best glider for $15-20,000USD
Al
Well lets hear your opinions, I have just gone solo and am looking for a
rig around this price I can develope with.
regards
Al.
Jens P. Aarnaes
I had the same price criteria and chose the Standard Cirrus. This fine
flying ship is highly under rated. It doesn't have the best airbrakes
and its all-flying stab leads to some pitch sensitivity but I don't
think you can beat it for the price.
Tomasz Sielicki
Well, I have flown approximately 100 hours on a PW-5 and am very
satisfied with it. It is very easy to handle on the ground and
responsive and secure when airborne. Small outside and with big cockpit
for tall pilots. And future-oriented: it will represent gliders at the
first World Air Games in Turkey in September this year as a prelude to
the new competition class: the World Class.
Best regards
Tomasz Sielicki
Hans Trautenberg t2466
Jens P. Aarnaes (aar...@ais.net) wrote:
: I had the same price criteria and chose the Standard Cirrus. This fine
: flying ship is highly under rated. It doesn't have the best airbrakes
: and its all-flying stab leads to some pitch sensitivity but I don't
: think you can beat it for the price.
There is a kit to improve the airbrakes. It is LBA approved and you may
get information on the "Ritter-Klappen" from Schempp-Hirth our your
Schempp-Hirth dealer.
We installed the kit about 3 years ago and it realy makes a big difference.
--
=============================================================================
Dipl. Phys. Hans L. Trautenberg Universitaet Regensburg
Institut fuer Experimentelle und Angewandte Physik D-93040 Regensburg
phone (49) 941 943 2466 fax (49) 941 943 3196
e-mail hans.tra...@physik.uni-regensburg.de Germany
privat
phone (49) 941 949211 fax (49) 941 930792
10161...@compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/HLT
Flurstr. 14 D-92348 Berg Germany
=============================================================================
David H. Noyes
>Well lets hear your opinions, I have just gone solo and am looking for a
>rig around this price I can develope with.
Al: An AS-W15 wouldn't be a bad choice in this category.
Donald Ingraham
Al wrote:
>
> Well lets hear your opinions, I have just gone solo and am looking for a
> rig around this price I can develope with.
>
>
> Al.
Al,
I've been very happy with my Jantar Standard 41-A. It gets
between 38 and 40:1 depending on what you read, it's very
strong (+8, -4 Gs), fully aerobatic (ok, no snap rolls or
tail slides), very comfortable (more recumbant than others)
with tall main gear for clearing low crops. The controls
are very nicely balanced (hard stick and rudder at 55-60 knots
and the yaw string stays straight). Also, they are very pretty
ships. There were about four of them for sale in the January (?)
issue of Soaring. All (most) for about 20K or less as I recall.
That's my 2 cents....
Good luck shopping,
Don
P.S. Take a look at http://www.info2000.net/~aland/aa_soar.htm and
click on "So You Want to Buy a Fiberglass Sailplane - May 1991" for
an excellent article (nice job Aland) on looking over a ship before
you buy.
David C. Rolley
Most of the aircraft you will find date from early to mid 1970's. Some
will be later, but not many.
One glider that doesn't make the list very often is the Concept 70.
That's a real shame because it is an easy glider to fly and fairly
forgiving.
Another ship to consider is the SGS 1-35.
Both of these designs use flaps only for glidepath control. So some
dual in a Cessna 172 which still has 40 degrees of flap extention
to learn what to look for and how to handle the pitch changes necessary
to maintain airspeed with changes in flap setting will go a long way
toward making the first flight an easy one.
Dave
Robert Backer
You might also consider a GROB Astir CS. This ship is competitive with
all the older standard class, has benign handling, superior gelcoat,
large cockpit, intregal ballast tanks (although small) and particularly
good climb performance. Another nice feature is that there are many
G-103s around to ease the transition. I had one for my first glider.
Flew it about 500 hrs then transitioned to ASW-17.
Bob Backer
XZ
sc...@dtc.carbon.k12.ut.us
I'm also in the same figurative boat...having just soloed and looking
for a ship in the same performance, price, handling class.
