1-26 for first glider, or not?

[tstock]

I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum... but for a
first glider, low time pilot, it seems like a 1-26 would be a good
choice. Easy to fly, easy to land in tight spaces, cheap to maintain,
and very common and there are a few 1-26 groups, so help is
available. It's inexpensive (well under $10,000 USD, more like $6K).
I happen to like "old" stuff, like VW busses, etc, so the vintage
aspect of the 1-26 appeals to me. Also, I like the idea of starting
"at the beginning", maybe that's just me.

Of course, there is the option to buy an early fiberglass glider for
around 10K, but at that price it's likely a fairly uncommon glider,
hard to find parts for, and maybe not a good plane for a low time
pilot (flaps, etc). 20K would be better but right now that is outside
by budget.

I admit, reading the entire issue of the last soaring issue dedicated
to the 1-26 did lead me down this path. My wife read it also and
started asking me questions about the 1-26.

So, before I start looking for a 1-26 is there any reason I should
not? My plan would be to fly the 1-26 for about 5 years and then find
something more modern when funds allow and I've gained more
experience.

Opinions? If prefer to stay out of the debate you can always email me
privately.

Thanks
-tom

[Tony[_5_]]

On Nov 12, 8:36*am, tstock > wrote:
> I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum... but for a
> first glider, low time pilot, it seems like a 1-26 would be a good
> choice. *Easy to fly, easy to land in tight spaces, cheap to maintain,
> and very common and there are a few 1-26 groups, so help is
> available. *It's inexpensive (well under $10,000 USD, more like $6K).
> I happen to like "old" stuff, like VW busses, etc, so the vintage
> aspect of the 1-26 appeals to me. *Also, I like the idea of starting
> "at the beginning", maybe that's just me.
>
> Of course, there is the option to buy an early fiberglass glider for
> around 10K, but at that price it's likely a fairly uncommon glider,
> hard to find parts for, and maybe not a good plane for a low time
> pilot (flaps, etc). *20K would be better but right now that is outside
> by budget.
>
> I admit, reading the entire issue of the last soaring issue dedicated
> to the 1-26 did lead me down this path. *My wife read it also and
> started asking me questions about the 1-26.
>
> So, before I start looking for a 1-26 is there any reason I should
> not? *My plan would be to fly the 1-26 for about 5 years and then find
> something more modern when funds allow and I've gained more
> experience.
>
> Opinions? *If prefer to stay out of the debate you can always email me
> privately.
>
> Thanks
> -tom

The 1-26 was designed for people like you. They are a little
expensive for the performance but come with a great support network
and a great community. Don't worry, after reading the last issue of
Soaring I wanted to buy a 1-26 too. My ever practical wife starts
asking me if that would be a step up from the Cherokee II (same
performance) and why I would spend a bunch of money to have a glider
that is no better than the one I already have. Only answer I could
muster was so that I could fly the 1-26 contest! I still don't think
she is convinced...

Summary: A great choice in my opinion for a first glider.

[tstock]

> The 1-26 was designed for people like you. *They are a little
> expensive for the performance but come with a great support network
> and a great community. *Don't worry, after reading the last issue of
> Soaring I wanted to buy a 1-26 too. *My ever practical wife starts
> asking me if that would be a step up from the Cherokee II (same
> performance) and why I would spend a bunch of money to have a glider
> that is no better than the one I already have. *Only answer I could
> muster was so that I could fly the 1-26 contest! *I still don't think
> she is convinced...
>
> Summary: A great choice in my opinion for a first glider.

Your wife sounds a lot like mine. My wife actually emailed me at work
asking "Hey, what was that glider that was in your magazine? A
Schwhaaat? A one something? How much do they cost?"

Apparently she had read the part in the magazine about it having a
good safety record and that it's very easy to land in small spaces and
that had made an impression on her enough that she had been thinking
about it and our budget. She does not fly, and is not interested, so
it was interesting that she asked me about it...

-tom

[bdbng]

On Nov 12, 8:36*am, tstock > wrote:
> I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum... but for a
> first glider, low time pilot, it seems like a 1-26 would be a good
> choice. *Easy to fly, easy to land in tight spaces, cheap to maintain,
> and very common and there are a few 1-26 groups, so help is
> available. *It's inexpensive (well under $10,000 USD, more like $6K).
> I happen to like "old" stuff, like VW busses, etc, so the vintage
> aspect of the 1-26 appeals to me. *Also, I like the idea of starting
> "at the beginning", maybe that's just me.
>
> Of course, there is the option to buy an early fiberglass glider for
> around 10K, but at that price it's likely a fairly uncommon glider,
> hard to find parts for, and maybe not a good plane for a low time
> pilot (flaps, etc). *20K would be better but right now that is outside
> by budget.
>
> I admit, reading the entire issue of the last soaring issue dedicated
> to the 1-26 did lead me down this path. *My wife read it also and
> started asking me questions about the 1-26.
>
> So, before I start looking for a 1-26 is there any reason I should
> not? *My plan would be to fly the 1-26 for about 5 years and then find
> something more modern when funds allow and I've gained more
> experience.
>
> Opinions? *If prefer to stay out of the debate you can always email me
> privately.
>
> Thanks
> -tom

If your budget is 6K, then you are limited to a 1-26 or old wood.
A 1-26 is easy to sell and get your money out of. Old wood isn't.
Go with the 1-26. Even if after a year you want something different,
it will be easy to sell.
Make sure you get one with a good trailer and good fabric. Pay more if
you have to. If you
have to do work to it, your ROI will go down rapidly when it's time to
sell.

