Does the aspect ratio mean anything or it just how most type of planes tend to be?

[Mat]

Can Gliders have a low aspect ratio and still glide well?

[Mike James]

Yes, but (all things being equal) the higher aspect ratio wings will glide better, because a high aspect ratio wing has less drag, and obtains more lift per degree of angle of attack than a low one.

Some of this is related to scale, as are practically all model aerodynamic questions. For example, it could be argued that if you had a featherweight park flyer type with a low AR, it might be a "floater", but these extreme examples don't tend to hold up at medium to large scales.

If nothing else, think about where most of our data comes from... NACA reports from the 30's. There are modern types we all appreciate, such as Dr. Seilg, Eppler, and Mark Drela, but if the low AR planforms worked as well as the high AR type, you'd be seeing them in action.

[BMatthews]

For our model sizes the aspect ratio needs to be comprimised to get the wing chord wide enough to have a decent reynolds number. Research by some early 80's glider flyers showed that there were real gains to be had by keeping the chord wide within reason as the span got smaller. For an open class glider the optimum AR was up around 12 to 15 while for 2 meter gliders the optimum was between 6 and 8. Herk Stokely took advantage of this to produce a very low AR=4 or so 2 meter glider back in the 80's and it was quite successful but looked like hell to eyes acustommed to regular aspect ratios.

[Mike Taylor]

High apect ratios are more effecient mainly due to there being a smaller amount of the wing affescted by the wing tip losses where the high and low pressures mix and cause a vortex to form. As a secondary benefit, there is less of a wing to fuselage joint where the interference in flows between the two are at play.