•

Airs

pace

??

4/97Aug-Sep

free

flig

ht

vol

lib

re

free flight 4/972

LiaisonAIRSPACE I want to extend our appreciation to the BC Soaring Society for theirpublic-spirited and generous gift of $1500 to help defray costs arising from the inten-sive pace of activities of our Airspace committee this year. At the time that the budgetwas constructed it was difficult to forecast the scale and cost of the work. Airspaceissues are likely to remain a priority item for the next few years.

RECRUITING Does your club have an active recruiting campaign? Some clubshave been doing a super job this year and their membership is on the rise. This isencouraging for them and for the soaring community at large. There also appears tobe an increased awareness about the importance of membership retention. Have alook at the membership meter in this issue. So far, we are slightly ahead of last year.

INSURANCE It has come to my attention that some clubs delay in registeringnew members and sometimes not-so-new ones. Their treasurers become preoccupied with other matters or justforget. Others seem to wait until they have a number of new and renewed memberships in hand before they advisethe SAC Office. Remember that the SAC insurance plan only applies if the pilots are bona fide SAC members. If anaccident occurs and the members involved are not registered with SAC, a claim could be called into question. It iseasy to advise SAC of new members; this can be done by telephone, fax, e-mail or regular mail. Do not wait for anaccident to happen before you discover that the relatively minor paperwork has been neglected.

AERO CLUB of CANADA The Aero Club of Canada, which is our link to the Fédération Aéronautique Inter-nationale (FAI), is under financial pressure. Government funding has been cut off and the cost of Canada’s contribu-tion to the FAI has been rising. In 1995 our contribution to the Aero Club was $5600. In 1996, at the Aero Club’srequest we raised that temporarily by 70 percent to $9500 ($7.56 for each member) to give the Aero Club time to getits financial house in order. In 1997, we committed $7500 (about $6 per member), this is still high and a significantportion of our overall budget — and the Aero Club has been requesting more. In our judgement SAC’s share of theAero Club budget is too high, Canada’s share of the FAI budget is too high and the Aero Club needs to do more tobroaden the basis of its financial support. Canada’s subscription to the FAI is more than one third of the USA’s andthe same as France’s. Clearly, this is not equitable and we want the Aero Club to make stronger representations tothe FAI to reduce Canada’s share. We also want the Aero Club to encourage the FAI to be more creative in dealingwith its own financial situation. We provided the Aero Club with some suggestions in these regards; however, ourcorrespondence was never acknowledged. Given its financial circumstances and effects of this on its memberorganizations, I was most surprised to see little mention of financial issues in the minutes of the Aero Club’s lastAGM. There was a discussion of a possible name change to the Royal Aero Club of Canada; it was suggested thatthis may have some financial benefits. I am not convinced.

Fly safely and be happy.

Si vous désirez participer au cours d’instructeur qui sera donné en septembre, SVP communiquer avec moi via lebureau national. Marc Lussier doit me confirmer sous peu les dates. Vous pouvez le faire via fax, e-mail ou courrier.

Je parcours depuis peu l’Internet et j’ai pris un intérêt à regarder les interventions dans le babillard de discussion.J’ai été surpris de voir comment peu de francophones participent. Jean Richard est l’exception qui confirme la rêgle.Denis Pepin de CVVQ et Jean Lapierre de Champlain sont les autres rares exceptions. En fait, il y a peu deQuébecois inscrits dans la liste des adresses Internet des membres de SAC/ACVV. Si vous êtes branchés, laissezle savoir au webmaster. Merci.

Bon vols, soyez prudents. Pierre Pepin president

4/97 free flight 3

ISSN 0827 – 2557

The journal of the Soaring Association of CanadaLe journal de l’Association Canadienne de Vol à Voile

free flight vol libre•

4/97 Aug/Sep

sports and torts 4 liability law and sports associations – Tony Burton

preventing midairs ... 5 things possible at the club level – Jim Short

crossing divides 6 a soaring recapitulation of youthful climbs – Mike Glatiotis

1997 nationals 8 the contest story – Dave Springfordhow to lose a contest by one mistake – Jörg Stieber

the nature of flight limitations 12 a review of the flight envelope – H.A. Tarode

PW-5 impressions 14 testing the little sailplane – Charles Yeates & George Graham

do winglets work? 16 yes, and here’s why – Steve Smith

DEPARTMENTS

18 SAC News — airspace notes, first Corley scholarship recipient, SACmembership meter, Cowley first national soaring site

19 Hangar Flying — 10 rules of aviation, the value of wing profiling,Ontario and Alberta soaring ladders, book review, Pemberton 1997

21 Training & Safety — weight watching for glider pilots (in flight)

22 FAI Badges & Records — badge and record data, typical sealed leadacid battery characteristics

Cover

David Habercom took this photo of CharlesYeates being launched at the first PW-5

competition in North America, at MifflinCounty Airport, PA in mid-May.

free flight 4/974

5Deadline for contributions:

January, MarchMay, JulySeptember, November

TheSOARING ASSOCIATION of CANADA

is a non-profit organization of enthusiasts whoseek to foster and promote all phases of glidingand soaring on a national and internationalbasis. The association is a member of the AeroClub of Canada (ACC), the Canadian nationalaero club representing Canada in the Fédéra-tion Aéronautique Internationale (FAI), the worldsport aviation governing body composed ofnational aero clubs. The ACC delegates to SACthe supervision of FAI-related soaring activitiessuch as competition sanctions, issuing FAIbadges, record attempts, and the selection of aCanadian team for the biennial World soaringchampionships.

free flight is the official journal of SAC.

Material published in free flight is contributedby individuals or clubs for the enjoyment ofCanadian soaring enthusiasts. The accuracy ofthe material is the responsibility of the con-tributor. No payment is offered for submittedmaterial. All individuals and clubs are invitedto contribute articles, reports, club activities,and photos of soaring interest. A 3.5" disk copyof text in any common word processing formatis welcome (Macintosh preferred, DOS is ok inASCII text). All material is subject to editing tothe space requirements and the quality stand-ards of the magazine.

Prints in B&W or colour are required. No slidesor negatives please.

free flight also serves as a forum for opinion onsoaring matters and will publish letters to theeditor as space permits. Publication of ideasand opinion in free flight does not imply en-dorsement by SAC. Correspondents who wishformal action on their concerns should contacttheir SAC Zone Director whose name andaddress is listed in the magazine.

The contents of free flight may be reprinted;however , SAC requests that both the magazineand the author be given acknowledgement.

For change of address and subscriptions fornon-SAC members ($26/$47/$65 for 1/2/3 years,US$26/$47/$65 in USA & overseas), contactthe National Office at the address below.

President Pierre PepinVice President Richard LonghurstExecutive Director Jim McCollumCorporate Treasurer Jim McCollumLegal Counsel Robert WappelSecretary vacant

SAC office: 101 – 1090 Ambleside Dr. Ottawa, ON K2B 8G7

tel: (613) 829-0536 fax: 829-9497e-mail: sac@comnet.cawebsite: www.sac.ca

SPORTS AND TORTS

These notes were taken during a sports seminar on liability law and sportsassociations. Has your club taken even the minimum steps to determineairfield risk and then to “manage” it both practically and legally? editor

• Negligence & Liability — know what they mean• Risk Management — the application of this knowledge in planning• Tools & Techniques — waivers, contracts, informed consent, etc.

LIABILITY — to be legally bound, obligated, subject to, answerable for.

NEGLIGENCE — a lack of proper care.

To be legally negligent, four elements must be met:1 a duty of care is owed,2 an established standard of care has been breached,3 a harm or loss is then suffered,4 the breach of care substantially contributes to the harm or loss suffered.

“Duty of care” means you can foresee that your actions (or lack of them) willhave an effect on a person/group; you ought to know who will be affected;and a reasonable, average, similarly situated person would also see an effectis foreseeable.

“Care standards” are defined as:• written standards – job descriptions, checklists, government standards• unwritten standards – airfield safety, a windsock, etc.• past court decisions – precedent• common sense – natural justice

If a “standard of care” is met, the law will protect you if your actions causeinjury, IF the risks have been properly managed AND the care is reasonablein the circumstances.

RISK MANAGEMENT Risks can be minimized but not eliminated. Risk is thechance of damage or loss occurring.

Risk magnitude = severity x frequency

RISK MANAGEMENT PLANNINGAll planning takes the following steps, but using different language perhaps:

• establish risk management GOALS (this is the first step in legally demon-strating that a club has met a reasonable standard of care)

• inventory possible risks (to equipment, members, strangers)• find a means of controlling the risks• evaluate control means in light of care, risk magnitude, resources available,• select an appropriate mix of risk management measures• put the measures into effect• monitor your risk management system (repeat the cycle)

RISK CONTROL• to people:

– eliminate the risk (close airfield, remove campground toys)– reduce risk (management, training)

• to finances:– retain the risk (absorb losses, self-insure, deductibles)– transfer the risk (insurance, contracts, waivers, lease of facilities) ❖

4/97 free flight 5

5Date limite:

janvier, marsmai, juilletseptembre, novembre

EDITORTony BurtonBox 1916 Claresholm, AB T0L 0T0tel & fax (403) 625-4563e-mail free-flt@agt.net

Any service of Canada Post to aboveaddress. Any commercial courierservice, c/o “Claresholm Local Press”

COMMERCIAL ADVERTISINGNational Office (613) 829-0536e-mail sac@comnet.ca

L’ASSOCIATION CANADIENNEDE VOL A VOILE

est une organisation à but non lucratif forméede personnes enthousiastes cherchant à dév-elopper et à promouvoir le vol à voile soustoutes ses formes sur une base nationale etinternationale. L’association est membre del’Aéro Club du Canada (ACC) représentant leCanada au sein de la Fédération AéronautiqueInternationale (FAI), administration formée desaéro clubs nationaux responsables des sportsaériens à l’échelle mondiale. Selon les normesde la FAI, l’ACC a délégué à l’AssociationCanadienne de Vol à Voile la supervision desactivités de vol à voile telles que tentatives derecords, sanctions des compétitions, délivrancedes brevets de la FAI etc. ainsi que la sélectiond’une équipe nationale pour les championnatsmondiaux biennaux de vol à voile.

vol libre est le journal officiel de l’ACVV.

Les articles publiés dans vol libre sont descontributions dues à la gracieuseté d’individusou de groupes enthousiastes du vol à voile. Lecontenu des articles soumis est la respon-sabilité exclusive de leurs auteurs. Aucunecompensation financière n’est offerte pour lafourniture d’un article. Chacun est invité àparticiper à la réalisation de la revue, soit parreportages, échanges d’opinions, activités dansle club, etc. Le texte peut être soumis surdisquette de format 3.5" sous n’importe quelformat de traitement de texte bien que l’éditeurpréfère le format Macintosh (DOS est accept-able). Les articles seront publiés selon l’espacedisponible. Les textes et les photos serontsoumis à la rédaction et, dépendant de leurintérêt, seront insérés dans la revue.

Les épreuves de photo en noir et blanc oucouleur sont requises; pas de diapositives nide negatifs s’il vous plaît.

L’exactitude des articles publiés est la respon-sabilité des auteurs et ne saurait en aucun casengager celle de la revue vol libre, ni celle del’ACVV ni refléter leurs idées. Toute personnedésirant faire des représentations sur un sujetprécis auprès de l’ACVV devra s’adresser audirecteur régional de l’ACVV dont le nomapparait dans la revue. Les articles de vol librepeuvent être reproduits librement, mais la men-tion du nom de la revue et de l’auteur seraitgrandement appréciée.

Veuillez vous adresser au bureau national àl’adresse indiquée à gauche du bas de la pagepour tout changement d’adresse et abonne-ment à vol libre. Les prix des abonnementsà cette revue sont les suivants: au Canada $26,$47 et $65 pour 1, 2 ou 3 ans et aux EtatsUnis et outre–mer les mêmes montants maisexprimés en $ américains.

Preventing midairs between glidersand heavy aircraft

Jim Shortfrom the Soaring Society of America website. It is equallyrelevant to many Canadian clubs.

T oday we cannot deny that parts of the airspace are crowded. Particularly around termi- nal airspace (Classes B and C) we find more heavy aircraft operations than ever before.We find more airline activity dedicated to moving more people more quickly and moreeconomically. We can’t deny these facts or the safety challenge they represent to recrea-tional forms of aviation such as soaring! As glider pilots, we are proponents of the “See andBe Seen” principle.... If we want to protect our right to fly in certain airspace and our privi-lege to carry less sophisticated navigation and surveillance equipment than other forms ofaviation, we are going to need more vigilance and more responsibility in sharing airspacewith our commercial brethren. At a recent meeting of the General Aviation Action PlanCoalition in Washington, SSA (along with other associations) was directly challenged byEAA Administrator Hinson to “Find a way to achieve a goal of no midairs”. Later in themeeting Hinson stated, “If you (general aviation societies and associations) don’t find away to do this, we will find it for you”. In 1997 that is a fact, not a threat.

The purpose of this letter is to raise our levels of consciousness of this problem. It is alsoto lay out a method for each local soaring operation to develop ways to reduce conflict inareas of glider/heavy aircraft interface. Finally, it is to enlist everyone who reads this letter tothink and act to reduce conflict which could lead to that worst of catastrophes — a collisionbetween a glider and a commercial or military aircraft....

SSA asks each site, club, or school to appoint an airspace chairman Appoint a clubmember who is aware of the approach, departure and enroute patterns of other categoriesof aircraft within 30 to 40 miles of your normal soaring areas. This member could be an IFRrated power pilot, an airline pilot who is familiar with sailplane flight routes as well as ATCprocedures, or a glider-only pilot who just wants to get involved.

What should the airspace chairman do? Start by diagramming the busy corridorsin which heavy and high speed (ie. commercial, military or business) aircraft operate. Forinstructional purposes, these diagrams could be made on sectional charts or on other mapswhich are illustrative for glider pilots flying locally or cross-country. The diagrams shouldshow, among other ideas:

1 approach and departure routes for commercial (or high activity) airports.2 altitudes at which aircraft typically operate on these routes.3 busy IFR intersections and reporting points, VORs and other hazardous areas

such as parachute jumping zones, known aerobatic practise areas, etc.4 typical glider operating areas and cross-country routes.5 conflict and danger areas for soaring operations.

What then? Hold regular briefings as part of ground schools, area check-outs or localsafety meetings, to make sure that everyone flying at your site knows of the danger areas.Seek input from everyone at your meetings; for starters, discuss these topics:

• areas and altitudes to avoid in order to relieve potential interface with high speed metal.• how to reduce conflict when flying through danger areas on cross-countries.• the absolute need to adhere to standard cloud clearances and possibly even double

them in high traffic areas. Adherence to other traffic and airspace responsibilities.• what areas should be avoided in times of reduced visibility.• published and observed changes in the large aircraft approach/departure behaviour.• how glider pilots can report traffic to each other on glider frequencies.• how gliders in some areas can contact Approach Control when a need arises.

Disseminate the results of these meetings in mailings and newsletters. Post your maps show-ing areas of potential conflict on your club bulletin board. Concentrate on traffic proceduresand collision avoidance during Biennial Flight Reviews. Plan a briefing on local and cross-country soaring operations for local air traffic personnel. Build a team relationship with ATCpersonnel so you can work together to alleviate problems before they occur. Take ATCpersonnel for glider flights so they know what we do... Let’s work together to save our skiesthrough safety, education and responsible use. ❖

free flight 4/976

Mike Glatiotis, Cu Nim

HE first glider I ever saw flying was in the mountains around Banff where

I grew up, and the impression it made fol-lowed me for 25 years before I was finallyable to begin learning the skill which mightallow me the freedom and joy that I knewthat pilot many years ago had felt.

