Buying a sailplane
Jim Harper
glider pilot, but have a fair amount of time in a tail-dragger motorglider
(Dimona) and in power. I am a big guy...6'3" and closer to 265 than I like.
The advice given to me includes the ASW 19, LS-4 (and maybe, drool, -6) and
(stepping down a bit) Grob Astir CS.
Two questions: Any comments on the range of choices? Any that I should add?
Subtract?
Secondly: Anyone have any of these planes near Montgomery Alabama that I can
sit test? The aircraft that I am considering are a considerable distance
away. If there is anyone within a hundred or so miles of Montgomery AL who
own one of these...and are willing to take the difficulty to let me sit in
the cockpit and engage in some discussion about your airplanes, I would
appreciate it if you would give me the opportunity!
Thanks! Jim
MikeYankee
mentioned, and a delightful classic sailplane.
Address is munged to thwart spammers.
To reply, delete everything after "com".
BTIZ
very very carefully.
Most European built gliders have a MAX SEAT WEIGHT of 110Kg or 242 US
pounds. This is a certification standard that Europe requires their gliders
to meet.
They may also have a MAX "weight of non-lifting parts", thus the ability to
"tank up" to max GW by adding water to the wings.
Our clubs LS-4 lists Max weight of non-lifting parts at 507 pounds (US),
this includes fuselage and permanently fitted equipment, canopy, main pins
plus horizontal tail plus the MAXIMUM COCKPIT LOAD.
The Max Cockpit Load is 242 pounds, includes pilot, parachute, baggage and
temporary equipment (handheld instruments, water, food, etc), Max cockpit
load may be limited by weight of non-lifting parts.
Based on your weight, I would not recommend an LS-4. There are not many
choices out there.. perhaps the American made Schweizer 2-32.
Just curious, in what glider did you learn to fly? and how heavy was your
instructor.
TZ
"Jim Harper" <jimh...@mach500.net> wrote in message
news:us0vaul...@corp.supernews.com...
Al
I would not recommend this machine to a low timer.
The elevator is divergent and very twitchy.
This is based on my experience of 60hours in Nimbus 2a which shares the
same elevator as the Cirrus.
Look at any other Schemp ship without an all flying tail.
Some of the Schwiezer cockpits are super sized too.
Al
"MikeYankee" <mikey...@aol.comic.book> wrote in message
news:20021030200550...@mb-mo.aol.com...
Jim V
Most seat limits are 242 pounds, including pilot and parachute. It is illegal
for you to fly if you exceed that weight. Good thing is, you have till Spring
to trim down!
If you're flying a dual seat, there is also a max gross issue to consider.
Jim Vincent
CFIG
N483SZ
gapagod...@aol.com
js
it.
Hints: I purchased such a rarity as Valentin's Mistral-C last summer. Best
performance measured by Idaflieg is 37.5:1, manufacturers rate is only
35.1:1. I have been happy with it, nice club class glider for about 10 000$.
Quite roomy cocpit, easy and comfortble to fly, well mannered, but must pay
attention for individuals, because quality of manufacture varies. If you
want 15 m class with flaps etc, PIK 20D is quite about same pricelevel, very
roomy and well mannered exept dirt on wings. Wouln't consider Astirs else
than Jeans maybe, ASW-15 and -19 have some bad manners, see Piggot. LS-4 is
ideal to fly if no usual basic acros needeed, pricelevel about 2.5 times
higher.
js
Jim Harper <jimh...@mach500.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:us0vaul...@corp.supernews.com...
J.A.M.
outside the permitted weight range, wich is a safety concern. As Mr. Vincent
says, you have time to loose some weight.
In the meantime I can add a couple of aircrafts to your list.
ASW-20 haves the same cockpit as the -19 and more performance. Discus b may
fit you as well, and I fit too into a modified ASW-24 (small instrument
panel mod for long legs). I'm 1,95mts and 97kg. On my last weight and center
my max cockpit weight was increased to 116kg.
Also PW-5 haves a really roomy cockpit. No comments about performance
though.
Good luck!
"Jim V" <gap...@aol.comSTOPSPAM> escribió en el mensaje
news:20021030231048...@mb-fv.aol.com...
MikeYankee
I would not recommend this machine to a low timer. The elevator is divergent
and very twitchy.
I DISAGREE. The ship is sensitive and therefore needs to be flown with care,
and in gentle conditions, the first few times. After that no problems.
I have 1000+ hours in the Standard Cirrus including a lot of ridge and wave
flying.
Joe Simmers
"js" <Jorma.S...@espoo.fi> wrote in message
news:kz3w9.14$mA4....@read2.inet.fi...
>, ASW-15 and -19 have some bad manners, see Piggot. LS-4 is<<
Really, I have close to 200 hours in my asw19b in the last two years and I
have not found any bad manners that you speak of. Have you ever flown a
19"???
Joe Simmers
asw19b
ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
: "js" <Jorma.S...@espoo.fi> wrote in message
: news:kz3w9.14$mA4....@read2.inet.fi...
:>, ASW-15 and -19 have some bad manners, see Piggot. LS-4 is<<
: Really, I have close to 200 hours in my asw19b in the last two years and I
: have not found any bad manners that you speak of. Have you ever flown a
: 19"???
I have and never liked it, same as Jorma. So i don't have a lot of hours
in this plane :) I flyed much longer the ASW-15 and liked it, but it is
a little strange at first. Of course the LS4 has far cleaner handling than
both, and is better performing. Same for the Pegase. Having flown for an
extended period of time, i have been exposed to many sorts of gliders,
starting from wooden Javelot, Astir, Cirrus, Libelle, LS1, LS3 etc. and,
yes, i was never happy in the ASW-19. My best ones have been the Pegase
and the Janus.
: Joe Simmers
: asw19b
--
Michel TALON
George William Peter Reinhart
There may not be a nicer handling glider.
They have really held their value over the last 20 years and that's a good
indication of market perception of value compared to other models of the
same vintage.
A measure of their popularity is that they are still in production last
time I checked.
You could also look at an LS-3 or 3A for less money and get the same
generous cockpit.
Maybe look for a straight 4 that's still licensed experimental (save a few
bucks and maybe a little wiggle room on the weight issue).
Be sure to get one with the tail battery box so you can get a little help
on the c.g. range.
I owned two (in succession) of them about 20 years ago and at 240+ lbs had
lots of room and c.g. range; now at same 6'-1" and now 255 and still lots
of room.
Tried a PW-5 and it's too tight and same for LS1-F.
There is a fixed stabilizer Standard Cirrus (Cirrus 75?, see Classic site)
version that would have really roomy cockpit and good performance.
I have a friend who's partial to Kestrals but I don't have a clue about
cockpit size.
Al?
So many beautiful gliders out there and so little time to fly them all.
Cheers!, Pete
Al
With the all flying tale you cannot let go, it will pick a direction either
fully up or fully down and go there in an instant. This could be
catastrophic at high speeds.
Al
"MikeYankee" <mikey...@aol.comic.book> wrote in message
news:20021031070940...@mb-bh.aol.com...
Janos Bauer
I have to agree with Al. It's a good sailplane but you have to keep the
stick in your hand all the time. I have only 20 hours with it and I
would buy one as a first plane after my 250 hours but if you can afford
something better go for it (LS4 etc.). Think about a PIK20, that's my
favorite in this price range:)
Regards,
/Janos
Dan Dunkel
> generous cockpit.
> Maybe look for a straight 4 that's still licensed experimental (save a few
> bucks and maybe a little wiggle room on the weight issue).
> Be sure to get one with the tail battery box so you can get a little help
> on the c.g. range.
If I had a choice, I would look at the LS3-17 instead of the LS4. I owned
one for several years and loved it. I sometimes wish that I had it back.
There is a very nice one currently for sale.
The LS3-17 has the same cockpit room as the LS-4 but has the advantages of
flaps and 17-meter tips. For some reason that is lost on me, they seem to
be selling for less than the LS-4's.
One advantage for you is that (at least mine) had an factory-installed
attachment point on the lower-rear of the vertical stabilizer (foreword of
the rudder) for a weight to bolt on. I had one in mine. In my opinion,
this is a much better location for a weight than a battery box on the top of
the vertical stabilizer.
MikeYankee
>but would you take your hands off the stick at 100knots?
Of course not. I would not do that any sailplane I've flown, even my DG-300
which is rich in longitudinal stability.
I consider the Std. Cirrus to be a delightful, economical and underrated ship.
Too many people are scared away by its folkloric reputation of twitchiness. A
pilot who is SERIOUSLY concerned about being able to fly any single-place
aircraft is not ready to fly it.
Janusz Kesik
for value for money.
There should be a Jantar Standard 2/3 aka Acro or SZD-55 for more demanding
for sale around.
Why get broken if You can have the same for less dollars.
Jantars are also offered as 20.5m open class Jantar 2b, almost the same as l
ate versions of Nimbus 2.