Found the article in the latest issue of "Soaring" on the PW5 as a
beginner/transition ship to be very informative and helpful. Sounds as
if the PW5 might be a good way to get into a new ship at a reasonable
price.
Scott MacKnight
SoarHead
Because you can't always get what you what I'd include a list of planes to
look at...judge condition, age , materials and performance upon
inspection. How tall you are matters a lot. I'm 6'4 and know I wouldn't
fit in half of these (comfortably!). Also judge comments by experienced
pilots. Judge your experience or needs.
LS-1, ASW- 15, Std. Cirrus, Libelle, DG-100(101), Jantar Std, ASW-19
Vince
Bojack
Al <c...@sierra.net> wrote:
Don't forget the partnership option....
There are many nice planes in the $30-$40K range LS-3, LS-4, ASW-20,
etc.....
John Bojack (J4)
Jean Richard
Donald Ingraham wrote:
>
> Al wrote:
> >
> I've been very happy with my Jantar Standard 41-A. It gets
> between 38 and 40:1 depending on what you read, it's very
> strong (+8, -4 Gs), fully aerobatic (ok, no snap rolls or
> tail slides), very comfortable (more recumbant than others)
The Jantar is not so bad. But for confort, be sure to be 1,75 metre or
taller because you will need some extension at the tip of your finger to
reach the stick or the dashboard instrument.
We don't talk about a seat in that plane : we talk of a bed... It's quite to
the opposite of a Schweizer 2-33.
You have to be very careful on rigging (which is not of the best even if it's
easy to find worst).
One very good point in the Jantar is the landing gear. There's a good clearance
between the doors and the grass. Nice for outlandings.
bob gibbons
>>>>> "DR" == David C Rolley <dro...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
DR> Most of the aircraft you will find date from early to mid 1970's.
DR> Some will be later, but not many.
DR> One glider that doesn't make the list very often is the Concept 70.
DR> That's a real shame because it is an easy glider to fly and fairly
DR> forgiving.
DR> Another ship to consider is the SGS 1-35.
DR> Both of these designs use flaps only for glidepath control. So some
DR> dual in a Cessna 172 which still has 40 degrees of flap extention to
DR> learn what to look for and how to handle the pitch changes necessary
DR> to maintain airspeed with changes in flap setting will go a long way
DR> toward making the first flight an easy one.
If one is willing to undertake the slight additional training to handle
flap-only sailplanes, one of the best values for the money is the
PIK-20. Very strong, outstanding short field landing capability, 38:1
L/D, very good climbing ability, excellent polyurethane finish, large
cockpit.
Bob
--
Bob Gibbons Texas Instruments
Internet: Bob.G...@dseg.ti.com Dallas, TX
Mark Langenfeld
Check out Derek Piggott's more recent paperback books for some really
insightful commentary on most of the ships currently available in this
price range. He lays out the good, bad and ugly...the closest thing
you'll find to a Consumer Reports write-up on used sailplanes.
Good luck,
Mark -- B9
Bo Brunsgaard
SoarHead <soar...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970409215...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Because you can't always get what you what I'd include a list of planes
to
> look at...judge condition, age , materials and performance upon
(some cuts made here...)
>
> LS-1, ASW- 15, Std. Cirrus, Libelle, DG-100(101), Jantar Std, ASW-19
>
> Vince
>
All reasonable suggestions. However, just to chip in, a couple of
observations
a) as I read the original question, Al was looking for a glider for
post-solo use. I'm not sure that the Libelle is a perfect choice for this.
I fly one myself (with a big smile on my face!), but I find that the
Libelle requires some experience. In particular, landing the Libelle isn't
something I would like to make people do without quite some practice. We
generally require 100+ hours for people to fly it.
b) a good candidate might be the Grob single Astir. Our club uses two of
these for hour-building, and it's a docile plane, easy and safe to fly,
with quite good performance. In Europe at least, the Astir comes very cheap
these days.
