DG-300 or LS-3?

[noel.wade]

Hello all - I've got a question for the competition pilots out there:

Imagine you're a budding competition pilot with about 300 hours in
your logbook. You've done a couple of Sports-class competitions and
find them highly enjoyable. You begin to make plans to buy a partial
share in a high-end machine in 2010/2011; but then have to change
gears financially and keep costs in check.

Now imagine you've standing in front of two aircraft:
1) A near-mint-condition DG-300 (with auto-hookups, great
instrumentation, and DG's ergonomics and visibility). The ship has
spent its life in the desert southwest of the USA.

2) A recently-refinished LS-3 (_not_ an "a" model) with good equipment
- but an airframe that's a full 10 years older than the DG. The ship
has spent its life on the East coast of the USA. Assume that it is
only $3000 cheaper than the DG-300.

According to some old Idaflieg data, the LS-3 is significantly better
above 60 knots while the DG-300 has a noticeable climb-rate advantage
at slower speeds. Not sure how accurate the Idaflieg data is, though.

What would _you_ consider to be the better ship to own? If you owned
one of them, would you sell it to get the other?

Thanks for the assistance,

--Noel

[Andy[_1_]]

On Apr 23, 12:54*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hello all - I've got a question for the competition pilots out there:

My opinion - spend your time/money on getting more contest
experience. The glider won't make any difference, unless for some
reason you really don't like the DG.

Andy

[Mike the Strike]

On Apr 23, 12:54*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hello all - I've got a question for the competition pilots out there:
>
> Imagine you're a budding competition pilot with about 300 hours in
> your logbook. *You've done a couple of Sports-class competitions and
> find them highly enjoyable. *You begin to make plans to buy a partial
> share in a high-end machine in 2010/2011; but then have to change
> gears financially and keep costs in check.
>
> Now imagine you've standing in front of two aircraft:
> 1) A near-mint-condition DG-300 (with auto-hookups, great
> instrumentation, and DG's ergonomics and visibility). *The ship has
> spent its life in the desert southwest of the USA.
>
> 2) A recently-refinished LS-3 (_not_ an "a" model) with good equipment
> - but an airframe that's a full 10 years older than the DG. *The ship
> has spent its life on the East coast of the USA. *Assume that it is
> only $3000 cheaper than the DG-300.
>
> According to some old Idaflieg data, the LS-3 is significantly better
> above 60 knots while the DG-300 has a noticeable climb-rate advantage
> at slower speeds. *Not sure how accurate the Idaflieg data is, though.
>
> What would _you_ consider to be the better ship to own? *If you owned
> one of them, would you sell it to get the other?
>
> Thanks for the assistance,
>
> --Noel

Actual cross-country performance of the two ships won't be much
different - pilot skills will easily outweigh any difference in
aerodynamic performance. I used to have an ASW-20 and flew regularly
with a friend who had a DG-303 and the performance differences
weren't large enough to be noticeable.

I would base your decision on other factors, such as auto-hookups,
whether you want a flapped ship, instruments, trailer and maintenance.

In choosing my latest ship, I gave a higher weight to automatic
hookups and a nice trailer than pure performance. Choose according to
your own preferences.

Mike

[glider[_2_]]

*Choose according to
> your own preferences.
>
>Some day you will want to sell it.. Which will sell more easily? That's important. Good trailer can make a big difference too. You can't beat a factory trailer with good fittings.
A good refinish is very, very expensive.
If damaged and repaired ,was it done by someone that knows repairs?
GA

[AK]

On Apr 23, 3:54*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hello all - I've got a question for the competition pilots out there:
>
> Imagine you're a budding competition pilot with about 300 hours in
> your logbook. *You've done a couple of Sports-class competitions and
> find them highly enjoyable. *You begin to make plans to buy a partial
> share in a high-end machine in 2010/2011; but then have to change
> gears financially and keep costs in check.
>
> Now imagine you've standing in front of two aircraft:
> 1) A near-mint-condition DG-300 (with auto-hookups, great
> instrumentation, and DG's ergonomics and visibility). *The ship has
> spent its life in the desert southwest of the USA.
>
> 2) A recently-refinished LS-3 (_not_ an "a" model) with good equipment
> - but an airframe that's a full 10 years older than the DG. *The ship
> has spent its life on the East coast of the USA. *Assume that it is
> only $3000 cheaper than the DG-300.
>
> According to some old Idaflieg data, the LS-3 is significantly better
> above 60 knots while the DG-300 has a noticeable climb-rate advantage
> at slower speeds. *Not sure how accurate the Idaflieg data is, though.
>
> What would _you_ consider to be the better ship to own? *If you owned
> one of them, would you sell it to get the other?
>
> Thanks for the assistance,
>
> --Noel

If you are talking about Andy's LS-3 than I can tell you his glider
climbs really well. I used to fly a very good climber SZD-55-1 and I
climbed with Andy in the same thermal a few times. I was surprised how
well he climbed. It is also an excellent runner. I would choose the
LS-3 if performance was what I were after. Plus paint finish is ever
lasting.

