New LS-4 vs. New 304 CZ
Ray L.
have enough for a panel-mount radio for my current glider), I keep
dreaming. So, which ship would be the more fun to fly; a brand new
LS-4 or the 304CZ? Yes, yes, I know the LS is a Standard and the 304
is a Racing (15m) class, but when I'm flying my one day of the week
(Sat. or Sun.) I'm probably not really going to care. 40:1 vs 47:1.
No flaps vs flaps. Original design must have been nearly the same
time?? Racing only against myself and maybe flying with some other
non-racers. Which one is more comfortable? Which one is easily
trimmed for hands-off flying? Which one is easier to rig? Can
anything be easier than an LS-4 to rig? Do the new versions have
auto-connections? How well do the finishes hold up on the two? How
difficult is it to get parts? We know the price on the 304--just visit
wingsandwheels.com. What about the LS-4? Questions, questions,
Any other dreamers out there with thoughts?
Ray Lovinggood,
LS-1d,
Carrboro, NC, USA
PS: which one will fit in Santa's sleigh?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Gapagod
pas...@my-deja.com
LS-4 is maybe the easiest glider to fly if we don愒 compare it to LS-8
which is even nicer. I惴 not familiar to 304CZ, but I扉e flown 304
german one about 300 hours. I think that 304 has good handling, it愀
strong(like LS-4), best seat ever made (for me it is, for me LS-4 sucks
in that cheme). Now I really don愒 know where you get 47:1 for 304,
cause I don愒 believe it so much. It is more comfortable to fly with
flaps(15m,racing) than standard class plane. You said that you don愒
race, but 304 won愒 handle impurity. Bugs and rain kills it. Ls-4 is
much better that way. Easier glider to rig is Discus. New LS-4 has auto
connections like 304. I think that parts are no problem either. So you
need to fly and check out which is better for you, thats the only way to
find out.
Good luck
Pasi
Discus, P1
Finland
In article <11f733ec...@usw-ex0102-011.remarq.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pete Russell
Rigging the 304 must be easier than the LS4, all auto hookup slide together,
one pin done!
Comfort is nearly the same but the ergonomics are better in the 304 MUCH
better canopy hinge
Pete
Ray L. wrote in message <11f733ec...@usw-ex0102-011.remarq.com>...
Theodore Grussing
pas...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Ok,
>
> Now I really don´t know where you get 47:1 for 304,
> cause I don´t believe it so much. It is more comfortable to fly with
> flaps(15m,racing) than standard class plane.
The 47/1 (actually measured 46.7/1) is with the wing extensions and it is
17.44meter. The measured for 15 meter is 43/1. Dick Johnson is currently
doing his tests on the new 304CZ in both 15 and 17.44 meter configurations
and the results should be available soon.
Cheers
Ted Grussing
304CZ #14 - somewhere in the Atlantic on it's way to the USA
Ernst W. Schneider
the better "maybe more nervous" handling than the LS4. I would give an LS4
to everybody who can handle a 2-33 but I won't give a 304 to those. I don't
think the 304 is difficult in any way (other than being "unusual" with the
airbrakes which can be learned dealing with) but an LS4 is by far more easy
in its total flying behavior. Anybody not agreeing please come up with proof
of evidence. It took me almost a full runway on the first landing on a
Mosquito (and lots of sweat) and I just don't think the 304 CZ is a glider
for those who wanna have their first glass ship. From what I hear the "304
standard" with Schempp Hirth Airbrakes and no flaps would probably the ship
to head for for those who are looking in that category.
.... just my 2 cents ... get those other 98 cents as well to get the full
picture
Ernie
ewsfly...@hotmail.com (remove the nospam for emails to me)
++++ yesterday is history - tomorrow is a mystery - today is a gift - that's
why they call it the present ++++
Pete Russell <sagev...@oakweb.com> wrote in message
news:V31W3.342$LK3....@nuq-read.news.verio.net...
Andreas Maurer
<th...@theodesigns.com> wrote:
>The 47/1 (actually measured 46.7/1) is with the wing extensions and it is
>17.44meter. The measured for 15 meter is 43/1. Dick Johnson is currently
>doing his tests on the new 304CZ in both 15 and 17.44 meter configurations
>and the results should be available soon.