Regards,
--
Janusz Kesik
Aeroclub Czestochowa, Poland
janusz...@gazeta.pl
http://www.soaring.enter.net.pl
Al
doom) I will regularly trim them out at 100knots and take both hands off the
stick (gotta eat drink and drop pee bags out the window)
You cant do this with the all flying tails. That said there is a
modification I have seen that adds a trim tab to the all flying tail that
will give them some aerodynamic dampening.
www.standardcirrus.org for Cirrus info
http://www.nimbus.org.uk/all_flying_tailplane.htm for the tailplane mod.
Al
"MikeYankee" <mikey...@aol.comic.book> wrote in message
news:20021031115743...@mb-bd.aol.com...
John Giddy
"J.A.M." <yll...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:apqqbu$4jc...@news1s.iddeo.es...
. I'm 1,95mts and 97kg. On my last weight and center
| my max cockpit weight was increased to 116kg.
So I suppose your cockpit placard shows "110 kg" as max
pilot weight ?
(Max seat load = 110 kg)
Cheers, John G.
BTIZ
a glider outside the published weight limits, experimental or not does not
make a difference. Remind me to not purchase one of their gliders.
TZ
"George William Peter Reinhart" <pe...@prismnet.com> wrote in message
news:01c280e6$1e6eb380$8eaf...@pete.ppp...
snip
> Maybe look for a straight 4 that's still licensed experimental (save a few
> bucks and maybe a little wiggle room on the weight issue).
snip
> I owned two (in succession) of them about 20 years ago and at 240+ lbs had
> lots of room and c.g. range; now at same 6'-1" and now 255 and still lots
> of room.
> Cheers!, Pete
Jim Harper
curious.
And yes, group, I AM on a diet. To BTIZ: most of my dual was at a lower
weight. I did do some recent flying in a 103 with a VERY small
instructor...and quite frankly, I hadn't weighed in a while...so whilst
illegal, I wasn't aware of it. The aircraft flew fine.
"js" <Jorma.S...@espoo.fi> wrote in message
news:kz3w9.14$mA4....@read2.inet.fi...
js
feel. Could be a bit better performer, too. I think Jeans was best of Grob's
club class modell. Structural aspects: some Astir modells have very small
dihedral, so wing tips are quite near the ground at starts and landings. If
I remember right, Piggot mentioned possible gear broblems with few modells.
But for its price, Astir is all together usefull and tough club glider. Even
though I preferred that individual Mistral-C as much better bargain at same
price level.
js
Jim Harper <jimh...@mach500.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:us3n6f6...@corp.supernews.com...
Greg Nunan
"js" <Jorma.S...@espoo.fi> wrote in message
news:kz3w9.14$mA4....@read2.inet.fi...
> Dereck Piggot has a very good book about bying first glider, I wouldn't
pass
> it.
Do you have a title or ISBN for this book? I can't see an obvious candidate
for it on Amazon.
Thanks,
Greg.
Nick Olson
>Jorma,
>
>'js' wrote in message
>news:kz3w9.14$mA4....@read2.inet.fi...
>> Dereck Piggot has a very good book about bying first
>>glider, I wouldn't
>pass
>> it.
>
>Do you have a title or ISBN for this book? I can't
>see an obvious candidate
>for it on Amazon.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Greg.
You might find in a better buy to purchase the SSA
1993 Sailplane Directory - this contains info in tabular
form on a wide range of gliders by Derek.
>
>
>
Dave Walsh
The title is 'Gliding Safety' by Derek Piggott. It has a chapter titled
What type of glider should I buy? ISBN : 0-9605676-5-8
I got my copy from Tom Knauff
http://www.eglider.org/
It is probably also available from other shops selling soaring
supplies
Regards,
Dave
Ernie Schneider
"Al" <asw17...@bigwings.org> wrote in message
news:us2jcvi...@news.supernews.com...
> Granted.. but would you take your hands off the stick at 100knots?
which one of the two ? ;-)
whoever thinks this glider is suitable for a newbie should take it on a
long-highspeed-retrieve tow.
It is a great glider, but not one for a newbie ..
Ernie
Al
Without a flap leaver to mess with there is only one other stick left lol
Al
"Ernie Schneider" <e...@cyberlink.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:rmAw9.12$Kjs.2...@news2.randori.com...
Greg Nunan
Greg.
"Greg Nunan" <gr...@nunan.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aptiqb$k4k$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Eric Greenwell
mikey...@aol.comic.book says...
> Consider also the Standard Cirrus -- larger cockpit than those that you
> mentioned, and a delightful classic sailplane.
There are better choices for the low-time pilot. If he can afford it,
get a newer model like the LS4, ASW-19, etc.
--
Delete the REMOVE from my e-mail address to reply directly
Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)
Eric Greenwell
mikey...@aol.comic.book says...
> (re Standard Cirrus)
>
> >but would you take your hands off the stick at 100knots?
>
> Of course not. I would not do that any sailplane I've flown, even my DG-300
> which is rich in longitudinal stability.
>
> I consider the Std. Cirrus to be a delightful, economical and underrated ship.
> Too many people are scared away by its folkloric reputation of twitchiness. A
> pilot who is SERIOUSLY concerned about being able to fly any single-place
> aircraft is not ready to fly it.
Folkloric? After 250 hours in a Standard Cirrus, I'm with Al on this.
It is an old design, and there are many better, newer ones available
for reasonable money. This is not a glider for low timers.
Also, it lands fast and the spoilers are fair AT BEST. The wheel brake
is a joke unless you tend to it very carefully, generally meaning
modifications.
Not for low-timers. Is there an echo in here?
Al
Twitchiness isnt folklorish its a fact.
There is nothing out there that I can think of that is as pitch sensitive as
an all flying tial set up.
Al
"Eric Greenwell" <REMOVEeg...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.182ccd121...@flashnews.prodigy.net...
JS
By the way, LS-2,-3 and PIK-20 have same wing profile (FX 67-K-170), ASW-15,
ASW-19B and Mistral-C have same wing profile (FX 61-163). Gliders in those
groups are quite equal performers , by the wing. Grobs have different
profile, I think it performs bit worse then these.
js kirjoitti viestissä ...
JS
By the way, LS-2,-3 and PIK-20 have same wing profile (FX 67-K-170),
ASW-15, ASW-19B and Mistral-C have same wing profile (FX 61-163). So those
groups are quite equal performers by the wing.
Joe Simmers kirjoitti viestissä ...
Neilimaclean
writes:
>With the all flying tale you cannot let go, it will pick a direction
>> either
>> > fully up or fully down and go there in an instant.
This sounds like folklore at its best. It certainly doesn't sound like any
standard Cirrus I've seen. With 200-odd hours in mine, its pitch stability is
pretty much like any other glider. If you displace it from trimmed flight and
let go the stick it exhibits the classic "phugoid", taking several oscillations
before it either stalls or the speed builds up. If you leave it trimmed and let
go, the speed will drift off, so you can't leave it alone for very long, but
there is nothing "instant" about it.
What is different about the all-flying tail is that the stick force is very
low, making it very easy to overcorrect pitch changes and develop an
oscillation, especially at the start of the aerotow. Also because of the low
stick force per G (actually, none at all as the force is purely due to the
spring trim), aerobatics are not a good idea, and high speeds require careful
handling.
Regarding high speed cross-country tows, I found that if you go into low tow
(which is only just below the tug when you're in level flight), and trim
forward to counter the upward pitching force on the rope on the C of G
tow-hook, it is quite stable.
The Standard Cirrus is probably best as a machine for someone with a fair
amount of practice in glass, but don't discount it because of folklore, talk to
people who actually fly one. There are several Std Cirri at Lasham, flown
successfully by pilots of all levels of experience. But make sure it has the
double paddle air brake modification which makes a huge improvement to their
effectiveness.
Neil (Std Cirrus H6)
Al
shares the very same all flying tail so much so that they are
interchangable) you could not let it go at anything over 50knots.
The all flying Tail is divergent... I do however feel that CG position
might well play a part in the divergence.
If the tail is holding more pressure because of a furhter forward CG
psoition then the all flying tail is more likely to move quickly from one
position to another. As the CP moves on the elevator if left un checked it
accelerates to the end stop.
Thats my 2c
Al
"Neilimaclean" <neilim...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021102060106...@mb-md.aol.com...
Neilimaclean
writes:
>in the Nimbus 2 I used to fly (the Cirrus
>shares the very same all flying tail so much so that they are
>interchangable) you could not let it go at anything over 50knots.
That's what I call real hands-on experience. I cannot comment on the Nimbus
but Al seems to be able to make definitive statements about the Standard Cirrus
after apparently not flying it, contradicting the experience of someone with
hundreds of hours and kilometers in one. The two gliders may share the same
tail but it's about the only thing they do share. The Nimbus 2 (20-odd m wings,
flaps etc.) is not a Cirrus (15 m, no flaps.) The Cirrus is sensitive in pitch
at higher speeds but I'm quite sure that if it were as unstable as he says with
the elevator "accelerating to the end stop" if not held at any speed above 50kt
it would not have got a Certificate of Airworthiness. I have never experienced
this behaviour.