[AK]

On Apr 23, 3:54*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hello all - I've got a question for the competition pilots out there:
>
> Imagine you're a budding competition pilot with about 300 hours in
> your logbook. *You've done a couple of Sports-class competitions and
> find them highly enjoyable. *You begin to make plans to buy a partial
> share in a high-end machine in 2010/2011; but then have to change
> gears financially and keep costs in check.
>
> Now imagine you've standing in front of two aircraft:
> 1) A near-mint-condition DG-300 (with auto-hookups, great
> instrumentation, and DG's ergonomics and visibility). *The ship has
> spent its life in the desert southwest of the USA.
>
> 2) A recently-refinished LS-3 (_not_ an "a" model) with good equipment
> - but an airframe that's a full 10 years older than the DG. *The ship
> has spent its life on the East coast of the USA. *Assume that it is
> only $3000 cheaper than the DG-300.
>
> According to some old Idaflieg data, the LS-3 is significantly better
> above 60 knots while the DG-300 has a noticeable climb-rate advantage
> at slower speeds. *Not sure how accurate the Idaflieg data is, though.
>
> What would _you_ consider to be the better ship to own? *If you owned
> one of them, would you sell it to get the other?
>
> Thanks for the assistance,
>
> --Noel

If you are talking about Andy's LS-3 then I can tell you his glider
climbs really well. I used to fly a very good climber SZD-55-1 and I
climbed with Andy in the same thermal a few times. I was surprised
how
well he climbed. It is also an excellent runner. I would choose the
LS-3 if performance was what I were after. Plus paint finish is ever
lasting.

[Peter Smith[_2_]]

On Apr 23, 3:54*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hello all - I've got a question for the competition pilots out there:
>
> Imagine you're a budding competition pilot with about 300 hours in
> your logbook. *You've done a couple of Sports-class competitions and
> find them highly enjoyable. *You begin to make plans to buy a partial
> share in a high-end machine in 2010/2011; but then have to change
> gears financially and keep costs in check.
>
> Now imagine you've standing in front of two aircraft:
> 1) A near-mint-condition DG-300 (with auto-hookups, great
> instrumentation, and DG's ergonomics and visibility). *The ship has
> spent its life in the desert southwest of the USA.
>
> 2) A recently-refinished LS-3 (_not_ an "a" model) with good equipment
> - but an airframe that's a full 10 years older than the DG. *The ship
> has spent its life on the East coast of the USA. *Assume that it is
> only $3000 cheaper than the DG-300.
>
> According to some old Idaflieg data, the LS-3 is significantly better
> above 60 knots while the DG-300 has a noticeable climb-rate advantage
> at slower speeds. *Not sure how accurate the Idaflieg data is, though.
>
> What would _you_ consider to be the better ship to own? *If you owned
> one of them, would you sell it to get the other?
>
> Thanks for the assistance,
>
> --Noel

If you opt for the LS-3, you'll want to add the cost of a Wing Rigger
to the price. Those wings are really heavy.

[Greg Arnold[_3_]]

On 4/23/2010 2:36 PM, AK wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:54 pm, > wrote:
>> Hello all - I've got a question for the competition pilots out there:
>>
>> Imagine you're a budding competition pilot with about 300 hours in
>> your logbook. You've done a couple of Sports-class competitions and
>> find them highly enjoyable. You begin to make plans to buy a partial
>> share in a high-end machine in 2010/2011; but then have to change
>> gears financially and keep costs in check.
>>
>> Now imagine you've standing in front of two aircraft:
>> 1) A near-mint-condition DG-300 (with auto-hookups, great
>> instrumentation, and DG's ergonomics and visibility). The ship has
>> spent its life in the desert southwest of the USA.
>>
>> 2) A recently-refinished LS-3 (_not_ an "a" model) with good equipment
>> - but an airframe that's a full 10 years older than the DG. The ship
>> has spent its life on the East coast of the USA. Assume that it is
>> only $3000 cheaper than the DG-300.
>>
>> According to some old Idaflieg data, the LS-3 is significantly better
>> above 60 knots while the DG-300 has a noticeable climb-rate advantage
>> at slower speeds. Not sure how accurate the Idaflieg data is, though.
>>
>> What would _you_ consider to be the better ship to own? If you owned
>> one of them, would you sell it to get the other?
>>
>> Thanks for the assistance,
>>
>> --Noel


Changing gliders is expensive. You lose money on the one you sell, then
you spend a fortune upgrading the one you just bought.

