What First Glider to own?
Sparkorama
I'm getting back into the sport after a long hiatus and flying in the
Boston area. I'll be putting some winter flying time in and I'm
considering buying my first glider once I'm back to comfortable solos
and my private license. (Naturally, I won't fly anything until I am
competent and ready). Any suggestions on a first glider? Because of my
price range, I realize I'll be looking at some older birds. I would say
my preferences are as follows. Under 20k, easy to fly, easy to maintain
and safe. Naturally, I'd like to see some decent glide performance, just
thinking that some future performance would be good for keeping the
plane for some time. (currently I'm considering an IS29D2 Lark)
My club has competent instructors and the following fleet (winter flying
in only the 2-33):
1 Puchacz (two place, 30/1 performance; advanced trainer, aerobatic)
3 Blanik L-23 (two place, 30/1 performance; advanced trainer,
sightseeing)
1 Blanik L-33 solo (single place, 30/1 performance; cross-country,
sightseeing)
1 Schweitzer 1-34 (single place, 34/1 performance)
1 Pilatus B-4 (single place, 35/1 performance; cross-country,
aerobatic)
1 Schweizer 2-33A (two place, 23/1 performance; trainer)
1 Schweizer 1-26E (single place, 23/1 performance; aerobatic)
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
--
Sparkorama
Tony
wrote:
buy the best trailer you can afford with an airworthy glider inside
it.
seriously.
Tim Mara
and not many were sold and support with any of the Lark sailplanes can be an
issue today since the manufacturer really has no glider production anymore
and I suspect part will be an issue.being a metal glider part are a real
issue since you can't simply build a rib, skin bulkhead or any of the
1,000's of parts that could be specific to just this one glider. There will
just be many far better choices than this one
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com
"Sparkorama" <Sparkoram...@aviationbanter.com> wrote in message
news:Sparkoram...@aviationbanter.com...
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5668 (20101202) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5668 (20101202) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Liam
they're cheap now, they don't give up much to the newer ships below 80
knots, and I was able to outclimb anything in mine. Some people say
their handling is twitchy or their airbrakes are ineffective or
they're prone to death spirals, but those people are just incompetent
pilots. The wings are a bit heavy to rig but that's what dolly's are
for. Some people say the cockpit is too small, but I'm seven feet
tall and I fit just fine. Make sure it comes with a decent trailer.
On Dec 2, 11:05 am, Sparkorama <Sparkorama.73da...@aviationbanter.com>
wrote:
Darryl Ramm
You don't say what you want to do/what goals you have for your
soaring, but for XC, ease of rigging/derigging, a nice trailer, light
well coordinated handling and 40:1'ish performance are all good things
in my book. Ease or repair, a relatively large user base and factory
support are worth a lot.
For me: I would find a partner and look at a used standard class glass
ship ASW-24, Discus, LS4, DG-303 and get one with a Cobra trailer. For
any of these gliders automatic control connection are a big plus.
I'd rather fly a shared nice glider on half the weekends than a
"bargain" glider that costs half the amount every weekend.
Darryl
Nigel Cottrell
maintenance very expensive due to the attitude of the present
owner of the factory. See other threads and/or DG website.
At 20:04 02 December 2010, Liam wrote:
>You should definitely buy a [ insert name of random older
glider] -
>they're cheap now, they don't give up much to the newer ships
below 80
>knots, and I was able to outclimb anything in mine. Some
people say
>their handling is twitchy or their airbrakes are ineffective or
>they're prone to death spirals, but those people are just
incompetent
>pilots. The wings are a bit heavy to rig but that's what dolly's
are
>for. Some people say the cockpit is too small, but I'm seven
feet
>tall and I fit just fine. Make sure it comes with a decent trailer.
>
>
>On Dec 2, 11:05=A0am, Sparkorama
>wrote:
>> I'm getting back into the sport after a long hiatus and flying
in the
>> Boston area. I'll be putting some winter flying time in and
I'm
>> considering buying my first glider once I'm back to
comfortable solos
>> and my private license. (Naturally, I won't fly anything until I
am
>> competent and ready). Any suggestions on a first glider?
Because of my
>> price range, I realize I'll be looking at some older birds. I
would say
>> my preferences are as follows. Under 20k, easy to fly, easy
to maintain
>> and safe. Naturally, I'd like to see some decent glide
performance, just
>> thinking that some future performance would be good for
keeping the
>> plane for some time. =A0(currently I'm considering an
Nigel Cottrell
>On Dec 2, 1:05=A0pm, Sparkorama
>> I'm getting back into the sport after a long hiatus and flying
in the
>> Boston area. I'll be putting some winter flying time in and
I'm
>> considering buying my first glider once I'm back to
comfortable solos
>> and my private license. (Naturally, I won't fly anything until I
am
>> competent and ready). Any suggestions on a first glider?
Because of my
>> price range, I realize I'll be looking at some older birds. I
would say
>> my preferences are as follows. Under 20k, easy to fly, easy
to maintain
>> and safe. Naturally, I'd like to see some decent glide
performance, just
>> thinking that some future performance would be good for
keeping the
So long as it isn't a DG or sadly an LS, you might find spares
very expensive to come by (see other threads)
>
Mike the Strike
What Darrell says! If a partnership is a possibility, it would
definitely be my recommendation.
My first ship was a 19m Jantar-1, which I really enjoyed except for a
few issues:
1) The one-piece wing panels are heavy. Fellow pilots would hide
when I arrived at the field to rig! It only became a fun glider to
fly after I snagged hangar space.
2) The trailer was a British home-built piece of cr@p! A lousy
trailer will always bug you.
Mike
If it lives in the trailer, make sure you have a decent one with good
rigging aids.
Bob Kuykendall
> buy the best trailer you can afford with an airworthy glider inside
> it.
>
> seriously.
What he said. A mediocre glider with a nice trailer and good fittings
is a lot more operational than a nice glider with mediocre trailer and
fittings. All else being equal, more operational gets you farther and
faster than more performance most days of the week.
Bob K.
Tony
or do like i did and get a mediocre glider with a mediocre trailer!
but in my defense, it was the best i could afford.
Wayne Paul
"Sparkorama" <Sparkoram...@aviationbanter.com> wrote in message news:Sparkoram...@aviationbanter.com...
>
I started out with a Ka-6. The controls are well coordinated, has adequate performance for cross-country flight and are inexpensive.
http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/valley/Ka-6E.jpg
Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder
T8
wrote:
> Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Cheap, Fast, Good: Pick two.
But no need to rush. You'll get to see a lot of equipment and get to
know the owners at GBSC.
-Evan Ludeman / T8
brianDG303
Sparky,
A few years ago I made a quasi-scientific weighted chart to determine
the best glider to buy, and in your price range it's a Libelle. Very
good value, light and easy to rig. Might give it a look.
aero...@socal.rr.com
> > in only the 2-33):
> > 1 Puchacz (two place, 30/1 performance; advanced trainer, aerobatic)
> > 3 Blanik L-23 (two place, 30/1 performance; advanced trainer,
> > sightseeing)
> > 1 Blanik L-33 solo (single place, 30/1 performance; cross-country,
> > sightseeing)
> > 1 Schweitzer 1-34 (single place, 34/1 performance)
> > 1 Pilatus B-4 (single place, 35/1 performance; cross-country,
> > aerobatic)
> > 1 Schweizer 2-33A (two place, 23/1 performance; trainer)
> > 1 Schweizer 1-26E (single place, 23/1 performance; aerobatic)
> > Your thoughts would be appreciated.