Incidentally Al suggests that the instability should be worse with a forward
Cof G position - well if you read Derek Piggott's comments on the Std Cirrus,
he says exactly the opposite - the pilot new to the type should if necessary
ballast the cockpit to bring the Cof G well forward to improve stability.
In my view the Standard Cirrus is a delightful glider to fly, it just needs a
little bit of care on the first few flights while you get used to the
sensitivity of the elevator, but what the hell - nobody takes discussion on the
newsgroup seriously, do they? If you want to know about a glider, go and talk
to someone, preferably an instructor, who flies one.
Neil
Bill Daniels
> No its not folklore its fact, in the Nimbus 2 I used to fly (the Cirrus
> shares the very same all flying tail so much so that they are
> interchangable) you could not let it go at anything over 50knots.
>
Probably just a loose nut on the control stick.
Bill Daniels
Bruce Hoult
neilim...@aol.com (Neilimaclean) wrote:
> In article <us7tq56...@news.supernews.com>, "Al"
> <asw17...@bigwings.org>
> writes:
>
> >in the Nimbus 2 I used to fly (the Cirrus shares the very same all
> >flying tail so much so that they are interchangable) you could not
> >let it go at anything over 50knots.
>
> That's what I call real hands-on experience. I cannot comment on the
> Nimbus but Al seems to be able to make definitive statements about
> the Standard Cirrus after apparently not flying it, contradicting the
> experience of someone with hundreds of hours and kilometers in one.
> The two gliders may share the same tail but it's about the only thing
> they do share. The Nimbus 2 (20-odd m wings, flaps etc.) is not a
> Cirrus (15 m, no flaps.) The Cirrus is sensitive in pitch at higher
> speeds but I'm quite sure that if it were as unstable as he says with
> the elevator "accelerating to the end stop" if not held at any speed
> above 50kt it would not have got a Certificate of Airworthiness. I
> have never experienced this behaviour.
I've got 30 or 40 hours in a Janus which is the same manufacturer, about
the same vintage (1978, I think), and has an all flying tail. The
elevator is very light with no feedback through the stick (other than
the trim spring), but I find that the feedback through my bottom and my
view of the horizon is more than adequate. I've flown it for reasonable
distances (20 or 30 km) on the ridge at just a tad below Vne with no
speed control problems. I've also tried trimming for 60 knots and
taking my hands off totally. It had a phugoid period of around 30
seconds and slowly diverged until after I think about six oscillations
it got quite nose high, the speed went to maybe 35 knots and a wing
dropped a little, and I recovered because the ensuing dive looked as if
would exceed Vne.
I can't see any reason you couldn't happily take your hands off for 1 -
2 minutes in a normal inter-thermal glide to ... uh ... do other things.
The first few oscillations are very gentle, and it only takes a slight
nudge every now and then to damp them out anyway. It's dynamically
unstable, but NOTHING like, say, helicopters, which are statically
unstable and will tip you upside down within seconds of letting go.
> Incidentally Al suggests that the instability should be worse with a forward
> Cof G position - well if you read Derek Piggott's comments on the Std Cirrus,
> he says exactly the opposite - the pilot new to the type should if necessary
> ballast the cockpit to bring the Cof G well forward to improve stability.
I fly with a forward CofG.
-- Bruce
Al
Nimbus 2 which shares the exact same elevator as the Standard Cirrus, it
goes divergent real quickly (in the Nimbus just so you feel happy).
The common thread is all flying tails....
There is no feedback it feels the same at 100knots as it does at 40knots.
I wouldn't buy any glider with one lets put it that way..
I am sure you are very happy with your Cirrus as I am with my Ventus, but as
a low timer getting into buying a plane I would not recommend anything with
an all flying tail.
There are plenty of great machines out there without the "all flying tail of
doom" at the same price of a Standard Cirrus.
Al
"Neilimaclean" <neilim...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021102184944...@mb-ba.aol.com...
WashoeJeff
would never buy one, If I could describe it I would say "slushy". I would
take a LS-4 and enjoy the "crisp" feeling and safe feeling I got.
My .02 which is probably worth .01
Jeff
>
> I wouldn't buy any glider with one lets put it that way..
> I am sure you are very happy with your Cirrus as I am with my Ventus, but
as
> a low timer getting into buying a plane I would not recommend anything
with
> an all flying tail.
> There are plenty of great machines out there without the "all flying tail
of
> doom" at the same price of a Standard Cirrus.
>
> Al
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
MikeYankee
it's not that I'm a better stick than anyone else, although I've flown a lot of
different aircraft including many homebuilt and aerobatic types (used to own a
Pitts).
Maybe there are differences between one Standard Cirrus and another, the force
of the trim spring, weight and balance, etc.
I simply repeat that, in my case, there was nothing treacherous about the
Cirrus although it it was sensitive in pitch (particularly on early tow, which
I didn't mention).
I do agree with the reservations expressed by one poster about landing it,
however. Because of the pitch sensitivity, you really need to watch the ASI on
final. You learn to make flat approaches, because the spoilers are not
tremendously effective until below 55 knots or so and you may need to fly
faster in rough conditions. That can really dry your mouth out landing in a
small field with obstacles. Also, the 4" Tost wheel brake (same as on LS-4)
needed frequent cleaning and adjustment to work properly. A self-energizing mod
now exists to solve this problem. In my opinion an oral briefing to the new
Cirrus pilot suffices for all the issues in this paragraph.
My three cents' worth, based on 1000+ hours in type.
Torben Kristensen
> Whatever Neil these arte the facts.
>
> Nimbus 2 which shares the exact same elevator as the Standard Cirrus,
Not so, same planform and size but different profile!
However the behaviour you describe is more likely to do with hinge point.
I suspect that the Nimbus 2 tail is hinged further aft of aerodynamic center
than on the Cirrus.
Torben Kristensen
Al
Schempp mass producing sailplanes in the 70's with many models using the
same components makes sense to me. I really cannot see them tooling up a
specail elevator for the Cirrus just for kicks.
The Nimbus tail and the Cirrus are hinged the same I think CG has a lot to
do with divergence.
Al
"Torben Kristensen" <NOSPA...@aub.dk> wrote in message
news:3dc53b4a$0$10680$4d4e...@read-nat.news.dk.uu.net...
Torben Kristensen
> I would like to see where you come up with that one..
Nimbus-2: NACA 64-012
std. Cirrus, Mini Nimbus: NACA 65-012
Ref.: "Fundamentals of Sailplane Design, Fred Thomas" p207,211,214
Which also has a section on all flying tails in general, - from which you
could benefit.
> The Nimbus tail and the Cirrus are hinged the same
Any exact figures on that?
Torben Kristensen
Al
64-012
Ask Schemp for clarification.
I read a lot about all flying tails in my aeromodeling days. Martin Symons
book and bunch of other stuff I cant remember. They are great in theory but
the execution of most of them in gliding leaves a lot to be desired.
Al
"Torben Kristensen" <NOSPA...@aub.dk> wrote in message
news:3dc583b8$0$10679$4d4e...@read-nat.news.dk.uu.net...
Andy Henderson
The Jantar standard is an excellent first sailplane with good handling
in all conditions including rain. I owned one for several years and
loved it. The only downside of the earlier models is the removable
rather then hinged canopy. Other than that there is litle to complain
about. It is also better than the Std Cirrus etc in the glide.
The Derek Piggot review of gliders in the S&G Uk some years ago gives
informed opinions on many gliders. If you can get hold of this it is
excellent advice
Good hunting
Andy
"Janusz Kesik" <janusz...@gazeta.pl> wrote in message news:<aprof7$prr$1...@news.tpi.pl>...
> Get a good look around, check the amount of presidents in Your wallet and go
> for value for money.
> There should be a Jantar Standard 2/3 aka Acro or SZD-55 for more demanding
> for sale around.
> Why get broken if You can have the same for less dollars.
>
> Jantars are also offered as 20.5m open class Jantar 2b, almost the same as l
> ate versions of Nimbus 2.
>
> Regards,
Bruce Greeff
Thanks for getting back to facts, as opposed to opinion.
For what it is worth, our club has only one lonely cirrus. Which I own
50% of. I'm too inexperienced to fly her yet, but I have been getting a
lot of advice over the last month or so, from people experienced in
flying her. (Including one ex national champion) In preparation for
flying her.
Instructor's views, including my co-owner who has flown her for seven
years go roughly:
This is one of the nicest gliders around to fly.
There are a couple of points that you can get into trouble with:
1] Our glider (#57) has the .75 degree washout wing, therefore you must
be careful not to fly too slowly (e.g. thermal below 75km/h) as the
probability of spinning on stall is high.
2] She is sensitive in pitch, which means speed varies rapidly with
attitude change, and you can exceed that 220km/h vne quite easily.
Resulting aileron flutter gets every one who hears it in a flutter, not
least the CFI.