Keep the one you have, and spend the money on tows.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Apr 23, 12:54*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hello all - I've got a question for the competition pilots out there:
>
> Imagine you're a budding competition pilot with about 300 hours in
> your logbook. *You've done a couple of Sports-class competitions and
> find them highly enjoyable. *You begin to make plans to buy a partial
> share in a high-end machine in 2010/2011; but then have to change
> gears financially and keep costs in check.
>
> Now imagine you've standing in front of two aircraft:
> 1) A near-mint-condition DG-300 (with auto-hookups, great
> instrumentation, and DG's ergonomics and visibility). *The ship has
> spent its life in the desert southwest of the USA.
>
> 2) A recently-refinished LS-3 (_not_ an "a" model) with good equipment
> - but an airframe that's a full 10 years older than the DG. *The ship
> has spent its life on the East coast of the USA. *Assume that it is
> only $3000 cheaper than the DG-300.
>
> According to some old Idaflieg data, the LS-3 is significantly better
> above 60 knots while the DG-300 has a noticeable climb-rate advantage
> at slower speeds. *Not sure how accurate the Idaflieg data is, though.
>
> What would _you_ consider to be the better ship to own? *If you owned
> one of them, would you sell it to get the other?
>
> Thanks for the assistance,
>
> --Noel

Noel,

John Cochrane makes a good point in his paper "a little faster please"
I don't have it in front of me, but basically he say's the top pilots
will always finish in the top spots even if they flew 20 year old
sailplanes. So save yourself some money and implement the concepts
he's put forth.

Ron sure does well in that LS-3, but, he also did really well in his
LS-1. With the legs the LS-3 has over the LS-1 it is becoming obvious
to all of us that fly with him that indeed it is a big asset. I think
you might want to fly with him and see how the DG-300 compares to the
LS-3.

My 2-cents worth..............coming from a guy who flies a 13m
glider!

Brad

[noel.wade]

On Apr 23, 5:04*pm, Brad > wrote:

> My 2-cents worth..............coming from a guy who flies a 13m
> glider!

Yeah, but even your 13M ship has a flap handle... I want one of
those!! I feel so inadequate without one... ;-)

--Noel
P.S. I slacked off at work today and correlated data from Idaflieg and
various Johnson Reports. At 80 knots the DG-300 achieves a glide-
ratio of about 27:1. By comparison, the LS-3 can get 31:1. When
Moffat and Johnson and others wrote a lot of their reports back in the
1970's and 1980's, the idea of high wing-loadings for faster
competition flying was not yet in-vogue... so they didn't cover it
much. But in strong conditions (i.e. Ephrata or other competition
sites in the western USA), the benefits of a heavier flapped ship like
the LS-3 are pretty significant (on paper at least).

[Greg Arnold[_3_]]

On 4/23/2010 5:39 PM, noel.wade wrote:
> On Apr 23, 5:04 pm, > wrote:
>
>> My 2-cents worth..............coming from a guy who flies a 13m
>> glider!
>
> Yeah, but even your 13M ship has a flap handle... I want one of
> those!! I feel so inadequate without one... ;-)
>
> --Noel
> P.S. I slacked off at work today and correlated data from Idaflieg and
> various Johnson Reports. At 80 knots the DG-300 achieves a glide-
> ratio of about 27:1. By comparison, the LS-3 can get 31:1.


That is a difference of only 30' of altitude each mile.



When
> Moffat and Johnson and others wrote a lot of their reports back in the
> 1970's and 1980's, the idea of high wing-loadings for faster
> competition flying was not yet in-vogue... so they didn't cover it
> much. But in strong conditions (i.e. Ephrata or other competition
> sites in the western USA), the benefits of a heavier flapped ship like
> the LS-3 are pretty significant (on paper at least).
>

[noel.wade]

On Apr 23, 5:47*pm, Greg Arnold > wrote:
>
> That is a difference of only 30' of altitude each mile.
>

Greg -

Yes, it does seem like a paltry difference in altitude-per-mile.

But when you look at it in terms of competition flying, it equates to
a good 5 - 7 knots faster during inter-thermal cruising, for the same
sink-rate.

If you figure that 70% of a task is spent in cruise, that's a nice
advantage! Flying 85 knots versus 80 knots yields a 6% speed
difference in cruise. If you assume a similar climb rate (I know,
they may not be similar) and you assume that you spend 70% of your
flight in cruise, then the total performance advantage is 4%. But the
handicap difference between the DG-300 (0.95) and the LS-3 (0.937) is
only 1.4%

I know that the pilot matters more than the ship. I come from the
world of auto-racing and have experience in competition where bad
people think that fancy equipment will solve all of their
deficiencies. That's not the issue here... The issue for me is
whether its worth it to get the good ship *now* and have it for
several years, versus "practicing" with the DG-300 for a few years and
then moving over once I am "close" to winning...

--Noel

[rlovinggood]

Noel:

Screw the glider....

Get the one that has the better trailer!


Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

[Randy[_2_]]

If I were purchasing one of these two gliders, it would depend how
well I
fit in the cockpit, auto hook-ups, good trailer, instrumentation. If
you plan
to use your trailer a lot to store your glider after each flight and
to travel
to other good soaring locations, make sure you have a good trailer and
that all the equipment is in good shape. The LS3 wings are heavy and
a one-man-rigger should be considered.

Randy

http://talihinasoaring.com/

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Apr 23, 12:54*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:

> What would _you_ consider to be the better ship to own? *If you owned
> one of them, would you sell it to get the other?

Ondulation nonwithstanding, I'd go with the DG300. It's a newer
design, it has autoconnects, and I think that its cockpit has a bit
better crashworthiness than the LS3.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Myles" > wrote in message
...
I'm curious, too. Ondulation isn't in my OED.

It wasn't in your Original Equipment Delivered? ;-)

I'll be quiet, now! :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Dean[_2_]]

Noel,
First of all, I have owned a grand total of one glider(DG303) and
done one contest, so I may not be the greybeard you want to hear
from! If you are planning on flying in sports class, the DG300 has
the better handicap(at least for OLC, 106 vs. 108), so if you fly even
with an LS3 you will win the day.
The responses on the thread have indicated years of experience and
multiple glider ownership. My gut feeling, from observing pilots and
gliders on fun days and contest days, is that you and I would
probably have to move up to ASW27 or comparable to get to the next
level in performance. Just fly the heck out of your DG300 until then
and have fun. I really feel it comes down to experience and comfort
level in varying conditions and terrain rather than equipment unless
you are at the top level.
Is it possible that I got a letter from you when you were searching
for a DG300/303?
Good luck in your quest, and I echo some other posters here
regarding the auto hookup on the LS3 elevator. And I concur with you,
loved the LS4, almost bought one!

Dean "GO"

[jcarlyle]

Bob,

What's an "ondulation"? Is it just a mis-spelling of "undulation", or
is it some other kind of animal entirely?

-John

On Apr 24, 1:27 am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> Ondulation nonwithstanding, I'd go with the DG300. It's a newer
> design, it has autoconnects, and I think that its cockpit has a bit
> better crashworthiness than the LS3.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

[Myles]

I'm curious, too. Ondulation isn't in my OED.

Myles


On Apr 24, 2:28*pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Bob,
>
> What's an "ondulation"? Is it just a mis-spelling of "undulation", or
> is it some other kind of animal entirely?
>
> -John
>
> On Apr 24, 1:27 am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ondulation nonwithstanding, I'd go with the DG300. It's a newer
> > design, it has autoconnects, and I think that its cockpit has a bit
> > better crashworthiness than the LS3.
>
> > Thanks, Bob K.

[brianDG303[_2_]]

On Apr 24, 7:58*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Myles" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> I'm curious, too. *Ondulation isn't in my OED.
>
> It wasn't in your Original Equipment Delivered? *;-)
>
> I'll be quiet, now! *:-)
> --
> Jim in NC

Go to the DG web site:
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de
Select your favorite language, as long as it's English.
In the search box, enter 'Ondulation"
there you will find the special lift-enhancing feature that some
DG300's have.

Brian

[Eric Greenwell]

On 4/23/2010 6:10 PM, noel.wade wrote:
> On Apr 23, 5:47 pm, Greg > wrote:
>
>> That is a difference of only 30' of altitude each mile.
>>
>>
> Greg -
>
> Yes, it does seem like a paltry difference in altitude-per-mile.
>
> But when you look at it in terms of competition flying, it equates to
> a good 5 - 7 knots faster during inter-thermal cruising, for the same
> sink-rate.
>
> If you figure that 70% of a task is spent in cruise, that's a nice
> advantage! Flying 85 knots versus 80 knots yields a 6% speed
> difference in cruise. If you assume a similar climb rate (I know,
> they may not be similar) and you assume that you spend 70% of your
> flight in cruise, then the total performance advantage is 4%. But the
> handicap difference between the DG-300 (0.95) and the LS-3 (0.937) is
> only 1.4%
>
> I know that the pilot matters more than the ship. I come from the
> world of auto-racing and have experience in competition where bad
> people think that fancy equipment will solve all of their
> deficiencies. That's not the issue here... The issue for me is
> whether its worth it to get the good ship *now* and have it for
> several years, versus "practicing" with the DG-300 for a few years and
> then moving over once I am "close" to winning...
>

What contest class do you want to fly it in? Sports class: I suspect the
handicaps are closer to correct than you would think from your
calculations. 15 M: the newer gliders like the ASW 27 are much better
than the LS3. Standard class: you can't fly the LS3 in Standard.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)

- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl

- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[noel.wade]

Aaand it turns out to be a moot point. The LS-3 I had my eye on is
being sold for nearly $42k firm, no negotiation. Even though it's
been refinished and is a great ship, there's no way I'm paying that
kind of money for a 1970's airframe/design!

