ASH 31Mi
magnus...@comhem.se
Jim White
>http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/produkte/ash31/ash31_main_e.htm
>
Can anyone lend me Ł200,000 at 1% ??
Jim
Martin Gregorie
> At 13:14 19 December 2008, magnus...@comhem.se wrote:
>>http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/produkte/ash31/ash31_main_e.htm
>>
> Can anyone lend me £200,000 at 1% ??
>
Give Gordon another month and he'll do it.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
Andy
> http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/produkte/ash31/ash31_main_e.htm
I have revised my Christmas list!
Interesting that they are going back to water bags.
Also interesting that they claim no need for a tail tank. They said
the same for the 28 but then offered it as an option. I ordered one
with mine and I use it. Did anyone actually buy a 28 without the tail
tank?
Andy
John Galloway
"Our newly-developed wing structure allows for a wing span of 21m despite
of a wing section as thin as 13%."
Anyone got any information about what is new about the wing structure?
Anything that might make the surfaces have a low susceptibility to
shrinkage and deformity?
John Galloway
Jim White
Schleicher seem to have an interesting slant on this. I have a 27 without
a fin tank. Although ballast does move the cofg forward they say this is
no bad thing as you want to be nose heavy for running ridges and on good
days and tail heavy for weak thermals. Therefore, they argue that you put
water in for good days moving the cofg slightly forward, and drop it when
thermals are weak moving cofg further aft.
They see no need for pilot adjustment of balance through a fin tank. Some
owners obviously disagree as they pay extra for the tank.
I just add / remove tail lead as I feel for the day / season / type of
flying (within limits of course)
Jim
Andy
> At 15:52 19 December 2008, Andy wrote:
>. Although ballast does move the cofg forward they say this is
> no bad thing as you want to be nose heavy for running ridges and on good
> days and tail heavy for weak thermals. Therefore, they argue that you put
> water in for good days moving the cofg slightly forward, and drop it when
> thermals are weak moving cofg further aft.
I agree with that. My ballasted CG is forward of my unballasted CG
despite the use of the tail tank. I only need about 1.5l to put
ballasted CG where I want it so maybe I don't really need it. My
unballasted CG is set for weak conditions and I had to add nose
ballast at a no water ballast contest as I got very tired of pushing
the stick when running between strong thermals.
Andy
Udo Rumpf
This was the first flapped airfoil on a 15 meter class glider of that
design to shift the C of P forward at high cruise. I can go as far forward
as 28% chord in the normal operating range. It was the insistence of G.
Waibel that one could carry laminar flow over 90% chord at the bottom
surface over a sealed hinge. The rest was up to L. Boermans to figure out.
Variation of that airfoil design are in used on all kinds of modern
gliders now. The side benefit is, that the normal H stab down load is
reduced or even contributing to the over all lift, when cruising faster.
The DU89-134/14 in its zero line configuration (#2 flap setting in an
ASW27) looks more like an airfoil for a tail less glider.
When you fly with out water you fly with the C of G back ( weaker
conditions) when adding water
(stronger condition) the C of G moves forward, this matches the design
outcome, hence, I personally think ,that lead to the idea of no tail tank
required initially.
As to stick force i.e. trim load on the stick and how they exactly relate
with water I do not know. I fly with no water till now because I fly
mostly in weak condition. I have my C of G back in the 80% range and with
that I have normal trim loads, Trim all the way back no stick load in a
steady 40 deg. bank and I can cruise with out stick load with trim
forward.
Udo
Darryl Ramm
I know the change to wing tanks on the ASW-27B but Schleicher are not
necessarily "going back to water bags", I suspect their motorgliders
use bags as this makes the installation of wing fuel bladders easier/
more flexible although I'm sure they could do it either way. And on a
26 (not many of those) or a 26E with engine removed you can add inner
water bag in each wing - although I wonder if anybody does this.
Although you can fit both fuel bladders and the standard (outer) water
bags into a 26E the issue is you pretty much run out of allowable wing
loading. And some owners (like me) don't even bother to fit the water
bags. The higher wingloading on the -31 will be nice on strong days
and allow better use of water and combined water/fuel loads. But who
knows, maybe they will use bags on their next non-motorized gliders as
well. We'll have to wait and see what the ASG-32 comes with...
Darryl
26E driver.
Tom
Tom
OD2
"Jim White" <ji...@boffins.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6r1r7lF...@mid.individual.net...
Dieter Reuter
Hi John,
the newly-developed structure means mainly some stronger wing
structure to get the MTOW up to 600kg (or maybe more).
The fuselage, tail and wings are mostly the same from the 26. Only wih
slight changes and with new extension tips for the 21m. These
extension tips are exactly from the ASG-29 from the same molds. This
makes it very easy to create this new ship within a few months. I
expect the first 31 should be ready in March or April, 2009.
Dieter
bumper
"John Galloway" <jpg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6r20gcF...@mid.individual.net...
John,
My ASH26E is six years old with no sign of wing deformity (spar showing
etc). I understand this was a problem for Schleicher at one point, and some
ordering new ships were insisting that wings be cured twice etc.
I sometimes fly winter wave and have no gel coat cracks to show for it at
all. My glider is most always left assembled and hangared.
bumper
zz
Minden
Greg Arnold
The leading edge of the -26 wing is straight to about 60% of span, where
it transitions to a sweptback to the tip. The transition on the -31
wing is much less distinct, so I don't see how the -26 wing could be
used at that point. So they must be using more than just the -29
extensions.
JS
Can 31 wings be retrofitted to the 26?