3] The brakes are weak, landings need tyo be precise - OK lets restate
that. Without the second paddle on the airbrakes the worst L/D you can
achieve is around 10:1. Not too problematical on a long well surfaced
runway, but high "pucker factor" on an outlanding. The wheel brake is
standard tost 4" - effectively worthless.
Like with all gliders - if you fly within it's safe parameters you will
have no problems. But it is not advisable for very low time pilots
because of the speed control required, especially on landing.
A quick look at the log book tells a story:
Many , many 300km flights.
A few 500km flights.
Average flight time, over an hour per launch, including a lot of short
"learning flights"
At least 8 owners that I can trace. Some nationally competitive pilots,
some club fliers. A couple of those had less than 200 launches when they
soloed the cirrus.
Damage history in 31 years and nearly 2000 hours of pretty adventurous
flying is:
2x wintip repairs due to scoring on outlandings.
1x belly repaint to hide scratches from an outlanding.
1x nose repair due to striking hidden object on landing.(club runway,
grass cutter had broken landing light off and flung it into the grass. )
Most of the aircraft is still original gell coat , and in very good
condition.
Hardly a scary ship - the average owner has been involved over five
years. (one syndicate of 3-5 members kept going for 15 years) Also, not
entirely forgiving of mistakes. Any one interested in an informed
source, should join the Standard Cirrus group (www.standardcirrus.org)
Current active pilot is not flying her much , because as an instructor
he is kept pretty busy flying 2 up - and he enjoys aerobatics, so his
Blanik gets a lot more work.
The deciding factor for me was the cockpit - at 1.86m and 105kg , I can
actually get comfortable in there.
If you want an aircraft with similar/better performance (realistic 35:1)
without handling vices you would have to be saving up for a Discus.
Robert Ehrlich
> ...
> Incidentally Al suggests that the instability should be worse with a forward
> Cof G position - well if you read Derek Piggott's comments on the Std Cirrus,
> he says exactly the opposite - the pilot new to the type should if necessary
> ballast the cockpit to bring the Cof G well forward to improve stability.
Although I have never flown a Standard Cirrus and don't have an opinion about
it, I thinh that on the specific point above there is a mis-understanding in
the discussion. Neilimaclean (or Derek Piggot thru Neilimaclean) is talking
about the stability of the whole glider, which is certainly improved by
moving Cof G forward. Al is talking of the stability of the tailplane itself.
Everything I knows about aerodynamics make me think he is right. Moving the
Cof G forward implies having a stronger down force produced by the tailplane,
which would tend to push it stronger toward the setting corresponding to
high speeds/low angle of attack/forward stick.
Al
Al
"Robert Ehrlich" <Robert....@inria.fr> wrote in message
news:3DC692EA...@inria.fr...
> Neilimaclean wrote:
> > ...
Eric Greenwell
says...
> Hi Torben
>
> Thanks for getting back to facts, as opposed to opinion.
>
> For what it is worth, our club has only one lonely cirrus. Which I own
> 50% of. I'm too inexperienced to fly her yet, but I have been getting a
> lot of advice over the last month or so, from people experienced in
> flying her. (Including one ex national champion) In preparation for
> flying her.
>
> Instructor's views, including my co-owner who has flown her for seven
> years go roughly:
>
> This is one of the nicest gliders around to fly.
After stating it's "one of the nicest gliders around to fly", he
follows with a list of things that indicate the exact opposite! The
Standard Cirrus does not deserve that compliment. I hope anyone,
especially a low time pilot, contemplating a Standard Cirrus will read
past the "one of the nicest gliders around to fly" statement.
> There are a couple of points that you can get into trouble with:
> 1] Our glider (#57) has the .75 degree washout wing, therefore you must
> be careful not to fly too slowly (e.g. thermal below 75km/h) as the
> probability of spinning on stall is high.
> 2] She is sensitive in pitch, which means speed varies rapidly with
> attitude change, and you can exceed that 220km/h vne quite easily.
> Resulting aileron flutter gets every one who hears it in a flutter, not
> least the CFI.
> 3] The brakes are weak, landings need tyo be precise - OK lets restate
> that. Without the second paddle on the airbrakes the worst L/D you can
> achieve is around 10:1. Not too problematical on a long well surfaced
> runway, but high "pucker factor" on an outlanding. The wheel brake is
> standard tost 4" - effectively worthless.
>
> Like with all gliders - if you fly within it's safe parameters you will
> have no problems. But it is not advisable for very low time pilots
> because of the speed control required, especially on landing.
Let's not forget those spinning characteristics, either. I don't think
low time pilots will enjoy them.
Al
". I'm too inexperienced to fly her yet, "
That said I have no experience flying the Cirrus but enough Nimbus time to
know what I like.
The Nimbus was indeed a great flying ship that was sadly let down by a bad
tail arrangement.
The time they moved to the all flying tails it was thought that eliminating
trim drag of a conventional tail would give greater performance (which it
might well do) But the rewards of the lower (barely measurable I bet) drag
are far outweighed by the regular tail configuration.
Regards
Al
"Eric Greenwell" <REMOVEeg...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1830a021...@flashnews.prodigy.net...
Bruce Greeff
You are obviously speaking from greater experience here. You are also
entirely correct in the contention that the all moving tail was not an
optimal design. Proof is that the last versions reverted to a
conventional stabiliser with moving elevator. Even the manufacturers
effectively admitted that there was a better way.(But then the LS-1 had
a similar evolution.)
I am not claiming to be competent to assess the relative flying
qualities - But consider, the endorsement of it's flying characteristics
come from a number of others who are.
Maybe our standards are too low out here. There are very few of the last
10 years models flying in my patch of the woods.
When I was comparing available types I came up with:
Grob 102 with known flutter problems & sensitive to approach speed.L/D
only 33:1. Not in contention
LS1 - 38:1 1968 design. The few available have been thrashed, and our
field is too rough for them. All flying tail, before F model...
Libelle - 1967 design 38:1, I can't fit in the cockpit, but desirable
first glass ship.
Sagitta - 34:1 1961 design. Nice dutch single seater, but relatively low
performance.
Standard Cirrus - 1969 Design, 37:1 - a little "hot" for a low time
pilot. Spins easily.
Salto - 13m Aerobatic, cockpit too small and not for beginners.
Blanik L13 - Lots of fun, limited airframe hours. Uncomfortable for
someone my size, and cross country in a 28:1 glider is a little
pointless. (Taken one on short excursions - lots of fun)
Grob 103 , nice stable , docile 2 seater. Bit expensive and the idea of
an outlanding retrieve...
LS4 - 40:1 1980 design. Now that's nice. Except for the price...
ASW15 - Very nice, but the cockpit is cramped and the cost is high. 1968
Design. All flying tail...
ASW17 - Now as a low timer I would prefer not to kill myself flying
something too "advanced" for my abilities.
ASW19 - 38:1 1978 Design, very desirable except for cockpit size, and price.
Ventus/Discus/Nimbus/Jantar/LAK - All out of my price range completely,
and even the Ventus had its detractors as far as handling goes.
Every Cirrus owner I have spoken to (Number of Cirrus owners personally
consulted is 7) has been very complimentary except for one CFI - who's
particularly tatty version was criticised for it's nasty habits when
performing loops. Now given that this is a Club Class racer, I am not
overly concerned about inability to perform nice round loops without
risk of inverted stalls. This CFI's favourite mount is an ASK13, each to
his own.
My decision was to purchase into the Cirrus - knowing it's "problems"
and in fact partially because of them. The price was certainly
attractive in comparison to equivalents. I could not get better
performance without spending a LOT more money.
Only one disadvantage to this decision. I have to build time and
experience in club aircraft till it appears I will be safe in the
Cirrus. Patience and the motivation of knowing that the Cirrus
relatively is unforgiving of sloppy flying should be character building.
One day when I'm big there might be a DuoDiscus in my hangar. Now by all
accounts that is a vice free aircraft. For now I accept that the Cirrus
is far from ideal for a low time pilot, but a good compromise for me.
Jim Harper
Given Bruce's evaluation, it looks like (after I lose some weight...and
y'all are right, I have all winter to do it), and given that I do have a few
extra sheckles lying about, the LS-4 would be a smart, safe(er) choice?
Turns out there is one not too far from where I live and I am planning to
sit-test it in a couple of weeks...and given all of the positives I keep
hearing, buy that sucker, huh?
Jim
Al
You CANNOT go wrong with an LS4.
Its a great ship with a good resale value and it goes real well.
Just loose the Lbs to fit in it. dont forget that will also have to add
15-20Lbs for a chute in the equation for W/B too.
Al
"Jim Harper" <jimh...@mach500.net> wrote in message
news:usfkh7c...@corp.supernews.com...
> So, back to my original question...LOL
>
snip...
Marc Ramsey
DG-100G/DG-101. Longer, wider cockpit than LS-4, better visibility,
better gelcoat (many still have good original finishes 20+ years
after manufacture), more robust construction, almost all have
elevators (DG-100s and a few DG-100Gs have all-flying tails and
are noticeably twitchier) larger mainwheel, proper tailwheel,
comparable performance and handling to LS-4, parts still available
from DG, prices about halfway between an LS-4 and a Std Cirrus.