--Noel
(continuing as a DG-300 pilot for now)

[mike]

On Apr 24, 11:24*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Aaand it turns out to be a moot point. The LS-3 I had my eye on is
> being sold for nearly $42k firm, no negotiation. *Even though it's
> been refinished and is a great ship, there's no way I'm paying that
> kind of money for a 1970's airframe/design!
>
> --Noel
> (continuing as a DG-300 pilot for now)

Become a Master of the DG-300 Noel.

You have a great ship. It was in Moriarty for a while and I remember
it as an excellent sailplane.

[JAS]

On Apr 23, 8:54*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> Hello all - I've got a question for the competition pilots out there:
>
> Imagine you're a budding competition pilot with about 300 hours in
> your logbook. *You've done a couple of Sports-class competitions and
> find them highly enjoyable. *You begin to make plans to buy a partial
> share in a high-end machine in 2010/2011; but then have to change
> gears financially and keep costs in check.
>
> Now imagine you've standing in front of two aircraft:
> 1) A near-mint-condition DG-300 (with auto-hookups, great
> instrumentation, and DG's ergonomics and visibility). *The ship has
> spent its life in the desert southwest of the USA.
>
> 2) A recently-refinished LS-3 (_not_ an "a" model) with good equipment
> - but an airframe that's a full 10 years older than the DG. *The ship
> has spent its life on the East coast of the USA. *Assume that it is
> only $3000 cheaper than the DG-300.
>
> According to some old Idaflieg data, the LS-3 is significantly better
> above 60 knots while the DG-300 has a noticeable climb-rate advantage
> at slower speeds. *Not sure how accurate the Idaflieg data is, though.
>
> What would _you_ consider to be the better ship to own? *If you owned
> one of them, would you sell it to get the other?
>
> Thanks for the assistance,
>
> --Noel

I would go for the 300, very tough gel coat and superb to fly. Good in
weak thermals as well
Jackie

[Papa3]

On Apr 24, 11:11*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 4/23/2010 6:10 PM, noel.wade wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 5:47 pm, Greg > *wrote:
>
> >> That is a difference of only 30' of altitude each mile.
>
> > Greg -
>
> > Yes, it does seem like a paltry difference in altitude-per-mile.
>
> > But when you look at it in terms of competition flying, it equates to
> > a good 5 - 7 knots faster during inter-thermal cruising, for the same
> > sink-rate.
>
> > If you figure that 70% of a task is spent in cruise, that's a nice
> > advantage! *Flying 85 knots versus 80 knots yields a 6% speed
> > difference in cruise. *If you assume a similar climb rate (I know,
> > they may not be similar) and you assume that you spend 70% of your
> > flight in cruise, then the total performance advantage is 4%. *But the
> > handicap difference between the DG-300 (0.95) and the LS-3 (0.937) is
> > only 1.4%
>
> > I know that the pilot matters more than the ship. *I come from the
> > world of auto-racing and have experience in competition where bad
> > people think that fancy equipment will solve all of their
> > deficiencies. *That's not the issue here... *The issue for me is
> > whether its worth it to get the good ship *now* and have it for
> > several years, versus "practicing" with the DG-300 for a few years and
> > then moving over once I am "close" to winning...
>
> What contest class do you want to fly it in? Sports class: I suspect the
> handicaps are closer to correct than you would think from your
> calculations. 15 M: the newer gliders like the ASW 27 are much better
> than the LS3. Standard class: you can't fly the LS3 in Standard.
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (netto to net to email me)
>
> - "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarmhttp://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
>
> - "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Expanding on Eric's point for a minute. If you're looking to fly in
Sports Class primarily, then the observations on wingloading and
ballast you made earlier are irrelevant - Sports Class (at least here
in the US) is flown dry. So, the handicaps as established will be
close enough to "correct" that it's a toss-up as to which is more
competive. If that's the case, then I think there might be a slight
nod toward an LS3 in very good condition. Flaps are nice, especially
if you routinely fly in an area where you need to go fast (ridge or
strong conditions) or land in small spaces. I fly at a field that
has at least a half-dozen LS3s based there, and it's fun to watch the
good guys come in over the trees and get stopped in very short order
(it's no ASW20 mind you, but it's still pretty good at getting
down).

Now, if you're thinking that you'll also attend the local Regional in
the respective FAI class from time to time, then I firmly believe the
nod goes to the DG. Especially if you fly in the East and/or in a no-
water regionals, the DG300 is "pretty close" to current ships. Not
quite there of course, but not so far from the D2, LS8, or ASW28 that
you'll always be left in the dust. There's a well-flown DG 300
campaigning in Standard Class here on the East Coast, and he routinely
finishes in the top half or better of races.