Brian

[hretting]

On the other end of the scale.....if your plan is to eventually move
up the performance ladder....avoid the 1-26. The 1-26 is a specific
loved glider that borders on thumb screws and bamboo torture. If
you're the type of guy that has been driving the same VW since college
and loves how that old electric saw still works even though it sparks
enough to weld, then ya...the 1-26 is for you.
A tough find if you're patience would be the 1-34. It will cost you
double but give you more joy. You can park it outside like the 26 and
after you put a 1000 hours on it, get all your money back.
The 1-26 is a learning utility glider that comes with a group of
radicals that...and this is where they excel....are much friendlier
and easy going and like landings as much as the tows.
You will never see the boundaries of soaring from a 1-26. The key to
that will always be L/D.
I burned my Nov. edition. Had a Cuba Libre with it. Bacardi..Black
R

[jcarlyle]

I think that anyone who has ever given a 1-26 a fair appraisal has
liked it. It's definitely a fun little ship to fly! It made this pilot
look good several times when he was staying up when glass couldn't.
And, as Ron Schwartz has shown, it has good XC potential in the right
hands.

Where I didn't like the 1-26 was (a) in the seating and (b) in the
cold. The one I flew (an E model) had a chair type plywood seat that
was really uncomfortable for me after 2-3 hours. The 1-26 Association
has articles showing how you can pad the seat; if you buy one I'd
highly recommend doing so.

The other issue I had was flying in the cold - this was because of the
breeze coming from the tow hook. Flying in 35 degree F weather, my
feet lost all feeling after half an hour. Again, if you buy one you
can use a simple flap of material to kill the breeze.

-John

[mattm[_2_]]

On Nov 12, 10:49*am, jcarlyle > wrote:
> I think that anyone who has ever given a 1-26 a fair appraisal has
> liked it. It's definitely a fun little ship to fly! It made this pilot
> look good several times when he was staying up when glass couldn't.
> And, as Ron Schwartz has shown, it has good XC potential in the right
> hands.
>
> Where I didn't like the 1-26 was (a) in the seating and (b) in the
> cold. The one I flew (an E model) had a chair type plywood seat that
> was really uncomfortable for me after 2-3 hours. The 1-26 Association
> has articles showing how you can pad the seat; if you buy one I'd
> highly recommend doing so.
>
> The other issue I had was flying in the cold - this was because of the
> breeze coming from the tow hook. Flying in 35 degree F weather, my
> feet lost all feeling after half an hour. Again, if you buy one you
> can use a simple flap of material to kill the breeze.
>
> -John

Exactly. My 5 hour flight was in a 1-26 on the Harris Hill ridge in
the early spring. At around 2 hours I would hit a thermal and say
to myself, "Hey, I can stay up longer!". At around 4 hours I would
hit a thermal and say to myself, "Crap, I gotta stay up longer!"
It was great fun as my first single seater, but I've never seriously
considered owning one.

One other option is to look into the HP crowd. They're homebuilt,
which has its own set of problems, but the price range is similar,
they're made out of metal so you can tie them out, and (in theory)
they go a lot better than the 1-26. They are flap-only for landing,
which is not as scary as it sounds. At a price similar to the 1-34 is
the 1-35, which can be easier to find and goes better (and goes
together
better), although it is flap-only as well.

-- Matt

[Wayne Paul]

"mattm" > wrote in message ...

.... Snip ....
>
> One other option is to look into the HP crowd. They're homebuilt,
> which has its own set of problems, but the price range is similar,
> they're made out of metal so you can tie them out, and (in theory)
> they go a lot better than the 1-26. They are flap-only for landing,
> which is not as scary as it sounds. At a price similar to the 1-34 is
> the 1-35, which can be easier to find and goes better (and goes
> together better), although it is flap-only as well.
>
> -- Matt

I guess you could classify me as part of the HP crowd. I have owned two and am currently flying a HP14. (http://tinyurl.com/N990-6F) There is a lot of information on Dick Schreder's designs on my website. (http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder)

While looking for more performance then a 1-26 don't over look the PIK-20B. They are in the same price range as the 1-35.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Tony[_5_]]

On Nov 12, 9:31*am, bdbng > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 8:36*am, tstock > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum... but for a
> > first glider, low time pilot, it seems like a 1-26 would be a good
> > choice. *Easy to fly, easy to land in tight spaces, cheap to maintain,
> > and very common and there are a few 1-26 groups, so help is
> > available. *It's inexpensive (well under $10,000 USD, more like $6K).
> > I happen to like "old" stuff, like VW busses, etc, so the vintage
> > aspect of the 1-26 appeals to me. *Also, I like the idea of starting
> > "at the beginning", maybe that's just me.
>
> > Of course, there is the option to buy an early fiberglass glider for
> > around 10K, but at that price it's likely a fairly uncommon glider,
> > hard to find parts for, and maybe not a good plane for a low time
> > pilot (flaps, etc). *20K would be better but right now that is outside
> > by budget.
>
> > I admit, reading the entire issue of the last soaring issue dedicated
> > to the 1-26 did lead me down this path. *My wife read it also and
> > started asking me questions about the 1-26.
>
> > So, before I start looking for a 1-26 is there any reason I should
> > not? *My plan would be to fly the 1-26 for about 5 years and then find
> > something more modern when funds allow and I've gained more
> > experience.
>
> > Opinions? *If prefer to stay out of the debate you can always email me
> > privately.
>
> > Thanks
> > -tom
>
> If your budget is 6K, then you are limited to a 1-26 or old wood.
> A 1-26 is easy to sell and get your money out of. Old wood isn't.
> Go with the 1-26. Even if after a year you want something different,
> it will be easy to sell.
> Make sure you get one with a good trailer and good fabric. Pay more if
> you have to. If you
> have to do work to it, your ROI will go down rapidly when it's time to
> sell.
>
> Brian- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What "old wood" gliders are you talking about? I agree that the last
two Cherokee II's to be advertised sat for a while until I bought
them. They also were both priced well below 6K. A good Ka6 can be
had in this price range, in fact one is advertised on the SSA's
classified site right now, and I think the Ka6 is just as sellable as
a 1-26.