What everyone else said, but with the caveat that you should spend the
next season flying all the good equipment in your club, and then you
will be infinitely better informed. Also, If you fly less than 30 hrs
in the next year, you should consider the old saying "If it floats,
flies or _____, RENT, don't own!
aerodyne
BruceGreeff
There is no substitute for owning your own glider = TINSFOYOG, not
exactly catchy. But true.
It matters a lot less how good the performance is of the glider - than
that you have access to something you can explore in whenever madame
opportunity winks at you. Look at how much fun Tony Condon has had with
a Cherokee.
I know that my own flying was transformed by getting into a Std Cirrus
partnership. That was probably the best way to do it. A partner who
disliked the handling on the Cirrus but paid half the costs and gladly
did maintenance because he enjoys it. So 100% access to fly, and lots of
help along the way.
No more club haggling to fly on the good days, no more insurance issues
(it costs but on your own terms)
Bruce
--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57
David Salmon
A Libelle was mentioned, beautiful glider, Glasflugel workmanship and
design, easiest ever to rig, slightly tight cockpit if you are well fed,
brakes not the best, need getting used to.
ASW15, same performance as Libelle, bigger cockpit, better brakes, not
quite so easy to rig.
Std Cirrus, elevator very light, apart from that very good.
ASW 19/Pegase better performance than those above, excellent gliders.
If you can find one at your price, a Discus in a Cobra trailer.
Almost as easy to rig as the Libelle, excellent performance (43), good
cockpit, quite good brakes, very easy to fly, I think some clubs used them
as first solo when they came out, but could be wrong on that. If you get
ambitious, they will carry lots of water.
BTW Mike, I had a Jantar 19 for 15 years or so, and rigged it single
handed, (preference not necessity) unless it was windy, with 3 trestles
and two dollies.
Basically you won't go far wrong with any European series production
glass glider, so get the best you can afford. I can't comment on those
made in the USA, as I know nothing about them. However general advice
would be initially, stick to 15 metres and no flaps.
Dave
Don Johnstone
Good handling qualities - Discus
Easy to rig- Discus
Good spares availability -Discus
If however you are looking for a pretty glider, with excellent
performance, excellent handling qualities, and are strong enough to rig
it: ASW17. Don't let the flaps put you off, the handling is simplicity in
itself and it does what it says on the tin. Bucks for glide angle, nothing
comes anywhere near :-)
Tony
> Bucks for glide angle - Discus
> Good handling qualities - Discus
> Easy to rig- Discus
> Good spares availability -Discus
>
I have never seen a Discus for under 20K. of course 20K would make a
good partnership interest if thats what he's into
vaughn
"David Salmon" <daveka...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:4cf8ce03$0$29463$bed6...@gradwell.net...
> Plenty of advice, not many real suggestions.
> A Libelle was mentioned, beautiful glider, Glasflugel workmanship and
> design, easiest ever to rig, slightly tight cockpit if you are well fed,
> brakes not the best, need getting used to.
All the above is true. Unfortunately the non-hinged canopy on the older
Libelles makes it difficult, perhaps impossible, for you button yourself up into
your own glider without help. Depending on where you launch from, this may or
may not be a problem for you.
Vaughn
Mike
than 20K, have good (but not great) performance. Easy to rig. My wings
go on much easier than most gliders I've seen. Roomy/comfortable
cockpit.
Cons - Check the cockpit payload on any you might look at. If you're
above average size you might be over max gross. The B model has a
higher max gross. Canopy does not have a hinge, it comes off
completely. Its a minor annoyance. Controls are not auto hook ups. For
some that's a deal breaker. I don't see it as a big thing. Safety
them, check them and check them again. Some have an off center tow
hook that can be an issue in a crosswind takeoff. Mine has a more
forward centerline release. They have an all-flying tail that some
people seem to not like. I don't know why. From what I've read,
twitchy pitch control on all flying tails is mostly a myth. There may
be some issue at high speeds but I rarely go more than 75-80 kts (like
I said - good but not great performance) I can't tell the difference
but I've never flown any other glass single seat glider.
Reading the above it may seem like more cons than pros but the cons
are mostly non-issues, in my opinion. Of course, its a biased opinion
since a 15 is what I own. In the "bang for the buck" category the ASW
15 and Libelle are hard to beat. If you have another $5-10K or go
partners the possibilities really open up.
Martin Gregorie
>
> Sparky,
> A few years ago I made a quasi-scientific weighted chart to determine
> the best glider to buy, and in your price range it's a Libelle. Very
> good value, light and easy to rig. Might give it a look.
>
I've had mine since mid-2006 and love it: easy to rig, light & precise
handling at all speeds, excellent all-round visibility and its the most
spin-resistant single seater I've flown. Yes, the air-brakes are weak,
but if slips very well and controllably - a fair trade-off I think.
However, do sit in one before going out to buy - they definitely suit
long, lean people rather than the well-fed or broad shouldered. Its a
great help to have the over-shoulder stowage: this is a semi-circular bag
that clips onto the spars behind the seat. Their only serious issue is a
tendency to snap-rotate on a winch launch - if you get one and want to
winch it, make sure you're winch current and GET A BRIEFING FROM SOMEBODY
WHO HAS WINCHED A LIBELLE before you try it: there is no guidance about
this in the POH. Aero towing is simple and easy.
Apart from that, what Aerodyne says: fly as many different club and
rental gliders before you buy as possible to get an idea of performance,
comfort and generally what suits you.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
Juanman
underutilized. The B4 is quite well instrumented too (SN10 thanks to
Dave Nadler). Over the years several members have taken advantage of
this and done long flights in them.
That gives you time to mull which glider to buy. Partnerships are a
great way to get a better glider and split expenses. Few people have
that much time to fly these days.
Juan
Berry
>
> Sparky,
> A few years ago I made a quasi-scientific weighted chart to determine
> the best glider to buy, and in your price range it's a Libelle. Very
> good value, light and easy to rig. Might give it a look.
I would also recommend a Libelle:
Nearly everyone holds Libelles as beautiful and I couldn't agree more.
Light wings and easiest to rig.
Automatic control hookups except for the ailerons. Ailerons connect with
simple pins that are permanently attached on 201 Libelles. The
connections are also conveniently located and in plain sight.
Very well engineered. Not many AD's.
Very good finish quality.
Excellent climb in weak conditions.
Overall performance is good enough that you won't "outgrow" it in a
couple of seasons. Sports/Club class handicap is competitive.
My own preference is the 301 Libelle simply because the flap handle
gives me something to do with my left hand (prevents blindness on long
x-country flights), the "low" canopy looks cool, and the tailchute
impresses the chicks. However, standard Libelles handle better and are
much more plentiful.
Alternatives:
The Standard Cirrus is a real joy as well. I absolutely love the light
controls on the Cirrus.
Expensive parts or not, I would never dismiss an LS-4 if you can find
one and can afford it. There has never been a better 1st glider than an
LS-4.
A Discus would be about as good as the LS-4 for a first glider, but with
the better performance, you would keep it longer.
ASW-19's are OK, but overpriced for performance because they look sexy.
ASW-15's are is great handling since they are bascially a glass Ka-6,
but you'll outgrow one too quickly if you fly much x-country or race.
H301 Libelle #19, "WB"
jcarlyle
Yes, Friedl Weber has gone nuts and imposed a 245 Euro annual contract
on older DG and LS gliders, which allows you to buy spares (if they
have them!)) and be sent an updated maintenance manual specific to you
and your aircraft. EASA has taken a dim view, and allowed European
owners to use the original maintenance manual. The FAA has always
allowed US owners to use the original maintenance manual.
Spares are a concern, but unfortunately that's true for almost any
older aircraft. I have personal experience with this on a Schleicher.