The LS3 IMO is a wonderful ship, but it seems to be relatively less
competitive within 15M. The ASW20, LS6, and of course current
generation ships all have a significant advantage over the LS3 at the
higher end. I say "seems", because there are folks who have shown
that a well-prepared LS3 is pretty much as good as an ASW20 (google
this group for some threads on that topic, especially relating to wing
profiling). I've only got two flights in an LS3, but it handles like
a dream and is just so pleasant to fly. Then again, maybe I'm biased,
having owned an LS4 and now an LS8.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)

[Papa3]

On Apr 25, 1:55*pm, S.B. > wrote:
> Papa3 wrote:
> > I've only got two flights in an LS3, but it handles like
> > a dream and is just so pleasant to fly. *Then again,
> > maybe I'm biased, having owned an LS4 and now
> > an LS8.
>
> Is the LS8 much better that the LS4? *How does it
> compare with the Discus 2?

Yeah, the LS8 is quite a bit better than the LS4 in two areas:

- Go fast. Anything above 70 it just walks away from the -4.
- Heavy. Handles water way better.

Having said the above... I know it may be heresy, but I actually think
the LS4 is a tiny bit better for choppy/broken thermals. I could slam
it around with rudder, haul back on the stick, and it doesn't protest
(with the CG properly set up). Nobody EVER outclimbed me when I was
flying the LS4.

P3

[Brad[_2_]]

On Apr 25, 2:05*pm, Papa3 > wrote:
> On Apr 25, 1:55*pm, S.B. > wrote:
>
> > Papa3 wrote:
> > > I've only got two flights in an LS3, but it handles like
> > > a dream and is just so pleasant to fly. *Then again,
> > > maybe I'm biased, having owned an LS4 and now
> > > an LS8.
>
> > Is the LS8 much better that the LS4? *How does it
> > compare with the Discus 2?
>
> Yeah, the LS8 is quite a bit better than the LS4 in two areas:
>
> - *Go fast. *Anything above 70 it just walks away from the -4.
> - *Heavy. *Handles water way better.
>
> Having said the above... I know it may be heresy, but I actually think
> the LS4 is a tiny bit better for choppy/broken thermals. I could slam
> it around with rudder, haul back on the stick, and it doesn't protest
> (with the CG properly set up). * Nobody EVER outclimbed me when I was
> flying the LS4.
>
> P3

Noel just had an excellent flight today in his DG-300, he flew for
several hours with Ron in his LS-3. They both got back in the Cascades
up by Mt Baker, conditions got weak when the high cirrus moved in, but
they both made it home. I know I am looking forward to Noels
report........he sure seemed happy when he did his fly by!

Brad

[Scott Alexander[_2_]]

Noel:

I have bought 3 gliders in the last 3 years. And I can tell you from
experience that one thing that needs to be at the absolute top of the
list when considering buying a glider is - Comfort.

I bought an ASW-15B which is a wonderful glider. It flies great,
thermals well and overall a terrific glider. But I had to sell it
primarily because I was two inches too tall for it. I then bought a
Standard Cirrus which has a couple inches more legroom. Now I can fly
all day long without getting cramped up. It really really makes a
difference being able to stretch out and relax during a 4-5 hour
flight.

Cockpit comfort is essential. If you ain't comfortable in it, then it
isn't worth buying it.

Hope this helps,

Scott

[Papa3]

On Apr 26, 7:09*am, S.B. > wrote:
> Papa3 wrote:
> > S.B. wrote:
> >> Is the LS8 much better that the LS4? *How does it
> >> compare with the Discus 2?
> > Yeah, the LS8 is quite a bit better than the LS4 in two areas:
> > - *Go fast. *Anything above 70 it just walks away from the -4.
> > - *Heavy. *Handles water way better.
> > Having said the above... I know it may be heresy, but I actually think
> > the LS4 is a tiny bit better for choppy/broken thermals. I could slam
> > it around with rudder, haul back on the stick, and it doesn't protest
> > (with the CG properly set up). * Nobody EVER outclimbed me when I was
> > flying the LS4.
>
> If you had to make a rushed approach into a small field
> (yes, I know) which one would you rather do it in?

Not that I've ever done that... wait, actually I did that just last
week! :-) I think a slight nod to the -4. It just felt a little
more forgiving if you had to get it down and stopped using full
divebrakes and minumum safe airspeed. It just seems like the
airfoils is a tiny bit more tolerant of being mis-handled. That's a
very subjective answer, so it could be completely off base (could be
the entire system, could have just been me, who knows). FWIW, both
share the same (miserable) landing gear and brake (except I believe
the most recent DG-produced LS8). So, neither is as forgiving as the
Schleicher designs (for example) in a rough field or hard braking
situation.

My 0.02. YMMV.