Agree on the fabric and trailer.

[Greg Arnold]

tstock wrote:
> I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum... but for a
> first glider, low time pilot, it seems like a 1-26 would be a good
> choice. Easy to fly, easy to land in tight spaces, cheap to maintain,
> and very common and there are a few 1-26 groups, so help is
> available. It's inexpensive (well under $10,000 USD, more like $6K).
> I happen to like "old" stuff, like VW busses, etc, so the vintage
> aspect of the 1-26 appeals to me. Also, I like the idea of starting
> "at the beginning", maybe that's just me.
>
> Of course, there is the option to buy an early fiberglass glider for
> around 10K, but at that price it's likely a fairly uncommon glider,
> hard to find parts for, and maybe not a good plane for a low time
> pilot (flaps, etc). 20K would be better but right now that is outside
> by budget.


Get in a partnership in a decent glass ship.


>
> I admit, reading the entire issue of the last soaring issue dedicated
> to the 1-26 did lead me down this path. My wife read it also and
> started asking me questions about the 1-26.
>
> So, before I start looking for a 1-26 is there any reason I should
> not? My plan would be to fly the 1-26 for about 5 years and then find
> something more modern when funds allow and I've gained more
> experience.
>
> Opinions? If prefer to stay out of the debate you can always email me
> privately.
>
> Thanks
> -tom
>
>

[Tony[_5_]]

>
> Get in a partnership in a decent glass ship.
>


Preferrably a partner with a job that requires them to work on sunny
weekends.

[Brian[_1_]]

On Nov 12, 7:52*am, Tony > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 8:36*am, tstock > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum... but for a
> > first glider, low time pilot, it seems like a 1-26 would be a good
> > choice. *Easy to fly, easy to land in tight spaces, cheap to maintain,
> > and very common and there are a few 1-26 groups, so help is
> > available. *It's inexpensive (well under $10,000 USD, more like $6K).
> > I happen to like "old" stuff, like VW busses, etc, so the vintage
> > aspect of the 1-26 appeals to me. *Also, I like the idea of starting
> > "at the beginning", maybe that's just me.
>
> > Of course, there is the option to buy an early fiberglass glider for
> > around 10K, but at that price it's likely a fairly uncommon glider,
> > hard to find parts for, and maybe not a good plane for a low time
> > pilot (flaps, etc). *20K would be better but right now that is outside
> > by budget.
>
> > I admit, reading the entire issue of the last soaring issue dedicated
> > to the 1-26 did lead me down this path. *My wife read it also and
> > started asking me questions about the 1-26.
>
> > So, before I start looking for a 1-26 is there any reason I should
> > not? *My plan would be to fly the 1-26 for about 5 years and then find
> > something more modern when funds allow and I've gained more
> > experience.
>
> > Opinions? *If prefer to stay out of the debate you can always email me
> > privately.
>
> > Thanks
> > -tom
>
> The 1-26 was designed for people like you. *They are a little
> expensive for the performance but come with a great support network
> and a great community. *Don't worry, after reading the last issue of
> Soaring I wanted to buy a 1-26 too. *My ever practical wife starts
> asking me if that would be a step up from the Cherokee II (same
> performance) and why I would spend a bunch of money to have a glider
> that is no better than the one I already have. *Only answer I could
> muster was so that I could fly the 1-26 contest! *I still don't think
> she is convinced...
>
> Summary: A great choice in my opinion for a first glider.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Tony,

Don't discount flying in a 1-26 contest yet, They have been known to
let simliar performance gliders fly with them as Guests. I think you
would have a lot of fun flying with them, probably learn a lot as
well.

Brian
Formerly owned and rebuilt #294
Now wwn an HP16T.
CFIIG/ASEL

[Tony[_5_]]

On Nov 12, 10:40*am, Brian > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 7:52*am, Tony > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 8:36*am, tstock > wrote:
>
> > > I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum... but for a
> > > first glider, low time pilot, it seems like a 1-26 would be a good
> > > choice. *Easy to fly, easy to land in tight spaces, cheap to maintain,
> > > and very common and there are a few 1-26 groups, so help is
> > > available. *It's inexpensive (well under $10,000 USD, more like $6K).
> > > I happen to like "old" stuff, like VW busses, etc, so the vintage
> > > aspect of the 1-26 appeals to me. *Also, I like the idea of starting
> > > "at the beginning", maybe that's just me.
>
> > > Of course, there is the option to buy an early fiberglass glider for
> > > around 10K, but at that price it's likely a fairly uncommon glider,
> > > hard to find parts for, and maybe not a good plane for a low time
> > > pilot (flaps, etc). *20K would be better but right now that is outside
> > > by budget.
>
> > > I admit, reading the entire issue of the last soaring issue dedicated
> > > to the 1-26 did lead me down this path. *My wife read it also and
> > > started asking me questions about the 1-26.
>
> > > So, before I start looking for a 1-26 is there any reason I should
> > > not? *My plan would be to fly the 1-26 for about 5 years and then find
> > > something more modern when funds allow and I've gained more
> > > experience.
>
> > > Opinions? *If prefer to stay out of the debate you can always email me
> > > privately.
>
> > > Thanks
> > > -tom
>
> > The 1-26 was designed for people like you. *They are a little
> > expensive for the performance but come with a great support network
> > and a great community. *Don't worry, after reading the last issue of
> > Soaring I wanted to buy a 1-26 too. *My ever practical wife starts
> > asking me if that would be a step up from the Cherokee II (same
> > performance) and why I would spend a bunch of money to have a glider
> > that is no better than the one I already have. *Only answer I could
> > muster was so that I could fly the 1-26 contest! *I still don't think
> > she is convinced...
>
> > Summary: A great choice in my opinion for a first glider.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Tony,
>
> Don't discount flying in a 1-26 contest yet, They have been known to
> let simliar performance gliders fly with them as Guests. I think you
> would have a lot of fun flying with them, probably learn a lot as
> well.
>
> Brian
> Formerly owned and rebuilt #294
> Now wwn an HP16T.
> CFIIG/ASEL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

True, but it just wouldn't be the same if I didn't have a 1-26. I'd
have to stay out of the traditional massive start thermal picture and
stuff :) I have no doubt at all that I would have a lot of fun.