I’d spent the intervening years scramblingand climbing in the Rockies, thinking thatno other endeavour could match the thrillof cresting a snowy ridge and climbing toan alpine summit. Many of the great peaksfell to the enthusiasm of youth, but finallywork and career turned me away from themountains. But the dim memories of a sail-plane silently drifting down to land on agrassy strip at the base of a waterfall-gracedcliff prompted a new challenge, to learn tofly on nature’s terms. And so my appren-ticeship began, and continues today.

From the very first soaring flights, alongsidebald eagles and red tail hawks, I was al-ways drawn to the mountains, circling everhigher the more distant from home field,calculating safe glides back home, and cau-tiously edging westward while Diamondsfell to venturesome pilots who explored thevast prairie sky.

Slowly, I learned the skills that set me freeand which opened a whole new world ofexploration, soaring cloud to cloud, cross-ing improbable blue seas to uncertain liftbeyond. Always though, the mountainscalled, and on the best of days I would tip-toe out to sample the first ridge of rocks, ordrive to the Columbia River valley in BCand taste the heady thrills of circling peaksand racing along mountain ridges, contour-ing the slopes, hooking the boomers to“twelve five”, or searching for sheep andgoats grazing the high country.

Eventually, I flew over the first of the peaksthat I had once climbed. Well above. Palmssweating as I turned at cloudbase in weaklift, gazing down long valleys that stretchedinterminably towards my landable fields farbelow. The lift is there — you always haveto judge it carefully, but on the good days,it is there. Otherwise, you spend the daypolishing rocks close to the Columbia, withhay fields and airstrips close to hand. Thelocal masters show you the way, flying fast,thousands of feet below, teaching in flightas you watch from above.

Slowly, a plan formed to attempt to explorein the air all of the peaks once climbed,culminating in that improbable crossing ofthe Great Divide, bridging the prairies to

the Columbia. Not that this hasn’t been donebefore, but soaring is an intense personalexperience, and regardless of the pioneersbefore, each flight is new, and each range anew exploration.

Dick Mamini made the first crossing, some27 years ago, from the David Thompsoncountry through the Howse Pass to Golden.Maybe it was his ship I saw as a kid. Hecelebrated the event a couple of yearsago with another crossing, this time fromGolden, soaring south to Fernie then cross-ing through the Crowsnest Pass to meet usall in Cowley. His advice and insights onpicking the day and the route stuck in mymind, and I patiently waited my turn.

June 28 arrived with little promise for agreat soaring day. My birthday ensured aday out at the airfield, and instability lead-ing to thundershowers over the foothillspromised a small window of opportunityfor some fun, but the low cloudbases thatformed barely enabled a climb out of thealert area over Cu Nim. I rigged Jolly Milleranyway, and provisioned it well with waterand food, sticking my shoes and socks alongwith long pants and a jacket behind myhead in case I needed to walk out throughsome stubble field. I casually informeddeputy CFI Dave Fowlow that I might beheading westward if conditions permitted,so he could inform the terminal controllersthat we might just been leaving the airfieldalert area today.

I seriously doubted that I could even getaway from the field. It was a day to just

Crossing DividesT

On the way across the “Rocks”, facing east. Under the wing, note thelower cloudbase of the cumulus on the east side of the mountains.

4/97 free flight 7

follow the clouds, so shortly after release Iflew west and headed up Quirk Creek un-der a rapidly building street with a base atabout 8000 feet. TCA requested I stay un-der 9000, so that part was easy. Continuinginto the foothills at this altitude is some-what unnerving, as forested terrain rises upto meet you. Cloudbase rose to 9, and as Ipassed over Quirk, I turned to see the over-development beginning to rain in behindme. Anxious to avoid returning throughthat, I pushed a little further west wheresuddenly the clouds became very raggedyand the Rockies spread out before me. Likea razor line down the front range, this wispyedge of cloud gave way to another airmasswith beautiful flat-bottomed cu having basesat 13,000 over a sea of snowy peaks. Just alittle more ..., and I was lifted gently abovethe old cloudbase, transitioning to the new.The front ranges were mine to explore.

Gingerly pressing westward another range,it became apparent that the lift was strong,and very consistent. Unstable, but not toounstable, even the glides between thermalswere smooth, and I was able to establisha healthy lift band between 11,000 and12,500 feet. Cloudstreets lead me north-ward through Kananaskis Country, and as Ipassed over Mt. Sparrowhawk and Lougheedpeaks, I crossed more summits off my list.As per my usual impeccable planning, Istarted to get a bit cold, but was once againhappy to be a Schempp-Hirth owner. TheStandard Cirrus allowed me to take off thesandals, and put on the socks and shoes,after contorting myself into my long pants.Nothing graceful, but try that in your Jantar!

The sloppy turning drifted me further westover Spray Lakes, and directed my gazeto Mount Assiniboine (at 11,870 feet, thehighest point on the Divide south of theColumbia Icefields).

Eighteen years ago, on my eighteenth birth-day, I climbed that peak, and recalled thefeeling of cresting the summit ridge, andlooking out over the sea of mountains. Acrystal clear day, we were able to see outto the flatlands. I pointed the nose downand headed peakward. After all, it was mybirthday. What could go wrong?

Not much, as it turned out. Dolphiningover to the peak was deceptively easy, tra-versing seemingly unlandable terrain, butkeeping options open either at the reser-voir, or ridge running up to the Canmoregolf courses or to Banff or Nakiska. Thir-teen thousand feet givesplenty of options. Onreaching the summit, Ifound good strong liftcoming up the south andwest sides, so I brazenlypopped the spoilers outand dropped a thousandfeet to bring me face toface with my youth. Cir-cling the summit, I wasable to inspect the routeup that I had taken andscan closely for unsus-pecting mountaineers.Seeing that I was alone,and revelling in themoment, I swept alongthe north ridge, pullingup just at the main sum-mit to watch the vistaunfold as it had so longago, but this time cir-cling and climbing yethigher and higher.

The rest of the flightwas anticlimatic. A finalglide, dolphining downthe Mitchell River tothe Radium gap, meet-ing the pilots soaring

out of Invermere, and making a speedy ridgetop run to Golden and returning to Inver-mere is a blur. Landing in the hot ColumbiaValley air, I climbed out of the ship with asatisfied smile — and was greeted by friendsand cold beer. None other than Dick Mam-ini came on my retrieve; it was a gratifyingreturn across the Divide.

It’s hard to describe even the most commonsoaring encounter to those who have neversensed the freedom, escaping on silentwings. Harder yet when the experience isa very personal one that transcends yearsand other pursuits. Other flyers, though,can share in the joy of these flights, where-ever their challenges are sought. Mine arein the mountains, and this was a flight ofmy dreams. I may or may not have othercrossings, but the memory of this one willalways remain as new dreams arise. ❖

Mount Assiniboine

Mike, in Invermere,sandal-shod again.

Do

n E

van

s

free flight 4/978

Dave SpringfordSOSA

THE 1997 Canadian National SoaringCompetition was hosted by the SOSAgliding club from 8-17 July. There

were 38 competitors in three classes. FiveAmerican competitors registered for thecompetition with one, Russ McAnerny, com-ing from Phoenix Arizona. Pilots, crews andgliders started to arrive at SOSA on Satur-day and were greeted with great soaringconditions. There was even some frontalwave over the field allowing one pilot toreach 10,000 feet. There was a wide andvaried fleet of gliders on the grid, includingall the standard competiton gliders in theFAI classes. The Sports class even includedtwo PW-5 World class gliders. They are agreat climbing airplane, and with their1.20 handicap are very competitive in theSports class.

Sunday 6 July, Practise Day 1The forecast for the day called for a weakcold front to pass through the flying arealater in the afternoon. A short task of 185.6kilometres was called for the 15m and Stand-ard classes with turnpoints at Stratford air-port and Arthur East airport (York Soaring).The Sports class was assigned a task of 138.5kilometres with turnpoints at Plattsville,Conestoga Lake and Reid’s Field. The gridwas launched at 1230.

After the start gate opened and the gliderswere out on course the sky started to darkenas the front moved into the area soonerthan expected. Only two pilots from theFAI classes, Tim O’Hanlon (TJ) and DaveSpringford (S1) completed the course. In the

Sports class there was one finisher, AlanWood (AR). There were eight landouts onthe day, with the remaining pilots callingoff the task and returning home comment-ing that they really didn’t need the practiselanding out.

Monday 7 July, Practise Day 2The forecast for the day was much betterafter the passage of the cold front on Sun-day. The weatherman (Ted Froelich fromthe Gatineau Gliding Club) predicted 3-4knots lift up to 6000 feet. Since this was apractise day and everyone had to be backfor the pilot’s meeting at 1900, short taskswere set for the day. For the FAI classes a146.7 kilometre task was set (Woodstock/Stratford) and a 124.6 kilometre task wasset for the Sports class (Plattsville/Wood-stock/Reid’s Field). The grid was launchedat 1315.

The fastest speed of the day was recordedby Ed Hollestelle (A1) in the Standard class(92.4 km/h) and the fastest speed in 15mclass was Dave Springford (91.9 km/h).Scott McMaster in the SOSA Hornet (DW)recorded the fastest speed in the Sports class(75.4 km/h).

After the pilot’s meeting a wine and cheesesocial was held in the clubhouse. It gaveeveryone a chance to meet newcomers andcatch up with old friends.

Tuesday 8 JulyThe weather map for the opening dayshowed a low pressure system moving intothe area in the afternoon with severe weather

warnings and the possibility of hail in theLake Erie vicinity. At the 1000 pilot’s meet-ing, the Competition Director Larry Spring-ford called for another meeting at 1200.The opening ceremony took place at 1030following the meeting. About a hundredpeople gathered in front of the clubhouseto watch Oscar Boesch fly his ASW-15“Wings of Man” sailplane to the sounds ofBorn Free and High Flight. As always,Oscar’s performance was magnificent. Af-ter the performance the competition wasopened by local MP John Dryden, as wellas a representative from the local MPP ToniSkarica’s office who read a letter fromPremier Mike Harris.

At 1200 the day was scrubbed, but a cou-ple of publicity flights were flown for a newscrew from the local Kitchener CBC station.

Wednesday 9 July, Contest Day 1After the passage of a cold front overnight,it looked like the weather for the day wouldbe good. Despite the low postfrontal cloudsa 214 kilometre task (Arthur/Reid’s Field/Conestoga Lake) was set for the FAI classesand a 152 kilometre task (Arthur/ConestogaLake/Reid’s Field) was set for Sports. Aspredicted, around 1130 the low cloudstarted to break up. By 1300 there was sus-tainable lift and the grid was launched.There was reasonable lift in the 3-4 knotrange for most of the day except for a weakspot on the leg in and out of the ConestogaLake turnpoint. It turned out that the taskfor all classes was too short and the scoresderated since many pilots got around thecourses in less than 2.5 hours.

1997 nationals

Sports class winner, Adam Zieba

Edn

a C

avi

cc

hio

li

4/97 free flight 9

Wilf Krueger flew the course at 103 km/h,but due to camera problems the flight couldnot be verified. Wilf commented that hisflight computer showed an average climbrate of 4 knots and that he had thermalledfor only 22% of the flight. He was able touse cloudstreets for the trip north to Arthurand then back south to Guelph. He arrivedlow at Reid’s Field, but found a 6 knot ther-mal that got him to Conestoga.

Thursday 10 July, Contest Day 2The weather for the day looked super so theCD called for a pilot’s meeting an hourearly at 0900. The task for the FAI classeswas set at 375.5 kilometres (Tillsonburg/Priceville/Woodstock). The task for theSports class was a 194 kilometre triangle(Woodstock/Arthur) — relatively short giventhe soaring conditions, but out of concernfor the performance handicap of the PW-5.The grid launched at 1200.

In the Standard class Ian Spence (WW) flewthe course without seeing many other glid-ers. He was a little worried that he was along way behind the rest of the pack. As itturned out he was ahead of everyone andwon the day. Once again, the Sports classscores were derated when the winner (infact, all but five) finished in under 2.5 hours.

In the 15m class, Heri Pölzl held the day byflying the task 28 seconds faster than WalterWeir, but Walter moved into the overalllead over Ulli Werneburg by just 2 points(this class was to see a tight race betweenthese pilots). In Standard, Ian Spence wastwo for two and leading Jörg Stieber, thealmost perennial winner of past competi-tions in this class. Ahead in the Sports classwas a pilot unknown to most competitors,Adam Zieba. A Polish sailplane pilot nowat SOSA, he was flying a Jantar well — onehe had rented from a club member for thesummer.

After everyone returned home a BBQ washeld, allowing everyone to relax a little andtalk about the last few days of great soaring.

Friday 11 July, Contest Day 3A high pressure system dominated theweather picture for the day allowing an-other good day of soaring. The CD againadvanced the pilot’s meeting to 0900. Thetask for the FAI classes was a quad (MountForest/Brantford/Arthur) of 327 kilometres.The Sports class was given a 4 hour PSTtask with three mandatory first turnpoints(Arthur/Plattsville/Rockton). The good soar-ing conditions to date were reflected in therelatively high average speeds in all threeclasses for the day.

The task committee decided to combinemandatory turnpoints with a PST in theSports class to allow the pilots to fly a basicspeed triangle, and if they finished earlyenough they could continue to fly the PSTportion to increase their points. It was foundthat this system worked quite effectively withthe large spread in the handicap valuesbetween most of the sailplanes in the classand the two PW-5s.

One of our American competitors,Ray Galloway (P1), landed outinside the town limits of Elora.Before he was able to open thecanopy, a young man arrived toinquire about his condition. With-in a few minutes, two pickupsarrived and more people weregathering at the field. Before longthere were two ambulances, twofire trucks, and several policecars (including the Elora Chief ofPolice). A reporter for the Elorapaper then arrived followed byanother from the Guelph news-paper. Ray’s landout was thenews event of the year in Eloraand was featured on the front pageof the paper.

Saturday 12 July, Contest Day 4The high pressure system thatdominated the weather over south-western Ontario over the last twodays stalled, providing anothersoaring day. Unfortunately, it wasweaker than the previous days.The task for the FAI classes was a185 km triangle (Stratford/Arthur).The Sports class was given a 4hour PST with four mandatory firstturnpoints (Plattsville/Conestoga Lake/Ayr/Rockton).

The lift was weak as expected, and thenturned blue. Most of the competitors gaggledaround the task. On the way back fromArthur, a reasonable thermal over a lumberyard south of Fergus was found. This gavethe gaggle the height necessary to get home,which was fortunate as there was a steakBBQ planned for the evening.

With a first and a second place on the lasttwo days, Adam Zieba was solidly in thelead in the Sports class. Ian Spence gaineda second yesterday, but with a sixth placefinish today in Standard class, he passedfirst overall to Jörg by 69 points. In 15m,Heri also had another win yesterday and asecond place today but could only squeezea third overall out of these flights for a 3798point total. Walter’s third place finishdropped him out of first overall with 3808points, and Ulli’s win today moved him upto first with 3834 points. A difference of 36points between the three was not much!

Sunday 13 July, Contest Day 5The same high pressure system remainedstalled, giving soarable blue conditions overthe contest area. The FAI classes were givena 138 kilometre task (Woodstock/Brantford/Reid’s Field). The Sports class got a 4 hourPST with three mandatory turnpoints (Brant-ford/Reid’s Field/Rockton).

As on the previous day the lift started outweak, but improved later in the day. Onthe first leg to Woodstock, haze domeswere clearly visible flying towards the sun,allowing pilots to follow the blue cloudstreets. After Woodstock, with the sun atyour back, it was more difficult to pick upthe haze domes but flying with a 15-20

LakeHuron

Lake

Erie

Priceville

Mt. Forest

Arthur

Conestoga L.