One way to solve the spares problem is by buying parts from an
unairworthy aircraft, or by going to an aircraft broker. If you're in
the US, you can also take the aircraft experimental and either make or
have your own part made.
I personally would not pass up a nice example of an older LS aircraft
in a decent Cobra trailer.
-John
On Dec 2, 3:24 pm, Nigel Cottrell <nigelcottr...@aol.com> wrote:
> Be aware that if you buy an older DG or sadly LS you will find
> maintenance very expensive due to the attitude of the present
> owner of the factory. See other threads and/or DG website.
>
jb92563
the buck and are great performers.
Also Experimentals can be maintained by YOU with the help of an
aircraft mechanic for annuals.
You dont see experimentals being grounded by AD's making your
investment a complete loss like the Blanik L-13.
The Schreder HP Experiementals are a great buy. I bought my 40+ year
old HP-11 for $6,000 with a good trailer.
Its had 9 owners and they have completed Diamonds etc in them.
Its all metal and I leave it outside rigged in the blistering CA sun
and occasional rain, year round and its virtually maintenance free. L/
D ~37:1
Its durable and learning Flaps is easy and less scray than you have
heard and gives you capabilities to exceed your best expectations,
with flap assisted slow thermalling and reflex flaps for top end
speed. and full flaps to get in to incredibly small postage stamp
sized fields. I now prefer flaps to spoilers alone and I think most
people would too if they gave it a try.
Its also a rugged and durable design and will out survive a fiberglass
model with reduced maintenance required.
You should check out the HP-11, HP-14, HP-18 and RS-15 in the Schreder
line at soaridaho. com, mostly under $15K
To fly one is to become a believer in late 60's high performance
contest proven technology. Plus you can afford all those extra tows
and road trips with the money you save.
Save for the modern glass while you have fun in the Schreders and pass
along your HP when you are ready to move up....they last forever.
Ray
On Dec 2, 11:05 am, Sparkorama <Sparkorama.73da...@aviationbanter.com>
wrote:
Westbender
few different resources to try and qualify what ships would suit me
best as a first-time owner and low-time pilot. If you can get a hold
of a hard copy of the "Sailplane Directory", there's a nice section in
there by Derek Piggot relating to the characteristics of all the
different sailplanes. He gives ratings for things like ease of
rigging, handling, cockpit size, whether they're good for low-timers,
etc. Derek Piggot also published a book called "Gliding Safety". In
it is a chapter where he discusses what types of ships are good for
first-time owners/low-time pilots. The information is similar to the
"Sailplane Directory", but has a little more in-depth analysis on some
of the different ships. Using these resources would be a good first
step toward narrowing down your possibilities.
As for me, I ended up creating a short list of the ships I was
interested in based on the same budget as yours. After substantial
research, this short list ended up with the following standard class
ships; Libelle 201, Grob 102 Astir, LS1f, LS4, DG101, ASW19. I then
proceeded to go through the FAA registration database and send letters
to owners of these types asking for information based on their
experience and if they're interested in selling. The LS4, well known
as probably the best of this bunch, turned out to be the most
expensive. It was outside of my budget, so I had to eliminate it. Of
the remaining ships on the list, the LS1f turned out to have a lot of
the excellent qualities of the LS4 with a bit less L/D and a bit more
age. So that became my primary focus. I had some possible deals for
Libelles and Grobs, but I held out hoping to find an LS1f. As luck
would have it, three of the LS1f owners that responded to my letters
indicated they would be interested in selling. I looked at the first
one and the gel coat had completely failed and the trailer was wooden
junk. However the second one was in excellent shape and I made a deal
on the spot that was well within my budget after an inspection was
done. It also had a nicely built Schreder trailer with rigging/tow-out
gear as well as a brand new Cambridge 302 installed.
As an owner of an LS1f, I can certainly vouch for it. Although take
that with a grain of salt as I'm still a low-timer. In my experience,
the LS1f is a wonderful ship. Great control harmony, light feel,
extremely easy to rig, solid German engineering, and flies like it's
on rails. The only downside is cockpit size. It's a bit small. I'm 5'
7", 180 pounds and it fits me like a glove (although taller pilots
have also flown it comfortably with some adjustments in the seat back
and rudder pedals). It feels as though I'm wearing it when I fly. Very
comfortable for long-duration flights. The wings seem to come right
out of my shoulders making me feel like I'm one with the ship. A
couple of the experienced pilots in my club have flown it and raved
about it. One of them is a phenomenal pilot that has 3,500 plus hours
in quite a few types of glass ships.
Food for thought.
Good luck in your search. Take your time and try to talk to various
people who actually own the types you're looking at. There's lots of
good opinions from good pilots, but owners will have the best insight
into a particular type. I got excellent response from my letters that
turned into many quality conversations on the phone about these
various ships.
vontresc
it's a beautiful ship.
If you are looking to get a budget minded ship with decent performance
ths Ka-6 isn't too bad. Close to 30:1 and pretty good XC potential if
you can find the thermals. And if you don't the bakes on them can get
you into just about any alfalfa field :-)
Beyond that the Ka-6 is a dream to fly. It's well harmonized, and
really doesn't have any bad flying habits. If you still have the
offset CG hook youll need to be aware of it's quirks, but it's nowhere
close to the boogeyman people make it out to be. Assmbly is petty
straight forward, and the control hookups are right out in the open
(none of that l'hotellier junk...).
Best of all you can find some pretty good deals on the beautiful old
wooden birds. I got mine in pretty decent shape with a workable
trailer for $4500. Oh yes and parts do grow on trees :-)
Pete
Westbender
> you into just about any alfalfa field :-)
Stated from experience.
Don't forget the outlying airfields... :oP
rlovinggood
>
> Nearly everyone holds Libelles as beautiful and I couldn't agree more.
>
I'll have to disagree, to some extent, with WB.
Beautiful, yes. But only in a rare time when seen from a higher
vantage point and having to twist neck to look back and down.
Really ugly when seen from below and well out in front of my typical
vantage point. :-)
And yes, the low canopy really improves the look of this classic
glider.
I'll second what others have said: Make sure you get a good trailer
with all the bits in working order. Not much sucks more than a
knuckle-busting trailer.
Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA
LS1-d
Tim Mara
Libelle is "UGLY"???? and this coming for a guy with an LS1C?????
Glass houses!
Tim :o)
"rlovinggood" <rlovi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fed736ce-f01c-4f9a...@o14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5672 (20101203) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5672 (20101203) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Tony
> How Dare you! ??!
>
> Libelle is "UGLY"???? and this coming for a guy with an LS1C?????
>
> Glass houses!
> Tim :o)
>
as far as im concerned the libelle is beauty on wings. i gaggled with
a very nice 201 once while i was flying my cherokee ii. it took
everything i had not to let him outclimb me. i was impressed. i need
to sit in one to make sure that ill fit
Tim Mara
luster! :o)
Biggest fallacy about Libelle is the small cockpit....yes it is not bulbous
but it is actually very comfortable even for relatively larger pilots...I
fit nicely at 190 lbs and 5'10"+ and know others who are well +++6 foot that
actually fit rather well.but you have to fit it and fly it like a
Libelle.don't try to sit up but rather slide in and get your shoulders below
the canopy frame and lip.most try it on and complain it's too narrow at the
canopy and that's simply because they are not sitting in it the way Hanle
(genius!) designed it.alreay back in the earliest days of the Libelle Hanle
was thinking about cockpit strength and crash protection....and even if the
cockpit were tight..the flight in a Libelle is worth the efforts!..600
buyers couldn't have been all wrong!
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com
"Tony" <abco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d265d5a0-5588-4ec5...@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
John Cochrane
There are two questions: What first glider to own, and what cheap
glider to own. These are often confused.