I had one for my first glider, and both the glider and I survived
the encounter pretty much unscathed...
Marc
John Gilbert
> Thanks for getting back to facts, as opposed to opinion.
>
> For what it is worth, our club has only one lonely cirrus. Which I own
> 50% of. I'm too inexperienced to fly her yet, but I have been getting a
> lot of advice over the last month or so, from people experienced in
> flying her. (Including one ex national champion) In preparation for
> flying her.
>
> Instructor's views, including my co-owner who has flown her for seven
> years go roughly:
>
> This is one of the nicest gliders around to fly.
I happen to agree.
>....
> 2] She is sensitive in pitch, which means speed varies rapidly with
> attitude change, and you can exceed that 220km/h vne quite easily.
My experience is that wind noise, bumpiness, and the ground being an
increasingly larger feature in your view out the canopy will keep you
from experiencing Vne inadvertantly. Unless you trim for Vne, you will
have some tactile feedback as well.
> Resulting aileron flutter gets every one who hears it in a flutter, not
> least the CFI.
As I understand it, if you are really hearing flutter, you *will* have
catastrophic damage, if you make it to the ground alive.
Is this a very loud buzz? Perhaps you are experiencing the spoiler
caps vibrating, which causes a loud buzz. This can happen with weak
cap springs,
when the pilot is has unlocked and barely opened the spoilers. The
solution is
spring replacement.
Regards,
John
Std. Cirrus #266 - PY
>....
Janusz Kesik
People, please, don't forget about the Jantars. I know that at the start
many of You will cross them off the list as "the Polish origin glider must
be a real piece of shit" even if it stands up with Discus, and is 1/3
cheaper than it (a SZD-55).
The Jantars family have been produced in hundreds, and they're really good
ships, and additionally they're much cheaper than their counterparts like
the LS-4. Can You have an LS-4 below 20000 US$? (in case of SZD-41A version,
even below 10000US$ but it's rather a counterpart to LS-1f). I mean one in
pristine condition, with low amount of hours, not a scrap which has been
rebuilt for the tenth time after a next crash.
Just look how much You get for the money You are going to spend.
Just my two cents.
Regards,
--
Janusz Kesik
Aeroclub Czestochowa, Poland
janusz...@gazeta.pl
http://www.soaring.enter.net.pl
Janusz Kesik
price.
Really worth consideration.
Recent US Sports Class Nats had shown that even a 4500US$ worth Foka 4 can
carry the winner.
Regards,
--
Janusz Kesik
Aeroclub Czestochowa, Poland
janusz...@gazeta.pl
http://www.soaring.enter.net.pl
TimTaylor
The Std. Cirrus is not as bad as many claim. It is in fact an excellent
sailplane. I had 300 hours in an "A" model that is suppose to spin too
easily. I never spun or stalled it unless I wanted to. The next glider I
bought after flying the "kiddy" gliders was a Nimbus 2M "A" with the same
tail. I now have over 650 hours flying all flying tail gliders. I do not
notice it except when it comes time to relieve yourself. That is the only
time the lack of neutral stability is noticeable.
I did my diamond flights in a dry Std. Cirrus out of Minden and Truckee.
Have done numerous 500+K flights in the Nimbus often with 5 to 6 hours in
the air in a day. I never felt tired from having to over control the ship.
The controls are just light. Trimmed well and it stays where you want it as
long as you keep a few fingers on the stick.
Training wise, as with any new ship set up a good plan. I started flying
mine with about 40 hours in gliders (90 hours tt including power). For a
low time pilot at least 25 hours and 10 flights locally to get a feel for
the plane. The Std. Cirrus will float if flown too fast on landing. 5
knots makes a big difference. With the right speed, landings are short and
well controlled. Good technique on slight tail first, full stall landing
will help when you go cross-country.
I used to joke that you could tell the Libelle and Std. Cirrus pilots
because they were slide slipping on flinal. The additional slat on the
brakes is worth adding. If you don't have it remember that pulling on the
spoiler handling additionally may not make you go down faster and may
actually have the opposite effect.
Don't be afraid of the plane, just respect what it can and can not do. It
will not fall out of the sky or do unusual things unless provoked. It can
do phenomenal flights for a 34 year old design.
I miss my Std. Cirrus somedays and my crew always does.
Have fun,
Tim
Bruce Greeff
I'll check the springs. We have deffinitely heard a loud low frequency
noise on two occasions when Wayne was being over exuberant with 66.
Second instance at indicated 230Km/h (10km/h over Vne) He tends to
forget this picks up speed faster than his Blanik.
Close inspection shows no play in the ailerons to mention, but the
elevator vertical play is near the limit.
Rudder has a little vertical movement, but is acceptible. She passed the
annual check 'as is'.
The only funny I could find is a scuff mark on the starboard airbrake
actuating rod, where it appears to have rubbed against the box in the
3/4 open position.
Bruce
Martin Gregorie
wrote:
>ASW19 - 38:1 1978 Design, very desirable except for cockpit size, and price.
>
FWIW the general opinion round the club is that our Pegase 90, which
has the same fuselage mould as and ASW-19, is far more comfortable for
tall pilots than either of our Discii (an A and a CS).
Pegase claim 41:1. The 90 is self connecting. Cheaper than the next
bunch you mention. Main disadvantage is low ground clearance, which
can be a problem in land-outs. I'm comfortable in both Discus and
Pegase, but prefer flying the Pegase. Can't really tell you why: I
just do.
>Ventus/Discus/Nimbus/Jantar/LAK - All out of my price range completely,
>and even the Ventus had its detractors as far as handling goes.
>
HTH
--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :
Bill Dean.
There was a posting to this group some time ago about the Standard Cirrus
from the Chief Flying Instructor of a club operating the Standard Cirrus:
Standard Cirrus for Club use.
There are two distinct Standard cirrus models. The early model is under
braked and the minimal washout on the tips makes low speed handling tricky.
The later Cirrus 75 has improved airbrakes and an improved wing, so handling
is much improved. Both are delights to fly and are good for cross-country
soaring but the Cirrus can be twitchy due to the all flying tailplane and
spring trim. I fly both models (we have one of each in my club) and the
later model is certainly more docile.
It is generally accepted that the Standard Cirrus is a tricky first
single-seat conversion (Derek Piggott suggests it is better suited to a
competent pilot as a second glass machine), although I know of one club that
used to use it as such (I don't recall the club having any problems but they
later got a more docile Junior). In my club, the Cirrus is the second
single-seat conversion after the Astir CS, but then our pilots have access
to a Twin Astir prior to conversion to the single. Up until a few years
ago we used to use our old ES60 Boomerang as a first single seat conversion.
That aircraft has an all flying tailplane and is considered by many to be
unsuitable for first single-seat conversion for much the same reasons as the
Cirrus. We used to train for it by flying brakeless approaches in our
two-seater (tube and fabric) to see how the student handled the float and
never had any problems in nearly 30 years.
Some tips:-
1. Practice brakeless approaches in a two-seater. See if you can flare
out and land properly without ballooning or twitching on the elevator.
2. The cirrus is prone to ground looping in light crosswind conditions when
aerotowing with the belly release. Get a good wing runner (and fit a nose
release).
3. Make sure you can reach all controls and instruments and, if you need to
use cushions, ensure they are firm.
4. Keep the release knob/lanyard within easy reach during the launch,
especially in the early stages of the launch.
5. Hold the stick gently with your right hand and rest your forearm on your
leg. This should help prevent PIOs.
6. Fly your first flights with some extra ballast to improve stability.
Christopher Thorpe (CFI)
http://www.beaufortglidingclub.asn.au/
From a posting to Rec.Aviation Soaring by Christopher H. Thorpe - 26.04.02 -
cth...@bigpond.com
Notes - by Bill Dean.
1. There is a third, late, model of the Standard Cirrus which is fitted with
a Glasflugel type fixed tailplane and separate elevator similar to that used
on the Discus.
2. There is a modification available to add a second paddle to the air
brakes, which greatly increases the effect of the brakes. This is not the
change mentioned above which applies to the Cirrus 75 model, where the
change, I think, was longer brakes and not double paddles.
3. It is a B.G.A. Recommended Practice that for flights on new types the
cockpit load should be at least 15kg. above the minimum.
4. There is a winglet modification available which I am told improves
handling as well as performance.
I think that the double paddle brake modification is so desirable that the
aircraft should not be operated without it. Therefore the cost of the
modification, if not already fitted, should be part of the budget for buying
one, and taken into account when pricing it.
Perhaps the same should apply to fitting a nose hook for aerotowing if it
does not already have one.
W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Rule #1 - Don't collide.
Rule #2 - Fly the ship.
Rule #3 - You've got to land.
Rule #4 - Everything else, have fun.
>
> "MikeYankee" <mikey...@aol.comic.book> wrote in message
> news:20021030200550...@mb-mo.aol.com...
