to cruise along in rough air at 80
kts why not fly the cessna.
Sean
validate the published polar curve or to compare the PW5 by flying in
formation with other gliders at the low, middle, and high speed ends of
Tom Rent, at... http://www.goldengate.net/~tmrent/soar/docs/compare.htm
...has published a very interesting 'shopper's comparison guide" showing
side by side comparisons of the specifications, polar curves and personal
opinion regarding the PW-5, L-33, I-34, AC-4 and SZD 51-1 gliders.
IMHO this site is a 'must see' for anyone interested in medium performance
sailplanes.
It may not be the last word on these gliders, its last update was May of
last year, but it is an excellent, subjective analysis by a prospective
buyer.
...some interesting links as well.
Sean
Ian Strachan <I...@ukiws.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<DZTcPMA1...@ukiws.demon.co.uk>...
Tim Taylor
> The world class glider idea is great but the implementation always confused
> me... Why not take an existing aircraft and make it into a more production
> line run thereby reducing the cost and keeping the performance up to the
> 90's instead what do they have..... a glider who's performance is down in
> the 1980's or less?????????
> snip....
> Would it have cost that much more for a new LS-4 versus a PW-5? I dont know
> the cost of the pw-5 so maybe Im spewing crap, But I tell you I sure would
> have tried for more performance. The technology is there, is it that much
> harder during manufacturing to get the performance up a little?
>
> my .02
> Jeff
Jeff,
I completely agree with you. I never understood why the LS-4 was not used. It
was not competitive in Standard Class by the time the world class was being
judged. It had a strong base at the time and I have never heard a bad word
about the handling or performance. I can't believe the cost would be that much
higher than the PW-5 if put into higher production with limitations on options.
Tim
John Wren
>> Would it have cost that much more for a new LS-4 versus a PW-5? I dont
know
>> the cost of the pw-5 so maybe Im spewing crap, But I tell you I sure
would
>> have tried for more performance. The technology is there, is it that much
>> harder during manufacturing to get the performance up a little?
>>
>> my .02
>> Jeff
>
>Jeff,
>
>I completely agree with you. I never understood why the LS-4 was not used.
It
>was not competitive in Standard Class by the time the world class was being
>judged. It had a strong base at the time and I have never heard a bad word
>about the handling or performance. I can't believe the cost would be that
much
>higher than the PW-5 if put into higher production with limitations on
options.
This is just a guess, but the price in the US for a new LS4 (with basic
instruments, no trailer or extras) must be $40K. The price for a PW5 ready
to compete is $24K with trailer (Fact, no guess) . What math are you guys
using?
John Wren
John Cochrane
You should fly hang gliders. They think of PW5 performance as a dream come true,
and drool over 12:1 at 25 mph instead of 11:1. They go XC. They fly contests.
And talk about feel.
Moral: there is a continum of performance and style of flying from paraglider to
hang glider to rigid wing hang glider to ultralight glider to 1-26 to PW5 to
sports class, standard, 15m, 18m, open, 2 place open with motor. All have active
competition and adherents. All can be done cheaply or expensively. Live and let
live and let's all be a bit more quiet.
(Though I must note that most aging ex hang glider pilots like myself seem to
wind up in the upper reaches of performance. If we wanted PW5s we'd get the old
HG out of the garage I guess.)
John Cochrane
Tim Taylor
>
>
> This is just a guess, but the price in the US for a new LS4 (with basic
> instruments, no trailer or extras) must be $40K. The price for a PW5 ready
> to compete is $24K with trailer (Fact, no guess) . What math are you guys
> using?
John,
Good question.
How did I get to a reasonable number:
1. Higher production numbers
2. To be the world class glider others must be allowed to produce
(competition)
3. Minimize options (basic model: no water, fixed gear, basic trailer)
4. Better tooling (see # 1)
The cost of a glider is driven by two things; raw materials and labor. The raw
materials are not that different for the two ships, some but not that great,
the labor is most of the difference. Production theory and experience shows
that increasing the numbers can dramatically reduce the labor costs.