[Randy[_2_]]

Hello Tom,
The 1-26 is a good glider, but do you live in an area that can
provide enough lift to fly this glider? If you were in the eastern
Oklahoma area, I would say, don't get one. You will never
leave the airport area or if you do get away, there is a very
good chance that you will never return. If you can fly where
there is good lift, ridge, wave or thermal, then get a 1-26.
Have you flown a 1-26? If not, go sit in one for a couple hours
and see how you fit.

Where is your flying field and are there other 1-26 flying there?

I would recommend that you find a partner or two to get a
better glider. Whatever you get, make sure that it comes with
a good trailer so that it will be easier for for your ground crew
can retrieve you from your landouts.

Randy

[Alistair Wright]

> I would recommend that you find a partner or two to get a
> better glider. Whatever you get, make sure that it comes with
> a good trailer so that it will be easier for for your ground crew
> can retrieve you from your landouts.
>
> Randy

This is VERY GOOD advice. Start in a small syndicate. That way you share the
costs round. Better ship, better clocks, better chute etc. ALSO you have a
bunch of guys who have a vested interest in retrieving you, which you may
need in your early cross country days! I had shares in two gliders
consecutively (Olympia 2b and Olympia 463) and it worked out pretty well. We
had a kind of rota for who got first go every weekend and we got along just
fine. Did my Silver height and 5 hrs in them. and then moved on to somethng
a bit more slippy for the distance.

Alistair
long retired instructor

[[email protected]]

On Nov 12, 9:36*am, tstock > wrote:
> I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum... but for a
> first glider, low time pilot, it seems like a 1-26 would be a good
> choice. *Easy to fly, easy to land in tight spaces, cheap to maintain,
> and very common and there are a few 1-26 groups, so help is
> available. *It's inexpensive (well under $10,000 USD, more like $6K).
> I happen to like "old" stuff, like VW busses, etc, so the vintage
> aspect of the 1-26 appeals to me. *Also, I like the idea of starting
> "at the beginning", maybe that's just me.
>
> Of course, there is the option to buy an early fiberglass glider for
> around 10K, but at that price it's likely a fairly uncommon glider,
> hard to find parts for, and maybe not a good plane for a low time
> pilot (flaps, etc). *20K would be better but right now that is outside
> by budget.
>
> I admit, reading the entire issue of the last soaring issue dedicated
> to the 1-26 did lead me down this path. *My wife read it also and
> started asking me questions about the 1-26.
>
> So, before I start looking for a 1-26 is there any reason I should
> not? *My plan would be to fly the 1-26 for about 5 years and then find
> something more modern when funds allow and I've gained more
> experience.
>
> Opinions? *If prefer to stay out of the debate you can always email me
> privately.
>
> Thanks
> -tom

Excellent first glider. Fun , inexpensive, safe,forgiving of mistakes,
easy to repair, and likely to hold value.
Fly for a few years, then move on after you gain experience- or keep
it.
We have 3 in our familiy and one in the barn as a project.
Don't let the performance snobs twist your brain.
UH

[AGL]

On Nov 12, 9:36*am, tstock > wrote:
> I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum...

SNIP

We have a few 1-26's at our club and often can’t fly them because it's
too windy. Our club rule is to never fly a 1-26 downwind. From time
to time someone vows to try landing one backwards against a headwind.
As well, our cloudbase is usually low so a 1-26 doesn’t have a good
enough L/D to get you to the next thermal.

If there was usually less than 5 knots of wind and a decent cloudbase
they would be a lot of fun.

agl

[Tony[_5_]]

On Nov 12, 2:48*pm, AGL > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 9:36*am, tstock > wrote:
>
> > I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum...
>
> SNIP
>
> We have a few 1-26's at our club and often can’t fly them because it's
> too windy. Our club rule is to never fly a 1-26 downwind. * From time
> to time someone vows to try landing one backwards against a headwind.
> As well, our cloudbase is usually low so a 1-26 doesn’t have a good
> enough L/D to get you to the next thermal.
>
> If there was usually less than 5 knots of wind and a decent cloudbase
> they would be a lot of fun.
>
> agl

get the trailer set up. if you are spending all your effort trying to
stay upwind in a 1-26 I can see why you don't like. Little known
secret of low performance soaring: All the FUN is downwind of the
airport.