Are the AS-H31 18m panels the AS-G29 15m panels, etc? That would
make sense.
With the inner panels having a 14m span it would be possible to
build 15m tips for the 31 and fly three classes.
It would be faster than the AS-W17 with wooden 15m tips, and that was
a rocket ship in it's time!
Basics of the KS review of the AS-W17/15m was: "Two speeds, thermal
and red line."
Jim
Eric Greenwell
> The leading edge of the -26 wing is straight to about 60% of span, where
> it transitions to a sweptback to the tip. The transition on the -31
> wing is much less distinct, so I don't see how the -26 wing could be
> used at that point. So they must be using more than just the -29
> extensions.
By overlaying the 3 view drawings for the 26 and 31, it's clear the 26
wing is swept back more than the 31 wing at the "break" in the leading
edge; i.e., the chord at the parting point is larger for the 31 than the
26. It also appears the chord at the wingtip is slightly less for the
31, but that may be asking too much of the 3 views I have.
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org
Greg Arnold
> Greg Arnold wrote:
>
>> The leading edge of the -26 wing is straight to about 60% of span,
>> where it transitions to a sweptback to the tip. The transition on the
>> -31 wing is much less distinct, so I don't see how the -26 wing could
>> be used at that point. So they must be using more than just the -29
>> extensions.
>
> By overlaying the 3 view drawings for the 26 and 31, it's clear the 26
> wing is swept back more than the 31 wing at the "break" in the leading
> edge; i.e., the chord at the parting point is larger for the 31 than the
> 26. It also appears the chord at the wingtip is slightly less for the
> 31, but that may be asking too much of the 3 views I have.
>
For the 30, didn't they take the 29 wings, and add extensions to each
root to get to a wingspan of 26.5 meters? My guess is that for the 31
they took the 30 wings, and cut off most of what they had added, leaving
a 1.5 meter root extension on each 29 wing. Sort of like what they have
done for the 18 and 20 meter versions of the Antares:
http://tinyurl.com/9qeydy.
If so, the 31 wing would not use any part of the 26 wing. It seems to me
that this would be less costly than trying to combine the inner section
of the 26 wing with the outer section of the 29 wing.
Dieter Reuter
> With the inner panels having a 14m span it would be possible to
> build 15m tips for the 31 and fly three classes.
> It would be faster than the AS-W17 with wooden 15m tips, and that was
> a rocket ship in it's time!
> Basics of the KS review of the AS-W17/15m was: "Two speeds, thermal
> and red line."
> Jim
>
> On Dec 20, 3:56 am, Dieter Reuter <dieter.reu...@t-online.de> wrote
Hi Jim,
interesting idea to get a new 15m wing for the 26 or 31. But with such
a high minimum wing load, this makes not really sense for me. The
empty weight of the ASH-31Mi will increase to 400-420kg, some of the
first ASH-26E reaches 390-400kg.
Maybe if a lot of customers ask Schleicher to build 15m tips. I'll try
to ask Martin Heide if this could be a future option, next time when I
pick up my 29 in a few weeks.
Dieter
Andy
>I understand this was a problem for Schleicher at one point, and some
> ordering new ships were insisting that wings be cured twice etc.
What curing is done at Schleicher? I did not think they had or used
an autoclave. I think my 28 was cured in Arizona.
Andy
Tuno
How often do you fly with water ballast?
I have seen several Schleicher wings in Arizona and New Mexico that
had visible wing spar bumps (when viewed from the right angle),
gliders less than 5 years young.
The flight and maintenance manuals for my ASG29 are emphatic about
completely emptying the wings after flights with water ballast. They
even added additional drain plugs at the wing root rib leading edge,
to ensure complete drainage when trailered, and the manuals go so far
as to suggest removing the wing root gaskets when ballast will not be
used for a while.
So, the factory seems to be firmly convinced that residual moisture is
the shrinkage culprit. I am going to take their word for it, and keep
those wings ventilated on the ground.
2NO
Darryl Ramm
Ted
As already mentioned, the ASH-26E has water bags not wing tanks.
And because of wing loading, some ASH-26E do not see much water,
especially if they have the optional wing fuel bags. Whether Bumper's
26E has water bags and they are used much, he will need to answer.
Darryl
Andy
> So, the factory seems to be firmly convinced that residual moisture is
> the shrinkage culprit.
Either that, or a very convenient way to blame the customer for the
problem. Personally I don't buy it. The humidity inside a wing in
some US states and many European countries is probably far higher for
a sailplane that has never been loaded with ballast than for one in
Arizona that has been loaded, dumped, and stored with the fill caps
off.
I got water inside the wings of my 28 when I landed out and got dumped
on by a torrential thunderstorm. The winds were high enough I secured
the airbrakes full open. Water filled the airbrake boxes and then
made its way into the wing. I tried very hard to drain in out, I
tried to vacuum it out with long tubes, but nothing worked. I could
still hear it sloshing around in there. I called the US agent
thinking the next step would be to drill holes in the wings, and he
said don't worry about it. I had pulled off the aileron push rod
seals to vent the wing aft of the spar and left them off for a few
days. After cooking in the trailer in the Arizona sun for a week or
less there was no more sloshing. All the water had gone.
Andy
bumper
"Tuno" <tedcw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a855d2dc-9cb4-4283...@f24g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> Bumper,
>
> How often do you fly with water ballast?
>
As Darryl says, many 26E's don't have water, especially if they have fuel
bladders in the wings, as mine does. To get heavy, I add fuel.
To minimize my carbon footprint, I've installed igniters for when I need to
dump ballast.
bumper
zz
Minden