Unlike in many other sports the "latest and greatest" does not take
any more skill or finesse than older gliders. If you have the money,
there is no reason at all not to make your local dealer immensely
happy by ordering a modern glider, or buying one of the many excellent
used ones for sale. If you are qualified to fly a Libelle, Cirrus, or
PIK, you're qualified to fly a 27-28-29, or D2/V2.
You get easier handling and a considerable improvement in safety. All
the new gliders have better balanced controls. Winglets make a big
difference in thermals. Spin prone tips, all flying tails, small
slippery airbrakes and all that got sorted out in the 80s. The "safety
cockpit" concept really didn't begin until the late 80s and early 90s.
You also get a trailer that is much much better than earlier models.
Landing my ASW27 is much easier than landing a libelle.
(Of course new pilots should stay away from open class, tricky
gliders, and motors. Power pilots should absolutely not get a glider
with a motor in it -- they always seem to want that.)
Older gliders are lovely. Old cars are lovely. But old anything means
lots more care and maintenance. Nobody said the three most important
things to look at in an older glider: Gelcoat, Gelcoat, Gelcoat. It's
only a matter of time before that $15,000 + bill comes due. Plus rust
on the fittings, ADs, bags that leak, fittings that break, bearings
that wear out, manufacturers who don't exist/don't stock older parts,
and so on and so forth. It's a tradeoff -- save money initially, but
you will invest more time. If you don't know how to do it yourself,
you'll invest lots more repair money down the road too. If that's for
you, good. If you have the money and would rather spend time flying,
do it.
I have to disagree pretty hard with the advice here that KA6s and the
like are good gliders for new pilots to consider. KA6s are beautiful,
fragile, wooden antiques. They need lots of expert tender loving care.
It's like owning and driving a Ford Model A. Vintage and antique
flying are wonderful hobbies -- but not for a new pilot with limited
time and expertise at glider maintenance, whose main interest is in
flying.
Plus, look hard at the bottom of a KA6. It looks like a gorgeously
made wooden boat from the 1950s. Now think of your butt down there,
crashing in to something. Splinters are not a safety cockpit. When you
go for gliders this old, you're making a big tradeoff in money for
safety. Now, that's probably ok if you want to float around the
airport and enjoy your beautiful antique. Missing seatbelts are ok for
tooling around in your Ford Model A on a sunday afternoon. But if you
want to push the cross country or contest envelope, it's a much more
important consideration.
This post started with "under 20k". But where did that money limit
come from? Maybe that $20k limit isn't so hard and fast after all? I
bet it came from a perception that the cost/value tradeoff peaks at
$20k. I hope the above makes you look a little deeper.
Here's how to explain it to the spouse. Don't look at the list price
-- look at the annual cost. Gliders don't depreciate. If you buy a
glider for $20k, you'll sell it for $20k a few years from now. So a
$20k glider is really costing you the interest you'd be earning each
year. That's maybe 2 percent per year right now, so a $20k glider only
costs you $400 per year! Even if you have to borrow, home equity
loans are about 5% right now, so that $20k glider only costs $1000 per
year. The insurance and tows are going to cost more than that!
Maybe a $40k glider, meaning $800 lost interest or $2000/ year
interest cost, isn't that "expensive" after all. And with a partner
(an excellent idea for a first purchase) now we can talk about an $80k
glider! Owning a glider is, in the end, pretty cheap. Try to play
golf or go skiing on $2000 per year! (No, I'm not on the dealer
payroll!)
It is also a bad idea to buy a glider that you know you'll outgrow in
a few years. There's a lot of pain in the butt with buying and selling
gliders, setting up instruments, paying sales taxes, and so on. Spend
a bit more now, and be sure you'll be happy with it for at least 5
years. The difference in performance of the new gliders is pretty big.
That doesn't just mean you go faster, it means you stay up and go
places others can't. That "'cheap" glider will end up costing a lot if
you dump it in a year or two because you're tired of watching your
buddies go places you can't.
John Cochrane
Tim Mara
ship doesn't always mean that the flying is any more fun or rewarding than
flying a "NICE" maybe older glider....and the cost of ownership does in fact
have both sides of the coin.the older glider "might" need some restoration
and maintenance...but a Nice one may also not need any big investments added
to it either..a cheap and neglected glider is just that..but a nice older
ship can provide lots of enjoyment..I new or newer fancy ship has added
costs as well....the insurance of a 100K glider alone can cost in a just a
year or two what you might possible pay for a decent older glider...then
there's the taxes (if you live in a place where you have to contribute the
great society..maybe your super ship deserves a super hangar or super
storage facility that the older ship doesn't quite live up to...
the fun factor doesn't always increase with the cost...I've owned a bunch of
glides and airplanes.....I own 3 now....one is a brand new 304S.fantastic
super ship.....but fun factors and satisfaction with a good day at the
airport are not tied together...
biggest thing is buy a glider you can afford and just go fly for
fun......after all...if flying gliders isn't for fun then what is it ?
best regards
Tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com
"John Cochrane" <john.c...@chicagobooth.edu> wrote in message
news:cadd2e4c-fadf-49a6...@21g2000prv.googlegroups.com...
Wayne Paul
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder
Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F
"jb92563" <jb9...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:07e13010-d928-48ff...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
... Snip....
Bob Whelan
> There are a few Experimental Gliders with great performance bang for
> the buck and are great performers.
<Snip...>
> The Schreder HP Experimentals are a great buy. I bought my 40+ year
> old HP-11 for $6,000 with a good trailer.
> It's had 9 owners and they have completed Diamonds etc in them.
> Its all metal and I leave it outside rigged in the blistering CA sun
> and occasional rain, year round and its virtually maintenance free. L/
> D ~37:1
>
> Its durable and learning Flaps is easy and less scary than you have
> heard and gives you capabilities to exceed your best expectations,
> with flap assisted slow thermalling and reflex flaps for top end
> speed. and full flaps to get in to incredibly small postage stamp
> sized fields. I now prefer flaps to spoilers alone and I think most
> people would too if they gave it a try.
"I'll second the above." Usta own/fly an HP-14, transitioned into 'flapped
high performance' ships from a 1-26 w. ~125 total PIC hours w/o problems (the
HP being the 2nd of 3 flaps-only 'higher performance types' ever self-owned).
Regardless of what you eventually decide, FWIW, just about *all* of the advice
you've received in this thread has merit, IMHO. Yet another fascinating aspect
of this wonderful sporting activity!
Have fun - searching and soaring!
Regards,
Bob W.
Nigel Pocock
If you go glass remember not all gell coats last the same. In our club we
have several Discus's where the gell coat needed replacing after about
15yrs. However out Grob 102 mkIIIs are still fine after about 30yrs.
Other gliders in your bracket include DG100/200, ASw19, std cirrus,
Mosquito. Dont like the corrosion problems with aluminum glider. They are
usually hidden.
Nigel
John Cochrane
Insurance doesn't rise with hull value as much as you'd think however.
Liability is the same for everyone. Most damage doesn't total the
glider. A canopy is $5k on any glider. Insurance companies know this
and charge accordingly. Thus, $20k gliders cost about $1200 to insure,
while $100k gliders still cost less than $2000 to insure.
Hence my point that expensive gliders aren't as expensive as you
think. The fixed costs of owning and operating any glider -- liability
insurance, tows, annual, maintenance, club membership, contest fees,
gas, hotels, beer and burritos -- add up to several thousand dollars
per year. Even using 5% interest, so a $20k glider is $1000 per year,
and a $60k glider is $3000 per year, this capital cost has a smaller
effect than you'd think on the overall cost of soaring.