P3

[Brad[_2_]]

On Apr 26, 2:12*pm, S.B. > wrote:
> Papa3 wrote:
> > S.B. wrote:
> >> Papa3 wrote:
> >>> I actually think the LS4 is a tiny bit better for choppy/broken
> >>> thermals.
> >> If you had to make a rushed approach into a small field
> >> (yes, I know) which one would you rather do it in?
> > Not that I've ever done that... wait, actually I did that just last
> > week! :-) *I think a slight nod to the -4. * It just felt a little
> > more forgiving if you had to get it down and stopped using full
> > divebrakes and minumum safe airspeed. * It just seems like the
> > airfoils is a tiny bit more tolerant of being mis-handled. * That's a
> > very subjective answer, so it could be completely off base (could be
> > the entire system, could have just been me, who knows). *FWIW, both
> > share the same (miserable) landing gear and brake (except I believe
> > the most recent DG-produced LS8). * So, neither is as forgiving as the
> > Schleicher designs (for example) in a rough field or hard braking
> > situation.
>
> OK, thanks for that. *I'm thinking of a buying a new Standard Class
> glider, so interested in what owners think of theirs. *The Standard
> Cirrus was the first glider I flew that really impressed me with its
> performance (it was back in the '70s), so, without knowing anything
> much about the competition, I'm attracted to the Discus 2 and
> Schempp-Hirth's generous cockpit. *I've flown the LS4 a bit and
> liked it, and the LS6 which I didn't much like. *The LS8 with the
> bigger wheel looks good.

Hi,

I'm curious, what didn't you like about the LS-6. I've heard the
handling is superb, but the cockpit a bit cramped.

Thanks,
Brad

[kirk.stant]

> Hi,
>
> I'm curious, what didn't you like about the LS-6. I've heard the
> handling is superb, but the cockpit a bit cramped.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad

It's only cramped when you lose - when you win if fits like a glove!

66
(1K hours in my 6 and still loving it - keeps me on my diet!)

[glider[_2_]]

I seem to recall that DG has the larger 5" wheel. I know the
mechanism on both are equally poor and like to fold when they
shouldn't. Not so bad on the DG 300 but earlier designs were prone to
collapse. Same as the LS-4. I think Dirks and Lemke were is same gear
class at the university.
GA

On *FWIW, both
> share the same (miserable) landing gear and brake (except I believe
> the most recent DG-produced LS8). * So, neither is as forgiving as the
> Schleicher designs (for example) in a rough field or hard braking
> situation.
>
> My 0.02. *YMMV.
>
> P3

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Apr 26, 3:38*pm, glider > wrote:
> * *I seem to recall that DG has the larger 5" wheel...

Yes, and that makes the glider a lot easier to push around, especially
on soft ground. However, the actual drum is not substantially (if any
at all) larger than that of the 4" wheel, but the larger tire OD
(14.5" vs 11") gives it more leverage over the brake and makes the
brake that much less effective.

Thanks, Bob K.

[noel.wade]

On Apr 26, 3:38*pm, glider > wrote:
> * *I seem to recall that DG has the larger 5" wheel. I know the
> mechanism on both are equally poor and like to fold when they
> shouldn't. Not so bad on the DG 300 but earlier designs were prone to
> collapse. Same as the LS-4. I think Dirks and Lemke were is same gear
> class at the university.
> GA

Yes, the DG has the larger gear (but for the record the LS-3 - and I
think the 4 as well - has rubber "donuts" that act as minor shock-
absorbers).

Both the DG-300 and LS-4 have factory mods that prevent the gear
collapse that plagued early units. Don't know what the LS "fix" is;
but on the DG it was simply a spacer and a spring to keep the gear-
handle torqued over - so its locking "tab" doesn't bounce out of the
associated notch in turbulence or upon touchdown. My DG has over 1500
hours on it, without a single gear collapse!

--Noel
(who accidentally load-tested the gear mechanism on his DG on Sunday,
keeping too much spoiler out in the flare)

[Andreas Maurer]

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:05:51 -0700 (PDT), "noel.wade"
> wrote:


>--Noel
>(who accidentally load-tested the gear mechanism on his DG on Sunday,
>keeping too much spoiler out in the flare)

.... not keeping too much spoiler out in the flare, but rather being a
tad too slow on final approach... :)


Andreas

[Brad[_2_]]

On Apr 26, 5:02*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:05:51 -0700 (PDT), "noel.wade"
>
> > wrote:
> >--Noel
> >(who accidentally load-tested the gear mechanism on his DG on Sunday,
> >keeping too much spoiler out in the flare)
>
> ... not keeping too much spoiler out in the flare, but rather being a
> tad too slow on final approach... *:)
>
> Andreas

Nomex for sale................anybody want some
Nomex?..................:)

Brad

[Doug Hoffman[_3_]]

On Apr 26, 7:01*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Apr 26, 3:38*pm, glider > wrote:
>
> > * *I seem to recall that DG has the larger 5" wheel...
>
> Yes, and that makes the glider a lot easier to push around, especially
> on soft ground. However, the actual drum is not substantially (if any
> at all) larger than that of the 4" wheel, but the larger tire OD
> (14.5" vs 11") gives it more leverage over the brake and makes the
> brake that much less effective.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

Sounds like a job for... The Tillmann Steckner mod!