ROCKTON

Reid’s Field

Brantford

Ayr

Stratford

Plattsville

Woodstock

Tillsonburg

Turnpoints used at the contest

knot tailwind made the going a little easier.It took me 1:10 hours to fly the 52 kilo-metre first leg and then only 48 minutes tofly the remaining 86 kilometres!

The short task resulted in devalued scoresfor both FAI classes, and both leaders hada bad day, particularly Ulli who had a dis-aster by landing only 30 kilometres outwhich dropped him back to eighth in the15m and handed the lead back to Walteragain. Jörg’s slow eighth place for the dayallowed Ian to regain the overall lead by 50points.

In Sports class, and flying in the Nationalsfor the first time, Scott McMaster managedto accomplish one of his goals. After morethan 900 glider flights, he had never hadthe pleasure of landing out and meeting thefine, hospitable Ontario farmers. So on Day5, despite winning Day 4, Scott was able toachieve his long anticipated dream of pull-ing a glider out of a farmer’s field. Adamwon the day again, his consistency furtherincreasing his lead.

Monday 14 JulyThe Hot, Hazy, Humid weather took over,forcing the day to be scrubbed. After fivestraight days of flying, and seven flying daysout of the last eight (including practise days)everyone welcomed the break. The airfieldwas deserted as everyone headed for swim-ming pools and air conditioning.

Tuesday 15 JulyThe HHH weather continued forcing theday to be scrubbed again.

Wednesday 16 JulyA weak cold front passed through the areaTuesday afternoon clearing the humidityand leaving the possibility of good soaring

free flight 4/9710

IT WAS HAZY, with weak blue ther-mals to 3500 agl, broken up at lowerlevels — a great day for the beach. Afterthe experience of the previous day,which had started to die around 3:30, Idecided not to waste time in the startgate and started early. A substantial gag-gle followed about five minutes behindwhich put me at a disadvantage in try-ing to defend a small points lead.

The first leg into the wind was difficultwith 2-4 knot blue thermals and a veryshallow working band. Below 2500 aglthe wind broke up the thermals andmade them very hard to work. Therewas no room for mistakes.

Together with A1, PX and DB, we foundweak but reasonably consistent lift un-der haze domes. Fortunately, we man-aged to keep our lead on the gagglewhich was too big for its own good.Approaching the turnpoint, DB and Idecided to better be safe than sorry andclimb before the turn. PX, obviously inracing mode, proceeded straight into theturnpoint with the intention of climbingout with a tailwind in our thermal. Un-fortunately for him, the lift was not work-able at his level when he came in be-low us. Witnessing his slow demisemade me even more cautious.

Reaching the turn I saw A1 500 feetbelow. Coming out of the turn A1 flewover the city of Woodstock where hefound good lift (as Ed told me later).

Instead of doing the same I made the cru-cial mistake of staying north of Woodstockreservoir, essentially backtracking on the firstleg. It is clear that in windy conditions likethis towns work much better than openfields. Woodstock also has a “house ther-mal”; everybody knows this, I should haveknown too. My decision was probably in-fluenced by two factors:

1 We had found fairly consistent thermalson the first leg. By backtracking on this legI expected to find the same. After all, thetough, into-wind leg was behind us; the restshould be easy.2 I expected to meet the gaggle behind usmarking a thermal. In addition this wouldhave given me the opportunity to checkwho was in it. I met the gaggle alright, butthey were cruising, not thermalling.

After having flown half way to Brantfordwithout hitting lift it became evident thatwe (DB was with me) had made a big mis-take and would meet a farmer soon unlesswe found a thermal. Being low and withthe sun in our back we were also unableto see haze domes. In the distance we couldsee two gliders circling down in the trees(they eventually landed out) — not veryencouraging.

I decided to try a small town and hit aripple. Searching around, I felt a strong corebut it was too narrow and broken to give us(DB had joined) much more than half aknot. As we kept losing it, it took us whatseemed forever (10 minutes) to gain 300

feet. We were going nowhere. Lookingwest into the sun, I noticed a haze domedeveloping. Going there would havemeant backtracking three kilometres onour course into the wind. I was reluc-tant to do this and decided to watch thesituation for a little while. When a tinycu developed on top of the haze domeit was clear, this was our ticket backinto the race. Fortunately, we found thethermal without much searching and itgot stronger as we climbed.

Finally after 20 minutes we were backin the race and headed for Brantford.The strongest thermal of the day wel-comed us over the city (cities really workin these conditions!). Cambridge pro-vided the top-up thermal for final glideto the last turnpoint and home. Stillshaky from the almost-landout, I wastedanother two to three minutes by addingtoo generous a reserve. With four daysleft in the contest I expected to have atleast one, maybe two flying days tomake up for today’s mistakes. As itturned out, this was the last contest day.

I always find it fascinating after a con-test day to review my decisions and tosee what worked and what didn’t. As aresult of the wrong decision at the firstturn I got low and lost about 20 min-utes against A1, who after having foundgood lift over Woodstock proceededwithout problems to the boomer ther-mal over Brantford to win the day. It’sthat simple.

Day 5 — How to lose a contest by one mistake Jörg Stieber

conditions. At the morning pilot’s meetinga 330 kilometre task was set for the FAIclasses. The launch proceeded on scheduleat 1300, however the lift was weak andbroken up by the wind. Several people hadto land for relights. The task was scaleddown to a 185 kilometre triangle after thetask committee advised the CD of theweaker than expected conditions.

Then, during the pre-start period, a “MAY-DAY” was called, followed by the word,“MIDAIR”. The Competition Director can-celled the tasks, and ambulances were dis-patched. Heri Pölzl directed the ambulancesto the crash sight from his glider. One ofthe pilots involved in the midair managedto make it back to the airport and landedsafely. The other pilot crashed into a Christ-mas tree farm about five miles from theairport, was hospitalized for two days andreleased.

A more complete account of the accidentwill appear in free flight following the in-vestigation. ed.

Thursday 17 JulyThe conditions were again forecast to be

weak with a strong westerly wind. A 130kilometre task was set for the FAI classesand a 2 hour PST was set for the Sportsclass. Two sniffers were launched at 1300,but found only marginal lift. They werebarely able to maintain position over theairfield against the strong wind. At 1400 theday was scrubbed.

And that was the contest. A strong begin-ning with good weather that unfortunatelycouldn’t sustain over the last four days. Thecontest saw a long entry list with lots ofcompetition for first place in Standard and15m class. Congratulations to Walter Weirwho didn’t win a day in 15m but took it onconsistently good flying, and to Ian Spencewho is the giant killer in unseating Jörg fromthe Standard class throne he has held since1993. (Ian last won in 1984 — a long waitto regain the crown.) As in Red Deer in1996, an “unknown” and very good pilotfrom Poland ran away with the Sports class— we have to check up on this invasion—congratulations to Adam Zieba! A specialmention also goes to Calvin de Vries, win-ner of the Novice trophy in 1995, whoplaced a strong second under Adam withhis HP-14. ❖

THE TROPHY WINNERS ARE

MSC Trophy – 15m class champion4497 points of a possible 4613

Walter Weir (2W)

Wolf Mix Trophy – Std class champion4521 points of a possible 4692

Ian Spence (WW)

CALPA Trophy – Sports class champion4543 points of a possible 4592

Adam Zieba (MF)

Dow Trophies (best assigned task flown)

15m class – 375.5 km @ 98.9 km/hHeri Pölzl (KC)

Std class – 375.5 km @ 92.1 km/hIan Spence (WW)

Sports class – 194.1 km @ 84.8 km/hUdo Rumpf (ET)

SOSA Trophy – best noviceScott McMaster (DW)

O’Keefe Trophy – best teamCarsten Schraeder/Pat Templeton (PC)

4/97 free flight 11

D

AY

1

DA

Y 2

DA

Y 3

DA

Y 4

DA

Y 5

day

day

day

day

day

tota

lpo

skm

/hpt

spo

skm

/hpt

spo

skm

km/h

pts

pos

kmkm

/hpt

spo

skm

km/h

pts

pts

pos

15 M

ET

RE

CL

AS

S 2

14.2

■■ 3

75.5

■■32

7.4

■■18

5.7

▲▲13

8.2

■■

Wal

ter W

eir

ASW

–20B

2W3

93.8

870

298

.799

72

89.4

992

367

.794

92

74.0

689

4497

1H

eri P

ölzl

LS–6

bKC

491

.684

41

98.9

1000

190

.010

002

68.0

954

564

.459

043

882

Dav

e Sp

ringf

ord

ASW

–20

S15

87.4

795

792

.591

45

87.1

958

566

.893

03

70.1

649

4246

3C

hris

Eav

esAS

W–2

0XU

682

.774

05

94.2

p936

389

.399

07

62.8

856

468

.663

341

554

Andr

é Pe

pin

DG

–600

DB

782

.573

74

94.9

945

784

.391

68

61.5

p830

660

.054

539

735

Ulli

Wer

nebu

rgAS

W–2

0BM

Z1

95.8

894

396

.797

14

87.8

969

170

.410

008

30.2

0.0

7039

046

Pete

r Mas

akSc

imita

rPX

294

.988

37

92.6

914

685

.593

46

63.4

866

757

.80.

013

437

317

Wilf

Kru

eger

LS–6

bK2

9(0

.0)

p06

92.9

918

882

.889

44

67.6

945

176

.871

934

768

Han

s Ju

erge

nsen

ASW

–20B

J38

64.0

p520

980

.2p7

489

75.0

778

954

.269

28

30.2

0.0

7028

089

ST

AN

DA

RD

CL

AS

S 2

14.2

■■ 3

75.5

■■32

7.4

■■18

5.7

▲▲13

8.2

■■

Ian

Spen

ceAS

W–2

4W

W1

91.9

933

192

.110

002

86.5

969

661

.587

52

71.6

744

4521

1Jö

rg S

tiebe

rLS

–4JS

287

.888

03

90.6

979

188

.610

002

67.9

987

862

.062

544

712

Jim

Car

pent

erD

iscu

sZZ

391

.9p8

332

90.9

984

386

.496

71

68.6

1000

1053

.351

643

003

Ed H

olle

stel

leSZ

D–5

5A1

675

.672

05

87.4

934

482

.991

64

65.8

951

172

.875

942

804

Col

in B

antin

Std

Cirr

us3B

770

.765

66

80.8

843

581

.389

311

53.7

739

566

.868

438

155

Dav

e M

acke

nzie

SZD

–55

DM

1354

.844

97

80.5

839

877

.582

810

54.8

759

763

.2p6

3935

146

Kerry

Kirb

ySt

d Ja

ntar

698

70.6

p604

1274

.675

612

71.0

744

956

.979

69

60.8

609

3509

7An

dy G

ough

SZD

–55

4414

(156

.0)

p243

490

.297

411

71.3

748

760

.986

56

64.5

656

3486

8Pa

ul T

hom

pson

LS–4

T24

82.3

808

978

.981

67

77.4

838

565

.4p9

1812

34.0

0.0

7534

559

Ric

hard

Lon

ghur

stSZ

D–5

54Q

965

.058

210

78.8

814

976

.181

913

140.

60.

030

33

67.7

695

3213

10

Kurt

Mey

erD

iscu

s B

AL12

60.9

p528

879

.181

86

79.8

871

860

.285

214

dnc

030

6911

Ray

Gal

low

ayAS

W–2

4P1

581

.880

214

(179

.1)

170

1412

4.0

0.0

135

366

.496

24

67.5

693

2762

12Fr

ed H

unke

ler

Std

Jant

ar1M

1064

.257

111

77.6

798

1368

.470

712

44.6

580

1319

.40.

043

2699

13Ti

m O

’Han

lon

SZD

–55

TJ11

61.2

532

1370

.469

710

75.5

810

1462

.80.

013

511

43.3

p343

2517

14

SP

OR

TS

CL

AS

S 1

52.0

■■ 1

94.1

▲▲4

h P

ST

4 h

PS

T4

h P

ST

Adam

Zie

baSt

d Ja

ntar

2M

F1.

001

85.7

p709

287

.985

61

298.

177

.810

002

211.

058

.9p9

781

206.

051

.510

0045

431

Cal

vin

Dev

ries

HP–

14+

LT1.

006

70.9

531

486

.680

83

273.

768

.479

75

176.

649

.670

92

154.

858

.899

438

392

Cha

rles

Yeat

esPW

–5YC

1.20

356

.4p5

6810

51.9

553

521

6.3

55.4

776

314

7.0

47.6

877

511

0.4

34.9

610

3384

3N

ewfie

ld/M

cMas

ter

Hor

net

DW

1.00

273

.357

83

85.5

822

623

6.7

68.5

p750

122

4.4

58.6

1000

1432

.40.

081

3231

4Al

Woo

d1–

35AR

1.01

858

.1p4

246

73.0

662

926

4.1

68.9

p633

714

7.0

49.4

683

415

4.8

40.8

658

3060

5U

do R

umpf

HP–

18ET

1.05

466

.655

41

84.8

883

227

4.1

74.2

p977

1019

5.4

0.0

p388

1273

.60.

0p1

8429

866

Len

Dol

hert

DG

–200

LD0.

977

62.8

438

776

.165

33

252.

171

.479

76

147.

053

.070

09

77.4

38.7

374

2962

7Sc

hrae

der/T

empl

eton

G10

3PC

1.11

1047

.338

45

67.6

706

1018

8.1

50.5

549

414

7.0

48.7

791

777

.434

.241

128

418

Trac

ie W

ark

ASW

–19B

SQ0.

9811

52.6

340

1463

.149

07

256.

564

.171

19

147.

041

.850

63

154.

846

.473

627

839

Han

s Be

rgSt

d C

irrus

HB

1.00

569

.653

811

71.5

p528

824

2.8

62.8

698

1410

6.3

0.0

211

612

8.8

42.2

609

2584

10G

ino

Cav

icch

ioli

Libe

lle 3

0114

0.98

957

.839

58

73.0

624

1120

9.9

54.8

510

1217

6.6

0.0

344

1177

.427

.9p1

9120

6411

Chu

ck K

eith

SZD

–55

550.

9613

44.4

p24

39

71.6

580

1221

5.5

53.9

482

1114

0.5

35.1

p350

1362

.60.

0p1

5118

0612

Tom

Cou

lson

Mos

quito

W2

0.98

14(5

0.4)

8213

64.2

505

1315

8.5

56.0

456

1579

.90.

015

68

77.4

38.7

384

1583

13D

ugal

d St

ewar

tC

irrus

75

HG

0.98

1252

.4 3

3812

65.4

522

1512

4.6

0.0

173

1311

5.6

0.0

225

1077

.432

.1p2

4715

0514

Rus

s M

cAne

rny

PW–5

PW5

1.20

15(4

.4)

915

(0.0

)0

1415

2.9

38.2

362

814

7.0

38.9

677

1510

.00.

030

1078

15

(

) v

alu

es

in b

rack

ets

are

dis

tan

ces

in k

ilom

etr

es

if th

e p

ilot

lan

de

d o

ut.

“p”

de

no

tes

the

ap

plic

atio

n o

f a

pe

na

lty a

ffe

ctin

g t

he

da

ily p

oin

ts e

arn

ed

.

1997

CA

NA

DIA

NN

AT

ION

AL

GL

IDIN

GC

HA

MP

ION

SH

IPS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

free flight 4/9712

The following discussion on design philosophy may help pilotsto better appreciate the limitations of their machines.