That's how I got to a reasonable number. It will not be quite as low as the
PW-5, but it shouldn't be $40K either. We could have had a 38+ to one glider
with an installed base of 600+ at the time.
Tim
Brent Sullivan
magazine--one should be able to find it on their web page.
My recollection is that he found it performed at a slightly lower l:d than
published, but, if the owner did a few simple modifications that are detailed in
the article, the l:d was slightly better than advertised and the sink rate was
significantly improved.
It wasn't a sacred cow test so the results aren't valid in Germany ;-)
Brent
John Wren
Tim Taylor wrote in message <36C99D9B...@remove.missouri.edu>...
These are all great theories, but the fact is a new LS4 still costs a hell
of a lot more than a PW5. I first heard of the LS4 World Class glider theory
back in the early to mid 80's when (I think) Jim Dean from Estrella wrote to
SOARING magazine. I'm sure many others had the same idea and I must say it
seemed like a great idea to me, also. But, in the end it did not come to
pass and many other great ideas where past by in favor of the PW5.
A whole great process was created by some of the greatest soaring minds in
the world. This process was played out over the better part of a decade and
in the end a whole bunch of people, of which most of us don't even know,
came to a decision. That decision was to declare the PW5 the World Class
glider. From that moment the whirlwind of second guessing has not stopped.
So what do we do? Throw the towel in, round up all PW5's and burn them at
sunset or let the supporters get on with it. I can understand the support
from many areas, but I can't quite figure out the absolute hate that comes
from many people. Granted there are those who have tried to make the WC the
salvation of all soaring. We as a group always seem to be trying to break
through some barrier and make this sport second to soccer on the world
stage. Personally, I think it's too much for one little glider to do. Save
soaring and break through decades of entrenched political power bases within
our sport..........
John Wren
Bob Hills
>
> The world class glider idea is great but the implementation always confused
There appears to me to be an awful lot of people out there in 'glider
world' that have either forgotten (or they never knew) the reason why we
have a 'World Class' in the first place. We have all read the pros and
cons of Ls4 versus PW5 and the price for performance argument to ad
nauseum by now but there seems to be few postings supporting the
original rational behind the decision to support a one class design.
Perhaps we should dig out some old magazines and learn from what was
written about the criteria for the design competition that started this
whole thing off.
Just my tuppence worth,
Bob (not flown a PW5 or Ls4)
Zulufive
In article <36C988DD...@GSB.UChicago.EDU>, John Cochrane
<John.STOPS...@GSB.UChicago.EDU> writes:
>
>You should fly hang gliders.
>And talk about feel.
>hang glider to rigid wing hang glider to ultralight glider to 1-26 to PW5 to
>sports class, standard, 15m, 18m, open, 2 place open with motor. All have
>active
>competition and adherents. All can be done cheaply or expensively.
Could you explain about the cheaply done 2 place open with motor? My 201B has
too much "feel" (but a lot less than my hang glider).
Steve Bralla
Jam
It's a very light and responsive on the controls, so you have to be a
little careful on tow. It climbs very well, but its xc performance is not
good. With a little headwind you are not going to have a good L/D. The
reason for that is its low weight. You have a poor penetration. But if you
don't want to race it, and what are looking for is local flying and an
ocassional xc, it is a very good bird. Easy to rig and derig, easy control
at ground (you can move it yourself alone) and easy to fly.
Good flying
Jam
Snead1 <sne...@aol.com> escribió en artículo
<19990209204915...@ng-cr1.aol.com>...
> I am seriously considering the purchase of a PW-5. I would like to
discuss the
> glider with some of the owners.