>
> Consider also the Standard Cirrus -- larger cockpit than those that you
> mentioned, and a delightful classic sailplane.
>
Judah Milgram
Torben Kristensen <NOSPA...@aub.dk> wrote:
>
>Nimbus-2: NACA 64-012
>std. Cirrus, Mini Nimbus: NACA 65-012
>
>Ref.: "Fundamentals of Sailplane Design, Fred Thomas" p207,211,214
and drew this response:
> Looks like a misprint to me. NACA 65-012 is a little too close to
> NACA 64-012
No misprint. These data, which date back at least to the second German
edition of approx. 20 years ago, would have come from the manufacturer
and are believed accurate. Should I hear otherwise I'll post it here.
While the designations (and indeed the airfoils themselves) may look
similar, they represent two distinct airfoils.
Judah Milgram
--
Judah Milgram milgram at eng umd edu
Al
I would put good money on it they are the same and the book is wrong.
After all do you believe everything you read? :-)
Al
"Judah Milgram" <mil...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:aqccdl$t...@y.glue.umd.edu...
Judy Ruprecht
described in Fred Thomas' Fundamentals of Sailplane
Design):
>second reprint of erroneous data perhaps?
>
>I would put good money on it they are the same and
>the book is wrong.
>
>After all do you believe everything you read? :-)
Uhhhhh... well, if this Judah Milgram is the same one
who edited the third edition of Thomas' book, I think
he read it rather carefully, Al. You can, too. It's
available online at Walmart (!) for $44.96. See:
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=1358050&sour
ceid=0100000030140613102498
Judy
Bruce Greeff
Thanks for the info.
snip
eater (tube and fabric) to see how the student handled the float and
> never had any problems in nearly 30 years.
>
> Some tips:-
> 1. Practice brakeless approaches in a two-seater. See if you can flare
> out and land properly without ballooning or twitching on the elevator.
Done that once - need to do more. We have a Bergfalke III that will do
perfectly.
> 2. The cirrus is prone to ground looping in light crosswind conditions when
> aerotowing with the belly release. Get a good wing runner (and fit a nose
> release).
Aero-tow is not an option for us, and with our winch the ground run is
very short.
> 3. Make sure you can reach all controls and instruments and, if you need to
> use cushions, ensure they are firm.
No cushions possible. I only just fit with the standard parachute, only
control out of reach would be the release knob, so fitted a lanyard.
> 4. Keep the release knob/lanyard within easy reach during the launch,
> especially in the early stages of the launch.
Adressed that - have a lanyard for the release.
> 5. Hold the stick gently with your right hand and rest your forearm on your
> leg. This should help prevent PIOs.
Funny - everyone has said that.
> 6. Fly your first flights with some extra ballast to improve stability.
>
Not an option - I am at the weight limit for the cockpit already. Built
in ballast...
>snip
> 2. There is a modification available to add a second paddle to the air
> brakes, which greatly increases the effect of the brakes. This is not the
> change mentioned above which applies to the Cirrus 75 model, where the
> change, I think, was longer brakes and not double paddles.
>
We have not yet installed the second paddle, but have the information
and are in process of installing them.
> 3. It is a B.G.A. Recommended Practice that for flights on new types the
> cockpit load should be at least 15kg. above the minimum.
Automatic in my case.
>
> 4. There is a winglet modification available which I am told improves
> handling as well as performance.
These are a Knauff & Grove (USA) product. Not available here, and it
appears there is a better option.
Our South African club class team leader is an engineer who has designed
winglets locally for his Cirrus.
Both team members report much improved thermalling manners, lower stall
(and less wing drop when it does).
Only problem is the flying season has just started in earnest here, so
it will have to wait till winter.
>
> I think that the double paddle brake modification is so desirable that the
> aircraft should not be operated without it. Therefore the cost of the
> modification, if not already fitted, should be part of the budget for buying
> one, and taken into account when pricing it.
>
Done that.
> Perhaps the same should apply to fitting a nose hook for aerotowing if it
> does not already have one.
>
We are exclusively winch launch here.If aerotow becomes an option I will
definitely consider it...
CLub is at http://www.whisperingwings.org.za
Bruce Greeff
Thanks for the info. The Pegase did not make it onto my list as it
was/is not represented on the for "sale list" here. Not aware of any
flying in South Africa at present.
Safe Flying.
Bruce
Torben Kristensen
> second reprint of erroneous data perhaps?
>
> I would put good money on it they are the same and the book is wrong.
>
> After all do you believe everything you read? :-)
>
> Al
Well that is fairly easy to check since the fs29 (telescoping wing
sailplane) also uses the Nimbus 2 tailplane (NACA 64-012).
My std. Cirrus tailplane conforms with NACA 65-012 (max thickness at about
50% coord).
So what do you mean by "good money" ?
Returning to the question on interchangeability of tailplanes:
The Nimbus fin has a similar taper ratio as the std. Cirrus (judged by
photographs).
Both uses the same relative thickness fin airfoils (12/13%).
The Nimbus fin is larger: 24 % chordwise (5 % heightwise).
The Nimbus fin is therefore 24% thicker at its thickest point.
At the top this makes it about 2 cm. thicker than the std. Cirrus fin.
There is no way this fin will fit through the rear slot of a std. Cirrus
tailplane !!!
Torben Kristensen
Al
I will try this weekend.
As for the section I suggest you ask Schempp
Al
"Torben Kristensen" <NOSPA...@aub.dk> wrote in message
news:3dcaba0f$0$10679$4d4e...@read-nat.news.dk.uu.net...
Torben Kristensen
has max thickness at about 40% chord, 65-012 at about 50% chord (that is
roughly what the 4- and 5- means).
And while you're at it, please compare hinge point location and whether the
N2 tailplane has the same bent down trailing edge as the std. Cirrus.
Torben Kristensen
"Al" <asw17...@bigwings.org> wrote in message
news:uslflb7...@news.supernews.com...
Al
feed back.
I am not about to start going measuring thickness ratio's of the stabs life
is too short.
Al
"Torben Kristensen" <NOSPA...@aub.dk> wrote in message
news:3dcac3e8$0$10677$4d4e...@read-nat.news.dk.uu.net...
Torben Kristensen
relative to chord.
One should be able to distinguish 40% from 50% by placing a ruler parallel
to the chord (disregarding the bent down trailing edge) and observe where it
touches the surface.
Torben
"Al" <asw17...@bigwings.org> wrote in message
news:uslil14...@news.supernews.com...
js
Can you fly any of basic acrobatic figures with LS-4? I have heard, that
they are not permitted with LS-4.
js
Al <asw17...@bigwings.org> kirjoitti
viestissä:usfqejd...@news.supernews.com...
js
theirs wings seems to be quite level and wingtips quite low. If so, it
creates one difficulty more for beginners.
js
Martin Gregorie <mar...@see.sig.for.address> kirjoitti
viestissä:jg0isu0ngtpb06qig...@4ax.com...
Robert Ehrlich
>
> What about Pegase's (and AWS-19's) dihedral? Having checked few pictures,
> theirs wings seems to be quite level and wingtips quite low. If so, it
> creates one difficulty more for beginners.
>
have a very low dihedral. This doesn't make a lot of difficulty. The feeling is
different. While during circling the LS4 seems to be guided on rails and you
have little to do for keeping the yaw string in place, it needs a constant
attention on a Pegase. I think this is not a problem for beginners who
just learned to concentrate on this, more for people with a long time on
more forgiving ships like the LS4, where they can get habits of less attention
to this. Another drawback of the low dihedral is the higher probability of the
wing tip catching some high grass and this inducing a ground loop. We had a
case on our field, this because cutting the grass is the responsability of
the owner of the field, i.e. the French state, and our field is not in their
priorities, so sometimes the grass can become very high. But on a normal
field this is not a problem. The lower dihedral also lowers the tendency to
drop a wing in cross winds.
ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr
: js wrote:
:>
:> What about Pegase's (and AWS-19's) dihedral? Having checked few pictures,
:> theirs wings seems to be quite level and wingtips quite low. If so, it
:> creates one difficulty more for beginners.
:>
: Yes, compared to a LS4 which have nearly equivalent performance, the Pegase
: have a very low dihedral. This doesn't make a lot of difficulty. The feeling is
: different. While during circling the LS4 seems to be guided on rails and you
: have little to do for keeping the yaw string in place, it needs a constant
: attention on a Pegase.
Strange i have never seen this problem myself. I have always found the Pegase
perfectly stable and very easy to keep "the yaw string in place".
Perhaps because i have learned in the ASK13 which was more picky about that.
: I think this is not a problem for beginners who
: just learned to concentrate on this, more for people with a long time on
: more forgiving ships like the LS4, where they can get habits of less attention
: to this. Another drawback of the low dihedral is the higher probability of the
: wing tip catching some high grass and this inducing a ground loop. We had a
: case on our field, this because cutting the grass is the responsability of
: the owner of the field, i.e. the French state, and our field is not in their
: priorities, so sometimes the grass can become very high. But on a normal
: field this is not a problem. The lower dihedral also lowers the tendency to
: drop a wing in cross winds.