Or so I try to persuade my wife...
John Cochrane
Jim Beckman
>Maybe a $40k glider, meaning $800 lost interest or $2000/ year
>interest cost, isn't that "expensive" after all. And with a partner
>(an excellent idea for a first purchase) now we can talk about an $80k
>glider! Owning a glider is, in the end, pretty cheap.
You're overlooking insurance costs, no? And the more expensive glider
does cost more when the insurance premium comes due.
Jim Beckman
Mike the Strike
Another point to bear in mind is that the older the glider, the bigger
the chance it might have been repaired or modified by a previous
owner.
Early in my ownership of an ASW-20 a decade or so ago, as I slowed in
a strong thermal at cloudbase, the ship did an instantaneous stall/
spin entry and in an instant I was looking at sand and cactus instead
of blue sky and fluffy clouds. It turned out that the previous owner
had installed lead weights at various places in the ship (including
tail and wings) and the weight and balance was WAAAY off. This was
despite having had one done (but improperly) just before I took
ownership. Restoring the weight and balance to within the
manufacturer's specs cured that problem, but it's made me carefully
inspect any ship, esepcially previously owned ones, for damage and
modifications.
And always do your own weight and balance!
Mike
PS - I now own a Discus 2 with a newer Cobra trailer and I second the
finance professor's opinion about ownership costs. Apart from the
initial capital, newer ships aren't that expensive. Now, if we could
get the Euro back down to 0.8 against the US dollar!
Sparkorama
Mike the Strike;756833 Wrote:
> On Dec 4, 11:03*am, Jim Beckman jamesbeck...@comcast.net wrote:-
> At 23:15 03 December 2010, John Cochrane wrote:
> Maybe a $40k glider, meaning $800 lost interest or $2000/ year
> interest cost, isn't that "expensive" after all. And with a partner
> (an excellent idea for a first purchase) now we can talk about an $80k
>
> You're overlooking insurance costs, no? *And the more expensive glider
> does cost more when the insurance premium comes due.
>
>
> Another point to bear in mind is that the older the glider, the bigger
> the chance it might have been repaired or modified by a previous
> owner.
>
> Early in my ownership of an ASW-20 a decade or so ago, as I slowed in
> a strong thermal at cloudbase, the ship did an instantaneous stall/
> spin entry and in an instant I was looking at sand and cactus instead
> of blue sky and fluffy clouds. It turned out that the previous owner
> had installed lead weights at various places in the ship (including
> tail and wings) and the weight and balance was WAAAY off. This was
> despite having had one done (but improperly) just before I took
> ownership. Restoring the weight and balance to within the
> manufacturer's specs cured that problem, but it's made me carefully
> inspect any ship, esepcially previously owned ones, for damage and
> modifications.
>
> And always do your own weight and balance!
>
> Mike
>
> PS - I now own a Discus 2 with a newer Cobra trailer and I second the
> finance professor's opinion about ownership costs. Apart from the
> initial capital, newer ships aren't that expensive. Now, if we could
> get the Euro back down to 0.8 against the US dollar!
Thank you all so much for the information. I am very happy that this
thread has produced so much discussion. There are many pilots like me
out there who are considering their first ship. I hope that everyone
will continue to add information here. Again, many thanks!
--
Sparkorama
Hagbard Celine
glider, in that price range you can look at several older glass
standard class ships. In this group I include:
Schempp-Hirth Standard Cirrus
Schleicher ASW-15 / ASW-15B
Glasflugel 201 / 201B Standard Libelle
Rolladen-Schneider LS-1C / LS-1D
SZD Standard Jantar 1
They all have their strengths and weaknesses, to me none of the
weaknesses would be deal breakers. If you look at Paul Bickles "Polars
Of Eight" and Richard Johnsons flight test evaluations you'll find
that they all have very (very) similar performance. At this point the
variation in the condition of an individual glider would probably
account for a greater performance difference than any that might be
inherent in the design.
You might also find an LS-1F or DG-100 in this price range. If you're
alright with the heavier rigging an Open Cirrus would be an option
too. I don't know enough about the Phoebus B and C to offer any advice
on their flying qualities and parts support. Maybe some owners can
weigh in? A Grob 102 Astir CS or CS-77 would probably fall into this
price range too. The Grobs are a bit sluggish in terms of control
response and they are more difficult to rig than they need to be (a
Libelle type rigging tool would make them much easier to assemble) but
they are roomy and have decent performance. I've heard differing
experiences when it comes to parts support. We needed a new rudder for
our club's single Grob and some parts for the airbrake system a few
years ago and I got them from Linder with no trouble but I've also
talked to people who haven't been as lucky.
The Soaring Magazine Sailplane Directory issue has a summary by Derek
Piggott of these gliders and many others that could be helpful. He
offers a more in-depth evaluation of a number of gliders in "Gliding
Safety" if you can find a copy.
If you can find any obliging owners, try them on for size. Your
height, weight and leg/torso proportions will probably rule some of
them out for you. (example: I had enough headroom and fit alright
lengthwise in the Libelle but still found it lacked shoulder room and
felt too cramped on the other hand I was comfortable in my clubs
Standard Jantar but I was one of the few who was, many said it didn't
seem to be designed for human beings!)
As I've owned an ASW-15B for five years I can give you some more
detailed information on that particular glider: roomier than a Libelle
but a bit more cramped than the L-33, very docile at low speeds and
not inclined to spin, quite powerful airbrakes, light ailerons (both
in terms of aerodynamic loads and system friction), a ridiculous
amount of rudder authority, although the gear handle is on the same
side as the airbrake handle there is little chance of confusing one
for the other because they are widely separated (when you look inside
a 15 it's pretty obvious it was designed as a fixed gear as per the
standard class regs of the time and then changed over to retractable
as an afterthought), the long one-piece removable canopy is a bit of a
pain as you really need someone to help close it for you before
flight, it has an all-flying tail but it was properly designed so it
isn't twitchy at all, lastly I've found that when I've needed any
parts, TN's or general advice John Murry at Eastern Sailplane has been
extremely helpful. It's also pretty easy to rig. I've shared the field
with two Libelle owners and I usually get the 15 together and ready to
fly quicker than they do...
Since you mentioned the IS-29 I was wondering if you were considering
getting a metal ship and tying it down outside? If I was in this
situation I would seriously consider the Schweizer 1-35 myself.
Sparkorama
I was only considering the IS-29 since there is one for sale and
originally I was thinking that a metal ship would be easier to maintain
and somewhat bulletproof. As of now, I'm not sure if those are correct
assumptions.
--
Sparkorama
Martin Gregorie
Each different construction method has its own gotchas:
- metal: some years ago there was a very cheap Pilatus B4 on eBay,
but in the pictures you could easily see corrosion round the rivets
that attach the cockpit floor to the sides. Judging by the colour the
rivets were steel....
- wood: since you can't see the wing interior, you'll need to take the
state of the glue joints on trust or strip and recover the wings and
tail.
- glass: damage can be near invisible if it was finished carefully after
repairs, so a NDH claim has to be believed unless/until you do a weight
& balance as part of your pre-purchase inspection.
Tony V
Interesting that "sparkorama" hasn't identified himself - which is
annoying to me because I've probably been in the back seat while he was
flying :-). In any case, He said "I'll be putting some winter flying
time in and I'm considering buying my first glider once I'm back to
comfortable solos and my private license.". So, take your time while you
get to solo and license - there's no need to rush. In any case, I
heartily endorse Juan's comment that you fly the heck out of the 1-34,
L-33, and B4 while you sort out what it is that you want to do with the
glider (XC, acro, flag pole sitting?) while waiting for your glider to
come on the market. For many used glider buyers, it's probably not a
good idea to look for a single glider because you may wait a looong time
for that glider to come around. Rather, you should decide on a range
gliders and buy the first (or second) one that comes up for sale that
meets your needs. BTW, George Waters has a glider that may fit your bill
:-).