The nature of flight limitations

H.A. TarodeChairman BGA Technical Committeefrom NZ Gliding Kiwi

WHO NEEDS design standards any-way? In contrast to vehicles andboats, aircraft have only emerged

as a means of transport in the last 90 years.From early days the risk associated withtheir operation was so obvious that designwas regulated with a view to protectingpilot, passengers, and the public at large.The prime aim of requirements is to definea necessary strength minimum giving dueregard for the imprecision and tolerances ofthe design and construction processes. Theselimitations should also enable the designerto provide an attractive and performing prod-uct with maximum commercial efficiencyand not overburdened with unnecessarycapabilities and complication. Consider thatwhen you discuss the merit of a particularnew acquisition with your partners, the con-versation is generally confined to the finerpoints of performance and handling. Theairworthiness of the basic design is takenfor granted. This confidence demonstratesthat the airworthiness design codes are ingood shape.

UK gliders used to be designed to BritishCivil Airworthiness Requirements (BCAR)Section E Gliders. This was superseded inthe 60s by the work of OSTIV, which wenton to form the basis of Joint AirworthinessRequirements (JAR), Part 22 which wasadopted by the European Community in theearly 1980s. Today virtually all sailplanes,including those from eastern bloc countries,are certificated to JAR 22.

Setting a boundary to the problemThe core of any design code is its formula-tion of a ‘design envelope’ which specifiesa range of flight conditions within which asailplane can operate and remain safe andsecure. This envelope is bounded by com-binations of airspeeds and load factors (‘g’)which provides the designer with a closedproblem of safety validation. Some bounda-ries are natural, like stalling which limitsthe amount of air load that an airframecan generate on itself. Other limits mustbe judged on the basis of providing an air-worthy vehicle.

The most evident limit is that of a maxi-mum speed, in designer’s parlance the de-sign dive speed. It is well known that, allother things equal, air loads vary with thesquare of airspeed, so setting an upper limiton speed goes a long way towards creatinga definable problem. Obviously we must

distribution (including water ballast ifplanned). This is the nitty-gritty of designand comes after all the fun bits like pickingthe best wing section or a new planform toincrease performance. The work is basicallyaerodynamic in nature, and a good alroundinsight is useful in spotting the critical cases.It is worth noting the diverse contributionson such flight loads:

1 Loads required to hold the glider in trim(balance loads).

2 Loads introduced by the pilot throughspecified combinations of control de-mand (control load).

3 Loads created during maneuvers as aresult of the distributed mass of the sail-plane (inertia loads).

4 Loads imposed on the sailplane when itencounters rough air and turbulence (gustloads).

5 Point loads applied to the sailplane forthe outside, eg. during landing impact,or from towropes (external loads).

In some conditions a single contribution canbe dominant; for example, wing bendingstrength is almost invariably designed bythe maximum ‘g’ pull up maneuver speed.In other situations the various contributionscancel each other out; wing twisting loadsare actually reduced as you pull up from asteady high speed condition. The designeris looking for the critical combinations ofloadings from these various sources to es-tablish which will limit any particular struc-tural component.

There are several lessons in this for theaverage pilot. Firstly, the airframe loads totrim (balance loads) are only one part ofany critical combination. Thus it is unlikelythat a sailplane will fly apart just becauseyou are at a limit condition. On the otherhand it is not unlikely that in gaining orrecovering from that limit condition someparticular component will encounter its criti-cal load combination particularly in roughair. For your own part as pilot, the best wayof reducing this risk is to minimize the notinsignificant contribution of control loads(and inertia loads) by handling with care.

Secondly, the maneuver and gust loads arethe only loads which are experienced bythe pilot (because they maneuver him too).All other loads are reacted within the air-frame and are not manifested as ‘g’ load.Unless the pilot has specialist knowledgehe will not necessarily appreciate these. Thishas been realized to be a particularly im-portant issue in the recent review of winch

provide for adequate maneuver capabilityat higher speeds, but there is some opportu-nity to optimize the structure if it is ac-cepted that the pilot will react to noise andheavy control forces and use only limitedcontrol movements when at high speed.

The requirements define design maximumload factors, in both positive and negativesenses. For semi-aerobatic sailplanes a posi-tive ‘g’ design limit of around 5 has provedto be adequate for general use. Higher fac-tors are required for fully aerobatic types.At low speeds it is impossible to achievesuch loads since stalling limits the airframeloads, but at higher speeds (above 2 to 2.5times level flight stall speed) very high loadfactors can occur before stalling. At cruisespeeds we must choose between a radicallyover-strength airframe or select a limit loadfactor boundary above some specified air-speed. To the designer this speed is knownas maneuver speed or to the pilot, as roughair speed, since below this speed an ex-treme gust will stall, not break, the airframe.Additionally, requirements stipulate that theairframe should be capable of withstandingfull, instantaneous application of any or allcontrols at the maneuver speed. If it is notalready obvious, these two requirements incombination offer you, the pilot, a remark-able safeguard:

Below rough air speed it is not possible tobreak your sailplane either by encounteringa gust (no matter how severe, since it willstall you) or through your own use of what-ever combination of control movements.

At the higher design dive speed, the limitload factor is normally accepted as some-what lower (4 ‘g’ in JAR), and only limitedcontrol applications (one third movement)are catered for. To close the envelope com-pletely, similar arguments can be appliedto flight under negative ‘g’. It is appreciatedthat high speed negative ‘g’ stalls are noteveryone’s cup of tea! This closed envelopeof flight conditions can be characterized bya number of key ‘corner points’ which willcreate differing load conditions on all struc-tural components of the airframe.

Where does it hurt (and how much)?The designer meets his obligations by evalu-ating the loads experienced by all structuralcomponents at all the design envelope’s cor-ner points to determine which cases arecritical. To do this he will already have hadto define the overall configuration of theproposed sailplane to the extent of its exter-nal shape, its expected weight and weight

4/97 free flight 13

tion tolerances are the designer’s and con-structor’s built-in insurance policy. They arenot easily quantified and may vary with theglider’s condition. Exceeding envelopelimits is irresponsible and taking seriousliberties with the terms under which yoursailplane is supplied, quite apart from be-ing personally dangerous. Your insurer mightalso be interested.

Strength alone is not sufficientConsiderations of structural stiffness areadditional to the above. Even given thelatest generations of stiffer fibres such ascarbon and aramid derivatives, many partsof a modern sailplane’s structure are stilldominated by stiffness considerations ratherthan strength. The wide differences in thestiffness characteristics of the various struc-tural materials also complicate matters.Now, not only sailplane wings but all struc-tural elements must possess the appropriatestiffness and mass distributions.

The word ‘flutter’ is often used out of con-text to describe any form of in-flight vibra-tion. This confusion would not exist ifactual flutter were a common experience!Flutter is a mutual resonance between twomodes of flexibility which spontaneouslyoccurs once a critical airspeed is reached.Most forms of genuine flutter (and there aremany) break out with no warning and areextremely destructive. Recent accident in-vestigations involving overspeed cases incomposite sailplanes have always shownevidence of failure induced through flutter.It is likely that once the oscillation haserupted there is little a pilot can do aboutit. All current requirements demand a 25%safety margin over the design speed if clear-ance is sought by calculation alone.

Technology marches on – at a priceThese days there is a continuous demandfor higher performance and better handlingqualities, so few stones are left unturned toachieve an edge. In new gliders much ofthe conventional design conservatism hasbeen removed in a controlled way in theoptimized design. This leads to a situationwhere there are fewer or no ‘soft’ limits. Ifyou ride beyond those limits you will cometo harm. Maybe not this weekend but sooneror later. ❖

launch safety but there are parallels in otherflight cases too.

Bend or bust?Once the critical loads have been deter-mined the glider can be designed in detail.Simple calculations are often used to con-firm that a noncritical component is wellwithin limits. But for major issues, such aswing bending strength, the calculation willbe carried out with some precision sinceexcessive strength will result in a significantweight penalty. Designers are generally cau-tious chaps, but what about the choice ofmaterials and the construction processes? Isit possible that nonconservative assumptionscould be undermining our security?

Structural materials vary in their failure char-acteristics. Under high loading some distortpermanently while continuing to functionin a degraded manner. Others, albeit equallyas strong, fail in a sudden manner withoutany prior signs of suffering. Crystallinematerials such as metals fall into the firstcategory; fibrous materials such as wood orcomposites fall into the second. Design prac-tises take this into account.

Materials with good yielding properties arerequired to withstand their critical designload without suffering permanent distortion,the so-called proof design case. This aspectis usually critical for the majority of metalfittings in a glider. Materials which failabruptly are required to be exercised to onlytwo-thirds of their ultimate failure loadwithin the flight envelope, the so-calledultimate case. In cases of new or untried

materials, special lab tests are required todefine which is the critical issue.

With untried materials an extra factor ofsafety may be demanded; this was the casewhen glass reinforced plastic gliders werefirst developed. With experience these fac-tors can be reduced, which is why latergeneration glass gliders exhibit much greaterstructural flexibility and lighter weight thanearlier designs.

So what does this mean to the pilot?The good news is that there is conservatismbuilt in at all design stages: your sailplaneis probably even stronger than the designerthinks. But the message to the pilot here is:hands off. These margins, which protect usfrom design approximations and construc-

40 80 knots 120 160

overstress

failure

overstress

failure

catastrophicflutter

normalstall

Vd

Vs

Vd = design dive speed

Vne = 90% of Vd

Va = maneuver speed

Vs = stall speed

Design load factors:+5.3 g to -2.65 g

with a 1.5 safety factor

Va structuraldamage

normal flight

Load

factor

(g)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

Design envelope of a typical modern sailplane

Operating daily April to October in Pemberton, BC

• excellent mountain scenery with thermals to 12,500 feet• camp at the airport, B&B, or stay in Whistler• area offers a wide variety of summer activities

Glider rentals: L-13 Blanik, L-33 SoloInstruction: glider pilot courses or book a number of lessons

For more information, ph (604) 894-5727, fax (604) 894-5776e-mail: jwatson@mountain-inter.net

Come and soar with the bald eagles!

PEMBERTON SOARING CENTRE

free flight 4/9714

Charles Yeates & George GrahamBluenose Soaring

T he Minister of Transport signed Type Approval Certificate G123 on 4 June, covering the PZL-

Swidnik version of the PW-5. Canada became thenineteenth country to issue such a certification.Perhaps it’s time to note that the World Class gli-der has evolved from an idea into a movement.PZL-Swidnik, the Polish manufacturer, is shippingsailplanes as quickly as they can be built. ApeksAviation in the USA is teaming up with a keenmanufacturer in the Phillipines who is building anew factory to become a second source of thePW-5. The USA anticipates having 48 flying byyear end, while New Zealand will have 27.

I bought and registered N202HB early in April and in two monthshave enjoyed over a hundred hours of delightful flying. Most of thattime was spent trying to learn how to fly effectively along and overthe ridges of Pennsylvania, starting at Tom Knauff’s Keystone siteand ending up in the first PW-5 Nationals at Mifflin Co airport.

Today the little ship with a big future is winch launching out ofthe Bluenose Soaring site in Nova Scotia. Pilots find the sailplaneappealing. George Graham recently wrote after his first flight:

“I have flown the future and it’s all we need.

Staring over the instrument panel of a new glider at the winch over4400 feet away, you realize that you’re about to embark on a steeplearning curve. From ground at zero to stable in the full climb willtake less than ten seconds in this lightweight PW-5. Into that shorttime you will have to compress all the control feedback informationon pitch, roll, and yaw regarding this new glider needed to stay outof the weeds and to prevent either an overly steep climb or the kindof nose down reaction that would cause the parachute to billowdangerously beneath you. Had you had been generously affordedthe opportunity by Charles Yeates to fly his neat new machine, atad of moisture might have brightened your brow too.

Not to worry. The tandem wheels of the PW-5 track straight on rollout, and, as Charles promised, the powerful trim helps tailor theprofile of the early launch climb within safety limits. Once in thefull climb, it’s much a matter of hanging on, as the stabilizingphysics of the winch launch and good launch-hook location allowthe pilot to settle back to eyeball the airspeed and the angle ofclimb.

I had worried that the light weight of the PW-5 would lead tooverspeed conditions, but the combination of a generous winch Vneof 65 knots and skilled winch driving cancelled that concern. I hadtime to look out, which I could hardly help doing, so spectacular isthe visibility afforded by that canopy (mind you, instructors wholive in the back seats of K7s are easily impressed). Like never beforeI got to admire the rapidly widening landscape, in fact too long so,to be somewhat caught by surprise when the click of the hook toldme that the winch driver had dropped me off the wire.

Nothing at the glider end affects launch height like weight, andwith the PW-5’s trim figure, I saw what looked like 2000 feet bothto the eye and on the altimeter — I can’t say for sure because thealtimeter was a bit of an oddball in that each rotation of the bighand indicated a climb of 3000 feet rather than the 1000 weexpect. Apparently the instrument maker had simply calibratedthe altimeter face in feet on top of innards designed for metricmarkings. I didn’t take time to sort it out because the vario wasscreaming at me to pay attention.

Dutifully wrapping the PW-5 into the un-commonly turbulent thermal, I found theailerons quick in effect but a touch heavyto hand compared to my experience flap-ping those of Ka6E CF–VKA in a recent flight.The rudder also felt a tad heavy, but I hadnot given myself quite enough forward seatadjustment, and so was working at the ex-treme end of leg travel even with full backrudder adjust. Once I moved the trim back,I quickly realized that I could let the trimdo the talking as far as pitch control wasconcerned. Good thing. The averager pro-claimed 7 knots plus, while the torn turbu-lence provided a wild ride, and by the timeI sorted out the thermal and the radio,switching to Halifax Terminal on 119.2, Iwas well above our 2900 foot ceiling andinto “their” airspace.

They were happy to have me run up tocloudbase (maintaining the proscribed sepa-ration of course) and it didn’t take long asclouds were flattening their bottoms onthe 4700 foot riser level of the great grand-stand in the sky. Before I had a chance torack the PW-5 over to the opposite turn totry out the 45 to 45 degree banking time, Ihad to lower the nose to stay VFR. I headeddown to tackle other thermals in the play-ing field below.

The performance during the run was eye-opening, especially when I eye-balled thewingspan. How could the relatively shortwings of this “Dash 5” cut such a flatslope through the sky? Dash indeed. Notonly do you cover the country in jig time(80 knots is jig time to someone of my age)but, because of the PW-5’s low mass, youget dancing up a jig in strong short cycleturbulence. With the air going up and downat 8-10 knots, being egg-beatered togetherby 20 knot winds, the PW-5 gave a busyride. It’s not that the pilot is kept busy onthe controls — the glider simply reactsquickly to air going up and down, and sowhile it’s quite yaw and roll stable, andthe super-effective trim locks the horizononto your selected level of the canopy, onthis wild day the tidy PW-5 provided asport’s car ride.

Compared to the British sport cars of mycollege days, the PW-5’s cockpit is ever somuch more comfortable (did I mention thatthe slipstream noise truly is of the level weso often lie about when we call our hobby“the silent sport”?). Everything “falls readilyto hand”, as the British say. Then there’sthat view. Hail Britannia! Why are not allcanopies created equal?

The rest of the hour I played power pilot,running about the sky with no need tothermal (a “real” power pilot called to tellme that the PW-5 in profile looked like aminiature Bell Jet Ranger). The penetrationperformance was such that, the more I flew,the more convinced I became that theperformance of the PW-5 is all one needsto discover the joy of soaring; all one needs

PW

-5 im

pre

ssio

ns

4/97 free flight 15

to know for the lasting satisfaction ofadventurous cross-country flight. Finallyremembering I had been flying someoneelse’s glider for almost an hour, I found asink hole and spiralled down. While sodoing I got to rack the PW-5 over from 60°to 60°. It moved adroitly, but you did haveto put your wrist into it. The yaw stringstuck where it should better than what usu-ally happens when I try such maneuvers inother aircraft. Perhaps it was beginner’s luck.