Sounds amazing. The old ASW-20L with 16,6 meters made about 44.5 to 1,
but couldn't carry water when flown with the wingtip extensions. With
them it glided significantly worse at airspeeds about 115 kp/h than
without - even in modest German wheather (average climb over 1.5
meters per second, 240 ft/min) the wingtip extensions were useless.
They provided significant advantages only on very weka days.
I doubt that wingtips extension without the possibility to increase
wing loading really do increase performance - I flew against DG600/17
and Ventus 16.6 with a 15m ASW-20 (wing loading about 40 kg/m^2) and
was never worse. Climb was of course a little bit worse, but gliding
was always better since you seldom fly slower than 130 kp/h.
I would check whether the 304 can carry water with the wingtip
extensions.
BTW: The maximum l/d is pretty useless. Much more important is a
well-balanced aircraft polar. Any LS-6, ASW-20 or Ventus will outclass
a Ventus 2 or ASW-27 at higher speeds - I'm sure fellows from
countries with better lift conditions (USA, New Zealand, Australia)
will confirm that the latest 15m class gliders are not better than any
old ASW-20 or Ventus.
And I'm sure that most British guys have tried to follow a 27 on a
weka day with their LS-6 and started to think about spending much
money...
If I flew in Nevada, I would rather fly an ASW-20B than an ASW-27 and
forget the four or five missing points of l/d.
Bye
Andreas
John McFarlane
>Mosquito (and lots of sweat) and I just don't think the 304 CZ is a glider
>for those who wanna have their first glass ship.
how exactly where you landing it (not trying to be offensive) but i've
never had any problems. Both hornet and Mossie have the same
arrangement. Was told before first flight once the flare was
finished just open the brakes all the way and it quite quickly loses
speed and you just land as you do in anything else, easy really.
1M
>
> I doubt that wingtips extension without the possibility to increase
> wing loading really do increase performance - I flew against DG600/17
> and Ventus 16.6 with a 15m ASW-20 (wing loading about 40 kg/m^2) and
> was never worse. Climb was of course a little bit worse, but gliding
> was always better since you seldom fly slower than 130 kp/h.
>
> I would check whether the 304 can carry water with the wingtip
> extensions.
the 304CZ is still permitted to fly with water ballast and wing tip
extensions. Allowable Gross weight is not increased, though the redline
airspeed is slightly reduced.
The glide performance with the extended wing tips is quite noticable (even
the original Glasflugel 304 was tested to 43/1 Dry and 44/1 fully ballasted
by the German testers in the 15 meter, pre-winglet version). Though I have
not tried to do any performance testing (I leave that for the experts) It is
not at all unrealistic to believe the factory test that achieved the
advertised 46.7/1 LD with the extended tips. I have however also flown the
304 in casual comparisons with several GOOD sailplanes, including Good
ASW20's and the 304, even with myself at the controls, gives up nothing to
these other sailplanes in any wing configuration. And it's one of the nicest
handling sailplanes I have ever flown.
Again, admittedly a biased report
But honestly submitted
Tim "1M"
Ernst W. Schneider
no problem with stating here that I was messing around with half brakes,
full brakes, no brakes and building up airspeed (and sweat :-)) at the same
time. It wasn't the gliders fault for sure. But again - the point I wanted
to make is that I just think the 304 is more of a handful than the LS4. I am
convinced the 304 is a great ship even so I haven't had the pleasure to fly
the "new" one.
Ernie
"Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want"
John McFarlane <ven...@one.net.au> wrote in message
news:382ae9fd...@news.one.net.au...
Andreas Maurer
wrote:
>the 304CZ is still permitted to fly with water ballast and wing tip
>extensions. Allowable Gross weight is not increased, though the redline
>airspeed is slightly reduced.
Sounds like a good solution.
> It is
>not at all unrealistic to believe the factory test that achieved the
>advertised 46.7/1 LD with the extended tips.
Well, considering that the old 20L made over 45 with only 16.44 meters
this number is believable.
Bye
Andreas
IBlieden
Ira Blieden
LS-3A "Uncle Charlie"