Regards,

-Doug

[Grider Pirate]

On Apr 26, 10:22*pm, Doug Hoffman > wrote:
> On Apr 26, 7:01*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 3:38*pm, glider > wrote:
>
> > > * *I seem to recall that DG has the larger 5" wheel...
>
> > Yes, and that makes the glider a lot easier to push around, especially
> > on soft ground. However, the actual drum is not substantially (if any
> > at all) larger than that of the 4" wheel, but the larger tire OD
> > (14.5" vs 11") gives it more leverage over the brake and makes the
> > brake that much less effective.
>
> > Thanks, Bob K.
>
> Sounds like a job for... *The Tillmann Steckner mod!
>
> Regards,
>
> -Doug

Which improved the braking in MY glider somewhat, but not enough that
I consider it adequate.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Apr 26, 10:22*pm, Doug Hoffman > wrote:
> On Apr 26, 7:01*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 3:38*pm, glider > wrote:
>
> > > * *I seem to recall that DG has the larger 5" wheel...
>
> > Yes, and that makes the glider a lot easier to push around, especially
> > on soft ground. However, the actual drum is not substantially (if any
> > at all) larger than that of the 4" wheel, but the larger tire OD
> > (14.5" vs 11") gives it more leverage over the brake and makes the
> > brake that much less effective.
>
> > Thanks, Bob K.
>
> Sounds like a job for... *The Tillmann Steckner mod!
>
> Regards,
>
> -Doug

Actually sounds like a job for the Tost disk brake kit. The "DG-100"
kit fits the DG-30x. An obvious serious improvement in braking
performance and no more dealing with cable adjustments. Doing that was
a kind of obvious upgrade to improve the glider for XC/safety.

On the handle mod that keeps the U.C handle from popping out--I'm
amazed when I keep seeing DG-30x without this mod. It is a very easy
fix and cheap insurance especially when landing out on a rough
surface. I brought a used DG-303 which turned out to have had a gear
collapse on a (not rough) grass runway, it did not have the spring mod
installed. Maybe the reason it had 15 hours on it and was then put
away in a hangar for a few years. I really liked that glider.

The DG-30x and LS-4 (and presumably LS3?) require proper inspection
the gas strut in the U.C. mechanism as well, I think covered in past
posts on r.a.s.


Darryl

[Ramy]

You mean Andy climbs very well with his LS3. How well a glider climbs
in a thermal (assuming we compare modern 15 m ships) is 90% pilot and
10% glider.

Ramy

AK wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:54*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> > Hello all - I've got a question for the competition pilots out there:
> >
> > Imagine you're a budding competition pilot with about 300 hours in
> > your logbook. *You've done a couple of Sports-class competitions and
> > find them highly enjoyable. *You begin to make plans to buy a partial
> > share in a high-end machine in 2010/2011; but then have to change
> > gears financially and keep costs in check.
> >
> > Now imagine you've standing in front of two aircraft:
> > 1) A near-mint-condition DG-300 (with auto-hookups, great
> > instrumentation, and DG's ergonomics and visibility). *The ship has
> > spent its life in the desert southwest of the USA.
> >
> > 2) A recently-refinished LS-3 (_not_ an "a" model) with good equipment
> > - but an airframe that's a full 10 years older than the DG. *The ship
> > has spent its life on the East coast of the USA. *Assume that it is
> > only $3000 cheaper than the DG-300.
> >
> > According to some old Idaflieg data, the LS-3 is significantly better
> > above 60 knots while the DG-300 has a noticeable climb-rate advantage
> > at slower speeds. *Not sure how accurate the Idaflieg data is, though..
> >
> > What would _you_ consider to be the better ship to own? *If you owned
> > one of them, would you sell it to get the other?
> >
> > Thanks for the assistance,
> >
> > --Noel
>
> If you are talking about Andy's LS-3 then I can tell you his glider
> climbs really well. I used to fly a very good climber SZD-55-1 and I
> climbed with Andy in the same thermal a few times. I was surprised
> how
> well he climbed. It is also an excellent runner. I would choose the
> LS-3 if performance was what I were after. Plus paint finish is ever
> lasting.

[kirk.stant]

> Well, it was a while ago and only one long flight. *It didn't
> climb that well, didn't feel happy flying slowly, and was
> cramped. *The flaps were an unnecessary distraction. *
> But the day after I flew it, someone did 750 km in it.

Interesting, because I find that the 6 will climb with just about
anything, if flown correctly. But it does take some time to get the
feel of it and how to use the flaps - totally different from a Ventus
B or ASW-20, for example.

It does like to go fast!

Cheers,

Kirk
66