I couldn’t ask for better behaved divebrakes.Their light operating force did not changeover the speed range I investigated on bytwo-mile long downwind (45 to 70 knots),and in combination with that effective trim,the PW-5 pretty well looked after the ap-proach speed on its own despite the stronglift and sink encountered during final. Thelanding did not make undue skill demandsdespite the turbulence. Once both mainlanding wheels came down, however, theglider went where it was pointed. Clearlyyou had better be going in the desired di-rection on touchdown, for where you’repointed is where you’re going. If you don’tget it right, the combination of low massand effective wheel brake allows you tostop short of undesired consequences.

Have you ever derigged a glider with 80pound wings? Why didn’t someone makethis machine 20 years ago? The World ClassPW-5 provides us with the ease of riggingwe all long for, and bestows the kind ofclassy performance and price that shows offour sport to the world.”

. . . . . . .Here is a sailplane with a max L/D of 33and a cruise of 85 knots at the 2 m/s sinkrate, that seems ideal for clubs and is veryappealing for economical competition fly-ing. Eight of the type flew at the first USWorld Class Glider Nationals. It was a seri-ous event because the winner and runner-up pilots will compete at the World AirGames in Turkey in September. Pilots whoregularly appear at the top of the 15m and

Standard classes flew PW-5s. After six com-petition days in a week, often in winds of20-30 knots, Clem Bowman and Bill Bartellwon the coveted trip to Turkey. Karl Strie-dieck was appointed by the SSA to fill outthe three pilot team. They will provide othercountries with stiff competition.

A surprising and unexpectedly positive as-pect of the competition came from the useof lead shot bags under the cockpit seat panto ensure all ships flew at gross weightswithin a range of twenty pounds, ie. be-tween 640 and 661 pounds. You knew thatdifferences in daily standings were a resultof pilot skill rather than who could affordthe latest expensive equipment. The finalday was a good example. There were strongridge winds and 8-10 knot thermals pro-ducing cu with bases at 7500 feet. Thefastest PW-5 flew straight at ridge top, ex-cept for two transition thermals and aver-aged 56 mph. I stayed higher about half thecourse and averaged only 44 mph. Thatwas a lesson learned.

Costs in Canada? A fresh quotationfrom PZL-Swidnik offers a group of sixPW-5s shipped in one container for deliv-ery in March 1998, ex port of Gdynia,for CHF23,800 each (US$16,500 or Cdn$22,700). The cost of transporting a containerto Halifax, plus port charges, divided bysix, would bring the landed cost to aboutCan$23,500 before taxes.

The ship comes instrumented, ready to flyand the PZL variometer is total energy com-pensated. Only a radio ($400 – Delcom to$3000 – Dittel FS71M) needs to be added.Trailers must be built or bought from one ofthree sources in the USA. Detailed copiesof the PZL-Swidnik quotation are availablefrom me on request.

Summarizing some of the things you wouldappreciate as an operator:

• Light weight for easy one or two personassembly,

L33 Solo Easy to fly

Type approvedSuperb cockpit visibility

Proven all weather durabilityOver 50 L23s flying in North America!

Great club and cross–country shipType approved in CanadaOutlasts fibreglassGreat value

L23Super Blanik

For all–metal quality, nothing beats a Blanik!

Telephone (509) 884-8305 • Fax (509) 884-9198

contact BLANIK AMERICA, INC. for a competitive quote Box 1124, Wenatchee, WA, USA 98807-1124

• Sitting on two fuselage wheels, evenwhen empty, is a blessing when groundhandling or working on the instrumentpanel,

• One person can easily trundle the shiparound the airfield if a wing wheel ismounted,

• The excellent clearance of tail andwingtips guarantees no trouble, soft off-field landings,

• The cockpit size and comfort is super —as big as an Open Cirrus — a 6'-4" pilotfrom Maine was amazed at how com-fortable it was for him,

• The visibility when flying is as Georgesaid — great,

• The two wheel arrangement means a lowangle of attack at start of takeoff thatgives immediate aileron control,

• Relatively small size and weight makeoff-field landings in the east a low en-ergy matter,

• Airbrakes can control L/D from 33 downto 6.5 to 1 and then you can sideslip tofurther steepen any approach over treesor other obstacles,

• The positive trim system can give youhands off speed control from 40 to over90 knots,

• Stick forces are always light and the rollrate is good,

• It will outclimb anything but anotherPW-5 and run at 85 knots in 6 knotthermal conditions.

You can find more information at the fol-lowing web sites:

World Class Soaring Associationhttp://www.wcsa.org

PZL-Swidnikhttp://www.brk-gov-pl.or.at/oferty/pf000010.htm

Uvalde Soaring Associationhttp://www.glider.com/pw-5/

Apeks Aviationhttp://www.mindspring.com/~apeksav/

Pictureshttp://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7112/pictures.htm ❖

free flight 4/9716

Steve Smithfrom Pacific Soaring Council West Wind

ELL, in a word, yes. But don’t theyhurt high speed performance? Not

necessarily. It seems I’m often discussingwinglets with glider pilots. So I’d like to tryto provide some technical framework forunderstanding what winglets do.

Sources of Drag First, in order to under-stand winglets, you need to understand drag.Airplanes have three primary sources ofdrag. The first source is often called para-site drag or profile drag, and this has to dowith the skin friction created by airflow overthe aircraft surface. The second source iscalled induced drag, which is a result ofgenerating lift with a finite wing span –an infinite wing would be nice, but itwon’t fit in your trailer! The third dragsource is caused by compressibility ef-fects on aircraft that fly nearly as fast asthe speed of sound, or faster. Except forJohn McMaster’s Altostratus, we don’tneed to worry about compressibilitydrag. The primary effect of winglets is toreduce the induced drag.

Parasite drag is naturally affected by theamount of wetted surface area. It alsodepends on whether the boundary layeris laminar or turbulent – but that’s an-other story. For now, you need to knowthat parasite drag increases in propor-tion to the square of the airspeed. Thisturns out to be sort of universal – mostaerodynamic forces increase in proportionto the square of the velocity, because theability of the air to produce forces is relatedto the kinetic energy in the flow:

Dparasitic = kµV2

Induced drag is a bit more complicated. Afinite wing ends with a wingtip, where thehigher pressure air under the wing can leakaround the end and fill the low pressurearea on top of the wing. This flow aroundthe tip forms a vortex that trails off down-stream. The flow around the tip also re-duces the lift in the area near the tip bytending to equalize the low pressure abovethe wing. The vortex contains energy in theform of the swirling flow velocity. We callthe force required to pull the wing along toproduce these tip vortices “induced drag”.The mechanism through which the wing“feels” the presence of the tip vortices is thedownward velocity induced on the wing bythe vortices. It is as if the wing is flying in aself-generated region of sink.

This concept is very oversimplified – a morerealistic explanation requires a fair bit ofmath and physics. What really happens isthat vorticity is shed all along the trailing

edge, not just at the tip. The distribution oflift along the span of the wing determineshow much vorticity is shed along the trail-ing edge. It can be proven that for a planarwing (no winglets), the induced drag is thesmallest when the spanwise distribution oflift is shaped like an ellipse. This lift distri-bution produces the vorticity distributionwith the minimum energy. In steady flight,induced drag varies in proportion to thesquare of the weight, and inversely with thesquare of the wingspan and velocity:

Dinduced = kµ(W / bV)2

If the aircraft is heavier, it needs more lift,and so produces more induced drag. If thelift is distributed over a longer wingspan,

the trailing vorticity is spread out more aswell, dissipating less energy. If the aircraftflies faster, it produces the same lift withless angle of attack, less disturbance to theflow, and creates weaker vorticity in thetrailing wake.

For a given aircraft weight, the total drag isthe combination of the parasite drag andthe induced drag. Looking at the abovediagram, you can see that a minimum dragpoint occurs where the parasite drag andthe induced drag are equal. At lower speeds,the parasite drag is small, but the induceddrag increases very fast. At higher speeds,parasite drag increases but induced dragbecomes small. This trade-off between para-site drag and induced drag is what makesthe design of winglets interesting.

How do winglets reduce induced drag?Adding a winglet to a wing has a similareffect to adding wing span. By providingmore length of trailing edge, the vorticity isspread out more for the same total lift, sothe energy loss is less. The detailed interac-tions between the wing and winglet are abit different than a simple span extension,but the effect is similar. In both cases, the

induced downwash is reduced. A well de-signed winglet is equivalent to about halfits height in span increase. At the same time,the winglet adds much less additional struc-tural load to the wing than a tip extensiondoes. Detailed studies of the combined struc-tural and aerodynamic effects of wingletson transport aircraft show that they are notquite equal in overall performance to a sim-ple span extension. Current conventionalwisdom states that winglets should only beused in cases where there is some limitingconstraint on wingspan. Applying these re-sults to sailplane design would indicate thatwinglets should not be used on Open classsailplanes, but should be used on 15 metreand Standard class sailplanes.

What about high speed performance?Looking at the figure, you can see that in-duced drag becomes unimportant at highspeeds, whereas the parasite drag becomesdominant. A crossover point occurs wherethe induced drag benefit of the winglet isoutweighed by the increase in parasite drag.

Here’s a realistic example. Suppose a wing-let is installed that reduces the induceddrag by 10% and adds 1% to the para-site drag. At the speed for best L/D,where induced drag and parasite dragare equal, the net improvement wouldbe 4.5% (.5 x .1 – .5 x .01 = .045). Thisamounts to about 6 ft/min for a typical15 metre sailplane. At a speed of 1.73times the best L/D speed, parasite dragis 90% of the total, and induced dragonly 10%. At this speed, the net im-provement is almost zero (.1 x .1 – .9 x.01 = .001). For a sailplane with a bestL/D speed of 60 knots, the theoreticalcrossover speed for these winglets is 104knots. Above this speed, these wingletsdegrade performance.

But overall cross-country performanceis a balance between the low and high speedperformance. Classical MacCready theoryindicates that 50% of the time is spent cruis-ing and 50% climbing. In this case, thebreak-even speed would occur where thedisadvantage at high speed equals the ad-vantage at low speed. Because the actualdrag is much higher at cruise, we can’t com-pare on a percentage basis. The compari-son must be made based on actual sinkrate. Since half the time is spent cruising,the break-even cruise speed occurs wherethe increased sink rate equals the reducedsink rate at low speed. In other words, howfast do you need to fly so that the sink ratewith winglets is 6 ft/min greater than with-out winglets? For the example used here,this occurs at 2.3 x best L/D speed or 138knots. It’s pretty rare that your MacCreadydirected speed to fly would be this fast!

You might point out that as soaring condi-tions become stronger, the MacCreadymodel doesn’t apply: the fraction of timespent circling becomes much smaller. Butthat doesn’t necessarily mean that the timespent flying slow (near best L/D) also be-comes small. Efficient use of cloud streetsstill dictates flying slowly in good lift. So,

Do winglets work?

50

40

30

20

10

drag (lbs)

stall

induced

parasitic

airspeed (kts) 30 60 90 120

Typical drag curve for a sailplane in steady flight

total

W

4/97 free flight 17

SOLAIRECANADA

Ed Hollestelle, 2371 Dundas St. London ON N5V 1R4(519) 461-1464 phone & fax

103002.722@compuserve.com

KR-03a “Krosno”the trainer we’ve all been

waiting for

KR-03A

• safe and docile handling• affordable price for clubs• fantastic cockpit visibility• advanced corrosion control and polyurethane finish• robust metal structure has been fatigue tested to 18,000 hours

Now flying in Canada!

suppose you never fly slower than 70 knots.At this speed, the winglets improve yoursink rate by almost 4 ft/min. You wouldneed to fly 118 knots in order for the wing-let penalty to be 4 ft/min, negating the ben-efit. About the only situation where soaringspeed is consistently high enough that wing-lets would actually hurt overall is ridge run-ning. Even in ridge soaring, there may belong gaps to cross where the benefit of thewinglets would offset any cruise penalty.

Can the same argument be appliedto tip extensions?Well, that depends on the structural limi-tations on the sailplane. First of all, forthe same improvement in induced drag, ashorter span extension will be required(about half, right?) but the tip extension hasmore wetted area, so more parasite drag.This added area is needed to prevent the tipextension from stalling at low speed. Thereason winglets don’t need the same areato prevent stalling will be explained later.

Anyway, a tip extension equivalent to thewinglet example might improve induceddrag 11%, but add 2% in parasite drag. Atthe best L/D speed: .5 x .11 – .5 x .02 =.045 (once again). But there is a crucialassumption hidden in these examples. Thecomparison is made at constant weight. Ifyou install your tip extensions, are you al-lowed to ballast the sailplane to the sameweight? If so, then the example is still valid.Now compare the performance of this tipextension at 1.73 times the best L/D speed,where parasite drag is 90% of the total, andwe find: .1 x .11 – .9 x .02 = -.007. So,now the tip extension that appeared to beequivalent at low speed degrades high speedperformance 0.7% at the speed where thewinglets still provide a 0.1% benefit. Oneway to explain this is to say that the tipextension reduced the wing loading. Whatis really happening is that the parasite dragwas increased for the same weight. What ifyou must reduce the gross weight whenyou install the tip extensions? In that case,the tip extensions hurt even more. Thisalso illustrates why high wing loading isso important for Open class sailplanes.

The results here depend on many assump-tions, but they do challenge the conven-tional wisdom that winglets are not as goodas tip extensions. One major differencebetween sailplanes and transport aircraft isthe range of speeds over which they per-form. Transport aircraft adjust their cruisingaltitude so that they cruise only slightly fasterthan the best L/D speed, but sailplanes areexpected to perform well at almost twicethe best L/D speed.

What about stall? I mentioned that tipextensions are prone to tip stall, but wing-lets are not. Two effects come into playhere. First is that fact that as you scale downan airfoil, the critical angle of attack forstall is reduced. This is called a “Reynoldsnumber effect”. In essence, the basic char-acter of the flow is affected by the size ofthe wing. To achieve the desired ellipticallift distribution, you would like to make the

tip chord very small, but if the chord is toosmall, it will be prone to stall early. So,now you want to put a tip extension on thewing, and you still try to achieve that ellip-tical lift distribution, but the tip chord mustnot get too small. So, you maintain moresurface area and compensate by reducingthe airfoil camber or twisting the wingslightly to reduce the tip angle of attack.

The added wetted surface area increasesthe parasite drag. The second effect explainswhy winglets can have such a small chord(and therefore smaller wetted area) withoutstalling. As the sailplane slows down andthe angle of attack increases to maintainthe lift equal to the weight, the tip exten-sion experiences the same angle of attackincrease, but a winglet does not. The flowangle experienced by the winglet is deter-mined by the strength and distribution ofthe trailing vorticity, which is indirectly in-fluenced by the increased angle of attack.The net result is that the effective increasein angle of attack for the winglet is muchless than the increase in angle of attack onthe wing. So, the lift doesn’t build up as faston the winglet and the wing stalls first. Inpractise, this effect is exploited to reducethe wetted area of the winglet as much aspossible to the point where, ideally, thewing and winglet would stall at about thesame time.

Other good things about wingletsAside from the performance improvementoffered by winglets, there are other bene-fits. The most notable of these are theincrease in dihedral, increase in aileroneffectiveness, and the reduction of adverseyaw. The increase in effective dihedral im-proves handling in thermals. There is lessneed for “top stick” to prevent a spiral dive.

The impression is that the aircraft “grooves”better in a turn. The increase in aileron ef-fectiveness and the reduction in adverse yawboth come from the lift of the winglet whenthe aileron is deflected. When the aileron isdeflected, there is less “tip loss” of the addedlift. There is much less of an increase in thetip vortex strength, again because the vor-ticity is spread out along the longer trailingedge, and the tip is further away. As a re-sult, adverse yaw may be eliminated. Forheavily ballasted sailplanes, the increasedcontrol and safety offered by the wingletsmay be a big advantage, regardless of anyimprovement in glide performance.