Tony V. LS6-b "6N"
ProfChrisReed
>
> If you're
> alright with the heavier rigging an Open Cirrus would be an option
> too.
I've flown an Open Cirrus for some years and am very happy with it.
The heavy rigging is not a problem if you make two trestles - even
better with three (the third a low one to take the wing root while you
position yourself to slide it into the fuselage). I've made a simple
mid-wing dolly to take the weight, and can now easily rig solo.
Cockpit is very roomy, except if you're long in the body you may find
headroom very tight. Long legs are no problem at all.
Note that it's a heavy glider with airbrakes that are good enough but
with little in reserve. Speed control is paramount - 5 kts extra can
more than double your float and get you into trouble in a field
landing. However, if you can fly a steady approach you won't have any
problems, just check out the book figures and don't start adding some
speed "for safety".
Otherwise it's easy to fly and performs well if you don't rush it.
Sink rate rises rapidly beyond 60kt, and if you really want to go
places pull the speed back to 50 when (mine at least) gets better than
40:1.
Dave Lawley
A Libelle is a good option if you can stand the horrible ugliness of the
things, and what is a fairly tight cockpit, regardless of some others
statements.
Ditto club Libelle.
H301 Hornet is good, with better performance, water ballst (100L) and much
more acceptable looks than a Libelle.
ASW15 is pretty cool but 15B is a better option, has bigger cockpit
length, and takes a small ammount of water ballast (50L). A nose hook is a
big plus for these as thay have an offset compromise hook as standard.
Astirs are ghastly in terms of control force/responsiveness,
but strongly built, quite reliable and easy to fly.
LS1 series excellent for the smaller pilot.
STD Cirrus, later models with extra washout are better for low hours
pilots, but stick free elevator stability is poor. On one occasion a pilot
who undid his straps to retrive a dropped object was thrown out of the
glider thru the canopy when he hit a bump and it went inverted. Luckily he
was wearing a chute(Not his normal practice) One literally cant take ones
hand off the stick!
Std Jantar1 pretty good all round.
Ditto for PIK20b/d if you dont mind flaps, big cockpit.
If you can go a bit more then without a doubt an LS4 is the nicest I have
flown. Whilst the performance is slighly less tha a Discus the feel for
the air is much better, and the cockpit much larger than even a DIscus B.
I have come to the conclusion that for me a Kestrel H401 is the best
option, has equal performance to Discus, and falls on the edge of the
price range. Has flaps and a somewhat busy but large cockpit layout. Easy
to fly.
I would avoid the following like the plague.
Phoebus, all models spins readily undercarriage failiures common.
Diamant, all models. C of G hook only all moving tail, tiny cockpit,
uglier than even Libelle.
Good luck and regards
Dave Lawley
Mike
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have heard some horror stories about the Phoebus, from people that
had heard stories, but never flown one. Truth is the Phoebus is a
decent first sailplane for a private pilot with some Grob experience
and average skills.
My Phoebus C was one of the most docile sailplanes I have ever flown
and had not one bad quality. Everyone I know that has actually flown a
Phoebus (A,B, or C), including and usually being low time pilots,
report the same. If one is concerned, start with the CG in a forward
position.
The landing gear is not a problem. My understanding is that it was
made to be sacrificial when very rough landings were made, protecting
the fus from major damage.
For more Phoebus info: http://phoebus.vassel.com/site_page_2511/.
Mike
Colin Roney
It has a busy cockpit and demanding flight envelope to get the glider
correctly configured for the various flight phases.
It is not glider that can be rushed in the circuit and landing phases.
The glider needs space and time and requires the pilot to keep their
brains well ahead of the game.
Speak to some of the `old`Kestrel boys and they will put you straight!
Colin
At 08:41 08 December 2010, Mike wrote:
>On Dec 7, 9:50=A0pm, Dave Lawley wrote:
>> I have been considering this same subject myself.
>>
>> A Libelle is a good option if you can stand the horrible ugliness of
the
>> things, and what is a fairly tight cockpit, regardless of some others
>> statements.
>>
>> Ditto club Libelle.
>>
>> H301 Hornet is good, with better performance, water ballst (100L) and
>muc=
>h
>> more acceptable looks than a Libelle.
>>
>> ASW15 is pretty cool but 15B is a better option, has bigger cockpit
>> length, and takes a small ammount of water ballast (50L). A nose hook
is
>=
>a
>> big plus for these as thay have an offset compromise hook as standard.
>>
>> Astirs are ghastly in terms of control force/responsiveness,
>> but strongly built, quite reliable and easy to fly.
>>
>> LS1 series excellent for the smaller pilot.
>>
>> STD Cirrus, later models with extra washout are better for low hours
>> pilots, but stick free elevator stability is poor. On one occasion a
>pilo=
>t
>> who undid his straps to retrive a dropped object was thrown out of the
>> glider thru the canopy when he hit a bump and it went inverted.
Luckily
>h=
>e
>> was wearing a chute(Not his normal practice) One literally cant take
>ones
>> hand off the stick!
>>
>> Std Jantar1 =A0pretty good all round.
>>
>> Ditto for PIK20b/d if you dont mind flaps, big cockpit.
>>
>> If you can go a bit more then without a doubt an LS4 is the nicest I
>have
>> flown. Whilst the performance is slighly less tha a Discus the feel
for
>> the air is much better, and the cockpit much larger than even a DIscus
>B.
>>
>> I have come to the conclusion that for me a Kestrel H401 is the best
>> option, has equal performance to Discus, and falls on the edge of the
>> price range. Has flaps and a somewhat busy but large cockpit layout.
>=A0E=
BruceGreeff
(Only had her for a year now) I would second the comment about not using
one as a first glider. While everything in the cockpit is logical and
all that, it is a busy place. Also - she is an open class glider so you
have to be a lot further ahead of the glider at all times.
By contrast - my very early Std Cirrus is a honey to fly as long as you
keep away from the edges of the envelope. Even if you go outside those -
She spins easily and predictably. Recovers just as easily and
predictably. Don't even think about it in the Kestrel. Workload flying
the Kestrel is lower on XC - because the L/D is so much better - but
landing and takeoff phases require more.
In my opinion - a 15m un-flapped glass glider is the best place to
start. Newer is better than older because the LS8 and Discus 2 etc. have
the benefit of 30 years of experience in controllability etc. Very nice
to have - but not essential.
Bruce
--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57
toad
A few negative comments were made about it's rigging and control
forces and I dispute both those claims.
Control forces are light and harmonious, I routinely fly with my hand
half way down the sitck, not needing all of the leverage. Performance
is moderate but comparable to a std cirrus. It is a very well behaved
glider, with good stall characteristics, so you can thermal quite
agressively without worry about spins.
Rigging is reputed to be hard, but is not. The tricks are different
than a LG/ASW/Discus though. The wings are somewhat heavy, but not
extreme. I do use a wing dolly to rig and it takes 15 mins to put the
wings and tail on. I bought my Grob at Sterling and the previous
owner gave me a rigging lesson. It was easy from there on.
On the general suggestions:
1) Do not buy an inactive glider. There might be all kinds of
problems and being a new owner will be hard.
2) Do not buy a bad trailer. This means one that is non road worthy,
or one that makes rigging difficult.
3) Buy a glider that is easy and convient to operate. Even if the
condition or performance is worse that the other option. People who
have to struggle to rig or fly sit on the ground a lot.