--
Michel TALON
Stig Oye
Abbott & Doenhoff). The '5' refers to the position of the minimum pressure
of the pressure distribution at zero angle of attack. Sorry.
Stig
Martin Gregorie
wrote:
>What about Pegase's (and AWS-19's) dihedral? Having checked few pictures,
>theirs wings seems to be quite level and wingtips quite low. If so, it
>creates one difficulty more for beginners.
>
You're right that the Pegase, ASW-19 and ASW-20 don't have a lot of
dihedral when they are sitting on the ground. However, all have very
flexible wings and show quite a lot more dihedral in the air.
Compared with a Discus I'd say the Pegase has a shoulder wing and the
Discus a mid wing, but the Discus has more dihedral and stiffer wings.
As a result the Discus tips are a bit higher on the ground, though
there's not all that much difference. I'd hesitate to say which had
the higher tips in the air.
As to flying, all I can say is that I've had no problems with ground
handling in either type, either on the field or landing out. The
Pegase / ASW-19 / ASW-20 has a softer ride and some say they give less
feedback through your backside as a result. All I can say is that I
don't have a preference in this area - both give enough feel in
thermals to keep me happy.
There is, however, one area where I much prefer the Pegase; cockpit
ergonomics. The Pegase has its gear handle on the left and wheel brake
on the air brake handle. I find this much nicer than swapping hands on
the stick to get the Discus gear up or getting fingers on the Discus
stick-mounted wheel brake while still holding the stick fully back
after landing. Another Pegase feature is that the gear handle (with
the gear up) is placed where it will touch my wrist each time I
retrim. I like that; it makes a wheel-up landing a little less likely
simply because I can't retrim in the circuit without being aware of
whether the gear is up or down. As I say, I like these ergonomics, but
your milage may vary.
I believe the same remarks apply to the ASW 19/20 cockpit, but haven't
flown or sat in them.
Torben Kristensen
"Stig Oye" <s....@et.dtu.dk> wrote in message
news:aqg7gf$efk$1...@news.net.uni-c.dk...
> NACA 65-012 has its max thickness at 40-41% chord (I just looked it up in
> Abbott & Doenhoff). The '5' refers to the position of the minimum pressure
> of the pressure distribution at zero angle of attack. Sorry.
Sorry, - I assumed that this would "roughly" coincide with position of max
thickness.
But this would still put the max thickness position of the 4- visible ahead
of 5- ?
Torben
Robert Ehrlich
On the other hand, speaking of ergonomics of the Pegase, I heard critics
about the proximity and similarity of the air-brake and gear handles. Accidents
have occured due to control confusion in this domain, e.g. a beginner
told by his instructor on the radio to extend the airbrakes and every body
was seeing the gear moving, before the glider crashed. But I don't share
this critic, the ship is not to blame in this case, only poor training,
which may anyway produce catastrophic results in any ship for any other
reason.
Torben Kristensen
easily distinguishable from 65-012.
Coordinates is available here: http://www.pdas.com/profiles.htm
"Torben Kristensen" <NOSPA...@aub.dk> wrote in message
news:3dcbdfb5$0$10678$4d4e...@read-nat.news.dk.uu.net...
Eric Greenwell
asw17...@bigwings.org says...
> They all have that bent down T/E thats an attempt by Schempp to give some
> feed back.
Even gliders with conventional elevators have the bent down edge to
induce a nose-up stick force at high speeds.
--
Delete the REMOVE from my e-mail address to reply directly
Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)
Bill Dean.
the undercarriage lever in the ASW19, ASW20, and Pegasus. The levers feel
very similar, and are close together; this is bad ergonomic design.
The best arrangement I have experienced is that in the LS4a I flew. The
levers feel entirely different, move in a quite different way, and the
undercarriage lever is so placed that it is awkward to open the brakes when
the wheel is up; and you do not have to swap hands to lower the wheel.
It is wrong to blame poor training in these cases. Yes, poor training will
make these mistakes more likely; but if the manufacturer sets ergonomic
traps then some pilots will be caught by them, however good the training.
When the K21 was first built, the rear canopy catch design was such that it
was easy to get it wrong. This led to many rear canopies being lost. The
catch design was changed, I have not heard of a canopy with the new type
catch being lost. Most of the older gliders have been modified in service
to the new design.
Pilots have enough to worry about in the landing pattern without having the
distraction of coping with confusing controls.
There are some clubs and organisations which have a rule that if a glider is
seen on finals with the wheel up you do NOT say anything. This is because
there have been cases where the distraction to the pilot of a "wheel is up"
call has resulted in a much worse accident than a mere wheel up landing.
W.J. (Bill) Dean (U.K.).
Rule #1 - Don't collide.
Rule #2 - Fly the ship.
Rule #3 - You've got to land.
Rule #4 - Everything else, have fun.
>
> "Robert Ehrlich" <Robert....@inria.fr> wrote in message
> news:3DCC0CAB...@inria.fr...
>
> >
> > Martin Gregorie wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > There is, however, one area where I much prefer the Pegase; cockpit
> > ergonomics. The Pegase has its gear handle on the left and wheel brake
> > on the air brake handle. I find this much nicer than swapping hands on
> > the stick to get the Discus gear up or getting fingers on the Discus
> > stick-mounted wheel brake while still holding the stick fully back
> > after landing. Another Pegase feature is that the gear handle (with
> > the gear up) is placed where it will touch my wrist each time I
> > retrim. I like that; it makes a wheel-up landing a little less likely
> > simply because I can't retrim in the circuit without being aware of
> > whether the gear is up or down. As I say, I like these ergonomics, but
> > your mileage may vary.
Robert Ehrlich
> ...
> seen on finals with the wheel up you do NOT say anything. This is because
> there have been cases where the distraction to the pilot of a "wheel is up"
> call has resulted in a much worse accident than a mere wheel up landing.
>
When I had my first flight with an instructor in the ASH25 that was at that
time in my club, this instructor explained to me before the flight than only
the person in the front seat, i.e. myself, can unlock the landing gear from
both positions, extended or retracted. Later, after a ~5 hours flight, on
final, while the instructor was explaining to me that the airbrakes are not
very efficient on this aircraft, but slip may compensate for that, we had the
surprise to hear in the radio "Alpha Quebec, it would be better with the gear
extended". I instantaneaously remembered the briefing about the locking of the
lever and promptly unlocked it and shifted it to the right position. Had we
not got the message in the radio, I guess the glider would be badly damaged.
I just discussed yesterday this event again with the author of the radio
message and he remembered that he was happily surprised by the quick reaction.
He was strongly interested in the result, as he is the person in charge of
repairs following such damage. Although a wheel up landing causes on most gliders
only minor damage, with this one we both think this would not have been the case.
Bill Daniels
The US military used to routinely position an observer equipped with
binoculars near the approach end of the runway to watch for gear up aircraft
on the approach and make a radio call if needed. Now I always hear "confirm
gear down" from military towers.
I vote for the warning radio call.
Bill Daniels
Andreas Maurer
<bill...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>When the K21 was first built, the rear canopy catch design was such that it
>was easy to get it wrong. This led to many rear canopies being lost. The
>catch design was changed, I have not heard of a canopy with the new type
>catch being lost. Most of the older gliders have been modified in service
>to the new design.
I know of several ASH-25 canopies that were opened inflight (ASh-25
has identical catch and locking mechanism as ASK-21). Interesting
enough, none ever came off (although all of them were bent badly).
Bye
Andreas
Tim
>The US military used to routinely position an observer equipped with
>binoculars near the approach end of the runway to watch for gear up aircraft
>on the approach and make a radio call if needed. Now I always hear "confirm
>gear down" from military towers.
>
>I vote for the warning radio call.
I think the problem is when the call is made.
As the pilot travels down wind at ~500ft abeam the launch point would
be a safe place ... but would you want to make the call as the low
time pilot (in an Astir CS for the sake of argument) turns finals at
200ft ... and then watch them release the stick with their right hand
to reach for the gear leaver? Sure they could close the brakes and
take the stick in the left hand first. When I stared flying the Astir
this spring I used to avoid putting the wheel up while on tow because
my left handed flying was so erratic[1]. Recognising this I spent many
days practising until I could fly smoothly left handed.
Having said all that on my third flight on type I was about to go
"dans les vaches" in a thunderstorm and managed to commit the extra
sin of a wheels up landing ... if at 300ft there had be anything to
tell me that the wheel was up be it radio or an automatic alarm I
wonder if I would be here today. Thank god it was a nice smooth grass
field and I was flying a tank of an aircraft.
1] I'm sure the tug pilots were happier
Bill Daniels
"Tim" <tim_sp...@helena62.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eee2tugk81i6pqqh0...@4ax.com...
I think learning to fly with the left hand should be practiced. FWIW, power
pilot hold the yoke in their left hand while the right is on the throttle -
this causes them some difficulty in transitioning to a control stick.