Other bad things about wingletsOne disadvantage that is not often discussedis the reduction in flutter speed. Classicalflutter occurs when the natural frequencyin bending and the natural frequency intorsion get too close together. The torsionfrequency is always somewhat higher thanthe bending frequency. By adding weightabove the plane of the wing, the torsionalmoment of inertia is increased, which re-duces the torsion frequency of the wing.Of course, tip extensions also reduce flutterspeed. Both can be compensated for byclever addition of balance weights to thewing, but this is a complex problem requir-ing sophisticated analysis.

Conclusion I hope I’ve answered morequestions than I’ve raised. I’m happy to dis-cuss winglets in more detail with anyone,feel free to contact me by email atscsmith@mail.arc.nasa.gov ❖

Steve Smith is a Senior Aerospace Engineerat the NASA Ames Research Center. A fulldiscussion of winglet design concepts canbe found in “free flight” 2/92 p6.

free flight 4/9718

Directors & OfficersFAI RecordsDave Hennigar404 Moray StreetWinnipeg, MB R3J 3A5(204) 837-1585 (H)

Flt Training & SafetyIan Oldaker, RR1Limehouse, ON L0P 1H0(905) 877-1581 (H)(905) 823-9060 ext 4526 (B)(905) 822-0567 (F)oldakeri@aecl.caMbrs: Ken Brewin (Safety)

Geo. EckschmiedtFred Kisil (Training)Marc LussierPaul MoggachRichard OfficerKarl RobinsonTerry Southwood

Free FlightTony BurtonBox 1916Claresholm, AB T0L 0T0(403) 625-4563 (H&F)free-flt@agt.net

HistoricalUlli Werneburg1450 Goth AvenueGloucester, ON K1T 1E4(613) 523-2581 (H&F)

ALBERTA ZoneJohn Broomhall (1996)1040 - 107 StreetEdmonton, AB T6J 6H2(403) 438-3268 (H)(403) 423-4730 (B)(403) 423-4734 (F)john@cips.ca

PACIFIC ZoneHarald Tilgner (1996)50090 Lookout Rd, RR2Chilliwack, BC V4Z 1A5(604) 858-4312 (H)(604) 521-5501 (club)

Executive Director& TreasurerJim McCollum6507 Bunker RoadManotick, ON K4M 1B3(613) 692-2227 (H)(613) 829-0536 (B)(613) 829-9497 (F)sac@comnet.ca

President, QUEBEC &ATLANTIC ZonesPierre Pepin (1997)590 rue TownshendSt–Lambert, QC J4R 1M5(514) 671-6594 (H)(514) 761-7015 (B)(514) 768-3637 (F)

VP & ONTARIO ZoneRichard Longhurst (1997)100 – 1446 Don Mills RoadDon Mills, ON M3B 3N6(416) 391-2900 (H)(416) 391-3100 ext 250 (B)(416) 391-2748 (F)richard_longhurst@mintzca.com

PRAIRIE ZoneHoward Loewen (1996)233 Lamont BoulevardWinnipeg, MB R3P 0E8(204) 489-1148 (H)(204) 489-3086 (F)loewenhw@mbnet.mb.ca

InsuranceRichard Longhurst100 – 1446 Don Mills RoadDon Mills, ON M3B 3N6(416) 391-2900 (H)(416) 391-3100 ext 250 (B)richard_longhurst@mintzca.comMbr: Doug Eaton

MedicalDr. Peter Perry64 Blair RoadCambridge, ON N1S 2J1(519) 623-1092 (H)(519) 740-6547 (B)

MeteorologyBernie Palfreeman266 Place de BrullonBoucherville, QC J4B 2J9(514) 655-5935 (H)

Radio & CommDavid Morgan223 Pump Hill Rise SWCalgary, AB T2V 4C8(403) 252-3717 (H)

SportingCharles Yeates110 - 105 Dunbrack StreetHalifax, NS B3M 3G7(902) 443-0094 (H)yeatesc@ra.isisnet.com

Mbrs: Colin Bantinccbantin@globalserve.net

Tony Burtonfree-flt@agt.netGeorge Dunbar

dunbar@freenet.calgary.ab.ca

World Contest vacant

StatisticsRandy Saueracker1413 – 7 AvenueCold Lake, AB T0A 0V2(403) 639-4049 (H)(403) 594-2444 (B)(403) 594-4977 (F)ifs@ccinet.ab.ca

TechnicalPaul FortierRR2, Mountain, ON K0E 1S0(613) 989-1369 (H&F[call 1st])ae605@freenet.carleton.cambrs: Chris Eaves

Herb LachGlenn Lockhard

Trophy ClaimsDavid McAsey47, 2300 Oakmoor Dr SWCalgary, AB T2V 4N7(403) 281-7962 (H)(403) 281-0589 (B&F)mprsoar@agt.net

Air CadetsBob MercerBox 636Hudson, QC J0P 1H0(514) 458-4627 (H)

AirspaceBill Green2181 West 22 AvenueVancouver, BC V6L 1L4(604) 737-1136 (H)(604) 886-8981 (cottage)Mbrs: Ian Grantgrant.i@atomcon.gc.ca

Scott McMasterscott@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca

Contest LettersRobert Binette5140 St–PatrickMontreal, QC H4E 4N5(514) 849-5910 (H)(514) 362-7363 (B)(514) 362-7365 (F)

FAI AwardsWalter Weir3 Sumac Court BurketonRR 2 Blackstock, ONL0B 1B0(905) 263-4374 (H)waltweir@inforamp.net

Committees

SAC newsAIRSPACE NOTES

Some good news has come from theOttawa Aeronautical Study. At a meetingat Ottawa airport on 14 July, NavCanannounced that an interim TCA would beimplemented at Ottawa by NOTAM effec-tive 19 July. The interim TCA is a 24 nmradius circle with floors variously between1500 and 4000 feet asl, within which ClassD rules apply. The airspace from 24 nm to35 nm and between 6500 to 10,000 feet aslis designated Class E airspace (transponderrequired), which in effect puts no restric-tions on gliders outside the 24 nm radiuscircle. The interim TCA is essentially identi-cal to the recommendation of the OttawaAeronautical Study at which SAC and Ot-tawa area clubs participated. Furthermore,NavCan has committed to review the de-sign of the TCA in the fall, and in particularto study whether further reductions in sizeto 22 or even 20 nm radius are feasible.After spending about a person-month onmeetings since April, the Airspace commit-tee, SAC office, and local clubs are pleasedto see their labours bear fruit.

The Airspace committee has been in con-tact with Cu Nim Gliding Club reps withregard to the recent Calgary AeronauticalStudy, from which additional positive re-sults will hopefully emerge.

All glider pilots should note that they arelegally obliged to conform to the Air Regsand should therefore comply with the rulesfor the airspace when entering a TCA. TheTCA’s are here for good. Acting as if theyweren’t, does other pilots, the travelling pub-

lic, and soaring a disservice. The risk of acollision between a glider and an airliner issmall, but any risk caused by irresponsibleaction on the part of a glider pilot is unac-ceptable. Furthermore, in Canada there havebeen recent, well documented sightings ofgliders by airline pilots. The gliders all wereflying legally and still the airliners didn’tlike it. If sightings continue and the glidersare flying illegally, then all glider pilots willpay a heavy price. Read the article on pre-venting midairs between gliders and heavyaircraft by Jim Short, the SSA’s governmentrelations officer on page 5.

Ian Grantmember SAC Airspace committee

Club Membership (31 July)90-96 1997 %avg total avg

ASTRA 5 7 140Air Sailing 29 18 62Alberni 12 12 100Base Borden 15 13 87Beaver Valley 11 14 127Bluenose 39 25 64Bonnechere 9 9 100Bulkley Valley 12 3 25Central Alberta 10 11 110Champlain 56 47 84CVV Québec 37 49 132Cold Lake 26 17 65COSA 43 30 70Cu Nim 62 59 95East Kootenay 5 13 260Edmonton 66 45 68Erin 32 29 91Gatineau 87 84 97Grande Prairie 9 13 144Guelph 30 20 67London 42 41 98Mont Valin 5 3 60Montréal 103 89 86Outardes 29 23 82Pemberton 9 8 89Prince Albert 10 12 120Regina 33 28 85Rideau 16 9 56Rideau Valley 38 23 61Rocky Mountain 3 3 100Saskatoon 13 17 131SOSA 124 109 88Swan Valley 6 6 100Toronto 19 16 84Vancouver 98 79 81Westman 4 1 25Wheatbelt 6 5 83Windsor 11 8 73Winnipeg 69 57 83York 88 74 84Non–club 11 11 100 totals 1340 1140 85

1997 SAC “MEMBERSHIP METER”

FIRST CORLEY SCHOLARSAC is pleased to announce that AndreaKuciak has been selected as the first recipi-ent of the Corley Memorial Scholarship.Andrea is at the University of Waterloo,where she is in second year MechanicalEngineering. She enjoys both the theoreti-cal and practical aspects of engineering andher plans include graduate work. Andreahas been an active member of the SOSAGliding Club for the past three years.

photo unavailable

4/97 free flight 19

hangar flying

COWLEY THE FIRST NATIONALSOARING SITE

On 2 August, John Broomhall, the SAC Al-berta Zone Director, was present at the 25thCowley Summer Camp wind-up barbequeto formally name this historic wave soaringarea the first SAC national soaring site. Thededication took place in front of the newnative limestone cairn at the campgroundwhich honours the wave soaring pioneersin southern Alberta. With over 110 pilots,friends, and local dignitaries on hand, themayors of Cowley and Pincher Creek werepresented with framed certificates recogniz-ing the significant support given by localpeople to soaring ever since the 1950s.

The plaque text duplicates the text on thecairn which was built by Steven Weinholdin 1989 at the top of 8364 foot Centre Peakin the photo background (the account ofwhich is in free flight 5/89), and who flewin from Colorado to attend.

Tony Burton

10 RULES OF AVIATION

I Remember, we are here to flygliders and have fun.

II Do NOT bust your backside.

III Do NOT let anyone else bustyour backside.

IV The pilot is always the firstto arrive at the scene of anaccident.

V Permission is easier to obtainthan forgiveness.

VI Thunderstorms and ice are justlike being pregnant – there isno such thing as a little.

Vll Remember, airplanes fly be-cause of Bernoulli, not Mar-coni.

Vlll If a crash is inevitable, hit thesoftest and cheapest thing youcan find as slowly as possible.

IX It is much better to be on theground wishing that you were inthe air than in the air wishingthat you were on the ground.

X Don’t forget Rule #1

from Vancouver Soaring Scene

THE VALUE OF WING PROFILING

I recently put my ship into the shop forwing refinishing and “profiling”. I want thisto be done correctly and need the specificdetails on locating the templates and/orcoordinates for reprofiling. Where can I getthe templates and/or coordinates for thereprofiling work?

Bill Evelyn......

Having profiled and contoured more wingsthan I care to remember, some observa-tions:

Contouring: Fairing (removing the surfaceirregularities from) an existing shape. Thisis a proven and labour-effective way to im-prove the aerodynamics of a wing! This iswhat most shops perform during refinishes.Contouring coupled with correcting theleading edge shape on the wings yields goodresults.

Profiling: Shaping the wing so that itconforms to some specified design. Theo-retically, this shape is the wing profilespecified by the designer. Realistically, thewing profile on any given ship is likely tobe significantly different than the coordi-nates for the specified airfoil. Why is this ..?

• The designers have different opinions onairfoil shape than Wortmann et al and thusmodify them.• The production plugs and molds have,until recently, been handmade and thusvaried markedly (there are big differencesin wing profile on some gliders from left toright wings).• The wing halves are glued together along

the leading edge, trailing edge and spars.The thickness of the wing can be stronglyaffected by how much adhesive was placedin the wing and how much pressure wasused to squeeze the halves together. Somewings of the same make and model gliderare markedly thicker.• The post-assembly finishing of the lead-ing edge is all hand done. “Hans” may bevery adept at keeping leading edges sharplyradiused while “Harald” may prefer moreblunt leading edges.• Over time the structure alters shape as itages. Environmental factors such as heat,humidity, etc influence this.

I have looked at perhaps 10 to 15 ASW-20susing CNC templates and the majority ofthem are too thick and the LE was tooblunt. These are likely caused via produc-tion errors. My ASW-12 was similar andwas also thickened to accommodate adeeper spar. The thickness is not correct-able but the leading edges are easily (rela-tively) corrected. It is significant that the20s having the most accurate wings werealso the best performers in the field.

In conclusion, making and applying airfoilprofile templates is an interesting academicexercise. However, it is not worth the man-hours in light of the variables discussedabove. It is also not worth doing consider-ing the low percentage of presently avail-able performance most of us extract fromthe machine and the weather. If you are aKarl Striedieck or similar in flying abilityand have the skill and background and a100 manhours to spare, by all means pro-file your wings. If not, you are applying “ahardware solution to a software problem”.

Dedicated practise is the best aerodynamicimprovement we can make on the man-glider system.

Mark Grubb

Ton

y B

urt

on

free flight 4/9720

Pilot Club Glider Call No. Total Pts PlaceSign Flts km

Sue Eaves LSS LS-4 SU 4 736 739 1Ian Grant GGC LS-4 ZT 3 468 463 2Dave Frank RVSS ASW-20 SR 1 355 334 3

The Ontario and Alberta XC Soaring Ladders as of July 20 – Ian Grant

Pilot Club Glider Call No. Total Pts PlaceSign Flts km

Tony Burton Cu Nim RS-15 EE 6 1992 2328 1Rod Crutcher Cu Nim Ventus 26 2 747 1003 2Buzz Burwash ESC ASW-20FP AB 3 790 807 3Mike Glatiotis Cu Nim Std Cirrus JM 3 609 795 4Bruce Friesen ESC Std Austria SL 2 564 786 5Darwin Roberts Cu Nim HP-16 BH 2 503 688 6Terry Southwood Cu Nim ASW-20 PM 2 560 658 7Gerald Ince Cu Nim Mini Nimbus 54 3 509 623 8Paul Scott ESC Pilatus TA 2 288 351 9Ken Freeland ESC SZD-59 ? 1 168 201 10

Below are the current results in the Ontario and the new Alberta Soaring Ladder (which isadministered by Terry Southwood). Several more pilots have registered for the OntarioLadder but have yet to submit flight claims. I would like to remind participants to submitflight claims as soon as possible in order to foster a sense of competition (as in “Good Lord,look what Sue’s done! I better fly more cross-country”.)

Ladder news on the Net Some of you may be aware of another exciting Ladder on thenet, the R.A.S. (as in recreation.aviation.soaring) League. For those of you who haven’t yetheard of it, here is a brief description. The RAS rules are similar to the old British GlidingAssociation Ladder, and so is similar also to the OSA Ladder, since we borrowed from theBGA. But the creators of the RAS League have pushed their imaginations further and supplyon the net an electronic form for posting flight claims and league tables of current results.The League tables contain links to pilot names and details of every flight. The League rulesalso contain an ingenious handicapping system for regional and international differencesbased on the racing speeds achieved in each area. Last time I looked there were well over adozen pilots from the US, UK and NZ — but no Canadians. The RAS League gives top Can-adian pilots a way of informally ranking themselves in the world. I believe that the concepthas the potential to give a tremendous boost to the immediacy and enjoyment of provincialladders such as the Ontario and Alberta models. Look at the RAS League. You will find it athttp://acro/harvard.edu/league or via the Soaring Society of America home page.

Stalking the Mountain WaveISBN 0-9682005-0-8, 7" x 10" soft cover, 220 ppwith index, 44 photos, 21 illustrations and tables.$20 plus $4 p&h. Orders (403) 625-4563 phone/fax, or free-flt@agt.net

After 10 years, Stalking the Mountain Waveis back in a larger format. It is a completelyrevised and improved second edition, a wor-thy addition to anyone’s soaring library.