[vontresc]

On Nov 12, 2:59*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2:48*pm, AGL > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 9:36*am, tstock > wrote:
>
> > > I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum...
>
> > SNIP
>
> > We have a few 1-26's at our club and often can’t fly them because it's
> > too windy. Our club rule is to never fly a 1-26 downwind. * From time
> > to time someone vows to try landing one backwards against a headwind.
> > As well, our cloudbase is usually low so a 1-26 doesn’t have a good
> > enough L/D to get you to the next thermal.
>
> > If there was usually less than 5 knots of wind and a decent cloudbase
> > they would be a lot of fun.
>
> > agl
>
> get the trailer set up. if you are spending all your effort trying to
> stay upwind in a 1-26 I can see why you don't like. *Little known
> secret of low performance soaring: All the FUN is downwind of the
> airport.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Don't discount "old wood" I am having a ball with my Ka-6, and they do
come up for sale on a regular basis. $6000 should buy you a pretty
nice Ka-6, and while it isn't a lead sled it will go upwind. On the
plus side it's still a floater, so if you live in the midwest it's
hard to beat. Remember the Ka-6 was the hot standard class ship in the
late 50's and early 60's.

Pete

Ka-6Cr

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:42:00 -0800, vontresc wrote:

> Don't discount "old wood" I am having a ball with my Ka-6, and they do
> come up for sale on a regular basis. $6000 should buy you a pretty nice
> Ka-6, and while it isn't a lead sled it will go upwind. On the plus side
> it's still a floater, so if you live in the midwest it's hard to beat.
> Remember the Ka-6 was the hot standard class ship in the late 50's and
> early 60's.
>
I've never heard anybody say bad things about the Ka-6.

One of our guys has a very nice one with a few decent toys on the panel.
It has an excellent trailer too, not that he lands out often. He's had it
for 12 years and done several 300s in it, almost always off the winch.
Thats in UK conditions - moderate breeze, cloud base 4000-5000ft or
6000ft if you're lucky and thermals in the 3 - 5 kt band.

Its on my list of gliders I'd like to fly some time.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[kirk.stant]

Two words: Open Cockpit!

Get one with a sports canopy and really enjoy that "retro" feel.

Seriously, to me that is the best way to enjoy the 1-26 (although it
can get expensive in lost ballcaps...).

Kirk
66

[Tim Taylor]

On Nov 12, 7:36*am, tstock > wrote:
> I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum... but for a
> first glider, low time pilot, it seems like a 1-26 would be a good
> choice. *Easy to fly, easy to land in tight spaces, cheap to maintain,
> and very common and there are a few 1-26 groups, so help is
> available. *It's inexpensive (well under $10,000 USD, more like $6K).
> I happen to like "old" stuff, like VW busses, etc, so the vintage
> aspect of the 1-26 appeals to me. *Also, I like the idea of starting
> "at the beginning", maybe that's just me.
>
> Of course, there is the option to buy an early fiberglass glider for
> around 10K, but at that price it's likely a fairly uncommon glider,
> hard to find parts for, and maybe not a good plane for a low time
> pilot (flaps, etc). *20K would be better but right now that is outside
> by budget.
>
> I admit, reading the entire issue of the last soaring issue dedicated
> to the 1-26 did lead me down this path. *My wife read it also and
> started asking me questions about the 1-26.
>
> So, before I start looking for a 1-26 is there any reason I should
> not? *My plan would be to fly the 1-26 for about 5 years and then find
> something more modern when funds allow and I've gained more
> experience.
>
> Opinions? *If prefer to stay out of the debate you can always email me
> privately.
>
> Thanks
> -tom

The only thing I will mention is to consider where you are located and
the flying conditions. In some areas the thermals are close enough
spaced that a 1-26 is just fine, other you will be very limited on
where you can fly.

In Northern Utah a 1-26 would not be very useful. The thermals are
often too far apart to jump the gaps between valleys and on ridge days
the lack of l/d especially at higher speeds and penetration would
leave you stuck at home when everyone else is gone.

As always the suggestion of partners in a good glass ship is worth
looking into. For 18 to 20K you can have a much higher performance
ship with two partners. It is a good way to start flying and provides
a built in crew system.

[tstock]

Wow, I posted this, went out and ran some errands, came back and I see
19 replies already! I knew it would be some great reading!

I should have mentioned, I am on the east coast of the US, central
Florida (ie: no ridges). So far wind is usually under 10 knots, and
bases at around 4,000 - 6,000 MSL. Well, in the summer anyway.

So far, the 1-26, Ka6, and 1-34 or 1-35. Interestingly these are the
planes I have been seeing often in the classifieds within my price
range, the 1-26 and Ka6 being the most affordable.

How would you compare the assembly/disassembly among the four?

Not interested in having a partner just yet, so that is not an option.

Thanks!
Tom

[Brian[_1_]]

On Nov 12, 1:59*pm, Tony > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2:48*pm, AGL > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 9:36*am, tstock > wrote:
>
> > > I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum...
>
> > SNIP
>
> > We have a few 1-26's at our club and often can’t fly them because it's
> > too windy. Our club rule is to never fly a 1-26 downwind. * From time
> > to time someone vows to try landing one backwards against a headwind.
> > As well, our cloudbase is usually low so a 1-26 doesn’t have a good
> > enough L/D to get you to the next thermal.
>
> > If there was usually less than 5 knots of wind and a decent cloudbase
> > they would be a lot of fun.
>
> > agl
>
> get the trailer set up. if you are spending all your effort trying to
> stay upwind in a 1-26 I can see why you don't like. *Little known
> secret of low performance soaring: All the FUN is downwind of the
> airport.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I will second the good trailer idea. I could assembly my 1-26 almost
as fast as the local glass ships (15-20 minutes)
The tail stayed assembled on the open trailer so no assembly there, so
just attach the wings hook up the ailerons and spoilers, tighten the
wing pins attach and tape the turtle deck and I was ready to fly.

One consideration is what do your other local area pilots fly, If you
have at least one other 1-26 or simliar performance airplane the fun
level of the 1-26 can increase exponationally as you can fly together,
if every one is flying 35+:1 gliders then you will probably quickly
tire if being left behind or landing on days when everyone else is
still flying.