>
Tim Taylor
John Wren wrote:
> These are all great theories, but the fact is a new LS4 still costs a hell
> of a lot more than a PW5. I first heard of the LS4 World Class glider theory
> back in the early to mid 80's when (I think) Jim Dean from Estrella wrote to
> SOARING magazine. I'm sure many others had the same idea and I must say it
> seemed like a great idea to me, also. But, in the end it did not come to
> pass and many other great ideas where past by in favor of the PW5.
>
> A whole great process was created by some of the greatest soaring minds in
> the world. This process was played out over the better part of a decade and
> in the end a whole bunch of people, of which most of us don't even know,
> came to a decision. That decision was to declare the PW5 the World Class
> glider. From that moment the whirlwind of second guessing has not stopped.
> So what do we do? Throw the towel in, round up all PW5's and burn them at
> sunset or let the supporters get on with it. I can understand the support
> from many areas, but I can't quite figure out the absolute hate that comes
> from many people. Granted there are those who have tried to make the WC the
> salvation of all soaring. We as a group always seem to be trying to break
> through some barrier and make this sport second to soccer on the world
> stage. Personally, I think it's too much for one little glider to do. Save
> soaring and break through decades of entrenched political power bases within
> our sport..........
John,
You misinterpret the comments and intent. If we do not evaluate and understand
what occurred how can we improve on the process the next time around. You seem
to think that we are one: against the PW-5 and two: against the World Class.
both are incorrect, but I do believe there were better solutions to the
problem. Some of the problems were in the design of the world class glider
competition. We ended up limiting the wingspan to about 13m maximum which
left the performance below what most current pilots want to fly. I have owned
a Standard Cirrus (~36 to one) and now own a Nimbus 2M (~48 to one). Both
ships have good penetration even when flown dry. Most pilots want a ship they
feel will let them reach the next findable thermal on an average day. The
distribution theory of thermals shows that the probability goes up dramatically
with increase l/d and penetration.
You are right that the price of a LS-4 is still ~$40K. No increase in
production numbers, no competition, no decrease in cost and price.
I support the World Class concept, but wish the ship had been a very basic 15m
standard class ship such as a fixed gear LS-4. A more standard design would
have helped with the acceptance by the current pilots and the higher
performance would have made it more acceptable to own for everyday cross
country flying as well a competing in the World Class. Using the LS-4 would
have had a large base to start from 10 years ago, rather than just getting a
fifteen year old design to critical mass today.
I hope the world Class and the PW-5 succeed, maybe on the next round we will
get a 38+ glider.
Tim
John Cochrane
> >hang glider to rigid wing hang glider to ultralight glider to 1-26 to PW5 to
> >sports class, standard, 15m, 18m, open, 2 place open with motor. All have
> >active competition and adherents. All can be done cheaply or expensively.
>
> Could you explain about the cheaply done 2 place open with motor?
It was a serious comment. The answer is utilization; form a 10 pilot partnership
or club. "Done" doesn't have to mean "own". Airliners fly 16 hours a day. If money
is more important than time and that's what you want to fly, you can spend time
organizing things so the ASH 25M is aloft 5 revenue-generating hours a day. Do
like the guys turning stemme S10s into a business. Or buy a wreck and rebuild it.
If time is more important than money, spend the money. That's what I do and so do
most others, but by choice not by necessity. Gliding is only expensive if you
choose to make it so.
On the other end, I used to buy a new $6,000 hang glider every two or three
years, selling the old one for $500; a $1,000 harness, parachute, instruments,
oxygen..plus of course a $40k sport-ute to drag the whole mess to the top of a
hill. I gather paraglider pilots turn them over even faster. My Discus is
starting to look cheap!
John Cochrane
Ian Strachan
writes
snip
>criteria for the design competition that started this
>whole thing off.
The performance criterion for the World Class glider was "at least
1:30", as I understand it. The question for potential purchasers is:
does the resulting glider (the PW5) suit their soaring needs and their
pockets.
I personally always thought that this criterion was set too low. Had it
been 1:35, or 15 metre, we would have got a much better cross-country
performance for the World Class glider, at only a little extra cost.