It is a book of soaring history and politics,of geology, aviation medicine and meteor-ology, of great campfire tales, and of tech-nique in using a unique phenomenon ofnature — the awesome wave that sets up inthe lee of the Rocky Mountains in Albertawhen a southwester blows in all the wayfrom the Pacific Ocean. To powered air-craft, the wave is often an ill understooddanger to be avoided at all cost, but tosailplane pilots who understand and respectthe strength of this wind and accept its chal-lenge, it is a source of immense energythat can provide a free ride up to the strato-sphere. This edition contains much newmaterial such as the early pre-soaring his-tory of the Cowley airfield, new soaringtales, a new chapter on the safety and med-ical aspects of high altitude flight, a finalreport on the “Chinook Project” which usedthe Alcor sailplane for wave research, anda list of every Diamond altitude flight andrecord achieved in the Cowley wave.

Ursula, who researched, wrote and com-piled this book, is a historian for Canadianglider pilots and is a respected sailplanepilot in her own right. She holds severalCanadian soaring records and earned thefirst Diamond badge in Canada to be heldby a woman. ✿

Book review – Bruce Hea

Pemberton 1997

The Vancouver Soaring Association clubouting to Pemberton, BC was cancelled thisyear (too bad) but a few private owners stillmade it out to that beautiful valley just northof Whistler Mountain. My partner Helmuthad brought our glider from Ephrata andleft it there a few days earlier. I arrivedWednesday after one o’clock. Rudy was fly-ing with a visitor from Germany. After helanded I asked if there was any lift around.Rudy in his happy, friendly and helpful man-ner assured me that there was lift and hejust landed because the last flight was acheckout flight and the visitor was to fly theBlanik Solo. I helped them get the Solo un-tied and ready. After he was airborne, Rudyoffered to help me rig the glider and after-wards gave me a tow to the Whistler valleyentrance. I released at about 4000 feet instrong lift and in no time was up to cloud-base at about 9500. It was 4:15 and I wassurprised how strong the lift was.

I was off towards Whistler Village, the windwas from southwest and it took some tryingto get to the village. In fact, only after my

third try did I reach Blackcomb and thevillage. Previous attempts ended up in heavysink with me racing back to the valley en-trance to tank up again for the next try.After taking a lot of pictures I headed eastright across Mt. Currie towards Lillooet Lakeand the mountains northeast of the airport.Lift was okay but it was getting late and Iwas hanging on more than getting reallyhigh. Rudy called to see where I was and ifhe should get in the towplane and tow medown. He wondered if I was in a wavesince all clouds faded away except a fewwave clouds straight west of the airport.

After Rudy’s mention of the wave I headedover to the west to check it out and therewas lift just on the south end of the town. Alittle lenticular was there as well. One knotincreased to two knots of steady smoothlift right above the first few cloud layers. Ireached just over 10,000 feet and thenfollowed the lennies westwards towardsMeager Creek. There was very little sinkand without any turns I made the 50 kilo-metre distance at Meager Creek at about9500 feet. It was now after 8 pm and I wasgetting very cold. Half way back towards

the airfield I encountered heavy sink for ashort period of time but still got back at theairport at 5000. This was my first wave cross-country flight and I am sure there is lotsmore to explore in the Pemberton valley.

My partner showed up that night but hewanted to go skiing the next day and wasnot interested in flying. The next day I starteda bit sooner and was in the air about 2.Again over to Whistler and Lillooet Lakeand then up to Meager Creek, but in ther-mal lift on the north side of the valley. Thecloudbase was lower, only about 8000 feetand later 8500. North of the Lillooet River/Meager Creek junction there was a nice cuand with the southwest wind I found goodlift on the south side of the cu. I used thecloud just like the mountains in Hope andsoared in front of spectacular clouds rightto the top of the cu to 12,500 feet.

As the valley towards the airport was open,I now drifted towards the airport beside allthe cu forming on the north side of thevalley. By the time I got to the Gunn Lakeroad at about 10,000 I found 2 knots infront of a cumulus. In steady lift I climbed

4/97 free flight 21

Maurie Bradneyfrom Australian Gliding

The weight-loss-in-flight data gatheringprogram was embarked upon because

we have some concerns that glider pilotsare possibly not drinking sufficient water.We have come to realize that hydrationplays a major part in keeping a personfunctioning efficiently. It has also becomeapparent that dehydration has been a majorfactor in many accidents.

Work of sports physiologists at the Aust-ralian Institute of Sport has shown that itonly requires a small amount of dehydra-tion for the logical processes of the brain tobe severely degraded. As gliding is essen-tially a cerebral sport, keeping the brainfunctioning well is just as important to aglider pilot as having perfect muscle toneand flexibility is to a gymnast.

Most glider pilots can find some occasionswhere after the flight they have thought,“That was a silly thing to do. I wonder whyI did that?” Almost certainly the answercould have been “I did not drink enoughwater and my brain was not functioning toowell.”

This project was simply to find out howmuch water pilots were drinking. Some other

data flows from the measurements as well.To carry this out, a set of accurate scaleswere purchased at a cost of about $400.These are digital scales, measuring down to50 gram units (.05 of a kilogram). This isabout half a cupful of water. Scales to dofiner measurements cost over twice as much,so that was thought to be adequate.

As well as the time of weighing, for eachflight four weights were taken: before theflight, 1 & 2, and after the flight, 3 & 4.

1 Pilot weight with any food planned tobe eaten in flight, plus containers, etc.

2 Weight #1, plus drinking water to betaken on the flight including the con-tainer.

3 Pilot weight with any remaining food(plus any wrappers, containers used)

4 Weight #3 plus the remaining water.

A number of things can be calculated fromthese measurements :

• Drinking water taken, including theweight of the container

• Drinking water used• Body weight loss• Total loss from body, food and water• Time between weighings, which will be

a little more than flight time.

We tried to get the weighing as late as pos-sible before take off and asked pilots toweigh as soon as possible after landing. Thescales were placed near to the film hand-in box for the post flight weighing. Also, weasked pilots to drink only from their flightwater until this second weighing. Urinationwas considered as a part of the normal fluidloss for the time involved.

My thanks to the many pilots who cooper-ated with this project. Over 200 recordswere obtained. Unfortunately, a number hadto be discarded through various errors ofrecording or incorrect scale readings. Somepilots actually showed a weight increase,but checking showed that these pilots ap-

parently drank more water than they hadtaken on the flight, so these measurementshad to be discarded. Perhaps they dranksome from another container.

A number of pilots could not take part inthe program as they had their flight watercontainers to some extent fixed in the glider.I have some concern about this becauseregular cleaning of the containers may notget carried out. The conditions in watercontainers are excellent for micro-organismsin water to multiply. Even with great care,without regular cleaning, enough can growto cause stomach upsets or even illness.Containers should be cleaned with bleachor other antiseptic solution every few days.If you use a sports drink, then clean themevery day, as the glucose in these providesfood for the micro-organisms as well!

The average time between weighings was 4hours 45 minutes. All weights in the belowtable are in kilograms. As it happened I wasthe pilot who had a zero weight change.Apparently I must have drunk just the rightamount. Most times my weight loss is around0.4 kilograms and I drink about 0.8 litres.Not surprisingly, the pilots who showedlarge weight losses were large pilots withaverage weights around 95 kilograms. How-ever, even at that weight over 2 kilogramsis quite a lot to lose, especially as the samepilots drank around 2 litres of water.

The average amount of water carried andused shows that most pilots are on the righttrack. I do have some concern that somepilots are taking only 0.4 kg of water for alikely five hours in the air. This is invitingdehydration and possible undesirable con-sequences. Similarly, I’m concerned that afew pilots apparently drank nothing at all!

A surprise to me was how few pilots tookanything to eat during their flight. A similareffect to dehydration occurs after two and ahalf to three hours, but from a different cause— reduced blood sugar level. We do nothave to research this effect as it has alreadybeen long-proven. Otherwise no boss wouldallow workers to have a coffee break! Pro-ductivity is improved as a result.

Sugar in the blood is food for the brain. Asgliding is very heavy on brainwork, replen-ishment will help keep the decisions toprate instead of somewhat less. It does notneed a great deal of food — something witha good supply of complex sugars, like fruitor dried fruit. One apple in a four hourflight will do. Some bread or similar foodwill help make the release of sugar into theblood slower, and hence longer lasting.

It’s a mistake to take something loaded withsugar. The surge of sugar in the systemcauses the body to release insulin whichdepresses the blood sugar level. This is theopposite of what is intended! Complexsugars release slowly and help maintain aconstant sugar level. I shall continue to col-lect data on this general basis, but I willalso try to get data for a number of flightsby the same person. ❖

Weight watching for glider pilots

Report on the weight-loss-in-flight research program, summer 1996/97

body total water waterloss loss used carried

Averages 0.63 1.53 1.65 2.28

maximumloss or use 2.15 4.10 3.50 4.15

minimumloss or use 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.40

training & safety

up to 12,500 feet then checked again mymap and found that I was just between twoairways in uncontrolled airspace. I now wason top of all clouds with just clear sunnyskies above me and I was climbing in steadylift right up to 17,100 feet.

It was just an outstanding view with totalcloud cover to the north and west. The val-ley towards the airport was open and to thesouth there was broken cloud. I took a lotof pictures during the climb. By the time Ireached my maximum altitude I wanted totake a picture of my instrument panel but Iran out of film. The only way to verify myaltitude was to take a picture. So I rewoundthe film in one camera and double exposedthe film. It did turn out ok and it was a greatflight of over five hours — again very cold.

The next day was my son Neil’s turn to flyand I went skiing with Helmut. Great skiingas well for that late in the season. On Satur-day Neil and I split the flying. We both hadgood flights of two hours each and I dohave to say it was a great time in Pemberton.

Joe Gegenbauer

free flight 4/9722

FAI badges3 Sumac Court Burketon, RR2, Blackstock, ON L0B 1B0(905) 263-4374 email waltweir@inforamp.net

The following badge legs were recorded in the CanadianSoaring Register during the period 17 April to 1 July 1997.

SILVER BADGE886 Patrick Templeton SOSA

DIAMOND ALTITUDE (5000 m gain )John deJong York 5300 m Grob 102 Minden, NV

GOLD ALTITUDE (3000 m gain)John deJong York 5300 m Grob 102 Minden, NV

SILVER DISTANCE (50 km)Clarence Iverson Saskatoon 58.5 km Phoebus C Birch Hills, SKPatrick Templeton SOSA 62.3 km Ka6CR Rockton, ON

SILVER ALTITUDE (1000 m gain)Clarence Iverson Saskatoon 1250 m Phoebus C Birch Hills, SKPatrick Templeton SOSA 1580 m Ka6CR Rockton, ON

C BADGE (1 hour flight)2558 Clarence Iverson Saskatoon 3:50 h Phoebus C Birch Hills, SK2559 Steve Simon SOSA replacement of lost Hungarian certificate2560 Peter Luxemberger COSA 1:02 h 2–33 Omemee, ON

Please enclose payment with order; price includes postage. GSTnot required. Ontario residents, add 8% sales tax. Items 1–6 and13–19 available from SAC National Office. Check with your clubfirst if you are looking for forms.

Votre paiement dévrait accompagner la commande. La livraison estincluse dans le prix. TPS n’est pas requise. Les résidents de l’Ontariosont priés d’ajouter la taxe de 8%. Les articles 1–6 et 13-19 sontdisponibles au bureau national de l’ACVV.

SAC National Office, 101 – 1090 Ambleside Drive, Ottawa, ON K2B 8G7 tel (613) 829-0536 • fax (613) 829-9497 • email sac@comnet.ca

SAC SUPPLIES FOR CERTIFICATES AND BADGES ARTICLES ACVV POUR CERTIFICATS ET INSIGNES 1 FAI ‘A’ badge, silver plate pin $ 6.00 Insigne FAI ‘A’, plaqué argent 2 FAI ‘B’ badge, silver plate pin $ 6.00 Insigne FAI ‘B’, plaqué argent 3 SAC BRONZE badge pin (available from your club) (12 for $55) $ 6.00 Insigne ACVV BRONZE (disponible au club) 4 FAI ‘C’ badge, cloth, 3" dia. $ 6.00 Insigne FAI ‘C’, écusson de tissu, 3" dia. 5 FAI SILVER badge, cloth 3" dia. $ 6.00 Insigne FAI ARGENT, écusson de tissu, 3" dia. 6 FAI GOLD badge, cloth 3" dia. $ 6.00 Insigne FAI OR, écusson de tissu, 3" dia. 7 FAI ‘C’ badge, silver plate pin $ 5.00 Insigne FAI ‘C’, plaqué argent 8 FAI SILVER badge, pin $45.00 Insigne FAI ARGENT 9 FAI GOLD badge, gold plate pin $45.00 Insigne FAI OR, plaqué or

Items 4–12 ordered through FAI awards chairman Les articles 4–12 sont disponibles au président des prix de la FAIItems 10, 11 not stocked – external purchase approval given Les articles 10, 11 ne sont pas en stock – permis d’achat externe

10 FAI GOLD badge 10k or 14k pin Insigne FAI OR, 10k ou 14k11 FAI DIAMOND badge, 10k or 14k pin and diamonds Insigne FAI DIAMAND, 10k ou 14k et diamands12 FAI Gliding Certificate (personal record of badge achievements) $10.00 Certificat FAI de vol à voile (receuil des insignes)

Processing fee for each FAI application form submitted $15.00 Frais de services pour chaque formulaire de demande soumis13 FAI badge application form (also stocked by club) n/c Formulaire de demande pour insignes (aussi disponible au club)14 Official Observer application form (also stocked by club) n/c Formulaire de demande pour observateur officiel (aussi disponible au club)15 SAC Flight Trophies application form (also stocked by club) n/c Formulaire de demande pour trophées de vol de l’ACCV(aussi disp. au club)16 FAI Records application form n/c Formulaire de demande pour records FAI17 Flight Declaration form (also stocked by club) per sheet n/c Formulaire de déclaration de vol par feuille (aussi disponible au club)18 Badge & Record Flying, ed. 7 $ 6.00 Vol pour certificats et insignes, éd.7 (anglais seulement)19 FAI Sporting Code, Section 3, Gliders (rev 1 Oct 96) $10.00 FAI Code Sportif, Section 3, Planeurs (rev 1 Oct 96)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Standing time – months

100

80

60

40

20

0

40°C

20°C

10°C

Re

te

nt

ion

ca

pa

cit

y –

%

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Number of charging cycles ( @ 20° C )

100

80

60

40

20

0

Re

te

nt

ion

ca

pa

cit

y –

%

100% 50% 30% – Depth of discharge

Life characteristics in cyclic use

Shelf life and storage

SEALED LEAD ACID BATTERYTYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS

A very common type of battery installed in gliders is the lead/leaddioxide sealed battery. The Powersonic 12V, 6.5 ampere-hour (PS-1265) is typical of these and two of its important characteristics aredetailed in the below graphs.

The top graph shows that these batteries retain their charge betterover the winter when they are kept cool (which is logical when youconsider that a chemical reaction is occurring to produce the storedpower), and that they should be recharged fully once or twice overthe off-season. The lower graph shows very clearly the significantloss of life of these batteries when they are deep discharged. It ismuch friendlier to recharge them each day rather than wait for twoor three flights and they show a drop in output voltage.

FAI records404 Moray Street, Winnipeg, MB R3J 3A5 (204) 837-1585 H

The following record claim has been received:

Free Distance, territorial, 542.3 kilometres, 7 June 97, Tony Burton,RS–15, C–GPUB. Flown from Black Diamond, AB with turnpointsof Cowley airfield and the Coutts border crossing, and return toBlack Diamond. This new record category is unfilled.