I ask my students to raise and lower the gear while on air tow. (assuming
the hook is not on the gear.) It teaches them fine control with the left
hand and presents a challenge that divides their attention. It also gives
me a small insight into their thinking ability under pressure.
Bill Daniels
Geir Raudsandmoen
during tow seems highly questionable.
During tow, attention should be completely focused
on keeping position relative to the towplane, as only
a second of inattention can be enough to create a dangerous
situation.
Towing has enough risks as it is for the towpilot,
and lots of towpilots have been pulled into the ground
by glider pilots having their attention elsewhere than
on keeping position.
Geir
Bill Daniels
"Geir Raudsandmoen" <REMOVE_TO_REPLY....@raufoss.nammo.com>
wrote in message news:aqrhel$cnkvl$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
> Teaching the students to play around with the undercarriage
> during tow seems highly questionable.
> During tow, attention should be completely focused
> on keeping position relative to the towplane, as only
> a second of inattention can be enough to create a dangerous
> situation.
>
> Towing has enough risks as it is for the towpilot,
> and lots of towpilots have been pulled into the ground
> by glider pilots having their attention elsewhere than
> on keeping position.
>
gear during tow, I am only asking them to perform a task that tests their
ability to perform two task simultaneously. I point out that, under normal
circumstances, the gear should be left down during the tow.
In any event, I am not going to let the tow get out of hand. Usually, after
a few wobbles, they can hold prefect tow position while flying with their
left hand. There are other reasons that might require the right hand to be
free while on tow.
Bill Daniels
Niclas
"Andreas Maurer" <mau...@funsystem.de> wrote in message
news:3dd13adc...@news.t-online.de...
> I know of several ASH-25 canopies that were opened inflight (ASh-25
> has identical catch and locking mechanism as ASK-21). Interesting
> enough, none ever came off (although all of them were bent badly).
Good thing they didn't discover that while trying to jump... :-)
Bruce Greeff
the pilot is functioning poorly enough to have forgotten the wheel ,
then perhaps you should not distract him or her on final approach. The
tub WILL take the landing.
This is modified by the duty instructor's knowledge of the pilot. There
have been instances when the call has been made to lower the wheel. When
it is an experienced pilot, possibly just being forgetful, and the
landing is not a difficult one with turbulence or cross wind. General
consensus is that low time pilots get reminded on downwind about their
wheel, then get left to do their best. That way we avoid incidents...
> I ask my students to raise and lower the gear while on air tow. (assuming
> the hook is not on the gear.) It teaches them fine control with the left
> hand and presents a challenge that divides their attention. It also gives
> me a small insight into their thinking ability under pressure.
>
>
> Bill Daniels
>
Bill has a good point - Thinking under pressure is a fine thing. Knowing
what your student will do is far better than ignorance. If that exposed
you to some managed risk then consider the alternative.
We had a fatal accident in 2000 where an advanced student (who was known
to handle pressure badly) dropped a wing on winch takeoff with a Grob
103. Instructor in back , who did not know the student, assumed she
would handle it,She panicked. Result is she is dead, he was seriously
injured and the rebuild of the glider took a year. Rebuilding the club's
confidence may take longer.
Under winch launch circumstances with a real emergency the instructor
was unprepared, and had too little time to recover from the situation.
(Once he had realised that she was not taking any action to avert disaster.)
Tim
>
>"Geir Raudsandmoen" <REMOVE_TO_REPLY....@raufoss.nammo.com>
>wrote in message news:aqrhel$cnkvl$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
>> Teaching the students to play around with the undercarriage
>> during tow seems highly questionable.
>> During tow, attention should be completely focused
>> on keeping position relative to the towplane, as only
>> a second of inattention can be enough to create a dangerous
>> situation.
>>
>> Towing has enough risks as it is for the towpilot,
>> and lots of towpilots have been pulled into the ground
>> by glider pilots having their attention elsewhere than
>> on keeping position.
>>
> You misunderstand me. I am NOT teaching them to "play around" with the
>gear during tow, I am only asking them to perform a task that tests their
>ability to perform two task simultaneously. I point out that, under normal
>circumstances, the gear should be left down during the tow.
You are obviously fortunate enough to have a modern trainer available
- the club where I fly has three trainers non of which have
retractable undercarriage.
>In any event, I am not going to let the tow get out of hand. Usually, after
>a few wobbles, they can hold prefect tow position while flying with their
>left hand. There are other reasons that might require the right hand to be
>free while on tow.
Agreed left handed flying should be practised - how often has a map
that was wedged under you right arm slipped only becoming reachable
with your right hand (and a few contortions). I wonder if there is any
milage making LH flying a normal part of training.
Mike Borgelt
wrote:
>We had a fatal accident in 2000 where an advanced student (who was known
>to handle pressure badly) dropped a wing on winch takeoff with a Grob
>103. Instructor in back , who did not know the student, assumed she
>would handle it,She panicked. Result is she is dead, he was seriously
>injured and the rebuild of the glider took a year. Rebuilding the club's
>confidence may take longer.
>Under winch launch circumstances with a real emergency the instructor
>was unprepared, and had too little time to recover from the situation.
>(Once he had realised that she was not taking any action to avert disaster.)
So have you put a system in place so the instructor WILL know the
student? This sounds like a very serious instructional system failure.
Mike Borgelt
Robertmudd1u
<n22...@mindspring.com> writes:
>I vote for the warning radio call.
I vote for strict use of check lists and a gear warning horn.
It works for many others.
Robert Mudd
Bill Daniels
"Robertmudd1u" <robert...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> I vote for strict use of check lists and a gear warning horn.
> It works for many others.
>
> Robert Mudd
>
Reminds me of a Beech Baron that landed sans rollers at Boulder, Colorado
back in the early '70's. The professional crew, (white shirts, ties,
epaulets, etc.) were standing around the aircraft, now with puckered props,
kicking dirt clods with their polished shoes.
Someone asked, "didn't you hear the gear warning horn?"
"Couldn't hear it over the yelling of the guys in the back ", they replied.
"What were they yelling?, was the follow-up question.
"Lower the ^%$#^%$# undercarriage", was the answer.
Bill Daniels
Bruce Greeff
This accident resulted from a serious failure of communication. The club
involved and in fact the entire community took it as a wake up call and
have put new systems in place to improve safety.
But it is an example of what can happen at a large, semi-commercial
operation. Enough instructors, on a duty roster that it becomes possible
for a student to advance to close to solo, and end up flying with a duty
instructor who has never met him/her. The real problem was that there
was no briefing of the instructor, about a potentially dangerous situation.
Robert Ehrlich
>
> In article <aqrann$sh9$2...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>, "Bill Daniels"
> <n22...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >I vote for the warning radio call.
>
> I vote for strict use of check lists and a gear warning horn.
If you don't own the glider, you can't install a gear warning horn.
If you show on final with the gear up on a glider you don't own and
the owner or responsible for the glider sees that and has a radio
at hand, he probably won't hesitate to do the radio call.
Tony Verhulst
> I vote for strict use of check lists and a gear warning horn.
The gear warning horn, yes.
On some gliders you pull the gear lever back to lower the gear and on
some you push it forward (you know where this is going, don't you? :-).
On one flight many moons ago, the gear dropped during an encounter of
the turbulence kind, and I "raised" it. This was a particularly noisy
metal glider and gear up/down made no difference in the perceived noise
level.
Time to land, run the checklist and "lower" the gear. Imagine my
surprise when I pulled the spoilers and the gear warning came on.
Sometimes you use your checklist and STILL screw up. Ten bucks worth of
switches and a buzzer is a real handy back up and is well worth having.
Tony V.
Judah Milgram
I wrote
>In article <3dc583b8$0$10679$4d4e...@read-nat.news.dk.uu.net>,
>Torben Kristensen <NOSPA...@aub.dk> wrote:
>>
>>Nimbus-2: NACA 64-012
>>std. Cirrus, Mini Nimbus: NACA 65-012
>>
>>Ref.: "Fundamentals of Sailplane Design, Fred Thomas" p207,211,214
>
>and drew this response:
>
>> Looks like a misprint to me. NACA 65-012 is a little too close to
>> NACA 64-012
>
>No misprint. These data, which date back at least to the second German
>edition of approx. 20 years ago, would have come from the manufacturer
>and are believed accurate. Should I hear otherwise I'll post it here.
Dang, now I have to make good on that.
The author checked back with Schempp-Hirth, who report that the Nimbus 2
does indeed have a 65-012, not 64-012. We put a lot of work into getting
the details right (even ran it by S-H before printing) but even so it's
still possible to miss things like this. Note the 64-012 is used in the
vertical stab, the data for which S-H did confirm as correct.
My apologies!
Judah
--
Judah Milgram milgram at eng umd edu
Al
Thanks for coming clean on the misprint/typo etc.
Al
"Judah Milgram" <mil...@Glue.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:as01te$6...@clipper.umd.edu...