Todd Smith
3S
Adam
I'll plug the Jantar Standard as a first sailplane. I have the "2"
model (SZD-48-1) purchased when I was a 100 hour pilot. It is easy to
fly of you come from glass trainers, has a decent glide approaching
40:1, and is very strong (VNE is 154 kts). Mine rigs easily, spoiler
controls are auto-hook up while the ailerons and elevator use secure
sliding/detent mechanisms that are easy to reach. The gear is very
tall and robust. It has top and bottom airbrakes for great glidepath
control. Make sure you sit in one - long arms are plus. The 1 and 2
models have a two piece canopy while the 3 model is one-piece and
hinged up front. Outside of that and the 3 model is nearly identical
to the 2.
Like other said, a good, functional trailer and the gel-coat condition
are key factors when making a purchase.
/Adam
Sparkorama
::quick quote cutdown snip here on my post - just trying to keep the
quite size down:::
Again, thank you all so much for this info. As of now, I'm looking at
gliders I probably wouldn't have looked at, and rethinking the list.
Everyone seems to think the LS4 is the greatest first glider since
sliced bread. Interestingly, it appears to be back in production with a
company called AMS out of Slovenia.The Libelle looks more attractive,
which I never would have considered. It's funny that some think it's
horribly ugly and others hold it as beautiful. And I'm on the larger
side (5,11 and almost 200lbs) so many have warned I'd fit in it like a
surgical glove. Newer ships in partnership are looking more attractive,
though I don't know enough people yet at my local club to consider it. I
like the low price and lightweight performance of the carbon fiber
Sparrowhawk, but I can't find any information about it lately. Seems
like their website (windward performance) is a couple years out of date
and I don't know if they are even being produced. Naturally, a new one
would be out of my price range, but it's certainly an interesting plane
and the price is not bad. I like the LAK-12 I saw on wingsandwheels.com,
and it's not too highly priced. I like the big name companies, like
Glasflugel, or Rolladen-Schneider, and the fact that so many of their
gliders are still flying. There's a theory in boats and motorcycles that
it's almost never a good idea to buy the first generation of a new
design, even from the big boys, and any design that has a long history
is a good choice. I would love to see more side by side seating in
gliders. I like the Pipistrel Taurus. Very cool self-launcher with arond
40:1 performance and a liquid system for CG that moves fore or aft
depending on single or dual pilots. There is now an electric model. I
love the idea of self launchers (though almost everyone seems to think
they are not great for first gliders), and I admit I like the idea of
having them there to sustain if you're in trouble. I know a lot of
people think that's a bit like cheating, but safe is good. And I love
the BRS all-plane parachutes. Seems to me every plane should have them,
mostly for the idea of really impossible places where you can't land out
or mid-air collisions. I can't imagine using a regular parachute and
actually getting out of the plane. How the hell is that supposed to work
while you're wingless and falling out of the sky at an increasing 32
feet per second per second? There's an old Preiss on wingsandwheels.com
that looks interesting since it's a side by side, but it's one of the
HP-14's I think originally which was converted. It's hard for me to like
experimental ships and especially homebuilts. Makes me nervous. I'm sure
there are many fine ones out there and by all accounts the HP's were
well designed. I just can't help but imagine some joker building the
thing in his garage, swilling cheap beer, while his kids are running
around stepping on parts and wonder what he missed. I didn't really
think much about trailers and rigging until this thread gave me some
important info on that. It's a good point that if the thing is a pain to
rig, you'll spend more time on the ground than in the air. I have
learned about a lot of brands I'd never heard of when I originally got
into the sport. One thing's for sure. They're really beautiful and its
surprising how well a lot of gliders have kept their value. I am now
officially obsessed.
--
Sparkorama
noel.wade
wrote:
> I am now officially obsessed.
>
> --
> Sparkorama
Well that's the most important thing! :-)
Let me make a couple of comments, speaking as someone who just bought
his first ship in 2007 (and a stroke of luck allowed me to sell it and
buy a better ship in 2008).
1) DO NOT RUSH. TAKE YOUR TIME. I spent 4 months looking for my
first ship and 8 months looking for the second one; and if I did it
all over again I'd take as much (or more) time. You are going to want
to buy a ship you have confidence in, with a trailer that works.
There are a lot of old/abused/weathered airplanes out there (both in
powered-aircraft and in sailplanes). There is NO substitute for an in-
person inspection of the glider before you buy it. I spent the money
to fly to 3 potential aircraft (and drove to a 4th), and I don't
regret a dime of that money being spent. A few months of searching
and a couple of $300 airline tickets are peanuts, compared to a
$20,000 investment and years of flying-time! A pre-buy inspection by
an A&P who's familiar with gliders is also a really really good idea.
2) Try to stick with ships that were produced in enough quantity to
have some kind of support. Some of the "one-off" ships you mentioned
in your last post will be hard to get parts for or keep maintained.
Well-known ships (whether factory-built like the Libelle or homebuilt
like the HP) are going to be less of a headache in the long run.
3) Research the snot out of the gliders you are considering
purchasing. One good place to start are the "Johnson Reports" on the
SSA website. If you're a member, sign in to your account and then
look on the left-hand side of the webpage for "Soaring Magazine", then
"Johnson Reports". Don't believe every word you hear or read online -
lots of people provide "expert" opinions about ships they've never
flown. Find people who've flown a ship, then get their thoughts. If
they love the plane, factor that into their glowing praise and adjust
your expectations downward. If they think the plane is a deathtrap,
factor that into their rants and adjust your expectations upward
(slightly). Also, remember that competition pilots think about
aircraft performance in a different light than most - when I was
buying my DG-300 I was mocked by 1 contest-pilot "because DG stands
for Doesn't Go!". But the performance difference between gliders in
the same class/vintage is often less than 2% - if you're not flying
wingtip to wingtip with someone, you won't notice the difference.
During many days of flying, I have gone farther than my friends who
are flying LS-4's and Discuses (Discii?). A lot of these ships are
within 1 or 2 points of L/D of each other. There's a definite
difference between 35:1 and 40:1, but you'd be hard-pressed to tell
the difference between 38:1 and 40:1 or 39:1 and 42:1. Also (on a
brief tangent), consider your local weather: If you live in an area
with weak or low thermals, consider the glider's minimum sink-rate and
minimum wing-loading. If you live in an area with really strong
conditions, these aren't as big of an issue.
4) Think about safety as much as performance. There are lots of
factors to consider, and lots of tradeoffs:
Automatic control hookups are safer than L'Hotellier fittings, but
they are typically found only on newer/more-expensive ships (note:
manual hookups aren't a deathtrap - they just require more care).
Flaps can get you into tighter landing spaces, but make for a higher
cockpit workload and provide another system that can go wrong.
A well-harmonized control system is arguably safer than a ship with
unbalanced controls (some of the early all-flying-tail sailplanes have
really light elevator stick forces and heavier stick forces in
roll).
Are you comfortable with a CG hook, or do you want a nose-hook (and I
suggest you fly both before you form a strong opinion)? Bigger wing-
spans and older gliders tend to be heavier and harder to rig. They
are also a factor when landing in a field or at an unusual airport, so
think about how likely you are to land out (or how the threat of a bad
landout may change your flying style or options). Is the higher
performance (or in some cases the lower cost) worth the hassle to
you?
The list goes on and on... I suggest you list out all of these
factors (and think of as many as you can), then rate them in order of
importance. For me, I valued automatic hookups and ergonomics quite
highly - so I ended up buying a DG-300 (its one of the earliest modern
fiberglass ships with automatic hookups and a well-contoured
seatpan). Also factor in your "mission objectives" - if you want to
fly long cross-countries or competitions, then other things take on
new emphasis - like the ship's L/D, a relief-tube, off-field landing
performance & safety, etc. If you just like floating around the sky
and enjoying a serene flight, then less-expensive lower-performance
aircraft become more of an option.