Cheers,
Bo Brunsgaard
Std. Libelle OY-XKB
Ray Roberts
In article <nqn2r7j6no.fsf@cronus>, r...@ti.com (bob gibbons) wrote:
>>>>>> "DR" == David C Rolley <dro...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>DR> Most of the aircraft you will find date from early to mid 1970's.
>DR> Some will be later, but not many.
>
Being in the same position myself a couple of years ago, I bought
a 1977 Grob Astir CS. It has a comfortable, roomy cockpit, is sweet
to fly (controls well coordinated) and flies well and safely at
low speeds. I'm very pleased with this sailplane. Performance is
not bad, at 37/38:1.
BCam...@skm.com.au
In article <334AA5...@sierra.net>,
c...@sierra.net wrote:
>
> Well lets hear your opinions, I have just gone solo and am looking for a
> rig around this price I can develope with.
>
> regards
>
> Al.
Al,
My advice is to fly before you buy. This may mean that you have to wait
a little longer, but it is worthwhile. I own a Standard Cirrus, and
I am very happy with it. Before I purchased it, I flew a number of
types in the used Std Cirrus price range. (I assume this is in your
price range).
The types I flew were:
Astir CS77
Standard Libelle
LS1f
Jantar Standard 2
Standard Cirrus
Hornet
There is not a great deal of performance difference between these types.
The Jantar would outperform the others in strong conditions, but does not
climb as well in weaker lift. Another thing you should consider is
the handicaps applied to each type in handicap contests.
The Astir is probably the easiest to fly, but has very heavy
aileron control and rudder is poorly co-ordinated. My judgement is that
the Astir is the most forgiving aeroplane. My club has an Astir for
first solo conversion.
The Standard Libelle is very responsive, but in my opinion is under-
ruddered. Still, this is a fun aeroplane to fly, and the best in weak
weather. Overall, it is marginally poorer in performance than the other
types listed - but most Libelle drivers seem to be pretty good (in
Australia, anyway!) and choose it for its good handicap.
I only had a circuit in the LS1f, but it seemed a well co-ordinated
machine. Handling I recall as similar to the Cirrus, but slightly heavier
aileron.
The Jantar was easily the quietest of these types. I dont know if that is
related to its performance, but it did seem to go! However, it is
ergonomically a disaster. I am 5'9", and couldnt reach the panel. Also,
the undercarraige forward reach and travel is ridiculous. I have seen a
6' pilot add two extension handles fore and aft of the undercarraige
lever to enable him to retract the gear without discomfort/distraction.
The Hornet is generally a nice glider, but it has a sliding stick
arrangement that takes some getting used to. There is very little feel
to the elevator, and it is easy to over-control.
The Standard Cirrus was my first choice. It is well co-ordinated, and
does everything well. It isnt the greatest in any particular aspect, but
is the best compromise. It isnt far behind the Libelle in weak weather,
yet it isnt far behind the Jantar in strong weather either.
The Cirrus has an undeserved tainted reputation due to the all flying
tail. I have never had pilot-induced-oscillations with it, and indeed
have had greater problems with the Hornet and Jantar. Dont let others
paradigms re: the all flying tail put you off considering it. This said
however, the Cirrus (and most of the others) will not tolerate poor
piloting.
The 1975 or later model Cirrus are an improvement over earlier models.
This version has slightly more washout in the wing, making it a more
pleasant handling glider, and reducing the tendancy to tip stall. Also,
the dive brakes are slightly more powerful. This model also has a more
streamlined nose.
Other types you may consider are the DG100, ASW15B, etc....
Unfortunately, most of the gliders in this price range have some faults.
They are typically second generation fibreglass, manufactured in the
seventies. Newer gliders such as the LS4 and Discus may handle and
perform better, but thats why they cost more. My advice - fly them
and form your own opinion. If you cant, at least read George Moffat's
description of the various types in "Winning on the Wind", and "Advanced
Soaring".
Happy hunting,
Bruce Campbell
Standard Cirrus "Alpha Mike"
Victoria, Australia
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
AL
Thanks for your feed back Don,
Of some of the machines discussed the Jantar sounds very appealing
Now if only I could find one.....