But the PW5/World Class is now fixed as it is. Whether you like it or
not will depend on your perspective on the concept of a K6-performance
one-design class, the soaring conditions in your locality, "the depth of
your pocket", whether or not you do not mind a second hand glider, or
can pool resources in a syndicate-owned ship.
In countries where there is an abundance of second hand 15 metre glass
ships, and less soaring depth than in other localities, it appears that
few PW5s are being flown (for instance, none amongst the 200 or so
gliders at Lasham except the UK demonstrator). The converse also seems
to apply such as in New Zealand and the USA, particularly when there are
keen protagonists such as John Roake in NZ, active PW5 agents, one-
design Word Class associations and flying groups, and the like.
In terms of performance, when I used to fly Skylarks and K6s, I used to
land out quite frequently when attempting cross-countries in the UK.
When 15 metre glass came along, the performance was increased just
enough to cross those gaps, and I found that my land-outs were reduced
significantly. A combination of better Max L/D, and, more important,
reasonable L/D at higher speeds. Of course we have weak conditions and
shallow thermal depth in our part of the world, the above remark about
frequent land-outs would not apply to 10,000 ft cloudbases and strong
lift conditions. But there may be a "critical performance level" of
glider for the type of cross-country flying which satisfies you. It
will be appropriate to your soaring conditions and your personal
ambitions, and may or may not include K6/PW5 performance levels,
depending on what are your goals in the sport.
As usual, "you pays your money and takes your choice" .....
--
Ian Strachan
John Wren
I am glad you support the WC concept and I do understand what you are
trying to point out. My point is all of these battles have been fought
and now it is time to get on with it. If the WC rules allowed 15m wings
tomorrow I'm sure the factory could wack them out within a week,
but you I and both know that will not happen.
So, all we can do now is try and make what we have work. Now, if only the
IGC could figure out what it wants to do (open,std,15m, WC, club, 18m)! It
would make life a lot easier for the rest of us.
John Wren
PS I think we should hold out for the new 49' 2 1/2" class.
Kenneth P. Bowman
<tayl...@remove.missouri.edu> wrote:
> You are right that the price of a LS-4 is still ~$40K. No increase in
> production numbers, no competition, no decrease in cost and price.
In all this discussion of the PW-5 vs. the LS-4, I haven't seen any
indication that Rolladen-Schneider (as an example) was interested in
licensing their design. The rules required the manufacturer to provide
drawings, etc. for a one time charge of 2000 Swiss francs and 1000 Swiss
francs ($700 in current U.S. dollars) for each additional unit built. Why
should they, or the manufacturer of any other successful design, give up
that exclusive right for such a low return? They know very well what it
costs to produce the ship, and any increased production could very well go
to other manufacturers, rather than to themselves. This would mean that
their own productions costs would not decrease much.
The strongest argument against the 'LS-4' approach might be the economic
impact on the original manufacturer.
BTW: the SZD 51-2, a relatively 'standard' 15-m design was an entrant in
the World Class competition, but was not selected.
The contest entrants were described in the November and December 1992
issues of Soaring, and the PW-5 in December 1993.
Ken Bowman
--
Kenneth P. Bowman, Professor 409-862-4060
Department of Meteorology 409-862-4466 fax
Texas A&M University bowmanATcsrp.tamu.edu
College Station, TX 77843-3150 Change the AT to @
Bill Jepson
<sne...@aol.com> writes
>I am seriously considering the purchase of a PW-5. I would like to discuss the
>glider with some of the owners.
My club (Burn - UK) purchased a PW-5 about 6 months ago after trying a
demonstrator.
It is flown by pilots at all stages from very early solo to very
experienced. It is fun to fly and it has proved a very popular aircraft
with all. The real test will come in the Summer but I see it as being a
good soaring and early cross country machine. It will probably not
satisfy the serious cross country pundit.
If you require any further info contact me by E-mail
--
Bill