Brian

[AGL]

On Nov 12, 6:13*pm, tstock > wrote:
> Wow, I posted this, went out and ran some errands, came back and I see
> 19 replies already! *I knew it would be some great reading!
>
> I should have mentioned, I am on the east coast of the US, central
> Florida (ie: no ridges). *So far wind is usually under 10 knots, and
> bases at around 4,000 - 6,000 MSL. *Well, in the summer anyway.
>
> So far, the 1-26, Ka6, and 1-34 or 1-35. *Interestingly these are the
> planes I have been seeing often in the classifieds within my price
> range, the 1-26 and Ka6 being the most affordable.
>
> How would you compare the assembly/disassembly among the four?
>
> Not interested in having a partner just yet, so that is not an option.
>
> Thanks!
> Tom

I have a 1-35 and the trailer next to me is a Discus "C." If we help
one another with wings we're done in the same amount of time. He has
to add the 18m tips. I have to connect the ailerons and tape the
turtledeck so it's a wash.

What about a 1-23? Everyone likes those.

agl

[Wayne Paul]

"AGL" > wrote in message ...
On Nov 12, 6:13 pm, tstock > wrote:


> I have a 1-35 and the trailer next to me is a Discus "C." If we help
> one another with wings we're done in the same amount of time. He has
> to add the 18m tips. I have to connect the ailerons and tape the
> turtledeck so it's a wash.
>
> What about a 1-23? Everyone likes those.
>
> agl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweizer_SGS_1-23

It is the sailplane that Paul Bikle flew when setting the world altitude gain record in 1961.

[Tim Mara]

got a hangar? hard to beat a K6 for the $
tim

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
m...

"AGL" > wrote in message
...
On Nov 12, 6:13 pm, tstock > wrote:


> I have a 1-35 and the trailer next to me is a Discus "C." If we help
> one another with wings we're done in the same amount of time. He has
> to add the 18m tips. I have to connect the ailerons and tape the
> turtledeck so it's a wash.
>
> What about a 1-23? Everyone likes those.
>
> agl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schweizer_SGS_1-23

It is the sailplane that Paul Bikle flew when setting the world altitude
gain record in 1961.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 12, 5:55*pm, AGL > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 6:13*pm, tstock > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wow, I posted this, went out and ran some errands, came back and I see
> > 19 replies already! *I knew it would be some great reading!
>
> > I should have mentioned, I am on the east coast of the US, central
> > Florida (ie: no ridges). *So far wind is usually under 10 knots, and
> > bases at around 4,000 - 6,000 MSL. *Well, in the summer anyway.
>
> > So far, the 1-26, Ka6, and 1-34 or 1-35. *Interestingly these are the
> > planes I have been seeing often in the classifieds within my price
> > range, the 1-26 and Ka6 being the most affordable.
>
> > How would you compare the assembly/disassembly among the four?
>
> > Not interested in having a partner just yet, so that is not an option.
>
> > Thanks!
> > Tom
>
> I have a 1-35 and the trailer next to me is a Discus "C." *If we help
> one another with wings we're done in the same amount of time. *He has
> to add the 18m tips. *I have to connect the ailerons and tape the
> turtledeck so it's a wash.
>
> What about a 1-23? *Everyone likes those.
>
> agl

Oh Yes! the 1-23 is also a good choice, better performance than the
26 and just as crashworthy. But, they are gonna cost more like 10K.
The 34 is a great machine too. Though flaps aren't a big deal you may
find yourself spending an entire season getting confident with
landings in a 35 when you could be flying cross country. We have 2 of
those at my home club and they never go anywhere. For my money it's
hard to beat the K6. The performance is sweet and the handling is
legendary. I know one that recently sold for $4500 to a new glider
pilot who started flying it cross country his first season. You can
buy a LOT of tows with the money saved.

[[email protected]]

And you don't need a hanger. Keep it in the trailer and rig every
time you fly. That way, when it's a killer day you will GO and when
it's sketchy getting home you wont be worried about landing out
because you KNOW the trailer is ready to go and you KNOW how to put
the glider in the trailer in 20 minutes with 1 other person helping.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Nov 12, 9:41*pm, wrote:
>
> Oh Yes! *the 1-23 is also a good choice, better performance than the
> 26 and just as crashworthy. *But, they are gonna cost more like 10K.
> The 34 is a great machine too. Though flaps aren't a big deal you may
> find yourself spending an entire season getting confident with
> landings in a 35 when you could be flying cross country. *We have 2 of
> those at my home club and they never go anywhere. *For my money it's
> hard to beat the K6. *The performance is sweet and the handling is
> legendary. *I know one that recently sold for $4500 to a new glider
> pilot who started flying it cross country his first season. *You can
> buy a LOT of tows with the money saved.- Hide quoted text -
>
For performance, I would take the 1-23. But I think the 1-23 may be a
bit easier to put together. The 1-23 uses taper pins to attach the
wings. The 1-26 uses straight bolts. The taper pins take a bit more
time and "finesse" to install and certainly to remove. But, I like
performance, and if you are thinking of tieing the plane out, I would
consider the higher performance and the little higher cost. The 1-23
is all metal, and the 1-26 has (at the very least) fabric covered
control surfaces. And there is a 1-36 in your neck of the woods.
But, it is above the price range you mentioned.

On the Ka-6 discussion, they are great! Ka-8s are a blast, too. But,
they are fabric and need to be kept out of the weather. Either in an
enclosed trailer, or in a hangar. Not that big a deal. The Ka-8 has
taper pins, and the Ka-6 has straight pins. Again, my preference is
for gliding performance and the Ka-6. It is also just a touch easier
to assemble.