Soaring on (at Minden)
Al.
gech...@pervasive-sw.com
In article <334BE6...@cray.com>,
Donald Ingraham <d...@cray.com> wrote:
>
> Al wrote:
> >
> > Well lets hear your opinions, I have just gone solo and am looking for a
> > rig around this price I can develope with.
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Al.
>
Al: yes, the Jantar Standard may be designed for people with orangutang
arms but it has a number of very strong points: It is very easy to fly
(responsive controls). It winch launches better than any other ship I've
tried (as long as you have a CG hook). It is built like a tank. Often
times you will find them with a polyurethane enamel coating of remarkable
durability. The tall landing gear with large wheel is _very_ desirable.
It has a rather spacious cockpit (to accomodate the orangutang arms).
Spoilers will allow quite a steep descent. Control hookups have a very
positive feel. Good for aerobatics. And finally, it is a capable machine,
especially when full of water. I have flown mine on 500K tasks (no ridge)
without excessive pain. (Handicap = 1.00)
The negatives: it's a relatively heavy aeroplane (when compared to a
Libelle), two piece canopy, can be a bit "tight" to assemble in very hot
weather, inflating the main tyre can be difficult.
I just sold my Standard in January. Got an Open Jantar instead. Polish
craftsmanship is very good.
Consider also: DG-101
Donald Ingraham
Hmmm Minden? Talk to Sam Whiteside at Soar Minden. He owns one
and it's there at the airport for you to look over! He's a very
nice guy. Say HI for me.
It's true what others are saying about laying down in a Jantar! I
happen to love the position, but I'm a tad over 6ft. and made
a few simple modifications to the seat angle (very easy and intuitive)
and tweaked the headrest till it was just right. You'll see what I
mean if you look at the seat-back and the adjusting slots. BTW: at my
height there are two more notches the seat can go *back* and one more
notch that the pedal-rack can go *forward* (when I'm flying barefoot,
which is almost always).
The under-carriage handle travel is a pain *during retraction*, as
someone pointed out. Elbow room is tight. But the contorting becomes
second nature after a while and you only do it once a flight :-). Also
true that the panel is a stretch. I just finished installing an L-NAV,
so I'll be "going there" more often now to push buttons...guess I can
cut sit-ups out of my exercise routine. I haven't flown nearly the
numbers of different gliders that some of the others who are posting
comments have, so keep my bias in mind :-)
Good luck Al,
Don
J. Cunningham
Jean Richard <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Donald Ingraham wrote:
>>
>> Al wrote:
>> >
>
>> I've been very happy with my Jantar Standard 41-A. It gets
>> between 38 and 40:1 depending on what you read, it's very
>> strong (+8, -4 Gs), fully aerobatic (ok, no snap rolls or
>> tail slides), very comfortable (more recumbant than others)
>
>The Jantar is not so bad. But for confort, be sure to be 1,75 metre or
>taller because you will need some extension at the tip of your finger to
>reach the stick or the dashboard instrument.
>
>We don't talk about a seat in that plane : we talk of a bed... It's quite to
>the opposite of a Schweizer 2-33.
>
>You have to be very careful on rigging (which is not of the best even if it's
>easy to find worst).
>
I have helped Don Ingraham rig his Jantar numerous times. It is not a
problem (although the dolly in his trailer for the wings could use
some work). Every thing is accessible and easy to reach. Don't let
this limit your consideration of a very fine glider.
Jean Richard
J. Cunningham wrote:
>
> Jean Richard <j.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Donald Ingraham wrote:
> >>
> >> Al wrote:
> >> >
> >You have to be very careful on rigging (which is not of the best
> >even if it's
> >easy to find worst).
> >
> I have helped Don Ingraham rig his Jantar numerous times. It is not a
> problem (although the dolly in his trailer for the wings could use
> some work). Every thing is accessible and easy to reach. Don't let
> this limit your consideration of a very fine glider.
Ease of rigging is not the most important thing to consider when making
a choice, but it cannot be neglected.