[Word to the wise: Don't buy a glider with lower performance just
because you can afford it. You'll outgrow it and get bored with it.
Better to stretch for something that you can grow into; or get into a
partnership with a better glider]
It can be HUGELY beneficial to get all of your preferences down on
paper, and figure out the relative priorities and importance of each
item. Listen to other people's advice, but ultimately you have to
make your own decision on how strongly you should weight each factor.
5) I have a few thoughts/comments about a couple of the ships you
mentioned. Many of them are out of your price range or not generally
abvailable, so I'll skip them; but here are a few opinions:
* The LAK-12s were produced in the Soviet Union. Several were stored
for many years and then imported for cheap after the Iron Curtain
fell. They are not deathtraps, but you should be aware that their
airfoil is an old one (from the 1960's), they don't have some of the
amenities and features of other modern sailplanes, and their wings are
reportedly very heavy (a consideration for rigging & de-rigging).
* For someone's first ship, the LS-4 is definitely near the top of the
list of fiberglass gliders (along with the DG-300, ASW-19, ASW-20,
Pegasus, and 1 or 2 others). Unfortunately, that makes them highly
desirable and hard to find for a good price (unless they've been
abused).
* AMS Flight has recently been implicated in some bad business
practices and possible financial difficulty; so use care. ALSO,
remember the Euro exchange rate - anything you buy from Europe right
now is going to be pricey and require a lot of money to ship/import to
the USA.
Best of luck! Take care,
--Noel
Martin Gregorie
> 3) Research the snot out of the gliders you are considering purchasing.
> One good place to start are the "Johnson Reports" on the SSA website.
>
Good advice.
A couple more places to look: if you're considering older gliders, search
out a copy of the first edition of George Moffatt's "Winning on the Wind"
and read the first five chapters.
Similarly, any sailplane reviews by Derek Piggott are worth looking at,
but I can't quote book titles - sorry.
--
Martin Gregorie
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:35:24 -0800, noel.wade wrote:
> 3) Research the snot out of the gliders you are considering purchasing.
> One good place to start are the "Johnson Reports" on the SSA website.
>
Good advice.
A couple more places to look: if you're considering older gliders,
search out a copy of the first edition of George Moffatt's "Winning on
the Wind" and read the first five chapters.
Similarly, any sailplane reviews by Derek Piggott are worth looking at,
but I can't quote book titles - sorry.
Andy
wrote:
>It's hard for me to like
>experimental ships and especially homebuilts. Makes me nervous.
In USA almost every glider that is not amateur built, but is
Experimental, was built to normal production standard in a factory.
Most of them have a full type certificate it their country of origin.
Some of these receive an experimental certificate when they enter USA
becuse the new owner wants that. Some become experimental on entering
USA because, at the date of import, there was no reciprocal FAA
certification in effect.
Before getting nervous about "Experimental" check what the expermental
cert actually is. If it's not experimental amateur built I don't
think you have much to be nervous about except how it was maintained
and repaired, but the same concerns exist for a glider with a standard
cert.
Before the home builders jump on me, yes I know there are many good
examples of amateur built. There are a few that are good reason to be
nervous.
So a glider built in a factory in say Germany, brought into USA on an
experimental cert and then not damaged or subject to non factory
approved modifications, should be every bit a good as the same glider
with a standard type cert.
Andy
ProfChrisReed
that I haven't flown one, so am only commenting from what I've been
told by owners.
It was actually produced in Lithuania, and the Lak factory is still
running so parts wouldn't be a major issue. However, it has real
difficulties as a first glider:
1. Big wings (20 metres I think). Learning big wing handling takes
time, and it's better to have experience in 15m first. You need to be
thinking rather further ahead, which requires more experience flying
something less challenging.
2. Very heavy rigging because the wings are one piece (OK, two piece
in the sense of one each side). No Lak 12 owner says rigging is easy,
though with rigging aids it's acceptable. Without aids its a 3 to 4
person rig and needs some serious muscle.
3. Because of the wing length it's a non-standard trailer at least 12m
long, probably longer. A big beast to tow.
4. Flaps. Others have explained why flaps are for a later glider.
5. Heavy, thus lots of energy to manage on landing. Lak 12s have a
reputation for ground looping, which I believe is largely due to the
pilot being behind the glider rather than thinking ahead of it -
again, a matter of experience.
Having said all that, I'm told it's pleasant to fly and has excellent
XC performance. Really good value on a performance/price measurement.
If I were looking for one (as a 500 hr pilot) I'd want to be satisfied
that the trailer was in first-class condition. I'd also want to help
rig it, to work out whether it would ever leave the trailer in
practice!
The other glider worth commenting on is the Astir CS. I used to own a
share in one, and this was my first glider. Huge cockpit, easy to fly
with no real vices, solid gel coat and sturdily built - will take
minor knocks without structural damage. It felt quite stodgy to fly,
with less feedback through the controls than other gliders (probably
because of its sturdy construction), but with experience in the glider
you could feel what it was doing.
Rigging is in fact very easy, just different. It's a matter of lining
up all the pins and then sliding it together - if it won't go, either
it's not lined up right, or the pins need grease, or the bottom of
the spar is binding on the fuselage (the trick here is to get someone
on hands and knees under the wing root to arch their back up to lift
it slightly). My syndicate partner and I could rig in under 10
minutes, but a helper who didn't understand could make things
impossible by, for example, wiggling the wings to "help".
I also have time in an LS4, which is as nice as everyone says. It's
price/performance ratio is high, though, so I'd probably buy something
cheaper and learn its vices. If you never intended to buy another
glider, an LS4 would be nice enough for all your flying, and that
would justify the high price. If someone gave me an LS4 I'd definitely
keep it!
murp...@gmail.com
1. While I'm 6 ft tall but long legged, I was surprised that my head rested against the canopy. This may be remediable as the ship apparently has a modified floor pan.
2. I found the rudder dampers (while sitting in just the cockpit, unassembled, to be VERY stiff.
Any comments, especially on the latter issue
Thanx
Bob Kuykendall
> ...There's an old Preiss on wingsandwheels.com
> side, but it's one of the HP-14's I think
No, that's not how it was.
Bob K.
profch...@googlemail.com
The rudder damper is a pain - before mine was replaced as worn out, the glider was much nicer to fly. Unfortunately, back in 1967/68 when the Cirrus was the hot racing ship one suffered rudder flutter (probably exceeding Vne by quite some amount) so the damper was added. You get used to it, and it seems less stiff in flight.
murp...@gmail.com
profch...@googlemail.com
Peter Purdie
suffered 'soft' rear fuselage twisting flutter. I believe none had
structural damage, but it was unacceptable so the hydraulic
damper was fitted in the centre section.
I found it noticeable on the ground, but not when flying (and I
had one of the extended tip ones, just under 19 metres).
I had some good flying and competition success in it, but it
really needed more wing loading on the good days.
Comfortable cockpit, decent brakes for glass ships of that era
plus the tail-chute for small fields.
Wings not exactly lightweight, but with two trestles I used to rig
with just me and my 11 year old son, and when he was at school
it didn't drive people away at rigging time like the Kestrel 19 did.
>> The rudder damper is a pain - before mine was replaced as
worn out, the
when the
exceeding
used to it, and
>
>Can you tell me how the rudder damper works? Is it at all
adjustable? I
pressure
>uldn't be unpleasant. thanx
>