One other not yet discussed is the Std Austria. Wood, fabric,
fiberglass forward fuselage. And there is one for under $6K right
now, with an enclosed metal trailer. They are probably the most
performance you will get in a Woodie. They are not light, but not
difficult to assemble if you understand what you are doing.

Then, there are the homebuilts. Some are great, others not so good.
If you poke around, you could probably find a Woodstock for under $4k,
and there are Dusters in the 1-26 price range. There is the Miller
Tern and the Cherokee II and Cherokee RM (different wing on a
Cherokee).

I think you will have a blast with what ever you buy. As Hank said,
1-26s can be great fun. As others have said, do your best to get or
make your trailer as user friendly as you possibly can. There is
nothing worse than a trailer that makes you take an hour and a half to
do what you should be able to do in twenty minutes. Ka-6s are nice,
and I think, easier to assemble than a 1-26 (you have better access to
the control connections and drag spar connections). Probably the best
advice is to sit in, and preferably, get a chance to fly one before
you buy. And above all, remember this. You ar ebuying for you, not
for us out here in RAS Land. And advice you get on RAS is worth every
penny you didn't pay for it!

Steve Leonard
(never flown a 1-26 but have a Ka-6, Ka-8, and an Austria)

[[email protected]]

I think the best of the wood homebuilts is the Woodstock. It was the
last of the breed pretty much and benefits from the earlier designs.
But, it doesn't carry a big pilot. One just sold for $1500 with
enclosed trailer and out of annual. They fly like a dream and perform
better than the 126. Super easy to rig too. You'll never get your
money out of an old homebuilt but you don't have to put much in to
begin with so... Dusters are fine, Terns have puny airbrakes, BG12s
are flaps only, Chrokees aren't available because some chucklehead in
Kansas has cornered the market...

[Tony[_5_]]

>Cherokees aren't available because some chucklehead in
> Kansas has cornered the market...

Hey, you all had your chance...

[Scott Lamont]

On 12 Nov, 23:20, Steve Leonard > wrote:
> On Nov 12, 9:41*pm, wrote:

" For performance, I would take the 1-23. *But I think the 1-23 may be
a
> bit easier to put together. *The 1-23 uses taper pins to attach the
> wings. *The 1-26 uses straight bolts. "

The 1-23 pretty much needs three people to get the wings on and off
(it takes two people on the root due to its width), and getting the
wings on and off a typical Schweizer open trailer is no fun without a
strong crew. I keep mine assembled all season (and only "land-out" at
airports!).

[vontresc]

On Nov 13, 8:52*am, Scott Lamont > wrote:
> On 12 Nov, 23:20, Steve Leonard > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 9:41*pm, wrote:
>
> " For performance, I would take the 1-23. *But I think the 1-23 may be
> a
>
> > bit easier to put together. *The 1-23 uses taper pins to attach the
> > wings. *The 1-26 uses straight bolts. "
>
> The 1-23 pretty much needs three people to get the wings on and off
> (it takes two people on the root due to its width), and getting the
> wings on and off a typical Schweizer open trailer is no fun without a
> strong crew. I keep mine assembled all season (and only "land-out" at
> airports!).

Steve's advice is very good. I store my Ka-6 in its covered trailer,
and assemble every time I fly.Putting on the wings is best done with
three people (two at the root, one at the tip). I can be done with
twobut it is much more difficult to line up the lift pin fittings
without someone on the trailing edge. Now that I know what I'm doing I
really only need about 5 minutes of help when putting on the wing.
Wing pins are all straight pins, and the control hookups are very
easily accessible.

Pete

[chipsoars]

On Nov 13, 10:27*am, vontresc > wrote:
> On Nov 13, 8:52*am, Scott Lamont > wrote:
>
> > On 12 Nov, 23:20, Steve Leonard > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 9:41*pm, wrote:
>
> > " For performance, I would take the 1-23. *But I think the 1-23 may be
> > a
>
> > > bit easier to put together. *The 1-23 uses taper pins to attach the
> > > wings. *The 1-26 uses straight bolts. "
>
> > The 1-23 pretty much needs three people to get the wings on and off
> > (it takes two people on the root due to its width), and getting the
> > wings on and off a typical Schweizer open trailer is no fun without a
> > strong crew. I keep mine assembled all season (and only "land-out" at
> > airports!).
>
> Steve's advice is very good. I store my Ka-6 in its covered trailer,
> and assemble every time I fly.Putting on the wings is best done with
> three people (two at the root, one at the tip). I can be done with
> twobut it is much more difficult to line up the lift pin fittings
> without someone on the trailing edge. Now that I know what I'm doing I
> really only need about 5 minutes of help when putting on the wing.
> Wing pins are all straight pins, and the control hookups are very
> easily accessible.
>
> Pete

I'm part owner of a 27b and am trying to figure out a way to buy a 26
to play with. Yes, the Inquisition helped design the seating and
don't penetrate, but they are great fun.

Chip F.

[jsbrake]

The 1-26 is light, responsive and fun to fly. I'm a bit biased
against it because I'm big and don't fit very well (1/4" foam as a
cushion against the metal floor and I still hit the canopy!). Upright
seating, rather noisy. Trim mechanism may be wonky in some. (I'll
grant that I've only flown 2 at my club, private ships are probably
maintained to suit the owner).

But the 1-26 FLOATS! It'll stay up when everyone else comes down.
Slow thermalling speed, tight turns, it'll outclimb pretty much
anything except the turkey vultures. You lose in the penetration,
though... heading upwind is a recipe for disaster, as the polar drops
off quickly. Downwind dashes can be fun, but there's work at the end
of the flight to bring it home.

The 1-26 does teach some "bad habits", though:
1) You'll never meet a thermal you don't like
2) You'll avoid going upwind
3) You won't fly when it's gets windy, because you won't get back to
your airport

The 1-23 gives much better performance without too much of a price
increase. The higher number models of New York Iron give even more
performance, but more cost.