Dave Hennigar

Walter Weir

4/97 free flight 23

Finders fee will be paid to finder of any of thefollowing items: Fauvel AV36 with or withouttrailer, any other glider needing tender loving care,ultralight with full cockpit enclosure ( ex. Chinook)with or without engine, Jodell 1- or 2-place withor without engine or project. Send card with phonenumber please. Ed Mux, 1500 E Main St, Merrill,Wisconsin, 54452 (715) 536-7404.

Wingtip wheel assy. Two sets wanted for 2-33.Sylvain Bourque, AVV Champlain (514) 641-3913champlain@videotron.ca

Security 150 parachute, recent repack. $300 Cdn.Horst Dahlem, ph/fax (306) 955-0179 or emailDahlem@sk.sympatico.ca

Base stations. Gralen 720 ch. for 115V operation.Contains Apollo 702 comm. $500. Bayside 90chan. for 12VDC operation $95. Len Gelfand (613)749-5101, ck297@freenet.carleton.ca

Wanted, 1-26b right wing, nose cone, canopy andtail feathers for rebuild project. Contact RandyBlackwell, Cold Lake Soaring Club, (403) 594-2171.

Slim Back chute, $855 + $24 s&h, no GST, noPST, brand new, carrying bag included. PeterDoktor 36 Buchanan Rd, St. Catharines, ON L2M4R6 (905) 935-4938 ph/fax.

Humorous greeting card or T-shirt for the gliderpilot in your life? Write for a full catalogue. A six-pack of black and white cards c/w envelopes$9.00 + applicable taxes. Mike Morgulis, 1411–15 Eva Road, Etobicoke, ON M9C 4W3, emailmike.morgulis@sympatico.ca

REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE

Sunaero Aviation Glider repairs in fibreglass,wood, & metal. Jerry Vesely, Box 1928, Claresholm,AB T0L 0T0 (403) 625-3155 (B), 625-2281 (fax).

Flying High Parachute sales, repairs, repacking,custom containers. Al MacDonald (403) 687-2225.

INSTRUMENTS & OTHER STUFF

Instruments for sale — best prices anywhere. Callfor list and prices for vario, altimeter, airspeed, T&B,g-meter, compass, radio, etc. Lee (905) 840-2932H, evenings only.

MZ Supplies CONFOR foam, Becker radios, mostGerman soaring instruments. 1450 Goth Ave, Glou-cester, ON K1T 1E4 ph/fax (613) 523-2581.

Variometers, winglets, mylar seals — all productsdesigned and built this side of the Atlantic! PeterMasak, High Performance Engineering Inc. (713)499-9518 (W), (713) 499-9620 (fax).

Variometer / Calculator Versatile pressure trans-ducer and microprocessor based vario and finalglide calculator. Canadian designed and produced.Skytronics, 24 Robina Ave, Nepean ON K2H 9P9.(613) 820-3751 or (613) 596-1024.

SAILPLANE DEALERS

Schempp-Hirth Nimbus, Ventus, Discus. AlSchreiter, 3298 Lonefeather Crescent, Mississauga,ON L4Y 3G5 (416) 625-0400 (H), 597-1999 (B).

Schleicher ASK-21, 23, ASW-22, 24, 26, 27, ASH-25 and parts. Ulli Werneburg, 1450 Goth Ave,Gloucester, ON K1T 1E4 ph/fax (613) 523-2581.

Solaire Canada SZD-55-1, Krosno, PW5, trailers,GPS and other sailplane stuff. Ed Hollestelle ph/fax (519) 461-1464.

suppliers

Solaire CanadaEd Hollestelle (519) 461-1464 p & fx

LX-20 The new IGC–approved GPSflight data recorder $1995LX-100 Basic audio vario with averager

$495ATR720A 760 chan VHF with mountingtray and wiring harness $1695SHM1010 Boom mike and wiring (as in-stalled by most glider manufacturers $150LX-4000E S-RAM final glide computer orconnects to any GPS (with NMEA output) orconnects to LX-20 data recorder $2995LX-5000 The ultimate GPS/final glide com-puter system with moving map display andFAI data recorder $5495

towplane

SOARING — the monthly journal of the SoaringSociety of America. Subscriptions US$43 secondclass. Credit cards accepted. Box E, Hobbs, NM88241-7504. (505) 392-1177, fax (505) 392-8154.74521.116@compuserve.com

NEW ZEALAND GLIDING KIWI — the bi–monthlyjournal of the New Zealand Gliding Association.Editor, John Roake. US$32/year (seamail). PrivateBag, Tauranga, NZ. john@roake.gen.nz

SAILPLANE & GLIDING — the only authoritativeBritish magazine devoted entirely to gliding. Bi-monthly. BGA, Kimberley House, Vaughan Way,Leicester, LE1 4SG, England. £16.50 per annum. fax01 16 251-5939.

AUSTRALIAN GLIDING — monthly journal of theGliding Federation of Australia. US$34.80 surfacemail, airmail extra. Payable on an Australian bank,int. money order, Bankcard, Visa, Mastercard. Box1650, GPO, Adelaide, South Australia 5001. fax(08) 410-4711. AGeditor@gfa.on.net

magazines

miscellaneous

Lark IS28B2, C–GVLI, 1500h, basic instruments,Cambridge vario & repeater, Varicalc computer,Alpha 100 radio, g-meters, chutes, professionallybuilt open trailer. Winnipeg Gliding Club (204)837-8128 or wgc-info@lark.magic.mb.ca

two seat

Pawnee 235, 1200h, $30,000. Uwe Kleinhempelat (250) 344-6620.

single seat

1–26, #122, 2250h, in good shape with basic in-struments. $8500. Call Howard (250) 493-1992.

L–Spatz, C–FUJZ, 1966, recent fabric and over-haul, basic instrmts, radio, Varicalc, open or closedtrailer avail. $7000 obo. Winnipeg Gliding Club(204) 837-8128 or wgc-info@lark.magic.mb.ca

Tern II, 17m, basic instruments incl portable radio.Recently constructed, still in test flight phase atWinnipeg. $4900 obo. Call Jim Cook at (204) 489-6734, outside Winnipeg 1-800-224-7508 or emailaccessm@escape.ca

K8B, C–FZKQ, vg cond, Imron paint, radio, encltrailer. $9000. Contact Ralph Webber (519) 337-2042, Fritz Schreiner (519) 542-2204.

BG12A, CF–RCU, 350 h, flies real well, 34/1, one-piece canopy, reconditioned in ’95 - all the workis done. Fibreglass trailer, Security 150 chute,portable radio, wing covers. $4500 obo. CallNorm Wagner (250) 344-6685.

Ka6E, 803h, $11,000. Uwe Kleinhempel (250) 344-6620.

Duster, C–GHEU, 226h, Genave 100 radio, twomech varios, 3-1/8 and 2-1/4 altimeters, ASI, 10ahgelcell batt encl metal trailer. Canopy extendedto accommodate 6'-4" pilot & chute in comfort.Asking $5500. Harold Weidemann (403) 474-0139, weidefam@connect.ab.ca

HP–18, C–GTRV, completed in ’94 with initialflights only. Selling as I’m out of country most ofthe summers. All drawings, special tooling, spares.All new instruments: CPT50 & CAV50 netto varioswith speed ring, ATR 720 radio, new thin packchute, etc. Maurice Engler (403) 246-6611.

Jantar Std, 1350h, Cambridge MkIV, tinted canopy,EDOAire comm, gear warning, encl trailer. Neverbroken, make an offer. Greg (306) 586-5493 eve.

Jantar Std 2, C–GHDR, 1/2 share at SOSA, 650h,Imron paint, new Dittel 720 radio, new ILEC SC7vario, PZL vario, O2, chute, clamshell trailer. XC& contest ready. $15,000. Tim O’Hanlon (905)332-1930, ohanlont@bailey.ca

ASW–15, 1500h, ADs done, annual due Aug ’97,good cond, spare canopy, very nice to fly. $19,500($US14,500). Call (519) 471-3203 or (519) 425-1679, cpg342@oxford.net

Std Cirrus, CF–DMW, 660h, never bent, excelcond. Radair 360, O2, 3 varios, metal trailer. Win-ter and Peravia baros, Radair 10s, Security 150chute, etc. ’77 Ford Club Wagon, 3/4t, low miles,excel cond, towing package, AC, wired for groundstation. All unused past 7 years. Prefer packagesale. Monty Williams (604) 929-1749.

TradingPost

TradingPost

Personal ads are a free service to SACmembers (please give me the name of

your club). $10 per insertion for nonmem-bers. Send ad to editor, not the national

office, Box 1916, Claresholm, AB T0L 0T0 tel/fax (403) 625-4563, free-flt@agt.net

Ad will run 3 times unless you renew.Please tell me if your item has been soldsooner. Maximum ad length is 6 lines and

subject to some editing as necessary.

PIK20Bc, C–GXWD, carbon fibre, 820h, very goodcondition, new paint, Ball 400 c/w netto & cruise,Edoaire 720 radio, chute, O2, gear warning. CallLee at (403) 242-3056 or Denis at (403) 526-4560.

KW45, C–FSNZ, 500h, Open Cirrus wings, home-built glass fuselage, never damaged, excel cond.Factory water ballast, tinted canopy, radio, O2,Ilec vario system, aluminum trailer. Fred Wollrad,(403) 479-2886.

Ventus B 16.5 CF-CYP, contest ready with Dittelradio, Zander flight computer/vario as well as aCambridge and mechanical vario. Komet trailerand many extras including parachute and O2.US$40,000. Hal Werneburg at (403) 686-6620,westechc@cadvision.com or Rick Zabrodski (403)271-5123, rzabrods@acs.ucalgary.ca

free flight 4/9724

return address:Soaring Association of CanadaSuite 101 – 1090 Ambleside DriveOttawa, Ontario K2B 8G7

ATLANTIC ZONE

BLUENOSE SOARING CLUBRon Van Houten17 John Brenton DriveDartmouth, NS B2X 2V5(902) 434-1032

QUEBEC ZONE

AERO CLUB DES OUTARDESGérard Savey16 Place ValmontLoraine, QC J6Z 3X8(514) 621-4891

ASSOCIATION DE VOL AVOILE CHAMPLAINSylvain Bourque820 des GrosseilliersBoucherville, QC J4B 5S2(514) 771-0500

CLUB DE VOL A VOILEDE QUEBECGilles Boily12235, Mgr CookeQuebec, QC G2M 2M5(418) 843-8596

MONTREAL SOARINGCOUNCILBox 1082St–Laurent, QC H4Z 4W6(613) 632-5438 (airfield)

CLUB DE VOL A VOILEMONT VALIN3434 Ch. Ste FamilleChicoutimi, QC G7H 5B1

ONTARIO ZONE

AIR SAILING CLUBChristopher D. Manning417 Lakeshore Road EastOakville, ON L6J 1K1(905) 849-4596

ARTHUR GLIDING CLUB10 Courtwood PlaceNorth York, ON M2K 1Z9

BASE BORDEN SOARINGRay Leiska88 Saskatchewan BlvdBorden, ON L0M 1C0(705) 424-2432 H(705) 424-1200 ext 2479 B

BEAVER VALLEY SOARINGDoug Munro187 Chatham AvenueToronto, ON M4J 1K8(416) 466-1046

BONNECHERE SOARINGIver Theilmann7 Hoffman AvenuePetawawa, ON K8H 2J4(613) 687-6836

CENTRAL ONTARIOSOARING ASSOCIATIONBob Leger866 Hyland StreetWhitby, ON L1N 6S1(905) 668-5111 H(416) 973-8534 B

ERIN SOARING SOCIETYBox 360609025 Torbram RdBramalea, ON L6S 6A3

GATINEAU GLIDING CLUBRick Officer1530 Duford StreetOrleans, ON K1E 2M2(613) 824-1174

GUELPH GLIDING &SOARING ASSOCIATIONG. Ritchie259 Cole RoadGuelph, ON N1G 3K1(519) 763-7150

SASKATOON SOARING CLUBBrian Galka203B Reid RoadSaskatoon, SK S7N 2W5(306) 652-7966 H(306) 956-7200 B

LAKEHEAD GLIDING CLUBHans Schulz98 Vera AvenueThunder Bay, ON P7A 6T6

WESTMAN SOARING CLUB2615 Rosser AvenueBrandon, MB R7B 0G1

WHEATBELT SOARING CLUBDouglas CampbellBox 101Sovereign, SK S0L 3A0(306) 882-3738

WINNIPEG GLIDING CLUBSusan or Mike Maskell489 Lodge AvenueWinnipeg, MB R3J 0S5(204) 831-8746

SWAN VALLEY SOARING ASSNBrian TiggBox 922Swan River, MB R0L 1Z0(204) 734-5771

ALBERTA ZONE

CENTRAL ALBERTA SOARING CLUBJerry Mulder4309 Grandview BoulevardRed Deer, AB T4N 3E7(403) 343-6924

COLD LAKE SOARING CLUBRandy BlackwellBox 5108, Stn Forces,Cold Lake, AB T9M 2C3(403) 594-SOAR

CU NIM GLIDING CLUBAl Hoar6316 Dalsby Road NWCalgary, AB T3A 1Y4(403) 288-7205 H(403) 569-4311 B

S A C C l u b s EDMONTON SOARING CLUBJohn Broomhall1040 - 107 StreetEdmonton, AB T6J 6H2(403) 438-3268

GRANDE PRAIRIESOARING SOCIETYBox 22044Grande Prairie, AB T8V 6X1(403) 539-6991

PACIFIC ZONE

ALBERNI VALLEYSOARING ASSNDoug MooreRR3 Site 310 C6Port Alberni, BC V9Y 7L7(250) 723-9385

ASTRAChristine Timm9280 - 168 StreetSurrey, BC V4N 3G3(604) 589-0653 H(604) 574-4141 B

BULKLEY VALLEY SOARINGTed SchmidtBox 474, Smithers, BC V0J 2N0(250) 847-3585(250) 847-2231

EAST KOOTENAY SOARING CLUBMike Cook509 - 5 AvenueKimberley, BC V1A 2S8(250) 427-5471 H(250) 427-5563 F

PEMBERTON SOARINGChristine Timm9280 - 168 StreetSurrey, BC V4N 3G3(604) 589-0653

VANCOUVER SOARING ASSNHans BaeggliBox 3251Vancouver, BC V6B 3X9(604) 434-2125 H(604) 278-2533 F

LONDON SOARING SOCIETYSue & Chris Eaves11 Pinehurst DriveDorchester, ON N0L 1G2

RIDEAU GLIDING CLUBBox 307Kingston, ON K7L 4W2(519) 285-2379

RIDEAU VALLEY SOARINGBox 1164 (served by machine)Manotick, ON K4M 1A9(613) 489-2691

SOSA GLIDING CLUBPat O’Donnell74 Lincoln AvenueBrantford, ON N3T 4S9(519) 753-9136

TORONTO SOARING CLUBStephen Foster10 Blyth StreetRichmond Hill, ON L4E 2X7(905) 773-4147

WINDSOR GLIDING CLUBEric Durance785 Bartlett DriveWindsor, ON N9G 1V3

YORK SOARING ASSOCIATION10 Courtwood PlaceNorth York, ON M2K 1Z9

PRAIRIE ZONE

PRINCE ALBERT GLIDING& SOARING CLUBKeith Andrews219 Scissons CourtSaskatoon, SK S7S 1B7(306) 249-1859 H(306) 933-7498 B

REGINA GLIDING &SOARING CLUBBryan Florence, Box 4093Regina, SK S4P 3W5(306) 536-4119 or 545-3366

Canada Post Corporation ⁄ Société canadienne des postes

Postage paid Port payé

Blk Nbre

257214OTTAWA