An easy to rig sailplane means more than just confort. It also means
safety in many ways. Not only safety for the next pilot to fly the
sailplane, but safety for the people doing the rigging, and for the
sailplane itself.
Outlanding can mean that you have to rely on unexperimented people to
help you. Rigging and derigging too often mean minor dammages to the
plane. The easier the sailplane to rig, less chance of such dammages.
And spending 30 minutes on rigging instead of 5 to 10 means many hours
at the end of the flying season...
Moshe Braner
Ray Roberts (ra...@cyberenet.net) wrote:
: Being in the same position myself a couple of years ago, I bought
: a 1977 Grob Astir CS. It has a comfortable, roomy cockpit, is sweet
: to fly (controls well coordinated) and flies well and safely at
: low speeds. I'm very pleased with this sailplane. Performance is
: not bad, at 37/38:1.
I agree that it flies nice. But I've passed on an opportunity
to buy a share in one, because the wings are VERY heavy. I can
barely lift the wingTIP! (About 180 pounds per wing panel)
If you're a big strong guy you may not mind.
--
Moshe Braner
<Moshe....@uvm.edu>
47 McGee Road, Essex Junction, VT 05452 USA
(802) 879-0876
Jeffry Stetson
>>
>>The Jantar is not so bad. But for confort, be sure to be 1,75 metre or
>>taller because you will need some extension at the tip of your finger to
>>reach the stick or the dashboard instrument.
>>
But the good news is: The panel is in focus!
--
Jeffry (I hate reading glasses) Stetson
Salto H-101
Donald Ingraham
:-)))
and even better news...after a couple of seasons carrying the
spar-end of the wing around during [de]rigging, your arms *will*
be long enough to reach the panel! (mine are 150lbs+ a panel :-).
Don
Loren Lewis
It is a shame that you passed up this ship. With a 1-man rig made bv
Louis Grondal,
the weight of the G102 wing would NOT be a factor. And you would have a
nice ship.
I know -- I have both a G102 and one of Louis' 1-man rig's.
Ray Roberts
In article <3352BB...@ix.netcom.com>,
I too have one of Louis Grondal's one person rigging devices, and
would endorse what Loren says above.
Robert Backer
My G-102 had a Minden Fab trailer with the one man rig option. It too
was a easy rig with no heavy lifting.
Bob Backer
XZ
John Crawford
mind explaining how it works? The trailer mechanism, etc?
John Crawford
Loren Lewis
Very simply, the rig is a mechanical helper that eliminates the need for
asking a friend to hold the wing tip while you do your work at the other
end. You take the fuselage out of the trailer. Then take the rig and
place it next to the fuselage (about mid-way). You wings are still in
the trailer at this point. On most, the wing tip is at the back of the
trailer. Now you pick up the tip, (the root is sitting on a dolly on
wheels at the front of the trailer), pull out the wing, and set it down
so the saddle of the rig is holding the wing about at the center of
gravity. Now it is carrying the wing and all you need to do is tighten
the straps that will hold the wing firmly to the rig, flip the wing to a
horizontal position and maneuver it into place into the fuselage. Most
have a hydraulic jack to adjust the height of the wing so that you don't
need someone at the wing tip getting a hernia thinking to himself that
this is the last time he will be near you when you want to assemble your
ship. After that wing is in place in the fuselage, set a wingstand under
the tip, take the rig out from under the wing, and go get the other
wing. Just reverse the sequence when you de-rig.
These rigs might seem a little expensive for what you are looking at,
but in fact they are not made in high volumes, must be rugged, and safe
to work with, for both you and your expensive glider so there a lot of
thought and expense put into them.
I can tell you that it is really nice not to have to depend on others
all of the time.
It is especially helpful when you want to rig early (before the others
arrive at the field, or when you are having a great flight and want to
stay up longer). It is no longer necessary to rush back before your
"help" leaves.
As everybody on this newsgroups probably knows, the G102 wing is VERY
heavy. I'll bet that if Grob made rigs like this (and included it in the
cost and as an optional 'kit') to complement their nice flying ship,
their sales would have been even substantially higher.