The 1-26 association gives lots of support and events and has a very
loyal following.

Pick your ship based on what you want to do and how much money you can
afford... then go out and ENJOY it!

[howdy]

On Nov 12, 10:48*am, hretting > wrote:
> On the other end of the scale.....if your plan is to eventually move
> up the performance ladder....avoid the 1-26. The 1-26 is a specific
> loved glider that borders on thumb screws and bamboo torture. If
> you're the type of guy that has been driving the same VW since college
> and loves how that old electric saw still works even though it sparks
> enough to weld, then ya...the 1-26 is for you.
> A tough find if you're patience would be the 1-34. It will cost you
> double but give you more joy. You can park it outside like the 26 and
> after you put a 1000 hours on it, get all your money back.
> The 1-26 is a learning utility glider that comes with a group of
> radicals that...and this is where they excel....are much friendlier
> and easy going and like landings as much as the tows.
> You will never see the boundaries of soaring from a 1-26. The key to
> that will always be L/D.
> I burned my Nov. edition. Had a Cuba Libre with it. Bacardi..Black
> R

I know of three former, including two recent World Team members that
were former 1-26 drivers. I know that when they talk of their flights
and experiences in the 1-26, they do it with a smiles, laughs and a
continuing bond to both the bird and the community of pilots (read
personalities) who fly them. One of these three even won the
Barringer Trophy for the longest unhandicapped straight out flight in
a calendar year, just like your great winning flight in the Discus 2
last year. So R, I must disagree. It's a great teaching machine for
those who want to learn a lot about thermals, persistence, landouts in
small fields and humility, all while providing the satisfaction of
accomplishment in low performance, through badges, records and contest
showings. Yep, contest showings. 1-26s have placed high in Regionals
too.

You can always move to glass but I would encourage anyone to fly the
1-26 for a while too. Then you can look back someday with smiles,
laughs and experience, as we do. Or, you can keep it and build on
your accomplishments like Ron Schwartz and many others.

7K

[hretting]

Well 7K....he lives along the east coast of central Fl. where I flew a
club 1-26 for years struggling to make it back to the airport through
the marine air, or not being able to reach the soarable conditions
while others were having a ball. I suppose he could ridge soar on the
300' high garbage dump along I-95.
My advice remains..... the 1-26 was created as a utilty glider to give
minimal results. They made a bunch of them. Sugar coating it to create
some soaring holiday is bad advice to Jim.
And finally, every world champion and Barringer Trophy winner started
off in crap, then they soloed, and then......
The 1-26 CAN be fun, when owned by a club or someone else. I sense Jim
is hungry for something better. The VW is rusty.
R

[tstock]

On Nov 13, 2:33*pm, hretting > wrote:
> Well 7K....he lives along the east coast of central Fl. where I flew a
> club 1-26 for years struggling to make it back to the airport through
> the marine air, or not being able to reach the soarable conditions
> while others were having a ball. I suppose he could ridge soar on the

I meant east coast if the USA (west central FL). But I'm not sure it
makes much difference :)


-tom

[soarpilot]

On Nov 12, 9:36*am, tstock > wrote:
> I know I will get replies on each end of the spectrum... but for a
> first glider, low time pilot, it seems like a 1-26 would be a good
> choice. *Easy to fly, easy to land in tight spaces, cheap to maintain,
> and very common and there are a few 1-26 groups, so help is
> available. *It's inexpensive (well under $10,000 USD, more like $6K).
> I happen to like "old" stuff, like VW busses, etc, so the vintage
> aspect of the 1-26 appeals to me. *Also, I like the idea of starting
> "at the beginning", maybe that's just me.
>
> Of course, there is the option to buy an early fiberglass glider for
> around 10K, but at that price it's likely a fairly uncommon glider,
> hard to find parts for, and maybe not a good plane for a low time
> pilot (flaps, etc). *20K would be better but right now that is outside
> by budget.
>
> I admit, reading the entire issue of the last soaring issue dedicated
> to the 1-26 did lead me down this path. *My wife read it also and
> started asking me questions about the 1-26.
>
> So, before I start looking for a 1-26 is there any reason I should
> not? *My plan would be to fly the 1-26 for about 5 years and then find
> something more modern when funds allow and I've gained more
> experience.
>
> Opinions? *If prefer to stay out of the debate you can always email me
> privately.
>
> Thanks
> -tom

Grob 102 would be an excellent venue in my opinion. It has a decent
LD and you can find them on the British market for around 8k USD with
about 2.5k USD for shipping costs. Just play it safe and get one that
has had the wing spiggot AD completed. Drop me a line if you want to
know more concerning this AD. I imported one last year with trailer
for a fantastic final price with trailer, wing AD done, less than 1700
hours on it. There are a couple on market now for close to that same
price.

I bought a wooden first sailplane for economy sake .. it was a
gorgeous vintage Scheibe with open trailer. It flew well but what a
pain with that trailer and the cumbersome rigging. Now mind you many
will say "but the 102 is a beast to rig", etc .. I can only say it is
no more a beast if you learn to rig it than any other typical glass.
It IS competitive in sports class (can be at least) and it thermals
very, very well. The wings aren't THAT cumbersome nor heavy and it
flies like a dream ... a proven, high production, safe ship for a
first rig. Not to mention a huge cockpit for comfort.

If you really want the 1-26 then get it. They are great machines in
their own right but are obvioulsy more limited in cross country
flying. But before you do, I hope you look at the real benefits of a
higher performance ship. If you have cross country aspirations, the
23/1 will get old quick I would wager, maybe not.

Best,
T2 (Grob Astir CS)